Driving Distractions in New York City. A Study Conducted by Students at Hunter College, The City University of New York

Transcription

1 Driving Distractions in New York City A Study Conducted by Students at Hunter College, The City University of New York November 2007

2 Introduction The number of distractions while driving has grown rapidly in recent years due to the changing life style of Americans and advances in technology. Americans now spend more time than ever in their cars. As a result, the car increasingly has become a center of activities which traditionally were carried out in the confines of one s home (e.g., drinking, eating, grooming, being entertained, etc.). The car has also become the location for many new communication and entertainment devices such as DVD players, CD players, GPS navigators, and the cell phone. Not surprisingly, the growth in the number of distractions has had an adverse effect on highway safety. According to the 100-Car Naturalistic Study carried out jointly by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event (Insurance Information Institute, 2007, p. 2). Despite the importance of this topic, little if any systematic inquiry concerning driver distractions in New York City has been undertaken. A number of national and state studies have been conducted on this topic but no study (of which the authors of this paper are aware) focuses exclusively on New York City. The present study examines the incidence of specific types of distractions among drivers in a large number of locations scattered throughout the City. The major objective is to identify characteristics of the drivers who engage in these distractions. Methodology The results of this study are based upon observations of 3,120 drivers of vehicles in 50 different locations in New York City. While the observations themselves do not constitute a random sample of all drivers in the City, they represent a broad cross-section of drivers located in the City. 1 All observations were carried out by Hunter College students currently enrolled in two sections of an Introduction to Research Methods course. Prior to carrying out the field work, the students were trained in observational research techniques. Students then practiced observing drivers and coding the pertinent information on code sheets. Students were given strict methodological guidelines in carrying out their observations. Importantly, students had to choose drivers they observed within a given location on a random basis without employing subjective criteria and they had to remain as inconspicuous as possible. Students were instructed to carry out all observations at an intersection in which there was a traffic light. When the traffic light was red, they were instructed to observe drivers in the first car in the lane waiting for the traffic light to turn 2

3 green. The only vehicles exempted from observation within a specified time period (see below) were those in which visibility would be impaired due to tinted windows or some other hindering factor. Each student observed 60 drivers during a weekday and 20 during a weekend. Moreover, one-half of the observations carried out on a weekday were staggered across both peak and non-peak hours of driving. 2 Students gathered observational data on five specific types of distractions: (1) using a cell phone, (2) drinking, (3) eating, (4) smoking, and (5) grooming. These five distractions represent only a small subset of the universe of distractions which might have been investigated. Other possible distractions might have included interactions with other passengers, reaching for objects, fiddling with the radio or other audio devices, looking at billboards, etc. The reason for confining the analysis to the aforementioned five distractions was that they were more likely to be accurately observed and recorded. One key distraction cell phone usage was further subdivided into two categories. A driver was coded as driving with a hand-held cell phone if he/she held such a device close to his/her ear. A driver was coded as driving with a hands-free device if he/she was observed with any type of earpiece (either a large headset or a small plastic piece inserted in the ear). In neither case did the driver have to be seen as talking. 3 In addition to whether the driver was involved in any of the above distractions data on the following variables were recorded for each individual: (1) his/her sex, (2) his/her approximate age, (3), whether the driver was accompanied by a front-seat passenger and, if so, the sex of the passenger, and (4) the type of vehicle being driven. Finally, census information about the zip code in which the intersection was located was appended to each record. The zip code-level variables included the following: the percent white, the percent black, the percent Asian, the percent Hispanic, and the median household income. All observations were carried out between October 1-24, Findings A sizable number of New York City drivers were observed involved in a distraction. In line with expectations, the most common distraction was the use of a cell phone. Slightly more than one-fifth of drivers (23%) were observed using this device. 4 Of these, an equal number (11.5%) were found using a hand-held phone and a hands-free phone (see Table 1). A noticeable gender gap exists with cell phone usage. As found in other empirical studies, women drivers are more likely to speak on a hand-held cell phone than their male 3

4 counterparts (see Table 2). In this study, 15.1 percent of the females were talking on these devices compared to just 10 percent of men. Women were also found to be using hands-free devices more than men (13.5% vs. 10.6%). Interestingly, among both sex groups, there was a greater tendency to talk on a cell phone when the front-seat passenger was of the same sex than when the front-seat passenger was of the opposite sex. Among female drivers the difference was 7.9 percentage points (30.7% vs. 22.8%) and among male drivers the difference was 7.3 percentage points (22.8% vs. 15.5%) (see Table 3). 5 Consistent with the results of other studies, younger age is also associated with greater cell phone usage. The age gap is particularly wide among users of hand-held cell phones (see Table 4). The type of vehicle driven is also related to cell phone usage. Overrepresented among drivers using a hand-held cell phone or wireless device were drivers of sports cars or convertibles. Taxi cab drivers also used a wireless device more so than other motorists. In addition to cell phone usage, a significant block of motorists in New York city were found to be engaged in the four other driving distractions under investigation. While no other specific distraction was engaged in by a large segment of the driving population, cumulatively about 15 percent of drivers were found to be participating in these four distractions (see Table 5). Topping the list of specific distractions was smoking (5.7%), followed by drinking (4.5%), eating (3.1%) and grooming (1.7%). What is important to note is that drivers talking on a cell phone were significantly more likely to be engaged in one of these four other specific distractions than drivers who did not use cell phones (see Table 6). Furthermore, there is a considerable disparity between drivers using a hands-free vs. hand-held cell phone and the likelihood of engaging in one of the specific distractions examined in this study. Motorists using a hands-free device are markedly more likely to engage in one of these distractions than their counterparts who use a hand-held device (22.3% vs. 15.2%). Conclusions This study has found a substantial proportion of motorists in New York City driving with a cell phone somewhat more than one fifth of all drivers (23%). Of these drivers, the percent of those using a hand-held or wireless device is the same. The 11.5 percent figure of those using a hand-held device far exceeds the nationwide incidence of driving with a hand-held cell phone recorded in the most recent National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) conducted in The NOPUS survey found that 5 percent of motorists nationwide use a hand-held cell phone (Glassbrenner and Ye 2007). Part of the reason for these divergent findings is that the two studies employ different methodologies. The NOPUS study is based on a probability sample 4

5 whereas the present study employs a convenience sample (although all observations, once a given street corner has been chosen, are recorded at random). With this methodological consideration in mind, though, it is still likely that New York city motorists drive with hand-held cell phones more than motorists in the country as a whole. Previous studies conducted by Hunter College students have repeatedly found that the use of cell phones among New York city motorists is greater than the national average. Also, a recent telephone survey of motorists around the country ranked New York city drivers the second rudest in the nation (MSNBC, 2007). One of the indicators to measure rudeness was driving while talking on a cell phone. This study has also found that women drivers are more likely to be using a cell phone whether it is hands-free or wireless. One possible explanation for this finding may be rooted in the multiple roles occupied by women. In addition to their work-related responsibilities, women play a disproportionately large role in managing household affairs and child-rearing which could account for greater cell phone usage. The effect of a driver s sex on cell phone usage appears to be influenced by the sex of the front-seat passenger. For drivers of both sexes, if the front-seat passenger is a member of the opposite sex, cell phone usage declines. Of the other distractions examined in this study, smoking was the most widely observed activity. Close to 6 percent of motorists were found to be smoking while driving. While we have no trend data on the incidence of smoking while driving, the relatively high prevalence of smoking may be due to the fact that this activity is being increasingly curtailed in a number of different areas. The car now is a place of refuge in which smoking has not been outlawed. Another major finding which emerged from this study is that drivers who use a cell phone are more likely to engage in other distractions than non-cell phone drivers. This finding accords with other empirical studies (carried out by Hunter College students and other researchers) showing that drivers who talk on cell phones are also less likely to wear a seat belt than their counterparts who do not talk on a cell phone. In general, it seems that cell phone-motorists have a greater propensity to take risks while driving than drivers who do not use cell phones. Importantly, drivers using a hands-free device are even more inclined to be otherwise distracted (e.g., eating, drinking, smoking, grooming, etc.) than motorists using a hand-held device. This finding suggests that while hands-free cell phone drivers have greater hand maneuverability (and, in the process have become more compliant with the law), they may be trading one automobile-related risk for another. Free from the constraint of having to hold on to a cell phone, they are now at greater liberty to engage in other types of distractions. Over the past several years, a number of technologies have been introduced into cars to increase their safety, including automatic seat belts, air bags, and stabilizing mechanisms. It appears that these technological gains are being offset by the risky driving behavior of 5

6 motorists who are perhaps lulled into a false sense of security by the introduction of these technologies. Ultimately the safety of drivers, their fellow passengers, and pedestrians does not rest mainly on technological advances but on more responsible driving behavior. Motorists need to become more aware of the risks of engaging in distractions while driving. This awareness, hopefully, will inhibit behaviors such as taking on a cell phone which impair driving performance. Only then will the large scale number of vehicularrelated injuries and deaths start to undergo an appreciable decline. 6

7 Notes 1. The geographic distribution of the observations by borough was as follows: Bronx (420), Brooklyn (720), Manhattan (840), and Queens (1140). Within each borough there was also a wide dispersion of geographic areas. Altogether, 46 different zipcode areas served as the sites for this study. 2. Because of their particular study and work schedules, a few students were not able to adhere to this regimen and, therefore, they conducted their observations wholly on either a weekend or weekday. In the aggregate, though, approximately two-thirds of the observations were carried out on a weekday (69%) and, of these, approximately one-half (48%) were carried out during peak hours. 3. This definition of driving with a hands-free cell phone is less restrictive than those employed in other studies. Clearly, for example, wearing a small plastic earpiece (or even a headset) does not necessarily mean that a given individual was talking on a cell phone. The earpiece (or headset) could be attached to another electronic device. Nevertheless, we decided to use a visible earpiece as a surrogate measure for talking on a hands-free cell phone. We realize that this entails a liberal definition of the term hands-free cell phone. However, owing to the inherent difficulty of determining when an individual is actually talking on a hands-free device, we believed that an earpiece could serve as a reasonable indicator. Furthermore, students were instructed to code a motorist as driving with either a hand-held or hands-free cell phone only if they were reasonably confident that this was the case. If they entertained any doubts, the students recorded their reservations under a separate code. 4. This figure excludes 147 drivers whose use of a cell phone was indeterminate. If these individuals are included in the analysis and combined with those who were nonusers, the overall percent driving with a cell phone declines to 21.9 percent. 5. The interaction effect between sex of the driver and sex of the front-seat passenger on cell phone usage manifested itself differently with respect to female and male drivers. Female drivers were much more likely to use a hand-held cell phone in the presence of a female front-seat passenger than in the presence of a male front-seat passenger (18.6% vs. 9.0%). By comparison, male drivers were considerably more likely to use a hands-free cell phone in the presence of a male front-seat passenger than in the presence of a female front-seat passenger (14.2% vs. 8.2%). 7

8 References 1. Insurance Information Institute, Cell Phones and Driving, ( October, MSNBC, Miami drivers have the worst road rage, ( May,

9 Table 1. Cell Phone Usage of Drivers * Type of Cell Phone Using a hand-held cell phone 11.5% Using a hands-free cell phone 11.5% No cell phone 77.0% Total (%) Total (n) (2972) * Omits 147 cases in which use of a cell phone could not be reasonably determined. Table 2. Cell Phone Use of Driver by Sex of Driver * Sex of Driver Cell Phone Use of Driver Female Male Hand-held cell phone 15.1% 10.0% Hands-free cell phone 13.5% 10.6% No cell phone 71.4% 79.5% Total (%) Total (n) (903) (2069) * Omits 147 cases in which use of a cell phone could not be reasonably determined. 9

10 Table 3. Cell Phone Use by Sex of Driver Combined with Presence/Absence and Sex of Front-Seat Passenger * Female Drivers Male Drivers Female Male No Female Male No front- front- front- front- front- front- Cell phone seat seat seat seat seat seat use of driver passenger passenger passenger passenger passenger passenger Drives with 30.7% 22.8% 29.5% 15.5% 22.8% 22.3% a cell phone No cell phone 69.3% 77.2% 70.5% 84.5% 77.2% 77.7% Total (%) Total (n) (231) (145) (519) (425) (302) (1295) * Omits 147 cases in which use of a cell phone could not be reasonably determined. Table 4. Cell Phone Use of Driver by Estimated Age of Driver * Estimated Age of Driver Cell Phone Use of Driver Under 40 Years of Age 40 Years of Age or Older Hand-held cell phone 13.5% 9.1% Hands-free cell phone 11.8% 11.1% No cell phone 74.7% 79.8% Total (%) Total (n) (1422) * Omits 359 drivers whose age and/or cell phone use could not be reasonably determined. (1336) 10

11 Table 5. Other Distractions of Drivers Type of Distraction a Smoking 5.7% Drinking 4.5% Eating 3.1% Grooming 1.7% Total (n) (3120) a Drivers who engaged in more than one type of these distractions were only included once (i.e., the first distraction noted on the code sheets). Table 6. Other Distractions Engaged in by Drivers by Cell Phone Use * Cell Phone Use Other distractions engaged Hands-free Hand-held in by drivers ** cell phone cell phone No cell phone Yes 22.3% 15.2% 14.0% No 77.7% 84.8% 86.0% Total (%) Total (n) (341) (342) * Omits 147 cases in which use of a cell phone could not be reasonably determined. **Includes smoking, eating, drinking, or grooming. (2289) 11