A Strategic Approach to Distracted Driving

CARSP Conference 2015

Rear-enders resulting in injury increased by 16% from 2009 to 2013

2

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

In

cid

en

ts

Crash Configurations in Casualty CrashesICBC claims data (2001-2013)

REAR END

SIDE IMPACT

SINGLE VEHICLE

UNDETERMINED

REAR TO REAR

SIDE SWIPE - SAME DIRECTION

HEAD ON

SIDE SWIPE -OPPOSITE DIRECTION

3

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Incid

ents

Contributing Factors (see legend)

Top 10 Contributing Factors in police-reported rear-end casualty crashes in B.C. (Police data 2005-2013)

Distraction*

Following Too Closely

Driver Error/Confusion

Speed*

Road Condition (Ice,Snow,Slush,Water)

Impaired*

Weather (Fog,Sleet,Rain,Snow)

Avoiding Veh./Ped./Cycle

Ignoring Traffic Control Device

Failing To Yield Right Of Way

Distraction is the most common contributing factor in police-reported casualty rear-enders

Crash data can only take us to the point of hypothesis

• Police attend fewer than 15% of crashes reported to ICBC

– Fatal crashes are police attended

– The lower the severity, the lower the probability of police attendance

• We do not have contributing factors for the majority of crashes reported to ICBC

– Claims are self-reported

– Contributing factors do not determine liability

4

Research can help fill the gaps in crash data

• Reviewed published literature from around the world

– The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study found that 93% of rear-end collisions involved distraction or inattention

– A recent study from the UK associated the use of social media on smartphones with a 30% decrease in reaction times

– Another recent study found that users of smartphones were more distracted than users of more traditional tactile phones

5

The most common distracting activities involve use of electronic devices

6

Source: Infographic http://auto.erieinsurance.com/distracted-driving-infographic.aspx; data: NHTSA (FARS 2010-11)

Research showed the situation in B.C. required more attention

– At 5.5%, B.C. has the highest prevalence of Electronic Communications Device use by drivers among Canadian provinces (CCMTA)

– Surveys of B.C. drivers found that they view the use of electronic devices while driving as risky – but a significant number still do it

• 74% of drivers believed that talking on a phone while driving was risky, but 29% admitted to having done so in previous six months

• 88% of drivers believed that texting while driving was risky, but 26% admitted to having done so in the previous six months

• 94% of B.C. drivers own/use a cell phone

– 78% of those are smartphones

7

Our best estimate: between 25% and 33% of casualty crashes in B.C. involve distraction

8

• Based on the findings in our own crash data, supplemented by the findings in our literature review

• Comparisons with other jurisdictions to validate

• Assumption: distracted driving is underreported.

We chose a three pillars approach, with our focus being on public education

• Effective legislation

• Strong enforcement

• Public education

9

10

Mass media focused on how even brief distractions can result in crashes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NnYKUAhppU

We took our message into the community

11

We enlisted the help of other lines of business at ICBC

12

We work closely with external partners and stakeholders

13

Monitoring and evaluating the implemented strategy will be an ongoing task

14

Caveats and definitions for crash data1. Rounding has been applied to these data; averages and percentages based on unrounded numbers.

2. Casualty Crashes = Crash incidents resulting in an injury or fatality.

3. 2013 counts are low as not all police reported data are entered into our system.

4. ‘Conflicted’ and ‘blank’ crash configurations have not been included. ICBC configuration data is derived from self-reported information and is not verified by a third party. After excluding the following configurations - Other, Unknown, Undetermined or Conflicted - the Crash Configuration data are estimated to be 75% accurate. If the incident is not considered to be a crash incident, the field is shown as NULL (blank). CONFLICTED: Claimants did not report the same crash configuration

5. Data exclude crashes on roads where the Motor Vehicle Act does not apply (such as forest-service roads, industrial roads and private driveways); off-road snow mobile accidents; and homicides or suicides.

6. In 2008, legislation changed so that police are no longer required to attend all crashes and attendance is at their discretion. For this reason, there has been a marked decrease in the number of police-attended reports submitted to ICBC. We caution that decreasing crash counts which include police-reported data may be misleading.

7. Police may assign up to four different contributing factors may be assigned to each vehicle, motorcycle, cyclist and pedestrian involved in a motor vehicle crash.

8. ICBC crash data is generally much larger in volume than police crash data because:

– Basic insurance coverage through ICBC is mandatory, therefore ICBC is made aware of ALL crash occurrences.

– Whereas, police do not attend all crashes. Typically only the more serious crashes involving injury or fatality are attended. In addition, the number of reports submitted by individuals to police is very low, as it is not mandatory that a crash be reported to police.

9. Distraction includes: use of communication/video equipment, driver inattentive and driver internal/external distraction.

10.Speed includes: exceeding speed limit, excessive speed over 40 km/h and driving too fast for conditions.

11.Impaired includes: Includes alcohol involvement, ability impaired by alcohol, alcohol suspected, drugs illegal, ability impaired by drugs, drugs suspected and ability impaired by medication.

Other sources

Basacik, D, Reed, N and Robbins, R (Mar 2013). Smartphone use while driving: a simulator study. UK: Transport

Research Laboratory. Viewed Oct 9, 2013 at

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_smartphone_use_while_d

riving:_a_simulator_study.htm

Dingus, T. A., Klauer, S.G., Neale, V. L., Petersen, A., Lee, S. E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M. A., Hankey, J., Ramsey, D.,

Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z. R., and Jermeland, J. (In press). The 100-car naturalistic driving study, Phase II

- results of the 100-car field experiment (Contract No. DTNH22-00-C-07007). Washington, DC: National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration. http://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/the-100-car-naturalistic-driving-study.pdf p. 411

Ipsos Reid (2013). ICBC Road Safety Tracking Study: Summary of Findings. Vancouver, BC: IpsosReid.

Jonah, B. (Oct 2013). Use of Electronic Communication Devices by Canadian Drivers in Urban Areas: Summary

Report. Ottawa, Ont: Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. Viewed Jan 8, 2014 at

http://ccmta.ca/images/publications/pdf//Use_of_Electronic_Communication_Devices_ECD_by_Canadian_Drivers_in_U

rban_Areas_2013_10_15.pdf

Reimer, B; Mehler, B; Donmez, B (2014). “A Study of Young Adults Examining Phone Dialing While Driving Using a

Touchscreen vs. a Button Style Flip-Phone” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

23(0): 57-68

Thank you

17

Questions?