This article was downloaded by: [Syracuse University Library] On: 04 June 2014, At: 13:49 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Traffic Injury Prevention Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcpi20
Phone Use While Driving: Results From an Observational Survey a
L. N. Wundersitz a
Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Accepted author version posted online: 20 Sep 2013.Published online: 27 May 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: L. N. Wundersitz (2014) Phone Use While Driving: Results From an Observational Survey, Traffic Injury Prevention, 15:6, 537-541, DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2013.843075 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2013.843075
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Traffic Injury Prevention (2014) 15, 537–541 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 1538-9588 print / 1538-957X online DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2013.843075
Phone Use While Driving: Results From an Observational Survey L. N. WUNDERSITZ Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 13:49 04 June 2014
Received 13 June 2013, Accepted 7 September 2013
Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantify the level of handheld phone use when driving in South Australia. The study also sought to investigate any driver, site, and vehicle characteristics associated with handheld phone use to inform countermeasure development and publicity campaigns. Method: An on-road observational survey of handheld phone use was undertaken as part of a larger restraint use survey. The survey was conducted at 61 sites in metropolitan Adelaide and rural regions within South Australia on weekdays and a weekend in 2009. Results: A total of 64 (0.6%) of the 11,524 drivers observed during the survey were using handheld phones. Handheld phone usage rates ranged from 0.8 percent in metropolitan Adelaide to 0.3 percent in the rural region of The Riverland. Of all driver, site, and vehicle characteristics examined, the only statistically significant difference in handheld phone usage was for the number of vehicle occupants. The odds of a driver using a handheld phone while traveling alone was over 4 times higher than for a driver traveling with passengers. Conclusions: The level of handheld phone use among drivers in South Australia appears to be low relative to other jurisdictions. The level of enforcement activity and severity of penalties do not offer a clear explanation for the higher levels of compliance with phone laws. Given the rate of increase in phone technology, it is important to conduct regular roadside surveys of phone use among drivers to monitor trends in usage over time. Keywords: handheld phone, observational survey, driver distraction
Introduction The potential dangers associated with phone use while driving have been documented in the scientific literature. Laboratory and real driving performance studies have shown that phone use while driving can impair a number of factors critical for safe driving, including reaction time, visual perception and discrimination, gaze and eye movements, and vehicle control (e.g., Caird et al. 2008; Charlton 2009; Collet et al. 2010; Horrey and Wickens 2006; Ishigami and Klein 2009; McCartt et al. 2006). Such impairments in performance have been found for handheld and hands-free phones. Though determining the effects of phone use on crash risk has proven more difficult, studies suggest that drivers using phones have been associated with a 2- to 4-fold increase in crash risk, irrespective of the type of phone used (handheld or hands-free; Backer-Grondahl and Sagberg 2011; McEvoy et al. 2005). Self-report data suggest that the majority of drivers continue to use their phone while driving despite the potential
Managing Editor David Viano oversaw the review of this article. Address correspondence to L. N. Wundersitz, Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
risks associated with their use. A regular telephone-based community survey of Australian drivers in 2011 found that 59 percent reported using a phone while driving (Petroulias 2011). These findings are consistent with other studies using self-report data, over the same reporting timeframe, to investigate drivers’ phone usage in Australia (White et al. 2010; Young and Lenne 2010), the United States (Braitman and McCartt 2010), and Norway (Backer-Grondahl and Sagberg 2011). Though self-reported phone use when driving may offer some insight into this behavior, it is desirable to have a more objective measure. On-road observational studies provide a less biased means of determining handheld phone use by drivers relative to studies based on self-report data. A number of on-road observational studies suggest that the prevalence of phone use while driving in Australia is a significant issue. An early observational study by Horberry et al. (2001) reported that 1.5 percent of drivers in Perth used handheld phones. Several observational studies have been conducted in Victoria over the last decade where handheld phone use has been banned since 1988. In 2002, 2 percent of drivers on major Melbourne roads were observed using handheld phones (Taylor et al. 2003), and in 2006 handheld phone usage rates of 1.6 percent were observed (Taylor et al. 2007). The most recent observational survey, conducted in May 2009 at 3 high-traffic intersections in metropolitan Melbourne, found
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 13:49 04 June 2014
538 that 3.4 percent of drivers used handheld phones and a further 1.4 percent used hands-free phones (Young et al. 2010). Phone usage was more common among young and middleaged drivers, drivers of cars or 4-wheel-drives, and between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. A number of observational surveys undertaken in jurisdictions where handheld phone bans are in place have found varying rates of phone use in comparison to those observed in Australia. Legislation banning handheld phone use in New Zealand was introduced in 2009. Observational surveys conducted at 3 locations during rush hour traffic in Wellington in 2012 reported that 1.9 percent of drivers at traffic lights used handheld phones and 1.3 percent used handheld phones at sites 100 m away from traffic lights (Drury et al. 2012). A study from Birmingham in the United Kingdom observed 1.6 percent of drivers using handheld phones at 3 sites in 2005, 2 years after legislation was introduced prohibiting their use (Hussain et al. 2006). Several noteworthy observational studies have been undertaken in North America where an increasing number of jurisdictions have introduced laws banning driver’s phone use. Nasvadi (2010) examined the prevalence of handheld phone use while driving in the Canadian province of British Columbia before and after legislation prohibiting their use. In 2009, 4.4 percent of drivers were observed using handheld phones but 3 months following the new law in 2010, phone use decreased to 0.9 percent. As part of an evaluation of the long-term effects of phone bans while driving, 3 jurisdictions in the United States, Connecticut, New York, and the District of Columbia, reported observed handheld phone usage rates in 2009 of 2.1, 3.7, and 3.9–4.2 percent, respectively (McCartt et al. 2010). A recent statewide observational survey undertaken in California reported that 2.1 percent of drivers were observed with a handheld phone to their ear and an additional 0.6 percent were talking on a phone held in their hand (Cooper et al. 2012). Phone usage rates were higher for drivers with no passengers in the vehicle and for drivers without a child aged under 8 years in the vehicle. It is evident from the literature that levels of phone use while driving vary across jurisdictions, ranging from 0.9 to 4.2 percent. It is illegal for all drivers in Australia to use a handheld phone (including texting) while a vehicle is moving or is stationary but not parked. This law was first enacted in South Australia in 1999 (Australian Transport Council 1999). In South Australia, drivers may use a hands-free phone if it is secured in a mounted device affixed to the vehicle or remotely operated (i.e., Bluetooth earpieces, headsets) with the exception of drivers who hold a learner’s or provisional driver’s license. Given the serious implications for road safety and the rate of increase in phone technology, it is important to conduct regular roadside observational surveys to determine the level of phone use among drivers. The current study is the first comprehensive observational survey of handheld phone use while driving in South Australia, incorporating a large number of sites in both metropolitan Adelaide and rural regions. In addition to providing an indication of the current levels of handheld phone use, this study obtained information on the characteristics of users to assist in developing and monitoring the effectiveness of phone campaigns and enforcement.
Wundersitz Method The observational survey described in this article was originally designed to record restraint usage in South Australia as part of an ongoing series of observational restraint use surveys (see Wundersitz and Anderson 2009). Researchers used the opportunity to also examine handheld phone use by drivers. This included visibly holding a phone held to the ear or talking into a phone held in the hand, behaviors that are banned under phone laws in South Australia. Hands-free phone use and texting were not observed or recorded in the present study due to the more inconspicuous nature of these phone activities, the difficulty in making such observations given the short time frame to look into each vehicle, and the priority of observing restraint use. The observational survey was undertaken by the Centre for Automotive Safety Research over a 3-week period from March 16 to April 1, 2009, on weekdays and on a weekend. The survey was conducted in metropolitan Adelaide and 5 regional areas: Mount Gambier, the Riverland (Berri, Loxton, Renmark), Whyalla, Murray Bridge, and Clare. Note that the observational methods and observation sites used in this survey were consistent with previous restraint use surveys to allow comparisons with historical data. Locations and Timing Data on handheld phone use were collected by direct observation of trained staff working at 61 selected locations in metropolitan Adelaide and in rural centers (see Table 1). Observations conducted on weekends were undertaken at a selection of the sites used on weekdays in that region. The sites were originally selected to include all vehicles on major roads leaving or entering the city and towns in all directions and to capture a range of occupant types (e.g., local traffic, people traveling to and from work; see Wundersitz and Anderson 2009). In order to observe stationary or slowed traffic, only intersections controlled by traffic lights, stop signs, give-way signs, and large roundabouts were chosen. Generally, only vehicles in the kerb and median lanes were observed because the data required direct observation of the interior of the vehicle. Observations were conducted from a raised median or a footpath and not from a position on the road itself. Two observers spent approximately 1 h at each site. The majority of surveys were conducted on weekdays within 2 3-h periods: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. These times were originally chosen to include times of heavy traffic to minimize observation time and with the intention of including a wide range of road users. Observations on weekends were conducted from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., times when traffic volumes were highest. The observation days did not include school or public holidays. Procedure At observation sites located at traffic lights, the observer waited until vehicles were stationary at a red light. The first observer began with the second vehicle back from the lights and the second observer with the third. The first observer continued observing even-numbered vehicles in the queue and the
Phone Use While Driving
539
Table 1. Number of vehicle occupant observations and sites at each location in South Australia
Time
Location
Weekday
Metropolitan Adelaide Rural Whyalla Riverland Mount Gambier Murray Bridge Clare
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 13:49 04 June 2014
Weekend
No. of sites
Actual no. of vehicle occupant observations
12
2089
12 12 12 9 4
2546 2517 2827 2400 1791
7
1524
Metropolitan Adelaide Rural Murray Bridge
1196 a
Total aTotal
7 61
16,890
excludes sites revisited on weekends.
second observer with odd-numbered vehicles. A vehicle was not surveyed if it was more than 50 m from the lights when the lights changed to red. This was to ensure that the survey was not overrepresented by drivers who are cautious at traffic lights, in comparison to drivers who go through red and amber lights. Observers recorded details for each stationary vehicle in the line of traffic until traffic began to move off. At intersections controlled by stop signs, give-way signs, or roundabouts, details of vehicles that slowed were recorded. Vehicles in the lane closest to the observer were selected, usually the left kerbside lane, and an attempt was made to record all relevant details regardless of the difficulty of the observation. The survey was restricted to cars and car derivatives including any car, station wagon, 4-wheel drive, van, utility, or taxi used for private or commercial purposes. Wedding cars and limousines were excluded as well as service vehicles such as police cars, ambulances, and fire vehicles. Data Collected Vehicle details included the type of vehicle (taxi or not), any learner or provisional plates displayed, and the number of occupants. The number plate of each vehicle was also recorded to ensure that details for each vehicle were only recorded once during each observation session. (Exclusions were determined after data had been entered into a database.) Any driver observed using a handheld phone was recorded on the data sheet. In addition to phone usage, the following details were recorded for each occupant in a vehicle: seating position, gender (if adult), estimated age (if child), child restraint type (if child), and wearing of restraint. Observer Training and Pilot Testing Training sessions were held in which observers were trained rigorously in the observation protocols and data collection procedures. This was followed by a supervised on-site visit and test observations conducted at an intersection in metropolitan Adelaide. The observational procedures of observers were monitored and any problems with observations were
Table 2. Handheld phone use by location in South Australia Location
No. of drivers
No. using handheld phone
% Using handheld phone (95% CI)
Metropolitan Adelaide Rural Whyalla Riverland Mount Gambier Murray Bridge Clare
2533
19
0.8 (0.5–1.2)
1727 1748 2002 2296 1218
11 6 11 10 7
0.6 (0.4–1.1) 0.3 (0.2–0.8) 0.6 (0.3–1.0) 0.4 (0.2–0.8) 0.6 (0.3–1.2)
Total
11,524
64
0.6 (0.4–0.7)
addressed during the following debriefing session. The researchers also conducted pilot testing of data collection forms prior to the commencement of the actual observational survey. Though observer bias cannot be excluded, it is expected that the training session should have limited it.
Results Sixty-four (0.6%) of the 11,524 drivers observed during the survey were using handheld phones. Handheld phone usage rates by region, presented in Table 2, show that rates ranged from 0.8 percent in metropolitan Adelaide to 0.3 percent in the Riverland. The proportion of drivers using handheld phones as a function of driver, site, and vehicle characteristics is presented in Table 3. Of all of the characteristics examined, the only Table 3. Handheld phone use by driver, site, and vehicle characteristics Characteristic Driver sex Male Female Location Metropolitan Adelaide Rural Time of day 7:00 a.m.–10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m. Day of week Weekday Weekend Driver seatbelt use Worn Not worn Plates displayed Learner Provisional No plates Number of vehicle occupants∗∗ Single Multiple Type of vehicle Taxi Not a taxi ∗P
< .05. ∗∗ P < .01.
No. of drivers
No. using handheld phone
% Using handheld phone (95% CI)
6404 5120
41 23
0.6 (0.5–0.9) 0.5 (0.3–0.7)
2533 8991
19 45
0.8 (0.5–1.2) 0.5 (0.4–0.7)
4124 1586 5814
22 9 33
0.5 (0.4–0.8) 0.6 (0.3–1.1) 0.6 (0.4–0.8)
9938 1586
55 9
0.6 (0.4–0.7) 0.6 (0.3–1.1)
11,283 219
61 2
0.5 (0.4–0.7) 0.9 (0.3–3.3)
55 534 10,877
— 3 61
— 0.6 (0.2–1.6) 0.6 (0.4–0.7)
7644 3880
57 7
0.8 (0.6–1.0) 0.2 (0.1–0.4)
76 11,392
— 64
— 0.6 (0.4–0.7)
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 13:49 04 June 2014
540
Wundersitz
statistically significant difference in handheld phone usage was for the number of vehicle occupants. The odds of drivers using a handheld phone while traveling alone were over 4 times higher than for drivers traveling with passengers (odd ratio = 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9–9.1, P < .01). Though there were no other statistically significant differences for handheld phone use, there were some interesting trends. Handheld phone usage was higher in metropolitan Adelaide (0.8%) than in rural regions (0.5%). Drivers not wearing seat belts (0.9%) had higher phone usage rates than drivers wearing seat belts (0.5%); however, the number of observations was very small. Estimates of driver age were not made during the observations; however, plates displayed on the vehicle provided an indication of drivers who were more inexperienced and who may be younger. None of the learner drivers (minimum age of 16 years) were observed using a handheld phone and the phone usage rates for drivers displaying provisional license plates (minimum age of 16.5 years to 19 years) were similar to those not displaying any plates, suggesting that inexperienced drivers were no more likely to be using a phone than other drivers. No taxi drivers were observed using a handheld phone.
Discussion This study is the first to provide an indication of the extent of handheld phone use in South Australia using observational methodology. A total of 0.6 percent of drivers observed during the 2009 survey were using handheld phones. Though South Australia has legislation banning their use, the proportion of phone users is still lower than in other jurisdictions in Australia with similar phone laws. Phone usage rates based on observational surveys in Australia have ranged from 1.5 percent (Horberry et al. 2001) to 3.4 percent (Young et al. 2010). Indeed, the results from the present study can be compared to a similar roadside observational survey of handheld and hands-free phone use conducted in Melbourne during 2009 (Young et al. 2010). Observations were undertaken at intersections on similar days (weekdays and weekends) and at similar times (daylight hours from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.) as those in the South Australian study. Overall, the prevalence of handheld phone use was higher (3.4%) in the Victorian study. Though it might be argued that the higher rates in the Victorian study are attributable to observations being undertaken at a small number of sites (n = 3) in metropolitan Melbourne only (i.e. no regional sites), comparisons with rates from the 12 sites in
metropolitan Adelaide (0.75%) show that handheld phone use still appears to be higher in Melbourne (3.4%). The observed level of driver phone usage reported in this study is also lower than levels reported by surveys conducted during the same year in jurisdictions with handheld phone bans outside of Australia, where levels ranged from 0.9 percent in British Columbia, Canada (Nasvadi 2010), to 4.2 percent in the District of Columbia (McCartt et al. 2010). Though it may be the case that the prevalence of driver phone use in South Australia is lower than in other jurisdictions, it is also possible that the variation in levels of use may be due to differences in the level of enforcement of phone laws or differences in the severity of penalties between jurisdictions. In order to explore the potential influence of enforcement and penalties on phone use rates, the number of tickets issued per head of population (an indication of the level of enforcement) and penalties for contravening handheld phone laws are presented in Table 4 for South Australia and 2 comparable jurisdictions that also conducted observational phone use surveys during 2009 and for which citation data were available. In each of the jurisdictions, handheld phone use and texting were banned. The handheld phone ticket rates per head of population suggest that the level of enforcement activity in South Australia (0.6%) was lower than in Victoria (1.0%) and the U.S. state of Connecticut (0.8%). This finding suggests either the relatively high level of compliance with phone laws in South Australia was despite lower levels of enforcement activity or the low ticket rate reflects lower rates of driver handheld phone use. McCartt et al.’s (2010) study of the effects of handheld phone bans on drivers’ phone use in 3 U.S. states also explored the possibility that differences in enforcement might be responsible for differences in observed phone use rates. Similar to the findings from this study, a review of citation data did not explain the variation in driver phone use rates between the jurisdictions. It is conceivable that drivers in South Australia are generally more compliant with traffic laws than other jurisdictions, but this is very difficult to accurately quantify and beyond the scope of the present study. Penalties for handheld phone use in 2009 were generally more severe in Australian jurisdictions than in the U.S. state of Connecticut (see Table 4). Though South Australia initially had the highest fine for driver phone use, the fine in Victoria was increased to a comparable level the same month as the observational surveys were conducted. It is not known how widely the increase in the expiation fine was publicized. Consequently, penalties for phone use do not clearly explain the lower phone use rates observed for drivers in this study.
Table 4. Summary of handheld phone use rates, tickets, and penalties during 2009 in selected jurisdictions Observed using handheld phones (%)
Handheld phone tickets per head of population (%)
South Australia, Australia Connecticut, United States
0.6 2.1
0.6 0.8a
Victoria, Australia
3.4
1.0
Jurisdiction
aTicket
data to September 30, 2009 (Frisman 2010). Population data to July 2009.
Penalties for first offense AUD$209 (US$179) expiation fine, 3 demerit points Up to US$100 fine; fine suspended if driver proves acquired hands-free device before fine is imposed AUD$153 (US$130) expiation fine, 3 demerit points. Fine increased to AUD$227 (US$194) in May 2009
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 13:49 04 June 2014
Phone Use While Driving Drivers were over 4 times more likely to use a handheld phone while traveling alone than when traveling with passengers in the vehicle. These findings are consistent with Cooper et al. (2012), one of the few studies to examine this relationship. It is possible that without passengers to engage or socialize with in the vehicle, drivers use their phone to provide some entertainment or to organize social events. Additionally, solo drivers may decide to answer a phone call when they would usually let a passenger receive the call. Because the surveys were conducted during daylight hours and predominantly on weekdays, it is also possible that some drivers were traveling alone for work-related purposes and used their phone to conduct business. To assist in the development of countermeasures, further research should explore the reasons why drivers are more likely to use their phone when traveling by themselves. The results from the current handheld phone use survey represent phone use at only the times and places where surveys were undertaken (i.e., day time, town/city centers, intersections, heavier traffic, lower speed limit zones). The passenger vehicle traffic at these observation sites is unlikely to be a representative sample of all passenger vehicles in South Australia and may not capture those who might be more likely to use a handheld phone while driving (e.g., drivers in lighter traffic conditions, on open roads). For this reason, the phone usage rates obtained during the observational surveys are likely to be an underestimate of the true prevalence of phone use. One limitation of this study is that it only examined talking on handheld phones while driving. It is possible that some drivers were using the phone in their hands to text or use other functions of the phone, behaviors that are also illegal in South Australia. Consequently, the overall proportion of behavior contravening phone laws in South Australia was not captured in this survey. These behaviors were not examined in this study because they are difficult to observe and observing restraint use was the main priority. Given the increased uptake of smart phone technology, that is phones with increased functionality allowing access to e-mails, the Internet, and maps for directions, it is important to continue to monitor trends in phone use while driving over time. Future surveys might consider incorporating a wider range of behaviors such as texting.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions to data collection and data entry from Jen Herman, Jamie Mackenzie, Jeff Dutschke, Daniel Searson, Sam Doecke, Marleen Sommariva, Ben O’Donnell, Andrew Reade, Robyn Dickinson, Luis Colmenares, Charles Aust, and Brittny Roberts.
Funding This research was jointly funded by the South Australian Motor Accident Commission (MAC) and the South Australian Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI).
541 References Australian Transport Council. Australian Road Rules. Sydney: National Road Transport Commission; 1999. Backer-Grondahl A, Sagberg F. Driving and telephoning: relative accident risk when using hand-held and hands-free mobile phones. Saf Sci. 2011;49:324–330. Braitman KA, McCartt AT. National reported patterns of driver cell phone use in the United States. Traffic Inj Prev. 2010;11:543–548. Caird JK, Willness CR, Steel P, Scialfa C. A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance. Accid Anal Prev. 2008;40:1282–1293. Charlton SG. Driving while conversing: cell phones that distract and passengers who react. Accid Anal Prev. 2009;41:160–173. Collet C, Guillot A, Petit C. Phoning while driving I: a review of epidemiological, psychological, behavioural and physiological studies. Ergonomics. 2010;53:589–601. Cooper JF, Ragland DR, Ewald K, Wasserman L, Murphy CJ. Observational survey of cell phone use and texting by California drivers, 2011. Transp Res Rec. 2012;2321:7–14. Drury C, Abussaud Z, Allison G, et al. Mobile Phone Use While Driving After a New Law: Observational Study. Wellington, New Zealand: University of Otago; 2012. Frisman P. Cell Phone Bans and Tickets. Hartford, CT: Office of Legislative Research, Connecticut General Assembly; 2010. Horberry T, Bubnich C, Hartley L, Lamble D. Drivers’ use of hand-held mobile phones in Western Australia. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2001;4:213–218. Horrey WJ, Wickens CD. Examining the impact of cellphone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Hum Factors. 2006;48:196–205. Hussain K, Al-Shakarchi J, Mahmoudi A, Al-Mawlawi A, Marshall T. Mobile phones and driving: a follow-up. J Public Health. 2006;28:395–396. Ishigami Y, Klein RM. Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone? J Safety Res. 2009;40(2):157–164. McCartt AT, Hellinga LA, Braitman KA. Cell phones and driving: review of research. Traffic Inj Prev. 2006;7(2):89–106. McCartt AT, Hellinga LA, Strouse LM, Farmer CM. Long-term effects of handheld cell phone laws on driver handheld cell phone use. Traffic Inj Prev. 2010;11(2):133–141. McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, McCartt AT, et al. Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study. Br Med J. 2005;331:428–430. Nasvadi G. Comparison Study of the Prevalence of Cell Phone Use While Driving in the City of Victoria, British Columbia. Victoria, BC, Canada: Insurance Corporation of British Columbia; 2010. Petroulias T. Community Attitudes to Road Safety—2011 Survey Report. Canberra, Australia: Department of Infrastructure and Transport; 2011. Taylor DM, Bennett DM, Carter M, Garewal D. Mobile telephone use among Melbourne drivers: a preventable exposure to injury risk. Med J Aust. 2003;179(3):140–142. Taylor DM, MacBean CE, Das A, Mohd Rosli R. Handheld mobile telephone use among Melbourne drivers. Med J Aust. 2007;187:432–434. White KM, Hyde MK, Walsh SP, Watson B. Mobile phone use while driving: an investigation of the beliefs influencing drivers’ hands-free and hand-held mobile phone use. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2010;13:9–20. Wundersitz L, Anderson R. On-Road Observational Survey of Restraint and Child Restraint Use, 2009. Adelaide, Australia: Centre for Automotive Safety Research; 2009. Young K, Lenne M. Driver engagement in distracting activities and the strategies used to minimise risk. Saf Sci. 2010;48:326–332. Young K, Rudin-Brown C, Lenne M. Look who’s talking! A roadside survey of drivers’ cell phone use. Traffic Inj Prev. 2010;11:555–560.
Traffic Injury Prevention Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcpi20
Phone Use While Driving: Results From an Observational Survey a
L. N. Wundersitz a
Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Accepted author version posted online: 20 Sep 2013.Published online: 27 May 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: L. N. Wundersitz (2014) Phone Use While Driving: Results From an Observational Survey, Traffic Injury Prevention, 15:6, 537-541, DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2013.843075 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2013.843075
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Traffic Injury Prevention (2014) 15, 537–541 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 1538-9588 print / 1538-957X online DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2013.843075
Phone Use While Driving: Results From an Observational Survey L. N. WUNDERSITZ Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 13:49 04 June 2014
Received 13 June 2013, Accepted 7 September 2013
Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantify the level of handheld phone use when driving in South Australia. The study also sought to investigate any driver, site, and vehicle characteristics associated with handheld phone use to inform countermeasure development and publicity campaigns. Method: An on-road observational survey of handheld phone use was undertaken as part of a larger restraint use survey. The survey was conducted at 61 sites in metropolitan Adelaide and rural regions within South Australia on weekdays and a weekend in 2009. Results: A total of 64 (0.6%) of the 11,524 drivers observed during the survey were using handheld phones. Handheld phone usage rates ranged from 0.8 percent in metropolitan Adelaide to 0.3 percent in the rural region of The Riverland. Of all driver, site, and vehicle characteristics examined, the only statistically significant difference in handheld phone usage was for the number of vehicle occupants. The odds of a driver using a handheld phone while traveling alone was over 4 times higher than for a driver traveling with passengers. Conclusions: The level of handheld phone use among drivers in South Australia appears to be low relative to other jurisdictions. The level of enforcement activity and severity of penalties do not offer a clear explanation for the higher levels of compliance with phone laws. Given the rate of increase in phone technology, it is important to conduct regular roadside surveys of phone use among drivers to monitor trends in usage over time. Keywords: handheld phone, observational survey, driver distraction
Introduction The potential dangers associated with phone use while driving have been documented in the scientific literature. Laboratory and real driving performance studies have shown that phone use while driving can impair a number of factors critical for safe driving, including reaction time, visual perception and discrimination, gaze and eye movements, and vehicle control (e.g., Caird et al. 2008; Charlton 2009; Collet et al. 2010; Horrey and Wickens 2006; Ishigami and Klein 2009; McCartt et al. 2006). Such impairments in performance have been found for handheld and hands-free phones. Though determining the effects of phone use on crash risk has proven more difficult, studies suggest that drivers using phones have been associated with a 2- to 4-fold increase in crash risk, irrespective of the type of phone used (handheld or hands-free; Backer-Grondahl and Sagberg 2011; McEvoy et al. 2005). Self-report data suggest that the majority of drivers continue to use their phone while driving despite the potential
Managing Editor David Viano oversaw the review of this article. Address correspondence to L. N. Wundersitz, Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
risks associated with their use. A regular telephone-based community survey of Australian drivers in 2011 found that 59 percent reported using a phone while driving (Petroulias 2011). These findings are consistent with other studies using self-report data, over the same reporting timeframe, to investigate drivers’ phone usage in Australia (White et al. 2010; Young and Lenne 2010), the United States (Braitman and McCartt 2010), and Norway (Backer-Grondahl and Sagberg 2011). Though self-reported phone use when driving may offer some insight into this behavior, it is desirable to have a more objective measure. On-road observational studies provide a less biased means of determining handheld phone use by drivers relative to studies based on self-report data. A number of on-road observational studies suggest that the prevalence of phone use while driving in Australia is a significant issue. An early observational study by Horberry et al. (2001) reported that 1.5 percent of drivers in Perth used handheld phones. Several observational studies have been conducted in Victoria over the last decade where handheld phone use has been banned since 1988. In 2002, 2 percent of drivers on major Melbourne roads were observed using handheld phones (Taylor et al. 2003), and in 2006 handheld phone usage rates of 1.6 percent were observed (Taylor et al. 2007). The most recent observational survey, conducted in May 2009 at 3 high-traffic intersections in metropolitan Melbourne, found
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 13:49 04 June 2014
538 that 3.4 percent of drivers used handheld phones and a further 1.4 percent used hands-free phones (Young et al. 2010). Phone usage was more common among young and middleaged drivers, drivers of cars or 4-wheel-drives, and between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. A number of observational surveys undertaken in jurisdictions where handheld phone bans are in place have found varying rates of phone use in comparison to those observed in Australia. Legislation banning handheld phone use in New Zealand was introduced in 2009. Observational surveys conducted at 3 locations during rush hour traffic in Wellington in 2012 reported that 1.9 percent of drivers at traffic lights used handheld phones and 1.3 percent used handheld phones at sites 100 m away from traffic lights (Drury et al. 2012). A study from Birmingham in the United Kingdom observed 1.6 percent of drivers using handheld phones at 3 sites in 2005, 2 years after legislation was introduced prohibiting their use (Hussain et al. 2006). Several noteworthy observational studies have been undertaken in North America where an increasing number of jurisdictions have introduced laws banning driver’s phone use. Nasvadi (2010) examined the prevalence of handheld phone use while driving in the Canadian province of British Columbia before and after legislation prohibiting their use. In 2009, 4.4 percent of drivers were observed using handheld phones but 3 months following the new law in 2010, phone use decreased to 0.9 percent. As part of an evaluation of the long-term effects of phone bans while driving, 3 jurisdictions in the United States, Connecticut, New York, and the District of Columbia, reported observed handheld phone usage rates in 2009 of 2.1, 3.7, and 3.9–4.2 percent, respectively (McCartt et al. 2010). A recent statewide observational survey undertaken in California reported that 2.1 percent of drivers were observed with a handheld phone to their ear and an additional 0.6 percent were talking on a phone held in their hand (Cooper et al. 2012). Phone usage rates were higher for drivers with no passengers in the vehicle and for drivers without a child aged under 8 years in the vehicle. It is evident from the literature that levels of phone use while driving vary across jurisdictions, ranging from 0.9 to 4.2 percent. It is illegal for all drivers in Australia to use a handheld phone (including texting) while a vehicle is moving or is stationary but not parked. This law was first enacted in South Australia in 1999 (Australian Transport Council 1999). In South Australia, drivers may use a hands-free phone if it is secured in a mounted device affixed to the vehicle or remotely operated (i.e., Bluetooth earpieces, headsets) with the exception of drivers who hold a learner’s or provisional driver’s license. Given the serious implications for road safety and the rate of increase in phone technology, it is important to conduct regular roadside observational surveys to determine the level of phone use among drivers. The current study is the first comprehensive observational survey of handheld phone use while driving in South Australia, incorporating a large number of sites in both metropolitan Adelaide and rural regions. In addition to providing an indication of the current levels of handheld phone use, this study obtained information on the characteristics of users to assist in developing and monitoring the effectiveness of phone campaigns and enforcement.
Wundersitz Method The observational survey described in this article was originally designed to record restraint usage in South Australia as part of an ongoing series of observational restraint use surveys (see Wundersitz and Anderson 2009). Researchers used the opportunity to also examine handheld phone use by drivers. This included visibly holding a phone held to the ear or talking into a phone held in the hand, behaviors that are banned under phone laws in South Australia. Hands-free phone use and texting were not observed or recorded in the present study due to the more inconspicuous nature of these phone activities, the difficulty in making such observations given the short time frame to look into each vehicle, and the priority of observing restraint use. The observational survey was undertaken by the Centre for Automotive Safety Research over a 3-week period from March 16 to April 1, 2009, on weekdays and on a weekend. The survey was conducted in metropolitan Adelaide and 5 regional areas: Mount Gambier, the Riverland (Berri, Loxton, Renmark), Whyalla, Murray Bridge, and Clare. Note that the observational methods and observation sites used in this survey were consistent with previous restraint use surveys to allow comparisons with historical data. Locations and Timing Data on handheld phone use were collected by direct observation of trained staff working at 61 selected locations in metropolitan Adelaide and in rural centers (see Table 1). Observations conducted on weekends were undertaken at a selection of the sites used on weekdays in that region. The sites were originally selected to include all vehicles on major roads leaving or entering the city and towns in all directions and to capture a range of occupant types (e.g., local traffic, people traveling to and from work; see Wundersitz and Anderson 2009). In order to observe stationary or slowed traffic, only intersections controlled by traffic lights, stop signs, give-way signs, and large roundabouts were chosen. Generally, only vehicles in the kerb and median lanes were observed because the data required direct observation of the interior of the vehicle. Observations were conducted from a raised median or a footpath and not from a position on the road itself. Two observers spent approximately 1 h at each site. The majority of surveys were conducted on weekdays within 2 3-h periods: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. These times were originally chosen to include times of heavy traffic to minimize observation time and with the intention of including a wide range of road users. Observations on weekends were conducted from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., times when traffic volumes were highest. The observation days did not include school or public holidays. Procedure At observation sites located at traffic lights, the observer waited until vehicles were stationary at a red light. The first observer began with the second vehicle back from the lights and the second observer with the third. The first observer continued observing even-numbered vehicles in the queue and the
Phone Use While Driving
539
Table 1. Number of vehicle occupant observations and sites at each location in South Australia
Time
Location
Weekday
Metropolitan Adelaide Rural Whyalla Riverland Mount Gambier Murray Bridge Clare
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 13:49 04 June 2014
Weekend
No. of sites
Actual no. of vehicle occupant observations
12
2089
12 12 12 9 4
2546 2517 2827 2400 1791
7
1524
Metropolitan Adelaide Rural Murray Bridge
1196 a
Total aTotal
7 61
16,890
excludes sites revisited on weekends.
second observer with odd-numbered vehicles. A vehicle was not surveyed if it was more than 50 m from the lights when the lights changed to red. This was to ensure that the survey was not overrepresented by drivers who are cautious at traffic lights, in comparison to drivers who go through red and amber lights. Observers recorded details for each stationary vehicle in the line of traffic until traffic began to move off. At intersections controlled by stop signs, give-way signs, or roundabouts, details of vehicles that slowed were recorded. Vehicles in the lane closest to the observer were selected, usually the left kerbside lane, and an attempt was made to record all relevant details regardless of the difficulty of the observation. The survey was restricted to cars and car derivatives including any car, station wagon, 4-wheel drive, van, utility, or taxi used for private or commercial purposes. Wedding cars and limousines were excluded as well as service vehicles such as police cars, ambulances, and fire vehicles. Data Collected Vehicle details included the type of vehicle (taxi or not), any learner or provisional plates displayed, and the number of occupants. The number plate of each vehicle was also recorded to ensure that details for each vehicle were only recorded once during each observation session. (Exclusions were determined after data had been entered into a database.) Any driver observed using a handheld phone was recorded on the data sheet. In addition to phone usage, the following details were recorded for each occupant in a vehicle: seating position, gender (if adult), estimated age (if child), child restraint type (if child), and wearing of restraint. Observer Training and Pilot Testing Training sessions were held in which observers were trained rigorously in the observation protocols and data collection procedures. This was followed by a supervised on-site visit and test observations conducted at an intersection in metropolitan Adelaide. The observational procedures of observers were monitored and any problems with observations were
Table 2. Handheld phone use by location in South Australia Location
No. of drivers
No. using handheld phone
% Using handheld phone (95% CI)
Metropolitan Adelaide Rural Whyalla Riverland Mount Gambier Murray Bridge Clare
2533
19
0.8 (0.5–1.2)
1727 1748 2002 2296 1218
11 6 11 10 7
0.6 (0.4–1.1) 0.3 (0.2–0.8) 0.6 (0.3–1.0) 0.4 (0.2–0.8) 0.6 (0.3–1.2)
Total
11,524
64
0.6 (0.4–0.7)
addressed during the following debriefing session. The researchers also conducted pilot testing of data collection forms prior to the commencement of the actual observational survey. Though observer bias cannot be excluded, it is expected that the training session should have limited it.
Results Sixty-four (0.6%) of the 11,524 drivers observed during the survey were using handheld phones. Handheld phone usage rates by region, presented in Table 2, show that rates ranged from 0.8 percent in metropolitan Adelaide to 0.3 percent in the Riverland. The proportion of drivers using handheld phones as a function of driver, site, and vehicle characteristics is presented in Table 3. Of all of the characteristics examined, the only Table 3. Handheld phone use by driver, site, and vehicle characteristics Characteristic Driver sex Male Female Location Metropolitan Adelaide Rural Time of day 7:00 a.m.–10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m. Day of week Weekday Weekend Driver seatbelt use Worn Not worn Plates displayed Learner Provisional No plates Number of vehicle occupants∗∗ Single Multiple Type of vehicle Taxi Not a taxi ∗P
< .05. ∗∗ P < .01.
No. of drivers
No. using handheld phone
% Using handheld phone (95% CI)
6404 5120
41 23
0.6 (0.5–0.9) 0.5 (0.3–0.7)
2533 8991
19 45
0.8 (0.5–1.2) 0.5 (0.4–0.7)
4124 1586 5814
22 9 33
0.5 (0.4–0.8) 0.6 (0.3–1.1) 0.6 (0.4–0.8)
9938 1586
55 9
0.6 (0.4–0.7) 0.6 (0.3–1.1)
11,283 219
61 2
0.5 (0.4–0.7) 0.9 (0.3–3.3)
55 534 10,877
— 3 61
— 0.6 (0.2–1.6) 0.6 (0.4–0.7)
7644 3880
57 7
0.8 (0.6–1.0) 0.2 (0.1–0.4)
76 11,392
— 64
— 0.6 (0.4–0.7)
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 13:49 04 June 2014
540
Wundersitz
statistically significant difference in handheld phone usage was for the number of vehicle occupants. The odds of drivers using a handheld phone while traveling alone were over 4 times higher than for drivers traveling with passengers (odd ratio = 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9–9.1, P < .01). Though there were no other statistically significant differences for handheld phone use, there were some interesting trends. Handheld phone usage was higher in metropolitan Adelaide (0.8%) than in rural regions (0.5%). Drivers not wearing seat belts (0.9%) had higher phone usage rates than drivers wearing seat belts (0.5%); however, the number of observations was very small. Estimates of driver age were not made during the observations; however, plates displayed on the vehicle provided an indication of drivers who were more inexperienced and who may be younger. None of the learner drivers (minimum age of 16 years) were observed using a handheld phone and the phone usage rates for drivers displaying provisional license plates (minimum age of 16.5 years to 19 years) were similar to those not displaying any plates, suggesting that inexperienced drivers were no more likely to be using a phone than other drivers. No taxi drivers were observed using a handheld phone.
Discussion This study is the first to provide an indication of the extent of handheld phone use in South Australia using observational methodology. A total of 0.6 percent of drivers observed during the 2009 survey were using handheld phones. Though South Australia has legislation banning their use, the proportion of phone users is still lower than in other jurisdictions in Australia with similar phone laws. Phone usage rates based on observational surveys in Australia have ranged from 1.5 percent (Horberry et al. 2001) to 3.4 percent (Young et al. 2010). Indeed, the results from the present study can be compared to a similar roadside observational survey of handheld and hands-free phone use conducted in Melbourne during 2009 (Young et al. 2010). Observations were undertaken at intersections on similar days (weekdays and weekends) and at similar times (daylight hours from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.) as those in the South Australian study. Overall, the prevalence of handheld phone use was higher (3.4%) in the Victorian study. Though it might be argued that the higher rates in the Victorian study are attributable to observations being undertaken at a small number of sites (n = 3) in metropolitan Melbourne only (i.e. no regional sites), comparisons with rates from the 12 sites in
metropolitan Adelaide (0.75%) show that handheld phone use still appears to be higher in Melbourne (3.4%). The observed level of driver phone usage reported in this study is also lower than levels reported by surveys conducted during the same year in jurisdictions with handheld phone bans outside of Australia, where levels ranged from 0.9 percent in British Columbia, Canada (Nasvadi 2010), to 4.2 percent in the District of Columbia (McCartt et al. 2010). Though it may be the case that the prevalence of driver phone use in South Australia is lower than in other jurisdictions, it is also possible that the variation in levels of use may be due to differences in the level of enforcement of phone laws or differences in the severity of penalties between jurisdictions. In order to explore the potential influence of enforcement and penalties on phone use rates, the number of tickets issued per head of population (an indication of the level of enforcement) and penalties for contravening handheld phone laws are presented in Table 4 for South Australia and 2 comparable jurisdictions that also conducted observational phone use surveys during 2009 and for which citation data were available. In each of the jurisdictions, handheld phone use and texting were banned. The handheld phone ticket rates per head of population suggest that the level of enforcement activity in South Australia (0.6%) was lower than in Victoria (1.0%) and the U.S. state of Connecticut (0.8%). This finding suggests either the relatively high level of compliance with phone laws in South Australia was despite lower levels of enforcement activity or the low ticket rate reflects lower rates of driver handheld phone use. McCartt et al.’s (2010) study of the effects of handheld phone bans on drivers’ phone use in 3 U.S. states also explored the possibility that differences in enforcement might be responsible for differences in observed phone use rates. Similar to the findings from this study, a review of citation data did not explain the variation in driver phone use rates between the jurisdictions. It is conceivable that drivers in South Australia are generally more compliant with traffic laws than other jurisdictions, but this is very difficult to accurately quantify and beyond the scope of the present study. Penalties for handheld phone use in 2009 were generally more severe in Australian jurisdictions than in the U.S. state of Connecticut (see Table 4). Though South Australia initially had the highest fine for driver phone use, the fine in Victoria was increased to a comparable level the same month as the observational surveys were conducted. It is not known how widely the increase in the expiation fine was publicized. Consequently, penalties for phone use do not clearly explain the lower phone use rates observed for drivers in this study.
Table 4. Summary of handheld phone use rates, tickets, and penalties during 2009 in selected jurisdictions Observed using handheld phones (%)
Handheld phone tickets per head of population (%)
South Australia, Australia Connecticut, United States
0.6 2.1
0.6 0.8a
Victoria, Australia
3.4
1.0
Jurisdiction
aTicket
data to September 30, 2009 (Frisman 2010). Population data to July 2009.
Penalties for first offense AUD$209 (US$179) expiation fine, 3 demerit points Up to US$100 fine; fine suspended if driver proves acquired hands-free device before fine is imposed AUD$153 (US$130) expiation fine, 3 demerit points. Fine increased to AUD$227 (US$194) in May 2009
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 13:49 04 June 2014
Phone Use While Driving Drivers were over 4 times more likely to use a handheld phone while traveling alone than when traveling with passengers in the vehicle. These findings are consistent with Cooper et al. (2012), one of the few studies to examine this relationship. It is possible that without passengers to engage or socialize with in the vehicle, drivers use their phone to provide some entertainment or to organize social events. Additionally, solo drivers may decide to answer a phone call when they would usually let a passenger receive the call. Because the surveys were conducted during daylight hours and predominantly on weekdays, it is also possible that some drivers were traveling alone for work-related purposes and used their phone to conduct business. To assist in the development of countermeasures, further research should explore the reasons why drivers are more likely to use their phone when traveling by themselves. The results from the current handheld phone use survey represent phone use at only the times and places where surveys were undertaken (i.e., day time, town/city centers, intersections, heavier traffic, lower speed limit zones). The passenger vehicle traffic at these observation sites is unlikely to be a representative sample of all passenger vehicles in South Australia and may not capture those who might be more likely to use a handheld phone while driving (e.g., drivers in lighter traffic conditions, on open roads). For this reason, the phone usage rates obtained during the observational surveys are likely to be an underestimate of the true prevalence of phone use. One limitation of this study is that it only examined talking on handheld phones while driving. It is possible that some drivers were using the phone in their hands to text or use other functions of the phone, behaviors that are also illegal in South Australia. Consequently, the overall proportion of behavior contravening phone laws in South Australia was not captured in this survey. These behaviors were not examined in this study because they are difficult to observe and observing restraint use was the main priority. Given the increased uptake of smart phone technology, that is phones with increased functionality allowing access to e-mails, the Internet, and maps for directions, it is important to continue to monitor trends in phone use while driving over time. Future surveys might consider incorporating a wider range of behaviors such as texting.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions to data collection and data entry from Jen Herman, Jamie Mackenzie, Jeff Dutschke, Daniel Searson, Sam Doecke, Marleen Sommariva, Ben O’Donnell, Andrew Reade, Robyn Dickinson, Luis Colmenares, Charles Aust, and Brittny Roberts.
Funding This research was jointly funded by the South Australian Motor Accident Commission (MAC) and the South Australian Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI).
541 References Australian Transport Council. Australian Road Rules. Sydney: National Road Transport Commission; 1999. Backer-Grondahl A, Sagberg F. Driving and telephoning: relative accident risk when using hand-held and hands-free mobile phones. Saf Sci. 2011;49:324–330. Braitman KA, McCartt AT. National reported patterns of driver cell phone use in the United States. Traffic Inj Prev. 2010;11:543–548. Caird JK, Willness CR, Steel P, Scialfa C. A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance. Accid Anal Prev. 2008;40:1282–1293. Charlton SG. Driving while conversing: cell phones that distract and passengers who react. Accid Anal Prev. 2009;41:160–173. Collet C, Guillot A, Petit C. Phoning while driving I: a review of epidemiological, psychological, behavioural and physiological studies. Ergonomics. 2010;53:589–601. Cooper JF, Ragland DR, Ewald K, Wasserman L, Murphy CJ. Observational survey of cell phone use and texting by California drivers, 2011. Transp Res Rec. 2012;2321:7–14. Drury C, Abussaud Z, Allison G, et al. Mobile Phone Use While Driving After a New Law: Observational Study. Wellington, New Zealand: University of Otago; 2012. Frisman P. Cell Phone Bans and Tickets. Hartford, CT: Office of Legislative Research, Connecticut General Assembly; 2010. Horberry T, Bubnich C, Hartley L, Lamble D. Drivers’ use of hand-held mobile phones in Western Australia. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2001;4:213–218. Horrey WJ, Wickens CD. Examining the impact of cellphone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Hum Factors. 2006;48:196–205. Hussain K, Al-Shakarchi J, Mahmoudi A, Al-Mawlawi A, Marshall T. Mobile phones and driving: a follow-up. J Public Health. 2006;28:395–396. Ishigami Y, Klein RM. Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone? J Safety Res. 2009;40(2):157–164. McCartt AT, Hellinga LA, Braitman KA. Cell phones and driving: review of research. Traffic Inj Prev. 2006;7(2):89–106. McCartt AT, Hellinga LA, Strouse LM, Farmer CM. Long-term effects of handheld cell phone laws on driver handheld cell phone use. Traffic Inj Prev. 2010;11(2):133–141. McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, McCartt AT, et al. Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study. Br Med J. 2005;331:428–430. Nasvadi G. Comparison Study of the Prevalence of Cell Phone Use While Driving in the City of Victoria, British Columbia. Victoria, BC, Canada: Insurance Corporation of British Columbia; 2010. Petroulias T. Community Attitudes to Road Safety—2011 Survey Report. Canberra, Australia: Department of Infrastructure and Transport; 2011. Taylor DM, Bennett DM, Carter M, Garewal D. Mobile telephone use among Melbourne drivers: a preventable exposure to injury risk. Med J Aust. 2003;179(3):140–142. Taylor DM, MacBean CE, Das A, Mohd Rosli R. Handheld mobile telephone use among Melbourne drivers. Med J Aust. 2007;187:432–434. White KM, Hyde MK, Walsh SP, Watson B. Mobile phone use while driving: an investigation of the beliefs influencing drivers’ hands-free and hand-held mobile phone use. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2010;13:9–20. Wundersitz L, Anderson R. On-Road Observational Survey of Restraint and Child Restraint Use, 2009. Adelaide, Australia: Centre for Automotive Safety Research; 2009. Young K, Lenne M. Driver engagement in distracting activities and the strategies used to minimise risk. Saf Sci. 2010;48:326–332. Young K, Rudin-Brown C, Lenne M. Look who’s talking! A roadside survey of drivers’ cell phone use. Traffic Inj Prev. 2010;11:555–560.
