Can technology help teenagers be safer drivers?
108
www.iihs.org Can Technology Help Teenagers Be Safer Drivers? Australasian College of Road Safety Conference, Sydney ● 10 August 2012 Anne T. McCartt, Ph.D.
Transcript of Can technology help teenagers be safer drivers?
www.iihs.org
Can Technology Help Teenagers Be Safer Drivers?
Australasian College of Road Safety Conference, Sydney ● 10 August 2012 Anne T. McCartt, Ph.D.
www.iihs.org
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
founded in 1959, is an independent, nonprofit, scientific and educational
organization dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries, and
property damage — from crashes on the nation's highways.
The Highway Loss Data Institute,
founded in 1972, shares and supports this mission through scientific
studies of insurance data representing the human and economic losses
resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles
and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make and model.
Both organizations are wholly supported by auto insurers.
www.iihs.org
Where are we?
Washington, DC
Charlottesville
Arlington
Virginia
North America
South America
www.iihs.org
Haddon matrix
pre-crash during crash after crash
people
vehicles and
equipment
environment
www.iihs.org
What are the risks for U.S. teenage crashes?
www.iihs.org
Crashes per million miles traveled in the U.S. By driver age, 2008
0
10
20
30
40
16 17 18 19 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+
male
female
driver age
www.iihs.org
Fatal crashes per 100 million miles in the U.S. By driver age, 2008
0
5
10
15
20
16 17 18 19 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+
male
female
driver age
www.iihs.org
Percent of 16-17 year-olds with first crash by months of licensure, pre vs. post graduated licensing North Carolina teenagers, Masten and Foss, 2010
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
pe
rcen
tage
lic
en
se
d e
xp
erie
ncin
g f
irst cra
sh
.
months of licensure
Pre-GDL
GDL
www.iihs.org
Night driving risks in the U.S. Fatal crashes per 100 million miles, by driver age, 2008
0
5
10
15
20
16- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+
day
night
driver age
www.iihs.org
Percent change in risk of 16-17 year-old driver death with passengers vs. no passengers Driver death risk per mile traveled in the U.S., Tefft et al., 2012
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
1 young passenger 2 young passengers 3+ young passengers 1+ passenger aged 35+
www.iihs.org
Percent of passenger vehicle drivers involved in a fatal crash who were speeding By driver age, U.S., 2010
0
10
20
30
40
16-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+
male
female
driver age
www.iihs.org
Percent of passenger vehicle drivers involved in a fatal crash with driver errors coded By driver age, U.S., 2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
16 17-19 20-24 25-29 30-59
male
female
driver age
www.iihs.org
Percent of fatally injured teenage passenger vehicle occupants wearing seat belts
0
20
40
60
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
drivers
passengers
By age and driver vs. passenger, U.S., 2010
driver age
www.iihs.org
Percent of fatally injured teenage passenger vehicle drivers with BACs ≥0.08 percent By age and gender, U.S., 2010
0
10
20
30
40
male female
age 16
age 17
age 18
age 19
www.iihs.org
Teenage drivers and distraction
• Distractions of any type are a bigger problem for teenage
drivers than for adult drivers
• Reliable estimates of crash risk associated with cellphone use
are not available for teenagers, but their reported phone use is
very high
– 18-20 year-olds: 43 percent say they make or receive phone calls
and 17 percent send text messages or emails during at least some
trips (Tison et al., 2011)
– 16-17 year-olds: 52 percent with cellphones have talked while
driving, and 34 percent who text have texted while driving
(Madden and Lenhart, 2009)
www.iihs.org
Teenager texting at high speeds
www.iihs.org
Texting while driving over 80 mph
www.iihs.org
What is proven to reduce crash risk for teenagers?
www.iihs.org
Fatal crashes per 100,000 people in the U.S. By driver age, 1996-2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
-68%
-59%
-52%
-47%
-35%
www.iihs.org
IIHS rating system G F M P
learner’s phase
entry age
holding period
supervised driving certification
intermediate phase
entry age
nighttime driving restriction
passenger restriction
duration of restrictions
www.iihs.org
IIHS ratings of graduated licensing laws July 1996, using 2005-2011 rating system
MD
DE
DC
MA
OR
RI NJ
NH
ME
PA
WV
NC
SC
GA
FL
OH
MI
IN IL
WI
IA
MO
LA
NM
CO
SD
ID
CA
WA
TN
VT
MS
MT ND
NV
AZ
UT
WY
NE
KS
OK
TX
AR
MN
AL
KY VA
NY
CT
AK
HI
0 good
2 fair
9 marginal
39 + DC poor
www.iihs.org
IIHS ratings of graduated licensing laws August 2011, using 2005-11 rating system
MD
DE
DC
MA
OR
RI NJ
NH
ME
PA
WV
NC
SC
GA
FL
OH
MI
IN IL
WI
IA
MO
LA
NM
CO
SD
ID
CA
WA
TN
VT
MS
MT ND
NV
AZ
UT
WY
NE
KS
OK
TX
AR
MN
AL
KY VA
NY
CT
AK
HI
36 + DC good
7 fair
7 marginal
0 poor
www.iihs.org
Percent reduction in per capita fatal crash rates of 15-17 year-olds by IIHS graduated licensing law rating Compared with states that had laws rated poor, 1996-2007
-40
-20
0
good law fair law marginal law
www.iihs.org
Percent reduction in teenagers’ crash rates By graduated licensing component
0 5 10 15 20
20 or more hours of practice driving
teen passengers limited to 0 or 1
9 p.m. driving restriction
1-year delay in license age
1-year delay in permit age
fatal crashes per population, 15-17-year-old drivers
collision claim frequencies, 16-17-year-old drivers
www.iihs.org
Online GDL calculator
• Estimates effects of
given improvements
• Overall crash
reductions based on
improving all five
components
• “Match the best”
feature permits state to
see benefits of
matching strongest
provisions
www.iihs.org
Crashworthy vehicles with important safety features
www.iihs.org
40 mph frontal offset crash test 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and 2009 Chevrolet Malibu
www.iihs.org
Percent distribution of teenagers’ vehicles by age of vehicle Survey of parents, 2006
more than 9 years 32
5 to 9 years 43
less than 5 years 25
www.iihs.org
www.iihs.org
www.iihs.org
Requirements for TOP SAFETY PICK award
evaluation in frontal crashworthiness test
evaluation in side crashworthiness test
evaluation in rear crashworthiness test
evaluation in roof strength test
Availability of electronic stability control
(required on 2012 and newer vehicles)
G
G
G
G
www.iihs.org
Large cars
Audi A6
Buick LaCrosse
Buick Regal
BMW 5 series
Cadillac CTS sedan
Chrysler 300
Dodge Charger
Ford Taurus
Hyundai Azera
Hyundai Equus
Hyundai Genesis
Infiniti M37/M56
Lexus GS
Lincoln MKS
Mercedes E class
Saab 9-5
Toyota Avalon
Volvo S80
Midsize cars Acura TL
Acura TSX
Audi A3
Audi A4 sedan
BMW 3 series sedan
Buick Verano
Chevrolet Malibu
Chevrolet Malibu Eco
Chrysler 200
Dodge Avenger
Ford Fusion
Hyundai Sonata
Kia Optima
Lincoln MKZ
Mercedes C class
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Outback
Toyota Camry
Toyota Prius V
Volkswagen CC
Volkswagen Jetta sedan
Volkswagen Jetta
SportWagen
Volkswagen Passat
Volvo C30
Volvo S60
Small cars Chevrolet Cruze
Chevrolet Sonic
Chevrolet Volt
Ford Focus 4-door
Honda Civic 4-door
Honda CR-Z
Honda Insight
Hyundai Elantra
Kia Forte
Kia Soul
Lexus CT 200h
Mazda 3 sedan/hatchback
Mini Cooper Countryman
Mitsubishi Lancer
Nissan Cube
Nissan Juke
Nissan Leaf
Scion tC
Scion xB
Scion xD
Subaru Impreza
Toyota Corolla
Toyota Prius
Toyota Prius c
Volkswagen Golf
Volkswagen GTI
Minicar Fiat 500
Ford Fiesta
Honda Fit
Nissan Versa Sedan
Toyota Yaris Hatchback
Minivans Chrysler Town & Country
Dodge Grand Caravan
Honda Odyssey
Toyota Sienna
Volkswagen Routan
Large pickups Ford F-150
Honda Ridgeline
Toyota Tundra
Large SUVs Buick Enclave
Chevrolet Traverse
GMC Acadia
Volkswagen Touareg
Midsize SUVs Acura MDZ
Acura RDX
Audi Q5
BMW X3
Cadillac SRX
Chevrolet Equinox
Dodge Durango
Dodge Journey
Ford Edge
Ford Explorer
Ford Flex
GMC Terrain
Honda Pilot
Hyundai Santa Fe
Infiniti EX35
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Kia Sorento
Lexus RX
Lincoln MKT
Lincoln MKX
Mercedes GLK
Mercedes M class
Saab 9-4X
Subaru Tribeca
Toyota Highlander
Toyota Venza
Volvo XC60
Volvo XC90
Small SUVs Honda CR-V
Hyundai Tucson
Jeep Patriot
Kia Sportage
Mazda CX-5
Mitsubishi Outlander Sport
Subaru Forester
Volkswagen Tiguan
2012 TOP SAFETY PICK winners, as of August 2012
www.iihs.org
www.iihs.org
Crash avoidance is the new frontier
www.iihs.org
Wave of new technologies Radar, LIDAR, ultrasonic, infrared, cameras, GPS
www.iihs.org
Annual crashes potentially prevented or mitigated
all injury fatal
forward collision
warning 1,165,000 66,000 879
lane departure warning 179,000 37,000 7,529
side view assist 395,000 20,000 393
adaptive headlights 142,000 29,000 2,484
total unique crashes 1,866,000 149,000 10,238
percent of crashes 32% 21% 31%
Based on 2004-08 crash totals
www.iihs.org
Effectiveness of forward collision avoidance systems
www.iihs.org
www.iihs.org
HLDI analyses involving optional features Published July 2012
www.iihs.org
www.iihs.org
Percent differences in property damage liability claim frequency with and without forward collision warning
By manufacturer
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
without autobrake with autobrake
Acura
Volvo
Mercedes
www.iihs.org
Other analyses of insurance claims data involving optional features
• Adaptive headlamps (pivot beam in the direction of travel)
appear to be reducing collisions with other vehicles
• Lane departure warning does not appear to be reducing
collision claims
www.iihs.org
Testing forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems
www.iihs.org
Sample test measurements to characterize forward collision avoidance system performance
• Impact - yes/no
• Velocity change due to auto braking
• Warning timing
– Audible and visual
• Ambient temperature and lighting
www.iihs.org
Vehicle to slower moving target testing
www.iihs.org
Vehicle to decelerating moving target testing
www.iihs.org
Vehicle to pedestrian testing
www.iihs.org
Benefits of crash avoidance technology will occur gradually
www.iihs.org
New vehicle series with electronic stability control U.S., by model year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
standard optional not available
www.iihs.org
Registered vehicles with electronic stability control U.S., by calendar year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
standard optional not available
www.iihs.org
Registered vehicles with electronic stability control, actual and predicted U.S., by calendar year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1995 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
predicted
actual
www.iihs.org
How will crash avoidance technologies affect teenage drivers?
• Do technologies alter driving behavior, e.g., headway
distance, using turn signal, frequency of lane departures?
• Do teenagers experience safety benefits, e.g., reduced near
misses or crashes?
• Do technologies increase engagement in secondary tasks,
e.g., cellphone use?
• Are any changes in driving behavior sustained after
technologies removed?
• How do effects of technologies differ for teenage versus
adult drivers?
Naturalistic field operation study
www.iihs.org
Naturalistic field operational test
• Conducted with University of
Michigan Transportation Research
Institute
• Integrated Vehicle-based Safety
Systems (IVBSS)
– Forward collision warning
– Curve speed warning
– Lane departure warning
– Lane change/merge warning
• Vehicle instrumentation
– Video inside/outside views
– Vehicle motion
– Driver controls inputs
– Warning system responses
www.iihs.org
Study design
• 40 teenage volunteers drive instrumented car for 14 weeks
– 20 in treatment group
3 weeks with systems disabled, 8 weeks with systems enabled, 3
weeks with systems disabled
– 20 in control group
14 weeks with systems disabled
• Data collection will conclude in October 2012
www.iihs.org
Earlier IVBSS study with 108 adult drivers
• No effect of systems on frequency of secondary tasks
• Positive effects on driving behaviors and also some negative
effects
– Increased turn signal use, decreased number and duration of lane
departures
– More time spent at short headways, more lane changes
• No confusion reported from alerts from multiple systems, and
multiple hazards were extremely rare
• Drivers found systems helpful and thought they improved their
safety
www.iihs.org
Forward collision warning alert
www.iihs.org
Lane change/merge warning
www.iihs.org
Implications for teenage driver safety
• Technologies have potential to prevent or mitigate crashes due
to any kind of distraction or inattention, fatigue, or driver error
• Is it a good idea for teenagers to learn to drive with a car with
crash avoidance technologies? How will they fare when driving
a car without them?
• Will protective effects by offset by increased risk-taking?
www.iihs.org
In-vehicle monitoring technologies
www.iihs.org
Crashes by license status and months of licensure Per 10,000 learner/licensed drivers
0
40
80
120
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
learner's permit
license
months of licensure
www.iihs.org
In-vehicle camera DriveCam
• Records video and audio in vehicle interior and ahead on road
and trip data
• Saves recording when specific events occur:
– Quick acceleration
– Hard braking
– Collision
• Flashes light when saving recording
• Event information mailed to parents
• Event data viewed on website
www.iihs.org
Driving performance feedback GreenRoad
• Red, yellow and green lights mounted on dashboard
rate safety of actions
– Acceleration
– Braking
– Cornering
– Lane handling
– Speeding
• Website summarizes performance
www.iihs.org
On-board computer Tiwi
• Mounted on dash or window, plugs directly
into vehicle
• Audible alerts for speeding violations, nonuse of belts, fast
turns, hard braking, and rapid acceleration
• Reports via email, text, or phone to parents when pre-set
thresholds are exceeded
• Website logs events and vehicle location, allows parents to set
geographic boundaries on travel
www.iihs.org
Programmable key activates when start vehicle Ford MyKey
• Features
– Top speed 80 mph
– Speed alert chime at 45, 55, 65 mph
– Radio limited to 45 percent of total volume
– Persistent belt reminder with radio mute
– Cannot deactivate traction control and crash avoidance technologies
– Calls received through Ford Sync are sent straight to voicemail
– Text messages received through Sync held until the vehicle off
• Available on Lincoln and Ford passenger vehicles
www.iihs.org
Special issue:
teenage drivers
May 7, 2009
www.iihs.org
Contributing factors in at-fault crashes of newly licensed Connecticut teenagers
0%
20%
40%
didn't detect other vehicle or traffic
control
lost control speed slippery road misjudged following
distance/other vehicle's speed or
direction
www.iihs.org
Percent of parents who identified aspects they want to know about their teenager’s driving 3-state survey, 2006
speeding 56
distractions 41
cellphone use 40
number of passengers 38
identity of passengers 33
destination 31
safety belt use 27
aggressive or dangerous driving 22
alcohol/drug use 16
www.iihs.org
video
camera
computer
chip
cellphone
GPS
Would consider using 32 51 48
If no, why not?
trust teen 62 69 63
invasion of privacy 33 6 26
won’t improve driving 4 21 12
expense 19 3 16
Percent of parents willing to use in-vehicle monitoring devices 3-state survey, 2006
www.iihs.org
Study of in-vehicle feedback and monitoring device
• How does device affect new teenage drivers?
– Real-time in-vehicle alerts
– Parental access to information on risky driving behavior
• What is use, perceived effectiveness, and acceptance
by parents and teenagers?
www.iihs.org
Technology
• Shoebox-size black box in vehicle cargo area, GPS, satellite
modem, and small speaker box beneath dashboard
• Records location and miles driven
• Detects
– All sudden braking and all sudden acceleration (longitudinal
deceleration/acceleration more than 0.5 g)
– Driver not using belt
– Speed 2.5 mph faster than limit
– Speed more than 10 mph faster than limit
www.iihs.org
www.teendriverstudy.com Website with secure login, personal ID, and password
www.iihs.org
Homepage shows recent trends in notifications
Figures show recent trends in
notifications for teen
Messages can be communicated to study
participants through the website
www.iihs.org
Notification of events where vehicle exceeded criteria for speeding, sudden acceleration, etc.
Customize view by selecting
notification type or timeframe
www.iihs.org
Map shows locations of notifications
Click on blue speeding circles for more
information about speed limit, vehicle’s
average and top speed, etc.
Circles indicate where notifications occurred
www.iihs.org
Study design
• Random assignment of 85 families to study and control groups
• Vehicle monitoring: 2 weeks baseline, 20 weeks alerts and
website, 2 weeks post-treatment
• Before/after changes in driving behavior (per mile driven) in 3
study groups relative to control group
– Group 1: alerts driver and immediately notifies website
– Group 2: alerts driver and 20 seconds later notifies website if
behavior not corrected
– Group 3: notifies website but no in-vehicle alert
– Group 4: control group with monitoring but no alert or notification
www.iihs.org
Safety belt alert
www.iihs.org
Speeding alert
www.iihs.org
Recruitment
• 16 and 17 year-olds in suburban Washington, DC area
– Teenager was primary driver of monitored vehicle
– Parents had internet access
• 85 families recruited during May 2007-March 2008
– Initial recruitment very, very slow: PTA presentations, advertisements
in local newspapers, recruitment at Maryland DMVs
– Recruitment picked up with $500 payment to families and letters to
newly licensed Virginia teenagers
www.iihs.org
Report cards to parents
• Original study design provided no contact with parents after
device installed
• Observed few website visits by first 24 families with web access
• Emailed reports to remaining families every 2-3 weeks
www.iihs.org
Example: Report card to parents
Thank you for participating in this study of teen driving behavior.
Every now and then we’d like to update you on your teen’s driving.
For example, your teen’s vehicle exceeded the posted speed limit
by more than 10 mph 14 times between 12/28/2008 and 1/3/2009.
Complete information on these and all other notifications will
require logging on to the website. To see details go to
www.teendriverstudy.com and enter your user ID and password.
www.iihs.org
Number of visits to parent websites per family Every 2 weeks for parents with and without report cards
0
1
2
3
4
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20
report card
no report card
weeks
www.iihs.org
Number of times parents visited website
0
10
20
30
0 1-4 5-9 10-30 >30
www.iihs.org
Percent reduction in risky behaviors with monitoring device With alert in vehicle, delayed parent notification, parent report card
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
seat belt non-use sudden braking/acceleration speeding by more than 10 mph
www.iihs.org
Conclusions about in-vehicle monitoring
• Hard sell and unclear how many families will accept
• Can improve teenagers’ driving
• Alerts improve effectiveness
• Feedback to parents improves effectiveness
– Web access alone doesn’t assure feedback to parents
– Works best if teenager given chance to correct behavior
• Effects may level off during treatment and fade after removal
www.iihs.org
Overall views about system
• Most teenagers said the system changed the way they drove
• Most parents thought their teenager drove more safely
because of the device
• Parents thought the most effective system would be an
in-vehicle alert with immediate website notification; teens
preferred conditional notification
• Virtually all parents would recommend this or a similar
device to other parents of teenage drivers
www.iihs.org
Enhanced safety belt reminders
www.iihs.org
Percent driver belt use in vehicles with and without enhanced reminders
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ford dealers 2002
Honda dealers 2007
observed traffic NHTSA, 2007
with
without
www.iihs.org
Can enhanced reminders be used more effectively to boost safety belt use in the U.S.?
• Enhanced reminders in 2012 models: 91 percent driver,
77 percent front passenger, 3 percent rear passenger
– About one-third of enhanced reminders for front seat meet
Australasian and Euro NCAP criteria
• 2012 highway bill allows federal government to require
stronger belt reminders
– Can require chime for more than 4-8 seconds
– Cannot require ignition interlocks but can allow automakers
to use interlock to comply with safety regulation
– Must begin rulemaking to require rear seat reminders
www.iihs.org
Cellphone blocking technologies
www.iihs.org
Statewide bans on hand-held phones August 2012
California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Maryland,
New York, New Jersey,
Nevada, Oregon,
Washington, West
Virginia and the District
of Columbia ban hand-
held phone use
by all drivers.
www.iihs.org
Statewide bans on cellphone use for teenage drivers August 2012
Teenage drivers in 32
states and the District of
Columbia are banned
from talking on any type
of cellphone.
www.iihs.org
Text messaging bans August 2012
Texting is banned for all
drivers in 39 states and
the District of Columbia.
Teenage drivers are
banned from texting
in 5 states.
teenage drivers
all drivers
www.iihs.org
Percentage of cellphone use among teenage drivers before and after North Carolina cellphone ban
0
4
8
12
16
pre-law 4 months post-law 2 years post-law
North Carolina
South Carolina
Goodwin et al., 2012
www.iihs.org
Types of cellphone blocking app technology
Phone GPS used to detect motion of vehicle,
activating app
Cellphone carrier software uses signal from phone
and cellphone towers to detect motion of vehicle,
triggering app
With OBD-II/software, Bluetooth dongle is
attached to vehicle’s OBD-II port; when ignition
starts, dongle sends signal to phone, activating
app
www.iihs.org
Selected cellphone blocking technology features
• Block incoming and outgoing phone calls and/or text messages
• Lock phone screen so other apps cannot be accessed
• Silence phone alerts
• Records of violations or tampering accessible to parents or fleet
managers
• Passenger override features
• Emergency 911 calls always allowed
www.iihs.org
Limitations to cellphone blocking technology
• With some systems, driver can easily activate passenger override
• GPS detects motion only above speed threshold, e.g., 10-15 mph
• GPS cannot determine mode of transportation, e.g., activates when
traveling by bus or train
• Some systems strain phone’s battery life
• Hardware can be disabled or unplugged
• Technologies depend on phone software; iphones problematic
• No data on how widely systems are used by fleets or individuals
• No evaluations of effects of systems on phone use while driving
or crashes
www.iihs.org
Advanced in-vehicle alcohol detection technology
www.iihs.org
Alcohol ignition interlocks
• Driver blows into a tube to
test breath for alcohol
• Vehicle won’t start if certain
amount of alcohol detected
• Periodic retests while vehicle
is in motion
• BAC ≤ 0.025 percent is
typical threshold for DUI
offenders
www.iihs.org
Broader installation of alcohol detection technology
• Current ignition interlocks are not suitable for use in
all vehicles
– Inconvenient, expensive, require calibration
– People who obey alcohol-impaired driving laws
– People who don’t drink alcohol
• Need technology that is virtually invisible to driver
without sacrificing precision
– Accurately detects alcohol impairment (without false
positives or false negatives)
– Must differentiate between driver and passenger
– Technologies in research and development
www.iihs.org
Driver alcohol detection system for safety
• Partnership between federal government and automakers
– Research, develop, and test advanced alcohol detection
technology suitable for all vehicles
– Build public support for vehicle-based approach
• Phase two
– Two technology developers selected to develop system to
reliably determine driver’s BAC in 1/3 second
– System must be reliable and durable enough to install in test
vehicle by end of two years
– Gauging public response to specific technologies
www.iihs.org
Potential lives saved in 2010 if BACs of drivers limited to specific maximums
BAC
< 0.08 g/dl
zero
BAC
drivers with multiple DUI
convictions within 3 years 104 143
drivers with at least one prior
DUI conviction within 3 years 552 785
all drivers 7,082 10,600
www.iihs.org
Naturalistic studies may help us learn more about teenage crash risks
www.iihs.org
Naturalistic studies
• Drivers monitored continuously as they drive instrumented
vehicles over weeks and even months, without interference
• Data collected from vehicle network, continuous videos, lane
tracking, accelerometers, GPS, incident box, etc.
• Studies typically use kinematic data triggers to identify crashes
and near-crashes (high g-force events) or other “safety-relevant
events” (e.g., lane deviations) and may generate samples of
control episodes of “normal driving” without events
www.iihs.org
Changes in teenagers’ driving during first 18 months of licensure (Simons-Morton et al., 2011) 42 teenagers and their parents
• Teenagers had 242 near crashes and 37 crashes (4 crashes
reported to police, 1 involved injury)
• Teenagers’ elevated rates of g-force events correlated with
crashes and near crashes
• Teenagers’ crash/near crash rates decreased over time but
remained much higher than adult crash/near crash rates
• Teenagers’ g-force event rates were higher than for adults and
did not decline
www.iihs.org
Factors associated with crash/near-crash rates and risky driving (Simons-Morton et al., 2011) 42 teenagers and their parents during first 18 months of licensure
• Teenagers’ crash/near-crash rates were 75 percent lower with
an adult vs. no passenger present
• Lower rates of risky driving:
– adult passenger vs. no passenger present
– one teenage passenger vs. no passenger present
– early night or late night vs. daytime
www.iihs.org
Observing teenagers learning to drive
50 families during year-long permit stage (Goodwin et al., 2010)
• Less practice driving than previously assumed
• Practice driving is fairly homogenous; no progression to more
demanding situations
• Parent instruction focuses on vehicle handling rather than
higher-order driving skills
• Challenging to develop effective guidance for parents given
complexities of teenager/parent relationship and mentoring of
safe driving practices
www.iihs.org
Percent of driving incidents by driving stage 38 teenagers (Goodwin et al., 2011, 2012)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
driver mistake - vehicle handling
driver mistake - judgment/perception
other driver at fault
deliberate dangerous maneuver
learner permit
intermediate license
www.iihs.org
Dedicated to reducing deaths, injuries, and property damage on the highway
Anne T. McCartt, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President, Research
[email protected], 703-247-1534
