Prevalence and correlates of cell phone use among Texas drivers

Estimate of the magnitude of risky and protective behaviors associated with road traffic injuries in capitals participating in the Life in Traffic Project of Brazil

BACKGROUND

Brazil occupies the fifth position in the ranking of the highest mortality rates due to RTI in the world. With the objective of promoting traffic safety and consequently reducing deaths, Brazil created the Life in Traffic Project (LTP). The main goal of LTP is reducing 50% of RTI deaths, by promoting interventions to tackle risk factors, such as driving under the influence of alcohol and excessive and/or inappropriate speed. Thus, the aim of this study was to estimate the magnitude of risky and protective factors for RTI in capitals participating in the LTP in Brazil. We estimated these factors according to sociodemographic (age group, sex, education, race and, type of road user).

METHODS

A total of 5,922 car drivers and motorcyclists from 14 Brazilian capitals participating in the LTP were interviewed. Data collection was carried out in sobriety checkpoints at night and consisted of the administration of an interview and a breathalyzer test. Risky and protective behaviors associated with RTI were investigated. Covariates of the study were: age, sex, education, race and, type of road user. Poisson multiple regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between variables of interest.

RESULTS

The prevalence of individuals with positive blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 6.3% and who reported driving after drinking alcohol in the last 30 days was 9.1%. The others risky behaviors reported were: driving at excessive speed on roads of 50 km/h, using a cell phone for calls while driving, using a cell phone to send or read calls while driving, running a red light. Use of seatbelts and helmets showed prevalence above 96,0% Use of seatbelts showed prevalence of 98.6% among car drivers, and helmet use was described by 96.6% of motorcycle drivers. Most risky behaviors were more prevalent in younger age groups (except BAC measurement higher in older participants), in males (except for cell phone use), in participants with higher education level and without a driver's license.

CONCLUSION

Excessive speed and driving under the influence of alcohol, defined as priorities within the LTP, need more consistent interventions, as they still have considerable prevalence in the cities investigated. The factors described such as cell phone usage and passing red traffic lights should also need to be prioritized as a focus on promoting traffic safety.

Noon is the best time to perform a dual task while cognitive performance may be boosted by concurrent performance of a physical task

BACKGROUND

Dual-task is the concurrent performance of two independent single tasks (ST) that have distinct goals. Daily variations in performance of singular cognitive or motor tasks are reported in the literature.

RESEARCH QUESTION

To investigate whether performance of a dual-task (DT) varies based on the time of day and whether there is interference between the motor and cognitive aspect of DT.

METHODS

Participants performed a 10 Meter Walk Test (10MWT) for motor and a Stroop Test for cognitive task. The DT activity combined both STs. All participants performed three trials for all three conditions at three different times of the day (morning, noon, afternoon), on separate testing days.

RESULTS

Data were collected on 42 participants. Most participants were female (28/42), average age of 27.95 ± 9.28 years, and BMI of 25.58 ± 4.49 Kg/m2. Walking velocities in ST were consistently faster than in DT, p < .0005. In DT conditions, the participants walked faster at noon (1.21 ± 0.13 m/s) compared to the morning (1.16 ± 0.15 m/s, p = 0.01) or the afternoon (1.16 ± 0.18 m/s, p = 0.04). The participants' score on the DT-Stroop test were only different at noon (11.43 ± 2.28) when compared to morning (10.67 ± 1.34, p = 0.006). The percentage DT-Cognitive interference effect was 26.1 % in the morning, 11.8 % at noon and 13.4 % in the afternoon. The Motor interference was -14.6 % in the morning, -12.2 % at noon and -13.8 % in the afternoon.

SIGNIFICANCE

Noon is the best time to perform a dual task condition. Noon consistently exhibited the least motor or cognitive interference. Conversely, the maximum boost in cognitive performance was observed in the mornings.

Can't text, I'm driving - Factors influencing intentions to text while driving in the UK

There is clear research evidence that using a mobile phone while driving is dangerous. However, although drivers generally know this is a risky behaviour, many continue to use a handheld mobile phone while driving. The present research used the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to explore the psychological reasons underpinning intentions to use a mobile phone while driving in general, as well as to send and read text messages while driving across four different scenarios. Convenience sampling was used to obtain data from 314 participants who held a valid licence to drive in the UK, had driven at least once in the last six months and owned a mobile phone. General intentions to use a mobile phone while driving were predicted by positive Attitudes towards the behaviour and higher Perceived Behavioural Control. Moreover, when predicting intentions to send and read text messages, it was positive Attitudes that was the most consistent and significant predictor. Surprisingly, neither Perceived Behavioural Control nor Subjective Norms were significant predictors of intentions to send or read text messages. Furthermore, perceptions of risk (crashing and being apprehended by the police) were significant predictors of intentions to send and read texts over and above that provided by the TPB variables. The present research highlights the need for interventions to target attitudinal change and to increase risk perceptions in order to reduce the prevalence of these risky behaviours.

Should I Text or Call Here? A Situation-Based Analysis of Drivers' Perceived Likelihood of Engaging in Mobile Phone Multitasking

This study investigated how situational characteristics typically encountered in the transport system influence drivers' perceived likelihood of engaging in mobile phone multitasking. The impacts of mobile phone tasks, perceived environmental complexity/risk, and drivers' individual differences were evaluated as relevant individual predictors within the behavioral adaptation framework. An innovative questionnaire, which includes randomized textual and visual scenarios, was administered to collect data from a sample of 447 drivers in South East Queensland-Australia (66% females; n = 296). The likelihood of engaging in a mobile phone task across various scenarios was modeled by a random parameters ordered probit model. Results indicated that drivers who are female, are frequent users of phones for texting/answering calls, have less favorable attitudes towards safety, and are highly disinhibited were more likely to report stronger intentions of engaging in mobile phone multitasking. However, more years with a valid driving license, self-efficacy toward self-regulation in demanding traffic conditions and police enforcement, texting tasks, and demanding traffic conditions were negatively related to self-reported likelihood of mobile phone multitasking. The unobserved heterogeneity warned of riskier groups among female drivers and participants who need a lot of convincing to believe that multitasking while driving is dangerous. This research concludes that behavioral adaptation theory is a robust framework explaining self-regulation of distracted drivers.

Risk factors of mobile phone use while driving in Queensland: Prevalence, attitudes, crash risk perception, and task-management strategies

Distracted driving is one of the most significant human factor issues in transport safety. Mobile phone interactions while driving may involve a multitude of cognitive and physical resources that result in inferior driving performance and reduced safety margins. The current study investigates characteristics of usage, risk factors, compensatory strategies in use and characteristics of high-frequency offenders of mobile phone use while driving. A series of questions were administered to drivers in Queensland (Australia) using an on-line questionnaire. A total of 484 drivers (34.9% males and 49.8% aged 17-25) participated anonymously. At least one of every two motorists surveyed reported engaging in distracted driving. Drivers were unable to acknowledge the increased crash risk associated with answering and locating a ringing phone in contrast to other tasks such as texting/browsing. Attitudes towards mobile phone usage were more favourable for talking than texting or browsing. Lowering the driving speed and increasing the distance from the vehicle in front were the most popular task-management strategies for talking and texting/browsing while driving. On the other hand, keeping the mobile phone low (e.g. in the driver's lap or on the passenger seat) was the favourite strategy used by drivers to avoid police fines for both talking and texting/browsing. Logistic regression models were fitted to understand differences in risk factors for engaging in mobile phone conversations and browsing/texting while driving. For both tasks, exposure to driving, driving experience, driving history (offences and crashes), and attitudes were significant predictors. Future mobile phone prevention efforts would benefit from development of safe attitudes and increasing risk literacy. Enforcement of mobile phone distraction should be re-engineered, as the use of task-management strategies to evade police enforcement seems to dilute its effect on the prevention of this behaviour. Some countermeasures and suggestions were proposed in the design of public education campaigns and driver-mobile phone interaction.