The culture of distracted driving: Evidence from a public opinion survey in Iowa

Modeling driver behavior in dilemma zones: A discrete/continuous formulation with selectivity bias corrections

“…This finding agrees with previous dilemma zone literature (see for instance Papaioannou (2007), and Yan et al (2009)) as well as distracted driving related literature (for a discussion see Li et al (2014)). It was determined that female drivers generally have a greater level of variability in their driving style, as compared to their male counterparts, depending on the exact combination of dilemma zone events.…”

“…More generally, the literature pertaining to distracted driving is extensive; such studies utilize surveys, simulation experiments, and data from naturalistic driving studies to evaluate a driver's state of mind and corresponding behavior. This information can then be used to parameterize the complex concept of distraction, which may also involve secondary in-vehicle activities (D'Souza and Maheshwari, 2012;Kircher and Ahlstrom, 2010;Li et al, 2014;Liu and Lee, 2006;Mazzae et al, 2004Mazzae et al, , 2006Olson et al, 2009;Ranney et al, 2005;Strayer and Drew, 2004;Strayer et al, 2013). Another topic which has thus far been inadequately addressed in driving simulator and naturalistic driving studies is that of selectivity bias.…”

What drives technology-based distractions? A structural equation model on social-psychological factors of technology-based driver distraction engagement

“…(1 -avoid new technology as long as possible; 10 -try new technology as soon as possible)" In formulating our hypotheses, we drew from the widely studied Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), which asserts that positive attitudes and social norms towards a particular behaviour would lead to stronger intention, and consequently higher level of engagement in the said behaviour. As described in the introduction, these relationships have also been evident in the driver distraction literature (Carter et al, 2014;Horrey and Lesch, 2008;Li et al, 2014). Our first three hypotheses are therefore as follows:…”

“…The general structural model showing standardised path coefficients: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) equal to 0.081 are not excellent but still permissible (Hu and Bentler, 1999). It is noted that Li et al (2014) reported 2 /df = 4.2 as indicative of an acceptable fit on their SEM analysis of survey data on attitudes and beliefs around distracted driving.…”

“…Li et al (2014) analysed survey responses from 1088 Iowa drivers. The list of distractions surveyed ranged from listening to the radio, to having passengers in the vehicle, to making cell phone calls, and to texting or e-mailing.…”