Skip to main content

New hands-free technologies pose hidden dangers for drivers

Potentially unsafe mental distractions can persist for as long as 27 seconds after dialling, changing music or sending a text using voice commands, according to surprising new research by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. The results raise new and unexpected concerns regarding the use of phones and vehicle information systems while driving. This research represents the third phase of the Foundation’s comprehensive investigation into cognitive distraction, which shows that new hands-free technologies ca
November 3, 2015 Read time: 4 mins
Potentially unsafe mental distractions can persist for as long as 27 seconds after dialling, changing music or sending a text using voice commands, according to surprising new research by the 477 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

The results raise new and unexpected concerns regarding the use of phones and vehicle information systems while driving. This research represents the third phase of the Foundation’s comprehensive investigation into cognitive distraction, which shows that new hands-free technologies can mentally distract drivers even if their eyes are on the road and their hands are on the wheel.

Researchers found that potentially unsafe levels of mental distraction can last for as long as 27 seconds after completing a distracting task in the worst-performing systems studied. At the 25 mph speed limit in the study, drivers travelled the length of nearly three football fields during this time. When using the least distracting systems, drivers remained impaired for more than 15 seconds after completing a task.

The researchers discovered the residual effects of mental distraction while comparing new hands-free technologies in ten 2015 vehicles and three types of smart phones. The analysis found that all systems studied increased mental distraction to potentially unsafe levels. The systems that performed best generally had fewer errors, required less time on task and were relatively easy to use.

The researchers rated mental distraction on a five-point scale. Category one represents a mild level of distraction and category five represents the maximum.  AAA considers a mental distraction rating of two and higher to be potentially dangerous while driving.

The best performing system was the Chevy Equinox with a cognitive distraction rating of 2.4, while the worst performing system was the Mazda 6 with a cognitive distraction rating of 4.6. Among phone systems, Google Now performed best with a distraction rating of 3.0, while Apple Siri and Microsoft Cortana earned ratings of 3.4 and 3.8. Using the phones to send texts significantly increased the level of mental distraction. While sending voice-activated texts, Google Now rated as a category 3.3 distraction, while Apple Siri and Microsoft Cortana rated as category 3.7 and category 4.1 distractions.

“The lasting effects of mental distraction pose a hidden and pervasive danger that would likely come as a surprise to most drivers,” said Peter Kissinger, president and CEO of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. “The results indicate that motorists could miss stop signs, pedestrians and other vehicles while the mind is readjusting to the task of driving.”

“Drivers should use caution while using voice-activated systems, even at seemingly safe moments when there is a lull in traffic or the car is stopped at an intersection,” said Marshall Doney, AAA’s president and CEO. “The reality is that mental distractions persist and can affect driver attention even after the light turns green.”

“The massive increase in voice-activated technologies in cars and phones represents a growing safety problem for drivers,” continued Doney. “We are concerned that these new systems may invite driver distraction, even as overwhelming scientific evidence concludes that hands-free is not risk free.”

Previous AAA Foundation research established that a category 1 mental distraction is about the same as listening to the radio or an audio book. A category 2 distraction is about the same as talking on the phone, while category 3 is equivalent to sending voice-activated texts on a perfect, error-free system. Category 4 is similar to updating social media while driving, while category 5 corresponds to a highly-challenging, scientific test designed to overload a driver’s attention.

“Developers should aim to reduce mental distractions by designing systems that are no more demanding than listening to the radio or an audio book,” continued Doney. “Given that the impairing effects of distraction may last much longer than people realise, AAA advises consumers to use caution when interacting with these technologies while behind the wheel.”

Related Content

  • February 17, 2020
    AAA report: caught red-handed
    Using published crash statistics, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety’s report found that 939 people were killed in red-light running crashes in 2017 – a rise of 28% since 2012. Moreover, more than a quarter (28%) of crash deaths at signalised intersections “are the result of a driver running through a red light”.
  • July 18, 2014
    No evidence California cellphone ban decreased accidents, says researcher
    In a recent study, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder found no evidence that a California ban on using hand-held cellphones while driving decreased the number of traffic accidents in the state in the first six months following the ban. The findings, published in the journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, are surprising given prior research that suggests driving while using a cellphone is risky; past laboratory studies have shown that people who talk on a cellphone wh
  • September 23, 2016
    New driver study reveals Britain’s ten worst driving habits
    According to a study by business driving expert, the Fuelcard Company, which questioned 1,000 drivers across the UK more than half of British drivers (52 per cent) have picked up some potentially dangerous driving habits. These include going too fast or too slow, texting while driving, using the phone or hands-free, eating or smoking at the wheel, driving too close to other vehicles, throwing rubbish out of the window, hogging the middle lane and checking phone notifications. Interestingly, more than
  • March 29, 2017
    When speed compliance becomes a safety issue
    David Crawford finds that softly, softly can be safely, safely when it comes to speed enforcement. Comedians and controversial TV presenters have long made jokes about having to watch the speedometer so closely as they pass speed camera after speed camera that they mow down bus queues. But the joke may have some factual basis according to a study by researchers from the University of Western Australia.