Search Content

The crash risk associated with cell phone use while driving is a contentious issue. Many states are introducing Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) that may be accessed with cell phones while driving (e.g. 511 Traveler Information Services). In these contexts, there is a need for relevant research to determine the risk of cell phone use. This study compared driver performance while conversing on a hands-free cell phone to conditions of operating common in-vehicle controls (e.g., radio, fan, air conditioning) and alcohol intoxication (BAC 0.08). In addition, the study examined the combined effects of being distracted and being intoxicated given that there may be a higher risk of a crash if the driver engages in a combination of risk factors. During simulated traffic scenarios, resource allocation was assessed through behavioral measures and an event-related potential (ERP) novelty oddball paradigm. The results indicated that during a car following scenario, drivers engaged in the conversations or completing in-vehicle tasks were more impaired than drivers that were not involved in any distraction task. Indeed, both the cell phone and in-vehicle sources of distraction were generally more impairing than intoxication at the legal limit. These results will be used in a follow up study in order to compare the effects on attention of driving and using 511 to distraction from these tested distractions.

As a logical and necessary extension of previous research (Rakauskas, et al., 2005), this study aims to assess the risk of cell phone use for traveler information applications; namely while using Minnesota's 511 interactive voice response (IVR) menu. First, detailed usage, utility, and usability evaluations of the MN511 were conducted. The goal of this design was to help harmonize the transfer of knowledge between access methods while also easing implementation concerns for the MN511 developers. Next, a simulated driving experiment was conducted with the goal of seeing if using an IVR menu leads to more risky driving behavior compared to driving while not accessing a menu. It also allowed us to see if changing the MN511 menu might affect driver performance. While using both phone menus, drivers seemed to compensate for the additional mental workload by delaying their reactions until they felt comfortable taking action. There were no differences between the two menu types for the majority of driving performance measures. This study addresses issues with the 511 IVR menus that were identified during this study and presents recommendations for future development.

The purpose of this project was to explore beliefs and attitudes about risky driving behavior and traffic safety interventions between urban and rural drivers as a function of age. This was accomplished by conducting focus groups and surveys in rural and urban areas with teens and seniors. Results indicated that traffic safety policy for teens should focus on distraction and sensory-motor functioning amongst seniors. In terms of traffic safety policy for rural areas, attention should be given to interventions promoting seatbelt compliance. Relative to traffic safety interventions, teens felt GDL helped them become better drivers but weren't convinced GDL had made them better/safer. Teen felt smart technology could have positive effects on safety, but an acceptable program based on this technology needs to balance factors such as cost, robustness, and limitations on driving. Seniors were receptive to mandatory testing but felt it must be flexible, objectively administered, and based on criteria other than age. Rural seniors were concerned about alternative mobility programs for those drivers that fail the proposed test. Relative to these alternative programs, seniors' acceptance was related to the perceived accessibility to a safe and affordable program that is sufficiently versatile to accommodate a range of transportation needs.

The number of annual traffic fatalities and the rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled are considerably higher in rural areas compared to urban areas. This project aimed to be one of the first studies to systematically explore the potential contribution of rural driver attitudes and behavior that may be a causal factor of these trends.

In the United States it is recognized that crashes in rural areas are a cause for concern, especially crashes at rural intersections where inherent speeds may be associated with higher fatality rates (FHWA, 2004). Recent work has shown gap acceptance problems to be the key factor contributing to these crashes (Laberge, et al., 2006) as opposed to stop sign violation (Preston & Storm, 2003). However, the majority of intersection decision-support systems implemented at intersections have not attempted to provide specific information about the nature of available gaps in the approaching traffic or information that supports a driver’s gap acceptance decision. In light of this, to reduce the crash risk at rural stop-controlled intersections, it has been recommended that intersection decision-support systems to assist drivers in responding to safe gaps be developed and deployed (Preston, Storm, Donath, & Shankwitz, 2004). The Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System-Stop Sign Assist (CICAS-SSA) is an infrastructurebased driver support system that is to improve gap acceptance at rural stop-controlled intersections. The SSA system will track vehicle locations on the major road and then display messages to the driver on the minor road. The primary goal of the current work was to evaluate several candidate CICAS-SSA concepts in order to identify a single sign that may provide the greatest utility in terms of driver performance and usability at a real-world rural intersection. A secondary goal of the current work was to determine the ideal physical characteristics (i.e., location and rotation of a sign relative to drivers) of the candidate CICAS-SSA at a test intersection to maximize comprehension (and subsequent use) of the sign.