Distraction reaction

Captivate Network, a digital media company south of the border, recently released its Office Pulse report on white-collar office worker behaviour. The poll of 619 workers in 14 metropolitan centres in the United States and Canada identified differing opinions — broken down along the familiar lines of age, gender and professional status — regarding what constituted acceptable and distracting workplace attire. No surprise that cleavage, bare legs and tattoos received a chilly reception from some.

The consequences of a tattoo sighting at the office, however, pale in comparison to the potential outcome should that distraction take place while driving.

It is a caution being voiced by groups ranging from insurers to safety advocates, researchers and legislators. The first concern is safety; without that follows the collisions, the accident benefits, other costs and the effect on premiums.

The weak link may be drivers, many of whom agree that distraction carries risks, but often fail to alter potentially harmful behaviour.

“Available research generally estimates that driver distraction is a factor in 20% to 30% of road crashes,” Robyn Robertson, president and CEO of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, said in a statement last February.

“Self-reported data from our survey showed that more than a quarter of all survey respondents had to brake or steer to avoid being in a collision because they were distracted by something inside or outside their vehicle in the last month,” Robertson said at the time. “Taking your eyes and attention off the road for even a few seconds can increase crash risk.”

Speeding and distracted driving have also been identified as a continuing source of near-misses in the “cone zone,” notes the Work Zone Safety Alliance, a group that consists of WorkSafeBC, the British Columbia Automobile Association, B.C.’s Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and 18 other partners.

Just ask Pat Miller, an equipment operator for Mainroad Lower Mainland Contracting, about distracted drivers. Miller was carrying out road repairs on Highway 1 last spring when a five-ton delivery truck hit the crew’s one-ton buffer truck parked on the shoulder inside the work zone. The delivery truck narrowly missed Miller, who was forced to dive for cover into a ditch.

Despite warning signage, cones and flashing vehicle lights, the truck driver was distracted and had closed his eyes for a moment.“We see more texting than talking with the driver’s eyes focused on the phone and not the road. Even at the scene of an accident, we see people taking video or pictures when they should be paying attention to the road,” Miller says in a statement issued by the alliance.

Over the past 10 years, WorkSafeBC reports that the board has received 386 claims from roadside workers who were struck by motor vehicles. Of these claims, 46% were classified as serious injuries and 3% resulted in the death of the worker.

“The ability to connect with anyone at anytime through our mobile phones has led to a serious problem on our roads,” Shirley Bond, British Columbia’s justice minister and attorney general, says in a statement from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). “Driving is a complex task that requires our full attention.”

Dr. Lloyd Oppel, an emergency physician and chair of the B.C. Medical Association’s Council on Health Promotion, would agree. “Placing lives at risk so that we can enjoy a convenience is simply not worth it,” Oppel says.

That most provinces prohibit use of hand-held devices while driving seems not to have had their intended effect.

In August, an Ipsos Reid survey conducted for the ICBC revealed that 44% of respondents believe driving is a complex task and yet 40% of those who own cellphones admit they have used their devices while driving.

“The reality is, distracted driving is now the third leading cause of fatal car crashes in B.C.,” ICBC reports.

That message, however, may not be getting through to everyone. “More education and conversations need to occur so teens understand that no one can handle driving distracted,” says Chris Mullen, director of technology research at State Farm.

Mullen made the comments following the release of a State Farm/Harris Interactive telephone poll that found almost 80% teenagers surveyed in the United States say stronger fines and law enforcement would help deter texting while driving. The survey involved 650 teenagers, aged 14 to 18.

While a passenger in a car, 78% of respondents pointed out a driver’s distracted behaviour. But although polled teens may take an active role in discouraging texting and driving, 34% indicated they had done so themselves.

Courts seem to be taking distraction seriously. A recent ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal found that even holding a phone violates provincial laws banning the use of hand-held devices while driving. Section 78 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act notes that “no person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages.”

Still, study results released by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology earlier this year indicate that banning cellphones does not necessarily stop risky behaviour by drivers. Those drivers who opt to use cellphones may also drive faster, change lanes more often and engage in more hard-braking and rapid accelerating.

And matters are not helped by the ever-increasing availability of devices.

In-car technology is being touted as a means of enhancing connectivity options, including mobile device connection to the internet, navigation systems, emergency response systems and driver habit monitoring devices.

That said,a recent poll of 2,634 adults in the U.S. indicates 76% report that they believe in-car connectivity technologies are too distracting and even dangerous to have.

In fact, more than half, 55%, report that automakers have taken technology for road use too far. “The fear of technology distraction seems to outweigh the other perceived benefits of having in-car connectivity options,” says Mike Chadsey, vice president, automotive solutions for Harris Interactive.

Poll results also indicated that 41% of respondents believe their insurance rates could increase because of what in-car technology reveals about their particular driving habits.

It is likely that the answer to distraction-related collisions and associated insurance costs seems to demand a mix of prohibitions, enforcement and personal responsibility.