Equipment Design Features (Impacts on Safety)

Papers, polls, Q&A items, and comments on this page are oriented to topics and issues associated with the impact of equipment design features on driving safety. Feel free to post comments on issues outlined below, or in response to papers, polls, and/or questions submitted to our expert panel. The emphasis is meant to be on the design features of the technological devices themselves, but comments on system-level safety (e.g., integration of devices, use of crash warnings) are welcome. A moderator has been assigned to periodically synthesize comments, keep discussions focused and moving, emphasize key points, and offer additional insights into related issues.

DISCUSSION ISSUES/TOPICS

Effective/Ineffective Designs & Countermeasures

What technologies can be employed to develop less distracting devices (e.g., voice recognition, hands free operation)?
To what extent does voice interaction (speech recognition, artificial speech) provide benefits over visual presentation? Under what conditions is voice communication distracting?
Is there less driver distraction with the use of Head Up Displays (HUDs) than with traditional displays? Can everyone use HUDs effectively?
How should information be structured, formatted, and searched? How much information is too much for drivers to handle?
What designs and features (design soluations) have worked well in this or similar applications? What problems have been observed?
What effective countermeasures can be used to combat distraction?

Research Needs

What are the important unanswered questions regarding the design of in-vehicle technologies? Is research best directed at defining good design or developing tools to evaluate individual designs?

Content Available In Each Topic Area

  Paper
  Comment
  Ask the Expert
  Poll

Effective/Ineffective Designs & Countermeasures
	The Impact of Internal Distraction on Driver Visual Behavior Authors: Harbluk, J. L., Noy, Y. I. (Transport Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada), & Eizenman, M. (University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada). View Entire Paper Abstract Driver distraction can arise from sources internal as well as external to the driver. In this paper we describe a study (in progress) designed to examine the influence of internal distraction, created by cognitive tasks, on drivers’ visual behavior and vehicle control. Sixteen drivers will drive a city route while carrying out tasks of varying cognitive complexity. The tasks and their responses will be communicated via a handsfree cell phone so that drivers will not have to look away from the road or manually operate the phone. Driver performance will be examined under conditions of close vehicle following and more open driving conditions. Visual scanning patterns will be recorded using eyetracking equipment, measures of vehicle control will be obtained using the MicroDAS system, and drivers’ subjective evaluation of workload and safety will be assessed through questionnaires. Based on previous research, it is expected that increased cognitive load will result in a reduced area of visual inspection. In addition, detailed analyses will be made of the fixation distributions as a function of cognitive task. The results of this study will contribute to the understanding of driver internal distraction that may be associated with voice interactive technologies. Divided Attention Ability of Young and Older Drivers Authors: Mourant, R. R., Tsai, F., Al-Shihabi, T., & Jaeger, B. K. (Virtual Environments Laboratory, Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Northeastern University). View Entire Paper Abstract This study formulates a divided attention task that measures the capacity of drivers to use in-vehicle Advanced Transportation Information Systems (ATIS). Henderson and Suen (1999) have suggested that an ATIS is a two-edged sword for older drivers because with advancing age drivers experience diminished perceptual and cognitive abilities that make it difficult to use in-vehicle displays. When using an in-vehicle display to obtain potentially useful information, a driver usually 1) makes a small head movement to the right accompanied by an eye-movement of about 30-35 degrees and 2) adjusts his/her eye for close vision which involves convergence eye movements and accommodation of the eye lenses. For people who are 60 years or older these processes take longer and thus older drivers spend more time than young drivers acquiring information from an in-vehicle display. The present study measures drivers’ ability to obtain information while constantly switching between near and far visual tasks. In addition we compare driver performance relative to two display formats. Speech-based Interaction with In-vehicle Computers: The Effect of Speech-based E-mail on Drivers’ Attention to the Roadway Authors: Lee, J. D., Caven, B., Haake, S., & Brown, T. L. (Cognitive Systems Laboratory, University of Iowa, Department of Industrial Engineering, Iowa City, Iowa). View Entire Paper Abstract As computer applications for cars emerge, speech-based interfaces provide an obvious alternative to the visually demanding graphical user interfaces common on desktop applications. However, speech-based interfaces may pose cognitive demands that could undermine driving safety. This study uses a car-following task to evaluate how a speech-based e-mail system affects drivers’ response to a periodically braking lead vehicle. A baseline condition with no e-mail system was compared to a simple and a complex e-mail system in both simple and complex driving environments. The results show a 30% (310 msec) increase in reaction time when the speech-based system is present. Subjective workload ratings also indicate that speech-based interaction introduces a significant cognitive load, which is highest for the complex e-mail system. A simple model of driver performance shows that, in imminent collision situations, the 310 msec delay induced by the speech-based interface can have important safety implications. Integration of Driver In-Vehicle ITS Information Authors: Kantowitz, B. H. (Battelle Human Factors Transportation Center, Seattle, Washington) & Moyer, M. J. (Federal Highway Administration, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, Virginia). View Entire Paper Abstract In order to remain competitive in the marketplace, manufacturers are including more and more infotronic systems in vehicles. These next-generation interactive systems must function without decreasing the safety and ease of operation of vehicles. From a human factors perspective, these goals cannot be accomplished without integration of in-vehicle information. Integration in a human factors context refers to the needs of the driver, rather than characteristics of hardware, software and infrastructure. There is a strong need to integrate three classes of driver information inside the vehicle: (1) safety and collision avoidance, (2) advanced traveler information systems, and (3) convenience and entertainment systems. As more information is added inside the vehicle, cars and trucks start to take on some of the interface characteristics of airplanes. Fortunately, there are many human factors lessons that have been learned in the aviation domain that can be applied to the integration of in-vehicle information. These include research on operator workload and allocation of function. Human factors research needs for next-generation vehicles are articulated. E-Distraction: The Challenges for Safe and Usable Internet Services in Vehicles Authors: Burns, P.C. (Volvo Technological Development Corporation, Gothenburg, Sweden) & Lansdown, T.C. (Transportation Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, U.K.). View Entire Paper Abstract The availability of Internet information in the vehicle can provide wide and enduring benefits for drivers, passengers, commercial vehicle operations, service providers and transport systems managers. However, there is considerable evidence that complex in-vehicle information systems can distract the driver. These in-vehicle Internet (IVI) services should not be available if they are dangerous to road users. Road safety is paramount and systems must be designed that do not distract drivers dangerously. Presentation of IVI information would be clearly inappropriate in the format that we experience on our desktop computers. Although there are many challenges to be overcome, it is argued that it is possible to design safe integrated IVI systems. This paper discusses some preliminary Human Factors solutions for designing safe driving-compatible interfaces. It is hoped this Driver Distraction Forum can contribute further solutions to this problem. Can Collision Warning Systems Mitigate Distraction Due to In-Vehicle Devices? Authors: John D. Lee, Michelle L. Ries, Daniel V. McGehee, and Timothy L. Brown (Cognitive Systems Laboratory, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Iowa) and Michael Perel (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) View Entire Paper Abstract Rear-end collisions account for approximately 28% of automotive crashes. Because driver inattention is a contributing factor in more than 60% of these collisions, rear-end collision avoidance systems (RECAS) offer a promising approach to reduce crashes and save lives. A RECAS is a device that uses electronic sensors (e.g. radar) to detect the motion of a lead vehicle, compute whether a collision is likely, and trigger an alarm to alert the driver to the impending collision. This paper presents two experiments that use a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare how well drivers can avoid crashes with and without the aid of a RECAS. The first experiment examined how variations in warning algorithm parameters affect the ability of a RECAS to aid distracted drivers in avoiding an imminent collision. The primary comparison was between algorithms that triggered an early versus late warning. Drivers were distracted with a visually demanding number reading task. The results show that an early warning helps drivers react more quickly and avoid more collisions compared to a late warning or no warning. The second experiment examined the ability of the RECAS to help non-distracted drivers avoid an imminent collision. The results show that the RECAS benefits drivers even when they are not distracted. The magnitude and type of this distraction is compared with cognitive distractions due to speech-based interactions. Potential opportunities and challenges for RECAS to mitigate the effect of in-vehicle distractions are also discussed. In-Vehicle Communication and Driving: An Attempt to Overcome their Interference Authors: Mark Vollrath and Ingo Totzke (Center for Traffic Sciences, IZVW, University of Wuerzburg, Germany) View Entire Paper Abstract Within the framework of the project S.A.N.T.O.S. (adaptive driver assistance) research is conducted with the aim to adapt driver assistance in a manner to counteract possible influences of in-vehicle communication on driving. A prerequisite towards this aim is a thorough understanding of the effects of communication on driving. An experiment is presented in which three prototypical driver-car interactions were used: a visual and an auditory information processing task and a manual operation task. According to Multiple Resources Theory these different in-vehicle communications are to interfere with the driving task in a varying amount and pattern. The effects of these communication tasks were examined in a driving-simulation task in which one half of the participants had to maintain their driving speed without and with a preceding car on a straight road while the other half of the participants had to control their lateral position on a curvy road while driving at a recommended speed. Overall, thirty subjects took part in a mixed between-within subject design. First of all, we found distinct changes in the driving behavior caused by the communication tasks. Most strongly, the control of the lateral position of the car deteriorates. Second, the manual operation task causes the greatest interference with the driving task followed by the visual and the auditory information processing task. Third, the driving task has a negative effect on the performance in the in-vehicle communication tasks. These findings support the assumption that advanced driver support systems have to be adapted to different kinds of in-vehicle communication and gives indications of how to design this adaptation. A successful adaptation may also increase the acceptance of these adaptive driver assistance systems if they do not only improve driving behavior but also in-vehicle communication. If purchasing an in-vehicle device, how much of an influence does the design and ease of use of devices have on your selection? Can auditory systems (devices with the capability to interpret voice commands, or communicate using speech messages) address the safety concerns associated with operating in-vehicle technologies? Do you believe hands-free technology is sufficient to address safety concerns related to cell phone use while driving? Is it possible to design electronic maps that can be safely used while driving? Is it possible to design wireless Internet devices (e.g., e-mail systems) that can be safely used while driving? Integration of Driver in vehicle ITS 7/6/00 2:13:53 PM Michael Obradovich Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier Refering to: Integration of Driver In-Vehicle ITS Information What is needed is a central control system intuitive to operate and easy to use. Airplanes demonstrate that this model is doomed for failure if grandma is going to operate the vehicle. In your opinion, what is the maximum number of recommended information displays a HUD should feature? 7/14/00 8:52:05 AM David Curry Delphi uses the following guideline as to the amount of information to be displayed on a Head-Up Display (HUD). "To insure timely driver detection and response to the HUD information, the number of items on the HUD should be kept to a minimum by including only that information which is required or useful for a given set of circumstances. To ensure that the impact on driver task performance is minimized, no more than four to five efficiently designed information items should be displayed on the HUD at any one time. If HUD information is only presented at very infrequent intervals (e.g., to indicate a system failure), the information may result in a prolonged "novelty" effect or a less than optimal driver response to HUD warning information. Provide enough HUD display information so that the driver is accustomed to scanning and responding to HUD information" As a general rule, the greater the number of items on the display, the more distraction potential the display will have. During simulator experiments which we sponsored, drivers with 7 or 8 items on the HUD glanced at the display with increased frequency and duration in comparison to displays with fewer items. Their speed maintenance and lane position performance were also reduced while using high information complexity displays. Based upon these results, it is recommended that a maximum of four or five information items be presented on the HUD at any one time. This will eliminate overload potential by providing a cap in the complexity level the HUD can attain. Furthermore, an attempt should be made to keep the number of items on the HUD as low as possible at any one moment in time. Driver reaction to new information items will be best if such items are added to an uncluttered display (containing, for example, only one other item). If the driver has to detect a change in one of several items, reaction time will increase. Basically, this is an endorsement of "by-exception" type of HUD information---in other words, telltales may be displayed on the HUD for system malfunctions, but multiple status indicators (e.g., engine temperature, oil pressure, etc), for the most part, would not be appropriate unless they were out of tolerance. Notable exceptions to this heuristic would be such items of frequently accessed information as vehicle speed. Note: Material for this response was gathered from guidelines prepared by Steve Jahns and Tom Dingus at the Human Factors Research Group at the Center for Computer-Aided Design at the University of Iowa under Delco Electronics sponsorship. Passenger Air Bag technology saves lives, BUT... 7/14/00 6:11:10 PM Submitted Anonymously Other The fact that the generally very effective passenger side air bags forces Government, advocacy groups, and "the industry" to suggest that all children be put in the back seat, is a major source of accident causing driver-distractions. A recent Volvo ad shows a forward facing child in the back seat with two adults in the front seat, the best scenario for transporting a child. The ad, however, showed the child fussing and the driver eyes move to the rear view mirror and panic sets in. Passenger side air bags are a good thing; putting all children, especially rear-facing infants, in the back seat and particularly when they are alone in a car with the driver, is asking crashes to happen due to distractions from the back seat. Even though it may be too late to put air bag by-pass switches in all vehicles possesing a passenger air bag (primarily by virtue of the tens of millions of such vehicles already on the road, and to potential liability issues); some steps must be taken to keep children from riding in the back seat, especially when alone in a car with a driver. Radio designs are needlessly dangerous 7/18/00 3:04:26 PM James McDonald Private Citizen I don't understand why manufacturers are allowed to market cars with radios whose buttons are hard to reach and labelled with low contrast. People fumbling for the proper button are tremendously distracted, especially in rental cars and in unfamiliar areas where they are trying to find unfamiliar stations--situations where they are also more likely to be unfamiliar with the roads and local hazards. The Mercury Sable has three buttons at the top of the dash which let you select memorized stations, scan, and control volume. The only flaw is that simply hitting the volume doesn't turn the radio on -- you have to look down to find the power-on button for that. Making a feature like this mandatory would seem to be almost a no-brainer, especially in rental cars. Radio designs are needlessly dangerous, II 7/18/00 6:32:12 PM Refering to: Radio designs are needlessly dangerous I could not agree with you more. My suggestion, have all new cars come equiped with the radio control panel mounted on the steering wheel. This does not exclude the panel control that are already comes with the radio. The Mitsubishi 3000 & Pontaic Firebird both has this feature. One can control basic functions with this design. It just makes sense. The standard (steering wheel) configuration should include: Mute, Volume up & down, Seek, Channel Slection, FM/AM Possible solution 7/18/00 6:44:54 PM Phil McArdle Private Citizen Although I have a cell phone in my car, I agree wholeheartedly with concerns regarding all forms of telecommunications devices in motor vehicles. However, I believe I have an answer to the problem which ought to keep everyone happy. To start with, let me say from experience that anything that takes the eyes off the road can be hazardous. I simply will not use my handheld cellphone while I am driving. However, I believe phones with automated and hands-free features are generally safe to use while driving. I also have an in-dash phone in my Acura which can automatically mute the radio and auto-answer incoming calls, and which you can use in a "speakerphone" mode. This makes a world of difference, and I have safely used this, while driving, for years. My answer to the argument that my concentration might be slightly diverted from driving, is that one’s attention could be equally diverted by the stress of NOT being able to make or receive a necessary call while driving. I run my own one-man advertising agency, and being able to use my cellphone can make or break my business; since I am on the road a lot, I look forward to the day when I will be able to send and receive e-mail and faxes, have internet access, get stock prices, get alphanumeric pages and more from my car. However, since such services require you to LOOK AT A DISPLAY, I personally would only use them while my vehicle were parked, but judging from idiocy I have seen on the road I know there is someone out there who would type an e-mail while driving at 80mph on the Hutchinson River Parkway. Solutions? I think they’re easy… (a) For devices whose use requires viewing a display of some sort, a safety interlock be installed, which only allows operation while the vehicle is in neutral (standard transmission) or park (automatic transmission). This would be simple to accomplish, since modern vehicles already have the necessary switches and wiring to prevent starting the vehicle in gear; installation would require tapping into the neutral/park safety circuit, and could be a part of commonly-available audio wiring harness adapter kits. (b) Also, only hands-free cellphones should be legal for use while driving; most regular hand-held units have this as an add-on option. I certainly hope my ideas help; it would be a shame to have to forego the benefits of expanding telecommunications technology because some fools don’t have the sense to use them safely. Cordially, Phil McArdle disable devices while car is in motion 7/19/00 11:19:00 AM Sarah Shapiro Private Citizen Refering to: Possible solution The poll question, "have you changed" your behavior...., is not good. I have never used a cell phone while my car is moving, so I have not changed in response to safety awareness messages. My answer will be lumped in with those who continue to use phones while driving. My hope is that all of these gizmos will be required to be disabled while a car is in motion, except for 911 ( the woman in her own trunk is enough proof that 911 is needed!) No one, not one single human being, ever needs email or stock quotes or any other internet bit of information while in motion. Carrying on a conversation is not the same as the passive activity of listening, as to the radio. Conversations, even with passengers present in the car, are distracting. How much more so when the communication is with someone not present! Sarah Shapiro low cost "black-box" equipment for motor vehicles 7/19/00 11:50:17 AM Harry Lerwill Other How difficult would it be to have a small device with a fish-eye lens on top of a vehicle that would take panoramic pictures of what is going on around it, every 1/10 second or so, looping the data so that it has the last 5 mins of driving recorded. Link it to the airbag system so it stops recording in an accident. After an accident the "black box" goes to the insurance company who then sue the ass off anyone involved who happened to be 'distracted' by eating, phoning, had their head under the dash. Insurance companies should give discounts to people with said box installed. An upgrade model should allow people to press a button an dump the last 30 seconds of driving "experience" to a removable source so they can send footage of really bad driving to the police and TV programs dedicated to making these people laughing stocks. comments? In your opinion, what is the maximum number of recommended information displays a HUD should feature? Can you specify related references? 7/19/00 4:11:36 PM Daniel McGehee This is a very complicated question that is easily several dissertations worth of information. I will try to address these questions briefly and provide additional references that you can explore offline. Your first question on the maximum number of recommended information displays a HUD should feature can be answered simply: It depends. There is a tendency for designers to think of such displays as a panacea. That is, since it intuitively seems that providing head-up information is best, then everything should be displayed using a head-up presentation. One comprehensive source on guidelines for automotive HUD information content is a PhD dissertation by Steve Jahns at the University of Iowa (Steven K. Jahns, 1996. Information content and format recommendations for automotive head-up displays, PhD Dissertation. University of Iowa). The guidelines cited in David Curry's response to this same question are based on Jahns' work. It is my personal opinion that if HUDs are used, they are best suited to display simple command information (e.g., turn-by-turn information for navigation). More complex information (such as a detailed map) can be more distracting than a head down display. Drivers also may feel over-confident in their glances to a HUD versus a dedicated head-down display (HDD). For instance drivers know that is dangerous to look away from the roadway when they look at a HDD, however, drivers may feel that a HUD is safer to look at even the information may be equally as demanding. Other status-based information is simply not important enough to require head-up presentation. For instance, a glance to the speedometer is a common occurrence, but not necessary a visually demanding task. Other driver status information such as telltales also are not critical enough for this type of display and may be more salient if flashed on the instrument panel. Unlike commercial and military aircraft, drivers need not react immediately to this type of information. The use of HUDs for crash avoidance information may also may be a detriment since the goal of crash warnings are to immediately orient the driver's attention to the hazard. Some other issues to consider before selecting a HUD as an information source include: Ambient light - Most drivers spend much of their time on-the-road during the day under high ambient light conditions. Cost limitations on current HUDs prevent salient information presentation during high ambient light conditions. Redundant information - Most, if not all information placed on HUDs in the past is redundant with the instrument panel. Designers need to consider the cost/benefit. Most HUDs to day are put on vehicles to increase the marketability of a vehicle. Perceptual capture- Although HUDs may be focused at a variety of distances in front of the vehicle, drivers still are required to perceptually capture the information, thus distracting them from the road (this is especially true for more attentionally demanding information). It is not possible to "look through the HUD" and see the environment ahead as well at the information display. We are "spot light" information processors-we are either looking at the HUD information or the outside environment. As a consequence, there are two distinct visual planes with HUDs and driving that independently require driver processing resources. A list of specific literature that takes into account (1) emerging technologies (2) cognitive load (3) the line of sight, and (4) driver preferences and adaptability to such a system can be found at the following link: www.uiowa.edu/~ppc/hudrefs.html What role can automation play in reducing the driver distraction problem? What automated or assistance systems can we expect to see in the future? 7/20/00 7:47:20 AM Steven Shladover The relationship between driver distraction and automation is complicated and needs to be considered in several parts, because the effects are likely to be quite different: automation systems that can augment the driver's driving activities by providing additional "eyes and ears"; automation systems that can partially substitute for the driver's driving activities; automation systems that can completely replace the driver's driving activities. The first category of automation systems represent collision or safety warning systems, using sensors to detect hazardous driving conditions and then processing the sensor outputs to determine when the driver needs to be warned. The warnings could be auditory (tones, buzzers, synthesized speech), haptic (vibration or torque applied to steering wheel, vibration or pressure to gas pedal or seat cushion), kinesthetic (application of brake pulse) or visual (lights on instrument panel, in mirrors or head-up display). The auditory, haptic and kinesthetic warnings could be very effective at catching the attention of a distracted driver IF they are well designed to elicit the "correct" emergency response from the driver. The visual warnings are less likely to help, since the distracted driver is not necessarily going to notice them. A variety of these systems have been introduced to the market for commercial trucks and buses in the U.S., to help avoid forward collisions, run-off-the-road crashes and side collisions during lane changes. However, the passenger car market has not yet seen any of these (except for short-range warnings to assist in parking, which are not really relevant to the driver distraction issue). A few such systems have recently been introduced in high-end cars in Japan. The second category of systems, providing control assistance to the driver, present a more complicated picture relative to driver distraction. The most prominent of these systems is adaptive cruise control (ACC), which uses a forward ranging sensor such as a radar to measure the distance and closing rate to the leading vehicle and then uses that information to adjust the speed of the equipped vehicle so that it maintains an "appropriate" separation behind the leading vehicle. Another system that has been proposed by some people is a lane keeping assistance system, which would provide an active torque to the steering wheel to tend to keep the vehicle centered in the lane, providing the driver the impression of driving in gentle ruts in the pavement. The ACC systems may be able to improve safety by encouraging drivers to follow at somewhat longer separations from other vehicles than they do today, and they may be able to reduce rear-end crashes caused by inattentive drivers overtaking slower vehicles. However, if drivers become overly reliant on the ACC and do not really understand its limitations (inability to sense stopped vehicles, road debris, and animal intrusions and inability to respond to aggressive cut-ins or abrupt stops of preceding vehicles), it has the potential to exacerbate the driver distraction problem. This could even encourage drivers to engage in more non-driving tasks than they do now while driving, which would be most unfortunate. I am not aware of any definitive data to confirm or refute these hypotheses, which are in urgent need of testing by drivers who do not know that they are being tested for these issues. Primitive ACC systems have been on the passenger car market in Japan for several years, while capable ACC systems were introduced in Europe last year and are likely to be available in the U.S. within the next year on select high-end cars and heavy trucks. The lane keeping assistance systems would pose substantially more serious concerns for driver distraction and are not under serious consideration as products at this time, as far as I can tell. Any attempt to combine lane keeping assistance with ACC has the potential to be disastrous, because it would present the driver with a simulacrum of automated driving, which some drivers would be tempted to abuse by ignoring their driving responsibilities. The third category of automation systems, which completely take over the driving function, raise an additional set of issues. These systems are not subject to distraction themselves, so while they are in use the driver distraction problem per se becomes a moot issue. The driver can turn his/her attention to other issues, or "tune out" completely, without raising safety concerns. However, the important issue then becomes how to re-engage the driver's attention at the end of the automated drive so that s/he can take over driving from the exit of the automated highway facility to his/her final destination. There are also some longer-term challenges associated with the possible decrement of driving skills or driving attentiveness by drivers who do a large fraction of their travel in the automated mode, but still need to do considerable conventional driving. It is important that they not carry over their expectations for performing other activities during the automated drive into their conventional manual driving behavior. The fully automated driving capabilities are likely to become available only to transit bus and commercial truck drivers on specially equipped facilities within the coming decade; passenger car drivers will probably need to wait until the decade after. Confusing radio controls 7/20/00 4:05:31 PM Submitted Anonymously Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier Since almost everybody has a radio in their car, improved radio design could save many lives. Having driven many types of vehicles as part of my job, I cannot believe how distracting the controls on some of the radios are. The worst offenders that I can think of are... - BMW (5-Series and X5) with a row buttons of the same size that control different things depending on mode. The controls functions are labeled on a display adjacent to the buttons and this requires the driver to look down for a long time to figure out what is going on. The navigation system on the 7-Series is also very distracting with buttons to the side of the screen and touch buttons on the screen. - Volkswagen radios with many small buttons arranged in a non-logical fashion on a small single DIN faceplate have caused me to look away from the road too long even after I became familiar with them. - Lexus RX300 with some of the radio controls on the faceplate and others several inches away on separate buttons right below the LCD screen. There are also similar looking/feeling buttons for the ventilation controls right below the faceplate readio controls. Steering wheel controls are a great thing to prevent distraction but in case they are not used, the main radio controls should be easy to read, easy to distinguish from buttons with other functions by using different shapes and sizes. Older vs. Younger 7/24/00 9:47:24 PM T Ulrich Private Citizen Refering to: Divided Attention Ability of Young and Older Drivers How long did it take you to figure this out? E-mail in the car 7/24/00 10:09:21 PM T Ulrich Private Citizen Refering to: Speech-based Interaction with In-vehicle Computers: The Effect of Speech-based E-mail on Drivers’ Attention to the Roadway I know this is a serious topic, but at some point, one has to employ basic common sense. Without it, all the preventitive measures will not assist the driver or his fellow drivers from running into trouble. The probability of an accident or close call is directly related to the control of random variables that cannot be quatitatively measured. Using a statistical model is ineffectual. When it comes right down to it some things are just not a good mix. If someone says driving 200 miles per hour is ok under certain circumstances. The qualifiers for this statement are precise and not applicable to a general recognized standard for the public. HUD usage 7/26/00 1:46:27 PM Refering to: In your opinion, what is the maximum number of recommended information displays a HUD should feature? There was an interesting article in an Air Force magazine several weeks ago. They have found that the best people who make good fighter pilots are ones with ADD/ADHD (Attention Deficit Disorder). Evidently they can handle multiple visual inputs better because of this disorder. I feel that HUD's should be used in place of dash board located gauges and dials. Integrate this with night vision technology and collision avoidance technology and I feel that you will see a drop in collisions. Of course proper training should be conducted for best results. Also, something I have noticed in some of the newer vehicles is radio and speed controls mounted on the steering wheel. No taking eyes off the road or hands off the steering wheel to make change. HUD usage 7/26/00 1:47:16 PM Refering to: In your opinion, what is the maximum number of recommended information displays a HUD should feature? There was an interesting article in an Air Force magazine several weeks ago. They have found that the best people who make good fighter pilots are ones with ADD/ADHD (Attention Deficit Disorder). Evidently they can handle multiple visual inputs better because of this disorder. I feel that HUD's should be used in place of dash board located gauges and dials. Integrate this with night vision technology and collision avoidance technology and I feel that you will see a drop in collisions. Of course proper training should be conducted for best results. Also, something I have noticed in some of the newer vehicles is radio and speed controls mounted on the steering wheel. No taking eyes off the road or hands off the steering wheel to make changes. Radio/CD player designs need standards 7/31/00 2:13:49 AM trip allen Private Citizen Refering to: Confusing radio controls I agree with the comments about poor radio controls designs in many of todays supposed best driving machines. We had a Audi A4 for a week of vacation in May, and never could get the radio to function. The buttons made absolutely no sense. What happened to good German information design with icons that communicated across cultures? I've been shopping for a new radio/CD player for our car. I'm a industrial designer, and I'm astounded by the lack of human factor and operational considerations in the design of most of these units. Tiny buttons placed all about with little logic. Graphic light shows and all sorts of goo-gah. Tilting faces. The stuff is so goofy, I'm insulted, and have put off my purchase until I see something with some safety factors and ease-of-use come to market. I dare one of the brands to step up with some intelligent product that seperates itself from the 12-18 yr old homogeneous marketing demographic target of the Panasony-Kenwoo-Alpineer-JVCpunkt toy boys. Hint -- knobs rule over buttons for volume and station search! How about some safety standards on these technical supersoakers? Integration and solutions causing potential new problems 8/1/00 10:09:55 AM Thomas Ranney (Moderator) Academia/ Research Firm Refering to: Possible solution I was encouraged by your examples of an in-dash phone that automatically mutes the radio and auto-answer for incoming calls. They show evidence of what is critically needed in this area - attention to how new technologies will interact with existing ones in competing for the driver's attention. I wanted also to offer a scenario of how I can imagine drivers defeating the safety interlock you suggest. Specifically, I can easily imagine drivers, who are eager to get to their email, putting their vehicles in park or neutral at every intersection and being increasingly slow in returning to driving once the light changes to green, which of course would exacerbate the existing problem of very slow start-up at some very congested intersections. There has been some discussion of bringing broadcast television into vehicles but limiting access to when the vehicle is similarly stopped. Here I can imagine gridlock at a critical moment in the Super Bowel, in which all drivers have stopped, wherever they are to see the outcome of the play. This raises a question - For those of you who are bothered by the very slow start-up at intersections when the light changes from red to green, have you noticed that these delays seem longer in recent years, which would be evidence that drivers are increasingly distracted generally, relative to similar situations, say 10 or 20 years ago? Radio content can be distracting 8/1/00 10:25:10 AM Thomas Ranney (Moderator) Academia/ Research Firm Refering to: disable devices while car is in motion I agree with your assessment of the question. Some do not offer a good response. I also generally agree with your assessment, although I would not personally presume to speak for the needs of all drivers. I imagine that many drivers feel absolutely compelled to answer their ringing phone, even if they are in a very dangerous driving situation. I have two further thoughts. First, I commented elsewhere on potential problems that may be caused by drivers trying to defeat interlock devices. I think such disabling would provide strong motivation to some for behaviors of this sort. Second, I want to share my experience of being (mentally) transported far away from the driving task occassionally during very compelling radio programs. Radio listening can, in my experience, be as distracting as anything else, when the listener becomes so engrossed in the program that s/he loses awareness of all else. Ergonomic design and visual pollution 8/3/00 2:14:33 PM Craig Biggerstaff Private Citizen Visual pollution (the assault on the senses of distracting lights, signs, controls, etc.) is the single biggest factor in increased driving complexity, because it's increasing the fastest. NHTSA needs to assess both auto design standards and how the surrounding environment affects the driver. The cardinal rules of ergonomics are these: 1. Use placement, color, shape, size, brightness, and so forth, to express function. Avoid using visual elements that do not express function. 2. Provide prime (front-and-center) placement to the most necessary, most important, and most often used visual elements. 3. Avoid visual elements that draw the eye away from more important elements. Counterexamples to illustrate these points: a. The dash design of a 1990 Mazda Miata is nearly ideal, containing almost nothing unnecessary within the driver's field of vision. The exception is the letters "UNLEADED GASOLINE ONLY" in 24-point type, put there no doubt due to regulation. Given the proportion of time a driver spends driving, versus filling the tank, there is no justification for cluttering the dash in this way. b. Red lighting does not impair night vision as does blue-white lighting. Astronomers and pilots rely on red-lit instruments for this reason. Yet new cars are increasingly using blue-white xenon headlights despite their detrimental effect on other drivers. Some European cars have yellowish headlights -- should we adopt this? Has any research been done comparing international standards to American ones for effectiveness? c. Controls within a car are often laid out to look "high-tech" and impress the buyer, not to improve usability. An array of 30 buttons, particularly backlit for night usage, requires considerable driver effort to find the desired button in the clutter. d. Addition of visual elements do not help. Subtraction is what is needed. This is why daytime running lights and "cyclops" rear center taillights do not help -- the supposed safety value of these is due to their novelty. When a majority of cars have these, they cease to stand out and increase the ambient level of visual pollution, causing drivers to pay even less attention. As another example of this, consider that police lights years ago were rotating red, then rotating blue, and now generally rotating red, blue, and white (flashing strobe) together, in an arms race to be seen. Ergonomic design and visual pollution (ergonomically improved!) 8/3/00 2:23:18 PM Craig Biggerstaff Private Citizen Refering to: Ergonomic design and visual pollution Visual pollution (the assault on the senses of distracting lights, signs, controls, etc.) is the single biggest factor in increased driving complexity, particularly because it's increasing the fastest. NHTSA needs to assess both auto design standards and how the surrounding environment affects the driver. The cardinal rules of ergonomics are these: 1. Use placement, color, shape, size, brightness, and so forth, to express function. Avoid using visual elements that do not express function. 2. Provide prime (front-and-center) placement to the most necessary, most important, and most often used visual elements. 3. Avoid visual elements that draw the eye away from more important elements. A few counterexamples to illustrate these points: a. The dash design of a 1990 Mazda Miata is nearly ideal, containing almost nothing unnecessary within the driver's field of vision. The exception is the letters "UNLEADED GASOLINE ONLY" in 24-point type, put there no doubt due to regulation. Given the proportion of time a driver spends driving, versus filling the tank, there is no justification for cluttering the dash in this way. b. Red lighting does not impair night vision as does blue-white lighting. Astronomers and pilots rely on red-lit instruments for this reason. Yet new cars are increasingly using blue-white xenon headlights despite their detrimental effect on other drivers. Some European cars have yellowish headlights -- should we adopt this? Has any research been done comparing international standards to American ones for effectiveness? c. Controls within a car are often laid out to look "high-tech" and impress the buyer, not to improve usability. An array of 30 buttons, particularly backlit for night usage, requires considerable driver effort to find the desired button in the clutter. d. Addition of visual elements do not help. Subtraction is what is needed. This is why daytime running lights and "cyclops" rear center taillights do not help -- the supposed safety value of these is due to their novelty. When a majority of cars have these, they cease to stand out and increase the ambient level of visual pollution, causing drivers to pay even less attention. As another example of this, consider that police lights years ago were rotating red, then rotating blue, and now generally rotating red, blue, and white flashing strobe together, in an arms race to be seen.
Research Needs
	On the Need for Driver Attention Support Systems Authors: Victor , T. (Volvo Technological Development Corporation) View Entire Paper Abstract Driver inattention is the most prevalent primary cause of collisions, accounting for an estimated 25-56%. Among the Inattention causes, Distraction and Looked-but-did-not-see are more frequently reported factors in crashes than Sleepy/fell asleep (e.g. Wang et al, 1996). Important crash types involving inattention have are rear-end, intersection, lane change/merge, road departure, and single vehicle crashes. Changes in visual scanning patterns, gaze fixations (number and length), and percentage eye closure are promising occular-based indicators of attention and alertness, and can potentially be integrated in future in-vehicle attention support systems. The present research aims at improving driver attention with feedback and providing vehicle systems with real-time knowledge of driver visual behavior. Develop a driver alarm system to warn of pedestrians/bicycles also using roadway 7/20/00 8:12:44 PM Dave Noyes Private Citizen One way to increase a driver's awareness and prevent severe accidents is to develop a system that would alert drivers to pedestrians or bicyclists also traveling on the road/shoulder in the car's vicinity. It should be rather simple to develop. Pedestrians / bicyclists that want the added protection would wear a small transmitter. Cars would be equipped with a receiver and alarm/light that would alert the driver when the pedestrian/bicyclist was within a certain distance. This system has the benefit of working where visibility is limited (such as around curves) so I think it would work better than heads-up displays. Pedestrians/bicyclists do not have seat belts or air bags or the protection of hundreds of pounds of sheet metal so most vehicle/pedestrian accidents involve loss of life. Pedestrians/bicyclists really need the added protection this type of system could provide.