Self-reported distraction-related collisions: Mundane distractions are reported more often than technology-related secondary tasks

The present study investigated self-reported distraction-related collisions and near-misses, both as a driver and a passenger. Data were gathered from 426 semi-structured interviews and the results were weighted according to the distribution of driver licences among city residents, by gender and age group (18–24, 25–44, 45–64, and 65+). Seven percent of drivers reported having had an accident while distracted, with the most commonly reported distraction being the drivers' own thoughts (2.5%), followed by looking at something outside the vehicle (2%) and talking to a passenger (1.1%). Furthermore, 35.7% reported having had a near-miss while distracted, with manipulating the audio entertainment system (8.6%) and talking to passengers (8.2%) being the most common distraction types. The percentage of drivers who reported having had an accident while talking on a hand-held phone, and for reading or sending text messages, were both 0.2%. The proportion of drivers who reported having had a near-miss while talking on a handheld mobile phone, hands-free phone or text messaging (reading or sending), were 2.4%, 0.7% and 4.6%, respectively. However, when drivers were asked whether they knew anybody who had crashed while engaged in each distraction type measured, hand-held phone use was the most commonly identified task. Additionally, the authors explored potential differences in risk perception, descriptive norms and engagement in distractions between those who experienced an accident or a near-miss and those who did not, for each distraction type. Those who reported engaging in each distraction type were also more likely to report having experienced a crash or near-miss related to that distraction type. Although researchers and public policies place a lot of emphasis on technological distractions, in particular phone-related distractions, these are not the distraction types that are most commonly reported by drivers in relation to accidents, which could suggest that a much broader perspective on driver distraction would be beneficial.

• Record URL:
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.08.008
• Record URL:
  • http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847818302900
• Availability:
  • Find a library where document is available. Order URL: http://worldcat.org/issn/13698478
• Supplemental Notes:
  • © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Abstract reprinted with permission of Elsevier.
• Authors:
  • Prat, F
  • Gras, M E
  • Planes, M
  • Font-Mayolas, S
  • Sullman, M J M
• Publication Date: 2018-10

Language

• English

Media Info

• Media Type: Web
• Features: References; Tables;
• Pagination: pp 124-134
• Serial:
  • Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
  • Volume: 59
  • Issue Number: 0
  • Publisher: Elsevier
  • ISSN: 1369-8478
  • Serial URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13698478

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Distraction; Drivers; Mobile telephones; Near crashes; Traffic crashes
• Subject Areas: Highways; Safety and Human Factors;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 01682477
• Record Type: Publication
• Files: TRIS
• Created Date: Oct 1 2018 9:25AM