Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [vuids] A wrinkle in the mobile + driving saga

Expand Messages
  • Jenni McKienzie
    They barely touched on what I ve thought is the problem all along. It s not the hands-free that s the issue, it s the talking that s the issue. There is just
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 1, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      They barely touched on what I've thought is the problem all along.  It's not the hands-free that's the issue, it's the talking that's the issue.  There is just something about carrying on a phone conversation vs one with somebody in the car that is more distracting.


      On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Eduardo Olvera <ed_olvera@...> wrote:
       

      On the other hand, maybe some of the new embedded car systems will help since I know they impose certain restrictions on what features can be used depending on the vehicle status, so for example certain functions were designed to only work while stopped or parked.

      Eduardo

      On Jan 30, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Phillip Hunter <phillip@...> wrote:

      While this still leaves the door open for the hands-free-is-not-any-better argument, it appears that legislation may not be the savior some hoped:

      http://is.gd/7mpmj

      ph


    • Peter Nann
      Interesting... Here s an off-the-wall theory (or maybe not so???) Maybe it s (at least partly) got to do with audio quality. You know: when audio is soft, poor
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 1, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Interesting...

        Here's an off-the-wall theory (or maybe not so???)

        Maybe it's (at least partly) got to do with audio quality.
        You know: when audio is soft, poor quality or hard to hear (like - "Is that my baby crying in the other room?"), you will often go through levels of:
        1) Stopping what you are doing and concentrate (Even if what you are doing is making no noise whatsoever)
        2) Cock your ear towards the source,
        3) Close (or squint) your eyes and listen real hard...

        So, my theory is that the less clear an audio source is, the more 'higher functioning' your brain has to apply to figure out what is being said/heard, and hence the less 'other stuff' your brain has capacity to do (like driving safely).

        So I wonder if simply improving telephone audio quality immensely (with high-bandwidth 3G codecs etc), could reduce the problem. Of course well-designed microphones and speakers would be needed to do the codec justice too.

        Just a theory!


        The other 2 theories someone here stated make some sense too.
        In case you missed them, paraphrasing:
        a) That 'remote' conversations are different because we often have to make an effort to 'imagine' the situation the other caller is in to have a contextually-sensible conversation (A 'theory of mind' instinct of sorts?).
        b) That a 'local' conversation means the other person knows the traffic context (Eg knows to shut up when you are over-taking an 18-wheeler on the highway).

        I would also add that:
        c) Telephone calls tend to be somewhat more rushed conversations (An in-car conversation is generally just filling in time!)
        d) Telephone calls probably are more 'serious' on average than a casual in-car conversation. Eg You might negotiate a point on a sale/contract/agreement on the phone driving, but you'd rarely get into that sort of conversation _with_ someone in the car with you.



        And did someone mention going off-topic?
        I think this group is low-volume enough to allow a bit of leeway on topics... ;-)





        From: vuids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vuids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jenni McKienzie
        Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 4:29 AM
        To: vuids@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [vuids] A wrinkle in the mobile + driving saga



        They barely touched on what I've thought is the problem all along.  It's not the hands-free that's the issue, it's the talking that's the issue.  There is just something about carrying on a phone conversation vs one with somebody in the car that is more distracting.
      • philshinn
        http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/07/18/technology/1194841442782/distracted-drivers.html
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 2, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/07/18/technology/1194841442782/distracted-drivers.html

          --- In vuids@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nann" <peter.nann@...> wrote:
          >
          > Interesting...
          >
          > Here's an off-the-wall theory (or maybe not so???)
          >
          > Maybe it's (at least partly) got to do with audio quality.
          > You know: when audio is soft, poor quality or hard to hear (like - "Is that my baby crying in the other room?"), you will often go through levels of:
          > 1) Stopping what you are doing and concentrate (Even if what you are doing is making no noise whatsoever)
          > 2) Cock your ear towards the source,
          > 3) Close (or squint) your eyes and listen real hard...
          >
          > So, my theory is that the less clear an audio source is, the more 'higher functioning' your brain has to apply to figure out what is being said/heard, and hence the less 'other stuff' your brain has capacity to do (like driving safely).
          >
          > So I wonder if simply improving telephone audio quality immensely (with high-bandwidth 3G codecs etc), could reduce the problem. Of course well-designed microphones and speakers would be needed to do the codec justice too.
          >
          > Just a theory!
          >
          >
          > The other 2 theories someone here stated make some sense too.
          > In case you missed them, paraphrasing:
          > a) That 'remote' conversations are different because we often have to make an effort to 'imagine' the situation the other caller is in to have a contextually-sensible conversation (A 'theory of mind' instinct of sorts?).
          > b) That a 'local' conversation means the other person knows the traffic context (Eg knows to shut up when you are over-taking an 18-wheeler on the highway).
          >
          > I would also add that:
          > c) Telephone calls tend to be somewhat more rushed conversations (An in-car conversation is generally just filling in time!)
          > d) Telephone calls probably are more 'serious' on average than a casual in-car conversation. Eg You might negotiate a point on a sale/contract/agreement on the phone driving, but you'd rarely get into that sort of conversation _with_ someone in the car with you.
          >
          >
          >
          > And did someone mention going off-topic?
          > I think this group is low-volume enough to allow a bit of leeway on topics... ;-)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > From: vuids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vuids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jenni McKienzie
          > Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 4:29 AM
          > To: vuids@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [vuids] A wrinkle in the mobile + driving saga
          >
          >
          >
          > They barely touched on what I've thought is the problem all along.  It's not the hands-free that's the issue, it's the talking that's the issue.  There is just something about carrying on a phone conversation vs one with somebody in the car that is more distracting.
          >
        • Bruce Papazian
          Here s a related video made at the UMass Human Performance Lab (my Alma mater) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23791723#23791723 They re developing
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 2, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
             Here's a related video made at the UMass Human Performance Lab (my Alma mater) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23791723#23791723
            They're developing risk assessment training methods to improve driving safety (and change multitasking behavior).  http://www.ecs.umass.edu/hpl/RAPT.htm
            At 65 mph a car travels 95 ft in 2 seconds.

            At 10:06 AM 2/2/2010, philshinn wrote:
             

            http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/07/18/technology/1194841442782/distracted-drivers.html

            --- In vuids@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nann" <peter.nann@...> wrote:
            >
            > Interesting...
            >
            > Here's an off-the-wall theory (or maybe not so???)
            >
            > Maybe it's (at least partly) got to do with audio quality.
            > You know: when audio is soft, poor quality or hard to hear (like - "Is that my baby crying in the other room?"), you will often go through levels of:
            > 1) Stopping what you are doing and concentrate (Even if what you are doing is making no noise whatsoever)
            > 2) Cock your ear towards the source,
            > 3) Close (or squint) your eyes and listen real hard...
            >
            > So, my theory is that the less clear an audio source is, the more 'higher functioning' your brain has to apply to figure out what is being said/heard, and hence the less 'other stuff' your brain has capacity to do (like driving safely).
            >
            > So I wonder if simply improving telephone audio quality immensely (with high-bandwidth 3G codecs etc), could reduce the problem. Of course well-designed microphones and speakers would be needed to do the codec justice too.
            >
            > Just a theory!
            >
            >
            > The other 2 theories someone here stated make some sense too.
            > In case you missed them, paraphrasing:
            > a) That 'remote' conversations are different because we often have to make an effort to 'imagine' the situation the other caller is in to have a contextually-sensible conversation (A 'theory of mind' instinct of sorts?).
            > b) That a 'local' conversation means the other person knows the traffic context (Eg knows to shut up when you are over-taking an 18-wheeler on the highway).
            >
            > I would also add that:
            > c) Telephone calls tend to be somewhat more rushed conversations (An in-car conversation is generally just filling in time!)
            > d) Telephone calls probably are more 'serious' on average than a casual in-car conversation. Eg You might negotiate a point on a sale/contract/agreement on the phone driving, but you'd rarely get into that sort of conversation _with_ someone in the car with you.
            >
            >
            >
            > And did someone mention going off-topic?
            > I think this group is low-volume enough to allow a bit of leeway on topics... ;-)
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > From: vuids@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:vuids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jenni McKienzie
            > Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 4:29 AM
            > To: vuids@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [vuids] A wrinkle in the mobile + driving saga
            >
            >
            >
            > They barely touched on what I've thought is the problem all along.  It's not the hands-free that's the issue, it's the talking that's the issue.  There is just something about carrying on a phone conversation vs one with somebody in the car that is more distracting.
            >

            BPIdesign
            6 Stonecutters Path
            Harvard, MA 01451
            brucepapazian@...
            978-835-3124

          • Peter Nann
            ... I like the sound of that. It makes sense to me that poor risk assessment could be the root issue moreso than distraction per se. Effective training on
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 2, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > They're developing risk assessment training methods...

              I like the sound of that.
              It makes sense to me that "poor risk assessment" could be the root issue moreso than distraction per se.

              Effective training on "risk assessment" to all new drivers sounds like a mighty fine idea...



              From: vuids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vuids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Papazian
              Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2010 8:48 AM
              To: vuids@yahoogroups.com; vuids@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [vuids] Re: A wrinkle in the mobile + driving saga



               Here's a related video made at the UMass Human Performance Lab (my Alma mater) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23791723#23791723
              They're developing risk assessment training methods to improve driving safety (and change multitasking behavior).  http://www.ecs.umass.edu/hpl/RAPT.htm
              At 65 mph a car travels 95 ft in 2 seconds.

              At 10:06 AM 2/2/2010, philshinn wrote:

               

              http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/07/18/technology/1194841442782/distracted-drivers.html

              --- In vuids@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nann" <peter.nann@...> wrote:
              >
              > Interesting...
              >
              > Here's an off-the-wall theory (or maybe not so???)
              >
              > Maybe it's (at least partly) got to do with audio quality.
              > You know: when audio is soft, poor quality or hard to hear (like - "Is that my baby crying in the other room?"), you will often go through levels of:
              > 1) Stopping what you are doing and concentrate (Even if what you are doing is making no noise whatsoever)
              > 2) Cock your ear towards the source,
              > 3) Close (or squint) your eyes and listen real hard...
              >
              > So, my theory is that the less clear an audio source is, the more 'higher functioning' your brain has to apply to figure out what is being said/heard, and hence the less 'other stuff' your brain has capacity to do (like driving safely).
              >
              > So I wonder if simply improving telephone audio quality immensely (with high-bandwidth 3G codecs etc), could reduce the problem. Of course well-designed microphones and speakers would be needed to do the codec justice too.
              >
              > Just a theory!
              >
              >
              > The other 2 theories someone here stated make some sense too.
              > In case you missed them, paraphrasing:
              > a) That 'remote' conversations are different because we often have to make an effort to 'imagine' the situation the other caller is in to have a contextually-sensible conversation (A 'theory of mind' instinct of sorts?).
              > b) That a 'local' conversation means the other person knows the traffic context (Eg knows to shut up when you are over-taking an 18-wheeler on the highway).
              >
              > I would also add that:
              > c) Telephone calls tend to be somewhat more rushed conversations (An in-car conversation is generally just filling in time!)
              > d) Telephone calls probably are more 'serious' on average than a casual in-car conversation. Eg You might negotiate a point on a sale/contract/agreement on the phone driving, but you'd rarely get into that sort of conversation _with_ someone in the car with you.
              >
              >
              >
              > And did someone mention going off-topic?
              > I think this group is low-volume enough to allow a bit of leeway on topics... ;-)
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > From: vuids@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:vuids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jenni McKienzie
              > Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 4:29 AM
              > To: vuids@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [vuids] A wrinkle in the mobile + driving saga
              >
              >
              >
              > They barely touched on what I've thought is the problem all along.  It's not the hands-free that's the issue, it's the talking that's the issue.  There is just something about carrying on a phone conversation vs one with somebody in the car that is more distracting.
              >
              BPIdesign
              6 Stonecutters Path
              Harvard, MA 01451
              brucepapazian@...
              978-835-3124
            • Bruce Papazian
              Interesting that people who are more prone to multitasking tend also to be relatively bad at it.
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 4, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment

                Interesting that people who are more prone to multitasking tend also to be relatively bad at it.
                http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/august24/multitask-research-study-082409.html



                At 09:38 PM 2/2/2010, Peter Nann wrote:
                 

                > They're developing risk assessment training methods...

                I like the sound of that.
                It makes sense to me that "poor risk assessment" could be the root issue moreso than distraction per se.

                Effective training on "risk assessment" to all new drivers sounds like a mighty fine idea...

                From: vuids@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:vuids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Papazian
                Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2010 8:48 AM
                To: vuids@yahoogroups.com; vuids@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [vuids] Re: A wrinkle in the mobile + driving saga

                 Here's a related video made at the UMass Human Performance Lab (my Alma mater) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23791723#23791723
                They're developing risk assessment training methods to improve driving safety (and change multitasking behavior).  http://www.ecs.umass.edu/hpl/RAPT.htm
                At 65 mph a car travels 95 ft in 2 seconds.

                At 10:06 AM 2/2/2010, philshinn wrote:

                 

                http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/07/18/technology/1194841442782/distracted-drivers.html

                --- In vuids@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nann" <peter.nann@...> wrote:
                >
                > Interesting...
                >
                > Here's an off-the-wall theory (or maybe not so???)
                >
                > Maybe it's (at least partly) got to do with audio quality.
                > You know: when audio is soft, poor quality or hard to hear (like - "Is that my baby crying in the other room?"), you will often go through levels of:
                > 1) Stopping what you are doing and concentrate (Even if what you are doing is making no noise whatsoever)
                > 2) Cock your ear towards the source,
                > 3) Close (or squint) your eyes and listen real hard...
                >
                > So, my theory is that the less clear an audio source is, the more 'higher functioning' your brain has to apply to figure out what is being said/heard, and hence the less 'other stuff' your brain has capacity to do (like driving safely).
                >
                > So I wonder if simply improving telephone audio quality immensely (with high-bandwidth 3G codecs etc), could reduce the problem. Of course well-designed microphones and speakers would be needed to do the codec justice too.
                >
                > Just a theory!
                >
                >
                > The other 2 theories someone here stated make some sense too.
                > In case you missed them, paraphrasing:
                > a) That 'remote' conversations are different because we often have to make an effort to 'imagine' the situation the other caller is in to have a contextually-sensible conversation (A 'theory of mind' instinct of sorts?).
                > b) That a 'local' conversation means the other person knows the traffic context (Eg knows to shut up when you are over-taking an 18-wheeler on the highway).
                >
                > I would also add that:
                > c) Telephone calls tend to be somewhat more rushed conversations (An in-car conversation is generally just filling in time!)
                > d) Telephone calls probably are more 'serious' on average than a casual in-car conversation. Eg You might negotiate a point on a sale/contract/agreement on the phone driving, but you'd rarely get into that sort of conversation _with_ someone in the car with you.
                >
                >
                >
                > And did someone mention going off-topic?
                > I think this group is low-volume enough to allow a bit of leeway on topics... ;-)
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > From: vuids@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:vuids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jenni McKienzie
                > Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 4:29 AM
                > To: vuids@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [vuids] A wrinkle in the mobile + driving saga
                >
                >
                >
                > They barely touched on what I've thought is the problem all along.  It's not the hands-free that's the issue, it's the talking that's the issue.  There is just something about carrying on a phone conversation vs one with somebody in the car that is more distracting.
                >
                BPIdesign
                6 Stonecutters Path
                Harvard, MA 01451
                brucepapazian@...
                978-835-3124

                BPIdesign
                6 Stonecutters Path
                Harvard, MA 01451
                brucepapazian@...
                978-835-3124

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.