enforcement of those policies for that to work. ultimately, if we want to really get at the peer pressure aspect of changing social mars, we need to walk the talk. it's one thing to say that safety is a top-rated and another thing to live it every day. >> thank you. >> thank you chairman. >> we have heard about to programs that have made a lot of progress. i'm not sure our colleagues want to discuss them yet but they thy have certainly made a lot of progress. drunk driving and seatbelt use. drunk driving i can remember as a kid tv characters. jackie gleason have is that it was always drunk and people use as a boy that's great and he's the life of a party where is now the host social norm of drunk is funny is gone and that's a huge success story which i have to say has helped bring down the drunk driving fatality rate. that is apparently a grassroots effort. then there's a seatbelt use.

i don't think, that might've been the national safety council because of the corporate need to stop losing their employees because they didn't have seatbelts. again, as a kid starsky and hutch never were see ball but now they do. so i'm just thinking those are two very different examples of huge progress. what can we learn from those two examples that won't take 30 years to have that level of progress in this arena? >> i will open it up to anyone who might answer that. ..

>> that is a very important part of the cultural change we need in the area. >> just echoing what jeff said. there's been. there's been a lot of victims of distracted driver, and i've met many over the years, and there's a lot in here who dedicated their lives to ensure this doesn't happen to anybody else. some was formed from the help of madd. she's dedicated her last seven or eight years to this, and there's lots who lost loved ones and talk about it every day. that has a huge impact.

i believe people don't understand the gravity of it. we lose 100 people because of this every day. there's has been the truth in the last 40 years. you're like likely to die in a car crash between ages 5 and 35. when that's shared, we all believe it doesn't happen to us, but then it does. i think that helps people listen to the other stats and make a change. all of us in this business need to understand is this problem may be different than some of the others we face because of the compelling nature of the activity, and it was touched on a little bit earlier, but we called these things crackberries five or ten years ago, and there is something compelling, maybe addictive about our need to be connected which means laws, policies, parents' wishes, and

even a well-meaninged person could have trouble putting it down. i had every intention of putting my cell phone down after i lost my son. it's a hard thing to learn. that meanings technology solutions play a bigger role in this. >> to what extent can we enhance the effort with media outreach? the kids tell their parents to do it because "sessame street" had it. everybody's got their seat belts on. what extent has the media helped this change in the cultural norm? >> i'll just say i'm not aware that it's been done. i've seen a little improvement, but we still see actors in series talking on phones while driving, a little more hands free use than we used to, but

it's an area with a long way to go in. >> we can do all the mass media we want, and those who buy into the dangers and risk, it impacts them, but for those for whom the data bounces off, we have a problem. what i was going to share with you relative to the last question was a key difference between belts and booze and distractions that we've seen at aaa has been the ambiguity in the issue relative to the data and the research. in particular to the issue of cognitive distractions. it's easy to understand if your hands are not on the wheel or eyes not on the road, and we talked bit -- doubt it all day. people don't buy into cognitive distraction. it's hard to describe, not tangible, and easy to argue how can you tell me if my hands are on the wheel, eyes on the road, that i'm unsafe. yoir wearing your seat belt or you are not.

you're drunk or you're not. that's the key difference between this issue and the others. just as a right, you know, there is a difference here on the issues where we've been successful in the one we're trying to tackle today. >> okay. thank you. very imformative. i appreciate it. >> i have a lot of questions, but our staff also worked very hard on this and they have a number of questions, and so i'd like to pass my time to them. dr. bruce? >> thank you, and i want to ask a question to dr. michael about the high vizzability program. any plans to study police recorded accident report to see if it was successful in reducing accidents? >> yes, we're going to try to do that at the next level, the statewide demonstrations. when we're working in small

cities, syracuse and hartford, the population base was not large enough to get a good indication from police crash reports, but we hope to be able to get that when we go statewide. >> thank you. >> i'm interested in talking about young teens and their safety. mr. nelson mentioned peer pressure is a big factor, and i'm curious what things work in influencing your opinion, but i want you to add in what you might know about what does not work and as a close, i'm curious about whether you would suggest that distraction abstinence is the appropriate approach with teens or teach them how to manage distractions? >> well, i think what we talked about in terms of, you know, what role models mr. might be,

and it's -- what role models there might be, it really starts with a trend within the small peer groups and what we see in the social networks of driving, mull. teens on board, just takes one to say, hey, i'm not going to be texting and driving. check points is one program that essentially the teen finds a contract, and that's something they have to do themselves, and i think just bringing that up, we found with technology, with some of the coaching technologies, with video, it givings the driver -- gives the driver an excuse saying, hey, if i'm texting and driving and that goes off because i brake abruptly or steer on the road, i can't do that. they point to that and say don't distract me and so forth. i think those are a couple of

things. in terms of the abstinence to distraction or texting rather, i think that's one of the areas that i think is really critical that there are basic research that goes into looking at programs that are theoretically equivalent, and that might be how we look at drugs and other risky activities that are done by adolescence. that's one area. also looking at sort of the history of really the core theory of changing social norms, i think there's really not enough basic research out there to take a look at how that might be able to change more quickly. we see, for instance, smoking in restaurants was very quick social norm change where we're quickly assaulted if we smell cigarette smoke in a restaurant. how is that different from some

of the other areas? >> well, this is a question that's directed towards dr. mcgehee and dr. michael. parents using technology to mitigate their teen's risk, and, dr. michael, i'm interested in what you see as the future of the software that blocks cell phone use by drivers because this is something that parents who are paying for the cell phones can install in their teens' phones. i'd be interested in your take on that and whether you think that's something that is likely to become successful and widespread, and i'm interested in the thoughts on whether there's a possibility of parents monitoring teen driving through systems like drive cam as an

effective means to reducing distracted driving. >> with regard to the first part of the question, i think we need to look at every possible avenue, and this is a possible avenue, and we've begun to take a look at such technologies. it's clear that they need to be easy and efficient to use to gain popularity, and it's also clear that parents need to be motivated to use them, and we need to look at parental motivation as well as technology. >> parental notification is essential to these aspects and use coaching technologies to enhance that communication and laser in on what the driver errors and safety relevant issues are. i used term "monitoring" and it's critical to develop

technologies that help mentor our teens to be better drivers. monitoring technologies like gps tracking and so forth is not a technology, but helps a teen drive better, so went to really utilize technology to enhance their driving abilities. >> thank you, mr. collins. >> i'm curious as to how companies enforce their policies banning cell phone use for drivers and whether or not you think the approach is used by companies could be use the to affect other groups, most notably teens. >> yeah, a good question, and it comes up relatively frequently. companies enforce policies in several way, and some do observations at entrances to the property, and some are employing some of these technologies we've just discussed. there are a lot being rolled out to businesses that block cell phone use while driving. most of it though, i believe, is

peer-to-peer, and when a company introduces a policy and gets buy-in from employees, the right way to do it, in other words present the things we talked about today, not just a new policy, go do it, but buy-in from employee, and we believe 60%-100% of business calls are with colleagues, and you can't do that anymore. if everybody buys into the policy. secondly, it's a simple thing, and most company, and we recommend people change their no answer greeting. if you call me it says i'm dave and tells people i'm away or i'm driving. that keeps me accountable. it is easier to enforce than what you think. as far as how that applies to teens, i'm not sure, but it works for companies. >> i'd like to add to your voice

mail. there should be two. one where the phone knows its moving and goes to a special voice mail saying i'm driving right now and a second voice mail that rolls when you are stationary. >> chairman? >> thank you. >> thank you. i'll ask one question, and on slide three, and you don't have to pull up the slide, but it says companies with policies, chevron, bp, and so forth, are they a variety of policies or total ban on wireless communication devices? >> we believe they are all total ban wireless communications. again, as i eluded to, i thought it would be easy information to collect, and it's not. what we'll call company, and they are nervous, and are you a lawyer calling for this?

there's no insentive for a company to report that information and secondly, there's confusion at the corporate level. people think a ban for commercial drivers is a ban for the company yet executives and sales people use cell phones. the companies in the list fall under the category of total ban companies. doesn't surprise me if there's a mistake or two, but i think it's probably pretty accurate. >> well, thank you. like exxon mobile, is one the most profitable companies in the united states, if not the world, and there's an example right there that you done have to -- you don't go broke if you implement wireless communication policies. i'd like to sit here and offer a challenge, a challenge to the companies that are out there, agencies, companies, if you're really serious about safety and most companies will say that safety is their top priority, and so i'm going to challenge

those organizations. if you're really serious about safety, adopt a wireless communications device policy, really mean it, lead by it. like you say, we see the ceos out there driving around, but they expect everybody else to abide by it, so mean it and enforce it. there's my challenge right there to companies is live by this, and by living by it, you actually save lives. thank you. i yield the balance of my time. >> maybe wanier. >> i'd like to follow that up for a moment. as far as corporate policies, focused just on wireless communication devices or all distractions 1234 >> good question. i think most of the policies started with distractions but realize wireless communication devices are so prevalent and so unique that they made the determination they need a

special clause like the one you saw here that focuses strictly on wireless communication devices. >> okay. going back to the data, we're missing a big opportunity to reduce accidents by focusing on the total distraction. >> well, you know, i would say yes and no to that. there's two things that cause crashes. one is the risk of the distraction, but the other is our exposure to the risk, and cell phones as a single distraction are off the charts as far as risk exposure. approximately 10% of all people at any given time, and that's the part of this that's kind of forgotten. as far as other distractions, would be great to get rid of all, and most people in the industry say as long as we still operate cars, there's always going to be distraction involved. cell phones are something to focus on that we believe is a huge number, by far the majority of suspected driving crashes related to that because of the

prevalence and not the risk itself. >> i think the data would show otherwise, but let me move on. i noticed in the aaa presentation you talked about safety of culture, and i'm curious what safety culture means in this contextment i mean, we've talked about safety culture in aviation, in marine, in rail. in this particular case, well -- in those cases, safety and culture comes along with an organization, an organization that has a safety commitment at the top, that pays close attention to the performance safety-wise that leads to a safety culture, at least is my understanding and my experience. what do you mean by "safety culture" in this context? >> defined broadly, safety culture that we're seeking would

be one in which traffic safety is highly valued and rigorously pursued in the country requiring policymakers to have the will to act, all of us to be ambassadors in our lives # and requires that sort of high level social norms change in society relative to the injuries and lives lost in motor vehicle crashes, and there's a lot of reasons why we don't have that yet. one of the most significant would have a lot to do with how frequent traffic crashes happen. they happen usually one to two lives lost at a time, and generally are pretty stable, and so society has become comfortable with the level of injury and death relative to traffic crashes in this country, and we have to change that. we have to communicate about it in a different way.

>> so this is, in some sense, an opportunity to take some of the principles of the safety management systems and locate them at a grand policy level for all drivers, is that what you're kind of thinking? >> i mean, we could learn from safety culture and other industries. you know, safety culture's something thought been around for a long time. traffic safety culture is something relatively new. you know, just referring to a traffic crash as an accident, it sends a message that it's an accident, that it couldn't have been prevented when they are preventable, and so i mean, even small things contribute to the way in which society reacts to the issue that we're talking about today, distraction just being one component of many in the area of traffic safety, seen we have a long way to go.

certainly, it's possible. we've seen it happen with, you know, certain areas within traffic safety. drunk driving, occupant protection, seen it in a variety of other public health areas -- smoking cessation and others, and so we know it's possible. we know it's difficult. we know it takes time. we have lessons learned from other examples within traffic safety and from public health at large. i think we have to sit down and think carefully about what to learn from our other experiences and make a commitment to implementing those lessons learned rather than just talking about them. >> great, thank you. >> i'd like to just add one more thing. crashes have causes, and you all know that very well, and i think the public, when we talk about accidents sort of diverts this was an act of god, accidents just happen -- i think it's

critical that we focus on talking about crashes and their specific causes in the broader context. >> actually, you talk about behavior, it's contribute cam. two questions. i'm writing -- what's the carryover effect of work to home and there's a bullet on your slide. tell us more about that. is there data or formal how that might be structured more, maybe? >> well, it's antedoal at this point. there's one company that surveyed a dozen field germings after a year of a total ban in place, and 98% said it didn't effect their productivity, and 83% carried it into their home. we hear it from company employees all the time that this is great information, why didn't we know this? we're going to talk it home.

it's antedotal at this point. it was not just the employee buckling up when they we want out somewhere. >> that encouraged you to tease that out because when you think about the big nodes for the cultural change, there's the individual that's got to put it down, get to them through schools, the workplace, and if you have that data, that could be a new pathway for change. the other, just interested, anybody's thoughts, there's a lot of, you know, you want to change human behavior, positive and negative reenforcers, and enforcement that's the negative side, and what are the positive incentives, maybe, out there that we are not using yet related to insurance or the good things we could be giving to help shape positive believers, really our focus on the negative ones. any idea across the board here? >> i can give examples of things

happening on the ground. these are not things obviously we can do across the united states, but interesting case studies of the use of incentives and in particular working with young people relative to the issue of distraction. one of the clubs, aaa michigan, established a partnership with ford motor company and some others in their area, their stake holders, and they essentially do, you know, an educational forum with, you know, high school students, they sign a pledge, a close relationship with law enforcement, of those kids who signed a pledge to drive distraction free and safely. at the end of the year, their driving records are checked, and 23 they have a clean record at the time of the pledge, they are entered in for a drawing of a brand new car. obviously, that's a highly motivating incentive for young people. not realistic for widespread distribution, but an interesting case study of sort of turning this issue on its head, talking

about leading causes of life rather than leading causes of death. again, it matters. >> uh-huh. great example. one further point there, you used law enforcement as an example of perhaps a negative approach, and i just wanted to comment that there is more to it than that, and our experience with law firm is that they can have a very positive effect on the community. there is -- these law enforcement officers truly care about their communityings, and that's why they enter that profession, and their leadership is a, i think, has a very positive effect, and now, of course, occasionally, they have to use the negative side, but they have a positive effect on the community. >> well, and just to be clear, you know, earlier in the panel, we talked about negative reenforcers that are powerful and getting often with twenty

bucks and california is 157, and that's meaningful now, and that's sort of critical there. any other incentives? you have that in the business realm. >> larger companies have underwritings based on crash experience so we'll probably see favorable insurance rates in the future. i've had some insurance companies privately share with me that some of these mitigation technologies become more hardened, more robust, and reliable, they're consider insurance discounts. i think there's going to be financial incentives as we move forward. >> you know, i think just for the moment there, initial health care parallel is really great because in transportation safety, we so often go to seat belts and drinking and driving, ect.. the health one is fascinating that way because it's different for us, and there the positive

reenforcements are clear. if i stop smoking, i can breathe again. it's hard to prove the negative here. get off the phone and you stay alive. that's part of the problem, making that connection for people. the more positive examples we have, like the car example, the text no more, put it on there, and if you text somebody it says, no, i'll talk to you later, and you geat a coupon for a pizza, whatever it is, you talk to teenagers, that's a positive incentive every time they decide not to respond. you're positively re-enforcing the good part. the business work to home is a great untapped source to formalize as are the positive incentives for individuals or at the corporate level for insurance, ect., and we're reenforcing, doing the right thing rather than punishing the negative. thank you. >> thank you. >> just one question, the

insurance institute for highway safety institute saying they didn't see a significant reduction in the number of claims in the state that had passed some legislation or other and there could be a lot of reasons for that, some is secondary as opposed to primary an the difficulties of enforcement and those things and wonder if you have -- sounds like you have a relatively good success story in the corporate community. to what extent has the insurance community engaged 234 that, and are they seeing success that's showing measurable difference? >> it's really too early for that. we've got some initial reports that crash rates are going down, but they are really early on. i think that's yet to be seen in the next, you know, next couple years as policies have been in place for awhile and we can look at crash rates. you know, i think crash reduction is something we don't know yet. two studies done by the insurance are great studies, but one looked at hand held, and if

people switch to hands free, don't expect to see a difference. the other is text, and at a time where texting was half percent of drivers. there could have been a decrease, but they look at all insurance claims, not just texting claims. it's early research. we don't know. crash statistics and crash driving is difficult. there's not a blood alcohol content test for driving. all they can do is ask if that we on the -- if they were on the phone, and in the old days they would have been honest about it, but today, not as much, and so it's a real challenge. crash statistics, we're along way away from having reliable crash statistics. we can't measure it real well yet. >> i just want to add one thing

too, to dave's commentary, and if we heed the advice from all the panels today and use theory and research to build our interventions and try to make a difference, we do all of the right things, and we're successful, it's still going to be very difficult for us to show we've been successful, and it's just something to keep in mind. i don't mean to imply we shouldn't try, that we shouldn't move forward because we should, but i think we have to keep in mind the limitations that we face in terms of showing the impact we're making. cell phone present in vehicle at time of crash does not mean that person was distracted, and a lot of the data is coded in just that way. something to keep in mind. >> might add, too, that i think law enforcement is getting much

better at asking questions about distraction. it's routine now for fatal crashes, for cell phones to automatically be included in the technical investigation, and so i think, you know, some law enforcement forms still don't have any information regarding distraction or cell phones and so forth. those things are going to be changing in the next couple year, and so that data will just get better. >> okay. thank you. we have also, as a routine matter now in highway crashes go for cell phone records as well. yield the time to the chairman who yielded her time before to complete the session. >> thank you very much. since you all really are helping us focus on how to change behaviors and attitudes and societal norms, i want to talk to you about what you think are the biggest drivers to make people behave differently because clearly, most people think it does not happen to them, and so let's talk about

just some very specific things. you mentioned insurance. do we have any insurance companies giving discounts? companies with an all device ban in place? >> not discounts, but claims looked at every single year, and if crashes go down, insurance rates go down, and people in the country making those decisions know that. there's a financial incentive to move forward. >> there's an incentive for the companies to put the bans in place because of financial savings in addition to improved productivity and those things. employees. how are employers monitoring to see that employees are complying with the policy? where's the behavior kind of change there? are they checking up on their employees? disciplining them? like what are the -- is there a penalty structure? a report structure.

>> company to company, and typically new policies do not have a really severe penalty, but more mature policies, the companies you saw listed had policies in place since 2004, and as i mentioned the one example i gave looks at it, one strike and you're out, same as drunk driving on offense. it matures as the company has a policy in place longer. it's handled mainly peer to peer, all crashes, cell phone records are polled, and that's an after the fact enforcement, but that's how they look at -- part of their normal crash investigation, and many companies move towards implementing technologies on the wireless devices that prevent them from operating while the vehicle's in motion. >> right. we have the technologies on display out in the foyer, and so people can take a look at those. individual technologies for households, but also fleet technologies. let's talk about what makes people change their behavior. is it criminal, punishment,

civil, penalties, lawsuits? you mentioned, you know, the threat of lawsuits. for kids, is it losing their license? you know, what are the motivators? what do we need to change here? >> at the risk of sounding like i'm focused on one thing, i -- from our perspective, it's strong laws and strong law enforcement. strong law, i think, have a tremendous influence on community expectations, and those expectations have a tremendous influence on individual behavior. strong enforcement of the laws is a further statement of community intolerance on that topic, and so if there's one thing, that's the one i'd like to stress. >> let me follow-up on that just because we touched on that this morning. there's a wide range of penalty when we look at strong laws, and so this morning, i talked a

little about what we see on the passenger car side for some of the violations. it may be $20, $150, but we saw on the commercial motor carrier side this that if a commercial driver is caught texting or talking on a hand held, it's up to $2750, and if they have a multiple, if they have sequential violations, they can lose their lieges. license. that's their livelihood. when you talk strong laws, where's the deterrent effect? there was a discussion about paying the fine, and it's like a parking ticket. you know, i'll just pay it, but it's more important for me to be able to do this behavior or perform in this way. are the laws strong enough? what's the strong law? >> again, from our perspective, i think there has to be some

viewed as a strong law this year may be viewed as a weak law five years from now. i think as communities enact laws, states enact laws, they have to be sensitive to the public at that time. if they go too far too fast they may get push back. they may find years down the road that they need to increase the punishments as has been done with drunk driving over the years to re-enforce the fact that the community does not tolerate this behavior any longer. >> mr. teater, you talked about liability concerns for the employer. other reliability concerns for the manufacturer of the device? have you seen that? >> i have not. it's the way the device is used,

not the device itself. i don't think that's a driving factor in that regard. >> okay, even though there's warnings and guidance not to use it while driving? the gps in the box, instructions say don't use while driving. >> yeah, you know, i worked with the wireless industry closely for the last four or five years, and in the introduction i mentioned that as involved in a company that had that technology, and the wireless industry is pretty much in tune with everything we talked about today. there was a time where they fought the laws, and two of the largest carriers in the country introduced themself, and one of the technologies i talked about is on my found. i think they are moving in the right direction with it. >> okay. last question is about little kids. i have three children, not of driving age yet, but we've grown up with a package in our minivan

that i attribute to less distraction for me because there's an entertainment system and they watch movies and things like that when we're on long trips, and they have a wireless headset. i don't have to hear it if i don't want to, and so that raises the question of how we're socializing our children with multimedia things in the car, and so have there been any studies done for the kids who have all their ds's and things? there's an outlet to plug things in, and so they are always connected to play their games. what are we doing to the kids? do we expect them to say plug in and play from 0-15, but once you turn 16, don't touch anything and don't think about it. what are we doing there? >> i think it really goes towards the overall culture of really never being offline, and it's a challenge because we also

want to, and good passenger z as we heard provide an extra set of eyes. that's an important feature about the online generation in general is that it's good for them to look around and be aware of traffic and so forth so that later on when they become an adult passenger or teen technology, when they get into the front seat, that first day they ride in the front seat with you, they have a new job. they're going to help you be a better driver. >> well, i think unfortunately, for some of us, they already help us quite a bit. i feel i have backseat drivers without licenses yet so they do tend to pay a lot more attention than we think they do, and so that is exactly why we have to model the right behavior because they are always watching a.

i thank you, all, so much. i think this panel is the one where we have take on that responsibility to some extent ourself in the business world, in the regulatory world, and in the safety advocacy world, we have to figure out how to get the message to penetrate. you know what? i have every confidence one day we will be successful in moving this forward. i have often used the example of when my siblings and i went on car trips. we didn't wear our seat belts, and there were no child seats. my baby sister sat on the armrest between mom and dad. that was the purr much on long trips. i couldn't imagine anything but having my children properly restrained. we changed behavior and attitudes. i hope to make difference in this area. thank you, all, for your help,

and we'll take a break and come become at 3:15.

>> i've always said some of the guys, i don't know you, you you may be the same type. they have a reverse personality. when things are really, really good, they can be unmanageable, and when things are really, really bad, they are calm. [laughter] i mean calm. no, it's really amazing. you watch -- i mean, i'm not saying they don't feel fear, they do, and if they tell you they don't, they are lying. i've seen tyler really scared, but they manage it and channel it, and when they have to work, they concentrate and are calm. then you get back and have to wait for the hell continue e and they are bouncing off the inside of the tent going nuts because it's calm, but i think that when they are out there in the middle of it, and i worked side by side with the photographer, i don't cover the capitols, and i don't

cover -- i work from the field. when you're out there it's so busy and intense in its own way, it's self-organizing, and you are able to leave it behind because you're not in the situations when you're home. you're home, and you're stuck in traffic, and, you know, you're just a guy stuck in traffic. it's not so bad. >> after that, a tribute to the maryland senator. last month, she was the longest serving female member of congress in u.s. history. >> deep in my heart, i'm still that congresswoman from the third congressional district. i'm still a fighter. i'm still a reformer. i'm still that young girl in that blue jumper who went to ind with the mayor's daughter. i'm still that person with one little candle to curse the darkness. i'm going to continue to work with all of you in this room, each and every one of you are here because you make a difference. let's continue to work together to make change and may the force be with us.

[cheers and applause] >> then a tribute to two former senators, howard baker and bob dole, as they are honored for their combined 100 years of service. >> it was a great honor and genuine privilege to serve with each of you, to learn if from. i know you wish i learned more, bob -- [laughter] but to learn from each of you. quite frankly, just simply to know you both. >> reporting on war and conflict, an tributes to current senator from maryland and former senators all tonight starting at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend marks the anniversary of the bloodiest battle to be fought.

>> this is the final panel on form up on distracted driving. they heard about new technology developed to help keep drivers keep their attention on the road. this is an hour and a half. >> will you please introduce the panelists? >> i will.

this panel addresses technology and other measures to look at the safety systems that may mitigate distraction or effects and look at design guidelines for driver vehicle interfaces to assess the safety of in-vehicle systems use while driving. our first presenter is mr. john maddox of the highway and national highway safety administration, the associate administrator for administration and research implementing safety initiatives with numerous topics nuking vehicle-to-vehicle systems, avoidance crash technologies, crashworthiness, and motor coach safety. i invite your presentation. >> thank you, dr. bruce, for that invitation, and thank you todd board for organizing this -- to the board for organizing this and inviting us. we're appreciative to have a chance to talk about distraction. as, i think you know, we've been working on distracted driving for the past number of years.

it's unsafe. it's irresponsible. it can have very deadly consequences as we all know. in 2010 alone, more than 3,000 people in the united states lost their lives in crashes in which distracted driving was a factor. increasingly as technology evolves and changes, the potential for distraction in vehicles will rise. drivers, when dialing a cell phone, texting, and perhaps in the future, surfing the internet or worse, their eyes, hands, and focus are diverted from the primary task which is operating the vehicle safely. in 2010, nhtsa published its distraction plan, and i'll talk today about the most significant output in the initiative number two, the distraction guidelines. dr. michael talked a fair amount

about our behavioral aspects and initiatives. also, i would mention, and i know there's some conversation earlier in the day around what can other technologies do to mitigate distracted driver, and we have an initiative number three, that i will not go into, but looking into deep detail on the benefit of crash avoidance features and other features to help an already distracted driver. i should say that our phase one of the guidelines are focused on visual manual distractions, and systems integrated into the vehicle. as member mentioned earlier, and that distraction is that first talk tower. okay. i'm going to go through very, very quickly, and overview in the distraction guidelines. starting with base, common sense, if you will,

requirements. we want the guidelines to ensure devices placed where the drivers can easily see and reach them. these limit the device operation to one hand only leaving the other hand for steering, and limit the amount of manual inputs required to operate a device and limit the unnecessary visual information in the driver's field of view. perhaps the power of the guidelines comes in the concept of a lackout, and a lockout is something by our definition, anyway, is something that prohibits a function or task from being operated unless the vehicle is in park or at 0 miles per hour. there are two types of lockouts. the first on this side is what we call the per se lockouts, and these are things that are based on -- these are on law or policy or common sense policy approaches. things like video -- it's a relatively short list, and it is the entire list. video images prohibited, static

images not related to driving, manual text entry is a bad actor, displaying more than 30 characters of text. this has a lot of conversation going since we published our guidelines for comment, and then lastly, displaying all thematically scrolling text, but the second type of lockout, the one that applies across the board, if you will, is really based on past performance and data and measuring and assessing how quickly a task can be done. i know that it sounds like there was a lot of conversation and adopted it as our base metric to start, and we have also accepted the two second eyes off road, which we see as close to an acceptance standard as there is one with regards to distraction and adopted that limit. also, we have put an upper limit on the total time that it would take to do tasks, and that's 12

seconds. any task that's longer than two or longer than 12 would be locked out and unavailable to the driver unless the vehicle is in park. okay. so what do we think are the expected effects of the guidelines? well, we believe the guidelines will detour manual texting, 10-digit dialing, navigation destination manual entry while driving, manual social media communications, internet surfing, and many other functions and features that are longer than 212. the guidelines would not detour, and i know there's a lot of conversation throughout the day on hands free versus hand held, but the guidelines would not detour integrated hands free phone use nor detour communication through voice interaction. what are the next steps? well, of course, published our

guidelines draft for comment, and we are actively receiving comment. we've had a number of public hearings and a technical work shouldn't, and we are starting to get many, many comments from interested stake holders. we're, of course, also value greatly full written comments to the docket. the comment periods ends april 24th, and so we will, after that comment period ends, we'll review all the comments, incorporate changes we see fit, and publish guidelines as final sometime this summer. in addition, i mentioned this is phase one on integrated visual manual. we're already beginning work on phase two which is visual manual for portable devices. we already started that work, and that research has been going on for about a year, and we're now actively in the phase of writing and drafting those guidelines. of course, we'll continue on to phase three looking at voice

interface and try to address the topic of cognitive distraction. with that, that ends my presentation. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. maddox. second presenter is linda angel, a research scientist and co-founder of touchstone evaluations inc with 31 experience focused on particularly driver behavior, driving, and safety and spans over the industry settings with 27 years at general motors where as a technical fellow participated in industry-wide efforts to develop methods to assess driver distraction and assisted in establishing industry guidelines on distraction. i invite your presentation. >> thank you, dr. bruce, and good afternoon. in the next few minutes, i want to convey a simple theme, aing that is technology offers one promising source for preventing and mitt kateing dis--

mitigating distraction, but if we're going to realize the promise is offers, we have to work hard to develop technology countermeasurings to evaluate where the benefits lie and integrate them with the vehicle and most importantly with the driver and the drivers' tasks. one key here is integrating technology properly with the driver and the driving tasks. this is really critical. it's really a matter of coordinating the driver's attention with the road. it is a non-trivial task, but it can be done well. on the left here is a good example of where it's been done properly, and on the right, a poor example of where technology has not been integrated into the vehicle. i don't have time to go into these examples well. i offer them only to underscore

the point that integrating technology is a huge key in terms of whether it works or does not work to help us prevent distraction. i want to go back here. as we think beyond the basic design of the conventional human machine interface and how we integrate roles and think forward to technologies 245 are more advanced, perhaps the most promising role they have is to safeguard and actively support what i characterize as the target behaviors of drivers that are central to attentive driving. now, we know from the research that has be accumulated in the scientific literature what it is that attentive drivers do well. they make frequent glances to the forward roadway. those glances away from the road when they happen is well-timed and very short.

they actively scan the forward roadway, and a healthy percentage of the glances they make are centered on their forward road center, and they actively maintain and use situational awareness, and what we can do with technology is nudge the driver towards this attentive behavior when they are distracted, so technology can be used to give the drivers little nudge, and the variety of technologies i'm going to very briefly throw up here are all based on this notion of -- or this philosophy of the supporting attentive driver behaviors. before that, i'm going to show you on this slide, are strategies that can be used in normal driving before conflict develops. the first are decluttering techniques. their purpose is to improve driver focus on key information. they have been deployed in at

least one vehicle that has been on the road. a second category is embedded training and safety coaching. you already heard a good deal about it. it would be possible to incorporate in production vehicles with the purpose to teach smart choices during driving and to sustain them through feed back to drivers. third category are lockouts. there are two types. hard lockouts and soft adaptive lockouts. their purpose is to block the usage of certain tasks or devices or third party apps during driving, and these are already employed. second is simple, workload and dialogue mags. managers. they use a variety of techniques to monitor driver workload and manage and control the amount of information to the driver and these two have been used in a couple of different vehicles

that have made it on to the road already. the next category of potential technology countermeasures that could help us prevent and mitigate distraction are more advanced, and they are really in the research and development stage. they need a lot of evaluation still for us to know how effective they are, and these are ones that can actively assist the driver during pre-conflict, conflict, and imminent crash situations. they use two coupled approaches. the first part of them actively monitors where the driver's attention is and tracks where the driver is looking, cues them to shift attention, and then if they do not shift attention, engages active safety systems to help prevent a crash or to assist the driver in preventing a crash. for example, lane departure

warning or collision imminent. there are a couple great examples that i don't have time to go into. to wrap up, we have three steps really that we need to devote effort to to properly harness technology counter measures. let me just emphasize that beyond investing in the technology and developing it and integrating it well, we need also to educate drivers in their choice and use of technology because even the best technology can only be a partner with responsible drivers in trying to partner towards the safe outcome. thank you. >> nice close. thank you. our next presenter is dr. james sayer from the university of michigan transportation research institute. he's conducted human factors in transportation related research since 1993 including research in

driver assistance and advanced safety systems. naturalistic driving perception and continuity and contributed to the develop of the adapted cruise control, collision warning, and collision avoidance systems in both passenger and commercial vehicles. dr. sayer, i invite your presentation. >> thank you very much, and good afternoon. i want to talk a little bit about this afternoon about integrated in-vehicle safety systems. of the likes of forward crash warning, lane departure warning, those types of systems. there's been a variety of natural studies evaluating the systems. i've been involved in about six of these myself. one thing we've found consistently is there are situations where a distracted driver can be alerted and 5 crash prevented as a result.

most often we see rear end crashes avoided from a crash warning system, and also departing a road from a lane departure warning. . . actually be able to have the kinds of systems on board. so as a result, in part because of the expense of the individual systems but also maintenance

costs and repair costs, the number of manufacturers and the u.s. department of transportation are engaged in looking at the use of wireless connectivity, vehicle to vehicle technology and john maddox mentioned that also a few minutes ago is a less expensive alternative to get warnings to drivers. one thing we have looked at very closely of major concern when we first introduced these crash warning systems was whether or not drivers would begin to compensate and use the system as a crutch essentially. would they adopt new types of behavior that are risky? would they do things that they ought not do across secondary task, task test which are not primary to the point from getting from point a to point b which we would traditionally think of as a driving test.

would they risk compensating? at least to the degree that we studied, both in cars and commercial trucks we have yet to see any evidence of risk compensation. that is good news. the bad news is most the work we have done has really been over short periods of time so they're still really needs to be a question that needs to be answered on that. i know the u.s. dod is actively considering a project that would look at a longer scale exposure and so therefore might see risk compensation associated with that. having said that though again, we have not. vehicle systems as countermeasure to distract is critical that we understand what is the nature of the distraction. if we wanted to design systems, technologies, to help undertake and address these issues, we have to understand them and really excruciating detail.

when we look at the 2008 ges data we see that almost 22% of all crashes are associated with some form of distraction. other issues associated with coding, he just look at strategic coding and the ges would say it's about 1%. analyses we have done and it's something closer to 3.5% are due to cell phone related distractions. it may be a little bit lower or a little bit higher but you still have a whopping percentage of distraction related crashes that are not due to cell phones. so i want to focus on again trying to not down the high bars. the high bars, there is a lot out there. and so i don't want us to lose sight of the fact that there are all these other distractions and i think that is in fact part of the problem. if we focus too much on cell phones are we sending the wrong

message that some forms of distraction are okay but others are not? and so i think we have to be really careful about that. distraction is not new. i think the chairman mentioned this morning, distraction has been an issue probably ever since the model t and i say probably even before that. so it's not something that is going to go away overnight and i don't think that we should just simply accept the fact that there are these distracting behaviors that we seem to have for decades looked the other way and assumed we are okay, the eating, the drinking and the reading of a map and the reading of a newspaper. i think that these have to be tackled as well. so if we are going to do work on designing a vehicle system to address and driver distraction i think we have to be very careful to take into consideration all arms of distraction, not just cell phones, not just nomadic

electronic devices that proportions that of last the bar, the dog riding on her lap, handing a bottle to the kids in the backseat, engaging in an argument with your spouse. these are all distractions that for lack of better term have been generally accepted by society quickly, some things that could be done. i think there's a lot that can be done from a technological perspective to improve the integrated systems. i think we are getting a lot of information off of the network, primary network so there's a lot of information that can be garnered and can be used to understand when a driver is engaging in a potentially distracted task, whether they are adjusting the radio or whether they are inserting cds. i think that is an area for opportunity. and to wrap up, just wanted to

say in summary, ian -- in vehicle safety systems to hold promise. they have prevented destruction related crashes and i would be happy to show you videos of examples where that has happened. but they can't address all forms of driver distraction, at least not yet and they think future envision mentz of them can. new approaches that are lower in cost are underway. increased levels of inspiration could certainly increase the distraction related crashes but again they distraction debate needs to go further than just cell phones and/or pneumatic and electronic devices. we have to look at it on a wholesale perspective otherwise we run the risk of sending the wrong message. >> thank you doctors say her. our next presenter is mr. robert strasbourg or vice president of vehicle safety for the alliance of automobile manufacturers. since joining the alliance in 2000 he has directed the industry standards to enhance

motor vehicle safety. mr. strasbourg are also oversees the alliance safety research which includes developing new crash test dummies and conducting crash investigations and fundamental injury causation studies. mr. strasbourg or i welcome your remarks. >> thank you dr. brews, chairman hersman other members of the panel. thank you for the opportunity of being here today. digital technology -- digital technology has created a connected culture that has forever changed our society. managing these technologies and the driving environment is an important component in any comprehensive strategy to address distracted driving concerned. that is why the alliance developed its driver focus guidelines over a decade ago. the guidelines are now in their third iteration and they help promote an environment in which drivers can better keep their eyes on the road and hands on

the wheel. we have heard a lot today about the so-called 22nd rule, the core metric and the alliance guideline to the second rule. alliance members have been applying these guidelines to help design connectivity, technologies that are no more distracting than common manual radio controls. unlike portable devices brought into a vehicle, vehicle integrated systems are designed for use in the driving environment. when a device or feature is integrated into a car's driver vehicle interface, and that includes both the visual display and the speakers, it is designed to be used in a way that helps the driver keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel. it helps promote an attentive driver. the guidelines specified for

example, the alliance guideline specified that displays must be in the vehicle so drivers can continue to see the roadway with their peripheral vision, even while glancing at the display. that is not possible when you are trying to manipulate a portable device in your lap. with respect to the nhtsa proposed guidelines, the alliance believes that implementation of guidelines overregulation is an appropriate and preferred approach given one how rapidly technology is evolving and two the evolving state and we have heard some about this today, the knowledge of driver's behavior behind the wheel and three, the federal government's lack of authority to regulate cortical devices from the aspects of performance at issue here today. it is also appropriate to limit -- to limit or prohibit certain functions or features

that are determined by a testing pursuant to the forms-based metrics in the guidelines to be incompatible with the driving task. as we move forward, the alliance believes it is important to keep the following in mind. first, further development and evolution of guidelines should continue to be data-driven and science-based. second, guidelines for in vehicle systems and those now under development by nhtsa for affordable electronic devices should be a single passage to complete the guidelines for portable systems and should be x. but i did therefore. consumers have options. is the use of one option is detailed, drivers will migrate quickly to others that are not restricted. vehicle manufacturers are providing hardwired or electronic ports for connecting portable electronic devices to

in vehicle systems, to manage access in devices in a manner that is appropriate for the driving environment such as by voice activation or by placing limits on the driver input, which brings me to my final point, and that is integrating a portable or carrying device into the vehicle allows the vehicle to serve as the safety filter. and that means then that we also need to have all the parts at the table. today our focus has been on in vehicle systems. we also need to have the makers of portable devices at the table as well. we need to be able to work with them to design not only our in vehicle systems that make them compatible to work with portable systems and that is how we are going to drive them all forward. if we were to further reduce traffic fatalities, we need to

have, we need to take a holistic approach and we need to have all the parties at the table, and so that we are making design decisions and making design changes that are data-driven, for performance-based and will drive the numbers lower. thank you. >> and their last presenter on this panel will be michael, director of safety for the association of local automakers and he provides information and analysis on legislative and regulatory activities affecting vehicle safety and also serves as a liaison member of the national academy of sciences, strategic highway research program two, fondly known as sharp two, safety technical coordinating committee. >> thank you dr. brews and thank you chairman hersman and members of the board for inviting me to participate in this forum. just a quick slide on who we are. the association of global automakers representative a

national motor vehicle manufacturers original commitment suppliers. we work with industry leaders, legislators, and regulators to create public halsey that improves vehicle safety encourage the technical logical innovation and protects our planet. global automakers agree the distracted driving is an important issue and we take of the board for having this forum. i think it has been very interesting and informative to hear all the different perspectives that have been brought out today. we had approximately 20 different organizations up here, bringing their knowledge and their concerns and their perspectives on how to deal with distracted driving and i think we are all in agreement that it's an area we can make robert son and we are all trying to work together on that. are association supports state laws for primary enforcement ban on the use of handheld devices,

particularly phonecalls while driving. the focus of this particular panelist technology design countermeasures so i thought i would spend a moment to just talk about that. when designing a vehicle in deciding what features to include and how to design them, automakers take a measured approach. the specifics of this is declared by the manufacture but in general there are several elements. at in vehicle information systems, automakers look at what drivers are currently doing in their vehicles and see if they can devise a better way to assist the driver to perform these tasks in a manner that is designed with the driving environment in mind. usability comprehension and safety are all considered an existing laws regulations and district standards and guidelines are also reviewed for applicability for design of the system. when evaluating the systems it's useful to consider what is the alternative to the system. for example navigation systems

provided integrated means of helping the driver find their destination and offers many bandages over paper maps are handwritten directions. a well-designed navigation system can relieve the driver of stress and reduce sudden lane changes another abrupt and remove -- maneuvers and focus on the road and traffic instead of looking at maps, handwritten instructions. in addition to be in vehicle navigation systems and other in-vehicle systems we also want to point at consumers are demanding safety in the automakers are striving to deliver that so automakers at a cheap high ratings -- compete to achieve high ratings in vehicle crash tests and to offer driver advanced systems and crash avoidance systems. in december, d.o.t. announced its highway fatalities in 2010 reach their lowest level in over 60 years. this achievement is to impart to the efforts of automakers to

improve the crashworthiness of vehicles and develop and install advanced vehicle safety features such as electronic stability control. despite those encouraging numbers there is more that needs to be done and automakers continue to research and develop a next generation of safety and driver assistance systems and introduce innovations such as lane departure warning and forward systems. that concludes my opening remarks. i look forward to our discussion and thank you for hosting this forum to bring this all together. >> that concludes the opening remarks for last panel. i will turn the panel over to you for questioning. >> thank you member. >> this entire day has been fascinating and i think it's appropriate that we are ending on the note of technology and dr. rosekind has already alluded to this and he said it in clear words in plain english that when we made a recommendation we came out in favor of laws, enforcement and communication

campaigns and each of those arms, to use a term that mr. mr. strassburger used, they are layers of defense and i think the technology is yet another very important layer of defense in the technology i am referring to by the way is crash mitigation technology, not the additional gadgets and the card to further distract people, but which we are really talking about two different things here. your angell talked about more electronics in the car which in my opinion are just more distractors if we are not careful with it. the type of technology i'm talking about now is the crash technologies. and that can be a primary layer and it can be a model layer of intent and we have to use that technology effectively. the technology again i'm talking about, things like cruise control, lane departure warning systems, electronic stability

control, heads-up displays, all of these things that can help to prevent accidents and i want the industry to continue to develop and implement that technology. it's already here. it just needs to be ample amid in a na more widespread fashion. i think member weener brought up a great point and dr. sayer repeated and it finally sunk in, and it is you are right we have to be going for the high bar. you are so successful dr. weener and looking at the high bars in aviation and as a result coming up with mitigation measures to lower those. so if we do only focus on the cell phones and texting and that sort of stuff, then we are hitting a small portion of it, but 22 to 25% of total distractions, while only 22% of

all accidents involve some form of distraction and by your figures dr. sayer i think he said only one or 2% related to cell phones. is that correct? >> yes, we estimate 3.5%. >> okay so the technology if employed correctly can help protect and guard us against those other non-cell phone related accidents. so i think it's just kind of a diatribe to say that we need to continue moving forward in developing those safety filters, the technology that will keep us from having an accident. i do also worry that doctors say are -- sayer people might begin to be more reliant on that and the trick is to figure out how do we keep them actively engaged in the controls instead of being passively engaged and that continues to be a problem. i am encouraged that technology is there and the board has come

out with a number of accidents and recommended cruise controls and lane departure warning systems and we continue to support that. really, just sort of a wrap-up here. i just wanted to make those comments and i yield the balance of my time. >> member weener. >> thank you. it's good to hear, after listening to all of the panelist today, to hear what the potential for technology is. i have heard a number of things that i'd like to hear and one is the term data-driven approach, because that helps focus where the biggest bang for the resources can really happen. by analogy, in the aviation industry, if we look at safety of the large transports, you can see with technology implementation of certain things. you can see the safety increase, and the accident rate go down.

as member sumwalt pointed out earlier today there are a number of ways to handle safety but the last thing you want to try to do is behavior modification, if you can do something else upstream so technology in my experience, can be very valuable in making safety advances and to keep the advances. if you are doing behavior modification you have to keep modifying the human being over and over again because he tends to want to go back to some initial conditions. one of the things we have found in the aviation business is safety systems are great, but dependency often accompanies the safety system, and i guess my concern is, when we put a safety system on board, it has to work really reliably, dependably and in fact there is a real hazard

in a safety system that works right almost all the time, because it lulls people into depending on it. we have plenty of examples in the aviation industry where we have put safety systems like configuration warning systems, which were initially intended as simply warning system so they were a single threat but frankly those who got to depend on them, since they were only single threat they didn't have the revived -- reliability or integrity to be relied on. so in terms of technology, how do you approach and how do you analyze that aspect. when you put a safety system on board come the safety system has to address some systemic issues and how do you make certain that when you do that, you don't create a situation where undue dependency creates problems by itself?

>> so, some of the different ways we look at that are first, we look to see if the types of crashes that intend to warn drivers against impact, is the system working as it is intended? are drivers warned appropriately, and do they therefore avoid the crash? then what you start to look for is what is the relative frequency of those warnings? in other words, are they allowing themselves to get into a situation that leads up to that type of a threat to begin with? and if you start to see increased rate of warnings, and you start to become concerned, so they are relying on it as opposed to their own eyes to make determinations. i shouldn't get into that situation to begin with and that's typically not something we have seen in vehicle-based systems. typically they crash warning

rates are fairly stable or if anything it drops off. the driver has actually learned something from having experienced the warning. they have learned to slow down and go a little further back for example. as i mentioned earlier in my opening statement, one of the other things we look at is do we see drivers engaging in other kinds of tasks at a higher rate than they would have otherwise? are they on their cell formed more, the eating more and are they engaged with other passengers more? do you see those behaviors change and at least to the degree that we have studied for the period that we have, we have not seen this. >> i wonder if i could add to that. would jim didn't mention but i think was applied to his answer was, the study that you really need to look at is driving studies for significant periods of time. of course come even today those are rather expensive and very difficult to do.

so, we are concerned about that. that is one of the potential unintended consequences of the safety systems and we are going to be looking at opportunities to use natural driving data to assess that add significant length of time so we don't have the answer to that yet but we are definitely looking at it. >> thank you. >> three quick observations before we have some questions. what i've been noting at the end of the day, nobody tried to apply distraction. there can be one slide that said here is how i would feel where the distraction is. that is important because to be provocative i would challenge things like the 22nd rule. to meet, the kind of level of medical treatment. we can measure it but consider the universe of distractions.

that is like way over here. i also want to acknowledge the command and we have to credit the leadership in the organizing group. this is an attempt at -- attended driving that going from the health and wellness view is the issue however he went you want to define it is really about paying attention to the driving test. is competent enough. had we make sure it's not just keeping our spearhead and everything else in the game? the third, mr. strassburger is the first to mention, the chairman asked her previous russian about all wireless and the things that are coming in and the social media crowd. all the stuff that is getting engaged they are not here the table either which i think would be an interesting perspective. my first question is, you know in health health care, you can a medication on the market without going through clinical trials and i'm not suggesting the fda in this arena and i would suggest maybe if you can get ahead of the government on these things. i'm kind of wondering, what are

the guidelines for the designs of this? what could you actually be studying that you could set criteria for defining what should be the state characteristics of what you want to put in cars as saying let's put it in and later designing its too dangerous unless blood out. i'm flipping on its head. you have to go through a set of trials to make criteria. is not possible here? to create the criteria and create the ratings, have some way internal you are trying to set the standard for what promotes defensive driver than preventing just distraction? >> i'm going to take a quick stab at it and maybe john and paul will both want to. 27 years i spent at general motors and i believe that is what the car companies that are part of the alliance are doing, exactly that. with each new model, those companies that are part of the

alliance, made a commitment to nhtsa to test each of their new products, and agree that they would adhere to the 23 principles and each of the criteria underneath those principles. so each of those new models are tested in the laboratory, or on the road. data are collected in decisions and decisions are made about whether a task needs to be redesigned are locked down before those products are released. now, it is just those companies. we don't have portable manufacturers on the same page. we don't have app developers on the same page. those folks, as rob mentioned, need to be engaged here. but i think that there has been a very concerted effort to do exactly what you are calling for. since 2003.

>> make that public. just like everybody buys cars now, actually it's kind of like if that has been going on, -- >> i will take that suggests and back missed -- member rosekind. we don't often toot our own horn often enough but let me just supplement dr. angell's comments about the guidelines. there actually are 24 principles, but they begin with a statement of high-level intent, and what is different about our guidelines as opposed to the european statement of principles or the japanese guidelines for which they were derived in part, is we also establish performance-based, performance criteria and a verification procedure, so you would know if you are doing good. you know if your system is meeting the criteria and that really is consistent with the self certification process that

we follow with the nhtsa, federal motor vehicle safety standards and their -- each individual members internal design guidelines for their vehicles. >> if i might just add all automakers ought to look at the guidelines that are out there and evaluate their systems and in addition to that we are going to the next level in looking at research like the 100 car study and a sharp two study to see where we can learn more and develop the guidelines further. >> thank you. >> thank you chairman. >> i'm just curious how much exchanging of notes and the general review of other industries that are struggling with some of these same issues. in particular i'm thinking of aviation we heard dr. weener talk about that an also and also

nuclear power and in particular they go to automation and safety so i'm just wondering to what extent, i don't suggest one-size-fits-all and know the environments are very different but you seem -- it seems to me there could still be a lot learned from other industries like that and i'm curious how much that sharing of notes goes on? >> i will just start on that, not on the issues i've become the government side. we are doing that exact thing, especially as it relates to human factors for automated or semiautomated, for driver support and fire support control systems. we are actively engaging, our counterparts on the aviation side, the defense side and others because we think there is a lot to learn and we don't need to reinvent the wheel. >> any others on that one? >> i would one simply agree with john but also you know, the

human factor experts that our members employ, i think have brought expertise and they are bringing that expertise to bear in the development of the guidelines and just generally in the development of the vehicle systems themselves. so, are the things that we could learn from other sectors? absolutely but for today you mentioned are coupled although i would observe their that they are probably highly trained operators that you know, you have a little bit more control over then you do with somebody that is driving a vehicle every day, day in and day out for 20 years. >> on the lessons learned front, i'm just wondering, and given the cost and the time it takes for driving experiments experiments if you will and just thinking of the example with the introduction of antilock brakes where that was viewed as a huge potential safety device.

and the unintended consequences that occurred is now instead of losing control because he lost traction with the road, now you are skidding. you are maintaining control so now you can do that sharp turn that you could not have done when you had no traction but now you do the sharp turn going off at the edge of the road and rolling over. if you don't have your seatbelt on or you don't have a strong roof and you get killed by the rollover. the consequence was to reduce the impact that it created a lot more rollovers and i think that is why the insurance protections for antilock brakes because they were unintended consequences that resulted in the death and worsening perhaps. not an improvement but maybe a worsening so i'm just wondering the procedures for looking at the unintended consequences have become more robust as we have learned over time with some of the technology? >> we have definitely learned from that experience and i think

that experience number one highlights the importance of robust design. there was discussion earlier with.org sayer about crash systems. we don't want the operator to become comfortable that the system is going to intervene on their behalf, so that is taken into consideration into the systems design. i think the abs experience highlights the importance of education. we need to be educated consumers about what the systems can and cannot do and how they should be using them when they are driving. and so we have taken those lessons to heart. >> my last question is houston before i can get in my car, say go to work and sit back and read by ipad and read the morning paper on my ipad and have it take me to work? >> three weeks. 's the one problem at a time, please. >> thank you very much.

>> i would also mention you could ride the metro if you want to do that. [laughter] mr. sayer, when you are having a dialogue with members weener about the percent of accidents that were chevy to do distractions, you came up with a number and which percent were activated to cell phone use. i think member or -- members weener are maybe member sumwalt. mr. bad ask what percentage would you attribute to distractions and which would you a trivet to cell phone use? >> i have to first say i don't remember the numbers exactly, but i believe we were in the same ballpark. i think our latest ncsa research report was within a 6% range although i can't quite really remember that for sure. i can get back to you.

>> cell phones are distractions? >> i believe that was the cell phone. but i will have to give back to. >> one of the challenges depending on which panelists we talked to in which panel, everyone is using a little bit different numbers to talk about things and i think that is part of the challenge we have about talking about this issue, having some common understanding of what we are talking about. the naturalistic study, what are we talking about about what is attributed to distraction so that is creating problems for us to even have a dialogue about this because in many cases we might agree with each other but we we are going pass one another. i can watch what is happening, but i think that goes back to some of the earlier panels where we talked about the data collection and the enforcement and how do you attribute these things? that becomes more muddied. we have a gentleman in the

audience who is interested in one of our videos. he lost his granddaughter, a former law enforcement and attributed the accident to a portable device issue and a i think we really have kind of a disconnect on the data side and i'm not really sure how we kind of, how we break through that issue because everyone wants to come back to putting decisions and policies based on data, but it really is a moving target depending on which dataset you are using, so i think that is the first area where we have to get some consensus and some agreement on. than the second part of it is kind of come i, i want to go back to something that doctors sayer dr. sayer mentioned and this was that, members weener about addressing distractions that are not cell phone-based or

portable electronics. certainly we have all agreed that they are distractions out there but i think many of these distractions have been around for a long time. what have we done as a society to address those? i think dr. sayer use the dog in the lap for the kids in the back or the whatever. what are we doing to address those and are the solutions to addressing those problems ultimately, are they almost the same as the solutions to address distractions? or are they different? you talked about in vehicle technology as a prevention tool. >> i think they are very similar. they may not be identical. some other things related to text messaging and cell phone use may have technological approaches that can be applied to them more easily than keeping the dog off of someone's lap or keeping the -- out of their hand. nonetheless, i think we have the opportunity to address the

distraction problem head on and again i feel like just singling out certain aspects of distraction very well sends the wrong message. it gives a mixed message and says certain types of distraction rok and will be accepted and i think probably for the panel earlier, talking about law enforcement, i think it makes law enforcement's job even more difficult. if you want to change the norm, the drivers need to understand what inherently is the problem. the problem is, their eyes are not on the road in their head is not in the game. it doesn't matter whether it is because they are on a cell phone or because they are eating. because they are reaching around

to hand the kid a bottle. their eyes are not on the road and her head is not in the game. that is where we are right now so society. we have the opportunity to get that message across in the most effective way to get it across is to do it wholesale, not in pieces because if we go bits and pieces, what is going to happen is it might be cell phones today or text messaging and then at social media. what is going to be the next issue du jour two years from now that i hope we are not back here discussing. >> the question is, how do we do it wholesale? >> the last panel talk a lot about the social norms. really trying to convince people we have got to get the message out and we have got to educate them and we have got to convince them that driving while distracted is wrong and you can't tolerate it. just like driving while drunk is wrong. we don't differentiate whether you are drunk because you drank wine or drank here. you are drunk so if you are distracted, you are distracted. >> okay, so if the premise is

your eyes aren't on the road and your head is not in the game, what is going on with what people want? for the auto manufactures, my question is, do people want to drive or do they want to exist in ipad on wheels? if their eyes aren't on the road and their head is not in the game while handing the bottle to the baby and doing these other things, what additional things are we creating in that environment where we already have drivers who are incredibly non-attentive to begin with? do you will see that they want to do everything that drives when they are in the car? can you sell a car if it's completely stripped down and has the steering wheel and the gas pedal and a break? >> chairman hersman, i think that is oversimplifying the issue way too much. our whole approach with the

guidelines has been to mitigate and manage behavior that we are seeing occurring in the vehicle. we start from day one, square one with the design. we actually designed vehicles from the inside out and we start day one, square one with the placement of controls and doing everything we can to make sure that they are in the side of the driver and that they can reach them easily and they can still maintain peripheral vision on the road and even when they are glancing away to activate a control or a function. people want to do a lot of things in their cars and we are trying to manage and mitigate that activity to make sure that activity is safer than driving environment. >> kind of going to that question, you talked about your guidelines and how they are tested and things like that. one of the challenges we heard

when we talk about this is the research panels warning. we don't have a lot of transparency into the evaluation and testing and the research that goes on and what is actually being done now. this morning they were talking a lot about glancing away and focusing on that. there isn't really a lot of research on voice activated commands. what do we have on that, saying we are keeping drivers attended by putting it national features in the vehicles? >> for form a? >> for anyone who can answer because that is where we have a little bit of a gap in the research and what we now. we continue to struggle with this cognitive distraction. >> and, let me say that we will never have enough research and we will never have enough data. we need to act on the data we

have available now and that is what we are doing with the guidelines. they are best practices based on the best available data that we haven't the time that they were developed. we continue to review the data and the analyses as it emerges and update the guidelines as appropriate when we have that new information. >> may i ask? there has been a lot of work done and a lot of it was prior terry through the industry early in 2000, the decade of 2000. and much of it was made public in a docket for nhtsa in january of 2007. that is docket 64802, both ford and general motors shared a great deal of the research data done on voice-based interfaces on conversations and research

that they had done. on the road, on the track and including the investigation of a crash for the onstar system. it is expensive and it's available to you if you should want to look into that. that is in response to a petition at the center for auto safety that has submitted to us at that time. there is also published work that those companies have made available, and at the transportation research board meeting of january, a very nice overview of the work on voice-based interfaces. he summarized back, not just the work on conversation, hands-free conversation, but the use of toys based interface for other types of interaction and the fact that it is an improvement

over visual manual interfaces. so that is another place, if you're wondering where it is. >> if i could add to that, also i think naturalistic driving is going to give us more data as well. instead of just looking at glances, you can match the glances to the driving behavior, and as one of the earlier panelists rosekind said we know where their eyes are looking but we don't know where their heads are at. by seeing how they are controlling the vehicle and making insights were the eyes are is also where their heads are at so i think that is going to be helpful and there is a lot of research, and research tools to analyze that data. i think that is sort of the new frontier but i think that will help. >> i would also add that we are conducting what we call our small-scale driving to get partially, get at some of the cognitive effects and we are specifically looking at cars in

northern virginia and southern virginia and we are assessing and comparing cell phone conversations on a handheld, a quote hands-free device and an integrated device and certainly that was started to give us some basic information on our face to guidelines on our devices but also if there is a difference, we might he able to also assess cognitive effects of charlie hands-free operations. that will be done -- meant the data collection is done and we will get into the analysis phase and there will be public routers -- results and we would be happy to share with that. >> very quickly this morning, dr. rosekind you asked about brain research and there is a lot of activity on that as well. dr. richard young of wayne state university has done quite a bit

of work with his colleagues and also by the collaborative safety research center at toyota. m.i.t. is engaged in some transportation research. the institute is engaged in a lot of activity using f. mri, pet and other methods, so there is a lot going on. >> member weener. >> this is really a question or mr. strassburger. both within your organization, as each of you represents a large number of automakers. both within your associations and between your associations, would you characterize what you do with regards to safety as you are collaborating on safety? >> both. i think our members in the

marketplace continue to fund safety and that is a good thing. and behind the scenes with advanced research and efforts like the guidelines etc., we are collaborating. >> i agree. i think it's an issue where we collaborate to raise the bar and we compete to push the ceiling, and it's like a standards versus the crash test ratings where we all meet the standards of course, but then we compete beyond that to get the highest ratings in the various crash test. >> one last question. in terms of technology related to the issue of distraction, what do you see as the next advances, let's say in three years and in 10 years? what is your crystal ball?

what technologies are going to be able to be matured in three years or in 10 years? >> that is a tough one to view a crystal ball on. we are seeing the driving assistance features coming in. we are seeing, probably seeing more of those in the shorter term. longer-term technology, you know i just don't know how to project for that. >> i don't know that i have any further supplements on that point. >> one reflection, have we made driving too easy? so that people are willing to take on secondary tasks, like portable electronics usage?

>> i don't think that is necessarily the case. i think we are seeing the driving becoming safer and i think that is a good thing. i don't think we want to step backwards in order to address this problem, so we have to kind of address both of the issues at the same time. we keep improving driving, making it safer. we have to attack these issues as they. >> and there is a supplement to that. i don't think we are making driving too easy. our whole approach is to help the driver performed their task, to the best of their ability. so i think it is really the question of different factors and the environment that are changing and pushing them to want to do more behind the whee. the bigger challenge is the autonomous vehicles that we alluded to just a little while ago.

those i think are really why we need to pay attention at this point in time now with the human factors issues and the warning systems that we could be giving two drivers etc. which are effective, etc.. >> very good, thank you. >> one question. members, at our september 13 -- it took us 30 years to get to 85% and i love that we have been off. 30 years and 5% and that had to do with the human behavior sight. group of us had a chance to see a crash test and we had a fascinating discussion afterwards about if you want to come up with new technology, can be 30 years before the technology actually comes into the fleet. so my question and in fact, more which i like about this panel discussion notches about the

cell phones but the other technology, lane departure etc. and all that technology. technology. how do we get a faster? if we are stocking about this research and everything else that is going to take 30 years for the behavior part in 30 years for the technology, what do we do about that? the first of all with respect to seatbelt use, yes it took 30 years and by the way 30 years of considerable effort by a number of different parties and even now we don't have primary enforcement laws in all 50 states. we are up to 32 or 33 so absolutely. and likewise, it would be average age of passenger car on the road today being about 11 years old and again that needs into you know, a 30 year cadence for the fleet to turnover. the good news is, number one, i think again, safety cells.

our members are motivated to distinguish themselves in the marketplace on the basis of safety performance. that helps get the technology out there quicker than it might otherwise. secondly, we need to look at, i mean actually member rosekind it was you and an earlier question. we should be tooting our own horn more ourselves, talking about what we can do and maybe there should be others. consumer information has been a great way of motivating manufacturers to accelerate the pace of their development in the introduction of technologies also. >> anyone else? >> i was just going to say those 30 years on the seatbelt use helped also lay the groundwork so hopefully we don't have to take 30 years for the next thing. we have already raised interest of safety and as ron alluded to, now the competitive interest of consumers looking to buy a car.

so they will look for all the safety information that they can find. >> very often when we bake recommendations we have a real accident. what is interesting is we focus not just on futures assigned that how do you retrofit? one of the faster issues on the technology system has to be confronted at some point is not just the new cars that are coming out but some element of retrofit the needs to go and in some way to accelerate that 30 years? thank you. >> thank you and we are going to go to the tek panel now. we have a question about the nhtsa guidelines are recently came out. the face to guidelines would be for nomadic devices and setting aside whether you have oversight authority for that, which i think will make that a complicated story to write. but, phase 342,014 are the auditory systems, and i'm

looking at ads here for mercedes has a seven-inch screen, it cadillac has an eight-inch touchscreen and lexus has a screen that supports up to 18 and up so what we are seeing is an acceleration of the technology ensuring the car market, so i am wanting you to put in sink for me where the development of the guidelines are going in comparison to what they are going to be? >> i think from our perspective, talking about those new screens and therefore the content that can be offered to drivers on the larger screens, we believe that is primarily a visual manual. i will use the word problem but the visual manual situation so we think clearly our phase one guidelines will address those types of things. certainly we agree with you that the technology is changing rapidly and we probably can't

picture where we might be five years from now. so we are trying to establish guidelines now with minimum basic, that include minimal basic functional assets that are not necessarily tied to one given technology or when given way of doing things. something called texting is more the basic function of looking and touching and listening. so we think we have got it right starting with visual manual. we think that clearly, we need to get visual manual guidelines for these portable devices out in the near term, because we also think it's another one of the -- and the voice recognition, the voice activation, we are frankly having -- have not concentrated on it yet because we need to get the first two done. >> thank you.

as an accident investigator, i can commiserate with sergeant oberdorf when he was talking about the difficulty in determining whether drivers are using cell phones are texting at the time of the crash. i have a question for mr. strassburger and mr. cammisa. with the advent in vehicle committee patients technology what kinds of features might you add so that police investigators will be able to know whether those systems are being used at the time of the crash? >> i think on one level, that is probably a fairly straightforward question. i don't know that there is any technological hurdles that would necessarily prevent or keep us from doing that relatively quickly. i