The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of cell phones on novice drivers and the implications that the results of the study may have on the graduated licensing (GDL) restrictions. Twenty Novices, with less than 6 months of driving experience, and 20 Experienced drivers, with more than 10 years of experience, participated in the study. Perception response time (PRT) to hazards and eye movement measures were analyzed to determine if decrements in driver performance resulted during traffic events compared to baseline responses when using either a cell phone or CD player in the University of Calgary Driving Simulator. Results showed longer PRTs for the Novice compared to Experienced drivers for the lead vehicle braking, pedestrian, and vehicle pull out events. During the CD task increased glances into the vehicle and decreased rearview mirror glances were found. Implications of this research for cell phone restrictions within graduated licensing programs are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CairdJ. K.ChisholmS.LockhartJ.TeterisE.SmileyA. (2006). The effects of cellular phone and CD use on novice and experienced driver performance: Driving simulation study. Toronto: Insurance Bureau of Canada.
2.
CairdJ. K.ScialfaC.HoG.SmileyA. (2004) Effects of cellular telephones on driving behaviour and crash risk: Results of meta-analysis. Final report prepared for the CAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
3.
CerrelliE. C. (1998). Crash data and rates for age-sex drivers, 1996. Washington, D. C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
4.
EvansL. (2004) Traffic Safety. Bloomington Hills, M. I.: Science Serving Society.
5.
FergusonS. A. (2003). Other high-risk factors for young drivers – how graduated licensing does, doesn't, or could address them. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 71–77.
6.
FuseT.MatsunagaK.ShidojiK.MatsukiY.UmezakiK. (2001). The cause of traffic crashes when drivers use car phones and the functional requirements of car phones for safe driving. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 26(1), 48–56.
7.
GlassbrennerD. (2005). Driver cell phone use in 2005 – Overall results. (Rep. No. DOT HS 809 967). Washington, D. C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
8.
GoodmanM. J.BentsF. D.TijerinaL.WeirwilleW.LernerN.BenelD. (1997). Investigation of the safety implications of wireless communications in vehicles. (DOT HS 806–635). Washington D. C.: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
9.
GreenburgJ.TijerinaL.CurryR.ArtzB.CatheyL.GrantP. et al. (2003). Evaluation of driver distraction using an event detection paradigm. Compendium of Papers [CD ROM] Transportation Research Board 82nd Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
10.
KlauerS. G.DingusD. R.NealeT. A.SudweeksJ.RamseyD. J. (2006). The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic study data (Rep. No. DOT HS 810 594). Washington, D. C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
11.
McEvoyS. P.StevensonM. R.McCarttA. T.WoodwardM.HaworthC.PalamaraP.CercarelliR. (2005). Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: A case-crossover study. British Medical Journal, bmj.com.
12.
McKnightA. J.McKnightA. S. (1993). The effect of cellular phone use upon driver attention. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 25(3), 259–265.
13.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (2003). Ford Explorer Sport collision with Ford Windstar Minivan and Jeep Grand Cherokee on Interstate 95/495 near Largo, Maryland February 1, 2002 (Rep. No. NTSB/HAR-03/02). Washington, D. C.NTSB. http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/HAR0302.pdf.
RakauskasM. E.GugertyL. J.WardN. J. (2004). Effects of naturalistic cell phone conversations on driving performance. Journal of Safety Research, 35, 453–464.
16.
RedelmeierD. A.TibshiraniR. J. (1997). Association between cellular telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. The New England Journal of Medicine, 336(7), 453–458.
17.
ReganM. (2005). Driver distraction: Reflections on past, present and future. Journal of Australasian College of Road Safety, 16(2), 22–33.
18.
SimpsonH. M. (2003). The evolution and effectiveness of graduated licensing. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 25–34.
19.
StrayerD. L.DrewsF. A. (2004). Profiles in driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers. Human Factors, 46(4), 640–649.
20.
StrayerD. L.DrewsF. A.CrouchD. J. (2003a). Fatal attraction? A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver. Proceedings of the Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design (pp. 25–30. Park City, Utah.
21.
StrayerD. L.DrewsF. A.JohnstonW. A. (2003b). Cell phone-induced failures of attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(1), 23–32. http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/.
22.
SundeenM. (2005). Cellphones and highway safety: 2005 State Legislative Update. Denver, C. O.: National Conference of State Legislatures.
23.
WallerP. (2003). The genesis of GDL. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 17–23.
24.
WilliamsA. F.FergusonS. A.WellsJ. K. (2005). Sixteen year old drivers in fatal crashes, United States, 2003. Traffic Injury Prevention, 6, 202–206.
