Driver Distraction A Review of the Literature Driver Distraction

Driver Distraction: A Review of the Literature Driver Distraction and Cell Phone Use: A Policy Paper August 2007 The Research and Education Program of Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Public Health An accredited local public health agency affiliated with Queen’s University Authors Deborah Crooke, Student Intern, Research and Education Program, KFL&A Public Health For more information contact: Kathleen O’Connor, Director, Research and Education Program, KFL&A Public Health Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Public Health 221 Portsmouth Ave. Kingston, ON K7M 1V5 Tel: (613) 549-1232, Ext 578 Email: koconnor@kflapublichealth.ca Recommended Citation: Research and Education Program of Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Public Health. (2007). Driver distraction: A review of the literature, and Driver Distraction and cell phone use: A policy paper. Kingston, ON: Author. Kingston 221 Portsmouth Ave., Kingston, ON K7M 1V5 Tel: 613- 549-1232 Or 1-800-267-7875 Fax: 613-549-7896 Cloyne P.O. Box 59 Cloyne, ON K0H 1K0 Tel: 613-336-8989 Fax: 613-336-0522 Napanee 41 Dundas Street, Napanee, ON K7R 1Z5 Tel: 613-354-3357 Fax: 613-354-6267 Sharbot Lake P.O. Box 149 Sharbot Lake, ON K0H 2P0 Tel: 613-279-2151 Fax: 613-279-3997 Working together for better health www.kflapublichealth.ca Table of Contents Driver Distraction: A Review of the Literature ......................................................................... 3 References.................................................................................................................................... 12 Driver Distraction and Cell Phone Use: A Policy Paper ......................................................... 16 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 16 Background ............................................................................................................................... 16 Description of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 18 Costs and Benefits..................................................................................................................... 24 Stakeholders.............................................................................................................................. 25 Public Opinion .......................................................................................................................... 25 Ongoing initiatives.................................................................................................................... 26 Policy Options........................................................................................................................... 27 Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 29 References.................................................................................................................................... 31 Driver Distraction 2 Driver Distraction: A Review of the Literature The purpose of this review is to examine the current literature on driver distraction as a foundation for potential public health policy and intervention. As such the review addresses those types of distraction that are most prevalent, most implicated in risk of collision and most responsive to public health intervention. These include research on handheld and hands-free cell phone use, forms of distraction other than phone use and the potential of increased risk from distraction for teenaged drivers. Research on video advertising signs as a source of distraction is included by request. Thirty-three studies were reviewed. It should be noted that access to the full-text of studies was extremely limited, resulting in the use of abstracts to form the review. Reviewed studies included experiments, naturalistic studies, analysis of crash data and surveys of drivers, with preference given to evidence-based material and original research. Canadian data was included when available. Review articles and consumer literature were not included. Due to time constraints the literature was surveyed back ten years and non-comprehensively, unless data on a particular aspect of distraction, such as the effect of video advertising signs, was significantly underrepresented. Also owing to time constraints, newer telematics technologies, such as navigation aids and internet applications, were considered only as a general category, with specific emphasis given to research on handheld and hands-free cell phones; tangential research, such as distraction due to road rage, was not reviewed. Issues of policy, including legislation, public opinion, costs and effectiveness of interventions, and possible public health initiatives have been left to a future report. Driver Distraction 3 Cell phone use while driving continues to be an important issue in traffic safety. The growing number of in-vehicle technologies, with their potential as distractions, make the issue increasingly relevant. Hands-free devices do not seem to be the answer, since the requirement of cognitive interaction makes them equally distracting. In 2005 the Canadian government announced plans to pursue legislative and public awareness initiatives in regard to the use of telematics while driving (Transport Canada Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, 2005). However, newer research suggests that other types of distraction are even more detrimental to driving ability than the use of telematics and an emerging trend in legislation is to address these behaviours (Sundeen, 2005). According to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 20-25% of crashes involve some type of driver distraction (NHTSA, 2005). A recent survey of 1,367 drivers involved in a collision found that over 30% of drivers experienced at least one distraction at the time of collision, with distraction contributing to 13.6% of all collisions (McEvoy, Stevenson & Woodward, 2007). Distraction was a primary factor in 28% of head-on crashes on rural, two-lane collector or arterial roads (Gårder, 2006). Older data suggest that the figures may be increasing. In 1995, specific driver distraction and inattention codes were added to the U.S. Crashworthiness Data System (CDS). Results from 1995 to 1999 show that only 12.9% of crashes nationally were due to distraction (Stutts, Reinfurt & Rodgman, 2001). While most research has looked at the role of cell phone use in driver distraction, other forms of distraction contribute substantially to the likelihood of collision. The 100-Car Driver Distraction 4 Naturalistic Driving Study videotaped the drivers of 100 vehicles for more than one year. These drivers were involved in 82 crashes, 761 near crashes, and 8,295 critical incidents. Analysis of the data showed that reaching for a moving object increased the risk of a crash or near crash by 9 times; looking at an external object by 3.7 times; reading by 3 times; applying makeup by 3 times; dialing a handheld device by almost 3 times; and talking or listening on a handheld device by 1.3 times (NHTSA, 2006). An Australian study found that distracting activities that contributed most to a crash were conversing with passengers (11.3% of drivers), lack of concentration (10.8%) and outside factors (8.9%) (McEvoy, Stevenson & Woodward, 2007). Distracting activities in general were reported by drivers to be lack of concentration (71.8% of drivers), adjusting in-vehicle equipment (68.7%), outside people, objects or events (57.8%) and talking to passengers (39.8%) (McEvoy, Stevenson & Woodward, 2006). The 1995 to 1999 CDS data showed the highest ranked sources of driver distraction as persons, objects or events outside the vehicle (cited by 29.4% of drivers), adjusting the entertainment system (11.4%) and other occupants in the vehicle (10.9%). Other distractions (moving objects in the vehicle, other objects brought into vehicle, adjusting the vehicle controls, eating, cell phone use and smoking) were each cited in only one to four percent of the cases (Stutts, Reinfurt & Rodgman, 2001). A clinical trial that compared operating the entertainment system and conversing using a hands-free phone found that while both tasks impaired driving performance, operating the Driver Distraction 5 entertainment system had the greatest negative impact on performance, (Horberry, Anderson, Regan, Triggs & Brown, 2006). Distractions other than cell phone use appear to be a greater detriment to driving ability. Distractions other than cell phone use figure more prominently in increased risk of collision, but cell phone use occurs more frequently than other distracting behaviours. While the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study found that cell phone use did not increase the risk of a crash as much as other distractions, it was the most common distracting behaviour in which drivers engaged (NHTSA, 2006). Dialing was found to be more dangerous than talking or listening, but less time was spent doing it (NHTSA, 2006). Furthermore, cell phone use while driving is increasing. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that driver cell phone use increased in 2005, with 6% of drivers on handheld phones nationwide compared to 5% in 2004, with an estimated 10% of drivers using either handheld or hands-free phones (NHTSA, 2005). A Michigan study found that handheld cell phone use more than doubled between 2001 and 2005, from 2.7% to 5.8%, with data trend analysis predicting handheld use to increase to around 8.6% by 2010 (Eby, Vivoda, & St. Louis, 2006). Canadian data for 2006 shows the national average of 2.8% of rural drivers using cell phones, with Ontario being above the national average at 3.2% (Transport Canada, 2007). Unfortunately, there seems to be no comparative data as cell phone use was surveyed for the first time in 2006, with only rural data collected, as part of the survey of seat belt use in rural areas. The negative effects of cell phone use while driving are well documented in the literature. An early study found that cell phone use quadrupled the risk of collision (Redelmeier & Driver Distraction 6 Tibshirani, 1997). A study done in a simulated environment observed twice as many crashes when subjects used cell phones while driving compared to the control condition (Schattler, Pellerito, McAvoy & Datta, 2006). A clinical trial, which required subjects to respond to a cell phone at the same time they had to make a stopping decision, found that drivers had a slower response to the light change, braked more intensely and exhibited a 15% increase in nonresponse to the stop light (Hancock, Lesch & Simmons 2003). The legislative response to these studies has been the required use of hands-free telephones while driving. However, research is showing that the use of hands-free phones also impairs driver performance to a significant degree or offers no benefit over handheld phones. Driving performance was impacted significantly in terms of traffic violations, driving maintenance (standard deviation of lane position, for example), attention lapses and response time when drivers were talking on a hands-free phone (Beede & Kass, 2006). Drivers using a hands-free phone in city traffic reduced their monitoring of the peripheral area, reduced their monitoring of instruments and mirrors (with some drivers abandoning these tasks entirely), made fewer inspection glances to traffic lights while approaching intersections and performed more hard braking compared to drivers not using a phone (Harbluk, Noy, Trbovich, & Eizenman, 2007). When drivers used hands-free phones their reaction times were 18% slower, their following distance was 12% greater and they took 17% longer to regain the speed that was lost from braking than drivers without distraction, resulting in a twofold increase in rear-end collisions (Strayer & Drews, 2004). Driver Distraction 7 A study that examined the mechanisms that contributed to degraded driving performance found a decrease of attention to sensory inputs, characteristic of dual-task situations, occurred whether the phone used was hands-free or not, but handling the phone caused greater weakening of the readiness to respond (García-Larrea, Perchet, Perrin & Amenedo, 2001). The results of a study on hands-free phone use and decision-making showed that negative impact on driver decision-making performance increased as more complex tasks, like turning left, were required (Cooper, Zheng, Richard, Vavrik, Heinrichs & Siegmund, 2003). One study that compared drivers conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone to those driving drunk found that the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk (Strayer, Drews & Crouch, 2006). The complexity of, or emotional involvement in, conversation was found to be a greater predictor of worsening driving ability than use of hands-free or handheld phones. No benefit of hands-free phones over handheld phones was found on both rural roads and highways, but greater negative effect was found the more difficult and complex the conversation (Patten, Kircher, Östlund & Nilsson, 2004). Similar results were found in a clinical trial that compared hands-free cell phone use to conversing with a passenger. While cell phone conversations were found to be distracting to visual attention functions, they were not more distracting than a similar conversation without a cell phone (Golden, Golden & Schneider, 2003). Driver Distraction 8 The question of whether video advertising signs cause unsafe driving, increasing the potential of collisions, is under-researched. There is some evidence that complicated visual fields can distract drivers and that existing guidelines and legislation do not provide adequate regulation (Wallace, 2003). Available research suggests that sign placement and length are influential factors. A study commissioned by the city of Toronto on the safety effects of video advertising placed at downtown intersections found that while video advertising can distract drivers and lead to collisions, overall impacts on traffic safety were small (Smiley, Persaud, Bahar, Mollett, Lyon, Smahel, et al., 2005). A related study concluded that results varied according to particular video signs in particular environments, with video signs on curves, that are also close to the line of sight and visible for an extensive period, being particularly distracting (Smiley, Smahel, & Eizenman, 2004). Drivers are also more distracted by street-level advertising than raised signs (Crundall, Van Loon & Underwood, 2006). It takes a driver approximately one second per word to perceive and process a message on a sign, with a maximum of eight words processed at highway speeds of 88 km/hr (Dudek & Huchingson, 1986). Drivers are able to read up to two lines of monolingual or bilingual signs without detriment to driving behaviour, but reduce their speed significantly to read four-line signs. (Jamson, Tate, & Jamson, 2005). Risk of collision increases with reduced speed as headways between cars and margins for avoidance decrease. Dudek (2002) recommends that no more than five units of information be displayed on a single frame on lower speed roads (no more than three units at highway speed) and messages should not be longer than two frames. For bilingual signs, Jamson, Tate and Driver Distraction 9 Jamson (2005) recommend using a uniform sequence of languages and different font and colour, but found that a separation line was not helpful. Teenagers may face increased risk from distraction while driving. McEvoy et al. (2006) report that younger drivers were significantly more likely to report distracting activities, to perceive these activities as less dangerous and to have crashed due to distraction. Novice drivers committed more driving infractions and were less situationally aware than experienced drivers in a study concerning hands-free phone use (Kass, Cole & Stanny, 2007). Drivers under age 20 were more likely to be identified as distracted at the time of their crash than drivers from older age groups, with a difference of at least 3.7% (Stutts, 2003). However, a report prepared for the Insurance Bureau of Canada found that experienced drivers were just as susceptible as novice drivers to the distracting effects of talking on a cell phone, with both groups detecting hazards more slowly than those not using a phone (Smiley & Caird, 2007). Results from a study that compared novice and experienced drivers in simulated hands-free cell phone conversations indicated that both groups suffered similar losses to driving performance during cell phone usage (Kass, Cole & Stanny, 2007). It appears that teenaged drivers are more affected by distraction in general, but may be equally affected when it comes to certain circumstances, such as cell phone use. More research on distraction and teenaged drivers is necessary. This review examined effects of driver distraction on driving ability and the risk of collision. Its focus was on forms of distraction that are most prevalent, most implicated in risk of collision and most responsive to public health intervention. Specific emphasis was given to Driver Distraction 10 research on handheld and hands-free cell phones, video advertising signs, forms of distraction other than phone use and the potential of increased risk from distraction for teenaged drivers. Key findings were: • • • • • • • 20-25% of crashes involve some type of driver distraction. Forms of distraction other than phone use contribute substantially to the likelihood of collision. Cell phone use while driving is increasing. The growing number of in-vehicle technologies, with their potential as distracters, make the issue increasingly relevant. Research is showing that the use of hands-free phones also impairs driver performance to a significant degree or offers no benefit over handheld phones. Video advertising signs are potentially distracting, but sign placement and length are influential factors. Teenagers may face increased risk from distraction while driving. Driver Distraction 11 References Beede, K. E., & Kass, S. J. (2006). Engrossed in conversation: The impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(2), 415-421. Cooper, P. J., Zheng, Y., Richard, C., Vavrik, J., Heinrichs, B., & Siegmund, G. (2003). The impact of hands-free message reception/response on driving task performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35(1), 23-35. Crundall, D., Van Loon, E., & Underwood, G. (2006). Attraction and distraction of attention with roadside advertisements. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(4), 671-677. Dudek, C.L. (2002). Guidelines for changeable message sign messages: A white paper. Report No. FHWA-XX-2002-XX. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Dudek, C.L., & Huchingson, R.D. (1986). Manual on real-time motorist information displays. Report No. FHWA-IP-86-16. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Eby, D. W., Vivoda, J. M., & St. Louis, R. M. (2006). Driver hand-held cellular phone use: A four-year analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 37(3), 261-265. García-Larrea, L., Perchet, C., Perrin, F., & Amenedo, E. (2001). Interference of cellular phone conversations with visuomotor tasks: An ERP study. Journal of Psychophysiology, 15(1), 14-21. Gårder, P. (2006). Segment characteristics and severity of head-on crashes on two-lane rural highways in Maine. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(4), 652-661. Golden, C., Golden, C. J., & Schneider, B. (2003). Cell phone use and visual attention. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97(2), 385-389. Hancock, P. A., Lesch, M., & Simmons, L. (2003). The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35(4), 501-514. Driver Distraction 12 Harbluk, J. L., Noy, Y. I., Trbovich, P. L., & Eizenman, M. (2007). An on-road assessment of cognitive distraction: Impacts on drivers' visual behaviour and braking performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(2), 372-379. Horberry, T., Anderson, J., Regan, M. A., Triggs, T. J., & Brown, J. (2006). Driver distraction: The effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(1), 185-191. Jamson, S. L., Tate, F. N., & Jamson, A. H. (2005). Evaluating the effects of bilingual traffic signs on driver performance and safety. Ergonomics, 48(15), 1734-1748. Kass, S. J., Cole, K. S., & Stanny, C. J. (2007). Effects of distraction and experience on situation awareness and simulated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10(4), 321-329. McEvoy, S. P., Stevenson, M. R., & Woodward, M. (2007). The prevalence of, and factors associated with, serious crashes involving a distracting activity. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(3), 475-482. McEvoy, S. P., Stevenson, M. R., & Woodward, M. (2006). The impact of driver distraction on road safety: Results from a representative survey in two Australian states. Injury Prevention, 12(4), 242-247. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2006). The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study data. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/driverdistraction/PDF/DriverInattention.pdf Driver Distraction 13 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2005). NHTSA vehicle safety rulemaking and supporting research priorities: 2005-2009. Retrieved May 29, 2007 from http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan-2005.html National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2005). Traffic safety facts research note: Driver cell phone use in 2005. Report No. DOT HS 809 967. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2005/809967.pdf Patten, C. J. D., Kircher, A., Östlund, J., & Nilsson, L. (2004). Using mobile telephones: Cognitive workload and attention resource allocation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36(3), 341-350. Redelmeier, D. A., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1997). Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 336(7), 453-458. Schattler, K. L., Pellerito Jr., J., McAvoy, D., & Datta, T. K. (2006). Assessing driver distraction from cell phone use: A simulator-based study. Transportation Research Record (1980), 87-94. Smiley, A., & Caird, J.K. (2007). The effects of cellphone use and CD use on novice and experienced driver performance. Ottawa: Insurance Bureau of Canada. Smiley, A., Persaud, B., Bahar, G., Mollett, C., Lyon, C., & Smahel, T. et al. (2005). Traffic safety evaluation of video advertising signs. Transportation Research Record, 1937, 105112. Smiley, A., Smahel, T., & Eizenman, M. (2004). Impact of video advertising on driver fixation patterns. Transportation Research Record, 1899, 76-83. Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. (2004). Profiles in driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers. Human Factors, 46(4), 640-649. Driver Distraction 14 Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48(2), 381-391. Stutts, J. C., Reinfurt, D. W., & Rodgman, E. A. (2001). The role of driver distraction in crashes: An analysis of 1995-1999 crashworthiness data system data. Annual proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Barrington, IL: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Stutts, J.C., Hunter, W.W. (2003). Driver inattention, driver distraction and traffic crashes. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, 73(7), 34. Sundeen, M. (2005). Cell phones and highway safety: 2005 legislative update. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/cellphoneupdate05.htm Transport Canada. (2007). Results of Transport Canada’s September 2006 survey of seat belt use in rural areas of the country. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp2436/rs200701/menu.htm#cell Transport Canada Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate. (2005). Report No. TP 14409 E. Strategies for reducing driver distraction from in-vehicle telematics devices: Report on industry and public consultation. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp/tp14409/pdf/tp14409e.pdf Wallace, B. (2003). Driver distraction by advertising: Genuine risk or urban myth? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer, 156(3), 185-190. Driver Distraction 15 Driver Distraction and Cell Phone Use: A Policy Paper Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine the current literature, public opinion, legislation, cost-benefits and initiatives on driver distraction pertaining to cell phone use, to form a foundation for potential public health policy and intervention. Reviewed studies include experiments, naturalistic studies, analysis of crash data and surveys of drivers, with preference given to evidence-based material and original research. Canadian data was included when available. Due to time constraints the literature was not surveyed comprehensively, but studies chosen are representative of the current state of the literature. Newer telematics technologies, such as navigation aids and internet applications, were considered only as a general category, with specific emphasis given to research on cell phones. Background According to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 20-25% of crashes involve some type of driver distraction (NHTSA, 2005a). Results from 1995 to 1999 show that only 12.9% of crashes nationally were due to distraction (Stutts, Reinfurt & Rodgman, 2001), suggesting that the figure had nearly doubled by 2000-2004. A recent survey of drivers involved in 1,258 crashes found that 31.7% of drivers experienced at least one distraction at the time of crash, with distraction contributing to between 14 to 33% of all serious crashes (McEvoy, Stevenson & Woodward, 2007). Distraction was a primary factor in 28% of head-on crashes on rural, two-lane collector or arterial roads (Gårder, 2006). Driver Distraction 16 The growing number of in-vehicle technologies makes the issue of distraction increasingly relevant. Cell phone use while driving continues to be the focus of proposed traffic safety regulations regarding distraction. Currently the use of cell phones by drivers comes under provincial and territorial regulations involving the safe operation of vehicles. In Ontario, Section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act contains the Careless Driving Law, which says that every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle on a highway without due care and attention. If convicted under the Careless Driving Law, motorists can be fined $200.00 to $1,000.00, potentially jailed for a maximum of six months and have their licence revoked for up to two years. A driver who causes a collision, or who is observed driving unsafely, while using a cell phone could be charged in this manner (Transport Canada, 2007a). However, if cell phones start to be offered as original vehicle equipment, they are potentially subject to the federally administered Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Transport Canada Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate (Transport Canada RSMVRD), 2005a). Currently the only Canadian jurisdiction in which it is illegal to use a hand-held cell phone while driving is Newfoundland and Labrador, although some jurisdictions are considering similar legislation. In 2005 the Canadian government announced plans to pursue legislative and public awareness initiatives in regard to the use of telematics while driving (Transport Canada RSMVRD, 2005a). However, newer research suggests that other types of distraction are even more detrimental to driving ability than the use of telematics and an emerging trend in legislation is to address these behaviours (Sundeen, 2005). Driver Distraction 17 Description of the Problem The negative effects of cell phone use while driving are well documented in the literature. An early study found that cell phone use quadrupled the risk of collision (Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 1997). These researchers also found no safety advantage to hands-free over handheld use. A study done in a simulated environment observed twice as many crashes when subjects used handheld cell phones while driving compared to the control condition of no phone use (Schattler, Pellerito, McAvoy & Datta, 2006). Crashes involved both vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-pedestrian incidents. In addition, subjects using cell phones had significantly lower driver performance scores, drove at slower speeds and displayed higher proportions of improper lateral placement (Schattler, Pellerito, McAvoy & Datta, 2006). An experiment implemented on a test track, which required subjects to respond to a cell phone at the same time they had to make a stopping decision, found that drivers had a slower response to the light change, braked more intensely and exhibited a 15% increase in non-response to the stop light (Hancock, Lesch & Simmons, 2003). The legislative response to these studies has been the required use of hands-free telephones while driving. However, research is showing that the use of hands-free phones also impairs driver performance to a significant degree or offers no benefit over handheld phones. Driving performance was impacted significantly in terms of traffic violations, driving maintenance (standard deviation of lane position, for example), attention lapses and response time when drivers were talking on a hands-free phone (Beede & Kass, 2006). These researchers found that both immediate (those crucial to driving) and peripheral (less important to the overall success of driving) driving tasks suffered, but drivers had a tendency to shed peripheral tasks, Driver Distraction 18 like lane maintenance or scanning of intersections, to attend to primary tasks when talking on a cell phone. Drivers using a hands-free phone in city traffic reduced their monitoring of the peripheral area, reduced their monitoring of instruments and mirrors (with some drivers abandoning these tasks entirely), made fewer inspection glances to traffic lights while approaching intersections and performed more hard braking compared to drivers not using a phone (Harbluk, Noy, Trbovich, & Eizenman, 2007). When drivers used hands-free phones in a simulated environment their reaction times were 18% slower, their following distance was 12% greater, and they took 17% longer to regain the speed that was lost from braking than drivers without distraction, resulting in a twofold increase in rear-end collisions (Strayer & Drews, 2004). These researchers attributed the distracting effects to the conversations themselves and suggest that laws that restrict handheld devices are not likely to eliminate the problems they have documented. A study that examined the mechanisms that contributed to degraded driving performance found a decrease of attention to sensory inputs, characteristic of dual-task situations, occurred whether the phone used was hands-free or not, but handling the phone caused greater weakening of the preparedness to respond with a motor act (Garcia-Larrea, Perhet, Perrin & Amenedo, 2001). The results of a study on hands-free phone use and decision-making showed that negative impact on driver decision-making performance increased as more complex tasks, like turning left, were required (Cooper, Zheng, Ricchard, Vavik, Heinrichs & Siegmund, 2003). In this study, there was evidence that the problems associated with complex driving tasks and talking on Driver Distraction 19 a cell phone were exacerbated by adverse driving conditions like slippery roads. Listening and responding to complex messages also significantly degraded driver performance on several driving tasks (Cooper, Zheng, Rihard, Vavrik, Heinrichs & Siegmund, 2003). One study, that compared drivers conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone to those driving drunk, found that the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk (Strayer, Drews & Crouch, 2006). Drivers using a cell phone had delayed response, longer following distances and were more likely to be involved in an accident. In comparison, impaired drivers drove more aggressively, followed more closely and braked harder. Even though driving behavior differed between those using a phone and those who were intoxicated, in regard to traffic safety, impairments associated with cell phone use were as great as those associated with intoxication. There was no significant difference between impairments associated with hands-free and handheld phone use (Strayer, Drews & Crouch, 2006). The complexity of, or emotional involvement in, conversation was found to be a greater predictor of decrement to driving ability than use of hands-free or handheld phones. No benefit of hands-free phones over handheld phones was found on both larger rural roads and highways, but greater negative effect was found the more difficult and complex the conversation (Patten, Kircher, Östlund & Nilsson, 2004). Similar results were found in a study that compared handsfree cell phone use to conversing with a passenger. While cell phone conversations were found to be distracting to visual attention functions, they were not more distracting than a similar conversation without a cell phone (Golden, Golden & Schneider, 2003). Driver Distraction 20 Some U.S. states have implemented restrictions for cell phone use for teenaged drivers in their graduated licensing programs. Teenagers may face increased risk from distraction while driving. McEvoy et al. (2006) report that younger drivers were significantly more likely to report distracting activities, to perceive these activities as less dangerous, and to have crashed due to distraction. Novice drivers committed more driving infractions and were less situationally aware than experienced drivers in a simulated study concerning hands-free phone use (Kass, Cole & Stanny 2007). Drivers under age 20 were more likely to be identified as distracted at the time of their crash than drivers from older age groups, with a difference of at least 3.7% (Stutts, 2003). However, a report prepared for the Insurance Bureau of Canada found that experienced drivers were just as susceptible as novice drivers to the distracting effects of talking on a cell phone, with both groups detecting hazards more slowly than those not using a phone (Smiley & Caird, 2007). Strayer and Drews (2004) report similar findings, saying that the negative effects of hands-free phones while driving are equivalent for younger and older drivers. Results from a study that compared novice and experienced drivers in simulated hands-free cell phone conversations also indicated that both groups suffered similar detriments to their performance during the cell phone condition (Kass, Cole & Stanny 2007). It appears that teenaged drivers may be as equally affected as experienced drivers when it comes to cell phone use while driving. While most research has looked at the role of cell phone use in driver distraction, other forms of distraction contribute substantially to the likelihood of collision. The 100-Car Driver Distraction 21 Naturalistic Driving Study videotaped the drivers of 100 vehicles for more than one year. These drivers were involved in 82 crashes, 761 near crashes and 8,295 critical incidents. Seventyeighty percent of these crashes and 65% of the near crashes involved the driver looking away from the road prior to the crash. Analysis of the data showed that reaching for a moving object increased the risk of a crash or near crash by 9 times; looking at an external object by 3.7 times; reading by 3 times; applying makeup by 3 times’; dialing a handheld device by almost 3 times; and talking or listening on a handheld device by 1.3 times (NHTSA, 2006). An Australian study using self report found that distracting activities that contributed most to a crash were conversing with passengers (11.3% of drivers), lack of concentration (10.8%) and outside people, objects, or events (8.9%) (McEvoy, Stevenson & Woodward, 2007). Using a cell phone or CB radio contributed to a crash among only 2% of drivers in this study. Distracting activities while driving in general (not related to a crash) were reported by drivers in a prior study by the same group to be lack of concentration (71.8% of drivers), adjusting invehicle equipment (68.7%), outside people, objects or events (57.8%) and talking to passengers (39.8%). Mobile phone use was reported by only 9% of drivers (McEvoy, Stevenson & Woodward, 2006). In 1995, specific driver distraction and inattention codes were added to the U.S. Crashworthiness Data System [CDS]. The 1995 to 1999 CDS data showed the highest ranked sources of driver distraction as persons, objects or events outside the vehicle (cited by 29.4% of drivers), adjusting the entertainment system (11.4%), and other occupants in the vehicle (10.9%). Other distractions (moving objects in the vehicle, other objects brought into the vehicle, Driver Distraction 22 adjusting the vehicle controls, eating, cell phone use, and smoking) were each cited in only 1 to 4% of the cases (Stutts, Reinfurt & Rodgman, 2001). A study that compared operating the entertainment system and conversing using a handsfree phone in both simple and complex simulated road environments found that while both tasks impaired driving performance, operating the entertainment system had the greatest negative impact on performance (Horberry, Anderson, Regan, Triggs & Brown, 2006). The researchers attribute the main source of interference for the entertainment system as visual distraction (drivers taking their eyes off the road) and the main source of interference for the cell phone conversation as cognitive demand. Horberry et al. (2006) suggest that there is a need to inform the public that performing everyday tasks while driving may have greater negative effect than using a cell phone. Distractions other than cell phone use appear to pose a greater risk to driving ability than cell phones. While distractions other than cell phone use figure more prominently in increased risk of collision, cell phone use occurs more frequently than other distracting behaviours. While the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study found the cell phone use did not increase the risk of a crash as much as other distractions, it was the most common distracting behaviour in which drivers engaged (NHTSA, 2006). Dialing was found to be more dangerous than talking or listening, but less time was spent doing it (NHTSA, 2006). This is compounded by the fact that cell phone use while driving is increasing. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that driver cell phone use increased in Driver Distraction 23 2005, with 6% of drivers on handheld phones nationwide compared to 5% in 2004 with an estimated 10% of drivers using either handheld or hands-free phones (NHTSA, 2005b). A Michigan study found that handheld cell phone use more than doubled between 2001 and 2005, from 2.7% to 5.8%, with an estimated 9% of drivers using either handheld or hands-free phones and with data trend analysis predicting handheld use to increase to around 8.6% by 2010 (Eby, Vivoda, & St. Louis, 2006). Canadian data for 2006 shows the national average of 2.8% of rural drivers using cell phones while driving, with Ontario being above the national average at 3.2% (Transport Canada, 2007b). Unfortunately, there seems to be no comparative data as cell phone use while driving was surveyed for the first time in 2006, with only rural data collected, as part of the survey of seat belt use in rural areas. In 2005 half of all Canadians owned a cell phone and 30% reported using it while driving (Transport Canada RSMVRD, 2006). Costs and Benefits There are individual and community benefits of cell phone use while driving, which include safety issues such as emergency calls and faster accident reporting, economic benefits such as greater productivity and social benefits such as peace of mind. The benefits involved in limiting cell phone use while driving include quality adjusted life years potentially saved and health care services not used. Costs involved in limiting cell phone use while driving include enforcement costs, the forgone amount of money consumers are willing to pay for cell phone use while driving, and social and economic benefits forgone (McCartt, Hellinga, & Bratiman, 2006). Studies have reported that either the costs of a ban would outweigh the benefits or that there would be a net benefit of zero (McCartt, Hellinga, & Bratiman, 2006). Driver Distraction 24 Stakeholders According to the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (2007), at the end of 2006 the national wireless penetration rate was 58% in Canada with estimates in major urban centre exceeding 70%. A report from Transport Canada (2005a), which describes their initiatives to address driver distraction from in-vehicle telematics devices, summarizes stakeholders, other than the general public, as “government, industry, public safety, and international stakeholders including the provincial and territorial ministries of transportation, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada (AIAMC), the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association (CVMA), the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) and numerous non-governmental organizations” (p.3). With both telecommunications, and automobile industries and associations interested in the issue, and both national and international interest, the list of stakeholders is long. Public Opinion In 2003, Transport Canada RSMVRD (2005a) consulted with the public through surveys and focus groups. The public ranked ‘drivers using cell phones’ third as a serious problem (53% of respondents), after drunk driving (77%) and speeding (58%), with driver fatigue fourth (50%) and ‘drivers being distracted’ fifth (48%). Seventy-four percent thought handheld cellular phones should be banned and 47% thought hands-free phones should also be banned. Most respondents felt that Canadians would not use telematics devices responsibly on their own initiative and that a voluntary approach in regard to industry would have the same result. However, most also felt that a regulatory approach was premature. Most participants favoured a Driver Distraction 25 cooperative approach between government and industry by using memorandums of understanding (MOUs) that included safety testing requirements. They suggested that credible research would come from a neutral third party, such as a university, or from a consortium of stakeholders (Transport Canada RSMVRD, 2005a). A 2007 poll found that 76% of respondents support a federal ban on the use of cell phones while driving. When asked whether they would support or oppose a federal regulation to ban the use of cell phones while driving, 55% said they would strongly support such a ban, 21% would moderately support it, 12% would oppose it, 10% would strongly oppose it and 2% were unsure (Angus Reid Global Monitor, 2007). Ongoing initiatives Negotiations are underway on a MOU between Transport Canada and industry intended to limit driver distraction from in-vehicle telematics devices. As part of the MOU, manufacturers will report annually on which products fall within the MOU and may be asked to provide data proving the safety of telematics products (Transport Canada RSMVRD, 2005b). Transport Canada, with provincial jurisdictions and other groups such as the Canadian Automobile Association, also plans to develop a driver distraction awareness campaign and encourages provincial governments to include a section on driver distraction in their driver training curricula and driver’s licensing manuals (Transport Canada RSMVRD, 2005a). In October 2005, a conference on driver distraction, co-organized by the Canadian Automobile Association and the Traffic Research Foundation, was held in Toronto. Driver Distraction 26 Delegates identified research and data, awareness and education, and cooperative governmentindustry efforts as the three essential keys to progress (Traffic Injury Research Foundation & Canadian Automobile Association, 2006). Policy Options There is a growing body of literature that suggests cell phone use increases the likelihood of crashes, but insufficient evidence to warrant any strong counter measures. Cell phone use is increasing and this poses the potential threat of increased crashes. However, actual crash data involving cell phone use is relatively new and is still not uniformly collected, so there are no reliable estimates of the proportion of crashes attributable to cell phone use. Other forms of distraction seem to pose a greater threat than cell phone use. Hands-free devices do not seem to offer an advantage over handheld, since the requirements of cognitive interaction makes them equally distracting. The extent of emotional involvement in conversation appears to be a greater predictor of decreased driving ability. Teenaged drivers are affected by distraction more in general than experienced drivers, but are as equally susceptible as experienced drivers to the distracting effects of talking on a cell phone. Public awareness and education campaigns on the risks of all types of distraction while driving, including cell phone use, would be an effective first step in dealing with the issue. Public health and government agencies need to communicate the risks of driver distraction and the role of cell phone use in the distraction spectrum to the public. An informed public is better able to make decisions to drive responsibly. Driver Distraction 27 Education for new drivers and the inclusion of restrictions on all restrictable types of distraction in provincial graduated licensing systems would address the problem of distraction among teenaged drivers. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation currently has informational sections on cell phones and distractions in the Driver’s Handbook (Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 2007), but the only restriction related to distraction involves the number of passengers under age 19 that teenaged G2 drivers can carry between midnight to 5 a.m. While most research indicates no enhanced risk to teenagers in cell phone use, teenagers are at a greater risk from distractions in general. While more research on the risk of distractions is necessary, limiting distractions as much as possible for teenaged driver makes sense. Restricting the use of devices, such as car stereos or cell phones, except in emergency situations, and further restricting the carrying of passengers under age 19 to include daylight hours, would help to increase the distraction threshold. More research on driver distraction and cell phone use, including collaborative research by stakeholders looking at comparative risks across a range of telematics devices is essential. Guidelines or regulations based on proven research are the only acceptable solution. Better data collection is necessary to estimate the proportion of crashes attributable to cell phone use. Research on the effectiveness of educational campaigns and research on any initiatives, including the effectiveness of a ban on telematics devices, would be helpful. Collaboration in research, designed to develop international harmonized standards in the use of telematics while driving, would be ideal. Driver Distraction 28 MOUs between government and industry, followed by advisories and then regulations if MOUs are not taken seriously, seem like a sound approach. Devices that disable the functions of the cell phone to the driver, except in emergency situations, are one potential future scenario that industry initiatives might make possible, if research indicates their feasibility. The expectation and promise of safer telematics devices that MOUs allow are an important step to solving the problem. Transport Canada had a goal of reaching an agreement with the automotive industry by early 2006, but so far nothing has been finalized (Transport Canada RSMVRD, 2005b). If regulatory initiatives were to be pursued, restrictions of both handheld and hands-free cell phones would be warranted. Restrictions would be difficult to enforce and, given the current state of our understanding about distraction and cell phone use and cost-benefit analyses, might be premature. Education may be the most effective means of addressing the issue. Recommendations Based on the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency (cost-benefit analysis and social impact), feasibility and flexibility (whether the recommendation can be changed) the following recommendations emerge from the literature: • Increase public awareness and educational campaigns on the risks of all types of driver distraction, including cell phone use. • Investigate placing further restrictions on distractions to teenaged drivers as part of the provincial graduated licensing system. Driver Distraction 29 • Promote research on driver distraction to better understand it and the role of cell phone use in the distraction spectrum, so that sufficient evidence is available to inform both regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives. • • Pursue the finalization of MOUs between government and industry. Delay regulatory restrictions on the use of cell phones while driving until further research is available. If regulatory initiatives are to be pursed, restrictions of both handheld and hands-free cell phones would be warranted. Driver Distraction 30 References Angus Reid Global Monitor. (2007). Ban cell phones while driving, say Canadians. Retrieved August 16, 2007 from http://www.angus-reid.om/polls/index.cfm?fuseation=viewItem&itemID=16771 Beede, K. E., & Kass, S.J. (2006). Engrossed in conversation: The impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(2), 415-421. Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. (2007). Canada’s wireless industry: A global success story continues. Retrieved August 16, 2007 from http://www.cwta.ca/CWTASite/english/index.html Cooper, P. J., Zheng, Y., Richard, C., Vavrik, J., Heinrichs, B., & Siegmund, G. (2003). The impact of hands-free message reception/response on driving task performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35(1), 23-35. Eby, D. W., Vivoda, J. M., & St. Louis, R. M. (2006). Driver hand-held cellular phone use: A four-year analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 37(3), 261-265. Garcia-Larrea, L., Perchet, C., Perrin, F., & Amenedo, E. (2001). Interference of cellular phone conversations with visuomotor tasks: An ERP study. Journal of Psychophysiology, 15(1), 14-21. Gårder, P. (2006). Segment characteristics and severity of head-on crashed on two-lane rural highways in Maine. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(4), 652-661. Golden, C., Golden, C. J., & Schneider, B. (2003). Cell phone use and visual attention. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97(2), 385-389. Hanock, P. A., Lesch, M., & Simmons, L. (2003). The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35(4), 501-514. Driver Distraction 31 Harbluk, J. L., Noy, Y. I., Trbovich, P. L., & Eizenman, M. (2007). An on-road assessment of cognitive distraction: Impacts on drivers’ visual behaviour and braking performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(2), 372-379. Horberry, T., Anderson, J., Regan, M. A., Triggs, T. J., & Brown, J. (2006). Driver distraction: The effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(1), 185-191. Kass, S. J., Cole, K. S., & Stanny, C. J. (2007). Effects of distraction and experience on situation awareness and simulated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10(4), 321-329. McCartt, A. T., Hellinga, L. A., & Bratiman, K. A. (2006). Cell phones and driving: Review of research. Traffic Injury Prevention, 7(2), 89-106 McEvoy, S. P., Stevenson, M. R., & Woodward, M. (2007). The prevalence of, and factors associated with, serious crashes involving a distracting activity. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(3), 475-482. McEvoy, S. P., Stevenson, M.R., & Woodward, M. (2006). The impact of driver distraction on road safety: Results from a representative survey in two Australian states. Injury Prevention, 12(4), 242-247. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2006). The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study data. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/driverdistraction/PDF/DriverInattention.pdf Driver Distraction 32 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2005a). NHTSA vehicle safety rulemaking and supporting research priorities: 2005-2009. Retrieved May 29, 2007 from http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan-2005.html National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2005b). Traffic safety facts research note: Driver cell phone use in 2005. Report No. DOT HS 809 967. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2005/809967.pdf Ontario Ministry of Transportation. (2007). Driver’s handbook online. Retrieved August 17, 2007 from http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandy/driver/handbook/index.html Patten, C. J. D., Kircher, A., Östlund, J., & Nilsson, L. (2004). Using mobile telephones: Cognitive workload and attention resource allocation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36(3), 341-350. Redelmeier, D. A., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1997). Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 336(7), 453-458. Schattler, K. L., Pellerito Jr., J., McAvoy, D., & Datta, T. K. (2006). Assessing driver distraction from cell phone use: A simulator-based study. Transportation Research Record, 1980, 87-94. Smiley, A., & Caird, J. K. (2007). The effects of cellphone use and CD use on novice and experienced driver performance. Ottawa: Insurance Bureau of Canada. Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. (2004). Profiles in driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers. Human Factors, 46(4), 640-649. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48(2), 381-391. Driver Distraction 33 Stutts, J. C., Reinfurt, D. W., & Rodgman, E. A. (2001). The role of driver distraction in crashes: An analysis of 1995-1999 crashworthiness data system data. Annual proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Barrington, IL: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Stutts, J.C., Hunter, W.W. (2003). Driver inattention, driver distraction and traffic crashes. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, 73(7), 34. Sundeen, M. (2005). Cell phones and highway safety: 2005 legislative update. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/cellphoneupdate05.htm Traffic Injury Research Foundation and Canadian Automobile Association. (2006). International conference on distracted driving: Summary of proceedings and recommendations. Retrieved August 16, 2007 from http://www.distracteddriving.ca/english/documents/ENGLISH-DDProceedingsand Recommendations.pdf Transport Canada. (2007a). Cell phones and driving: Questions and answers. Retrieved August 14, 2007 from http://www.t.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp2436/rs200106q-a.htm#top Transport Canada. (2007b). Results of Transport Canada’s September 2006 survey of seat belt use in rural areas of the country. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from http://www.tc.gc.a/roadsafety/tp2436/rs200701/menu.htm#cell Transport Canada Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate. (2005a). Strategies for reducing driver distraction from in-vehicle telematics devices: Report on industry and public consultation. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp/tp14409/pdf/tp14409e.pdf Driver Distraction 34 Transport Canada Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate. (2005b). Canadian Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding drivers’ distraction countermeasures. Retrieved August 16, 2007 from August 16, 2007 from http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2005/wp29/WP29-135-21edoc Transport Canada Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate. (2006). Driver distraction from in-vehicle telematics devices: The public opinion. Retrieved August 16, 2007 from http://www.distrateddriving.ca/english/documents/ChristinaRudin-Brown000.pdf Driver Distraction 35