Why Does Silicon Valley Want You To Text And Drive?

File 20171128 28866 sv5qh1.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Tech companies want to reduce conflict between texting and driving.
Tero Vesalainen/

Jack Barkenbus, Vanderbilt University

As self-driving cars come closer to being common on American roads, much of the rhetoric promoting them has to do with safety. About 40,000 people die on U.S. roads every year, and driver errors are linked to more than 90 percent of crashes. But many of the biggest advocates of autonomous vehicles aren’t car companies looking to improve the safety of their existing products. Huge backing for self-driving technologies is coming from Silicon Valley giants like Google and Apple.

Those of us who have studied the relationship between technology and society tend to look more carefully at the motivations behind any technological push. In this case, it’s clear that in addition to addressing safety concerns, Silicon Valley firms have a strong incentive to create a new venue for increasing the use of their digital devices. Every minute people spend on their mobile phones provides data – and often money – to tech companies.

At present, digital devices and driving are in conflict: There are serious, often fatal, consequences when drivers use smartphones to talk or to text. Regulators and safety advocates look to resolve that conflict by banning phone use while driving – as has happened in virtually every state. But the tech companies are taking a different approach. The obvious answer for Silicon Valley is creating an automobile in which continuous cellphone use no longer poses a threat to anyone.

Not a new idea

The idea of a car so capable a driver is not needed isn’t new. As far back as the 1950s, the Saturday Evening Post ran an illustration imagining a family playing a board game (in a convertible!) as the car conducts itself down the road. When self-driving cars actually take to the streets in large numbers, today’s families likely won’t be playing Scrabble – though Words With Friends and other mobile games are a near certainty. Every passenger is likely to be using a mobile device.

A self-driving car depicted in the 1950s.
Saturday Evening Post

In recent years, the amount of time adults spend on their mobile devices (beyond actual phone calls) has grown rapidly. At the moment, it’s around four hours a day for the average adult in the U.S. However, that rapid growth is likely to slow down as people run out of time that’s available for them to use their devices.

Unless, of course, there’s a new block of time that suddenly opens up. The average American now spends about 48 minutes in a car every day, a sizable opportunity for increased cellphone use.

Chris Urmson, then director of Google’s self-driving car program, discusses Google’s efforts to advance autonomous vehicles.

Chris Urmson, former director of Google’s self-driving car project, made this interest clear in a 2016 talk, saying that autonomous vehicles offer the “exciting” possibility of creating “another room for you” where, among other activities, you can watch videos. The investment analysts at Morgan Stanley have talked about autonomous cars becoming a “fourth screen” in Americans’ lives (in addition to the home TV, personal computer and mobile phones or tablets). Perhaps the most explicit declaration of this interest came from Jia Yueting, co-founder of the budding Chinese automaker LeEco, when he said, “We see the car in the future as an extension of the internet, another entry point for us to sell web-based content and services.”

The ConversationSo as the public conversation around autonomous cars highlights the safety advantages, don’t forget the tech industry’s powerful desire for more profits, which goes well beyond simply saving us from ourselves.

Jack Barkenbus, Visiting Scholar, Vanderbilt Institute for Energy & Environment, Vanderbilt University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


THE CONVERSATION US launched as a pilot project in October 2014. It is an independent source of news and views from the academic and research community, delivered direct to the public. Our team of professional editors work with university and research institute experts to unlock their knowledge for use by the wider public. We aim to help rebuild trust in journalism. All authors and editors sign up to our Editorial Charter. All contributors must abide by our Community Standards policy. We only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise, which they must disclose alongside their article. Authors’ funding and potential conflicts of interest must also be disclosed. Failure to do so carries a risk of being banned from contributing to the site. The Conversation started in Melbourne Victoria and the innovative technology platform and development team is based in the university and research precinct of Carlton. Our newsroom is based in Boston but our team is part of a global newsroom able to share content across sites and around the world. The Conversation US is a non-profit educational entity.​

SOLD OUT! JOIN OUR WAITING LIST! It's not a virtual event. It's not a conference. It's not a seminar, a meeting, or a symposium. It's not about attracting a big crowd. It's not about making a profit, but rather about making a real difference. LEARN MORE HERE



  1. There are always statistics about injury or death when it involves technology. 40,000 people die on the roads when not using this technology. Well, how many are going to die when they use that technology? Will it be less or more? There are no statistics on that, no evidence that suggests a self driving car will reduce the death count.

    There is evidence that distraction and fatigue causes a majority of accidents. So the best way to keep people safe is to build cars that will not start until you put your device in a certain location and stop you from driving when you’re tired. If we have to have self driving vehicles, they must have their own lanes and roads without any other variables such as people and traditional cars. The technology is just too immature. It hasn’t progressed much since I did a case study on these self driving cars in 1992.

    I wish I kept a copy of that case study.

salon 360°