8.1 Summary of Key Findings
The following are the key findings that emerged from this literature review:
8.1.1 Mobile Phones
• Many studies have found that using a hands-free phone while driving is no safer
than using a hand-held phone (Haigney, Taylor & Westerman, 2000; Matthews
et al. 2003; Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 1997). Using a mobile phone while
driving can increase the risk of being involved in a collision by up to four times
(Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 1997).
• Research suggests that both the physical and cognitive distraction caused by
using mobile phones while driving can significantly impair a driver’s visual
search patterns, reaction times, decision-making processes and their ability to
maintain speed, throttle control and lateral position on the road (Green et al.,
1993; Reed & Green, 1999).
• Mobile phone use also often involves associated tasks that may further distract
the driver. These activities can include accessing written information such as a
phone number on a piece of paper or writing dates or notes in diaries.
• Sending a text message is far more distracting than simply talking on a mobile
phone (Direct Line, 2002).
• Research has found that talking on a mobile phone is more distracting than
holding an intelligent conversation with a passenger, but no more distracting
than eating a cheeseburger (Jenness et al., 2002; RoSPA, 1997).
8.1.2 Route Guidance Systems
• Entering destination information is believed to be the most distracting task
associated with the use of a route guidance system, however use of voice input
technology can reduce the distraction associated with this task.
• Route guidance systems that present navigation instructions using voice output
are less distracting and more usable than those systems that present the
information on a visual display.
• Route guidance systems with voice recognition technology are a more
ergonomic and safer option than systems that require visual-manual entry
(Tijerina et al., 1998).
• Route guidance systems that provide turn-by turn instructions, rather than
presenting complex holistic route information, are less distracting to the driver
and present the most useable means of navigation (Dingus et al., 1995).
8.1.3 Email and Internet Facilities
• Some researchers believe that speech-based email systems have the potential to
distract drivers and undermine road safety (Burns & Lansdown, 2002; Technical
Insights, 2001). As a result, a growing number of system designers are
recognising that speech-based systems are not a panacea for driver distraction
and are focusing on developing alternative interfaces such as those that rely on tactile feedback.
8.1.4 Entertainment Systems
• Tuning a radio while driving appears to have a detrimental effect on driving
performance, particularly for inexperienced drivers.
• Research also suggests that simply listening to radio broadcasts while driving
can impair driving performance (Jäncke et al., 1994).
• Research suggests that operating a CD player while driving is more distracting
than dialling a mobile phone and eating, however the use of voice-activation
may minimise this distraction.
8.1.5 Non-Technology Based Distraction
• A recent study by the American Automobile Association’s Foundation for
Traffic Safety revealed that a greater proportion of drivers involved in traffic
accidents are distracted by eating or drinking (1.7%) than by talking on a mobile
phone (1.5%) (Stutts et al., 2001). Results of an experimental study by Jenness
et al. (2002) also corroborate the results of Stutts et al. They found that eating a
cheeseburger was as distracting as using a voice-activated dialling system, but
less distracting than continuously operating a CD player.
• Several studies have found that smoking while driving increases the risk of
being involved in a crash (Brison, 1990; Christie, 1990; Violanti & Marshall,
1996).
• A summary of current research on teenage passengers revealed that the presence
of passengers increases crash risk, particularly for younger drivers, and this is
believed to result largely from distraction and peer-pressure (Williams, 2001).
Overall, there is evidence that both technology-based and non-technology-based
distractions can have a detrimental effect on driving performance. The extent, however,
to which distraction compromises safety is dependent on the frequency with which the
driver is exposed to the source of distraction in question. Very little, if anything, is
currently known in Australia, or in other countries, about the relative frequency with
which technology and non-technology-based tasks are performed.
