Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1
Insert the title of your presentation herePresented by Name HereJob Title - Date
Mobile phones and driver distractionAndrew Parkes18th March 2015
Page 2
A good idea at the time!
Extra information for drivers is nothing new, though the practicality of the Whitehead & Mason ‘Semper’ map of 1930 was debatable.
The Semper was a spring-loaded roller blind overprinted with a 16-miles-to-the-inch of England, Scotland and Wales.
1946 First mobile phone call
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Distraction – definition (Basacik & Stevens, 2008)
Diversion of attention… …away from activities required for safe driving…
…due to some event, activity, object or person, within or outside the vehicle
Page 14
Distraction sources (Regan, Young, Lee & Gordon, 2008)
Six broad categories of distraction…
Things brought into the vehicle
Page 15
Things brought into the vehicle
Page 16
Vehicle systems
Page 17
Vehicle occupants
Page 18
Moving object or animal in vehicle
Page 19
Internalised activity
Page 20
External objects, events or activities
Page 21
Page 22
Distraction by mobile phone FAQs
Handsfree is legal so it must be ok?So should we ban talking to passengers?What about using the radio?What can I do? I need to use the timeHow does it compare to alcohol?How does texting compare?
Page 23
Propositions
Hands-free is better than hand-held
Page 24
Propositions
Hands-free is better than handheld- only just
Page 25
Propositions
Hands-free is better than handheld- only just
Carphone conversations are no different to talking to a passenger
Page 26
Propositions
Hands-free is better than handheld- only just
Carphone conversations are no different to talking to a passenger- yes they are
Page 27
Propositions
Hands-free is better than handheld- only just
Carphone conversations are no different to talking to a passenger- yes they are
Brief history of carphone researchFirst Study: Ivan Brown, Cambridge 1963US, UK and Swedish research late 80’sUK and Dutch work in 90’sGeneral assumptions: hands-free better, hands-free ubiquitous by mid 90’s In 1990’s we did not predict current technology and habits
Page 28
Page 29
Risk
Direct Line survey of 2000 drivers showed 31% use hand held regularly while driving.
Figure rises to 51% of younger drivers 78% of high mileage driver (over 40,000 miles pa)
Risk
4 million company cars in UK16% of all miles are business related66% of company cars are subject of insurance claim each yearDriving now officially most dangerous activity in workplace environment
Page 30
Page 31
Redelmeier & Tibshirani 1997
699 Toronto drivers who had cellphones and involved in collisions resulting in property damage but not personal injury
calls on day of accident and a week before analysed through billing records
Association between cellular telephone calls and motor vehicle collisionsNew England Journal of Medicine 453-458
Page 32
results
risk of collision 4 times higher when cell phone being used
showed raised risk for up to ten minutes after the call terminated
hands-free had no advantage over hand-held
39% called emergency services after the crash
Page 33
Five relevant UK Studies
Can people think and negotiate and drive at the same time?
Is talking to a passenger the same as talking to someone on the carphone?
Comparison of driving with handheld or handsfree conversations, benchmarked against alcohol impairment
What happens to drivers situational awareness even in handsfree conversations?
What happens when people text and drive?
Page 34
Study 1: Quality of decision making on phone while driving
Tried to approach the issue from perspective of how realistic is the notion of ‘the office on the move’?
Not just can you drive while talking, but can you have an involved conversation while driving?
Parkes, A. M., (1991), The effects of driving and handsfree telephone use on conversation structure and style. Proceedings of Human Factors Association of Canada Conference. Vancouver. Canada. 141-147.
Page 35
Comparisons
Subjects role play different scenarios – natural conversations
Face to Face Office landline PC task (driving simulator) and landlineDriver to Passenger (real traffic)Carphone to Base (real traffic)
Page 36
Efficiency (Chapanis 1972)
- Number of messages generated- Number of words per message- % phrases that were questions- Total number of words used- Communication rate- Number of overlapping messages- Number of pauses- Number of confirmation questions
Page 37
Expert rating of outcome of negotiation
- Definite conclusion- Justified deferral - action
experimenter- As above - action subject- Inappropriate conclusion- Failure to complete
Page 38
Expert Participant Efficiency Outcome Difficulty Condition Score Rating Ranking PC task 1 3= 3 Office landline 2 2 1 Face to Face 5 1 2 Driver Passenger 4 3= 4 Carphone 3 5 5
Outcome and Usefulness Scores for Conversations in each Condition
Page 39
Study 2: Real road analysis of differences between carphone and passenger initiated mental tests
Carphone performance worse- Verbal memory decreased 25%- Numerical memory decreased 21%- Interpretation decreased 21%- Speed decreased (particularly at early stage of conversation)- NB same drive but carphone more difficult
- Parkes AM 1991 Contemporary Ergonomics 427-432
Page 40
Study 3: Hand held versus hands free in driving simulator
Direct Line Insurance (2002) study- 20 participants- Alcohol 80mg- Hand-held- Hands-free- Route: high fidelity driving simulator, car following, in traffic, curves, urban
Burns, P.C., Parkes, A.M., Burton, S., Smith, R.K., And Burch, D. (2002). How dangerous is driving with a mobile phone? Benchmarking the impairment to alcohol. TRL Report TRL547. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Page 41
Measures:
- distance keeping- lane keeping- reaction times to emergency events.- choice reaction times to signs- mental effort
Page 42 AlcoholHands-freeHand-heldControl
Men
tal E
ffort
(+/-
1 S
tand
ard
Err
or)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Page 43
AlcoholHands-freeHand-heldControl
Rea
ctio
n Ti
me
(s)
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
0.98 s0.98 s
1.45 s1.45 s1.25 s1.25 s
1.11 s1.11 s
Reaction Times to Warning Signs
Page 44
Page 45
RT results
At 70mph, vs. control condition:- Alcohol: ~1 car length- Handsfree: ~3 car lengths- Handheld: ~3+ car lengths
The difference between:- Accident vs. No accident- Injury accident vs. Fatal accident
Page 46
Study 4: Situation Awareness
3 levels- target prediction- target recognition- target perception
translates into 3 probe questions about following trafficParkes, A.M. And Hooijmeijer, V. (2001). Driver situation awareness and carphone use. 1st. Human-Centered Transportation Simulation Conference. University of Iowa, Iowa City USA, November 4-7 2001
Page 47
Situation awareness
15 subjectsStatic medium fidelity simulatorTwo lane carriageway, moderate trafficSimple standardised conversationsBehavioural measures at speed transitions (60-40)
Shut down method for SA (x2)
Page 48
0
1020
30
40
5060
70
80
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance from speed limit sign (in n metres)
Spee
d (k
m/h
)
no conversation
conversation
Page 49
Situation awareness 1
No. of correct
answers;
Location 1
Without
phone
conversation
With phone
conversation
2 Critical value p-value
Question 1 14 4 13.89 12.12 <0.0005
Question 2 14 6 9.60 9.14 <0.0025
Question 3 13 6 7.03 6.63 <0.0100
Page 50
Situation awareness 2
No. of correct
answers;
Location 2
Without
phone
conversation
With phone
conversation
2 Critical value p-value
Question 1 12 5 6.65 6.63 <0.01
Question 2 12 4 8.57 7.88 <0.005
Question 3 12 5 6.65 6.63 <0.01
Page 51
Conclusions
Hands free marginally better than hand held.All carphone conversations result in:- slower speed, more drifting in lane,- slower reaction time, more missed events- less situation awareness
Page 52
Transport Research Laboratory
The Effect Of Text Messaging On Driver Behaviour
A Simulator Study
PPR 367PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT
Page 53
Speed while texting (simulated motorway driving)
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
Control Texting
Drive
Mea
n m
axim
um s
peed
(mph
)
Page 54
Reaction times for 4 events during drive
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
Auditory 1 Auditory 2 Auditory 3 Visual
RT task
RT
(sec
)
ControlTexting
Page 55
Movement in lane position (SDLP) while reading
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
Control Texting
Drive
Mea
n S
DLP
Page 56
Movement in lane position while texting
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
Control Texting
Drive
Mea
n S
DLP
Page 57
Lane departures
18 departures(by 4/17 participants)
0 departures(by 0/17 participants)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Control Texting
Drive
Tota
l num
ber o
f lan
e de
partu
res
Other studiesVirginia Tech study of real driving200 vehicles; 3 million miles; 4,452 critical events
Page 58
81% of events involved driver distraction23× increased risk of event involvement when textingEyes off road for four of every six seconds
Dangers of texting whilst driving…
Page 59
AP Photo
Dangers of texting whilst driving…
Page 60
Highway Code – England, Scotland and Wales
148 Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid
distractions when driving or riding such as loud music (this may mask other sounds) trying to read maps inserting a cassette or CD or tuning a radio arguing with your passengers or other road users eating and drinking smoking
Page 61
Page 62
149You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, when driving or when supervising a learner driver, except to call 999 or 112 in a genuine emergency when it is unsafe or impractical to stop. Never use a hand-held microphone when driving. Using hands-free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving or riding - find a safe place to stop first or use the voicemail facility and listen to messages later.
Laws RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 & CUR regs 104 & 110
Highway Code
Page 63
Highway Code
150 There is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle
systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Do not rely on driver assistance systems such as cruise control or lane departure warnings. They are available to assist but you should not reduce your concentration levels. Do not be distracted by maps or screen-based information (such as navigation or vehicle management systems) while driving or riding. If necessary find a safe place to stop.
[Laws RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 & CUR reg 104]
Page 64
Liability for employers
Salomon Smith Barney stockbroker (1999) Driving to non-business event Struck and killed 24 year old motorcyclist On personal time but admitted making ‘cold calls’ to
clients using his own mobile phone Company settled out of court for $0.5m Recognised it could be seen to be permitting/expecting
employees to make cold calls when driving Avoided potentially larger pay out
Liability for employers
Page 65
Ford v. McGrogan & International Paper (2008)Employee of International Paper crashed into another car while distracted by use of a mobile phone
Victim of the crash lost an armSued International Paper resulting in $5.2 million settlement
So what can employers do?
Having a policy is not sufficientMust be seen to be doing all that is reasonably practicable to implement and reinforce the policy
Page 66
Page 67
The future
Possible approaches to reduce effect1. Legislation on drivers2. Legislation on manufacturers3. Improved secondary safety systems4. Technology5.Social pressure
More great ideas?
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Thank you for
your attention
