Driver distraction research has a long history, spanning nearly 50 years, but intensifying over the last decade. The dominant paradigm guiding this research defines distraction in terms of excessive workload and limited attentional resources. This approach largely ignores how drivers come to engage in these tasks and under what conditions they engage and disengage from driving-the dynamics of distraction. The dynamics of distraction identifies breakdowns of interruption management as an important contributor to distraction, leading to describe distraction in terms of failures of task timing, switching, and prioritization. The dynamics of distraction also identifies disengagement in driving (e.g., mind wandering) as a substantial challenge that secondary tasks might exacerbate or mitigate. Increasing vehicle automation accentuates the need to consider these dynamics of distraction. Automation offers drivers more opportunity to engage in distractions and disengage from driving, and can surprise drivers by unexpectedly requiring drivers to quickly re-engage in driving-placing greater importance of interruption management expertise. This review describes distraction in terms of breakdowns in interruption management and problems of engagement, and summarizes how contingency, conditioning, and consequence traps lead to problems of engaging and disengaging in driving and distractions.
Novice teen drivers have long been known to have an increased risk of crashing, as well as increased tendencies toward unsafe and risky driving behaviors. Teens are unique as drivers for several reasons, many of which have implications specifically in the area of distracted driving. This paper reviews several of these features, including the widespread prevalence of mobile device use by teens, their lack of driving experience, the influence of peer passengers as a source of distraction, the role of parents in influencing teens' attitudes and behaviors relevant to distracted driving and the impact of laws designed to prevent mobile device use by teen drivers. Recommendations for future research include understanding how engagement in a variety of secondary tasks by teen drivers affects their driving performance or crash risk; understanding the respective roles of parents, peers and technology in influencing teen driver behavior; and evaluating the impact of public policy on mitigating teen crash risk related to driver distraction.
Almost all U.S. states have laws limiting drivers' cellphone use. The evidence suggests that all-driver bans on hand-held phone conversations have resulted in long-term reductions in hand-held phone use, and drivers in ban states reported higher rates of hands-free phone use and lower overall phone use compared with drivers in non-ban states. Bans on all phone use by teenage drivers have not been shown to reduce their phone use. The effects of texting bans on the rates of drivers' texting are unknown. With regard to the effects of bans on crashes, 11 peer-reviewed papers or technical reports of all-driver hand-held phone bans and texting bans were reviewed. Some were single-state studies examining crash measures before and after a state ban; other national or multi-state studies compared crashes in states with and without bans over time. The results varied widely. The lack of appropriate controls and other challenges in conducting strong evaluations limited the findings of some studies. Thus, despite the proliferation of laws limiting drivers' cellphone use, it is unclear whether they are having the desired effects on safety. Priorities for future research are suggested.
A variety of methodologies for understanding the prevalence of distracted driving, its risk, and other aspects of driver secondary activity, have been used in the last 15 years. Although the current trend is toward naturalistic driving studies, each methodology contributes certain elements to a better understanding that could emerge from a convergence of these efforts. However, if differing methods are to contribute to a common and robust understanding of driver distraction, it is critical to understand the strengths and limitations of each method. This paper reviews several of the non-naturalistic methods. It suggests that "convergence science" - a more concerted and rigorous effort to bring different approaches together into an integrative whole - may offer benefits for identification and definition of issues and countermeasure development to improve driving safety.
By using in situ naturalistic driving data, estimates of prevalence and risk can be made regarding driver populations' secondary task distractions and crash rates. Through metadata analysis, three populations of drivers (i.e., adult light vehicle, teenaged light vehicle, and adult heavy vehicle) were compared regarding frequency of secondary task behavior and the associated risk for safety-critical incidents. Relative risk estimates provide insight into the risk associated with engaging in a single task. When such risk is considered in combination with frequency of use, it sheds additional light on those secondary tasks that create the greatest overall risk to driving safety. The results show that secondary tasks involving manual typing, texting, dialing, reaching for an object, or reading are dangerous for all three populations. Additionally, novice teen drivers have difficulty in several tasks that the other two populations do not, including eating and external distractions. Truck drivers also perform a number of risky "mobile office" types of tasks, including writing, not seen in the other populations. Implications are described for policy makers and designers of in-vehicle and nomadic, portable systems.
