First Annual Virginia Distracted Driving Summit

1. First Annual Virginia Distracted Driving Summit September 19, 2013 Richmond, Virginia David S. Zuby Chief Research Officer

2. Driver distraction is not a recent phenomenon • 1979 – Indiana “Tri-Level Study” estimated “driver error” to be proximate cause of 9 out of 10 crashes • Personal reports from drivers reveal a variety of distracting events preceding crashes • Changing audio tapes/CDs • Eating/drinking • Children, bugs, animals in vehicle • Reading, shaving, and applying makeup • 2005-07 in-depth crash study estimated driver-related factors associated with 93 percent of crashes

3. 3 most common distractions Estimated prevalence

4. Experimental studies show hand-held and hands-free phone tasks degrade simulated or test-track driving performance Strengths • Isolate effects of cellphone tasks (e.g., manual dialing, conversation type) by controlling for potential confounding variables (e.g., demand of driving task) Limitations • Small volunteer samples • Driving and distraction tasks paced by experimenters, not drivers, and may be unrealistic • Unknown whether findings pertain to drivers using phones in their own vehicles because of learning effects, self-regulation, or other factors

5. Naturalistic driving studies found dialing and texting, but not conversation, increase risk of crash surrogates Strengths • Drivers using own phones in own vehicles can be observed for an extended period of time • Hand-held phone use can be verified at time of safety-relevant events and for control periods of driving Limitations • Small samples of crashes preclude estimating crash risk and necessitate use of crash surrogates (e.g., near-crash, traffic conflicts) • Documentation of hands-free phone use less reliable without phone records

6. Studies verifying crash-involved drivers’ phone use found increased risk with hand-held and hands-free phones Strengths • Large samples of real-world crashes • Cellphone billing records used to verify phone use at time of crash and during control driving periods Limitations • Reasons for talking on phone may not be independent of crash risk • Drivers with higher crash risk may be affected by phone use differently than lower risk drivers • Documenting driving in crash and control periods dependent on drivers’ recollections

7. Many drivers use cellphones National observational surveys, NHTSA, 2000-11

8. All police-reported crashes per million miles traveled By calendar year

9. Actual hand-held phone use vs. use that would have been expected without hand-held cellphone bans Percent phone use, April 2009 The effects of bans on drivers’ hand-held phone use differ considerably, but bans can result in long-term reductions in drivers’ hand-held phone use.

10. Estimated effect of hand-held cellphone bans Collision claim frequencies for new vehicles

11. Can technology that blocks cellphone calls and texting help? Several technologies block incoming and outgoing phone calls and text messages when the car is moving • Examples include Aegis Mobility, Trinity Noble, Zoomsafer, and Key2SafeDriving Systems vary in sophistication and features • Most allow passengers to use phones • All allow calls to emergency services Most use phone’s GPS to detect when it is traveling above a specific speed threshold Effects on driving performance or crashes unclear

12. We may be able to reduce the problem of distraction without fully understanding it

13. Front crash prevention systems are working Adaptive headlights are working Benefits of other systems are less clear: • Lane departure warning • Blind spot warning • Rearview cameras • Parking proximity sensors

14. The New Yorker, April 23, 2007