Distracted Driving 2011

7/30/2019 Distracted Driving 2011

1/6

NHTSAs National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590

TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTSResearch Note

DOT HS 811 737 Summary of Statistical Findings April 2013

distraction-a ected atal crash data or 2010 and 2011. Withonly two years o atal crash in ormation or distractionunder the new coding, the reader should take caution inmaking conclusions o trends in these data.

The coding or distraction in the National AutomotiveSampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES)was not revised and there ore GES data is available or yearsprior to 2010.

Appendix A contains urther detail on the change in cod-ing or FARS beginning in 2010. The Research Note contain-ing distracted-driving data or 2010 is available through theNHTSA Web site (Distracted Driving 2010, DOT HS 811 650).

MethodologyThe data sources include NHTSAs FARS and NASS GESsystems. FARS annually collects atal crash data rom all 50States, the District o Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and is a cen-sus o all atal crashes that occur on the Nations roadways.NASS GES contains data rom a nationally representativesample o police-reported crashes o all severities, includ-ing those that result in death, injury, or property dam-age. The national estimates produced rom GES data are

based on a probability sample o crashes and are subject tosampling errors.

As de ned in the Overview o the National Highway Tra fSa ety Administrations Driver Distraction Program (DOT HS811 299), distraction is a speci c type o inattention thatoccurs when drivers divert their attention rom the driv-ing task to ocus on some other activity instead. It is worthnoting that distraction is a subset o inattention (which also

includes atigue, physical, and emotional conditions o thedriver) as re erenced in the Overview.

Appendix B contains a table to describe the coding or dis-traction-a ected crashes or FARS and GES.

There are inherent limitations in the data for distraction-affected crashes and the resulting injuries and fatalities. Theselimitations are being addressed through efforts within andoutside of NHTSA as detailed in the Overview . Appendix Cdescribes limitations in the distracted driving data.

Distracted driving is a behavior dangerous to drivers, pas-sengers, and nonoccupants alike. Distraction is a speci ctype o inattention that occurs when drivers divert theirattention rom the driving task to ocus on some other activ-ity. A distraction-a ected crash is any crash in which a driverwas identi ed as distracted at the time o the crash.

Ten percent o atal crashes in 2011 were reported as dis-traction-a ected crashes.

Seventeen percent o injury crashes in 2011 were reportedas distraction-a ected crashes.

In 2011, 3,331 people were killed in crashes involving dis-tracted drivers and an estimated additional 387,000 wereinjured in motor vehicle crashes involving distracteddrivers.

O those people killed in distraction-a ected crashes, 385died in crashes in which at least one o the drivers wasusing a cell phone (12% o atalities in distraction-a ectedcrashes) at the time o the crash. Use o a cell phoneincludes talking/listening to a cell phone, dialing/textinga cell phone, or other cell-phone-related activities.

O those injured in distraction-a ected crashes, an esti-mated 21,000 were injured in crashes that involved theuse o cell phones at the time o the crashes (5% o injuredpeople in distraction-a ected crashes).

Eleven percent o all drivers 15-19 years old involved inatal crashes were reported as distracted at the time o the

crashes. This age group has the largest proportion o driv-ers who were distracted.

For drivers 15-19 years old involved in atal crashes, 21percent o the distracted drivers were distracted by theuse o cell phones.

In 2011, 495 nonoccupants were killed in distraction-a ected crashes.

Distraction in Fatal Crashes: New Measure in 2010

In a continuing e ort towards data improvement, NHTSAchanged the coding or distracted driving in the FatalityAnalysis Reporting System (FARS) beginning with the 2010FARS data. For this reason, this document will only include

Distracted Driving 2011


2/6

2


DataFatalities in Distraction-Affected Crashes In 2011, there were a total o 29,757 atal crashes in the UnitedStates involving 43,668 drivers. In those crashes, 32,367people were killed. In 2011, 3,020 atal crashes occurred thatinvolved distraction (10% o all atal crashes). These crashesinvolved 3,085 distracted drivers, as some crashes involved

more than one distracted driver. Distraction was reportedor 7 percent (3,085) o the drivers involved in atal crashes.

In these distraction-a ected crashes, 3,331 atalities (10%o overall atalities) occurred. Table 1 provides in ormationon crashes, drivers, and atalities involved in distraction-a ected crashes.

O those drivers distracted during atal crashes, cell phonesare o ten a leading distraction (o those identi ed). In 2011,350 atal crashes were reported to have involved the useo cell phones as a distraction (12% o all atal distraction-a ected crashes). For these distraction-a ected crashes, thepolice accident report stated the driver used a cell phone totalk, listen, dial, or text (or other cell phone activity) at thetime o the crash. Cell phones were reported as a distraction

or 12 percent o the distracted drivers in atal crashes. Atotal o 385 people died in atal crashes that involved the useo cell phones as distractions.

Table 2 describes 2011 atal crash data or distraction-a ected crashes by driver age. Eleven percent o all drivers15-19 years old involved in atal crashes were distracted atthe time o the crashes. This age group is the group with thelargest proportion o drivers who were distracted. An addi-tional way to look at the age groups is how large a percent-age o the total number o drivers involved was in each agegroup. For all atal crashes, only 7 percent o the drivers in

the atal crashes were 15-19 years old. However, or distrac-tion, 11 percent o the drivers in atal distraction-a ectedcrashes were 15-19 years old. Likewise, drivers in their 20swere overrepresented in distraction-a ected crashes rela-tive to their proportion in total drivers 23 percent o alldrivers in atal crashes were in their 20s, but 26 percent o distracted drivers were in their 20s. Both methods o look-ing at age illustrate the increased prevalence o distractedyounger drivers in atal crashes.

For drivers 15-19 years old, 21 percent o the distracted driv-ers were distracted by the use o cell phones at the time o thecrash. This was the age group that had the highest portiono distracted drivers identi ed as using cell phones. Amongall distracted drivers in atal crashes using cell phones,those drivers ages 20 to 29 represent 32 percent, which isan overrepresentation o this age group when compared todrivers overall.

Table 1

Fatal Crashes, Drivers in Fatal Crashes, and Fatalities, 2011Crashes Drivers Fatalities

Total 29,757 43,668 32,367

Distraction-A ected (D-A)3,020

(10% o total crashes)3,085

(7% o total drivers)3,331

(10% o total atalities)

Cell Phone in Use 350(12% o D-A crashes)368

(12% o distracted drivers)385

(12% o atalities in D-A crashes)

Source: National Center or Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), FARS 2011 (ARF)

Table 2

Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes by Age, 2011Total Drivers Distracted Drivers Drivers Using Cell Phone

Age Group # % o total # % total drivers% distracted

drivers #% o distracted

drivers% o cell phone

drivers

Total 43,668 100 3,085 7 100 368 12 100

15-19 3,212 7 344 11 11 72 21 20

20-29 10,160 23 790 8 26 117 15 32

30-39 7,401 17 505 7 16 79 16 21

40-49 7,376 17 464 6 15 49 11 13

50-59 6,783 16 434 6 14 34 8 9

60-69 4,144 9 251 6 8 12 5 3

70+ 3,815 9 270 9 9 5 2 1Source: NCSA, FARS 2011 (ARF); Note: Total includes 60 drivers aged 14 and under, 4 o whom were noted as distracted.


3/6

3


With respect to the vehicles driven by distracted drivers, thedistribution o vehicles among distracted drivers is similarto the distribution o vehicles among all drivers (Table 3). Forexample, 43 percent o distracted drivers were operating apassenger car at the time o the atal crash, which is similarto 40 percent o all drivers in atal crashes were driving apassenger car.

In 2011, 85 percent o the atalities in distraction-a ectedcrashes involved motor vehicle occupants or motorcyclists.This compares to 84 percent o all motor vehicle crash atali-ties involving occupants. Thus, the victims o distraction-a ected crashes vary little rom the victims o crashes overall.Table 4 describes the role o the people killed in distraction-a ected crashes in 2011. Distracted drivers were involved inthe deaths o 495 nonoccupants during 2011.

Estimates of People Injured in Distraction-Affected Crashes In 2011, an estimated 2,217,000 people were injured in motorvehicle tra c crashes (Table 5). The number o peopleinjured in a distraction-a ected crash in 2011 was estimatedat 387,000 (17% o all the injured people). An estimated 21,000people were injured in distraction-a ected crashes in 2011involving cell phones. These injured people comprised 5 per-cent o all people injured in distraction-a ected crashes.

Over the past ve years, the estimated number o peopleinjured in distraction-a ected crashes has allen rom448,000 to 387,000, a 14-percent decline (compared to an 11%decline in the number o people injured overall during thistime period). However, the percentage o injured people indistraction-a ected crashes as a portion o all injured peoplehas remained relatively constant (a high o 20% in 2008 and2009 to a low o 17% in 2011).

Table 3

Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes by Vehicle Type, 2011Total Drivers Distracted Drivers Drivers Using Cell Phone

Vehicle Type # % o total # % total drivers% distracted

drivers #% o distracted

drivers% o cell phone

drivers

Total 43,668 100 3,085 7 100 368 12 100

Passenger Car 17,335 40 1,316 8 43 178 14 48

Light Truck 16,643 38 1,235 7 40 164 13 45

Motorcycle 4,741 11 265 6 9 3 1 2

Large Truck 3,568 8 202 6 7 22 11 6

Bus 243 1 20 8 1 0 0 0Source: NCSA, FARS 2011 (ARF)

Table 4

People Killed in Distraction-A ected Crashes, by Person Type, 2011Occupant Nonoccupant

Driver Passenger Total Pedestrian Pedalcyclist Other Total

2,024 (61%) 812 (24%) 2,836 (85%) 408 (12%) 58 (2%) 29 (1%) 495 (15%)

Source: NCSA, FARS 2011 (ARF)

Table 5

Estimated Number o People Injured in Crashes andPeople Injured in Distraction-A ected Crashes

Year Overall

Distraction

Estimate (% o TotalInjured)

Cell Phone Use (%o People Injured inDistraction-A ected

Crashes)

2007 2,491,000 448,000 (18%) 24,000 (5%)

2008 2,346,000 466,000 (20%) 29,000 (6%)

2009 2,217,000 448,000 (20%) 24,000 (5%)

2010 2,239,000 416,000 (19%) 24,000 (6%)

2011 2,217,000 387,000 (17%) 21,000 (5%)

Source: NCSA, GES 2007-2011

Table 6

Estimates o Distraction-A ected Injury Crashes, Driversand Injured People, 2011

Distraction-A ected

Injury Crashes

Distracted Drivers inDistraction-A ected

Injury Crashes

People Injured inDistraction-A ected

Injury Crashes260,000

(17% o all injurycrashes)

266,000(10% o all drivers in

injury crashes)

387,000(17% o all injured

people)Source: NCSA, GES 2011


4/6

4


Crashes of All Severity Table 7 provides in ormation or all police-reported crashes

rom 2007 through 2011 including injury crashes, and prop-erty-damage-only (PDO) crashes or the year. During thistime period, the percentage o injury crashes that were dis-traction-a ected fuctuated slightly, but remained relatively

constant. The percentage o PDO crashes that were distrac-tion-a ected remained at 16 percent or rom 2007 through2010 and dropped to 15 percent in 2011 years. The percent-age o total crashes that were distraction-a ected crashesalso ell to 15 percent a ter remaining at 17 percent rom 2007through 2010.

Table 7

Motor Vehicle Tra fc Crashes and Distraction-A ected Crashes by Year

Crash by Crash Severity Overall Crashes Distraction-A ected CrashesD-A Crashes Involving

Cell Phone Use

2007

Non-Fatal CrashesInjury Crash 1,711,000 309,000 (18%) 17,000 (6%)PDO Crash 4,275,000 689,000 (16%) 31,000 (4%)

Total 6,024,000 1,003,000 (17%) 49,000 (5%)

2008


Total 5,811,000 969,000 (17%) 49,000 (5%)

2009


Total 5,505,000 959,000 (17%) 46,000 (5%)

2010


Total 5,419,000 900,000 (17%) 47,000 (5%)

2011


Total 5,338,000 826,000 (15%) 50,000 (6%)Source: NCSA, GES 2007-2011; PDO Property Damage Only

Appendix AIn keeping with the National Highway Tra c Sa etyAdministrations distraction plan ( Overview o the National

Highway Tra fc Sa ety Administrations Driver DistractionProgram, April 2010, DOT HS 811 299), the agency contin-ues to re ne collection o in ormation about the role o dis-tracted driving in police-reported crashes. This includesan improvement to the coding o distraction in the FatalityAnalysis Reporting System (FARS). Prior to 2010, FARS,which contains data about atal motor vehicle crashes, andthe National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) GeneralEstimates System (GES), which contains data about a sampleo all severities o police-reported crashes, coded distractionin ormation in di erent ormats. FARS was more generaland inclusive o generally inattentive behavior, whereas GESidenti ed speci c distracted driving behaviors. In 2010, thetwo systems coding o distraction was uni ed. Beginning in2010 or both systems, when looking at distraction-a ectedcrashes, the driver in both FARS and GES is identi ed asYes-Distracted, No-Not distracted, or Unknown i dis-tracted. I the driver is identi ed as distracted, urther cod-ing is per ormed to distinguish the speci c activity that wasdistracting the driver. This was not a change or data cod-

ing or GES, but was in FARS. The data collected on the PARdid not change; rather, it is the way the data is classi ed inFARS to ocus the atal crash data on the set o distractionsmost likely to a ect the crash. Prior to 2010 in FARS, distrac-tion was not rst identi ed in a Yes/No/Unknown manner.Rather, speci c behaviors o the driver as coded on the PARwere combined and categorized as distracted.

Because o this change in data coding in FARS, distraction-a ected crash data rom FARS beginning in 2010 cannot becompared to distracted-driving-related data rom FARS romprevious years. GES data can be compared over the years, asthe data coding did not change in this system.

O additional note is the terminology regarding distrac-tion. For FARS and GES data, beginning with 2010 data, anycrash in which a driver was identi ed as distracted at thetime o the crash is re erred to as a distraction-a ected crash.Discussion o cell phones is also more speci c starting withthe 2010 data. Starting in 2010, FARS no longer o ers cellphone present in vehicle as a coding option, thus this codecannot be considered a distraction within the data set. Fromdiscussion with law en orcement o cers, this code in yearspast was used when it was believed that the driver was using


5/6

5


a cell phone at the time o the crash and thus contributed tothe crash, but proo was not available. The use o a cell phoneis more speci c with the current coding and i the speci cinvolvement cannot be determined, law en orcement hasother options available to discuss the role o the cell phoneand thus the coding would refect such. Because o thesechanges, the current language re erring to cell phones is that

the crash involved the use o a cell phone as opposed to thegeneric cell-phone-involvementused previously.

Appendix BAs discussed in the Methodology section o this ResearchNote, FARS and GES were accessed to retrieve distraction-a ected crashes. Table B1 contains every variable attribute

Table B1Attributes Included in Driver Distracted By Element and Indication o Inclusion in Distraction-A ected Defnitions, GESand FARS; Frequency o Distraction Attributes or FARS 2011

Attribute Examples

Included in:

Frequency oDriver Distraction

Distraction-A ected Crashes

Devices/ Controls Integral

to the VehicleElectronic

Device UseNot distracted Completely attentive to driving; no indication o distraction

or noted as Not DistractedLooked but didnot see

Driver paying attention to driving but does not see relevantvehicle, object, etc.

By other occupant Distracted by occupant in drivers vehicle; includesconversing with or looking at other occupant X 135

By moving object invehicle

Distracted by moving object in drivers vehicle; includesdropped object, moving pet, insect, cargo. X 16

While talking orlistening to cellularphone

Talking or listening on cellular phoneX X 114

While dialing cellularphone

Dialing or text messaging on cell phone or any wirelessemail device X X 39

Other cellularphone-related(2007 and later)

Used when the Police Report indicated the driver isdistracted rom the driving task due to cellular phoneinvolvement, but none o the specifed codes are applicable(e.g., reaching or cellular phone, etc.). This code is alsoapplied when specifc details regarding cellular phonedistraction/usage are not provided.

X X 218

Adjusting audio and/

or climate controls

While adjusting air conditioner, heater, radio, cassette, using

the radio, using the cassette or CD mounted into vehicleX X 47

While using otherdevices/controlsintegral to vehicle

Adjusting windows, door locks, rear/side view mirrors, seat,steering wheel, seat belts, on-board navigational devices,etc.

X X 30

While using orreaching or device/ object brought intovehicle

Radar detector, CDs, razors, portable CD player,headphones, a navigational device, cigarette lighter, etc.;i unknown i device is brought into vehicle or integral, useObject Brought Into Vehicle

X 53

Distracted byoutside person,object, or event

Animals on roadside or previous crash. Do not use whendriver has recognized object/event and driver has takenevasive action

X 188

Eating or drinking Eating or drinking or actively related to these actions X 52Smoking related Smoking or involved in activity related to smoking X 15No driver present When no driver is in this vehicleDistraction/ inattention, detailsunknown

Distraction and/or inattention are noted on the PAR but thespecifcs are unknown X 1,398

Not reported No feld available on PAR; feld on PAR le t blank; no otherin ormation available

Inattentive or lost inthought

Driver is thinking about items other than the driving task(e.g., daydreaming) X 586

Other distraction Details regarding the drivers distraction are known butnone o the specifed codes are applicable X 267

Unknown idistracted

PAR specifcally states unknown


6/6

6


This research note and other general in ormation onhighway tra c sa ety may be accessed by Internetusers at: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/CATS/index.aspx

9596-040313-v2

available or coding or driver distraction along with exam-ples to illustrate the meaning o the attribute. This is thecoding scheme available or FARS and GES. Table B1 urtherindicates whether that attribute was included in the analysis

or distraction-a ected crashes.

In some NHTSA distracted driving discussions and publica-tions, there is re erence to electronic device use as well asuse o devices integral to the vehicle. Table B1 includes indi-cation o which attributes are used when re erencing eitherelectronic device use or use o devices integral to the vehicle.

I there are no indications o usage or either the distraction-a ected crashes, devices/controls integral to the vehicle, orelectronic device use, the attribute was not considered as atype o distraction behavior and there ore not included inthe analysis.

Data users o ten request in ormation regarding the requencyo each attribute with respect to distracted drivers. Table B1provides the requency o driver distraction reported or dis-tracted drivers in FARS 2011. Each driver could potentiallyhave multiple distraction behaviors noted in the PAR andthus these attributes are not mutually exclusive. This columnwill not sum to the number o distracted drivers in 2011.

Appendix CNHTSA recognizes that there are limitations to the collectionand reporting o FARS and GES data with regard to driverdistraction. The data or FARS and GES are based on PARsand investigations conducted a ter the crash has occurred.

One signi cant challenge or collection o distracted driv-ing data is the PAR itsel . Police accident reports vary across

jurisdictions, thus creating potential inconsistencies inreporting. Many variables on the police accident report arenearly universal, but distraction is not one o those variables.Some police accident reports identi y distraction as a distinctreporting eld, while others do not have such a eld and iden-ti cation o distraction is based upon the narrative portiono the report. The variation in reporting orms contributes

to variation in the reported number o distraction-a ectedcrashes. Any national or State count o distraction-a ectedcrashes should be interpreted with this limitation in minddue to potential under-reporting in some States/primarysampling units and over-reporting in others.

The ollowing are potential reasons or underreporting o distraction-a ected crashes.

There are negative implications associated with distracteddrivingespecially in conjunction with a crash. Surveyresearch shows that sel -reporting o negative behavioris lower than actual occurrence o that negative behavior.There is no reason to believe that sel -reporting o dis-tracted driving to a law en orcement o cer would di er.The in erence is that the reported driver distraction dur-ing crashes is lower than the actual occurrence.

I a driver atality occurs in the crash, law en orcementmust rely on the crash investigation in order to report onwhether driver distraction was involved. Law en orce-

ment may not have in ormation to indicate distraction.These investigations may rely on witness account ando tentimes these accounts may not be available either.

Also to be taken into consideration is the speed at whichtechnologies are changing and the di culty in updating thePAR to accommodate these changes. Without broad-sweep-ing changes to the PAR to incorporate new technologies and

eatures o technologies, it is di cult to capture the data thatinvolve interaction with these devices.

In the reporting o distraction-a ected crashes, o tentimesexternal distractions are identi ed as a distinct type o dis-traction. Some o the scenarios captured under externaldistractions might actually be related to the task o driving(e.g., looking at a street sign). However, the crash reportsmay not di erentiate these driving-related tasks rom otherexternal distractions (looking at previous crash or billboard).Currently, the category o external distractions is included inthe counts o distraction-a ected crashes.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/CATS/index.aspxhttp://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/CATS/index.aspx

Distracted Driving 2011

Documents

Transcript of Distracted Driving 2011