cell phones and driving: what is the risk? dr. paul atchley visual information processing lab...

Cell Phones and Driving: What is the

Risk?

Dr. Paul Atchley

Visual Information Processing LabDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Kansas

2

Today’s talk

• Is there a problem with distracted driving?

• How big is the potential problem in the long term?

• Why can’t we multitask while driving?

• What should we do to mitigate risk?

2

Motivating Problem

QuickTime™ and aH.264 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Motivating Problem

• Driving while talking on a cell phone increases accident risk

• 4.3 times (Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 1997)

• 4.1 times (McEvoy, et al., 2005)

• 2 to 6 times (Atchley & Dressel, 2004)

• More than drunk driving (4 times - Strayer et al., 2006)

• Texting is a 2300% increase (VTTI, 2009)

A brief review

• DA Redelmeier & RJ Tibshirani Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 1997, Vol. 336(7):453-8

• Studied phone records of 699 drivers involved in non-injury accidents over 14 months. Analysis of phone records showed that talking on a phone during the period before an accident increased risk 4.3 times. Hand-held and hands free units produced equivalent risk.

Research - Field workResearch - Field workResearch - Field workResearch - Field work

• SP McEvoy, MR Stevenson, AT McCartt, M Woodward. Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study. British Medical Journal, 2005 Jul 12

• Studied phone records of 456 drivers involved in injury accidents over 27 months. Analysis of phone records showed that talking on a phone during the period before an accident increased risk 4.1 times. Hand-held and hands free units produced equivalent risk.

Research - Field workResearch - Field workResearch - Field workResearch - Field work

• These designs compared drivers to themselves to assign odds ratios (i.e. what is the chance a driver has an accident when they are on the phone or not).

• All other distractions are equal in both cases, so the increase in risk is irrespective of any other distraction. The increase in risk is the same as the increase while driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit.

Case Crossover DesignsCase Crossover DesignsCase Crossover DesignsCase Crossover Designs

•P Atchley & J Dressel. Conversation Limits the Functional Field of View. Human Factors. 2004, Vol. 46 (4): 664-673. Driver distraction special issue.

•The attentional assessment indicated conversation reduced attention, leading to an increase in accident risk of 2 to 6 fold. This increase is likely most problematic at intersections. Current research using the same method shows even higher risk with emotional conversations.

Research - Lab ResearchResearch - Lab ResearchResearch - Lab ResearchResearch - Lab Research

•Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., and Crouch, D. L. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 381-391

•Cell phones: drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash.

Research - Lab ResearchResearch - Lab ResearchResearch - Lab ResearchResearch - Lab Research

How big is the problem, potentially?

• Wogalter & Mayhorn (2005)–81% of their participants (U.S.) reported talking on a

cellular phone while driving

• Nelson, Atchley & Little (2010)–Almost every KU student that owns a car and a phone,

talks and drives

• 60-80% of minutes are used while driving

Scope of the Problem: Cell phones

Atchley & Atwood, 2009

Texting and drivingTexting and drivingTexting and drivingTexting and driving

• Adoption is more pervasive, earlier, and use is heavier

QuickTime™ and a decompressor


Future trendsFuture trendsFuture trendsFuture trends

Geser, 2006

“(O)ut of 1415 respondents, not less than 1356 (= 95.8) percent were currently in possession of a personal mobile phone, and among the 59 non-owners, 28 had the habit of borrowing sometimes a set from a sibling or friend.”

More pervasiveMore pervasiveMore pervasiveMore pervasive



Geser, 2006

Earlier adoptionEarlier adoptionEarlier adoptionEarlier adoption





Geser, 2006



Heavier UseHeavier UseHeavier UseHeavier Use

• “While these aren’t the craziest fines in the world, the fact that the government is so strictly regulating what we do in our cars frustrates me. I’m not going to pretend like this is the worst thing to happen to me, but I’m bothered that now not only do I need to interrupt my phone call when I see an officer, I also need to make sure it doesn’t look like I’m punching the buttons.”

RESTRICTION ON TEXTING WHILE DRIVING TARGETS THE WRONG DISTRACTIONS

Scott Pearring, January 9, 2009

• Perception of risk is a weak moderator of use of cell phones while driving.

• Perceived importance of making a call strongly predicts frequency of use and choice to initiate calls.

Nelson, Atchley & Little (2010)Accident Analysis & Prevention

Knowing risk does not lower Knowing risk does not lower riskrisk

Knowing risk does not lower Knowing risk does not lower riskrisk

Why can’t we multitask?

Neisser & Becklen, 1975

QuickTime™ and aCinepak decompressor


What we think we see...

Attention is a spotlight on the world

Limits to attention

QuickTime™ and aCinepak decompressor


Pringle, Kramer, Irwin & Atchley (2001); Hoffman & Atchley (2001)

Limits to attention

The general question

??

Does conversation limit attention?

Atchley &Dressel,2004

Conversation and attention


No verbal taskNo verbal task


Concurrent verbal taskConcurrent verbal task

Conversation produces an attentionalbottleneck

QuickTime™ and aSorenson Video decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Simons and Levine, 1998

Summary

• All research points toward decreased safety for talking or texting while driving

• Cellular use by employees while driving can lead to an increase in accident risk equivalent to driving drunk

• The problem is in the brain, not the hand–Hand’s free devices are not safe either

• We are spending billions to improve driving safety but death rates have remained constant

Safety and legal Safety and legal considerationsconsiderations


• Numerous large lawsuits have been won by persons injured while using phones for work purposes while driving or injured by employees• Bustos v. Leiva et al ($16.1 million)• Beers Skanska ($4.75 million)• The State of Hawaii ($2.5 million)

• A Merrill Lynch broker conducting business on a cell phone killed a motorcyclist. Merrill Lynch was successfully sued.

• International Paper was successfully sued for $5 million after its employee struck a car, requiring amputation of the struck driver’s arm



• Some big employers ban cellular phone use• UPS• ExxonMobil• National Transportation Safety Board• The U.S. government (texting only per Presidential

order)

• And Sedgwick County!• When AMEC banned cell phone use while

driving, 83% of employees also reduced or quit using the devices while driving on their own time



• Cellular phone conversations reduce attention resulting in missed information at intersections and slower reaction times to events. Hands-free devices to not negate this effect. Texting is far worse.

• In-car conversations are not the same, as driver and passenger reduce conversation as traffic increases.

• Employers may be at risk for employees phoning and driving

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

The UFOV® task

Subtest 1“Processing speed”

Subtest 2“Divided attention”

Subtest 3“Selective attention”

cell phones and driving: what is the risk? dr. paul atchley visual information processing lab...

Documents