How's my driving? Ask my car

Posted: Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:10 PM by Alan Boyle

Shawn Allen / NADS / Univ. of Iowa

Meiji Zhang tries to use a cell phone in a driving simulator that's designed to work
like a Chevy Malibu. The University of Iowa's National Advanced Driving Simulator
helps researchers safely study a wide variety of driving situations.

Using gadgets while you're driving can be a very bad thing, but an expert on automotive distractions says using a gadget that watches you while you're driving can be a very good thing.

"People don't always understand the degree of distraction they may be exposing themselves to ... so the idea is to help people understand that distraction by providing them with feedback," John D. Lee, a professor of mechanical and industrial engineering at the University of Iowa, told me today.

Lee outlines the magnitude of the problem in an essay published in this week's issue of the journal Science: More than 40,000 people die every year in motor vehicle crashes, and research indicates that failures of attention - including distractions or drowsiness - probably played a role in most of those crashes.

Crashes and near-crashes are about three times as likely to happen when the driver is performing a complex task not related to driving (such as dialing a phone or even texting), and twice as likely during a moderately complex task (such as inserting a CD), Lee reported.

As new technologies are introduced, the list of potential distractions keeps getting longer. Questions have been raised about dashboard GPS navigation devices, for example, as well as "green" energy-monitoring displays.

Of course, most drivers overestimate their own abilities: In one survey, 88 percent of the respondents judged themselves to be safer than the average driver. And Lee said his own camera-monitoring research has shown that teen drivers in particular "don't notice what they don't notice."

In one case he studied, a driver looked away from the road for 6 seconds to tap out a text message on her phone, slipped out of her lane and came to attention only when the tires hit the curb. "When she actually saw the video from the perspective of the camera, she was shocked to learn that she almost hit a telephone pole at 40 miles per hour," Lee said.

So how does watching the driver help? Lee's method was to install a special camera system that saves video snippets for the 10 seconds before and after every abrupt movement on the road.

"We took that video, put it on a CD, and then we had a 'report card' that shows the number of events that the teen driver experienced over time," he said. "It had a pretty dramatic effect on teens, in terms of the frequency of these abrupt steering and braking events that are often associated with distractions."

After the feedback sessions, the number of events triggered by risky drivers declined 89 percent, Lee said, and the rate of risky driving remained low even six weeks later.

After-the-fact monitoring systems are being used to check up on motor-fleet drivers as well as teenagers, and Lee told me it won't be long before real-time monitors show up as well. "There are video cameras that are being developed and actually being put into cars - high-end Toyota and Volvo models, for example. [They're] video-based face-tracking systems that tell whether the driver is looking at the road or looking into the car," he said.

NADS / Univ. of Iowa

A computer-generated graphic shows the University of Iowa's
National Advanced Driving Simulator, with a cutaway view of a
vehicle cab and projection screens inside.

Such a feature, sometimes known as a drowsiness warning system, would likely be wrapped up as an optional package with other advanced safety features such as forward collision avoidance, side collision warning and blindspot detection, Lee said. Among the oft-used catchphrases for these technologies is "intelligent transportation system" or "intelligent vehicle technology."

Japan's Nissan Motor Co. even suggested that future cars could automatically sound an alarm and release "a stimulating mint fragrance" if they sense that the driver is dozing off.

Can a car become too smart for our own good? Last year, my colleague Bob Sullivan wrote about computerized car-trackers that could record when and how far you're driving - as well as how many abrupt stops and starts you put your car through. Some insurance companies are offering discounts for drivers who use the tracking devices, but privacy watchdogs worry that this sort of thing could eventually turn Big Brother into a back-seat driver.

"Obviously there are issues of privacy that come into play as you collect these data about drivers," Lee said. "I think about that, but I really haven't studied that in detail."

Instead, Lee is focusing on technologies that will help drivers help themselves. "Having your car know a little bit more about you and your behavior might well be worth it in terms of the number of lives saved," he said.

What do you think? Will artificially intelligent driving bring us closer to highway nirvana or a "Duel" nightmare? Feel free to add your comments below.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I think it's a brilliant idea to monitor and record driving habits that way...provided the data gathered remains only in the hands of the vehicle owners, and can't be arbitrarily obtained without due process by any outside agency. Also, they may convince my wife that she's the worse one to ride with when she's driving. :)

Wedded Bliss (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 10:04 AM)

I expect that self driving cars will be commercially available in the next 20 years. There have already been contests of fully robotic cars traveling a test track through a variety of obstacles and terrains. The time when you can sit in yoiur car and read a book while it drives itself to your destination can't be that far off. It's hardly even science fiction any more.

Steven Gross, Portland, ME (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 10:40 AM)

Opps Mr Jones our records show your car speeding three times this year. You have a 250 dollar fine and your insurance has doubled. What do you mean it wasnt you , are records are right and you must pay.

jeff s (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 11:32 AM)

I would definitely use this technology if it was made available in regular (not luxury) cars. I admit I need to improve my own driving, and I know this would be so useful for me.

Anonymous, Vienna, VA (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 11:47 AM)

Interesting article Alan. Sadly the truth is that there are too many useless gadgets in our cars, like cell phones, that keep drivers distracted and make them rather unsafe. Ironically that gadget that watches people drive is yet another distraction that makes drivers less safe. People need to be more alert and rely upon themselves to understand how they are driving. Allowing people to become lazy and dependent upon gadgets won't help drivers become more careful.

I'm hoping for the day when that old ad from the 50's comes true about having computers control our cars so we can drive with safety no matter how many gadgets we have distracting us. That new Volvo gadget that breaks automatically is nifty but people will become lazy and reliant on it and if it has a glitch oops crash, bang, crunch.

People should use their brains more often and rely less on gadgets in their daily lives. I think GPS is cheating and just plain lazy. Heck with MapQuest we can print out nifty local maps of wherever we go and there's a bit of fun finding the destination with one's own wits, you know like a car treasure hunt.

Eric, Salinas, CA (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 11:49 AM)

Put it in the hands of parents. Make it a requirement for teen drivers and reviewable by the state. There are very few rights here to be violated. Driving is a privielge. My safety from the idiot 17 year old down the street trumps your privacy concern.

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 12:09 PM)

This is awesome. I don't know how many people I don't see driving, because they are reaching for something in the passenger seat, or messing with the radio. I even think this could help for some of those elder drivers who seem to wander a bit on the road. Finally, someone looking at more of a safety aspect instead of fuel efficiency all the time!

Chris, Milwaukee, WI (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 1:47 PM)

It would be great for truck drivers if the system could recognize that the driver is getting tired and take over. There is enough information out there to give the computer system an idea how long to go before stopping for fuel and where to stop. This is among other issues. They could keep a more steady speed and not have a huge ego that needs to pass people.

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 1:51 PM)

Yeah, when the install the computer that drives the car for you, I hope they include a cooler.....so the robodriver gets the dui, instead of your or I.....

Cool..... (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 2:34 PM)

I could see the technology being used to improve driving ability.

Television Spy (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 2:52 PM)

This simulator technology should be employed in all driver education courses so that new drivers (especially teens) can be made aware of the dangers of distracted driving. Keep our children alive.

J. McCright - La Plata, MD (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 3:14 PM)

I think monitoring commercial drivers is a good idea. But also it would eventually evolve into a means for government or corporate entities to keep tabs on people. It inevitably will result in invasion of privacy.
As for the self-driving cars, while it would be nice on a long trip, I like driving. So I would want the option to be able to drive my car manually if I want. Perhaps it’s my 23 year old testosterone poisoning talking, but I only wish speed limits were a little higher.

Gavin R, Stillwater, Oklahoma (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 4:30 PM)

Big Brother is watching you!

JOHN EVERS (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 5:44 PM)

Another way our government can keep tabs on us. Once again we will be at the mercy of the "slowest kids in the class". Count me out.

Raise the bar for drivers and weed out those that can't drive patiently, cautiously, safely, or courteously. If you're uncomfortable driving the speed limit then you shouldn't be driving. If you're going to slow you are a hazard to the rest of us who have control at the posted limit. Take a bus.

To the morons that drive with their cell phones on the left side of their head. Stop trying to change lanes when your phone hand is blocking your mirror view. It doesn't work. It's time to enforce headsets and ban the use of cell phones held against your ear.

Bob, San Antonio, TX (Sent Friday, April 17, 2009 9:15 PM)

i thought this was still the usa not some big brother society where personal freedom is discarded as not needed. until i smash up vehicles and hurt and kill other people please leave me alone. phil bell

phil bell mercer pa (Sent Saturday, April 18, 2009 12:56 PM)

Unfortunatly Tim Rommes, your stereotyping. Not all teens are dangerous drivers, and most have better driving habits then the adults, thats why all these driver training courses are available, because the average adult isnt a good enough driver to be teaching their kid to drive. your suggestion wont happen in the next 20 years, guaranteed.

Logan Conner, Canada (Sent Saturday, April 18, 2009 5:37 PM)

I'm all for monitoring devices on vehicles. Driving is a privaledge, not a right. Been on the road for 30 years, never got a ticket. But i have seen countless accidents where distractions or plain ignorance of the law had injured or even killed peaple. this has convinced me we need them, and LIFE is more important than 'percieved privacy' when you are allready in public. and if you are obeying the law and driving properly, what do you have to hide?

Jude Guardi, Columbus, Ohio (Sent Saturday, April 18, 2009 7:37 PM)

[...] First, the 17 year old down the street, specifically, is an idiot and is extremely dangerous when he drives because he drives like there will be nothing unexpected. There won't be anybody around that blind corner he's taking at 30 mph, there won't be anyone moving into the left turn lane at that next intersection so he can use it as a passing lane. Second, insurance rates are higher for teen drivers because they do, generally, drive less safely. The insurance industry agrees with me. I guess they stereotype, too. It's just that they do it based on hard numbers. I'm sure you're thinking of that one or two teen drivers that could teach us all lessons on driving safely, they're out there, I know some of them. They're the minority. [...]

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT (Sent Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:11 AM)

The insurance company known as "Progressive" offered me a 15% discount (regardless of how I drove) for just installing a device which plugs into my OBD-II port on my vehicle.

This device would monitor my acceleration rates, deceleration rates, travel speeds, as well as record the time of day during which I drove. I am certain it would record a lot more than that, things they would not tell me about, and naturally I would not have access to the information this device provided them with. It would download the information on a regular basis to Progressive via a cellular connection.

The Progressive representative I signed up with tried to persuade me with incentives aside from the 15% discount for just installing it, with statements such as "if we find your driving habits warrant, we will even do such things as decrease your insurance rates." The operative term in that statement is "if." Questions to which she had no answers were "and who decides 'if' I get a decrease in my insurance rates, how often are rate decreases 'considered,' and EXACTLY what all information, aside from that which you have mentioned so far, is gathered by this device?"

Fudge that noise. It seemed too Machiavellian for me. And what if I let someone borrow my car and they drive like a bat out of you-know-where? It gets held against me, and my insurance rates might go up due to it?

What if there's an actual emergency, such as one of my little nieces slips with a pair of scissors, cuts an artery, bleeds like mad, and there is no time to wait for an ambulance? In a case like that, I'm going to speed like a bat out of you-know-where, and for good reason (to save a loved one's life).

So for being a Good Samaritan, I can be punnished because some onboard vehicle fink tells my insurance company I did 110+MPH down the interstate, but naturally does not disclose the destination nor the reason why such an occurance took place?

Forget texting, forget gadgetry, forget all of that. What happened to privacy?

If these devices with video cameras end up being installed in all vehicles eventually, along with gadgets like OnStar and Progressive's fink unit, the initiative of privacy will have been completely lost.

You will no longer be able to just disappear if you want to get away from it all, as OnStar will be able to locate you. You will not be able to have privacy and pick your nose in your car without the risk of someone watching you via OnStar or whatever future services may be released. You will not be able to speed up to 70 in a 65 to pass some jerk who may be carrying an insufficiently secured load in his pickup truck without your insurance company jacking up your rates - because naturally, the camera will be on you, not on the other idiots.

I will never purchase another GM vehicle because of OnStar's capabilities. I will never purchase a vehicle which has a camera mounted inside it, pointing at me, for whatever reason. And I will never purchase a vehicle which does not permit me to have complete and unfettered privacy, in any fashion, whether it is for "the good of the populous" or not.

If I fall asleep behind the wheel, it's my own daggum fault. If I decide to be an idiot and text message someone while driving and nail a tree while driving 40MPH, it's my own daggum fault.

Without what is commonly known as, and referred to as "natural selection," we will experience over population.

The key factors which previously prevented over population are being done away with - disease and stupidity. Disease and stupidity used to keep the chances of population in check. Cure all diseases, and cure everyone's stupidity, and you have over-ridden the checks and balances, and sha-bang - you end up with over population of the worst kind; idiots, and the previously diseased.

Anonymously Intelligent, Planet Earth (Sent Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:36 PM)

I took a safety course about 1 month ago, and was taught that whether a person used a hand held phone or hands free system, the statistics were identical in regards to frequency of accidents. When a person talks they are using the same exact part of the brain that is used to drive a car.

Jim, Phoenix, Arizona (Sent Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:41 PM)

I applaud Mr. Lee's efforts in his research. I perceive this situation with privacy will never go away. The actual people responsible are the police departments and Judicial systems which are to enforce the laws that they have made to protect us from them, the distracted drivers that is. Until the time comes when breaking the law actually means something other than a slap on the wrist and a fine, the distractions will continue. People will still do all the stupid things they do like driving under any influence, "installing" their makeup, eating, texting, reading, other people talking, etc. etc. People are way to laxed in their responsibility of driving and consider it mundane and typical until they have an accident or kill someone. Then they see the light. "OOPPS! Should have paid attention, MY BAD! It's ok, I have insurance and air bags." Good Luck MR. Lee. Food for thought, I ride a motorcycle and have been run out of my lane by distracted people and stupid people. How do you differentiate between the two? Does that show up on the cd of their driving habbits?

Gary Thompson, Alsio Viejo, CA (Sent Sunday, April 19, 2009 8:35 PM)

All the talk about Big Brother makes me wonder if anyone even read "1984". Big Brother refers to a totalitarian dictatorship making sure you watch TV propaganda and listening to your conversations in order to prevent freethinking. We are talking about a monitoring system to enforce traffic safety. There is no freedom lost here; putting other people's lives at risk is not a freedom. Speed control is not an intrusion on your privacy. If you will not observe traffic safety, you are not responsible enough to drive.

Michael, Dallas, TX (Sent Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:41 PM)

Your basing your judgement on one 17 year. Unfortunately, he will have to make a bad mistake like hit someone or cause an accident before he learns for himself. But not all teenagers are like that. And insurance agencys charce so much because they can, and they get away with it no matter what.
And since you think you know it all. You need to research there are more accidents by drivers age 25-34 than by teenagers with 35-44 at a close 2nd....Google is your friend.

This is an invasion of privacy, insurance companies will do anything and everything to get that money from you. I know because I used to pay $1200 every six months when I was 17, 18 , 19 and 20. Only because of my age. Im 23 now and I pay 120 month. Oh the day I turn 25.

Kenneth, Summerville, SC (Sent Monday, April 20, 2009 10:02 AM)

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Ben Frankin

yoyo (Sent Monday, April 20, 2009 10:09 AM)

Teach people how to fly before you teach them to drive. They'll learn all about energy management and how to plan for unexpected events.

dave (Sent Monday, April 20, 2009 1:53 PM)

Just one more step toward Big Brother monitoring EVERYTHING people do in order to "keep us safe".

"The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live - did live, from habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and except in darkness, every movement scrutinised."
George Orwell, "1984"

"The trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both." -- Christopher Hitchens

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Warren (Sent Monday, April 27, 2009 3:05 PM)

I agree with most of you. This is just another trick to get Big Brother with you every moment of every day of your life. As someone else mentioned, what happens when there is a medical emergency? How is your car to know that there is a legitimate reason for traveling at speeds in great excess of the speed limit? The answer to "What if someone else is driving?" is answered by coupling the video with the speed data and synchronizing the time of day so you can go back and review that it indeed was someone else driving your car.

If they are added to all cars in the long run, they need to be a personal thing in which only the car's owner can access. The computers can already monitor your speeds etc such that a garage can tap in and ensure that a warranty covered repair was indeed caused by normal wear and tear as opposed to some driver just being stupid and putting his/her car through torture, such as reverse-lows. So if these are implemented in every vehicle, it needs to be an owner/operator only. (However, I would support company access for commercial drivers.)

However, I would rather like to see these cameras implemented in training courses and some sort of retraining course for those people who are found at fault of said accident because they were distracted. It's one thing to be at fault if you swerved to miss an animal and could not see the other car coming, such as on a blind corner or a foggy morning or if the other car was just coming at you faster than you anticipated. Or if you hit black ice or something in less than optimal driving conditions. But it's a completely different story to head-on another person or take out a power pole and lines and people's power for up to a few days because you were too distracted to pay attention. So I think these could be good for retraining, or initial training courses so people realize what they are doing that they should not.

Now, I'll admit, I've done just about everything listed, from texting to talking on the phone, to being too tired to messing with my radio or CDs, but I have yet to wreck a vehicle because of it. I'll be proud to say I don't text anymore while driving, and I almost always use my bluetooth headset, now that I have one. But there's no real cure for being too tired, other than pulling over for a nap.

And finally, there will never be fully automatically driven cars. If you live an area such as mine, you will understand why. It's a wooded area with many unpredictable animals such as deer and bear. I once had a deer run directly into the side of my car. I saw it coming, but if I would've slowed down, I would have hit the deer square and ended up taking the deer's legs out from under it, ending up with a deer shattering through my windshield onto my lap...and then extra unpredictable if it wasn't dead at that point, and I may have ended up injured from deer hooves beating me. And if I would've sped up, the deer would've run into my rear doors. There was no avoiding it. One of my friends had a deer jump off a cliff onto the road below...only inches in front of her car. How would these computer driven cars react to scenarios such as these? There's also too many blind corners and hills. There is no way a computer controlled car could ever account for everything. There's also the scenario of another computer controlled car fails to operate properly and causes an accident, either by running into your car, or enters your car's path only inches in front of it. I'm sorry, but they will never work for rural driving. They may be okay for city driving as they can scan for other cars and scan for traffic lights, posted speed limits etc, but they can't always avoid rural animals.

mizzk (Sent Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:09 AM)

Why monitor? Just have the car drive? Then we collectively could use that time to write better text messages or solve world hunger...

Steven, Seattle WA (Sent Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:25 AM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1895530

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG