Tag Archives: Distracted Driving

New cars come with more driver distracting features than ever before

The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has released a study which found that new model cars are more loaded with driver distracting technologies than ever before. The study concluded that 23 out of the 30 models tested had technology on board that demanded the driver pay a high or very high level of attention to it while the car was moving.

Programming navigation was the most distracting task, taking an average of 40 seconds for drivers to complete. When driving at 25 mph, a driver can travel the length of four football fields during the time it could take to enter a destination in navigation—all while distracted from the important task of driving. Programming navigation while driving was available in 12 of the 30 vehicle systems tested.

“Drivers want technology that is safe and easy to use, but many of the features added to infotainment systems today have resulted in overly complex and sometimes frustrating user experiences for drivers,” said Marshall Doney, AAA’s president and CEO.

Distracted Drivers, Meet the Textalyzer

After years of decline in road fatalities, numbers were up 8 percent in 2015. Many believe the rise is due at least in part to distracted driving and advocates are looking to programs that have successfully curtailed drunk driving for potential solutions.

The New York Times reports that one idea from New York lawmakers, would give police officers a new digital device that is the equivalent of the Breathalyzer — a roadside test called the Textalyzer.

An officer arriving at the scene of a crash could ask for the phones of any drivers involved and use the Textalyzer to tap into the operating system to check for recent activity, according to the New York Times article.

“The technology could determine whether a driver had used the phone to text, email or do anything else that is forbidden under New York’s hands-free driving laws, which prohibit drivers from holding phones to their ears. Failure to hand over a phone could lead to the suspension of a driver’s license, similar to the consequences for refusing a Breathalyser.”

However, the proposed legislation faces hurdles to becoming law, including privacy concerns, even though the Textalyzer bill would not give the police access to contents of any emails or texts.

If the law were to pass in New York, some believe it could spread across other states in the same way that the hands-free rules did after New York adopted them.

This is an interesting idea. The insurance industry has long been a major supporter of anti-drunk driving and seatbelt usage campaigns.

Distraction was a factor in 10 percent of fatal crashes reported in 2013, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data. Some 14 percent of distraction-affected crashes occurred while a cell phone was in use, the NHTSA notes.

A Highway Loss Data Institute study of collision claims patterns in four states (California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington) also found that texting bans may not reduce crash rates. Collisions went up slightly in all the states, except Washington, where the change was statistically insignificant.

The use of technology to better assess risk is something that insurers embrace in many different lines of business, including auto and health. Clearly, privacy concerns will need to be weighed, but this is a novel approach to tackling the distracted driving problem.

Check out Insurance Information Institute statistics on distracted driving here.

AAA on Distracted Driving: Hands-Free is not Risk-Free

Turns out using hands-free technologies to talk, text or send email while driving is not as safe as many people believe, according to a new study conducted by the University of Utah for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

The research found that as mental workload and distractions increase, reaction time slows, brain function is compromised, drivers scan the road less and miss visual cues, potentially resulting in drivers not seeing items right in front of them including stop signs and pedestrians.

The report notes:

The assumption that if the eyes were on the road and the hands were on the steering wheel then voice-based interactions would be safe appears to be unwarranted. Simply put, hands-free does not mean risk-free.†

Researchers measured brainwaves, eye movement and other metrics to assess what happens to drivers’ mental workload when they attempt to do multiple things at once.

The results were used to rate the levels of mental distraction drivers experience while performing each of the tasks. The levels of mental distraction are represented on a scale, as follows:

— Tasks such as listening to the radio ranked as a category “1† level of distraction or a minimal risk.

— Talking on a cell phone, both handheld and hands-free, resulted in a “2† or a moderate risk.

— Listening and responding to in-vehicle, voice-activated email features increased mental workload and distraction levels of the drivers to a “3† rating or one of extensive risk.

Professor David Strayer, lead author of the study, says:

These new, speech-based technologies in the car can overload the driver’s attention and impair their ability to drive safely. An unintended consequence of trying to make driving safer – by moving to speech-to-text in-vehicle systems – may actually overload the driver and make them less safe.†

More on this story from NPR.

Check out I.I.I. facts and statistics on highway safety.

Study: Majority of Distracted Drivers Lost in Thought

While the dangers of texting and driving get a lot of headlines, you might be surprised at the findings of a new study by Erie Insurance that show daydreaming behind the wheel is even more dangerous.

Erie’s analysis found that 62 percent of distracted drivers involved in fatal car crashes were described by police as daydreaming or “lost in thought†.

The police report data analyzed by Erie in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) reveal that of the more than 65,000 people killed in car crashes over the past two years, one in 10 were in crashes where at least one of the drivers was distracted.

Erie did  point out  that because FARS data on distraction is based largely on police officers’ judgment at the time of the crash, and because some people may be reluctant to admit they were distracted when being interviewed by police after a fatal car crash, the numbers are difficult to verify and may, in fact, under-represent the seriousness and prevalence of driving distractions.

As well as daydreaming, police listed several more specific types of distractions.  Below are the  top 10 distractions involved in fatal car crashes: