IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2013 - 58

texting. Despite a concerted effort to
concentrate on driving, and despite
keeping eyes on the road (an ability afforded by the no-look texting
scheme), a driver may inadvertently
slip into a primary awareness of the
content of the text-based conversation like the way a person with a bad
habit occasionally and unconsciously
slips into her or his unwanted routine.
The important point is that it is
indeed possible to conceive of plausible ways in which driving impairment could result from texting, even
if the driver does not divert her or
his eyeballs from the road. Driver
distraction simply does not reduce
to the act of looking away from the
road. And judging by the considerable amount of distraction known
to accompany cell phone conversation-conversations in which a
driver stares through the windshield
uninterruptedly-there is reason to
think that no-look texting should
also be substantially distracting. To
conclude, let's consider the implications of these insights for the issues
of hands-free texting, the HLDI
study, and for raising public awareness of these dangers.

Hands-Free No-Look Texting
In the case of using voice-translation
technologies like the Siri smartphone application to send text messages while driving, it is tempting
to assume that, since a driver is
not required to interface with the
device either visually or manually,
this form of texting while driving
should be safe. But as we have seen
in the example of hands-free phone
conversation, removing the need
to physically interface with a cellular phone does not render phone
conversation less distracting to drivers. Thus, similarly, we should not
presume that removing the visual
and manual interface of texting
should make texting while driving
significantly less dangerous.
An important distinction can
be made between using a voiceinteractive system like Siri specifically for texting, and using that same
58

system for functions other than texting. While it is true that both involve
talking and listening to the interface
system, and it is also true that both
have the potential to cause distraction, I suggest that they are each distracting for different reasons. The
use of the voice-interactive system
for the control of functions other
than texting (such as smartphone
applications, or built-in capacities of
the car) is distracting because it simply constitutes a second task which a
driver performs in addition to operating the vehicle. The act of driving
while using a voice-interactive system to perform functions other than
texting can be helpfully conceived
as an example of a dual task scenario. Each task-1) driving, and 2)
using the hands-free voice-interactive system to do something else in
addition to driving-uses up some
of the brain's limited resources. The
extent of this distraction will depend
on the particular level of cognitive
demand associated with the additional task. Even though interacting
with a voice-interactive system like
Siri is not the same as interacting
with a real person, talking and listening to the interface are actions
that have the potential to distract
from the task of driving.
In contrast, using a voice-interactive system to communicate with
another person via text messaging is distracting since it involves
conversation with an actual human
interlocutor, if however through a
deeply technologically-mediated
means. Texting while driving is a
form of communication with someone outside the car, outside the
context of the roadway. As a form
of texting while driving generally,
hands-free no-look texting is thus
a task with special potential for
considerable distraction. This is
because of the absorbing quality of
conversation with another human
being, enforced by the strength of
long-developed habits with regard
to text-based communication.
The urgency of this issue is
amplified by the fact that the

automotive industry is making
hands-free texting a built-in feature
for new cars. Companies such as
Ford and General Motors are working to integrate versions of these
technologies into new models [1],
[7], [24]. For example, Ford's Sync
system, available in most current
models, utilizes Bluetooth technology to enable hands-free read-offs
of incoming text messages. General Motors is working to enable its
OnStar system to send and receive
text messages and even Facebook
posts via hands-free interface.
As advances in both smartphone
applications and built-in dashboard
technologies make hands-free texting while driving pervasive, further research and reflection on the
potential dangers of this new texting modality is urgently needed.

Handheld No-Look Texting
As summarized above, the HLDI
study finds evidence of an increase
in crash risk accompanying the
enactment of some texting bans.
The study's authors speculate that
this increase is due to some drivers
ignoring the ban and continuing to
send text messages while concealing
the phone by holding it down below
the dashboard. The reasoning here is
that crash risk is increased as drivers divert their eyes away from the
road and direct them down to the
concealed phone; that is, in response
to bans, some drivers may engage in
texting behavior in which they divert
their eyes away from the road for
longer than they would in the case
of regular texting. And I have suggested above that the increase could
additionally be due to an escalation
in the occurrence of no-look texting
while driving. That is, I suggest that
also as an instance of noncompliance with the bans, some drivers
may continue texting and hold the
phone down below the dash, but not
look at the phone as they type. These
drivers may be under the mistaken
impression that no-look texting is
safe since they are able to keep their
eyes pointing mostly forward as

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SprING 2013

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