Differences in Near-Crash Risk by Types of Distraction: A Comparison of Trends between Freeways and Two-Lane Highways using Naturalistic Driving Data

Abstract

Distracted driving is among the leading causes of motor vehicle crashes in the United States, though the magnitude of this problem is difficult to quantify given limitations of police-reported crash data. This study leveraged data from the second Strategic Highway Research Program Naturalistic Driving Study to gain important insights into the risks posed by driver distraction on both freeways and two-lane highways. More than 50 types of secondary tasks were aggregated into ten distraction type categories and mixed-effects logistic regression models were estimated to discern how the risks of near-crash events varied by distraction type while controlling for the effects of driver, roadway, and traffic characteristics. In general, the types of distractions that created the most pronounced risks were those that introduced a combination of cognitive, visual, and manual distractions. For example, drivers who used cell phones were subject to higher risks and these risks tended to be most pronounced when both visual and manual distractions were involved. Likewise, risks tended to be highest when drivers reached for other objects inside the vehicle, engaged in personal hygiene-related activities, or focused on activities occurring outside of the driving environment. Although the same factors tended to increase near-crash risk on both types of facilities, the impacts of several factors tended to be more pronounced on two-lane highways where interaction with other vehicles occurred more frequently. From a policy standpoint, the results of this study provide further motivation for more aggressive legislation and enforcement of distracted driving.

Effects of Distracting Behaviors on Driving Workload and Driving Performance in a City Scenario

“…Another possibility is that hands-free phone conversation is a combination of cognitive and manual (answer the phone) distractions. Driving risks were going to be greatest while drivers reach for in-vehicle objects [ 39 ].…”