...
首页> 外文期刊>Professional safety >In-Vehicle Cell Phones: Fatal Distraction? Real or potential problem?
【24h】

In-Vehicle Cell Phones: Fatal Distraction? Real or potential problem?

机译:车载手机:致命的干扰?真正或潜在的问题?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

While some degree of risk is associated with in-vehicle cell phone use, the current state of knowledge regarding its level does not indicate that it is significantly greater than that experienced during the course of normal driving while performing other socially acceptable in-vehicle tasks. Before legislative or legal action is taken, research is needed to examine the impact of the entire spectrum of tasks performed while driving, as is a common "yardstick" with which to measure them and a scale against which to compare them. If in-vehi-cle cell phone use is shown to impose significantly more of a load on a driver than the range of other acceptable behaviors, then additional action is likely warranted (although the nature of such action is unclear at this point). Legislation designed to limit in-vehicle cellular communications that does not take into account current development programs underway at the major automakers is also ill-advised. Many manufacturers are developing revolutionary new products such as adaptive cruise control systems (in which a vehicle will maintain a preset following distance behind another car, applying the brakes as necessary); lane departure warning systems (where drivers are alerted when approaching or crossing lane boundaries); and forward collision warning systems (where drivers are alerted automatically of forward obstacles in the roadway). Such devices address the primary effects of driver distraction―lane position variability (weaving back and forth within the lane); speed variance (decreases of 5 to 8 mph); and failure to detect forward obstacles. Is it reasonable then to forbid drivers to operate cellular or other devices in vehicles that are equipped to compensate for driver distraction regardless of its cause? This point is particularly true should vehicles equipped with such systems prove to be safer regardless of the level of driver distraction than conventional vehicles driven bv nondistracted drivers.
机译:尽管车载手机的使用会带来一定程度的风险,但有关其级别的当前知识状态并不表示其明显高于正常驾驶过程中执行其他社会上可接受的车载任务时所经历的知识。在采取立法或法律行动之前,需要进行研究以检查驾驶过程中所执行任务的全部范围的影响,这是衡量这些任务的通用“准绳”以及进行比较的标准。如果显示车载手机的使用给驾驶员施加了比其他可接受行为更大的负担,则可能需要采取其他措施(尽管目前尚不清楚这种行为的性质)。旨在限制车载蜂窝通信的立法(不考虑主要汽车制造商正在实施的当前开发计划)也是不明智的。许多制造商正在开发革命性的新产品,例如自适应巡航控制系统(在该系统中,一辆汽车将在另一辆汽车之后保持预设的跟随距离,并在必要时施加制动);车道偏离警告系统(在接近或越过车道边界时向驾驶员发出警报);以及前方碰撞预警系统(向驾驶员自动警告道路前方的障碍物)。这样的设备解决了驾驶员分心的主要作用-车道位置可变性(在车道内来回编织);速度变化(降低5至8 mph);以及未能发现前进的障碍。那么,禁止驾驶员操作配备了补偿驾驶员分心功能的车辆中的蜂窝电话或其他设备,无论其原因如何?如果配备这种系统的车辆无论驾驶员分心的程度如何都比不分心驾驶员驾驶的常规车辆更安全,这一点尤其正确。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号