Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Distracted Driving-
www.iihs.org
A Review of Relevant Researchand Latest Findings
www.iihs.orgNational Conference of State LegislaturesLouisville, KY ● July 27, 2010
Stephen Oesch
The sad fact is that in the coming weeks in particular, too many drivers will become di t t d th t d GPS di ldistracted 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 g g pdeadly epidemic.
- Ray LaHoodUS T t ti S tUS Transportation SecretaryThe Washington Post, November 28, 2009
www.iihs.org
States that ban all drivers from using hand-held phoneshand-held phonesJuly 2010
NHWA ND
MA
OR
NH
ME
MI
WI
IA
SDID
WA VTMT ND
WY
NE
MN
NY
MDDE
DC
RINJPA
WV
NC
OHINIL
MOCO
CATN
NV UT
NE
KS
OK
KY VACT
SC
GALA
NM
MS
AZ
TX
AR
AL
FLAK
www.iihs.org
HI
Bans on texting while drivingJuly 2010July 2010
NHWA ND
MA
OR
NH
ME
MI
WI
IA
SDID
WA VTMT ND
WY
NE
MN
NY
MDDE
DC
RINJPA
WV
NC
OHINIL
MOCO
CATN
NV UT
NE
KS
OK
KY VACT
SC
GALA
NM
MS
AZ
TX
AR
AL
FLAK
ban on typing only
ban on reading and typing
www.iihs.org
HI
Where’s the epidemic?
www.iihs.org
Cellphone subscribersIn millions 1985-2008
300
In millions, 1985-2008
200
250
150
200
50
100
0
50
5 0 5 0 5
www.iihs.org
198 9 9
200 0
Percent of drivers talking on phonesNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2000 08
12
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2000-08
8
10
6
8
2
4
estimated total phone use
0
2
2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
observed hand-held phone use
www.iihs.org
All crashesIn millions GES for non-fatal and FARS for fatal by calendar yearIn millions, GES for non-fatal and FARS for fatal, by calendar year
7
5
6
3
4
1
2
0
1
1988 90 92 94 96 98 2000 02 04 06 08
www.iihs.org
H ff ti How effective arecellphone use laws –the case of hand-held bans?the case of hand held bans?
www.iihs.org
Percent of drivers using hand-held phonesWashington DC metro areaWashington, DC, metro area
10
March 2004
8
March 2004
October 2004
October 2005
April/June 2009
6
April/June 2009
2
4
0
2
www.iihs.org
DC: law effective 7/2004
Maryland Virginia
Actual percent of drivers in Washington, DC using hand-held phones vs. use that would have been expectedhand held phones vs. use that would have been expectedwithout cellphone lawLaw effective July 2004
8
4
6
2
4
actual
expected
0March October October April-June
expected
www.iihs.org
2004 2004 2005p2009
Actual hand-held phone use vs. use that would have been expected without lawhave been expected without lawPercent phone use in New York and Connecticut, April 2009
8
6
8actual
expected
4
2
0New York: Connecticut:
www.iihs.org
law effective 11/2001 law effective 10/2005
Collision claim frequenciesin states with hand-held
ll h bcellphone bans
www.iihs.org
Collision claim frequenciesClaims per 100 insured vehicle yearsClaims per 100 insured vehicle yearsBy calendar year, based on 4 most recent model years8
6
4
2
01998
(1996-99 d l )
1999 (1997-2000
d l )
2000 (1998-2001
d l )
2001 (1999-2002
d l )
2002 (2000-03
d l )
2003 (2001-04
d l )
2004 (2002-05
d l )
2005 (2003-06
d l )
2006 (2004-07
d l )
2007 (2005-08
d l )
2008 (2006-09
d l )
www.iihs.org
models) models) models) models) models) models) models) models) models) models) models)
Collision claim frequencies for new vehicles by month Connecticut vs Massachusetts and New York
12
Connecticut vs. Massachusetts and New York
8
10
6
8
2
4
Connecticutban enacted October 2005
0
2
-33 -31 -29 -27 -25 -23 -21 -19 -17 -15 -13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13
2 comparison states
www.iihs.org
-33 -31 -29 -27 -25 -23 -21 -19 -17 -15 -13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13months before and after ban
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• 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 phonep– 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)
www.iihs.org
Distribution of how often drivers talk on cellphones whiles driving
states withhand-held bans
states without hand-held bans
cellphones whiles driving
hand held bans hand held bans
daily 13% 22%
few times per week 17% 22%
few times per month 12% 12%
less than once per month 14% 13%less than once per month 14% 13%
never 44% 30%
www.iihs.org
Distribution of how often drivers use hands freevs hand-held cellphonesvs. hand-held cellphones
states with states without hand-held bans 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%
www.iihs.org
Percent of drivers who textBy age and presence of state texting banBy age and presence of state texting ban
states withll d i i b
states withouti ball-driver texting bans texting bans
18-24 years old 45% 48%
25-29 years old 40% 55%
30-59 years old 12% 12%
60 years and older 0% 1%
www.iihs.org
Would we be safer without mobile phones in cars?Contradictions
• Analyses of cellphone usage shows it to be a potent distraction;
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 crashrisk has declined
• State bans on hand held phone use have reduced hand held• State bans on hand-held phone use have reduced hand-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.
www.iihs.org
Research needed to determine reasonsfor these contradictionsfor these contradictions
• 1979 Indiana “Tri-Level Study” estimated “driver error” to ybe proximate cause of 9 out of 10 crashes. Does phone usage substitute for other distractions or add to them?
www.iihs.org
Crash avoidance technology
www.iihs.org
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
www.iihs.orgwww.hldi.org
Blind zone warning/detection
Radar or digital cameras detect whether vehicles are moving within blind spot zones night or day and warn drivers
www.iihs.orgwww.iihs.org
www.iihs.orgwww.iihs.org
www.iihs.orgwww.iihs.org
Percent of crashes that potentially could be preventedor mitigated by crash avoidance technologies 2004-08or mitigated by crash avoidance technologies, 2004 08
all injury fatal
all crashes 5,825,000 698,000 33,035
t t l i h 1 863 000 148 000 10 106total unique crashes 1,863,000 148,000 10,106
percent of crashes 32% 21% 31%
www.iihs.orgwww.iihs.org
www.iihs.orgDedicated to reducing deaths, injuries,and property damage on the highwaywww.iihs.org and property damage on the highway
