Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
This synthesis study has been successful in addressing small and large carrier experiences with, and response to, driver distraction for both motor carriers and motor coaches. A broad view of best practices was gained, as well as views on driver acceptance and the effectiveness of various types of humanâmachine interfaces. A summary of results is provided here, followed by the teamâs perception of research priorities going forward. ⢠Driver distraction is an extremely complex issue. Much of the historical research presents conflicting findings. More research is needed to fully understand the physi- cal, cognitive, and emotional attributes of technology- and nontechnology-based driver distraction. ⢠There is a fine line between removing unnecessary dis- tractions from the truck cab and leaving drivers with enough resources to remain alert and stimulated (e.g., radios may present a minimal increase in the potential for distraction; however, they prevent the driver from getting bored and losing focus). ⢠There is little empirical research on the operational role and safety benefits associated with onboard technolo- gies, including onboard safety technologies that can generate audio and visual distractions, and the indirect safety benefits associated with onboard communication devices including cell phones and navigation devices. 38 ⢠Accurate feedback is critical in changing driver behav- ior; however, inaccurate feedback (especially false pos- itives from safety technologies) can be detrimental. ⢠Currently, the research does appear to be clear that texting is very dangerous, hand-held cell phone calls range from potentially dangerous to very dangerous, with respect to hands free phones, research findings are inconclusive and hands-free calls may not be much of a safety concern. ⢠Many common driver distractions identified in the research are not technology-based and would be diffi- cult to manage or regulate (eating, manipulating dials and buttons, adjusting mirrors, etc). ⢠Large and small fleets fundamentally differ in their approaches for managing distractionâlarge carriers are quick to form policies, whereas small carriers know their drivers better and rely on communication and trust. Based on this report, it was concluded that there is a need to better understand how the different types of distractions (visual, manual, or cognitive) affect driving performance. For example, does a driver who is visually distracted drive at slower speeds or brake more readily (i.e., knowingly compen- sating through cautiousness) because of the reduced visual input for lane and headway keeping? To improve the efficacy of countermeasures in triggering monitoring devices, it is important to understand how the distraction types affect driving performance. CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS