Mobile phone use while driving and the risk of collision: A study among preparatory year students at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:The objectives of this study were to determine the rate of mobile phones use while driving by the students of King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, their perception of the risks, and contribution to collisions.MATERIALS AND METHODS:A cross-sectional study was conducted in May 2014 targeting 986 male students of King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A questionnaire was used to obtain data on possessing a driving license, years of driving experience, driving hours, and collision or near misses in the 6 months preceding the study. Eight statements were used to assess the behavior and perceptions related to the use of mobile phones while driving. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square statistic, odds ratio, and the 95% confidence interval.RESULTS:Almost half of the participants (45.3%) had driving experience of 4–6 years and 18.3% of them did not possess a driving license. Collision in the preceding 6 months was reported by 44.6% of participants, and 37.9% of them attributed these collisions to mobile phones. Variable proportions reported that they always texted (53.3%) or talked on a handheld (66.2%) or hands-free (26.1%) phones while driving. A higher proportion conceded that there were hazards in texting (77.0%) and speaking on handheld mobile phones (83.9%) rather than hands-free (35.9%) while driving. The risk increased significantly from 2.052 among participants who reported that they drove daily for 1–2 h to 3.165 of those who reported that they drove for more than 6 h. No significant risk was observed in relation to participants' perceptions, age, driving experience, and possession of a driving license.CONCLUSIONS:There was a risk of collision with the use of handheld and hands-free mobile phones. As hands-free mobile phones are no safer, national legislation should consider restricting their use by drivers and implementing legislations to reinforce safety on the roads. An objective assessment of the contribution of mobile phones to road traffic injuries is recommended.

Mobile phone use while driving: Prevalence, task management strategies, risk perception and attitude among Qassim University students

“…Our study indicated a high prevalence (93.4%) of mobile phone use while driving among university students. High prevalence of mobile phone use is also reported by other studies in Saudi Arabia; a prevalence of 93%[ 9 ] in Riyadh and 90%[ 10 ] in Jeddah is documented. Internationally, a study from California, USA, reported a prevalence of 90% of talking and texting on mobile phone while driving.…”

“…[ 8 ] Another study conducted among university students in Saudi Arabia found that 44.6% of the students had a motor vehicle accident in the last 6 months; among these 37.9% of the accidents were attributed to the use of the mobile phone. [ 9 ]…”

“…6 months; among these 37.9% of the accidents were attributed to the use of the mobile phone. [ 9 ] To design effective preventive measures, it is important to explore the risk perception, attitude and behavior toward cell phone usage while driving. However, on this important aspect of public health, there is dearth of literature generally, and in Saudi Arabia specifically.…”

Mobile applications for road traffic health and safety in the mirror of the Haddon’s matrix

“…Smartphone is a culprit for drivers’ distraction and road accidents [ 6 – 10 ]. One study highlighted that tasks in the smartphones that take drivers' eyes off the road have a greater safety–critical risk than functionalities with no involvement of the eyes off the road [ 11 ].…”

Erratum: Mobile phone use while driving and the risk of collision: A study among preparatory year students at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

“…In the article titled “Mobile phone use while driving and the risk of collision: A study among preparatory year students at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia”, published on pages 102-107, Issue 2, Volume 25 of Journal of Family and Community Medicine,[ 1 ] Table 2 has been incorrectly published. The table legend and table number are correct.…”