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 18
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-
Ahlström (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 19
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. Färber, 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 20
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. Ahlström, "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 21
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 22
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.
