Continue reading »]]> A recent Injury Board article raises the interesting question – Can we fight technology with techology? That’s what some parents are asking when it comes to stopping their teenage sons or daughters using their cellphones while behind the wheel of the car. Instead of taking the phone away, which is an impractical option in many cases, parents are turning to new product offerings that are designed to use technology to help manage the distracted driving problem.

One such product, called CellControl, can control up to six cellphones. Parents who purchased the product say they are comforted by the fact that they can control their children’s cellphone use while driving, especially since, according to surveys,  nearly half of all young drivers use their cellphones to surf the Internet and a third use them to access social networking sites.

However, CellControl isn’t the only product available to parents looking to keep their young driver (and other road users) safe on the road. Product offerings from iZup, Zoomsafer and others offer technology that prevents or helps to control cellphone use while driving.

Parents aren’t the only ones worried about their drivers on the road. In fact, corporate fleet managers are increasingly turning to technology to prevent their employees/drivers from using their cellphones while driving.

Recent federal regulations that took effect on January 1 will impose fines for commercial truck and bus drivers up to $2,750 each time they’re caught using a cellphone while driving, and companies are becoming more aware of their obligations and responsibilities when it comes to employee safety and accident/damage liability.

It seems that parents and companies responsible for drivers are taking the position that technology got us into the problem of distracted driving in the first place, but it can also get us out.

Read the full article, complete with links to other related items  here

Continue reading »]]> A sad but timely reminder of the risks posed by the increasing use of connected technology by young drivers.  The Deseret News in Utah writes about the death of Taylor Sauer.

The 18-year-old gave a classmate a ride back to Utah State University in Logan, before beginning the return trip to her home in Caldwell, Idaho.

Taylor apparently passed the time on the long drive by communicating with others on Facebook.

“I can’t discuss this matter now. Driving and facebooking is not safe! Haha,” she posted on the social networking website Facebook at 8:48 p.m.

Moments later, Sauer was dead, killed after the Saturn Vue she was driving collided with a tanker truck and was then hit by a semi truck moments later.

The crash remains under investigation, and Police would not confirm if distracted driving played a factor. But Sauer’s family has its own opinions.

“We know through Taylor’s Facebook account that she was actively in a conversation 12 to 15 minutes before the accident occurred,” Warr said. “We know that Taylor had done that in the past, and we know, as a family, that that probably or may have contributed to the accident.”

A study by University of Utah psychology professor David Strayer found that talking on a cellphone while driving leads to an impairment level equivalent to that of drunkenness. When texting, an individual is twice as impaired, the 2006 study concluded.

“It’s really unfortunate,” Strayer said of Sauer’s death. “We’re seeing a greater and greater trend for this sort of stuff. There’s no doubt about it that distractions are growing.”

Strayer said advances in technology and the installation of more devices in automobiles are exacerbating the problem.

“Clearly these technologies have a capability of really making the crash risk go up,” Strayer said. “I think the problem is a lot of this stuff is flashy and kind of exciting … Just because it’s fun to do, doesn’t mean it’s safe to do.”

The National Transportation Safety Board issued a unanimous recommendation last month that all states impose a ban on cellphone use while driving, including communication on hands-free devices. The measure would be more stringent than legislation in place in any state, including Utah, which passed its own careless driving law in 2009.

Read the full Article:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705397536/Death-of-USU-student-in-Idaho-points-to-risks-of-distracted-driving.html?pg=1

Continue reading »]]> One of Australia’s top-rating programs, Channel 9′s “A Current Affair” has broadcast an interesting feature on the dangers of Distracted Driving in Australia.

Featuring interviews with academic experts and law enforcement representatives, the piece also includes a practical demonstration, using a driving simulator, of the effects of texting on driver behaviour and reaction times.

View a video of the broadcast here: http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8402146/texting-driver-danger

As with most broadcast media, the emphasis in this piece is on texting and cellphone use, but all of the most dangerous distraction characteristics also apply to the increasing use of computers and laptops by the mobile workforce.

Continue reading »]]> An update on recent articles related to Distracted Driving:

In this update we feature two interesting pieces:

• a New York Times article raising the question of insurance and distracted driving related accidents;
• a study claiming to show just how much more dangerous mp3/entertainment devices are than cellphones when it comes to distraction

What if Insurers Didn’t Pay Up For Texting Crashes?

The ‘Bucks’ blog on the New York Times discusses a proposal that insurance companies could help prevent distracted driving if they refused to pay claims for accidents caused by distracted driving.

The article presents a number of arguments against such action, but the point is an interesting one, and it is an area that people should consider carefully.

Read the piece here:  http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/what-if-insurers-didnt-pay-for-crashes-caused-by-texting/

Distraction Dangers

Mobiledia presents findings from a Drexel University study, showing that iPods and similar music devices are twice as dangerous as cell phones for drivers.

Researchers used a computerised driving simulator to perform the small scale study, the first to analyse the effects of using MP3 players while driving. All 12 participants left their lanes, increased their speeds, and followed other cars too closely when scrolling through the iPod looking for media.

Knowing how distracting cell phones can be, it may not be surprising that using an iPod while driving can also be distracting. More surprising is the size of the effect, said researcher Dario Salvucci, pointing out that scrolling for songs on an iPod proved twice as dangerous as dialing a cell phone.

Articles like this are of particular interest here, as computer/laptop use presents the same (and more) distraction potential than mp3 players, and use of these devices is set to increase.

Read the article here:  http://www.mobiledia.com/news/123163.html

Continue reading »]]> U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Announces
Lowest Level Of Annual Traffic Fatalities In More Than Six Decades
Updated 2010 FARS data includes new measure of ‘distraction-affected’ fatalities;
national attitude survey offers additional insight into problem of distracted driving

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced updated 2010 fatality and injury data showing that highway deaths fell to 32,885 for the year, the lowest level since 1949. The record-breaking decline in traffic fatalities occurred even as American drivers traveled nearly 46 billion more miles during the year, an increase of 1.6 percent over the 2009 level.

“While we have more work to do to continue to protect American motorists, these numbers show we’re making historic progress when it comes to improving safety on our nation’s roadways,” said Secretary LaHood. “Thanks to the tireless work of our safety agencies and partner organizations over the past few decades, to save lives and reduce injuries, we’re saving lives, reducing injuries, and building the foundation for what we hope will be even greater success in the future.”

The updated information released by the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today indicates 2010 also saw the lowest fatality rate ever recorded, with 1.10 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2010, down from 1.15 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2009. Other key statistics include:

• Fatalities declined in most categories in 2010, including for occupants of passenger cars and light trucks (including SUVs, minivans and pickups).
• Deaths in crashes involving drunk drivers dropped 4.9 percent in 2010, taking 10,228 lives compared to 10,759 in 2009.
• Fatalities rose among pedestrians, motorcycle riders, and large truck occupants.

New Measure of Fatalities Related to Distracted Driving

NHTSA also unveiled a new measure of fatalities related to distracted driving today, called “distraction-affected crashes.” Introduced for 2010 as part of a broader effort by the agency to refine its data collection to get better information about the role of distraction in crashes, the new measure is designed to focus more narrowly on crashes in which a driver was most likely to have been distracted. While NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) previously recorded a broad range of potential distractions, such as careless driving and cell phone present in the vehicle, the new measure focuses on distractions that are most likely to affect crash involvement, such as distraction by dialing a cellular phone or texting and distraction by an outside person/event. New data released today by NHTSA using its refined methodology show an estimated 3,092 fatalities in distraction-affected crashes in 2010.

The NHTSA effort to refine distraction data is similar to a step taken with alcohol information in FARS data for 2006. Prior to 2006, FARS reported “alcohol-related crashes,” which was defined as crashes in which a driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist had a blood alcohol level of .01 or higher. In an effort to focus on crashes in which alcohol was most likely to be a causative factor, NHTSA introduced the new measure, “alcohol-impaired driving crashes,” with a more narrow definition including only those crashes in which a driver or motorcycle rider had a blood alcohol level of .08 or above, the legal limit in every state.

“Even as we celebrate the incredible gains we’re making in reducing traffic fatalities, we recognize our responsibility to improve our understanding of the dangers that continue to threaten drivers and passengers,” said NHTSA Administrator David Strickland. “That’s why, under the leadership of Secretary LaHood, NHTSA is working to refine the way we collect data on distracted driving and laying the groundwork for additional research to capture real-world information on this risky behavior.”

While the explicit change in methodology means the new measure cannot be compared to the 5,474 “distraction-related” fatalities reported in 2009, other NHTSA data offer some indication that driver distraction continues to be a significant problem. The agency’s nationwide observational survey of drivers in traffic remains unchanged between 2009 and 2010, with 5 percent of drivers seen talking on handheld phones. In addition, given ongoing challenges in capturing the scope of the problem—including individuals’ reluctance to admit behavior, lack of witnesses, and in some cases the death of the driver—NHTSA believes the actual number of crashes that involve distracted driving could be higher.

National Attitude Survey on Distracted Driving

A new national NHTSA survey offers additional insights into how drivers behave when it comes to texting and cell phone use while behind the wheel and their perceptions of the safety risks of distracted driving. Survey respondents indicated they answer calls on most trips; they acknowledge few driving situations when they would not use the phone or text; and yet they feel unsafe when riding in vehicles in which the driver is texting and they support bans on texting and cell phone use. These findings provide further evidence that distracted driving is a complex problem that is both hard to measure and difficult to address given conflicting public attitudes and behaviors.

“The findings from our new attitude survey help us understand why some people continue to make bad decisions about driving distracted—but what’s clear from all of the information we have is that driver distraction continues to be a major problem,” said Administrator Strickland. “We need to maintain our focus on this issue through education, laws, enforcement, and vehicle design to help keep drivers’ attention on the road.”

Among the findings, more than three-quarters of drivers report that they are willing to answer calls on all, most, or some trips. Drivers also report that they rarely consider traffic situations when deciding when to use their phone.

While most drivers said they are willing to answer a call and many will send a text while driving, almost all of these same drivers reported that they would feel very unsafe as a passenger if their driver was sending or receiving text messages. Over one-third report that they would feel very unsafe if their driver was using a handheld phone.

Continuing Data Refinement

NHTSA’s adoption of the new “distraction-affected crash” measure for the 2010 FARS data is one step in a continuing effort to focus in on driver distraction and separate it from other issues. As part of its commitment to reduce the problem of distracted driving, NHTSA will continue to look for improved data sources. While police reports of serious crashes are an important source, they are limited by the evidence available to the officer. As a result, the agency is working to optimize information from crash reports by improving reporting forms and officer training. In addition, NHTSA will analyze new data on driver distraction from a new naturalistic study in which about 2,000 cars will be fitted with cameras and other equipment that will record driver behavior over a period of two years. Researchers will be able to use these data to associate driver behaviors with crash involvement. Data from this study will be available in 2014.

Source: http://distraction.gov/content/press-release/2011/12-8.html

Additional Material:

• http://distraction.gov/download/research-pdf/811552.pdf
• http://distraction.gov/download/research-pdf/8397_TSF-TT_DistractedDrivingSurvey_120711_v4_tag.pdf

Continue reading »]]> Following on from our last article regarding the NTSB’s call to ban all electronic devices for drivers, the New York Times reports a distinct change in the way authorities see the whole issue of driver distraction.

Deborah Hersman, chair of the NTSB, talked about the “Addiction” of Distracted Driving and compared it to smoking.

This shift in approach is in-line with a growing feeling among scientists and researchers that the use of phones and computers can be compulsive, both emotionally and physically, which helps explain why drivers may have trouble turning off their devices even if they want to.

Developments like this emphasise the requirement for technology based solutions which need to be used in conjunction with legislation and education.

Read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/us/reframing-the-debate-over-using-phones-while-driving.html?_r=1

Find out more today at Blank-IT - or contact us on 08 9486 7122 (if calling from outside Australia: +61 8 9486 7122).

Continue reading »]]> In it’s report into a fatal accident that occurred in Missouri in 2010, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has published recommendations including banning use of electronic devices by drivers.

This recommendation goes a lot further than existing legislation, and shows recognition of the dangers posed by electronic devices other than cell phones.

To quote:

To the 50 states and the District of Columbia:

1.(1) Ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers; (2) use the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration model of high visibility enforcement to support these bans; and (3) implement targeted communication campaigns to inform motorists of the new law and enforcement, and to warn them of the dangers associated with the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices while driving. (H-11-XX)

Read the full report here: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.html

The introduction of legislation like this would have a significant impact on employers that have a mobile workforce (i.e. any employees that use laptops or similar devices in their vehicles).

Continue reading »]]> An update on recent articles related to Distracted Driving:

In this update we feature two articles addressing different aspects of Distracted Driving, and the fallout from a deadly  texting related crash in the U.S.:

• research showing just how many people admit to driving while distracted, and some of the major causes of distraction;
• news that Renault are introducing in-dash tablet PCs in some of their vehicles – another example of manufacturers saying one thing but doing another

Most U.S. Drivers admit to Driving while Distracted

An article on the HealthDay website reveals that most drivers in the United States admit to engaging in distracting behaviours while driving. The findings come from a poll, run by Harris Interactive & HealthDay, that covered over 2,000 drivers, most of whom admitted to driving while distracted.

The article breaks the figures down by various causes of distraction/behaviour and makes interesting reading. Of particular interest to us was the finding that 20% of respondents admitted to driving while either surfing the web and/or watching videos.

You can see a summary of the poll results here: http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=659288

Car Manufacturers and Distracting Technology

One of our recent news updates, featured an article from the Injury board website – “Connected Cars: Innovations or Distractions“,  looking at the apparent never-ending desire of vehicle manufacturers to load more and more “connected” technology into their cars.

Hot on the heels of this comes a report in the Sydney Morning Herald that Renault are going to offer in-dash Tablet PCs as an optional extra in some of their vehicles. The “R-Link” tablet  will have an 18cm touch-screen and apparently will feature access to Renault’s own “app store” – boasting passenger and driver access to the screen.

While manufacturers are making the right noises about combating driver distraction, they continue to load their vehicles with more distracting technology – effectively leaving it up to the drivers ‘personal responsibility’. Volkswagen are introducing a similar device.

While we can see that there is a need for some drivers to have access to in-car computers and displays, such access needs to be controlled – it has to be, to conform with legislation and OH&S guidelines – and reliance on the driver’s own judgement is not good enough – this is why Blank-IT was developed.

Read the SMH article here: http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/renault-to-offer-incar-tablet-pc-20111207-1oioo.html

Teen Driver’s 11 texts in 11 minutes

Another SMH article reports findings that a driver involved in a fatal crash in Missouri had sent or received 11 text messages in the 11 minutes prior to the accident. The article discusses the incident and discusses the implications in relation to distracted driving legislation.

Read the article here: http://www.smh.com.au/world/deadly-pileup-teen-drivers-11-texts-in-11-minutes-20111213-1ot2r.html

Continue reading »]]> There’s a common feeling among drivers that laws relating to Distracted Driving won’t apply if their vehicle is stationary – stopped at a red-light , for example. The thinking seems to be “the car isn’t moving, therefore I’m not driving, so it’s safe to use my cellphone/work on the laptop etc”.

A recent case reported in the New York Times “Sunday Review” shows why the law (in California at least) disagrees with this point of view.

A driver cited for cellphone use whilst stopped at a red-light in California, insisted  that there was a red-light exemption and that he should not have been cited. Traffic commissioners disagreed and fined him. A superior court judge rejected his appeal, as did the Court of Appeal of the State of California, who ruled:

• there is no red-light exemption
• “driving” includes stopping

i.e. operating a vehicle includes those times when the vehicle is stationary.

This seems like common sense, and while this ruling only applies specifically to California, it is likely that similar reasoning would prevail in other states that have such laws.

Read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-case-of-the-distracted-driver.html

Blank-IT has been designed to accommodate such scenarios, to help drivers avoid falling foul of this kind of legislation.

Blank-IT can be configured to keep a computer/laptop screen blanked out, even if the vehicle comes to a temporary stop (in congestion, at traffic lights or if pulled over by a law-enforcement officer, for example). Requiring a specific manual override in order to unlock the display, this will ensure that your in-vehicle displays conform to laws governing use of computers.