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 4/24/2013 12:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
...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.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki