Cell Phones and Other Distractions (Anne McCartt)

8/7/2019 Cell Phones and Other Distractions (Anne McCartt)

1/22

IIHS

Driving and Behavior Seminar

National Press Foundation

Anne T. McCartt

Washington, DC June 13, 2005

Cell Phones and Other Driver Distractions


2/22

IIHS

Federal statistics

indicate that driver

distraction is a factor in

25% of police-reportedhighway crashes, but

the exact percentage is

unknown.


3/22

IIHS

Driver distractions

External distractions

Scenery

Looking for roadway signs

In-vehicle distractions

Interaction with passengers (crying baby, conversation, etc.)

Reaching for something

Eating, drinking, smoking

Radio, CD player, climate control, etc.

New distractions: technological systems and gadgets


4/22

IIHS

Cell phone subscribersIn millions, 1985-2004

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000

160,000,000

180,000,000

200,000,000

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

120

80

40

03 041985


5/22

IIHS

Of drivers who report

using cell phones,

most use hand-held

phones.

Observational surveysshow at least 5% of

drivers are using them

at any given time.


6/22

IIHS

Experimental studies of drivers phone use

Simulator Simulator

Simulator

Test track On-the-road


7/22

IIHS

Limitations of experiments

Small volunteer samples

Phone and driving tasks often are unrealistic

Phone and driving tasks are paced by experimenters,not drivers

Learning effects are rarely accounted for Unknown whether findings pertain to drivers using

phones in own vehicles


8/22

IIHS

Effects of cell phones on simulated or instrumented

driving tasks

Cognitive distraction associated with hands-free andhand-held phone conversation degrades performance

Effects may be greater for young and elderlydrivers, and with more demanding phone tasks or

driving tasks

Learning effects may be substantial Performance can be compromised by physical

distraction of handling phones


9/22

IIHS

Naturalistic driving studies

In-vehicle cameras and other technologies continuouslymonitor volunteer drivers in their own vehicles

Phone use is documented, but crash risk associated with

phone use has not been addressed

Swedish study of 7 drivers using cell phones for work

Calls served a variety of business and nonbusiness

purposes and generated a range of associated tasks

(e.g., taking notes)

Self-regulated phone use based on driving situations


10/22

IIHS

Naturalistic driving studies

U.S. study of 70 drivers

Cell phones used about 1% of driving time

Drivers on phones more often took hands off wheel, or

eyes off road when dialing or answering U.S. 100-Car Study

Preliminary report found wireless devices were used

prior to about 7% of crashes/near crashes/incidents;

risks of phone use not calculated based onexposure data

Sample biased toward younger drivers with greater

driving exposure


11/22

IIHS

Cell phones and crash risk

Police crash reports do not reliably document driversphone use

Best studies verify crash-involved driver phone use frombilling records

Canadian study found 4-fold increased risk of property-damage crashes with phone use

IIHS study in Western Australia is measuring injurycrash risk associated with phone use and relative risks

of hands-free and hand-held phones Two Canadian studies found modest increases in crash

risk for drivers observed using phones and drivers withmore frequent phone use based on billing records


12/22

IIHS

Cell phones and crash risks

Evidence is suggestive, but not yet conclusive, thatrelative crash risks of hands-free vs. hand-held

phones are similar; further study is needed

No credible evidence that crash risks of phone useare similar to risks from speeding or alcohol-impaired

driving


13/22

IIHS

International laws on driving and cell phone use

European Union

Hand-held phone use banned in most E.U. countries

Australia

Hand-held phone use banned in all states

Canada

Hand-held phone use banned in Newfoundland andLabrador

Japan

All cell phone use banned

Enforcement is secondary and only if driver poses dangerto others


14/22

IIHS

Cell phone bans

By local jurisdiction

Teenage drivers

School bus drivers

State wide hand-held ban


15/22

IIHS

Percentage of drivers using hand-held cell phonesNew York law effective November 2001

Dec. 2001-March Mar-03Dec. 2001 Mar. 2003Dec. 2001-March Mar-03first 5 months second year before law

1

2

3


16/22

IIHS

Percent of drivers using hand-held phonesWashington, D.C., metro area

0

2

4

6

8

10

D.C. M r V r

M r04

Oct-04


17/22

IIHS

Percent change in hand-held phone use

by jurisdiction of license plate

Washington, D.C., metro area

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

DC plate

MD plate

VA plate

D.C. Maryland Virginia


18/22

IIHS

Some vehicles have built-in

hands-free technology, like

OnStar, with voice activation.

Other technologies, such as

Bluetooth, eliminate wired

connections between cell

phones and other electronic

devices. Any potential safety

benefit of fully hands-free

phones is unknown.

Bluetooth

OnStar


19/22

IIHS

Other potentially distracting

in-vehicle technologies andgadgets are increasingly

available.

Navigation systemNavigation system

Navigation systemNavigation system


20/22

IIHS

A worrisome trend is the

increased availability ofafter-market systems

permitting drivers to view

DVDs, TV broadcasts, etc.,

on video screens.


21/22

IIHS

Most states currently ban

video screens that are

visible to the driver and can

receive a TVbroadcast. Five states have

updated their laws to cover

all types of video screens

except navigation systems.

T broadcast screens

All video screens

BANS ON VIDE

O SCREE

NS VISIBLE

TO DRIVE

R:May 2005


22/22

IIHS

www.iihs.org

Anne McCarttVice-President, Research

703-247-1534

[email protected]

Documents

Cell Phones and Other Distractions (Anne McCartt)