Click for next page ( 18


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 17
18 Significant predictors of safety-critical events have asterisks roughly 10% of all safety-triggered events (e.g., sudden stops, placed next to their odds ratios, which inform the reader how swerves, and collisions) involved a driver engaged in distracted much each behavior elevates the risk of being involved in an driving activities, this figure jumped to 67% for the top 5% of event. For instance, the statistically significant odds ratio drivers with the highest number of distraction events. Compar- estimate of 23.24 for text messaging means that drivers who ing drivers with the most recorded distractions to drivers with engage in text messaging behind the wheel are more than the fewest recorded distractions revealed that the former group 23 times more likely to be involved in a safety-critical event is 7.4 times more likely to be involved in a crash or near crash. than drivers who do not text message behind the wheel, hold- ing all other behaviors constant. In addition to the best esti- The nine most prevalent distractions discovered during mate for the odds ratio value, the table also presents 95% risky driving maneuvers were: confidence intervals, which indicate a range of possible odds ratio values, with 95% certainty that the true odds ratio falls Object in hand (e.g., MP3 players, personal digital assis- between the lower confidence level and upper confidence tants, and paperwork); 44.5% level. Therefore, although the odds ratio estimate is 23.24 for Talking on a hand-held mobile phone; 13.4% text messaging, it may actually fall between 9.69 and 55.73, Beverage; 12.7% owing to statistical uncertainty. In any case, the behavior Food; 10.1% increases risk because it is always over the value of 1.00. Smoking; 9.9% Operating a hand-held device (e.g., texting); 9.1% A protective effect (odds ratio below 1.00) was observed Talking and listening on mobile phone (hands-free); for several tasks, including talking and listening by means of 5.2% a hands-free phone and use of the CB radio. Using a map or navigation device; 1.0% Grooming and personal hygiene; 0.6%. Olson and colleagues expanded on these findings to demonstrate that the mean duration of eye glances away COUNTERMEASURE TECHNOLOGIES FOR from the road were associated with the severity of the safety- DISTRACTION AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS critical event. Odds ratios suggested that long glances of more than 2 s greatly increased the risk of a safety-critical Numerous research studies have investigated counter- event; not surprisingly, behaviors with the highest odds ratios measure technologies for distracted driving, and the con- in Table 2 were most often also behaviors associated with sumer electronics industry is active as well. Publications of taking one's eyes off the road. most relevance to this project are summarized here. The issues can be grouped into the following topics. NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts: Distracted Driving 2009, Wash- ington, D.C., 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.distraction. gov/research/PDF-Files/Distracted-Driving-2009.pdf. Combining Driver Monitoring with Driver Assistance Using the Fatality Accident Reporting System, NHTSA's Lerner et al. (2008) developed a matrix that mapped 36 find- National Center for Statistics and Analysis showed that a ings to possible countermeasures for each respective finding. smaller proportion of large truck drivers and bus drivers who Countermeasure options included public education and safety were distracted during a crash (8% and 6%, respectively) campaigns, driver training, user interface design, functional than is the case with passenger car drivers (11%). This is a lock-out technology of electronic devices, and interactive consistent finding over multiple years. control technology, such as driver assistance systems. (Driver assistance systems include functions such as LDW and FCW SmartDrive, Commercial Fleet Distracted Driving Research that serve to make the driver aware of safety-critical situations 2010, 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.smartdrive.net/ and therefore have the potential to compensate for driver documents/smartdrive-distracted-driving-report_2010.pdf. attention lapses.) Llaneras et al. (2000) reported on the results of a NHTSA-sponsored online forum, which concluded that SmartDrive Systems, a fleet safety and efficiency solutions driver assistance systems are useful to provide additional company, has engaged tens of thousands of truck drivers in a "eyes and ears." study, known as the SmartDrive Safety program, to provide fleets a glimpse into the causes and rates of commercial driver Several studies have addressed driver monitoring to detect distraction. During 2010, SmartDrive observed nearly 14 mil- distracted driving, with sensor-based collision warning sys- lion video events from 34,466 commercial drivers who were tems playing a role to mitigate the momentary effects of the observed through in-cab video, allowing SmartDrive to cre- distraction event. The authors clearly recognize that there ate the SmartDrive Distracted Driving Index (SDDI) as a exists the possibility of a driver "gaming" the system and baseline for future comparisons. engaging in more secondary tasks knowing that there are sup- port systems such as crash warning. The SDDI has revealed, among other things, that a small minority of drivers represent the vast majority of distracted For instance, in the final report for the Intelligent Vehicle driving problems. That is, although the study found that Initiative FCW field operational test, Battelle (2007) reported

OCR for page 17
19 that driver assistance systems helped drivers keep a safe devices is not the correct approach and good design is key. following distance, improve reaction time, and increase Volpe (2008) offers a primer on technology for traffic safety, awareness when distracted. Blaschke et al. (2009) evaluated noting that it is important to consider the humanmachine inter- options for managing distracted driving: block incoming face (HMI) when developing new safety systems, to strike the calls when aware of a complex driving situation, warn driver right balance between driver assistance and distraction. Burns of distracted conditions, or minimize negative outcomes of (2007) presented a Transport Canada analysis of in-vehicle distraction with support systems such as LDWS. Kircher and devices to argue that the impetus for distraction counter- Ahlstrm (2009) examined the relationship between driver measures lies with the designers of these devices. Llaneras et al. assistance systems such as FCW and LDW and driver distrac- (2000) reported on the results of a NHTSA-sponsored online tion countermeasures. They noted that such systems could forum, which concluded that clearer graphics and ergonomics warn drivers earlier, particularly when combined with eye are needed in vehicle cabs. The Research and Innovate Tech- tracking systems that would detect eyes-off-road conditions. nology Administration (RITA) (2011) describes a panel con- Lee et al. (2000) examined the potential of FCW to mitigate sisting of consumer electronics industry members held as part driver distraction in driving simulator experiments. The study of a symposium on occupationally related distracted driving. It found that cognitive demands (speaking) pose a risk equal to asserted that electronic devices can distract or assist the driver, visual distractions and that the effects could be mitigated with and lock-outs and similar features exist for professional drivers. FCW. The authors suggest integrating detection of distraction They noted that technology is moving in the direction of faster events with FCW to issue earlier warnings, as long as this does touch, less touch, or no touch (speech command and control). not encourage the driver to increasingly engage in distracting Vollrath and Totzke (2000) conducted driving simulator exper- activities. Donmez et al. (2008) built on earlier work to demon- iments to determine that driving performance is at its worst strate that presenting real-time feedback to drivers on lane with manual tasks, followed by visual tasks, and most effective position resulted in fewer distracting activities. The team rec- during with auditory tasks, concluding that auditory interfaces ommended both retrospective and real-time feedback. should be emphasized in design and, if visual/manual tasks are needed, augment the driver with driver assistance systems. As to the technological approach to detecting driver distrac- tion, Blaschke et al. (2009) advocates eye- or head-tracking Lee et al. (2007) described the SAVE-IT project to imple- systems. By contrast, Zhang et al. (2008) describes work in ment adaptive interface technology as a countermeasure to the SAVE-IT program to identify decrements in driving per- driver distraction. The team developed models that accurately formance as a result of visual distraction. The authors here detected cognitive distraction 75% to 95% of the time. Find- concluded that while eye-based tracking is more accurate, ings suggested that listening to information is less demanding head-based systems are more practical, and therefore recom- than responding to questions, cognitive and visual demands mended moving forward with head movement sensors. are additive, and cognitive distraction is multifaceted. To the latter point, the researchers noted that cognitive distraction is WHO (2011) notes the potential value of technological composed of distinct types with different impacts on driving interventions such as workload managers and LDWs; how- performance. ever, these technologies are seen as having a limited impact on a global basis owing to their low market penetration. As to specific design measures, Lee and Hoffman (2004) examined optimum methods to warn a distracted driver. They Insurance-Links Measures to Monitor Cell Phone Use found that graded warnings (i.e., warnings that progress from less urgent to more urgent if the driver does not respond) were ZoomSafer (2011b) describes both an active and passive better received than single-state warnings; also that haptic approach to cell phone use within a vehicle, in the context of messages were more acceptable to drivers than auditory mes- usage-based insurance (UBI) techniques. The active approach sages. Fuller and Tsimhoni (2009) examined issues relating to connects a smartphone with a UBI device in the vehicle, such screen placement using driving simulator studies. They noted that the smartphone is automatically deactivated when the that all screens can create distraction and showed that far- vehicle is in motion. The passive approach consists of integrat- away screens created more significant distraction issues than ing UBI data (including events during driving) with billing screens close to the driver. Llaneras et al. (2005) conducted records from the telecommunications carrier for the cell interviews with commercial fleet safety managers that indi- phone, so that events can be correlated with cell phone use. cated that, although lock-out functions are available for in-cab Although the active approach requires a smartphone, the pas- devices, the utilization of these functions varies widely. sive approach works with any phone. Section Summary The Importance of Good Design in HumanMachine Interfaces Although the combination of driver monitoring and driver assistance systems has been shown to be effective in miti- NHTSA (1997) took an early look at the safety implications of gating the effects of distraction, there exists the possibly of cell phones, noting the cognizant risks but also highlighting the a driver "gaming" the system and engaging in more sec- core issue of inattentiveness. The authors contend that banning ondary tasks owing to the presence of a support system,

OCR for page 17
20 creating an opposite effect. As to the human interface, the Mitigating distraction, on the other hand, involves distrac- vehicle industry can potentially benefit from advances in tion warning systems, which issue warnings to the driver HMI from the consumer electronics industry. Research when the system detects he or she is being distracted, with studies have increased the knowledge base as to the inter- the goal of bringing the driver's attention back to focusing on action between drivers and support systems, which will be the road. important to the good design of these systems. Finally, to minimize negative outcomes of driver distrac- tion, the approach advocated in this paper involves using Citation Summary driver assistance systems that provide a safety net in instances of driver distraction (e.g., LDWS). These warning systems Battelle, Final Report Evaluation of the Volvo Intelligent typically generate acoustic or haptic warnings to the driver Vehicle Initiative Field Operational Test Version 1.3, National and some advanced systems will guide the vehicle back to Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., the middle of the lane. However, a problem with traditional 2007. in-vehicle systems is their hypersensitive false alarms (e.g., inconsequential minor deviations from the middle of the lane In 1999, the U.S.DOT partnered with Volvo Trucks North or unsignaled lane changes). This paper demonstrates that America and US Xpress to test collision warning system in-vehicle systems can be improved by using eye- and head- (CWS), adaptive cruise control (ACC), and advanced elec- tronic braking (AdvBS) systems in a Field Operational Test tracking devices to recognize when the driver is visually dis- of intelligent vehicle safety systems (IVSS) designed for tracted and most likely to actually need the safety system to CMVs. Concerning usability of the safety systems, most activate, which acts to suppress unnecessary warnings. drivers agreed that CWS visual and audible signals were always easy to see and hear; different IVSS warnings (for- Burns, P.C., "Driver Distraction Countermeasures," In ward, side, visual, auditory) were easy to distinguish from Distracted Driving, I.J. Faulks, M. Regan, M. Stevenson, one another (although at times difficult owing to mental or J. Brown, A. Porter, and J.D. Irwin, Eds., Australasian physical fatigue) and from non-IVSS systems in the truck. College of Road Safety, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2007. Finally, although drivers found AdvBS useful in all con- Transport Canada investigated potential countermeasures ditions and ACC useful aside from climbing hills or sitting in that could reduce the amount of unnecessary distraction drivers heavy traffic, the perceived usefulness of CWS varied more. face from in-vehicle telematic devices. The authors concluded Specifically, CWS was found to be most useful when visibil- that the impetus rests with product designers, who must do ity was low (e.g., during night time, foggy conditions, heavy more to consider the distraction potential of their products and rain, or snow), but much more distracting in heavy traffic. increase human factors research during product design, devel- Furthermore, nearly half of all CWS warnings were deter- opment, and testing phases. Essentially, designers should give mined by drivers to be false positives, which they found first considerations to safety and usability factors, followed annoying. Still, most drivers reported that neither the visual by device features, rather than the other way around. nor auditory warnings caused them to be distracted from their driving tasks, and that they did not need to look away from Donmez, B., L.N. Boyle, and J.D. Lee, "Mitigating Driver the road to identify what a CWS alert meant. On the contrary, Distraction with Retrospective and Concurrent Feedback," it was reported that CWS and ACC helped them keep at a Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, 2008, pp. 776786. safe following distance, improve reaction time, and increase awareness when distracted. This was a follow-up study to previous work by the authors where it was demonstrated (using a driving simulator) that Blaschke, C., B. Frber, R. Limbacher, B. Trefflich, drivers engaged in fewer distracting activities (i.e., looking at F. Breyer, and S. Mayer, "Online Estimation of the Driver's in-vehicle information systems instead of the road) when given State Enhancement of Lane-keeping Assistance," First Inter- real-time feedback on their driving performance (e.g., lane national Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention, position). A caveat, however, is that receiving real-time feed- Gothenburg, Sweden, Sep. 2829, 2009. back may act as an additional distraction and interfere with task performance. This study evaluated three available options for managing driver distraction, including prevention, mitigation, and mini- To expand on those findings, this simulator experiment mizing negative outcomes. Preventing distraction involves compared three feedback delivery conditions: retrospective the utilization of driving data (e.g., road conditions, traffic, (i.e., end of trip) feedback, combined retrospective and con- and weather) to determine a driver's capacity to handle addi- current (i.e., real-time) feedback, and no feedback. Accel- tional information. If demand on the driver is already high, then erator release times were measured following unexpected incoming calls to the driver will be postponed or in-vehicle braking events by lead vehicles, and drivers in both feedback information systems will be locked, so as to not overload groups (retrospective and combined feedback) outperformed the driver. drivers receiving no feedback, as measured by significantly

OCR for page 17
21 shorter accelerator release times. Additionally, the combined Because eye tracking can now be done unobtrusively, the feedback group also displayed significantly longer, more sus- authors chose this approach and described AttenD, an algo- tained glances to the road, leading the authors to conclude rithm for detecting visual distraction in real time based on that providing drivers with both real-time and retrospective sustained single or repetitive glances away from the road. feedback on distraction state is an effective strategy for mit- Essentially, AttenD uses a 2-s time buffer that depletes as igating the negative effects of distraction. Although real-time drivers look away from the road and replenishes when eyes feedback is immediately helpful, an advantage of retrospec- come back to the road. When the buffer is empty, the driver tive feedback is that it is less transitory and can therefore be is classified as distracted. The buffer takes into account processed more fully by the driver, making it more likely to necessary acts of driving, such as checking mirrors or the actually change long-term behavior. speedometer, which do not count against the buffer until after a 1-s grace period. Fuller, H. and O. Tsimhoni, Glance Strategies for Using an In-vehicle Touch-screen Monitor, Report No. UMTRI-2009-5, Logical applications of AttenD involve issuing warnings Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan, to drivers determined to be in a distracted state. One possibil- Ann Arbor, 2009. ity is to warn drivers every time they use up their 2-s buffer, so as to train the driver not to look away from the road so often. The authors consider the effects of positioning in-vehicle Otherwise, the distraction information could be fused with devices in different vehicle locations, because nonideal loca- other in-vehicle systems such as FCWS and LDWS to more tions may add to driver distraction. Both visual and motor accurately identify when safety-critical events are probable. In demands of nonessential tertiary tasks were considered simul- contrast to the former option, using AttenD to minimize false taneously by means of using a touch-screen monitor to per- warnings of other safety systems will not train the driver to form the tertiary task and varying the location of the monitor. focus his or her attention on the road and may actually have Driving simulator participants were instructed to focus their the opposite effect, teaching the driver to trust other systems efforts primarily on following a lead vehicle that was sporad- to activate warning messages when dire situations arise. ically speeding up and slowing down; additionally, they were instructed to perform the tertiary task on the touch-screen Lee, J.D. and J.D. Hoffman, "Collision Warning Design to monitor. Mitigate Driver Distraction," SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, Apr. 2429, Performance on the primary task (following the lead vehi- 2004. cle) was worse for all participants who performed the sec- ondary task compared with those who did not, regardless of The authors evaluated what type of warning delivery sys- touch-screen position. Performance on the secondary task, tem is the most effective and accepted in warning distracted however, predictably varied depending on the position of the drivers. Experiments were conducted requiring participants touch-screen. More difficult positions (where participants had to interact with an in-vehicle e-mail system while a FCWS to reach farther and look farther to the side of their normal line alerted drivers to a braking lead vehicle. of sight) resulted in longer times to completion for the sec- ondary task and more frequent glances to the monitor than Concerning alert strategy, graded warnings (where warn- when the monitor was in an ideally located position. It is ing intensity is proportional to threat severity) were better therefore concluded that in-vehicle devices that require driver received than single-stage warnings (where warnings were interactions should be placed closer to the driver, because issued in an identical fashion when a predetermined severity placing them farther away takes more attention off the road. threshold was crossed). Concerning alert modality, haptic messages (e.g., vibrating seats) were more accepted by drivers Kircher, K. and C. Ahlstrm, "Issues Related to the Driver than auditory messages. Distraction Detection Algorithm AttenD," First Inter- national Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention, Lee, J., M. Reyes, Y. Liang, and Y.C. Lee, SAfety VEhicles Gothenburg, Sweden, Sep. 2829, 2009. Using Adaptive Interface Technology: Algorithms to Assess Cognitive Distraction, Volpe National Transportation Systems Most applications of driver support systems attempt to help Center, Cambridge, Mass., 2007. the driver when a critical safety event is unavoidable. Improve- ments to FCWS, LDWS, and others could be found by pro- To proactively address the issue of driver distraction, a viding earlier warnings, although this would further increase program known as SAfety VEhicle(s) using adaptive Inter- the number of false alarms. On the other hand, the systems face Technology (SAVE-IT) was created to identify effec- could be improved by taking driver state into account and tive countermeasures to distraction and improve on existing acting only when an increased risk presents itself. Options for safety warning systems. This paper describes Task 5 of the this latter approach could include pressure-sensitive steering SAVE-IT program, which attempted to develop an algorithm wheel sensors, breath analyzers, live video feeds, or automatic capable of identifying declines in driving performance as a eye tracking. result of cognitive distraction.

OCR for page 17
22 The researchers developed models that accurately detected vision systems). Benefits and safety risks are evaluated, along- cognitive distraction 75% to 95% of the time. Findings sug- side ways to measure distraction and implement user-friendly gested, among other things, that listening to IVIS information design features or solutions. Participants took issue with is less demanding than responding to questions about it; cog- systems using poorly labeled and difficult to reach multi- nitive and visual demands are additive; and cognitive distrac- functional controls. tion is multifaceted (i.e., distinct types of cognitive distraction have different impacts on driving performance). From a structural standpoint, suggestions for improvement included the use of standardized steering wheel-mounted Lee, J.D., M.L. Ries, D.V. McGehee, and T.L. Brown, "Can controls, graphic icons, integrated designs, and easy-to-reach, Collision Warning Systems Mitigate Distraction Due to easy-to-distinguish buttons. Concerning usability, participants In-vehicle Devices?" NHTSA Driver Distraction Internet discussed hands-free options, lock-out functions, and speech- Forum, July 5Aug. 11, 2000. based or voice recognition technologies, although this was a topic of debate, because cognitive demands present similar Because driver inattention/distraction is a contributing (although somewhat lower) levels of distraction as visual or factor in more than 60% of all vehicle rear-end collisions, motor demands. this study looked at the effectiveness of a rear-end collision avoidance system, better known today as a FCWS. A driving Although the complete automation of vehicles would gen- simulator was used to determine how well drivers, distracted erate an obvious solution to the driver distraction problem, or otherwise, could avoid an impending collision with FCWS the foreseeable future will only allow a partial realization of assistance, utilizing either early or late warnings. driverless automation technology. Two recognizable options for the present include vehicle systems that provide "addi- The experiment found that the cognitive demands (e.g., tional eyes and ears" to the driver (e.g., collision warning sys- speaking into a phone or two-way radio) that do not take a tems) and driver assistance systems that assume some limited driver's hands off the wheel or eyes off the road still pose a driving tasks (e.g., adaptive cruise control). serious risk nearly equal to that from visual distractions. How- Llaneras, R.E., J.P. Singer, and R. Bowers-Carnahan, Assess- ever, both of these risks can be effectively mitigated with early ment of Truck Driver Distraction Problem and Research warnings from an FCWS. The authors suggest that in-vehicle Needs, Report No. DOT HS 809883, National Highway Traf- devices that distract attention away from the road be integrated fic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2005 or coordinated with warning systems that will detect distrac- tion and signal imminent danger (e.g., issue earlier warnings As mentioned, multifunctional devices appear to be par- if the driver is on the phone). An obvious caveat, however, is ticularly common in the industry, and having systems that that drivers could become passive and overreliant on warning offer both text messaging and driver communication func- systems to detect critical safety events, increasing a willing- tions top the list, both for OEM and aftermarket products. As ness to engage in distracting activities and lowering vigilance. proactive steps toward limiting distraction, many systems are customizable so that fleet safety managers can decide if they Lerner, N., J. Singer, and R. Huey, Driver Strategies for want to (completely or partially) lock out certain functions Engaging in Distracting Tasks Using In-vehicle Technolo- or, in the case of messaging systems, send messages with dif- gies, Report No. HS DOT 810919, National Highway Traf- ferent levels of urgency and only allow the driver to read fic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2008. emergency messages while the vehicle is in motion. Despite these options, it varies widely between and even within fleets The purpose and findings of this study were cited earlier. whether these lock-out capabilities are used. Finally, inter- views revealed that banning technology is viewed as imprac- Based on the study's findings, the authors developed a tical and unwarranted, whereas the effectiveness of policies matrix that mapped 36 findings to possible countermeasures prohibiting the use of in-vehicle devices while driving is also for each respective finding. Countermeasure options included questionable. Interviewees argued that the effectiveness of ideas related to public education and safety campaigns, driver these policies was contingent on enforcement and consistently training, user interface design, functional lock-out technology, applied rules (with penalties for noncompliance), whereas and interactive control (i.e., Driver Assist) technology. the key to limiting distraction from in-vehicle devices rested on enhanced designs and interfaces and reasonably applied Llaneras, R.E., NHTSA Driver Distraction Internet Forum: restrictions and lock outs. Summary and Proceedings, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2000. NHTSA, An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wire- less Communication in Vehicles, National Highway Traffic A virtual online conference was held to assess the dangers Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1997. associated with the massive growth in the availability of in-car devices (e.g., cell phones, navigation systems, wireless Inter- The authors of this study recognized that the use of a cell net, information systems, entertainment systems, and night phone while driving may contribute to collisions. However,

OCR for page 17
23 it was stated that it is both the physical movement associated Vollrath, M. and I. Totzke, In-vehicle Communication and with dialing and holding a phone as well as the cognitive Driving: An Attempt to Overcome Their Interference, Cen- processes that coincide with the phone conversation. It was ter for Traffic Sciences, University of Wuerzburg, Germany, also proposed that hands-free devices may assist drivers, but 2000. may lead to longer conversations and the increased likeli- hood of a crash. Also, the key factor is not just using a cell Multiple Resources Theory dictates that in-vehicle com- phone, but driver inattentiveness while driving. munications using different channels (i.e., manual operations, visual or auditory information processing) will differentially This study makes several key suggestions to improving impact driving performance. The authors performed a mixed the safety of drivers who use cell phones. The authors make betweenwithin subject driving simulator experiment to it clear that cell phone-related accidents cannot decrease by demonstrate that all three of these tertiary communication simply banning the devices. Instead, in-vehicle communica- tasks cause decrements in driving performance. However, tion systems could be developed that allow the user to wire- performance is at its worst with the manual operation task, lessly communicate with fewer distractions. In addition, followed by the visual information processing task and the some of the other recommendations included: auditory information processing task. Enforcing inattentive behavior issues, Based on these findings, the authors suggested that infor- Improving the range of cell phone-related research to mation should be presented to drivers acoustically whenever more specifically define the problem, possible. Visual output should be avoided or else be accom- Broadening consumer education about using a cell phone panied by a driver assistance system that ensures that the while driving, and vehicle maintains its lane position (e.g., LDWS). Finally, Developing the most ideal in-vehicle communication unnecessary manual operations are by far the least desir- systems using the National Advanced Driver Simulator. able component in terms of distraction and risk, most likely because this category typically contains some extent of visual Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), information processing. If motor actions are required, they "In-vehicle Technology to Address Distracted Driving," Sym- should be accompanied by a driver assistance system that posium on Prevention of Occupationally-Related Distracted maintains both lane position and following distance (e.g., Driving, Johns Hopkins Education and Research Center for LDWS and FCWS). Occupational Safety and Health, Laurel, Md., Apr. 18, 2011. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and Research Panelists from the consumer electronics industry described and Innovative Technology Administration, Technology how, while technology can distract drivers (e.g., cell phones, Applications for Traffic Safety Programs: A Primer, Report entertainment systems, and navigation and information sys- No. DOT HS 811 040, National Highway Traffic Safety tems), it can also be used to help mitigate distraction. Tech- Administration, Cambridge, Mass., 2008. nology of the latter classification includes lock outs (e.g., not allowing incoming calls, texts, or e-mails while the vehicle is in motion), warning notifications (i.e., when a high level of The authors reviewed emerging digital and communica- risk is detected), and other advances that reduce the amount of tion technology that is either currently or soon to be available necessary interaction (whether visual, manual, or cognitive) to improve highway safety. Highlighted traffic safety tech- drivers must engage in with on-board systems or devices. nologies include those that provide information and services to drivers, traffic operations agencies, emergency services per- A critical attribute of new, seemingly useful technologies sonnel, and law enforcement professionals. Specifically, vehi- is how much driver workload they require. Human factors cle to driver, vehicle to vehicle, vehicle to and from roadside, specialists need to keep best practices in mind when design- and vehicle to and from traffic and emergency call centers ing new technologies so that they do not overload the driver are all discussed. and increase the possibility of distraction. The report emphasizes the importance of considering Certain types of distraction (e.g., searching for street signs) the HMI when developing new safety technologies, so that can be circumvented with hardware (GPS unit) and software the right balance is struck between delivering desired infor- (text to speech). Similarly, hands-free devices are intended mation and minimizing driver distraction. For instance, care- to prevent distractions that would take a driver's hands off ful consideration must be given to the placement of safety the wheel; this technology can incorporate ear buds, Blue- devices and the manner of information delivery. tooth, steering wheel controls, and/or voice recognition soft- ware. Essentially, technology is moving in the direction of World Health Organization, Mobile Phone Use: A Growing faster touch (e.g., predictive text, next word prediction, logic Problem of Driver Distraction 2011 [Online]. Available: www. and algorithms), less touch (hybrid text and speech entry), or who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/ no touch (speech command and control). en/index.html.