College students' prevalence and perceptions of text messaging while driving

By analyzing self-reports from sample of 91 college students from the United States who are frequent drivers, the present study examined the prevalence of text messaging (or “texting”) while driving and the incidence of recklessness and consequences that accompany this behavior. Analyses revealed that 91% of participants reported having used text messaging while driving, with many reporting doing so with passengers, including children, riding in their vehicles. Further, a substantial number of participants reported driving dangerously above the speed limit and drifting into other traffic lanes while texting, and many reported “sexting” and arguing via text messages while driving. However, these young drivers agreed that texting while driving is dangerous and should be illegal. These results and the limitations to the present study are discussed.     

Impact of distracted driving on safety and traffic flow

Studies have documented a link between distracted driving and diminished safety; however, an association between distracted driving and traffic congestion has not been investigated in depth. The present study examined the behavior of teens and young adults operating a driving simulator while engaged in various distractions (i.e., cell phone, texting, and undistracted) and driving conditions (i.e., free flow, stable flow, and oversaturation). Seventy five participants 16–25 years of age (split into 2 groups: novice drivers and young adults) drove a STISIM simulator three times, each time with one of three randomly presented distractions. Each drive was designed to represent daytime scenery on a 4 lane divided roadway and included three equal roadway portions representing Levels of Service (LOS) A, C, and E as defined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Participants also completed questionnaires documenting demographics and driving history. Both safety and traffic flow related driving outcomes were considered. A Repeated Measures Multivariate Analysis of Variance was employed to analyze continuous outcome variables and a Generalized Estimate Equation (GEE) Poisson model was used to analyze count variables. Results revealed that, in general more lane deviations and crashes occurred during texting. Distraction (in most cases, text messaging) had a significantly negative impact on traffic flow, such that participants exhibited greater fluctuation in speed, changed lanes significantly fewer times, and took longer to complete the scenario. In turn, more simulated vehicles passed the participant drivers while they were texting or talking on a cell phone than while undistracted. The results indicate that distracted driving, particularly texting, may lead to reduced safety and traffic flow, thus having a negative impact on traffic operations. No significant differences were detected between age groups, suggesting that all drivers, regardless of age, may drive in a manner that impacts safety and traffic flow negatively when distracted.     

The effects of texting on driving performance in a driving simulator: The influence of driver age

Distracted driving is a significant contributor to motor vehicle accidents and fatalities, and texting is a particularly significant form of driver distraction that continues to be on the rise. The present study examined the influence of driver age (18–59 years old) and other factors on the disruptive effects of texting on simulated driving behavior. While ‘driving’ the simulator, subjects were engaged in a series of brief text conversations with a member of the research team. The primary dependent variable was the occurrence of Lane Excursions (defined as any time the center of the vehicle moved outside the directed driving lane, e.g., into the lane for oncoming traffic or onto the shoulder of the road), measured as (1) the percent of subjects that exhibited Lane Excursions, (2) the number of Lane Excursions occurring and (3) the percent of the texting time in Lane Excursions. Multiple Regression analyses were used to assess the influence of several factors on driving performance while texting, including text task duration, texting skill level (subject-reported), texting history (#texts/week), driver gender and driver age. Lane Excursions were not observed in the absence of texting, but 66% of subjects overall exhibited Lane Excursions while texting. Multiple Regression analysis for all subjects (N = 50) revealed that text task duration was significantly correlated with the number of Lane Excursions, and texting skill level and driver age were significantly correlated with the percent of subjects exhibiting Lane Excursions. Driver gender was not significantly correlated with Lane Excursions during texting. Multiple Regression analysis of only highly skilled texters (N = 27) revealed that driver age was significantly correlated with the number of Lane Excursions, the percent of subjects exhibiting Lane Excursions and the percent of texting time in Lane Excursions. In contrast, Multiple Regression analysis of those drivers who self-identified as not highly skilled texters (N = 23) revealed that text task duration was significantly correlated with the number of Lane Excursions. The present studies confirm past reports that texting impairs driving simulator performance. Moreover, the present study demonstrates that for highly skilled texters, the effects of texting on driving are actually worse for older drivers. Given the increasing frequency of texting while driving within virtually all age groups, these data suggest that ‘no texting while driving’ education and public service messages need to be continued, and they should be expanded to target older drivers as well.     

Texting while driving: Is speech-based text entry less risky than handheld text entry?

Research indicates that using a cell phone to talk or text while maneuvering a vehicle impairs driving performance. However, few published studies directly compare the distracting effects of texting using a hands-free (i.e., speech-based interface) versus handheld cell phone, which is an important issue for legislation, automotive interface design and driving safety training. This study compared the effect of speech-based versus handheld text entries on simulated driving performance by asking participants to perform a car following task while controlling the duration of a secondary text-entry task. Results showed that both speech-based and handheld text entries impaired driving performance relative to the drive-only condition by causing more variation in speed and lane position. Handheld text entry also increased the brake response time and increased variation in headway distance. Text entry using a speech-based cell phone was less detrimental to driving performance than handheld text entry. Nevertheless, the speech-based text entry task still significantly impaired driving compared to the drive-only condition. These results 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.     

Driver performance while text messaging using handheld and in-vehicle systems

This study presents an evaluation of driver performance while text messaging via handheld mobile phones and an in-vehicle texting system. Participants sent and received text messages while driving with an experimenter on a closed-road course, using their personal mobile phones and the vehicle's system. The test vehicle was an instrumented 2010 Mercury Mariner equipped with an OEM in-vehicle system that supports text messaging and voice control of mobile devices via Bluetooth, which was modified to allow text message sending during driving. Twenty participants were tested, 11 younger (19–34) and 9 older (39–51). All participants were regular users of the in-vehicle system, although none had experience with the texting functions.Results indicated that handheld text message sending and receiving resulted in higher mental demand, more frequent and longer glances away from the roadway, and degraded steering measures compared to baseline. Using the in-vehicle system to send messages showed less performance degradation, but still had more task-related interior glance time and higher mental demand than baseline; using the system's text-to-speech functionality for incoming messages showed no differences from baseline. These findings suggest that using handheld phones to send and receive text messages may interfere with drivers’ visual and steering behaviors; the in-vehicle system showed improvement, but performance was not at baseline levels during message sending.     

A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance

The empirical basis for legislation to limit cell phones while driving is addressed. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driving performance was performed. A total of 33 studies collected through 2007 that met inclusion criteria yielded 94 effect size estimates, with a total sample size of approximately 2000 participants. The dependent variables of reaction time, lateral vehicle control, headway and speed and the moderating variables of research setting (i.e., laboratory, simulator, on-road), conversation target (passenger, cell phone) and conversation type (cognitive task, naturalistic) were coded. Reaction time (RT) to events and stimuli while talking produced the largest performance decrements. Handheld and hands-free phones produced similar RT decrements. Overall, a mean increase in RT of .25s was found to all types of phone-related tasks. Observed performance decrements probably underestimate the true behavior of drivers with mobile phones in their own vehicles. In addition, drivers using either phone type do not appreciably compensate by giving greater headway or reducing speed. Tests for moderator effects on RT and speed found no statistically significant effect size differences across laboratory, driving simulation and on-road research settings. The implications of the results for legislation and future research are considered.     

Texting while driving: Psychosocial influences on young people's texting intentions and behaviour

Despite the dangers and illegality, there is a continued prevalence of texting while driving amongst young Australian drivers. The present study tested an extended theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to predict young drivers’ (17-24 years) intentions to [1] send and [2] read text messages while driving. Participants (n = 169 university students) completed measures of attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, intentions, and the additional social influence measures of group norm and moral norm. One week later, participants reported on the number of texts sent and read while driving in the previous week. Attitude predicted intentions to both send and read texts while driving, and subjective norm and perceived behavioural control determined sending, but not reading, intentions. Further, intention, but not perceptions of control, predicted both texting behaviours 1 week later. In addition, both group norm and moral norm added predictive ability to the model. These findings provide support for the TPB in understanding students’ decisions to text while driving as well as the inclusion of additional normative influences within this context, suggesting that a multi-strategy approach is likely to be useful in attempts to reduce the incidence of these risky driving behaviours.     

Re-conceptualising the reckless driving behaviour of young drivers

Reckless driving is a major contributing factor to road morbidity and mortality. While further research into the nature and impact of reckless driving, particularly among young people, is urgently needed, the measurement of reckless driving behaviour also requires increased attention. Three major shortcomings apparent in established measures of driver behaviour are that they do not target the full range of reckless driving behaviours, they measure characteristics other than driving behaviours, and/or they fail to categorise and label reckless driver behaviour based on characteristics of the behaviours themselves. To combat these shortcomings, this paper reports the development and preliminary validation of a new measure of reckless driving behaviour for young drivers. Exploratory factor analysis of self-reported driving data revealed four, conceptually distinct categories of reckless driving behaviour: those that increase crash-risk due to (a) distractions or deficits in perception, attention or reaction time (labelled “distracted”), (b) driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (labelled “substance-use”), (c) placing the vehicle in an unsafe environment beyond its design expectations (labelled “extreme”), and (d) speed and positioning of the vehicle relative to other vehicles and objects (labelled “positioning”). Confirmatory factor analysis of data collected from a separate, community sample confirmed this four-factor structure. Multiple regression analyses found differences in the demographic and psychological variables related to these four factors, suggesting that interventions in one reckless driving domain may not be helpful in others.     

Texting while driving using Google Glass™: Promising but not distraction-free

Texting while driving is risky but common. This study evaluated how texting using a Head-Mounted Display, Google Glass, impacts driving performance. Experienced drivers performed a classic car-following task while using three different interfaces to text: fully manual interaction with a head-down smartphone, vocal interaction with a smartphone, and vocal interaction with Google Glass. Fully manual interaction produced worse driving performance than either of the other interaction methods, leading to more lane excursions and variable vehicle control, and higher workload. Compared to texting vocally with a smartphone, texting using Google Glass produced fewer lane excursions, more braking responses, and lower workload. All forms of texting impaired driving performance compared to undistracted driving. These results imply that the use of Google Glass for texting impairs driving, but its Head-Mounted Display configuration and speech recognition technology may be safer than texting using a smartphone.     

Concealing their communication: Exploring psychosocial predictors of young drivers’ intentions and engagement in concealed texting

Making a conscious effort to hide the fact that you are texting while driving (i.e., concealed texting) is a deliberate and risky behaviour involving attention diverted away from the road. As the most frequent users of text messaging services and mobile phones while driving, young people appear at heightened risk of crashing from engaging in this behaviour. This study investigated the phenomenon of concealed texting while driving, and utilised an extended Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) including the additional predictors of moral norm, mobile phone involvement, and anticipated regret to predict young drivers’ intentions and subsequent behaviour. Participants (n = 171) were aged 17–25 years, owned a mobile phone, and had a current driver's licence. Participants completed a questionnaire measuring their intention to conceal texting while driving, and a follow-up questionnaire a week later to report their behavioural engagement. The results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed overall support for the predictive utility of the TPB with the standard constructs accounting for 69% of variance in drivers’ intentions, and the extended predictors contributing an additional 6% of variance in intentions over and above the standard constructs. Attitude, subjective norm, PBC, moral norm, and mobile phone involvement emerged as significant predictors of intentions; and intention was the only significant predictor of drivers’ self-reported behaviour. These constructs can provide insight into key focal points for countermeasures including advertising and other public education strategies aimed at influencing young drivers to reconsider their engagement in this risky behaviour.     

Reducing air-pollution: A new argument for getting drivers to abide by the speed limit?

Speeding is one of the main factors of car crash-risk, but it also contributes to increasing air-pollution. In two studies we attempted to lead drivers to abide by speed limits using “reducing air-pollution” as a new argument. We presented prevention messages that highlighted the role of speeding in increasing “crash-risk”, “air-pollution”, or both (Studies 1 and 2). The messages were also positively or negatively framed (Study 2). Given that women are more concerned with environmental issues than are men, we expected the following hypotheses to be validated for women. The message with the “air-pollution” argument was expected to be evaluated more positively than the “crash-risk” message (H1). The “air-pollution” and “crash-risk and air-pollution” messages were expected to be more effective than the “crash-risk” message on the behavioral intention to observe speed limits (H2a) and on the perceived efficacy of speed-limit observance in reducing air-pollution (H2b; Studies 1 and 2). Furthermore, positive framing was expected to be more effective than negative framing (H3), and presenting a message to be more effective than presenting no message (H4; Study 2).Broadly, our results argue in favor of our hypotheses. However in Study 2, the effects of message framing did not allow us to conclude that negative or positive framing was superior. All in all, messages with the “air-pollution” argument were more effective at leading drivers to observe speed limits. Thus, environmental protection may be a fruitful route to explore for increasing road safety.     

Prevalence of texting while driving and other risky driving behaviors among young people in Ontario,Canada: Evidence from 2012 and 2014

This paper reports on the prevalence of texting while driving and other risky driving behaviors by age and gender in two large samples of youth aged 16–19 years in Ontario, Canada. In Study 1 (N = 6133), we found that males reported more frequent texting while driving and speeding than females and, in terms of age, sixteen year olds reported frequent texting while driving than older participants. In Study 2 (N = 4450), which was conducted two years later, males again reported more frequent texting while driving, however there was no difference in the rate of talking on the phone while driving among males and females. Participants also reported on experiences that led to a significant reduction in their texting while driving. The most common reasons were the perceived danger of texting while driving, laws and fines against texting while driving, and observing close-calls and accidents experienced by other people. The results of both studies suggest that driving-related risk-taking behaviors co-occur and that young passengers in vehicles, including 14 and 15 year olds, are bystanders to texting while driving. Finally, there was a substantial decline in the prevalence of texting while driving across the studies. In Study 1, 27% of participants reported “sometimes” to “almost always” texting while driving compared to 6% of participants in Study 2. Limitations and implications for public campaigns targeted youth distracted driving are discussed.     

Texting while driving as impulsive choice: A behavioral economic analysis

The goal of the present study was to examine the utility of a behavioral economic analysis to investigate the role of delay discounting in texting while driving. A sample of 147 college students completed a survey to assess how frequently they send and read text messages while driving. Based on this information, students were assigned to one of two groups: 19 students who frequently text while driving and 19 matched-control students who infrequently text while driving but were similar in gender, age, years of education, and years driving. The groups were compared on the extent to which they discounted, or devalued, delayed hypothetical monetary rewards using a delay-discounting task. In this task, students made repeated choices between $1000 available after a delay (ranging from 1 week to 10 years) and an equal or lesser amount of money available immediately. The results show that the students who frequently text while driving discounted delayed rewards at a greater rate than the matched control students. The study supports the conclusions that texting while driving is fundamentally an impulsive choice made by drivers, and that a behavioral economic approach may be a useful research tool for investigating the decision-making processes underlying risky behaviors.     

The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: behavior may shape attitude

Following a previous study that reported a large number of young adult drivers text and drive, the current study investigated this behavior by looking at patterns of use and driver assessment of the risk of the behavior. The data from the current study converge with and extended the previous work showing 70% of the 348 young adult drivers surveyed report initiating texts while driving while higher numbers reply to texts (81%) and read texts (92%) while driving. Additional drivers also report doing these behaviors, but only while stopped in traffic, showing only 2% never text and drive under any circumstances. The drivers indicated that they perceived these behaviors to be very risky and riskier than talking on a cell phone while driving, but perception of risk was a very weak predictor of behavior (for initiating texts) or had no effect on texting (for replying or reading texts while driving). In addition, a factor analysis of the perception of road conditions while texting revealed that making the choice to engage in texting (initiating) led drivers to perceive road conditions as being safer than if they replied to a text or read a text, suggesting that choosing to engage in the behavior itself changes attitudes toward risk.     

In the eye of the beholder: A simulator study of the impact of Google Glass on driving performance

This study examined whether, and to what extent, driving is affected by reading text on Google Glass. Reading text requires a high level of visual resources and can interfere with safe driving. However, it is currently unclear if the impact of reading text on a head-mounted display, such as Google Glass (Glass), will differ from that found with more traditional head-down electronic devices, such as a dash-mounted smartphone. A total of 20 drivers (22–48 years) completed the Lane Change Test while driving undistracted and while reading text on Glass and on a smartphone. Measures of lateral vehicle control and event detection were examined along with subjective workload and secondary task performance. Results revealed that drivers’ lane keeping ability was significantly impaired by reading text on both Glass and the smartphone. When using Glass, drivers also failed to detect a greater number of lane change signs compared to when using the phone or driving undistracted. In terms of subjective workload, drivers rated reading on Glass as subjectively easier than on the smartphone, which may possibly encourage greater use of this device while driving. Overall, the results suggest that, despite Glass allowing drivers to better maintain their visual attention on the forward scene, drivers are still not able to effectively divide their cognitive attention across the Glass display and the road environment, resulting in impaired driving performance.     

A behavioral economic analysis of texting while driving: Delay discounting processes

The purpose of the present study was to examine an impulsive decision-making process underlying texting while driving from a behavioral economic perspective. A sample of 108 college students completed a novel discounting task that presented participants with a hypothetical scenario in which, after receiving a text message while driving, they rated the likelihood of replying to a text message immediately versus waiting to reply for a specific period of time. Participants also completed a delay discounting task in which they made repeated hypothetical choices between obtaining a larger amount of money available after a delay and an equal or lesser amount of money available immediately. The results show that the duration of the delay is a critical variable that strongly determines whether participants choose to wait to reply to a text message, and that the decrease in the likelihood of waiting as a function of delay is best described by a hyperbolic delay discounting function. The results also show that participants who self-reported higher frequency of texting while driving discounted the opportunity to reply to a text message at greater rates, whereas there was no relation between the rates of discounting of hypothetical monetary rewards and the frequency of texting while driving. The results support the conclusion that texting while driving is fundamentally an impulsive choice.     

Driving strategies in overtaking

Over 400 overtaking manoeuvres were observed on a two lane British “A” carriageway with a maximum speed limit of 100 km/hr. It was found that 14% of overtaking drivers use a gap size too small (i.e. less than 400 m) to comfortably accommodate vehicles closing on each other at normally assumed driving speeds. Acceptance of a small gap for overtaking increased the incidence of lane sharing (overtaking partially in both lanes) and cutting in (precipitous return to the driving lane). When only a small gap was available, there was an increase in both lane sharing and cutting in, usually only one of the above options was utilised with a tendency for piggy-backers (two or more simultaneous overtakers) to prefer lane sharing while non-piggy-backers preferred to cut in. Flying overtakers (overtaking without pause), accelerative overtakers (overtaking after a pause), piggy-backers, non piggy-backers and drivers not braking to follow before overtaking, all cut in more in small gaps than in large gaps. Only drivers braking to follow failed to cut-in more in small gaps. In addition, accelerative overtakers, piggy-backers, non piggy-backers, drivers braking and drivers not braking to follow, lane shared more in small gaps than large gaps. Only flying overtakers failed to lane share more in small gaps than in large gaps, but this was because they did a lot of lane sharing in both large and small gaps. Finally, flying overtakers, piggy-backers and drivers who braked in order to follow before overtaking, were more likely to accept a small gap for overtaking than were accelerative overtakers, non piggy-backers and drivers who did not brake to follow. Policy and research implications of these findings are discussed.     

Drivers’ behavioral responses to combined speed and red light cameras

BackgroundNumerous signalized intersections worldwide have been equipped with enforcement cameras in order to tackle red light running and often also to enforce speed limits. However, various impact evaluation studies of red light cameras (RLCs) showed an increase of rear-end collisions (up to 44%).ObjectiveThe principal objective of this study is to provide a better insight in possible explaining factors for the increase in rear-end collisions that is caused by placing combined speed and red light cameras (SRLCs).MethodReal-world observations and driving simulator-based observations are combined. Video recordings at two signalized intersections where SRLCs were about to be installed are used to analyze rear-end conflicts, interactions and driver behavior in two conditions (i.e., with and without SRLC). Furthermore, one of these intersections was rebuilt in a driving simulator equipped with an eye tracking system. At this location, two test conditions (i.e., SRLC and SRLC with a warning sign) and one control condition (i.e., no SRLC) are examined. The data of 63 participants were used to estimate the risk of rear-end collisions by means of a Monte Carlo Simulation.ResultsThe results of the on-site observation study reveal decreases in the number of red and yellow light violations, a shift (i.e., closer to the stop line) in the dilemma zone and a time headway reduction after the installation of the SRLC. Based on the driving simulator data, the odds of rear-end collisions (compared to the control condition) for the conditions with SRLC and SRLC + warning sign is 6.42 and 4.01, respectively.ConclusionThe real-world and driving simulator observations indicate that the risk of rear-end collisions increases when SRLCs are installed. However, this risk might decrease when a warning sign is placed upstream.     

Combined effects of alcohol and distraction on driving performance

Although alcohol and distraction are often cited as significant risk factors for traffic crashes, most research has considered them in isolation. It is therefore necessary to consider the interactions between alcohol and distraction impairment sources, especially when examining the relationship between behavior and crash risk. In a driving simulator, the primary goal was to maintain a safe headway to a lead vehicle and the secondary goal was to maintain stable lane position. All participants engaged in distractions that represented different levels of resource competition and half of the participants consumed alcohol (target BAC 0.08 g/dl). Specific comparisons were made between sober driving while distracted and driving intoxicated without distraction. Distraction tasks produced more changes in driving behavior than did alcohol for both longitudinal (primary) and lateral (secondary) driving goals. Alcohol impairment was evident only in relation to lateral driving performance, however there was an amplification of impairment when alcohol and distraction conditions were combined. Distraction resulted in a general level of impairment across all driving goals, whereas participants with alcohol appeared to shed secondary driving goals to “protect” primary driving goals. Drivers’ strategies to cope with alcohol (and distraction) may not be sufficient to offset the increased crash risk.     

On-road behaviour of younger and older novices during the first six months of driving

Newly qualified drivers are known to have greater crash involvement than more experienced drivers, but does the on-road driving behaviour of young novices differ from that of older novices who might be expected to be more mature and to have different driving needs? Both younger and older novices were compared with experienced drivers in their behaviour driving an instrumented car on three occasions. The three drives were conducted within the novices’ first few months of becoming qualified. All drivers, including both groups of novices, increased their average road speed over the three drives, and all increased their tendency to cut across the central lane marker on bends. The older novices showed some indications of becoming more cautious with experience, by doubling their headway after six months, and by increasing the number of times they glanced into their mirrors at critical points. This increased caution may be attributable to the driving experiences of the older novices, who had experienced twice the crash rate of the younger novices during their first six months of driving.