How Dangerous Is Looking Away From the Road? Algorithms Predict Crash Risk From Glance Patterns in Naturalistic Driving

Abstract

Objective:

In this study, the authors used algorithms to estimate driver distraction and predict crash and near-crash risk on the basis of driver glance behavior using the data set of the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study.

Background:

Driver distraction has been a leading cause of motor vehicle crashes, but the relationship between distractions and crash risk lacks detailed quantification.

Method:

The authors compared 24 algorithms that varied according to how they incorporated three potential contributors to distraction—glance duration, glance history, and glance location—on how well the algorithms predicted crash risk.

Results:

Distraction estimated from driver eye-glance patterns was positively associated with crash risk. The algorithms incorporating ongoing off-road glance duration predicted crash risk better than did the algorithms incorporating glance history. Augmenting glance duration with other elements of glance behavior—1.5th power of duration and duration weighted by glance location—produced similar prediction performance as glance duration alone.

Conclusions:

The distraction level estimated by the algorithms that include current glance duration provides the most sensitive indicator of crash risk.

Application:

The results inform the design of algorithms to monitor driver state that support real-time distraction mitigation systems.

Keywords

distraction estimation algorithm development driver distraction eye-glance patterns

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ascone

Lindsey

Varghese

(2009). Traffic safety factor: An examination of driver distraction as recorded in NHTSA databases. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistical and Analysis.

Dingus

T. A.

Antin

J. F.

Hulse

M. C.

Wirewille

W. W.

(1989). Attentional demand requirements of an automobile moving-map navigation system. Transportation Research, Part A: General, 23A, 301–315.

Dingus

T. A.

Klauer

S. G.

Neale

V. L.

Petersen

Lee

S. E.

Sudweeks

. . . Knipling

R. R.

(2006). The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II: Results of the 100-car field experiment (No. DOT HS 810 593). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Donmez

Boyle

L. N.

Lee

J. D.

(2007). Safety implications of providing real-time feedback to distracted drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39, 581–590.

Engström

Mårdh

(2007). SafeTE final report. Borlänge, Sweden: Vägverket.

Horrey

W. J.

Wickens

C. D.

(2004). Focal and ambient visual contributions and driver visual scanning in lane keeping and hazard detection. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp. 2325–2329). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Horrey

W. J.

Wickens

C. D.

(2006). Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Human Factors, 48, 196–205.

Hosmer

D. W.

Lemeshow

(2000). Applied logistic regression. New York, Wiley.

Kircher

Ahlström

(2009, September). Issues related to the driver distraction detection algorithm AttenD. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention, Gothenburg, Sweden.

10.

Klauer

S. G.

Dingus

T. A.

Neale

V. L.

Sudweeks

Ramsey

D. J.

(2006). The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crask risk: An analysis using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study data. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech Transportation Institute.

11.

Klauer

S. G.

Neale

V. L.

Dingus

T. A.

Ramsey

D. J.

Sudweeks

(2005). Driver inattention: A contributing factor to crashes and near-crashes. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 1922–1926). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

12.

Lamble

Laakso

Summala

(1999). Detection thresholds in car following situation and peripheral vision: Implications for positioning of visually demanding in-car displays. Ergonomics, 42, 807–815.

13.

Lee

J. D.

(2009). Can technology get your eyes back on the road? Science, 324(5925), 344–346.

14.

Lee

J. D.

Young

K. L.

Regan

M. A.

(2008). Defining driver distraction. In Regan

M. A.

Lee

J. D.

Young

K. L.

(Eds.), Driver distraction: Theory, effects, and mitigation (pp. 31–40). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

15.

Liang

Lee

J. D.

(2010). Combining cognitive and visual distraction: Less than the sum of its parts. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 881–890.

16.

Liang

Reyes

M. L.

Lee

J. D.

(2007). Real-time detection of driver cognitive distraction using support vector machines. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 8, 340–350.

17.

Patten

C. J. D.

Kircher

Östlund

Nilsson

(2002). Using mobile telephones: Cognitive workload and attention resource allocation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36, 341–350.

18.

Pohl

Birk

Westervall

(2007). A driver-distraction-based lane-keeping assistance system. Proceedings of the IMechE Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, 221, 541–552.

19.

Reyes

M. L.

Lee

J. D.

(2008). Effects of cognitive load presence and duration on driver eye movements and event detection performance. Transportation Research, Part F, 11, 391–402.

20.

Senders

J. W.

Kristofferson

A. B.

Levison

W. H.

Dietrich

C. W.

Ward

J. L.

(1967). The attentional demand of automobile driving. Highway Research Record, 195, 15–33.

21.

Strayer

D. L.

Johnston

W. A.

(2001). Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychological Science, 12, 462–466.

22.

Wierwille

W. W.

Tijerina

(1998). Modeling the relationship between driver in-vehicle visual demands and accident occurrence. In Gale

A. G.

(Ed.), Vision in vehicles VI (pp. 233–243). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.