driver distraction is the focus in the right place? · cvo distracted driving study ... hickman et...

Driver Distraction – Is the Focus in the Right Place?

Richard Hanowski, Ph.D. Director, Center for Truck & Bus Safety

Virginia Tech Transportation Institute

Environmental, Health and Safety Communication Panel Webinar May 16th, 201200

Presentation Overview

• What is “driver distraction”?

• Overview of research approaches used to investigate driver safety/distraction

• What is a naturalistic driving study (NDS)?

• NDS examples investigating driver distraction

• Understanding the controversial findings

• Research to Practice implications (education, policy and design)

• Links to data, naturalistic driving videos, and safety-tip information

5/14/2012 VTTI | Driving Transportation with Technology 2

What is Driver Distraction?

• US-EU Bilateral ITS Technical Task Force (2010):

– Driver distraction is the diversion of attention from activities critical for safe driving to a competing activity.

• Competing activities and the types of information presented to drivers are wide and varied


Types of Driver Information

• External

– Information that is outside the vehicle

– Examples: billboards



• External


– Examples: traffic lights



• External


– Examples: street signs, etc…


Internal Information

• Information that is inside the vehicle

• Examples: integrated systems


Internal Information

• Information that is inside the vehicle

• Examples: nomadic devices, passengers, etc…


Potential Impact of Information

• Impact of information on driver behavior can be positive (support) or…


Potential Impact of Information

• Impact of information on driver behavior can be negative (distract)



Driver Safety Research Approaches

• Epidemiological Studies

• Police Accident Reports (PARs)

• Simulation

• Test Track

• Lab Experiment

• Missing Piece? NDS

Empirical Data Collection

Large-Scale Pseudo Naturalistic Data

Collection

• Proactive • Provides

important ordinal crash risk info

• Precise knowledge about crash risk

• Information about important circumstances and scenarios that lead to crashes

• Imprecise, relies on unproven safety surrogate

• Experimental situations modify driver behavior

• Reactive • Very limited

pre-crash information

• “Natural” driver behavior • Detailed pre-crash/crash info

•Distraction •Fatigue •Aggressive driving •Driver errors •Vehicle dynamics

• Potential validation of surrogate measures

Epidemiological Analysis


NDS

4X Crash Risk with Cell Phone Use (1 of 2)

• Redelmeir & Tibshirani (1997)

– Overlaid cell phone records with crashes

– Consent to review cell phone records

• Key finding: anytime within 10-minutes before the crash, the relative risk of a call was 4.3

– 76% of the cell phone calls lasted 2 mins or less (average call length was 2.3 mins)


NDS

4X Crash Risk with Cell Phone Use (2 of 2)

• Authors binned time intervals in relation to the crash

– 1-5 mins, 6-10 mins, 11-15 mins, and 16-20 mins

• Given average call duration, likely, in most of the crashes, the driver was not on the phone at the time of the crash.

• Even if driver was on the phone, what were they doing?

– Dialing, talking/listening, texting


NDS

Crashes vs Wireless Growth

Police Reported Crash Rates and Wireless Subscription Growth

1988-2008

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f S

ub

scri

ber

s

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Cra

shes

per

100

Mil

lio

n V

ehic

le M

iles

Tra

vele

d

Number of Wireless Subscribers Crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled


NDS

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

50000000

100000000

150000000

200000000

250000000

300000000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Cra

she

s p

er

10

0 M

illi

on

Ve

hic

le M

ile

s T

rav

ele

d

Nu

mb

er

of

Su

bsc

rib

ers

Year

Number of Wireless Subscribers Predicted CR (Using 4x Odds) Crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled

Source: Hanowski, 2011

Study Conclusions vs. Reality


NDS

Cell Phone Use Similar to Driving Drunk (1 of 2)

• Strayer, Drews, & Crouch (2006)

– High-fidelity driving simulator

– 15-min car-following paradigm

– 3 counter-balanced driving conditions

• Baseline, talking on a cell phone, blood alcohol of 0.08

• Conversation was “naturalistic”

• Topics that were identified on the first day as being of interest to the participant

• No manual component to cell phone use


NDS

Cell Phone Use Similar to Driving Drunk (2 of 2)

• Results

– Drove slower in talking and alcohol conditions

– Followed closer in alcohol, further in talking conditions

– Reaction time 100 ms slower in cell phone, no difference between baseline and alcohol

– 3 crashes in cell phone, 0 in baseline and alcohol

• No difference in crashes and reaction time between baseline and alcohol…?

• Expectancy effects of alcohol…?

– Did the control include a beverage swiped with alcohol on rim


NDS

Brain Functioning

• Just et al. (2008) impact of an auditory task during simulated drive

• Functional magnetic resonance imaging

• Parietal lobe activation decreased by 37%

– No significant change in visual, motor, or executive functions

• Relationship to crash risk?

• More research needed…


• Study participants use an instrumented vehicle for an extended period (weeks to 1 yr or more)

• Able to get detailed pre-crash/crash information and routine driving behaviors

• Over 100 data measures collected on driving performance (e.g., lane position), actigraphy, questionnaires

• Examples include: 100-Car, Sleeper Berth, Local/Short Haul, Teen, Older, Motorcycle, Bicycle…

• High validity and Low control

Behind

Vehicle

Front

Vehicle

Camera 4

Camera 3

Camera 2

Camera 1

Naturalistic Data Collection


Data Acquisition System (DAS) box

DAS box behind driver seat

Front Radar Rearward Camera

Face & Forward Cameras

Instrumentation Layout Example


5/14/2012 23 VTTI | Driving Transportation with Technology

CVO Distracted Driving Study – Olson et al. (2009)

• Use VTTI’s naturalistic truck study data • 203 drivers, 7 fleets, 55 trucks, 3 million miles • Video review of all safety-critical events (n=4452) and

baselines/normal driving (n=19,888)

• Identify non-driving tasks/behaviors engaged in immediately prior to involvement in safety events

• What tasks do drivers engage in and do they increase risk?

• What is the impact of tasks on drawing the driver’s eyes away from the forward roadway?

• “Instant replay”


Sample of Non-Driving Tasks

Task Odds Ratio

Lower Confidence

Limit

Upper Confidence

Limit

Safety-Critical

Events (n)

Baselines (n)

Text message on cell phone 23.24 9.69 55.73 31 6

Interact with/look at dispatching device

9.93 7.49 13.16 155 72

Write on pad, notebook, etc. 8.98 4.73 17.08 28 14

Use calculator 8.21 3.03 22.21 11 6

Look at map 7.02 4.62 10.69 56 36

Dial cell phone 5.93 4.57 7.69 132 102

Talk or listen to hand-held phone 1.04 0.89 1.22 195 837

Talk or listen to hands-free phone 0.44 0.35 0.55 91 901

Talk or listen to CB radio 0.55 0.41 0.75 50 399

• 60% of the safety-critical events had some type of non-driving task being performed


“Vision is King”

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Text

mes

sage

on

cell

phon

e

Oth

er –

Com

plex

Inte

ract

with

/loo

k at

dis

patc

hing

dev

ice

Wri

te o

n pa

d, n

oteb

ook,

etc

.

Use

cal

cula

tor

Look

at

map

Use

/rea

ch fo

r ot

her e

lect

roni

c de

vice

Dia

l cel

l pho

ne

Oth

er -

Mod

erat

e

Pers

onal

gro

omin

g

Read

boo

k, n

ewsp

aper

, pap

erw

ork,

etc

.

Put o

n/re

mov

e/ad

just

sun

glas

ses

Reac

h fo

r ob

ject

in v

ehic

le

Look

bac

k in

Sle

eper

Ber

th

Oth

er –

sim

ple

Rem

ove/

adju

st je

wel

ry

Put o

n/re

mov

e/ad

just

hat

Put o

n/re

mov

e/ad

just

sea

t bel

t

Adj

ust i

nstr

umen

t pa

nel

Look

at

left

-sid

e m

irro

r/ou

t lef

t win

dow

Talk

/sin

g/da

nce

with

no

indi

catio

n of

pas

seng

er

Talk

or

liste

n to

han

d-he

ld p

hone

Use

che

win

g to

bacc

o

Eatin

g

Smok

ing-

rela

ted

beha

vior

–ci

gare

tte

in h

and/

mou

th

Dri

nk fr

om a

con

tain

er

Look

at

righ

t-si

de m

irro

r/ou

t lef

t w

indo

w

Oth

er p

erso

nal h

ygie

ne

Smok

ing-

rela

ted

beha

vior

–lig

htin

g

Talk

or

liste

n to

CB

mic

roph

one

Look

at

outs

ide

vehi

cle

Bite

nai

ls/c

utic

les

Talk

or

liste

n to

han

ds-f

ree

phon

e

Inte

ract

with

or l

ook

at o

ther

occ

upan

t(s)

Chec

k sp

eedo

met

er

Mea

n D

urai

ton

of E

yes

off

Forw

ard

Road

way

(se

c)

Poin

t Est

imat

e O

dds

Rati

o

Point Estimate Odds Ratio Mean Duration of Eyes off Forward Roadway (sec)


Inattention-Related Relative Crash/Near Crash Risk Estimates (Odds Ratio 0-2)


Inattention-Related Relative Crash/Near Crash Risk Estimates (Odds Ratio >6)


Noted Study Limitations

• Relatively few crashes

• Relatively few drivers/trucks/miles

• Volunteer participants

• Are SCEs valid measures?

• FMCSA-funded study using DriveCam® data was conducted to address these limitations…


• 13,305 vehicles (trucks and buses)

• 1,085 crashes; 39,036 near-crashes and events

• 211,171 baseline (non-events)

• Distraction analysis data- 92 consecutive days from June 6, 2009 through September 5, 2009

VTTI-DriveCam® Distracted Driving Study- Hickman et al. (2010)


DriveCam® Cameras, Views, and Kinematic Data

VTTI – DriveCam® Distracted Driving Study Results


Tertiary Task Odd

Ratio

Lower

Conf Limit

Upper

Conf

Limit

Freq of

Safety

Critical

Events

Freq of

Baselines

Cell Phone Usage 1.14* 1.06 1.23 895 4,262

Dialing Cell Phone 3.51* 2.89 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 0.80 1.00 372 2,266

Reaching for Bluetooth

Device 3.38* 2.64 4.31 104 168

Reaching for Cell Phone 3.74* 2.97 4.71 122 178


Are SCE’s Valid Safety Measures?

Tertiary Task

Odds Ratios for Tractor

Trailers/Tankers Only in

Hickman et al. (2010)

Odds Ratios in

Olson et al. (2009)

Any Cell Phone Use 1.08 1.04

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 Device 4.43* 6.72*

Reaching for Cell Phone 7.60* Included in dial cell

phone

Text/Email/Web + 23.24*

Food/Drink 1.53* 1.01

* Asterisk indicates a significant odds ratio. These ratios are also shown in bold.

+ odds ratio calculation was only performed across all vehicle types


Discussion

• What does “Use a Cell Phone” mean?


“Use a Cell Phone”

• “Use a cell phone” is a higher-order task that is comprised of several sub-tasks:

– Reaching

– Dialing

– Talking/listening

– Texting

– Etc, etc, etc

• By not assessing the risk of each sub-task, or using terms interchangeably, don’t have a clear picture of the associated risk

• Effect of poorly defined terms is that it can mislead and misinform policy


• Main conclusion of this research is that information presented to a driver can have profound safety implication

• Findings have provided insight to:

– Educators/Trainers/Outreach

Commercial Motor Vehicle Driving Tips, FMCSA website: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/outreach/education/drivertips/index.htm

National Safety Council’s Motor Fleet Safety Manual, 5th Edition

– Technology designers

Human factors design of driver-vehicle interfaces

– Policy makers

Trucker texting ban; hand-held cell phone ban; model Fleet Distraction Policy (FMCSA website)

Research-to-Practice

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/outreach/education/drivertips/index.htm




TomTom® Study (Antin et al., 2009)

• Navigation system produced the lowest mental effort ratings, fastest reaction time on peripheral detection tasks, fewest driving errors, fewest occurrence of getting lost

• Study results support that notion that an onboard, moving-map navigation system can play a meaningful role in enhancing navigational efficiency and safety

• 38 participants drove instrumented cars on public roads • Navigation tasks (“wayfinding”)- participants unfamiliar

with the routes selected • Navigation tools:

• Navigation system • Paper maps • Yahoo printouts


Ford SYNC® Study (Owens et al., 2010)

• Driving performance (e.g., steering) degraded when dialing and selecting tracks with handheld devices, but not degraded with Ford SYNC®

• No difference when engaged in conversation between handheld phone and the Ford SYNC®- also, no difference from baseline

• 21 participants drove instrumented cars on public roads and on the Virginia Smart Road test track

• Visual distraction and driving performance was measured as drivers used handheld phones, mp3 players, and the Ford SYNC® system

• Tasks included: • Dialing • Phone conversations • Selecting music tracks

• Drivers able to maintain eyes forward when dialing and selecting tracks with Ford SYNC® but not with handheld devices


Policy Impacts of Naturalistic Research

• Within a few weeks of release of Olson et al. (2009), there was an Executive Order banning texting-while-driving by government workers

• FMCSA issued texting bans for truckers, while PHMSA recently promulgated a similar rule for HazMat drivers

• USDOT distraction policy efforts cite Olson et al. (2009) and Hickman et al. (2010) as scientific support


Cell Phone Policy Implications

FMCSA promulgated regulation to restrict hand-held phone use, but not talking

Hands-free and talking is permitted

• Unintended consequences: not allowing truck drivers to utilize a drowsiness countermeasure they use may negatively impact safety

• Driving for 11 hours is a monotonous task!


New Naturalistic Studies • SHRP 2 Safety Program (TRB)

– ~ 2,000 cars • Cell phone data?

– Canadian and Australian cohorts in development

• 270 Truck Study (FMCSA) • Cell phone data?

• Both studies will have analysis opportunities for outside researchers

• Goal of both efforts is for the data to be open access

• Video would have protection (Institutional Review Board requirement)


Analysis Opportunities • Kinematic naturalistic data from light vehicle (100-

Car) and heavy vehicle (8-Truck) studies available on-line: http://forums.vtti.vt.edu/

• Open to all researchers to use the data

• Open forum to add algorithms, etc (e.g., SAFER)

http://forums.vtti.vt.edu/


Presentation Recap • Naturalistic driving- important approach that

supplements empirical and epidemiological methods

• Driver distraction- a complex issue that must be addressed via policy/enforcement, education and well-designed technologies (driver-vehicle interface)

• Research findings controversy- lab and simulator studies can give important information on expected driver behavior, but important to investigate actual driver behavior that is collected in the full-context of the driving environment


Presentation Recap • Research to Practice Implications- naturalistic driving

research has provided compelling insight and scientific support for safety programs and countermeasures directed at education, policy and design

• Analysis Opportunities- Naturalistic data are currently available to answer your research questions


Key References Used • Dingus, T. A., Hanowski, R. J. and Klauer, S. (October, 2011). Estimating crash

risk. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 19 (4):8-12

• Hanowski, R.J. (2011). The naturalistic study of distracted driving: Moving from research to practice. SAE International L. Ray Buckendale Lecture, Paper No. 2011-01-2305; doi: 10.4271/2011-01-2305.

• Hickman, J.S., Hanowski, R.J., and Bocanegra, J. (September, 2010). Distraction in commercial trucks and buses: Assessing prevalence and risk in conjunction with crashes and near-crashes. Report No. FMCSA-RRR-10-049. Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/Distraction-in-Commercial-Trucks-and-Buses-report.pdf

• Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., & Bocanegra, J. (September, 2009). Driver distraction in commercial vehicle operations, final report. Report No. FMCSA-RRR-09-042. Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/FMCSA-RRR-09-042.pdf

• Redelmeier, D.A., and Tibshirani, R.J. (1997). Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. The New England Journal of Medicine, 336(7), 453-458.

• Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., and Crouch, D.J. (2004). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Working Paper 04-13. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, aei-brookings.org

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/Distraction-in-Commercial-Trucks-and-Buses-report.pdf

















http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/FMCSA-RRR-09-042.pdf











[email protected]

Questions?

driver distraction is the focus in the right place? · cvo distracted driving study ... hickman et...

Documents