DOCSLIB.ORG

“Textalyzer” for the Governor's Traffic Safety Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Textalyzer” for the Governor's Traffic Safety Committee 125 Broad Street, 19th floor New York, NY 10004 212.607.3300 212.607.3318 www.nyclu.org New York Civil Liberties Union Comments on the “Textalyzer” for the Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee The New York Civil Liberties Union respectfully submits the following comments on the Textalyzer technology.1 The NYCLU, the New York state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization with eight offices across the state, and over 160,000 members and supporters statewide. The NYCLU’s mission is to defend and promote the fundamental principles, rights and constitutional values embodied in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New York, including the right to be free of unwarranted government searches. Distracted driving is a behavior that puts the safety of drivers, passengers and pedestrians at risk. The “textalyzer” device seeks to address one form of distracted driving by allowing law enforcement to scan a driver’s cellphone after an accident to see if it was in use during or before the collision. Proponents for the device describe it as a “breathalyzer for texting,” and seek to have the information obtained exempt from warrant requirements, like a breathalyzer. While the intent behind its creation is well intentioned, this device or similar technologies raise serious privacy, civil rights, and practical enforcement concerns. Additionally, the information the device seeks to obtain is already available by constitutionally compliant means. It is the position of the NYCLU that use of the textalyzer technology to address distrtacted driving would all but inevitably lead to the violation of constitutional rights of privacy and due process. Accuracy and Privacy Concerns It is not actually possible to build a privacy-preserving device that fits the requirements of the proposed textalyzer technology. Modern cellphones are sophisticated computers running numerous software processes at the same time (e.g. applications or system processes). There are millions of software applications available for smartphones, some of which may send and receive data autonomously or semi-autonomously, such as in response to voice commands. Such applications communicate with each other and the mobile operating system they are running on via Application Programming Interfaces, or APIs. APIs are defined set of instructions that limit the scope of a particular action to allowed behavior. 1 This technology was created because of propose legislation in the New York State Legislature. S.B. 2306, 240th Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2017). In order to obtain information about the use of a mobile phone, the textalyzer software would have to access log files generated by the phone’s operating system or by individual applications, or interact with the operating system and applications via the APIs they provide. Log files can generate a wealth of information. Each individual application programmer decides what logs the application will generate, including what data they include and how they are formatted. For instance, log files can include sensitive metadata, such as the identity of the person communicated with and the frequency of communications. Therefore, the information accessed by law enforcement would not necessarily be limited to observing whether the phone use was the cause of an accident. Whereas a breathalyzer only records the alcohol level present in a driver at the time of testing, a textalyzer would allow law enforcement officials to access highly sensitive information about the phone owner’s communication patterns, social life, and personal affairs. Additionally, it is not possible for the textalyzer technology to provide accurate information about the use of mobile phones and other types of portable technology. The APIs and log files the textalyzer would scan to determine whether a phone (using the most popular mobile operating systems, iOS or Android) was in use at the time of a collision will not indicate whether text messages were manually typed out on a keyboard, created by voice command, or generated by a bot or some other autonomous or semi-autonomous function. This problem is further complicated by the fact that interactions between different applications and operating systems vary, so what information is available for the textalyzer to determine types of use will vary drastically. Hence, information available to the textalyzer technology about application behavior might vary between two applications that do the same thing depending on exactly how they were programmed. These challenges are inherent to the technology and advances in the technology will not address them. As the artificial intelligence that operates phones improves, the lines between manual, voice command, semi-autonomous, and fully automated responses to applications and system processes will blur, making it almost impossible for any technology to make accurate determinations about type of use. This will not only complicate the task for the textalyzer or a similar technology to assess who is violating the law, but also for society to determine what types of phone interactions should even be considered a violation. Fourth Amendments Requires Law Enforcement to Obtain a Warrant to Use the Textalyzer The textalyzer directly implicates a fundamental privacy interest for drivers in New York State because it is capable of capturing or scanning sensitive information stored in mobile phones and other portable electronic devices. Drivers have a privacy interest in the content stored in these devices; this interest implicates the right to remain free from warrantless searches by law enforcement. The Supreme Court has recognized this privacy interest in two recent cases. In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to search the content of a cellphone.2 In determining whether a search of a cellphone was exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, the Court assessed “the degree to which it [the search] intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.”3 The Court ultimately recognized that cellphones contain a broad array of private information so “[t]he fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.”4 The majority in Riley also noted that cloud computing and technological advances improving the processes of obtaining a warrant have minimized the legitimacy of the governmental interests. In a more recent and analogous decision, Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Court examined the reasonableness of a search in light of the availability of a less invasive alternative. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not permit warrantless blood tests incident to arrest for drunk driving because of the intrusive nature of a blood test.5 Considering that in Riley the Court recognized a privacy interest in the cellphone, and that law enforcement is capable of obtaining similar evidence of distracted driving through less invasive means,6 it is fair to assume that the texalyzer would violate the Fourth Amendment rights of drivers in New York State. Therefore, based on the Court’s holdings in Riley and Birchfield, the Fourth Amendment requires that law enforcement obtain a warrant prior to using a textalyzer on a driver’s cellphone or other portable device at the site of a collision or accident. Disparate Impact of Textalyzer Technology in Law Enforcement It can be expected that the use of the textalyzer or similar technology will contribute to selective law-enforcement practices. Department of Justice data shows that Black drivers have a disproportionate number of interactions7 with law enforcement at traffic stops.8 Moreover, when police officers have discretion in determining when to conduct a search – for example, when authorized to request that drivers submit to a “consent” search – they are more likely to perform consent searches when the driver is Black.9 In light of the well-documented racial bias in the 2 Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014). 3 Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2484 (2014). 4 Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2495 (2014). 5 Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016). 6 The Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows law enforcement to obtain cellphone call and text message logs that identify when a call or text was received or sent from the user’s cellphone provider. See 18 U.S. Code § 2510 et seq. 7 Interactions includes stops, tickets and searches conducted by law enforcement. 8 U.S. Dep’t of Just., Bureau of Just. Stat., Police Behavior during Traffic and Street Stops, 2011 (2013), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pbtss11.pdf (finding relatively more Black drivers were pulled over in traffic stops than White drivers and Black and Latino drivers were ticketed and searched at higher rates than White drivers). 9 Sharon LaFraniere & Andrew W. Lehren, The Disproportionate Risks of Driving While Black, N.Y.TIMES, Oct.24, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/racial-disparity-traffic-stops-driving-black.html (stating “[i]n the enforcement of motor vehicle laws, it is foreseeable that the use of textalyzer technology will lead to bias and selective enforcement, which will ultimately reduce the efficacy of using the textalyzer to address distracted driving. Conclusion Distracted driving is a serious concern, but there are already laws that allow law enforcement to access phone records to determine whether it was the cause of an accident. Instead of creating technological solutions that compromise constitutionally protected privacy rights and that are unlikely to alter driver behavior, innovators should seek technological solutions that will incentivize safer driving as well as voluntary driver education programs that cause driver’s to avoid dangerous driving practices involving electronic devices.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Investigation and Prosecution of Distracted Driving Cases
    Investigation and Prosecution of Distracted Driving Cases 12949-Covers_Final.indd 1 5/16/17 4:19 PM Disclaimer This publication was developed in part with funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation and is distributed by the NHTSA in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of NHTSA or DOT. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use there- of. If trade or manufacturers’ names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. This publication is intended to provide a general overview of the investigation and prose- cution of distracted driving cases. While some sections of this publication address issues that are inherently legal, this publication is not intended to provide legal advice. There- fore, it is important to seek out legal advice from a licensed attorney on specific issues or questions the reader may have. Suggested APA Format Citation: National Traffic Law Center. (2017, May). Investigation and prosecution of distracted driving cases (Report No. DOT HS 812 407). Washington, DC: National High- way Traffic Safety Administration. i Acknowledgments The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gratefully acknowledges the assis- tance and efforts of the individual traffic safety experts brought together as a team to draft this monograph for use by prosecutors and law enforcement. The team was com- prised of prosecutors and law enforcement professionals from around the country with significant backgrounds in distracted driving enforcement, prosecution, and program management.
    [Show full text]
  • Distracted Driving Promising Practices and Lessons Learned from the Field DISTRACTED DRIVING PROMISING PRACTICES and LESSONS LEARNED for the FIELD
    Distracted Driving Promising Practices and Lessons Learned from the Field DISTRACTED DRIVING PROMISING PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE FIELD This publication was sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The U.S. Department of Transportation desires widespread dissemination in the interests of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers’ names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the subject of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. DISTRACTED DRIVING PROMISING PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE FIELD TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . 1 Community Education and Enforcement Dalton, Georgia, Police Department . 4 Montgomery County, Maryland, Police Department . 6. Ohio State Highway Patrol . 7 . Oro Valley, Arizona, Police Department . 9. Officer Safety and Wellness New York State Police . 12 Training, Research, and Education for Driving Safety (TREDS) . 14 Distracted Driving Resource List IACP Resources . 16 . Police Chief Magazine . 16 . Federal Resources . 17. Advocacy Organization Resources . 17 Additional Resources . .18 . Resolutions Community Support for Traffic Safety . 19 Support for Continued Development of Technology to Reduce Distracted Driving . 20 . Urging Elected Officials to Work with Law Enforcement to Ensure that Proposed Legislation is Clear, Enforceable and Does Not Discourage and/or Impede Traffic Enforcement Efforts .
    [Show full text]
  • The Dangers of Distracted Driving
    The Dangers of Distracted Driving The popularity of wireless devices has had some unintended and sometimes deadly consequences. An alarming number of traffic accidents are linked to driving while distracted, including the use of cell phones while driving, resulting in injury and loss of life. The national statistics are sobering: • More than nine percent of fatal crashes in the United States in the past seven years involved a distracted driver, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. • More than 2,800 people were killed as a result of distracted driving in 2018, the latest year for data reported by the NHTSA. • An estimated 400,000 people were injured in crashes involving distracted drivers in in 2018. • A National Occupant Protection Use Survey reports that handheld cell phone use continues to be highest among 16-24-year-old drivers. How can you help? Give clear instructions: Give new drivers simple, clear instructions not to use their wireless devices while driving. Before new drivers get their licenses, discuss how taking their eyes off the road – even for a few seconds – could cause injury or even death. Lead by example: No one should text and drive. Be an example for others and if you need to text or talk on the phone, pull over to a safe place. Set rules for yourself and your household regarding distracted driving. Become informed and be active: Tell family, friends and organizations to which you belong about the importance of driving without distractions. Take information to your kids’ schools and ask that it be shared with students and parents.
    [Show full text]
  • Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet
    Research Collection Monograph ON/OFF: Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Author(s): Genner, Sarah Publication Date: 2017 Permanent Link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-010805600 Originally published in: http://doi.org/10.3218/3800-2 Rights / License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more information please consult the Terms of use. ETH Library ON | OFF Risks and Rewards of the Anytime-Anywhere Internet Sarah Genner This work was accepted as a PhD thesis by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Zurich in the spring semester 2016 on the recommendation of the Doctoral Committee: Prof. Dr. Daniel Sü ss (main supervisor, University of Zurich, Switzerland) and Prof. Dr. Urs Gasser (Harvard University, USA). Published with the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Bibliographic Information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. This work is licensed under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Cover photo: fl ickr.com/photos/zuerichs-strassen © 2017, vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich ISBN 978-3-7281-3799-9 (Print) ISBN 978-3-7281-3800-2 (Open Access) DOI 10.3218/3800-2 www.vdf.ethz.ch [email protected] Table of Contents Preface ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Asleep at the Wheel
    ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL A NATIONAL COMPENDIUM OF EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE DROWSY DRIVING CONTENTS Background to the Issue ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 How We Got Here .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Research and Development ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Partnering With Public and Private Stakeholders ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Public Education and Awareness Needs ......................................................................................................................................................5 Vehicle Technology Needs ..............................................................................................................................................................................5 Organizations .............................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Research and Development .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Distracted Driving Behaviors and Beliefs Among Older Adults: a Longroad Analysis of the Training, Research, and Education for Driving Safety Study
    RESEARCH BRIEF Distracted Driving Behaviors and Beliefs among Older Adults: A LongROAD Analysis of the Training, Research, and Education for Driving Safety Study Distracted driving is an established cause of motor vehicle crashes, for all ages. Nearly 60% of crashes involving younger drivers are linked to distraction (AAAFTS, 2015). This research brief provides evidence from a recent survey that as more older adults embrace technology, distracted driving—in particular, using cell phones behind the wheel—is prevalent among them as well. According to a recent survey conducted by AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and the University of California San Diego, the majority of drivers aged 65 and older—nearly 60%—have used their cell phone in some capacity (i.e., texting, making calls, and answering calls) while driving. More than a quarter of these older drivers have engaged in distracting behaviors while driving with a minor in the car. Among those, 32% have talked on the phone—either with hands-free or hand-held devices—with younger children (under age 11) in the car, while 42% have done so when accompanied by older children (12- to 17 year-olds). While distracted driving encompasses a wide range of risky behaviors including but not limited to eating, talking with passengers, reaching for belongings, etc., this survey focused solely on cell phone use while operating a vehicle. The findings suggest the need for interventions to reduce distracted driving behaviors among older adults, especially given the rapidly growing older adult population, with their age-associated physiologic changes, such as slower reflexes, reduced contrast sensitivity, and other driving-impairing conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Cell Phone Use-Related Distracted Driving a Graduate
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Effectiveness of Policy: Cell Phone Use-Related Distracted Driving A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Public Administration, Public Sector Management and Leadership By Kirby Mayeda August 2020 Copyright by Kirby Mayeda 2020 ii The graduate project of Kirby Mayeda is approved: __________________________________________ _________________ Dr. Paul D. Krivonos Date __________________________________________ _________________ Dr. Elizabeth A. Trebow Date __________________________________________ _________________ Dr. Henrik Palasani-Minassians, Chair Date California State University, Northridge iii Acknowledgment I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Henrik Palasani-Minassians for his counsel and support throughout the thesis process. I would also like to give thanks to my other professors in the Master of Public Administration program, who all brought a wealth of knowledge and real-world experience into the classroom. iv Dedication I would like to dedicate my thesis to the following loved ones: My mother, Cathy; my father and stepmother, Kirk and Caroline; my aunt and uncle, Shar and Dean; my maternal grandparents, Grammy and Grampy; my paternal grandparents, Ba-Chan and Ji-Chan; and last, but not least, my partner, Anthony. Words cannot express my gratitude for their presence in my life, and I fully recognize my good fortune in being given their boundless love, patience, and support. v Table of Contents Copyright page ii Signature page iii Acknowledgment iv Dedication v Abstract vii Introduction 1 Literature Review 4 Adverse Effects 4 Mechanisms of Distraction 7 Policy 11 Methods 15 Limitations 16 Conclusion 18 References 19 vi Abstract Policy Effectiveness: Cell Phone-Related Distracted Driving By Kirby Mayeda Master of Public Administration, Public Sector Management and Leadership Cell phone use-related distracted driving causes many adverse effects, including injuries, deaths, and financial problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations
    DRIVER DISTRACTION IN COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS September 2009 FOREWORD The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration awarded a contract to investigate driver distraction in commercial motor vehicle drivers. The purpose of this study was to characterize driver inattention in safety-critical and baseline events and to determine the relative risk of driving while distracted. The purpose of this report was to document the method, results, and conclusions from this study. NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document. Technical Report Documentation Page—Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FMCSA-RRR-09-042 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date September 2009 DRIVER DISTRACTION IN COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Rebecca L. Olson, Richard J. Hanowski, Jeffrey S. Hickman, and Joseph Bocanegra 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Truck and Bus Safety Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 11. Contract or Grant No. 3500 Transportation Research Plaza (0536) DTMC75-07-D-00006 Blacksburg, VA 24061 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration July 2007–July 2009 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Speed Limit 52 Respondents Mentioned This Solution
    Question 1 Response: Lower Speed Limit 52 respondents mentioned this solution. 75.00% were for lowering the speed limit, and 25.00% were against this solution. For Against Slower speed limit in the area Speed limit does not matter if it's not enforced. Reduce speed limit to 20 and make the road ONE-WAY with Block it off to traffic were you cant go around the lake double yellow striping to indicate a single traffic lane. in cars, walkers and bikes only, dropping the speed Have law enforcement monitoring during peak hours and drop limit by 5 miles will do nothing but cost u money for the speed limit around the lake. the new signs or stickers. Make it a one way with parking on the lake side. 10 MPH That'll work. Distracted drivers are always looking for speed limit within lake zone. the speed limit signs Lower speed limit to 20 mph, and install stop signs at busiest So, the recent study showed the actual average speed intersections such as Palmetto, Success, Mass. etc, which is 18 MPH and that "distracted drivers" were should slow traffic even more. Lake Morton Dr should NOT be responsible for the recent string of incidents. So, used as a North/South thoroughfare. When/if South Fl Ave clearly this 20 MPH speed limit will "fix" the budget, I becomes two lane thru that area, it will only get worse. I live mean problems. SMH. Who makes these decisions? in S Lake Morton area, and use Lake Morton Dr, but willing to Really? So now, people will still average less than the put up with whatever changes necessary to improve the new speed limit and by some miracle the incidents will situation.
    [Show full text]
  • National Survey of Speeding and Unsafe Driving Attitudes
    National Survey of Speeding and Unsafe Driving Attitudes and Behaviors: 2002 VOLUME II – FINDINGS REPORT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Room 5119 Washington, D.C. 20590 Final Report – November 2003 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. DOT HS 809 688 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Volume II: Findings National Survey of Speeding and Unsafe Driving October, 2003 Attitudes and Behavior: 2002 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Dawn Royal 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) The Gallup Organization 901 F Street, NW – Suite 400 11. Contract or Grant No. Washington DC 20004 282-00-0017 202-715-3030 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Office of Research and Technology Washington, D.C. 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Paul J. Tremont, Ph.D. was Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative 16. Abstract This report represents findings from a survey on speeding and unsafe driving attitudes and behaviors. The data come from a pair of studies undertaken by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to better understand drivers’ behaviors and attitudes regarding speeding, unsafe driving, distracted and drowsy driving. This report, Volume II: Findings Speeding and Unsafe Driving presents the data on American driver’s reported behaviors and attitudes surrounding speeding and other unsafe and aggressive driving behaviors. Volume I: Findings National Survey of Distracted and Drowsy Driving reports respondent’s behaviors and attitudes on various topics related to distracted and drowsy driving, while Volume III: Methods Report describes the methods used to conduct the interviews and analyze the data, and also contains the questionnaires.
    [Show full text]
  • Distracted Driving: Strategies and State of the Practices
    Louisiana Transportation Research Center Technical Assistance Report 17-02TA-SA Distracted Driving: Strategies and State of the Practices by Elisabeta Mitran, Ph.D. Tess Ellender Dortha Cummins LTRC 4101 Gourrier Avenue | Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 (225) 767-9131 | (225) 767-9108 fax | www.ltrc.lsu.edu TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/LA.18/17-02TA-SA 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date February 2019 Distracted Driving: Strategies and State of the 6. Performing Organization Code Practices LTRC Project Number: 17-02TA-SA 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Elisabeta Mitran, Tess Ellender, and Dortha Cummins 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Louisiana Transportation Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No. 4101 Gourrier Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70808 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Louisiana Department of Transportation and Technical Assistance Report Development October 2017 - July 2018 P.O. Box 94245 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Conducted in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract This technical assistance report conducted an extensive literature review to obtain the state of knowledge on existing research on distracted driving in the US. The objective of this report was to review relevant studies on distracted driving including measurements, strategies, legislation, employer policies, and technologies used nationally to prevent distracted driving, to acquire the information needed to address distracted driving in Louisiana. Distracted driving has been measured in several type of studies, including crash data, observational, attitudinal, enforcement, naturalistic driving, and driving simulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Driving Distracted – KILLS
    Driving Distracted – KILLS What is Distracted Driving, “...any activity that could divert a person’s attention away from the primary task of driving. All distractions endanger driver, passenger, and bystander safety.” – Distraction.gov There are three main types of distractions you face as a driver: MANUAL: Taking your hands off the wheel. VISUAL: Taking your eyes off the road. CONGNITIVE: Taking your mind off the task of driving. Some common distractions are: Texting Using a cell phone In only one year (2012) – Eating and drinking 3,328 people were KILLED Talking to passengers on America’s roads in DISTRACTED DRIVING Grooming crashes Reading, including maps Using a navigation system Watching a video Any of the three can kill you, but when you couple them together your odds of death increase. Texting and Driving Involves all THREE! – Distractive Driving is the LEADING cause of DEATH for people between the ages of 16 to 20. PUT THE PHONE DOWN You can’t predict when or where you might have a traffic crash, but you can work on a strategy that helps you to avoid a potential crash. First, keep your eyes on the road when you drive. A cell phone, the radio, even a drink can take your eyes of the road for just a second. That’s enough time to cause a serious or even fatal crash. Second, keep distractions to a minimum. If you use GPS, set it before you leave your driveway. Need to make a call, just stop in a parking lot. Finally, remember to set a good example for your children.
    [Show full text]