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 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.

1. Wearable tech:
Scourge or
safety net?
Written by:

2. Wearable tech:
Scourge or safety net?
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
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
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.
Written by:

3. The rise of
wearable gadgetry
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
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

4. 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.

5. 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.”

6. 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
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.
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.

7. 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”.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Acknowledgements
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