Transcript Slide 1

First Annual Virginia
Distracted Driving Summit
www.iihs.org
September 19, 2013
Richmond, Virginia
David S. Zuby
Chief Research Officer
Driver distraction is not a recent phenomenon
• 1979 – Indiana “Tri-Level
Study” estimated “driver
error” to be proximate cause
of 9 out of 10 crashes
• Personal reports from drivers
reveal a variety of distracting
events preceding crashes
– Changing audio tapes/CDs
– Eating/drinking
– Children, bugs, animals in vehicle
– Reading, shaving, and applying
makeup
• 2005-07 in-depth crash study
estimated driver-related
factors associated with 93
percent of crashes
www.iihs.org
3 most common distractions
Estimated prevalence
Stutts et al. (2005):
Sayer et al. (2010):
Coded sample of recorded driving
Sampled clips from IVBSS FOT
Passenger conversation
Passenger conversation
(15%)
(17%)
Internal distraction (e.g., adjusting HVAC,
reaching for objects)
Cellphone conversation
(4%)
(6%)
Eating/drinking
Grooming
(3%)
(5%)
Not distracted
Not distracted
(31% when moving)
(59%)
www.iihs.org
Experimental studies show hand-held and hands-free
phone tasks degrade simulated or test-track driving
performance
• Strengths
– Isolate effects of cellphone tasks (e.g., manual dialing, conversation
type) by controlling for potential confounding variables (e.g., demand
of driving task)
• Limitations
–Small volunteer samples
–Driving and distraction tasks paced by experimenters, not
drivers, and may be unrealistic
–Unknown whether findings pertain to drivers using phones in
their own vehicles because of learning effects, self-regulation,
or other factors
www.iihs.org
Naturalistic driving studies found dialing and texting,
but not conversation, increase risk of crash surrogates
• Strengths
– Drivers using own phones in own vehicles can be observed for an
extended period of time
– Hand-held phone use can be verified at time of safety-relevant
events and for control periods of driving
• Limitations
– Small samples of crashes preclude estimating crash risk and
necessitate use of crash surrogates (e.g., near-crash, traffic
conflicts)
– Documentation of hands-free phone use less reliable without phone
records
www.iihs.org
Studies verifying crash-involved drivers’ phone use found
increased risk with hand-held and hands-free phones
• Strengths
– Large samples of real-world crashes
– Cellphone billing records used to verify phone use at time of crash
and during control driving periods
• Limitations
– Reasons for talking on phone may not be independent of crash risk
– Drivers with higher crash risk may be affected by phone use
differently than lower risk drivers
– Documenting driving in crash and control periods dependent on
drivers’ recollections
www.iihs.org
Many drivers use cellphones
National observational surveys, NHTSA, 2000-11
12
10
8
6
4
estimated total phone use
2
observed hand-held phone use
0
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
www.iihs.org
All police-reported crashes per million miles traveled
By calendar year
4
3
2
1
0
1988
90
92
94
96
98
2000
02
04
06
08
10
www.iihs.org
Actual hand-held phone use vs. use that would have
been expected without hand-held cellphone bans
Percent phone use, April 2009
8
The effects of bans
on drivers’ hand-held
phone use differ
considerably, but bans
can result in long-term
reductions in drivers’
hand-held phone use.
actual
6
expected
4
2
0
New York law
effective 11/2001
District of
Columbia law
effective 7/2004
Connecticut law
effective 10/2005
www.iihs.org
Estimated effect of hand-held cellphone bans
Collision claim frequencies for new vehicles
estimated effect
vs. control states
P-value
California
-1%
0.2635
Connecticut
+4%
0.0317
District of Columbia
-5%
0.1753
New York
+3%
0.0052
www.iihs.org
Can technology that blocks cellphone calls
and texting help?
• Several technologies block incoming and outgoing
phone calls and text messages when the car is moving
– Examples include Aegis Mobility, Trinity Noble, Zoomsafer,
and Key2SafeDriving
• Systems vary in sophistication and features
– Most allow passengers to use phones
– All allow calls to emergency services
• Most use phone’s GPS to detect when it is traveling
above a specific speed threshold
• Effects on driving performance or crashes unclear
www.iihs.org
We may be able to reduce the problem of distraction
without fully understanding it
www.iihs.org
• Front crash prevention systems
are working
• Adaptive headlights are working
• Benefits of other systems
are less clear:
– Lane departure warning
– Blind spot warning
– Rearview cameras
– Parking proximity sensors
www.iihs.org
www.iihs.org
The New Yorker, April 23, 2007
www.iihs.org