backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by Luticus.. on Apr 24 at 7:56 PM


  (Source: usdotblog)
Study findings show voice to text is no safer

A new study conducted at Texas A&M University by the Texas Transportation Institute comparing voice-to-text and traditional texting using a smartphone in an actual driving environment. The people behind the study report that the findings show using voice-to-text services are no safer than texting manually while driving.

"In each case, drivers took about twice as long to react as they did when they weren't texting," Christine Yager, who headed the study, told Reuters. "Eye contact to the roadway also decreased, no matter which texting method was used."

The researchers involved in the study used 43 different drivers and had them drive along a test track repeatedly while performing various tasks. The participants drove along the track, with no electronic devices in the car to distract them during one session. The participants then drove along the same test track while using voice to text applications on a smartphone, and another time the drivers drove along the same track on texting manually. Participants used both the iPhone and Android devices during the test.

Interestingly, the study found that using speech to text actually took longer for drivers than traditional texting because the need to go back and correct the often garbled texts composed using voice services.

The study highlights a significant safety concern in that while it found drivers were no safer using voice-to-text services as opposed to manually texting, drivers reported feeling safer when using the former.

Several states and individual cities around the country currently have laws on the books banning texting while driving without using a hands-free device. California is one such state where it is illegal to manually text while driving, but it is legal to send text messages using voice-controlled devices. Many automotive manufacturers are also integrating technology into their vehicles supporting hands-free services for phone calls and texting. One of the most popular is Ford Sync, which is available on nearly every Ford vehicle.

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sigh
By FITCamaro on 4/23/2013 9:28:51 AM , Rating: 0
Just can't win with these morons. How about I worry about my own life and accept any consequences of any bad decisions I make. You know that whole personal responsibility thing.




RE: Sigh
By Luticus on 4/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By FITCamaro on 4/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By Luticus on 4/23/2013 10:11:59 AM , Rating: 4
If you kill someone because you were texting while driving you're not only an idiot but you're a murderer. Have fun with that.


RE: Sigh
By BRB29 on 4/23/2013 11:40:28 PM , Rating: 1
They should just ban people from using their phone when driving. If they don't text then they'll just surf facebook and write on each other's walls. If you outlaw facebook then they'll find something else. It'll never end.

Even if you pass a law against phones, people will find something else. At least these idiots spent all their money in their phones these days that they can't afford subs anymore. That was the craze when I was in college in 2002 along with street racing and making annoying mods to your car. EG park benches trunk or spoiler, flip up stereo deck with all kinds of crazy animations distracting the shit out of you, LCD screens all over the place playing porn or rap videos.

One way or another people will find ways to go full retard. NEVER GO FULL RETARD!


RE: Sigh
By maugrimtr on 4/24/2013 9:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't that point of these laws?

Those against the laws because they think it's overreaching into their area of personal responsibility seem to forget their responsibility not to endanger other people should be legislated for. It should be illegal to text message if those actions lead to the death of someone other than yourself.


RE: Sigh
By lelias2k on 4/23/2013 10:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
When the consequences of your bad decisions involve possibly killing me and/or the people I love, I'm definitely not OK with you being an idiot.


RE: Sigh
By ebakke on 4/23/2013 11:21:28 AM , Rating: 2
So what's your plan then? Ban stupidity?


RE: Sigh
By Dr of crap on 4/23/2013 12:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
YES !!!
Common sense for ALL !!


RE: Sigh
By FITCamaro on 4/23/2013 2:25:54 PM , Rating: 1
Don't try to make them think. The government can solve all personal deficiencies with laws you know.


RE: Sigh
By dgingerich on 4/23/2013 11:40:17 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is more about others living with your bad decisions.

I've been hit from behind seven times. Five of them were under very specific circumstances: I was in the right lane on a highway going the speed limit, some idiot was tailgating me because I was going the speed limit, and some other moron merges onto the highway at 10-15 under the speed limit. I had to hit my brakes, and I got hit for it.

The problem: I had three cars that, while the body damage was repaired, the mechanical damage (brakes that wouldn't release, crumpled muffler, electric windows knocked out of their tracks) was not because the insurance company claimed it wasn't caused by the accident. With all three cars, I had to junk them (sell them to the scrap yard for $100) because they were no longer drivable. In addition, I had to pay over $13,000 in medical bills on stuff the insurance company wouldn't cover. To this day, I still have pain in my neck because of arthritis from the swelling caused by the injuries.

Now I have to live with the pain in my neck and loss of my hard earned money because of someone else's bad decisions.

Just this morning, after a night of snow, rain, and freezing temps, with the roads iced over and a not so healthy level of slush on the road, I came across three people doing 20-25 mph while the traffic around them is doing 30-35, talking on the phone and not paying attention to what was happening around them. One of them did wipe out a bit making a right turn while she was still talking on the phone, and ran into the opposite curb with her back tire, rendering her car undrivable. I felt sorry for the guy in the left turn lane who's hood and windshield got hit by the sign she knocked over.

So, you see, other people have to live with your bad decisions. While I frequently agree with you on many of your opinions, this one is about as asinine as it can be. Take your brain out of your rear end, put it back in your head, and actually use it.


RE: Sigh
By Dukeajuke on 4/24/2013 10:57:00 AM , Rating: 2
So you are all for insurance and personal injury fraud but are against personal freedom and responsibility. Not sure anyone can really take you seriously...


RE: Sigh
By WinstonSmith on 4/23/2013 9:56:06 AM , Rating: 1
"How about I worry about my own life and accept any consequences of any bad decisions I make."

How about you do job #1 when driving a multi-ton weapon at 70 MPH and pay 100% attention to your driving instead of texting what is almost certainly, for most people, unimportant drivel.


RE: Sigh
By Luticus on 4/23/2013 10:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
I don't care how important the drivel is. You're making a conscience effort to put my family and the people around you at risk over a text message or a phone call and that's down right sick. Get off the phone or get off the road! At the very least, invest in bluetooth and stop taking text messages.


RE: Sigh
By FITCamaro on 4/23/2013 10:10:56 AM , Rating: 2
Uh I very rarely text and drive. My point is that not all people are the same. Enforcement of these laws is near impossible so there's not point in them. Prosecute careless driving regardless of the cause(which we already have laws for). Not simply from holding a phone in your hand. How does the cop know what I was doing? Maybe I was talking on speakerphone.


RE: Sigh
By Luticus on 4/23/2013 10:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
Oh I agree completely that the laws are stupid, you just made it seem like texting and driving was "no big deal" and it certainly is. I don't want to die because of some self important idiot.


RE: Sigh
By lelias2k on 4/23/2013 10:32:39 AM , Rating: 3
Just FYI, holding your phone while talking on speakerphone is also against the law.

What is the problem with having multiple laws? Worse case scenario they bring awareness to something being dangerous, and therefore deserving of a law.

Leaving everything to a generic law opens the door to personal interpretation of what is careless or not, diminishing the effectiveness of such law, especially when lawyers are involved.

You said you "rarely" text and drive. That should be NEVER. And that's the message the law sends.

Of course, everybody have their given right of being idiots.


RE: Sigh
By Schrag4 on 4/23/2013 12:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is the problem with having multiple laws? Worse case scenario they bring awareness to something being dangerous, and therefore deserving of a law.

Leaving everything to a generic law opens the door to personal interpretation of what is careless or not, diminishing the effectiveness of such law, especially when lawyers are involved.


At the risk of getting downrated, I disagree. Creating laws that spell out every little thing that's reckless behavior has a couple of negative effects, IMO. First, it allows lazy people to use those laws as a guide for what they can and cannot do, rather than forcing them to think for themselves. It removes the burden of personal responsibility to do the right thing. If there's no law against it, it must be OK, right? Second, there may be very rare instances where holding your phone while you're driving is OK, even necessary. One-size-fits-all laws are rarely actually one-size-fits-all.

Look, I agree whole-heartedly that people who take their eyes off the road for 5, even 10 seconds at a time (for any reason!) while traveling at highway speeds are dangerous idiots, but IMO it's wrong to say "there should be a law against that!" Instead, I strongly believe that parents should instill a sense of personal responsibility and consideration for others in their children, and this and other incredibly stupid behavior should be so looked down upon by society that there shouldn't need to be a law!

If someone ends up killing someone else because they were texting while driving, it will be very easy to prove in court, much easier than trying to prove that they were putting on makeup or changing the radio. Why can't we rely on our justice system to hold them responsible for their reckless behavior without creating one more law? I guess my point is that a law won't prevent selfish behavior. There are major factors like one's upbringing, and to some extent, society (depends on how the upbringing went), that will influence people's behavior way more than some silly law. If these people are stupid enough to think that an accident won't happen to them if they text and drive, they probably also think a ticket won't happen to them either. I realize that I'm not really offering a short term solution. Adults who text are largely lost causes, but those of you who have small children, please teach them responsibility for and consideration of the consequences for other people of their actions. Every day. Please.


RE: Sigh
By Luticus on 4/23/2013 1:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
I know these law seem silly and I agree that it's sad that we have to consider making laws to prevent what common sense and decency should but the fact remains that we are only considering making these laws because morons out their already don't think for themselves and exercise common decency. It should also be common sense that one should drive under the impairment of alcohol or drugs and yet there are laws because a lot of idiots had to go and do it anyway. The fact of the matter is that these are not just fender bender situations. Many of them are but in a lot of cases this is life and death. You could kill someone and wreck not only your own life but the life of the victim because of a cell phone. I don't know about you but I don't want my life to be in the hands of parents who should teach their children right from wrong. I know it's somewhat impractical to do but I'd like to see a way for enforceable laws which prevent this behavior. If we aren't supposed to do it anyway, and society should look down on it, then why shouldn't it be a law? Isn't that what the law is all about? Preventing people from doing things most sane individuals know to be wrong/dangerous and stopping undesirable behavior in society so we can all live together safely and happily?


RE: Sigh
By Luticus on 4/23/2013 1:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
correction:
one shouldn't drive under the impairment of alcohol or other drugs*** obviously.


RE: Sigh
By Schrag4 on 4/24/2013 12:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...I know it's somewhat impractical to do but I'd like to see a way for enforceable laws which prevent this behavior. If we aren't supposed to do it anyway, and society should look down on it, then why shouldn't it be a law? Isn't that what the law is all about? Preventing people from doing things most sane individuals know to be wrong/dangerous and stopping undesirable behavior in society so we can all live together safely and happily?


The way I look at it, our justice system already punishes those who hurt or kill others with their cars due to negligent behavior. Any way that we come up with to try to enforce no-texting-while-driving is sure to also prevent legitimate usage. In other words, laws written to try to shape the behavior of a few incosiderate people will trample on the rest of us. This is a trend that I think is simply the wrong way to address issues. It's short term, and it can never work completely. After all, these people who would take their eyes off the road (not limited to texting) are probably increasing their risk of dying that day by orders of magnitude, but they still do it. Wouldn't the risk of death be a bigger deterrent than the risk of a ticket? If so, couldn't an education campaign be more effective while at the same time not limiting legitimate use?

Let me give an analogy. Murder is illegal, but HOW you murder someone doesn't matter, and it shouldn't. If you go down this road of trying to legislate away HOW people commit murders, you end up like the UK, where you have to be 18yo to buy a silverware set that contains a butter knife. It's complete insanity, if you ask me, because people under 18 probably live in a home with a kitchen full of knives anyway. It's merely a band-aid solution (a poor one at that) that pays absolutely no attention to the root cause. Is the plan to just never look at the big picture but instead implement knee-jerk solution after knee-jerk solution? To just legislate away the need for anyone to think resonsibly for themselves?


RE: Sigh
By Luticus on 4/24/2013 7:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
You know what, I agree with that. Over legislation is stupid and I don't want to see the day when a cellphone disabler is built into every car. Sounds like a sad future where we have to resort to that because the actions of an idiotic few ruin it for the rest of us. I'm with you completely, knee jerk reactions and band-aid solutions don't solve anything and will almost certainly make things more annoying for the rest of us. I think an education campaign is a good idea. I'm not trying to defend these stupid laws (for the most part), I'm seeing that some people don't seem to understand the gravity of what seems like a simple act of minor negligence. For instance most people who text and drive aren't thinking "ya know, this could kill me", even though it could. Many of these idiots likely don't think about it at all. If you make something like that illegal then at the very least when they pass a cop on the road they'll hopefully be smart enough to put the phone away, but maybe that's giving these idiots too much credit.


RE: Sigh
By FITCamaro on 4/23/2013 2:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're putting far too much thought and logic into things. Just nod your head and say "yes master".


RE: Sigh
By FITCamaro on 4/23/2013 2:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe in your state. It isn't here.

Careless driving means you are driving carelessly. And everything is subject to the cops interpretation or desire to enforce it.


RE: Sigh
By Dukeajuke on 4/24/2013 11:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
So a car is a weapon now? It may be time to ban them. It's just not the risk to public safety.


RE: Sigh
By Dr of crap on 4/23/2013 12:47:08 PM , Rating: 1
SORRY you got down rated - you are spot on!

In the "new" PC (political correct BS) life we have now - NO ONE takes responsibility for any of their actions, and it makes our ENTIRE country worse for it.
Examples -
You can't fail MY kid - he's smart
We don't keep score in athletic events so no one feels bad for loosing
It's not my fault if my kid grows up and is as stupid as the day is long, the school should have learned him
It's not my fault my kid is a whinner, I just couldn't say NO to him
What me fat, maybe there's a pill to make me thinner - I CAN'T exercise
I let the govt give me things - why work to hard for anything
ECT...


RE: Sigh
By Luticus on 4/23/2013 1:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
No he isn't! These aren't little moral issues! If your kid gets in a car and wrecks because he/she was texting and that wreck killed some other parents kid... that's not something a pep talk can fix! This is life and death! You don't get to say "I'll take personal responsibility" and just move on after you destroy someones whole life. what's worse is that normal cars seat 4 - 5 people in them so little boy junior not only has the power to kill someone else, but an entire family! Get off the phone, or get off the road!


RE: Sigh
By ebakke on 4/23/2013 1:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't get to say "I'll take personal responsibility" and just move on after you destroy someones whole life.
Well, you kind of do. You get charged with manslaughter, the insurance you've paid for gives the victims a chunk of money, and in all likelihood the victims bring a civil suit against you for damages. In those ways you take responsibility for your actions. In the same way you would if a moose walked out in front of your car, and you/your car killed someone else in the aftermath.

Sure, you likely don't "move on" to the life you had before, but you don't cease to exist either.


RE: Sigh
By Luticus on 4/23/2013 2:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying you cease to exist, obviously you carry on somehow, that's all you can do. That's no my point. My point is that people are underwriting the severity of the issue as if the worst thing that can happen is a fender bender. In the case of the moose the act was an honest accident that you probably couldn't have prevented. In the case of texting while driving homicide... you definitely could have prevented it and you're clearly 100% at fault. You don't cease to exist but the person you killed sure does and there's no going back from that. This is a serious issue, and it can have serious consequences. Anyone writing this off as some silly moral issue needs to reevaluate their view.


RE: Sigh
By ebakke on 4/23/2013 3:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're attaching an argument to individuals who've made no claim to it. I don't see anyone claiming that distracted driving (of any nature) is trivial, or non-serious. The argument I see being made is: we don't need more laws; those on the books already will suffice if enforced.


RE: Sigh
By FITCamaro on 4/23/2013 10:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
No my point is the laws are pointless, don't work, and are largely unenforceable.


RE: Sigh
By ebakke on 4/23/2013 11:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
By "laws on the books" I was implying the laws against reckless endangerment, careless driving, involuntary manslaughter, etc. Not those against specific activities like talking on a phone without a handsfree kit, texting while driving, etc.

But, I could've misinterpreted. I've certainly been wrong before.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki