Physical and cognitive demands associated with police in-vehicle technology use: an on-road case study

Abstract

Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of police officers’ deaths in line of duty. These crashes have been mainly attributed to officers’ driving distraction caused by the use of in-vehicle technologies while driving. This paper presents a 3-h ride-along study of 20 police officers to assess the physical and cognitive demands associated with using in-vehicle technologies. The findings suggested that the mobile computer terminal (MCT) was the most frequently used in-vehicle system for the officers. In addition, officers perceived the MCT to significantly increase their visual, cognitive, and physical demands compared to other in-vehicle technologies. Evidence from electromyography and eye-tracking measures suggested that officers with more experience as a patrol officer and those who were working in more congested areas experienced higher cognitive workload. Furthermore, it was found that as the ride-along duration increased, there were indications of muscle fatigue in medial deltoid and triceps brachii muscles.

Practitioner summary: This study assessed the impact of police in-vehicle technology use in an on-road case study. The findings provide new data and knowledge for police agencies and vehicle manufacturers to develop administrative measures and in-vehicle technology innovations to improve police officers’ health and safety.

Keywords:

• Cognitive load
• driving
• in-vehicle technology
• physical load;s police

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Ben Patranella, Ashiq Abdul Razak, and Dr. Suman Chowdhury for their help regarding the pilot test and use of BioStamp sensors for capturing and post-processing of EMG data.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the Texas A&M Triads for Transformation (T3). The views and opinions expressed are those of authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Texas A&M University.