Effects of Washington, D.C. law on drivers' hand-held cell phone use

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of Washington, D.C. law prohibiting drivers' use of hand-held cell phones on such use. METHODS: Daytime observations of drivers were conducted at signalized intersections in D.C. in March 2004, several months before the law took effect on July 1, 2004, and again in October 2004. As a comparison, observations also were conducted in areas of Virginia and Maryland located close to the D.C. border. Maryland and Virginia placed no limitations on drivers' phone use. Use was observed for 36,091 vehicles in D.C., 25,151 vehicles in Maryland, and 28,483 vehicles in Virginia. RESULTS: The rate of talking on hand-held cell phones among drivers in D.C. declined significantly from 6.1% before the law to 3.5% after. Phone use declined slightly in Maryland and increased significantly in Virginia so that, relative to the patterns of hand-held phone use in the two states, phone use in D.C. declined 50%. Hand-held phone use in D.C. declined comparably among drivers of vehicles registered in all three jurisdictions. D.C. police issued 2,556 citations and 1,232 warnings for cell phone violations during July-November 2004. There were spates of media coverage when the law was passed and when it took effect. CONCLUSIONS: D.C.'s law prohibiting drivers' hand-held phone use had a strong effect on such use among drivers in D.C. Without ongoing publicized enforcement of the law, long-term compliance may be difficult to achieve.     

Cell phones and driving: review of research

OBJECTIVE: The research literature on drivers' use of cell phones was reviewed to identify trends in drivers' phone use and to determine the state of knowledge about the safety consequences of such use. METHODS: Approximately 125 studies were reviewed with regard to the research questions, type and rigor of the methods, and findings. Reviewed studies included surveys of drivers, experiments, naturalistic studies (continuous recording of everyday driving by drivers in instrumented vehicles), studies of crash risk, and evaluations of laws limiting drivers' phone use. RESULTS: Observational surveys indicate drivers commonly use cell phones and that such use is increasing. Drivers report they usually use hand-held phones. Experimental studies have found that simulated or instrumented driving tasks, or driving while being observed, are compromised by tasks intended to replicate phone conversations, whether using hand-held or hands-free phones, and may be further compromised by the physical distraction of handling phones. Effects of phone use on driving performance when drivers are in their own vehicles are unknown. With representative samples of adequate size, naturalistic studies in the future may provide the means to document the patterns and circumstances of drivers' phone use and their effects on real-world driving. Currently, the best studies of crash risk used cell phone company billing records to verify phone use by crash-involved drivers. Two such studies found a fourfold increase in the risk of a property-damage-only crash and the risk of an injury crash associated with phone use; increased risk was similar for males and females, younger and older drivers, and hands-free and hand-held phones. A number of jurisdictions in the United States and around the world have made it illegal for drivers to use hand-held phones. Studies of these laws show only limited compliance and unclear effects on safety.CONCLUSIONS: Even if total compliance with bans on drivers' hand-held cell phone use can be achieved, crash risk will remain to the extent that drivers continue to use or switch to hands-free phones. Although the enactment of laws limiting drivers' use of all phones is consistent with research findings, it is unclear how such laws could be enforced. At least in the short term, it appears that drivers' phone use will continue to increase, despite the growing evidence of the risk it creates. More effective countermeasures are needed but are not known at this time.     

Driver hand-held cellular phone use: a four-year analysis

INTRODUCTION: The use of hand-held cellular (mobile) phones while driving has stirred more debate, passion, and research than perhaps any other traffic safety issue in the past several years. There is ample research showing that the use of either hand-held or hands-free cellular phones can lead to unsafe driving patterns. Whether or not these performance deficits increase the risk of crash is difficult to establish, but recent studies are beginning to suggest that cellular phone use elevates crash risk. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to assess changes in the rate of hand-held cellular phone use by motor-vehicle drivers on a statewide level in Michigan. This study presents the results of 13 statewide surveys of cellular phone use over a 4-year period. Hand-held cellular phone use data were collected through direct observation while vehicles were stopped at intersections and freeway exit ramps. Data were weighted to be representative of all drivers traveling during daylight hours in Michigan. RESULTS: The study found that driver hand-held cellular phone use has more than doubled between 2001 and 2005, from 2.7% to 5.8%. This change represents an average increase of 0.78 percentage points per year. The 5.8% use rate observed in 2005 means that at any given daylight hour, around 36,550 drivers were conversing on cellular phones while driving on Michigan roadways. The trend line fitted to these data predicts that by the year 2010, driver hand-held cellular phone use will be around 8.6%, or 55,000 drivers at any given daylight hour. CONCLUSIONS: These results make it clear that cellular phone use while driving will continue to be an important traffic safety issue, and highlight the importance of continued attempts to generate new ways of alleviating this potential hazard.     

In-car cell phone use and hazards following hands free legislation

OBJECTIVE: A new law took effect in Finland at the beginning of 2003 which prohibits the handheld use of mobile phones while driving a motor vehicle. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the law on phone usage and self-reported safety during the first few months and 16 months later to determine whether the initial level of compliance with the law had been sustained. METHODS: Data were collected by Gallup home poll before (spring 2002) and after legislation took effect (spring 2003 and 2004). A representative sample of drivers who owned a cell phone (n = 836 to 966) was interviewed each time. On-road observations were also collected in four cities for 2003 and 2004. RESULTS: Just after the law, 97% of drivers were aware of the new hands free legislation. In sharp contrast to the pre-law rate of 16%, 43% reported not using the phone while driving immediately after the law and 41% one year later. The occasional users especially reduced their use of phones while driving. The law was correlated to reductions in self-reported handheld use of cell phones while driving, from 55.6% pre-law to 15.2% immediately after passage. In spite of this change, however, the hands free legislation did not reduce self-reported involvement of Finnish drivers in phone-related hazards. Handheld usage was still lower in 2004 than pre-law (20.0%), but the 32% increase from 2003 was significant. Observational data collected in Finland in 2003 and 2004 showed an even higher upward trend in handheld use (87% increase, from 3.1% to 5.8%; pre-law data were not available), and matched a similar increase reported by McCartt and Geary (2004) in their observational evaluation of New York's handheld mobile phone law. CONCLUSION: The self-reports indicate that the hands-free law reduced handheld phone use, among occasional users especially, but did not reduce phone-related hazards. The effect of the law on phone use substantially declined within one year.     

Drivers' visual behavior when using handheld and hands-free cell phones

ObjectiveThis study investigated driver distraction and how the use of handheld (HH), portable hands-free (PHF), and integrated hands-free (IHF) cell phones affected the visual behavior of motor vehicle drivers.MethodA naturalistic driving study recorded 204 participating drivers using video cameras and vehicle sensors for an average of 31 days. A total of 1564 cell phone calls made and 844 text messages sent while driving were sampled and underwent a video review. Baselines were established by recording epochs prior to the cell phone interactions. Total eyes-off-road time (TEORT) was examined to assess the visual demands of cell phone subtasks while driving. Percent TEORT was reported and compared against the baseline.ResultsVisual-manual subtasks performed on HH, PHF, and IHF cell phones were found to significantly increase drivers' mean percent TEORT. In contrast, conversing on an HH cell phone was found to significantly decrease drivers' mean percent TEORT, indicating that drivers looked at the forward roadway more often. No significant differences in percent TEORT were found for drivers conversing using PHF or IHF cell phones. The mean TEORT durations for visual-manual subtasks performed on an HH cell phone were significantly longer than the mean TEORT durations on either IHF or PHF cell phones.Practical applicationsThis research helps to further reinforce the distinction made between handheld and hands-free cell phone use in transportation distraction policy.     

Driving and telephoning: Relative accident risk when using hand-held and hands-free mobile phones

Experimental research shows that using mobile phones while driving leads to impaired driving, and it has been suggested that this driving impairment to a large extent is a result of cognitive, rather than physical, distractions. This notion is partly supported by empirical data showing that use of hands-free phones is associated with impaired driving in much the same way as use of hand-held phones. In the present study, accident risk when using hand-held and hands-free phones was investigated in a sample of 4307 drivers who were involved in accidents in 2007. In addition, data from a similar survey from 1997 (N = 5007) were used in order to get more observations. Relative risk was estimated using “quasi-induced exposure” in multiple-vehicle accidents. Results from the two surveys combined showed a significant increase in accident risk for hand-held mobiles and for hand-held and hands-free phones together. A non-significant tendency towards increased risk for hands-free mobiles was also detected. However, analyses of data from 2007 separately did not result in statistically significant relative risk estimates for any of the mobile types. Hand-held users were more inclined to attribute the accident to mobile phone use than were hands-free users.     

Cell phone users, reported crash risk, unsafe driving behaviors and dispositions: a survey of motorists in Maryland

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this investigation was to identify risky driving behaviors and dispositions that distinguish drivers who use a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle from non-cell phone using drivers. METHOD: Annual telephone surveys were used to identify drivers who reported using a cell phone while driving in the last month (n=1803) and were compared to those who said they did not use cell phones while driving (n=1578). RESULTS: Cell phone using drivers were more likely to report driving while drowsy, going 20 mph over the speed limit, driving aggressively, running a stop sign or red light, and driving after having had several drinks. They were also more likely to have had a prior history of citation and crash involvement than non-cell phone using drivers. Cell phone using drivers also reported they were less careful and more in a hurry when they drive than non-cell phone using drivers. CONCLUSION: Cell phone using drivers report engaging in many behaviors that place them at risk for a traffic crash, independent of the specific driving impairments that cell phone usage may produce. Strategies that combine coordinated and sustained enforcement activities along with widespread public awareness campaigns hold promise as effective countermeasures for these drivers, who resemble aggressive drivers in many respects.     

Effects of naturalistic cell phone conversations on driving performance

PROBLEM: The prevalence of automobile drivers talking on cell phones is growing, but the effect of that behavior on driving performance is unclear. Also unclear is the relationship between the difficulty level of a phone conversation and the resulting distraction. METHOD: This study used a driving simulator to determine the effect that easy and difficult cell phone conversations have on driving performance. RESULTS: Cell phone use caused participants to have higher variation in accelerator pedal position, drive more slowly with more variation in speed, and report a higher level of workload regardless of conversation difficulty level. CONCLUSIONS: Drivers may cope with the additional stress of phone conversations by enduring higher workloads or setting reduced performance goals. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Because an increasing number of people talk on the phone while driving, crashes caused by distracted drivers using cell phones will cause disruptions in business, as well as injury, disability, and permanent loss of personnel.     

Are cellular phone blocking applications effective for novice teen drivers?

ProblemDistracted driving is a significant concern for novice teen drivers. Although cellular phone bans are applied in many jurisdictions to restrict cellular phone use, teen drivers often report making calls and texts while driving.MethodThe Minnesota Teen Driver Study incorporated cellular phone blocking functions via a software application for 182 novice teen drivers in two treatment conditions. The first condition included 92 teens who ran a driver support application on a smartphone that also blocked phone usage. The second condition included 90 teens who ran the same application with phone blocking but which also reported back to parents about monitored risky behaviors (e.g., speeding). A third control group consisting of 92 novice teen drivers had the application and phone-based software installed on the phones to record cellular phone (but not block it) use while driving.ResultsThe two treatment groups made significantly fewer calls and texts per mile driven compared to the control group. The control group data also demonstrated a higher propensity to text while driving rather than making calls.DiscussionSoftware that blocks cellular phone use (except 911) while driving can be effective at mitigating calling and texting for novice teen drivers. However, subjective data indicates that some teens were motivated to find ways around the software, as well as to use another teen's phone while driving when they were unable to use theirs.Practical applicationsCellular phone bans for calling and texting are the first step to changing behaviors associated with texting and driving, particularly among novice teen drivers. Blocking software has the additional potential to reduce impulsive calling and texting while driving among novice teen drivers who might logically know the risks, but for whom it is difficult to ignore calling or texting while driving.     

Driver personality characteristics related to self-reported accident involvement and mobile phone use while driving

A causal model was developed in this study to clarify the effect of mobile phone use on driving safety. Based on the model, a series of questionnaires were developed, and 194 car drivers were interviewed based on these questionnaires. Results showed that perceived risk and mobile phone usage habits varied with different individual traits. Drivers who were prone to accidents revealed a lower perception of safety risks and a higher self-reported accident rate resulting from mobile phone use than those who were not accident-prone. Aggressive drivers were found to use mobile phones more frequently while driving but had a similar accident rate to non-aggressive drivers. Frequency in mobile phone use while driving significantly increased among aggressive male drivers regardless of accident proneness. Findings from this study imply that the perceived risk of drivers might be an ignored but important factor in the relationship between mobile phone use and driving safety. Because of the difficulty in practically identifying who is accident-prone or not, this study suggests that overall prohibition in mobile phone use while driving is needed to reduce the corresponding number of traffic accidents.     

Driving performance while using cell phones: an observational study

INTRODUCTION: Through spontaneous driving observations, this study sought to examine the impact of using a hands-free cell phone while driving on speed and safe gap keeping behaviors. The study also examined the association between the measure of disturbance created by using a cell phone and the driver's awareness of the disturbance. METHOD: Twenty-three male adults were observed while driving for an hour and a half each; drivers were unaware of being observed. During the session, each of the participants received a phone call, initiated by an associate of the observer. The experiment was divided into two periods during which the experimental parameters were monitored: 10 minutes during conversation on a cell phone and 10 minutes of non-conversation on a hands-free cell phone. After the experiment, the driver was questioned concerning the extent to which his/her driving was disturbed by the cell phone conversation. RESULTS: T-test for matched samples revealed that the gaps between the drivers' cars and those in front of them diminished when drivers were engaged in the cell phone conversations. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that drivers that had short conversations did not change their speed, while drivers who were engaged in long (over 16 minutes) conversations drove faster. No effect of drivers' awareness toward cell phone-related disturbance on actual driving behavior monitored in the present study was found.     

Living dangerously: driver distraction at high speed

Recent research indicates that cell phone use can distract drivers from safe vehicle operation. However, estimates of the prevalence of cell phone use while driving have been limited to daytime hours and low-speed roadways. This paper describes the results of a study to estimate rates of cell phone use and other distractions by examining approximately 40,000 high-quality digital photographs of vehicles and drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike. The photographs, which originally were collected as part of a separate study, were taken both during the day and during the night and at different locations across the span of the Turnpike. A radar gun linked to the camera recorded the speeds of vehicles as they passed. This provided us with the speeds of every vehicle photographed, and allowed us to determine population counts of vehicles. A panel of three trained coders examined each photograph and recorded the presence of cell phone use by the drivers or any other distracting behavior. Demographic information on the driver was obtained during previous examinations of the photographs for an unrelated study. A rating was considered reliable when two out of the three coders agreed. Population estimates (and confidence intervals) of cell phone use and other distractions were estimated by weighting the cases by the inverse probability of vehicle selection. Logistic regression was used to predict cell phone use from demographic and situational factors. The results indicated that the most frequent distraction was cell phone use: 1.5% of the drivers on the Turnpike were using cell phones compared to the 3 to 4% use rates reported in the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) surveys conducted during the daytime on lower speed roadways. The Turnpike survey indicated that cell phones were used less on weekends and at night, and when the driver was exceeding the speed limit or had a passenger in the car.     

Do speeding tickets reduce the likelihood of receiving subsequent speeding tickets? A longitudinal study of speeding violators in Maryland

OBJECTIVE: Speeding tickets are the most commonly used tool to deter speeders, yet little is known about how speeding citations affect individual drivers' behavior over time. This study examined the effects of being cited for speeding and types of legal consequences on drivers' subsequent speeding citations, which are an indicator of speeding behavior. METHODS: A cohort of 3,739,951 Maryland licensed drivers were identified and followed for one year. Drivers were categorized by whether or not they received a speeding citation in May 2002. Among those cited for speeding in May 2002, drivers were grouped by type of penalty (fines and points; probation before judgment [PBJ, which results in fines but no points]; or no legal consequences). The relative risks (RR) and 95 percent confidence intervals (CI) of receiving a speeding citation during follow-up were compared between drivers ticketed and not ticketed in May 2002, as well as among different penalty groups. Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to adjust for potential confounders, including age, gender, alcohol-impaired driving, and residence. Kaplan-Meier survival functions were used to examine timing of violations. RESULTS: Young drivers and male drivers were more likely to receive a speeding citation. Drivers who received a speeding citation in May 2002 had almost twice the risk of receiving a speeding citation during follow-up, compared with those not cited for speeding that month (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.52-1.68). Overall legal consequences had no significant effect on the risk of receiving a repeat speeding citation relative to ticketed drivers who escaped those consequences (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84-1.15); however, stratified analyses showed a significant decrease in repeat citations among females (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.90) and drivers who received PBJ (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.96). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the study group of speeders had a significantly shorter time between May 2002 until receipt of a speeding citation than controls. Among penalty groups, significantly shorter times until receipt of another citation were observed among drivers escaping consequences or receiving fines/points compared with drivers receiving fines/PBJ. CONCLUSIONS: Drivers who receive speeding citations are at increased risk of receiving subsequent speeding citations, suggesting that speeding citations have limited effects on deterrence in the context of the current traffic enforcement system. When comparing different penalties, PBJ is associated with a reduced rate of recidivism more than stronger penalties; however, it is unclear whether the reduction primarily is attributable to the penalty itself or to characteristics of drivers receiving PBJ. Increasing drivers' perceptions that they are at risk of being caught speeding may improve the effectiveness of speeding law enforcement.     

Associations of distraction involvement and age with driver injury severities

IntroductionThis paper investigates the associations between the severity of injuries sustained by a driver who is involved in a two-vehicle crash, the existence and type of driver distraction as well as driver's age. Few studies investigated distraction as it relates to injury severity. Moreover, these studies did not consider driver age which is a significant factor related to driving behavior and the ability to respond in a crash situation.MethodsAn ordered logit model was built to predict injury severity sustained by drivers using data from the U.S. National Automotive Sampling System's General Estimates System (2003 to 2008). Various factors (e.g., weather, gender, and speeding) were statistically controlled for, but the main focus was on the interaction of driver age and distraction type.ResultsThe trends observed for young and mid-age drivers were similar. For these age groups, dialing or texting on the cell phone, passengers, and in-vehicle sources resulted in an increase in a likelihood of more severe injuries. Talking on the cell phone had a similar effect for younger drivers but was not significant for mid-age drivers. Inattention and distractions outside the vehicle decreased the odds of severe injuries. For older drivers, the highest odds of severe injuries were observed with dialing or texting on a cell phone, followed by in-vehicle sources and talking on the cell phone. All these sources were associated with an increased likelihood of injury severity. Similar to young and mid-age drivers, distractions outside the vehicle decreased the odds of severe injuries. Other distraction types did not have a significant effect for the older age group.ConclusionsThe results support previous literature and extend our understanding of crash injury severity.Practical applicationsThe findings have implications for policy making and the design of distraction mitigation systems.     

The prevalence of seatbelt and mobile phone use among drivers in Riyadh,Saudi Arabia: An observational study

IntroductionRoad traffic injuries (RTIs) are the third leading cause of death in Saudi Arabia. Numerous factors may increase the likelihood of RTIs. The prevalence of risk factors associated with RTIs may vary due to several reasons. Because little is known about these risk factors locally, we examined the prevalence of mobile phone and seatbelt use and their association with spatial locations.MethodsThis is an observational study conducted at major highways and inner intersections throughout Riyadh, the country's capital. Two observers captured seatbelt and mobile phone use among drivers. Logistic regression models were constructed to examine the association between real estate prices and mobile phone or seatbelt use. Observations were categorized as taken place in an affluent neighborhood if the average price per square meter was above 2500 Saudi Riyal.ResultsA total of 1700 drivers were observed in 13 sites citywide. 13.8% of drivers were seen using mobile while driving and only a third of drivers (34%) were wearing seatbelts. Being at an affluent neighborhood was associated with close to three times higher odds of wearing seatbelts (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.9–3.7) and also associated with 42% lower odds of mobile phone use among drivers (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.36–0.92).DiscussionThis study found a high prevalence of traffic violations among drivers in Riyadh. Based on our estimate, 660,000 drivers are roaming the street during daytime while using their phones and they are less likely to wear seatbelts. Unfortunately, this estimate might contribute to increasing RTIs. Despite existing regulations, seatbelt use among drivers is significantly lower than in developed countries (i.e. USA 94%).ConclusionOur study found a high prevalence of traffic violations represented by lack of compliance with seatbelt and mobile phone use laws. These findings provide a basis for their underlying prevalence in SA. Practical applications: Public health prevention programs may use these findings to facilitate support to increasing investment in awareness campaigns and further enforcement by the traffic police to reduce RITs and improve population health.     

Driver engagement in distracting activities and the strategies used to minimise risk

This project used an internet survey of 287 Victorian drivers to quantify the extent to which drivers reportedly engage in a range of potentially distracting activities; the factors that influence their willingness to engage; and the strategies they use, if any, to manage distraction. Almost 60% of drivers use a mobile phone while driving and over one third use the phone in hand-held mode. A high proportion of drivers use audio entertainment systems, but relatively few use in-vehicle visual displays such as DVD players. Driver engagement in non-technology-based activities, such as eating, drinking, smoking and reading is also prevalent. Young drivers (18–25 yrs) were significantly more likely to report engaging in certain distracting activities, such as using a mobile phone, CD player and eating and drinking, than their middle-age (26–54 yrs) and older (55+ yrs) counterparts. Most drivers (84%) believe that their driving is less safe when engaged in distracting tasks and take steps to avoid distraction. The survey results provide valuable data to help target distraction policy and countermeasures that build upon the self-regulatory strategies already used by some drivers.     

Pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies on the use of mobile and cordless telephones and the risk of brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003.

Here we present the pooled analysis of 2 case-control studies on the association of brain tumours with mobile phone use. Use of analogue cellular phones increased the risk for acoustic neuroma by 5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2-9% per 100 hrs of use. The risk increased for astrocytoma grade III-IV with latency period with highest estimates using >10-year time period from first use of these phone types. The risk increased per one year of use of analogue phones by 10%, 95% CI = 6-14%, digital phones by 11%, 95% CI = 6-16%, and cordless phones by 8%, 95% CI = 5-12%. For all studied phone types OR for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours, increased with latency period, especially for astrocytoma grade III-IV.     

Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone?

Introduction

Although it is becoming more and more accepted that driving while talking on a cell phone can be hazardous, most jurisdictions are making handheld phone use illegal while allowing hands-free phone use.

Methods

The scientific literature exploring the effects of these two types of cell phone use on driving and driving-related performance is reviewed here.

Results

Our review shows that talking on the phone, regardless of phone type, has negative impacts on performance especially in detecting and identifying events. Performance while using a hands-free phone was rarely found to be better than when using a handheld phone. Some studies found that drivers compensate for the deleterious effects of cell phone use when using a handheld phone but neglect to do so when using a hands-free phone.

Impact on Industry

Current research does not support the decision to allow hands-free phone use while driving.     

Collision and violation involvement of drivers who use cellular telephones

The study sample consisted of 3,869 drivers, split approximately 50/50 between observed cell phone users and those observed not using cell phones (labeled "nonusers"). Cell phone use was determined by a snapshot observation made on city streets. The sample represented 54% of those originally observed, for whom a match was obtained for both vehicle license plate and for gender and estimated age group of the observed driver and that of the driver named in the vehicle policy. Data were obtained from records of insurance claims, police-reported collisions and violations, following a strict protocol to protect individual privacy. The dependent measures were at-fault crash claims and "inattention" violations. A logistic regression model controlled for age, gender, exposure (represented by not-at-fault crash claims), alcohol-related offenses, and aggressive driving offenses. The study also involved a comparison of the contributing factors and collision configurations of police-reported collisions involving the users and "nonusers" in the sample. Drivers observed using cell phones had a higher risk of an at-fault crash than did the "nonusers," although the difference was not significant for males. There was no apparent effect on "inattention" violations. The cell phone users also had a higher proportion of rear-end collisions. The violation pattern of cell phone users suggests that they are, in general, riskier drivers. These differences likely reflect lifestyle, attitude and personality factors. It is essential to control for these factors in assessing the direct risk attributable to cellular telephone use.     

Distractions and the risk of car crash injury: the effect of drivers' age

PROBLEM: Motor-vehicle accidents are one of the major causes of injury in most motorized countries. Driver distractions have been suggested as a contributor to traffic accidents. Moreover, age of the driver seems to have a role in the relationship between distractions and car crashes. But very few studies have investigated the effect of driver's age on this relationship. This exploratory study investigated the association between distractions, both inside and outside the vehicle, and the increased risk of car crash injury among drivers across different ages. METHOD: This study used a case series design to analyze data routinely collected by the NSW police in Australia. A special focus of this study was on how drivers' age affects the risk of car crash injury, which was determined by using a well-documented risk estimation methodology. RESULTS: The results obtained indicated that drivers of all ages, on the whole, are more susceptible to distractions inside the vehicle than distractions coming from outside. Age was shown to affect the relationship between in-vehicle distraction and the risk of car crash injury. A separate analysis was also conducted on hand-held phone usage while driving with results supplementing previous findings reported in the literature. IMPACT TO INDUSTRY: Safety strategies to countermeasure in-vehicle distractions have been suggested and discussed.