tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/dangerous-driving-47358/articlesDangerous driving – The Conversation2019-11-03T18:55:12Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1256382019-11-03T18:55:12Z2019-11-03T18:55:12ZCaught red-handed: automatic cameras will spot mobile-using motorists, but at what cost?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299830/original/file-20191101-102228-2ypsrq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=18%2C9%2C920%2C820&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trials found that 5% of offending drivers used a mobile phone with both hands while the vehicle was moving. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">NSW Transport</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the years, advances in technology and transport policy have greatly impacted drivers. In the 1980s this came in the form of random breath testing, and more recently, mobile drug testing.</p>
<p>A new policing tool under consideration may have a similar effect, as the New South Wales legislature considers the camera-based detection of illegal mobile phone use. Other states have <a href="https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2019/10/australian-states-are-eyeing-nsws-phone-detection-stealth-cameras/">also indicated</a> interest in the program.</p>
<p>If the NSW rollout (scheduled for December) is enacted, within months there could be widespread detection of drivers illegally using mobile phones. This will likely receive community support, as the use of handheld phones is <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/on-the-road/nsw-government-crack-down-on-drivers-using-mobile-phones-and-drugs/news-story/4a6d7809b3564167da44432f52c955e0">recognised as being dangerous</a>. </p>
<p>Currently, an estimated <a href="https://research.qut.edu.au/carrsq/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2017/12/Mobile-phone-distraction-email.pdf">two in three drivers (at least)</a>, are tempted to make or take a call, text, or browse the internet while driving. With these cameras, driver behaviour is likely to change radically, simply by increasing the risk of detection. </p>
<h2>How will it work?</h2>
<p>The cameras (which can be fixed or mobile) and their supporting software have been developed by Australian-Indian alliance Acusensus.</p>
<p>Known as the <a href="https://www.acusensus.com/acusensus-headsup-jr-faq">Heads-Up Distracted Driving Detection and Enforcement Solution</a>, they can be used 24/7. As with speed cameras, a sensor system records the speed of vehicles, and a specialised camera captures a high-resolution image of the vehicle, driver and registration plate. </p>
<p>Using artificial intelligence, the system examines images to detect the possibility of mobile use. While all vehicles at a site are examined, only photos that are likely to show mobile use are sent to a human reviewer (with passengers and registration plates blurred). </p>
<p>If an offence is alleged, the evidence is forwarded to authorities who can issue fines.</p>
<h2>2019 trial results</h2>
<p>A trial conducted early this year at eight sites assessed 8.5 million vehicles, and Acusensus presented some results:</p>
<p>• 104,000 evidence packages of drivers using a mobile were detected, screened and adjudicated as evidence of an offence </p>
<p>• drivers offended more in lower speed limit areas</p>
<p>• offending happened throughout day and night, with only slight variation: slightly lower from 6am-9am; slightly higher from 7pm-9pm; and highest of all between 4pm-5pm</p>
<p>• 15% of offending drivers drove a heavy vehicle </p>
<p>• 85% of offending drivers were the only person in the vehicle</p>
<p>• 5% of offending drivers used the mobile with both hands while the vehicle was moving</p>
<p>• 75% of drivers were using their left hand to operate the mobile </p>
<p>• offending drivers were generally texting or viewing the mobile screen (28%), speaking on the phone (4%), simply holding the mobile (25%), or had the mobile on their lap (43%).</p>
<p>Currently in NSW, about 40,000 traffic infringement notices are issued annually for mobile use. During the trials, a limited number of cameras detected more than 104,000 offences within months. </p>
<p>The NSW government has announced plans for at least 135 million vehicles to be screened annually. If a similar detection rate is assumed, this means 1.65 million offences can be expected to be detected each year by the cameras. </p>
<p>However, these estimates are likely at the high end, as drivers will probably change their mobile use rapidly following the rollout.</p>
<h2>The planned rollout</h2>
<p>Currently, drivers who use a mobile illegally are fined A$337 and get 5 demerit points. Novice drivers, who aren’t permitted to use a phone at all, may exceed their limit with one offence and have to serve a three-month suspension.</p>
<p>But these penalties won’t apply at the start of the program, and there will be a three-month warning letter period for drivers.</p>
<p>Signage indicating mobile phone detection cameras are being used will also be placed on roads to make drivers aware. </p>
<h2>Trouble in the courts</h2>
<p>The proposed legislation will have a significant impact on the justice system and on driver licence administration, as large numbers of drivers will experience penalties and potential licence loss, and may seek to challenge infringements.</p>
<p>There are some heavily-debated aspects of the program. Firstly, the legislation will presume an object held by a driver is a phone and place an onus on a driver to prove it isn’t. This may be problematic if the object looks similar to a mobile phone, such as a chocolate bar or wallet. Under current enforcement practice for alleged illegal mobile use, police officers must provide evidence the object was a phone. </p>
<p>Issues around privacy also arise. Camera-based mobile enforcement is invasive, as images are purposely taken of the driver and passenger compartment. While the cameras are used in public spaces, privacy concerns remain around how images are stored, accessed and disposed of. Also, who has access?</p>
<p>The form in which evidentiary images are presented must be subject to explicit safeguarding rules, which should also be audited. Also, a legal obligation to delete images where no offence is detected must be enacted.</p>
<p>Given the scale of enforcement possible with the cameras, there will also be pressure to extend the program for other surveillance purposes. </p>
<h2>Too many unknowns</h2>
<p>The decision to introduce mobile phone enforcement in NSW, while worthwhile, seems rushed. While some elements of an evaluative approach are evident, others are missing. </p>
<p>For instance, there has been:</p>
<p>• no public report of the trial released, </p>
<p>• limited modelling (at best) of the impact on the justice system,</p>
<p>• no modelling of the impact on driver licence administration and</p>
<p>• no modelling of the personal, social and economic impact of potential widespread driver licence loss.</p>
<p>This is not to say the program should not be advanced. But it seems appropriate a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision">sunset provision</a> is inserted into the legislation, to allow for a review of the impact of the program.</p>
<p>Especially since the new camera-based enforcement approach will likely be a game-changer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125638/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian J. Faulks MAPS is an NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust Research Scholar, and has received funding from the Trust. He is an Adjunct Fellow with the Department of Psychology, Macquarie University. He is a member of the Australasian College of Road Safety.</span></em></p>Trials of the program found about 5% of offending drivers used their mobile phone with both hands, while the vehicle was moving.Ian J. Faulks, Adjunct Fellow, Macquarie University & NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust Research Scholar, Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety (CARRS-Q),, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/903882018-01-24T01:41:36Z2018-01-24T01:41:36ZDon’t just blame the driver – there’s more than one cause of fatal truck crashes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202729/original/file-20180122-110084-1ph2uxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There is evidence to suggest there is a ‘system’ of factors influencing truck crashes.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Perry Duffin</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Recent <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/m1-closed-in-both-directions-after-truck-crash-20180115-h0ifnj.html">truck driver fatalities</a> in New South Wales and a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/toll-calls-on-prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-to-overhaul-national-truck-safety-rules-20180115-h0icxy.html">call for action</a> by Toll managing director Michael Byrne have refocused attention on the safety of Australia’s road transport industry.</p>
<p>Truck crashes are often blamed on drivers. This point is well-illustrated in <a href="http://www.nti.com.au/supporting/trucking/latest-report.php">more than 400 investigations</a> into serious crashes in Australia that largely focus on driver characteristics (like gender and age) and behaviour (like speed and fatigue). This is mirrored in other research: the primary focus of crash causation has been on identifying the role of unsafe driver behaviours, such as <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457509000359">inappropriate speed</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24352592">fatigue</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17716982">drug use</a>.</p>
<p>The problem with this approach is that it does not identify the full range of factors contributing to crashes, and limits our opportunity to learn from crashes and improve safety in the industry. So, a rethink in the approach to road freight transport safety is urgently required to reduce fatalities and injuries.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/rethinking-the-causes-of-road-trauma-societys-problems-must-share-the-blame-82383">Rethinking the causes of road trauma: society’s problems must share the blame</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Why current approaches fall short</h2>
<p>Major safety audits in the Australian truck industry have identified a large number of work system failures. For example, multiple organisational factors <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-12/charges-laid-against-driver-in-tanker-crash/5314158">were identified</a> as contributing to the fatal crash of a fuel tanker operated by Cootes Transport in 2009. </p>
<p>While truck rollovers often are blamed on individual drivers, cases such as this illustrate that road transport organisations play a significant role in such crashes. </p>
<p>Prevention efforts in the transport industry are also driver-focused. Fatigue management is a good example. The core of the laws for fatigue management requires that a driver must not drive a fatigue-regulated heavy vehicle on a road while impaired by fatigue. This implies that fatigue is primarily a problem with the driver, rather than a work system that encourages drivers to operate a vehicle while fatigued.</p>
<p>Research <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1035304617728440">has documented</a> clearly the strong incentives, driven by market pressures and pay schedules, for drivers to engage in dangerous driving behaviours. So, the industry, regulators and government are currently overlooking the causes of crashes in their prevention efforts.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-fatal-five-causes-of-road-trauma-whos-in-control-48976">The ‘fatal five’ causes of road trauma: who’s in control?</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Toward a systems thinking approach</h2>
<p>A rethink in the approach to road freight transport safety requires a shift from the driver-focused approach to a systems-thinking approach.</p>
<p>A systems-thinking approach is underpinned by the idea that road freight transport crashes are caused by multiple, interacting factors within the system. Driver error is seen as the outcome of the interactions between these factors – and not as a cause of crashes. </p>
<p>To maintain control over safety, the decisions and actions of government, regulatory bodies and road freight transport management must be informed by accurate information on the actual working conditions and the interacting factors influencing driver behaviour.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28171803">Our study</a> of the road freight transportation system drew on contemporary knowledge about crash causation <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-fatal-five-causes-of-road-trauma-whos-in-control-48976">in road transport more generally</a>, and in other <a href="https://theconversation.com/accident-prevention-should-look-at-the-big-picture-of-what-went-wrong-34491">safety-critical domains</a>. We examined 21 publicly available Australian coronial inquest reports into truck crashes between 2004 and 2014. </p>
<p>Our study found these reports clearly identified the role of government, regulatory bodies, road safety authorities, the supply chain, freight companies, and freight drivers in crash causation. However, their recommendations were predominantly focused on fixing isolated components in the system, such as the decision-making of drivers and speed.</p>
<p>A new approach to investigating truck crashes is urgently required to help shift the focus during crash investigations from driver behaviour onto the work system and beyond – to the supply chain, regulatory bodies, and government agencies. </p>
<p>We need to stop blaming and start reforming the transportation industry using a systems-thinking approach. To do this, we need to design the methods and tools to collect the right data so that prevention efforts target the right elements in the transportation system – not just the truck driver or other road users. This should include developing an Australia-wide freight crash reporting and analysis system that is underpinned by systems thinking. </p>
<p>This is the responsibility of all parties in the transportation system. The safety of road users matters, and the status quo of focusing on drivers alone is a hindrance to achieving safer roads.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90388/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natassia Goode receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the State of Queensland through the Department of Science, Information Technology and Information, Advance Queensland Research Fellowship.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sharon Newnam does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A rethink in the approach to road freight transport safety is urgently required to reduce fatalities and injuries.Sharon Newnam, Senior Research Fellow, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Monash UniversityNatassia Goode, Senior Research Fellow, University of the Sunshine CoastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/885632017-12-12T19:12:14Z2017-12-12T19:12:14ZYoung workers are most likely to use their phones while driving – here’s how we can change that<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197712/original/file-20171205-22989-d4qskj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">At any given moment, roughly 1-2% of Australian drivers are estimated to be using their mobile phone while driving.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Distracted driving is a significant contributor to road accidents and fatalities. Mobile phone use while driving is a particularly important form of driver distraction. It can increase the risk of traffic accidents by <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702133360701">up to four times</a>. </p>
<p>At any moment, roughly <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140130701318624">1-2% of Australian drivers</a> are using their mobile phone while driving. In 2016 alone, police in New South Wales charged <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-27/nsw-government-revamps-texting-campaign/9196436?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%3a8935&user_id=1e780ed76acf35972a0a97115de6e66a4998c9a4edaa61939041ac55b142758c&WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Email%7c%7c8935&utm_content=ABCNewsmail_topstories_articlelink">39,000 people</a> for doing so.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/business/centres/i4c/docs/MAC%20Mobile%20Phone%20Use.pdf">Our survey</a> of 413 South Australians revealed that young working people were those most likely to use their phones while driving. Our broader findings could help inform the design of public information campaigns run by road safety organisations to discourage dangerous driving behaviour.</p>
<h2>How prevalent is it?</h2>
<p>One in three respondents in our survey reported never using their phones while driving; one in two reported rare or occasional use; and one in five reported frequent use.</p>
<p>The chart below shows the frequency of engagement in different mobile phone use behaviours. Receiving incoming phone calls while driving was the most commonly reported behaviour: 61% reported having received at least one call while driving in the past two weeks.</p>
<p><iframe id="xmLXx" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/xmLXx/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Using a mobile phone while driving is illegal across Australia. When inside the car, the driver is only allowed to use a phone if it can be operated completely hands-free or while placed in a cradle. It is illegal for the driver to hold a phone in their hand for any purpose other than to pass it to a passenger, even if the car is temporarily stopped at an intersection. </p>
<p>The laws are stricter still for L- and P-platers. Some states ban all mobile phone use while driving for these drivers: hands-free, cradled, or otherwise.</p>
<p>Of our sample, only 43% reported having a hands-free headset. An even smaller 23% reported having a mobile phone cradle. </p>
<h2>Who is most likely to use their phones?</h2>
<p>Both popular media and academic studies have portrayed young adults as <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847808000983">being particularly prone</a> to mobile phone use while driving.</p>
<p>However, our findings indicate that 18-29-year-olds are no more likely than average to use their mobile phones while driving. 30-39-year-olds report the greatest frequency of use, and those over 65 report the lowest frequency. </p>
<p>Employment was found to be a strong predictor of mobile phone use while driving. Stated use was highest among those who were employed full time. </p>
<p>Together, these findings indicate that young working people are most likely to use their phones while driving. Our study finds they are also most likely to feel socially pressured to use their phones while driving, and more likely to perceive benefits from doing it, through real-time communication and increased work productivity. </p>
<p>Road safety campaigns targeting mobile phone use among these people should emphasise how perceived social pressure is not an acceptable excuse for engaging in the behaviour. These campaigns should attempt to debunk some of the perceived benefits of the same.</p>
<p>More generally, those who are more likely to use their phones while driving have lower perceptions of risk with regard to the behaviour, and are therefore less likely to experience guilt or remorse over doing so. </p>
<p>Our findings are consistent with previous studies and support the use of campaigns focused on <a href="http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/campaigns/get-your-hand-off-it/index.html">risks related with</a> mobile phone use while driving.</p>
<h2>Social disapproval doesn’t always work</h2>
<p>Our analysis reveals that those who feel strong social disapproval toward mobile phone use while driving are actually <em>more likely</em> to engage in it.</p>
<p>The use of normative messaging to foster safer and healthier behaviours has met with mixed results across different public health domains. In some cases, campaigns have <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x">actually increased</a> the incidence of the undesirable behaviours they set out to change. </p>
<p>However, some public campaigns have <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4248563/">successful application</a> and have been credited with changing societal norms around the likes of smoking, drinking and driving, and safe-sex practices. </p>
<p>When used thoughtfully and based on evidence, public information campaigns can be effective policy instruments to encourage safer and healthier behaviours, both on the road and off it.</p>
<p>Road safety campaigns frequently use the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcHxmzAg9us">perceived disapproval</a> of friends, family members and other peer groups as part of their strategy to foster changes in attitudes and behaviours. Our findings indicate that such strategies have the potential to backfire. They should be used carefully, if at all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88563/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Akshay Vij has received research funding in the past from the Motor Accident Commission of South Australia. </span></em></p>Road safety campaigns targeting mobile phone use among drivers should emphasise how perceived social pressure is not an acceptable excuse for engaging in the behaviour.Akshay Vij, Senior Research Fellow, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.