Presented by Name Here
Job Title - Date

Table of contents
3
4
1
2
5
Distraction and inattention - Psychology
Effects on driving and safety
Training and education
Behavioural change
Conclusions

3
4
1
2
5
Distraction and inattention - Psychology
Effects on driving and safety
Training and education
Behavioural change
Conclusions

Don’t we all multitask?
 No
 Laboratory studies show that when we get people to undertake more than one task at a time, those tasks interfere, even when they are simple and physically ‘compatible’
 Various methods used to examine this in laboratory studies – let’s look at one – the psychological refractory period (PRP)

PRP
A Response
B
Time
Response

PRP
A
B
Response
Response
Time

PRP
A
B
PRP
Response
Time
Response

Attention…
“…the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. … It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others.”
James (1890, p403)

Distraction
“ A thing that prevents someone from concentrating on something else.”
OED

PRP
A
B
Distraction
Response
Inattention
Time
Response

Taxonomy of driver distraction/innatention
Engström et al. (2013)

Distracted Driving
“Diversion of attention away from activities required for safe driving due to some event, activity, object or person, within or outside the vehicle”
(Basacik & Stevens, 2008)
Page  12

3
4
1
2
5
Distraction and inattention - Psychology
Effects on driving and safety
Training and education
Behavioural change
Conclusions

Distraction and inattention effects on performance
 The literature is full of studies showing that distraction can cause decrements in performance – here we report two
 McKenna and Farrand (1999)
 Burns et al. (2002)

Distraction and hazard anticipation
 McKenna and Farrand (1999) examined the effect of a conversation-like task on hazard anticipation times, using experienced and novice drivers

Distraction and hazard anticipation
 McKenna and Farrand (1999) examined the effect of a conversation-like task on hazard anticipation times, using experienced and novice drivers
Note graph shows approximate data from original paper.

Distraction and hazard anticipation
 McKenna and Farrand (1999) examined the effect of a conversation-like task on hazard anticipation times, using experienced and novice drivers
Note graph shows approximate data from original paper.

Distraction and hazard anticipation
 McKenna and Farrand (1999) examined the effect of a conversation-like task on hazard anticipation times, using experienced and novice drivers
Note graph shows approximate data from original paper.

Distraction and hazard anticipation
 McKenna and Farrand (1999) examined the effect of a conversation-like task on hazard anticipation times, using experienced and novice drivers
Note graph shows approximate data from original paper.

TRL car simulator ‘DigiCar’

Burns et al (2002) - TRL study
Choice reaction times to sudden events

Quality of decision making
 Other differences in responses to signs:
Greater number of misses (i.e. drivers not responding to a sign when they should have) in hands free condition than in alcohol condition
Greater number of false alarms (i.e. drivers responding to a sign when they should not have) in phone conditions than in alcohol condition

Real-world studies
 Plenty of ‘real-world’ studies too
 Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997)
 100-car study
 Simons-Morton et al. (2014)

Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997)
 Analysis of phone records of 699 drivers who had cell phones and had been involved in motor vehicle crashes (damage only)
Compared crash-period with control period on previous day
 Drivers were at least four times more likely to have a crash when speaking on a phone while driving
 No difference between hands-free and hand-held

100 car study
 Large-scale instrumented car study collecting pre-crash and nearcrash naturalistic driving data
 Data collection unobtrusive
Video, front and rear sensors, accelerometers, GPS, vehicle speed etc.
 Drivers used cars for their everyday driving (2m miles)
82 crashes
761 near crashes

100 car study
 Findings
80% of crashes and 65% of near crashes involved driver inattention of some kind just before the event
Visual inattention contributed to 93% of rear-end crashes
In-car mobile devices associated with highest frequency of distraction for near crashes

Simons-Morton et al. (2014)
 42 newly licensed drivers whose cars were instrumented to collect data for 18 months of their early driving career
 Six seconds prior to each crash or near crash (CNC) event – coded for longest eye glance off road (LGOR)
 When LGOR > 2 seconds due to interaction with mobile communication device, more likely to see CNC

In short…
(Parkes, 2015, personal communication)

Do people try?
 Yes!
 Drivers engage in activities they know to be distracting
 Young males most likely to do so
Lansdown (2012
)

3
4
1
2
5
Distraction and inattention - Psychology
Effects on driving and safety
Training and education
Behavioural change
Conclusions

Road safety training and education
 Education and training has a poor track record in terms of impacting directly on road safety outcomes, especially for young and novice drivers

“The only direct benefits imparted by broad driver education and training would appear to be the basic vehicle control skills and knowledge of road rules necessary for entering the driving population. According to the evidence it has no measurable direct effect on collision risk, and its continued use should therefore be set against much lower expectations in terms of what it can contribute directly to the safety of new drivers.”
Helman, Grayson and Parkes (2010, p8)
Based on synthesis of numerous meta-analyses and systematic review papers (Clinton & Lonero,
2006; Mayhew et al., 2002; Roberts & Kwan, 2001; Christie, 2001; Vernick et al., 1999; Mayhew et al., 1998; Brown et al., 1987)

Road safety training and education
 Education and training in this context typically means broad approaches with off-road driving and classroom-based content
 However distraction is typically included in more focused courses aimed at young drivers, or in targeted information campaigns
 Some approaches use techniques such as theatre education – again distraction is often included as a topic

Problems with the traditional approach
 This isn’t really about ‘training’
 This is driver behaviour (not driver performance)
 What we are actually talking about here is behavioural change…

3
4
1
2
5
Distraction and inattention - Psychology
Effects on driving and safety
Training and education
Behavioural change
Conclusions

Behaviour change techniques
 It’s about more than provision of information about consequences!
 Abraham and Mitchie (2008) identified 26 BCTs based on key theoretical frameworks

26 BCTs – one taxonomy
 Provide information on:
Behaviour-health link
Consequences
Others’ approval
 Set graded tasks
 Model or demonstrate behaviour
 Teach or use prompts as cues
 Agree on behavioural contract
 Provide:
Contingent rewards
Social comparison
General encouragement
Instruction
Feedback
 Use follow-up prompts
 Plan social support or social change
 Relapse prevention
 Management of:
Time
Stress
 Prompt
Identification as a role model
Self-talk
Intention formation
Barrier ID
Specific goal setting
Review of behavioural goals
Self-monitoring
Practice
 Motivational interviewing

Different BCTs are effective for different situations
 Albarracín et al. (2005) – interventions designed to promote use of condoms

Different BCTs are effective for different situations
 Hillsdon et al. (2005) – communitybased physical exercise interventions
Three techniques more common in effective interventions
Instructions in written materials
Self-monitoring
Follow-up phone support

What about road safety?
 Stradling, Fylan and Scott (2012) examined use of BCTs in road safety interventions aimed at young people
Only a handful are used (typically information about consequences and risks)
No effort made to use BCTs around supporting change
Threat appraisals used, but not coping appraisals

‘Doing something’ is not always preferable
 It is possible to have undesired effects
 Example: injunctive and descriptive norms – these need to work in the same direction
 …because BOTH have an impact!

‘Iron Eyes Cody’ https://cbsboston.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/litter.jpg?w=620&h=
349&crop=1 http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx8pmuXNUq1qi8jcb.jpg

Cialdini et al. (1990) and Cialdini (2003)
 Problem is that both types of norms influence behaviour –
‘Iron Eyes Cody’ may have been ineffective because it pitted them against each other
 People litter MORE when the environment is littered

Harm in road safety
 Plenty of other psychological mechanisms by which harm can be done (McKenna, 2010)
Early licensure
Overconfidence
Risk as value

Harm in road safety
 Glendon et al. (2014)
1-day safety education course
Riskier attitudes to driving in intervention group after six week follow-up

3
4
1
2
5
Distraction and inattention - Psychology
Effects on driving and safety
Training and education
Behavioural change
Conclusions

Conclusions
 Distraction is an important topic for road safety because it removes attention from the driving task
 Effects on performance and safety are reasonably clear – distraction is a key factor in many road collisions and injuries
 Young (and male) drivers are more likely to engage in distraction behind the wheel

Conclusions
 If education and training is to have a meaningful impact on distracted driving in this group:
We cannot simply assume information deficit (because there isn’t one) and expect such an approach to work (because it doesn’t)
We need careful attention to what is known about behavioural change
We need to check that what we are planning will work (evaluate) – otherwise we might be making things worse

Distraction and road safety: the challenges for training and education
Presented by Dr Shaun Helman
Head of Transport Psychology – TRL
Tel: 01344 77 0650
Email: shelman@trl.co.uk