Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Auto Safety Experts Concerned About CarPlay and Distracted Driving
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One of the biggest problems we have in this country is the government's hesitation towards change.
The fact of the matter is, people want to be connected. They will use their phones while driving if they have to. Expensive tickets will penalize some, but that won't stop people from using their phones, it won't prevent accidents, it doesn't make the world safer.
All it does is force the public to pretend they live in a pre-smartphone era.
It simply won't work.
Instead, we should build systems to let people stay connected in the safest way possible. That's what Carplay does. Has anyone here used SYNC? BMW's iDrive? Or an older navigation system in a Prius? They are all cumbersome, distracting, require a lot of focus to get something done. No matter how much they've improved in the past decade, they are still not intuitive and require a lot of focus and learning.
Here comes Apple with a system that can go into every new car sold if the manufacturers play their part. It uses a UI language that most people already know how to use. It uses some of the best voice recognition software out there, utilizes fast processors, and with the integration of third party apps, negates a majority of the need to look at your phone while driving.
And here comes the government crying about safety concerns.
Yes, government, on paper, no one should use their phone while driving. no one should use an in car computer or navigation system. everyone should put their hands on the wheel at 10 and 2, look ahead, play their music low, drive at the speed limit, and put three seconds between themselves and the car in front of them.
In some alternate reality, I'm sure that works. But it doesn't work in ours. Policy and governmental organizations cannot be effective if they are based on unrealistic expectations of the public.
Instead, work with Apple to make the safest system possible. Create subsidies for manufacturers to work with Apple. Test the system. Compare it to the current systems out there. Use the brains of the people you have working for you to find a real solution, don't just sit there and yell at the company that has the most media attention in the world, just because you think it makes you look good at your job.
/endrant.
The fact of the matter is, people want to be connected. They will use their phones while driving if they have to. Expensive tickets will penalize some, but that won't stop people from using their phones, it won't prevent accidents, it doesn't make the world safer.
All it does is force the public to pretend they live in a pre-smartphone era.
It simply won't work.
Instead, we should build systems to let people stay connected in the safest way possible. That's what Carplay does. Has anyone here used SYNC? BMW's iDrive? Or an older navigation system in a Prius? They are all cumbersome, distracting, require a lot of focus to get something done. No matter how much they've improved in the past decade, they are still not intuitive and require a lot of focus and learning.
Here comes Apple with a system that can go into every new car sold if the manufacturers play their part. It uses a UI language that most people already know how to use. It uses some of the best voice recognition software out there, utilizes fast processors, and with the integration of third party apps, negates a majority of the need to look at your phone while driving.
And here comes the government crying about safety concerns.
Yes, government, on paper, no one should use their phone while driving. no one should use an in car computer or navigation system. everyone should put their hands on the wheel at 10 and 2, look ahead, play their music low, drive at the speed limit, and put three seconds between themselves and the car in front of them.
In some alternate reality, I'm sure that works. But it doesn't work in ours. Policy and governmental organizations cannot be effective if they are based on unrealistic expectations of the public.
Instead, work with Apple to make the safest system possible. Create subsidies for manufacturers to work with Apple. Test the system. Compare it to the current systems out there. Use the brains of the people you have working for you to find a real solution, don't just sit there and yell at the company that has the most media attention in the world, just because you think it makes you look good at your job.
/endrant.
It's very simple.
If you create a law, lets say no holding and talking on your mobile phone whilst driving. And people still do it. It is because the risk/reward is still in the phone users favor.
The next step you do it to increase the risk/punishment for breaking this law, until people feel the reward which is speaking to a friend is not worth it.
$10 if caught, people still do it. Hey it's only ten dollars
$20
$30
$40
$50 heck, fifty dam dollars..... moan, but hey chances are I won't get caught.
How about $1000, $5000, $10,000 ?
How many Ten thousand dollar fines do you think someone would need to get before they thought, sod that, I'm not even going to risk it. I'll wait till I can pull over and ring them back.
It's very simple. If people continue to do it, the punishment is not hash enough.
Same for pretty much any law
Missing the point
People, before you comment, please remember that:
1. CarPlay is designed to work with Siri. Nobody is going to be typing/reading text messages from a screen. Siri will dictate/read them outloud!
2. While there is a screen in the dash, you can tell Siri to play whatever music you want. You don't need to use the touchscreen controls while driving! So stop arguing that you need physical knobs!
3. While the passenger next to you might be safer than someone on the phone, the toddlers in the back seat are definitely not. So if it's legal to have young kids in the back seat yammering in the driver's ear, it should be legal to converse with someone over a "hands-free" phone.
People, before you comment, please remember that:
1. CarPlay is designed to work with Siri. Nobody is going to be typing/reading text messages from a screen. Siri will dictate/read them outloud!
2. While there is a screen in the dash, you can tell Siri to play whatever music you want. You don't need to use the touchscreen controls while driving! So stop arguing that you need physical knobs!
3. While the passenger next to you might be safer than someone on the phone, the toddlers in the back seat are definitely not. So if it's legal to have young kids in the back seat yammering in the driver's ear, it should be legal to converse with someone over a "hands-free" phone.
I have not seen the part about Siri dictating messages using text or subtitles in that video.
How is car play supposed to work for deaf or hard of hearing drivers if it's Siri only using voice? Apple gets involved in the accessible market for hearing aids in one thread but then they get into the car industry which doesn't end up as accessible. This is a huge problem in UI design if they don't offer deaf drivers the option to switch off Siri and provide some kind of subtitled responses.
And if you think deaf driver shouldn't text and drive, then NO ONE should be doing it either regardless of how others think it's "kewl" of Apple to provide that tech.
I never use Siri because it doesn't do much for me and takes up battery juice since I'm hard of hearing and use a flat rate for data only without phone calls. Only think I use is text, email or Skype/FaceTime to communicate.
Roads will be very dangerous in the near future
It'll be alright! If you're in an accident, use CarPlay to call for the ambulance.
It's not anymore distracting then anything else, unless you foreplay with your carplay!
/
/
You missed the point entirely, and its the problem a lot of cyclists have. I am in total agreement that roads are not just for motor vehicles, and that it is in fact a legal obligation for drivers to look ahead and pay attention at all times, and safety studies should be done to determine what is safe and what laws should be in place.
But the fact is, 99% of drivers on the road DO NOT look ahead or pay attention, and passing more laws has not decreased this percentage in the slightest. And another fact is, a car outweighs a cyclist by at least 2 tons. So if you are concerned about your safety on the road, i just dont see how passing laws (when people dont follow the current laws) makes you feel any safer riding your bicycle on the road. It is your life in danger, not the drivers - and who do you trust more to follow laws to protect your safety - yourself or a stranger?
I live in boulder where bike paths get you to places quicker than driving in a car and cyclists still choose to ride on busy streets when there is absolutely no reason to and they complain about the cars not following all the laws that cyclists pressed to get passed - not to mention the fact that the cyclists dont follow the laws either such as not riding doubled up and riding only in the bike lane.
And again I am in total agreement with you... probably at least 60% of people driving should not have their license. it should be much harder to get your license and much easier to lose it. However, I dont press this issue either because taking people's licenses away is not going to stop them from driving either.
Seriously?!?
It's not fair that deaf people can't hear Siri read text messages out loud. But this shouldn't penalize the people who can hear.
So, until Apple invents a morse code butt-vibration unit in the seat so that deaf people can feel their texts, deaf drivers shouldn't text and drive. Sorry.
P.S. Apple: Did you hear that? I'll take a 1% cut in all iCar sales that include a morse code butt-vibration unit.
It's not fair that deaf people can't hear Siri read text messages out loud. But this shouldn't penalize the people who can hear.
So, until Apple invents a morse code butt-vibration unit in the seat so that deaf people can feel their texts, deaf drivers shouldn't text and drive. Sorry.
P.S. Apple: Did you hear that? I'll take a 1% cut in all iCar sales that include a morse code butt-vibration unit.
did you read any of the thread before posting?
This has been covered numerous times. With numerous studies linked.
Talking to passengers in the car is distracting.
However, studies showing that it's not nearly as distracting as on the phone, or using electronic devices.
Sure, in an ideal world, drivers should be cognitive of their distraction levels and should have the fortitude to ask their passengers to please be quiet should they find themselves distracted.
I know i've told my passengers to zip it before.
Agreed, the amount of times I'm victim of reckless driving, only to glance across and notice the driver is engaged in a cellphone call/texting (or in Texas likely drunk).
----------
At least I understood this was intended to be a partly humorous comment.
----------
Agreed. Additionally one of the problems I've noticed since moving to the United States is that whilst there are laws, officials themselves are so reluctant to enforce them that the de facto law is that there is no law. Great examples of this are texting/drink driving/driving too close to the car in front/signalling/jumping lights and so forth.
To an extent--not if the majority of people consistently get away with it. Tickets here for uses a mobile while driving have been increasing in price drastically over the past couple years, and on my daily commute, it's not hard to find people that still do it.
Further, we're not talking about breaking laws here.
There's no law against having a navigation/infotainment system in your car.
What I can't get past is why an administration/organization would voice complaint towards a system that reduces cellphone use through positive means--by giving you an alternative that is easier and safer, rather than negative means--threatening people with high ticket prices which they may never get if they're covert enough.
Finally, someone on our side is actually thinking logically...
Tech in cars is all cool, and convenient, and most people for thins, even above safety, which is why you see idiots text and drive.
My statement is, don't stop here, Its not only Apple, go the full length and go after Ford too and Google got self-driving cars (I would argue these should have been top of the list above everything), because safety comes first...
Its a shame, most don't think that. They only think it to the point, until they crash, then they lace up their shoes, and move on continuing the same thing.
Tech in cars is all cool, and convenient, and most people for thins, even above safety, which is why you see idiots text and drive.
My statement is, don't stop here, Its not only Apple, go the full length and go after Ford too and Google got self-driving cars (I would argue these should have been top of the list above everything), because safety comes first...
Its a shame, most don't think that. They only think it to the point, until they crash, then they lace up their shoes, and move on continuing the same thing.
wait...the headline said "Auto Safety Experts", but the article quotes the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
ha.
ha.
Isn't this whole argument similar to the one made against e-cigarettes? Various groups want to ban the devices before they start selling out of control and kids might use them, etc. etc. But that ignores the point that they're ALREADY using a similar product and it's WORSE (i.e. holding their iPhones in their hands and fumbling with it or smoking real cigarettes with loads of tar and other more horrible things in them in the case of e-cigarettes). Yeah, e-cigarettes are probably bad for you, but they're a hell of step up from the 2nd hand smoke and known cancer causing agents in actual tobacco cigarettes. I don't have to breathe them. I don't care if people want to harm t themselves as long as they aren't harming ME. And while I'd prefer people not be distracted while driving and thus potentially harm ME, I'd rather them use this system than playing with their iPhone in one hand which is what they're going to do without this system. I see it every day on the roads.
Put shortly, steps in the right direction are better than NO STEPS AT ALL. Yes, tell the kids abstinence is the key and make condoms illegal and even "evil" by some religions. Yeah, that doesn't work. It doesn't work at all. And the people that don't understand WHY it doesn't work are the same type of people that think this device should be banned before it's even sold. What they want doesn't fly with imperfect people. So you try to minimize the stupid behaviors while driving rather than just "ban" the crap out of everything. Banning me from talking to someone in the car won't work and isn't enforceable but if that won't stop them from trying to do it. Now telling me it's somehow different to talk to a hands-free person than someone in the back seat and make one illegal and not the other.... absurdity. They're the same thing. Either it distracts or it doesn't. Some people can't walk and chew gum at the same time. That doesn't mean we all cannot do it relatively safely.
Make people pass the driving test in a stick shift. I guarantee you that will make people BETTER drivers than any BAN on doing something while in the car. The driving tests are too easy. You should be able to dodge cones at high speeds and even do a 180 spin around to get a license. Why? It takes SKILL to do those things and SKILL makes a person a BETTER driver, not deafening silence around someone who can't stay between the yellow lines. I'm not saying distracted driving isn't a problem. I'm saying realistic and practical solutions are better than extreme ones that people will ignore.
Put shortly, steps in the right direction are better than NO STEPS AT ALL. Yes, tell the kids abstinence is the key and make condoms illegal and even "evil" by some religions. Yeah, that doesn't work. It doesn't work at all. And the people that don't understand WHY it doesn't work are the same type of people that think this device should be banned before it's even sold. What they want doesn't fly with imperfect people. So you try to minimize the stupid behaviors while driving rather than just "ban" the crap out of everything. Banning me from talking to someone in the car won't work and isn't enforceable but if that won't stop them from trying to do it. Now telling me it's somehow different to talk to a hands-free person than someone in the back seat and make one illegal and not the other.... absurdity. They're the same thing. Either it distracts or it doesn't. Some people can't walk and chew gum at the same time. That doesn't mean we all cannot do it relatively safely.
Make people pass the driving test in a stick shift. I guarantee you that will make people BETTER drivers than any BAN on doing something while in the car. The driving tests are too easy. You should be able to dodge cones at high speeds and even do a 180 spin around to get a license. Why? It takes SKILL to do those things and SKILL makes a person a BETTER driver, not deafening silence around someone who can't stay between the yellow lines. I'm not saying distracted driving isn't a problem. I'm saying realistic and practical solutions are better than extreme ones that people will ignore.
Man it was a joke. And I use Siri through hands free frequently while driving and chat to passengers...I just keep my eyes on the road.
*serious face*
So Pioneers AppRadio is OK? It's been on the market for years with no more or less safety issues. Sure it sucks and the only good features are already in other stereos. But you could have used it like Apple intends. Other manufacturers have copied Pioneer as well. What makes CarPlay any different?
Very, very poor Audi A6 human interface
I believe that all these electronic systems need to be certified as safe to use. Some are hugely distracting. I recently bought an Audi A6. The interface is very poorly designed (despite all the incomprehensible hype) and potentially lethal if used in testing conditions. I have written up a detailed analysis which I am willing to share with any serious journalist interested in taking this topic further. I submitted it to Audi nearly 4 months ago and believe that their legal people have prohibited any engineers from responding in a meaningful manner.
I believe that all these electronic systems need to be certified as safe to use. Some are hugely distracting. I recently bought an Audi A6. The interface is very poorly designed (despite all the incomprehensible hype) and potentially lethal if used in testing conditions. I have written up a detailed analysis which I am willing to share with any serious journalist interested in taking this topic further. I submitted it to Audi nearly 4 months ago and believe that their legal people have prohibited any engineers from responding in a meaningful manner.
No... I really wouldn't ....
This is the exact same argument that groups like "MADD" (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) used to argue for ever lower blood alcohol limits qualifying drivers as DWI/DUI. "If someone you loved died because of a driver who was drinking, you'd want stronger laws governing drinking and driving too!"
Problem is, you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns ... where some poor guy who was sick with the flu and took some cold medicine is now subject to getting a DUI if he gets pulled over. And where anyone who has a single beer with a meal when going out is at risk of running afoul of the law too, despite being able to drive just fine by the time he's headed home.
Thankfully, nobody in my immediately family and none of my friends have died in car accidents at all. (I did have a car totaled out by a drunk driver once, while I was sitting at a stoplight and he slammed into me doing about 55MPH. My neck still bothers me to this day, 15+ years after the fact.)
What's really IMPORTANT here is striking the best possible balance of preserving individual freedoms/liberties and having legislation that protects against very clear bad behavior. People thinking with pure emotion due to the loss of a loved one are the LAST people you want to turn to, to ask what a "fair" law would be involving what got the person killed.
When it comes to cellphones and driving? I'm fine with legislating against texting while driving. That activity clearly requires more of one's attention than should ever be taken away from the wheel while driving a vehicle. If you want to legislate a requirement of using a "hands free" kit for talking on a cellphone in the car? Well,I use one voluntarily already and think they're great -- but I can honestly say I used to drive as a courier back when we had to carry around big Nextel cellphones. Talking to dispatch while running routes was a job requirement and there was no "hands free kit" back then. It was something you quickly adapted to and got used to doing safely, IMO.
This is the exact same argument that groups like "MADD" (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) used to argue for ever lower blood alcohol limits qualifying drivers as DWI/DUI. "If someone you loved died because of a driver who was drinking, you'd want stronger laws governing drinking and driving too!"
Problem is, you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns ... where some poor guy who was sick with the flu and took some cold medicine is now subject to getting a DUI if he gets pulled over. And where anyone who has a single beer with a meal when going out is at risk of running afoul of the law too, despite being able to drive just fine by the time he's headed home.
Thankfully, nobody in my immediately family and none of my friends have died in car accidents at all. (I did have a car totaled out by a drunk driver once, while I was sitting at a stoplight and he slammed into me doing about 55MPH. My neck still bothers me to this day, 15+ years after the fact.)
What's really IMPORTANT here is striking the best possible balance of preserving individual freedoms/liberties and having legislation that protects against very clear bad behavior. People thinking with pure emotion due to the loss of a loved one are the LAST people you want to turn to, to ask what a "fair" law would be involving what got the person killed.
When it comes to cellphones and driving? I'm fine with legislating against texting while driving. That activity clearly requires more of one's attention than should ever be taken away from the wheel while driving a vehicle. If you want to legislate a requirement of using a "hands free" kit for talking on a cellphone in the car? Well,I use one voluntarily already and think they're great -- but I can honestly say I used to drive as a courier back when we had to carry around big Nextel cellphones. Talking to dispatch while running routes was a job requirement and there was no "hands free kit" back then. It was something you quickly adapted to and got used to doing safely, IMO.
All these people are saying "ban radio knobs and buttons too", but that's just it... they're KNOBS and BUTTONS. In my car, I know where all the controls are without even looking. It's not distracting at all to turn on the A/C. It's second nature.
A touch screen is just one big flat surface with no tactile feedback. That's the problem. You almost have to look over to see what to tap.
A touch screen is just one big flat surface with no tactile feedback. That's the problem. You almost have to look over to see what to tap.
Great point about the DWi laws which have essentially RUINED happy hour and casual drinking for everyone. Nice job. Can't even have a beer or two with friends after work without having my BAC certified. It's ridiculous and will save ZERO lives. I can understand why but the MADD crew are just bitter and angry and they are taking it out on innocent, law abiding citizens who simply want a glass of wine with dinner. Nice job.
As for this car thing? I find that most people can't drive as it is without any distractions so I can't see how this helps. Sorry but I don't buy the whole "if we make it easier for them to be distracted then somehow that's safer than holding their phone" nonsense. No go deal, IMO.