Something tells me that if it were Apple's product that was found to be less distracting than Google's some of the comments here would be flipped 180 degrees.
The point is distracted driving is distracted driving.
something about this study feels off to me. I don't know if it's the number of test subjects, the method of testing etc. But I'm not taking this single study as fact
Something tells me that if it were Apple's product that was found to be less distracting than Google's some of the comments here would be flipped 180 degrees.
The point is distracted driving is distracted driving.
Such nonsense. I'd love to see what the numbers would have been on my Boomer parents, who smoked, ate and drank coffee out of a regular cup in the car. Don't forget about folding the goddamn map on top of the wheel. Or adjusting the analog radio. Or owning a car without seat belts, much less air bags, center break lights, disc breaks, lane warnings or crumple zones. Just another step to justify more intrusive regulation.
You mean that pesky regulation that brought you seat belts, air bags, centre break lights, crumple zones that you seem to find quite useful! (Your forgot a second mirror, tall seats so you don't break your neck, and countless other safety regulations which resulted in a constant reduction of road deaths).
This is just a study, and I think it is a study that just confirms what most of us already know: writing a txt message with Siri in the car is terrible and incredible distracting: you need to ask to have it read back to you, then it is difficult to understand the read-back, the screen is too small to quickly glance at the message to see if the typo is fogivable, etc.
"There were significant differences in the distraction experienced by the driver when they used the different smartphones to perform the same tasks in the same driving conditions.
Distraction was directly related to the number of system errors, time on task, intuitiveness and complexity of the different systems.
?Generally, robust, error-free systems tend to have lower workload than rigid, error- prone phones; difference in mental workload between the smartphones was associated with the number of system errors, the time to complete an action, and the complexity and intuitiveness of the devices."
Not quite sure what to make of the above, but there it is.
Anyway, from their numbers, it seems to me that Apple, Google, and Microsoft could be considered fairly close. There is a significant difference percentage-wise, but factoring in the study's "95% confidence," and the relatively small (34 subject) sample size, I wonder how much closer it could get.
I also wonder how much familiarity/training might factor in. Would some systems actually be much less distracting with a certain (perhaps minimal) amount of training, but others remain at the same distraction level no matter how much training was applied?
It just means that better systems cause less distractions. Siri sucks, it never understands anything (other than really simple reminders). I am sure it will get better, but right now it gets so many things wrong, it can't be used in the car. Maybe CarPlay is different. I can't speak about the other OS's.
I would have preferred they had gone deep rather than broad: instead of providing football scores (which is just a party trick) or silly jokes (a stupid party trick), they should have made sure Siri understands every single possible phrasing and nuance regarding, e.g., asking for directions, then calendar entries, then messaging, then reminders, and so on.
Would it not be better to be 100% certain that it works flawlessly for a few things, instead of buggy for a lot of things? I mean, does anyone REALLY want to buy cinema tickets by talking to the phone, at the expense of Siri not understanding how to set a calendar entry with a reminder 10 minutes before and inviting friends 1, 2, and 3?
"95% confidence," and the relatively small (34 subject) sample size, I wonder how much closer it could get.
95% confidence level already takes the sample size into account. It means that there is a 95% probability that the real score is within two standard deviations from the given score. The sample size is one, if not the, determining factor of this confidence level.
It just means that better systems cause less distractions. Siri sucks, it never understands anything (other than really simple reminders). I am sure it will get better, but right now it gets so many things wrong, it can't be used in the car. Maybe CarPlay is different. I can't speak about the other OS's.
I would have preferred they had gone deep rather than broad: instead of providing football scores (which is just a party trick) or silly jokes (a stupid party trick), they should have made sure Siri understands every single possible phrasing and nuance regarding, e.g., asking for directions, then calendar entries, then messaging, then reminders, and so on.
Would it not be better to be 100% certain that it works flawlessly for a few things, instead of buggy for a lot of things? I mean, does anyone REALLY want to buy cinema tickets by talking to the phone, at the expense of Siri not understanding how to set a calendar entry with a reminder 10 minutes before and inviting friends 1, 2, and 3?
I have found to Siri to be immensely better than it used to be in general use. Put it in my car and she drops 50 iq points. Doesn't understand a lot of what I'm saying. I suspect the BT module in my car and the ambient environment in my car has something to do with it. It a stock Golf gti with that silly soundaktor unplugged so my car is quality without being premium per se.
The distraction from voice automation is very small potatoes compared to the plethora of idiotic activities drivers are already engaged in today. Car borne idiots (CBI) used to two-hand text while driving with elbows hugging the wheel - until municipalities enacted laws against texting while driving. Now the phone is on the lap and the head is down 80% of the time. I've been stuck behind this variety of staring at lap imbecile at traffic lights and they'll sit through the entire signal cycle without moving an inch, despite the blaring horns. Maybe they can't find the emoji they really want to send to their BFF and everyone will just have to wait. I'm sure everyone's seen mascara mama, burger & shake boy, and shaving man. Once saw a guy reading a text book propped on the steering wheel, last minute cramming for an exam I guess, and another guy eating a bowl of cereal with two hands. Maybe it was a heart healthy bowl of steel cut oats, which might make him a better quality organ donor if the bowl and spoon doesn't impale or destroy the reusable organs. The reality is that people are remarkably stupid when operating most any form of machinery and it's a total shock that the natural human tendencies towards self culling don't yield more fruitful results on a more frequent basis. Even if it did, the supply side of the stupidity equation has no limits, we'll just keep making more of 'em.
Such nonsense. I'd love to see what the numbers would have been on my Boomer parents, who smoked, ate and drank coffee out of a regular cup in the car. Don't forget about folding the goddamn map on top of the wheel. Or adjusting the analog radio. Or owning a car without seat belts, much less air bags, center break lights, disc breaks, lane warnings or crumple zones. Just another step to justify more intrusive regulation.
You forgot to mention they did all that while manually shifting gears...
I'm from the school that if you eliminate automatics you'll remove 95% of the idiots off the road. Keep automatics available for the few people who need one because of a disability.
Wow. I can't believe the comments. Opinions all without even a modicum of facts to back up opinion.
There are at least three studies, all quite detailed and quite thorough. AAA took the detailed studies and dumbed them down into their own rating system so any idiot could understand it. From these comments, AAA obviously didn't dumb it down enough.
Wow. I can't believe the comments. Opinions all without even a modicum of facts to back up opinion.
There are at least three studies, all quite detailed and quite thorough. AAA took the detailed studies and dumbed them down into their own rating system so any idiot could understand it. From these comments, AAA obviously didn't dumb it down enough.
Can you factually expand on what you're asserting here?
First question did they use people who were already familiar with the nav system or was it the first time they used them. Second did the same people use all systems and third which order did those individuals use the systems.
Simply puts once you use any nav system for awhile it hardly distracting. It's only when they are new to you are they really an issue, except for the idiots who I always see mounting the GPS or cell phone to three middle of the windshield intent of them.
Watch the 'b-roll' video from the linked article. It seems obvious that the test subjects had never been in the test cars prior to the test much less used the voice controls. Telling is the look of surprise on the woman's face when music starts playing because she is holding down the iPhone headphone button continually while dictating a command.
But, really, the bottom line is stop texting and driving, especially on city streets with traffic that requires full attention.
Comments
Something tells me that if it were Apple's product that was found to be less distracting than Google's some of the comments here would be flipped 180 degrees.
The point is distracted driving is distracted driving.
Something tells me that if it were Apple's product that was found to be less distracting than Google's some of the comments here would be flipped 180 degrees.
The point is distracted driving is distracted driving.
of course they would be. Bind faith blind all.
Such nonsense. I'd love to see what the numbers would have been on my Boomer parents, who smoked, ate and drank coffee out of a regular cup in the car. Don't forget about folding the goddamn map on top of the wheel. Or adjusting the analog radio. Or owning a car without seat belts, much less air bags, center break lights, disc breaks, lane warnings or crumple zones. Just another step to justify more intrusive regulation.
You mean that pesky regulation that brought you seat belts, air bags, centre break lights, crumple zones that you seem to find quite useful! (Your forgot a second mirror, tall seats so you don't break your neck, and countless other safety regulations which resulted in a constant reduction of road deaths).
This is just a study, and I think it is a study that just confirms what most of us already know: writing a txt message with Siri in the car is terrible and incredible distracting: you need to ask to have it read back to you, then it is difficult to understand the read-back, the screen is too small to quickly glance at the message to see if the typo is fogivable, etc.
I'm calling bullshit on this 'study'.
Clearly they failed to factor and mention that Google is simultaneously raping people while driving with voice features.
Siri can at least respect the difference between 'no' and 'yes'.
I do not seem to find the bit where "privacy" as on of the objectives of the study....?
I was wondering if there was any explanation/insight given as to what made one smartphone system more distracting than others...
From the Fact Sheet:
"There were significant differences in the distraction experienced by the driver when they used the different smartphones to perform the same tasks in the same driving conditions.
Not quite sure what to make of the above, but there it is.
Anyway, from their numbers, it seems to me that Apple, Google, and Microsoft could be considered fairly close. There is a significant difference percentage-wise, but factoring in the study's "95% confidence," and the relatively small (34 subject) sample size, I wonder how much closer it could get.
I also wonder how much familiarity/training might factor in. Would some systems actually be much less distracting with a certain (perhaps minimal) amount of training, but others remain at the same distraction level no matter how much training was applied?
It just means that better systems cause less distractions. Siri sucks, it never understands anything (other than really simple reminders). I am sure it will get better, but right now it gets so many things wrong, it can't be used in the car. Maybe CarPlay is different. I can't speak about the other OS's.
I would have preferred they had gone deep rather than broad: instead of providing football scores (which is just a party trick) or silly jokes (a stupid party trick), they should have made sure Siri understands every single possible phrasing and nuance regarding, e.g., asking for directions, then calendar entries, then messaging, then reminders, and so on.
Would it not be better to be 100% certain that it works flawlessly for a few things, instead of buggy for a lot of things? I mean, does anyone REALLY want to buy cinema tickets by talking to the phone, at the expense of Siri not understanding how to set a calendar entry with a reminder 10 minutes before and inviting friends 1, 2, and 3?
"95% confidence," and the relatively small (34 subject) sample size, I wonder how much closer it could get.
95% confidence level already takes the sample size into account. It means that there is a 95% probability that the real score is within two standard deviations from the given score. The sample size is one, if not the, determining factor of this confidence level.
Yeah but is it more distracting than driving through a road full of lingerie clad 20something models while being stoned and drunk?
It just means that better systems cause less distractions. Siri sucks, it never understands anything (other than really simple reminders). I am sure it will get better, but right now it gets so many things wrong, it can't be used in the car. Maybe CarPlay is different. I can't speak about the other OS's.
I would have preferred they had gone deep rather than broad: instead of providing football scores (which is just a party trick) or silly jokes (a stupid party trick), they should have made sure Siri understands every single possible phrasing and nuance regarding, e.g., asking for directions, then calendar entries, then messaging, then reminders, and so on.
Would it not be better to be 100% certain that it works flawlessly for a few things, instead of buggy for a lot of things? I mean, does anyone REALLY want to buy cinema tickets by talking to the phone, at the expense of Siri not understanding how to set a calendar entry with a reminder 10 minutes before and inviting friends 1, 2, and 3?
I have found to Siri to be immensely better than it used to be in general use. Put it in my car and she drops 50 iq points. Doesn't understand a lot of what I'm saying. I suspect the BT module in my car and the ambient environment in my car has something to do with it. It a stock Golf gti with that silly soundaktor unplugged so my car is quality without being premium per se.
The distraction from voice automation is very small potatoes compared to the plethora of idiotic activities drivers are already engaged in today. Car borne idiots (CBI) used to two-hand text while driving with elbows hugging the wheel - until municipalities enacted laws against texting while driving. Now the phone is on the lap and the head is down 80% of the time. I've been stuck behind this variety of staring at lap imbecile at traffic lights and they'll sit through the entire signal cycle without moving an inch, despite the blaring horns. Maybe they can't find the emoji they really want to send to their BFF and everyone will just have to wait. I'm sure everyone's seen mascara mama, burger & shake boy, and shaving man. Once saw a guy reading a text book propped on the steering wheel, last minute cramming for an exam I guess, and another guy eating a bowl of cereal with two hands. Maybe it was a heart healthy bowl of steel cut oats, which might make him a better quality organ donor if the bowl and spoon doesn't impale or destroy the reusable organs. The reality is that people are remarkably stupid when operating most any form of machinery and it's a total shock that the natural human tendencies towards self culling don't yield more fruitful results on a more frequent basis. Even if it did, the supply side of the stupidity equation has no limits, we'll just keep making more of 'em.
Yeah but is it more distracting than driving through a road full of lingerie clad 20something models while being stoned and drunk?
I want to move to wherever you live.
Just visit Manhattan during Fashion Week, Halloween, or Comic Con.
Well, well, well, look at 'ol Government Motors pullin' in with the least distracting systems on the road! Good for them!
Such nonsense. I'd love to see what the numbers would have been on my Boomer parents, who smoked, ate and drank coffee out of a regular cup in the car. Don't forget about folding the goddamn map on top of the wheel. Or adjusting the analog radio. Or owning a car without seat belts, much less air bags, center break lights, disc breaks, lane warnings or crumple zones. Just another step to justify more intrusive regulation.
You forgot to mention they did all that while manually shifting gears...
I'm from the school that if you eliminate automatics you'll remove 95% of the idiots off the road. Keep automatics available for the few people who need one because of a disability.
Well, everybody is different. Just testing a few individuals doesn't give a
Very definitive answer. A guideline maybe. Some people are great at
Multitasking, while others are horrible. For some people just talking on the
Phone is very distracting, and others can do several thing while driving ( which
They shouldn't be doing) non the less, while driving, people shouldn't be doing
Other things,
Each driver was tested for a baseline. Their distractedness rating was based on the difference between individual baselines and result from the tests.
Wow. I can't believe the comments. Opinions all without even a modicum of facts to back up opinion.
There are at least three studies, all quite detailed and quite thorough. AAA took the detailed studies and dumbed them down into their own rating system so any idiot could understand it. From these comments, AAA obviously didn't dumb it down enough.
Wow. I can't believe the comments. Opinions all without even a modicum of facts to back up opinion.
There are at least three studies, all quite detailed and quite thorough. AAA took the detailed studies and dumbed them down into their own rating system so any idiot could understand it. From these comments, AAA obviously didn't dumb it down enough.
Can you factually expand on what you're asserting here?
First question did they use people who were already familiar with the nav system or was it the first time they used them. Second did the same people use all systems and third which order did those individuals use the systems.
Simply puts once you use any nav system for awhile it hardly distracting. It's only when they are new to you are they really an issue, except for the idiots who I always see mounting the GPS or cell phone to three middle of the windshield intent of them.
Watch the 'b-roll' video from the linked article. It seems obvious that the test subjects had never been in the test cars prior to the test much less used the voice controls. Telling is the look of surprise on the woman's face when music starts playing because she is holding down the iPhone headphone button continually while dictating a command.
But, really, the bottom line is stop texting and driving, especially on city streets with traffic that requires full attention.