The Risk of a Safety-Critical Event Associated With Mobile Device Use in Specific Driving Contexts

References

• Atchley P, Dressel J. Conversation limits the functional field of view. Hum Factors. 2004;46:664–673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper JM, Vladisavljevic I, Strayer DL, Martin PT. Drivers’ lane changing behavior while conversing on a cell phone in a variable density simulated highway environment. Paper presented at: 87th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board; January 13–17, 2008; Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Dingus T, Klauer S, Neale VL, et al. The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II—Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment. Washington, DC: NHSA; 2006. DOT HS 810 593.
   Google Scholar
• Drews FA, Pasupathi M, Strayer DL. Passenger and cell-phone conversations in simulated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting. 2004;:2210–2212.
   Google Scholar
• Fitch GM, Grove K, Hanowski R, and Perez M. Compensatory behavior of drivers when conversing on a cell phone: Investigation with naturalistic driving data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Fitch GM, Hanowski RJ. The risk of a safety-critical event associated with mobile device use as a function of driving task demands. Paper presented at: 2nd International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention; September 5–7, 2011; Gothenburg, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Fitch GM, Soccolich SA, Guo F, et al. The Impact of Hand-held and Hands-free Cell Phone Use on Driving Performance and Safety-Critical Event Risk. Washington, DC: NHTSA; 2013. DOT HS 811 757.
   Google Scholar
• Funkhouser D, Sayer J. A naturalistic cell phone use census. Paper presented at: 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board; January 22–26, 2012; Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Graauwmans MJ, Jackson ML, Belenky G, Vila BJ, Dongen HPAV. Time on task effect in reaction times during a simulated driving task. Sleep-Wake Research in The Netherlands. 2010;21:73–76.
   Google Scholar
• Guo F, Hankey JM. Modeling 100-Car Safety Events: A Case-Based Approach for Analyzing Naturalistic Driving Data. Blacksburg, VA: The National Surface Transportation Safety Center for Excellence; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Hancock PA, Mouloua M, Senders JW. On the philosophical foundations of the distracted driver and driving distraction. In: Regan MA, Lee JD, Young KL, eds. Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group; 2009:11–30.
   Google Scholar
• Hanowski RJ. The naturalistic study of distracted driving: moving from research to practice. SAE International Journal of Commercial Vehicles. 2011;4:286–319.
   Google Scholar
• Hickman JS, Hanowski RJ. An assessment of commercial motor vehicle driver distraction using naturalistic driving data. Traffic Inj Prev. 2012;13:612–619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horrey WJ, Lesch MF, Garabet A. Assessing the awareness of performance decrements in distracted drivers. Accid Anal Prev. 2008;40:675–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horrey WJ, Lesch MF, Garabet A. Dissociation between driving performance and drivers’ subjective estimates of performance and workload in dual-task conditions. J Safety Res. 2009;40:7–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horrey WJ, Wickens CD. Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Hum Factors. 2006;48:196–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jellentrup N, Metz B, Rothe S. Can talking on the phone keep the driver awake? Results of a field-study using telephoning as a countermeasure against fatigue while driving. Paper presented at: 2nd International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention; September 5–7, 2011; Gothenburg, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Klauer SG, Dingus TA, Neale VL, Sudweeks JD, Ramsey DJ. The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data. Washington, DC: NHTSA; 2006. DOT HS 810 594.
   Google Scholar
• Klauer SG, Guo F, Simons-Morton BG, et al. Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers. N Engl J Med. 2014;2(370):54–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mannering FL. Principles of Highway Engineering and Traffic Analysis. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Maples WC, DeRosier W, Hoenes R, Bendure R, Moore S. The effects of cell phone use on peripheral vision. Optometry. 2008;79:36–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, McCartt AT, et al. Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study. BMJ. 2005;20(331):428–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson RL, Hanowski RJ, Hickman JS, Bocanegra J. Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations: Final Report. Contract DTMC75-07-D-00006, Task Order 3. Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Piechulla W, Mayser C, Gehrke H, Koenig W. Reducing drivers’ mental workload by means of an adaptive man–machine interface. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2003;6:233–248.
   Google Scholar
• Rakauskas ME, Gugerty LJ, Ward NJ. Effects of naturalistic cell phone conversations on driving performance. J Safety Res. 2004;35:453–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redelmeier DA, Tibshirani RJ. Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:453–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sayer JR, Bogard SE, Funkhouser D, et al. Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems Heavy-Truck Field Operational Test Key Findings Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Sayer JR, Devonshire JM, Flannagan CA. Naturalistic driving performance during secondary tasks. Paper presented at: Fourth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design; July 9–12, 2007; Stevenson, WA.
   Google Scholar
• Schweitzer J, Green PA. Task Acceptability and Workload of Driving City Streets, Rural Roads, and Expressways: Ratings From Video Clips. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute; 2007. Report No. UMTRI-2006-6.
   Google Scholar
• Strayer DL, Drews FA, Johnston WA. Cell phone–induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2003;9:23–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strayer DL, Johnston WA. Driven to distraction: dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychol Sci. 2001;12:462–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toole LM, Hanowski RJ, Smith-Jackson TL, Winchester WW. Towards understanding mobile device use in commercial motor vehicle drivers: do drivers interact as a drowsiness countermeasure? Paper presented at: 3rd International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention; September 4–6, 2013; Gothenburg, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2). 2008. Available at: http://www.trb.org/SHRP2./ Accessed November 11, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Young K, Regan M, Lee J. Factors moderating the impact of distraction on driving performance and safety. In: Regan MA, Lee JD, Young KL, eds. Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group; 2009:335–351.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Smith MRH, Witt GJ. Driving task demand-based distraction mitigation. In: Regan MA, Lee JD, Young KL, eds. Driver Distraction: Theory Effects, and Mitigation. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group; 2009:485–500.
   Google Scholar