"Does that mean I can't use my phone to pay when I'm in the Maccas drive thru?": Younger drivers' uncertainty and attitude toward smartphone law and punishment

Deterring illegal smartphone use while driving: Are perceptions of risk information associated with the impact of informal sanctions?

Advertising campaigns have used threat appeals to increase the perceptions of risk associated with dangerous driving behaviours. Building on recent research that suggests increasing the pertinence of informal sanctions (sense of guilt, fear of peer disapproval, or fear of hurting oneself and others) decreases the likelihood of illegal smartphone engagement while driving, this study aimed to determine if perceptions of risk information, that is, how effective drivers believe the information is in deterring their illegal use, is associated with perceptions of informal sanctions. An online survey of 1027 Victorians who self-reported illegal smartphone use while driving asked participants to rate the personal deterrent effectiveness of five types of risks associated with illegal smartphone use while driving. A hierarchical linear regression model explored the associations between the most effective risks and each informal sanction. Female drivers were more likely than male drivers to experience guilt, fear of social loss and fear of physical loss when using their smartphones illegally. More frequent illegal smartphone engagement while driving was associated with decreased impact of informal sanctions. Female drivers were more likely than male drivers to perceive each risk as effective. The most effective piece of information was, "Contributes to 16% of Victorian road deaths and serious injuries annually"; it was also the least known (32.7% males, 26.7% females). This message, alongside, "Increases risk of a crash comparable to those associated with driving under the influence of alcohol or cannabis" and, "A 2 s glance at your phone while driving at 50 km/h effectively means driving blind for 27 m", were associated with stronger perceptions of guilt, fear of peer disapproval, or fear of hurting oneself and others when thinking about using a smartphone illegally while driving. These results suggest tailoring and targeting these specific risk information may be effective in deterring illegal smartphone use while driving.

How are different sources of distraction associated with at-fault crashes among drivers of different age gender groups?

INTRODUCTION

Distracted driving has been well researched, however the comparison between different age-gender groups on the impact of distracted driving has not been explored. Most crash analysis research does not distinguish driver responsibility, so the role that distractions has in at-fault crashes is unknown. Without distinguishing at-fault crashes from all-cause crashes, distracted driving's detrimental effects could be underestimated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically assess the risk of at-fault crashes associated with different sources of distraction among six groups by driver age (Teens 16-19, Adults 20-64, Seniors 65+) and gender.

METHODS

Crashes where a study participant was deemed at fault were identified using human expert annotated variables from the Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP2) Naturalistic Driving Study dataset. Generalized linear mixed models were performed to assess the adjusted odds ratios of 10 distraction types associated with the at-fault crashes while controlling for environmental factors.

RESULTS

The main findings are (1) The highest contributing distraction types in at-fault crashes were In-Cabin Objects, Mobile Device, External Scenes, and In-Vehicle Information Systems (IVIS) as indicated by their influence on multiple age-gender groups and the magnitude of odds ratios; (2) Teens and adults were more distraction-prone than seniors, although seniors had the greatest at-fault crash risks associated with In-Cabin Objects, Mobile Device, and IVIS; (3) Distractions impacted females and males similarly; (4) At-fault crashes were more likely to have the significant distraction types present than all-cause crashes.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to the limited literature on at-fault crashes particularly as it explores the role of driver demographics and distracted driving. Analyzing the risks of distracted driving by age-gender group shows that specific activities can be riskier for a certain population. The effects of distractions may be overlooked without fault determination. Distractions by external scenes, in-vehicle technologies, and in-cabin objects should not be overlooked, in addition to mobile device use.