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: 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".


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














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