Distracted Driving- A Review of Relevant Research and Latest Findings

Transcription

1 Distracted Driving- A Review of Relevant Research and Latest Findings National Conference of State Legislatures Louisville, KY July 27, 2010 Stephen Oesch

2 The sad fact is that in the coming weeks in particular, too many drivers will become distracted t d as they study a GPS, dial a cellphone or type a text message. Over the past few years, distracted driving has gone from a dangerous practice to a deadly epidemic. - Ray LaHood US Transportation ti Secretary The Washington Post, November 28, 2009

3 States that ban all drivers from using hand-held phones July 2010 WA OR CA NV ID UT AZ MT WY CO NM ND SD NE KS OK TX MN IA MO AR LA WI IL MS MI IN OH KY TN AL GA VT NY PA WV VA NC SC NH ME MA NJ RI CT DE MD DC AK FL HI

4 Bans on texting while driving July 2010 WA OR CA NV ID UT AZ MT WY CO NM ND SD NE KS OK TX MN IA MO AR LA WI IL MS MI IN OH KY TN AL GA VT NY PA WV VA NC SC NH ME MA NJ RI CT DE MD DC AK FL ban on reading and typing ban on typing only HI

5 Where s the epidemic?

6 Cellphone subscribers In millions,

7 Percent of drivers talking on phones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, estimated total phone use observed hand-held phone use

8 All crashes In millions, GES for non-fatal and FARS for fatal, by calendar year

9 How effective are cellphone use laws the case of hand-held held bans?

10 Percent of drivers using hand-held phones Washington, DC, metro area March 2004 October 2004 October 2005 April/June DC: law effective 7/2004 Maryland Virginia

11 Actual percent of drivers in Washington, DC using hand-held held phones vs. use that would have been expected without cellphone law Law effective July actual expected 0 March October October April-June

12 Actual hand-held phone use vs. use that would have been expected without law Percent phone use in New York and Connecticut, April actual expected New York: Connecticut: law effective 11/2001 law effective 10/2005

13 Collision claim frequencies in states with hand-held cellphone bans

14 Collision claim frequencies Claims per 100 insured vehicle years By calendar year, based on 4 most recent model years ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( models) models) models) models) models) models) models) models) models) models) models)

15 Collision claim frequencies for new vehicles by month Connecticut vs. Massachusetts and New York Connecticut 2 comparison states ban enacted October months before and after ban

16 IIHS national survey on distracted driving 1,219 drivers surveyed during November-December 2009 On the last day they drove, drivers spent about an hour in the car, on average On average 4 minutes of that time was spent on the phone This translates into about 7 percent of time behind the wheel on the phone Percent higher for men (7 percent) than women (6 percent) Highest for drivers younger than 30 (16 percent) Higher on weekdays and during afternoons and evenings (8 percent during these times)

17 Distribution of how often drivers talk on cellphones whiles driving states with hand-held held bans states without hand-held held bans daily 13% 22% few times per week 17% 22% few times per month 12% 12% less than once per month 14% 13% never 44% 30%

18 Distribution of how often drivers use hands free vs. hand-held cellphones states with hand-held bans states without hand-held bans only talk hands-free 22% 13% sometimes talk hands-free 15% 17% only talk hand-held 19% 40% never talk while driving 44% 30%

19 Percent of drivers who text By age and presence of state texting ban states with all-driver di texting bans states without texting bans years old 45% 48% years old 40% 55% years old 12% 12% 60 years and older 0% 1%

20 Would we be safer without mobile phones in cars? Contradictions Analyses of cellphone usage shows it to be a potent distraction; crash risk when talking is 4 times risk when not talking, hand-held or hands free Cellphone usage has increased 3-fold since 2000, but crash risk has declined State bans on hand-held held phone use have reduced hand-held held usage by 1/3 to 1/2. However, collision claim frequency has been unaffected by state bans on hand-held phone usage by drivers.

21 Research needed to determine reasons for these contradictions 1979 Indiana Tri-Level Study estimated driver error to be proximate cause of 9 out of 10 crashes. Does phone usage substitute for other distractions or add to them?

22 Crash avoidance technology

23 Lane departure warning Camera mounted behind rearview mirror looks at road ahead and monitors vehicle position in relation to lane markings; if vehicle wanders out of lane, driver is warned with audible, visible, and/or haptic signals Some designs may actively redirect the vehicle

24 Blind zone warning/detection Radar or digital cameras detect whether vehicles are moving within blind spot zones night or day and warn drivers

25

26

27 Percent of crashes that potentially could be prevented or mitigated by crash avoidance technologies, all injury fatal all crashes 5,825, ,000 33,035 total t unique crashes 1,863, ,000 10, percent of crashes 32% 21% 31%

28 Dedicated to reducing deaths, injuries, and property damage on the highway