Analysis of Naturalistic Driving Study Data: Safer Glances, Driver Inattention, and Crash Risk (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 51-64
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 51... ...
51 C h a p t e r 6 This chapter conducts a series of analyses targeting the research question, What are the most dangerous glances away from the road, and what are safer glances? It also examines the research question, Can risk from distracting activities (secondary tasks)
|
From page 52... ...
52 Figure 6.1. Percentage of glance locations over time in crash events for the 12 seconds before and 1 second after the crash point (at 0 seconds)
|
From page 53... ...
53 Figure 6.3. Percentage of glance locations over time in matched baseline events for the 12 seconds before and 1 second after a randomly chosen reference point (at 0 seconds)
|
From page 54... ...
54 (Recall from Chapter 4 that Talking/Listening on Cell Phone was not present in any crash.) In this calculation, the mean values rather than time series were used.
|
From page 55... ...
55 that glances associated with the hanging up activity were excluded, the total proportion of off-path glances would have been somewhat lower for the talking/listening cases and thus indicative of a general gaze-concentration effect. Moreover, almost 100% of the glances in the talking/listening events would have been driving-related (left or right windshield and mirrors)
|
From page 56... ...
56 test shows no significant difference. This likely reflects a lack of statistical power associated with the small sample of crashes.
|
From page 57... ...
57 Cumulative Risk for Time Segments Preceding Crash or Minimum Time to Collision The preceding analysis of the proportion of time eyes were off the forward path shows that eyes off the forward path during windows of time near the precipitating event or the minimum time to collision are particularly risky but that earlier windows may also be influential. That is, the odds ratios are highest for the window from 3 seconds to 1 second before the crash point, but the odds ratios in the two preceding windows also achieve statistical significance.
|
From page 58... ...
58 the eyes are off the forward path during a 2-second window. All these are additive, except for the case in which the interaction was tested (i.e., Off3to1+ Off11to9+ Off3to1X Off11to9)
|
From page 59... ...
59 the best model in Table 6.1 (Off3to1, AIC 320.39)
|
From page 60... ...
60 shown in Figure 6.9 represent the incremental increase in odds associated with one unit of change in the glance metric. Glances can last 13 seconds, whereas time proportion of the time windows in the previous section ranged between zero and 1.
|
From page 61... ...
61 Figure 6.11. Odds ratios and confidence intervals for various uncertainty characteristics.
|
From page 62... ...
62 model based only on the proportion of glances off-path (AIC 320.39) , at a Delta AIC difference of 3.31.
|
From page 63... ...
63 activities (secondary tasks)
|
From page 64... ...
64 comparable window of time closer to the crash or nearcrash minTTC. It is possible that the influences of distracting activities can be explained by this more powerful three-metric glance model.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.