Distracting behaviors among teenagers and young, middle-aged, and older adult drivers when driving without and with warnings from an integrated vehicle safety system. (June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kidd, David G.; Buonarosa, Mary Lynn
• Is Part Of: Journal of safety research. Volume 61(2017:May)
• Page Start: 177
• Page End: 185
• Publication Date: 2017-06
• Subjects: Distracted driving -- Collision warning systems -- Driver age -- Operant conditioning -- Risk compensation; Industrial safety -- Periodicals; Accidents -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Safety -- Periodicals; Accidents, Occupational -- Periodicals; Sécurité du travail -- Périodiques; Accidents -- Prévention -- Périodiques; Accidents -- Prevention; Industrial safety; Periodicals; 363.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2017.02.017
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-4375

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Negative reinforcement from crash warnings may reduce the likelihood that drivers engage in distracted driving. Alternatively, drivers may compensate for the perceived safety benefit of crash warnings by engaging in distractions more frequently, especially at higher speeds. The purpose of this study was to examine whether warning feedback from an integrated vehicle-based safety system affected the likelihood that various secondary behaviors were present among drivers ages 16–17, 20–30, 40–50, and 60–70. Method: Participants drove an instrumented sedan with various collision warning systems for an extended period. Ten 5-second video clips were randomly sampled from driving periods at speeds above 25 mph and below 5 mph each week for each driver and coded for the presence of 11 secondary behaviors. Results: At least one secondary behavior was present in 46% of video clips; conversing with a passenger (17%), personal grooming (9%), and cellphone conversation (6%) were the most common. The likelihood that at least one secondary behavior was present was not significantly different during periods when drivers received warnings relative to periods without warnings. At least one secondary behavior was 21% more likely to be present at speeds below 5 mph relative to speeds above 25 mph; however, the effect of vehicle speed was not significantly affected by warning presence. Separate models for each of the five most common secondary behaviors also indicated that warnings had no significant effect on the likelihood that each behavior was present. Conclusions: Collision warnings were not associated with significant increases or decreases in the overall likelihood that teen and adult drivers engaged in secondary behaviors or the likelihood of the behaviors at speeds above 25 mph or below 5 mph. Practical applications: There was no evidence that forward collision warning and other technologies like those in this study will increase or decrease distracted driving. Highlights: At least one secondary behavior was present in 46% of video clips reviewed. Likelihood of a secondary behavior did not change during periods with warnings. No change in distracted driving when stopped or going above 25 mph with warnings. No evidence that crash warning systems significantly affect distracted driving.