Driven to Distraction

Driver distraction or inattention is responsible for anywhere from 10-30% of car accidents – or more, depending on the source of the statistic. For insurance companies that pay out more than CD$11 billion in auto-related claims each year, increased driver awareness can contribute to improved road safety. Should the industry flag the issue as a key component of injury prevention and crash reduction?

FOCUSING ON DISTRACTION

Imagine yourself stuck in Toronto on the Gardiner Expressway in bumper-to-bumper traffic on your way to work. The radio report says there’s an accident just past the next exit blocking the right lane. You move into the left lane, take a sip of coffee and flick on the cell phone. You need to call your colleague about an important client meeting later that morning. As you approach the accident, the traffic slowly breaks up into a stop-and-go pattern.

You are also getting more involved in the conversation, as your colleague brings up some key points about the meeting. You want to jot down a crucial number, but can’t find the pen you left on the front seat. You glance down to move your briefcase and search for the pen. In that short time, you fail to notice a car quickly merge in front of you and slam on the brakes. You’re traveling only 60 km-h, but by the time you look up, you have less than 10 meters to stop. You hit the brakes as hard as you can, but smash into the back of the car. Now, there is another accident on the eastbound Gardiner.

This scenario could just as easily be played out in any major centre in Canada – the Queensway in Ottawa, Montreal’s Autoroute Dcarie, the Deerfoot Trail in Calgary or Vancouver’s Sea to Sky Highway.

According to at least one influential study in the United States, the situation is much more common than most people think. The U.S.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that distractions, including drowsiness while driving, are contributing factors in 80% of police-reported traffic collisions – or about 4 million crashes per year. In Canada, there were 2,730 deaths, 212,347 injuries and $25 billion in economic damage resulting from road crashes in 2004 (the latest year available). If you take the same percentages as the NHTSA study, and factor in that Canada has about 16 million cell phone users, it’s easy to imagine the same correlation here, although few Canadian-only studies exist.

SENSORY OVERLOAD

The issue of driving and distraction, particularly cell phone use, is not new, but more recent research is showing that multi-tasking behind the wheel can lead to cognitive impairment and slower reaction times. Increasingly, researchers are discovering that excessive multi-tasking can result in cognitive overload, contributing to inattention and potentially disastrous results on the roads.

“With cell phones, it is not so much the physical distraction as it is the cognitive distraction,” according to Deanna Singhal, research associate with the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF). “If the driving scenario is difficult, and if the cell phone conversation gets intense, you are going to run out of capacity to do both well. The issue really becomes information processing. It increases the risk.”

Researchers and insurers are quick to point out that driver distraction goes well beyond the use of cell phones and other electronic devices. It extends to both internal and external distractions. Many drivers, for example, spend time eating, drinking, talking with passengers, disciplining children, searching for CDs, consulting maps or rifling through briefcases or purses. Similarly, they often stare at digital billboards, rubberneck at accident scenes or squint at shop or street signs instead of focusing on the road.

“We think there are a number of different types of distractions,” Shannon Ell, manager of traffic safety promotion for Saskatchewan General Insurance (SGI), says. “A lot of people think about cell phones or electronic equipment, but we realized if you focus on those things specifically, the other types of distractions get totally forgotten. Distractions can come in any form.”

SGI notes driver inattention and distraction accounts for 25% of all factors that cause crashes involving injuries or death in Saskatchewan. In more than 1,900 casualty collisions tallied in the province in 2005, driver inattention or distraction was listed as a contributing factor.

TYPES OF DISTRACTIONS

One study used in-vehicle video cameras to record 70 participating drivers in one week. Its results showed that eating or drinking accounts for almost 5% of total driving time, with smoking at 1.5% and cell phone use at 1.3%. A telephone survey in Canada and the

U.S. showed a significant number of drivers acknowledge engaging in distracting activities such as changing the radio station or CDs (66%), eating or drinking (49%) or using a cell pone (26% cent).

Even though there are varying types of distractions, cell phones and electronic devices have received the most attention from researchers and the public, partially due to publicity surrounding accidents. In June, an eight-year-old boy in Montreal was killed on his bicycle by an SUV driver suspected of talking on his cell phone, garnering national media attention and renewed calls for a ban on hand-held phones in cars. Researchers at the Universite de Montreal conducted a study of 36,000 drivers in 2003; they concluded the risk of crashing is 38% higher for cell phone users.

Cell phone usage is relatively easy to trace because of phone records. A U.S. Insurance Institute of Highway Safety study looked at the cell phone records of 456 drivers in Western Australia; it compared cell phone use within 10 minutes before an actual crash with cell phone use by the driver during the previous week. The study found an overall fourfold increase in injury crashes when drivers were using cell phones (the Institute tried to conduct the study in the United States, but could not access telephone records). Interestingly, the study found no difference in data between hand-held and hands-free cell phones.

STUDYING DISTRACTIONS

Exactly how much these distractions increase risk is the subject of ongoing speculation and research. Last October, TIRF and the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) sponsored an international conference on distracted driving that concluded: “The available evidence paints a suggestive but incomplete picture of the risks posed by distracted driving.” A summary of the conference proceedings observed that research falls into various categories – including laboratory-based simulator studies, observation studies, consumer surveys and crash-based statistical studies.

The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and NHTSA conducted one important study that represents what both TIRF and CAA describe as “the best information to date on the role of distraction in crashes.” The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study captured video footage and information from sensor monitors on the habits of more than 200 drivers. The study recorded more than 42,000 hours of driving, 761 near-crashes and 72 crashes. Nearly 80% of all crashes and 65% of near-crashes involved driver inattention in the three seconds prior to the incident. “It is important to note these estimates are substantially higher than those from other sources that rely on second-hand information,” according to the conference summary.

In Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) sponsored a study on driver distraction and beginner drivers through the University of Calgary. The goal is to determine the effects of cell phone use and other distractions on young people currently in Alberta’s graduated licensing programs. “Other studies have looked at cell phones as a driver distraction, but this project is the first to focus on young drivers,” Jim Rivait, IBC vice president, Prairies, NWT and Nunavut, says. Results of the study, which will examine driver behavior in both si mulator and on-road environments, are expected later this year.

LOBBYING AND LEGISLATION

In fact, the CAA is lobbying for a restriction in every provincial graduated licensing program on the use of any electronic device – cell phones, blackberries, MP3 players and iPods – by novice drivers. “This is not a punishment for novice drivers,” noted CAA president David Flewelling in a June speech. “Rather, it’s an effort to protect them and educate them as we do with other restrictions that are a key element of graduated licensing programs.”

When it comes to legislation around distracted driving and electronic devices in Canada, Newfoundland is the only province to ban the use of hand-held cell phones in cars, effective Jan. 1, 2003. A survey commissioned by the Newfoundland government showed that 95% of people in the province favored a ban against the use of hand-held cell pone while driving. Two recent Canada-wide surveys show that slightly fewer than half of respondents say they would support a ban on all cell phones, while three quarters or more would ban hand-held phones.

A private member’s bill calling for a similar ban was introduced in

Ontario by Conservative MPP John O’Toole and passed second reading in March, although private member bills rarely make it to actual law. To date, there are no restrictions or legislation for drivers with graduated licences.

Currently in the United States, three states (Connecticut, New Jersey and New York) and the District of Columbia ban the use of hand-held cell phones, while several states (Maine, Minnesota and Virginia) prohibit the use of such phones for younger drivers with a learning permit or provisional licence. Internationally, at least 40 countries prohibit cell phone use while driving; usually, the focus is on hand-held models.

Although research suggests distractions like cell phones are dangerous, some say the push towards legislative remedies may be premature. “Generally, all these studies are saying there is risk, but the magnitude is different,” Singhal notes, adding that legislation must be coupled with public awareness campaigns. “If someone says, ‘Give me a number,’ it is difficult. You can explain why it is different. Frankly, that is a hang-up with the legislation. We need good data and good research.”

“Can we eliminate or legislate against every single (driver

distraction)?” Flewelling asks rhetorically. “No. But we can make motorists more aware of them. And education – and modifying driving behavior – does work.”

CAA in June launched a public awareness campaign, called ‘Driven to Distraction,’ that challenges drivers, passengers, employers, auto manufacturers and technology developers to reduce or eliminate as many distractions as possible from the driving experience.

Ell says you can’t legislate something like putting on lipstick in a car. “This is really about common sense and raising awareness,” she observes. SGI has run a series of radio and television ads dealing with distracted driving. “These are not specific to any one distraction in particular: we look at eating, putting make-up on, as well as using a cell phone,” Ell adds. “It is one way we try to get the message out there.”

SGI also works with other provincial organizations and community agencies that are focused on preventing driver distraction – including the Saskatchewan Safety Council. Few private insurance companies have adopted the issue of driver distracted as a key road safety and loss prevention issue.

Although the property and casualty insurance industry is not directly associated with any public awareness campaigns related to distracted driving, some suggest a possible role for insurance as a form of financial incentive – or disincentive – through premium and coverage. One of the summary recommendations following the international conference on distracted driving is to “investigate the role of auto insurance in reducing distracted driving, either through premium reductions (such as for drivers who pledge not to use telematics) or variations in coverage depending on specific driving circumstances (such as reduced coverage if drivers are found to be engaged in specific distracting activities at the time of a crash).”

To date, no insurance company offers such incentives or disincentives specifically for behaviors related to distracted driving. The challenges inherent include the difficulties of consumer self-reporting: even some police accident report forms do not have adequate categories for all driver distractions.

As research results on the dangers of distracted driving accumulate, one thing is certain: the use of portable electronic devices and on-board “telematics” such as navigation systems will grow. Many compare the automobile today to a secondary office or living room, bringing more distractions to a driver who should be focusing his or her attention on the road.

If the numbers emerging from recent studies on distracted driving are accurate, the lure of technology, coupled with traditional distractions inside or outside the car, may just be the elephant in the room when it comes to auto insurance claims.