As per the IRB protocol, no consent was needed to collect public and anonymous data. The rate of texting and talking among drivers in motion was 3 and 5. In the verification study, the two observers agreed on all 50 observations: 1 driver talking, 49 not using a device. The incidence of texting at the light was found to be This rate is nearly five times that seen among those drivers whose vehicles were moving; it is also more than twice the incidence rate of drivers talking on their device while stopped.
The incidence of device usage among stopped vehicles, we propose, is a potentially more representative metric of driver distraction, as measuring in-motion use alone may understate the problem. Along those lines, drivers who are surveyed and asked if they avoid texting while driving may respond honestly in the affirmative, even if they partake freely in texting while stopped at a light. Our observation of the high incidence of texting at the light further suggests that many drivers have not stowed their phones while driving.
The non-stowed device — near the driver, powered on, and poised to ring or ping— may contribute to the total burden of driver distraction even if the driver does not touch it [ 12 ]. The rate of device usage among stopped vehicles contrasted with the rate among moving vehicles offers insights into the psychology of driving.
According to the Risk Homeostasis theory, drivers will drive more cautiously when conditions seem to be hazardous and vice versa, to yield an acceptable level of overall risk [ 13 ]. The related Task-Difficulty Homeostasis [ 14 ] theory maintains that drivers modulate their effort and attention to maintain a given level of challenge; for example, people may drive more slowly on unfamiliar roads.
With these hypotheses in mind, the rate of device usage among stopped vehicles may be seen as evidence that some drivers consider texting while stopped to be insufficiently demanding or dangerous. It should be noted that the Risk Homeostasis theory relates to perceived danger. Wilde [ 15 ] has asserted that over-estimates of risk can actually lead to improved safety. Yet it also may be the case that an under-estimation of risk has the converse effect.
The presence of a front seat passenger was associated with a lower rate, suggesting that boredom motivates device usage. This inference is consistent with the theory that a lack of task difficulty liberates drivers to engage in other activities beyond driving itself. Disapproval, actual or potential, may curb device use by accompanied drivers.
That device usage was higher among drivers who did not wear a seatbelt may be a manifestation of generalized recklessness in this group. It would be important to determine the extent to which texting is based on recklessness, as opposed to a mere miscalibration of the task-demands and risks of texting [ 18 ].
If the high rates of texting emanate from ignorance about its consequences, education may be an apt remedy. On the other hand, if recklessness were a strong cause, a public awareness campaign aimed at edifying drivers about the dangers of texting may be less effective. We acknowledge several limitations to this study. First, video recording might have increased the accuracy of the observations. Also, with video we may have been able to capture demographic and other data from vehicles in motion.
We further note that Young et al. It also must be acknowledged that the data were collected at a deliberately chosen location, selected because of its typical traffic congestion. Thus the rate of texting at the light seen at this site cannot be generalized, as could be done from a multi-site study [ 19 , 20 ].
Further, the window of observation for moving vehicles was inherently briefer than for stationary ones. Hence, even though our verification study indicated no differences, we may have undercounted device usage in moving vehicles. This distinction may not be critical, as visual distraction has been shown to be the main source of impaired driving performance [ 22 ].
In sum, we have found that device usage is higher among vehicles at rest compared with those in motion, and that the presence of a front seat passenger who may help alleviate boredom or reprimand bad behavior is associated with lower device usage rates among vehicles stopped at a light.
Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. N Eng J Med. A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Hum Factors. Article PubMed Google Scholar. Research and Statistics Department. Injury facts. Mobile phone use and driving: the message is just not getting through. Google Scholar. Text messaging during simulated driving. The effects of iPod and text-messaging use on driver distraction: a bio-behavioral analysis.
PubMed Google Scholar. The link between texting and motor vehicle collision frequency in the orthopaedic trauma population. J Inj Violence Res. Cognitive distraction while multitasking in the automobile.
Article Google Scholar. Endsley MR. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Strayer DL. Is the technology in your car driving you to distraction? In: Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences. Traffic Inj Prev. What do drivers fail to see when conversing on a cell phone?
Fuller R. Require they be kept in a locker or backpack? Require they be turned off? Allow them to be used, at teachers' discretion, in class? The reasons why cellphones are banned are, interestingly enough, many of the same things that make cellphones a potentially very useful educational tool: cellphones, particularly smart phones, are powerful mobile computing devices. If the cellphones have Internet access, students can use them to look up information online.
Cellphones double as calculators and as cameras. And unlike iPads, e-readers, tablets, smart phones, laptops or desktop PCs, these devices are ubiquitous.
Moreover, as the statistics indicate, text-messaging seems to be the preferred method of communication of teens. The popularity of text-messaging has long been given as one of the main reasons why cellphones are a distraction in the classroom. If students are texting, they're not paying attention.
Texting is often viewed as the new form of passing notes in the back of the class. The assumption is, of course, that this SMS communication is always off-topic.
But a variety of new tools have been released recently that are tapping into the popularity of texting and the ubiquity of cellphones and are demonstrating that these can, in fact, be used for educational purposes:.
When introducing texting into the mix, safe driving is completely set aside since texting and cellphone use combines three forms of distraction into one extremely dangerous form. Cognitive distractions are even more dangerous than they first seem since they linger. The National Safety Council estimates cognitive distractions last for at least 30 seconds after the initial distraction ends. For example, if a driver talks to one of their passengers, then they will be thinking about what was said for at least half a minute after the conversation ends.
When using a cellphone to text or check a message, all three of these forms of distractions are combined. Picking up the smartphone or cellphone is a manual distraction, looking at it to read the message is a visual distraction, and thinking about how to respond is a cognitive distraction. All three distraction types compound with one another, meaning they are more than three-times as distracting. The chances of causing a car accident will go up similarly.
How many texting drivers are there on the road at any given time? The problem of finding out how many drivers are texting behind the wheel is honesty, or a lack thereof. When sending out surveys about how often people text while driving, the reported percentages are always surprisingly low, sometimes as low as 2. It is assumed people are likely to underplay how often they text while driving when completing such a survey out of a sense of guilt or embarrassment.
Attorney Todd Miner has stood by the side of wrongfully injured drivers for decades. In recent years, his law firm, Todd Miner Law, has seen an increase of claims filed by people who were hit by drivers with cellphones in their hands. If you have been injured in a similar circumstance, come to his law firm.
0コメント