Search Results

The Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers (Alliance) has produced a document in which Principle 1.4 gives criteria and methods for calculating downvision angles to navigation and telematics displays in vehicles. This paper describes the details of the criteria and methods for determining compliance. Visual displays placed high in the vehicle instrument panel help drivers to use their peripheral vision to monitor the roadway for major developments, even during brief glances to the display. The Alliance has developed two criteria to define the maximum allowable downward viewing angle for displayed information in North American vehicles. One criterion is for use in two-dimensional Computer Aided Design (CAD) analyses, and one is for use in three-dimensional CAD analyses. Alliance Principle 1.4 is consistent with known driver performance research data, and known facts about the peripheral sensitivity of the human visual system.

Up to now, there is no standard methodology that addresses how driver distraction is affected by perceptual demand and working memory demand - aside from visual allocation. In 2009, the Peripheral Detection Task (PDT) became a NHTSA recommended measure for driver distraction [1]. Then the PDT task was renamed as the Detection Response Task (DRT) because the International Standards Organization (ISO) has identified this task as a potential method for assessing selective attention in detection of visual, auditory, tactile and haptic events while driving. The DRT is also under consideration for adoption as an ISO standard surrogate test for driver performance for new telematics designs. The Wayne State University (WSU) driver imaging group [2, 3] improved the PDT and created the Enhanced Peripheral Detection Task I (EPDT-I) [4]. The EPDT-I is composed of a simple visual event detection task and a video of a real-world driving scene.

In this age of the Internet of Things, people expect in-vehicle interfaces to work just like a smartphone. Our understanding of the reality of in-vehicle interfaces is quite contrary to that. We review the fundamental principles and metrics for automotive visual-manual driver distraction guidelines. We note the rise in portable device usage in vehicles, and debunk the myth of increased crash risk when conversing on a wireless device. We advocate that portable electronic device makers such as Apple and Google should adopt driver distraction guidelines for application developers (whether for tethered or untethered device use in the vehicle). We present two design implications relevant to safe driving. First, the Rule of Platform Appropriateness: design with basic principles of ergonomics, and with driver's limited visual, manual and cognitive capacity, in mind. Second, the Rule of Simplicity: thoughtful reduction in the complexity of in-vehicle interfaces.