Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Distracted Driving and
Crash Responsibility in
Fatal Collisions CARLINA MARCHESE
SACHA DUBOIS
BRUCE WEAVER
LYNN MARTIN
MICHEL BÉDARD
1
Distracted Driving
What is it?
A secondary activity or behaviour
that affects the performance of
the primary task of driving
2
Associated Factors
Mixed evidence for
sex
Younger age, more
distraction
3
Age
Dis
tra
ctio
n
Negative Effects
Longer
response
time
Errors in lane
keepingStopping
Errors
4
Negative Effects
Longer hands
off the wheel
time
Longer time
with eyes off
the road
Higher risk of
collisions
5
6
Distraction & Fatalities
•Deaths associated with distracted driving 2016
• = 6.5 Boeing 747s3,450
7
Distraction & Fatalities
•Studies in distracted driving meta-analysis focused on fatalities
3%
Objectives
Examine prevalence of distraction & cell
phone distraction
Over time, and by age, sex
Most prevalent distraction (2010 – 2015)
Examine the role of driver distraction and
crash responsibility in fatal crashes
8
Methods
9
Methods – FARS
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
Census level USA data
Fatal crashes
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
FARS Analysts
10
Methods – Data 11
2010 – Present: Distract Data File
19 Distractions
Distraction Prior to 2010
Inattentive/CarelessCellular telephone in use
in vehicle (2002)
Analysis – Prevalence
Sample
1991 – 2015
Aged 16+
Passenger type vehicles
Descriptive Statistics
12
ResultsPrevalence
13
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
101
99
1
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
Perc
enta
ge o
f D
rive
rsPercentage of Drivers Involved in
Fatal Collisions who were Distracted 1991 - 2015
Any Distraction Cell Phone Distraction
14
Age
Age
Sex15
16Distraction 1991 - 2015 Cell Phone Distraction
2002 - 2015
Male
Female
Most Prevalent Distraction
2010 – 2015
Cell Phones = 14.6%
Talking or listening: 4.2%
Manipulating: 3.4%
Other cell phone related:
7.0%
17
MethodsCrash
Responsibility
18
Methods – Variables
Dependent Variable: Crash Responsibility
Unsafe Driver Actions (UDAs)
0 UDAs – Not contributed to crash
responsibility [Controls]
1 + UDAs – Contributed to crash responsibility
[Cases]
Exposure: Distracted Driving
19
Analysis – Crash Responsibility
Sample
2010 – 2015
Aged 20 years and older
Passenger type vehicles
Exclusions: BAC>0, tested positive for illegal drugs
20
Analysis – Crash Responsibility
Case-Control Design
Cases: 1 or more UDAs
Controls: 0 UDAs
Adjusted (sex, age, age2, age*distraction,
age2*distraction, driver history) odds ratios (OR)
via logistic regression
21
ResultsCrash
Responsibility
22
23
Adjusted Predicted Odds of Crash Responsibility P
red
icte
d O
dd
s (9
5%
CI)
Driver Age
24
Driver Age
Ad
j. O
dd
s R
atio
(9
5%
CI)
Adj. Odds Ratio of Crash Responsibility
on the Log Scale
Conclusions
Most coded distraction 2010 –
2015: Cell Phone
Being distracted approx.
doubles the odds of being
responsible for the crash after
adjustment
25
Conclusions
Poor driving behaviours
leading to
crashes/fatalities
Health and safety issue
Danger to all road users
Preventable
26
Conclusions
USA
Texting & driving banned in 47 states
Talking & driving banned in 16 states
Canada
All provinces/territories have cell phone legislation
except Nunavut
Nothing against hands-free cell phone
27
Conclusions
Legal = Safe
No
Update laws and
regulations
Rapid development of
technology
28
Conclusions
Phone apps
Insurance
discount
Education
Public Service
Announcements
29
In honour of the Humboldt Broncos and their families
30
References
Carney, C., Harland, K. K., & McGehee, D. V. (2016). Using event-triggered naturalistic data to examine the prevalence of teen driver distractions in rear-end crashes. Journal of Safety Research, 57, 47-52. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2016.03.010
Cramer, S., Mayer, J., & Ryan, S. (2007). College students use cell phones while driving more frequently than found in government study. Journal of American College Health, 56(2), 181-184. doi: 10.3200/JACH.56.2.181-184
Dingus, T. A., Klauer, S. G., Neale, V. L., Petersen, A., Lee, S. E., Sudweeks, J. D., ... & Bucher, C. (2006). The 100-car naturalistic driving study, Phase II-results of the 100-car field experiment (No. HS-810 593).
Distracted Driving Lows in Canda. CAA. Retrieved from: https://www.caa.ca/distracted-driving/distracted-driving-laws-in-canada/
Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D. L. (2008). Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 392-400. doi:10.1037/a0013119
Ferdinand, A. O., & Menachemi, N. (2014). Associations between driving performance and engaging in secondary tasks: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), e39-e48. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301750
Gliklich, E., Guo, R., & Bergmark, R. W. (2016). Texting while driving: A study of 1211 US adults with the Distracted Driving Survey. Preventive Medicine Reports, 4(2016), 486-489. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.09.003
Hancock, P. A., Lesch, M., & Simmons, L. (2003). The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(4), 501-514. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00028-3
Hill, L., Rybar, J., Styer, T., Fram, E., Merchant, G., & Eastman, A. (2015). Prevalence of and attitudes about distracted driving in college students. Traffic Injury Prevention, 16(4), 362-367. doi:10.1080/15389588.2014.949340
Horrey, W. J., & Wickens, C. D. (2006). Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Human Factors, 48(1), 196-205. doi:10.1518/001872006776412135
Horrey, W. J., Lesch, M., & Melton, D. F. (2010). Distracted driving: Examining the effects of in-vehicle tasks. Professional Safety, 55(1), 34-39.
32
References Insurance Institutes for Highway Safety. Distracted Driving: Cellphones and texting. (May 2018). [Cited May 2018]. Retrieved from:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cellphonelaws
Klauer, S. G., Guo, F., Simons-Morton, B. G., Ouimet, M. C., Lee, S. E., & Dingus, T. A. (2014). Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(1), 54-59. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1204142
Lamble, D., Rajalin, S., & Summala, H. (2002). Mobile phone use while driving: Public opinions on restrictions. Transportation, 29(3), 223-236.
McNabb, J., & Gray, R. (2016). Staying connected on the road: A comparison of different types of smart phone use in a driving simulator. PLoS One, 11(2), e0148555. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148555
Medeiros-Ward, N., Cooper, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2014). Hierarchical control and driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 953. doi:10.1037/a0035097
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2016). Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): Analytical User’s Manual 1975-2015(DOT HS 812 315). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2017). Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (DOT HS 812 456). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Pickrell, T. M., Li, R., & KC, S. (2016). Driver electronic device use in 2015 (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 812 326). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Public Health Ontario (Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion), Berenbaum, E., Keller-Olaman, S., Manson, H. (2015). Texting while driving behaviour among Ontario youth and young adults (ISBN 978-1-4606-6851-1). Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
Quisenberry, P. N. (2015). Texting and driving: Can it be explained by the general theory of crime? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 303-316. doi:10.1007/s12103-014-9249-3
33
References
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. doi:10.1056/NEJM199702133360701
Rhodes, N., & Pivik, K. (2011). Age and gender differences in risky driving: The roles of positive affect and risk perception. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 923-931. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.015
Seo, D. C., & Torabi, M. R. (2004). The impact of in-vehicle cell-phone use on accidents or near-accidents among college students. Journal of American College Health, 53(3), 101-108.
Simmons, S. M., Hicks, A., & Caird, J. K. (2016). Safety-critical event risk associated with cell phone tasks as measured in naturalistic driving studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 87, 161-169. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.11.015
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. doi:10.1518/001872006777724471
Stutts, J., Feaganes, J., Rodgman, E., Hamlett, C., Reinfurt, D., Gish, K., ... & Staplin, L. (2003). The causes and consequences of distraction in everyday driving. In Annual Proceedings/Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (Vol. 47, p. 235). Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.
Tucker, S., Pek, S., Morrish, J., & Ruf, M. (2015). Prevalence of texting while driving and other risky driving behaviors among young people in Ontario, Canada: Evidence from 2012 and 2014. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 84, 144-152. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.07.011
Weller, J. A., Shackleford, C., Dieckmann, N., & Slovic, P. (2013). Possession attachment predicts cell phone use while driving. Health Psychology, 32(4), 379-387. doi:10.1037/a0029265
Wilson, F. A., & Stimpson, J. P. (2010). Trends in fatalities from distracted driving in the United States, 1999 to 2008. American Journal of Public Health, 100(11), 2213-2219. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.187179
Yannis, G., Laiou, A., Papantoniou, P., & Gkartzonikas, C. (2016). Simulation of texting impact on young drivers’ behavior and safety on motorways. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 41, 10-18. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2016.06.003
34
Acknowledgements
Dr. Michel Bédard, Supervisor
Sacha Dubois, Committee Member
Dr. Lynn Martin, Committee Member
Bruce Weaver, Statistician
35
Meta-Analyses
Secondary tasks while driving 1968 – 2012
350 analyses from 206 studies
47% cell phone distraction
80% of studies found detrimental relationship
Cell phone studies more likely to find harmful
relationship
36
Methods – FARS
FARS Analysts
Over 100 FARS data elements
Police Accident Reports and other documents (Death Certificates, State Vehicle Registration Files, Coroner/Medical Examiner Reports, State Driver Licensing Files, State Highway Department Data, Emergency Medical Service Reports, Vital Statistics and other State Records)
37
Methods – FARS
FARS established in 1975
Original Data Files
Accident (environment and crash)
Vehicle (each vehicle and its driver)
Person (drivers, passengers, pedestrians)
38
Distraction data file added in 2010
19 distractions
Talking/listening to cell phone
Manipulating cell phone
Eating/drinking
Smoking related
Adjusting controls
Moving object in vehicle, etc.
Not Distracted, Not Reported, Unknown if distracted
Methods – Data 39
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
801
99
1
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
Perc
enta
ge o
f Lo
ne
Dri
vers
Percentage of Distracted Drivers Without Passengers
in Fatal Crashes 1991 - 2015
All Distractions Cell Phone Distraction
40
41
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
Perc
enta
ge o
n R
ura
l Ro
ads
Percentage of Distracted Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes Occurring on Rural Roadways 1991 - 2015
All Distractions Cell Phone Distraction
42Variable B 95% CI
Distracted -0.40 (-0.96; 0.17)
Sex, male 0.15 (0.09; 0.20)
Age -0.06 (-0.07; -0.06)
Age2 0.00 (0.00; 0.00)
Distracted*Age 0.05 (0.03; 0.08)
Distracted*Age2 -0.00 (-0.00; 0.00)
Previous Driving History
Crashes = 1 -0.02 (-0.11; 0.07)
Driving While Intoxicated = 1 0.00 (-0.27; 0.28)
Speeding = 1 0.01 (-0.08; 0.09)
Suspensions = 1 0.26 (0.14; 0.39)
Other Convictions = 1 0.12 (0.03; 0.21)
Age Odds Ratio 95% CI
20 1.53 [1.26, 1.86]
25 1.76 [1.52, 2.03]
30 1.97 [1.75, 2.21]
35 2.15 [1.92, 2.40]
40 2.28 [2.02, 2.56]
45 2.35 [2.06, 2.67]
50 2.36 [2.06, 2.71]
43Adjusted Odd Ratios –
Crash Responsibility
Adjusted Odd Ratios –
Crash Responsibility
44
Age Odds Ratio 95% CI
55 2.31 [2.02, 2.65]
60 2.21 [1.93, 2.53]
65 2.05 [1.80, 2.34]
70 1.85 [1.61, 2.13]
75 1.63 [1.39, 1.91]
80 1.40 [1.14, 1.71]
Strengths and Limitations
Strengths
Real-life crashes
Census level data
Controlled for driving
history
Limitations
Case-control design
Proxy measure of
responsibility
Not generalizable to
non-fatal collisions
45
Distract Data File46
Distractions
Not Distracted No Driver Present/Unknown if Driver Present
Looked But Did Not See Distraction/Inattention
By Other Occupant(s) Distraction/Careless
By a Moving Object in Vehicle Careless/Inattentive
While Talking or Listening to Cellular Phone Distraction/Inattention, Details Unknown
While Manipulating Cellular Phone Distraction (Distracted), Details Unknown
While Adjusting Audio or Climate Controls Inattention (Inattentive), Details Unknown
While Using Other Component/Controls
Integral to Vehicle
Not Reported
While Using or Reaching For Device/Object
Brought Into Vehicle
Inattentive or Lost in Thought
Distracted by Outside Person, Object or Event Lost In Thought/Day Dreaming
Eating or Drinking Other Distraction
Smoking Related Unknown if Distracted
Other Cellular Phone Related
Relative Risk
Typically used with cohort studies
or clinical trials
Binary outcome variable
Ratio of two probabilities
Relative Risk =
=
47
Risk of event in Tx group
Risk of event in Control group
A/(A+B)
C/(C+D)
Event No Event
Treatment A B
Control C D
Odds Ratios
Typically used with case
control studies
Ratio of two odds
Odds =
Odds Ratio =
48
# of Events
# of Non-Events
Odds of Distraction in Cases
Odds of Distraction in
Controls
A/B
C/D
Distraction No Distraction
Case A B
Control C D
=
