In December 2011 the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the federal agency responsible for traffic safety and investigating traffic-related accidents, recommended that all states ban drivers from using portable electronic devices (PEDs) while operating a motor vehicle. The board’s recommended prohibition would cover hands-free as well as handheld devices.

According to March 2012 data collected by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an Arlington, Va.–based nonprofit research group funded by the vehicle insurance industry, 35 states and the District of Columbia presently ban text messaging for all drivers; seven additional states ban novice drivers from texting; and three of those seven states also ban school bus drivers from texting while operating their vehicles. In addition, 10 states and the District of Columbia presently ban handheld cell phone use by drivers; 30 states and the District of Columbia ban all cell phone use for novice drivers; and 19 states and the District of Columbia prohibit cell phone use by drivers when operating a school bus. Also, many localities have enacted their own bans on cell phone usage or texting while driving. Interestingly, no state or the District of Columbia presently bans the use of hands-free telecommunication devices for the general populace.

Accident reduction? | Despite the NTSB’s recommendation, recent research studies suggest that PED bans may have little effect on traffic safety. In a December 2009 study by the Highway Data Loss Institute, an organization affiliated with the IIHS, researchers concluded that, while handheld cell phone usage generally declined following implementation of a ban in the three states surveyed [California (inconclusive data), Connecticut (76 percent), and New York (47 percent)] and the District of Columbia (76 percent), insurance collision loss experience data analysis did not indicate a decrease in crash risk. Similarly, a September 2010 study released by the Highway Data Loss Institute found no reductions in motor vehicle crashes after text messaging bans went into effect in four states (California, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Washington). In fact, in this study, the enactment of such legislation was found to be associated with a slight, statistically significant increase (a range of 1–9 percent) in the frequency of insurance claims filed under collision coverage for damages after vehicular crashes in three (California, Louisiana, and Minnesota) of the four states studied (Washington having a statistically insignificant 1 percent increase).

Results of a July 2009 study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) found that texting drivers increased their probability of crashing 23.2 times, but dialing a cell phone only increased the risk of accident by 2.8 times, and talking or listening to a cell phone conversation increased the risk 1.3 times. In comparison, reaching for an object while driving an automobile increases the risk of an accident by 1.4 times. According to the VTTI, the major factor whether or not a traffic accident occurs is having the driver keep his eyes on the road, as the odds of a crash or near-crash more than doubled when a driver’s eyes were off the road ahead for more than two seconds.

Recent data on nationwide automobile fatalities shed additional light on the driver distraction controversy. For 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that 32,788 people died as result of motor vehicle accidents on American roadways. That is the lowest level of fatalities since 1949, when there were 30,246 fatalities recorded. Also for 2010, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles driven fell to an historic low of 1.09. According to NHTSA, the 3,092 distraction-related reported fatalities in 2010 (down 43.5 percent from 5,474 fatalities in 2009) are attributed to a variety of driver distractions, including cell phone use and texting, eating, drinking, conversing with passengers, interacting with in-vehicle technologies and PEDs, daydreaming, and dealing with intense emotions.

Voluntary guidelines | The NTSB’s call for an all-out ban on PED usage by drivers resulted in strong criticism from the automobile industry and consumers alike, as such an outright prohibition would be virtually impossible to enforce actively. More significantly, the ban may be unnecessary because there may be a better way to improve traffic safety.

NHTSA and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade association of 12 car and light truck manufacturers, are now engaged in developing a set of “NHTSA Visual-Manual Driver Distraction Guidelines.” For over a decade, Alliance members have been applying their own guidelines in vehicle integrated design connectivity technologies that strive to make those technologies no more distracting than common manual radio controls. Unlike PEDS, automobile-integrated technology features are designed in a way that helps drivers keep their eyes on the road and hands on the steering wheel by allowing a driver to operate the system through verbal commands. The Alliance guidelines, an industry self-regulatory approach, are in their third iteration, and NHTSA will use the Alliance guidelines as a point of departure for developing its draft guidelines.

The Alliance argues that implementation of NHTSA guidelines over direct command-and-control regulation is an appropriate approach (given the scope of the guidelines, i.e., light-duty vehicles) to addressing this driver distraction safety problem, given how rapidly technology is evolving, the evolving state of knowledge about drivers’ behavior behind the wheel, and the agency’s lack of regulatory authority over PEDs. Furthermore, the Alliance believes that it is appropriate to limit or prohibit certain automotive functions or features that are determined through testing pursuant to the performance-based metrics in the NHTSA guidelines to be incompatible with safe driving, including completely disabling such intense visual-manual activities as texting and entering phone numbers or addresses.

A recent study conducted by Bryan Reimer, Bruce Mehler, Ying Wang, and Joseph F. Coughlin of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Age Lab and the New England University Transportation Center may, however, limit the impact of the hands-free, voice-activated technology solution to addressing the driver-distraction issue. This study of 108 actual drivers, balanced by gender and across three age groups—20–29, 40–49, and 60–69—utilized a test car that was fitted with sophisticated sensor technology that made it possible for the researchers to analyze a test subject’s cognitive load. The researchers found that an increase in the driver’s “cognitive load”—that is, an increase in the complexity level of the conversation or voice commands—can lead to “tunnel vision,” or gaze concentration distraction, that drivers may be unaware of when their hands are not holding a cell phone or turning a dial in the vehicle. Therefore drivers are not aware of their own cognitive limits, and those limits can rapidly change as the cognitive load increases and decreases while operating a vehicle. This research finding challenges the hands-free technology solution as a panacea to the driver distraction problem. More likely, it will help establish clear opportunities and limits on technology as a complement to other responsible driver practices and regulatory responses.

Conclusion | The existing state of knowledge regarding driver distraction and public policy intervention leads to some tentative conclusions.

First, while enacting a state law banning high-risk driver text messaging may be reasonable public policy, research results show that this blunt regulatory approach, along with bans on handheld cell phones, has no discernible impact on reducing automotive accidents. A caveat to this conclusion, however, is that recent NHTSA statistics for 2010 show a marked decline in distraction-related accidents over the previous year. It is too soon, however, to discern whether this decline is significantly related to whether American drivers are finally conforming to the proliferation (and active enforcement) of PED bans or other mitigating factors are responsible for this outcome.

Second, while automobile manufacturers are cooperatively engaging with the federal government to reduce vehicle functions and features that may increase visual distractions in a vehicle, this solution does not adequately address PED usage or a myriad of other potential distractions that take place in a moving vehicle. Further research into what levels of distraction are inappropriate while driving need to be investigated.

Third, with these new scientific insights into a driver’s cognitive load limit, policymakers will be better equipped to decide on the appropriate (and effective) level of command-and-control regulation. This public policy will likely be complemented by industry self-regulation regimes, driver education and public relations campaigns to reinforce safe driving practices focused on in-vehicle driver distraction reduction, and manufacturers focusing their innovation efforts on technology solutions such as vehicle artificial intelligence sensors capable of recognizing driver signals indicating an unsafe cognitive load, thus disconnecting voice-activated features in the vehicle.

To effectively manage this complex safety problem will undoubtedly require an evolving strategy of complementary business, consumer, and public policies and approaches in an increasingly “distracting” American society.

Readings

  • “A Field Study on the Impact of Variations in Short-Term Memory Demands on Drivers’ Visual Attention and Driving Performance across Three Age Groups,” by Bryan Reimer, Bruce Mehler, Ying Wang, and Joseph F. Coughlin. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, forthcoming.
  • “Hand Held Cellphone Laws and Collision Claim Frequencies,” published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Va. Highway Loss Data Institute Bulletin, Vol. 26, No. 17 (December 2009).
  • “Texting Laws and Collision Claim Frequencies,” published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Va. Highway Loss Data Institute Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 11 (September 2010).