WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY SCOURGE OR SAFETY NET

Furthermore, WHO figures indicate that road accidents are the eighth leading cause of death across the globe, and Wearable tech: Scourge or Safety net?. As governments address road safe

Wearable tech:

Scourge or

Safety net?

Written by:

Around 1.2 million people across the

globe are killed annually as a result

of road accidents, according to data

from the World Health Organisation

(WHO) Up to 50 million suffer

non-fatal injuries, many leading to

permanent disability Furthermore,

WHO figures indicate that road

accidents are the eighth leading

cause of death across the globe, and

Wearable tech:

Scourge or Safety net?

are the primary cause of mortality for young people in the age range 15-29

As governments address road safety issues with a view to reducing traffic-related injuries and deaths, new wearable technologies are emerging that their backers claim have the potential to improve

Written by:

driving Experts are divided in their opinion, with many concerned that the risks outweigh the benefits This briefing explores the potential for wearable technologies to deliver improvements in road safety, and examines the arguments on both sides of the debate

Despite the worrying statistics,

total road fatalities across the globe

remain stable amid rising vehicle

ownership This relatively positive

development is partly thanks to

progress in road infrastructure, in

education, in law enforcement and

in emergency response to incidents

For example, road deaths in the

United Arab Emirates (UAE) fell

from 1072 in 2008 to 720 in 2011,

according to official data, as the

authorities took steps including the

roll-out of more speed and traffic

light cameras Individual emirates

the riSe of

Wearable gadgetry

have set themselves ambitious road safety targets Dubai is hoping to eliminate all road deaths by 2020, while Abu Dhabi is targeting zero fatalities by 2030

Still, observes Nick Reed, principal human factors researcher at the UK-based Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), a consultancy,

“the four things that most often lead to death and serious injury have been constant: failure to wear seatbelts, excessive speed, fatigue, and alcohol.” Furthermore, human

error remains a contributing factor

in over 90% of road collisions, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a US non-profit organisation funded by car insurers The IIHS says that inadequate surveillance, distraction inside the vehicle, and high speed are the most common reasons for crashing

Now, a number of companies claim they can improve road safety using wearable technology, a fast-emerging sector whose products

are based on “advanced circuitry,

processing capability and wireless

connectivity” embedded in items

such as wristbands, jewellery,

glasses, or clothing Applications for

wearable tech include healthcare –

for instance, devices that monitor

blood sugar levels in diabetics and

deliver insulin; and they include

general fitness applications – for

example, devices that track calories

burned and heart rate There are infotainment applications and military and industrial uses, too

Wearable tech is part of a wider trend towards greater personal assistance, points out Alon Atsmon, general manager of Infotainment Application Services at Harman International, a US-based car audio

and infotainment group “There will

be more and more things that will accompany you, either helping your health or making your life safer,” he says The total wearable tech market

is worth between US$3 billion and US$5 billion, according to a May

2013 research report, and may grow

to between $30 billion and $50 billion within 3-5 years

no more

drooping eyelidS

US-based company Skully expects to be

part of that growth Founded by Marcus

Weller after he suffered a motorbike

crash, the firm is now testing its AR-1

augmented reality helmet amongst

motorcyclists The helmet includes

a head-up display, integrated rear

view camera, voice-controlled user interface, and internet connectivity via smartphone If you are wearing the helmet, the firm’s website says, “you can control your music, send texts, make calls, and change your destination hands-free.”

Other examples of wearable tech whose backers claim it can improve driving performance include smart watches, such as Samsung’s Galaxy Gear With the right app, wearers of the watch can make changes to their vehicle’s navigation commands, for example

Meanwhile, an app for the Pebble Watch is reported to pick up potential hazards on the road and warn the motorist by means of a vibration alert

One wearable gadget that is attracting

Among these apps is DriveSafe, developed by New York-based IT analyst Jake Steinerman If the app spots signs that the driver may be drowsy, such as drooping eyelids, it sends audio-visual signals to alert the driver And Harman has adapted its advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) engine for Google Glass Among other functions, the app is able to send the wearer

an audio-visual alert if it senses a high risk of a collision on the road ahead

attention is Google Glass, a head-mounted computing device with a range

of potential applications The device provides a display in the upper right hand side of the wearer’s field of vision and responds to voice commands Google is currently testing the product and plans a full-scale launch later this year Already, a number of software developers have created apps for Google Glass aimed at enhancing road safety

SWitched on?

Supporters of wearable technologies

claim these devices can improve

driver information, helping motorists

focus on driving For example, the

display in the Skully helmet or in

Google Glass may be able to present

navigation information in a handier

way than road signs, satellite

navigation devices, or smartphones

Developers claim wearable technology can reduce driver distraction Dr Reed of TRL agrees that there are sound arguments for wearable tech “making information more accessible and making presentation of that information more compatible with the driving task”

Another point in favour of wearable

tech is that it has the potential to

monitor a driver’s physical state,

including heartbeat and tiredness

There are also “possible opportunities

for summoning assistance if there is an

emergency,” believes Dr Reed, “or the

vehicle doing more to take over in the

event that the driver passes out or has

a heart attack.” Wearable technologies

offer these benefits to motorists

regardless of the age and specification

of their vehicle

But these benefits may carry a cost

Whilst some wearable technology such

as DriveSafe specifically aims to combat

fatigue, wearable technologies as a

whole may in fact increase the risk of

fatigue among drivers; that fatigue –

both physical and mental – may worsen

driving performance A further risk is

sensory overload, which may result if

wearable technology devices deliver

a high volume of information or if that

information is difficult to absorb or

is irrelevant This, in turn, can lead to

delayed reaction times and failure to

detect critical information

Worse still, while some of those promoting wearable tech say that these gadgets can reduce distraction, the opposite may be true Dr Reed says that “there is a concern that it brings with it your Twitter feed, your Facebook status updates, your text messages, and your incoming calls,” things that he points out “could present a significant distraction.” In other words, he argues,

“there is a risk of a driver failing to attend to safety-critical information about the driving task.”

After trying out Google Glass at the wheel for New York-based website iDigitalTimes, Doug Goodwin, part of the IT faculty at the California Institute

of the Arts, noted that the device “takes

on a whole new level of distraction.”

His conclusion: “Even at three to four miles per hour, it’s awful.” Harman’s

Mr Atsmon concedes that Google Glass

“will require some learning and might increase the cognitive load,” as wearers get used to it But he adds that, contrary

to widespread misconceptions, Google Glass “takes only one eighth of one eye, which means that in most of the cases nothing is blocked and nothing is lost.”

Among all the wearable tech devices aimed at improving road safety, Google Glass is dominating the debate Already in the US, numerous states are considering regulation of Google Glass for drivers Authorities in Ireland, Australia and the UK are figuring out how to deal with the device Last January, a California court acquitted a motorist who was driving whilst wearing Google Glass; the driver had been charged under legislation against use of in-car monitors whilst driving, but there was no evidence that her device was switched on

a 300,000

year-old deSign

The debate around wearable tech boils

down to how well drivers can interact

with evolving technology to reduce

human error Here, the outcome of

research by the IIHS is not encouraging

Collision alert systems built into cars

are effective, the IIHS finds, but they

are more effective if the car can brake

autonomously to avoid the collision

Similarly, the IIHS concludes that lane

departure alerts are ineffective unless

autonomous lane correction technology

is built into the car Humans clearly

impede the effectiveness of road safety

technologies such as these

Even where people can interact effectively with road safety technologies, they may be prone to complacency For instance, a driver may feel less need to be observant,

or cautious, if lulled into thinking that

a wearable tech device will help steer clear of trouble on the road Increased driver assistance may tempt drivers

to take greater risks in the belief they can get away with things that they otherwise would not

“We [humans] are a 300,000 year old design,” points out Simon Labbett,

TRL’s United Arab Emirates director

“We were not designed to drive cars.”

He argues that, amid all the smart technology, we may be losing sight of what the driving task entails: “Taking control of the vehicle and driving it down the road.” The smartest thing, he reckons, would be to remove humans from the driving task altogether Road infrastructure is reasonably sound, he points out; vehicles are mostly okay; it is drivers that are dangerous

A logical conclusion may be to build

collision-detection technologies and

other such devices into the vehicles

themselves, rather than strapping them

to drivers “Let’s deal with the holistic

approach to the vehicle rather than

just a bolt-on bit that may actually not

solve the problem,” argues Mr Labbett

Indeed, the IIHS research into the

active-control mechanisms built into

cars, such as automatic emergency

braking, prove the point These

technologies have shown clear results,

whilst wearable tech has not

Looking ahead, Dr Reed of TRL

speculates that “a lot more transport

will be provided by vehicles that you

summon and that are able to take you

from your origin to your destination

without the need for driving.” By then,

driver error may be a thing of the past

Mr Atsmon of Harman International believes that entirely autonomous driving will begin to emerge in the 2020s and 2030s, but that “some people will still want augmented reality

to see where the car is going and what

it is doing.”

For now, as wearable tech devices make their market debut in the world’s high-income countries, 90 percent of road traffic deaths continue to occur in low- and middle-income countries According

to WHO data, just 28 countries across the globe, representing fewer than 500 million people, have sound laws in place

to govern the basics – speed, alcohol, helmets, seat-belts and child restraints Whatever the merits of wearable tech, addressing this shortfall has perhaps the greatest potential to save lives

Wearable Technology: Scourge or Safety Net? was written by the Economist Intelligence Unit It examines the growing applications of wearable technology in motoring and road safety The report was based on desk research and 3 expert interviews

The Economist Intelligence Unit would like to thank the following individuals (listed alphabetically

by organisation name) for sharing their insights and expertise during the research for this paper:

• Alon Atsmon, VP & GM Infotainment Application Services, Harman International, US

• Nick Reed, principal human factors researcher, Transport Research Laboratory, UK

• Simon Labbett, director United Arab Emirates, Transport Research Laboratory, UAE