IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2015 - 98

currently sees. Wearable devices can continuously
enable easy and ready access to these functions as
the user traverses the different contexts of her or his
day, at home, in public, at work, etc.
It seems plausible that users will develop habits with
regard to the everyday interaction with such devices,
growing deeply accustomed to app usage and text and
phone communication capacities. We can imagine, for
example, a user who has grown accustomed to using
her or his smartwatch for voice texting. This person
may even at times become quite mentally occupied by
the content of the text-based conversation, even as she
or he walks around at home or down the sidewalk. We
could imagine another user who has grown accustomed
to sending and receiving texts via a Google Glass-type
head-mounted display. Since these users have become
deeply accustomed to using their devices in their everyday environments, they have the potential to sometimes
become quite engrossed in the text-based conversation.

The traffic safety issues
raised by third-wave in-cab
connectivity are neither simple
nor straightforward.

The concern here is that such users may become
habitually inclined to, at times, bring their normal relationships to the device into the more specific context of
the car. Driving requires a concerted attention and vigilance that is different from most of the other moments
of the user's day. It requires a field of awareness composed by some aspects of experience and not others.
And the consequences for the distraction of wearable
computing during everyday usage and distraction while
driving are not the same. But since the form of the relationship to the device is the same in and out of the car
(that is, wearable devices are worn and used the same
way in both contexts), it is possible that drivers could be
at times pulled by habit into relations to the device inappropriate for safe driving.

Third-Wave Traffic Safety
The traffic safety issues raised by third-wave in-cab connectivity are neither simple nor straightforward. For
instance, it is certainly not the case that all applications
enabled by wearable or dashboard computing have the
same potential to be a significant distraction. Some do

appear to have great potential to result in dangerous
impairment. But some others could even enhance safety,
such as voice command for some of the car's standard
interface like radio and climate controls, voice interaction for GPS systems, or even computerized warnings of
extreme weather [47]. Also, it is of course the case that
different built-in dashboard infotainment systems offer
only limited access to the normal range of smart computing functionality. And as are available for smartphones
now, we can expect optional "drive mode" settings for
wearable computing that limit the device's functionality
while activated. Yet even in the (given the trend, unlikely)
event that wearable computing or smartphone-style
dashboard interface becomes sufficiently regulated, laws
would be difficult to enforce. As we saw in the Abadie
case, it would be a challenge for law enforcement to tell
from afar if, say, a driver operates a device via voice, or if
a wearable unit is switched on or off.
As we move from a second to third wave of in-cab
connectivity, a main part of what is at issue is a kind
of intuition management. It would be easy to assume
that voice-interactive interface is a safe way to engage in
computing while driving. It would be easy to assume that
since wearable devices leave our hands largely free and
our eyes largely forward as we engage in computing and
communication, they will be safe options while behind
the wheel. And it would be easy to assume that it would
be safer to integrate into the driving experience the same
modes of interface we have grown casually comfortable
using throughout the day, such as the format of our
trusty smartphones. We should resist these assumptions
for at least two reasons. The first is that our brains may
not be able to safely handle the simultaneous cognitive
demands associated with driving and with the use of
these devices. The second is that we may become deeply
habitually inclined to at times focus more on the content
conveyed by these devices than on the road ahead of us.
With policy lagging so far behind technological development, drivers must take personal responsibility for
traffic safety. The cognitive demands and habitual tugs
of our devices are of crucial importance in a context
like driving in which things like moments of attention,
and the content of a driver's "head space," can be the
difference between a close call and a disaster. If you
must communicate with the outside world while driving-whether by handheld or hands-free phones, wearable computing, or dashboard interface-you should
pull the car over.

Author Information
Robert Rosenberger is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the School
of Public Policy. Email: Robert.rosenberger@pubpolicy.
gatech.edu.

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

∕

December 2015

http://www.gatech.edu

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2015