It's smart to be safe^TM

|||   Contact Us   |||

Our research was a real world experimentation that began in 1985.  While we setout to computerize the car, the car and reality showed us many of the dangers associated with driving while inputting data into the computer or dialing a number as simple as 911.

Although we got into the field with an acknowledgment of the danger of looking away and reaching to handle controls while driving, we learned more about how drivers interact with the vehicle and technology and improved our conclusions to accommodate new phenomenon and thus add new solutions.

Our research is based purely on observing drivers doing what they do in the real world while driving their cars, sipping their coffee, making a call, grooming, etc.  This is a luxury that our colleagues in the industry did not have.  Unlike our colleagues, we did not have a start and stop date, funding to work for or a theory to prove.  We used these technologies everyday and we observed others around us doing the same.  Ours was a long term observation and is more like a social study or a medical study that follow people over years.  Today, this is called "Naturalistic Driving" studies.

The interactions of drivers in the driving experience are defined as physical interaction and mental (cognitive) interaction, Cogno-Motor Interaction.  We observed that physical interactions in the car was nearly identical among all drivers because we are basically built the same and our construction allow us only certain functionalities.  Cognitive experience on the other hand was very subtle and not possible to determine, (how can anyone tell what a person is looking at or thinking about?), unless accompanied by an overt physical activity.  Such overt physical activities included looking away, having a blank stair or not responding to a question or a comment by others in the car.  Surprisingly, the driver under such condition still was able to maneuver in the traffic, stop safely and follow directions.

Human Factor researchers, even those that say that distraction is all mental, acknowledge that simulators are not a truly comparable to driving in the real world, but that is where all such claims are originating from. 

Beside the fact that test subjects are asked to perform tasks that are alien to them (No matter how simple they are) are really not within their comfort zone and thus they have to exert more thought to perform what is being asked of them.  Another situation faced in the simulator is the drivers of the simulated vehicles do not respond to the test subject mistakes like other drivers do in the real world so crashes scenarios are inevitable.

In a repot to SAAB IVSS research, Dr. Ktja Kircher,  (VTI Rapport 594A published 2007 www.vti.se/publications),  noted the following in her research about Driver Distraction - A Review of Literature, noted the following statement: "In simulators it is difficult, however, to induce true distraction due to short duration of the experiment and the artificial setting.  A prolonged field study under naturalistic conditions could provide new insights and validation of simulator studies"

Similar conclusion from Virginia Tech Transportation Institute showed that previous simulator data did not coincide with a real world driving experience and showed that the cause of accidents was drivers looking away from the road or leaving the steering wheel to perform manual tasks are the causes of accidents in addition to drowsy driving, bad weather etc.  (Report No. DOT HS 810 594 The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T. A., Neale, V. L., Sudweeks, J.D., and Ramsey, D.J.)

In conclusion, falling back on what we learned in the areas of Quality Deployment, Customer Satisfaction, Customer Concerns Resolution and Industrial safety, we morphed the findings from our road observations to solutions that we learned throughout our experiences in the previously noted industries.  These solutions followed the tried and true methods of these disciplines:  Fool Proofing, Use Non-conformity to update your knowledge and document History to guide in newer problems and to prevent the recurrence of a non conformity.

For Fool Proofing meant that an operation or a process should follow a specific process over and over again to assure consistency and avoid unexpected consequences.  It may also specify positions and environment of a process, posture and actions of an operator.

The conclusions were really simple:

• Look at what you are doing

• Use both hands "the right tools"

• Do not change the order of the operation from one vehicle to another

• Do not disrupt operation, wait until it is done to change process

• Get feed back from the operator about the process.

Our solution does just that.  Pure QA & Process Engineering with physical fool proofing for the posture and operation of the driver.

The solution was as simple:

• Give the driver important information verbally, not by flashing lights or on a display so Eyes Stay On The Road

• Give driver control to anything in the car she or he brings to the car with Hands On The Wheel

• Provide a familiar and predictable way to use a system (no need to think through every step).  As a matter of fact, the system will do the thinking and prioritization for the driver so there's no need to step through multiple options.

• Do not interrupt the driver during risky maneuver

• Allow each individual driver to provide input to how he wants the system to act under specific conditions.

Many companies have promoted Hands Free as the correct solution to Driver Distraction.  To  allow control of the cell phone and other devices, the promoted Speech Recognition as the mean to control those devices without actually handling them, thus keeping the driver looking at the road and his hands on the wheel.  But, unfortunately, that is not an effective solution and will actually lead to Frustration AND Distraction. Why?

In an report by Telematic Update (Telematicsupdate.com), Mark Fitzgerald, senior automotive analyst at market research firm Strategy Analytics, thinks voice is the ideal solution for a hands-free interface, but is not sure its current capability is sufficient: “It’s better every year, but I don’t think it’s a perfect HMI solution just yet.” Though voice recognition has been under development for more than 20 years, Myles H. Kitchen, automotive electronics consultant/analyst at M.H. Kitchen & Associates said: even today’s best systems are about 70% accurate at best. . “The Ford Sync system is very popular and has gotten lots of good press,” he says, “but I've seen user tests that have accuracy rates as low as 11%.”

Dr. Paul Green, from University of Michigan, in his study (Driver Distraction, Telematics Design, and Workload Managers: Safety Issues and Solutions - SAE Paper Number 2004-21-0022) suggest that developing a work load manger is the solution to Driver Distraction as experienced by drivers while using electronics.  A device that is continually monitoring the vehicle and the driver will help drivers manage the distraction so drivers can focus on the drive.

Research by Dr. Amit Almor, University of South Carolina, showed that intending to speak is on its own cognitively demanding (NPR interview), so using Speech Recognition is on its own in effect a distraction.  In another research, which fully explains why researchers are finding that using a phone is cognitively distracting, Dr. Almor showed that the source of the sound effects how much we visualize the source, NY Times June 3, 2008. Since the experiments that found using the cell phone as cognitively distracting uses ear pieces to simulate Hands Free, they were in effect inducing the cognitive distraction aspect of the results.  Basically, they use using a hand held phone but without holding it in their hand.

In summary, our solution conform to the three issued raised by scientist and industry experts after our conclusion:

1. It was not developed in simulators or in theory.  It is the result of a decade of driving, using PCs and Telephone while driving.  We worked out a solution based on real life conditions.

2. It does not use unreliable technology such as Speech Recognition, and uses single sensor on each side of the steering wheel, so it is reliable and less confusing then what we have on the steering today.  (Hands On Wheel Interface^TM - iQ-Controls^TM).

3. Our solution incorporates an intelligent assistant (Work Load Manager) iQ-Gateway that managers the driving experience to eliminate the driver distraction causes.

Our articulation of Driver Distraction causes was used in our patents and at least 5 years before anyone else started to address a solution based on the problem instead of just shooting from the hip and pushing technology without understanding its consequences.  This articulation can be summarized as follows:

1. Reflex Distraction:          Distraction caused by reflex triggered by sensory stimuli and is not controllable by the driver.

2. Impulse Distraction:        Distraction caused by emotional thoughts or triggered by an Instinctive Response to a Reflex Distraction and maybe controllable by the driver.

3. Life Style Distraction:    Willing and systematic performance of activities creating dangerous risks (Known AND / OR Likely to cause Distraction that leads to Near Miss, Accidents and Death).  This is triggered due to poor education at first, but then, the behavior is perpetuated by several Instinctive Responses.  This type of distraction creates unnecessary Work Load and is controllable by the driver.

To avoid Reflex Distraction, we eliminated all sources of visual, audible and Haptic stimulation that are created by cell phones, screens, seats alarms and telltale.  These stimulation are then managed by our system that will moderate their presence and change their format so the driver is literally informed and not just stimulated.  We also used Reverse Reflex Distraction to add to such informative delivery of information to the driver.

For the Impulse distraction, we moderated access through as adaptive learning context sensitive engine that reduced the driver workload to a Thumbs Up or a Thumbs Down gesture

For the Life Style Distraction we set rules in place that can even enforce ergonomically correct position before a driver is able to access communication, and limited the vehicle behavior to meet the drivers ability.

This is the compilation of an effort that started in 1985 and wrapped up in 2001 after we filed our patent.  in 2002 we finished our full blown on vehicle implementation and soon afterward, we developed a demonstrator to reduce driving scenario to a brief case.  We have two patents granted in the U.S. and more then a dozen subject pending in the U.S., EU offices.

Please feel free to contact us if you have a question.  Further conclusions are available at our sister company website http://actplace.net.

We are working on our mass production design that will be available in early 2013.  Purchase of an aftermarket solution is available by contacting info at iQ-AutoLife.com or by visiting www.iQ-AutoLife.com/shoping_registation.htm.

Welcome  |||  Products  ||| Solutions  ||| Philosophy  |||  News  |||  FAQ    |||  About Us  

  Tweet