Yesterday, the Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG) provided analysis of a joint study between Harvard University and Warwick University. The results, they suggest, put a damper on the unspoken implications of a 2008 Nuance study that found using speech recognition was safer than using tactile controls.

The Harvard/Warwick study, which had a quick rundown in Wired magazine last December, found that “The worst results came from the subjects tasked with listening to a list of words and then speaking new words that began with the same letters as each word on the list. Those ‘drivers’ had a 480 millisecond delay, which at 60 miles per hour would mean 42.3 additional feet traveled before applying the brakes.”

This, GLG extrapolates this to mean that voice command-and-control will have similar results.

“This task is similar to using an in-vehicle system for command and control purposes.  The driver is speaking to the system and then waiting for [its] response and possibly speaking again,” it writes.

It’s quick to add, however, that speech interactive systems often offer shortcuts and reduce the amount of time require to engage with them, possibly mitigating some of the risk.

It should also be noted that these results seem to collude with a AAA study we reported on last month on the main site, that concluded that the danger to drivers in using wireless devices was not primarily the use of their hands, but the use of their cognitive attentions. Where strict safety is concerned, really drivers shouldn’t even been listening to music, much less doing anything more complicated.

The conclusion that GLG comes to is that voice command-and-control while safer are not safe. It suggests that Nuance’s report has some limitations. This isn’t the first time it’s questioned the 2008 report. In July of 2008, GLG questioned the significance of the sample size, thirty participants, and how accurate a study in an artificial simulated scenario would be in the real world.

Perhaps somewhat derisively, it writes,“Nuance recently released the results of a study that claims to “prove” that speech recognition used in-vehicle while driving increases driving safety. I’m sure that the results of the study are right, to the extent that Nuance is releasing any data and conclusions.”

Responding to the concerns raised by GLG in yesterday’s analysis, Michael Thompson, senior vice president and general manager of Nuance Mobile, says, “The results of last year’s study demonstrated that speech-powered systems in vehicles help reduce driver distractions posed by manually entering information into navigation systems, entering music selections via mp3 players, making and receiving phone calls, and so on.  Clearly, the safest option is for drivers to simply refrain from using these devices and applications, but for those who insist on using them, the study showed that a hands-free, eyes-free option provided by speech is the next best alternative.”

Perhaps, Thompson is right. Who, for instance, is going to forgo listening to music in the car? On the other hand, one might argue that it isn’t enough for any manufacturer, developer, or even person to take morally neutral stands, reconciling ourselves to saying people oughtn’t do it, but we may as well make it safer. That’s perhaps too easy an answer. But then, what can you do? If Nuance doesn’t do it, some might say, someone else will, and then they will have ceded important business ground, really the existential foundation of their entire venture into automotive work. If there is a demand, are companies responsible first to some arguably tentative moral stand (after all who is authorized to make decisions for people unilaterally?) or the market?

And there is a market. My brother Adam B. for instance, will never stop using speech in the car. He moonlights as a NYC cabdriver–one of the 5% of cabbies in the City without a driver’s license I may add. His cab is so speech-enabled that it won’t even start unless he politely says “Good morning, Mackie”– Mackie’s the cab’s name.

For dangerous speech-enabled drivers like him, there’s just no reformin’.