Benefits & Safety Risks

Papers, polls, Q&A items, and comments on this page are oriented to topics and issues associated with Benefits and Safety Risks of in-vehicle technologies. Feel free to post comments on issues outlined below, or in response to papers, polls, and/or questions submitted to our expert panel. Although discussions are meant to emphasize safety impacts associated with in-vehicle technological devices, comments relating to safety risks deriving from non-technological or traditional sources of distraction (e.g., eating, shaving, applying make-up, monitoring kids, etc) are also welcome. A moderator has been assigned to periodically synthesize comments, keep discussions focused and moving, emphasize key points, and offer additional insights into related issues.

DISCUSSION ISSUES/TOPICS

Extent of Problem & Safety Risks

To what extent is there a safety problem? Are problems limited to new users who are first learning to use the system, or are they more pervasive and wide spread?
How can we maintain benefits without sacrificing safety?
What can we expect to see in terms of impacts and how do we assess the appropriate level of safety risks from using in-vehicle technologies?
- Can we expect crash rates to increase as a result of in-vehicle technologies?
- How will these technologies affect individual’s ability to drive?
- Can drivers be trusted to regulate their use of these technologies – limiting their use to situations when it is presumed safe to operate.
- Will drivers become less cautious as they become routinely exposed to these technologies?

Research Needs

What are the important unanswered questions relating to safety & benefits of in-vehicle technology. What research issues should we invest our time and resources studying?

Content Available In Each Topic Area

  Paper
  Comment
  Ask the Expert
  Poll

Extent of Problem & Safety Risks
	The Impact of Internal Distraction on Driver Visual Behavior 5/17/00 2:30:52 PM The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness 5/17/00 2:31:00 PM Issues in the Evaluation of Driver Distraction Associated with In-Vehicle Information and Telecommunications Systems 5/18/00 9:44:51 AM Individual Differences and In-Vehicle Distraction While Driving: A Test Track Study and Psychometric Evaluation 5/18/00 10:35:38 AM A Technical Platform for Driver Inattention Research 5/18/00 1:34:17 PM In terms of safety, what type of distraction concerns you more? Have you ever witnessed, or experienced a close call or crash resulting from a driver using a cellular phone or from your personal use with a cell phone? How capable are drivers at making decisions about when it is safe to use technology while driving? my own inability 7/6/00 8:21:30 AM driving while inconversated 7/6/00 8:31:21 AM honk honk honk! hang up the @#$%$#@ cell phone please! 7/6/00 8:40:13 AM Driving is dangerous enough. 7/8/00 12:16:49 AM More distractions? 7/8/00 9:24:29 AM more comments after reading studies 7/8/00 9:28:20 AM *Have you ever witnessed, or experienced a close call or crash resulting from a driver being distracted by something other than a cell phone? (e.g. reading a map, eating, personal grooming)* in-vehicle technology needs to be eliminated 7/13/00 10:17:06 PM Hang-up and Drive 7/14/00 10:31:02 AM General comments about distracted drivers 7/14/00 3:33:25 PM Passenger airbags; forcing children, especially rear-facing infants to the back seat where they are responsible for crash causing driver distractions. 7/14/00 5:48:07 PM Multitude of distractions 7/15/00 11:26:03 PM Distraction Perspective 7/17/00 10:42:58 PM Driving is Given Less Attention Than it Deserves 7/18/00 9:10:49 AM Now that we know..... 7/18/00 9:15:10 AM Lonely on the road 7/18/00 5:18:40 PM cell phones 7/18/00 5:27:39 PM Distractions 7/18/00 8:09:55 PM Latest attempt to legislate common sense at the expense of freedom 7/18/00 9:21:39 PM Children in the back seat 7/18/00 10:27:26 PM Benefits are minimal; not worth the risks 7/19/00 10:20:19 AM Comment on "Benefits are minimal..." 7/19/00 5:07:26 PM Benefits---I am not convinced 7/20/00 10:42:30 AM There is a solution - it's called the train 7/20/00 12:34:16 PM *The real* problem 7/21/00 11:52:59 AM What about other in-vehicle technologies? 7/21/00 5:24:54 PM The scope of "distractions" needs to be cast much wider 7/21/00 9:35:32 PM Trained drivers susceptible to distraction? (See detailed question below) 7/25/00 8:56:18 AM oh dear its you we should watch for 7/26/00 10:13:43 AM Driver Training 7/26/00 12:45:19 PM Engage brain before putting mouth into gear 7/27/00 1:17:58 PM comment on: Benefits---I am not convinced 8/1/00 9:57:07 AM RE: oh dear its you we should watch for 8/3/00 7:06:56 AM Map Readfing while driving 8/3/00 7:25:10 AM RE: Latest attempt to legislate common sense at the expense of freedom 8/3/00 7:59:16 AM Referring to: cell phones 8/3/00 8:54:22 AM RE: Greg Knight's comment 8/3/00 10:14:11 AM Technology Related Distraction & Crashes (see detailed question below)** 8/3/00 10:28:09 AM Frances Bents Q. What is the percentage of "driver distraction-caused" traffic accidents in the USA? Of these, what proportion are related to use of various in-vehicle technologies? What comparable estimates are available from other countries? What is the magnitude of off-setting benefits of in-vehicle, distraction-related technologies? A. The Indiana based, "Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents" published by NHTSA in 1975 remains one of the classic works in attempting to define causal factors in crashes. It tells us that about 90% of crashes include human factors as direct causes. Of these, approximately 50% were characterized as recognition errors, 40% as decision errors, and 10% as performance errors. These factors were derived from detailed analyses of crashes investigated by police and by trained in-depth crash investigators. Analysts were drawn from several disciplines. To my knowledge, the level of detail captured in this study has never been replicated. Unfortunately, the Tri-level Study was conducted long before the current plethora of in-vehicle technologies were developed. Still, the report cites driver inattention, internal distraction, improper lookout and excessive speed among the most prevalent causal factors. The more recent 1997 NHTSA report, "An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless Communications in Vehicles" examines current databases for indications of technology-use based causal factors in crashes. As explained in my testimony at the Public Meeting, these databases rely heavily on police accident reports to recognize the use of cell phones (and other devices) as pre-crash factors. Given the widespread use of small, easily concealed, handheld phones, it is extremely difficult for law enforcement personnel to detect such use in the absence of witness statements or other physical evidence. Because cell phone use is not illegal, there is little incentive for officers to inquire about, or to note such use on their reports. The introduction of other devices such as fax machines and navigational aids is so recent, that a body of data (even of poor data) has not yet been developed. Police reports will never be able to adequately assess technology use as a causal factor. Highway safety researchers face the same challenges, and generally conduct their investigations days after the crashes occur. A crash investigation-generated statistical basis for safety decisions regarding in-vehicle devices will always be lacking the required rigor. None of the other nations which have passed laws regulating the use of in-vehicle technologies did so on the basis of statistics. For those few crashes in the FARS and NASS data for 1996-1997 which were determined to be technology related, the citations issued to recognized cell phone-using drivers were primarily for inattention, failure to yield, run off the road, and excessive speed. For the in-depth investigations conducted by Dynamic Science in support of the report, the overriding factor was driver inattention. Clearly then, driver inattention is a recognized and significant factor in highway crashes. The question then becomes, "What causes driver inattention?" Any driver can tell you that there are many causes - roadside activities, crying children, handling CDs, eating, drinking, shaving, whatever humans can invent. Current NHTSA sponsored databases indicate that about 30% of crashes are caused by driver distraction. I am not familiar with comparable data from other countries, and refer you to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. In Japan, a one-month study of cell phone use by drivers was conducted by police in June of 1996, prior to the adoption of their law banning hand held phone use. They studied 129 crashes and determined that drivers were generally dialing a phone or responding to a call at the times of their crashes. This would indicate that biomechanical distraction (handling the phone) is a serious issue in Japan. Both crash investigation and human factors data in the U.S. show that it is the cognitive distraction of being involved in conversation that constitutes the greatest risk for drivers. The question of potential benefits of in-vehicle, distraction-related technologies is of great interest at this time. The cell phone industry and the law enforcement community tout the benefits of immediate emergency notifications. Such calls can and should be made from a stopped vehicle, which makes the issue of driver distraction a moot point. The human factors research cited in the 1997 report includes one study that indicated that conversation may help offset fatigue among professional truck drivers. It certainly can be argued that rest is the best cure for driver fatigue, and adding a recognized cognitive distraction to an impaired drowsy driving situation may be a poor solution. In fact, a great deal of attention is focused on fatigued commercial vehicle drivers, and I have not heard anyone suggest that we should issue cell phones to such drivers to improve their performance. The merits of other in-vehicle technologies such as navigational devices, and night vision systems will have to be judged based upon human factors studies - at least for the short term. It takes years to be able to develop a statistically reliable crash data set for emerging technologies of any kind as we have seen from recent experience with air bags and antilock brakes. But the absence of statistics should never be used as an excuse for inaction when a problem has been recognized. Cell phones are not essential devices for driving. In fact, in my opinion, they are an unnecessary and dangerous source of driver distraction. Our first priority must always be safety. The design and development of new technologies must not be driven by profit, or even by convenience. The devices must be shown to at least not degrade driving performance if they cannot be shown to enhance driving safety. Comment on: RE: Greg Knight's comment 8/3/00 12:35:46 PM Have you been to Westport, CT? 8/5/00 9:25:19 PM RE: Lonely on the road 8/7/00 11:30:54 AM driver awareness 8/8/00 10:04:57 AM Think about it 8/8/00 2:58:44 PM 911? 8/8/00 3:12:11 PM Critical Input: Headway to vehicle in front 8/8/00 4:46:30 PM Riding my bike home from work 8/8/00 10:26:39 PM Infants in the back seat 8/10/00 11:10:47 AM RE: 911? 8/10/00 12:08:03 PM Human element cannot be minimized by technology 8/10/00 9:57:59 PM One size does not fit all 8/11/00 2:27:09 PM
Research Needs