The U.S. National Transportation Safety Administration has presented new proposed guidelines intended to encourage automakers to mitigate driver distraction when interacting with various in-vehicle applications. The recommendations are not only ambiguous and nearly unenforceable, they reflect a lack of understanding regarding in-vehicle systems in spite of volumes of available research.

The ominously described “first phase” of the guidelines include the following recommendations (as described in a report in Automotive Fleet Top News):

• Reduce the complexity of in-vehicle devices, and the amount of time required to use those devices;
• Limit system operations to require only one hand;
• Limit the time required to glance at a device to no more than 2 seconds;
• Limit the amount of unnecessary visual information in the driver’s field of view;
• Limit the number of manual inputs needed to operate a device;
• Disable functions while the vehicle is in motion – ie. text messaging, Internet browsing, social media use, entering navigation system addresses, entering phone numbers for dialing, displaying more than 30 characters of text unrelated to driving task.

Among the more naïve (if not absurd) statements reported from the DOT was the statement that systems that help drivers avoid accidents (forward collision avoidance systems or lane-departure alerts) were not considered to be distracting and that GPS enabled navigation systems were safer to use than maps.  Agency representatives said future  guidelines would address devices brought into vehicles and voice-based controls.

NHTSA representatives said they chose guidelines over mandates out of a preference for voluntary compliance from auto makers instead of the coercive power of mandates, according ot the Automotive Fleet Top News report.  NHTSA executives reportedly indicated they intend to testify at upcoming NTSB hearings regarding banning the use of all mobile devices in cars and that the agency is awaiting the results of research on cognitive distraction before proceeding with creating additional guidelines.

NHTSA Director Ray Lahood said the new guidelines are now open to a public comment period of 60 days, inviting feedback from the public, automakers, and other interest groups.

The first wave of guidelines listed above read like automotive user interface best practices created by an engineer with no prior experience.  Of course designers should reduce complexity; limit interaction to one hand at a time; limit glance time, limit unnecessary visual information; limit manual inputs and disable functions while the vehicle is in motion.  But each of the prescriptions is either too specific or two vague.

#1 – Limit complexity and the amount of time required to interface – Is this NOT a no-brainer?

#2 – Limit operation to one hand – Is it necessary to make this a guideline?

#3 – Limit the time required to glance at a device to no more than two seconds – Who is going to measure this and how?

#4 – Limit the amount of unnecessary information in the driver’s field of view – Define unnecessary.

#5 – Limit the number of manual inputs needed – Is there any engineer, anywhere in the industry, trying to ADD unnecessary manual inputs?

#6 – Disable functions while the vehicle is in motion including phone # entry – Best of intentions taken too far.

 

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturer’s (AAM) Driver Focus – Telematics Guidelines (http://bit.ly/wmqoX7) represent the gold standard for existing industry design criteria for mitigating distracted driving.  Their very existence obviates the need for redundant guideline creation or mandate setting.

The AAM testified before the U.S. House of Representatives in October 2009: “The Guidelines are a ‘best practices’ document that addresses essential safety aspects of driver interaction with visual‐manual interfaces. They consist of 24 principles that address the design, use, and installation of telematics systems with the goal of maximizing ‘eyes on road.’ The Guidelines provide criteria and verification procedures for use by automotive manufacturers and telematic device manufacturers during product development. Each individual Guideline has associated with it:

                        Rationale

                        Criterion / Criteria

                        Verification Procedure(s)

                        Examples (as appropriate)

                        Cites to supporting peer‐reviewed research

“The 24 guidelines are divided into five groups:

                        Installation (5 Principles)

                        Information Presentation (4 Principles)

                        Interactions with Displays and Controls (6 Principles)

                        System Behavior (3 Principles)

                        System User Information (6 Principles)

“The Guidelines assume manufacturers will follow rigorous process standards when developing telematics systems. Let me highlight two key principles:

Principle 1.4 – Addresses the positioning of visual in‐vehicle telematics displays - The proper positioning of displays close to the driver’s normal line of sight allows drivers to continue to monitor the roadway peripherally while looking at the display.

Principle 2.1 – Sets visual demand limits - Eyes‐off‐road time is limited because functions or features must not exceed specified visual demand or driving performance criteria.

It is clear that there is no need for additional guidelines or mandates from NHTSA – or at least not guidelines and/or mandates that do not take into account the progress that has already been made in the industry.  Also unnecessary, are guidelines or mandates that do not provide or leave room for advances in user interface technology intended to mitigate distraction and enhance safe driving circumstances.

Some of the emerging solutions take advantage of contextual information including vehicle location, condition of the driver and road and, ultimately, weather conditions and the state of operation of in-vehicle systems.  Providing ambiguous “guidelines” without the context of recent and anticipated technological advances risks freezing development activities and preventing new safety systems from reaching consumers.

Implications:

This latest NHTSA initiative reinforces the notion that U.S. regulators are still at sea in their attempts to fathom and combat the emerging driver distraction phenomenon.  Rather than encouraging advances in technology they are steering the industry away from solutions built around voice and touch interfaces that are already helping to resolve the problem.

Rather than embracing and highlighting technology, NHTSA clearly prefers to draw lines in the sand and wall off certain areas of development.  In the context of the automotive industry’s existing guideline development, it appears that NHTSA’s efforts are wasteful, redundant and distracting.  

Rather than pursuing the existing side show of additional hearings and research, both the NTSB and NHTSA ought to conduct a careful review of the existing AAM guidelines as well as those of similar organizations around the world, and assess whether any additional guidelines are really called for.  In the end, the NTSB and NHTSA efforts look like nothing more than public relations programs unlikely to advance the industry’s technical understanding of the causes or potential solutions of distracted driving.  Of greater concern is the potential for these regulatory bodies to interfere in ongoing technology advances and actually throw the industry into reverse. 

Nuance’s Automotive Summit, which took place in Detroit last week, highlighted the leadership position Nuance and one of its most prominent customers, Ford Motor Company, now command in the area of automotive interfaces. While battles may continue to be fought over voice, touch, haptic, and other in-vehicle interfaces, these two companies are positioned at the vortex of the debate leading the charge to develop and deliver safe vehicle interfaces and redefining the automotive branding process. The assumption of this leadership mantle occurs at a time when car makers and their suppliers have been running for cover under heavy fire from regulatory powers in Washington, DC. And the Feds have taken on the added support of lobbying groups and some research organizations. The Federal government’s regulatory arm has stepped into the roadway seeking – like a speed-gun wielding traffic officer – to impede the industry’s headlong advance toward connectivity and smartphone integration in cars. Car makers and the supplier community, by and large, have taken one of two courses. Most have remained silent on the issue of the day – driver distraction – hoping it will either go away or that some white knight, such as the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers or some other group will calm the waters for them. Others, such as General Motors’ OnStar division, Volkswagen, and QNX have chosen to hit the accelerator. In recent weeks, OnStar has announced its plans to enable Facebook connectivity in the car. Volkswagen and QNX have posted YouTube videos showing early executions of terminal mode smartphone connectivity. These videos show all forms of smartphone images displayed in-dash with no context – ie. no discrimination between what will and won’t be accessible when the vehicle is in motion. In contrast, Ford has been reaching out to regulatory authorities on multiple fronts. The very same week OnStar was announcing Facebook connectivity, Ford representatives – together with Nuance executives – were meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington with legislators explaining the state of the art in voice-based in-vehicle interfaces. Prior to this outreach effort, which is ongoing for both legislators and regulators within the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Ford also responded to complaints from the DOT’s now-famous director, Ray LaHood, and altered some of its advertising imaging and messaging. This was LaHood’s first missile fired across the bow of Ford’s Sync interface. The advertising messages are critical. Both Ford and OnStar are running some of the most highly visible television ad campaigns in the U.S. showing off their in-vehicle systems – at a time when both firms are fighting their way out of the steep sales decline of 2009. It is absolutely essential that both companies communicate effectively with so much unwanted attention being focused on these systems and with important sales and market share on the line. OnStar bears the added burden of embedded telematics industry leadership. No other auto maker has taken the embedded telematics approach as far as OnStar which now, after 15 years, has nearly six million subscribers. But with diminished vehicle sales and a virtually unchanged renewal rate, OnStar is facing a potential erosion of its subscriber base. In spite of all it has done to offer compelling solutions to consumers, the company now feels pressure to do more to boost its subscription renewal rates. The company is also swimming against a strong demographic current as GM’s historical customer base has aged. The company is clearly looking to OnStar to not only maintain its previous status as a profitable division by maintaining and adding to its existing subscriber base, but also as a potential source of demographic stimulus to reach out to younger car buyers. GM is not alone in reaching out to younger buyers. Almost every car maker is in a perennial campaign to tap into the next generation of car buyers. And with smartphone purchasing demographics corresponding with this target market, the smartphone connectivity proposition has become essential. (GM and OnStar are somewhat limited by the current vehicle offering which lacks for a robust line-up of small cars targeted toward a younger demographic.) The advertising targets can hardly be missed in the existing television spots which show young people interacting with OnStar systems to obtain location or vehicle information. (A minor pet peeve of this analyst is that it seems that not all these young people, even when they are in the front seat, are seatbelted in the ads – but company executives insist they are all safely secured.) The OnStar television campaign dovetails nicely with GM’s parallel social networking marketing initiatives on Facebook, Twitter and other Web-based communication channels. The smartphone application for controlling vehicle functions and accessing vehicle data on the Chevrolet Volt is another manifestation of these efforts. What is lost in this campaign, though, is the rock solid safety and security message that brought OnStar to this industry leadership position in the first place. Ford has also been youth-oriented in its embrace of connectivity technology. Ford’s ads emphasize the safe use of technology in cars using voice interfacing technology. Watching these ads as a participant in the industry is mesmerizing given the degree of focus on the human machine interface in the car. (While this analyst would prefer the driver not touch the display while the vehicle is in motion, Ford has made clear its adherence to AAM guidelines and the limitations of this functionality in a moving vehicle.) What OnStar and Ford both realize is the need to reach out to younger car buyers. The key motivator here is the need to provide for smartphone connectivity, both for safety and functionality. Younger smartphone, and car, buyers are primary targets for location-aware applications ranging from traffic and navigation to social networking, according to Strategy Analytics research. The drive to connect smartphones is behind the enthusiasm for Nokia’s Terminal Mode initiative along with Apple’s iPod Out, Delphi’s D-Connect, Ford’s AppLink and similar solutions. But only Ford has stepped to the forefront with a vision and implementation of a walled garden-type approach to application deployment. There is a recognition in the industry of the appeal of both smartphone connectivity and application deployment. Ford talks about the beamed in, brought in and built-in strategies for delivering content, applications and services, but the underlying philosophy is control. The power of the Ford solution lies in five value propositions: Distraction mitigation: The voice-based interface minimizes eyes-off-the road time. Demographic targeting: The smartphone interface appeals to social networking young people. Future proofing: The Microsoft-based platform allows for application development and deployment thereby enhancing the value of the solution over the life of the vehicle. Subscription anxiety: The connectivity solution allows the consumer to defer the subscription decision and places the burden of data transport on the consumer’s existing wireless subscription. Branded HMI statement: Ford IS Sync. Ford IS MyFord Touch. The interface has become the brand. A new era in the automotive industry has arrived. At last week’s Automotive Summit, Nuance emphasized all of these points. Whether the solution being shown was the company’s touchpad character recognition, hybrid on-board/off-board speech recognition, enhanced echo cancellation/noise reduction, or focused search all were targeted at reducing distraction while providing a branding pallet for car makers and their suppliers. Presenters at the event, including Nuance executives and partners, pointed to research demonstrating the efficacy of voice and touch interfaces for specific types of tasks. Presenters raised questions regarding interfaces such as BMW’s i-Drive and touch screens generally, favoring voice and console-mounted touchpads (ie. the Audi A8). The consensus opinion appeared to be that touchscreens will survive, thanks in part to Ford’s success in proving the value of the solution. On the other hand, i-Drive-like interfaces will likely continue to come under fire as what one executive described as a “linear keyboard.” Now more than ever, though, rigorous research is being applied to weigh critical HMI decisions and eyes off the road time is more than ever a deciding factor. Conclusions: The next step in the process of realizing the potential of smartphone integration is enabling application downloads. Several solutions have been proposed including: Direct handset display: Nokia Terminal Mode approach. Walled garden: Ford application deployment approach. Application validation: Delphi et. al. provide application validation. Single application: Handset application controlling access to all apps. App store validation: Apple, Blackberry et. al. provide application validation. Carrier validation: See above. What is likely to emerge is a hybrid of on-board/off-board application control shared between the vehicle and the mobile device within the context of an OEM’s walled garden. When available, server resources will assist with application functionality such as search or streaming data or content. But regardless of the source of data or service, the entire solution on-board and off-board will be encompassed by the OEM’s walled garden. The vehicle and data security associated with OEM control will increasingly be non-negotiable. Challenges to this ecosystem are already emerging as application developer candidates for the Ford platform are expressing frustration with the process of putting the Ford software developer kit to work. Ford is seen as slow to respond to developer needs, a problem that is not expected to be resolved soon. OEMs will never be able to move at developer speeds especially where vehicle safety, security and integrity are at stake. So, new voice-based interfaces and Bluetooth wireless connections have enabled a new branding proposition in the industry coinciding with growing demand for safe mobile phone connections, a youth-oriented demographic outreach (particularly in compact car segments), and the need to future proof cars to keep up with consumer electronics market advances. More than ever cars are defined by their human machine connections. Ford and Nuance have much for which to be thankful and many of those thanks ought to be directed to Ray LaHood in the Department of Transportation. Much as most industry executives are want to complain and criticize the DOT for its single-minded anti-distracted driving campaign (when drunk drivers are actually responsible for more damage), the effort has focused consumers on their risky behaviors, opened the door to creative solutions, and stimulated demand following the industry’s worst ever downturn. Additional insight: http://bit.ly/c0OLhT - Consumer Implications for Smartphone-Vehicle Connectivity  - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://tinyurl.com/34hidb5 - Smartphone Market Evolution and the Automotive Opportunity Implications - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://tinyurl.com/2qx88eo - Automotive Connectivity: Beyond Bluetooth Solutions - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/c1nvTq - Consumer Interest High for Connected Safety and Security Services - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/aGJHDj - Smartphone Market Evolution and the Automotive Opportunity Implications -Fitzgerald - Automotive Multimedia & Communications

Driving has never been safer, with vehicle crash-related fatalities at an all time low in most areas of the developed world. But public authorities are pushing for zero fatalities and these efforts are helping to bring enhanced safety technologies to the market through a combination of embedded and off-board solutions. Still, not everyone agrees on how to make cars safer. The latest high-profile debate revolves around distracted driving and mobile phone use. Some argue that hands-free interfaces help drivers by allowing them to keep their hands on the steering wheel and their eyes on the road while interacting with their mobile phone. Others believe that no mobile devices should be in the car at all since they represent a driver distraction. Acknowledging the role of distraction (a suddenly loaded noun with many potent and potential meanings) in accidents, a purist might argue for an in-vehicle experience bereft of distracting displays. In this context, a shift to head-up display technology might make more sense than in-dash displays, MMI/i-Drive-type interfaces and touch screens. Even voice interfaces might take a backseat in this scenario. Companies such as General Motors and Microvision are among those leading the way down the head-up path. In an environment where regulators want drivers’ eyes on the road it is the only logical way to go. But the industry and consumers may not be ready for this leap. And with so much industry focus on in-car mobile phone use as part of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation’s Distracted Driving Initiative, the head-up display conversation is likely to be deferred, ignored, or simply drowned out. (It is important to note that head-up displays are no longer available from Buick or Cadillac, as recent dealer visits have confirmed. BMW is now the leader in head-up display technology in North America. The technology remains expensive and, generally, a special order item.) The USDOT’s Distracted Driving Initiative will see its second summit conference this year in Washington, DC, September 21^st. The goal of the event is to raise awareness of distracted driving resulting from in-car mobile phone use generally and texting in particular and to seek solutions to the problem in a public forum. Ford Motor Company stands in the eye of this storm with its high profile Sync hands-free system and the MyFord Touch upgrade arriving later this year. Ford is carrying the flag for hands-on-the-wheel/eyes-on-the-road driving in a struggle with Dept. of Transportation director Ray LaHood, the National Safety Council, the American Automobile Association and Oprah Winfrey, all of whom oppose the use of mobile devices in cars under any circumstances. (Ophrah may have changed her tune recently to allow for hands-free interfaces.) The debate raises fundamental questions regarding safety systems and automotive interfaces. Distracted Driving campaigners implicate the two-second glance to an iPod, iPhone or other mobile device as the culprit in more than a million roadway accidents (http://bit.ly/6uP3wu). All parties agree that there is a problem, but disagree on its nature and magnitude. There is also definite disagreement on the solution. And if a two-second glance is the culprit, what about all of those OTHER two-second glances in the car? Ford’s eyes-on-road-hands-on-wheel message could not be clearer and the company has backed up its position with its own research along with the results of both independent and industry-sponsored studies. Ford’s Sync and the unfortunately named MyFord Touch (which is intended mainly for voice, not touch, interfacing – in spite of the touch screen) represent the solution to a long-standing problem. Driver Distraction has been an issue confronting automobile designers from the very earliest days of the industry. The emergence of car radios in the 1930’s, for example, led to the introduction of push button channel selection to ease the distraction of locating stations with a dial. Multiple international standards-setting bodies and industry associations have long ago specified the appropriate viewing angle (30 degrees) of dashboard displays to minimize eyes-off-the-road time.  Designers regularly do battle over the question of touch screen or no touch screen, debating the finer points of changing focal lengths and distraction. Audi delved deeply into this issue before launching its touchpad interface. Yet all of the i-Drive and MMI-type interfaces still require a glance at a display in the car. Strangely, no one in the industry seems to be taking this distraction debate to its logical conclusion. If a two-second glance to an in-vehicle display is a source of potentially fatal crashes, the industry needs to be taking an entirely different direction. If displays of all kinds are the problem, then let’s do away with on-board displays completely. At the very least the industry should commence an initiative to explore a shift to head-up displays. But, wait, before we undo more than a century of HMI refinement let’s go back to the beginning. Highway fatalities are at an all-time low throughout the developed world and are especially low when indexed against the extraordinary increase in miles driven. During this time of declining road fatalities smartphone penetration has grown at an equally extraordinary pace. Smartphones, therefore, are not an obvious source of highway fatalities, but anecdotal evidence suggests these devices are not blameless. Ford is an interesting organization to find at the nexus of the debate. Not only has the company led the way in bringing voice interfaces into the car for safe operation of mobile devices, it has also pioneered the safe implementation of those interfaces. Examples of safe voice implementation by Ford: #1 Software development kit (SDK) enforces Sync constraints such as no keyboard entry or video while moving and list length limitations. This “policy management” layer is also being implemented within Apple’s iPod out, Delphi’s D-Connect, and Nokia’s Terminal Mode (http://bit.ly/b22buN), among other solutions. #2 When a vehicle is in motion, Ford locks out features and functions such as pairing a Bluetooth phone, editing or adding contact info, POI reviews, detailed sports scores or movie times, manual destination entry, all demo modes, keying in or editing messages, Internet access, external keyboard, editing settings, setting up short-cut buttons. #3 Ford limits list lengths (contacts/recent calls/POIs), the number of canned text responses and Sirius Travel Link information when the vehicle is moving. Ford’s recommendations for mitigating distracted driving include: #1 Passage of Jay Rockefellers’ anti-texting Senate Bill (http://bit.ly/aLMKL4) providing incentives for states to pass anti-texting legislation; #2 Primary enforcement of existing mobile phone bans; #3 Limiting mobile phone use for holders of graduated driver’s licenses – ie. teens; Ford also offers its MyKey technology for parents to limit vehicle speed, stereo volume etc. for teen drivers. #4 Education/public awareness campaigns – ie. Ford’s Driving Skills for Life (http://bit.ly/8TcMpn); #5 Elevate Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers’ “Driver Focused Telematics Guidelines” to regulatory status (http://bit.ly/ddCpRd); #6 Increase funding for research – handheld vs. voice; relative risks of distractions including cognitive; and review real-world driver compensation behaviors. The embedded, policy management side of Ford’s smartphone-based effort has been Volvo’s IDIS workload management solution. Not surprisingly, Ford is working on similar on-board solutions that take into account driving conditions and vehicle status based on messages on the vehicle CAN network including stability control and windshield wiper engagement, speed, and traffic. There is a small irony in Ford’s sale of Volvo given Volvo’s leadership in vehicle safety. The timing was rendered especially poignant given the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s shift in the middle of last year toward a focus on preventing rather than simply surviving accidents (http://bit.ly/9L6MFi). Volvo has been a leader in bringing technologies to market that anticipate and attempt to avoid accidents. IDIS (for Intelligent Driver Information System) is intended to shut down distracting in-vehicle functions – such as mobile phone access or even warning lights - in the presence of hazardous driving conditions – intersections, overtaking etc. IDIS takes into account such driving circumstances as acceleration, speed reduction, turn signal indicators, steering wheel angle, reverse gear engagement and infotainment controls. Its primary output is to delay/manage incoming calls and vehicle alerts. The next step for IDIS will be the integration of map data along the lines of map-based advanced driver assist system designs from Navteq (with partners Magneti Marelli and STMicroelectronics) and Intermap (Visteon). The integration of map data with vehicle safety systems will allow for curve over-speed warnings or pro-active braking when approaching sharp turns. One can expect more solutions to block mobile phone access – as in the case of Global Mobile Alert – in the proximity of hazardous intersections, school zones or rail crossings. Strategy Analytics research shows that consumers want safer cars. Recent Strategy Analytics surveys reveal high consumer interest in night vision, pre-crash safety, adaptive front lights, blindspot detection, adaptive cruise control, driver attention monitors, lane departure warning, parking assistance, V2V communication and automatic speed limiters. The challenge of course, is getting consumers to pay for these technologies. This reluctance to pay creates the conditions for Federal mandates. And Federal mandates are likely to change the public’s perception of safety from an exploding airbag to a pre-emptive braking experience. Auto makers are already responding to this shift. Infiniti, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, Opel and Volvo are all actively touting active vehicle safety systems with the best and most advanced of these taking driving context into account. These systems are also increasingly taking distraction, inattention and even driver fatigue into account. Conclusion: In an ideal world, there would be no distracting displays inside the car to divert the driver’s attention from the eyes forward concentration on the driving task. In this ideal world, head-up displays would be widely deployed and traffic fatalities would be continuing their downward trajectory. We do not live in an ideal world. Therefore, everything else in the world of automotive HMI is a compromise. In the context of that compromise, vehicle systems that take into account driving circumstances and device connectivity are preferred to those that do not. This means that systems and devices – Apple’s iPod out, Nokia’s Terminal Mode, Delphi’s D-Connect – that provide a contextual policy management layer will be in demand. More importantly, with NHTSA shifting its focus to crash avoidance, perhaps the entire automotive industry will begin to rethink what safety is and what safety means. And when it comes to distracted driving, there will hopefully be a federal and industry embrace rather than a rejection of technological solutions such as hands-free interfaces. Additional Insights:http://bit.ly/94Mn1V - Delphi Emerges at SAE with Answer to Nokia Terminal Mode - Lanctot - blog - Strategy Analyticshttp://bit.ly/b5W8ZS - Nokia and RIM Push Into Automotive as ‘Apps’ Competition Mounts - Joanne Blight – AMCS http://bit.ly/b5XEJM - Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: Supply And Fitment Database - Kevin Mak - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/cVcENg- Consumers Interested in Advanced Safety Features, but not at Current Price - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/b9oVAt - CTIA 2010: Distraction Mitigating Apps on Display - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/9BYNeR - Smartphones Bringing Safety Systems to Cars - Roger Lanctot - blog - Autmotive Multimedia and Communications Service

Attendees at Ford’s recent launch of the 2011 Explorer at the Newseum in Washington, DC asked company executives if they were worried about the potentially distracting aspects of the MyFord Touch voice-based interface available on the new SUV. The answer from Ford was that MyFord Touch specifically enables hands-free use of vehicle systems allowing the driver to keep hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. This is the message that not all industry participants are grasping. The smartphone is rapidly becoming a platform for delivering safety systems into vehicles and yet leading governmental and non-governmental bodies continue to declare their opposition to the use of mobile devices in cars. The National Safety Council, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Ray LaHood) and the American Automobile Association have all declared their opposition to mobile phone use in cars. Public authorities should speed, not impede, the path of technological progress. If smartphones can deliver safety to drivers faster than embedded systems or DSRC-based systems requiring billions of dollars in infrastructure investment, so be it. And new applications from companies such as ImaginYze and Global Mobile Alert, among many others, are making advanced safety technology available via smartphone apps. Fortunately, none of this opposition to mobile phone use in cars has produced national or even local legislation banning mobile phone use altogether. Most laws only go so far as to either ban texting and driving or to require hands-free devices. In some states, teen drivers are forbidden to use mobile phones while driving. Nevertheless, the campaigns continue, including Oprah Winfrey’s NoPhoneZone. Germany probably has the best solution in allowing mobile phone use in a car but forbidding the touching of the phone while driving. This seems like an effective and appropriate solution especially since it allows the driver to continue to benefit from the growing range of applications that provide for enhanced safety. Throughout the world the race is on to bring advanced safety systems to cars. The European Union most recently detailed their plans to mandate safety technologies. One can only hope the EU will not proceed to define which technology is used, as in the case of eCall. If there is anything that has slowed down the advance of connected safety systems in European cars it has been the pursuit of a mandated technology on top of the application mandate. Meddling governments – operating with the best of intentions – have repeatedly intruded on new technology development and instead of stimulating innovation and competition have quashed both. In the case of eCall, the in-band modem technology selected by the EU arrives as an already outdated solution that continues to be resisted at the Federal, OEM and public service access point levels. (In contrast, the U.S. is already well on the way to defining and deploying far more flexible digital solutions as part of its Next Generation 911 initiative - http://bit.ly/9jg576.) European research initiatives ranging from SISTER (http://bit.ly/cTiRxx) – which looks at satellite-based safety solutions – to AKTIV (http://bit.ly/b4og1K) – which looks at the efficacy of embedded cellular technology for safety apps – to TeleFOT (http://bit.ly/c9AeT8) – which is assessing nomadic device-based safety systems all reveal the range of available solutions capable of fulfilling the newly-minted EU program of safety system mandates (http://bit.ly/aNDSh1).  Even Ertico’s ADASIS, the Advanced Driver Assist Systems Interface Specification Forum (http://bit.ly/9Lkngj) has been considering smartphone-based solutions. At the most recent ADASIS meeting a solution was presented as part of a separate presentation showing a solution from ImaginYze (http://bit.ly/cUGFpM) offering an augmented reality lane departure warning solution based on a forward facing smartphone camera – a solution long in development - for portable navigation devices - from companies such as Navigon and Elektrobit. (Since its most recent meeting - July 5th - ADASIS has released a specification for map-based ADAS applications - http://bit.ly/axuJrc.) But it doesn’t stop there. About a dozen applications (http://bit.ly/d3FQbQ) have been launched around the concept of limiting mobile phone use in a moving vehicle, most notably Zoomsafer. Interestingly and maybe not surprisingly some of these companies have turned to commercial opportunities to enable safe use of mobile phones for fleet drivers.  Global Mobile Alert offers yet another application suited to both passenger vehicles and commercial applications. A $24.99 (per year) download for Android phones, which just launched two weeks ago, Global Mobile Alert is an application that uses a digital map as a sensor to warn drivers of approaching traffic lights, and school zones or railroad crossings, among other hazardous conditions (http://bit.ly/dhzigZ).  The Global Mobile Alert (GMA) crash avoidance application is the first of its kind and can be deployed in a smartphone or licensed for navigation systems or in-vehicle telematics systems. GMA provides audible alerts when a moving vehicle approaches an intersection at a dangerous predetermined speed. The objective of the application is to overcome driver distraction. (GMA licenses Navteq data for its application, although even Navteq's database does not include every single traffic light, but Navteq was the only available source of this data.) Of course, systems have been tested and are in development to allow a smartphone to actually be aware of the status of upcoming traffic lights. This is not something the GMA app is capable of, but is likely to be available commercially in the near future. Interestingly, an almost identical solution to GMA is in development within the IntelliDrive community using DSRC technology – instead of a map – to alert drivers to oncoming vehicles at dangerous interections. Of course, the DSRC technology, which is years from being deployed, has a wider range of implied applications in that it enables vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. In conclusion, government authorities will do well to do their best to avoid unintended consequences in their legistlative activities. The EU no doubt intended to speed the arrival of eCall by getting involved in the standards-setting process. All parties would agree today that the reverse has occurred. Similarly, in the drive to save drivers from distraction and the resulting fatalities, injuries and property damage, elected officials should be mindful of the distraction mitigating capabilities of smartphones. The source of the problem is the source of the solution.

Cypress Semiconductor’s announcement of the availability of automotive qualified TrueTouch capacitive touchscreens and LIN capable CapSense touch-sensing controllers promises a sea change in automotive console designs. While designers and engineers around the world continue to debate the relative merits of touch screens vs. voice, steering wheel and other interfaces, the advance of touch screen technology is rapidly settling the issue in favor of touch.Strategy Analytics analysis of the automotive and mobile device markets shows a steady shift in favor of touchscreens in multiple geographies. The reason for the movement is obvious given Strategy Analytics consumer research showing clear user acceptance and preference for touch screen technology. The industry is responding, however slowly. Another rationale for touch screen implementation is the greater flexibility for accessing applications and allowing a wider range of features and functions within those applications. The importance of the Cypress announcement needs to be considered in view of recent console designs and demonstrations as well as longer term industry trends. The BMW i-Drive, Audi MMI and other controller-type interfaces take advantage of the natural positioning of the right arm and hand on the center console. These configurations are designed to allow the primary LCD display be located as high in the dashboard as possible – far from the driver and NOT touch enabled. Of course, these interfaces allow for a broad simplification of the dashboard HMI configuration – with many fewer buttons and switches. The trouble is that controller-style interfaces still require too much checking of the screen to make selections or to move through multi-level menus. While the positioning of the screen is intended to reduce the change in focal length for the driver, it is not mitigating the inherent distraction. Tesla Motors, for one, is moving the touch screen closer to the driver and increasing its size to 14 inches and using a portrait configuration. Johnson Controls and Delphi have taken similar approaches in demonstration systems. But Delphi went one step further at the recent SAE event by positioning the display more or less in the console beneath where the driver’s arm will rest. By positioning a touch screen display in the console, the system removes the need for the controller interface completely. Some car makers are even combining a touchpad device – as in the case of Audi’s recent introduction able to recognize drawn characters – with a second display in the dash thereby providing some redundancy and/or a means of previewing inputs before they are selected. Delphi takes the concept a step further still by having a completely different HMI for when the vehicle is at rest vs. when it is in motion. In other words, different functions are available in the two different modes. (Smartphone applications, for example, are accessible when the vehicle is at rest.) As more consumers become increasingly familiar and comfortable with touch screens – rapidly proliferating in the mobile device segment thanks to the iPhone and Android-based devices – auto makers are finding greater acceptance for these interfaces in cars. Console-mounted touch screens will also enable easier access to a wider range of vehicle functions as well as location aware applications. With a touch-enabled display in the console, the driver will no longer have to reach out for the center stack. All applications and content will be right at the finger tips – again, with a second display mounted in the dash as a reference prior to making selections. Cypress may be the first, but will not likely be the last to bring capacitive touch technology to the automotive market. The advantages of wider design options, reduced distraction, enhanced functionality and potential cost savings mean that – well, resistance is futile. Cypress says the TrueTouch controllers are the industry’s first automotive-qualified capacitive touchscreen solution. The CY8C2x345 CapSense controllers pair analog resources with automotive industry standard LIN communication support, making the devices the ideal system controllers to interface with analog and capacitive touch-sensor inputs, and to control backlight LEDs and haptic actuators while communicating over the LIN bus. Cypress also announced that Grace Semiconductor in Shanghai, China has been qualified to fabricate automotive-grade CY8C2x345 CapSense controllers that adhere to the AEC-Q100 standard, ISO/TS 16949 quality management standard and Cypress’s Zero Defect manufacturing system. Cypress says its solutions are available in single-touch, multi-touch gesture and multi-touch all-point offerings and provide the ability to track multiple fingers simultaneously. The TrueTouch solutions are able to control screen sizes up to nine inches. They are designed for use in control panels, GPS and infotainment displays. Cypress says CapSense proximity sensing offers a detection range up to 25 cm, saving power by activating an interface only when needed. The devices are ideal for interior automotive applications such as audio, navigation, AC control and lighting control, as well as exterior applications such as trunk release and passive keyless-entry buttons, according to the company. The newly qualified CY8CTMG120 multi-touch gesture and CY8CTMA120 multi-touch all-point controllers are available for sampling in 56-pin QFN packages. The newly qualified CapSense products include the LIN-capable CY8C2x345 devices, available for sampling in A grade (-40C to 85C) in 28-pin SSOP packages with the 48-pin SSOP packages planned in Q3 2010. All products are expected to be in full production in Q3 2010. http://bit.ly/c1Qhxz - Benchmarking the Premium In-Vehicle Experience - Chris Schreiner – Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/cRLVkz - Automotive HMI: Voice Technology and Touch Screens Have Significant Lead - John Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/a9aEgu - Chinese OEMs: Rapid Advance In Quality Bodes Well For Automotive Electronics - Kevin Mak - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/ceBUCY - Vehicle Entertainment and Navigation User Evaluation: 2010 Lexus LS460 - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights

The business of capturing and reporting real-time traffic data is on the verge of a deluge of data from millions of GPS probes. From Google to RIM to TCS, TeleNav, Nokia/Navteq and others, the integration of handset GPS data feeds will transform the industry and alter consumer acceptance of traffic data. The importance of this development is the fact that consumers surveyed by Strategy Analytics, time and again, indicate that traffic data is the single most important application on their portable device followed closely by navigation. This is no surprise to marketers who are keen to target customers potentially on the move from one place of business to another and seeking to get there in the most efficient manner possible - which is to say, the supplier that delivers the highest quality real-time traffic data will have a privileged marketing platform for delivering advertising messages. But the onset of traffic data enhancements, though happening swiftly, will unfold as part of an evolution of traffic data that will progress from the combination of public and fleet data of today, to the aggregation of GPS data and crowd-sourced inputs, to the traffic “communities” of the near future. This transition will test the current market leaders and could shuffle the leadership ranks, but it will also reveal new opportunities for information and content sharing. Among the industry leaders watched most closely is Nokia Navteq. With the largest number of mobile devices deployed, Nokia is in the most powerful position to leverage GPS probe data. (Editor's note: updated info from Nokia Navteq follows) Navteq is using GPS probe data to enable accelerated expansion of its Navteq Traffic coverage including primary and secondary roads. The company says probe data is an integral part of its global probe data strategy. Navteq is currently collecting and integrating Nokia probe data records for Navteq Traffic in Belgium, Brazil, France, Finland, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada with plans to expand. The company expects to benefit from the growing variety of connected devices also using Navteq data and services. Navteq says that nearly 23M processed probe records are integrated into Navteq Traffic monthly in the U.S. in major metropolitan areas including Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Orlando, San Francisco and Seattle. Worldwide, Navteq is collecting 3B probe records including Nokia data and anticipate a doubling of that figure by the end of 2010. Most executives in the industry now agree that TomTom’s HD Traffic solution, built around cellular signaling data and TomTom’s Live Service subscriber probe data, is the state of the art for real-time traffic data. The service is available in six European countries including Germany, where this analyst has used it side-by-side with RDS-TMC data. Nothing this analyst has seen has come close to the apparent completeness and accuracy of the real-time traffic data reporting on a connected TomTom. Long accustomed to incorrect traffic information delivered on a variety of embedded and mobile devices, I found the HD Traffic solution to be a revelation. In several days of driving on autobahns throughout Northern Germany it never once told me I was in a “stau” when I wasn’t or vice versa. Traffic information that contradicts reality continues to be the industry bugaboo. Just as important, the TomTom solution doesn’t rely solely on color-coded roads. The key interface is the barometer on the right hand side of the screen which shows the distance to the next point of traffic congestion and the anticipated delay. At this point in the evolution of traffic information delivery, color codes don’t cut it. They are nothing more than a distraction. With the arrival of mobile phone navigation applications the industry is poised to take a leap forward and sideways at the same time. The leap forward is the potential to replicate the HD Traffic experience on more navigation platforms. The sideways move is that this leap is taking place in connection with a device offering a much smaller screen for delivering up-to-date traffic information to drivers. In addition, with so many new players integrating new data sets for the first time there is bound to be confusion and user interface missteps. After all, if it were easy to convert mobile phone data into real-time traffic feeds this problem would have been solved a long time ago. To remove any doubts about the rising influence of mobile phone navigation, one need look no further than the recent financial reports of TeleCommunications Systems (TCS) – which acquired Networks in Motion – and TeleNav – which completed its initial public offering last week. In its earnings call, TCS said it expects $55-$65 million in mobile phone navigation subscription/sales revenue in 2010 and ongoing revenue growth of 30 percent/year going forward. TeleNav reported that it had 14.5M navigation subscribers/customers (up from 11M at the end of September 2009) and revenue of $122M for the nine month period ended March 30^th, a growth rate of 59 percent. While TCS says it has 5-6 percent penetration of its addressable carrier customer base and anticipates increasing that to 30-50 percent, TeleNav claims a 20-25 percent rate of penetration. TeleNav, TCS and TomTom are all seeking to build their subscription bases as swiftly as they can which has led to discounting and bundling, thereby impacting average revenue per user (ARPU). All three companies have indicated a disinclination to share their ARPU figures. TCS has been coy about disclosing the size of its subscriber base. It remains to be seen if TeleNav and TomTom will continue to be forthcoming about their subscriber numbers. All of these numbers are vital to discerning consumer preferences for different business models and could serve as a competitive advantage for these early movers. The integration of anonymous handset signaling data currently used by TomTom, is likely to be supplanted by handset GPS data feeds. And the availability of GPS data feeds has greatly lowered the barriers to entry to the traffic business. Any company from industry titans such as Inrix and rising heavyweight Google to scrappy start-ups like Skobbler (which recently became the first navigation supplier to use OpenStreetMaps) can introduce a mobile phone application that will immediately start reporting GPS data for integration in a real-time traffic platform. Industry executives agree that the GPS data is more accurate an easier to process than hand-off data. That does not mean that signaling data will go away, especially since TomTom continues to use it, but it does represent a change that could ultimately manifest in changing user preferences if the “quality” or accuracy of one type of data is found to be or perceived to be superior to the other. Miles Traffic and Travel – a consortium of ITIS Holdings (U.K.), Infoblu (Italy) and MediaMobil (France) – is also making use of cellular hand-off data and has been chosen by BMW as its traffic data provider for Europe. MT&T is positioning itself as the first challenger to TomTom’s HD Traffic solution. All industry participants agree that the aggregation and integration of hand-off data is a non-trivial exercise. Case in point, AirSage and IntelliOne have been trying to deliver anonymous hand-off data in a commercial solution for years with no success to date. But even the arrival of handset data will not represent the “end of the road” in the evolution of real-time traffic data. The next step is already apparent in the quiet emergence of aha mobile, Telmap, Waze, TrafficTalk and other potential players seeking to build communities around the delivery of traffic and routing information. Aha mobile’s content and services aggregation platform serves as a front end for the full range of Internet-accessible content, including traffic and navigation information. Aha mobile’s traffic solution, though, allows drivers to share geo-coded traffic observation inputs with one another – in other words, an aha mobile user could literally share with fellow travelers what he or she is seeing out the car window. The aha mobile solution represents the same kind of ultra-local location data that Telmap is  trying to provide with the location aware services that are part of its navigation application. Waze also creates a community around traffic, navigation and the creation of the navigation map. For its part, TrafficTalk is seeking to build user communities around specific commuting corridors where drivers can share voice inputs regarding traffic conditions in their immediate vicinity. Today, the industry is poised for the next round of the shoot out at the OK Traffic Corral. All the major players have new ammunition in the form of handset GPS data and the emergence of this new source of data is creating new competitors and new opportunities. But this enhancement to traffic information is just another bend in the road which will lead to traffic information communities sharing on-the-ground information which will transform the industry yet again and set the stage for the next advance. Additional Insights: http://bit.ly/bMeg36 - Global Mobile Handset Navigation Forecast 2004-2014 – Nitesh Patel - Navigation and Location Opportunities http://bit.ly/aoQdpd - North America Mobile Handset Navigation Forecast 2004-2014 – Nitesh Patel – Wireless Media Strategies http://bit.ly/aHhWeV - Nokia & Google Shake Up $3.8 B Handset Navigation Market - Nitesh Patel - Wireless Media Strategies http://bit.ly/cc6O9K - PND Owners Unlikely to Discontinue Using Their Device - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/c5f65I - Automotive and Portable Navigation Market Forecast 2008-2016 - Joanne Blight - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Systems http://bit.ly/b5W8ZS - Nokia and RIM Push Into Automotive as 'Apps' Competition Mounts - Joanne Blight - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Systems

A heated debate over driver distraction animated an otherwise placid confab of the Networked Vehicle Association (NVA) in Palo Alto recently. The distracted driving discussion was led by an attorney and a representative of the National Safety Council (NSC). The significance of the exchange was rooted in the debate over safe use of mobile phones in a moving vehicle. But, of course, with the participation of the NSC the very issue of using any mobile device in a moving vehicle was called into question. The NSC is in favor of an outright ban on all mobile phone use in automobiles. On the legal front, a representative of the Gowlings law firm described how laws were introduced to prohibit radios in cars when car radios were first introduced in the 1920’s. These proposals were defeated, but they laid the groundwork for the current debate. Interestingly, the argument that won the day for preserving the right of the radio to be built into the car was safety. Radios were perceived as preventing accidents by keeping drivers awake. Vehicle and entertainment technologies have changed but the grounds for allowing mobile phone use in the car remain the same – safety. Mobile phones used by motorists are responsible for many more emergency calls than embedded telematics systems. For this reason alone, it makes sense for legislators and the industry to find ways to preserve the right of a driver to use a mobile phone. But the debate over using devices in a moving vehicle has changed with the passing of 80 years since the introduction of car radios. Thanks to 30 academic studies of driver distraction and mobile phone use, a variety of organizations, including the NSC, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the National Research Council, have all concluded that talking on a phone held to the ear is cognitively equivalent to using a hands-free device. The NSC executive at the NVA event further described the types of studies – including brain scans etc. – and the outcomes – including the concept of tunnel vision experienced by distracted drivers. The significance of the findings of these studies, according to the attorney, is that they serve as the precursor to legal action which is the first step on the path to legislation. The findings of the various studies, as detailed by the attorney, included: NHTSA: Lower number of fatalities in states with primary legislation banning cellphone usage while driving; AAA: Degree of driver distraction no greater than tuning a car radio; Carnegie Mellon: MRI scans and simulation demonstrate impaired sensory and motor function equivalent to DWI; Highway Loss Data Institute: No change in loss data due to legislation vs. states without cellphone bans, but study concedes loss data may be inaccurate due to corresponding unmeasured rise in hands-free usage. The findings that have been used to oppose any mobile phone use in a moving vehicle, in turn, are countered by at least three industry studies that conclude that hands-free use of mobile phones is a safe and effective measure to counter distraction. But even the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found no reduction in distraction-related accidents from mobile phone bans. (The standard response from the anti-mobile phone community is that no states in the U.S. have introduced a complete ban on mobile phones that includes a ban on hands-free operation. Hence, existing laws banning phone use but allowing hands-free operation are not true bans and therefore the data cannot be used as an argument against bans.) The NSC representative at the NVA event remained adamant throughout that any and all mobile phone use in the car ought to be forbidden. The attorney concluded that the status of case law was fairly fluid and was influenced not only by the emotional element of fatalities resulting from distracted driving incidents, but also by research. The likelihood of an outright phone ban, though slim, cannot be completely ruled out. But a ban is likely to be unworkable and a step in the wrong direction, especially when considering that existing embedded telematics systems with their on-board phones would be rendered illegal. In an ideal world, the technology problem of managing mobile phone use in a car ought to be resolved with a technological solution, particularly considering that if a mobile phone ban were instituted drivers would find workarounds. The good news is that smartphone applications - such as Zoomsafer and tXtblocker - have been introduced to mitigate distractions from mobile phone use in cars (see Additional Insight below) and auto makers and suppliers - such as Mercedes Benz, Denso and Volvo - have introduced applications that monitor driver behavior to identify and counter driver distraction and drowsiness. In fact, one solution that is available, though not yet built into any systems that have reached the market, combines driver monitoring with a conversational avatar. The concept takes the Mercedes Benz driver drowsiness alert feature to another level by integrating and alerting the call center when a drowsy driver is detected such that, following escalating warnings, the call center can contact the driver to prevent an accident. Alternatively, the system, created by Great Changes – which owns the transportation license for Cognitive Code’s Silvia avatar, can engage the driver in an artificial intelligence-assisted conversation. The irony is that the NSC executive pointed out in his presentation that multiple studies show that it is safer to drive with a passenger. Interaction with a passenger helps keep the driver focused and alert. The Great Changes solution fulfills that requirement and the proactive call center alert aspect is a unique realization of the kind of safety enhancements promised by telematics technology. In conclusion, the attorney at the NVA event suggested that all industry participants monitor distracted driving developments closely, take into account human ingenuity and resolve in creating workarounds for technological safeguards, standardize and continuously evolve standards for telematics, and develop new “low driver impact” user-machine interfaces. Indeed, telematics should be seen as a potential remedy for driver distraction issues and as a safety enhancement to vehicle design. Under the NSC regime even embedded phones – as in OnStar, mBrace or BMW Assist – will be banned. Additional Insight: http://bit.ly/d3FQbQ - CTIA 2010: Distraction Mitigating Apps on Display – Chris Schreiner http://bit.ly/bbhqGj - Voice HMI: Connected Car Opportunities and UX Best Practices - Chris Schreiner

Just as companies such as Delphi, Nokia and Apple are enabling in-vehicle HMI control of smartphone applications, Ford Motor Company is turning interface implementation up a notch with its new Sync AppLink, which will allow voice control of Android and BlackBerry smartphone apps. Sync AppLink will be available as a downloadable software program on the 2011 Fiesta, due later this year. The launch will test the limits of in-vehicle HMI technology for enabling safe access to social networking applications. Reading text messages or emails and responding with predetermined messages has already been enabled in Ford vehicles, but demonstrations of OpenBeak, which allows steering wheel controls to scroll through Twitter messages, suggest a more potentially distracting proposition though safer than using the mobile device's own voice controls or touchscreen. First demonstrated at the Consumer Electronics Show in January of this year, AppLink will enable voice control of the Pandora music service, Stitcher Internet radio content manager and Orangatame’s OpenBeak Twitter interface. Ford is simultaneously launching its Mobile Application Developer Network (www.syncmyride.com/developer) for enabling the development of Sync-enabled applications. Ford says it will introduce AppLink on all Sync-equipped vehicles next year, as well as provide interoperability with the iPhone and other smartphones. The company also says updated versions of each app, incorporating the Sync application programming interface (API), will be available through Android Market and BlackBerry App World for customers to download. Ford’s delivery platform, therefore, includes both its own syncmyride.com Website and the handset maker app stores. Ford says that as Sync-enabled versions of existing apps are released into the app stores, users will be prompted to download the latest version upon connection. Ford’s strategy clearly indicates that the company will handle the certification of application for use with Sync even if it is not the creator of all of the applications. While Ford’s 2M vehicle addressable user population is the largest in the automotive industry, the launch of developer support will be the ultimate test of Ford’s ability to attract third parties to its platform. Ford says interested developers can submit innovative ideas, and sign up for the latest information and news about the Sync application programming interface (API) and software development kit (SDK). The package will allow developers to modify existing applications and create all-new apps that can successfully interface with Sync. Ford says it is completing beta-testing on the SDK. Once beta-testing is complete, a broader release of the development tools is planned for later this year. The company says one of its development partners created a Sync-enabled version of its app just three days after receiving the development tools. Conspicuously missing from the Ford announcement is a provision for safe operation or more limited use of a smartphone in a vehicle. The recent CTIA show in Las Vegas highlighted a range of applications intended to restrict or modify smartphone usage in a moving vehicle. Ford may want to consider fast-tracking one of these applications in deference to concerns expressed in Washington. Ford has embraced the anti-distracted driving messages emanating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Ford’s 911 Assist application actually received an early endorsement from the National Emergency Number Association (NENA). But whether this new applications will be blessed by government safety authorities remains to be seen. According to a report in USNews, NHTSA director Ray LaHood contacted Ford CEO Alan Mulally directly to have a particular ad removed, which depicted what appeared to be a distracted driver using Ford's Sync (http://bit.ly/aTbVvv). Ford complied with the request, but USNEWS says LaHood is still opposed to the Ford Sync solution. Additional Insight: Nokia and RIM Push Into Automotive as 'Apps' Competition Mounts

http://bit.ly/cJ6dDF - #Ford’s Bite of the #Apple Shows One Path to Automotive #AppStore Success - Lanctot - blog - Strategy Analytics http://bit.ly/b9oVAt - CTIA 2010: Distraction Mitigating Apps on Display - Schreiner - Strategy Analytics

The state of Maryland’s approval of a cellphone ban yesterday – by a slim 24-23 margin – perfectly encapsulated all that is both right and wrong with the current mobile phone ban hysteria. Will people be safer driving cars without mobile phones? Probably. Is it reasonable to ask people to use hands-free technology in the car? Definitely. Is the law enforceable? Maybe. Can all drivers be expected to completely give up mobile phone use in the car? No. The bigger issue, though, is that the objections to mobile phones in cars masks a movement opposed to an even wider array of emerging and existing automotive technologies and in-cabin interfaces. If the industry does not step forward to defend these technologies, consumers will lose and safety will suffer. This is a topic of legitimate concern given the federal interest in in-vehicle interfaces in both the U.S. and the European Union, among other geographies. Twenty states and the District of Columbia currently ban text messaging while driving and six states plus the District require hands-free devices. (Stricter laws are already in place in many European countries.) Advocates for the bill dragged out multiple statistical justifications for the legislation calling to mind the apocryphal phrase attributed to Samuel Clemens, among others: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. The Washington Post reported that the push to require hands-free devices is seen as a step toward an outright ban on cellphone use by drivers, a prohibition endorsed by the National Safety Council, which blames 1.4M crashes annually on drivers talking on their phones, according to the paper. The Post continues: “Two-thirds of drivers interviewed by AAA's Foundation for Traffic Safety said they thought hands-free cellphone use was less risky. But "scientific research shows that's simply not the case," said Fairley W. Mahlum of the foundation.” The article further cites a recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that “found no declinen in collision rates” once states went hands-free. This leads to the argument surrounding the cognitive equivalence of talking on a mobile phone held to the ear or speaking over a hands-free system. Many experts argue that the two are equivalent, although a similar number disagree. Virginia Tech’s Transportation Institute has weighed in on the cognitive equivalence side finding no added safety in hands-free operation. The Post quotes Jonathan Adkins of the Governors Highway Safety Association: “There's no indication that hands-free is risk-free. You're still on the phone, you're still focused on the conversation, and you're still a distracted driver." The bill approved Wednesday by the Maryland Senate bans handheld use of cellphones except to begin or end a conversation. First-time offenders can be fined $40. Emergency calls would be exempt. Opponents took some of the teeth out of the legislation with a secondary enforcement requirement that prohibits a police officer from stopping a driver solely for using a mobile phone. The officer must have another reason for finding the driver at fault before enforcing the ban. The push to completely ban mobile phones in cars is real and is embodied in Oprah Winfrey’s NoPhoneZone campaign. Is the motivation legitimate? Sure it is. Lives are at stake. But I’d strongly argue against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The supporters of an outright ban on mobile phones in cars have a larger agenda. They are not just opposed to Ford’s social media integration in cars. They also argue that the OnStar service, with its embedded phone, is too distracting. OnStar!? A recent statement from AAA of New York reflects this anti-technology philosophy: “Technology improvements and applications present a real double-edged sword for motorists. On one hand, improved driver interfaces for essential vehicle controls hold the potential to make driving safer. Voice-activated climate control systems, for example, can help keep motorists’ eyes on the road and hands on the steering wheel. “Applied irresponsibly, however, these technologies might actually make driver distraction worse by giving drivers access to even more non-driving activities (voice-driven e-mail and text messaging, for example) that draw their attention away from safe driving.  Safety concerns must be paramount when technology advances might encourage motorists to spend more time engaged in risky, non-essential tasks like talking on the phone or sending e-mails via voice recognition software. Technology applications that introduce new distractions for drivers work at cross purposes with the many positive things automotive engineers have done for safety. “We’ve seen auto manufacturers miss the mark before with improvements that weren’t really improvements. For example, more than twenty years ago a manufacturer made some models with a touch screen control panel that required drivers to look at the screen to change the radio station or adjust the heat. More recently, another manufacturer’s “all in one” vehicle control system was widely criticized for the visual and mental distraction involved in controlling temperature, radio, navigation, and phone using one knob, several buttons, and a display screen. We must make sure that one step forward in the name of convenience doesn’t take safety two steps backward.” It’s true that we ought to make sure we continue to move forward. But moving forward means embracing technology and harnessing its power to improve safety and convenience in the car. Based on the AAA statement the touchscreen, the iDrive and a host of other innovations might be banned. But why? People can change radio stations today with voice commands as opposed to reaching out for a knob while calibrating the movement of a needle across a dimly lit display. To return to the matter of safe operation of a phone in a vehicle, multiple solutions have been introduced that leverage technology to control mobile phone use in the car including DriveSafe.ly, SafeReader, tXtBlocker, and Auto TxtBak. But most of these applications lack the policy management elements of a ZoomSafer – which allows for the disabling of phone functions while in a moving vehicle. In fact, Zoomsafer's Voicemate has application in both consumer and commercial applications for monitoring, managing or controling driver use of connected devices. The solution recognizes the need for access to connected devices and provides the means for facilitating safe uses. Zoomsafer is offering a technology solution to a technology problem, but it is just one example. New solutions using new interfaces will help the industry steer its way through the challenge of enabling communication in a vehicle. Voice, touch, haptic, gesture, facial recognition, sensor inputs and fusion-based technologies that process all of these inputs are how enhanced safety will be achieved.

The unspoken theme to the 2010 Consumer Telematics Show held one day prior to CES in Las Vegas was HMI’s role in the safe interaction between the driver of the vehicle and the various portable and embedded electronics prevalent in today’s vehicles.  When polled, the vast majority of the 250+ attendees of the telematics conference indicated that driver distraction is a major concern. There is widespread legislation across international markets governing the safe operation of cellular phones while driving. Safety concerns and legislation over the next 2-3 years is also expected to cover music players/iPods, PND and smartphone use in the vehicle. There is also strong legislator interest and research into driver distraction issues surrounding driver use of multiple multimedia and automotive features within the vehicle.

• Ray LaHood, United States Secretary of Transportation has called distracted driving a “deadly epidemic” and NHTSA has stated that in 2008, 6,000 deaths and 500,000+ injuries were caused by distracted driving.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/27/AR2009112702320.html Despite increasing demand for HMI innovation there are significant cost related challenges that will impact availability, pricing and competitive positioning between HMI products and between car makers. Achieving scale economies across vehicle segments and leveraging from markets and products outside the vehicle will impact automotive product development. Car makers have differing strategies towards `open' versus proprietary solutions for multimedia and communications solutions including HMI. For example, Ford and Fiat are working with Microsoft, whereas Toyota is considering taking a proprietary route to operating system (OS) platform development.

• The most notable progress towards `open' standards, platforms and APIs - and hence cost reduction - has been made by voice technology based automotive products.

As consumers multimedia usability experience improves rapidly on portable devices and in the home, there are increasing opportunities for automotive players to learn and leverage this progress for improvements in the multimedia and communications experience in the vehicle.

• There is a significant and growing gap between multimedia experience on devices and in the home versus automotive products.
• There is rapid growth in consumer adoption, functionality and user experience for: iPods; iPhones and smartphones; PNDs; and multifeatured devices.
• Display designs and location, voice technology, resistive touch, capacitive touch, other haptic technologies, other HMI technologies, improved intuitive menu structures, and user interface design all offer opportunities for automotive product improvement and competitive differentiation.  (Please refer to Strategy Analytics Blogs concerning the KIA UVO and Ford SYNC announcements at CES 2010)

Strategy Analytics forecasts strong growth for automotive voice technology and touch screen displays are set to reach $1.2 billion and $1.7 billion respectively in 2015. Strategy Analytics expects total revenues generated from voice recognition systems to increase from $284M in 2007 to $1,195M in 2015 representing a CAGR of 20% p.a. over the forecast period. Strategy Analytics expects total revenues from touch screen displays to increase from $660M in 2007 to $1,7102M in 2015 representing a CAGR of 13% p.a. over the forecast period (Exhibit 1.3).

• "Total" is the summation of demand from the major vehicle producing regions of NAFTA, Japan, Europe (West and East), Russia, South Korea, China and India.

For more information on vehicle HMI, please see the following Strategy Analytics report “Automotive HMI: Voice Technology and Touch Screens Have Significant Lead”:  http://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=ReportAbstractViewer&a0=4730