Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Driver Distraction in Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes: Statistics and Trends, Slides of Statistics

Statistics and trends on driver distraction in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States from 2005 to 2009. It includes information on fatal crashes, injuries, and crashes of all severities, as well as the percentage of total crashes involving distraction. The document also discusses the attributes of driver distraction as recorded in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) databases.

What you will learn

  • Which age group had the greatest proportion of distracted drivers in fatal crashes?
  • What percentage of total motor vehicle traffic crashes involved distraction from 2005 to 2009?
  • What were the most common attributes of driver distraction as recorded in NHTSA databases?

Typology: Slides

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/27/2022

hayley
hayley 🇺🇸

4

(7)

224 documents

1 / 8

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
1
NHTSA’s National Cent er for St atist ics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
Highlights
In 2009, 5,474 people were killed on U.S. roadways and
an estimated additional 448,000 were injured in motor
vehicle crashes that were reported to have involved dis-
tracted driving (FARS and GES).
Of those people killed in distracted-driving-related
crashes, 995 involved reports of a cell phone as a distrac-
tion (18% of fatalities in distraction-related crashes).
Of those injured in distracted-driving-related crashes,
24,000 involved reports of a cell phone as a distraction
(5% of injured people in distraction-related crashes).
Sixteen percent of fatal crashes in 2009 involved reports
of distracted driving.
Twenty percent of injury crashes in 2009 involved reports
of distracted driving.
The age group with the greatest proportion of distracted
drivers was the under-20 age group – 16 percent of all
drivers younger than 20 involved in fatal crashes were
reported to have been distracted while driving.
Of those drivers involved in fatal crashes who were
reportedly distracted, the 30- to 39-year-olds had the
highest proportion of cell phone involvement.
Methodology
The data sources include NHTSAs Fatality Analysis Report-
ing System (FARS) and National Automotive Sampling Sys-
tem (NASS) General Estimates System (GES). FARS annu-
ally collects fatal crash data from all 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and is a census of all fatal
crashes that occur on the Nation’s roadways. NASS GES con-
tains data from a nationally representative sample of police-
reported crashes of all severities, includ ing those that result
in death, injury, or property damage. Data presented from
NASS GES are estimates and are used to describe police-
reported crashes that occur on the Nation’s roadways. The
national estimates produced from GES data are based on a
probability sample of crashes—not a census of all crashes—
and hence are subject to sampling errors.
As defined in the Overview of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration’s Driver Distraction Program (DOT HS
811 299), “distraction” is a specific type of inattention that
occurs when drivers divert their attention from the driv-
ing task to focus on some other activity instead. It is worth
noting that distraction is a subset of inattention (which also
includes fatigue, physical conditions of the driver, and emo-
tional conditions of the driver).
There has been a revision in NHTSAs classification of dis-
tracted driving since the September 2009 Research Note,
An Examination of Driver Distraction as Recorded in NHTSA
Databases (DOT HS 811 216). With this change, there will be
fewer crashes, fatalities and injuries that reportedly involve
driver distraction than would have been reported with the
previous definition. For a full explanation of the change and
the corresponding coding changes within NHTSA databas-
es, please see Appendix A.
There are inherent limitations in the data for distracted-
driving-related crashes and the resulting injuries and fatali-
ties. These limitations are being addressed through efforts
in and out of NHTSA as detailed in the Overview of NHTSAs
Driver Distraction Program. Appendix B describes limitations
in the distracted-driving data. Appendix C discusses the
specific coding for distracted driving data from the National
Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS).
Presentation of Data
Fatalities in Crashes With Driver Distraction
In 2009, there were 30,797 fatal crashes in the United States,
which involved 45,230 drivers. In those crashes, 33,808
people were killed. Distraction was reported for 11 percent
(5,084) of the drivers involved in fatal crashes. In these crash-
es reported to have involved some form of distraction, 5,474
DOT HS 811 379 September 2010
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS
Research Note
Distracted Driving 2009
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8

Partial preview of the text

Download Driver Distraction in Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes: Statistics and Trends and more Slides Statistics in PDF only on Docsity!

Highlights „ „ In 2009, 5,474 people were killed on U.S. roadways and

an estimated additional 448,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes that were reported to have involved dis tracted driving (FARS and GES). -

„ „ Of crashes, 995 involved reports of a cell phone as a distrac tion (18% of fatalities in distraction-related crashes). those people killed in distracted-driving-related-

„ „ Of those injured in distracted-driving-related crashes, 24,000 involved reports of a cell phone as a distraction (5% of injured people in distraction-related crashes).

„ „ Sixteen percent of fatal crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving.

„ „ Twenty percent of injury crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving.

„ „ The age group with the greatest proportion of distracted drivers was the under-20 age group – 16 percent of all drivers younger than 20 involved in fatal crashes were

„ „ reported to have been distracted while driving.Of those drivers involved in fatal crashes who were

reportedly distracted, the 30- to 39-year-olds had the highest proportion of cell phone involvement.

Methodology The data sources include NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Report-

ing System (FARS) and National Automotive Sampling Sys tem (NASS) General Estimates System (GES). FARS annu ally collects fatal crash data from all 50 States, the District--

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and is a census of all fatal crashes that occur on the Nation’s roadways. NASS GES con tains data from a nationally representative sample of police--

reported crashes of all severities, includ in death, injury, or property damage. Data presented from NASS GES are estimates and are used to describe police-ing those that result

reported crashes that occur on the Nation’s roadways. The national estimates produced from GES data are based on a probability sample of crashes—not a census of all crashes—

and hence are subject to sampling errors. As defined in the Overview of the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration’s Driver Distraction Program 811 299), “distraction” is a specific type of inattention that occurs when drivers divert their attention from the driv (DOT HS-

ing task to focus on some other activity instead. It is worth noting that includes fatigue, physical conditions of the driver, and emo distraction is a subset of inattention (which also-

tional conditions of the driver). There has been a revision in NHTSA’s classification of dis-

tracted driving An Examination of Driver Distraction as Recorded Databases (DOT HS 811 216). With this change, there will be since the September 2009 Research Note, in NHTSA

fewer crashes, fatalities and injuries that reportedly involve driver distraction than would have been reported with the previous definition. For a full explanation of the change and

the corresponding coding changes within NHTSA databas es, please see Appendix A. -

There are inherent limitations in the data for distracted- driving-related crashes and the resulting injuries and fatali ties. These limitations are being addressed through efforts-

in and out of NHTSA as detailed in the Driver Distraction Program in the distracted-driving data. Appendix C discusses the. Appendix B describes limitations Overview of NHTSA’s

specific coding for distracted driving data from the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS).

Presentation of Data Fatalities in Crashes With Driver Distraction

In 2009, there were 30,797 fatal crashes in the United States, which involved 45,230 drivers. In those crashes, 33,808 people were killed. Distraction was reported for 11 percent

(5,084) of the drivers involved in fatal crashes. In these crash es reported to have involved some form of distraction, 5,474-

DOT HS 811 379 September 2010

T Research NoteRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS

Distracted Driving 2009

2 fatalities (16% of overall fatalities) occurred. Table 1 provides

information about fatal crashes with reported distraction from 2005 through 2009.

The proportion of fatalities reportedly associated with driv er distraction increased from 10 percent in 2005 to 16 percent in 2009. During that time, fatal crashes with reported driver-

distraction also increased from 10 percent to 16 percent. As reported for 2009, 4,898 fatal crashes occurred that

involved distraction, which includes single-vehicle crashes and multivehicle crashes. For single-vehicle crashes, the driver was reported as distracted and thus the crash was

reported as a distracted-driving crash. However, in multi vehicle crashes, the crash was reported as a distracted-driv ing crash if at least one driver was reported as distracted.--

In some of these multivehicle crashes, multiple drivers were reported as distracted. In 2009, 5,084 drivers were reported as distracted in the 4,898 fatal crashes involving distraction.

The portion of drivers reportedly distracted at the time of the fatal crashes increased from 7 percent in 2005 to 11 per cent in 2009. -

In 2009, 867 fatal crashes were reported to have involved cell phones as distraction (18% of all fatal distracted-driving crashes). For these crashes, the police reported that the cell

phone was either in use at the time of the crash or was in the presence of the driver at the time of the crash. Cell phones were reported as distraction for 20 percent of the distracted

drivers in fatal crashes. A total of 995 people died in fatal crashes that involved reports of a cell phone as a distraction.

Most of the distracted-driving-related fatalities (84%) were associated with the vehicle in a careless or inattentive manner (could include general classification of operating the

cell phones [for States without cell phone identification on the reporting form], eating, talking to passenger, looking outside, etc.). It should be noted that the distracted-driving-

related crashes and fatalities may be associated with mul tiple categories of distraction. For instance, some of the fatalities may be associated with both cell phone use and-

operating a vehicle in a careless or inattentive manner. Spe cifically related to cell phone involvement, the specific activ ity with the cell phone (talking, dialing, texting, etc.) is not--

known.

Table 1 Fatal Crashes, Drivers in Fatal Crashes, and Fatalities in Crashes, by Year Year 2005 Crashes 39,252 DriversOverall 59,220^ Fatalities 43,510 Crashes 4,026 DistractionDrivers Fatalities (^2006) 38,648 57,846 42,708 (10%)5,245 (14%)^ 5,455^ 4,217^ (7%) (9%)^ (10%)^ 5,836 (14%)^ 4, (^20072008) 37,43534,172 56,01950,416 41,25937,423 5,329 (14%)5,307^ 5,552 (10%) (14%)^ 5, (^2009) 30,797 45,230 33,808 (16%)4,898 (16%)^ 5,477^ (11%)^ 5,084 (11%)^ 5,838^ (16%) (16%)^ 5,

Source: Table 2 describes 2009 fatal crash data by age of drivers NCSA, FARS 2005-2008 (Final), 2009 (ARF)

with reported distracted-driving behavior and the types of vehicles driven. The age group with the greatest proportion of distracted drivers in fatal crashes was the under-20 age

group – 16 percent of all under-20 drivers in fatal crashes were reported to have been distracted while driving. The age group with the next greatest proportion was 20- to

29-year-old drivers – 13 percent of all 20- to 29-year-old driv ers in fatal crashes were reported to have been distracted. Light-truck drivers and motorcyclists had the greatest per--

centage of total drivers reported as distracted at the time of the fatal crashes (12% each). Bus drivers had the smallest percentage (6%) of total drivers involved in fatal crashes that

were reported as distraction-related. Of those drivers reportedly distracted during a fatal crash,

the 30- to 39-year-old drivers were the group with the great est proportion distracted by cell phones. Cell phone distrac tion was reported for 24 percent of the 30- to 39-year-old--

distracted drivers in fatal crashes. As for the under-20 age group drivers involved in fatal crashes, cell phone distrac tion was reported for 22 percent of the distracted drivers. -

4 Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of the percent-

age of distracted driving crashes for a particular severity from 2005 through 2009. This graph illustrates any fluctua tion during the five-year period. From 2005 to 2009 the per--

centage of fatal crashes involving distraction increased. The percentage of injury crashes dropped some initially, but has since increased again. Property-damage-only crashes had a

high year in 2005, but have remained stable in the four sub sequent years. -

Figure 1 Crashes Involving Driver Distraction by Crash Severity

Percenteage of Creashe Involving

Driver Distraction (^0) Year

TotalPDOInjury

Fatal

References Ascone, D., Lindsey, T., & Varghese, C. (2009, September).

An Examination of Driver Distraction as Recorded in NHT SA Databases. DOT HS 811 216. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at http://-

www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811216.pdf NHTSA. (2008, July). National Motor Vehicle Crash Causa. -

tion Survey: Report to Congress. DOT HS 811 059. Washing ton, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.-

PDF NHTSA. (2010, April). Overview of the National Highway.

Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver Distraction Program. DOT HS 811 299. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at http://www.distraction.

gov/files/dot/6835_DriverDistractionPlan_4-14_v6_tag.pdf.

Appendix A Using this definition of distraction, FARS and GES were

accessed to retrieve crashes that indicated driver distraction. For FARS data detailing fatal crashes, driver distraction was captured as a driver-related factor. Table A shows the attri-

butes (specific activities) that NHTSA includes as distracted driving in the FARS data.

Table A Attributes for Driver-Related Factor in the FARS Database Attribute Examples Operating the Vehicle in Careless or Inattentive Manner Includes use of car/cell phones, text messaging, fax, GPS/head- up display systems, DVD player, etc.; driver distracted by children; driver lighting cigarette; operat ing or adjusting radio and other- accessories; reading, talking, daydreaming, eating, looking for an address, crash in next lane, au- tomated highway sign, approach ing emergency vehicle, using electric razor, applying cosmetics,- Cellular Telephone Present in Vehicle^ painting nails, etc. Includes hand-held and hands- free cellular telephones. 1991- 2001: Includes the use of or presence of a phone. 2001 and later: Includes only presence in Cellular Phone in Use in Vehicles vehicleIncludes hand-held and hands- free cellular telephone Computer/Fax Machines/Printers Onboard Navigation System Laptop/notebook computers; PDAs; fax machines Two-Way Radio Head-up Display

The GES database contains a specific variable, “Driver Dis tracted By,” which contains attributes that NHTSA includes for determining the number of non-fatal crashes involving-

reports of distracted driving. Table B shows the attributes (specific activities) that NHTSA includes as distracted driv ing for GES data. -

Table B Attributes for Driver Distracted By in the GES Database Attribute Examples By other occupant By moving object in vehicle While talking or listening to cellular phone Distracted by occupant in driver’s vehicle; includes conversing with or looking at other occupantDistracted by moving object in driver’s vehicle; includes dropped object, moving pet, insect, cargo.Talking or listening on cellular phone While dialing cellular phone Other cellular phone-related (2007 and later) Dialing or text messaging on cell phone or any wireless email deviceUsed when the police report indicated the driver is distracted from the driving task due to cellular phone involvement, but none of the specified codes are applicable (reaching for cellular phone, While adjusting climate controls etc.). This code is also applied when specific details regarding cellular phone distraction / usage^ are not provided.Adjusting air conditioner or heater While adjusting radio, cassette or CD While using other devices/controls integral to vehicle Adjusting radio, cassette, or CD in vehicleAdjusting windows, door locks, rear view manual, seat, steering wheel, adjusting seat belts, etc. While using or reaching for device/object brought into vehicle Distracted by outside person, object, or event Radar detector, CDs, razors, portable CD player, headphones, cigarette lighter, etc.Animals on roadside or previous crash. Do not use when driver has recognized object/event and Eating or drinking Smoking-related driver has taken evasive actionEating or drinking or actively related to these actionsSmoking or involved in activity related to smoking Distraction/inattention, details unknown Inattentive or lost in thought Other distraction Distraction and/or inattention are noted on the PAR but the specifics are unknownDriver is thinking about items other than the driving task (e.g., daydreaming)Details regarding the driver’s distraction are known but none of the specified codes are applicable

Please note that in the Research Note titled 811 216), released in September 2009, the list of attributes/activities included as distracted driving was more inclusive than Tables A and B. After further discussion across NHTSA since the release of the previous Research Note, one attribute was An Examination of Driver Distraction as Recorded in NHTSA Databases (DOT HS

removed from the list in FARS and one attribute was removed from the list in GES. In the FARS database, NHTSA will no longer include “emotional (depression, angry, disturbed)” as a driver-distraction. In the GES database, NHTSA will no lon ger include “looked, but did not see” as a driver-distraction. Table C shows the number of distracted-driving-related fatal-

crashes, distracted drivers in fatal crashes, and fatalities in distracted-driving crashes using this revised, current definition as well as the same categories of data had NHTSA not revised the definition.

Table C Comparison of Fatal Crash Data for Current and Previous Definitions for Distraction Year 2005 Distracted-Driving Crashes 4,026 Distracted-Driving^ Current Definition Drivers 4,217^ Distracted-Driving Fatalities 4,472 Distracted-Driving Crashes 4,117 Previous Definition Distracted-Driving Drivers 4,309 Distracted-Driving Fatalities 4, 200620072008 5,2455,3295,307 5,4555,5525,477 5,8365,9175,838 5,3235,3985,372 5,5365,6235,542 5,9175,9885, Source:^2009 NCSA , FARS 2005-2008 (Final), 2009 (ARF)^ 4,898^ 5,084^ 5,474^ 4,963^ 5,150^ 5,

Also to be taken into consideration is the speed at which technologies are changing and the difficulty in updating the PAR to accommodate these changes. Without broad, sweep-

ing changes to the PAR to incorporate new technologies and features of technologies, it is difficult to capture the data that involves interaction with these devices.

In the reporting of distracted-driving-related crashes, often times external distractions are identified as a distinct type of distraction. Some of the scenarios captured under exter--

nal distractions might actually be related to the task of driv ing (e.g. looking at a street sign). However, the crash reports may not differentiate these driving-related tasks from other-

external distractions (looking at previous crash or billboard). Currently, the category of external distractions is included in the counts of distracted-driving-related crashes.

Appendix C The National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey

(NMVCCS) was conducted over a 3-year period and data was collected on about 6,500 crashes to assess the critical reason underlying the critical pre-crash event in the crash

and also determine other factors associated with the linear causal chain of the crash.

Data regarding distracted driving from NMVCCS was pre sented in the September 2009 Research Note, tion of Driver Distraction as Recorded in NHTSA Databases An Examina - - ,

DOT HS 811 216 (Ascone, Lindsey, & Varghese, 2009). Table F details the specific variables and attributes for iden-

tifying distracted driving in the NMVCCS database.

(^8) Table F NMVCCS Data Critical Reason Examples Internal distraction^ Reserved for crashes in which the driver fails to recognize a situation requiring a response because his/her atten^ tion is directed to some event, object, person, or activity inside the vehicle. Relevant examples include tuning the radio, adjusting the heat/cooling system, engaging in a conversation with a passenger, using a cell phone, retriev ing fallen objects, reading books/magazines/maps/invoices, etc. -- External distraction^ Crashes in which the driver fails to recognize a situation requiring a response because his/her attention is^ directed to some event, object, person, or activity outside the vehicle. Relevant examples include searching for a street address, construction activity, looking at a building or scenery, looking at a sign, looking at a previous crash site, etc. Distractions are distinguished from inattention in that distractions induce the driver to focus at tention on the distraction. - Inattention^ Used when the driver fails to recognize a situation that demands a response because his/her attention has wan^ dered from the driv on internal thoughts (i.e., daydreaming, problem-solving, worry attention on the driving task.ing task for some non-compelling reason. In this ciring about family problem, etc.) and not focusingcumstance, the driver is typically focusing- Looking at other occupants Driver distracted from the driving task by looking at the movement or actions of other occupants in the vehicle^ NMVCCS Data:^ Associated Factors: Interior Non-Driving Activity Dialing/hanging up phone Adjusting radio/CD Driver distracted from the driving task as a result of dialing or hanging up a phone, adjusting phone controls, or attempting to retrieve voicemail messages during the pre-crash phase.Driver distracted from the driving task as a result of attempting to adjust the sound system controls Adjusting other vehicle controls Retrieving object from floor Driver distracted as a result of adjusting heat, vent, air conditioning and other OEM or aftermarket controlsDriver distracted as a result of attempting to retrieve an object from the floor/seat. Does not relate to smoking/ eating. Retrieving object from other location Eating or drinking Driver distracted as a result of attempting to retrieve an object from other than the floor/seat. Does not include eating/smokingDriver distracted as a result of activities related to eating or drinking Smoking Reading Map/directions/news paper - Driver distracted by activities related to smokingDriver distracted as a result of looking at a map, reading directions or a newspaper or some other material Focused on other object Text messaging Driver distracted as a result of focusing on other object in vehicleDriver distracted as a result of sending text messages NMVCCS Data: Associated Factors: Conversing With passenger On phone On CB radio Driver is conversing with at least one other passenger in the vehicle during pre-crash phaseDriver is conversing on a phone (including hands free phones) during pre-crash phaseDriver is conversing on a CB radio during pre-crash phase Other Looking at previous crash Driver is engaged in conversation, but either medium or context is not describedDriver removes focus from driving task to look at previous crash NMVCCS Data: Associated Factors: Exterior Non-Driving Activity Looking at other traffic Looking for address Looking at outside person Driver removes focus from driving task to look at other trafficDriver removes focus from driving task to look for a street addressDriver removes focus from driving task to look at outside person Looking at building Unspecified outside focus Looking at animal Driver removes focus from driving task to look at a buildingDriver removes focus from driving task to look outsideDriver removes focus from driving task to look at an animal Personal problem Family problem^ NMVCCS Data: Used when the driver is thinking about a personal problem (work related, office related)Used when the driver is thinking about a family problem (within family or between family/non-family)^ Associated Factors: Inattentive Driver Behavior (Thinking About) Financial problem Preceding argument Future event Used when the driver is thinking about a personal financial problemDriver is thinking about a preceding argument (may have occurred more than 12 hours prior to crash)Driver is thinking about a future event that has a pleasant connection Inattentive (thought focus unknown) Other Inattentive driver but nature of thoughts cannot be determinedDriver is thinking about topic area not described in preceding elements.