distracted driving newport

Distracted Driving Demonstration Project 2010

Tara Casanova, MSPreusser Research Group

Edmund HedgeConnecticut Department of Transportation

TALKING TO A PASSENGER

TEXTING

TALKING ON HANDS FREE CELL

TALKING ON HAND-HELD CELL

GLANCING AT GPS

LESS DISTRACTING

MORE DISTRACTING

Distracted Driving: What is it?

TALKING TO A PASSENGER

TEXTING

TALKING ON HANDS FREE CELL

TALKING ON HAND-HELD CELL

GLANCING AT GPS

TYPES OF DISTRACTION

VISUAL

MANUAL

COGNITIVE

Distracted Driving: What is it?

-

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

N A

me

rica

ns

w/

Ce

ll P

ho

ne

s

About 1 Million had cell phone in 1987

About 50 Million had cell phone in 1997

In 2007 about 250Million had cell phones

or about 82% of all Americans

Distracted Driving: A Growing Problem

3%

4%

5% 5%

6% 6%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Pe

rce

nt

Ob

serv

ed

Han

d-h

eld

Use

Source: NOPUS

Distracted Driving: A Growing Problem

Increasing Fatal Crashes

11%

10%

14% 14%

16%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

% F

atal

Cra

she

s In

volv

ing

Dis

trac

tio

n

Actual Linear Extrapolation

Source: NCSA/FARS(excluding extrapolation)

17%

19%

20%

Social Acceptability

Until this year, cell phone use and texting while driving were likely acceptable practices.

Distracted Driving: What’s being done?

LAWS•7 STATES BAN HAND HELD PHONES FOR ALL DRIVERS

•NY (2001)•DC (2004)•CT (2005)•UT (2007)•CA (2008) •WA (2008)•OR (2010)

•21 STATES BAN HAND HELD PHONES FOR NOVICE DRIVERS

•19 STATES BAN TEXTING WHILE DRIVING

SOCIAL NORMING•LOCAL MOVEMENTS: E.G. STAY ALIVE, JUST DRIVE (SAJD.ORG)

•GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS: DISTRACTION.GOV, WHITE HOUSE GUIDELINES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

•OPRAH: NO PHONE ZONE; DON’T TEMPT F8, THAT TXT CAN W8

Distracted Driving: What’s Being Done?

Definition of Distraction in FARS

SEAT BELTS: MEN AGES 17 TO 34

ALCOHOL: MEN AGES 21 TO 40 OR 50

DISTRACTED:EVERYONE UNDER 70? MUCH BROADER CATEGORIES

Distraction: Who’s doing it?

NOPUS•SEX

•MEN: •5% IN 2008(4% IN 2006)

•WOMEN•8% IN 2008(6% IN 2006)

•AGE •16-24:

•8% IN 2008 (8% IN 2006)•25-69:

•6% IN 2008 (4% IN 2006)•70+:

•1% IN 2008 (1% IN 2006)

Who’s Doing It? Observation Data

Total Drivers Distracted Drivers

N N %

Total 281,666 25,641 9%

Drivers by Sex

Male 205,689 18,611 9%

Female 71,948 6,936 10%

Drivers by Age Group

<20 28,237 3,370 12%

20-29 68,997 6,672 10%

30-39 49,696 4,307 9%

40-49 50,184 4,240 8%

50-59 37,577 3,073 8%

60-69 20,829 1,785 9%

70+ 21,505 2,055 10%

Drivers by Vehicle Type

Passenger Car 117,825 10,394 9%

Light Truck 108,261 10,697 10%

Large Truck 23,084 1,854 8%

Motorcycle 24,445 2,200 9%

Bus 1,383 83 6%

Who’s Doing It? (FARS)

Total Crashes Distraction Crashes

(N=187,796) (N=24,588)

N % N %

DAY OF WEEK

Sunday 30,679 16% 3,884 16%

Monday 23,369 12% 3,171 13%

Tuesday 22,402 12% 3,045 12%

Wednesday 23,185 12% 3,116 13%

Thursday 24,091 13% 3,196 13%

Friday 29,527 16% 3,841 16%

Saturday 34,514 18% 4,325 18%

TIME OF DAY

0-3am 24,265 13% 2,783 11%

3-6am 15,387 8% 1,797 7%

6-9am 18,269 10% 2,608 11%

9-noon 18,030 10% 2,820 11%

noon-3pm 24,354 13% 3,748 15%

3-6pm 30,072 16% 4,262 17%

6-9pm 29,389 16% 3,436 14%

9-midnight 26,476 14% 3,005 12%

Unknown 1,554 1% 129 1%

When? FARS 2004-2008

•Difficult to accurately determine driver distraction as a contributing factor in a crash. •Investigating officers typically do not report the occurrence of a distracting activity unless there is direct evidence.•Drivers don’t admit it…•The incidence of distraction among crash-involved drivers is underestimated in crash studies.

•Differences in methodology and definitions of distraction.•Different results and conclusions.

Data Concerns

Connecticut Answers the Call…

• An RFP was announced through GHSA for the NHTSA Distracted Driving Enforcement Pilot Project.

• CT DOT Application Process.

• CT and NY were selected-WHY?

• Timeline.

Enforcement: City Selection:

Regional collaboration

data driven

performance based

Diverse demographics

Manpower issues

Enforcement Concerns

• No historical data.

• Crash reports.

• Ability to track reports.

25

Crash Reporting

• Amend the PR-1 crash reports to include the Traffic Unit and the distracted driving attribute that applies.

• 1.Not Distracted• 2.Electronic communication device• 3.Other electronic device (GPS,DVD)• 4.Outside the vehicle• 5.Inside the vehicle• 6. Unknown

Enforcement Daily Reporting SheetsType of Enforcement Number of CITATIONS

OR ARRESTSNumber of Warnings

Cell Phone

Texting

Distracted Driving

Seat Belt

Child Restraint

DUI/DUI Related

Speed

Suspended Licenses

Uninsured Motorists

Reckless Driver

Other Traffic (Describe in Space below)

Non-traffic Violations / Criminal specify

Stolen Vehicles

Fugitives Apprehended

Drugs

27

Law Enforcement Training

• Roll Call (Video)

• Pamphlets

• Peer Pressure

• Media training

Key Talking Points• What Is Distracted Driving?• How Serious Is the Distracted Driving Problem?• What Is NHTSA Doing To Combat This Problem? Why Were

Connecticut and New York Selected?• What will the Campaign Look Like?• How Will The Campaign Be Evaluated?• What Will Law Enforcement Agencies Be Doing To Promote Officer

Compliance with the Cell Phone Law?• How Will the Campaign Be Paid For?• How Much Revenue Do You Estimate This Campaign Will Generate

For The Cities Involved? • What Can the Public Do To Reduce Distracted Driving and Support

This Campaign?• What Can Parents Do to Keep Their Teens Safe From The Risks of

Driving Distracted?

Press Conference

Media

• Target Areas

• Media market

• Slogans

– Federal slogan

– Earned media

34

Media: Earned and Paid

• Paid Media– Advertising Campaign – Digital Billboards

• Earned Media

Enforcement Activity

Wave 1 All Agency Enforcement Citations

TOTAL ACTIVITY DEDICATED AND NON-DEDICATED HOURS

Citation or Arrest 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14 4/15 4/16 TotalCell Phone

206 156 276 319 387 267 719 2330Texting

3 2 3 0 5 3 256 272Distracted Driving

1 1 0 1 2 0 4 9Seat Belt

25 51 87 38 21 17 33 272Child Restraint

0 3 0 0 1 1 10 15DUI/DUI Related

0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6Speed

1 1 9 1 1 2 9 24Suspended Licenses

7 5 2 10 1 5 30 60Uninsured Motorists

1 0 1 0 1 1 29 33Reckless Driver

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Other Traffic (Describe in Space below)

33 65 63 70 53 56 284 624Non-traffic Violations / Criminal specify

1 0 2 0 0 1 14 18Stolen Vehicles

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Fugitives Apprehended

0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7Drugs

0 0 0 1 0 0 3 4TOTALS

278 284 443 440 472 354 1405 3676

Demo Evaluation

•4 HVE WAVES IN EACH STATE IN JUST ABOUT 1 YEAR• APRIL 2010, JULY 2010, OCTOBER 2010, MARCH/APRIL 2011

•EARNED AND PAID MEDIA GENERALLY START ABOUT 1 WEEK BEFORE AND RUN INTO THE ENFORCEMENT

•PRE DATA COLLECTION (OBSERVATIONS AND MEDIA AWARENESS SURVEYS) STARTS ABOUT 1 WEEK PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY MEDIA

•POST DATA COLLECTION (OBSERVATIONS AND MEDIA AWARENESS SURVEYS) STARTS DURING THE LAST FEW DAYS OF ENFORCEMENT

Demo Evaluation

DATA ELEMENTS•ENFORCEMENT DATA:

• CITATIONS• TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT (SA PATROL, SPOTTERS ETC)

•MEDIA DATA:• STRENGTH AND PENETRATION OF MEDIA BUY

•(HOW MANY PEOPLE HEARD IT)• EARNED MEDIA: NUMBER OF NEWS ARTICLES

•CRASH DATA: YES• CHANGE IN PR1 TO INCLUDE DISTRACTION CATEGORIES:

1=NOT DISTRACTED2=ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DEVICE3=OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICE4=OTHER INSIDE THE VEHICLE5=EXTERNAL DISTRACTION6=UNKNOWN

Design: Observations• Locations around Hartford (Hartford, East

Hartford, West Hartford) and Fairfield County

(Stamford, Bridgeport—comparison).

• 15 observation sites per location. Sites selected

based on:

– High traffic volume

– Geographic dispersity

• 1 hour at traffic lighted intersections of the green

light traffic

• Observed hand held use, blue tooth use, and manipulating devices.

Design: Awareness Surveys

• New Britain, Wethersfield (Hartford Area) Norwalk,

Bridgeport (comparison)

• Pre n ≈ 1,000; post 2 n ≈500*

• 1 page survey

* 1st and last (Post wave 4) waves will be n = 1,000

Results: Hand-held Observations

6.2%6.8%

4.2%

7.1%6.6%

5.9%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

Early Pre Pre Post

Per

cen

tage

usi

ng

Han

d H

eld

Hartford Area

Control Areas

Results: Public Awareness

3.7

8.7

5.2

4.6

2.7

4.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Hartford Area Bridgeport Norwalk

% Always Talk on Hand Held Phone

Results: Awareness

15

2324

2120

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30



% Always/Nearly Always Chance of getting a Ticket

Results: Awareness

2.5

10

0.5

6.7

0.8

1.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12



% Yes--Seen or Heard about Cell Phone Enforcement

Results: Awareness

5

32

6

12

5

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Hartford Area Bridgeport Norwolk

% Yes -Phone in One Hand-Ticket in the Other

Results: Awareness

2.5

10

0.5

6.7

0.8

1.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12



% Got Ticket in Past Month

Results: Awareness

39

64

34

49

40 39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70



% Very Strict/Strict (Police Enforce Cell Phone)

Conclusions

Cell phone ticketing was great.

Observation data show a decrease in use.

Awareness data show people got the message.

There was an increase in: message

recognition, perceived strictness of

enforcement, those who got a ticket, and those

who heard of enforcement.

Questions?

distracted driving newport

Technology