Talking on a Wireless Cellular Device While Driving: Improving the Validity of Crash Odds Ratio Estimates in the SHRP 2 Naturalistic Driving Study

Dingus and colleagues (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2016, 113, 2636–2641) reported a crash odds ratio (OR) estimate of 2.2 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) from 1.6 to 3.1 for hand-held cell phone conversation (hereafter, “Talk”) in the SHRP 2 naturalistic driving database. This estimate is substantially higher than the effect sizes near one in prior real-world and naturalistic driving studies of conversation on wireless cellular devices (whether hand-held, hands-free portable, or hands-free integrated). Two upward biases were discovered in the Dingus study. First, it selected many Talk-exposed drivers who simultaneously performed additional secondary tasks besides Talk but selected Talk-unexposed drivers with no secondary tasks. This “selection bias” was removed by: (1) filtering out records with additional tasks from the Talk-exposed group; or (2) adding records with other tasks to the Talk-unexposed group. Second, it included records with driver behavior errors, a confounding bias that was also removed by filtering out such records. After removing both biases, the Talk OR point estimates declined to below 1, now consistent with prior studies. Pooling the adjusted SHRP 2 Talk OR estimates with prior study effect size estimates to improve precision, the population effect size for wireless cellular conversation while driving is estimated as 0.72 (CI 0.60–0.88).

[1]  Christer Ahlstrom,et al.  Video-based observer rated sleepiness versus self-reported subjective sleepiness in real road driving , 2015, European Transport Research Review.

[2]  Feng Guo,et al.  Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Richard A Young Association Between Embedded Cellular Phone Calls and Vehicle Crashes Involving Airbag Deployment , 2017 .

[4]  Cory Siebe,et al.  Distracted Driving and Risk of Road Crashes among Novice and Experienced Drivers , 2014 .

[5]  Richard A. Young,et al.  Self-regulation minimizes crash risk from attentional effects of cognitive load during auditory-vocal tasks , 2014 .

[6]  John D. Lee,et al.  Driver Distraction : Theory, Effects, and Mitigation , 2008 .

[7]  M. Posner,et al.  Topics in Integrative Neuroscience: Attention as an organ system , 2008 .

[8]  Richard A. Young,et al.  An unbiased estimate of the relative crash risk of cell phone conversation while driving an automobile , 2014 .

[9]  R. Young Naturalistic Studies of Driver Distraction: Effects of Analysis Methods on Odds Ratios and Population Attributable Risk , 2017 .

[10]  Anne T McCartt,et al.  Hands-free embedded cell phones and airbag-deployment crash rates. , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[11]  R. Young Drowsy driving increases severity of safety-critical events and is decreased by cell phone conversation , 2013 .

[12]  Sean Seaman,et al.  Improving Survey Methods Using a New Objective Metric for Measuring Driving Time Variability in Survey and GPS Data , 2012 .

[13]  Kristie L. Young,et al.  At the cross-roads: an on-road examination of driving errors at intersections. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[14]  Anne T McCartt,et al.  Cell phone use and crash risk. , 2013, Epidemiology.

[15]  K. Rothman,et al.  Disengaging from statistical significance , 2016, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[16]  S. Goodman,et al.  Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations , 2016, European Journal of Epidemiology.

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

[18]  Joshua E. Domeyer,et al.  Towards Operationalizing Driver Distraction , 2017 .

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

[20]  K. Rothman,et al.  Epidemiology: An Introduction, (2nd ed.) , 2012 .

[21]  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.

[22]  R. Young ERRATUM: Removing Biases from Crash Odds Ratio Estimates of Secondary Tasks: A New Analysis of the SHRP 2 Naturalistic Driving Study Data , 2017 .

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

[24]  Miranda Cornelissen,et al.  Distraction-induced driving error: an on-road examination of the errors made by distracted and undistracted drivers. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

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

[26]  R. Young,et al.  Cell phone conversation and automobile crashes: relative risk is near 1, not 4 , 2013 .

[27]  R. Young,et al.  Cell Phone Use and Crash Risk: Evidence for Positive Bias , 2012, Epidemiology.

[28]  Richard A Young Adjusted Crash Odds Ratio Estimates of Driver Behavior Errors: A Re-Analysis of the SHRP2 Naturalistic Driving Study Data , 2017 .

[29]  Charlene Hallett,et al.  Driver distraction and driver inattention: definition, relationship and taxonomy. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.