HomeMy WebLinkAboutProvisional Adoption of Ordinance 1818, municipal infraction of $100. for handheld electronic device while operating motor vehicle
Memo to the Commission re: Ordinance 1818- regulating the use of hand held electronic communication devices Page 1 of 7
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Ron Price, Chief of Police
Greg Sullivan, City Attorney SUBJECT: Preliminary adoption of Ordinance 1818 – Providing for a Municipal Infraction of
$100 for use of a hand-held electronic device while operating a motor vehicle.
MEETING DATE: November 14, 2011
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action.
RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing and consider provisional adoption of Ordinance 1818.
BACKGROUND: This agenda item resulted from Commission direction at a work session on
distracted driving held October 3, 2011. At that time, the Commission directed us to develop an
ordinance for the Commission’s consideration and also requested we provide information related to several alternatives to addressing distracted driving.
Adoption of local and state regulations addressing cell phone use while driving has increased over the
past decade based on two principles: (i) data demonstrates cell phone use is a distraction1
while driving;
and (ii) studies that show increased distractions lead to a greater risk of traffic accidents. The proposal to adopt such an ordinance in Bozeman follows from the above principles.
In support of the above principles, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration 18% of fatalities in distracted-driving-related crashes involved
reports of a cell phone as a distraction.2
1 As defined in the Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver Distraction Program (DOT HS 811 299), “distraction” is a specific type of inattention that occurs when drivers divert their attention from the driving task to
focus on some other activity instead. It is worth noting that distraction is a subset of inattention (which also includes fatigue, physical conditions of the driver, and emotional conditions of the driver). U.S. Department of Transportation’s National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic Safety Facts Research Note (DOT HS 811 379) at pg. 1 available at
This is clearly a significant number. In 2005, the local Western Transportation Institute of the Montana State University (WTI) conducted a study examining driver
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811379.pdf (last visited November 1, 2011). 2 Id.
78
Memo to the Commission re: Ordinance 1818- regulating the use of hand held electronic communication devices Page 2 of 7
performance and situation awareness while subjects accessed the Montana Department of
Transportation’s 511 traveler information system via a cellular telephone.3
WTI’s findings are instructive. WTI found performance on the primary tasks for driving (e.g., lane and
speed maintenance) are unaffected by interacting with a cell phone. However, WTI also found that
“tasks that require more prompt response times (e.g., avoiding collisions during unexpected conflicts)
were degraded by the use of a cell phone, regardless of the type of instrument used” (i.e. “hand held” or “hands free”).” WTI further found that drivers were “less aware of their surroundings when interacting
with the 511 traveler information system while using a cellular phone and driving.”4
There are studies that provide an alternative perspective. In July 2011, the Governor’s Highway Safety
Administration released the report, Distracted Driving: What Research shows and What States Can Do. This report “reviews and summarizes distracted driving research… to inform states and other
organizations as they consider distracted driving countermeasures.” In summary, the limited research on
these countermeasures concludes that laws banning hand-held cell phone use reduced use by about half
when they were first implemented. Hand-held cell phone use increased subsequently but the laws appear
to have had some long term effect. The research also indicates a high-visibility cell phone and texting law enforcement campaign reduced cell phone use immediately after the campaign. The report further
found there was no evidence that cell phone or texting bans have reduced crashes.
While disagreement exists as to whether ordinances such as the proposed Ordinance 1818 result in
reduced traffic collisions numerous studies indicate using a hand held electronic communication device adds workload to a driver and thus adds a significant increment of risk to driving.5
Anecdotal evidence also supports the notion that use of a Device adds to the risk of a vehicle accident.
During the Commission work session numerous citizens testified as to their own personal distractions
caused by the use of cell phones and also testified to witnessing numerous other drivers distracted from the use of cell phones.
I. Ordinance 1818
Before we discuss options and alternatives we briefly explain proposed Ordinance 1818 – a proposal for all intents and purposes identical to ordinances adopted in Billings and Whitefish.6 The proposed
ordinance imposes a civil penalty of $100.00 against a person operating a motor vehicle on a public
highway7
3 Driver Performance While Using a Cellular Telephone Interface to a Traveler Information System, Kelly et al., Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University. Attached and available at
while using a “hands-free electronic communication device”. The ordinance as drafted makes
http://www.westerntransportationinstitute.org/research/425452.aspx (last visited November 1, 2011). 4 Id at pg. viii. 5 Id at pg. 1-5. 6 Many other communities in Montana have adopted cell phone bans. The memorandum from October 3rd work session
contains a brief synopsis of the efforts of other communities. 7 A “public highway” is defined in state law as “the entire width between the boundary lines of every publicly maintained
way when any part of the publicly maintained way is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.” §61-1-101(27), MCA (2011). Obviously, what constitutes a “public highway” will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis
but will not include private property generally accessible to the public such as a shopping center or mall parking lot.
79
Memo to the Commission re: Ordinance 1818- regulating the use of hand held electronic communication devices Page 3 of 7
violation of the restriction a primary offense – meaning; a police officer may stop a vehicle and cite a
driver for using such a device.8
Under the ordinance, a “hands-free electronic communication device” (a Device”) includes “wireless or
cellular phones, Blackberries, smart phones, i-phones, laptop and notebook computers utilizing VOIP
(voice over internet protocol) technology, navigational systems, and any other mobile communications
device that uses short-wave analog or digital radio transmissions between the device and a transmitter to permit wireless communications to and from the user of the device.”
Under the proposed ordinance, a citation may only be issued if the Device is in the “immediate physical
possession” of the driver of the vehicle. “Immediate physical possession” means “touching the hand
held electronic communications device, or physically holding the device in one’s hand or up to one’s
ear. Simply having the electronic communications device on one’s person or in a motor vehicle does not constitute immediate physical possession.”
The ordinance recognizes under certain circumstances use of a Device is necessary for the health and
safety of the driver or others. As such, the ordinance expressly recognizes six circumstances where use
of a Device would not be a violation of the ordinance. Prominent among these is the use of a “hands-free” device. See proposed Ordinance 181 at Section 1, 36.03.275.D, Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC).
This subsection defines what constitutes a “hands free” device and makes it expressly clear that, “use of
a hands free device is permitted while operating a motor vehicle provided the driver does not touch the
wireless telephone or wireless or electronic communications device with one’s hand while operating a
motor vehicle.” Thus, to qualify as a “hands-free” device it must be completely and totally “hands free.”
We provide a few important points regarding “civil” offense. As stated, the citation will be a “municipal
infraction”9
and as such will be treated as a civil, rather than a criminal, offense. A “civil” offense does
not include the possibility of arrest, does not result in a “criminal record” and is subject to a lower
standard of proof by the government (clear and convincing evidence) than a criminal offense (beyond a reasonable doubt). A civil offense issued under local authority in Montana is not recorded or charged
against a driver’s license.
II. Discussion of additional concepts requested by the commission on 10/3/11.
During the October 3rd policy discussion the Commission requested we review and provide a discussion
for several other items related to distracted driving. These include: (i) whether hands-free Devices
should be allowed; (ii) whether the City should/could ban all Devices, including additional devices such
as satellite radio receivers, or adopt an absolute distracted driving prohibition; (iii) whether the City
should/could address use of Devices only if those Devices were a contributing factor in a traffic accident; and (iv) whether the City should/could address a prohibition on use of Devices only by
“novice” driver.
While we provide the Commission with a discussion regarding requested items should the Commission
desire to implement regulations addressing the use of Devices while operating a motor vehicle we recommend the Commission adopt Ordinance 1818 as proposed rather than adopt one of the alternatives
discussed below.
8 We discuss primary versus secondary offense in greater detail in the alternative for “novice” drivers. 9 See Chpt. 24, Art. 2, BMC for specific provisions related to Municipal Infractions.
80
Memo to the Commission re: Ordinance 1818- regulating the use of hand held electronic communication devices Page 4 of 7
We begin our discussion with whether to allow the use of hands free Devices. A. Whether to allow the use of “hands-free” Devices.
As stated above, Ordinance 1818 as drafted provides a specific exemption from the ban on use of a
Device while operating a motor vehicle if the driver uses a “hands free” Device. Helena recently preliminarily adopted an ordinance that did not include an exemption for hands-free devices.10 We
suggest you discuss the efficacy of banning the use of hands free devices as it appears to be a common
perception that hands free devices do not carry the same risk of causing or contributing to a traffic
collision as hand held Devices. However, the WTI study discusses research that holds that hands-free
devices may actually have as high a risk factor as hand-held devices.11
We feel enforcement of a prohibition on using hands free devices will be difficult as an officer must determine prior to stopping a
vehicle whether the driver is using a hands-free device.
B. Regulating on all distractions while driving.
During the October 3rd discussion the Commission discussed the regulation of the use of Devices in
relation to the numerous distractions drivers face while driving such as eating French fries or drinking
coffee, changing the station on a satellite radio receiver or retrieving items that slide off the dash. The
Commission also discussed these concepts in relation to careless driving and whether a citation for
careless driving could suffice.
“Careless Driving” is a criminal offense under both Montana state law12 and the Bozeman Municipal
Code13
10 Helena may be reconsidering this approach and will decide final approval of its ordinance November 7th. We will provide you an update on this at the hearing on first reading.
and was discussed by the Commission as an alternative to establishing a specific local traffic
regulation related to cell phone use that may target a broader range of distractions. The prosecutors in
the City Attorney’s Office feel the use of a Device while driving or a common distraction such as eating without involvement in an accident or collision does not rise to the level of careless driving as it would be difficult to obtain a criminal conviction for such a citation because of the higher standard of proof
leading a reasonable juror to determine the mere use of a cell phone, eating, etc. did not, beyond a
reasonable doubt, “unduly or unreasonably endanger the life, limb, property or other rights of a person
entitled to the use of the way.”
11 See the attached 2005 study from MSU’s Western Transportation Institute at pg. 2-3. See also the National Safety Council white paper “Understanding the distracted brain: Why driving while talking on hands-free phones is risky behavior” at:
http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Pages/CognitiveDistraction.aspx (last visited November 1, 2011). 12 MCA 61-8-302. Careless driving. (1) A person operating or driving a vehicle on a public highway shall drive it in a
careful and prudent manner that does not unduly or unreasonably endanger the life, limb, property, or other rights of a person
entitled to the use of the highway. (2) A person who is convicted of the offense of careless driving is subject to the penalties provided in 61-8-711 or 61-8-
716. 13 BMC Sec. 36.03.260. - Careless driving prohibited; penalty.
A. A person operating or driving a vehicle of any character on the ways of the city open to the public shall drive it in a careful and prudent manner so as not to unduly or unreasonably endanger the life, limb, property or other rights of a
person entitled to the use of the way. B. Any person who violates this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall
be fined in an amount of not less than $25.00 or more than $500.00.
81
Memo to the Commission re: Ordinance 1818- regulating the use of hand held electronic communication devices Page 5 of 7
While we do not recommend the following approach, if the Commission is interested in addressing all types of distractions without the existence of an accident or collision the Commission could consider a regulation more specific than the current careless driving provisions and adopt something similar to
Troy, MI.
In 2010, Troy, MI adopted an ordinance that, in addition to a prohibition on using a cell phone while driving, adds a section that makes an offense:
“any action by the driver that diverts his or her attention resulting in the failure to use due care and caution in the
operation of a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion on any highway or street or placed open to the general public []. Such action can include but is not limited to: eating, reading, writing, performing personal
hygiene/grooming, physical interaction with pets, passengers, or unsecured cargo, any of which is done in a manner that prohibits the driver from maintaining direct physical control of the motor vehicle steering mechanism with at
least one hand that is free of all other objects and used entirely to form a controlled grip on the steering mechanism.”
Sect. 1.20.05.3, Troy City Code (Michigan) (emphasis added).
As shown, aside from the laundry list of behaviors that make up “distracted driving,” the operative
language in Troy’s ordinance is very similar to the careless driving standard established under Montana
and Bozeman regulations (compare language such as “careful and prudent manner” under Bozeman and
Montana codes with “failure to use due care and caution” in Troy’s code). We recommend the
Commission not take this approach.
We suggest that if the Commission is interested in addressing distractions beyond the use of Devices
you consider amending careless driving in relation to vehicle collisions as discussed in the next section
(C).
C. Careless Driving: use of a Device as a contributing factor in a traffic collision.
As discussed on October 3rd, the Police Department gathered data this past summer regarding use of
Devices in vehicle collisions. The study found that out of 558 reports of vehicle collisions 12 of those
drivers were either talking on or looking at their cell phone at the time of the collision.14
From this discussion the Commission was interested in understanding more about enhancing the penalty for using a cell phone while involved in a collision.
The Commission could consider two approaches: (i) if Ordinance 1818 is adopted the Commission
could add a specific provision creating an enhanced civil penalty if the person responsible for the traffic collision was using a cell phone while driving; and/or (ii) amend the BMC regulation on careless driving.
The first option could adopt language in the proposed Ordinance 1818 similar to an enhanced penalty in
the Missoula Municipal Code: “If any vehicle crash investigation determines that a cell phone [i.e. a
14 Please see the 10/3/11 memo for additional information on this traffic study.
82
Memo to the Commission re: Ordinance 1818- regulating the use of hand held electronic communication devices Page 6 of 7
Device] was in use by a vehicle operator involved in the crash at the time the crash occurred, the
minimum fine shall be $______which may not be suspended or waived up to a maximum of $500.00.”15
The second option would be to add a third section (C) to existing 36.03.260 (careless driving) to read;
“C. A driver involved in motor vehicle crash/accident while using a hand held electronic communication device
shall be considered prima fascia evidence the person unduly or unreasonably endangered the life, limb, or property of other persons entitled to the use of the way.”
The Commission could adopt either such a provision in lieu of or in addition to the civil prohibition on
use of a Device already included in Ordinance 1818. If added to the careless driving regulation use of a
Device in a vehicle collision would be a criminal misdemeanor subject to the general penalty in the BMC (see 1.01.210, BMC) rather than a civil offense. Amending the careless driving provision in the BMC will require an additional hearing on provisional adoption.
D. Prohibition on the use of Devices by novice drivers only.
The Commission expressed interest in understanding whether the City could impose a restriction on the use of Devices for drivers who have limited experience. Cautious of equal protection and due process
issues related to age, we analyzed whether the City could adopt a regulation that provided for a civil
offense for drivers subject to the Montana graduated driver’s licensing program16
. The City has the legal
authority to tie a local civil offense to those involved in the graduated driver’s licensing program as such an offense will not impede upon the State’s authority to regulate driver’s licensing; however, enforcement of such a regulation would be difficult and will by necessity be a secondary offense.
If the Commission were interested in this approach the Commission could create a regulation that made
it a civil offense for a person with a “learner’s license,” a “traffic education learner’s license” or a “first year restricted license”17
Under this approach, because of equal protection and due process concerns, we urge the offense be a
secondary offense cited only when an officer pulls over a vehicle and in the course of that investigation
recognizes the driver is authorized to operate a motor vehicle under only one of the above licenses.
to use a Device while operating a motor vehicle as is currently the case with Ordinance 1818.
An example of regulatory language implementing a secondary offense can be found in state law related
to the use of seat belts: “The department [of justice] or its agent [i.e. a police officer] may not require a
driver who may be in violation of this section to stop except (a) upon reasonable cause to believe that
the driver has violated another traffic regulation.” 18
15 See Missoula Municipal Code, Sect. 10.20.310(A)(3). Missoula’s minimum penalty for texting is $100 for a first offense
and $150 for a second or subsequent offense up to a maximum of $500.00 for each. The enhanced penalty for texting while involved in a vehicle collision is $350. We recommend that if the Commission is interested in this approach the enhanced
penalty only be if the use of the cell phone can be shown as a “contributing factor” to the cause of the accident.
16 Montana’s graduated driver’s licensing program (GDLP) is a mandatory program for residents under age 18 to obtain a
driver’s license. The GDLP is found at Title 61, Chpt. 5, Part 1, MCA. 17 61-5-106, MCA. 18 61-8-103(4), MCA.
83
Memo to the Commission re: Ordinance 1818- regulating the use of hand held electronic communication devices Page 7 of 7
If the Commission decides to move forward with an ordinance regulating the use of Devices for only
novice drivers we recommend the Commission make the offense a secondary offense. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Commission.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The addition of every regulation requires additional time commitment from staff yet we believe that at this time no additional personnel will be needed to enforce this ordinance as the
additional workload will be subsumed by existing staff. An education campaign associated with the
adoption of this ordinance will require allocation of police resources but should not result in any
additional departmental expenditure unless the City implements an advertising campaign or installs wayfarer signage at the primary entrances to the City.
The City will send unpaid citations to collections per the City’s existing contract. Those seeking to
challenge the issuance of a citation may appeal the citation to Municipal Court; at that time, City
resources will be consumed to defend and try the citation. Attachments:
• Ordinance 1818.
• October 3, 2011 Commission Memorandum for work session on distracted driving
• Driver Performance While Using a Cellular Telephone Interface to a Traveler Information
System, Kelly et al., Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University, July 29, 2005.
Report compiled on: November 3, 2011
84
Ordinance 1818
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE 1818
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOXZEMAN, MONTANA, PROHIBITING THE
USE OF HAND HELD ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
DEVICES WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE.
WHEREAS, the regulations regarding motor vehicles and traffic are found at Chapter 36 of the Bozeman Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the use of mobile telephones and other electronic communications devices
while operating a motor vehicle presents an unacceptable risk to the driving public by creating a
driving distraction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, as follows:
Section 1
That a new section of the Bozeman Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
“36.03.275. Electronic communications device usage while driving prohibited; municipal
infraction penalty.
A. No person shall use or have in their immediate physical possession a hand held electronic
communication device while operating a motor vehicle, motorcycle, quadricycle, or a
bicycle on a public highway as defined in Sect. 61-1-102(27), MCA, within the City
limits.
B. “Hand held electronic communications device” includes wireless or cellular phones, Blackberries, smart phones, i-phones, laptop and notebook computers utilizing VOIP
(voice over internet protocol) technology, navigational systems, and any other mobile
communications device that uses short-wave analog or digital radio transmissions
between the device and a transmitter to permit wireless communications to and from the
user of the device. C. “Immediate physical possession” means touching the hand held electronic
communications device, or physically holding the device in one’s hand or up to one’s ear.
Simply having the electronic communications device on one’s person or in a motor
vehicle does not constitute immediate physical possession.
85
Ordinance 1818
Page 2 of 4
D. Exceptions: 1. This provision shall not apply to any person reporting a health, fire, safety, or
police emergency.
2. This provision shall not apply to governmental fire agencies, ambulance services,
law enforcement agencies, emergency responders, or any person operating an “Authorized Emergency Vehicle” as defined in Sect. 61-8-102(2)(a), MCA while in the performance and scope of their work related duties.
3. This provision shall not apply to passengers in a motor vehicle, or persons using a
hand held electronic communications device while maintaining a motor vehicle in
a stationary position, not in gear, while in a parking lane or space out of moving traffic lanes. 4. This provision shall not apply to persons using a “hands free device.” A “hands
free device” is an external device, such as a “Bluetooth” device, that connects to a
wireless telephone, wireless communications device or electronic
communications device that allows use of the device without touching the telephone or wireless or electronic communications device with one’s hand, and includes voice-activated technologies that can be utilized without touching the
device. Use of a hands free device is permitted while operating a motor vehicle
provided the driver does not touch the wireless telephone or wireless or electronic
communications device with one’s hand while operating a motor vehicle. 5. This provision does not apply to drivers using two-way radios while in the performance and scope of their work-related duties.
6. This provision shall not apply to drivers holding a valid amateur radio operator
license issued by the Federal Communications Commission while using a two-
way radio. E. Violation; Penalty: A person who violates this section shall be deemed to have committed a municipal infraction, a civil offense, and for each violation a civil penalty of
$100.00 shall be imposed.
Section 2
Repealer.
All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Bozeman in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other provisions of the ordinances
of the City of Bozeman not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 3
Savings Provision.
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were
incurred or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance. All other
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code not amended by this Ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
86
Ordinance 1818
Page 3 of 4
Section 4
Severability.
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this
ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect
the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Bozeman Municipal Code as a whole.
Section 5
Codification Instruction.
The provisions of Sections 1 shall be codified at 36.03.280. All other existing sections of
Chapter 38, Art. 3, Division 2 shall remain in effect and be renumbered accordingly.
Section 6
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 (thirty) days after second reading and
final adoption.
PROVISIONALLY ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, on first reading at a regular session thereof held on the _____ day of November, 2011.
____________________________________ JEFFREY K. KRAUSS Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
87
Ordinance 1818
Page 4 of 4
FINALLY PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana on second reading at a regular session thereof held on the ___ day of
______________, 2011. The effective date of this ordinance is the _____ day
of___________201_.
__________________________________________
JEFFREY K. KRAUSS Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
88
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Ron Price, Chief of Police
Dave McManis, Patrol Lieutenant
SUBJECT: Distracted Driving
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2011
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Policy Discussion
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss issues surrounding distracted driving and the potential of
an ordinance restricting cellular phone use. Provide direction to staff for future action as
applicable.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: No motion is necessary. This is a policy discussion that
requires no formal action by the City Commission.
BACKGROUND: In February 2010 The City of Bozeman 2010-2011 Work Plan was adopted
and included a new policy initiative to “adopt an ordinance requiring all drivers to use hands-free
devices while using their cellular phones and to prohibit texting while driving.” The issue was
again placed on the 2011-2012 Work Plan as a 2nd Tier Initiative under the title of “Distracted
Driver Ordinance.”
During discussion of the 2011-2012 Work Plan, members of the commission directed the staff to
survey and collect local data relating to reported cell phone use as the Bozeman Police
Department investigated vehicle accidents. In addition, members of the Commission requested
information as to the experiences of other Montana cities that have enacted ordinances that
restrict cell phone use while driving.
Municipal Ordinances
The City of Missoula enacted an ordinance in 2009 that prohibits texting while driving. There
have been less than 20 citations issued during that time and police officials stated that it is
seldom enforced in great part due to the burdensome process of subpoenaing phone/text records.
Ordinances in the cities of Whitefish, Butte-Silver Bow and Billings each contain very similar
language. They prohibit the use (or actual physical possession) of a hand-held communication
device while operating a vehicle. There are exceptions for persons reporting emergencies,
authorized emergency vehicles, two-way radios and vehicles that are stopped and not in gear.
The City of Billings Ordinance No. 10-5521, USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
89
DEVICES WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE, is attached as a representative sample of
ordinance language.
Below we provide a summary of the experiences of those three Montana communities that have
adopted similar restrictions:
Billings: The ordinance passed without significant controversy and has worked smoothly. It
became effective in November, 2010 and since that time they have issued 322 citations and 94
warnings. Violations of this ordinance result in a civil penalty of $110. None of the citations
have been contested.
Butte-Silver Bow: This ordinance was enacted in May, 2011. During the first month the
department issued 40 warnings. As of this date the department has issued six (6) citations.
Violators of this ordinance are subject to a criminal conviction and a fine in the amount of $100.
Whitefish: No enforcement action has taken place and the ordinance is not effective until
September 20, 2011. Violations result in a civil penalty of not more than $100 for the first
offense and not more than $300 for all repeat violations.
Bozeman Traffic Study
Officers of the Bozeman Police Department collected information pertaining to potential
contributing factors in all reported accidents that occurred between February 1, 2011 and July 1,
2011. As part of their investigation, officers interviewed drivers and witnesses about causative
factors and potential distractions including whether a cell phone was in use at the time of the
accident.
During the above time period officers responded to 558 reports of vehicle accidents. Driver
carelessness was the single largest contributing factor (157) with unsafe backing being chief
among them. Failure to Yield Right of Way (56) and Weather Conditions (56) were other
significant contributors. Twenty (20) of the accidents resulted in arrests for Driving Under the
Influence (DUI).
During this study period there were twelve (12) instances where drivers were either talking
on cell phones or were looking at them at the time of the accident. In two (2) of the cases
the driver on the phone was identified as the non-fault driver.
“Other Driver Distraction” was identified as a contributing factor in 29 of the accidents. These
distractions included: reaching for item on seat or floor (9); other electronics (5); preparing to
eat or drink (4); passengers (3); children (2); and others.
Research
In December 2010 I presented a memo to the commission that contained an overview of current
research data as it pertains to cell phone use and distracted driving. The memo examined the
body of research on distracted driving and presented a synopsis of some of the commonalities
that were found.
In July 2011the Governors Highway Safety Administration released the report, Distracted
Driving: What Research Shows and What States Can Do. This report “reviews and summarizes
distracted driving research…to inform states and other organizations as they consider distracted
driving countermeasures.”
90
The memo and the executive summary of the report are attached for review and reference.
The issue of distracted driving, specifically cell phone use, has been part of the City of Bozeman
Work Plan for the previous two years. At this time, and with the additional information
provided, staff is requesting guidance on this policy decision.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Although implementation of a Municipal Ordinance may have financial
implications for the City and the community, this discussion phase has no immediate fiscal
effect.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Attachments: Memo to the City Commission, dated December 14, 2010
Distracted Driving: What Research Shows and What States Can Do
City of Billings Ordinance No. 10-5521
Report compiled on: September 9, 2011
91
BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
RON PRICE, CHIEF OF POLICE
615 SOUTH 16TH AVE
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715
(406) 582-2010
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
FROM: RON PRICE
RE: CELL PHONE ORDINANCE
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2010
In February 2010 The City of Bozeman 2010-2011 Work Plan was adopted and
included a new policy initiative to “adopt an ordinance requiring all drivers to use
hands-free devices while using their cellular phones and to prohibit texting while
driving”. To date there has not been a policy discussion as it relates to this
initiative. The intent of this memo is to provide a level of information and research
data as it pertains to cell phone use and distracted driving.
During 2009, cell phone distractions while driving hit our nation’s political and
media agendas. Webster’s Dictionary named “distracted driving” it’s Word of the
Year. Driver cell phone use has become symbolic of driver distraction—or arguably
even of traffic safety in the eyes of the public. The call for legislative intervention,
usually in the form of ordinances prohibiting use, continues to be raised. Currently
there are nine states that ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving.
Additionally, use of cell phones by novice drivers is restricted in 28 states and the
District of Columbia.
There is an ever-growing body of research as it relates to cell phone use and
distracted driving. There is some level of commonality found among the literature.
It is generally accepted that a driver using a cell phone while driving is four times
more likely to be involved in a traffic collision. Essential driving skills are degraded,
including slower reaction time, diminished hazard perception and erratic lane
positioning.1 Even though virtually all existing cell phone ordinances speak to
1 Caird, J. K., Scialfa, C. T., Ho, G., & Smiley, A. (2005). A meta-analysis of driving performance and crash risk
associated with the use of cellular telephones while driving.
http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/Resources/Documents/A meta-analysis of driving performance and crash risk
associated with the use of cellular telephones while driving.pdf
20092
hand-held devices, numerous studies have shown that there is no significant
difference between using a hands-free or a hand-held cell phone.2
There is less data as it relates specifically to ordinances and their effectiveness at
addressing distracted driving issues. The most significant research was published
in December 2009 and examined collision claims and how those numbers were
affected in jurisdictions that had enacted laws banning hand-held cell phone use.
The research indicated that there was no indication of a decrease in crash risk when
hand-held cell phone laws were enacted. An examination of the control states
without laws had collision claim trends that were the same as those which had
enacted hand-held bans. 3
The State of Washington was one of the first to enact a law addressing the use of
hand-held cell phones. The Washington Traffic Safety Commission indicated that
prior to the law, visual counts revealed cell phone use rates of approximately 6%.
Shortly after the ban the rates were reduced to 4.5% and within several months
had climbed back to their original levels. These numbers and trends are consistent
with other state and national surveys4.
Cell phone use is one of many activities that can lead to driver inattention.
Research on distracted driving has indicated that it is often secondary to other
activities such as eating or manipulating radios and other electronics5. There are
existing laws that address distracted driving and improper operation of vehicles.
These include careless driving, improper lane travel, and speed violations, to name
only a few. These laws currently address the issues and are properly enforced. I
have concerns about regulating only one component of the distracted driving issue
and attempting to do so through an ordinance that is difficult to enforce and not
shown to be effective.
In short, I agree with a senior scientist that gave recommendations on the subject
in a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Collect more
data, punish violations of inattentive and reckless driving laws regardless of the
causes of such behavior, and improve driver education.
2 National Safety Council (2010). Understanding the distracted brain: Why driving while using hands-free cell
phones is risky behavior.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/traffic_safety/files/NSC White Paper - Distracted Driving 3-10.pdf
3 Highway Loss Data Institute (2009). Hand-held cellphone laws and collision claim frequencies.
http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/resources/HLDI-CellPhoneLawStudy.pdf
4 Injury Prevention (2004). Longer term effects of New York State’s law on drivers’ handheld cell phone use.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/1/11.full.pdf
5 Highway Safety Research Center (2004). Distractions in everyday driving.
http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Documents/Distractions in Everyday Driving.pdf
20193
Distracted Driving
What ReseaRch shoWs anD What states can Do
®
This report was made possible by a grant from
20294
3Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Dotexecutive summary
This report reviews and summarizes distracted driving research available as
of January 2011 to inform states and other organizations as they consider
distracted driving countermeasures. It concentrates on distractions produced
by cell phones, text messaging, and other electronic devices brought into
the vehicle. It also considers other distractions that drivers choose to engage
in, such as eating and drinking, personal grooming, reading, and talking to
passengers. It addresses distractions associated with vehicle features only
briefly. They have been studied extensively by automobile manufacturers, but
states have little role in addressing them.
What is distracted driving? There are four types of driver distraction:
●●Visual – looking at something other than the road
●●Auditory – hearing something not related to driving
●●Manual – manipulating something other than the wheel
●●Cognitive – thinking abut something other than driving
Most distractions involve more than one of these types, with both a sensory
– eyes, ears, or touch – and a mental component. For this report, distraction
occurs when a driver voluntarily diverts attention to something not related to
driving that uses the driver’s eyes, ears, or hands.
how often are drivers distracted? Driver distraction is common in
everyday driving and in crashes.
●●Drivers on the road: Most drivers in surveys reported that they
sometimes engaged in distracting activities. A study that observed
100 drivers continually for a full year found that drivers were
distracted between one-quarter and one-half of the time.
o Cell phone use: In recent surveys, about two-thirds of all
drivers reported using a cell phone while driving; about one-
third used a cell phone routinely. In observational studies
during daylight hours in 2009, between 7% and 10% of all
drivers were using a cell phone.
o Texting: In recent surveys, about one-eighth of all drivers
reported texting while driving. In observational studies
during daylight hours in 2009, fewer than 1% of all drivers
were observed to be texting.
Distraction
occurs when
a driver
voluntarily
diverts
attention to
something
not related
to driving
that uses the
driver’s
eyes, ears,
or hands.
20395
4 Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Do4Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Do
executive summary
t●●Drivers in crashes: At least one driver was reported to have been
distracted in 15% to 30% of crashes. The proportion of distracted
drivers may be greater because investigating officers may not detect
or record all distractions. In many crashes it is not known whether the
distractions caused or contributed to the crash.
how does distraction affect driver performance? Experimental studies
show conclusively that distractions of all types affect performance on tasks
related to driving. But experimental studies cannot predict what effect various
distractions have on crash risk.
how does distraction affect crash risk? The limited research suggests that:
●●Cell phone use increases crash risk to some extent but there is no
consensus on the size of the increase.
●●There is no conclusive evidence on whether hands-free cell phone
use is less risky than hand-held use.
●●Texting probably increases crash risk more than cell phone use.
●●The effects of other distractions on crash risk cannot be estimated
with any confidence.
are there effective countermeasures for distracted driving? There are
no roadway countermeasures directed specifically at distracted drivers.
Many effective roadway design and operation practices to improve safety
overall, such as edgeline and centerline rumble strips, can warn distracted
drivers or can mitigate the consequences if they leave their travel lane.
Vehicle countermeasures to manage driver workload, warn drivers of risky
situations, or monitor driver performance have the potential to improve safety
for all drivers, not just drivers who may become distracted. Some systems
are beginning to be implemented in new vehicles and others are still in
development. Their ultimate impact on distracted driving cannot be predicted.
Countermeasures directed to the driver offer an opportunity to reduce
distracted driving incidence and crashes in the next few years. They have
concentrated on cell phones and texting through laws, communications
campaigns, and company policies and programs. Systems to block or limit a
driver’s cell phone calls are developing rapidly but have not yet been evaluated.
In summary, the limited research on these countermeasures concludes that:
●●Laws banning hand-held cell phone use reduced use by about
half when they were first implemented. Hand-held cell phone use
increased subsequently but the laws appear to have had some long-
term effect.
●●A high-visibility cell phone and texting law enforcement campaign
reduced cell phone use immediately after the campaign. Longer-
term effects are not yet known.
●●There is no evidence that cell phone or texting bans have reduced
crashes.
Laws banning
hand-held cell
phone use
reduced use
by about half
when they
were first
implemented.
20496
5Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Do 5
executive summary
t●●Distracted driving communications campaigns and company policies
and programs are widely used but have not been evaluated.
What can states do to reduce distracted driving? States should
consider the following activities to address distracted driving. While each
has been implemented in some states, there is no solid evidence that any is
effective in reducing crashes, injuries, or fatalities.
●●Enact cell phone and texting bans for novice drivers. Novices are the
highest-risk drivers. A cell phone ban supports other novice driver
restrictions included in state graduated licensing programs and helps
parents manage their teenage drivers. As of June 2011, 30 states
and the District of Columbia prohibited the use of all cell phones by
novice drivers and 41 states and the District of Columbia prohibited
texting by novice drivers. But there is no evidence that novice driver
cell phone or texting bans are effective.
●●Enact texting bans. Texting is more obviously distracting and counter
to good driving practice than cell phone use. As of June 2011, 34
states and the District of Columbia had enacted texting bans for all
drivers. But texting bans are difficult to enforce.
●●Enforce existing cell phone and texting laws. Enforcement will
increase any law’s effect, while failing to enforce a law sends a
message that the law is not important. But enforcing cell phone or
texting laws will divert resources from other traffic law enforcement
activities.
●●Implement distracted driving communication programs. Cell phone
and texting laws should be publicized broadly to increase their
effects. Other communication and education activities can address
the broader issues of avoiding distractions while driving. Thirty-
seven states and the District of Columbia conducted a recent
distracted driving communications campaign. But distracted driving
communication programs will divert resources from other traffic
safety communications activities.
●●Help employers develop and implement distracted driving policies and
programs. Many companies have established and implemented cell
phone policies for their employees. Company policies can be a powerful
influence on employees’ driving. But they have not been evaluated.
States can and should take four steps that will help reduce distracted driving
immediately and in the future.
●●Continue to implement effective low-cost roadway distracted driving
countermeasures such as edgeline and centerline rumble strips.
●●Record distracted driving in crash reports to the extent possible, to
assist in evaluating distracted driving laws and programs.
●●Monitor the impact of existing hand-held cell phone bans prior to
enacting new laws. States that have not already passed handheld
bans should wait until more definitive research and data are available
on these laws’ effectiveness.
●●Evaluate other distracted driving laws and programs. Evaluation will
enforce
existing cell
phone and
texting laws ...
But enforcing
cell phone or
texting laws
will divert
resources
from other
traffic law
enforcement
activities.
20597
6 Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Do6Distracted Driving What Research Shows and What States Can Do
executive summary
provide the information states need on which countermeasures are
effective and which are not.
What should others do to reduce distracted driving?
●●Employers: Consider distracted driving policies and programs for
their employees. Evaluate the effects of their distracted driving
policies and programs on employee knowledge, behavior, crashes,
and economic costs (injuries, lost time, etc.).
●●Automobile industry: Continue to develop, test, and implement
measures to manage driver workload and to warn drivers of risky
situations.
●●Federal government: Help states evaluate the effects of distracted
driving programs. Continue tracking driver cell phone use and
texting in the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS).
Work with states to improve data collection on driver distractions
involved in crashes. Continue to develop and conduct national
communications campaigns on distracted driving.
20698
Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version
ORDINANCE NO. 10-5521
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BILLINGS, PROVIDING THAT THE
BILLINGS, MONTANA CITY CODE BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW
DIVISION TO ARTICLE 24-300 OPERATION OF VEHICLES, TITLED
“DIVISION 5. USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES WHILE
OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE”, AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS TO BE
NUMBERED 24-360, 24-361.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BILLINGS,
MONTANA:
Section 1. That the Billings, Montana City Code be amended by adding a new division to
Article 24-300 OPERATION OF VEHICLES, titled “DIVISION 5. USE OF ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE”, and by adding
new sections to be numbered 24-360 and 24-361.
Article 24-300 OPERATION OF VEHICLES
DIVISION 5. USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES WHILE OPERATING
A MOTOR VEHICLE
Sec. 24-360. Electronic Communications Device Usage While Driving Prohibited
(a) No person shall use or have in their immediate physical possession a hand held electronic
communications device while operating a motor vehicle, motorcycle, quadricycle, or a bicycle
on a public highway within the city limits of Billings.
(b) “Hand held electronic communications device” includes wireless or cellular phones, PDAs,
Blackberries, smart phones, laptop and notebook computers utilizing VOIP (voice over internet
protocol) technology, wireless and cellular phones utilizing push-to-talk technology, GPS
systems, navigational systems, and any other mobile communication device that uses short-wave
analog or digital radio transmissions between the device and a transmitter to permit wireless
communications to and from the user of the device.
(c) “Immediate physical possession” means touching the hand held electronic communications
device, or physically holding the device in one’s hand or up to one’s ear. Simply having the
electronic communications device on one’s person or in a motor vehicle does not constitute
immediate physical possession.
(d) Exceptions.
(1) This provision shall not apply to any person reporting a health, fire, safety, or police
emergency.
(2) This provision shall not apply to governmental fire agencies, ambulance services, law
enforcement agencies, emergency responders, or any other “Authorized Emergency Vehicle” as
defined in Montana Code Annotated Sec. 61-8-102(2)(a).
Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com20799
(3) This provision shall not apply to passengers in a motor vehicle, or persons using a
hand held electronic communications device while maintaining a motor vehicle in a stationary
position, not in gear, while in a parking lane or space out of moving traffic lanes.
(4) This provision shall not apply to persons using a “hands free device”. A “hands free
device” is an external device that connects to a wireless telephone, wireless communications
device or electronic communications device that allows use of the device without touching the
telephone or wireless or electronic communications device with one’s hands, and includes voice-
activated technologies that can be utilized without touching the device. Use of a hands free
device is permitted while operating a motor vehicle provided the driver does not touch the
wireless telephone or wireless or electronic communications device with one’s hands while
operating a motor vehicle.
(5) This provision shall not apply to drivers using two way radios while in the
performance and scope of their work-related duties.
(6) This provision shall not apply to drivers holding a valid amateur radio operator
license issued by the Federal Communications Commission while using a two way radio.
Sec. 24-361. Penalty.
Persons found to have committed a violation of this division shall be subject to civil penalties as
specified in Section 18-1304.
Section 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective October 31, 2010.
Section 3. REPEALER. All resolutions, ordinances, and sections of the City Code
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 4. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of
this ordinance which may be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and, to this
end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
PASSED by the City Council on first reading this 26th day of July, 2010.
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED on second reading this 23rd day of August, 2010.
CITY OF BILLINGS
By ___________________________
Thomas W. Hanel, Mayor
ATTEST:
By ______________________________
Cari Martin, City Clerk
Created by Neevia Document Converter trial version http://www.neevia.com208100
DRIVER PERFORMANCE WHILE USING A CELLULAR TELEPHONE INTERFACE
TO A TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEM
by
Michael J. Kelly
Research Director
Laura M. Stanley
Graduate Fellow
Suzanne Lassacher
Research Associate
Western Transportation Institute
College of Engineering
Montana State University
A report prepared for the
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
United States Department of Transportation
July 29, 2005
101
Driver Distraction Disclaimer
DISCLAIMER
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the United States Department of
Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Department of
Transportation assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policies
of the United States Department of Transportation.
The United States Department of Transportation do not endorse products of manufacturers.
Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to
the object of this document.
This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and
not necessarily those of Montana State University.
Alternative accessible formats of this document will be provided upon request. Persons with disabilities who need an alternative accessible format of this information, or who require some
other reasonable accommodation to participate, should contact Kate Heidkamp, Communications
and Information Systems Manager, Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University-
Bozeman, PO Box 173910, Bozeman, MT 59717-3910, telephone number 406-994-7018, e-
mail: KateL@coe.montana.edu.
102
Driver Distraction Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was sponsored by the Research and Innovative Technologies Administration of the United States Department of Transportation.
103
Driver Distraction Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... vi
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................5
Appendix........................................................................................................................................15
References......................................................................................................................................17
Western Transportation Institute Page iv
104
Driver Distraction List of Figures
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The DriveSafety 500C Vection Driving Simulator ........................................................ 2
Figure 2. Mean velocity (m/s) across groups and driving environments...................................... 8
Figure 3. Braking RMS across groups and driving environments................................................. 9
Figure 4. Number of collisions across groups and driving environments ..................................... 9
Figure 5. Number of incorrect responses across groups and driving environments..................... 10
Western Transportation Institute Page v
105
Driver Distraction Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The growing availability of in-vehicle technology to acquire and communicate
information has proven to be advantageous for motorists. Mobile telephones allow motorists to
maintain critical communication between personal and business contacts. Along with the
advantages of in-vehicle information dissemination, the communication technologies and their
user interfaces may have created a potentially unsafe environment for motorists.
Several studies during the past decade have analyzed the effects of using mobile
telephones while driving. Results from these studies have indicated that the use of cell phones
while driving, whether dialing, answering, or conducting mobile telephone calls, may add a
significant increment of risk to the driving task. Studies have found that making a call during a
trip may more than triple the risk of a crash.
Because of the indications that mobile phones increase crash risk, some jurisdictions have
banned the use of hand-held mobile phones. Currently, 45 nations restrict the use of mobile
phones while driving. In the United States, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia
have similar laws. These regulations have primarily targeted hand-held telephone instruments
while allowing the use of hands-free mobile phones from vehicles, apparently on the assumption
that limiting manual handling creates a lower risk level.
Recent studies, however, have reported that hands-free cell phones have at least as great a
risk factor as hand-held phones. It appears that the increased driving risk associated with cell
phone use may be attributed primarily to cognitive and attentional factors rather than manual
manipulation of the instrument.
Recently many states have implemented a "Dial 511" traveler information system. This
system allows motorists to conveniently obtain advanced information on road conditions,
Western Transportation Institute Page vi
106
Driver Distraction Executive Summary
adverse weather, traffic incidents, and construction along their planned route by dialing 511 on
their telephones. Providers of the 511 system have emphasized that drivers should obtain this
information prior to departure or park their cars safely on the route to make the call. Many
drivers, however, access the system to updated their travel information while they are driving.
No studies to date have examined the safety of using mobile telephones to acquire such travel
information.
The study referred to in this document analyzed driving performance and situation
awareness while subjects accessed the Montana Department of Transportation’s 511 traveler
information system via a cellular telephone. Data were collected using the Western
Transportation Institute's Driving Simulation Laboratory. Thirty-six subjects were recruited for
the study. Subjects drove a series of four 6.5 minute scenarios. Two of the scenarios had
cultural features, traffic control devices, and ambient traffic typical of an urban environment
while the other two scenarios had features typical of a rural driving environment. For testing,
the subjects were divided into three groups of 12: Group 1 used a hands-free cellular phone;
Group 2 used a hand-held cellular phone; and Group 3, the control group, did not use a cell
phone. The two cell phone groups were asked to acquire road and weather information for a
particular segment of Interstate 90 using Montana’s 511 traveler information system employing
voice commands to navigate the system menus. In a post-testing questionnaire, subjects were
asked about the road and weather information they received from the 511 system.
The dependent variables relating to driver performance were analyzed. These include
velocity, root-mean-square values of lane position, steering, acceleration, braking, lateral and
longitudinal acceleration, number of collisions, and maintenance of speed limit. After the
completion of each scenario subjects were asked questions related to their awareness of objects
Western Transportation Institute Page vii
107
Driver Distraction Executive Summary
which appeared in the visual scenes. At the end of the testing session, subjects completed a
usability survey on the 511 traveler information system.
Performance on the primary tasks of driving (e.g., lane and speed maintenance) was
found to be unaffected by interacting with the cell phone. Yet the tasks that require more
prompt response times (e.g., avoiding collisions during unexpected conflicts) were degraded by
the use of a cell phone, regardless of the type of instrument used.
It appeared that drivers were less aware of their surroundings when interacting with the
511 traveler information system while using a cellular phone and driving. Drivers who
communicated with 511 performed more poorly in recalling target objects in the environment
than did their counterparts without communication tasks. This reduction in situation awareness
could largely explain the increased braking responses and higher number of collisions.
It should be noted that the task of acquiring information using the 511-traveler
information system via a cellular phone differs from that of conversing and interacting on a
cellular phone. The 511 task was not a free conversation. During the task, subjects did not
engage in conversation. Subjects used voice commands to acquire the road and weather
conditions for the selected segment of highway from the automated computer system.
Despite these differences, results from this study were strikingly similar to findings from
other studies of cell phone conversations while driving. Interaction with the 511 travel
information system appears to have the same performance effects and risks as a free-form cell
phone conversation.
Western Transportation Institute Page viii
108
Driver Distraction Introduction
INTRODUCTION
The burgeoning availability of information and communication devices for use in
vehicles has become a double-edged sword with both significant benefits and significant costs.
Mobile telephones allow motorists to maintain social contacts, conduct and coordinate business,
make restaurant and theatre reservations, and even track their stock portfolios. Traveler
information such as lodging availability and driving directions can be sought from within the
vehicle.
Recently motorists have begun using mobile telephones to connect to a state’s “511”
traveler information system in order to obtain advanced information on road conditions, adverse
weather, serious traffic incidents, and construction along the planned route. The national "511"
system is heavily used by drivers, especially during inclement weather, to plan and replan their
trips. Few studies have explored the usability of the 511 user interface, especially in the context
of a mobile phone user who has the added workload of driving a vehicle. It should be noted that
511 providers do not recommend the use of the information system by drivers of moving
vehicles. It is universally recommended that drivers make their 511 call before they begin their
trips or pull to the side of the road and stop before dialing.
Anecdotal reports of vehicle accidents caused by drivers who were dialing, answering, or
conducting mobile telephone calls suggest that the distractions and added workload of cellular
phone use may add a significant increment of risk. Several studies during the past decade seem
to verify this hypothesis. In a recent survey by Thulin and Gustafsson (2004), drivers admitted
to missing exits, failing to see traffic signals, losing control of their speed, and experiencing
near-crashes while using their mobile phones. None of the drivers reported an actual accident
Western Transportation Institute Page 1
109
Driver Distraction Introduction
but it was estimated that 10-20 Swedish fatalities per year result from the use of mobile phones
while driving.
In a widely cited earlier study, Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) examined the telephone
billing records of approximately 700 drivers who had experienced property damage crashes.
They found that drivers who were using their phones within 10 minutes before the accident had a
risk factor approximately 4 times that of non-phone users. The investigators subsequently
reported that, due to a number of limitations on their original experimental design, these numbers
are probably underestimates of the actual risk (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 2001). Green (2000)
summarized studies of crash frequency and cell phone use and concluded that making a single
call during a trip approximately triples the crash risk. The crash risk escalates with each
additional call made during the trip.
To combat this increased crash risk, some jurisdictions have banned the use of hand-held
mobile phones while driving. Currently, 45 nations have placed restrictions on cell phone use
while driving. In the United States, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have
banned the use of hand-held phones while driving. Other states have placed conditional
restrictions on cell phone use while driving (e.g. by younger drivers).
Jurisdictions that have regulated the use of mobile phones from vehicles usually allow the
use of hands-free interfaces. The assumption made is that limiting the manual handling of the
device, lowers the associated risk factor. The Redelmeier et al. (1997) study reported, however,
that hands-free cell phones have a greater risk factor (5.9) than hand-held phones (3.9) although
this difference was not statistically significant. This counterintuitive finding could be a result of
hands-free phone users making more, longer, or more cognitively demanding calls than those
using hand-held instruments. In a survey of Swedish drivers, Thulin and Gustafsson (2004)
Western Transportation Institute Page 2
110
Driver Distraction Introduction
found that hands-free phone users did report 20% more phone use from their vehicles.
Redelmeier et al. (1997) concluded that the increased driving risk associated with cell phone use
could be attributed primarily to attentional factors rather than manual manipulation of the device.
A number of laboratory studies have explored the effects of mobile phone use on the
performance of perceptual and cognitive tasks related to driving. Using a dual task laboratory
paradigm involving pursuit tracking and reaction time to test the impact of mobile phone
conversations, Strayer and Johnston (2001) found that both subtasks were degraded during phone
conversations. The greatest performance decrements were seen when the subjects engaged in
conversations requiring cognitive activity and generation of speech responses. Boase, Hannigan
and Porter (1988) also used a dual task paradigm in which subjects played a computer game
while conducting a hands-free telephone conversation. Performance on the computer game was
significantly degraded by the telephone dialogues although less so during more cognitively
challenging conversations.
Patton, Kircher, Ostlund and Nilsson (2004) evaluated the effects of memory and
cognitive tasks mediated by mobile telephones on professional drivers in instrumented vehicles
on a rural highway. The complexity of the cognitive tasks (digit memory versus mental
arithmetic) during simulated conversations had a much greater impact on driving performance
than did the type of cellular phone (handheld or hands-free) utilized.
Primary driving tasks such as simple lane and speed maintenance are not significantly
impacted by a communication task (Horrey and Wickens, 2004a). For experienced drivers, these
tasks represent automated psychomotor responses requiring little cognitive activity. Horrey and
Wickens (2004b) postulated that the primary driving tasks involve different attentional resources
(ambient visual channels) than do responses to unexpected events (focal visual channels).
Western Transportation Institute Page 3
111
Driver Distraction Introduction
Communication tasks may interfere more with processing in the focal channels and differentially
degrade performance on tasks using those channels.
Haigney and Westerman (2001) examined many of the earlier studies, both
epidemiological and experimental, and reported flaws in the methodology and interpretation that
would bias the results. For ethical reasons, methodology, and ecological validity, they concluded
that research in a high fidelity driving simulator that measures key dimensions of driver
performance is the best approach to addressing the research issues of mobile telephone hazards.
The research environment in a driving simulator, however, is not a perfect reproduction of the
real-world driving task. Even with the best simulation systems, the visual elements are a
degraded representation, motion and haptic cues are imperfect, and scenarios are limited.
Perhaps most important is the fact that the simulator may promote riskier driving behaviors and
decisions because the costs of a collision are trivial compared to actual roadway driving.
Although, after comparing the results of 16 studies using either simulation or field data
collection, Horrey and Wickens (2004a) concluded that comparable results are obtained from
research in either of the two environments.
Few studies have examined exactly how phone conversations impact driving behavior
and performance. Several studies have found that cell phone conversations cause a withdrawal
of attention from the visual scene leading to inattention blindness (Rensink, Oregan, & Clark,
1997; Simons & Chabris, 1999) and a reduced useful field of view (Atchley and Dressel, 2004).
The practical impacts of such deficits in visual attention include reduced situation awareness,
especially outside the areas of central vision, and a slower reaction time to hazards encroaching
from the sides of the vehicle.
Western Transportation Institute Page 4
112
Driver Distraction Introduction
A study conducted by Briem & Hedman (1995) found that simple conversations do not
affect a person’s ability to maintain road position. Other studies found that working memory
tasks (Alm & Nilsson, 1995; Briem & Hedman, 1995), mental arithmetic tasks (McKnight &
McKnight, 1993), and reasoning tasks (Brown, Tickner, & Simmonds, 1969) interrupt simulated
driving performance. Additional studies have indicated that the greatest performance decrements
occur when drivers are engaged in conversations requiring cognitive activity and generation of
speech responses. A more recent study by Strayer, Drews, Crouch, & Johnston (2005) found
that drivers engaged in cell phone conversations had significantly slower response times to
urgent events than they would normally. The conclusion was drawn that drivers engaged in free
cell phone conversations became less aware of their surrounding environment. Furthermore,
distracting effects of cell phone conversations persisted despite the type of cell phone device
used (hand-held or hands-free).
It should be noted that the task of acquiring information using the 511-traveler
information system via a cellular phone differs from that of conversing and interacting on a
cellular phone. The 511 task was not a free conversation. During the task, subjects did not
engage in conversation. Subjects used voice commands to acquire the road and weather
conditions for the selected segment of highway from the automated computer system.
Interactions with the computer can be largely user-paced.
Some studies have investigated the social pressure to maintain the pace of cell phone
conversations and the corresponding influences on driving performance. The pressure to
maintain conversations may be higher when conducting a cell phone conversation as opposed to
conversing with passengers. Passengers may be more aware of changes in driving demands than
those engaged in a cell phone conversation from a remote location (Parkes, 1991). It could be
Western Transportation Institute Page 5
113
Driver Distraction Introduction
hypothesized that giving drivers more control over the pace of conversation might assist their
driving. Due to the fact that "511” is not conversation based, impacts on driver performance
might be reduced as users may pace their interactions with the system.
If we assume timesharing of the primary and secondary task, then how do we design in-
vehicle information systems that multi-task effectively to reduce driver distraction? One
possible solution is to think of the secondary-task as being continuously interrupted by the
primary task of driving. Gellatly & Kleiss (2000) found that drivers shift their attention between
the primary task of driving to secondary in-vehicle tasks in bursts of 1 to 3s. It should be noted
the assumption of timesharing found in the aforementioned studies conflicts with the findings of
Horrey and Wickens (2004a). Horrey and Wickens (2004a) stated that the primary task of
driving is not significantly impacted by a communication task. Some research has shown that
the ability to resume the primary task after being interrupted by the secondary task is the key to
task management. In the case of “511”, perhaps having response times that are adequate to
ensure that drivers are not forced to maintain a certain pace might assist in the driving task. A
recent study by Monk, Davis, & Trafton (2004) found the timing of interruptions has a
significant effect on task resumption times The study found that the most costly time to interrupt
the task performance was in the middle of the task. Clearly driving is a continuous task, but such
driving maneuvers as turning, changing lanes, braking, etc. are not continuous and occur at
specific points in time. An ideal case would include having the secondary task, such as “511”,
be completely user paced or know when best to interrupt or prompt users for inputs . Recent
research has begun to investigate such systems in terms of workload management while handling
interruptions more effectively (Piechulla, Mayser, Gehrke, & Konig, 2003; Verwey, 2000).
Western Transportation Institute Page 6
114
Driver Distraction Methodology
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
The subjects were 36 licensed drivers between the ages of 18 and 63 years (mean age =
31) who were recruited by announcements on the university campus and in the surrounding
community. All subjects were users of cellular telephones. Subjects were compensated for their
participation in the research and received a bonus for completing the testing without
experiencing a crash. Potential subjects completed a screening questionnaire to identify and
disqualify those who had medical conditions or histories that might indicate increased levels of
risk (e.g., headaches and motion sickness) in the simulation environment. All 36 subjects who
began testing completed the study although four reported some symptoms of motion discomfort.
Laboratory Equipment
Simulator. Data were collected using the Western Transportation Institute's Driving
Simulation Laboratory. This laboratory is a 36 square meter light and sound controlled room
containing a DriveSafety 500C simulator running HyperDrive ™ Simulation Authoring Suite
software and Vection™ simulation software version 1.9.8. The simulator is comprised of a
partial 1996 Saturn SL sedan cab with fully functional controls, five rear projection plasma
displays arranged in a semicircle around the front of the cab providing a 150-degree field of view
and on-screen rear-view mirrors, four audio speakers, vibration generator, a simulator
programmer/operator station, and seven associated computers to generate the scenarios, visual
and auditory environment, and collect data.
The simulator provides physics-based vehicle dynamics. The graphics systems render
realistic driving scenarios including geometrically correct urban and rural roadways, traffic
Western Transportation Institute Page 1
115
Driver Distraction Methodology
control devices, cultural features, ambient traffic, pedestrians, animals and other features.
Realistic auditory effects of traffic, engine noise, and wind noise are generated by the 3-D audio
system.
Figure 1. The DriveSafety 500C Vection Driving Simulator
Telephone. The telephone was a standard Motorola V120 handheld cell phone. A
Plantronics headphone with a single ear cup and boom microphone was used for hands-free
operation.
Procedures.
Simulator induced discomfort (SID), including nausea, headaches, and dizziness, can be a
significant issue during driving simulation research and it frequently results in attrition of
subjects. Prior to testing sessions, subjects completed screening questionnaires primarily
directed at their potential susceptibility to SID. Subjects were then acclimated to the driving
simulator by completing a series of six three to five minute training scenarios in the simulator,
Western Transportation Institute Page 2
116
Driver Distraction Methodology
each lasting between three and five minutes. Training began with relatively gentle drives
designed to minimize SID. As subjects proceeded through the training, the scenarios became
longer, more challenging, and more visually complex. Subjects were then trained and given
practice using the Montana Department of Transportation's 511 highway information line
including the voice understanding system. At the completion of training, subjects completed a
follow-up questionnaire on any SID symptoms they might have experienced.
The testing session was conducted one or two days after the training session. For testing,
subjects were divided into three groups of 12 each; Hand Held Phone, Hands Free Phone, and
Control. The groups were equalized in terms of gender and mean age. Subjects drove a series of
four 6.5 minute scenarios. Two of the scenarios had cultural features, traffic control devices, and
ambient traffic typical of an urban environment while the other two had features typical of a rural
driving environment. The order of scenario presentation was randomized among subjects within
the groups.
All subjects using the 511 system were given the following instructions prior to testing:
Your task is to drive for about six minutes along the road obeying all traffic signs and signals. You should drive at the posted speed limit and drive as you normally would. If there is a vehicle in front of you, maintain a safe following distance of about two seconds. Avoid collisions with other vehicles or objects. As you drive, we'll ask you to gather road and weather related conditions using Montana’s 511- phone generated traveler information system. For this trip we ask you to get road condition information for Interstate 90 from Butte, MT to Bozeman, MT. At the start of the drive you will accelerate up to the posted speed limit and will wait for me to prompt you to dial 511 with the provided cell phone. When I prompt you to begin dialing you will pick up the cell phone and dial 5-1-1. From that point, you will follow the voice generated prompts from the 511 system using voice-recognition commands. Do not use button commands. Using voice commands you will gather road and weather related conditions for Interstate 90 from
Butte, MT to Bozeman, MT and from Billings, MT to Big Timber, MT. If you become frustrated with the system’s voice recognition, or if, for example, the system is not responding to your commands, try speaking louder, more clearly, or reposition the phone. If none of these techniques are successful use the button commands to complete the task. At the completion of this task, please hang-up the phone, Let me know when you have ended the call and continue driving until I tell you to stop. There will be a 4-minute break between each testing scenario.
You will get out of the car and answer a memory test of objects seen.
Western Transportation Institute Page 3
117
Driver Distraction Methodology
Control group subjects were given similar instructions which omitted references to the
phone task.After each scenario subjects were given a situation awareness questionnaire in which
they were asked a series of ten questions regarding objects they remembered seeing while
driving. The number of incorrect responses were recorded and used for data analysis. At the end
of the test session, subjects completed a questionnaire related to their experience with simulator
discomfort (if any) and a usability survey on the 511-traveler information system. The survey
and the responses to the usability survey can be found in Appendix A.
Western Transportation Institute Page 4
118
Driver Distraction Results and Discussion
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Dependent Variables
All subjects made all turns as instructed and properly stopped at all signaled intersections,
i.e. no red-light running. Several errors were made in using the 511-traveler information system,
primarily due to the system’s voice understanding limitations. The number of errors was not
recorded due to the lack of an interface that would enable the experimenter to hear the
interactions between the subject and the 511-system. To address this inadequacy, at the end of
the session, subjects were asked to report and describe any errors made. Ninety-four percent
reported making errors due to the voice understanding software.
The dependent variables relating to driver performance were analyzed. These include
velocity, headway distance, headway time, root-mean-square values of lane position, steering,
acceleration, braking, lateral and longitudinal acceleration, number of collisions, and
maintenance of speed limit. Velocity was the speed of the subject vehicle (in miles/second).
Headway distance was the distance in meters from the subject’s front bumper to the rear bumper
of the vehicle ahead. Headway time was the time in seconds to the vehicle ahead. This value
was calculated using the headway distance and the subject vehicle velocity. Lane position was
the lane offset (in meters) within the current lane. The position of the subject in the right lane
indicated a positive value. A position in the left lane indicated a negative value. Steering data
included the steering input in degrees with clockwise being positive. Acceleration and braking
measured the normalized accelerator and braking input value (0.0-1.0), respectively. A value
greater than 0.0 indicated the brake or accelerator was being applied. An accelerator or brake
input value of 1.0 indicated the maximum amount of pressure to the pedal was being applied.
Lateral and longitudinal acceleration measured the lateral and longitudinal component for the
Western Transportation Institute Page 5
119
Driver Distraction Results and Discussion
acceleration of the subject vehicle, respectively. Collisions was a count of how many objects the
subject collided with while driving. Maintenance of the speed limit included the subject’s
velocity minus the posted speed limit at that frame. The root-mean-square (RMS) value for lane
position, steering, acceleration, braking, lateral and longitudinal acceleration were used in the
analysis given by the following equation:
Where x=the variable value, N=number of observations
Data collection for the cell-phone groups began when the experimenter pushed the
external remote control button that corresponded to digital inputs. A digital input of 01 (Button
A) began the call and a digital input of 10 (Button B) indicated the end of the call. Data analysis
for the cell phone groups included the data between the digital inputs 01 and 10, for the control
group. Data analysis included the average start (43 seconds into the scenario) and end time of the
cell phone (5 min into the scenario). The average time on the phone was around 4:30 minutes.
Data acquisition and management was analyzed using SAS 9.00. MiniTAB 14.1 was used for
statistical analysis. Data was filtered for the headway time and headway distance with time
between 0 and 10 seconds and 0 and 100 meters, respectively. This was done to eliminate
extraneous data due to irrelevant dynamic calculations.
At the end of each driving scenario subjects were asked ten questions about what they
remembered seeing in the scenario (e.g. Did you see an ambulance?). The number of incorrect
responses was recorded. The questions were used to assess the subjects’ awareness of the driving
environment.
Western Transportation Institute Page 6
120
Driver Distraction Results and Discussion
Two types of analyses were conducted: driver performance measurement and driver
distraction analysis. For the driving performance data, excluding the number of collisions, mean
differences on each dependent variable as a function of the experimental condition was
conducted using a 3 (Task Condition: Control, Hands free Cell Phone, Hand-held Cell Phone) x
4 (Environment: Rural 1, Rural 2, Urban 1, Urban 2) analysis of variance (ANOVA). In
assessing situation awareness and the number of collisions, the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis
of variance by ranks (Sheskin, 1997) was performed on the number of incorrect responses and
the number of collisions. In each environment subjects completed two tests in that environment
i.e. two rural and two urban scenarios. The ANOVA was completed separately for each driving
environment: aggregation was not conducted as all scenarios were different..
No significant interactions were found between task condition and driving environment.
Braking RMS and number of collisions showed significant main effects of task condition. There
were not any significant main effects for velocity, headway distance and time, lane position,
steering, acceleration, lateral and longitudinal acceleration, and maintenance of speed limit. In
the evaluation of situation awareness, marginally significant main effects were found among the
task conditions.
Driving Performance
Only those variables that showed statistical significance are discussed below. Velocity,
one of the primary driving performance variables, showed no indication of statistical significance
based on task condition or driving environment. Results are shown in Figure 2 below.
Western Transportation Institute Page 7
121
Driver Distraction Results and Discussion
Figure 2. Mean velocity (m/s) across groups and driving environments
The braking input values were measured from zero to one, where a value greater than 0
indicated the brake pedal was being applied. For the braking RMS, a measure of braking
activity, significant main effects were found for task condition, F(2, 33) = 4.74, p < .05, MSE =
0.001. The mean braking RMS for the hand-held cell phone condition (M = 0.1196) was
significantly higher (p < .05) than for the control condition (M = 0.0991). Results are shown in
Figure 3 below.
Western Transportation Institute Page 8
122
Driver Distraction Results and Discussion
Figure 3. Braking RMS across groups and driving environments
For the number of collisions, significant differences were found among task conditions,
F(2,33) = 10.69, p<.05, MSE = 0.224. The number of collisions for the hand-held cell phone
condition (M = 4.75) and the hands-free condition (M = 3.75) was significantly higher, X2 =
7.123, p <.05 than for the control condition (M = 1.25), as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Number of collisions across groups and driving environments
Western Transportation Institute Page 9
123
Driver Distraction Results and Discussion
Situation Awareness
The number of incorrect responses had marginally significant effects among task
condition, X2 = 2.15, p < .10. The mean number of incorrect responses for the hand-held
condition (M = 16.5) and the hands free condition (M = 16.25) was marginally higher (p < .10)
than the for the control condition (M = 13.75), as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Number of incorrect responses across groups and driving environments
Discussion
In summary, the mean braking RMS for the hand-held cell phone condition was significantly
higher (p < .05) than for the control condition. The number of collisions for the hand-held cell
phone condition and the hands-free condition was significantly higher (p <.05) than for the
control condition. The mean number of incorrect responses for the hand-held condition and the
hands free condition was marginally higher (p = .10) than for the control condition. The driving
performance data found that those measures relative to the primary task of driving were not
Western Transportation Institute Page 10
124
Driver Distraction Results and Discussion
affected by whether the person was using a cell phone. Driving events that required urgent
attention were influenced by using the cell phone, despite the type of device used (hand-held or
hands-free). Hand-held cell phone users were found to have a higher number of collisions, more
braking responses, and greater distraction than those drivers who used hands-free systems or did
not use a cell phone.
Western Transportation Institute Page 11
125
Driver Distraction Conclusions and Implications
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The task of acquiring information using the 511-traveler information system via a cellular
phone is different than that of conversing and interacting on a cellular phone. Past literature has
shown that the greatest performance decrements occur when drivers are engaged in
conversations requiring cognitive activity and generation of speech responses. The 511 task was
not a free conversation. During the task, subjects did not engage in conversation. Subjects used
voice commands to acquire the road and weather conditions for the selected segment of highway
from the automated computer system.
Despite these differences, results from this study were strikingly similar to findings from
other studies of cell phone conversations while driving. Interaction with the 511 travel
information system appears to have the same performance effects and risks as a free-form cell
phone conversation. Research using a broad range of methodologies including accident
epidemiology, field studies, and simulation studies has indicated that cell phone use increases
accident risk by a factor of 3 to 4. Our results using the 511 interaction task duplicated those
numbers.
Furthermore, few studies have found the anticipated safety benefit of a hands-free telephone
interface over a hand-held interface. This study agreed. We found, at most, a marginal safety
benefit for the hands-free interface.
Shinar, et al. (2004) noted that most laboratory and simulator studies of cell phone driver
distraction have used communication tasks with limited ecological validity such as speech
shadowing, mental arithmetic, or conversations about contrived topics. The communication task
Western Transportation Institute Page 12
126
Driver Distraction Conclusions and Implications
represented by a 511 interaction is probably as similar to a free conversation as many of these
other experimental tasks.
The primary task of driving (lane and speed maintenance) was found to be unaffected by
interacting with the cell phone. Yet the tasks that require more prompt response times (e.g.,
avoiding collisions during unexpected conflicts) were degraded by the use of a cell phone,
regardless of the device type. This finding is typical of driving simulation and test track research
(Horrey and Wickens, 2004a) and is consistent with the multiple resource model of attention
(Horrey and Wickens, 2004b).
It appeared that drivers were less aware of their surroundings when interacting with the 511
traveler information system while using a cellular phone and driving. Our drivers who
communicated with 511 performed more poorly in recalling target objects in the environment
than their counterparts without communication tasks. This finding is consistent with other
studies reporting a decrement in visual attention and shrinkage of the field of view by phone
users (e.g. Atchley and Dressel, 2004).
Recommendations
• The risk factor for using a cell phone to interact with the Montana DOT's 511 system, as
presently configured, is approximately the same as the risk associated with conducting a
free conversation on the phone while driving. MDT and other 511 providers should
continue to emphasize that users should "dial before they drive" or safely pull off of the
road in order to make their call.
• At most, a marginal benefit was found for the use of hands-free phones. This is
consistent with the bulk of research which has found that the risk of cell phone use while
Western Transportation Institute Page 13
127
Driver Distraction Conclusions and Implications
driving is related to the cognitive aspects of communication rather than manual
manipulation of the instrument. Restrictions on cell phone use that allow unrestricted use
of hands-free devices are ill-considered.
• Most users reported having problems using the voice-recognition software due to the
software’s inability to properly recognize voice commands and sensitivity to external
noise, i.e. breathing and/or vehicle noise. Near-term recommendations for improving the
effectiveness of the 511-system include providing a voice understanding software that
better comprehends voice commands with less sensitivity to external sounds.
• A potential near-term solution to increasing the usability of the 511-system and
decreasing driver workload requirements would be system allowed for a paced approach
with more time between voice-commands. This approach has the potential to reduce
driver workload by minimizing paced responses. Long-term design solutions would
include a system that understood the driving environment and driver workload at specific
points in time and would permit the driver to respond at a pace proportional to the
workload.
Western Transportation Institute Page 14
128
Driver Distraction Appendix
APPENDIX
Appendix A. Usability Questionnaire
Mean Responses to 511-System Usability
Questionnaire
1. I think I would like to use this system frequently. 2.9
Strongly
Disagree 1
2. I found the system unnecessarily complex. 2.5 Disagree 2
3. I thought the system was easy to use. 3.3 Neutral 3
4. I think that I would need further help to be able to
use this system. 1.5 Agree 4
5. I found the this system was easy to navigate, i.e. the
functions flowed logically. 4.0
Strongly
Agree 5
6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this
system. 2.4
7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use
this system very quickly. 3.6
8. I found the system very cumbersome to use. 2.7
9. I felt very confident using the system. 3.3
10. I need to learn a lot of things before I could get
going with this system. 1.5
11. Education Level 3=college 3.4
12. Prior 511-Experience 1=no experience 1.4
13. Prefer Voice or Button Commands 2=button 1.6
14. Problems with voice-recognition 1=yes 1.1
15. Discomfort Level 1=no discomfort 1.5
Based on user feedback and comments, most agreed that the system was easy to navigate,
was not unnecessarily complex, and found that they could learn to use the system very quickly.
Most users had no previous experience with 511 and had some form of college education. Users
were neutral in whether they would use this system frequently, whether it was easy to use,
whether it was cumbersome, and whether they felt confident using the system. Most users
reported having problems using the voice-recognition software and preferred using button
commands. The preference for button commands and the fact that users did not have strong
feelings about the ease-of-use of the system might be due to the inadequacy of the voice
Western Transportation Institute Page 15
129
Driver Distraction Appendix
understanding software. Common user complaints regarding the voice understanding software
included:
the system did not recognize voice commands,
the system had particular difficulty with subjects who spoke accented English,
the phone had to be positioned closer to the mouth for the system to understand
voice commands,
the system was sensitive to breathing and external noise, i.e. vehicle noise.
Recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the 511-system include providing a
more robust voice-recognition software that better understands voice commands with less
sensitivity to external sounds.
Western Transportation Institute Page 16
130
Driver Distraction References
REFERENCES
Alm, H., & Nilsson, L. (1995). The effects of mobile telephone task on driver behavior in a car
following situation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27, 707-715.
Atchley, P. & Dressel, J. Conversation limits the functional field of view. Human Factors, 46(4).
664-673.
Briem, V., & Hedman, L.R. (1995). Behavioral effects of mobile telephone use during simulated
driving. Ergonomics, 38, 2536-2562.
Boase, M., Hannigan, S. and Porter, J.M. (1988). Sorry, can't talk now...just overtaking a lorry: The definition and experimental investigation of the problem of driving and handsfree carphone
use. In E.D. Megaw (Ed.). Contemporary Ergonomics. London: Taylor and Francis. pp. 527-
532
Brown, Tickner, & Simmonds, A. H., & Simmonds, D.C.V. (1969). Interference between concurrent tasks of driving and telephoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 419-424.
Gellatly, A., and Kleiss, J. (2000). Visual attention demand evaluation of conventional and
multifunction in-vehicle information systems. Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000
Congress, 3, 282-285, Santa Monica: CA.
Green, P. (2000). Crashes Induced by Driver Information Systems and What Can Be Done to
Reduce Them. (SAE Paper 2000-01-C008) Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Haigney, D. and Westerman, S.J. (2001). Mobile (cellular) phone use and driving: A critical review of research methodology. Ergonomics, 44(2). 132-143.
Horrey, W.J. and Wickens, D.D. (2004). The Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving:
A Meta-Analytic Approach, Technical Report AHFD-04-2/GM-04-1. Savoy, IL: University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Horrey, W.J. and Wickens, C.D. (2004). Driving and side task performance: The effects of
display clutter, separation, and modality. Human Factors, 46(4). 611-624.
Western Transportation Institute Page 17
131
Driver Distraction References
McKnight. A.J., & McKnight, A.S. (1993). The effect of cellular phone use upon driver
attention. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 25, 259-265.
Monk C. A., Boehm-Davis D. A. and Trafton J. G. (2004) Recovering from interruptions: Implications for driver distraction research, Human Factors, 46 (4), 650-663.
Parkes, A.M., (1991). Drivers’ business decision-making aility whilst using car phones. In E.J.
Lovessey (Ed). Contemporary ergonomics: Proceedings of the Ergonomics Society Annual
Conference (pp. 427-432). London: Taylor & Francis.
Patten, C.J.D., Kircher, A., Ostlund, J. and Nilsson, L. (2004). Using mobile telephones:
Cognitive workload and attention resource allocation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36.
341 – 350.
Piechulla, W., Mayser, C., Gehrke, H., & Konig, W. (2003). Reducing drivers’ mental workload by means of an adaptive man-machine interface. Transportation Research, Part F, 6, 233-248.
Redelmeier, D.A. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1997). Association between Cellular Telephone Calls
and Motor Vehicle Collisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 336(7), 453-458.
Redelmeier, D.A. and Tibshirani, R.J. (2001). Car Phones and Car Crashes: Some popular
misconceptions. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 164(11), pg 1581-2.
Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368-373.
Shinar, D. and Tractinsky, N. (2004). Effects of Practice on Auditory Interference from an
Auditory Task While Driving: A Simulation Study, Report No. HS-809 826. Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness
for dynamic events. Perception, 28, 1059-1074.
Strayer, D.L. and Johnston, W.A. (2001). Driven to Distraction: Dual task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychological Science, 12(6). 462-466.
Western Transportation Institute Page 18
132
Driver Distraction References
Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. Crouch, D. J., & Johnston, W. A. (2005). Why do Cell Phone Conversations Interfere with Driving? In W. R. Walker and D. Herrmann (Eds.) Cognitive
Technology: Essays on the Transformation of Thought and Society (pp. 51-68), McFarland &
Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC.
Thulin, H. and Gustafsson, S. (2004). Mobile Phone Use while Driving: Conclusions from Four Investigations, VTI rapport 490A. Linkoping, Sweden: Swedish National Road and Transport
Institute
Verwey, W.B. (2000). On-line driver workload estimation – Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. Ergonomics, 43, 187-209.
Western Transportation Institute Page 19
133