Curb Civilian Distracted Driving

As technology advances, life seems to get easier. We no longer carry thick address books or fumble around with unwieldy paper maps. Our smartphones do everything from directing us to a new local restaurant to blasting our favorite tunes. Unfortunately, there is one area where we’ve taken a giant leap backwards and advanced technology plays a huge role: traffic accidents.

The number of vehicle accidents had steadily been declining for decades. Then in 2015 that changed dramatically with a 14 percent increase from the year before. In 2016, it increased by another 6 percent contributing to 40,000 deaths and 4.6 million roadway users injured seriously enough to need medical attention. All of this occurred at the same time as roads and vehicles continued to get safer. What is not getting safer is human behavior.

#Justdrive

Distracted driving means talking on a cellphone, texting, using the internet and fiddling with music and navigation apps. The National Safety Council estimates during daylight hours 660,000 people are using their cellphones while driving. It takes an average of five seconds to send a text and at 55 mph the vehicle travels the length of a football field essentially with the driver’s eyes closed. In 2015, distracted driving contributed to 391,000 injury crashes and 3,477 fatalities. Teenagers are the largest age group to have been distracted at the time of a fatal crash.

The 2015 National Occupant Protection Use Survey conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) observed behaviors in 45,916 vehicles at 1,566 sites throughout the U.S. About 2.2 percent of drivers were visibly manipulating a cellphone and 3.8 percent had one to their ear. Again teens were the largest offenders with 4.9 percent of 16 to 24-year-olds playing with their phones while driving. “This multitasking technology is about convenience, not safety,” the National Safety Council advises. Crash involvement is equivalent to risk plus prevalence. Talking on a cellphone increases risk four times, texting by up to an astounding 23 times. Unfortunately, due to a variety of reasons, including limited capturing of critical data on police reports and lack of visible evidence, it’s difficult to definitively identify distracted driving as the cause of the increase.

“It’s hard to pinpoint one factor,” explains Aaron Swanson, distracted driving program supervisor, Connecticut Department of Transportation. Although there isn’t any conclusive data to date, Swanson reiterates that safety professionals understand the impact distracted driving is having on traffic. “The way crash data is compiled, it’s hard to determine causation,” says Swanson. “It’s not like wearing a (seat) belt or a helmet where we can observe that. We don’t have the same kind of data that we have on other areas of safety.” Regardless, law enforcement is not sitting on their laurels.

U Drive. U Text. U Pay.

Connecticut is one of many states participating in a nationwide campaign funded by NHTSA titled U Drive. U Text. U Pay. Around 50 Connecticut agencies participated in a six week Distracted Driving High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) carried out in April and August. Connecticut’s Distracted Driving HVE follows the model set forth through NHTSA. First, the public is informed that law enforcement will be out looking for certain behaviors through press releases, media ride-alongs and billboard advertising. Second, the enforcement occurs and the public sees this happening. “The reason HVE can be effective, as it has been raising seat belt use or tamping down impaired driving, is because law enforcement is never going to be able to stop everyone,” says Swanson. “What high visibility enforcement does is when they tell people and then they see law enforcement out there enforcing, they feel they might be at risk.” HVE is a spotter-type enforcement which can be flexible to meet the needs of a large metro department or a small rural agency. With the distracted driving campaign, the feedback Swanson is getting from the officers is it doesn’t seem to matter if they hide or not. “Some officers are in plain clothes,” he explains. “Sometimes they dress like a surveyor. But if they get in the right spot, people who are distracted won’t see them even if they are in full uniform.”

Swanson anticipates 18,000 to 20,000 tickets will have been issued during this year’s enforcement. “During the April enforcement, we saw just under 12,000 for distracted driving specifically.” Connecticut doesn’t want to stop at just ticketing drivers for a short period of time. Swanson states they are also working with their data analysis contractor to conduct observational studies in the attempt to determine the effectiveness of the enforcements. They are going back and measuring phone use before and after in the locations enforcement took place. “From pre-April to May, there was a 17 percent drop in observed use at locations where enforcement takes place,” he explains. What he hopes to find out is how long the decrease in use lasts. “It may be more like speed,” Swanson says. “Yes, you’ll stop engaging in an area where enforcement is taking place but after you’re back to the behavior.” He is hopeful he will be able to report on August’s impact in November. “Hopefully that informs our decision making a bit,” he explains.

Driver education and simulators

Education is also being used to combat distracted driving. Simulators and advances in technology are helping public education campaigns keep up with the behaviors officers are hoping to combat. In Texas, one officer wasn’t satisfied with the training options available. So, he created his own.

An officer at Texas State University since 1998, Otto Glenewinkel experienced early drunk driving simulations which involved a golf cart, beer goggles and some cones. “We almost rolled a golf cart one time,” he explains. “I went to our chief and said this was not the safest thing to do. He said if you find a better way, go for it, but we’re still going to do education.” Glenewinkel went back to his garage and started building. With the help of his teenage son, funding from the parent association at the university and a heart for helping the community, he created his non-profit company and the first simulator was built and given to an agency to do presentations. Currently building his 37th Driving While Impaired Portable Onsite Demonstrator (DWIpod), he has continued to upgrade and develop demonstrators that use the best systems and equipment, including Bose stereos, Samsung monitors, and the best quality controllers to demonstrate impaired and distracted driving. Goal number one? Grab attention from those who would normally walk right by. “It’s a tool to get people to come over and talk to the prevention specialist,” Glenewinkel says. In accordance with statistics, Glenewinkel focuses on the highest risk population. “We are really focusing on kids under 24,” states Glenewinkel. “The kids most at risk for impaired driving and distracted driving, which is going to overshadow impaired driving shortly.” DWIpod uses City Car Driving software which can be distributed and used with other simulators as well.

“One (goal) was to create a display or an interactive program that would really engage our target community,” Glenewinkel says. “If you look at young adults, especially males, for impaired driving, 16 to 24 years old, we really wanted to focus on them and the one thing that males have in common is they love video games.” Glenewinkel also wanted to build something that would be financially accessible to every department. “We offer some of the best technology out there at the lowest cost we can in the U.S. We wanted to get them out there.” If a department doesn’t want to get their simulator from him, Glenewinkel is okay with that as long as they get it from someone. “We don’t have competitors,” he says. “We just have people working towards the same goal we are. If someone wants one for their community, give us a call. We’ll help you raise the money. We just want people to get involved. If we can save one life, everything I’ve ever done is really worth it.”

Technology combating technology

Jennifer Jolly with USA Today tested more than a dozen cellphone blocking apps and gadgets that promised a fix to using a smartphone behind the wheel. These apps have a variety of features including turning on automatically when a car is moving over a certain speed, sending pre-configured responses, such as “I’m driving, will call you back in a minute,” a harsh voice yelling phrases such as, “Would your parents be happy with you if they knew you were doing this,” when the phone is touched, and even ones that give you points you cash in at local retailers for leaving your phone alone as you drive. Most cellular phone providers offer apps available for both Android and iPhone. At this time, individuals choose to put these on their phones and many parents are putting them on their teenage driver’s phone. There is some talk of external technology to block cellphones in certain areas, but there are numerous concerns about balancing freedom, privacy and government control. “If the public chooses it, that’s great,” Swanson says. “It’s a little more murky if it’s a government requirement. Of course from a safety standpoint, it’s great.”

Another relatively new concept is the idea of technology modeled after the Breathalyzer which can be used by law enforcement to determine if a person had been using their phone illegally on the road. Currently, officers need a warrant to check a driver’s phone and often these are hard to get. These checks generally only show call use and texting, not other distractions such as checking email, social media or browsing the web. The new technology known as the Textalyzer will simply be a device an officer attaches to the phone in question via a cord and in less than two minutes the driver’s activities will be displayed. Cellebrite is ready to develop this technology and a number of jurisdictions, including New York are ready to get it out to their officers. The hold-up is legality and privacy concerns. New York S6325A, a bill designed to allow officers to use this technology is sitting in committee and lawmakers, including those in New Jersey, Tennessee, Chicago and a number of other localities are waiting for the determination.

“This problem is like many other behavioral safety problems,” Swanson explains. “It takes time for our social norms to change. We didn’t go from 50 to 90 percent (seat) belt use in a short amount of time—same thing with impaired driving. It was a cultural change. You can tell the public over and over and that doesn’t always work,” he says. “Having law enforcement interactions change the behavior.”

As we wait for changes to slowly come about to combat the death and injury rate associated with our love of technological immediacy, law enforcement will continue to assist people with information, education and enforcement. Swanson sees technology as one way out of the distracted driving issue. “In the meantime, we’re doing all we can to slowly ratchet down the impact this behavior has on crashes.”

Michelle Perin is a freelance writer. In 2010, she earned her Master’s degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Indiana State University.