Relationship of Near-Crash/Crash Risk to Time Spent on a Cell Phone While Driving

Objectives: The objective of this study was to examine in a naturalistic driving setting the dose–response relationship between cell phone usage while driving and risk of a crash or near crash. How is the increasing use of cell phones by drivers associated with overall near-crash/crash risk (i.e., during driving times both on and off the phone)? Methods: Day-to-day driving behavior of 105 volunteer subjects was monitored over a period of 1 year. A random sample was selected comprised of 4 trips from each month that each driver was in the study, and in-vehicle video was used to classify driver behavior. The proportion of driving time spent using a cell phone was estimated for each 3-month period and correlated with overall crash and near-crash rates for each period. Thus, it was possible to test whether changes in an individual driver's cell phone use over time were associated with changes in overall near-crash/crash risk. Results: Drivers in the study spent 11.7% of their driving time interacting with a cell phone, primarily talking on the phone (6.5%) or simply holding the phone in their hand or lap (3.7%). The risk of a near-crash/crash event was approximately 17% higher when the driver was interacting with a cell phone, due primarily to actions of reaching for/answering/dialing, which nearly triples risk (relative risk = 2.84). However, the amount of driving time spent interacting with a cell phone did not affect a driver's overall near-crash/crash risk. Vehicle speeds within 6 s of the beginning of each call on average were 5–6 mph lower than speeds at other times. Conclusions: Results of this naturalistic driving study are consistent with the observation that increasing cell phone use in the general driving population has not led to increased crash rates. Although cell phone use can be distracting and crashes have occurred during this distraction, overall crash rates appear unaffected by changes in the rate of cell phone use, even for individual drivers. Drivers compensate somewhat for the distraction by conducting some of the more demanding tasks, such as reaching for or dialing a cell phone, at lower speeds. It is also possible that cell phones and other electronic devices in cars are changing how drivers manage their attention to various tasks and/or changing the kinds of secondary tasks in which they engage.

[1]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  Near Crashes as Crash Surrogate for Naturalistic Driving Studies , 2010 .

[2]  Dot Hs,et al.  The Impact of Hand-Held And Hands-Free Cell Phone Use on Driving Performance and Safety-Critical Event Risk , 2013 .

[3]  James E. Prieger,et al.  The Impact of Driver Cell Phone Use on Accidents , 2004 .

[4]  James R. Sayer,et al.  Naturalistic Census of Cell Phone Use , 2012 .

[5]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving Using Meta-Analytic Techniques , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Tony Jianqiang Ye,et al.  Driver electronic device use in 2010. , 2013, Annals of emergency medicine.

[7]  Anne T McCartt,et al.  Long-Term Effects of Handheld Cell Phone Laws on Driver Handheld Cell Phone Use , 2010, Traffic injury prevention.

[8]  Frank Drews,et al.  A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[9]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data , 2006 .

[10]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Phase II – Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment , 2006 .

[11]  Bryan Reimer,et al.  Self-reported and observed risky driving behaviors among frequent and infrequent cell phone users. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[12]  Jeremy D Sudweeks,et al.  An Analysis of Driver Inattention Using a Case-Crossover Approach On 100-Car Data: Final Report , 2010 .

[13]  Ming Fang,et al.  Collision and Violation Involvement of Drivers Who Use Cellular Telephones , 2003, Traffic injury prevention.

[14]  Omar Bagdadi,et al.  Jerky driving--An indicator of accident proneness? , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[15]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Saurabh Bhargava,et al.  Driving under the (Cellular) Influence , 2013 .

[17]  I. Rawlins,et al.  Elementary Survey Sampling , 1992 .

[18]  Dot Hs,et al.  Cell Phone Use on the Roads in 2002 , 2004 .

[19]  Neil K Chaudhary,et al.  District of Columbia. , 1896, The Journal of comparative medicine and veterinary archives.

[20]  Christopher Schreiner,et al.  Real‐World Personal Conversations Using a Hands‐Free Embedded Wireless Device While Driving: Effect on Airbag‐Deployment Crash Rates , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[21]  Andreas Karlsson,et al.  Elementary Survey Sampling , 2007, Technometrics.

[22]  Robert S. Leiken,et al.  A User’s Guide , 2011 .

[23]  François Bellavance,et al.  Wireless telephones and the risk of road crashes. , 2003, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[24]  Jeff K Caird,et al.  A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[25]  David Shinar,et al.  Effects of practice, age, and task demands, on interference from a phone task while driving. , 2005, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[26]  Rebecca E. Trempel,et al.  Døes banning hand-held cell phøne use while driving reduce cøllisiøns? , 2011 .

[27]  Dot Hs,et al.  The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Phase II - Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment , 2006 .

[28]  Anne T McCartt,et al.  Cell Phones and Driving: Review of Research , 2006, Traffic injury prevention.

[29]  M. Woodward,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.