The subject of driver distraction is again being addressed by the US Department of Transportation. This time, the agency says it is putting its foot down.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently released a "Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving" (PDF) that calls for all states to enact laws that would prevent drivers from using handheld phones. It also challenges the auto industry to adopt design guidelines for devices brought into the vehicle. "Distracted driving is an epidemic," LaHood said in a press release. "While we've made progress in the past three years by raising awareness about this risky behavior, the simple fact is people are continuing to be killed or injured -- and we can put an end to it."
It's hard to argue against all the logical points made in the DOT proposal. According to the agency, at least 3,092 people were killed in distraction-related accidents in 2010. Any proposal that calls for more oversight and education is a step in the right direction. But the question is whether this is going to be enough.
The problem is that new devices are coming into the vehicle faster than researchers can study them and automakers can fix them. The cellphone is a good example. Today the DOT says it wants to allow drivers to use hands-free phones, because the worst phone distractions are visual, rather than cognitive. But it took years for cellphones to reach this point.
Similarly, we have iPods, smartphones, GPS systems, and complicated center consoles, all of which can be visual distractions. How long will it take to reach agreement on the design of a "safe" iPod or smartphone? And while we're waiting for those devices to get safer, what new gadgets will find a home in the car?
Experts have told us they heartily agree with the DOT's position on visual versus cognitive distractions. The real problem, they say, is dialing a phone, not talking on it. "When an adult driver dials a cellphone, the odds of being in a crash or near-crash are three times higher," Charlie Klauer, a research scientist at Virginia Tech's Transportation Institute, told us in an interview this year. "For truck drivers, it's 23 times higher."
Still, that data was gathered in 2002 and 2003 -- several years before the advent of texting in the car. Research scientists agree that texting is, as Klauer put it, "in a league all its own," but the technology reached the mainstream so quickly that the automotive community has had little chance to produce quantitative studies on it. Similarly, there are few studies about the use of smartphones, Internet services, GPS systems, or any of the new breed of 15-button center consoles that have taken up residence in the vehicle.
In December, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which answers directly to Congress, called for a ban on all handheld electronic devices in the vehicle. The no-holds-barred proposal doesn't even allow for hands-free phones.
We could debate the relative merits of hands-free versus handheld phones and cognitive versus visual distractions. But the NTSB's proposal has two things going for it: It would draw a clear line in the sand, and it would leave no wiggle room for devices that are on their way but are as yet incomprehensible to most of us.
In that sense, the NTSB has gotten it right. The idea should be to allow safe exceptions to enter the vehicle after they've been studied and fixed, not before.
What do you think? Tell us in the comments section below.
Compliance is the hallmark of a good law, but it's surprisingly difficult to achieve. When people understand and approve with the goals of a regulation, they follow it simply out of self-interest. Conversely, people tend to comply with the system of regulations that is functioning, broad and perceived as fair. This is the problem with gun laws: they are full of holes and exceptions: background checks not required for gun shows; lack of enforcement against straw purchases; lack of accountability for lost guns (over half a million guns are stolen every year, but there's no effective reporting system, see. e.g. mayorsagainstillegalguns.org). The border enforcement is similarly holey, as we all know. Laws against distracted driving are similarly not enforced---many jurisdictions don't even have it as primary offense. I would be in favor of a system that would turn on the vehicle emergency flashing lights whenever the phone is used in certain way, e.g. the SMS mode is active, or data is being sent to and from the phone :)
The previous messages on this topic have clearly focussed on the issue of laws (advisability or inadvisability) to control distracted driving.
But let me restate the issue as I see it (from my 7-2-12 post, with some added emphasis):
It seems that nobody has addressed the one issue that is properly ours to address: should WE be DESIGNING built-in distractions in cars?
There are other responsible parties besides drivers and the government - US.
For example, a number of respondents have cited the prevalence of touchscreens in new cars and correctly pointed out that they present distractions to drivers. But nobody has mentioned that they didn't grow into those dashboards by themselves - THEY WERE DESIGNED BY ENGINEERS JUST LIKE US!
We must start to say no to the MBAs and marketeers who insist that the only way we can sell and differentiate our particular brand of car is to ratchet up the infotainment war. [Personal note: as a design engineer I had done just that, and I earned respect and a normal retirement decades later.]
[I believe that] It is time to say "NO, I won't be a party to that nonsense, as it is likely that it will conribute to pain and suffering."
We have met the enemy and they is us.
Let's have some discussion about OUR responsibilies, shall we?
I respect your opinion, Manning. I want to make it clear, though, that I understand that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is against distracted driving, and has done a great deal to combat it. I've written about this many times. What I did say, perhaps poorly, is that when the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) asked states to ban cellphones while driving last December, LaHood (NHTSA answers to him) publicly said he wouldn't back the proposal. LaHood's position is that hands-free cell phone usage is not the problem. See below.
I know it is a ripe field for politicians to further integrate themselves into our lives, but we are distracted every time we look at the gauges on the dashboard, turn our heads to check our blind spot, adjust the radio/heater/AC/defroster, focus on the windshield instead of at a distance, etc.
The bottom line is, if you are distracted, no matter the cause, then you are placing yourself and others in danger. And you will be held accountable under the law. That should be enough.
We don't need big brother more involved in our everyday affairs. There are laws enough, just like with handguns and the borders. Just enforce what is there and leave the rest up to the individual.
I think we all have had "close calls" relative to distracted drivers. I was rear-ended by a lady on a cell phone several months ago. Fortunately, we were moving towards a stop sign and going very slowly but she did hit me. Not much damage and she readily admitted it was her fault. Her child was in day care, developed an illness and that information was "called in" to the mom. The call was a definite distraction but under the circumstances what do you do? I think one possible solution might be the technology coming next—voice activated electronic devices. This will not completely alleviate the distractions but I do feel it will aid efforts towards complete "hands-off", thereby allowing the driver to operate the vehicle in the manner intended. My skirts are not that clean either. I have an "X-M" radio with the button selections and screen basically front and center. There have been those times when changing stations my eyes have focused on the numbers and not the road. It only takes an instant. I think "driver-ed" goes along way but I really don't see how the FED can be that proactive otherwise. Awareness needs to be heightened. I do think texting while driving is absolute insanity and should be outlawed altogether.
Intuitively, I cannot see how diverting ones's vision and attention from the road and other vehicles can be considered at all safe.
Do you have data attesting to the safety of a touchscreen in a moving vehicle in traffic?
Also, you mentioned radios and CD players (etc.); They had (but in some cases no longer have) discrete knobs which could be operated by feel - and the radios could be tuned using preset buttons. No diversion of vision was necessary.
Anopther point: a little research will show you that the NTSA certainly is concerned about the distracted driving which can result from use of such technologies in automobiles:
As you can see, however, the NHTSA defers to the States to make appropriate rules. For example: As far as phones are concerned, my home state has outlawed their use in autos, so their acceptability is certainly open to challenge.
Fundamentally, I reject the notion that our autos should become rolling home theaters. And any engineers who contribute to that effort need to consider the likely results of their efforts. I apologize if that sounds harsh, but I believe that we areresponsiblefor the usage of our creations.
You raise good points, Manning. One of the problems is that wer're in a big, fat gray area here. Radios are acceptable. So are CD players, cassette players and, yes, phones, among other things. NHTSA not only hasn't outlawed those devices, they publicly went to bat for them (against the National Traffic Safety Board) late last year. So designers end up thinking that they're doing a good thing if they design an easy-to-use touch screen. An easy-to-use touch screen is, after all, a safer alternative to the completely legal (bad) systems that are out there now.
I have read all the posts on this piece and I have one thing to say: are there any designers out there?
It seems that nobody has addressed the one issue that is properly ours to address: should we be designing built-in distractions in cars?
There are other responsible parties besides drivers and the government - US.
For example, a number of respondents have cited the prevalence of touchscreens in new cars and correctly pointed out that they present distractions to drivers. But nobody has mentioned that they didn't grow into those dashboards by themselves - THEY WERE DESIGNED BY ENGINEERS JUST LIKE US!
We must start to say no to the MBAs and marketeers who insist that the only way we can sell and differentiate our particular brand of car is to ratchet up the infotainment war. [Personal note: as a design engineer I had done just that, and I earned respect and a normal retirement decades later.]
It is time to say "NO, I won't be a party to that nonsense, as it is likely that it will conribute to pain and suffering."
We have met the enemy and they is us.
Let's have some discussion about OUR responsibilies, shall we?
I realize that the stability control feature has been mandated, and I wonder how many will die because of it. Or will there just be a crowd of people who just plain don't like the way the car drives any more? User backlash killed the seatbelt to starter interlock, I wonder how much user backlash it will take to get rid of mandatory stability controls.
The seatbelt interlock could have worked and been very effective if it had simply prevented operation of the air conditioner and radio unless all the occupants were belted. There would have been no sensable argument against it, and so there would not have had to be any interlock defeat system. The result would probably have been earlier seatbelt usage and avoiding the airbag mandate.
Right now the best way to reduce the distracted phone users would be to make the phones run in a push-to-talk mode.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
11 
