A survey of distracted driving and electronic device use among app-based and taxi drivers. (19th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hill, Linda; Baird, Sara; Torres, Katy; Obrochta, Chelsea; Jain, Purva
• Is Part Of: Traffic injury prevention. Volume 22:Supplement 1(2021)
• Page Start: S27
• Page End: S31
• Publication Date: 2021-10-19
• Subjects: Distracted driving -- commercial driver -- app-based driver -- taxi driver -- cell phone -- electronic device; Traffic safety -- Periodicals; Traffic accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and injuries -- Prevention -- Periodicals; 363.125
• DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2021.1935905
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1538-9588

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify, characterize and compare attitudes, beliefs, behaviors and other factors related to electronic device (ED) use and distracted driving (DD) among taxi and app-based drivers. Methods: A survey among drivers in San Diego and across the United States was used to collect self-reported attitudes and behaviors among taxi and app-based passenger-carrying drivers from October 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017. Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to assess the difference between sociodemographics, ED use, ED use attitudes, and citation and crash history by driver type. Prevalence ratios were assessed for differences in ED use and ED use attitudes by driver type using Poisson regression models with robust error variance and a log link function. The final models adjusted for age, sex, level of experience, education and English fluency. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4. Results: Of the 175 drivers that met eligibility criteria, 131 reported driving for app-based services and 44 identified as taxi drivers. Compared to taxi drivers, app-based drivers were more likely to be female, native English speaking, and have fewer than 3 years of experience in the transportation business. All drivers reported at least one type of DD while the car was in motion. App-based drivers were significantly more likely to use a smartphone while driving (adjusted prevalence ratio (APR): 1.42), report that while driving it is safe or very safe to accept a call (APR: 1.73), receive/respond to a passenger request (APR: 3.40), or process a payment (APR: 5.39). Taxi drivers were more likely to either receive a citation for ED use (31.8% v 7.6%, p < 0.001) or be in a collision while using ED (29.6% v 4.6%, p < 0.001). Almost all drivers who received a citation or who were involved in a crash reported becoming somewhat or significantly more cautious about using ED while driving. Conclusions: Drivers in the small passenger-carrying transportation industry engage in DD frequently due to occupational demands. Given the known increased crash risk with DD, effective policies and interventions for app-based and taxi drivers are needed.