IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2013 - 55

through voice command. praised
for its versatility and the smoothness of its interface, Siri not only
receives commands by voice but
also supplies responses via audio
replies. One of the functions
enabled by Siri and other voicetranslation smartphone apps is a
hands-free way to engage in cell
phone text messaging. Siri can
be asked to recite the content of
an incoming text message, and to
receive dictation and send text messages, all without requiring the user
to interface the phone manually
or visually. This newly emerging
function of smartphones presents
drivers with the ability to engage in
texting while neither taking a hand
off the steering wheel nor taking
their eyes off the road. And it is not
only advances in the phones themselves that are bringing about this
novel texting capacity; new models
of automobile increasingly come
equipped with hands-free texting
systems built into the dashboard
(another topic to which we will
return at the end of this article).
Unlike the case of handheld
no-look texting while driving, the
hands-free version does not constitute a clear violation of anti-texting
regulations. For most of the existing
legislation, it remains at best ambiguous whether texting through the
use of voice-translation technologies while behind the wheel qualifies as an infraction. This ambiguity
has not escaped the notice of critics,
prompting lamentations of legislators' shortsightedness. For example,
Farhad Manjoo writes in Slate, "the
laws' failure to anticipate voicetexting illustrates the larger problem
with legal strictures on automotive
technology: The laws are narrow,
annoyingly arbitrary, and inconsistent across state lines" [16].4
The emergence of no-look texting
phenomena raises important questions about the nature of driver distraction, with implications for traffic
4

The LA Times has also highlighted the confusion
regarding texting regulations [26].

safety, policy, scientific research, and
efforts at raising public awareness.
If no-look texting is a distraction to
drivers, then what kind of distraction is it? It is clear what kind of
distraction it is not. In the case of
the handheld form, the distraction
is not the result of diverting one's
eyes from the road. In the case of
the hands-free form, the distraction results neither from taking
eyes off the road nor a hand off the
wheel. Thus, whatever the nature
of the driver distraction caused by
no-look texting, it does not reduce
to issues of the physicality of the
device interface. If an explanation
for the driver distraction caused by
no-look texting could be developed,
then it would be possible to explore
how its insights could be applied to
policy and to efforts to raise public
awareness of these dangers.
To develop an explanation of
the driver distraction caused by
no-look texting, we must first
turn to research on a separate
but related issue: hands-free cell
phone conversation. Cognitive
scientists have devoted considerable effort to the investigation
of the topic of cell phone usage
while driving, including explorations of the distraction associated
with conversation on handheld
cell phones verses that of handsfree cell phones, such as speakerphones or headsets. The results
of the preponderance of these
studies have provocatively shown
both handheld and hands-free cell
phone conversation to be associated with dangerous levels of
driver distraction. This leads many
researchers to criticize traffic policies on this distinction, advocating
regulations that encompass both
forms of cell phone conversation.
We can abstract insights into the
nature of cell-phone-induced driving impairment from the ways in
which these empirical researchers
cast their findings.
In my own work on this topic,
I build from a philosophical perspective called phenomenology

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SprING 2013

to develop an alternative interpretation of the scientists' data.
phenomenology is a tradition of
thought which approaches philosophical problems from the starting point of descriptions of human
experience, and I use these ideas
to describe the user experience of
cell phones and the related habits
of perception. The phenomenological account of cell-phone-induced
driving impairment that I develop
remains in accord with the scientists' policy recommendations, but
it offers a different understanding
of the nature of driver distraction.
Both accounts of hands-free cell
phone conversation-the cognitive science theories and the phenomenological descriptions-have
implications for understanding the
distraction of no-look texting.

Hands-Free Cell Phone
Conversation and Driving
While a majority of states in the
U.S. regulate texting while driving, comparatively fewer address
the issue of talking on the phone.
Ten states so far have instituted
bans on conversing on the phone
while driving. On this topic, an
important issue has emerged: the
distinction between handheld and
hands-free phones. In all cases of
cell phone bans thus far, only handheld devices have been subject to
regulation.5 But the preponderance
of evidence coming from human
factors research in cognitive science shows both handheld and
hands-free cell phone conversation
to be associated with significant
driving impairment.
researchers take advantage of
a variety of experimental strategies, including epidemiological studies of accident data [15],
[20], the observation of subjects

For countrywide and statewide regulations on
cell phone use and driving, see footnote 1. An
exception to the claim that there are no bans
on hands-free phones in the U.S. are cases in
which certain groups-e.g., young drivers, bus
drivers-are banned from all forms at all times.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2013