Computers-salkowski/20.5/mark2nd

Joe Salkowski

There’s something you should know about the “Web vehicle” recently announced with much fanfare by General Motors: It won’t actually be able to surf the Web.

Believe it or not, that bit of questionable advertising is the good news.

The bad news is that GM’s push to bring Net connectivity to cars, while sure to be popular, will further distract drivers from the one thing they really ought to be paying attention to: the road.

To be fair, GM has built a good track record when it comes to using networking technology to make driving safer. Its OnStar system, available in high-end sedans and vans, can provide spoken directions, track stolen cars, unlock a vehicle when keys are left inside, or summon an ambulance after an air bag deploys in an accident.

All this occurs through a voice-activated interface that connects drivers to GM’s service center through local cellular phone networks. The company’s so-called “Web vehicle,” due to be test-marketed this fall, would work in much the same way.

“Initially, people are going to be able to receive their e-mail in the car over the voice interface,” said Todd Carstensen, a spokesman for GM’s OnStar division. Later, he said, GM might deliver a customized audio mix of news, sports scores or other content including advertising in the same fashion.

“That material might originate from the Web,” he said, “but there won’t be a browser in the car.”

At least not right away. Given today’s limited cellular bandwidth, surfing the Web from your car would be like trying to suck a steak dinner through a straw. In the not-too-distant future, though, wireless Net links will be much more common.

What then? If car manufacturers are smart, they’ll make sure the driver can’t see whatever monitors might be installed in vehicles. Perhaps a dashboard-mounted screen could be allowed to swivel into view, but only if the vehicle’s wheels weren’t moving.

Even this might not be enough to prevent a new use for the phrase “computer crash.” A 1997 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that drivers quadruple their chances of a collision when they use cellular phones a risk nearly equivalent to that of driving drunk.

Hands-free cell phones, the sort GM will be using to deliver Net access, were not found to be any safer than the hand-held variety. “One possibility,” the authors wrote, “is that motor vehicle collisions result from a driver’s limitations with regard to attention rather than dexterity.”

Indeed, a radio alone can be enough of a distraction to cause serious problems. A Tucson, Ariz. teenager who confessed to killing a jogger in a recent hit-and-run accident told police that his truck veered into her path as he was adjusting his stereo. It was a story police didn’t have too much trouble believing. They had heard it plenty of times before.

“When you’re driving a car, it takes all your attention to do it safely,” said Sgt. Mark Robinson of the Tucson Police Department traffic unit. “When you start dividing your attention, you’re taking away from the task at hand.”

This isn’t to say that we need to pull radios out of cars because some people can’t change stations and drive at the same time. But before we introduce new distractions for the already frazzled rush-hour commuter, we should take some time to weigh the benefits vs. the potential risks.

While it might be nice to listen to e-mail messages as you drive, you couldn’t respond until you sat down at a real computer. Wouldn’t you be better off talking on a cell phone?

If I’m going to risk an accident to hear what my friends or business associates have to say, I’d just as soon have an opportunity to talk back.

It would be truly cool if on-board Net access allowed us to abandon local radio for the small, niche-oriented MP3 stations found on the Net. But OnStar will deliver only GM’s own ad-supported programming, making the most of its captive audience.

Besides, finding those online stations would require an interface far more complicated than most drivers could deal with.

Ultimately, I’m not sure car-based connectivity is worth the trouble. By the time wireless access is cheap and fast, people will be using portable tablets that deliver the Net’s full functionality in a package that’s considerably less bulky than a Cadillac.

If drivers really want to take the Net for a ride, car manufacturers should rig all but the least intrusive features so they don’t work when the vehicle is in motion. GM’s voice-activated approach, meanwhile, should be watched closely to see if it affects traffic safety.

Even on the information superhighway, it’s probably safer to keep your eyes and attention on the road.

To contact syndicated columnist Joe Salkowski, you can e-mail him at [email protected] or write to him c/o Tribune Media Services Inc., 435 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60611.