Study: Apple's Siri more distracting to drivers than Google Now, better than Microsoft Cortana

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 53
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    razorpit wrote: »
    sdw2001 wrote: »
    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.

    You forgot to mention that the car accident fatality rate has dropped by over half per capita since the 1970s. And that the NHTSA determined that 10% of all traffic fatalities in recent years, as well as almost 20% of all accidents, were caused by distracted driving, specifically caused by cell phones.

    But yeah, let's ignore these studies and bring back the good old days, when we didn't know any better.
  • Reply 42 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RoundaboutNow View Post

     

     "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.




    That sounds like a real explanation. From the Fact Sheet, I did not get that the basis for the 95% figure was related to the sample size, but I'm willing to concede that this might be something that is understood in the world of statistics. (Which is not my world).

  • Reply 43 of 53
    of course they would be. Bind faith blind all.

    oh look! you made a "Apple is a religion!" comment. yes that must be it. that must be why Apple is the single most successful tech firm in the history of homo sapiens. they're a religion! or was a cult? oh same diff
  • Reply 44 of 53
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post





    You forgot to mention that the car accident fatality rate has dropped by over half per capita since the 1970s. And that the NHTSA determined that 10% of all traffic fatalities in recent years, as well as almost 20% of all accidents, were caused by distracted driving, specifically caused by cell phones.



    But yeah, let's ignore these studies and bring back the good old days, when we didn't know any better.

     

    Not sure what you're getting at here.  Neither post was in regards to fatality rates, we're talking about distracted drivers...

  • Reply 45 of 53
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    sdw2001 wrote: »
    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.
    razorpit wrote: »
    Not sure what you're getting at here.  Neither post was in regards to fatality rates, we're talking about distracted drivers...

    Oh brother. Forget it.
  • Reply 46 of 53
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post







    Oh brother. Forget it.



    Ya, I think that's a good move.

  • Reply 47 of 53
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by LarryJW View Post

     



    Each driver was tested for a baseline. Their distractedness rating was based on the difference between individual baselines and result from the tests. 


     

    It was tested for what exactly. They're own god assessment. That's not a baseline at all; that's at bst good to know trends, against very broad background, not a definite answer as to which nav system distracts more. This so called study is flawed in 10 different ways.

  • Reply 48 of 53

    I don't.

  • Reply 49 of 53
    foggyhill wrote: »
    It was tested for what exactly. They're own god assessment. That's not a baseline at all; that's at bst good to know trends, against very broad background, not a definite answer as to which nav system distracts more. This so called study is flawed in 10 different ways.
    What 10 ways?
  • Reply 50 of 53
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by singularity View Post





    What 10 ways?

     

    I already NOTED 4 in my previous posts, read up.

    - Learn the difference between qualitative results and quantitative

    (they don't even seem to know themselves!)

    - How pre-conditions and training affects experimental results

    - The experiments themselves are not run in always the same conditions

    - Their experiment doesn't replicate actual use

    - How saying something affects X and actual behavior differ.

    - The "precision" of their result goes way beyond what they're test actually demonstrates.

    - Using all the systems in the same way will undoubtably mean one of them will be more suited to the experiment

       - Instead they should have worked back from results and trained people to use them in the way to get the same result.

     

    - If I dig out my stats and experiment building text book I'm sure I can find dozens of other flaws.

    - This was basically a bad bad clickbait "study" like we see every other day of the week.

     

    - At most they demonstrated that doing something else than driving...  is distracting... (sic)

    That we already knew a long time ago.

  • Reply 51 of 53
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,039member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yoyo2222 View Post

     



    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.


    First I did not watch the video, probably because I already knew the answers to my questions, they grab those people who would place stand alone GPS on the windsheild right above the steering wheel so they can see it in front of them. If they had experience users and drivers than they would not have story would they. I gave my dad who was 75 a GPS and thought it would help him, he was smarter than me and did not use it since it was distracting to him.

     

    Yes, people should be paying attention to what they are doing end of store. I am waiting for the study about these crash avoidance systems and how distracting they are. I had my serious doubts about them but never used or experience on until a few weeks ago I had a rental car with all those systems in it. It is totally distracting and I am a very good driver. I had the seat vibrating saying I was about to hit someone in front of me even though I had been off the gas for a good 5 secs and was judging what was about to happen and just about to hit the break. Then all the yellow lights on the side mirror flashing saying someone is in the blind spot even though I knew they were there, but the flashes keep catching my peripheral vision and making me look to the side when I should have been looking forward.

     

    Image people in this study dealing with a car trying to forcing you to stay in your lane, or vibrating your seat to say someone is slowing in front of you or telling someone is to your right or left. Or better yet the idiot of does not thing they need to brake because the car can stop for them.

  • Reply 52 of 53
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    ecats wrote: »
    Many people on the road drive terribly even when the road has their full attention. So it's not surprising that adding complexity worsens skill levels.

    An important distinction to make is that iOS also offers Carplay and the more basic Siri Eyes Free modes which are designed to be less distracting for drivers.

    What I'd also like to see included in a study is a test against driving with loud music, driving while wearing ear phones, and driving with the inclusion of participants children or friends in the vehicle.

    I daresay many of these common inclusions lead to significantly more driver interference than adjusting the volume/track on an in-car infotainment system.

    Not to put down the research, but no two people are equal. I'd much prefer it if people didn't use their music/hands-free/cellphone/etc in the car period. But that's not the most reasonable thing except for very short trips (eg under 10 minutes.) Once you reach the "commute" time of 20 minutes, it doesn't matter if music or another passenger is a distraction, it will happen, because the alternative is jettisoning the radio, and duct-taping everyones mouths in the car. It's just not a realistic thing.

    In the case of turn-by-turn directions, there's a certain level of inherent distraction caused by it, mainly because when you are relying on GPS, your eyes and ears are distracted in the same way a co-pilot (passenger with a map) would be. Unlike a person however, the turn-by-turn isn't going to be forgiving of you making a mistake, if you miss a turn off, it will recalculate and keep telling you to go until you turn it off. If you understand how turn-by-turn directions work, then you know you don't need to be "attentively waiting" since it will warn you when you need to pay attention to it (eg "turn left in 500 meters".)

    For everything else, is there any actual reason to be updating social media while you drive? If someone cuts you off are you going to post to twitter that someone just cut you off? No that's going to provide cops with evidence that you're texting while driving and you could be fined for it.
  • Reply 53 of 53
    Are they less distracting than using a phone directly? No.
Sign In or Register to comment.