Distracted Driving Studies
(129 Found)

Title of Study

Date of Study



Phone Use v. Drunk Driving (8)

A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver.
When driving conditions and time on task were controlled for, the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk.
Summer 2006
Dr. David L. Strayer et al.
University of Utah.

Cell-Phone - Induced Driver Distraction
Inattention blindness - Research found that even when participants looked directly at objects in the driving environment, they were less likely to create a durable memory of those objects if they were conversing on a cell phone.
David L. Strayer and Frank A. Drews
Association for Psychological Science Volume 16 - Number 3

A Comparison of the Effect of Mobile Phone Use and Alcohol Consumption on Driving Simulation Performance.
The naturalistic conversation was comparable to the legally permissible blood alcohol concentration level (0.04), and the cognitively demanding and texting conversations weresimilar to the blood alcohol concentration level 0.07 to 0.10 results.
Sumie Leung et al.
University of Wollongong,

Dual-Task Studies of Stimulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Telephone.
Restricting handheld devices but permithands-free devices are not likely to reduce interference from the phoneconversation, because the interference is, in this case, due to central attentionalprocesses.
November 6, 2001
David L. Strayer and William A. Johnston.
University of Utah.

Benchmarking the Impairment to Alcohol.
Drivers found it easier to drive drunk than to drive while using a phone, even when it was Hands-free. Study also found that certain aspects of driving performance are impaired more by using a phone than by having a blood alcohol level at the legal limit
P C Burns, A Parkes, S Burton, R K Smith (TRL Limited) and D Burch
TRL Report TRL547

Hand-Free Mobile Impairs to a Level Comparable to Alcohol Level.
Hands-free mobile phone conversation impairs the peripheral visual system to an extent comparable to an alcohol level of 4-5 g 100 ml
Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp 2005

Driver's Addiction Toward Cell Phone Use While Driving
The fundamental TPB components ( the processes that led to addiction) were directly associated with the addiction to use a cell phone when driving. The present study has identified that older drivers were considerably less probable to use a cell phone while driving.
January 2018
Batoul Sedaghati Shokri, Seyed Rasoul Davoodi
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran

Fatal Distraction? A Comparison Of The Cell-Phone Driver And The Drunk Driver
Both intoxicated drivers and cell-phone drivers performed differently from baseline, and the driving profiles of these two conditions differed. Drivers with cell-phone conditions exhibited a sluggish behavior (i.e., slower reactions) which they attempted to compensate for by increasing their following distance. Intoxicated drivers exhibited a more aggressive driving style, in which they followed closer, necessitating braking with greater force. With respect to traffic safety, our data are consistent with Redelmeier and Tibshirani’s (1997) earlier estimates. In fact, when controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, cell-phone drivers may actually exhibit greater impairments (i.e., more accidents and less responsive driving behavior) than legally intoxicated drivers. Drivers conversing on a cell phone, were involved in more rear-end collisions and their initial reaction to vehicles braking in front of them was slowed by 8.4%, relative to baseline. In addition, compared to baseline it took participants who were talking on the cell phone 14.8% longer to recover the speed that was lost during braking. Drivers using a cell phone attempted to compensate for their increased reaction time by driving 3.1% slower than baseline and increasing their following distance by 4.4%. When drivers were conversing on a cell phone, they were involved in more rear-end collisions, had a 7.5% greater following distance, and took 14.8% longer to recover the speed that they had lost during braking than when they were legally intoxicated. Drivers in the alcohol condition also applied 26.1% greater braking pressure than drivers on a cell phone.
David L. Strayer, Frank A. Drews, & Dennis J. Crouch
Department of Psychology, University of Utah | Federal Aviation Administration Grant

Handheld v. Hands Free (16)

Hands-free Device Use Effects on Cognitive Skills.
The use of hands-free cell phone does not prevent cognitive distraction and should be restricted.
February 5, 2018
Farideh Sadeghian et al.
Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran, Iran.

Hand-held Cell Phone Use While Driving Legislation.
universal hand-held cell phone use while driving bans were associatedwith markedly lower hand-held cell phone conversationsacross all drivers, including those of different ages, sexes,races, and geographic locations
May 12, 2017
Toni M. Rudisilland Motao Zhu.

Is a Hands-free Phone Safer Than a Handheld Phone?
There is no safety advantage of the hands-free phone over the handheld phones while driving, possibly using hands-free phones are even more dangerous.
June 8, 2011
Yoko Ishigami and Raymond M. Klein.
Dalhousie University.

Hands-free Mobile Phone Conversation Effects on Visual System.
Hands-free mobile phone conversation decreases the peripheral visual field to an extent comparable to an alcohol level of 4 - 5 g 100 ml.
December 21, 2004
Peter Langer et al.
General Hospital, FeldkirchResearch Unit-VIVIT, Austria.

Analysis of the Effects of Cell Phones on Driver Performance
Reaction time (RT) to events and stimuli while talking produced the largest performance decrements. Handheld and hands-free phones produced similar RT decrements.
Jeff K. Caird a, Chelsea R. Willness, Piers Steel
Cognitive Ergonomics Research Laboratory, University of Calgary

Comparing Handheld and Hands-free Cell Phone Usage Behaviors While Driving
Hands-free cell phone technologies reduces the duration of cell phone visual–manual tasks compared to handheld cell phones. However, drivers with hands-free cell phone technologies available to them still choose to use handheld cell phones to talk or dial.
June 11, 2014
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia

Driving Without a Clue
This is an evaluation in Driver Simulator of driver performance during Hands-Free Cell Phone Operation in a work zone. Drivers on the cell phone are missing critical information that was available to them both from the roadsides and from actions of downstream traffic, as suggested by the finding that the search width of drivers on a cell phone was dramatically decreased.
Jeffrey W. Muttart, Donald L. Fisher, Mike Knodler, and Alexander Pollatsek
Journal of the Transportation Research Board

Evaluation of Driver Distraction Using an Event Detection Paradigm
NOTE - May have some bias - Compare Hands-Free vs. Handheld cell phone use in teens and adults. Shows voicemail retrieval as most distracting. Teens far more affected. The study references known studies but appears to "promotes" Ford's 4-button 'telematics' mirror that allows hands-free voice mail checking and calls answering.
Jeff Greenberg, Louis Tijerina, Reates Curry et al
Ford Motor Company, Ford Research Laboratory

Awareness of Performance Decrements due to Distraction in Younger and Older Drivers
By age and sex, there is little difference in the impairment to driving caused by cell phone distraction on any of the measures of driving performance. There was no significant difference between hand-held and hands-free tasks performance. Most people are not accurate in their perception of how much distraction affects them. Young men perceived their level of impairment as the opposite of the facts. Older men were fairly accurate.
August 8, 2007
William J. Horrey, Mary F. Lesch, & Angela Garabet
Center for Safety Research Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety

Cognitive demands of hands-free-phone conversation while driving
A hands-free phone is not a mind-free device. The cognitive demands of cell phone use while driving is a cognitive impairment and the distraction level is related to the demands of the conversation. A similar impairment is shown in passenger conversation.
March 19, 2002
Luis Nunes, Miguel Angel Recarte
Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Complutense, & Director of Traffic, Madrid, Spain

Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile
Interacting with the speech-to-text system was the most cognitively distracting. This clearly suggests that the adoption of voice-based systems in the vehicle may have unintended consequences that adversely affect traffic safety.
June 2013
David L. Strayer, Joel M. Cooper, Jonna Turrill, James Coleman, Nate Medeiros- Ward, and Francesco Biondi (University of Utah)
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

Visual field attention is reduced by concomitant hands-free conversation on a cellular telephone
Using the machine that optometrists use to measure a patient's field of vision, this study found that hands-free conversation caused some subjects to miss significantly more points, react slower to each stimulus, and perform the exam with reduced precision. Individual performance varied.
September 24, 2009
Yaniv Barkana, MD, David Zadok, MD, Yair Morad, MD, Isaac Avni, MD
Department of Ophthalmology, Assaf Harofe Medical Center, Beer Yaacov, Israel

Texting while driving: Is speech-based text entry less risky than handheld text entry?
Results of the simulated driving experiment suggest that speech-based text entry disrupts driving but reduces the level of performance Interference compared to text entry with a handheld device. In addition, the difference in the distraction effect caused by speech-based and handheld text entry is not simply due to the difference in task duration. Besides writing messages, it is also important to compare how reading and writing text messages influence driving performance. Other studies suggest that reading and writing text messages may be equally dangerous to driving performance 294 J. He et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 72 (2014) 287–295
13 July 2014
J. Hea, A. Chaparroa, B. Nguyena, et al
Department of Psychology, Wichita State University

Understanding the distracted brain - Why Driving While Using Hands-Free Cell Phones Is Risky
Research by the National Safety Council public opinion poll indicates that 80 percent of drivers in the USA incorrectly believe that hands-free devices are safer than using a handheld phone. More than 30 studies show hands-free devices are no safer than handheld. Of the poll participants who admitted to using hands-free devices, 70 percent said they do so for safety reasons.
April 2012
National Safety Council
National Safety Council, Itasca, IL

Cognitive load and detection thresholds in car following situations: safety implications for using mobile (cellular) telephones while driving
A driver's ability to detect someone slowing in front of them was impaired by about 1/2 second in terms of brake reaction time and almost 1 second in terms of time-to-collision when they were doing a non-visual task while driving. This shows that neither a hands-free phone nor voice-controlled control of a cell phone removes the problem of driver performance impairment of cell phones.
January 27. 1999
Dave Lamble, Tatu Kauranen, Matti Laakso, Heikki Summala
Traffic Research Unit, Department of Psychology, Uni6ersity of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Changes in driver behaviour as a function of handsfree mobile phones: A simulator study.
When using a hands-free phone while driving, the driver's reaction times, ability to maintain lane and workload were worse when the driver was on an "easy drive" than when on a "hard drive." A hard drive may be a very curvy road, while an easy drive may be a flat straight road. This result is counter-intuitive to the researchers. The reason is that talking and driving require divided attention, and as the driving task gets more complex, the focus is changed to the driving task.
September 1994
Hakam Alm, Lena Nilsson
Swedish Road and Transportation Research Institute

Texting & Driving (7)

Effects of Texting on Driving.
Texting produces visual, physical and cognitive driver distraction.
June 29, 2014
Jeff K. Cairda et al
University of Calgary.

Text Messaging During Stimulated Driving.
the pattern observed with text messagingsuggests a dual-task cost in reaction timethat results from two processes, with a smaller15% cost in the lower deciles of the distributionand a much greater 30% to 45% cost at thehigher deciles.
December 16, 2009
Frank A. Drews et al.
University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

One Text or Call Could Wreck it All.
In 2014, 3,179 people were killed and estimated 431,000were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracteddriver. 10% of which were youngsters.

Texting and Driving.
The astronomical amount of accidents from texting and driving has reached 1.3 million.
Shannon Thomas.
DeVry University.

Effects of User Distraction Due to Secondary Calling and Texting Tasks
Text messaging significantly degraded steering performance. On average, distance from the center of the “driving lane” increased by about 33%, compared to the "not distracted" condition. Call answering distraction resulted in about a 6% increase. Deviation during text messaging improved after completing the message.
July 18, 2013
Robert J. Teather, I. Scott MacKenzie
York University

An Investigation Of The Effects Of Reading And Writing Text-Based Messages While Driving
Results indicated that impairment associated with texting while driving may be greater than previously thought. When reading or writing texts, drivers exhibited reductions in reaction time that were nearly twice as great as previously thought. Nearly identical impairment in the reading and writing conditions, suggesting that both reading and writing text messages may be equally dangerous.
August 2011
Joel Cooper, Christine Yager, and Susan T. Chrysler
Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System

Text-speak processing impairs tactile location
This study finds that the abbreviated writing style that people use while texting, such as "LOL" or "ttyl" ("talk to you later") elevated cognitive resource demands to the reader of the text. This "text-speak" increases performance decrements. Text messages while driving are extremely dangerous in its own right; however, this danger can be compounded further if the driver is reading messages in text-speak.
July 7, 2012
James Head, William Helton, Paul Russell, Ewald Neumann
University of Canterbury, New Zealand - Acta Psychologica

Passenger v. Cell Phone Distraction (4)

Distraction Induced by In-vehicle Verbal Interaction on Visual Search Performance.
Information requiring verbal interaction including memory search and speech production should be avoided, particularly when the traffic situation is so difficult and complex that a driver has to concentrate on driving..
10 July 2010
Kazumitsu Shinohara et al.
Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University

Passenger and Cell-phone Conversations in Simulated Driving.
The betterdriving performance in passenger conversationis partly due to the fact that the driver and the passenger sharessituation awareness.
Frank A. Drews et al.
University of Utah.

Regulating conversation during driving: a problem for mobile telephones?
When driving and talking to a passenger, both the driver and passenger will stop talking when the demands of the road become too great. But someone talking to you on a cell phone doesn't have the same awareness of the road and won't stop talking to you, increasing your risk of a crash.
January 31, 2005
David Crundall, Manpreet Bains, Peter Chapman, Geoffrey Underwood
School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham

The effects of conversation on attention and peripheral detection
Conversation itself resulted in slower reactions and fewer correct responses on both attention and Peripheral Detection tasks. Conversation type (on phone vs. passenger) did not make a significant difference and implies that conversation has a negative effect on attention and peripheral detection, which are important components of driving. This effect may be greater with difficult conversations.
January 7, 2005
Sonia Amado, Pınar Ulupınar
Ege University, Psychology Department, Izmir, Turkey

Research Study (36)

Truck Driver and Use of Mobile-Phone While Driving.
Of the 515 respondents, 234 (45%) indicated that they use a cell phone while driving.
August 22, 2019
Joseph B.Claveria et al.
School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University.

Evaluation of Cell Phone Induced Driver Behaviour at a Type 2 Dilemma Zone.
Call receiving, call dialing, texting, chatting, or even a simple conversation can increase the chances of decision impairment while driving.
February 13, 2018
Ziaur Rahman et al
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX.

The Dimensions of Cell Phone Use Dependence.
This is a qualitative study to understand dependence. 84% of the Earth's population is already addicted to their cell phone.
March 2018
George B. Van Wie.
Capella University.

The Cellphone Manifestio.
46% of Americans say they could not live without their smartphones.
Sophie Beren.
University of Pennsylvania.

Behavior Economic and Social Variables Influencing Cell-phone Distracted Driving.
Behaviors like, unable to delay gratification,impulsively, delay discounting, drug abuse and mobile-phone dependence increases the urge to use mobile-phone while driving. Whereas, presence of passengers in the car and less distance to the destination decreases the urge to use mobile-phone while driving.
Spring 2017
Brittany L. Ingersoll.
California State University, Chico

Understanding Driver's Distraction.
The link between behaviour, performance and safety outcomes could not be discerned for all technologies and their associated functions.
March 15, 2017
Mitchell L. Cunningham et al.
The Australian Road Research Board (ARRB), Sydney, Australia

SPIDER is an acronym standing for scanning, predicting, Identifying, decision making, and executing a response when drivers engage in secondary activities unrelated to the task of driving these activities are impaired.
February 2016
David L. Strayer andDonald L. Fisher.
University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The Relationship of Cellphone Usage to Personality and Attention.
Results revealed that thosewho use their cell phones more often tend to have higher neuroticism and withdrawal,cell phones are not distracting in a classroom setting, and males and females generallytext for the same purposes.
Victoria L. Grajeda.
Dominican University of California.

Nsc Releases Latest Injury and Fatility Statistics and Trends.
Cell phone use is now estimated to be involved in 26 percent of all motor vehicle crashes
March 25, 2014
National Safety Council.

Distracted Driving; Cellular Phone Use Among Motorists in the Sekondi-takoradi Metropolis, Ghana.
9868 motorists were observed, of which 2.6% were using cellular phones.
Solomon Ntow Densu.
Department of Civil Engineering, Takoradi Polytechnic.

From Bicycle Crashes to Measures.
This research emphasizes on the measures that should be taken for the safety of cyclist.
Divera Twisk et al.
SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research.

Effects of Mobile Telephone Tasks on Driving Performance.
Reaction time generally increases while using mobile equipment. The analysis demonstrates that the increasing of the reaction time is significant only in the urban scenario. Conversely there are no significant effects on driving performance for motorway and rural road.
January 25, 2012
A.Benedetto et al
Department of Sciences of Civil Engineering, University of Roma Tre, Rome, Italy.

Connection Without Caution.
Most of the young people in the sample reported using theirmobile phone while driving at least once or twice a week forsending texts (53%), reading texts (65%), making calls (60%)and answering calls (69%), with about a third of participantsreporting that they performed one of these behaviours at leastdaily.
Katherine M White et al.
Queensland University of Technology.

Gender Effects in Mobile Phone Distraction from Driving.
Women's driving performance while talking on a cell phone is more impaired than the impairment of men. Men's impairments to driving were worse when talking with a passenger in the car. Both sexes suffer impairment to driving due to the mental load involved in a conversation. Women's driving errors tended to be lateral (inability to maintain lane), and men, longitudinally, (braking time.). Conclusion of study is gender should be considered in analysis.
Julia D. Irwin et al.
Macquarie University, Australia.

Driving and Telephoning.
Sixty-two percent of respondents reported that they use mobilephones while driving - ever.
September 14, 2010
Agathe Backer-Grøndahl and Fridulv Sagberg.
Institute of Transport Economics.

Driver Distraction.
85% of the variance of the workload ratings.
October 19, 2010
Paul A. Green.
University of Michigan

The Effects of In-vehicle Task and Time Gap Selection.
Time-gap settings for the experimental ACC were: shorter than 1.0 s, 1.0-1.5 s,1.5-2.0 s, and longer than 2.0 s.
December 24, 2007
Tsang-Wei Lin et al.
National Tsing Hua University.

Dialling and Driving.
38% of participants reported drivingmainly for personal purposes; 24% equal personal and business; and 38% drove mainly forMobile phone use while drivingbusiness (i.e., work-related) purposes.
December 2006
Shari P. Walsha et al.
Queensland University of Technology.

Use of Mobile Phone While Driving-effects on Road Safty.
More than 2/3rd of drivers use a mobile phone at least sometimes while driving and are inclined to riskier behaviour.
NinaDragutinovic and DiveraTwisk.
SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research.

Cell Phones and Driving Performance
Using mobile-phone while driving increases reaction time. Conversation tasks, in general, showed greater costs in driving performance than did information processing tasks. This may be due to the greater "engagement" associated with actual conversations
March, 2004
William J. Horrey et al.
University of Illinois.

What Do Drivers Fail to See When Conversing on a Cell Phone?
Dual-task performance was 60% of that obtained in single-task condition resulting inattention-blindness.
David L. Strayer et al.
University of Utah.

Stress State of a Driver.
While using mobile phone during driving heart is 87.5 beats/ min in normal situation whereas in emergency it goes up to 120.234 beats/ min.
Ying CHEN.
Shandong Jiaotong University.

Association Between Cellular-telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions
The use of cellular telephones in motorvehicles is associated with a quadrupling of therisk of a collision during the brief period of a call.
February13, 1997
Donald. A. Redelmeier and Robert. J. Tibshirani.
The New EnglandJournalofMedicine.

Mobile Phone Use While Driving.
Irrespective of handset type, 43% of drivers reported answering calls while driving on adaily basis, followed by making calls (36%), reading text messages (27%), and sendingtext messages (18%).
Katherine M. White et al.
School of Psychology and Counselling, Queens.

Why Language Interfere with Driving.
Visual=87.5%, Motor=84.9%,Abstract=81.8% interference on driving.
Benjamin Bergen et al.
University of California.

Investigating Driving and Divided Attention.
Problems with driving may arise when cognitive resource demands exceed resource availability. Users may often overestimate their ability to divide their attention with a secondary tasks because of the sense that driving is nearly automatic.
Shamsi T. Iqbal et al.
Microsoft Research.

Engrossed in conversation: The impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance
The adverse effects of talking while driving were clear in the present study. Participants coped with the demands of engaging in a phone conversation while driving by narrowing their attention, shedding peripheral tasks and focusing on more immediate tasks. In the talking conditions, participants committed more traffic violations.
October 25, 2005
Kristen E. Beede, Steven J. Kass
University of West Florida, Department of Psychology

Situation awareness and workload in driving while using cruise control and a cell phone
Ther research found that Adaptive Cruise Control help reduce driver's mental workload and help drivers have more situational awareness, but the benefits were off-set by the workload increase due to the use of a cell phone.
April 11, 2005
Ruiqui Ma and David B. Kaber
Department of Industrial Engineering, North Carolina State University

Phone use and crashes while driving: a representative survey of drivers in two Australian states
This study shows by survey that approximately 1% of people who used a cell phone while driving had crashed in the past year and 3% have had to take evasive actions due to their distraction.
December 18, 2006
Suzanne P McEvoy, Mark R Stevenson and Mark Woodward
Motor Accidents Authority of NSW

The Prevalence of Cell Phone Use while Driving in a Canadian Province
When asked if cell phone use was likely to result in a collision, 71.2 percent of respondents stated that they ‘strongly’ agreed, and 23.3 percent reported that they agreed ‘somewhat’. Half (52%) of the respondents used cell phones while driving in the past 12 months. Sex, Age & Income also affected decision to use phone with Men more likely to use phone while driving.
Abu Sadat Nurullah, Jasmine Thomas
University of Alberta, Department of Sociology

Driver’s exposure to distractions in their natural driving environment
Driver's cars were equipped with cameras. 34.3% of drivers used there cell phones while driving and did so for 3.8% of the time they were driving.
June 4, 2004
Jane Stutts, John Feaganes, Donald Reinfurt et al
University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center

Do in-car devices affect experienced users' driving performance?
Most secondary tasks lead to a decrease in driving speed, while visual–manual tasks additionally take drivers' eyes of the road, deteriorating lateral performance. Regarding mobile phone conversations per se, it seems reasonable to suggest that drivers may well be able to compensate for the distracting effects of the conversation by slowing down.
Allert S. Knapper, Marjan P. Hagenzieker, Karel A. Brookhuis
IATSS Research (2014)

Driver’s lane keeping ability with eyes off road: Insights from a naturalistic study
Driver inattention was placed into two categories based on whether drivers were looking forward toward the roadway (inattention with eyes-on-road) or not looking forward (inattention with eyes-off-road) while engaged in a secondary task. Cell phone use fits both categories
Yiyun Penga, Linda Ng Boylea,b, Shauna L. Hallmark
University of Washington, Seattle, WA & Iowa State University, Ames, IA

The emotional side of cognitive distraction: Implications for road safety
Of neutral words, negative emotional words, and positive emotional words, the findings suggest that driving performance is differentially affected by the valence (negative versus positive) of the emotional content. Drivers had lower mean speeds when there were emotional words compared to neutral words, and this slowing effect lasted longer when there were positive words.
April 2012
Michelle Chana, Anthony Singhal
Department of Psychology / Centre for Neuroscience, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta

Driving while using a smartphone-based mobility application
The visual-manual distraction created by smartphones was deeply researched. This research gets into the weeds of which type of interaction with a phone is worse. The "Fixation Time"; the time a user is focused on the phone and not paying attention to driving varies by activity. "Searching" creates approximately a 5-second fixation, Browsing, 4 seconds, and Help function 2 seconds. Detailed study of "swiping" vs. lists.
November 28, 2015
N. Louveton, R. McCall, V. Koenig, T. Avanesov, T. Engel
Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust, Weicker Building, Universitie du Luxembourg

Glance analysis of driver eye movements to evaluate distraction
Eye movement narrows when a user is active in a cognitive task such as talking on the phone. Essentially, checking the rearview mirror requires a single-glance task, and checking the odometer multiple glancing. Cell phone use creates tunnel vision. This study is focused on methods for measuring eye movement.
Manbir Sodhi, Bryan Reimer, and Ignacio Llamazares
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Rhode Island

Crash Studies (5)

New Data from Cambridge Mobile Telematics Shows Distracted Driving Dangers.
Over half the crashes in the study had phone distraction on trip, but CMT apps can make drivers better and roads safer.
April 3, 2017
Sandie Beauchamp.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics (CMT).

The Prevalance of and Factors Associated with Serious Crashes.
A distracting activity was the only human factor identified among 75% of drivers, reporting a distracting activity at the time of their crash.
September 10, 2006
Suzanne P. McEvoy.
The George Institute for International Health.

Role of Mobile Phones in Motor Vehicle Crashes.
Irrespective of the age and the gender, driver's use of a mobile phone up to 10 minutes before a crash was associated with a four times increased likelihood of crashing. Using a hands-free phone is not any safer.
July 12, 2005
Suzanne P McEvoy et al.
University of Western Australia

Cellphone Conversation while Driving.
Talking on cell phones while driving for more than 50 minutes per month was associated with 5.59 times greater risk of a traffic accident.
Abu Sadat Nurullah.

The Role Of Driver Distraction In Traffic Crashes
Through analysis of five years of crash reports, this study reports statistics on distracted driving. They defined five "causes of crashes." "Look but don't see" and "distracted" are associated with cell phone use while driving. Crashes vary by road type. Using/dialing cell phone crashes are most prevalent on 2-lane roads (42%) and at intersections (57%). Further, 53% of those crashes occur during "non-daylight times," and 45% occur in "non-passenger" vehicles. 8% of those crashes result in a fatality. 83% involve two or more cars.
May 2001
Jane C. Stutts, Ph.D. Donald W. Reinfurt, Ph.D Loren Staplin, Ph.D. Eric A. Rodgman, B.S.
University of North Carolina - Highway Safety Research Center

Case Study (8)

Observational Survey of Cellphone and Texting Use Among California Drivers Study.
The "holding phone to ear" behavior increased by 0.9% in 2016, the use of headsets/Bluetooth devices increased significantly by 0.5%, and manipulating a hand-held increased by 1.2%.
Ewald & Wasserman.
The Safe Transportation Research and Education Center - University of California.

Analysis of the Effects of Mobile Phones Usage on Drivers, Behaviour in Abeokuta City, Nigeria.
43% of Nigerians are recorded to use mobile phone (phoning or texting) while driving and 57% of them were young people of 18-30 years.
July 8, 2016
Olapeju O.OLasisi A.L
Department of Urban and Regional Planning,Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro.

Rate of Mobile Phone Usage by Automobile Drivers in Ibadan.
The daily pattern of mobile phone use while driving reveals that a total of 4051 people were spotted usingMobile-phone on the wheel.
Hope Oyemami OLUMAMiAndThomas Kolawole OJO
European Journal of Business and Management.

The Rate of Hand-held Mobile-Phone Use While Driving in Kerman, Iran.
In this study the average rate of using mobile phones at one site of the city and at a given time during the day was 3.63% in Kerman.
Ahad Ashrafi Asgharabadet al.
Department of Epidemiology.

The Prevalance of Cell Phone Use While Driving in a Canadian Province.
Albertans (52%) use cell phones (45% of cell phone users utilized hands-free devices) while driving.
Abu Sadat Nurullah et al.
University of Alberta.

Mobile Phone Use by Drivers in Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies.
About 91% of the drivers use their mobile phones while driving.
February 20, 2011
Abiodun Olukoga et al.
Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of the West Indies.

Characterization of Cell Phone Use While Driving in Jordan.
Around 93% of the licensed drivers reported the use of the cell phone while driving although the law in Jordan bans such practice.
July 19, 2010
Muhannad Ismeik and Ahmed Al-Kaisy.
University of Jordan.

An observational study of secondary task engagement while driving on urban streets in Iranian Safe Communities
In an observational study, it was found that 3.4% of drivers were distracted by cell phone use. The rate was significantly higher for women and higher during the work day. Talking to passengers rated higher at 25%
July 17, 2016
Javad Torkamannejad Sabzevaria, Amir Reza Nabipourb, et al
Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Teens & Cell Phones (7)

Impact of Distractions on the Driving Performance of Adolescents With and Without Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder.
Decrement in performance created by texting was similar for individuals with and with-out attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. However, it is important to note that adolescents with ADHD have baseline driving impairments and texting incrementally impairs their driving.
August 12,2013
Megan Narad et al.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.

A Study of the Effect of a Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports Program on Cell Phone Usage in a High School Setting.
PBIS did show a significant impact on female students and Caucasian students. Male and minority students continued to misuse their cell phones in the classroom resulting in repeated office referrals.
Jamie Dianne Finley et al.
University of West Georgi.

Study - Teenage Drivers Portable Electronic Device Use While Driving.
Study found that 12.80% of teenage drivers used a tablet or a computer at least once in the last 30 days while driving.
Public Safety Administration graduate students at St.Mary?s University of Minnesota.
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT).

Teenage Drivers Portable Electronic Device Use While Driving.
82.8% people used any electronic device at least once in the past 30 days, and young drivers reported using electronic devices while driving on 19.06% of the days they drove
Johnathon Ehsani et al.
National Institutes of Health.

The impact of a naturalistic hands-free phone task on heart rate and simulated driving performance in two age groups
The heart rate of older adults (51-66) is less effected by hands-free cell phone use while driving than your adults (19-23). The explanation may be related to older adults driving slower and having "low demanding conversations and avoiding complex ones." Further, older adults tends to self-regulate better.
September 6, 2010
Bryan Reimer, Bruce Mehler, Joseph F. Coughlin, Nick Roy, Jeffery A. Dusek
MIT Age Lab and New England University Transportation Center

Factors Contributing to Self-Reported Cell Phone Usage by Younger Drivers in the Pacific Northwest
Study of who is more likely to admit to cell phone use while driving. Further, It was found that experienced drivers were more likely to talk and less likely to text while driving.
June 28, 2017
Hisham Jashami, Masoud Abadi
Transportation Engineering, Oregon State University

Impact of Distraction on the Driving Performance of Adolescents With and Without ADHD
18% of all distracted driving-related deaths are related to cell phone distraction. 81% of young adults write text messages, and 92% of young drivers read text messages while driving. Teens with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) showed little difference in behavior and affect as those without.
October 2013
Megan Narad, MA; Annie A. Garner, PhD; Anne A. Brassell, BA; Dyani Saxby, PhD et al
JAMA Pediatrics October 2013 Volume 167, Number 10

Laws & Policies (8)

An Evaluation of the Impact of City of Austin's Hand-Free Ordinance on the Number of Reported Collisions.
The City of Austin's Hands-Free ordinance implemented 1/1/2015 did not have the desired impact of lowering the number of reported collisions during the time period analyzed. This suggests that either drivers are not abiding by the new law or that operating a cell phone hands-free is just as dangerous as hand-held.
Spring 2016
Nicole Hines.
Texas State University.

Cell Phone Total Ban Recommendation
A Total Employer Cell Phone Ban Covers: Handheld and hands-free devices. All employees. All company vehicles. All company cell phone devices. All work-related communications - even in a personal vehicle or on a personal cell phone.
MAY, 2015

Texting Ban Laws
Accidents are reduced by about 1.3 per month per state or roughly 800 lives per year nationally if there were a national ban with universal coverage and primary enforcement.
Rahi Abouk and Scott Adams.
University of Wisconsin-Milwauke.

Cell Phone Policy Kit by National Safety Council
Crashes due to distracted driving and there causes.
The National Safety Council

Medical Journal of Australia injury statistics
Letters to editor according to one the use of cell phones by drivers may result in about 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate to critical injuries, 240 000 minor injuries and 1.5 million instances of property damage in America per year.
January 5, 2004
Suzanne P McEvoy, Mark R Stevenson
The medical Journal of Australia.

The development of a National Survey of Police Officers Regarding the Enforceability of Cell Phone Laws
Although numerous states have past a variety of laws regarding the use of cellphone while driving, law enforcement is not heavily enforcing these laws. The barrier to enforcing the law is the ability to see that people are actually on the phone or using their phone while driving.
May 28, 2020
Toni Marie Rudisill
West Virginia University, Dept of Epidemiology

Road Traffic injury as a Major Public health issue in the Kingdom of saudi arabia: a review
Cell phone penetration in Saudi Arabia is 188%. Mobile phone use while driving is a contributing factor to road traffic injuries. Also, over 600 camel–vehicle collisions occur every year, causing major property damage and numerous deaths. Information about cell phone use while driving laws are inconsistent.
September 30, 2016
Erica DeNicola, Omar S. Aburizaize, Azhar Siddique
Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, Rensselaer, NY, USA

Employer Liability and the Case for Comprehensive Cell Phone Policies
Employers can never be 100% protected in the event of a lawsuit. However, if employers can show that they implemented a total ban policy, educated employees monitored compliance, and enforced the policy, they will be in a more defensible position than if they had not followed these practices.
May 2015
US National Safety Council (NSC)
National Safety Council, Itasca, IL

Reviews of Literature On Topic (2)

Use of Mobile Phones While Driving - Effects on Road Safety
This is a review of studies on distracted driving between 1999 and 2005.
Nina Dragutinovic & Divera Twisk
SWOV, Leidschendam

Impact of Distracted Driving on Safety and Traffic flow AAP 2013
Review of the major studies on distracted driving. Further, this study provides metrics on the greater danger of texting over cell phone use for voice. Texting is the preferred communication method, and 90% of teens report having sent a text while driving in this study.
February 5, 2013
Virginia Sisiopikum, Despina Stavrinos et al
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Medicine, University Transportation Center

Pedestrians & Cell Phone Distraction (4)

Cell phone conversations and child pedestrian’s crossing behavior; a simulator study
A comparison of children and adult pedestrians’ crossing behavior while engaged in cell phone conversations was conducted. Results have shown that all age groups’ crossing behaviors were affected by cell phone conversations. When busy with more cognitively demanding conversation types, participants were slower to react to a crossing opportunity, chose smaller crossing gaps, and allocated less visual attention to the peripheral regions of the scene.
May 26, 2016
Hagai Tapiro, Tal Oron-Gilad, Yisrael Parmet
Department of Industrial Engineering & Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

Distraction and pedestrian safety: How talking on the phone, texting, and listening to music impact crossing the street
Participants distracted by music or texting were more likely to be hit by a vehicle in the virtual pedestrian environment than were undistracted participants. Participants in all three distracted groups were more likely to look away from the street environment (and look toward other places, such as their telephone or music device) than were undistracted participants.
Department of Psychology, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Mobile telephones, distracted attention, and pedestrian safety
For pedestrians as with drivers, cognitive distraction from mobile phone use reduces situation awareness, increases unsafe behavior, putting pedestrians at greater risk for accidents, and crime victimization.
April 18, 2017
Jack Nasar, Peter Hecht, and Richard Wener
City & Regional Planning, Center for Cognitive Science, Center for Criminal Justice Research, The Ohio State University

Walking and Talking: Dual-Task Effects on Street Crossing Behavior in Older Adults
The data from this study suggest that multitasking costs may be particularly dangerous for older adults (mean ager 73) even during everyday activities such as crossing the street. Although younger (mean age 22) and older adults are both susceptible to impairment when conversing on a cell phone and attempting a street crossing, older adults become susceptible under much less challenging conditions than younger adults.
September 8, 2010
Mark B. Neider, John G. Gaspar, Jason S. McCarley
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

Observational Studies (3)

Distracted driving related behaviours (DDRBs) were measured by roadside observation in the capital city of Gaborone. Talking on the cell phone was the #1 Distraction, (31.2%), looking around (16.9%), talking to other occupants in the car (15.4%), drinking or eating (9.8%), texting on the phone (8.2%), looking at oneself on the mirror/putting make-up/wearing glasses (5.8%), fiddling with car controls (4.9%), reading newspapers or maps (2.2%), smoking cigarettes(2.9%), and singing or dancing (2.0)%).
August 2013
Mpho M. Pheko, Kagiso N. Tlhabano, Nicole Monteiro, Shyngle K. Balogun
Department of Psychology, University of Botswana, BOTSWANA

Crash and Near-Crash Risk Assessment of Distracted Driving and Engagement in Secondary Tasks: A Naturalistic Driving Study
Cell phone use is a secondary task associated with high risk ("Odds Ratio) of crashes and near crashes in this analysis of observed drivers in the USA. Cell phone risks were assessed for Cell phone use for Web Browsing, dialing hand-held, Cell phone, answering/locating/reaching, Cell phone, talking/listening hand-held, Cell phone, texting and Cell phone use, "other".
December 2018
Peter R. Bakhit, BeiBei Guo, and Sherif Ishak
National Academy of Sciences: Transportation Research Board 2018

Assessing The Effects Of Driving Inattention On Relative Crash Risk
Driving inattention was a contributing factor in 78% of all crashes and 65% of all near-crashes. Fatigued drivers have a 4 times higher crash risk than alert drivers. Drivers engaging in visually and/or manually complex tasks are at 7 times higher crash risk than alert drivers.
November 7, 2005
Sheila Garness Klauer, Thomas A. Dingus, Chair, Richard J. Hanowski
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Industrial and Systems Engineering

Simulator Studies (3)

Examining the Relationship Between Action Video Game Experience and Performance in a Distracted Driving Task
The study researched the question, "Do experienced action video game players do better with distracted driving?" Results were that experienced action video players were better drivers and associated with fewer driving errors, but was still not associated with better driving performance while distracted. Gamers recalled more details of the distracting conversation and reported lower workload while driving than non-gamers.
March 10, 2015
Michael A. Rupp & Daniel S. McConnell & Janan A. Smither
Department of Psychology, Technology and Aging Lab, University of Central Florida

Examination of the Distraction Effects of Wireless Phone Interfaces
Japanese results indicated that the majority of wireless phone-related crashes were associated with dialing or answering, while data from the U.S. have suggested that a majority of wireless phone-related crashes occur during conversation.
April 2004
Thomas Ranney, Ph.D., Transportation Research Center Inc.; Ginger S. Watson, Ph.D., University of Iowa, et al
U.S. Department of Transportation (NHTSA)

Why Do Cell Phone Conversations Interfere With Driving?
In Braking, the average breaking reaction time to an emergency is 0.88 seconds. If impaired by alcohol, the braking reaction time is worse, 0.94 seconds. If on a cell phone conversation the breaking time is 1.02 seconds.) Cell phone conversations while driving alter how well drivers perceive the driving environment. Cell phone drivers were more likely to miss traffic signals. Eye-tracking devices were used to measure exactly where drivers were looking while driving. Even when drivers were directing their gaze at objects in the driving environment that they often failed to see them because attention was directed elsewhere.
David L. Strayer, Frank A. Drews, Dennis J. Crouch, and William A. Johnston
Department of Psychology, University of Utah | Cognitive Technology: Transforming Thought and Society. McFarland & Co.

GPS Device Distraction (1)

Glancing at Personal Navigation Devices Can Affect Driving: Experimental Results and Design Implications
People using a GPS device and viewing the screen for directions lost visual contact with the road for nearly 10% of their drive (9.6%). However, those who used a GPS device and relied solely on the voice prompts lost contact with the road for 3.5% of the time. Neither group made more directional mistakes. Therefore, voice GPS is a preferred design for Navigation Systems.
Andrew L. Kun, Tim Paek, Željko Medenica, Nemanja Memarović, Oskar Palinko
University of New Hampshire Electrical and Computer Engineering Department

Physiological Research on Distraction (13)

The Effect of Auditory and Visual Distracters on the Useful Field of View: Implications for the Driving Task
Driving errors related to what was in front of you increased significantly where there were auditory distractions but not visual distracters. While peripheral errors increased in the presence of both visual and auditory distractions. The conclusion is that Visual and Auditory distracters reduce the extent of the useful field of view in an increasingly complex in-vehicle and driving environment.
October 2006
Joanne Wood, Alex Chaparro, Louise Hickson, Nick Thyer, Philippa Carter, Julie Hancock, Adrene Hoe, Ivy Le, Louisa Sahetapy, and Floravel Ybarzabal
School of Optometry, Queensland University of Technology

The Crosstalk Hypothesis: Why Language Interferes With Driving
Talking interferes with perception and motor control for a variety of reasons, including the time pressure implicit in conversational turn-taking and the demands of planning what you are going to say and saying it. This study, by this research, suggests that the content of the topic can increase the distraction. "Visual topics" create a greater distraction. A conflict between what you are doing (driving) and what you are talking about creates a conflict in your mind.
Benjamin Bergen, Nathan Medeiros, Kathryn Wheeler, Frank Drews and David Strayer (University of Utah)
Journal of Experimental Psychology

Driving Under The Influence Of Phones: The Importance Of Cognitive Ability And Cognitive Style On Interruption-Related Performance
Cell phone use can be divided into different sub-activities, beginning with the ringing of the phone, starting the dialogue, carrying out the conversation (including listening, thinking, and talking), ending the dialogue, and recovering from the interruption/call. In particular, it's known that the interruption of the ringing phone captures the driver's attention at the expense of an ongoing visual driving task
Danielle Lottridge and Mark Chignell
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering Department, University of Toronto

Talking and driving: Applications of crossmodal action reveal a special role for spatial language
Spatial attention allows humans to selectively process visual information through prioritization of an area within the visual field. A region of space within the visual field is selected for attention and the information within this region then receives further processing. Research shows that when spatial attention is evoked, an observer is typically faster and more accurate at detecting a target that appears in an expected location compared to an unexpected location. Talking on a cell phone impacts this.
June 28, 2011
Paul Atchley, Jeff Dressel, Todd C. Jones, Rebecca A. Burson and David Marshall
Psychological Research, 75, 525-534 (University of Kansas, CSSI Inc, Victoria University of Wellington

Conversation effects on neural mechanisms underlying reaction time to visual events while viewing a driving scene using MEG
Cell phone conversation reduces reaction time likely due to (1) damping brain activation in specific regions during talking, or (2) reducing facilitation from attention inputs into those areas or (3) increasing temporal variability of the neural response to visual events.
October 5, 2008
Susan M. Bowyer, Li Hsiehd, John E. Morana, Richard A. Younge, et al
Department of Neurology, Henry Ford Hospital, MEG Lab Clara Ford Pavilion, Detroit, MI

Phoning while driving II: a review of driving conditions influence
These conditions that affect the level of cell phone distraction are: i) legislation; ii) phone type (hands-free or hand-held); iii) drivers’ features regarding age, gender, personal individual profile, and driving experience; iv) conversation content v) driving conditions (actual or simulated driving, road type, traffic density, and weather) Results report little variation due these factors
December 21, 2008
C. Colleta, A. Guillota and C. Petit
University of Lyon – Laboratory of Mental processes and Motor Performance

Change Detection Performance Under Divided Attention With Dynamic Driving Scenarios
Experiment participants were only vaguely aware of their performance in detecting difficult changes while cognitively loaded. This imprecision may lead drivers to improperly estimate their ability to handle difficult situations when they are cognitively loaded.
June 27, 2005
Yi-Ching Lee, John D. Lee, Linda Ng Boyle
Department of Mechanical and Industrial, Engineering University of Iowa

Does Exposure To Distraction In An Experimental Setting Impact Driver Perception Of Cell Phone Ease Of Use And Safety?
People who use a cell phone while driving believe that other drivers doing the same are more dangerous than they are themselves (called “optimism bias”). Younger people, after being involved in distracted driving studies showed a reduction in confidence. Older people did not.
July 2007
Angela Garabet, William J. Horrey, Mary F. Lesch
Center for Safety Research Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety

Effects of fexofenadine and hydroxyzine on brake reaction time during car-driving with cellular phone use
Hydroxyzine and Fexofenadine are antihistamines used to treat allergies. Research has shown antihistamines have sedating effects on driving. It is further known that cell phone use impairs driving performance. This study has examined whether cellular phone usage while driving further compounds impairment in people on antihistamines. Brake reaction time (BRT) was used to examine cellular phone use with antihistamines. It was found that there was a great increase in braking reaction in hydroxyzine-treated volunteers but not in Fexofenadine-treated people.
Manabu Tashiro, Etsuo Horikawa, Hideki Mochizuki, Yumiko Sakurada, et al
Department of Pharmacology, Graduate School of Medicine, Tohoku University, Japan

Attention and processing of relevant visual information while simulated driving: a MEG study
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is an imaging technique that allows scientists to measure the magnetic fields produced by electrical activity in the brain. This study measures the impact of attentional workload using MEG, demonstrating the feasibility of recording MEG activity during an interactive simulated driving task.
A. Fort, INRETS-LESCOT, R. Martin ISH, Lyon, France
Brain Research, 2010, 1363: 117-127

Neural Basis For Some Cognitive Risk Of Using Mobile Phones During Driving
Communication involves words, tone of voice, and non-verbal. In talking on the phone, you lose the visual or "non-verbal" component of communication. When talking on a cell phone, your brain induces visual imageries, which are predominated in a situation by either of the brain's subsystems. This creates impairment.
April 3, 2008
Takashi Hamada (AIST, Japan)
Proceedings of European Conference on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems

The crosstalk hypothesis: Why language interferes with driving
Talking interferes with perception and motor control. Time pressure in conversational turn-taking and the demands of planning and producing novel utterances. Language interferes with low-level components of driving because of the processing involved in comprehending meaningful utterances. Above and beyond this effect, language, with different content interferes more or less with higher-level perceptual reasoning and motor planning. Talking is primarily oral-auditory, but the content of a conversation can engage perceptual and motor systems vitally also deployed for perceiving the environment while driving and responding appropriately.
May 2012
Benjamin Bergen, University of California, Nathan Medeiros-Ward, University of Utah, et al
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

Distracted Driving in Elderly and Middle-Aged Drivers
Distractions decrease the number of constant minor adjustments drivers normally make to maintain lane position and speed. When the driver's focus returns to driving, large corrections (like hard braking, and getting back in your lane) occur. Older drivers are at greater risk to distraction due to waning cognitive resources and control over attention.
March 2013
Kelsey R. Thompson, Ba, Amy M. Johnson, MS, Jamie L. Emerson, BA et al
University of Iowa, Department of Neurology, and Department of Biostatistics

Inattentional Blindness (3)

Impairing the useful field of view in natural scenes: Tunnel vision versus general interference
Cell phone use while driving creates an impairment to driving. This study gets into the psychological and physiological reasons for this impairment. Does your peripheral vision diminish causing "tunnel vision", or does your vision generally get worse across the board as in "inattention blindness" or is the cognitive load due to the conversation ("auditory") the factor that causes the inattention?
April 6, 2016
Ryan V. Ringer, Zachary Throneburg, Aaron P. Johnson, Arthur F. Kramer, Lester C. Loschky
Department of Psychological Sciences, Kansas State University

Cell Phone Induced Failures of Visual Awareness During Simulated Driving
Active participation in a cell phone conversation leads to inattention blindness, impairing visual awareness of objects encountered while driving by diverting attention from driving to the phone conversation. Eye-tracking data indicated that this was not simply due to differences in visual scanning of the driving scene but rather was due to reduced attention to foveal information. The fovea is responsible for sharp central vision (also called foveal vision), which is necessary for humans for activities for which visual detail is of primary importance, such as reading and driving.
July 2, 2002
David L. Strayer, Frank A. Drews, and William A. Johnston
Department of Psychology, University of Utah

Change blindness and inattentional blindness
Change blindness and inattentional blindness both document a surprising failure to notice something that occurred right before our eyes. Change blindness is the failure to identify when something has changed from one moment to another, such as a car breaking in front of us. Inattentional blindness is the failure to notice the existence of something unexpected when attention is focused on some other task such as talking on the phone while driving. As psychological effects, both phenomena inform theories of perceptual processing, attention, and visual awareness. As human behaviors, they serve as a cautionary reminder of the fallibility of our own visual systems.
September 2011
Richard Yao, Whitney Street, Daniel J. Simons
Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science / University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Countermeasure & Solutions (1)

Driver Reaction Time to Tactile and Auditory Rear-End Collision Warnings While Talking on a Cell Phone
Technology to prevent rear-end collisions including auditory, visual and tactile (vibration to pedal or steering wheel) are being tried. Tactile warnings were most effective in waking up a driver who was on a cell phone. Auditory and visual warnings were ineffective.
January 31, 2009
Rayka Mohebbi and Rob Gray, Arizona State University, and Hong Z. Tan, Purdue University
Department of Applied Psychology, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ