Naturalistic Driving Performance During Secondary Tasks

Abstract

Summary:Data from 36 drivers involved in a naturalistic driving study was analyzed to determine the frequency and conditions under which drivers engage in secondary behaviors and to explore the relationship these behaviors might have with driving performance. Researchers coded 1,440 five-second video clips of the drivers' faces for the occurrence of specific secondary behaviors and the duration of glances away from the forward scene. Corresponding performance data from the instrumented vehicles were used to calculate variability of steering angle, mean and variability of lane position, mean and variability of throttle position, and variability of speed. All categories of secondary behavior were associated with significantly higher variability in steering angle. The results for other performance measures were mixed. In summary; driving performance measures vary with differing tasks, with no single driving performance indicator that is obviously predictive of drivers' engagement in secondary tasks.

The Prevalence of Distraction Among Passenger Vehicle Drivers: A Roadside Observational Approach

“…Results regarding gender differences with cell phone use while driving are mixed; some studies report that females are more likely to be distracted by talking on a phone, (Glassbrenner, 2005) whereas others reported men were more likely to use cell phones when driving. (Pöysti, Rajalin, & Summala, 2005; Sayer et al, 2005) Interestingly, several studies have found that gender has no effect on risk of a crash associated with phone use. (McCartt, Hellinga, & Bratiman, 2006; Pöysti et al, 2005) It remains unclear as to the exact relationship between cell phone use and distraction and how that relates to safety by gender.…”

“…(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008; JC Stutts, Reinfurt, Staplin, & Rodgman, 2001) In addition, the relative crash risk associated with specific distracting behaviors has been established using naturalistic observational study designs. (Hanowski, Perez, & Dingus, 2005; Klauer, Dingus, Neale, Sudweeks, & Ramsey, 2006; Sayer, Devonshire, & Flannagan, 2005; J Stutts et al, 2005) One measure that has received less attention is the prevalence of any distraction among drivers while driving. A handful of studies have measured the prevalence of specific types of driver distraction; however, most focused only on cell phone use.…”

“…(J Stutts et al, 2005) Data from 36 drivers in Ann Arbor, Michigan show that drivers were engaged in secondary behaviors approximately 34% of the time. (Sayer et al, 2005) Results from the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study (Northern Virginia/Washington DC metropolitan area) indicate that the prevalence of driving-related inattention was 44%. (Klauer et al, 2006) While the sample sizes were small, data were collected over an extended period and represent normal, daily driving that occurs in a metropolitan environment.…”

Impact of Cognitive Workload on Physiological Arousal and Performance in Younger and Older Drivers

“…Average forward velocity was selected as an indicator of compensatory behavior, since drivers have been observed to reduce their speed to manage increasing workload (Harms, 1991;Horberry et al, 2006;Son et al, 2010). Standard deviation of lateral position is another frequently used driving performance measure (Sayer, Devonshire & Flannagan, 2007). Heart rate and skin conductance level have been shown to be useful for quantifying changes in workload prior to the occurrence of driving performance degradation (Lenneman & Backs, 2009;Mehler et al 2009;.…”

Not all minds wander equally: The influence of traits, states and road environment factors on self-reported mind wandering during everyday driving

“…For example, several studies have found that mobile phone use while driving is relatively unsafe (Caird et al, 2008;Charlton, 2009;Lamble et al, 1999). Other distractions, such as manipulating a car stereo or eating while driving have been studied naturalistically by analysis of in-car video (Klauer et al, 2014;Sayer et al, 2007). However, inattention where there is no overt external stimulus -the driver is simply not thinking about driving -has not been extensively studied.…”