Distracted Driving—Criminal, Civil and Social Consequences
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,094 views
Distracted Driving is the Word of the Year choice at Webster’s New World® College Dictionary. A sign of the times surely, distracted driving is another reflection – and consequence – of our ongoing romance with all things digital and mobile and the enhanced capabilities they provide. While it now may be easier and quicker to feed our multitasking habits, it is not always safe… This seminar presentation focuses on the consequences of driving while distracted.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (18)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Distracted Driving—Criminal, Civil and Social Consequences
- 1. Distracted Driving—Criminal, Civil and Social Consequences Distracted Driving Basics Pennsylvania Bar Institute(PBI) August 2014 Joel Feldman, Esq, MS Anapol Schwartz Jfeldman@anapolschwartz.com 1A2n3a pSotrleSecth, wNaerwtz Y, 1o7rk10 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)-735-3716 www.anapolschwartz.com →
- 2. → 1 → Driving while engaged in any activity that could divert a person's attention away from the primary task of driving. What is Distracted Driving? (SOURCE: Distraction.gov / NHTSA)
- 3. → 2 → Abbotsford B.C Canada Police Department Video
- 4. DISTRACTED DRIVING STATISTICS 2011- A minimum of 3,331 people were killed and 387,000 injured as a result of distracted driving → 3 → Fatal crash rate per mile driven for 16-19 year olds is nearly 3 times the rate for drivers over 20 49% of adults admit to texting while driving compared to 43% for teens
- 5. DISTRACTED DRIVING STATISTICS Using hand–held devices increases driver crash risk four (4) times → 4 → Similar level of impairment for drivers using cell phone as if driving with a BAC of .08
- 6. THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF DISTRACTION · Manual · Visual · Cognitive → 5 →
- 7. → 6 → Quebec Bus Driver
- 8. → 7 → TEXTING WHILE DRIVING Takes about 4-5 seconds 50 mph = 75 feet per second 4 seconds - the length of “a football field”
- 9. → 8 → Producer Alex Emmons for the Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety 2011
- 10. Billboards in Alberta ask this question of motorists: IS YOUR CROTCH DEADLY? → 9 →
- 11. → 10 →
- 12. Driving with Sentence Listening Driving Alone → 11 → Marcel Just, Ph D. Carnegie Mellon University
- 13. Cognitive demands of cell phone use narrows our field of vision → 12 → Transport Canada
- 14. → → The Distracted Mind Toyota 13 Toyota Cognitive Distraction Video
- 15. IF WE ARE COGNITIVELY DISTRACTED WILL A BLUE-TOOTH OR VOICE-TO-TEXT FEATURES BE SAFE? No safety benefit for hands-free versus hand held cell phone use NSC White Paper March 2010 “Understanding the distracted brain.” Voice-to-text technologies are no safer than manual texting. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, April 2013. → 14 →
- 16. → 15 → More technology and more connectivity, but at what price? Ignoring the science of cognitive distraction
- 17. → 16 → Google founder Sergey Brin poses for a portrait wearing Google Glass glasses.
- 18. → 17 → AT&T, Tesla and Audi partnership - 2015 cars • Will be connected to AT&T wireless network • Converting cars from mindless machines to intelligent gadgets • Drivers will be able to tweet and post to Facebook using their voices Glenn Lurie, AT&T January 2014 Tesla 17-inch Touchscreen
- 19. → 18 →
- 20. 19 Joel Feldman, Esq, MS Phone (215)-735-3716 E-mail Jfeldman@anapolschwartz.com Facebook https://facebook.com/anapol.schwartz Twitter https://twitter.com/AnapolSchwartz
Editor's Notes
- Distracted Driving is the 2009 Word of the Year choice at Webster’s New World® College Dictionary. A sign of the times surely, distracted driving is another reflection – and consequence – of our ongoing romance with all things digital and mobile and the enhanced capabilities they provide. While it now may be easier and quicker to feed our multitasking habits, it is not always safe… In Canada a more expansive definition of distracted driving is used as follows: Driving while one’s attention is taken from driving and being focused on a non-driving object, activity, event or person. This diversion reduces awareness, decision-making or performance leading to increased risk of driver error, near-crashes or crashes. *Adapted from the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA)
- Most of us think about texting and cell phone use when we think of distracted driving. That is of course part of it but it encompasses a lot more as we shall see. Any women here drive with purses on the passenger seat? Occasionally take a quick look for something while driving?
- Resources: “Traffic Safety Facts 2012”, NHTSA (DOT HS 812 032) – A compilation of motor vehicle crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System distracted Driving Research & Statistics “Crashes Involving Cell Phones: Challenges of Collecting and Reporting Reliable Crash Data”, NSC, 2013 – cell phone distracted driving crashes “vastly under-reported”; review of 180 fatal crashes from 2009 to 2011, where evidence indicated driver cell phone use – in 2011 only 52% were coded in the national data as involving cell phone use; in 2012, highway fatalities increased for the first time in seven years; estimate that 25% of all crashes involve cell phone use “Driver Electronic Device Use in 2011”, NHTSA, 2013 (DOT HS 811 719) – % of drivers text-messaging or visibly manipulating hand-held devices increased significantly for a second year in a row from 0.9% in 2010 to 1.3% in 2011; 660,000 vehicles driven by people using hand-held cell phones at a typical daylight moment in 2011; higher among females and higher among 16-24 year- olds than older drivers “Fatality Facts, Teenagers”, IIHS 2014- Fatal crash rate per mile driven for 16-19 year-olds nearly 3 times the rate for drivers ages 20 and over and nearly twice as high for 16-17 year-olds as for 18-19 year-olds “Nearly Half of Commuters Admit to Texting While Driving”, AT&T survey, 2013 – 49% of adults admitted to texting while driving (43% for teens) – 40% call it a habit; 6 in 10 did not do it 3 years prior “A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver”, Strayer, D., et al, 2006 (Human Factors) 2006 - When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone; by contrast, when drivers were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking; when controlling for driving conditions and time on task, cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers
- Resources: “Traffic Safety Facts 2012”, NHTSA (DOT HS 812 032) – A compilation of motor vehicle crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System distracted Driving Research & Statistics “Crashes Involving Cell Phones: Challenges of Collecting and Reporting Reliable Crash Data”, NSC, 2013 – cell phone distracted driving crashes “vastly under-reported”; review of 180 fatal crashes from 2009 to 2011, where evidence indicated driver cell phone use – in 2011 only 52% were coded in the national data as involving cell phone use; in 2012, highway fatalities increased for the first time in seven years; estimate that 25% of all crashes involve cell phone use “Driver Electronic Device Use in 2011”, NHTSA, 2013 (DOT HS 811 719) – % of drivers text-messaging or visibly manipulating hand-held devices increased significantly for a second year in a row from 0.9% in 2010 to 1.3% in 2011; 660,000 vehicles driven by people using hand-held cell phones at a typical daylight moment in 2011; higher among females and higher among 16-24 year- olds than older drivers “Fatality Facts, Teenagers”, IIHS 2014- Fatal crash rate per mile driven for 16-19 year-olds nearly 3 times the rate for drivers ages 20 and over and nearly twice as high for 16-17 year-olds as for 18-19 year-olds “Nearly Half of Commuters Admit to Texting While Driving”, AT&T survey, 2013 – 49% of adults admitted to texting while driving (43% for teens) – 40% call it a habit; 6 in 10 did not do it 3 years prior “A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver”, Strayer, D., et al, 2006 (Human Factors) 2006 - When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone; by contrast, when drivers were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking; when controlling for driving conditions and time on task, cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers
- This video was taken by a young woman in Canada who was nervous about her driver. Manual, visual and cognitive distractions galore.
- Often we will hear that texting while driving is like “driving the length of a football field” without looking at the road. The time/speed/distance calculations are as follows: Texting while driving · Takes about 4-5 seconds · 50 mph =75 feet per second · 4 seconds- the length of “a football field”
- The visual areas of our brain are located in the rear of the brain and when we overload the brain the brain must try to handle that overload and these slides show that brain resources devoted to safe driving were reallocated and transferred from the visual area (occipital) and to the cognitive area (pre frontal-not shown in diagram). Resource: “A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak”, Just, et al., Carnegie Mellon, Brain Research, 2008 – Functional MRI used to investigate the impact of language comprehension (spoken sentences requiring a true/ false answer) on the brain activity associated with a simulated driving task – significant deterioration in driving accuracy; brain activity previously devoted to the task of driving was reduced by 37% ; “Language comprehension performed concurrently with driving draws mental resources away from the driving and produces deterioration in driving performance, even when it does not require holding a phone.”
- This study from Canada looked at drivers’ side to side visual scanning. The cameras were positioned on the dashboard and recorded visual scanning and the before cell phone-left -and during cell phone use-right-diagrams show that the scanning was markedly reduced while the drivers were engaged in cognitively demanding tasks-cell phone conversations. The cell phone use was “hands-free.” This has been called “tunnel vision.” It is the brain’s response to being overloaded and its attempt to compensate and follows from the previous discussion using the brain images.
- Toyota Cognitive Distraction Video
- “Voice-To-Text Apps Offer No Driving Safety Benefit; As With Manual Texting, Reaction Times Double”, Texas A & M Transportation Institute, 2013 – Voice-to-text technologies found no safer than manual texting; all texting, manual or voice to text, took drivers eyes away from the road and resulted in doubling reaction times; even voice-to- text features resulted in drivers looking away from the road; voice to text took longer than manual texting “Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile”, Strayer, et al/ AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2013 – created a scientifically-based 5 point rating scale to determine relative levels of cognitive distractions for specific tasks – listening to the radio was a category “1”, or minimal risk distraction, talking on a cell phone, hands free or handheld a category “2”, or moderate risk and listening to and responding to in-vehicle, voice activated e-mail features a category “3”, or extensive risk
- Manufacturers are adding new equipment to our cars to keep us connected, to allow us to do more in the car, and often while driving. Some of the features are advertised as safer because they can be done hands-free, i.e. voice activated and without taking our eyes off the road in some cases. Given the science of cognitive distractions is it really safer to permit drivers to do more while driving when the driver must concentrate on what he or she is doing, even it is “hands-free?”
- Google Glass is a glasses-like device that has a small screen that is positioned above one’s right eye and within the arm of the glasses are essentially the components that allow the device to pair with your smartphone. The device is controlled with voice commands or by touching it. Using the device lets you take photos and video, check e-mail, get the weather, get directions and a host of other information and have that information displayed on the screen. Beyond common sense there is also scientific evidence that supports the danger of using Google Glass while driving. Using Google Glass requires drivers to think about using the device, initiate the process of accessing information through the device, look at and read the resultant information on the device’s screen and then cognitively process and act on that information. Thus, there are visual distractions as well as cognitive distractions presented. With respect to cognitive distractions studies have demonstrated that “hands free does not mean risk free.” Scientific studies have repeatedly demonstrated that our ability to multi-task is limited because our brains are easily overloaded when too much information needs to be processed. Driving is, by itself, cognitively demanding. Adding a secondary task, voice to texting or using Google Glass, overloads our brains and results in brain resources necessary for safe operation of a motor vehicle being diverted from the task of driving and a diminished safe driving ability. I suspect that Google Glass will prove to be even more dangerous than voice to texting while driving as there is, in addition to the cognitive distraction component, a component of visual distraction with the Google Glass screen that is not present in the voice to text products.