Should Sat Navs have screens?

[2Tubs]

A speedo needs a quick glance, eyes hardly leave the road.

Same with a GPS - the primary means of use is speech; you just glance at the screen to get a quick visual as required. Plus GPS units tend to be on the windscreen, so the eyes have less distance to travel than to the speedo.

Ben

Ben

I’ll rephrase my statement then. Unlike a satnav, people do not drive around staring at their speedo. It may be that you only need to quickly glance at their sat nav, (and if people have to concentrate enough to read a map/insructions is hardly the same as noting the position of a dial) but the reality is that people gawp at it for a dangerous number of seconds at a time.

People do not use them as they should, they spend too much time looking at their satnav screen and not enough time looking at the road. Even if these people are a minority, we should use technology to help protect us from them. It shouldn’t matter to the responsible sat nav users because they don’t look at the screen whilst driving.

It’s location is irrelevant. If they are focussed on the satnav they are not focussed on the road. In fact, this proximity with the windscreen may well contribute to the problem. The millisecond or so saved in eye movement is as good as nothing.

Your argument that these are not a distraction on driving is akin to the argument from people who tell us that “a pint doesn’t impact their reaction times”. They might believe that to be true, but they are wrong.

Gazza

[2Tubs]

I reckon we sit on the same side of this debate (though it's hard to see from your posts, at least to me!), nothing wrong with sat nav. Something wrong with idiot drivers.

We're on the same side with that bit ...

And because of those idiot drivers it should be law that sat nav screens are disabled when the car is moving.

... and the opposite side with that bit. If we design all rules to pander to the lowest common denominator, we end up with an absurd amount of regulation.

We need to tackle the root cause, which is a low-standard driving test which people pass once then forget. What's needed is not a billion rules in a vain attempt to compensate for incompetent drivers, but rather an advanced-level test with 5-yearly retests.

Ben

This isn’t about a nanny culture. It’s true that people can’t be trusted to look out for their fellow man. If this was true, safety measures such as speed limits would be un-necessary in the first place.

The sad fact is, there are some anti social people out there. And just as we have speed limits to protect us from these idiots, I believe we should use technology to prevent idiots from looking at the screen inside their moving car rather than the road ahead.

If it’s true that a satnav screen is just one destraction too many for safe driving (which I believe it is) and responsible drivers don’t stare at their satnav screen while driving, then there is no need to have it on whilst moving.

We use technology to protect us from other anti social, dangerous driving such as speeding or drink driving. This is no different.


Gazza

[Ben Lovejoy]

responsible drivers don’t stare at their satnav screen while driving, then there is no need to have it on whilst moving.

There is a huge difference between 'glance' and 'stare'.

Personally, I've never seen anyone whose car I've been in 'stare' at their GPS, but perhaps that's because I try not to passenger with crap drivers.

I glance at lots of things in my car: speedo, rear-view mirror, GPS, rev-counter, temp gauge, wing-mirrors, warning lights, etc.

It takes less time to glance at a GPS screen to get a visual on a piece of spoken guidance than it does to obtain the same information from a road sign. Would you also like to ban road-signs?

Ben
[/i]

[2Tubs]

responsible drivers don’t stare at their satnav screen while driving, then there is no need to have it on whilst moving.

There is a huge difference between 'glance' and 'stare'.

Personally, I've never seen anyone whose car I've been in 'stare' at their GPS, but perhaps that's because I try not to passenger with crap drivers.

I glance at lots of things in my car: speedo, rear-view mirror, GPS, rev-counter, temp gauge, wing-mirrors, warning lights, etc.

It takes less time to glance at a GPS screen to get a visual on a piece of spoken guidance than it does to obtain the same information from a road sign. Would you also like to ban road-signs?

Ben
[/i]

Ben,

People spend too much time looking at GPS while their car is moving, no matter how much you deny it, it’s a sad fact.

Why do you have so much trouble with the spoken word? Why do you then need a visual confirmation of “Just ahead, turn right”?

I have a sat nav too. I don’t have the screen on while driving, if I’m honest, because I’d be tempted to look at it when not safe to do so. I have no trouble following it’s instructions.

The screen is not needed while moving, is it. And while you might just glance, someone who is lost might take a bit more time looking at the map/instructions. Someone who just likes shiny things might be concentrating on the gadget rather than the road. I see it every day, someone hurtling down the road with an electronic map shining out from their windscreen. You really believe that this unnecessary distraction doesn’t have the potential for disaster?

It is a distraction that isn’t needed. Unlike a speedo (one of your analogies) which if used correctly will make driving safer, it adds a distraction that has the potential to be very dangerous. Oh, and as for road signs, some complex roadsigns and advertising boards have been removed when it’s been noticed that accidents have increased since they were installed.

Why Ben, do you argue against every argument put forward on safety if it means the motorist might have to change their behaviour a touch? You’ve been happy to see cyclists have to change their behaviour, share their space but my god, if anyone says that a motorist might have to forgo an unnecessary luxury and you’re here fighting the cause. Seriously, I don’t get it. I cycle and drive too. I would never argue that the cyclist should rule the road (except in jest), there has to be a compromise. And I wouldn’t like to see my motoring rights given up unnecessarily but I’m damned if I’ll see a danger continue that can so easily be avoided.

And at what cost to the responsible motorist?

None. No impact on their freedom, but the potential to save lives. And here you are, arguing that the distraction offered by sat nav screens in moving cars is quite safe. Pedestrians, cyclists and all vulnerable users have nothing to fear from a driver whose looking at a tiny screen for directions as it only takes a glance.

If someone travelling at 30mph “glances” at their satnav as a child runs out in front of them 46 feet away, what happens to the child?

You might argue that someone checking their speedo would have the same result. That’s true. But then by increasing the number of visual checks you make as you drive you increase the risk of accidents. And I don’t know about you, but I can estimate the speed I’m travelling at very accurately using ground covered, gear I’m in and the sound of the engine. So in reality, I hardly ever need to check my speedo. It might take you a quick glance to check your sat nav. But you also quickly glance at so many other things. Introduce any more and you won’t have time to glance at the road. It isn’t needed, there are safer alternatives; provided you don’t need to double check the audio directions with a visual check, perhaps you need a hearing aid?

Sorry if the above sounds like a rant or doesn’t flow too well. I had to quickly bang it off in between code changes to a system I’m working on . . .

Gazza

[Jeckyll_n_Snyde]

Out of curiosity have ther been any GPS related accidents? as these gadgets have been out for quite a while now. I did a quick google check but it came up with un-related links.... perhaps i need to refine my search or there hasn't been any....yet
p.s. i'm not taking sides (my screen is disabled (by choice) as mentioned earlier to conserve battery power) i'm just curious.

[Ben Lovejoy]

People spend too much time looking at GPS while their car is moving, no matter how much you deny it, it’s a sad fact.

It's a claim you've made, rather than a fact. It may be true for some people, but I haven't personally ever seen the behaviour your describe.

Why do you then need a visual confirmation of “Just ahead, turn right”?

At a T-junction, no-one does. At a complex roundabout, "Take 2nd exit" could mean I'm turning sharp left or going straight across. My view is that my driving is safer and smoother if I know which, and thus I prefer that glance to see which it is.

I don’t have the screen on while driving, if I’m honest, because I’d be tempted to look at it when not safe to do so.

In that case, your decision to have it switched off while moving is absolutely the correct decision for you. That doesn't mean it's the correct decision for everyone.

You really believe that this unnecessary distraction doesn’t have the potential for disaster?

I think this kind of language generates more heat than light. Absolutely anything could be argued to have the 'potential for disaster' if it were done unthinkingly. Allowing children to walk downstairs or go outside the home has the 'potential for disaster'. Commonsense is required in evaluating hazards, and I see no evidence that GPS units are causing crashes (other than those very stupid people who turn left into rivers because their GPS told them to, and frankly the only way to make those people safe is to ban them from attempting to tie their own shoelaces).

Why Ben, do you argue against every argument put forward on safety

I favour some safety measures (ones I believe will be effective, and which are proportionate to the issue), and oppose others. As, I'm sure, do you.

Sorry if the above sounds like a rant

It perhaps has rantish tinges around the edges.

Ben

[2Tubs]

People spend too much time looking at GPS while their car is moving, no matter how much you deny it, it’s a sad fact.

It's a claim you've made, rather than a fact. It may be true for some people, but I haven't personally ever seen the behaviour your describe.

Why do you then need a visual confirmation of “Just ahead, turn right”?

At a T-junction, no-one does. At a complex roundabout, "Take 2nd exit" could mean I'm turning sharp left or going straight across. My view is that my driving is safer and smoother if I know which, and thus I prefer that glance to see which it is.

I don’t have the screen on while driving, if I’m honest, because I’d be tempted to look at it when not safe to do so.

In that case, your decision to have it switched off while moving is absolutely the correct decision for you. That doesn't mean it's the correct decision for everyone.

You really believe that this unnecessary distraction doesn’t have the potential for disaster?

I think this kind of language generates more heat than light. Absolutely anything could be argued to have the 'potential for disaster' if it were done unthinkingly. Allowing children to walk downstairs or go outside the home has the 'potential for disaster'. Commonsense is required in evaluating hazards, and I see no evidence that GPS units are causing crashes (other than those very stupid people who turn left into rivers because their GPS told them to, and frankly the only way to make those people safe is to ban them from attempting to tie their own shoelaces).

Why Ben, do you argue against every argument put forward on safety

I favour some safety measures (ones I believe will be effective, and which are proportionate to the issue), and oppose others. As, I'm sure, do you.

Sorry if the above sounds like a rant

It perhaps has rantish tinges around the edges.

Ben

Not just a claim I made.

A claim made by sat nav users themselves: -

From http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/SatNavDangerous.html: -

A survey carried out for Privilege, centred around just under 2000 UK drivers and found that using a satellite navigation system made 19% of drivers lose concentration, compared to 17% that were reading a map spread over the steering wheel while in motion.
1 in 10 drivers admitted to using the controls on their satellite navigation system while they were driving the car, instead of programming their route before they hit the road. Over half of these also admitted that doing so took their eyes off the road, and could have led to accidents.
1 in 8 didn't check a route they were not familiar with in advance, and just relied on the technology to find their way for them.
1 in 4 said that they read maps while driving, although from the results of the survey it seemed that in some cases this might not be as distracting as using a sat nav system. Either way, it's worrying. The survey also brought to light the fact that drivers who used either sat nav or a paper map while driving took their eyes off the road for an average of 10 seconds at an average speed of 60mph, during which time they would travel twice the length of an average football field pitch.

My highlights in bold.

But somehow, I think you’ll look for a way of denying that satnav useage could ever be dangerous. Because you’ve never seen it. I reckon you don’t get out much. because I see it every day.

I agree that effective measures should be used to prevent dangerous driving. A blank screen in while in motion would be very effective. It’s a no brainer.

As you say, a blank screen is the correct decision for me. If we could all be trusted not to use a satnav irresponsibly we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. But sat nav users themselves have admitted this isn’t the case. As responsible people wouldn’t be looking at the screen while in motion, blank screen compulsion wouldn’t be an issue, would it?

Oh, and if you have a problem with the verbal instruction and a road layout, pull over, check your directions and get going. Looking at the screen while moving is dangerous.

Gazza

[Ben Lovejoy]

I frankly don't believe any survey which tells us people are taking their eyes off the roads for 10 seconds at 60mph - if it were true, they wouldn't be here to tell the tale.

But clearly we disagree, and as I think the answers to your points have already been made, and there is zero possibility of your proposal being taken up, I won't take the thread any further.

Ben

[2Tubs]

I frankly don't believe any survey which tells us people are taking their eyes off the roads for 10 seconds at 60mph - if it were true, they wouldn't be here to tell the tale.

But clearly we disagree, and as I think the answers to your points have already been made, and there is zero possibility of your proposal being taken up, I won't take the thread any further.

Ben

Come on Ben, even if people are exaggerating, its obvious there is still a dangerous distraction affecting road safety. Ignoring that, in the survey, a good number of people admitted to being distracted from driving by sat nav devices. Something you appear to be in denial about because you are impervious to all distractions while at the wheel. Your refusal to even acknowledge that the problem even appears to exist is ludicrous.

Zero possibility?

I think there is a precedent that would suggest you’re being a tad naïve. Remember the opposition to legislation regarding mobile phones? Remember how people denied there was a safety issue as people were capable of talking and operating a phone without an impact on driving safety? Even now people distracted by their phone at the wheel.

Can you explain to me the difference between dialling a number and programming a sat nav and how is it safer to do the latter on the move compared to the former?

Or how about talking on a mobile (even hands free) compared to reading instructions on a screen. It is accepted (from numerous studies) that talking hands free on the move dangerously impairs driving quality, and that’s while looking out the windscreen. How is that worse than not looking through the screen at all?

Do you therefore, really believe that it is impossible for road safety campaigners, who are already pushing for such legislation, to be unsuccessful?

Gazza

[Ben Lovejoy]

As I say, I'm not going to debate the matter further as I think both sides of the argument have been made, but please do not blatently misrepresent what I have said ...

Can you explain to me the difference between dialling a number and programming a sat nav and how is it safer to do the latter on the move compared to the former?

I have said that glancing at the screen can be done safely. Clearly programming the GPS while driving would be extremely dangerous, and all the models I'm aware of default to making this impossible.

Ben

[2Tubs]

As I say, I'm not going to debate the matter further as I think both sides of the argument have been made, but please do not blatently misrepresent what I have said ...

Can you explain to me the difference between dialling a number and programming a sat nav and how is it safer to do the latter on the move compared to the former?

I have said that glancing at the screen can be done safely. Clearly programming the GPS while driving would be extremely dangerous, and all the models I'm aware of default to making this impossible.

Ben

I was referring to the points made in the survey during the previous posts, not trying to misrepresent what you were saying. I apologise for my ambiguity. But it is another reason why satnavs should be disabled beyond audio directions when the car is in motion.

I also addressed your point in the same post you cherry picked the above from, here: -

Or how about talking on a mobile (even hands free) compared to reading instructions on a screen. It is accepted (from numerous studies) that talking hands free on the move dangerously impairs driving quality, and that’s while looking out the windscreen. How is that worse than not looking through the screen at all?

You simply can't argue for another un-necessary distraction when audio instructions do the same job. You're flogging a dead horse now, don't you think?

Gazza

[Ben Lovejoy]

Thank you for your clarification.

As for flogging dead horses, we would both be doing so by continuing to debate the matter; all the relevant points have been made, and fortunately we are each free to implement our preferred choices with our own GPS units.

Ben

[gilesjuk]

People tend not to gawp at the petrol gauges as they drive.

And judging by the quality of most driving, they never look at a speedo.

I think you must consider that there is a clear difference here.

A speedo needs a quick glance, eyes hardly leave the road.

Sat navs seems to take preference over the windscreen when drivers set off over unfamilier routes.

As cycle, I can tell the drivers with satnavs. They're the ones who are cutting across my path or mounting the kerb.

Gazza

I look at my fuel gauge. I personally think HUDs should be a legal requirement. As for the fuel gauge, I think when all cars have integrated GPS and you tell the car where you are going it should know if you have enough fuel for the trip and then you wouldn't need to look at it.

As for speed, we're heading towards a time where we may as well all have speed limiters activated by some transmitter. That way you don't need to know your speed since you can't exceed the limit.

[ianr1950]

If you need something other than is already fitted into vehicles that tells you when you need fuel and to have speed limiters fitted to all vehicles then I would suggest you might as well have chips implanted in us all to tell us when we can eat, sleep and do anything else.

What planet are you all on, we are living in enough of a nanny state as it is and I don't need and neither does the majority of the citizens of this country need such measures.

[Ben Lovejoy]

Just as an aside, I'm currently experimenting with routes on a daily cycle commute to client premises I'm doing at present. The experiments involve plotting the route in Mapsource and then transferring it into my GPS, mounted on the bicycle handlebars. I have the screen on while cycling ... <Shock>