Driving Transportation With Technology
What Does the Research Tell Us?
Jeffrey S. Hickman, Ph.D.
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
Center for Truck and Bus Safety
Behavioral Analysis and Applications
April 18th, 2011
Symposium on Prevention of Occupationally‐Related Distracted Driving
Acknowledgments g
y Johns Hopkins Educational and Research Center
Johns Hopkins Educational and Research Center
y Research was funded by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
y Views and opinions expressed in this presentation do no reflect those of any government agency
y Rich Hanowski, Rebecca Olson, and Joseph Bocanegra
p
g
y Trucking fleets and drivers who participated in the naturalistic truck studies
y DriveCam
Driving Transportation With Technology
What is Driver Distraction and Inattention?
y Driver distraction:
Driver distraction
y Diversion of attention away from activities critical for safe driving toward non‐driving activities (e.g., talking on g
g
( g,
g
a cell phone, texting, etc.)
y Driver inattention
y Diminished attention to activities that are critical for safe driving in the absence of a non‐driving activity (e.g., g ,
,
)
fatigue, alcohol, etc.)
Driving Transportation With Technology
What is an Occupational Driver?
p
y An occupational driver is defined as someone who An occupational driver is defined as someone who
drives at least once per week for occupational purposes (Murray et al., 2003)
y Truck driver
y Bus/transit driver
y Taxi driver
T id i
y Sales (e.g., pharmaceutical representatives)
y Emergency services
Emergency services
y Taxi driver
y Police
Driving Transportation With Technology
Occupational Driving Crashes
p
g
y Crashes are the leading cause of occupational death (BLS, 2004)
y Occupational drivers are over‐involved in road crashes compared to non‐occupational drivers p
p
((Haycock et al., 1996)
y
,
)
y Similar results when controlling for exposure (large trucks vs. passenger cars; see Traffic Safety Facts)
y Reason for this discrepancy is unclear
y Unique factors operating within the organizational context
y Willis et al. (2006) found that work pressure was related to driving while distracted
Driving Transportation With Technology
Driver Distraction Research
y Few studies on driver distraction until 2000 (~30 total articles)
y Now roughly 50 articles per year
hl
l
y Few of these studies address occupational driver distracted driving
distracted driving
y However, results are still pertinent to this area
Driving Transportation With Technology
• Precise knowledge
about crash risk
• Information
I f
ti about
b t
important
circumstances and
scenarios that lead
to crashes
Epidemiological
Data Collection
• Reactive
• Very limited
pre-crash
information
Large-Scale Pseudo
N t
Naturalistic
li ti Data
D t
Collection
• “Natural” driver behavior
• Detailed pre-crash/crash info
•Distraction
•Fatigue
•Aggressive driving
•Driver errors
•Vehicle dynamics
• Potential validation of
surrogate measures
• P
Proactive
ti
• Provides
important ordinal
crash risk info
Empirical Data
Collection
• Imprecise
Imprecise, relies on
unproven safety
surrogate
• Experimental
situations modify
driver behavior
Naturalistic Method
y Study participants use an instrumented vehicle for an y
y
y
y
extended period (e.g., several months to one year)
extended
period (e g several months to one year)
No experimenter present; no specific instructions
Highly capable data acquisition systems (well beyond EDRs)
Highly capable data acquisition systems (well beyond EDRs)
Data collected continuously
Able to get detailed pre‐crash/crash information along with routine driving behaviors
Camera 3
Behind
Vehicle
Camera 1
Camera 2
C
Camera
4
Front
Vehicle
Empirical Simulator Studies
p
y S
Studies found that drivers while talking had ud es ou d a d e s
e a g ad ((NSC, 2010)
,
):
y Longer brake response times of 130 ms ‐ 250 ms
y Did not scan their mirrors as much
y Failed to detect objects in the environment
y Same studies found that drivers:
y Reduced their speed
R d d h i
d
y Increased their forward headway to the lead vehicle
y 58% or drivers talk on a cell phone while driving, yet 58% or drivers talk on a cell phone while driving yet
the crash rate has shown a downward trend Driving Transportation With Technology
Epidemiological Studies p
g
y In 2008, 22% of all crashes in GES involved In 2008 22% of all crashes in GES involved
distraction y Naturalistic driving study with 100 passenger cars Naturalistic driving study with 100 passenger cars
found distraction/inattention in (Klauer et al., 2006):
y 78% of crashes
y 65% of near‐crashes
y 11% of large truck crashes in the LTCCS were attributed to internal or external distraction
y Percentage reflects the primary reason and not an associative factor
associative factor
Driving Transportation With Technology
Occupational Driving Research Gap
p
g
p
y Of the distraction research, most directed at non‐
occupational drivers
y Is driver distraction a safety issue in occupational driving?
y VTTI studies focused on commercial motor vehicle (CMV) d i
(CMV) drivers and used continuously collected d
d
ti
l
ll t d
naturalistic data
y Using video, able to determine what driver was doing Using video able to determine what driver was doing
prior to safety‐critical events
y “Instant replay”
11
VTTI
VTTI’ss Naturalistic Truck Studies
Naturalistic Truck Studies
y Olson et al. (2009) used recent data from two separate studies:
t di
y 203 drivers, 7 fleets, 55 trucks, 3 million miles
y Study 1: Study 1: ~12
12 weeks per driver
weeks per driver
Forward View
Face View
y Study 2: ~ 4 weeks per driver
y 4,452 safety‐critical events
y 21 crashes
Right Mirror
y 197 near‐crashes
y 3,019 crash‐relevant conflicts
h l
fl
y 1,215 unintentional lane deviations
• 19,888 baseline epochs (normal driving)
19 888 baseline epochs (normal driving)
Over-the-Shoulder
Left Mirror
Analysis Approach
y
pp
y Video review of all safety‐critical events (n
y
( = 4452) and )
baselines/normal driving (n = 19,888)
y Determination made as to what driver was doing just prior to event onset (e.g., when lead vehicle began to brake)
y Some events and baseline epochs involved drivers engaged in non‐driving
non
driving (distraction) tasks
(distraction) tasks
y Odds ratios used to assess risk associated with different tasks (comparing event data with non‐event data)
y Eye glance analysis conducted to determine where driver was looking prior to event (6 second epoch)
Is Distraction an Issue in CMV
Is Distraction an Issue in CMV Drivers?
y 60% of the safety‐critical events had some type of driver distraction
driver distraction
Event Type
yp
All Safety‐Critical E ents
Events
All safety‐critical events
59.9%
Crashes
71.4%
Near‐crashes
46.2%
Crash‐relevant conflicts
53.6%
Unintentional lane deviations
77.5%
Driving Transportation With Technology
Sample of Non‐
Sample of Non
p
‐Driving Tasks
g
Frequency of Mean Eyes Off Frequency Safety‐
Forward Road of
of Critical
Time
Baselines
Events
(out of 6 sec)
Odds Ratio
95% Confidence
Confidence Interval
Text message on cell phone
23.24
9.69 ‐ 55.73
31
6
4.6 sec
Interact with/look at dispatching device
9.93
7.49 ‐ 13.16
155
72
4.1 sec
Write on pad, notebook, etc.
8.98
4.73 ‐ 17.08
28
14
4.2 sec
Use calculator
8.21
3.03 ‐ 22.21
11
6
4.4 sec
Look at map
7.02
4.62 ‐ 10.69
56
36
3.9 sec
Di l ll h
Dial cell phone
5 93
5.93
4 57 7.69
4.57 ‐
7 69
132
102
38
3.8 sec
Talk/listen to hand‐held phone
1.04
0.89 ‐ 1.22
195
837
1.3 sec
Talk/listen to hands‐free
Talk/listen to hands
free phone
phone
0.44
0 35 ‐ 0.55
0.35 0 55
91
901
1 6 sec
1.6 sec
Talk/listen to CB radio
0.55
0.41 ‐ 0.75
50
399
1.3 sec
Task
Video provided by DriveCam
Driving Transportation With Technology
Video provided by DriveCam
Driving Transportation With Technology
Video provided by DriveCam
Driving Transportation With Technology
Video provided by DriveCam
Driving Transportation With Technology
Driving Transportation With Technology
Driving Transportation With Technology
peedometer
Check sp
Interact w
with or look at other occupant(s)
Taalk or listen to hands‐‐free phone
Bite naails/cuticles
Look at outside vehicle
Talk or listen to CB m
microphone
or – lighting
Smoking‐related behavio
Other perso
onal hygiene
Look at r ight‐side mirror/out lleft window
Drink from a container
Smoking‐related beh
havior – cigarette in h
hand/mouth
Eating
Use chew
wing tobacco
TTalk or listen to hand‐‐held phone
e with no indication of passenger
Talk/sing/dance
Look at left‐side mirror/out lleft window
Adjust instru
ument panel
Put on/remove/adju
ust seat belt
Put on/remove
e/adjust hat
Remove/adjjust jewelry
Oth
her – simple
Look back in Sle
eeper Berth
Reach for objecct in vehicle
Put on/remove/adjustt sunglasses
P
Read bo
ook, newspaper, pape
erwork, etc.
Personal grooming
Other ‐ Moderate
Diaal cell phone
Use/rreach for other electrronic device
LLook at map
Use calculator
Write on pad, nottebook, etc.
Interactt with/look at dispatc hing device
Othe r – Complex
Text message on
n cell phone
Point Estimatte Odds Ratio
25
5
20
4
15
3
10
2
5
1
0
0
n Duraiton of Eyes offf Forward Roadway (sec)
Mean
Point Estimate Odds Ratio
Mean Duration of Eyes off Forward Roadway (sec)
Olson et al. Limitations
y Relatively few crashes
few crashes
y Relatively few drivers/trucks/miles
y FMCSA‐funded study using DriveCam data was conducted to address these limitations…
Hickman et al. (2010) Distracted Driving Study
(
)
g
y
y 13,305 vehicles (trucks and buses)
y 1,085 crashes; 39,036 near‐crashes and events
1 085
h 39 036
h
d
y 211,171 baselines
Odd
Ratio
Lower
Conf Limit
Upper
Conf
Limit
Freq off
F
Safety
Critical
Events
Di li C
Dialing
Cellll Ph
Phone
3 51*
3.51*
2 89
2.89
4 24
4.24
165
256
Talk/Listen Hands-Free
Cell Phone
0.65*
0.56
0.76
194
1,626
Talk/Listen Hand Held
Cell Phone
0 89
0.89
0 80
0.80
1 00
1.00
372
2 266
2,266
Reaching for Bluetooth
Device
3.38*
2.64
4.31
104
168
Reaching for Cell Phone
3 74*
3.74*
2 97
2.97
4 71
4.71
122
178
Tertiary Task
Freq of
Baselines
Comparison of Results
Odds Ratios for Tractor
Trailers/Tankers Only in
Hickman et al. (2010)
Odds Ratios in
Olson et al. (2009)
Dialing Cell Phone
5.44*
5.93*
Talk/Listen Hands-Free Cell Phone
0.58*
0.44*
Talk/Listen Hand-Held Cell Phone
1.01
1.04
Reaching for Bluetooth
Bl etooth De
Device
ice
4 43*
4.43*
6 72*
6.72*
Reaching for Cell Phone
7.60*
Included in dial
cell phone
+
23.24*
1.53*
1.01
Tertiary Task
Text/Email/Web
Food/Drink
* Asterisk indicates a significant odds ratio. These ratios are also shown in bold.
+ odds ratio calculation was only performed across all vehicle types
Odds
Odds Ratios for Cell Phone Policy/Law
Ratios for Cell Phone Policy/Law
Frequency of Cell
Phone Use with
Policy/Law
Frequency of No
Cell Phone Use
without Policy/Law
Odds
Ratio
95%
Confidence
Interval
Fleet Cell Phone Policy
8 787
8,787
1 897
1,897
0 83*
0.83
0 78 - 0.87
0.78
0 87
State Cell Phone Law
4,526
2,987
0.97
0.94 - 1.01
Cell Phone Policy
Policy/Law
Only a State Hand-Held Law
O l aC
Only
Carrier
i N
No C
Cellll Ph
Phone P
Policy
li
Only a Carrier Hand-Held Policy
Obeyed Cell
Phone
Law/Policy
12,120
56 502
56,502
8,689
Violated Cell
Phone Law/Policy
Odds
Ratio
521
1 428
1,428
89
-17
1.7
4.2
95%
Confidence
Interval
-1 5 - 1.9
1.5
19
3.3 - 5.3
Study Conclusions
y
Driver distraction is a prevalent contributing factor
y
y
y
y
Occupational drivers engaged in work‐related tasks while driving
High risk tasks had the highest eyes off road time
High‐risk tasks had the highest eyes off road time
Enforcement is critical in distraction policy and legislation
g
y Hand‐held cell phone use rate in New York rebounded to pre‐law levels after law enacted (McCartt & Geary, 2003, 2004) y Relationship between the frequency of safety‐belt citations and R l ti hi b t
th f
f f t b lt it ti
d
safety‐belt use (Campbell, 1988; Kim , 1991) y Perception of being ticketed for a safety‐belt infraction was enough t lt
to alter safety‐belt use f t b lt
(Chaudhary et al. 2004) Research Recommendations
y Education to highlight the importance of eyes on forward roadway and scanning
d
d
i
y Dangers of performing work‐related tasks
y Policies to curb use of in
Policies to curb use of in‐vehicle
vehicle devices that draw devices that draw
attention away from forward roadway
y Cell phone, texting, dispatching device
y Enforcement is critical
y Is talking OK?
y Dialing and/or reaching are necessary to operate hand
Dialing and/or reaching are necessary to operate hand‐held
held phone
y “true hands‐free” and CB appear to be safe
y Re‐design of dispatching devices
Driving Transportation With Technology
Thank you!
y
Q
Questions?
ti
?
[email protected]
Driving Transportation With Technology