The proportion of motor vehicle crash fatalities involving alcohol-impaired drivers declined substantially between 1982 and 1997, but progress stopped after 1997. The systemic complexity of ...alcohol-impaired driving contributes to the persistence of this problem. This study aims to identify and map key feedback mechanisms that affect alcohol-impaired driving among adolescents and young adults in the U.S.
We apply the system dynamics approach to the problem of alcohol-impaired driving and bring a feedback perspective for understanding drivers and inhibitors of the problem. The causal loop diagram (i.e., map of dynamic hypotheses about the structure of the system producing observed behaviors over time) developed in this study is based on the output of two group model building sessions conducted with multidisciplinary subject-matter experts bolstered with extensive literature review.
The causal loop diagram depicts diverse influences on youth impaired driving including parents, peers, policies, law enforcement, and the alcohol industry. Embedded in these feedback loops are the physical flow of youth between the categories of abstainers, drinkers who do not drive after drinking, and drinkers who drive after drinking. We identify key inertial factors, discuss how delay and feedback processes affect observed behaviors over time, and suggest strategies to reduce youth impaired driving.
This review presents the first causal loop diagram of alcohol-impaired driving among adolescents and it is a vital first step toward quantitative simulation modeling of the problem. Through continued research, this model could provide a powerful tool for understanding the systemic complexity of impaired driving among adolescents, and identifying effective prevention practices and policies to reduce youth impaired driving.
•Fatalities related to alcohol-impaired driving in the U.S. have not changed since 1997.•Major risk factors include binge drinking, peer influences, and alcohol marketing.•Parental monitoring, regulations, and enforcement are protecting factors.•We present the first map of feedback mechanisms regulating alcohol-impaired driving.
The increasing development of autonomous vehicles (AVs) influences the future of transportation. Beyond the potential benefits in terms of safety, efficiency, and comfort, also potential risks of ...novel driving technologies need to be addressed. In this article, we explore risk perceptions toward connected and autonomous driving in comparison to conventional driving. In order to gain a deeper understanding of individual risk perceptions, we adopted a two‐step empirical procedure. First, focus groups (N=17) were carried out to identify relevant risk factors for autonomous and connected driving. Further, a questionnaire was developed, which was answered by 516 German participants. In the questionnaire, three driving technologies (connected, autonomous, conventional) were evaluated via semantic differential (rating scale to identify connotative meaning of technologies). Second, participants rated perceived risk levels (for data, traffic environment, vehicle, and passenger) and perceived benefits and barriers of connected/autonomous driving. Since previous experience with automated functions of driver assistance systems can have an impact on the evaluation, three experience groups have been formed. The effect of experience on benefits and barrier perceptions was also analyzed. Risk perceptions were significantly smaller for conventional driving compared to connected/autonomous driving. With increasing experience, risk perception decreases for novel driving technologies with one exception: the perceived risk in handling data is not influenced by experience. The findings contribute to an understanding of risk perception in autonomous driving, which helps to foster a successful implementation of AVs on the market and to develop public information strategies.
People mixing driving motor vehicles with consuming alcohol increases deaths and injuries on the roads, as was established irrefutably in the mid-1960s. This commentary discusses how society across ...Europe has responded since then to this burden by managing drink driving in the interests of road safety. The principal response has been to set, communicate and enforce limits on the level of alcohol in the blood above which it is illegal to drive and to deal in various ways with drivers found to be exceeding the limits. Achieving reduction in drink-related road deaths has benefitted public health, though the aim to change behaviour of drinking drivers has been a challenge to the profession. Other achievements have included changes in public attitude to drink driving, and reduction in reoffending by convicted offenders through rehabilitation courses and use of the alcohol interlock, which prevents starting of a vehicle by a driver who has drunk too much. There is scope for improved recording of road deaths identified as drink-related, greater understanding of effectiveness in enforcement of the legal limit and improved availability of the alcohol interlock. Relevance of experience with drink driving to management of other drug driving and prospects for building on the achievements so far are discussed.
•There is little evidence supporting driving simulator validity despite frequent use.•This review included 44 studies directly comparing simulator and real-world driving.•Simulators in around half of ...the studies achieved absolute or relative validity.•The relationship between fidelity and validity is not straightforward.•The reporting of driving simulator studies requires improvement.
Driving simulators are a common tool for researching driver behaviour, providing practical, safe, and controlled environments. Despite their frequent use in research, there is relatively little evidence confirming their validity (i.e., how accurately they represent or reproduce real-world driving). Moreover, there is inconsistency in both the types of simulators used, and the operationalisation of “real-world” driving in validations. This systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the evidence regarding driving simulator accuracy when compared with real-world driving. The review included 44 studies reporting a direct comparison between simulated driving and on-road driving in a vehicle. Measures reported for comparison varied but included mean speed, speed variability, lateral position, overall driving performance, and number of driving errors. Simulators in approximately half of the studies achieved absolute or relative validity, whereas one third produced non-valid results. To understand this further, the fidelity of simulators was considered, however this further clouded our understanding as the relationship between simulator fidelity and validity was not straightforward. The findings suggest that the reporting of driving simulator studies requires improvement, particularly around the validation evidence associated with the simulator, the specific details of the simulated driving environment, and the outputs of statistical analyses. Guidelines are proposed for future research to ensure consistency in the conduct, and reporting, of simulator-based research.
Display omitted
•Anger resulted in more frequent violations but not in more frequent driving errors.•Anger created danger due to willful behaviors, not because of cognitive overload.•Not anger alone, ...nor combined with a conversation, increased the error frequency.•Only anger in response to a thwarted driving goal increased the violation frequency.•Severe anger was accompanied by more violations compared to slight or marked anger.
There is a positive relationship between driving anger and near-crash or crash risk. However, it remains unclear if anger in fact contributes to traffic accidents and whether this happens due to cognitive overload or aggressive driving behaviors. This study investigated how anger affects driving behavior based on naturalistic driving data from the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2). Ten-minute trip segments were analyzed in which drivers exhibited anger with regard to driving errors, violations, and aggressive expressions. This data was compared to a matched baseline consisting of the same drivers not exhibiting anger. Results showed that anger resulted in more frequent aggressive driving behaviors but did not increase driving error frequency. Anger consequently creates danger due to deliberate behaviors rather than because of cognitive overload. In congruence with this finding, only anger triggered by threats, provocations, and frustrations increased the frequency of deliberate infringements. In contrast, anger due to having conflicts with someone on the phone or with a passenger was not linked to any type of aberrant driving behavior. Finally, severe displays of anger were accompanied by more violations as compared to slight or marked anger.
Text Messaging During Simulated Driving Drews, Frank A.; Yazdani, Hina; Godfrey, Celeste N. ...
Human factors,
10/2009, Letnik:
51, Številka:
5
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Objective: This research aims to identify the impact of text messaging on simulated driving performance. Background: In the past decade, a number of on-road, epidemiological, and simulator-based ...studies reported the negative impact of talking on a cell phone on driving behavior. However, the impact of text messaging on simulated driving performance is still not fully understood. Method: Forty participants engaged in both a single task (driving) and a dual task (driving and text messaging) in a high-fidelity driving simulator. Results: Analysis of driving performance revealed that participants in the dual-task condition responded more slowly to the onset of braking lights and showed impairments in forward and lateral control compared with a driving-only condition. Moreover, text-messaging drivers were involved in more crashes than drivers not engaged in text messaging. Conclusion: Text messaging while driving has a negative impact on simulated driving performance. This negative impact appears to exceed the impact of conversing on a cell phone while driving. Application: The results increase our understanding of driver distraction and have potential implications for public safety and device development.
There is a substantial body of evidence that the recidivism of impaired-driving offenders is reduced while an ignition interlock device (IID) is on their vehicles. This study examines changes in ...driving behaviors and drinking behaviors used by DWI offenders to manage driving with the IID.
A total of 166 IID participants who completed two surveys covering the period from arrest to IID installation (T1) and during IID use (T2) were examined. Four domains were covered: demographics, driving environments and transportation needs, reported driving activity, and reported drinking activities. Participants were on average 38 years old, 43% were female, 35% completed college, 34% had an income of more than $50,000, and 83% were employed. For those who provided it, the mean blood alcohol content (BAC) at arrest was .184 g/dL, with only 8 (5%) individuals below .08 g/dL, and 93 (56%) at over .18 g/dL. About 45% were repeat DWI offenders.
Between T1 and T2 there was a slight increase in acknowledging public transportation was available (p=.001), an increase in other individuals driving the interlock-equipped vehicle (p=.002), an increase in the number of vehicles in the household not registered to the DWI offender (p< .001), and an increase in the number of participants who reported that driving was important to their lifestyle (p=.008). Initial (T1) expectations about whether the interlock would be a problem were significantly different from actual experiences reported in T2 (p<.001). With respect to alcohol consumption, 14% reported abstinence at T2 compared to 2% at T1 (p=.001) and the number of drinks per drinking occasion decreased from a mean of 4.90 at T1 to 3.14 at T2 (p=.001), but the number of drinking occasions increased by a third (p=.003). The number of drinking locations (p=.001), the frequency of stopping after work for a drink (p=.001), and drinking at a bar all decreased (p<.001).
Interlock users make some adjustments in how they drink, the amount they drink, and where they drink. This finding suggests that there may be methods that can be used to extend the benefits of the IID beyond the sanction period.
This research aims to estimate the relative risks of responsibility for a fatal accident linked to driving under the influence of cannabis or alcohol, the prevalence of these influences among drivers ...and the corresponding attributable risk ratios. A secondary goal is to estimate the same items for three other groups of illicit drugs (amphetamines, cocaine and opiates), and to compare the results to a similar study carried out in France between 2001 and 2003.
Police procedures for fatal accidents in Metropolitan France during 2011 were analyzed and 300 characteristics encoded to provide a database of 4,059 drivers. Information on alcohol and four groups of illicit drugs derived from tests for positivity and potential confirmation through blood analysis. The study compares drivers responsible for causing the accident, that is to say having directly contributed to its occurrence, to drivers involved in an accident for which they were not responsible, and who can be assimilated to drivers in general.
The proportion of persons driving under the influence of alcohol is estimated at 2.1% (95% CI: 1.4-2.8) and under the influence of cannabis at 3.4% (2.9%-3.9%). Drivers under the influence of alcohol are 17.8 times (12.1-26.1) more likely to be responsible for a fatal accident, and the proportion of fatal accidents which would be prevented if no drivers ever exceeded the legal limit for alcohol is estimated at 27.7% (26.0%-29.4%). Drivers under the influence of cannabis multiply their risk of being responsible for causing a fatal accident by 1.65 (1.16-2.34), and the proportion of fatal accidents which would be prevented if no drivers ever drove under the influence of cannabis is estimated at 4.2% (3.7%-4.8%). An increased risk linked to opiate use has also been found to be significant, but with low prevalence, requiring caution in interpreting this finding. Other groups of narcotics have even lower prevalence, and the associated extra risks cannot be assessed.
Almost a decade separates the present study from a similar one previously conducted in France, and there have been numerous developments in the intervening years. Even so, the prevalence of drivers responsible for causing fatal accidents under the influence of alcohol or narcotics has stayed remarkably stable, as have the proportion of fatal accidents which could in theory be prevented if no drivers ever exceeded the legal limits. The overall number of deaths from traffic accidents has dropped sharply during this period, and the number of victims attributable to alcohol and/or cannabis declined proportionally. Alcohol remains the main problem in France. It is just as important to note that one in two drivers considered to be under the influence of cannabis was also under the influence of alcohol. With risks cumulating between the two, it is particularly important to point out the danger of consuming them together.
ABSTRACT
Aims
Medical marijuana law (MML) enactment in the United States has been associated with increased cannabis use but lower traffic fatality rates. We assessed the possible association of MML ...and individual‐level driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) and also under the influence of alcohol (DUIA).
Design and setting
Three cross‐sectional U.S. adult surveys: The National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (NLAES; 1991–1992), the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; 2001–2002), and the NESARC‐III (2012–2013).
Participants
The total n was 118 497: 41 764, 41 184, and 35 549 from NLAES, NESARC, and NESARC‐III, respectively.
Measurements
Across the three surveys, similar questions in the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule assessed DUIC and DUIA. Ever‐MML states enacted MML between 1991–1992 and 2012–2013 (overall period). Early‐MML states enacted MML between 1991–1992 and 2001–2002 (early period). Late‐MML states enacted MML between 2001–2002 and 2012–2013 (late period). MML effects on change in DUIC and DUIA prevalence were estimated using a difference‐in‐differences specification to compare changes in MML and other states.
Findings
From 1991–1992 to 2012–2013, DUIC prevalence nearly doubled (from 1.02% to 1.92%), increasing more in states that enacted MML than other states (difference‐in‐differences DiD = 0.59%; 95% CI = 0.06%–1.12%). Most change in DUIC prevalence occurred between 2001–2002 and 2012–2013. DUIC prevalence increased more in states that enacted MML 2001–2002 to 2012–2013 than in never‐MML states (DiD = 0.77%; 95% CI = −0.05%‐1.59%), and in two early‐MML states, California (DiD = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.06–1.59) and Colorado (DiD = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.11–2.53). In contrast, DUIA prevalence appeared unrelated to MML enactment.
Conclusions
Medical marijuana law enactment in US states appears to have been associated with increased prevalence of driving under the influence of cannabis, but not alcohol.
PDF
