Arthur H. Goodwin

Effect of North Carolina's restriction on teenage driver cell phone use two years after implementation.

A majority of states now restrict teenagers from using a mobile communication device while driving. The effect of these restrictions is largely unknown. In a previous study, we found North Carolinas teenage driver cell phone restriction had little influence on young driver behavior four months after the law took effect (Foss et al., 2009). The goal of the present study was to examine the longer-term effect of North Carolinas cell phone restriction. It was expected that compliance with the restriction would increase, as awareness of the restriction grew over time. Teenagers were observed at high schools in North Carolina approximately two years after the law was implemented. Observations were also conducted in South Carolina, which did not have a cell phone restriction. In both states, there was a broad decrease in cell phone use. A logistic regression analysis showed the decrease in cell phone use did not significantly differ between the two states. Although hand-held cell phone use decreased, there was an increase in the likelihood that drivers in North Carolina were observed physically manipulating a phone. Finally, a mail survey of teenagers in North Carolina showed awareness for the cell phone restriction now stands at 78% among licensed teens. Overall, the findings suggest North Carolinas cell phone restriction has had no long-term effect on the behavior of teenage drivers. Moreover, it appears many teenage drivers may be shifting from talking on a phone to texting.

Distracted driver behaviors and distracting conditions among adolescent drivers: findings from a naturalistic driving study

PURPOSE The proliferation of new communication technologies and capabilities has prompted concern about driving safety. This concern is particularly acute for inexperienced adolescent drivers. In addition to being early adopters of technology, many adolescents have not achieved the degree of automaticity in driving that characterizes experienced adults. Consequently, distractions may be more problematic in this group. Yet little is known about the nature or prevalence of distracted driving behaviors or distracting conditions among adolescent drivers. METHOD Vehicles of 52 high-school age drivers (N=38 beginners and N=14 more experienced) were equipped for 6 months with unobtrusive event-triggered data recorders that obtain 20-second clips of video, audio, and vehicle kinematic information when triggered. A low recording trigger threshold was set to obtain a sample of essentially random driving segments along with those indicating rough driving behaviors. RESULTS Electronic device use (6.7%) was the most common single type of distracted behavior, followed by adjusting vehicle controls (6.2%) and grooming (3.8%). Most distracted driver behaviors were less frequent when passengers were present. However, loud conversation and horseplay were quite common in the presence of multiple peer passengers. These conditions were associated with looking away from the road, the occurrence of serious events, and, to a lesser extent, rough driving (high g-force events). CONCLUSIONS Common assumptions about adolescent driver distraction are only partially borne out by in-vehicle measurement. The association of passengers with distraction appears more complex than previously realized. The relationship between distractions and serious events differed from the association with rough driving.

Talking and Texting Among Teenage Drivers: A Glass Half Empty or Half Full?

Objective: Cell phone use and text messaging in particular are associated with an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes. However, the frequency with which teenagers use cell phones while driving is still largely unknown. Methods: The current study obtained self-reported cell phone use behaviors while driving, including text messaging, along with beliefs about these actions, for a sample of licensed teenage drivers. Questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of 1947 high-school-age teens in 2 large metropolitan areas in North Carolina. Questionnaires were completed and returned by 537 teens, of whom 320 had an intermediate or full drivers license. Results: In total, 45 percent of teens reported using a cell phone in some capacity during their most recent trip. Fifteen percent reported that they only talked on a cell phone, 15 percent sent or read a text message only, and 15 percent both talked and texted. More generally, 12 percent of teens reported that they often talked on a cell phone while driving, 4 percent reported that they often initiated a text conversation while driving, 11 percent said that they often replied to texts, and 23 percent often read text messages. Teens reported using several strategies to reduce the risk associated with using a cell phone while driving. Among teens who had ever talked on a cell phone while driving, 47 percent said that they try to keep their conversations short because they are driving. Among teens who had ever texted while driving, approximately half said that they often wait until it feels safe to read and reply to text messages (58% and 47%, respectively). Conclusion: Most teens surveyed reported having talked or read or sent a text message using a cell phone while driving. Somewhat less than half engaged in one of these behaviors the last time they drove. However, many teens reported using strategies to reduce this risk and in certain instances, cell phone nonuse was the normative behavior. Better measurement of the extent and nature of phone use while driving is needed.

Parent comments and instruction during the first four months of supervised driving: an opportunity missed?

The present study examined the nature of the comments and instruction provided by parents during supervised driving. Unlike previous studies which rely on self-report, the data in this study were obtained through direct observation of parents and teens using in-vehicle cameras with audio recording. The cameras were installed in the vehicles of 50 families for the first four months of the learner license stage. The findings show a great deal of conversation takes place while teens are driving with a supervisor, and that much of this conversation concerns driving. Sixty-one percent (61%) of all recorded clips included driving-related conversation. The most common type of comment by parents was instruction about vehicle handling or operation, observed in 53% of those clips with conversation about driving. This was followed by pointing out something about the driving environment (such as when it was clear to enter traffic; 23%), negative comments about the teens driving (22%), and helping the driver navigate (18%). Other potentially helpful types of instruction, including explanation or insights regarding higher order skills (e.g., hazard anticipation and detection), were noticeably less frequent. Moreover, higher order instruction remained low during the first four months of the learner stage, even as instruction about vehicle handling/operation decreased. These findings suggest parents are not taking full advantage of the opportunity provided by mandatory periods of supervised driving to help their children develop an understanding of important aspects of driving.

Supervised hours requirements in graduated driver licensing: Effectiveness and parental awareness

Most states require teens to complete a certain number of hours of supervised driving practice to obtain a license to drive unsupervised. Although widely implemented, the effect of requiring supervised practice is largely unknown. Using auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) interrupted time-series analysis, we found no change in fatal and injury crash involvement of 16-17-year-old drivers in Minnesota following enactment of a 30h supervised driving requirement. To supplement and provide insight into these findings, we conducted telephone interviews with parents of newly licensed teenage drivers in five states with varying amounts of required supervised driving, including Minnesota. Interviews revealed awareness of supervised driving requirements was limited. Only a third of parents (32%) overall could correctly identify the number of hours their state required. In Minnesota only 15% of parents could identify the amount of supervised driving their teen was required to complete. Awareness of the number of hours required was substantially higher (55%) in Maryland. Unlike the other states, Maryland requires submission of a driving log detailing the hours of supervised driving. The findings suggest states need to develop more effective mechanisms to ensure parents are aware of supervised hours requirements.