Driver Strategies for Engaging in Distracting Tasks Using In-Vehicle Technologies

Abstract

This project investigated the decision process involved in a driver's willingness to engage in various technology-related and non-technology tasks. Previous research focused on how well drivers are able to drive while engaged in potentially distracting activities but little work has considered how drivers decide when to engage in in-vehicle activities. The project included focus groups and an on-road study, both employing participants who used in-vehicle technologies, from four age groups: teen (16-18), young (18-24), middle (25-59), and older (60+). For the on-road study, participants drove their own vehicles over a specified route and at specified points they rated their willingness to engage in some specific task at that time and place. Eighty-one different situations (combination of in-vehicle task and driving circumstances) were included. Further information was collected in the take-home booklet completed after the on-road session. Driver willingness to engage in various in-vehicle tasks was related to the technology type, specific task attributes, driving conditions, personal motivations, age, driving style, and decision style. Ratings of willingness and of risk were very highly correlated. Although reported willingness varied substantially with the task it was rather insensitive to immediate roadway characteristics and participants showed relatively little concern for impending (uproad) conditions. Task-related motivations, rather than driving-related considerations, appeared to be dominant decision factors. Participants did not attribute particular risk to basic cell phone tasks (dialing, answering, conversing). These phone tasks were rated roughly comparable to eating something neat or drinking something and were rated less risky than eating something messy or dealing with children in the vehicle. A matrix mapped 36 specific project findings to potential countermeasure approaches, including public education; driver or device user training; user interface design; needs for warnings and information; criteria for function lock-outs; and driver assist system criteria. Some particular countermeasure strategy was suggested for consideration in more than 200 cells in this matrix, so that the findings of the study may prove heuristically fruitful in generating approaches to dealing with driver distraction.

Impact of social and technological distraction on pedestrian crossing behaviour: an observational study

“…Environmental modifications which separate pedestrians from traffic and promote safe crossing may be even more important in an era of growing distraction. While individuals do not feel ‘at risk’ for relatively rare events such as injury,35 they may feel ‘at risk’ for a distraction citation if there is visible evidence of effective enforcement, as is being considered in some US cities 36 37. Ultimately, a shift in normative attitudes about pedestrian behaviour, similar to efforts around drunk driving, will be important to limit the state-dependent risk of mobile device use.…”

Exploring the mechanisms of distraction from in-vehicle technology: The development of the PARRC model

“…The perceived value outweighing the potential risk. Indeed many people admit to using mobile phones and other devices while driving despite knowing the associated risks (McCartt et al, 2006;Lerner et al 2008). Cnossen et al (2000) highlights the important differences between approaches that focus on inattention as the cause of distraction and those that focus on the mechanisms drivers use to incorporate the primary and secondary driving task together.…”

“…Young and Salmon (2015) highlighted the issues currently found by drivers who must ignore the technology put into vehicles by manufacturers that is then later outlawed by the government. Indeed, there has been a surmountable body of research citing 'willingness to engage' as a key factor in incidents resulting from technology that is encouraged by manufacturers but that is not accounted for in legislation (Ranney et al, 2000;Lerner et al, 2008;Olsen et al, 2005;Dingus et al, 2006). Tingvall et al (2009) note that distraction cannot be eliminated entirely but to minimise it all stakeholders that hold responsibility over distraction need to be realised and united towards a common design strategy.…”

Reading While Driving: A Study on Drivers’ Strategies of In-Vehicle Task Initiation

“…Further, given the population used in the current study (experienced drivers, aged between 25-55 years old), the results may not generalize to younger, inexperienced drivers who may employ different strategies of secondary task initiation from experienced drivers (Lerner, et al, 2008). Further work exploring younger drivers is worthwhile.…”