Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    AAA Study Says Infotainment Systems Are Too Distracting

      30 vehicles and their infotainment systems are put under the microscope


    Infotainment systems are one the banes of the automotive world. From confusing interfaces and controls, to issues with crashing and features not working. Add distracting drivers to this list.

    The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety worked together with researchers at the University of Utah to measure the time it took to complete the task, and the visual and mental demand on the driver. 120 drivers were asked to perform various tasks such as operating the stereo and putting in information for navigation system using all input methods - touchscreen, physical controls, and voice commands. They would do this in 30 different vehicles on a two-mile stretch of road going 25 mph.

    The results are sadly not surprising. On average, it took drivers 24 seconds on average to finish many common tasks. Inputting an address in the navigation system could take more than 40 seconds. At 25 mph, that time is more than enough to travel the length of four football fields.

    “Some in-vehicle technology can create unsafe situations for drivers on the road by increasing the time they spend with their eyes and attention off the road and hands off the wheel. When an in-vehicle technology is not properly designed, simple tasks for drivers can become complicated and require more effort from drivers to complete,” said Dr. David Yang, executive director of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

    AAA rated the 30 vehicles based on how much demand is put on a driver. None of 30 vehicles scored what AAA considers to be low demand. 11 vehicles scored high while 12 vehicles were rated at very high.

    “Our objective assessment indicates that many of these features are just too distracting to be enabled while the vehicle is in motion. Greater consideration should be given to what [infotainment] features and functions should be available to the driver when the vehicle is in motion rather than to what [infotainment] features and functions could be available to motorists,” the study stated.

    Source: AAA
    Press Release is on Page 2


    New Vehicle Infotainment Systems Create Increased Distractions Behind the Wheel

    • AAA Foundation study reveals in-vehicle technology takes one step forward, two steps back

    WASHINGTON, D.C. (Oct. 5, 2017) – New vehicle infotainment systems take drivers’ eyes and attention off the road and hands off the wheel for potentially dangerous periods of time, according to new research from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Drivers using in-vehicle technologies like voice-based and touch screen features were visually and mentally distracted for more than 40 seconds when completing tasks like programming navigation or sending a text message. Removing eyes from the road for just two seconds doubles the risk for a crash, according to previous research. With one in three U.S. adults using infotainment systems while driving, AAA cautions that using these technologies while behind the wheel can have dangerous consequences.

    AAA has conducted this new research to help automakers and system designers improve the functionality of new infotainment systems and the demand they place on drivers.

    “Some in-vehicle technology can create unsafe situations for drivers on the road by increasing the time they spend with their eyes and attention off the road and hands off the wheel,” said Dr. David Yang, executive director of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. “When an in-vehicle technology is not properly designed, simple tasks for drivers can become complicated and require more effort from drivers to complete.”

    The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety commissioned researchers from the University of Utah to examine the visual (eyes off road) and cognitive (mental) demand as well as the time it took drivers to complete a task using the infotainment systems in 30 new 2017 vehicles. Study participants were required to use voice command, touch screen and other interactive technologies to make a call, send a text message, tune the radio or program navigation, all while driving down the road.

    Programming navigation was the most distracting task, taking an average of 40 seconds for drivers to complete. When driving at 25 mph, a driver can travel the length of four football fields during the time it could take to enter a destination in navigation—all while distracted from the important task of driving. Programming navigation while driving was available in 12 of the 30 vehicle systems tested.

    None of the 30 vehicle infotainment systems produced low demand, while 23 systems generated high or very high levels of demand on drivers:

    • 12 systems generated very high demand
    • 11 systems generated high demand
    • 7 systems generated moderate demand

    Overall Demand by Vehicle

    Low

    Moderate

    High

    Very High

    N/A Chevrolet Equinox  LT

     

    Ford F250 XLT

    Hyundai Santa Fe Sport

    Lincoln MKC Premiere

    Toyota Camry SE

    Toyota Corolla SE

    Toyota Sienna XLE

    Cadillac XT5 Luxury

     

    Chevrolet Traverse LT

    Dodge Ram 1500

    Ford Fusion Titanium

    Hyundai Sonata Base

    Infiniti Q50 Premium

    Jeep Compass Sport

    Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited

    Kia Sorento LX

    Nissan Maxima SV

    Toyota Rav 4 XLE

    Audi Q7 QPP

     

    Chrysler 300 C

    Dodge Durango GT

    Ford Mustang GT

    GMC Yukon SLT

    Honda Civic Touring

    Honda Ridgeline RTL-E

    Mazda3 Touring

    Nissan Armada SV

    Subaru Crosstrek Premium

    Tesla Model S

    Volvo XC60 T5 Inscription

    “Drivers want technology that is safe and easy to use, but many of the features added to infotainment systems today have resulted in overly complex and sometimes frustrating user experiences for drivers,” said Marshall Doney, AAA’s president and CEO.

    Frustration resulting from unsatisfactory use of these systems increases cognitive demand and increases the potential for distracted driving.

    “AAA has met with interested auto manufacturers and suppliers to discuss our findings. We welcome the opportunity to meet with other interested parties to discuss the report’s recommendations and ways to mitigate driver distraction,” added Doney.

    According to a new AAA public opinion survey, nearly 70 percent of U.S. adults say that they want the new technology in their vehicle, but only 24 percent feel that the technology already works perfectly.

    “Some of the latest systems on the market now include functions unrelated to the core task of driving like sending text messages, checking social media or surfing the web — tasks we have no business doing behind the wheel,” continued Doney. “Automakers should aim to reduce distractions by designing systems that are no more visually or mentally demanding than listening to the radio or an audiobook. And drivers should avoid the temptation to engage with these technologies, especially for non-driving tasks.”

    Researchers developed an advanced rating scale to measure the visual (eyes off road) and cognitive (mental) demands and the time it took to complete a task experienced by drivers using each vehicle’s infotainment system. The scale ranged from low to very high levels of demand. A low level of demand equates to listening to the radio or an audiobook, while very high demand is equivalent to trying to balance a checkbook while driving. AAA believes a safe in-vehicle technology system should not exceed a low level of demand. 

    Researchers found that most infotainment systems tested could easily be made safer by simply following clearly stated federal recommendations such as locking out text messaging, social media and programming navigation while the car is in motion. In 2012, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a set of voluntary safety guidelines advising automakers to block access to tasks when vehicles are not parked.

    “These are solvable problems. By following NHTSA’s voluntary guidelines to lock out certain features that generate high demand while driving, automakers can significantly reduce distraction,” said Jake Nelson, AAA’s director of Traffic Safety Advocacy & Research. “AAA cautions drivers that just because a technology is available while driving does not mean it is safe or easy to use when behind the wheel. Drivers should only use these technologies for legitimate emergencies or urgent, driving related purposes.”

    A total of 120 drivers ages 21-36 participated in the study of 30 new 2017 model-year vehicles. The latest report is the fifth phase of distraction research from AAA’s Center for Driving Safety and Technology. The Center was created in 2013 with the goal of studying the safety implications for how drivers interact with new vehicle technologies when behind the wheel. Visit AAA.com/distraction to learn more.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    13 hours ago, daves87rs said:

    First thought...Duh!!!!

    I've seen some pretty rough ones.....thinking ones with voice commands would be a good start (in all cars)

    Voice commands while driving may well be the future, but voice commands need to be perfected first.  Also, what if you have your radio/streaming music on and you need Nav again?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, riviera74 said:

    Voice commands while driving may well be the future, but voice commands need to be perfected first.  Also, what if you have your radio/streaming music on and you need Nav again?

    "Pause music"

    "Navagtion please""

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've been saying that for years. I've been in cars that require scrolling through menus hitting buttons scrolling through more menus hitting more buttons and then selecting an option. The same functions I could do with a simple dial or Knob in older vehicles without taking my eyes off the road. The more buttons dials and knobs lost to a touchscreen, the more dangerous the car becomes in my opinion.

    Edited by Scout
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I was upgraded in a rental contract and, while going up by one category is not a big deal, getting to try out the new hybrid Camry was somewhat of a big deal.  The latest and current Camry only features hybrid powertrains.  The base 2.5 liter 4-cylinder engine, which was previously naturally aspirated, continues forward, but is assisted by an electric motor.  To make the powering on and off work, a CVT is now the standard transmission, when Camry had an excellent 8-speed automatic transmission for many years.  This vehicle had front wheel drive, but AWD is also available.  The V6 engine and ICEs are no longer available. Getting used to this car doesn’t take much time.  Having already driven another rented hybrid – a Honda Accord – all I needed to know is that turning the key does not fire up an engine, but makes the car ready to move in EV mode, at least initially. With 2.5 liters, the Camry pulls away nimbly and with agility, even with a minimally feathered pedal.  It doesn’t take much.  It’s fun to watch the centered power display setting move between eco and power modes.  If stomped on, the engine responds very quickly.  Surprisingly, stomping on it produces a more notable than expected engine hum.  The cabin remains mostly quiet and handling is predictable, neither firm nor vague, with some rougher pavement making it less quiet.  The transmission feels very much like a CVT, but a well behaved one.  Still, drivers with old school tastes can lament the absence of the very last slick shifting 8-speed automatic that came standard in the Camry.  I know I do.  However, the current CVT behaves well because it doesn’t have that “stuck” feeling when pushed, but the spool is more of an exhaust node than the winding out and high rpm droning caused by the variable gearing. The Camry’s exterior was freshened up and they worked off the last model.  It’s a compendium of small changes that, together, amount to a lot.  The front lights are narrower and cleaner.  The “appliance” grille is more understated than it once was.  (Sadly, it’s the more expensive versions where the grille is more flared, and even overworked.)  The rear lights are thinned out, complete with a boomerang effect, as they wrap around the rear fender edge and add to the horizontal look of the rear lip and the monolithic bumper panel.  Also, the almost retro, and not too effective, sweep of the rear pillar (think ‘72 Caprice coupe) is gone and the side profile of the windows is cleaner, perhaps a larger rendition of what was done with the Corolla.  Most of the vantage points look better than those of the previous Camry. Inside, the Camry is also much improved.  The dashboard is organized in cleaner volumes.  The dash has a simple main instrument pod.  In its center is a round dial, whereby the upper part displays the speed and eco/power, and the lower part, through toggling, provides other information – direction, tire pressure, trip information and mileage, or even graphics of the flow of energy involving the engine and the battery.  There is no dedicated tachometer; however, the temperature and fuel gauges remain.  Around the main circle are small digital readouts for the exterior temperature, the time, the odometer, and the remaining range.  Filling up this hybrid showed close to 500 miles of range.  Not only that, the fuel cap is on the driver’s side and, like the trunk, they can be remotely opened by buttons in the interior. That said, there is none of that capless fuel filler stuff! Being a Camry LE meant the lower grade fixtures inside.  Sadly, this meant a urethane steering wheel.  Sometimes, a mere leather steering wheel imparts the feeling of better handling and a smoother ride.  It’s that equipment choices and groupings seem to work together to give a vehicle its feel. The LE seats are nicely upholstered in a tougher, durable fabric with slightly contrasting parts.  The front headrests can scoot all the way down and they actually point forward so the driver and passenger can use them without having to lean their heads all the way back.  Headrests for rear seat passengers are integrated into the seating and do not have features to adjust them. The infotainment system is on its screen which is engaged to the dash, but moved slightly forward, and creates a cleaner look because it does not go up over the top of the cowl.  Fortunately, it remains a touch screen.  The functions are easy to work with, but I had a little bit of finicky interactions with Bluetooth and Android Auto.  Climate control has toggles instead of dials and they are easy to work with.  I will only say that the center vents of the climate control system do not work that quickly and powerfully.  Beneath this small panel are the cubby, a charging pod for a phone, and the flat console surface for the shift lever.  I found the console a little high for my taste.  Possibly to accommodate the new mechanical set-up, there is no storage cubby underneath the console as one sees on larger GM products, for example – both SUVs and even the last-gen Buick LaCrosse.  However, the console box is amply sized. In addition to being able to look over the hood, visibility is commendable all the way around.  Except for being a little shoehorned into the Camry’s cockpit, the front of the cabin feels spacious and the legroom is also good.  (I had to push the lever to get the seats to move upward, which provided a view over the top of the hood, as evidenced by seeing the paint color, and which I prefer.)  They have retained good cabin space in the rear of the cabin.  Also, the trunk has a decent amount of usable capacity for this genre and for having kept this sweeping roofline.  I again want to state how pleasing it was to control the trunk, in addition to the fuel door, from a bar of buttons on a panel at the lower left part of the dashboard rather than on the floor near the door.  There are 5 functions and they were thoughtful about putting the (auto) lights control onto this bar, and all the way to the left, such that it can easily be noticed from behind the steering wheel.  The new Camry shows a lot of thought as to how the driver connects to the car through its controls and functions, and this is one of the areas where this Camry shines. While I didn’t calculate fuel mileage, I know that I added only 3.5 gallons of regular unleaded fuel to cover one jaunt of about 160 miles of mixed driving.  This seems close to the EPA estimate. The little green EV icon shone quite a bit. I imagine that this is a very easy car to live with over the long haul.  For Camry, this powertrain is obviously a new combination, but it’s technology that Toyota and other Asian marques have worked with for quite a while.  I mostly took note that, apart from the major powertrain change, there is the evident synergy of the many small changes that make this a more nicely packaged vehicle than the last Camry. - - - - - PHOTOS FORTHCOMING
    • The BYD Han interior does look really good.  Shame the outside looks like a 2-generations-ago Civic.
    • No one cares about that amount of horsepower in this class. These are chauffeur driven vehicles. Up until electrics came around, most were trundling around with 2.0T 4-cylinders or diesels.  While Genesis is still relatively new to us in the the U.S., they've made such strides on interior quality that I'd put them up against MB dollar for dollar. The nicest of the Chinese EVs sedans, the NIO ET7 is a pretty good looking car though I kinda think it looks like a Model-3 had it's way with a Buick Envista. It would do really well in the US up against the Teslas, but it is still not playing in the luxury ballpark with Genesis (or Benz or Audi) when it comes to design and materials.  Low end EQE Sedan rival? Sure. G90 rival? No.
    • Well 25% tariff added to it, which makes a G90 like $125,000, and probably dead in the water in the US.  The Chinese have luxury cars with over 1,000 hp for less than the price of a G90.  I don't know that they are really going to compete there either.  Unless they come up with some  next gen EV tech and have full self driving and impeccable build quality or something.
    • The thing is that Panera offers a better laptop and hot drink environment than does Starbucks and they cash in on that.  It's "space rental." The tab for a HALF chicken avocado chipotle sandwich and a small CUP of baked potato soup (both good, not great) was absurd.  Coffee, tea, and lemonade are roughly the same. I go there because it's near a friend's condo and it's better for having a discussion than a fairly nice Starbucks nearby.  A Starbucks has to have an excellent interior for me to go there and pay their now crazy prices for coffee and tea.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search