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

RE: wut?
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 4/23/2013 10:31:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if phone use was illegal, would they find other stupid things to distract themselves with?

Indeed... and I'm guilty of most of 'em!

1. Looking for a different CD to listen to (no Aux/MP3 player)
2. Spill my coffee and am reaching for napkins
3. When my cigarette flies back into the window and lands 'somewhere.'
4. When I get sleepy!

Only solution: Ticket all of it! And no driving past 10pm!


RE: wut?
By lelias2k on 4/23/2013 10:34:14 AM , Rating: 3
And there are people who are still against driverless cars...


RE: wut?
By Cannyone on 4/23/2013 3:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Um... your "solution" is myopic at best. First off, they don't ticket texters and people using the handsets for calls like they should. So how can you expect them to ticket the other stuff...? Oh and some people have different schedules so "...no driving past 10pm!" is patently ridiculous.

Here's my suggestion (equally ridiculous). Install computers that monitor where you look (through the rear view mirror would work). They could also monitor for illegal phone use. Then when you look away from the road longer than a given time, which decreases as your speed increases, the computer would shut down your car and call the police. Who could then explain the need for "Public Safety" and issue you a citation.

The bad part to this plan is that they'd have to hire a bunch of new Police Officers just to be able to cover all the violators. Maybe they could hire Officers that specialized in Traffic citations and therefor didn't need extensive training... And received a lower wage. Who knows, states and municipalities might actually make money off the deal. =P


RE: wut?
By BRB29 on 4/23/2013 11:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
different state, different laws
In NC, you can slap your wife in front of the court house every sunday legally.

Seriously, good luck proving I was texting anything. I could delete it faster than I can text it. I can always say I was using the GPS. It's my private property, the police cannot take it without a warrant or cause. I did not harm anyone or admit to anything so it is against the law to inspect my phone.

These stupid laws originally came from parents that lost their kids from crashing while texting. But seriously, they would do something else like play with their face and cake make up or whatever.

It's not the phone's fault, it's parenting. These kids and even some adults have little self discipline and respect for other people's safety. Parents don't freaking be parents and blame the the phone for their kids deaths. It's tragic that that it has to come to this but a new law prohibiting another annoying activity is not going to fix anything.

The new trend right now is parents blaming teachers for their kids behavior problems.

I find it funny that no one blame Rick Ross and Lil Wayne when they get a DUI. Their music seem to always make people drink and drive.


RE: wut?
By eldakka on 4/24/2013 1:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of your post, however the below comment seems rather naive:

quote:
Seriously, good luck proving I was texting anything. I could delete it faster than I can text it.


And when they view the telco records that log and time/datestamp the text being sent? Were you able to delete that record?


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














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