Using event-triggered naturalistic data to examine the prevalence of teen driver distractions in rear-end crashes

Carney, Cher; Harland, Karisa K.; McGehee, Daniel V.

doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2016.03.010

Cited by 52 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…DriveCam is employed mainly as an intervention tool, mostly with fleet vehicles to improve professional driver performance in conjunction with managers who monitor events and provide feedback and consequences. However, this same methodology has been employed with young drivers whose driving can be monitored by their parents (by viewing saved video footage of events over the past week or so) [22]. A substantial number of DriveCam events have been recorded from the long-running Teen Safe Driver Program.…”

Section: Drivecam Teen Safe Driving Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A substantial number of DriveCam events have been recorded from the long-running Teen Safe Driver Program. Recent analyses of these data that included 400 moderate-to-severe rear-end crashes among teen drivers indicated the following [22]: (1) 75% of events included potentially distracting driver behavior. (2) Cell phone use, attending to a location outside the vehicle, and attending to passengers were the most common secondary task behaviors.…”

Section: Drivecam Teen Safe Driving Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Distracted driving is the diversion of driver attention from the primary driving task, often when engaging in a task secondary to driving, although inattention to the driving task can also occur due to impairment from drugs, drowsiness, or fixation on objects and activities outside the vehicle [22]. Distraction due to secondary task engagement is a particular problem for young drivers compared to other driver age groups [9,[49][50][51][52].…”

Section: Distractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gershon and colleagues [54] found that high-risk secondary tasks accounted for 21% of tasks while driving, and task engagement varied according to driving conditions, vehicle occupancy, and social norms. Using an event triggered dataset, Carney et al [22] found that 76% of rear-end crashes were associated with some type of secondary task engagement. Previous studies found that dialing and texting, reaching for an object, consuming food, and attending to external distraction were highly associated with safety critical events among teenage drivers [9,52].…”

Section: Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, reductions in driving behaviors that trigger kinematic events among young drivers is the focus of the DriveCam-based American Family Teen Driver Safety Program [22], and other, similar programs [57]. These programs link each KRD event to feedback to the driver in the form of a blinking light and/or sound, and in most cases, a record of the event, in the form of video when available, is saved and made available to the participating teens and their parents.…”

Section: Kinematic Risky Drivingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Teen Driving Risk and Prevention: Naturalistic Driving Research Contributions and Challenges

Simons‐Morton

Ehsani

Gershon

et al. 2017

Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Naturalistic driving (ND) methods may be particularly useful for research on young driver crash risk. Novices are not safe drivers initially, but tend to improve rapidly, although the pace of learning is highly variable. However, knowledge is lacking about how best to reduce the learning curve and the variability in the development of safe driving judgment. A great deal has been learned from recent naturalistic driving (ND) studies that have included young drivers, providing objective information on the nature of crash risk and the factors that contribute to safety critical events. This research indicates that most learners obtain at least the amount of practice driving recommended and develop important driving skills. Unfortunately, most learners are not exposed during training to more complex driving situations and the instruction provided by supervising parents is mostly reactive and may not fully prepare teens for independent driving. While supervised practice driving is quite safe, crash rates are high during the first six months or so of independent driving then decline rapidly, but remain high for years relative to experienced drivers. Contributing factors to crash risk include exposure, inexperience, elevated gravitational-force event rates, greater willingness to engage in secondary tasks while driving, and social influence from peer passengers. The findings indicate the need and possible objectives for improving practice driving instruction and developing innovative prevention approaches for the first year of independent driving.

show abstract

Section: Drivecam Teen Safe Driving Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Drivecam Teen Safe Driving Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Distractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Kinematic Risky Drivingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Teen Driving Risk and Prevention: Naturalistic Driving Research Contributions and Challenges

Simons‐Morton

Ehsani

Gershon

et al. 2017

Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Driver Distraction: Methodological Review

Verma

Karmakar

2017

Research Into Design for Communities, Volume 1

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preliminary research developing a theory of cell phone distraction and social relationships

LaVoie

Lee

Parker

2016

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death and injury for people aged 5 – 34, accounting annually for over 3000 deaths, and 100 times as many injuries. It is well established that distracted driving, and cell phone use while driving in particular, pose significant crash risk to drivers. Research has demonstrated that drivers are well aware of this danger but over 90% of drivers report using a cell phone while driving. Given the likely role that social influence plays in how people use cell phones while driving surprisingly little research has been conducted investigating to whom drivers are talking or texting. We report the results of a national survey to determine who drivers are most likely to call or text when behind the wheel and compared these results with general cell phone calling and texting patterns as well as previous findings on the prevalence of calling and texting while driving. The results suggest that social distance is a key factor in cell phone use while driving: Teens are more likely to talk with parents, and adults are more likely to talk with spouses than general calling patterns would suggest. We discuss whether the purpose of calls made while driving, such as coordination, could help explain these patterns. We propose next steps for further examining the role social relationships play in cell phone use while driving to potentially reduce teen driver cell phone use by lowering the number of calls from parents.

show abstract

Using event-triggered naturalistic data to examine the prevalence of teen driver distractions in rear-end crashes

Cited by 52 publications

References 16 publications

Teen Driving Risk and Prevention: Naturalistic Driving Research Contributions and Challenges

Teen Driving Risk and Prevention: Naturalistic Driving Research Contributions and Challenges

Driver Distraction: Methodological Review

Preliminary research developing a theory of cell phone distraction and social relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About