smartphone use while driving: a simulator study · 4.9 perceptions of relative risks of driving...

Published Project Report PPR592

Smartphone use while driving – a simulator study

D Basacik, N Reed and R Robbins

Commissioned by

© Transport Research Laboratory 2011

Transport Research Laboratory Creating the future of transport

PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT PPR592

Smartphone use while driving

A simulator study

D. Basacik, N. Reed and R. Robbins

Prepared for: IAM (the Institute of Advanced Motorists)

Project Ref: 11111660

Quality approved:

Dan Basacik

(Project Manager)

Nick Reed

(Technical Referee)

Disclaimer

This report has been produced by the Transport Research Laboratory under a contract with IAM. Any views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of IAM.

The information contained herein is the property of TRL Limited and does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the customer for whom this report was prepared. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the matter presented in this report is relevant, accurate and up-to-date, TRL Limited cannot accept any liability for any error or omission, or reliance on part or all of the content in another context.

When purchased in hard copy, this publication is printed on paper that is FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) and TCF (Totally Chlorine Free) registered.

Contact details

TRL

Crowthorne House Nine Mile Ride Wokingham Berkshire RG40 3GA Tel: +44 (0)1344 773131 Fax: +44 (0)1344 770356 Email: [email protected]

The Institute of Advanced Motorists

IAM House 510 Chiswick High Road LONDON W4 5RG Tel: +44 (0) 20 8996 9600 Fax: +44 (0) 20 8996 9601 Email: [email protected]

IAM

Chief Executive’s Foreword

Over the last few years mobile phones have become significantly more developed, allowing people to access social networking sites, browse the internet, use maps and play music. Complex applications can now be used on the move anywhere in the world, and as technology advances further we need to understand how it impacts on driver behaviour.

We know that driver errors contribute to the vast majority of road accidents, with in-car distractions such as mobile phones increasing the risks of careless driving. Evidence on in-car distractions needs to stay up to date with advances in technology, and research on the multiple uses of smartphones is now needed.

The IAM has commissioned this timely report from TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) to understand the risks of using smartphones to access social networking sites whilst driving. As the UK’s largest independent road safety charity, we are committed to original research, and this report provides clear and decisive results which we hope will contribute to the future of road safety.

The ban on using handheld mobile phones in 2003 was met with a mixed response, and enforcement continues to be an issue. However, this report clearly shows that using a smartphone to access social networking sites creates risks to drivers as serious as drink driving by repeatedly drawing a driver’s vision and attention away from the road.

All drivers should be aware of the risks they are taking when using any mobile whilst driving. Even drivers who refrain from making calls may be tempted to use a smartphone to check a message, map, update their status, or look for traffic updates. More needs to be done to educate drivers, and encourage safe behaviour.

Government and road safety organisations need to work together to highlight the issue of smartphones and challenge perceptions. Phone manufacturers and social network providers also have a key role to play in spreading the message. Attitudes to seatbelts and drink driving have changed dramatically over the last thirty years, and, with the right information, the use of smartphones could become a similar success story.

I would like to thank TRL for their sound and in-depth analysis in this report, and for their hard work in collating the results. I believe that this report is a valuable addition to the body of research on in-car distractions, helping to keep road safety analysis up to date with technological advances.

Simon Best

Chief Executive

IAM

(Institute of Advanced Motorists)

Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 Literature review 3

2.1 Why worry about distracted driving? 3

2.2 Does mobile phone use while driving increase accident risk? 3

2.3 How does using a mobile phone affect driving? 3

2.4 What is known about smartphone use or social networking while driving? 4

2.5 Research hypotheses 5

3 Method 6

3.1 Participants 6

3.2 Equipment 6

3.3 Familiarisation 7

3.4 Study design 7

3.5 Participant instructions 7

3.6 Route design 8

3.7 Smartphone task 10

3.8 Overall design 14

3.9 Trial procedure 15

3.10 Recorded simulator data 15

3.11 Visual behaviour 16

3.12 Questionnaire 16

3.13 Calculation 16

4 Results 17

4.1 Participants 17

4.2 Reaction time (RT) tasks 17

4.3 Analyses of driving performance while using a smartphone 18

4.4 Visual behaviour 23

4.5 Effects of driving on smartphone use 26

4.6 Subjective effects of smartphone use on driving performance 27

4.7 Patterns of mobile phone use 29

4.8 Perceptions of legality 33

4.9 Perceptions of relative risks of driving behaviours 35

5 Discussion 36

5.1 Comparison with previous studies 37


Version 2.0 1 PPR592

Executive Summary

A substantial body of research has shown that use of a mobile phone while driving leads to poorer driving performance. Previous research has covered different elements of telephone use, including hand-held and hands-free use while making a call and the reading and writing of text messages.

Mobile phones have recently undergone a substantial change and ‘smartphones’ have gained popularity. These devices allow users to take part in a much broader range of activities than traditional mobile phones, including browsing the web, emailing, social networking, and browsing and playing personal media. With ‘smartphones’ now becoming common in the commercial marketplace, more and more drivers are able to engage in a broad range of possible activities on their phone. There is a clear potential for motorists to be tempted to conduct these activities whilst driving a vehicle.

This study set out to investigate whether there was an effect of social networking using a smartphone on driving performance. Twenty-eight young male and female participants took part in the study and drove a driving simulator through the same test scenario twice: once while using a smartphone to interact with a social networking site, and once without this distraction. This experimental approach allowed potentially hazardous road situations to be designed and experienced twice, in complete safety.

The results of the experiment clearly show that participants’ driving performance was impaired by the concurrent smartphone task, and the smartphone task was also affected by driving. When compared with their driving performance without a smartphone:

• Participants were more likely to miss the reaction time stimuli while using their phone.

• When they did respond, reaction times to visual and auditory stimuli were found to increase by approximately 30% when using a smartphone to send and receive messages on a social networking site.

• They were unable to maintain a central lane position and this resulted in an increased number of unintentional lane departures.

• They were unable to respond as quickly to a lead vehicle gradually changing speed, thus driving at a more variable time headway.

• They spent between 40% and 60% of the time looking down while using a smartphone to write or read messages, compared with about 10% of the time looking down in the same sections of the control drive.

These results suggest that participants’ driving was impaired when they were using a smartphone to send and receive messages on a social networking site. The results of this study indicate that this reduction in driving performance is likely to have been a result of three different types of distraction: having to concentrate on the smartphone task (cognitive), holding the phone (physical), and the significant increase in time spent looking at the phone (visual) in order to interact with it. Although participants did reduce their speed, this was not enough to compensate for the poorer driving performance; even though they were driving more slowly, they were still unable to control the vehicle as well as they did when they were not using their smartphone.



1 Introduction There is a substantial body of research that has shown the potential distraction posed to a driver by the use of a mobile phone. This research has covered different elements of telephone use, including hand-held and hands-free use while making a call (Burns et al., 2002, Strayer et al., 2006, Parkes et al., 2007) and the reading and writing of text messages (Reed and Robbins, 2008).

In recent years, however, mobile phones have undergone a substantial change and so-called ‘smartphones’ have gained popularity. Aside from making phone calls and sending text messages, these devices enable users to send and receive emails, connect to the internet to browse web pages, browse and play music and videos, social network and carry out a broad range of other activities. According to Ofcom, smartphone sales accounted for 48% of all mobile phone sales in the UK in the first quarter of 2011 (Ofcom, 2011). With ‘smartphones’ now becoming common in the commercial marketplace, more and more drivers are now able to engage in a broad range of possible activities on their phone. There is a clear potential for motorists to be tempted to conduct these activities whilst driving a vehicle.

Furthermore, even for the more traditional calling and texting functions of a phone, smartphone interfaces are significantly different to mobile phone interfaces from five to ten years ago. For example, many smartphones have touchscreens rather than keypads (Canalys, 2010), and with increasing functionality come the issues of device and menu complexity. Such interface issues are likely to change how people use the device and therefore how distracting it is to use the device while driving.

From the findings of research looking at more traditional aspects of mobile phone use in a vehicle, it is likely that smartphone use in a vehicle would pose a distraction and lead to a detriment in driving performance. What is not clear is the extent to which performance would be expected to decrease.

This report describes a study that has investigated the effects of using a smartphone for social networking while driving using a high-fidelity driving simulator. Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature on the use of mobile phones while driving and gives some background to the study, whilst Chapters 3 through 5 present the method, results and findings of the driving simulator study.



2 Literature review

2.1 Why worry about distracted driving?

In recent decades driver distraction has been a popular research topic and continues to receive significant attention. Two main factors are likely to be driving ongoing research. Firstly on-road studies are showing just how salient a factor distraction is in crashes. In NHTSA’s 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, participants were given an instrumented vehicle to drive instead of their own vehicle. The resulting dataset included 43,000 hours of driving (approximately 2 million vehicle miles) and showed that engagement in a secondary task contributed to more than 22% of all crashes and near-crashes that were recorded in the study period (Klauer et al., 2006).

The second reason is that the potential for drivers to be distracted is increasing as technology develops. More recent sources of distraction outside of the vehicle include motion picture advertising billboards (Chattington et al., 2010), while smart phones and systems built into the vehicle give the driver the opportunity to engage with email, social networking sites, music collections and to conduct a range of other activities.

Thus, an improved understanding of distraction as a contributory factor to crashes, and an awareness of the increasing potential for drivers to be distracted by technology are driving research efforts in this area.

2.2 Does mobile phone use while driving increase accident risk?

Data from the 100-car study (Klauer et al., 2006) shows that distraction is associated with accidents but does not distinguish between different distractors.

An earlier study examining the mobile telephone records belonging to 699 drivers involved in car accidents (with property damage only) showed that the risk of collision increased fourfold with mobile phone use (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997). Relative risk of collision was 1.3 times higher if calls were made up to 15 minutes before the collision and this figure rose to 4.8 times higher if a call was placed within 5 minutes of the collision (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997). Interestingly this study found no difference in accident risk between those having hand-held and hands-free mobile phone conversations, suggesting that the risk of collision isn’t related to holding the phone.

The results of this study indicate that having a mobile phone conversation while driving increases crash risk.

2.3 How does using a mobile phone affect driving?

Studies conducted on-road or in laboratory settings have looked closely at the particular effects that mobile phone use has on the performance of activities required for driving. They have concluded that mobile phone use is associated with:

• Increased ratings of mental workload (Parkes et al., 2007; Lesch & Hancock, 2004; Harbluk et al., 2002; Burns et al., 2002; Parkes et al., 1993)

• A reduction in people’s perceptual visual fields by up to 10% (Maples et al., 2008)

• Longer glances ahead, at the expense of other monitoring behaviours such as checking the mirrors and vehicle instruments (Parkes et al., 2007; Harbluk et al., 2002)



• Poorer awareness of and response to the traffic situation (Parkes et al., 2007, Parkes and Hooijmeijer, 2000) despite longer glances ahead

• Slower detection of and responses to hazards (Caird et al., 2008)

• A reduction in speed in an attempt to compensate for the perceived impairment caused by using a phone (Reed and Robbins, 2008; Burns et al., 2002)

This list shows how driving performance can suffer when people are given the additional task of using a mobile phone.

Interestingly, driving simulator studies have also shown that for some performance measures, hands-free mobile phone conversations can reduce driving performance as much as hand-held mobile phone conversations. For example, Parkes et al. (2007) concluded that mobile phone use delayed reaction times when compared with a control condition, and also when compared with a condition in which participants were at the UK legal limit for drink-driving, yet there was no statistically significant difference between the hand-held and hands-free mobile phone conditions.

When taken together with the studies described in Section 2.2, a clear conclusion is that having a mobile phone conversation while driving impairs driving performance.

2.4 What is known about smartphone use or social networking while driving?

This review has not found research looking at the effects of smartphone use for social networking on driving. However, it is possible to make high-level predictions based on studies which have looked at other devices or tasks that are in some ways similar.

Reading a message received through a social networking application on a smartphone may be similar to reading a text message received on an ordinary mobile phone. Reed and Robbins (2008) investigated the effects of reading and writing text messages on driving performance. When reading a text message, participants took longer to respond to stimuli, and were less able to keep to the centre of their lane or at a fixed distance behind a lead vehicle. Similar findings are also reported by Cooper et al. (2011) who studied driving performance while texting. Their experiment was carried out on a test track and the authors report significantly slower responses, more missed response events, reductions in speed, poor lane keeping and fewer glances ahead while texting.

Writing a message on a social networking site could be comparable with writing a text message. The studies carried out by Reed and Robbins (2008) and Cooper et al. (2011) found that writing a text message on a mobile phone had an even greater effect on driving performance than reading a message. All of the participants used mobile phones with ordinary push-button keypads in the former study, and although a wider variety of phone interfaces were used in the latter, no analysis of these differences is presented. Owens et al. (2010) examined driving performance while text messaging using handheld and in-vehicle systems. Participants used either a phone with a standard keypad or a touch screen but differences between groups were not reported.

Johnson (2011) highlights perceptual issues which affect how efficiently people can use touchscreens for data entry. He argues that while it is possible for people to learn to touch type without looking at a keyboard, the smooth surfaces of touch screens prevent people from being able to feel the location of keys, and therefore interactions require visual input. Sears (1991) found that participants in his study were able to type on



average 58 words per minute on a standard keyboard, but only 25 words per minute on a touchscreen keyboard with the same layout.

Keyboard and key size have a significant effect on typing speed. An experiment by Sears et al. (1993) has shown that both novice and experienced participants were able to type more quickly on a larger touchscreen keyboard with larger keys, than a smaller keyboard with smaller keys. The keyboards used in this study ranged from 6.8 to 24.6cm wide.

Tsimhoni et al. (2002) gave participants of their study the task of entering an address into a satellite navigation system while driving. Participants used three methods to enter the address; two of these used speech recognition and one used a touch screen keyboard on a 7 inch screen (this, compared with the 3.5 inch screen on the iPhone 4, not all of which is taken up by a keyboard). Keys were 12.7mm high by 12mm wide, and spaced 0.7mm apart. The study showed that the speech recognition systems were clearly favourable; people were able to complete address entry much more quickly and were able to keep closer to the centre of their lane, suggesting that manual text entry on the touch screen was a distracting task.

In summary, the literature seems to suggest that reading text on a mobile phone leads to poorer driving performance. One would expect this to hold true when using a smartphone for social networking. There is also evidence to suggest that text entry on a mobile phone distracts from the driving task. Furthermore, there are suggestions that use of touch screens for text entry brings with it issues that could exacerbate the problem.

2.5 Research hypotheses

Based on this literature it is possible to come up with some predictions about driving performance while using a smartphone for social networking. These predictions form the research hypotheses to be investigated during the driving simulator study:

• Participants will drive more slowly when they are using a smartphone

• Participants’ reaction times will be slower when using a smartphone

• Participants’ lane position will vary more while using a smartphone

• Participants will spend more time looking inside the vehicle while using a smartphone

• Participants will report that their driving was worse while using a smartphone

The method used during this study is described in Chapter 3. It is based heavily on that used by Reed and Robbins (2008), which itself is based Burns et al. (2002), enabling comparison of the extent of driver impairment with previous studies.



3 Method

3.1 Participants

Twenty-eight participants were recruited from the TRL participant database to take part in the study, with an approximately even split between males and females. They met the following criteria in order to be included in the study:

• Participants described themselves as regular users of Facebook on smartphones

• Participants had the Facebook app on their smartphone

• Participants were current owners of a touchscreen smartphone (iPhone or Android)

• Participants were aged between 18 and 25

• Participants drove more than 5000 miles per year

• Participants had experience of driving on a motorway

• Participants had driven the simulator before

• Participants successfully completed a familiarisation drive in the simulator

Participants were required to use their own phones for the study.

3.2 Equipment

The TRL Driving Simulator (DigiCar) consists of a medium sized family hatchback (Honda Civic) surrounded by four 3 × 4 metre projection screens giving 210º front vision and 60º rear vision, enabling the normal use of the vehicle’s driving and wing mirrors. The road images are generated by four PCs running SCANeR II software (manufactured by Oktal) and are projected onto the screens by five Digital Light Processing (DLP) projectors. Images are refreshed at a rate of 60Hz (every 16.7msec) whilst data is sampled at a rate of 20Hz (every 50msec).

Figure 1: TRL driving simulator, DigiCar



Electric motors supply motion with 3 degrees of freedom (heave, pitch and roll) whilst engine noise, external road noise, and the sounds of passing traffic are provided by a stereo sound system.

Two studies have demonstrated the validity of the TRL simulator (Duncan, 1995; Sexton, 1997) and Diels et al. (in press) confirm that the current simulator system is at least as accurate as that used in the Duncan and Sexton studies.

3.3 Familiarisation

Participants were required to complete a ten minute familiarisation drive on a benign motorway environment prior to completing any of the test drives. This was to help participants to become comfortable with controlling the simulator vehicle and driving in the virtual environment. The drive included a car following task in which participants were required to drive at a safe and constant distance behind a lead vehicle. During this task, white chevrons were included on the motorway (as used on some sections of UK motorways) helping the participant to judge a safe distance to the lead vehicle.

3.4 Study design

After familiarisation, participants carried out two drives:

• A smartphone drive in which they had to read and write messages and update their status using a social networking application

• A control drive along the same route, but without having to use a smartphone

To counterbalance any learning effects caused by driving the same route twice, the order of these two drives was alternated between participants.

3.5 Participant instructions

Participants were given the following instructions:



Before the smartphone drive, participants were also instructed:

If participants asked whether they should put their phone in a specific place in the vehicle, they were advised that they should keep it wherever they normally would while they were driving.

3.6 Route design

The simulator route driven by participants consisted of four sections with smooth naturalistic transitions between each section. These are shown in Table 1.

During this drive you will be asked to send and receive private messages on Facebook and update your Facebook status. Your contact for all of the private

messages is Daniel Boyd, who we added as your Facebook friend earlier. Please only send and read messages when you are asked to. Please write messages as you

normally would, ie using short words and predictive text.

Please adjust the seat position and secure the safety belt. The car controls work in the same manner as any normal car and it operates with a manual gearbox.

You need to make sure the car is in neutral when you start it and it needs plenty

of revs, otherwise it has a tendency to stall.

It is important that you drive as you would normally. We don’t want you to drive as if you are on a driving test nor as if the simulation is a computer game. We are

not here to judge your driving, so please do not feel anxious.

A red bar like the one you can see on the screen now will appear during your drive. There is also a buzzing noise that will sound during the drive. When you

hear the buzzing noise, or see the red bar please press the clutch pedal as quickly as you possibly can. You will hear the buzzing sound about 20 seconds into this

drive as a practice to help you recognise it.

The drive will start on the motorway with normal traffic. After a while, the motorway will end and you will reach a series of bends. You should try to keep to 40 mph through this section and the simulator will assess your ability to keep to

the centre of your lane through the bends.

After the series of bends, you will drive on the motorway again. After a period of time you will see a vehicle in front of you. Please pull up behind this vehicle and

follow it, doing your best to keep at a safe and constant distance behind it. A voice instruction will let you know when the car following task has finished.

There will be voice instructions to remind you about these tasks.



Table 1: The road sections used for the simulator trial

Section Description Length Configuration

1 Motorway 1 17.5 miles 3 lane motorway plus hard shoulder in each direction. Light traffic present

2 Two loops 4.6miles Each loop is a two-lane ‘figure 8’ with a long left turn and long right turn separated by a short straight

3 Car following 8.1 miles 3 lane motorway plus hard shoulder in each direction. One vehicle present that the participant is required to follow at a steady distance

4 Motorway 2 7.3 miles 3 lane motorway plus hard shoulder in each direction. Light traffic present

Total 37.5 miles

In the loops section, participants were instructed to try to stay in the centre of their lane and to drive at 40mph.

In the car following section, participants were instructed to follow the lead vehicle at safe and constant distance (as they would have experienced in the familiarisation drive). The lead vehicle smoothly and repetitively increased and decreased its speed between 43.8mph (70kph) and 68.8mph (110kph) over a period of 20 seconds.

3.6.1 Reaction time events

During both the smartphone and control drives, participants were required to respond to trigger stimuli on four occasions in order to test their reaction times. In three of the reaction events, the trigger stimulus was a short auditory tone (60dB; 0.45 seconds duration; 333Hz). The fourth reaction time trigger event was the presentation of a red bar stimulus above the carriageway and ahead of the driven vehicle across all motorway lanes. This is shown in Figure 2.



Figure 2: Red bar stimulus

Participants were instructed to respond by depressing the clutch pedal as quickly as possible. Clutch depression is measured from 0 (foot off clutch) to 1 (clutch fully depressed). The threshold for clutch activation was 0.1 (10% clutch depression). If clutch depression was greater than 10% at the time of the reaction time trigger, the event would have been ignored but this did not occur in any of the trials. If participants failed to respond within 10 seconds, this was treated as a missed event.

3.7 Smartphone task

The research brief was to use a social networking task. This would serve the purpose of straying beyond the functionality of a standard mobile phone whilst still requiring participants to take part in written communication, as one would when sending and receiving text messages.

3.7.1 Choice of social networking application

A plethora of applications are available which allow users to access many websites via their smartphones. For the current study, we conducted market research to identify a widely used social networking application. This was to ensure the secondary task used in the experiment was representative of real-world usage.

Table 2 shows which mobile applications were most widely visited by UK mobile consumers in April 2011. The data show that nearly 8.8 million UK mobile owners used



an app that connected to the internet during April 2011, with Google Maps ranking as the most accessed app with 6.4 million unique users. It can be seen that the social networking application ‘Facebook’ was ranked as the third most often used application. Other popular social networking applications such as ‘LinkedIn’ or ‘Twitter’ did not feature in the top 10.

Table 2: Connected Mobile Applications Ranked by Unique Visitors (from Comscore, 2011)

Rank Mobile app Total unique visitors

1 Google Maps 6,419,503

2 Yahoo! Weather 3,567,047

3 Facebook 3,456,442

4 Google Mobile 2,554,329

5 YouTube 2,438,348

6 eBay 1,195,496

7 Sky Sports Live Football Score Centre 1,004,085

8 Yahoo! Stocks 959,289

9 WhatsApp Messenger 798,656

10 Sky News 732,374

Total connected app users: 8,735,197

Figure 3 shows the demographics of Facebook users. It can be seen that for all age categories, there tends to be approximately an equal split between male and female users with slightly more female users. Furthermore, the figure shows that Facebook use is biased towards the younger age categories. In the context of the current study, it is of relevance to point out that motorists under 24 years of age are overrepresented in the accident statistics (DfT, 2011). Hence, the issue of smartphone use by younger drivers is of particular relevance.

On the basis of the above information, ‘Facebook’ was chosen as an appropriate application to be used in the experimental study.

Figure 3: UK Facebook users split by age and gender (Sources: Facebook, Alexa, June 2010)

Age

(yea

rs)

Number of users


Version 2.0

3.7.2 Choice of smartp

Table 3 shows the percentagApple and Google Android similarity in both functionalApple and Android, the expoperating systems (OS).

Table 3: Share (%) of CoS

Smartphone Operatin

Apple iOS

Google Android OS

Symbian OS

Other OS

Figure 4 shows the Faceboooperating systems. It can beApple OS provides slightly mhomepage. In selecting thethose related to these three

Figure 4: Sample screenAn

12

phone operating system

ge of users for the different smartphone oaccount for 96% of the market share

ity and user interface of the Facebook apperiment allowed participants to partake

onnected Application Users by SmartphSystem (from Comscore, 2011)

ng System Total Unique Visitors

5,702,166

2,699,982

118,957

356,871

k home page on the Apple (left) and Googe seen that the application is similar on botmore functions (“Chats” “Groups” “Places”)e tasks to be completed by participants functionalities were excluded.

nshot of the Facebook home page on Adroid (right) operating systems

PPR592

operating systems. . Because of the pplication on both with either of the

hone Operating

% Share

65%

31%

1%

3%

gle Android (right) th OS whereby the ) on the Facebook during the study,

pple (left) and



3.7.3 Facebook tasks whilst driving

Through the course of the drive participants were required to perform a succession of different tasks using the Facebook application. Participants were asked to become Facebook ‘friends’ with a ‘Daniel Boyd’, whose account was used by experimenters to send messages to participants and receive messages from them during the smartphone drive.

3.7.3.1 Writing messages

Participants had to write five messages in the drive. All comprised an approximately similar number of characters. The instructions as to what to write and the message recipient were delivered as automated verbal messages in the simulation. Participants were instructed to compose the text in their own usual style. This included using predictive text, autocorrect and applying SMS language. The first message was included as practice to ensure participants were comfortable what was required of them.

Table 4 shows the messages that participants were required to compose.

Table 4: Messages composed by participants whilst driving

Message Section Message Characters

Practice 1 I am driving a great car simulator 34

1 1 Happy birthday Have fun at the party 36

2 2 Nice to see you at the cafe yesterday 37

3 3 Dont worry Have a nice time in Paris 36

4 4 Sorry about your ankle Get well soon 36

3.7.3.2 Reading messages

Participants were sent two messages over the course of their drive. Participants were informed by an automated voice instruction that they were about to receive a message and that they would need to read the message in order to be able to answer the questionnaire at the end of the drive. Table 5 shows the messages that participants received.

Table 5: Messages received by participants whilst driving

Message Section Message

1 1 Edward has forgotten his BOWTIE for the wedding

2 2 Fiona won the SILVER medal in the 100m sprint

3.7.3.3 Updating Facebook status

In addition to writing and reading messages, participants were also asked to update their Facebook status. Table 6 shows the section and text for the status update.


Version 2.0

Section Text

3 I am near

3.7.3.4 Control message

To compare how quickly paparticipants were timed comthey were not driving. These

Table 7: Timed message

Message

Best of luck for your driving

Well done Looking forward to

Please can you bring red win

Where did you get those new

3.8 Overall design

Figure 5 shows the incidencethe smartphone drive. Note drive with the exception that

Figure 5: Schematic timel

14

Table 6: Status update text

Ch

r the end of the virtual world 38

es

rticipants could write short messages on mposing some comparable text on their e were as follows:

es composed by participants without ddriving)

test today

o the wedding

ne tonight

w trousers

e of social networking tasks and reaction tithat the control drive is exactly the same at participants were not required to interact

ine of events in the drive

PPR592

haracters

8

their smartphone,smartphone when

distraction (i.e.

Characters

40

40

37

36

ime (RT) events in as the smartphone with their phone.



3.9 Trial procedure

The trial proceeded as shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Trial procedure and schedule

Time from start Activity Duration

0 Welcome and introduction 5

5 Control messages (either before or after drives) 5

10 Simulator: Familiarisation drive 10

20 Background questionnaire 10

30 Drive 1 (Smartphone or Control) 40

70 Break 10

80 Drive 2 (Control or Smartphone) 40

120 Phone usage questionnaire 20

140 Depart

3.10 Recorded simulator data

Table 9 shows the data recorded by the simulator. All data was recorded at 20Hz.

Table 9: Data recorded by the simulator

Data Notes

Time Time elapsed since the start of the trial

X position of interactive vehicle The X position of the interactive vehicle within the map of the simulated environment.

Y position of interactive vehicle The Y position of the interactive vehicle within the map of the simulated environment.

Z position of interactive vehicle The Z position of the interactive vehicle within the map of the simulated environment.

Speed Current speed of the interactive vehicle

Distance through trial Distance travelled by participant relative to the start of the virtual road

Lateral distance from centre of road

The distance of the centre of the interactive vehicle from the centre of the road

Headway The distance headway between the interactive vehicle and the back of any vehicle ahead.

Time Headway The time headway between the interactive vehicle and the back of any vehicle ahead.

Accelerator pedal Current proportion of accelerator pedal depression.

Brake pedal Current proportion of brake pedal depression.

Clutch pedal Current proportion of clutch pedal depression.

Steering wheel Current angle of steering wheel rotation



3.11 Visual behaviour

In addition to the simulator data, a video of participants’ faces was recorded during the drive in order to analyse visual behaviour. Videos coding took place as follows.

The coders skipped to the points in each smartphone drive where the automated voice instruction ended. From there, they watched the video at (at least) half speed, using a stopwatch to record:

• Total time spent looking down (this does not distinguish between looking at the phone or other parts of the in-vehicle environment)

• Total time spent looking up (ie at the road, mirrors, etc)

• Duration of interaction with phone (sum of the above)

Smartphone interaction was assumed to finish if the participant looked ‘up’ for at least five consecutive seconds.

The same locations of each participant’s control drive were also coded.

3.12 Questionnaire

A post-trial questionnaire was also administered in order to record participants’ perceptions of their riving performance and opinions about mobile phone use while driving.

3.13 Calculation

Data processing was conducted using Microsoft Excel 2007 and statistical analysis took place using SPSS 19.0. In all statistical tests p values of less than 0.05 were taken to be significant. Where shown, error bars indicate the 95% confidence interval of the mean.



4 Results

4.1 Participants

Twenty-eight participants took part in the study. Twelve were female and sixteen were male. Participants were aged between 18 and 26 years (M=22.4, SD = 2.32). Only participants who used Apple or Android phones with touchscreen keypads and who described themselves as being regular users of the Facebook application on their smartphone were selected.

4.2 Reaction time (RT) tasks

During each drive in the simulator, participants were asked to respond to three auditory tones and a red bar visual stimulus by pressing the clutch pedal as quickly as possible. In the smartphone drive these stimuli coincided with social networking tasks:

• Auditory reaction time task 1 coincided with Read message 1 in section 1

• Auditory reaction time task 2 coincided with Write message 2 in section 2

• Auditory reaction time task 3 coincided with Update status in section 3

• Visual reaction time task coincided with Write message 4 in section 4

In the control drive, participants were given no social networking tasks to coincide with the reaction time tasks. Thus, a comparison between the two drives was possible.

4.2.1 Response rate

Data for 220 reaction time tests were collected; 112 from participants’ control drives and 108 from their smartphone drives. Participants failed to respond to three of these tests during the control drive, and 10 of the tests during the smartphone drive. These differences are statistically significant (Fisher’s exact; p=.047) suggesting that participants were more likely to fail to respond to reaction time stimuli while using their smartphone. In real driving scenarios this has implications for drivers’ responses to hazardous situations, and suggests that drivers may miss warnings or hazards.

4.2.2 Reaction times

On occasions where participants did respond to the auditory or visual stimuli, their reaction times tended to be slower during the smartphone drives. Auditory 1 was triggered during a read message task, Auditory 2 during a write message task, Auditory 3 during a status update task and the Visual stimulus during a write message task.



Figure 6: Mean reaction times

Paired samples t-test comparisons show that differences were statistically significant for two pairs of the reaction time tests: Auditory 1 (t(24) = -2.242, p=.035) and Visual (t(22) = -3.478, p-.002). Figure 6 illustrates these differences. These results suggest that using a smartphone for social networking while driving can slow drivers’ responses to events taking place on the road. The differences in reaction times between the two drives were not statistically significant for Auditory 2 or 3.

4.3 Analyses of driving performance while using a smartphone

Participants were asked to interact with their phone on seven separate occasions during their social networking drive. On four occasions they were asked to write a pre-defined message, they were instructed to read messages on two occasions and they were also asked to update their Facebook status.

As participants drove the same route in their control drives, it was possible to compare driving performance in the sections where participants were interacting with their smartphone, with driving performance at the exact same locations in the control drive. Four key measures of driving performance were taken:

• Mean speed

• Standard deviation of speed (an indication of how variable speed was)

• Standard deviation of lane position (an indication of variability of lateral position)

• Maximum speed

For one section of the route, in which participants wrote their third message while following a lead vehicle, the time headway between the driven vehicle and the lead vehicle was also calculated.

The instructions to interact with their smartphone were pre-recorded and played at exactly the same point along the route for each participant. As it was difficult to ascertain the precise point at which participants started and finished using their phone, the following assumptions were made to define the sections for analysis:

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

22.22.42.6

Auditory 1 Visual

React

ion

tim

e(s

ec)

Control

Smartphone



• Smartphone interaction was assumed to start at the moment the pre-recorded instruction ended

• Smartphone interaction was assumed to end if participants looked up at the road for an uninterrupted duration of at least 5 seconds

Statistically significant differences in driving performance are described below.

4.3.1 Mean speeds

Participants were instructed to write their first and fourth messages while driving in light traffic along a motorway, their second message while following a series of curves at 40mph and their third message while following a lead vehicle at a constant distance. Figure 7 shows participants’ mean speeds during these smartphone episodes.

Figure 7: Mean speeds during smartphone episodes

On average participants drove more slowly when writing messages on their smartphone while driving (Write 1: t(23)=2.238, p=.035; Write 2: t(22)=2.626, p=.015; Write 3: t(26)=2.134, p=.042; Write 4: t(25)=2.057, p=.05). This is consistent with previous research which suggests that participants slow down in order to compensate for the perceived impairment of using a phone while driving (see Chapter 2).

The difference in mean speeds for the two drives were not statistically significant for the message reading or status update tasks.

4.3.2 Standard deviation of speed

Participants’ speed varied more in two sections of the smartphone drive when compared with the control drive. These were while writing their fourth message (on a motorway in light traffic) and updating their Facebook status (while following a lead vehicle whose speed varied). Figure 8 shows these differences.

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1st written 2nd written 3rd written 4th written

Mean

speed

(mp

h)

Control

Smartphone



Figure 8: Standard deviation of speed during smartphone episodes

Paired samples t-tests confirmed that these results were statistically significant (Write 4: t(25)=-2.305, p=.03; Update status: t(26)=-2.736, p=.011), suggesting that participants were slowing down and speeding up more while using a smartphone.

4.3.3 Standard deviation of lane position

Participants were asked to write their second message and read the second message sent to them while following a curved section of road. They were asked to drive at 40mph and in the centre of their lane. While carrying out these smartphone tasks their lane position varied more than in the same section of the control drive. The same happened when they were writing their third message while following a lead vehicle on a motorway. These differences are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Standard deviation of lane position during smartphone episodes

Paired samples t-tests were conducted and the results showed that these differences were statistically significant (Write 2: t(22)=-3.598, p=.002; Write 3: t(26)=-4.539,

.0

.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

4th written Status update

Control

Smartphone

.00

.10

.20

.30

.40

.50

.60

.70

.80

.90

2nd written 3rd written 2nd read

Sta

nd

ard

devia

tion

of

lan

ep

osi

tio

n

Control

Smartphone



p=.000; and read 2: t(26)=-5.114, p=.000). No significant differences were found for other smartphone tasks.

Further calculations were carried out to investigate the consequences of participants’ poor lane-keeping. It was found that participants crossed over the lane markings 26 times while using their smartphone to write the second message, but kept within their lane at all times during their control drive. This is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Number of lane excursions during 2nd written message

While writing their third message, participants crossed the lane markings four times, but did not cross the lane markings in the same section of the road during their control drive. They did not cross the lane markings at all while reading a message sent to them.

The deterioration in lateral control is consistent with results from other studies (see Chapter 2) which have looked at the effects of distracted driving. This suggests that driving while using a smartphone to write messages could pose a significant threat to the safety of vehicles in adjacent lanes.

4.3.4 Maximum speed

The maximum speed that participants reached during each smartphone episode was calculated but no significant differences emerged between these speeds and the highest speeds reached in the same sections of the control drive.

4.3.5 Time headway

Calculations were also made to understand how well participants were able to follow the lead vehicle while writing their third message. The results showed no difference in mean time headway or the shortest time headway observed, but did show a difference in how variable participants’ time headway was (t(26)=-3.291, p=.003).

0

26 excursions, 5 participants

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Control Smartphone

Nu

mb

er

of

lan

eexcu

rsio

ns



Figure 11: Standard deviation of time headway

Figure 11 shows that time headway varied significantly more during the smartphone drive, suggesting that participants were less able to respond to its changing speed. This finding is consistent with the reaction time data, which also suggests poorer responses to stimuli in the environment.

4.3.6 Gender differences

The sample of drivers tested contained an approximately equal number of males and females. Thus, it was possible to investigate the relative effects of the smartphone tasks on the driving performance of male and female participants. Repeated measures ANOVA tests were carried out, with gender as a between-subjects factor.

In general, the data showed that there was a statistically significant difference between males and females in the following measurements:

• Standard deviation of time headway during the 3rd written message (F(1,25)=4.909, p=.003)

• Mean speed for write 4 only (F(1,19)=4.762, p=.042)

• Standard deviation of lane position during write 2 (F(1,21)=4.372, p=.049), write 3 (F(1,21)=4.520, p=.046) and read 2 (F(1,25)=11.876, p=.002)

• Standard deviation of speed during update message (F(1,25)=10.357, p=.004)

Key statistics in relation to these measures are presented in Table 10.

.00

.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Control Smartphone

Sta

nd

ard

devia

tio

no

fh

ead

way



Table 10: Performance of males and females on key measures of driving performance in each drive

Females Males

Measure Drive Section N Mean SD N Mean SD

SD time headway Smartphone Write message 3 12 .97 .56 16 .48 .27

SD time headway

Control Write message 3 11 1.92 1.86 16 1.14 .76

Mean speed Smartphone Write message 4 11 71.22 3.10 16 74.49 5.05

Mean speed Control Write message 4 11 65.75 8.22 16 73.03 6.18

SD Lane Pos Smartphone Write message 2 10 .29 .07 14 .25 .06

SD Lane Pos Control Write message 2 9 .63 .44 14 .40 .10

SD Lane Pos Smartphone Write message 3 12 .25 .08 16 .17 .04

SD Lane Pos Control Write message 3 11 .37 .17 16 .24 .07

SD Lane Pos Smartphone Read message 2 12 .33 .09 16 .26 .08

SD Lane Pos Control Read message 2 11 .47 .14 16 .30 .07

SD Speed Smartphone Update message 12 2.42 1.09 16 1.69 .93

SD Speed Control Update message 11 3.33 1.08 16 2.20 .88

The results indicate that for these sections males tended to reduce their speed less, not vary their lateral position, distance from the lead vehicle or speed as much as females did. Thus, on these measures of performance, females did not perform as well as males. Differences between the driving performance of males and females were not statistically significant for any of the other measurements taken.

An interaction effect of drive and gender was found for only one of these variables: standard deviation of lane position during the second read message task (F(1,25)=11.582, p=.002). This suggests that the smartphone task affected males differently to females, with females’ performance deteriorating more than that of males.

4.4 Visual behaviour

A video recording of each participant was taken during the drive and this made it possible to observe their visual behaviour. Of particular interest were the sections of the smartphone drive in which participants were interacting with their phone, and the same locations in the control drive. The video was coded to compute the following variables for each smartphone episode:

• Total time spent looking down (this does not distinguish between looking at the phone or other parts of the in-vehicle environment)

• Total time spent looking up (ie at the road, mirrors, etc)

• Duration of interaction with phone (sum of the above)



On average, participants spent 28.36 seconds per smartphone episode looking down when compared with an average 5.1 seconds looking down in the same sections of the control drive. Table 11 shows how this breaks down across all episodes of smartphone use and also gives the same information about the comparable sections of the control drive.

Table 11: Amount of time (in seconds) spent looking down during the messaging section of the smartphone drive and equivalent section of the

control drive (note: message completion times not equal)

Drive Smartphone

episode N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std. Deviation

Sm

artp

hon

e

Write 1 24 14.14 46.99 31.34 10.37

Read 1 26 2.42 40.81 16.25 10.08

Write 2 27 5.90 77.91 30.73 14.76

Read 2 25 4.60 36.32 12.55 7.68

Update 27 20.02 92.54 41.55 14.97

Write 3 27 20.64 66.33 34.47 11.52

Write 4 27 15.90 119.52 30.40 20.28

Con

trol

Write 1 20 .91 10.23 4.68 2.31

Read 1 19 .00 8.74 3.50 2.75

Write 2 25 .00 20.00 6.83 4.45

Read 2 27 .00 13.65 3.07 3.19

Update 27 .00 27.11 6.53 5.62

Write 3 27 .00 14.54 4.59 3.17

Write 4 27 .00 15.13 4.51 3.58

It can be seen that on average, participants spent longer looking down during sections of the smartphone drive. Figure 12 displays the time participants spent looking down as a percentage of the time they were interacting with the phone during that episode of phone use. This accounts for the fact that each smartphone episode lasted a different length of time.



Figure 12: Percentage of time spent looking down during the messaging section of the smartphone drive and equivalent section of the control drive

It is clear that on average, participants spent between 40% and 65% of their time looking down during smartphone episodes, when compared with under 15% of time when not using a smartphone. Paired samples t-tests were used to investigate whether these differences in visual behaviour between the smartphone and control drives were statistically significant. Table 12 shows that for all smartphone episodes, the differences were highly statistically significant. Participants spent much longer looking down when using a smartphone than when not using a smartphone.

Table 12: Results of statistical test comparing the percentage of time spent looking down

Smartphone

Mean (SD)

Control

Mean (SD) df t p

Write 1 55.3% (9.0%) 9.0% (4.3%) 19 21.275 .000

Read 1 48.5% (11.4%) 7.9% (6.7%) 21 15.483 .000

Write 2 46.6% (12.9%) 10.6% (6.4%) 24 13.300 .000

Read 2 42.5% (10.2%) 12.0% (9.5%) 23 11.074 .000

Update 62.2% (7.87%) 9.9% (7.5%) 25 24.599 .000

Write 3 60.6% (8.2%) 8.6% (5.4%) 25 26.874 .000

Write 4 58.9% (7.2%) 10.3% (6.7%) 24 29.428 .000

Although in the smartphone drives it is not possible to distinguish between time spent looking at the phone and time spent looking at driving-related targets inside the vehicle (such as the speedometer), it can be assumed that the control drive represents participants’ normal visual behaviour. Thus, the difference between the two drives represents the distraction from driving caused by use of the smartphone. This change in

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Write 1 Write 2 Write 3 Write 4 Update Read 1 Read 2

Perc

en

tag

eo

fti

me

spen

tlo

okin

gd

ow

n

Control

Smartphone



visual behaviour fits well with the findings that measures of driving performance suffered while participants were using a smartphone.

From some of the videos it was also possible to glean where participants were holding their phone while using it. Some tended to place it against the top of the steering wheel whereas others held it lower down or to one side. However, it was not possible to pinpoint the location of the phone during all drives, so statistical analysis of the effects of phone location was not conducted.

4.5 Effects of driving on smartphone use

Although the primary aim of this research is to investigate the effect of smartphone use on the task of driving, carrying out two tasks at once can lead to reductions in performance on both tasks. To investigate this, participants’ recall of the messages they sent and the time it took them to compose messages was investigated.

4.5.1 Recall of received messages

During the trial participants were sent two messages and were prompted in the post-trial questionnaire to recall a key fact from each message. All participants responded to the question. Table 13 shows that only one participant (a different participant in each case) was unable to recall the content of the message.

Table 13: Participants' recall of the messages sent to them

No. respondents No. Correct No. Incorrect

Message 1 28 27 1

Message 2 28 27 1

This demonstrates that, on the whole, participants did pay attention to the content of the message.

4.5.2 Time taken to write messages

The second measure taken to assess performance on the task of writing messages was the time it took to do so. Figure 13 shows that participants took on average just under 14 seconds to write the control messages, but when driving, it took them on average 56.6 seconds to write messages of a comparable length.



Figure 13: Average time taken to write messages while driving and control messages while not driving

A paired samples t-test confirmed that these differences were statistically significant (t(27)=-18.937, p=.000). Thus, it would seem that the task of driving also interfered with use of the smartphone.

4.6 Subjective effects of smartphone use on driving performance

After each drive, participants were asked eight questions in which they had to rate specific aspects of their driving performance. Table 14 shows the questions participants were asked, their responses for each drive (mean and standard deviation) and results of paired comparison t-tests.

.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Baseline Driving

Tim

e(s

ecs

)



Table 14: Subjective ratings of performance during the two drives

Question Smartphone

Mean (SD)

Control

Mean (SD) t df p

Compared to how you normally drive, how well do you think you drove in the first motorway section?

47.6 (21.1) 61.6 (20.5) -2.938 27 .007

How easy or difficult was it to drive at 40mph and stay in the centre of the lane during the curve following task?

36.6 (16.9) 54.8 (21.1) -3.860 27 .001

Compared to how you normally drive on curved roads, how well do you think you drove during the curve following task?

29.2 (17.7) 46.8 (21.4) -3.607 27 .001

Compared to how you normally drive when following other vehicles, how well do you think you drove in the car following section?

45.3 (20.1) 55.4 (21.5) -2.234 27 .034

How easy or difficult was it to maintain a constant distance during the car following task?

34.8 (16.3) 42.4 (21.1) -1.791 27 .085

How easy or difficult was it to respond to any tones you might have heard?

50.7 (20.6) 58.0 (21.3) -1.892 27 .069

How easy or difficult was it to respond to the red bar stimulus which you might have observed?

41.6 (22.1) 56.0 (20.6) -2.878 27 .008

Compared to how you normally drive, how well do you think you drove overall?

41.2 (19.4) 55.6 (16.5) -3.341 27 .002

The results show that participants tended to feel that their performance was worse during the smartphone drive. All but two results are statistically significant. The differences between their ratings for the two drives of their ability maintain a constant distance during the car following task and the ease of responding to auditory tones failed to reach statistical significance. These perceptions do not match the measures taken from the simulator, which show significant delays in responding to the first auditory tone during the smartphone drive. Thus, participants’ actual performance may be have deteriorated even if they do not perceive this to be the case.



Aside from asking participants how they performed during each drive, the questionnaire also asked how they felt social networking affected different aspects of their driving. Table 15 presents participants’ views of the effect of social networking on their concentration towards driving, its effect on their speed, headway, lane keeping, hazard awareness and overall driving performance.

Table 15: Participants' perceptions of the effects of social networking on driving

N Min Max Mean SD

Concentration

(high score means increased

concentration)

Updating status 28 1.1 13 4.35 2.71

Reading messages 28 0.5 9.8 4.83 2.49

Writing messages 28 0 9 2.78 1.99

Effect on speed

(high score means increased speed)

Updating status 27 0.2 73 6.74 13.54


Writing messages 28 0 8.6 3.74 2.53

Effect on headway

(high score means driving closer to car

in front)

Updating status 27 0 8.8 3.99 2.79

Reading messages 28 0 8.4 3.34 2.17

Writing messages 28 0 8 3.07 2.36

Effect on lane keeping

(high scores represent struggling to

maintain lane position)

Updating status 28 5.6 9.9 7.80 1.27


Writing messages 28 4.3 62 9.69 10.34

Effect on awareness of hazards

(high scores represent being less aware)

Updating status 28 0.9 9.5 7.45 1.77

Reading messages 27 1 9.6 6.34 2.02


Overall driving performance

(high scores represent worse driving

performance)

Updating status 28 2.8 10 7.79 1.54

Reading messages 28 4.8 10 7.19 1.51


The scores indicate that participants thought social networking negatively affected their concentration, lane keeping, hazard awareness and overall driving performance. They also reported that they left more distance between themselves and lead vehicles.

4.7 Patterns of mobile phone use

The post trial questionnaire enquired about participants’ patterns of mobile phone use, in order to establish their level of familiarity with the device and the tasks they were asked to perform during the trial.

4.7.1 Familiarity with the device

On average, participants reported that they had owned their phone for just over a year and a half (Mean = 1.6, SD=1.3). Only one participant had owned their phone for one



month or less, suggesting that the vast majority of the sample was familiar with their phone.

Participants were given four messages to write while they were not driving. On average it took participants 13.9 (SD=4.93) seconds to write these messages. Figure 14 shows the time taken for each of these four messages.

Figure 14: Mean and standard deviation of time taken to write baseline messages

Figure 15 shows the distribution of participants’ mean baseline message writing times.

Figure 15: Boxplot of time taken (in seconds) to write messages when not driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

Message 1 Message 2 Message 3 Message 4

Tim

e(s

ecs

)



This shows that participants 16 and 22 took longer to write messages than the remainder of the participants. However, the time it took them to write messages during the drives was within two standard deviations of the sample mean. Thus, there is no basis for concern that they were engaging in the secondary task of using their phone for longer than the rest of the sample.

4.7.2 Familiarity with social networking and different phone functions

In order to ascertain whether participants were familiar with social networking sites, they were asked how often per week they accessed social networks. All participants were users of social networking sites and just under half accessed social networking sites over thirty times per week (see Figure 16). This suggests that participants were familiar with social networking sites.

Figure 16: The number of times per week participants access social networking sites

It was also of interest to know how often they used their smartphone for basic mobile phone functions as well as for social networking. Figure 17 shows the frequency with which participants reported using their phone for spoken conversations, texting and social networking.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31+

Nu

mb

er

of

part

icip

an

ts

Number of times per week



Figure 17: The number of times per week participants access social networking sites via their smartphone

More participants reported texting very frequently (31+times a week) than they did using their phone for spoken conversations or social networking. Nevertheless, all participants reported that they use their smartphone to access social networking sites at least once per week. In fact, the results suggest that participants use their phone to access social networking sites about as often as they do for spoken conversations.

Participants were asked to rate the ease of using their smartphone to access social networking sites on a scale of 0 – 100 (0=very difficult, 100 = very easy). The average score given by participants was 76.7 (SD=28.7). Nevertheless, there were four participants who gave a rating of 20 or less.

4.7.3 Use of phone while driving

Participants were asked a series of questions about their use of mobile phones while driving, including:

• Do you take your smartphone with you when driving?

• How often do you leave your smartphone switched on while driving?

• If you leave your phone switched on while driving, how often do you leave it on silent?

• Do you have a cradle for your phone in your car? If so how often do you use it?

• Do you use your phone hands free while driving

• Do you access social networking sites while driving?

All participants reported that they take their smartphone with them when they are driving. The overwhelming majority responded that they always leave their phone switched on, while only two participants said that they ‘often’ leave it switched on. Only nine of the 26 respondents to the question reported that they always or often keep their phone on silent while they are driving. Leaving a mobile phone (and its ringer) on while driving could present a temptation to use it.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31+

Nu

mb

er

of

part

icip

an

ts

Number of times per week

Spoken conversations

Texting

Social networking



In the UK it is currently illegal to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving. Only six out of 25 respondents to the question reported that they have a cradle in their car for their mobile phone, and of these six, only two reported that they always use it. Thus, if they do use their mobile phone while driving, the majority of participants in this study would be at risk of non-compliance with the law.

Participants were asked whether they access social networking sites while they are driving. Figure 18 shows that three of the 21 participants who responded to this question said they do.

Figure 18: The number of participants who access social networking sites while driving

While this is not a large proportion of drivers in this study, it does suggest that social networking is an activity that some people engage in while driving. Thus, this activity cannot be ruled out as a safety risk on the grounds that people don’t do it.

4.8 Perceptions of legality

In the post-trial questionnaire participants were asked whether they thought certain activities are illegal, and whether they think these activities should be illegal. These activities were:

• Writing a message while the phone is in a cradle

• Reading a message while the phone is in a cradle

• Writing a message using the phone handheld

• Reading a message while using the phone handheld

• Writing a message using a text-to-speech function on the phone

Twenty-seven participants answered these questions. Figure 19 shows that a majority of participants thought that it was illegal to read or write messages regardless of whether the phone was in a cradle or used handheld. Perceptions were more mixed in relation to use of the text-to-speech function, with more people being unsure or thinking it was a legal activity than with the others.

02468

101214161820

No Yes

Nu

mb

er

of

part

icip

an

ts

Whether participants access social networking sites while driving



Figure 19: Perceptions of current legality of phone use while driving

In fact, current legislation does not specifically prohibit use of a phone to send and receive text messages; the only requirement is that the phone is in a cradle. The Highway Code does, however, advise that, “it is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving or riding – find a safe place to stop first or use the voicemail facility and listen to messages later.” (DirectGov, 2011)

Figure 20 shows that participants’ perception of the current legality of these activities was well-aligned with their opinions on whether the activities should or should not be legal.

Figure 20: Perceptions of whether phone use while driving should be legal

Most participants thought that use of a phone to write or read messages should be illegal, although more participants thought that writing messages using text-to-speech functions should be legal than other activities (14 participants compared with 24-26 participants for the other activities).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

write (in cradle)

read (in cradle)

write (handheld)

read (handheld)

write (text to speech)

Not sure

Illegal

Legal

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

write (in cradle)

read (in cradle)

write (handheld)

read (handheld)

write (text to speech)

Not sure

Illegal

Legal



4.9 Perceptions of relative risks of driving behaviours

Participants were asked to judge the difference that sixteen driving behaviours make to a person’s safety while driving. The response scale was from 0% (less dangerous) to 100% (more dangerous). The results for this section of the questionnaire are presented in Table 16.

Table 16: Participants’ judgements of the safety of different driving behaviours

Activity Mean percentage risk

When a driver has been drinking alcohol (regardless of amount) 91.1%

When a driver is racing others 86.4%

When a driver is updating a social networking site whilst driving 86.1%

When a driver is tired 86.0%

When a driver is writing a text message 84.3%

When a driver is reading a text message 83.0%

When a driver is browsing a social networking site while driving 82.8%

When a driver is angry enough to have road rage 80.7%

When a driver is talking on their mobile phone (handheld) 78.9%

When other drivers on the road are acting unsafely 76.3%

When a driver is in a hurry 76.1%

When a driver is inexperienced 74.6%

When a driver is speeding 72.8%

When a driver is selecting music while driving 64.4%

When a driver is talking on their mobile phone (handsfree) 50.8%

When passengers are in the car 44.9%

Social networking activities ranked 3rd and 7th in the list, with updating a social networking site being perceived as having a greater negative effect than browsing a social networking site. All of the behaviours in this list, apart from those relating to social networking, were included in the questionnaire administered during the study by Reed and Robbins (2008). These results are broadly in line with their findings.



5 Discussion This study set out to investigate whether there was an effect of social networking using a smartphone on driving performance. Twenty-eight young male and female participants took part in the study and drove a high fidelity driving simulator through the same test scenario twice: once while using a smartphone to interact with a social networking site, and once without this distraction. This experimental approach allowed potentially hazardous road situations to be designed and experienced twice, in complete safety.

The results of the experiment clearly show that participants’ driving performance was impaired by the concurrent smartphone task, and the smartphone task was also affected by driving.

Participants were more likely to miss the reaction time stimuli while using their phone. When they did respond, reaction times to visual and auditory stimuli were found to increase from approximately 1.2 to 1.6 seconds when using a smartphone to send and receive messages on a social networking site. This finding is consistent with other studies that have looked at the distracting effects of spoken conversations and text messaging using a mobile phone (Burns et al., 2002, Reed and Robbins, 2008). When driving, failing to respond to a warning or hazard can lead to accidents. The effect of a delayed response will depend significantly on the circumstances. At motorway speeds, for example, a delayed response of 0.4 seconds could result in an increased stopping distance of 12.5m. This could make the difference between a near miss and an accident, or increase the severity of an accident.

During a section of the trial where drivers were following a series of long curves, control of the vehicle suffered significantly when drivers were asked to send and receive messages on a social networking site using their smartphone. They were unable to maintain a central lane position and this resulted in lane departures. Over 47,000 road traffic accidents in 2010 were single vehicle accidents in which the vehicle left the carriageway (DfT, 2011). Of these, 734 resulted in at least one fatality. It is a concern that as smartphones become more popular, distraction by reading and writing tasks using these devices could lead to more accidents of this type. It was also interesting to note that female drivers performed more poorly on this task. This is consistent with the results of the Reed and Robbins (2008) study and may warrant further investigation. Nevertheless, a performance impairment was found for both males and females, suggesting that neither sex is immune to the distracting effects of using a smartphone for reading and writing messages on driving.

Another key element of vehicle control in traffic is the time or distance to lead vehicles. While using a smartphone to write a message, participants’ time headway varied significantly more than during the control drive. In the simulated task the lead vehicle was changing its speed, so this finding reinforces the data showing increased reaction times while using a smartphone. Participants were unable to respond as quickly to the speed changes as they were during the control drive. However, the lead vehicle varied its speed fairly gradually, so the risk of a collision with the lead vehicle was very low in the simulated scenario. The result suggests that in real world situations where a lead vehicle may decelerate more quickly, there is the potential for accidents to occur due to smartphone distraction.

During this study, participants tended to reduce their speed when using a smartphone to read or write messages. This result is consistent with previous research (see Chapter 2) and has been explained as an attempt to reduce risk due to a perceived increase in risk



resulting from engaging in a distracting activity. Fuller (2005) states that drivers adjust their behaviour to keep the difficulty of the driving task within target boundaries. He shows that drivers’ feelings of task difficulty predict their feelings of risk. The results of this study seem to support this idea; when participants were given an additional task to complete, they reduced their driving speed.

Even though the reduction in speed may be described as an attempt to compensate for the effects of distracted driving, it is interesting that participants’ control of the vehicle control was still worse in the smartphone drive. The reduction in speed was not enough to compensate for the effects of smartphone use on their driving.

One of the reasons for the impairment in performance is clearly demonstrated by the results of the analysis of visual behaviour. Drivers were found to be looking down between 40% and 60% of the time while using a smartphone to write or read messages, compared with about 10% of the time in the same sections of the control drive. Although this study was unable to distinguish between glances to driving-related glance targets (such as the vehicle instruments) and distractors, it can be assumed that the control drive represents a normal amount of time spent looking at driving-related targets. Thus, using a smartphone takes a significant proportion of drivers’ visual attention away from the road, and this reduction in visual attention to the road environment is likely to be one of the factors that contributes to poorer vehicle control and increased reaction times to visual stimuli.

Most of the participants who took part in this study indicated that they very frequently use their phone for text messaging. They reported that they engage in text messaging more often than voice calls or social networking. Indeed they tended to use their phone for social networking about as frequently as they did for voice calls. This shows that whereas voice calls used to be the primary function of telephones, they are now just one of a plethora of functions. Only a small number of participants from this study admitted to accessing social networking sites while driving, but increases in the popularity of online social networks could lead to a rise in the number of people engaging in this distracting activity.

5.1 Comparison with previous studies

Previous studies of driver impairment conducted at TRL have used similar investigative methods to those described here. Thus, it is possible to compare the relative impairment of using a smartphone for social networking to the following:

• Driving impairment while having a mobile phone conversation and impairment from being at the legal limit for alcohol consumption (Burns et al., 2002)

• Driving impairment from being under the influence of cannabis (Sexton et al., 2000)

• Driving impairment from sending and receiving text messages while driving (Reed and Robbins, 2008)

The texting study and the current study are almost identical in methodology, allowing a comparison across a broader range of measures.

Reaction times were assessed in all three previous studies. Although for the mobile phone conversation and cannabis studies the reaction time tasks were slightly different, they were still comparable. The same visual stimulus was used and was presented in the



same visual scene. When the reaction times under each condition were compared with the baseline reaction times measured, alcohol gave a 12.5% increase in reaction times, cannabis a 21% increase, a hands-free mobile phone conversation increased reaction times by 26.5%, texting by 37.4%, using a smartphone for social networking by 37.6% and using a mobile phone for a hand-held mobile phone conversation increased reaction times by 45.9% compared to the baseline condition. Thus, using a smartphone for social networking resulted in a greater impairment to reaction times than alcohol, cannabis, hand held mobile phone conversations and texting, but less than a hand held mobile phone conversation.

For measures of mean speed, standard deviation of speed and lane position, a direct comparison with the earlier studies is difficult as the smartphone task only took place in short bursts rather than over longer periods of driving. All studies reported a reduction in mean speed and increase in standard deviation of lane position when compared with the control condition.

A more detailed comparison can be made with the texting study as the experimental scenario and messages composed on the phone were identical to those used in the current study. Reed and Robbins (2008) reported a 5.7% reduction in mean speed during the first message that participants wrote and 6.9% decrease during the fourth. In the current study, a greater reduction in speed of 8.7% was observed when participants were writing their first message, and a smaller reduction in speed (4.4%) when writing their fourth message. Although none of the participants had to input usernames or passwords to access their social networking accounts during the trial, it is possible that searching for the message recipient in their contact list resulted in an additional task load during their first message, and subsequent communication was therefore easier.

Reed and Robbins (2008) also commented on their participants’ lane position while texting. Participants’ lane position varied 91.4% more when writing a message on a long bend in the road, and 12.7% more when reading a message, when compared with the control condition. In current study, writing the same message, at the same location in the drive on a social networking site resulted in a 104% increase in the variability of lane position, and reading the message at the same location resulted in a 37% increase in the same variable.

All of the results taken together suggest that participants’ driving was impaired when they were using a smartphone to send and receive messages on social networking site. The results of this study indicate that this reduction in driving performance is likely to have been a result of three different types of distraction: having to concentrate on the smartphone task (cognitive distraction), holding the phone (manual distraction), and the significant increase in time spent looking at the phone (visual distraction) in order to interact with it. Although participants did reduce their speed, this was not enough to compensate for the poorer driving performance; even though they were driving more slowly, they were still unable to control the vehicle as well as they did when they were not using their smartphone.

It is clear from the results of this study that certain tasks carried out using a smartphone can significantly impair driving performance. In order to prevent drivers from becoming distracted due to smartphone use, it may be possible to develop a smartphone application which restricts access to some functions of the phone while driving. It may also be beneficial to educate drivers about the dangers of distracted driving, and how use of smartphones while driving can impair their performance.



References Burns., P.C., Parkes, A., Burton, S., Smith, R.K., and Burch, D. (2002). How dangerous is driving with a mobile phone? Benchmarking the impairment to alcohol, TRL Report, TRL 547, Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

Caird, J.K., Willness, C.R., Steel, P and Scialfa, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 1282-1293.

Canalys (2010). Majority of smartphones now have touch screen. Canalys newsroom [online], accessed 13th November 2011. http://www.canalys.com/newsroom/majority-smart-phones-now-have-touch-screens

Chattington., M, Reed, N., Basacik., D. Flint., A. and Parkes, A. (2010). Investigating driver distraction the effects of video and static advertising, PPR 409, Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

Comscore (2011). GSMA Mobile Metrics Report Issued on UK Mobile Applications Usage. Comscore press releases [online], accessed 13th November 2011. http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/6/GSMA_Mobile_Media_Metrics_Report_Issued_on_UK_Mobile_Applications_Usage

Diels, C., Robbins, R. and Reed, N. (in press) Behavioural Validation of the TRL Driving Simulator DigiCar: Phase 1 – Speed Choice. In International Conference on Driver Behaviour and Training. Paris, France: Cranfield University.

DirectGov (2011). The Highway Code. DirectGov [online], accessed 14th November 2011. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/index.htm

DfT (2011). Reported road casualties in Great Britain: annual report 2010. London: DfT

Duncan, B. (1995) Calibration trials of TRL driving simulator. TRL Staff Paper (PA/3079/95) Crowthorne: TRL Limited. Presented at the Vision in Vehicles VI Conference, 13-16 September 1995, University of Derby, UK

Fuller, R. (2005). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 461-472.

Harbluk, J.L., Noy, Y.I. and Eizenman, M. (2002). The impact of cognitive distraction on driver visual behaviour and vehicle control, TP No. 13889 E, Ottawa: Transport Canada.

Johnson, S.H. (undated). Effects of perceptual variables on the efficiency of human-touch screen interactions, Cornell University [online], accessed 10th August 2011 http://www.csic.cornell.edu/201/touchscreen/

Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., Sudweeks, J.D. and Ramsey, D.J. (2006) The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-crash/crash risk: An Analysis using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Report No. DOT HS 810 594, Washington, DC: NHTSA.

Lesch, M.F. and Hancock, P.A. (2004). Driving performance during concurrent cell-phone use: are drivers aware of their performance decrements? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36(3), 471-480.



Maples, W.C., De Rosier, W., Hoenes, R., Bendure, R and Moore, S. (2008). The effects of cell phone use on peripheral vision, Optometry, 79, 36-42.

Ofcom (2011). The communications market 2011. Ofcom communications market reports [online], accessed 13th November 2011. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr11/?a=0

Owens, J.M., McLaughlin, S.B. and Sudweeks., J. (2011). Driver performance while text messaging using handheld and in-vehicle systems, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(3), 939-947.

Parkes. A.M., Fairclough, S.H. and Ashby, M.C. (1993). Car phone use and motorway driving. In E. J. Lovesey (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics 1993, 469-474, London: Taylor and Francis.

Parkes, A.M. and Hooijmeijer, V. (2000). The influence of the use of mobile phones on driver situation awareness. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Internet Forum on 'The safety impact of driver distraction using in-vehicle devices.' [online], accessed 10th August 2011 http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/Human%20Factors/driver-distraction/Topics023060002.htm

Parkes A.M., Luke T., Burns P.C. and Lansdown T. (2007). Conversations in cars: the relative hazards of mobile phones, TRL Report 664, Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

Redelmeier, D.A and Tibshirani, R.J. (1997). Association between cellular telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. The New England Journal of Medicine, 336(7), 453-458.

Reed, N. and Robbins, R. (2008). The effect of text messaging on driver behaviour: a simulator study, PPR 3667, Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

Sears. A. (1991). Improving touchscreen keyboards: design issues and comparison with other devices, Interacting with Computers 3(3), 253-269.

Sears, A., Revis, D., Swatski, J., Crittenden, R and Schneiderman., B. (1993). Investigating touchscreen typing: the effect of keyboard size on typing speed, Behaviour and Information Technology, 12, 17-22.

Sexton, B.F. (1997) Validation trial for testing impairment of driving due to alcohol. TRL Report 226, Crowthorne, TRL Limited.

Sexton, B.F., Tunbridge, R.J., Brook-Carter, N., Jackson, P.G., Wright, K., Stark, M.M., Englehart, K. (2000). The Influence of Cannabis on Driving. TRL Report 477, Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A. & Crouch, D.J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48, 2, pp 381-391.

Tsimhoni, O., Smith., D and Green., P. (2002). Destination entry while driving: speech recognition versus a touch screen keyboard, UMTRI-2001-24. Michigan: UMTRI.



Appendix A Post-trial questionnaire



To be completed by TRL

Participant Number: ________________ Date of Trial: _____/_____/_________

Driving Simulator Study: SOCIAL NETWORKING WHILE DRIVING

Note: • All information on this form is confidential.

• It will be stored securely at TRL.

• No individuals will be identified.

SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A1. How old were you on your last birthday?

years old

A2. Are you:

Male � Female �

End of pre-drive section

Please wait for your trial supervisor


Version 2.0

DRIVE 1

SECTION B: What do yoreceived?

You received two messages whil

B1. What item of clothing did

Hat �

B2. What medal did Fiona win

Gold �

SECTION C: How you fe

For each question, please mark feel about these behaviours. Ple

Important: please try to descrwere using your phone.

EXAMPLE OF HOW TO COMPL

Please read the description of eayour answer. For example, if reyou might mark the scale below

Do you value comfort or

Responsiveness

C1. Compared to how you nmotorway section?

Very poorly

C2. How easy or difficult wasthe curve following tas

Very difficult

44

ou remember about the text me

le driving; can you remember:

d Edward forget for the wedding?

Cufflinks � Bow

n in the 100m sprint?

Silver � Bro

eel you performed during the dr

the line in the place that you feel most closease see below for an example.

ribe how you felt you drove in general, not

LETE SCALE

ach end of the line and then mark a point wsponsiveness and comfort were about equaas follows:

responsiveness more when choosing a new

normally drive, how well do you think yo

s it to drive at 40mph and stay in the cenk?

PPR592

essages you

wtie �

onze �

rive in general

sely reflects how you

only at the times you

which corresponds to ally important to you,

w car?

Comfort

ou drove in the first

Very Well

tre of the lane during

Very easy


Version 2.0

C3. Compared to how you noduring the curve follow

Very poorly

C4. Compared to how you nthink you drove in the ca

Very poorly

C5. How easy or difficult watask?

Very difficult

C6. How easy or difficult was

Very difficult

C7. How easy or difficult wasobserved?

Very difficult

C8. Compared to how you no

Very poorly

SECTION D: How you fedriving affected your pe

For each question, please mark feel about these aspects of your

D1. What proportion of yphone when updatin

Complete concentration

D2. What proportion of yphone when reading


45

ormally drive on curved roads, how well doing task?

normally drive when following other vehicar following section?

as it to maintain a constant distance durin

s it to respond to any tones you might have

s it to respond to the red bar stimulus w

ormally drive, how well do you think you dr

eel accessing social networkingerformance during the trial

the line in the place that you feel most closr drive.

your concentration were you directng your status?

your concentration were you directg private messages from Daniel?

PPR592

o you think you drove

Very Well

cles, how well do you

Very Well

ng the car following

Very easy

e heard?

Very easy

which you might have

Very easy

ove overall?

Very Well

g sites while


ting to your smart

Virtually no concentration

ting to your smart



Version 2.0

D3. What proportion of yphone when sending


D4. Do you believe that u

Drove slower

D5. Do you believe that r

Drove slower

D6. Do you believe that s

Drove slower

D7. Did you keep the sastatus, or did it chan

More distance

D8. Did you keep the messages from Dani

More distance

D9. Did you keep the smessages to Daniel,

More distance

D10. How did updating ylane?

Maintained

normal positioning

D11. How did reading prkeep within your lan

Maintained normal

positioning

46

your concentration were you directg private messages to Daniel?

updating your status affected your

reading messages from Daniel affec

sending messages to Daniel affecte

me distance to vehicles in front whnge?

same distance to vehicles in froel, or did it change?

same distance to vehicles in froor did it change?

your status affect your ability to

rivate messages from Daniel affecne?

PPR592

ting to your smart


speed?

Drove faster

cted your speed?

Drove faster

ed your speed?

Drove faster

hen updating your

Less distance

ont when reading

Less distance

nt when sending

Less distance

keep within your

Struggled to maintain normal

positioning

ct your ability to


positioning


Version 2.0

D12. How did sending priwithin your lane?

Maintained

normal positioning

D13. When updating youawareness of road hyou feel there was n

More aware

D14. When reading privachange in your awacentre of the line if y

More aware

D15. When sending privachange in your awacentre of the line if y

More aware

D16. How do you feel youstatus?

Improved

D17. How do you feel yprivate messages fro

Improved

D18. How do you feel yprivate messages to

Improved

47

ivate messages to Daniel affect yo

r status, did you feel there was hazards? (Remember to tick the ceo difference)

te messages from Daniel, did youareness of road hazards? (Remeyou feel there was no difference)

ate messages to Daniel, did you areness of road hazards? (Remeyou feel there was no difference)

ur driving performance changed wh

your driving performance changeom Daniel?

your driving performance changeDaniel?

Please stop here

PPR592

our ability to keep


positioning

a change in your entre of the line if

Less aware

feel there was a ember to tick the

Less aware

feel there was a ember to tick the

Less aware

hen updating your

Worsened

ed when reading

Worsened

ed when sending

Worsened


Version 2.0

DRIVE 2

SECTION E: How you fe

For each question, please mark feel about these behaviours. Ple

EXAMPLE. Do you value

Responsiveness

E1. Compared to how you nmotorway section?

Very poorly

E2. How easy or difficult wasthe curve following tas

Very difficult

E3. Compared to how you noduring the curve follow

Very poorly

E4. Compared to how you nthink you drove in the ca

Very poorly

E5. How easy or difficult was

Very difficult

E6. How easy or difficult was

Very difficult

E7. How easy or difficult wasyou might have observed

Very difficult

48

eel you performed during the dr

the line in the place that you feel most closease see below for an example.

e comfort or responsiveness more when ch

normally drive, how well do you think yo

s it to drive at 40mph and stay in the cenk?

ormally drive on curved roads, how well doing task?

normally drive when following other vehicar following section?

s it to maintain a constant distance during t

s it to respond to any tones you might have

s it to respond to any changes in your red?

PPR592

rive


oosing a new car?

Comfort

ou drove in the first

Very Well

tre of the lane during

Very easy

o you think you drove

Very Well

cles, how well do you

Very Well

the car following?

Very easy

e heard?

Very easy

d bar stimulus which

Very easy


Version 2.0

E8. Compared to how you no

Very poorly

Any other commen

SECTION F: How you fe

For each question, please mark the these behaviours.

What difference do you feel tdriving?

F1.

Less dangerous

F2.

Less dangerous

F3. When a drive

Less dangerous

F4. When a d

Less dangerous

49

ormally drive, how well do you think you dr

ts?

eel about different driving beha

line in the place that you feel most closely refle

the following behaviours make to a per

When a driver is tired

When a driver is speeding

er has been drinking alcohol (regardless of

river is talking on their mobile phone (han

PPR592

ove overall?

Very Well

aviours

ects how you feel about

rson’s safety when

More dangerous

More dangerous

f amount)

More dangerous

dheld)

More dangerous


Version 2.0

F5. W

Less dangerous

F6. Oth

Less dangerous

F7.

Less dangerous

F8.

Less dangerous

F9. When

Less dangerous

F10.

Less dangerous

F11. When a driver is

Less dangerous

F12. W

Less dangerous

F13. When a dr

Less dangerous

F14.

Less dangerous

F15. Wh

Less dangerous

50

When a driver is reading a text message

her drivers on the road are acting unsafely

When a driver is in a hurry

When a driver is inexperienced

n a driver is angry enough to have road rag

When passengers are in the car

s browsing a social networking application

When a driver is writing a text messaging

river is talking on their mobile phone (hand

When a driver is racing others

en a driver is selecting music while driving

PPR592

More dangerous

More dangerous

More dangerous

More dangerous

ge

More dangerous

More dangerous

while driving

More dangerous

More dangerous

ds free)

More dangerous

More dangerous

g

More dangerous


Version 2.0

F16. When a drive

Less dangerous

51

er is updating a social networking site whil

PPR592

lst driving

More dangerous



SECTION G: Your driving behaviour

Please think about your driving over the past 12 months. For each of the statements please tick the most appropriate box in each row. Remember, we do not expect precise answers, merely your best guesses; so please do not linger too long over any one item. N

ever

Har

dly

ever

Occ

asio

nal

ly

Quite

ofte

n

Freq

uen

tly

Alm

ost

alw

ays

G1. Attempt to overtake someone that you hadn’t noticed to be signalling a right turn.

G2. Stay in a lane that you know will be closed ahead until the last minutes before forcing your way into another lane.

G3. Miss “Stop” or “Give way” signs and narrowly avoid colliding with traffic having right of way.

G4. Pull out of a junction so far that the driver with right of way has to stop and let you out.

G5. Fail to notice that pedestrians are crossing when turning into a side street from a main road.

G6. Drive especially close to the car in front as a signal to its driver to go faster or to get out of the way.

G7. Sound your horn to indicate your annoyance to another driver.

G8. Queuing to turn left onto a main road, you pay such close attention to the mainstream of traffic that you nearly hit the car in front.

G9. Cross a junction knowing that the traffic lights have already turned against you.

G10. On turning left nearly hit a cyclist who has come up your inside.

G11. Disregard the speed limit on a motorway.



G12. Fail to check your rear-view mirror before pulling out, changing lanes, etc.

G13. Become angered by a certain type of driver and indicate your hostility by whatever means you can.

G14. Become impatient with a slow driver in an outer lane and overtake on the inside.



Nev

er

Har

dly

ever

Occ

asio

nal

ly Q

uite

ofte

n

Freq

uen

tly

Alm

ost

alw

ays

G15. Underestimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle when overtaking.

G16. Race away from the traffic lights with the intention of beating the driver next to you.

G17. Brake too quickly on a slippery road, or steer the wrong way in a skid.

G18. Drive even though you suspect you may be over the legal blood-alcohol limit.

G19. Disregard the speed limit on a residential road.

G20. Become angered by another driver and give chase with the intention of giving him/her a piece of your mind.



SECTION H: Your beliefs about accidents

Please indicate your agreement with the following statements by ticking the most appropriate box in each row. S

trongly

dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Som

ewhat

dis

agre

e

Som

ewhat

agre

e

Agre

e

Str

ongly

agre

e

H1. Driving with no accidents is mainly a matter of luck.

H2. Accidents happen mainly because of different unpredictable events.

H3. People who drive a lot with no accidents are merely lucky; it is not because they are more careful.

H4. The careful driver can prevent any accident.

H5. When a driver is involved in an accident, it is because they did not drive correctly.

H6. If you are going to be involved in an accident, it is going to happen anyhow, no matter what you do.

H7. Drivers do not have enough control over what happens on the road.

H8. Most accidents happen because of mechanical failures.

H9. It is always possible to predict what is going to happen on the road and so it is possible to predict almost any accident.

H10 Accidents happen because the driver does not make enough effort to detect all sources of danger while driving.



SECTION I: How you see your self, and how you believe others see you

Please use the rating scale to the right to describe how accurately each of the below statements describe you.

Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you are, and roughly your same age.

Ver

yIn

acc

ura

te

Mod

erat

ely

Inac

cura

te

Nei

ther

Inac

cura

tenor

Acc

ura

te

Mod

erat

ely

Acc

ura

te

Ver

yAcc

ura

te

I1. Am sure of my ground.

I2. Easily resist temptations.

I3. Have little to contribute.

I4. Love to eat.

I5. Tend to vote for liberal political candidates.

I6. Like to stand during the national anthem.

I7. Am able to control my cravings.

I8. Do things I later regret.

I9 Believe laws should be strictly enforced.

I10. Know how to get things done.

I11. Never spend more than I can afford.

I12. Excel in what I do.

I13. Never splurge.

I14. Believe that we coddle criminals too much.

I15. Misjudge situations.



I16. Believe that there is no absolute right or wrong.

I17. Believe that too much tax money goes to support artists.

I18 Don't see the consequences of things.

I19. Rarely overindulge.

I20. Believe that criminals should receive help rather than punishment.

I21. Often eat too much.

I22. Go on binges.

I23. Don't understand things.

I24. Don't know why I do some of the things I do.

I25. Believe in one true religion.

I26. Complete tasks successfully.

I27. Handle tasks smoothly.

I28. Believe that we should be tough on crime.

I29 Come up with good solutions.

I30 Tend to vote for conservative political candidates.


Version 2.0

SECTION J: MOBILE P

For the following questions,

Try not to think about anyanswer seems closest at firs

J1. How many months

months

J2. How many times eaconversations? Thor handheld) as we

0 � 1 – 5 �

J3. How many text mweek? This includtimes you are outsi

0 � 1 – 5 �

J3. How many times dweek, using any coare driving as well

0 � 1 – 5 �

J4. How many times do yusing your smartphoall the times you are

0 � 1 – 5 �

J5. How easy do you fnetworking sites in

Very difficult

J6. Do you take your s

Yes � No

58

HONE USAGE

please tick the box which you feel is m

y question for too long, your first instist glance will be fine.

and/or years have you owned a sm

years

ach week do you use your smart pis includes times when you are driv

ell as all the times you are outside o

� 6 – 10 � 11 – 20 � 21 – 30

messages do you typically send ordes times when you are driving aside of your car.

� 6 – 10 � 11 – 20 � 21 – 30

do you access social networking somputer or device? This includes as all the times you are outside of

� 6 – 10 � 11 – 20 � 21 – 30

you access social networking sites in ane? This includes times when you are outside of your car.

� 6 – 10 � 11 – 20 � 21 – 30

ind it to use your smart phone for n general?

mart phone with you when driving?

�

PPR592

most appropriate.

nct or which ever

mart phone for?

hone for spoken ving (hands free of your car.

� 31+ �

r receive in one s well as all the

� 31+ �

sites in a typical times when you your car.

� 31+ �

typical week, driving as well as

� 31+ �

accessing social

Very easy

?



J7. How often do you leave your smart phone switched on when you are driving?

Always � Often � Sometimes � Occasionally � Never � go to J13

J8. If you do leave your mobile phone switched on how often do you leave it on silent?

Always � Often � Sometimes � Occasionally � Never �

J9. Do you have a cradle for your phone in your car? If so how often do you use it when driving?

No � go to J11 Yes � Always � Sometimes � Never �

J10. Do you use your phone “hands-free” when driving?


J11. Do you access social networking sites on your smartphone while driving?


J12.Does your phone have a “speech-to-text” function (you speak a message and your phone transcribes it for you), if so how often do you use it when driving?


J13. Are there any features of your mobile phone which you feel make accessing social networking sites difficult, or that you dislike? How would you like it to be improved?



SECTION K: LEGALITY OF PHONE USAGE WHILE DRIVING

These questions are designed to ask you what you understand about the legality of using your phone social networking sites whilst driving, and what you feel the law should be.

Is it currently legal to use your phone whilst driving to…

Legal IllegalNot sure

K1. …write a status update or other message if it is in a cradle?

� � �

K2. …read a status update or other message if it is in a cradle? � � �

K3. … write a status update or other message if you are using it handheld? � � �

K4. …read a status update or other message if you are using it handheld? � � �

K5. … write a status update or other message if you are using a text-to-speech function?

� � �

Should it be legal to use your phone whilst driving to…

Legal IllegalNot sure

K6. …write a status update or other message if it is in a cradle?

� � �

K7. …read a status update or other message if it is in a cradle? � � �

K8. … write a status update or other message if you are using it handheld? � � �

K9. …read a status update or other message if you are using it handheld? � � �

K10.

… write a status update or other message if you are using a text-to-speech function?

� � �



End of questionnaires

TRL Crowthorne House, Nine Mile Ride Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 3GAUnited Kingdom

T: +44 (0) 1344 773131 F: +44 (0) 1344 770356E: [email protected] W: www.trl.co.uk

ISSN 0968-4093

Price code: 3X

Published by IHS Willoughby Road, Bracknell Berkshire RG12 8FB United Kingdom

T: +44 (0) 1344 328038 F: +44 (0) 1344 328005E: [email protected] W: http://emeastore.ihs.com PP

R5

92

Smartphone use while driving – a simulator study

Previous research has shown that use of a mobile phone while driving impairs driving performance. With ‘smartphones’ now becoming common in the commercial marketplace, more and more drivers are able to engage in a broad range of possible activities on their phone. This study set out to investigate whether there was an effect of social networking using a smartphone on driving performance. Twenty-eight young male and female participants took part in the study and drove a driving simulator through the same test scenario twice: once while using a smartphone to interact with a social networking site, and once without this distraction. The results of the experiment clearly show that participants’ driving performance was impaired by the concurrent smartphone task, and the smartphone task was also affected by driving.

Other titles from this subject area

INS005 How can we produce safer new drivers? S Helman, G B Grayson and A M Parkes. 2010

TRL673 Monitoring progress towards the 2010 casualty reduction target – 2008 data. J Broughton and J Knowles. 2010

PPR522 Cross-modal safety: risk and public perceptions – phase 2 report. D Lynam, J Kennedy, S Helman and T Taig. 2010

PPR513 Linking accidents in national statistics to in-depth accident data. D C Richards, R E Cookson and R W Cuerden. 2010

PPR498 Further analyses of driver licence records from DVLA. J Broughton and B Lawton. 2010

PPR446 The potential for cycle helmets to prevent injury – a review of the evidence. D Hynd, R Cuerden, S Reid and S Adams. 2009

PPR442 Passion, performance, practicality: motorcyclists’ motivations and attitudes to safety – motorcycle safety research project. S Christmas, D Young, R Cookson and R Cuerden. 2009

smartphone use while driving: a simulator study · 4.9 perceptions of relative risks of driving...

Documents