Relation of mobile phone availability to crashes
in NZ
Dr PJ Treffner
My analysis and visualisation
of Ministry of Transport data on road fatalities and injuries
from 1990 to
2018 shows that there is a strong correspondence between:
(1)
the widespread availability of mobile phones beginning around
2000 and
an increase in casualties,
(2) the introduction of NZ
mobile phone laws
in November 2009 and a decrease in casualties, and
(3) the
widespread
availability and adoption of new smartphone technology
in 2013
and a sharp increase in casualties; this is in contrast to
other countries.
Below is NZ MOT data as of mid-December 2018. Click to
enlarge.
|
|
Phone availability and road casualties in NZ
|
Unlike the
above profiles show, the trend since the 1990s in many countries has
been for a continual reduction in
road casualties.
However, in New Zealand this trend has stopped and has been
increasing in recent years. Why is this?
Deaths per 1000,000 inhabitants (
G7 countries in background; OECD data site
):
The increase in road
deaths and injuries since the minimum in 2013
may be related to the widespread availability and use while driving
of
smartphones (especially texting) despite nominal, low penalty laws
against it.
The relation between
mobile phone availability
and casualties is even more apparent in the dramatic increase in
nonfatal injuries as compared to
deaths. As there are about 40 times more injuries than
deaths, the disastrous effects on society of inattention due
to using mobile phones while driving may be vastly under-appreciated.
The
Ministry of Transport
data on road deaths is
below (1990 - 2017). Why the upturn since 2013? That
is the question everyone is asking:
The MOT data on crashes due to fatigue and to
diverted attention
is shown below with 39 deaths in 2017:
The fatigue data shows no particular pattern other than
an overall slight reduction from a maximum
of 76 in 1999. There are now more deaths due to distraction
than to fatigue.
Note that "diverted attention", is far harder to determine from
driver
self-reports or crash scene than an admission of fatigue by the
driver.
Of course, falling asleep at the wheel is a dramatic form of
inattention
too.
The high point for deaths due to inattention (41) was
just before the phone ban started being enforced
in 2010.
The dramatic drop was in 2011-2012 and is clearly
probably due to greater enforcement and awareness
of the ban on phones.
The minimum (22) was in 2013 just before smartphones
became widely
available. The deaths for last year (2017) were 39. I predict a new
maximum for 2018, perhaps 45 (if the increase continues).
It is also instructive to look at the effect of "speed".
Has speed
contributed to the upturn since 2013? What about drunk/drugged
driving?
Here is the data:
Speed or rather "speeding" as a primary causative does
not seem
to have been responsible for the dramatic upturn in overall deaths
since 2013. However, drunk/drugged driving seems to be involved and is
easier to objectively determine (e.g., with a biological test).
Distracted driving is harder to legally prove and is clearly
underestimated by the policing authorities worldwide, but it is clear
from the huge amount of international studies both empirical (simulators
and on-road) and qualitative (surveys), and from plain logic, that this
is an epidemic in all countries now and urgently needs addressed in NZ.
One telling piece of evidence comes from
young person
(15 - 24 yrs) deaths which have been increasing in recent years too.
Their pattern closely follows the pattern for deaths involving
inattention and, since 2005, is strongly correlated (.76) - ups
and downs in diverted attention casualties correspond with ups and
downs in young person casualties. Young drivers have consistently been
shown to text and drive at much higher rates than older drivers although
older drivers have high rates of phone use and texting too. As
expected, inattention deaths correlates strongly with all fatalities
(.75) since all fatalities data includes young persons data.
Alcohol/drugs casualties (in all age groups) is correlated with young
person casualties (.72) too, but less than is inattention (.76). It is
important to realise that for young persons, mobile phone use is very
high (e.g., typically at least 50% admit to texting). Therefore,
distracted driving is a significant factor in young person casualties
and needs to be addressed.
This is all compelling evidence for a significant relation
between
distracted driving and road casualties in NZ and supports the concern
about drivers and distracted driving.
Actual data values for deaths:
When data on deaths from the groups involving: (1)
inattention,
(2) alcohol/drugs, (3) young persons, and (4) all deaths are scaled
to maximum values, visualisation of the trends is clear:
No more data is needed - we have plenty from MOT and
research groups for the government to impose stiffer
penalties in order to discourage distracted driving and,
especially, texting (texting should carry a special extra
penalty to that of talking on a phone).
Further consideration of the relation between mobile
phone use and
casualties is warranted and a re-evaluation of mobile phone
disincentives (and penalties) is needed if NZ is to stop wasting time
and is to start to reverse this much-pondered and debated recent
increase in casualties and to see a reduction in road trauma to a
level
similar to comparable countries.
Consider penalties for hand-held use of a mobile phone:
Penalties in UK: $400 and HALF of total points (6/12).
Penalties in NZ: $80 and only a fifth of total points
(20/100).
Penalties in Australia are comparable to the UK (e.g.,
Queensland
). Australia started banning phone use during 2000s and
all states
now
have mobile phone penalties as high as A$548 (ACT; for texting) and a
low of A$200 (NT; almost treble the NZ fine). New Zealand did not
introduce phone laws until November 2009.
Having conducted the world's first actual
on-road studies of distracted driving
I concur that inattentive driving is responsible for as much as
80% of all crashes (Treffner et al., 2002,
2004, 2008). Attention is a powerful but delicate thing (e.g.,
change blindness
). Inherently unstable systems such as standing, walking, and
driving require attention in order to stabilise them (Treffner
& Kelso, 1999). Where attention is directed can also alter motor
control and
coordination in subtle and surprising ways (Amazeen et al., 1998;
Treffner & Turvey, 1995); an everyday case is driving. Further,
using a mobile phone, even hands-free, while driving
always leads
to some degree of cognitive interference and in its worst form,
"inattentional blindness". This is a serious violation of the basic
expectations of care and respect for other road users. But in NZ the
low
penalty of 20 points is even less than the
misdemeanor of
not displaying L-plates
(25
points). The current historic and rather trivial penalty for phone
use
does not acknowledge the serious damage inattentive driving is
increasingly having
on society nor does it even attempt to address the problem by
imposing
realistic penalties that would make careless drivers think
twice...unless they don't care about losing their license (or worse).
Should penalties be increased?
Surely yes.
Three kinds of distraction: Visual, manual, and
cognitive.
UPDATE Feb 2020
THEY FINALLY CONCUR WITH MY ANALYSIS.
"Ministry of
Transport and
the NZ Transport Agency commissioned several reports to investigate
the
trend. But none could pin the rising toll to usual factors like
shifts
in travel, employment or economic growth....New research into the
country's appalling road toll figures has blamed alcohol and drivers
on
learner licences for a spike in crash deaths....Three big factors
jumped
out: alcohol, learner licences and a regional spate in Auck
land...over
the 2014 to 2017 period, the odds of alcohol being a factor in a
fatal crash shot up by about 40 per cent."
-NZ Herald:
https://tinyurl.com/v7aya7c
-
I SHOWED THIS OVER A YEAR AGO (and nobody paid
me a
cent)!!
See final graph above showing upward trends since
2013.
-
They do not admit that DISTRACTED DRIVING is the third major
factor,
especially non-fatalities (which they often ignore). It is NOT
speeding
or fatigue as Police claim. It is alcohol/drugs, young drivers,
and
distracted driving:
https://www.transport.govt.nz/mot-resources/new-road-safety-resources/
In fact, they say "inattention" FATALITIES (how even know?!)
increased
from 27 (2014) to 41 (2017) - up 53%!! Compare alcohol: 77 to 136
- just
43%. They continue to ignore the underestimated epidemic of
inattentive
driving.
The
cause of increasing road deaths is not that they are young,
or still on a Learner's Licence! They are young (<25
yrs),
unskilled, inexperienced, and the demographic most at risk
from INATTENTION.
The CAUSE is psychological - cognitive
distraction and inattention.
The REASON is they not committed to developing
the care and awareness required to pass the full license
test. They
are especially unaware of the attention and respect required
to drive safely. The important MESSAGE here is that it is
young
unskilled drivers (<25 yrs) that are crashing the most
BECAUSE they are the most susceptible to inattention and
drugs/alcohol.
It is next to impossible to show the extent of the massive
role of inattention in crash causality studies, especially
when
the victim is dead. Inattention in some form is the reason
and cause of virtually ALL crashes. This is completely
underestimated
and ignored (as in their report) in attempts to identify the
"causes" of crashes. Reasons are not the same as causes but
both
can explain NZ's recent increase in road casualties.
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/dylan-thomsen-study-finds-booze-learner-licences-and-police-checkpoints-factors-in-road-toll-rise/
References
on driving, attention, phones, and speech-hand coordination
Treffner, P. J. (2018). Driver
distraction - Is it that bad? Yes.
Invited talk plus
workshop
at 43rd annual conference
of
NZ Institute of Driver
Educators
.
Treffner, P. J., Peter, M., & Kleidon, M. (2008). Gestures and
phases: The dynamics of speech-hand communication.
Ecological Psychology
, 20, 32-64.
Try experiment
.
Treffner, P. J., & Barrett, R. (2004). Hands-free mobile phone
speech while driving degrades coordination and control.
Transportation Research, Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
, 7, 229-246.
Media coverage
.
Treffner, P. J., Barrett, R., & Petersen, A. J. (2002). Stability
and skill in driving.
Human Movement Science
, 21, 749-784.
Treffner, P. J., & Peter, M. (2002). Intentional and attentional
dynamics of speech-hand coordination.
Human Movement Science
, 21, 641-697.
Treffner, P. J., & Kelso,
J. A. S. (1999). Dynamic encounters: Long-memory during
functional stabilization.
Ecological Psychology
, 11, 103-137.
Amazeen, E.,
Amazeen, P., Treffner, P. J., & Turvey, M. T. (1997).
Attention and handedness in bimanual coordination dynamics.
Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
, 23, 1552-1560.
Treffner,
P. J., & Turvey, M. T. (1996).
Symmetry,
broken symmetry, and the dynamics of
bimanual coordination.
Experimental Brain Research
, 107,
463-478.
Treffner,
P. J., & Turvey, M. T. (1995). Handedness and the asymmetric
dynamics of bimanual rhythmic coordination.
Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance,
21, 318-333.
SEE UPDATED LINKEDIN
version
(c) Paul Treffner
|
