Hands-free, not risk-free: the hidden dangers of in-car tech

In-car media and communication systems have undergone considerable transformation over recent decades. What began as simple radio units has progressed into complex digital hubs, integrating voice assistants, touchscreens, and seamless smartphone connectivity.

These developments are promoted as improvements intended to enhance convenience and even safety by enabling drivers to remain in contact with their work and social networks without holding a device. However, growing evidence from police forces, road safety researchers, and legal professionals indicates that even hands-free technology can impose considerable cognitive demands on drivers, undermining their ability to focus on the road.

While handheld phone use while driving is illegal in England and Wales, the use of hands-free devices remains lawful. This legal distinction has fostered a perception that hands-free systems are inherently safe, despite a body of research showing that they can contribute to distraction-related incidents that may lead to dangerous driving charges.

The Evolution of In-Car Infotainment

The evolution of in-car media began with analogue radio and cassette players, offering drivers little more than the ability to listen to music or traffic updates. Over time, technological progress led to the introduction of CD players and the early incorporation of mobile phone integration through basic Bluetooth connectivity. This marked the beginning of a trend towards making vehicles an extension of the driver’s digital life.

In the early 2000s, manufacturers began offering cars with more advanced audio systems and touch controls. This technology rapidly expanded to include satellite navigation, voice recognition commands, and integration with mobile phones through hands-free kits and embedded microphones. Modern infotainment systems now provide drivers with live messaging, access to streaming services, and real-time updates, all from the same dashboard. The progression from simple radio units to complex entertainment and communication centres has been swift, with manufacturers often marketing these innovations as measures to improve convenience and reduce the risk associated with holding a device while driving.

Contemporary vehicles often feature large touchscreens with sophisticated interfaces. Infotainment systems now synchronise calendars, enable voice-activated messaging, and stream content from numerous platforms. Voice assistants now enable drivers to send messages, control entertainment, and adjust navigation without taking their hands from the wheel.

Despite the impression of increased safety, this integration introduces new forms of distraction. Research from The Open University and the University of Sussex shows that the mere act of engaging in a complex conversation or processing information from an infotainment system draws cognitive resources away from driving tasks. The sheer breadth of functions, while offering drivers a sense of control, has created a situation where vehicles effectively compete for attention in much the same way as a handheld phone.

Evidence of Cognitive Distraction and Risk

While manufacturers assert that hands-free systems are safer, the evidence consistently indicates that this perception is flawed. A report by The Open University, which surveyed police officers across England and Wales, demonstrates that hands-free use creates cognitive distraction comparable to holding the phone in the hand. Officers participating in the research often initially believed that the primary danger arose from taking hands off the wheel. However, after engaging with an interactive educational activity that tested their hazard perception while distracted by a simulated phone call, many acknowledged that their driving performance was impaired simply by the act of listening and responding.

The University of Sussex research further reinforces this finding, noting that conversations, regardless of whether they involve holding a device, reduce situational awareness and slow reaction times. According to Warwickshire Police, hands-free use “does not mitigate risk” and can be just as dangerous as handheld use. These insights underline that the risk lies not only in manual distraction but in the cognitive load required to process information and communicate during driving.

A consistent theme in studies of driver behaviour is that enforcing handheld phone laws often leads to behavioural displacement. According to The Open University, about one-third of drivers surveyed said they would switch to hands-free devices rather than stop using phones entirely. This suggests that enforcement, without accompanying education about cognitive distraction, merely shifts drivers from an illegal form of risk to a legal but equally hazardous behaviour.

Police officers often reinforce this displacement by advising drivers to use hands-free systems to comply with the law, even though many acknowledge privately that distraction remains a concern. This has created a situation in which legality is equated with safety, despite robust evidence showing that hands-free conversations significantly degrade hazard detection.

The Role of Modern Infotainment Systems in Driver Behaviour

Vehicle manufacturers routinely present infotainment systems as innovations designed to protect drivers. Voice activation, touchscreens with large icons, and smartphone mirroring are all promoted as features that reduce the need for manual interaction, which in theory enables drivers to remain connected without compromising road safety.

Police surveys reveal that most officers feel obliged to recommend hands-free use to drivers as a lawful alternative, despite their growing awareness of the dangers. According to The Open University report, more than 70% of officers advised offenders to adopt hands-free systems, largely because the law treats this form of phone use as compliant. However, a considerable proportion of officers also expressed frustration that they were compelled to promote behaviour they knew to be unsafe.

This tension between legal compliance and road safety has fostered public perceptions that hands-free systems are risk-free. Driving for Better Business research highlights that professional drivers often hold the mistaken belief that using hands-free devices is entirely safe. The persistence of this perception, despite evidence to the contrary, has made it difficult to reduce the incidence of distraction-related collisions.

Implications for Dangerous Driving Offences

Although hands-free use remains lawful, it does not offer immunity from prosecution if a driver’s behaviour falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, driving without due care and attention or driving dangerously can be charged if distraction, whether from a handheld phone or a built-in infotainment system, results in driving that creates a clear risk.

Enforcement authorities must establish that the standard of driving was so poor that it posed an obvious danger to others. Proving that a driver was cognitively distracted by a legal hands-free call or infotainment use presents evidential challenges. For this reason, many prosecutions focus on handheld use, which is more easily observed and documented.

Where distraction results in a fatal collision, the consequences can be considerably more severe. A driver who causes death through dangerous driving can be charged with causing death by dangerous driving under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The maximum sentence for this offence is life imprisonment.

The legal threshold for proving dangerous driving in this context is the same as for non-fatal cases, but the courts will consider the catastrophic outcome and increase the punishment accordingly. Any evidence that a driver was using a mobile device, whether handheld or hands-free, at the time of the collision may be critical in establishing that their driving fell far below what would be expected. In practice, this means that a hands-free phone conversation, if found to have impaired the driver’s ability to concentrate, could be presented as evidence that the driver created an obvious risk to others.

Moreover, where fatalities occur, police investigators will often review infotainment system logs and phone records to establish whether the driver was engaged in a call or interacting with a system. While proving the causal link between hands-free use and the fatal outcome can be challenging, such evidence is increasingly scrutinised in serious and fatal collision investigations.

Future Policy Directions

The Transport Select Committee has previously recommended exploring a ban on all phone use while driving, including hands-free systems. However, as The Open University report notes, the government has resisted this approach, citing the practical difficulty of enforcement. Police and road safety advocates have called for clearer guidance to ensure that officers do not inadvertently endorse hands-free use as a safe practice.

Recommendations from The Open University project include providing officers with evidence-based training and clear directives not to promote hands-free technology as a safer alternative. Further public education is also proposed, aiming to correct misconceptions about the risks of cognitive distraction and to encourage drivers to refrain from phone conversations entirely while driving.

While in-car infotainment systems have evolved to offer drivers unparalleled convenience, they have also introduced new forms of distraction that undermine road safety. The evidence demonstrates that hands-free technology, despite its lawful status, creates the same cognitive burden that makes handheld use dangerous. Police officers, legal professionals, and researchers increasingly recognise that the boundary between legality and safety has narrowed to the point of near irrelevance.

Addressing this problem will require clearer policy, consistent enforcement, and public education that challenges the illusion that technology alone can eliminate risk. Until drivers understand that even a hands-free conversation can degrade awareness and reaction time, distraction-related incidents will likely persist—with potentially severe legal consequences.