http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070214/nyw088.html?.v=90 Key findings: * The use of a satellite navigation device improves the driver's behavior when driving through an unknown area to an unknown destination; * The use of a satellite navigation system heightens alertness and reduces the stress levels of the driver; * Drivers who do NOT have the use of a satellite navigation solution have 12% more damage claims to their vehicles; * The use of a TomTom satellite navigation solution reduces the amount of miles driven by 16%; * The use of a TomTom satellite navigation solution reduces travel time when driving through an unknown area to an unknown destination by 18%; * The use of a TomTom satellite navigation solution reduces the workload (the amount of effort it takes the driver to drive) of the driver when traveling through an unknown area to an unknown destination. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070214/nyw088.html?.v=90
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 14 2007, 09:28 AM) [snapback]390152[/snapback]</div> I'm not saying this study is suspect, but it should be noted that it was underwritten in part by TomTom. (And an insurance company, and some I don't recognize).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Feb 14 2007, 10:23 AM) [snapback]390180[/snapback]</div> I'll say that that make the study a bit suspect...just as drug company sponsored studies are suspect. But still, it's provides an interesting landmark for an independent research project to look at. Consumer Union or a united insurance research group should duplicate the study using similar methods to try to confirm or refute the findings here. In any case it certainly challenges the assumption that the nav system makes the car more unsafe.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 14 2007, 10:28 AM) [snapback]390152[/snapback]</div> These results are so favourable to a Nav system that I seemed to smell one of more sponsors of the research having a commercial interest, especially TomTom. So I read the article and sure enough sponsors include TomTom and possibly other sellers. Not that I have any other reason to doubt the findings but I'd prefer to read about research that is totally independent of any financial interest in the product.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxo @ Feb 14 2007, 10:31 AM) [snapback]390185[/snapback]</div> see my post just before yours
That damage-is-less thing must be from a place with no dirt roads. I took the 'quick' route home from a joyride and found the selected roads had CANYONS in them, not just potholes. It's been a long time since I used NAV that way around here. Just not safe for the car...
There is some truth in that. Actually, I just agree with what efusco posted above in his first post before adding "TomTom" in it. I have a TomTom and while its mapping software is good most of the time, there are some discrepancies. TT in NA uses TeleAtlas. Most people swear by Navteq when it comes to mapping NA and thus claim Garmin to be the better product (strictly in terms of mapping). There are ways to check (e.g. using your nav and then asking Google or Yahoo Maps to do the same route and see if they're identical). More often than none, the Garmin and Google/Yahoo Maps match but the TT doesn't. It's not that it's a bad route or that much longer but it's still not the best route that the other two sources have provided.
I have to say, the voice command feature of my wife's new Prius makes her navi much safer to use than my Nuvi. I find myself distracted trying to look at the Nuvi screen to get it to do what I want it to do, even for something as easy as "go home." It doesn't help either to have the Nuvi lose suction and fall off, only to have me try to catch it while driving.
Call me skeptical, but this just doesn't make sense. I note that they didn't add the "unknown area" clause to this one, so it must work universally. In other words: if i get a TomTom, my office will move two miles closer to my house? Looks to me like cherry-picking the test subjects. Car aficionados often get NAV systems. Car aficionados also tend to take better care of their cars -- thus, fewer claims. The NAV system is not necessarily the cause of the reduction; it seems more plausible that there's a correlation between NAV owners and conscientious drivers in the first place. But my favorite: In other words: half of "inappropriate actions" on the roads are caused by a lack of NAV systems. Uh huh.
I agree with Snooze Button....the study is ridiculous. There are too many variables involved to isolate having a Nav system as the accident claims preventative agent. There are many different types of GPS installations; how would you organize the data to support this claim? I think ditzing with a GPS while driving is as likely to cause an accident as prevent one. What about the erratic database errors that folks have mentioned on this chat line, where the Nav directs the driver to make a left turn off the edge of an overpass, or to continue straight across a corn field?
I have a Nuvi 660 in my truck and it is terrific. We took a trip south by Atlanta, Ga before Christmas and it really helped getting around their beltway at 75MPH without taking my eyes off the road. I wish the Prius GPS voiced street names but it still is a lot better than trying to figure if your are going to exit right or left in the next couple of miles. The GPS gives plenty of time to maneuver when speeding down expressways with six or seven lanes. Plus it gets you were you are going. Amazing what tools are out there to help us.
Basically, snooze button thinks that the article should be more specific. I agree. I just assumed fuel was saving because people aren't driving around in circles but snooze button caught the fact that the article didn't specifically mentioned "people who are lost"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul @ Feb 14 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]390301[/snapback]</div> I've even found that the NAV may NOT show an old paved road (20+years) here in CA, while it WILL show a new dirt road in MT (less than 10 years old). These map people need to put in a little more overtime.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Feb 19 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]392822[/snapback]</div> I tried to find the Toyota dealer in Olympia last summer. It took me through a housing area and up to a locked gate. The dealership was on the other side of the gate. No access that way. Dave M.
Shameless self-promotion to be sure. Then again, I've seen people engage in pretty risky driving behavior because they're looking at written directions when they should be focused on driving. There's also the sudden stops and swerves when people realize that the intersection they're passing through is the one they wanted to turn at. I could see a nav unit cutting down on a lot of that kind of hazzard in unfamiliar territory. It's definitely worth looking into.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Skeptic357 @ Feb 19 2007, 07:46 PM) [snapback]393095[/snapback]</div> For me, the NAV unit is especially helpful in unfamiliar territory, especially at night. Struggling to see street sign is a real problem. Dave M.
