HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
REGISTER   |   LOGIN   |   HELP
<<  <  Page 6/7  >  >>
John
User Rank
Gold
Another government ban the answer?
John   1/9/2012 9:49:18 AM
NO RATINGS
If we ban cell phones then why don't we ban CB radios, pagers, and maybe even FM/AM radios?  All of them require a button to be pushed, things to be read to operate and talking... talking... talking...  Let's just hope people don't become too engrossed in there favorite radio program or song and overlook road hazards.  Ban cell phones and spend even more money enforcing it and then what's next?  Why doesn't anyone ever talk about a campaign to make people more aware of when it is appropriate to open up that cell phone instead of having the government take it away.

Cosmapa
User Rank
Iron
The answer is: More electronics.
Cosmapa   1/9/2012 9:46:24 AM
NO RATINGS
If history is any guide, there will be more - not less - driver distraction in the future. Add to this demographics that point to more, ever ageing drivers. The solution cannot be - and will not be - regulatory. The only way around this is electronics to assist the driver: obstacle warnig, collision avoidance, automated traffic control, etc. Design news, please have your journalist visit the automotive labs and report on the amazing technologies which are surely being developed.

Semipro
User Rank
Iron
No Design SolutionWill Ever Exist
Semipro   1/9/2012 9:37:39 AM
NO RATINGS
In 1992 I took a graduate level mind cognition course in which the professor demonstrated unequivocally the human brain's inability to drive and carry on a conversation without significant distraction.  It should be noted, this was at the advent of cellular communication and he predicted that we as a world faced grave consequences when driving and cell phone use became widespread. Studies on this issue have existed for the past 15 years but it has never been addressed. The additional concentration of texting causes even more problems than a conversation just as the guy who used to read a book or newspaper cruising in the next lane was an accident waiting to happen.  The reality is that many more than 30K lives were lost last year due to distracted driving.  Cell phone use and additional entertainment options within vehicles are only exacerbating a problem that has existed since motorized transportation existed.

Having said that, the genie is out of the bottle and I am unsure of how it ever gets back.  Bluetooth helps but hands free is not the problem.  The brain has its limits in these situations and any conversation is a problem. 

 

JamesPDX
User Rank
Iron
Additional Licensing for Paripherals
JamesPDX   1/9/2012 2:43:40 AM
NO RATINGS
1 saves


I agree with Ratsky, in that automobile drivers need to be trained and licensed better for what they are driving.  In the very early days of cars there was less of a need for such training, but that was well before radios were ever installed.  I remember a fellow high school student installing a 45 record changer and payer in his new 58 Impala and another classmate who installed an FM tuner in the trunk of his 51 Ford Coupe.  I would imagine that many of us might come up with similar stories as what Ratsky shared.

It seems that any training and licensing from the beginning was primarily for one's ability to control a car under basic simple conditions on surface streets with little or no traffic.  The only deviation was to include some rules of the road in their training and license test.  That has not changed much over the decades of major technology changes, and might I venture to say over the past hundred years?  Today, it is disappointing that few people follow those rules.

This should open that proverbial can of worms.  Should drivers only be allowed to operate the available peripheral devices that they have been licensed for using?  Who would decide on the level of training and testing, and for what devices?  In general, the technology of today might warrant a mandatory training schedule for anyone operating vehicles on the public roads today, just as there are for various licenses for race car drivers.  After all, many of the drivers on public roads of today are operating their vehicles in a similar manner.

 


JamesPDX
User Rank
Iron
Re: Distracting Devices
JamesPDX   1/8/2012 11:47:54 AM
NO RATINGS
1 saves
Aside from the known typing issues of my last: caps were not held and words were run together.  A Microsoft issue: resolved.

Drivers need to understand the purpose of their trip, and Plan, Organize, Staff, Direct, and Control their travel plans and driving tasks before doing so.  Does this sound familiar (it should be to cognizant individuals)?  It is true that pans often change and must be flexible, and therefore should have alternatives to considered, before the trip.

There are many other situations where by the driver can be distracted from the tasks at hand: DRIVING in a safe and prudent manner.  If drivers are in a hurry, then they should start their processes earlier (wake up, hygiene concerns, diet, transporting passengers, picking up items, etc.), well before their taking control of a moving vehicle.  Consider other types of vehicles that might be relevant: air, land, sea, mass transit, Earth movement, drilling for tunnels, gas & oil, military operations, laying subsea cables, pipes, offshore drilling platforms, etc..  All of these tasks require undivided attention and concentration.

JamesPDX
User Rank
Iron
Distracting Devices
JamesPDX   1/7/2012 9:03:00 PM
NO RATINGS
1 saves
It is not appropriate in this arena to reference to people as idiots or the like.  Many of the people that you are apparently referring to, do not consider the consequences of their actions or the safety of others who may be riding with them or driving near them.  However, there are times when it would be unsafe impossible or unable to stop or pull over in a safe manner, but need to address an incoming call.  That is not to say the driver should indulge in much of a conversation, but should inform the caller that they are aware of the call, driving at the moment, and will return the call at the next opportunity.  Unless it is an immediate emergency, they must hang up or otherwise disconnect the call.

While it may help to provide some level of safety to anyone in a situation near the user of such a device, I do not think it would be possible to control the usage.  I do not believe that it is necessary for governmental intervention, but do believe that there should be stiff penalties for utilizing a distracting device while operating a moving vehicle that could otherwise endanger the lives of others.  If it were necessary, then the government should have stepped in long ago when radios were first installed in vehicles.  Radios and other entertainment devices are no different and the use of cell phone and GPS devices should be treated with little difference.  Each device has the ability to distract the driver (controller) and have caused serious situations and accidents.

Should the driver be isolated from the rest of the passengers while driving?  Would conversations or other distracting events within the vehicle be necessarily isolated from the driver?  Who or what would serve as the navigator for the driver?  Should the driver be tested on their knowledge of locations or be a professional?  Given that you knew everything, where would you draw the lines?

It is not appropriate in this arena to reference to people as idiots or the like.  Many of the people that you are apparently referring to, do not consider the consequences of their actions or the safety of others who may be riding with them or driving near them.  However, there are times when it would be unsafe impossible or unable to stop or pull over in a safe manner, but need to address an incoming call.  That is not to say the driver should indulge in much of a conversation, but should inform the caller that they are aware of the call, driving at the moment, and will return the call at the next opportunity.  Unless it is an immediate emergency, they must hang up or otherwise disconnect the call.

While it may help to provide some level of safety to anyone in a situation near the user of such a device, I do not think it would be possible to control the usage.  I do not believe that it is necessary for governmental intervention, but do believe that there should be stiff penalties for utilizing a distracting device while operating a moving vehicle that could otherwise endanger the lives of others.  If it were necessary, then the government should have stepped in long ago when radios were first installed in vehicles.  Radios and other entertainment devices are no different and the use of cell phone and GPS devices should be treated with little difference.  Each device has the ability to distract the driver (controller) and have caused serious situations and accidents.

Should the driver be isolated from the rest of the passengers while driving?  Would conversations or other distracting events within the vehicle be necessarily isolated from the driver?  Who or what would serve as the navigator for the driver?  Should the driver be tested on their knowledge of locations or be a professional?  Given that you knew everything, where would you draw the lines?


Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Mandate Bluetooth
Charles Murray   1/6/2012 5:30:02 PM
NO RATINGS
The Bluetooth solution is the obvious answer and most likely to succeed. In Chicago, five suburbs recently passed Bluetooth laws, and two more are pending.

Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Creative human interface design the key
Charles Murray   1/6/2012 5:25:45 PM
NO RATINGS
Rob: Here's a look at some statistics that are consistent with yours. A NHTSA survey says 5% report being willing to make calls on all driving trips, 10% on most driving trips, and 26% on some driving trips. The majority of respondents (66%) answer and drive, 12% answer and call back, 9% answer and pull over, 3% say they pull over and then answer.

Alexander Wolfe
User Rank
Blogger
Mandate Bluetooth
Alexander Wolfe   1/6/2012 5:21:23 PM
NO RATINGS
Let's face it-- people are NOT going to stop using cellphones in their cars. I can't count the number of idiots (sorry, drivers) who have their hands cupped against one ear, meaning their talking on their phone while driving without using Bluetooth. That's a dangerous distraction, whereas talking via Bluetooth is a safer, albeit still somewhat distracted, way of doing it.  Therefore, we should recognize reality and make the real-world use case as safe as possible. Answer: Mandate that all cars include bluetooth support so that drivers can talk hands free. I know, it's another "government mandate," but there's so much electronic crap in cars anyway, I can't see how this would add cost. These things are part of the ecosystem now anyway.

Ratsky
User Rank
Platinum
Re: The answer is 'NO!"
Ratsky   1/6/2012 5:19:29 PM
NO RATINGS
I'm very surprised that nobody yet has brought up the advantages of the new natural-language voice-recognition HMIs!  Many of the new systems require only a tap on the voice-recog trigger button (many cars have them on the steering wheel); from there on, it's all done by voice.  That wouldn't help much with teens, though.  It's pretty well established they'd rather thumb/type than talk.

<<  <  Page 6/7  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administrationís recent backup camera mandate could open the door to more vehicle innovations, including better graphical displays, 360-degree camera views, and the increased use of Ethernet.
With support from National Instruments, a group of dedicated students from Connally High School in Austin, where more than 50% of the students are at risk of not graduating, have created a successful robotics team that is competing in the FIRST World Championships.
Solar Impulse 2 -- a 100% solar-powered airplane -- has been completed. It features several advanced materials, some developed specifically for next year's attempted around-the-world flight.
Sherlock Ohms highlights stories told by engineers who have used their deductive reasoning and technical prowess to troubleshoot and solve the most perplexing engineering mysteries.
Lumus and eyeSight have partnered to create consumer-grade devices that offer all the prime functions of smart glasses without the bulk.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service