Smartphone Use PDF

Published Project Report
PPR592
Smartphone use while driving
a simulator study
D Basacik, N Reed and R Robbins
Commissioned by
Transport Research Laboratory 2011
Transport Research Laboratory
Creating the future of transport

PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT PPR592

A simulator study

D. Basacik, N. Reed and R. Robbins

Prepared for: IAM (the Institute of Advanced Motorists)
Project Ref: 11111660
Quality approved:
Dan Basacik
(Project Manager)

Nick Reed
(Technical Referee)

Disclaimer
This report has been produced by the Transport Research Laboratory under a contract
with IAM. Any views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of IAM.
The information contained herein is the property of TRL Limited and does not necessarily
reflect the views or policies of the customer for whom this report was prepared. Whilst
every effort has been made to ensure that the matter presented in this report is
relevant, accurate and up-to-date, TRL Limited cannot accept any liability for any error
or omission, or reliance on part or all of the content in another context.
When purchased in hard copy, this publication is printed on paper that is FSC (Forest
Stewardship Council) and TCF (Totally Chlorine Free) registered.

Contact details

TRL
Crowthorne House
Nine Mile Ride
Wokingham
Berkshire
RG40 3GA
Tel: +44 (0)1344 773131
Fax: +44 (0)1344 770356
Email: enquiries@trl.co.uk
The Institute of Advanced Motorists
IAM House
510 Chiswick High Road
LONDON
W4 5RG
Tel: +44 (0) 20 8996 9600
Fax: +44 (0) 20 8996 9601
Email: enquiries@iam.org
IAM
Chief Executives Foreword

Over the last few years mobile phones have become significantly more developed,
allowing people to access social networking sites, browse the internet, use maps and
play music. Complex applications can now be used on the move anywhere in the world,
and as technology advances further we need to understand how it impacts on driver
behaviour.
We know that driver errors contribute to the vast majority of road accidents, with in-car
distractions such as mobile phones increasing the risks of careless driving. Evidence on
in-car distractions needs to stay up to date with advances in technology, and research
on the multiple uses of smartphones is now needed.
The IAM has commissioned this timely report from TRL (Transport Research Laboratory)
to understand the risks of using smartphones to access social networking sites whilst
driving. As the UKs largest independent road safety charity, we are committed to
original research, and this report provides clear and decisive results which we hope will
contribute to the future of road safety.
The ban on using handheld mobile phones in 2003 was met with a mixed response, and
enforcement continues to be an issue. However, this report clearly shows that using a
smartphone to access social networking sites creates risks to drivers as serious as drink
driving by repeatedly drawing a drivers vision and attention away from the road.
All drivers should be aware of the risks they are taking when using any mobile whilst
driving. Even drivers who refrain from making calls may be tempted to use a
smartphone to check a message, map, update their status, or look for traffic updates.
More needs to be done to educate drivers, and encourage safe behaviour.
Government and road safety organisations need to work together to highlight the issue
of smartphones and challenge perceptions. Phone manufacturers and social network
providers also have a key role to play in spreading the message. Attitudes to seatbelts
and drink driving have changed dramatically over the last thirty years, and, with the
right information, the use of smartphones could become a similar success story.
I would like to thank TRL for their sound and in-depth analysis in this report, and for
their hard work in collating the results. I believe that this report is a valuable addition to
the body of research on in-car distractions, helping to keep road safety analysis up to
date with technological advances.

Simon Best
Chief Executive
IAM
(Institute of Advanced Motorists)
Contents
1 Introduction 2
2 Literature review 3
2.1 Why worry about distracted driving? 3
2.2 Does mobile phone use while driving increase accident risk? 3
2.3 How does using a mobile phone affect driving? 3
2.4 What is known about smartphone use or social networking while
driving? 4
2.5 Research hypotheses 5
3 Method 6
3.1 Participants 6
3.2 Equipment 6
3.3 Familiarisation 7
3.4 Study design 7
3.5 Participant instructions 7
3.6 Route design 8
3.7 Smartphone task 10
3.8 Overall design 14
3.9 Trial procedure 15
3.10 Recorded simulator data 15
3.11 Visual behaviour 16
3.12 Questionnaire 16
3.13 Calculation 16
4 Results 17
4.1 Participants 17
4.2 Reaction time (RT) tasks 17
4.3 Analyses of driving performance while using a smartphone 18
4.4 Visual behaviour 23
4.5 Effects of driving on smartphone use 26
4.6 Subjective effects of smartphone use on driving performance 27
4.7 Patterns of mobile phone use 29
4.8 Perceptions of legality 33
4.9 Perceptions of relative risks of driving behaviours 35
5 Discussion 36
5.1 Comparison with previous studies 37
Version 2.0 1 PPR592
Executive Summary

A substantial body of research has shown that use of a mobile phone while driving leads
to poorer driving performance. Previous research has covered different elements of
telephone use, including hand-held and hands-free use while making a call and the
reading and writing of text messages.
Mobile phones have recently undergone a substantial change and smartphones have
gained popularity. These devices allow users to take part in a much broader range of
activities than traditional mobile phones, including browsing the web, emailing, social
networking, and browsing and playing personal media. With smartphones now
becoming common in the commercial marketplace, more and more drivers are able to
engage in a broad range of possible activities on their phone. There is a clear potential
for motorists to be tempted to conduct these activities whilst driving a vehicle.
This study set out to investigate whether there was an effect of social networking using a
smartphone on driving performance. Twenty-eight young male and female participants
took part in the study and drove a driving simulator through the same test scenario
twice: once while using a smartphone to interact with a social networking site, and once
without this distraction. This experimental approach allowed potentially hazardous road
situations to be designed and experienced twice, in complete safety.
The results of the experiment clearly show that participants driving performance was
impaired by the concurrent smartphone task, and the smartphone task was also affected
by driving. When compared with their driving performance without a smartphone:
Participants were more likely to miss the reaction time stimuli while using their
phone.
When they did respond, reaction times to visual and auditory stimuli were found
to increase by approximately 30% when using a smartphone to send and receive
messages on a social networking site.
They were unable to maintain a central lane position and this resulted in an
increased number of unintentional lane departures.
They were unable to respond as quickly to a lead vehicle gradually changing
speed, thus driving at a more variable time headway.
They spent between 40% and 60% of the time looking down while using a
smartphone to write or read messages, compared with about 10% of the time
looking down in the same sections of the control drive.
These results suggest that participants driving was impaired when they were using a
smartphone to send and receive messages on a social networking site. The results of this
study indicate that this reduction in driving performance is likely to have been a result of
three different types of distraction: having to concentrate on the smartphone task
(cognitive), holding the phone (physical), and the significant increase in time spent
looking at the phone (visual) in order to interact with it. Although participants did reduce
their speed, this was not enough to compensate for the poorer driving performance;
even though they were driving more slowly, they were still unable to control the vehicle
as well as they did when they were not using their smartphone.
1 Introduction
There is a substantial body of research that has shown the potential distraction posed to
a driver by the use of a mobile phone. This research has covered different elements of
telephone use, including hand-held and hands-free use while making a call (Burns et al.,
2002, Strayer et al., 2006, Parkes et al., 2007) and the reading and writing of text
messages (Reed and Robbins, 2008).
In recent years, however, mobile phones have undergone a substantial change and so-
called smartphones have gained popularity. Aside from making phone calls and sending
text messages, these devices enable users to send and receive emails, connect to the
internet to browse web pages, browse and play music and videos, social network and
carry out a broad range of other activities. According to Ofcom, smartphone sales
accounted for 48% of all mobile phone sales in the UK in the first quarter of 2011
(Ofcom, 2011). With smartphones now becoming common in the commercial
marketplace, more and more drivers are now able to engage in a broad range of possible
activities on their phone. There is a clear potential for motorists to be tempted to
conduct these activities whilst driving a vehicle.
Furthermore, even for the more traditional calling and texting functions of a phone,
smartphone interfaces are significantly different to mobile phone interfaces from five to
ten years ago. For example, many smartphones have touchscreens rather than keypads
(Canalys, 2010), and with increasing functionality come the issues of device and menu
complexity. Such interface issues are likely to change how people use the device and
therefore how distracting it is to use the device while driving.
From the findings of research looking at more traditional aspects of mobile phone use in
a vehicle, it is likely that smartphone use in a vehicle would pose a distraction and lead
to a detriment in driving performance. What is not clear is the extent to which
performance would be expected to decrease.
This report describes a study that has investigated the effects of using a smartphone for
social networking while driving using a high-fidelity driving simulator. Chapter 2 presents
a review of the literature on the use of mobile phones while driving and gives some
background to the study, whilst Chapters 3 through 5 present the method, results and
findings of the driving simulator study.

2 Literature review
2.1 Why worry about distracted driving?
In recent decades driver distraction has been a popular research topic and continues to
receive significant attention. Two main factors are likely to be driving ongoing research.
Firstly on-road studies are showing just how salient a factor distraction is in crashes. In
NHTSAs 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, participants were given an instrumented
vehicle to drive instead of their own vehicle. The resulting dataset included 43,000 hours
of driving (approximately 2 million vehicle miles) and showed that engagement in a
secondary task contributed to more than 22% of all crashes and near-crashes that were
recorded in the study period (Klauer et al., 2006).
The second reason is that the potential for drivers to be distracted is increasing as
technology develops. More recent sources of distraction outside of the vehicle include
motion picture advertising billboards (Chattington et al., 2010), while smart phones and
systems built into the vehicle give the driver the opportunity to engage with email, social
networking sites, music collections and to conduct a range of other activities.
Thus, an improved understanding of distraction as a contributory factor to crashes, and
an awareness of the increasing potential for drivers to be distracted by technology are
driving research efforts in this area.
2.2 Does mobile phone use while driving increase accident risk?
Data from the 100-car study (Klauer et al., 2006) shows that distraction is associated
with accidents but does not distinguish between different distractors.
An earlier study examining the mobile telephone records belonging to 699 drivers
involved in car accidents (with property damage only) showed that the risk of collision
increased fourfold with mobile phone use (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997). Relative
risk of collision was 1.3 times higher if calls were made up to 15 minutes before the
collision and this figure rose to 4.8 times higher if a call was placed within 5 minutes of
the collision (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997). Interestingly this study found no
difference in accident risk between those having hand-held and hands-free mobile phone
conversations, suggesting that the risk of collision isnt related to holding the phone.
The results of this study indicate that having a mobile phone conversation while driving
increases crash risk.
2.3 How does using a mobile phone affect driving?
Studies conducted on-road or in laboratory settings have looked closely at the particular
effects that mobile phone use has on the performance of activities required for driving.
They have concluded that mobile phone use is associated with:
Increased ratings of mental workload (Parkes et al., 2007; Lesch & Hancock,
2004; Harbluk et al., 2002; Burns et al., 2002; Parkes et al., 1993)
A reduction in peoples perceptual visual fields by up to 10% (Maples et al., 2008)
Longer glances ahead, at the expense of other monitoring behaviours such as
checking the mirrors and vehicle instruments (Parkes et al., 2007; Harbluk et al.,
2002)
Poorer awareness of and response to the traffic situation (Parkes et al., 2007,
Parkes and Hooijmeijer, 2000) despite longer glances ahead
Slower detection of and responses to hazards (Caird et al., 2008)
A reduction in speed in an attempt to compensate for the perceived impairment
caused by using a phone (Reed and Robbins, 2008; Burns et al., 2002)
This list shows how driving performance can suffer when people are given the additional
task of using a mobile phone.
Interestingly, driving simulator studies have also shown that for some performance
measures, hands-free mobile phone conversations can reduce driving performance as
much as hand-held mobile phone conversations. For example, Parkes et al. (2007)
concluded that mobile phone use delayed reaction times when compared with a control
condition, and also when compared with a condition in which participants were at the UK
legal limit for drink-driving, yet there was no statistically significant difference between
the hand-held and hands-free mobile phone conditions.
When taken together with the studies described in Section 2.2, a clear conclusion is that
having a mobile phone conversation while driving impairs driving performance.
2.4 What is known about smartphone use or social networking while
driving?
This review has not found research looking at the effects of smartphone use for social
networking on driving. However, it is possible to make high-level predictions based on
studies which have looked at other devices or tasks that are in some ways similar.
Reading a message received through a social networking application on a smartphone
may be similar to reading a text message received on an ordinary mobile phone. Reed
and Robbins (2008) investigated the effects of reading and writing text messages on
driving performance. When reading a text message, participants took longer to respond
to stimuli, and were less able to keep to the centre of their lane or at a fixed distance
behind a lead vehicle. Similar findings are also reported by Cooper et al. (2011) who
studied driving performance while texting. Their experiment was carried out on a test
track and the authors report significantly slower responses, more missed response
events, reductions in speed, poor lane keeping and fewer glances ahead while texting.
Writing a message on a social networking site could be comparable with writing a text
message. The studies carried out by Reed and Robbins (2008) and Cooper et al. (2011)
found that writing a text message on a mobile phone had an even greater effect on
driving performance than reading a message. All of the participants used mobile phones
with ordinary push-button keypads in the former study, and although a wider variety of
phone interfaces were used in the latter, no analysis of these differences is presented.
Owens et al. (2010) examined driving performance while text messaging using handheld
and in-vehicle systems. Participants used either a phone with a standard keypad or a
touch screen but differences between groups were not reported.
Johnson (2011) highlights perceptual issues which affect how efficiently people can use
touchscreens for data entry. He argues that while it is possible for people to learn to
touch type without looking at a keyboard, the smooth surfaces of touch screens prevent
people from being able to feel the location of keys, and therefore interactions require
visual input. Sears (1991) found that participants in his study were able to type on
average 58 words per minute on a standard keyboard, but only 25 words per minute on
a touchscreen keyboard with the same layout.
Keyboard and key size have a significant effect on typing speed. An experiment by Sears
et al. (1993) has shown that both novice and experienced participants were able to type
more quickly on a larger touchscreen keyboard with larger keys, than a smaller keyboard
with smaller keys. The keyboards used in this study ranged from 6.8 to 24.6cm wide.
Tsimhoni et al. (2002) gave participants of their study the task of entering an address
into a satellite navigation system while driving. Participants used three methods to enter
the address; two of these used speech recognition and one used a touch screen
keyboard on a 7 inch screen (this, compared with the 3.5 inch screen on the iPhone 4,
not all of which is taken up by a keyboard). Keys were 12.7mm high by 12mm wide, and
spaced 0.7mm apart. The study showed that the speech recognition systems were
clearly favourable; people were able to complete address entry much more quickly and
were able to keep closer to the centre of their lane, suggesting that manual text entry on
the touch screen was a distracting task.
In summary, the literature seems to suggest that reading text on a mobile phone leads
to poorer driving performance. One would expect this to hold true when using a
smartphone for social networking. There is also evidence to suggest that text entry on a
mobile phone distracts from the driving task. Furthermore, there are suggestions that
use of touch screens for text entry brings with it issues that could exacerbate the
problem.
2.5 Research hypotheses
Based on this literature it is possible to come up with some predictions about driving
performance while using a smartphone for social networking. These predictions form the
research hypotheses to be investigated during the driving simulator study:
Participants will drive more slowly when they are using a smartphone
Participants reaction times will be slower when using a smartphone
Participants lane position will vary more while using a smartphone
Participants will spend more time looking inside the vehicle while using a
smartphone
Participants will report that their driving was worse while using a smartphone
The method used during this study is described in Chapter 3. It is based heavily on that
used by Reed and Robbins (2008), which itself is based Burns et al. (2002), enabling
comparison of the extent of driver impairment with previous studies.
3 Method
3.1 Participants
Twenty-eight participants were recruited from the TRL participant database to take part
in the study, with an approximately even split between males and females. They met
the following criteria in order to be included in the study:
Participants described themselves as regular users of Facebook on smartphones
Participants had the Facebook app on their smartphone
Participants were current owners of a touchscreen smartphone (iPhone or
Android)
Participants were aged between 18 and 25
Participants drove more than 5000 miles per year
Participants had experience of driving on a motorway
Participants had driven the simulator before
Participants successfully completed a familiarisation drive in the simulator
Participants were required to use their own phones for the study.
3.2 Equipment
The TRL Driving Simulator (DigiCar) consists of a medium sized family hatchback (Honda
Civic) surrounded by four 3 4 metre projection screens giving 210 front vision and
60 rear vision, enabling the normal use of the vehicles driving and wing mirrors. The
road images are generated by four PCs running SCANeR II software (manufactured by
Oktal) and are projected onto the screens by five Digital Light Processing (DLP)
projectors. Images are refreshed at a rate of 60Hz (every 16.7msec) whilst data is
sampled at a rate of 20Hz (every 50msec).

Figure 1: TRL driving simulator, DigiCar
Electric motors supply motion with 3 degrees of freedom (heave, pitch and roll) whilst
engine noise, external road noise, and the sounds of passing traffic are provided by a
stereo sound system.
Two studies have demonstrated the validity of the TRL simulator (Duncan, 1995; Sexton,
1997) and Diels et al. (in press) confirm that the current simulator system is at least as
accurate as that used in the Duncan and Sexton studies.
3.3 Familiarisation
Participants were required to complete a ten minute familiarisation drive on a benign
motorway environment prior to completing any of the test drives. This was to help
participants to become comfortable with controlling the simulator vehicle and driving in
the virtual environment. The drive included a car following task in which participants
were required to drive at a safe and constant distance behind a lead vehicle. During this
task, white chevrons were included on the motorway (as used on some sections of UK
motorways) helping the participant to judge a safe distance to the lead vehicle.
3.4 Study design
After familiarisation, participants carried out two drives:
A smartphone drive in which they had to read and write messages and update
their status using a social networking application
A control drive along the same route, but without having to use a smartphone
To counterbalance any learning effects caused by driving the same route twice, the order
of these two drives was alternated between participants.
3.5 Participant instructions
Participants were given the following instructions:
Before the smartphone drive, participants were also instructed:

If participants asked whether they should put their phone in a specific place in the
vehicle, they were advised that they should keep it wherever they normally would while
they were driving.
3.6 Route design
The simulator route driven by participants consisted of four sections with smooth
naturalistic transitions between each section. These are shown in Table 1.

During this drive you will be asked to send and receive private messages on
Facebook and update your Facebook status. Your contact for all of the private
messages is Daniel Boyd, who we added as your Facebook friend earlier. Please only
send and read messages when you are asked to. Please write messages as you
normally would, ie using short words and predictive text.
Please adjust the seat position and secure the safety belt. The car controls work
in the same manner as any normal car and it operates with a manual gearbox.

You need to make sure the car is in neutral when you start it and it needs plenty
of revs, otherwise it has a tendency to stall.

It is important that you drive as you would normally. We dont want you to drive
as if you are on a driving test nor as if the simulation is a computer game. We are
not here to judge your driving, so please do not feel anxious.

A red bar like the one you can see on the screen now will appear during your
drive. There is also a buzzing noise that will sound during the drive. When you
hear the buzzing noise, or see the red bar please press the clutch pedal as quickly
as you possibly can. You will hear the buzzing sound about 20 seconds into this
drive as a practice to help you recognise it.

The drive will start on the motorway with normal traffic. After a while, the
motorway will end and you will reach a series of bends. You should try to keep to
40 mph through this section and the simulator will assess your ability to keep to
the centre of your lane through the bends.

After the series of bends, you will drive on the motorway again. After a period of
time you will see a vehicle in front of you. Please pull up behind this vehicle and
follow it, doing your best to keep at a safe and constant distance behind it. A
voice instruction will let you know when the car following task has finished.

There will be voice instructions to remind you about these tasks.
Table 1: The road sections used for the simulator trial
Section Description Length Configuration
1 Motorway 1 17.5 miles
3 lane motorway plus hard shoulder in each
direction. Light traffic present
2 Two loops 4.6miles
Each loop is a two-lane figure 8 with a long left
turn and long right turn separated by a short
straight
3 Car following 8.1 miles
direction. One vehicle present that the participant
is required to follow at a steady distance
4 Motorway 2 7.3 miles
direction. Light traffic present
Total 37.5 miles
In the loops section, participants were instructed to try to stay in the centre of their lane
and to drive at 40mph.
In the car following section, participants were instructed to follow the lead vehicle at safe
and constant distance (as they would have experienced in the familiarisation drive). The
lead vehicle smoothly and repetitively increased and decreased its speed between
43.8mph (70kph) and 68.8mph (110kph) over a period of 20 seconds.
3.6.1 Reaction time events
During both the smartphone and control drives, participants were required to respond to
trigger stimuli on four occasions in order to test their reaction times. In three of the
reaction events, the trigger stimulus was a short auditory tone (60dB; 0.45 seconds
duration; 333Hz). The fourth reaction time trigger event was the presentation of a red
bar stimulus above the carriageway and ahead of the driven vehicle across all motorway
lanes. This is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Red bar stimulus
Participants were instructed to respond by depressing the clutch pedal as quickly as
possible. Clutch depression is measured from 0 (foot off clutch) to 1 (clutch fully
depressed). The threshold for clutch activation was 0.1 (10% clutch depression). If
clutch depression was greater than 10% at the time of the reaction time trigger, the
event would have been ignored but this did not occur in any of the trials. If participants
failed to respond within 10 seconds, this was treated as a missed event.
3.7 Smartphone task
The research brief was to use a social networking task. This would serve the purpose of
straying beyond the functionality of a standard mobile phone whilst still requiring
participants to take part in written communication, as one would when sending and
receiving text messages.
3.7.1 Choice of social networking application
A plethora of applications are available which allow users to access many websites via
their smartphones. For the current study, we conducted market research to identify a
widely used social networking application. This was to ensure the secondary task used in
the experiment was representative of real-world usage.
Table 2 shows which mobile applications were most widely visited by UK mobile
consumers in April 2011. The data show that nearly 8.8 million UK mobile owners used
an app that connected to the internet during April 2011, with Google Maps ranking as
the most accessed app with 6.4 million unique users. It can be seen that the social
networking application Facebook was ranked as the third most often used application.
Other popular social networking applications such as LinkedIn or Twitter did not
feature in the top 10.
Table 2: Connected Mobile Applications Ranked by Unique Visitors (from
Comscore, 2011)
Rank Mobile app Total unique visitors
1 Google Maps 6,419,503
2 Yahoo! Weather 3,567,047
3 Facebook 3,456,442
4 Google Mobile 2,554,329
5 YouTube 2,438,348
6 eBay 1,195,496
7 Sky Sports Live Football Score Centre 1,004,085
8 Yahoo! Stocks 959,289
9 WhatsApp Messenger 798,656
10 Sky News 732,374
Total connected app users: 8,735,197
Figure 3 shows the demographics of Facebook users. It can be seen that for all age
categories, there tends to be approximately an equal split between male and female
users with slightly more female users. Furthermore, the figure shows that Facebook use
is biased towards the younger age categories. In the context of the current study, it is of
relevance to point out that motorists under 24 years of age are overrepresented in the
accident statistics (DfT, 2011). Hence, the issue of smartphone use by younger drivers is
of particular relevance.
On the basis of the above information, Facebook was chosen as an appropriate
application to be used in the experimental study.

Figure 3: UK Facebook users split by age and gender (Sources: Facebook, Alexa,
June 2010)
A
g
e
(
y
e
a
r
s
)
Number of users
Version 2.0
3.7.2 Choice of smartp
Table 3 shows the percentag
Apple and Google Android
similarity in both functional
Apple and Android, the exp
operating systems (OS).
Table 3: Share (%) of Co
S
Smartphone Operatin
Apple iOS
Google Android OS
Symbian OS
Other OS
Figure 4 shows the Faceboo
operating systems. It can be
Apple OS provides slightly m
homepage. In selecting the
those related to these three
Figure 4: Sample screen
An
12
phone operating system
ge of users for the different smartphone o
account for 96% of the market share
ity and user interface of the Facebook ap
periment allowed participants to partake
onnected Application Users by Smartph
System (from Comscore, 2011)
ng System Total Unique Visitors
5,702,166
2,699,982
118,957
356,871
k home page on the Apple (left) and Goog
e seen that the application is similar on bot
more functions (Chats Groups Places)
e tasks to be completed by participants
functionalities were excluded.
nshot of the Facebook home page on A
droid (right) operating systems
PPR592
operating systems.
. Because of the
pplication on both
with either of the
hone Operating
%Share
65%
31%
1%
3%
gle Android (right)
th OS whereby the
) on the Facebook
during the study,
pple (left) and
3.7.3 Facebook tasks whilst driving
Through the course of the drive participants were required to perform a succession of
different tasks using the Facebook application. Participants were asked to become
Facebook friends with a Daniel Boyd, whose account was used by experimenters to
send messages to participants and receive messages from them during the smartphone
drive.
3.7.3.1 Writing messages
Participants had to write five messages in the drive. All comprised an approximately
similar number of characters. The instructions as to what to write and the message
recipient were delivered as automated verbal messages in the simulation. Participants
were instructed to compose the text in their own usual style. This included using
predictive text, autocorrect and applying SMS language. The first message was included
as practice to ensure participants were comfortable what was required of them.
Table 4 shows the messages that participants were required to compose.
Table 4: Messages composed by participants whilst driving
Message Section Message Characters
Practice 1 I am driving a great car simulator 34
1 1 Happy birthday Have fun at the party 36
2 2 Nice to see you at the cafe yesterday 37
3 3 Dont worry Have a nice time in Paris 36
4 4 Sorry about your ankle Get well soon 36
3.7.3.2 Reading messages
Participants were sent two messages over the course of their drive. Participants were
informed by an automated voice instruction that they were about to receive a message
and that they would need to read the message in order to be able to answer the
questionnaire at the end of the drive. Table 5 shows the messages that participants
received.
Table 5: Messages received by participants whilst driving
Message Section Message
1 1 Edward has forgotten his BOWTIE for the wedding
2 2 Fiona won the SILVER medal in the 100m sprint
3.7.3.3 Updating Facebook status
In addition to writing and reading messages, participants were also asked to update their
Facebook status. Table 6 shows the section and text for the status update.

Version 2.0
Section Text
3 I am near
3.7.3.4 Control message
To compare how quickly pa
participants were timed com
they were not driving. These
Table 7: Timed message
Message
Best of luck for your driving
Well done Looking forward to
Please can you bring red win
Where did you get those new
3.8 Overall design
Figure 5 shows the incidence
the smartphone drive. Note
drive with the exception that
Figure 5: Schematic timel
14
Table 6: Status update text
Ch
r the end of the virtual world 38
es
rticipants could write short messages on
mposing some comparable text on their
e were as follows:
es composed by participants without d
driving)
test today
o the wedding
ne tonight
w trousers
e of social networking tasks and reaction ti
that the control drive is exactly the same a
t participants were not required to interact
ine of events in the drive
PPR592
haracters
8
their smartphone,
smartphone when
distraction (i.e.
Characters
40
40
37
36
ime (RT) events in
as the smartphone
with their phone.
3.9 Trial procedure
The trial proceeded as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Trial procedure and schedule
Time from start Activity Duration
0 Welcome and introduction 5
5 Control messages (either before or after drives) 5
10 Simulator: Familiarisation drive 10
20 Background questionnaire 10
30 Drive 1 (Smartphone or Control) 40
70 Break 10
80 Drive 2 (Control or Smartphone) 40
120 Phone usage questionnaire 20
140 Depart
3.10 Recorded simulator data
Table 9 shows the data recorded by the simulator. All data was recorded at 20Hz.
Table 9: Data recorded by the simulator
Data Notes
Time Time elapsed since the start of the trial
X position of interactive vehicle
The X position of the interactive vehicle within the
map of the simulated environment.
Y position of interactive vehicle
The Y position of the interactive vehicle within the
Z position of interactive vehicle
The Z position of the interactive vehicle within the
Speed Current speed of the interactive vehicle
Distance through trial
Distance travelled by participant relative to the start
of the virtual road
Lateral distance from centre of
road
The distance of the centre of the interactive vehicle
from the centre of the road
Headway
The distance headway between the interactive vehicle
and the back of any vehicle ahead.
Time Headway
The time headway between the interactive vehicle and
the back of any vehicle ahead.
Accelerator pedal Current proportion of accelerator pedal depression.
Brake pedal Current proportion of brake pedal depression.
Clutch pedal Current proportion of clutch pedal depression.
Steering wheel Current angle of steering wheel rotation
3.11 Visual behaviour
In addition to the simulator data, a video of participants faces was recorded during the
drive in order to analyse visual behaviour. Videos coding took place as follows.
The coders skipped to the points in each smartphone drive where the automated voice
instruction ended. From there, they watched the video at (at least) half speed, using a
stopwatch to record:
Total time spent looking down (this does not distinguish between looking at the
phone or other parts of the in-vehicle environment)
Total time spent looking up (ie at the road, mirrors, etc)
Duration of interaction with phone (sum of the above)
Smartphone interaction was assumed to finish if the participant looked up for at least
five consecutive seconds.
The same locations of each participants control drive were also coded.
3.12 Questionnaire
A post-trial questionnaire was also administered in order to record participants
perceptions of their riving performance and opinions about mobile phone use while
driving.
3.13 Calculation
Data processing was conducted using Microsoft Excel 2007 and statistical analysis took
place using SPSS 19.0. In all statistical tests p values of less than 0.05 were taken to be
significant. Where shown, error bars indicate the 95% confidence interval of the mean.

4 Results
4.1 Participants
Twenty-eight participants took part in the study. Twelve were female and sixteen were
male. Participants were aged between 18 and 26 years (M=22.4, SD = 2.32). Only
participants who used Apple or Android phones with touchscreen keypads and who
described themselves as being regular users of the Facebook application on their
smartphone were selected.
4.2 Reaction time (RT) tasks
During each drive in the simulator, participants were asked to respond to three auditory
tones and a red bar visual stimulus by pressing the clutch pedal as quickly as possible.
In the smartphone drive these stimuli coincided with social networking tasks:
Auditory reaction time task 1 coincided with Read message 1 in section 1
Auditory reaction time task 2 coincided with Write message 2 in section 2
Auditory reaction time task 3 coincided with Update status in section 3
Visual reaction time task coincided with Write message 4 in section 4
In the control drive, participants were given no social networking tasks to coincide with
the reaction time tasks. Thus, a comparison between the two drives was possible.
4.2.1 Response rate
Data for 220 reaction time tests were collected; 112 from participants control drives and
108 from their smartphone drives. Participants failed to respond to three of these tests
during the control drive, and 10 of the tests during the smartphone drive. These
differences are statistically significant (Fishers exact; p=.047) suggesting that
participants were more likely to fail to respond to reaction time stimuli while using their
smartphone. In real driving scenarios this has implications for drivers responses to
hazardous situations, and suggests that drivers may miss warnings or hazards.
4.2.2 Reaction times
On occasions where participants did respond to the auditory or visual stimuli, their
reaction times tended to be slower during the smartphone drives. Auditory 1 was
triggered during a read message task, Auditory 2 during a write message task, Auditory
3 during a status update task and the Visual stimulus during a write message task.

Figure 6: Mean reaction times
Paired samples t-test comparisons show that differences were statistically significant for
two pairs of the reaction time tests: Auditory 1 (t(24) = -2.242, p=.035) and Visual
(t(22) = -3.478, p-.002). Figure 6 illustrates these differences. These results suggest
that using a smartphone for social networking while driving can slow drivers responses
to events taking place on the road. The differences in reaction times between the two
drives were not statistically significant for Auditory 2 or 3.
4.3 Analyses of driving performance while using a smartphone
Participants were asked to interact with their phone on seven separate occasions during
their social networking drive. On four occasions they were asked to write a pre-defined
message, they were instructed to read messages on two occasions and they were also
asked to update their Facebook status.
As participants drove the same route in their control drives, it was possible to compare
driving performance in the sections where participants were interacting with their
smartphone, with driving performance at the exact same locations in the control drive.
Four key measures of driving performance were taken:
Mean speed
Standard deviation of speed (an indication of how variable speed was)
Standard deviation of lane position (an indication of variability of lateral position)
Maximum speed
For one section of the route, in which participants wrote their third message while
following a lead vehicle, the time headway between the driven vehicle and the lead
vehicle was also calculated.
The instructions to interact with their smartphone were pre-recorded and played at
exactly the same point along the route for each participant. As it was difficult to
ascertain the precise point at which participants started and finished using their phone,
the following assumptions were made to define the sections for analysis:
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
Auditory 1 Visual
R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
(
s
e
c
)
Control
Smartphone
Smartphone interaction was assumed to start at the moment the pre-recorded
instruction ended
Smartphone interaction was assumed to end if participants looked up at the road
for an uninterrupted duration of at least 5 seconds
Statistically significant differences in driving performance are described below.
4.3.1 Mean speeds
Participants were instructed to write their first and fourth messages while driving in light
traffic along a motorway, their second message while following a series of curves at
40mph and their third message while following a lead vehicle at a constant distance.
Figure 7 shows participants mean speeds during these smartphone episodes.

Figure 7: Mean speeds during smartphone episodes
On average participants drove more slowly when writing messages on their smartphone
while driving (Write 1: t(23)=2.238, p=.035; Write 2: t(22)=2.626, p=.015; Write 3:
t(26)=2.134, p=.042; Write 4: t(25)=2.057, p=.05). This is consistent with previous
research which suggests that participants slow down in order to compensate for the
perceived impairment of using a phone while driving (see Chapter 2).
The difference in mean speeds for the two drives were not statistically significant for the
message reading or status update tasks.
4.3.2 Standard deviation of speed
Participants speed varied more in two sections of the smartphone drive when compared
with the control drive. These were while writing their fourth message (on a motorway in
light traffic) and updating their Facebook status (while following a lead vehicle whose
speed varied). Figure 8 shows these differences.
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1st written 2nd written 3rd written 4th written
M
e
a
n
s
p
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
Control
Smartphone
Figure 8: Standard deviation of speed during smartphone episodes
Paired samples t-tests confirmed that these results were statistically significant (Write 4:
t(25)=-2.305, p=.03; Update status: t(26)=-2.736, p=.011), suggesting that
participants were slowing down and speeding up more while using a smartphone.
4.3.3 Standard deviation of lane position
Participants were asked to write their second message and read the second message
sent to them while following a curved section of road. They were asked to drive at
40mph and in the centre of their lane. While carrying out these smartphone tasks their
lane position varied more than in the same section of the control drive. The same
happened when they were writing their third message while following a lead vehicle on a
motorway. These differences are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Standard deviation of lane position during smartphone episodes
Paired samples t-tests were conducted and the results showed that these differences
were statistically significant (Write 2: t(22)=-3.598, p=.002; Write 3: t(26)=-4.539,
.0
.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
4th written Status update
Control
Smartphone
.00
.10
.20
.30
.40
.50
.60
.70
.80
.90
2nd written 3rd written 2nd read
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
a
n
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
Control
Smartphone
p=.000; and read 2: t(26)=-5.114, p=.000). No significant differences were found for
other smartphone tasks.
Further calculations were carried out to investigate the consequences of participants
poor lane-keeping. It was found that participants crossed over the lane markings 26
times while using their smartphone to write the second message, but kept within their
lane at all times during their control drive. This is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Number of lane excursions during 2nd written message
While writing their third message, participants crossed the lane markings four times, but
did not cross the lane markings in the same section of the road during their control
drive. They did not cross the lane markings at all while reading a message sent to them.
The deterioration in lateral control is consistent with results from other studies (see
Chapter 2) which have looked at the effects of distracted driving. This suggests that
driving while using a smartphone to write messages could pose a significant threat to the
safety of vehicles in adjacent lanes.
4.3.4 Maximum speed
The maximum speed that participants reached during each smartphone episode was
calculated but no significant differences emerged between these speeds and the highest
speeds reached in the same sections of the control drive.
4.3.5 Time headway
Calculations were also made to understand how well participants were able to follow the
lead vehicle while writing their third message. The results showed no difference in mean
time headway or the shortest time headway observed, but did show a difference in how
variable participants time headway was (t(26)=-3.291, p=.003).
0
26 excursions,
5 participants
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Control Smartphone
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
l
a
n
e
e
x
c
u
r
s
i
o
n
s
Figure 11: Standard deviation of time headway
Figure 11 shows that time headway varied significantly more during the smartphone
drive, suggesting that participants were less able to respond to its changing speed. This
finding is consistent with the reaction time data, which also suggests poorer responses to
stimuli in the environment.
4.3.6 Gender differences
The sample of drivers tested contained an approximately equal number of males and
females. Thus, it was possible to investigate the relative effects of the smartphone tasks
on the driving performance of male and female participants. Repeated measures ANOVA
tests were carried out, with gender as a between-subjects factor.
In general, the data showed that there was a statistically significant difference between
males and females in the following measurements:
Standard deviation of time headway during the 3
rd
written message
(F(1,25)=4.909, p=.003)
Mean speed for write 4 only (F(1,19)=4.762, p=.042)
Standard deviation of lane position during write 2 (F(1,21)=4.372, p=.049), write
3 (F(1,21)=4.520, p=.046) and read 2 (F(1,25)=11.876, p=.002)
Standard deviation of speed during update message (F(1,25)=10.357, p=.004)
Key statistics in relation to these measures are presented in Table 10.

.00
.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Control Smartphone
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
e
a
d
w
a
y
Table 10: Performance of males and females on key measures of driving
performance in each drive
Females Males
Measure Drive Section N Mean SD N Mean SD
SD time
headway
Smartphone Write message 3 12 .97 .56 16 .48 .27
SD time
headway
Control Write message 3 11 1.92 1.86 16 1.14 .76
Mean speed Smartphone Write message 4 11 71.22 3.10 16 74.49 5.05
Mean speed Control Write message 4 11 65.75 8.22 16 73.03 6.18
SD Lane Pos Smartphone Write message 2 10 .29 .07 14 .25 .06
SD Lane Pos Control Write message 2 9 .63 .44 14 .40 .10
SD Lane Pos Smartphone Write message 3 12 .25 .08 16 .17 .04
SD Lane Pos Control Write message 3 11 .37 .17 16 .24 .07
SD Lane Pos Smartphone Read message 2 12 .33 .09 16 .26 .08
SD Lane Pos Control Read message 2 11 .47 .14 16 .30 .07
SD Speed Smartphone Update message 12 2.42 1.09 16 1.69 .93
SD Speed Control Update message 11 3.33 1.08 16 2.20 .88
The results indicate that for these sections males tended to reduce their speed less, not
vary their lateral position, distance from the lead vehicle or speed as much as females
did. Thus, on these measures of performance, females did not perform as well as males.
Differences between the driving performance of males and females were not statistically
significant for any of the other measurements taken.
An interaction effect of drive and gender was found for only one of these variables:
standard deviation of lane position during the second read message task
(F(1,25)=11.582, p=.002). This suggests that the smartphone task affected males
differently to females, with females performance deteriorating more than that of males.
4.4 Visual behaviour
A video recording of each participant was taken during the drive and this made it
possible to observe their visual behaviour. Of particular interest were the sections of the
smartphone drive in which participants were interacting with their phone, and the same
locations in the control drive. The video was coded to compute the following variables for
each smartphone episode:
Total time spent looking down (this does not distinguish between looking at the
phone or other parts of the in-vehicle environment)
Total time spent looking up (ie at the road, mirrors, etc)
Duration of interaction with phone (sum of the above)
On average, participants spent 28.36 seconds per smartphone episode looking down
when compared with an average 5.1 seconds looking down in the same sections of the
control drive. Table 11 shows how this breaks down across all episodes of smartphone
use and also gives the same information about the comparable sections of the control
drive.
Table 11: Amount of time (in seconds) spent looking down during the
messaging section of the smartphone drive and equivalent section of the
control drive (note: message completion times not equal)
Drive
Smartphone
episode
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
S
m
a
r
t
p
h
o
n
e
Write 1 24 14.14 46.99 31.34 10.37
Read 1 26 2.42 40.81 16.25 10.08
Write 2 27 5.90 77.91 30.73 14.76
Read 2 25 4.60 36.32 12.55 7.68
Update 27 20.02 92.54 41.55 14.97
Write 3 27 20.64 66.33 34.47 11.52
Write 4 27 15.90 119.52 30.40 20.28
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Write 1 20 .91 10.23 4.68 2.31
Read 1 19 .00 8.74 3.50 2.75
Write 2 25 .00 20.00 6.83 4.45
Read 2 27 .00 13.65 3.07 3.19
Update 27 .00 27.11 6.53 5.62
Write 3 27 .00 14.54 4.59 3.17
Write 4 27 .00 15.13 4.51 3.58
It can be seen that on average, participants spent longer looking down during sections of
the smartphone drive. Figure 12 displays the time participants spent looking down as a
percentage of the time they were interacting with the phone during that episode of
phone use. This accounts for the fact that each smartphone episode lasted a different
length of time.
Figure 12: Percentage of time spent looking down during the messaging section
of the smartphone drive and equivalent section of the control drive
It is clear that on average, participants spent between 40% and 65% of their time
looking down during smartphone episodes, when compared with under 15% of time
when not using a smartphone. Paired samples t-tests were used to investigate whether
these differences in visual behaviour between the smartphone and control drives were
statistically significant. Table 12 shows that for all smartphone episodes, the differences
were highly statistically significant. Participants spent much longer looking down when
using a smartphone than when not using a smartphone.

Table 12: Results of statistical test comparing the percentage of time spent
looking down
Smartphone
Mean (SD)
Control
Mean (SD)
df t p
Write 1 55.3% (9.0%) 9.0% (4.3%) 19 21.275 .000
Read 1 48.5% (11.4%) 7.9% (6.7%) 21 15.483 .000
Write 2 46.6% (12.9%) 10.6% (6.4%) 24 13.300 .000
Read 2 42.5% (10.2%) 12.0% (9.5%) 23 11.074 .000
Update 62.2% (7.87%) 9.9% (7.5%) 25 24.599 .000
Write 3 60.6% (8.2%) 8.6% (5.4%) 25 26.874 .000
Write 4 58.9% (7.2%) 10.3% (6.7%) 24 29.428 .000
Although in the smartphone drives it is not possible to distinguish between time spent
looking at the phone and time spent looking at driving-related targets inside the vehicle
(such as the speedometer), it can be assumed that the control drive represents
participants normal visual behaviour. Thus, the difference between the two drives
represents the distraction from driving caused by use of the smartphone. This change in
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Write 1 Write 2 Write 3 Write 4 Update Read 1 Read 2
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
t
i
m
e
s
p
e
n
t
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
d
o
w
n
Control
Smartphone
visual behaviour fits well with the findings that measures of driving performance suffered
while participants were using a smartphone.
From some of the videos it was also possible to glean where participants were holding
their phone while using it. Some tended to place it against the top of the steering wheel
whereas others held it lower down or to one side. However, it was not possible to
pinpoint the location of the phone during all drives, so statistical analysis of the effects of
phone location was not conducted.
4.5 Effects of driving on smartphone use
Although the primary aim of this research is to investigate the effect of smartphone use
on the task of driving, carrying out two tasks at once can lead to reductions in
performance on both tasks. To investigate this, participants recall of the messages they
sent and the time it took them to compose messages was investigated.
4.5.1 Recall of received messages
During the trial participants were sent two messages and were prompted in the post-trial
questionnaire to recall a key fact from each message. All participants responded to the
question. Table 13 shows that only one participant (a different participant in each case)
was unable to recall the content of the message.
Table 13: Participants' recall of the messages sent to them
No. respondents No. Correct No. Incorrect
Message 1 28 27 1
Message 2 28 27 1
This demonstrates that, on the whole, participants did pay attention to the content of the
message.
4.5.2 Time taken to write messages
The second measure taken to assess performance on the task of writing messages was
the time it took to do so. Figure 13 shows that participants took on average just under
14 seconds to write the control messages, but when driving, it took them on average
56.6 seconds to write messages of a comparable length.
Figure 13: Average time taken to write messages while driving and control
messages while not driving
A paired samples t-test confirmed that these differences were statistically significant
(t(27)=-18.937, p=.000). Thus, it would seem that the task of driving also interfered
with use of the smartphone.
4.6 Subjective effects of smartphone use on driving performance
After each drive, participants were asked eight questions in which they had to rate
specific aspects of their driving performance. Table 14 shows the questions participants
were asked, their responses for each drive (mean and standard deviation) and results of
paired comparison t-tests.

.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Baseline Driving
T
i
m
e
(
s
e
c
s
)
Table 14: Subjective ratings of performance during the two drives
Question
Smartphone
Mean (SD)
Control
Mean (SD)
t df p
Compared to how you normally
drive, how well do you think you
drove in the first motorway
section?
47.6 (21.1) 61.6 (20.5) -2.938 27 .007
How easy or difficult was it to drive
at 40mph and stay in the centre of
the lane during the curve following
task?
36.6 (16.9) 54.8 (21.1) -3.860 27 .001
drive on curved roads, how well do
you think you drove during the
curve following task?
29.2 (17.7) 46.8 (21.4) -3.607 27 .001
drive when following other
vehicles, how well do you think you
drove in the car following section?
45.3 (20.1) 55.4 (21.5) -2.234 27 .034
How easy or difficult was it to
maintain a constant distance
during the car following task?
34.8 (16.3) 42.4 (21.1) -1.791 27 .085
respond to any tones you might
have heard?
50.7 (20.6) 58.0 (21.3) -1.892 27 .069
respond to the red bar stimulus
which you might have observed?
41.6 (22.1) 56.0 (20.6) -2.878 27 .008
drive, how well do you think you
drove overall?
41.2 (19.4) 55.6 (16.5) -3.341 27 .002
The results show that participants tended to feel that their performance was worse
during the smartphone drive. All but two results are statistically significant. The
differences between their ratings for the two drives of their ability maintain a constant
distance during the car following task and the ease of responding to auditory tones failed
to reach statistical significance. These perceptions do not match the measures taken
from the simulator, which show significant delays in responding to the first auditory tone
during the smartphone drive. Thus, participants actual performance may be have
deteriorated even if they do not perceive this to be the case.
Aside from asking participants how they performed during each drive, the questionnaire
also asked how they felt social networking affected different aspects of their driving.
Table 15 presents participants views of the effect of social networking on their
concentration towards driving, its effect on their speed, headway, lane keeping, hazard
awareness and overall driving performance.
Table 15: Participants' perceptions of the effects of social networking on
driving
N Min Max Mean SD
Concentration
(high score means increased
concentration)
Updating status 28 1.1 13 4.35 2.71
Reading messages 28 0.5 9.8 4.83 2.49
Writing messages 28 0 9 2.78 1.99
Effect on speed
(high score means increased speed)
Updating status 27 0.2 73 6.74 13.54
Writing messages 28 0 8.6 3.74 2.53
Effect on headway
(high score means driving closer to car
in front)
Updating status 27 0 8.8 3.99 2.79
Reading messages 28 0 8.4 3.34 2.17
Writing messages 28 0 8 3.07 2.36
Effect on lane keeping
(high scores represent struggling to
maintain lane position)
Updating status 28 5.6 9.9 7.80 1.27
Writing messages 28 4.3 62 9.69 10.34
Effect on awareness of hazards
(high scores represent being less aware)
Updating status 28 0.9 9.5 7.45 1.77
Reading messages 27 1 9.6 6.34 2.02
Overall driving performance
(high scores represent worse driving
performance)
Updating status 28 2.8 10 7.79 1.54
Reading messages 28 4.8 10 7.19 1.51
The scores indicate that participants thought social networking negatively affected their
concentration, lane keeping, hazard awareness and overall driving performance. They
also reported that they left more distance between themselves and lead vehicles.
4.7 Patterns of mobile phone use
The post trial questionnaire enquired about participants patterns of mobile phone use, in
order to establish their level of familiarity with the device and the tasks they were asked
to perform during the trial.
4.7.1 Familiarity with the device
On average, participants reported that they had owned their phone for just over a year
and a half (Mean = 1.6, SD=1.3). Only one participant had owned their phone for one
month or less, suggesting that the vast majority of the sample was familiar with their
phone.
Participants were given four messages to write while they were not driving. On average
it took participants 13.9 (SD=4.93) seconds to write these messages. Figure 14 shows
the time taken for each of these four messages.

Figure 14: Mean and standard deviation of time taken to write baseline
messages
Figure 15 shows the distribution of participants mean baseline message writing times.

Figure 15: Boxplot of time taken (in seconds) to write messages when not
driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
Message 1 Message 2 Message 3 Message 4
T
i
m
e
(
s
e
c
s
)
This shows that participants 16 and 22 took longer to write messages than the
remainder of the participants. However, the time it took them to write messages during
the drives was within two standard deviations of the sample mean. Thus, there is no
basis for concern that they were engaging in the secondary task of using their phone for
longer than the rest of the sample.
4.7.2 Familiarity with social networking and different phone functions
In order to ascertain whether participants were familiar with social networking sites, they
were asked how often per week they accessed social networks. All participants were
users of social networking sites and just under half accessed social networking sites over
thirty times per week (see Figure 16). This suggests that participants were familiar with
social networking sites.

Figure 16: The number of times per week participants access social networking
sites
It was also of interest to know how often they used their smartphone for basic mobile
phone functions as well as for social networking. Figure 17 shows the frequency with
which participants reported using their phone for spoken conversations, texting and
social networking.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31+
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Number of times per week
Figure 17: The number of times per week participants access social networking
sites via their smartphone
More participants reported texting very frequently (31+times a week) than they did
using their phone for spoken conversations or social networking. Nevertheless, all
participants reported that they use their smartphone to access social networking sites at
least once per week. In fact, the results suggest that participants use their phone to
access social networking sites about as often as they do for spoken conversations.
Participants were asked to rate the ease of using their smartphone to access social
networking sites on a scale of 0 100 (0=very difficult, 100 = very easy). The average
score given by participants was 76.7 (SD=28.7). Nevertheless, there were four
participants who gave a rating of 20 or less.
4.7.3 Use of phone while driving
Participants were asked a series of questions about their use of mobile phones while
driving, including:
Do you take your smartphone with you when driving?
How often do you leave your smartphone switched on while driving?
If you leave your phone switched on while driving, how often do you leave it on
silent?
Do you have a cradle for your phone in your car? If so how often do you use it?
Do you use your phone hands free while driving
Do you access social networking sites while driving?
All participants reported that they take their smartphone with them when they are
driving. The overwhelming majority responded that they always leave their phone
switched on, while only two participants said that they often leave it switched on. Only
nine of the 26 respondents to the question reported that they always or often keep their
phone on silent while they are driving. Leaving a mobile phone (and its ringer) on while
driving could present a temptation to use it.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31+
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Number of times per week
Spoken conversations
Texting
Social networking
In the UK it is currently illegal to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving. Only six
out of 25 respondents to the question reported that they have a cradle in their car for
their mobile phone, and of these six, only two reported that they always use it. Thus, if
they do use their mobile phone while driving, the majority of participants in this study
would be at risk of non-compliance with the law.
Participants were asked whether they access social networking sites while they are
driving. Figure 18 shows that three of the 21 participants who responded to this question
said they do.

Figure 18: The number of participants who access social networking sites while
driving
While this is not a large proportion of drivers in this study, it does suggest that social
networking is an activity that some people engage in while driving. Thus, this activity
cannot be ruled out as a safety risk on the grounds that people dont do it.
4.8 Perceptions of legality
In the post-trial questionnaire participants were asked whether they thought certain
activities are illegal, and whether they think these activities should be illegal. These
activities were:
Writing a message while the phone is in a cradle
Reading a message while the phone is in a cradle
Writing a message using the phone handheld
Reading a message while using the phone handheld
Writing a message using a text-to-speech function on the phone
Twenty-seven participants answered these questions. Figure 19 shows that a majority of
participants thought that it was illegal to read or write messages regardless of whether
the phone was in a cradle or used handheld. Perceptions were more mixed in relation to
use of the text-to-speech function, with more people being unsure or thinking it was a
legal activity than with the others.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
No Yes
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Whether participants access social networking
sites while driving
Figure 19: Perceptions of current legality of phone use while driving
In fact, current legislation does not specifically prohibit use of a phone to send and
receive text messages; the only requirement is that the phone is in a cradle. The
Highway Code does, however, advise that, it is far safer not to use any telephone while
you are driving or riding find a safe place to stop first or use the voicemail facility and
listen to messages later. (DirectGov, 2011)
Figure 20 shows that participants perception of the current legality of these activities
was well-aligned with their opinions on whether the activities should or should not be
legal.

Figure 20: Perceptions of whether phone use while driving should be legal
Most participants thought that use of a phone to write or read messages should be
illegal, although more participants thought that writing messages using text-to-speech
functions should be legal than other activities (14 participants compared with 24-26
participants for the other activities).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
write (in
cradle)
read (in
cradle)
write
(handheld)
read
(handheld)
write (text to
speech)
Not sure
Illegal
Legal
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
write (in
cradle)
read (in
cradle)
write
(handheld)
read
(handheld)
write (text to
speech)
Not sure
Illegal
Legal
4.9 Perceptions of relative risks of driving behaviours
Participants were asked to judge the difference that sixteen driving behaviours make to
a persons safety while driving. The response scale was from 0% (less dangerous) to
100% (more dangerous). The results for this section of the questionnaire are presented
in Table 16.
Table 16: Participants judgements of the safety of different driving behaviours
Activity
Mean
percentage
risk
When a driver has been drinking alcohol (regardless of amount) 91.1%
When a driver is racing others 86.4%
When a driver is updating a social networking site whilst driving 86.1%
When a driver is tired 86.0%
When a driver is writing a text message 84.3%
When a driver is reading a text message 83.0%
When a driver is browsing a social networking site while driving 82.8%
When a driver is angry enough to have road rage 80.7%
When a driver is talking on their mobile phone (handheld) 78.9%
When other drivers on the road are acting unsafely 76.3%
When a driver is in a hurry 76.1%
When a driver is inexperienced 74.6%
When a driver is speeding 72.8%
When a driver is selecting music while driving 64.4%
When a driver is talking on their mobile phone (handsfree) 50.8%
When passengers are in the car 44.9%
Social networking activities ranked 3
rd
and 7
th
in the list, with updating a social
networking site being perceived as having a greater negative effect than browsing a
social networking site. All of the behaviours in this list, apart from those relating to social
networking, were included in the questionnaire administered during the study by Reed
and Robbins (2008). These results are broadly in line with their findings.

5 Discussion
This study set out to investigate whether there was an effect of social networking using a
smartphone on driving performance. Twenty-eight young male and female participants
took part in the study and drove a high fidelity driving simulator through the same test
scenario twice: once while using a smartphone to interact with a social networking site,
and once without this distraction. This experimental approach allowed potentially
hazardous road situations to be designed and experienced twice, in complete safety.
The results of the experiment clearly show that participants driving performance was
impaired by the concurrent smartphone task, and the smartphone task was also affected
by driving.
Participants were more likely to miss the reaction time stimuli while using their phone.
When they did respond, reaction times to visual and auditory stimuli were found to
increase from approximately 1.2 to 1.6 seconds when using a smartphone to send and
receive messages on a social networking site. This finding is consistent with other
studies that have looked at the distracting effects of spoken conversations and text
messaging using a mobile phone (Burns et al., 2002, Reed and Robbins, 2008). When
driving, failing to respond to a warning or hazard can lead to accidents. The effect of a
delayed response will depend significantly on the circumstances. At motorway speeds,
for example, a delayed response of 0.4 seconds could result in an increased stopping
distance of 12.5m. This could make the difference between a near miss and an accident,
or increase the severity of an accident.
During a section of the trial where drivers were following a series of long curves, control
of the vehicle suffered significantly when drivers were asked to send and receive
messages on a social networking site using their smartphone. They were unable to
maintain a central lane position and this resulted in lane departures. Over 47,000 road
traffic accidents in 2010 were single vehicle accidents in which the vehicle left the
carriageway (DfT, 2011). Of these, 734 resulted in at least one fatality. It is a concern
that as smartphones become more popular, distraction by reading and writing tasks
using these devices could lead to more accidents of this type. It was also interesting to
note that female drivers performed more poorly on this task. This is consistent with the
results of the Reed and Robbins (2008) study and may warrant further investigation.
Nevertheless, a performance impairment was found for both males and females,
suggesting that neither sex is immune to the distracting effects of using a smartphone
for reading and writing messages on driving.
Another key element of vehicle control in traffic is the time or distance to lead vehicles.
While using a smartphone to write a message, participants time headway varied
significantly more than during the control drive. In the simulated task the lead vehicle
was changing its speed, so this finding reinforces the data showing increased reaction
times while using a smartphone. Participants were unable to respond as quickly to the
speed changes as they were during the control drive. However, the lead vehicle varied
its speed fairly gradually, so the risk of a collision with the lead vehicle was very low in
the simulated scenario. The result suggests that in real world situations where a lead
vehicle may decelerate more quickly, there is the potential for accidents to occur due to
smartphone distraction.
During this study, participants tended to reduce their speed when using a smartphone to
read or write messages. This result is consistent with previous research (see Chapter 2)
and has been explained as an attempt to reduce risk due to a perceived increase in risk
resulting from engaging in a distracting activity. Fuller (2005) states that drivers adjust
their behaviour to keep the difficulty of the driving task within target boundaries. He
shows that drivers feelings of task difficulty predict their feelings of risk. The results of
this study seem to support this idea; when participants were given an additional task to
complete, they reduced their driving speed.
Even though the reduction in speed may be described as an attempt to compensate for
the effects of distracted driving, it is interesting that participants control of the vehicle
control was still worse in the smartphone drive. The reduction in speed was not enough
to compensate for the effects of smartphone use on their driving.
One of the reasons for the impairment in performance is clearly demonstrated by the
results of the analysis of visual behaviour. Drivers were found to be looking down
between 40% and 60% of the time while using a smartphone to write or read messages,
compared with about 10% of the time in the same sections of the control drive. Although
this study was unable to distinguish between glances to driving-related glance targets
(such as the vehicle instruments) and distractors, it can be assumed that the control
drive represents a normal amount of time spent looking at driving-related targets. Thus,
using a smartphone takes a significant proportion of drivers visual attention away from
the road, and this reduction in visual attention to the road environment is likely to be
one of the factors that contributes to poorer vehicle control and increased reaction times
to visual stimuli.
Most of the participants who took part in this study indicated that they very frequently
use their phone for text messaging. They reported that they engage in text messaging
more often than voice calls or social networking. Indeed they tended to use their phone
for social networking about as frequently as they did for voice calls. This shows that
whereas voice calls used to be the primary function of telephones, they are now just one
of a plethora of functions. Only a small number of participants from this study admitted
to accessing social networking sites while driving, but increases in the popularity of
online social networks could lead to a rise in the number of people engaging in this
distracting activity.
5.1 Comparison with previous studies
Previous studies of driver impairment conducted at TRL have used similar investigative
methods to those described here. Thus, it is possible to compare the relative impairment
of using a smartphone for social networking to the following:
Driving impairment while having a mobile phone conversation and impairment
from being at the legal limit for alcohol consumption (Burns et al., 2002)
Driving impairment from being under the influence of cannabis (Sexton et al.,
2000)
Driving impairment from sending and receiving text messages while driving (Reed
and Robbins, 2008)
The texting study and the current study are almost identical in methodology, allowing a
comparison across a broader range of measures.
Reaction times were assessed in all three previous studies. Although for the mobile
phone conversation and cannabis studies the reaction time tasks were slightly different,
they were still comparable. The same visual stimulus was used and was presented in the
same visual scene. When the reaction times under each condition were compared with
the baseline reaction times measured, alcohol gave a 12.5% increase in reaction times,
cannabis a 21% increase, a hands-free mobile phone conversation increased reaction
times by 26.5%, texting by 37.4%, using a smartphone for social networking by 37.6%
and using a mobile phone for a hand-held mobile phone conversation increased reaction
times by 45.9% compared to the baseline condition. Thus, using a smartphone for social
networking resulted in a greater impairment to reaction times than alcohol, cannabis,
hand held mobile phone conversations and texting, but less than a hand held mobile
phone conversation.
For measures of mean speed, standard deviation of speed and lane position, a direct
comparison with the earlier studies is difficult as the smartphone task only took place in
short bursts rather than over longer periods of driving. All studies reported a reduction
in mean speed and increase in standard deviation of lane position when compared with
the control condition.
A more detailed comparison can be made with the texting study as the experimental
scenario and messages composed on the phone were identical to those used in the
current study. Reed and Robbins (2008) reported a 5.7% reduction in mean speed
during the first message that participants wrote and 6.9% decrease during the fourth. In
the current study, a greater reduction in speed of 8.7% was observed when participants
were writing their first message, and a smaller reduction in speed (4.4%) when writing
their fourth message. Although none of the participants had to input usernames or
passwords to access their social networking accounts during the trial, it is possible that
searching for the message recipient in their contact list resulted in an additional task
load during their first message, and subsequent communication was therefore easier.
Reed and Robbins (2008) also commented on their participants lane position while
texting. Participants lane position varied 91.4% more when writing a message on a long
bend in the road, and 12.7% more when reading a message, when compared with the
control condition. In current study, writing the same message, at the same location in
the drive on a social networking site resulted in a 104% increase in the variability of lane
position, and reading the message at the same location resulted in a 37% increase in the
same variable.
All of the results taken together suggest that participants driving was impaired when
they were using a smartphone to send and receive messages on social networking site.
The results of this study indicate that this reduction in driving performance is likely to
have been a result of three different types of distraction: having to concentrate on the
smartphone task (cognitive distraction), holding the phone (manual distraction), and the
significant increase in time spent looking at the phone (visual distraction) in order to
interact with it. Although participants did reduce their speed, this was not enough to
compensate for the poorer driving performance; even though they were driving more
slowly, they were still unable to control the vehicle as well as they did when they were
not using their smartphone.
It is clear from the results of this study that certain tasks carried out using a smartphone
can significantly impair driving performance. In order to prevent drivers from becoming
distracted due to smartphone use, it may be possible to develop a smartphone
application which restricts access to some functions of the phone while driving. It may
also be beneficial to educate drivers about the dangers of distracted driving, and how
use of smartphones while driving can impair their performance.
References
Burns., P.C., Parkes, A., Burton, S., Smith, R.K., and Burch, D. (2002). How dangerous
is driving with a mobile phone? Benchmarking the impairment to alcohol, TRL Report,
TRL 547, Crowthorne: TRL Limited.
Caird, J.K., Willness, C.R., Steel, P and Scialfa, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of the effects
of cell phones on driver performance, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 1282-1293.
Canalys (2010). Majority of smartphones now have touch screen. Canalys newsroom
[online], accessed 13
th
November 2011. http://www.canalys.com/newsroom/majority-
smart-phones-now-have-touch-screens
Chattington., M, Reed, N., Basacik., D. Flint., A. and Parkes, A. (2010). Investigating
driver distraction the effects of video and static advertising, PPR 409, Crowthorne: TRL
Limited.
Comscore (2011). GSMA Mobile Metrics Report Issued on UK Mobile Applications Usage.
Comscore press releases [online], accessed 13
th
November 2011.
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/6/GSMA_Mobile_Media_
Metrics_Report_Issued_on_UK_Mobile_Applications_Usage
Diels, C., Robbins, R. and Reed, N. (in press) Behavioural Validation of the TRL Driving
Simulator DigiCar: Phase 1 Speed Choice. In International Conference on Driver
Behaviour and Training. Paris, France: Cranfield University.
DirectGov (2011). The Highway Code. DirectGov [online], accessed 14
th
November 2011.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/index.htm
DfT (2011). Reported road casualties in Great Britain: annual report 2010. London: DfT
Duncan, B. (1995) Calibration trials of TRL driving simulator. TRL Staff Paper
(PA/3079/95) Crowthorne: TRL Limited. Presented at the Vision in Vehicles VI
Conference, 13-16 September 1995, University of Derby, UK
Fuller, R. (2005). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour, Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 37, 461-472.
Harbluk, J.L., Noy, Y.I. and Eizenman, M. (2002). The impact of cognitive distraction on
driver visual behaviour and vehicle control, TP No. 13889 E, Ottawa: Transport Canada.
Johnson, S.H. (undated). Effects of perceptual variables on the efficiency of human-
touch screen interactions, Cornell University [online], accessed 10
th
August 2011
http://www.csic.cornell.edu/201/touchscreen/
Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., Sudweeks, J.D. and Ramsey, D.J. (2006) The
Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-crash/crash risk: An Analysis using the 100-Car
Naturalistic Driving Study Data, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Report No. DOT HS 810 594, Washington, DC: NHTSA.
Lesch, M.F. and Hancock, P.A. (2004). Driving performance during concurrent cell-phone
use: are drivers aware of their performance decrements? Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 36(3), 471-480.
Maples, W.C., De Rosier, W., Hoenes, R., Bendure, R and Moore, S. (2008). The effects
of cell phone use on peripheral vision, Optometry, 79, 36-42.
Ofcom (2011). The communications market 2011. Ofcom communications market
reports [online], accessed 13
th
November 2011.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-
market-reports/cmr11/?a=0
Owens, J.M., McLaughlin, S.B. and Sudweeks., J. (2011). Driver performance while text
messaging using handheld and in-vehicle systems, Accident Analysis and Prevention,
43(3), 939-947.
Parkes. A.M., Fairclough, S.H. and Ashby, M.C. (1993). Car phone use and motorway
driving. In E. J. Lovesey (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics 1993, 469-474, London:
Taylor and Francis.
Parkes, A.M. and Hooijmeijer, V. (2000). The influence of the use of mobile phones on
driver situation awareness. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Internet Forum on 'The safety impact of driver distraction using in-vehicle devices.'
[online], accessed 10
th
August 2011 http://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/Human%20Factors/driver-
distraction/Topics023060002.htm
Parkes A.M., Luke T., Burns P.C. and Lansdown T. (2007). Conversations in cars: the
relative hazards of mobile phones, TRL Report 664, Crowthorne: TRL Limited.
Redelmeier, D.A and Tibshirani, R.J. (1997). Association between cellular telephone calls
and motor vehicle collisions. The New England Journal of Medicine, 336(7), 453-458.
Reed, N. and Robbins, R. (2008). The effect of text messaging on driver behaviour: a
simulator study, PPR 3667, Crowthorne: TRL Limited.
Sears. A. (1991). Improving touchscreen keyboards: design issues and comparison with
other devices, Interacting with Computers 3(3), 253-269.
Sears, A., Revis, D., Swatski, J., Crittenden, R and Schneiderman., B. (1993).
Investigating touchscreen typing: the effect of keyboard size on typing speed, Behaviour
and Information Technology, 12, 17-22.
Sexton, B.F. (1997) Validation trial for testing impairment of driving due to alcohol. TRL
Report 226, Crowthorne, TRL Limited.
Sexton, B.F., Tunbridge, R.J., Brook-Carter, N., Jackson, P.G., Wright, K., Stark, M.M.,
Englehart, K. (2000). The Influence of Cannabis on Driving. TRL Report 477,
Crowthorne: TRL Limited.
Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A. & Crouch, D.J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver
and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48, 2, pp 381-391.
Tsimhoni, O., Smith., D and Green., P. (2002). Destination entry while driving: speech
recognition versus a touch screen keyboard, UMTRI-2001-24. Michigan: UMTRI.

Appendix A Post-trial questionnaire

To be completed by TRL
Participant Number: ________________ Date of Trial: _____/_____/_________
Driving Simulator Study: SOCIAL NETWORKING WHILE
DRIVING
Note: All information on this form is confidential.

It will be stored securely at TRL.

No individuals will be identified.

SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A1. How old were you on your last birthday?

years old
A2. Are you:
Male Female
End of pre-drive section
Please wait for your trial supervisor

Version 2.0
DRIVE 1
SECTION B: What do yo
received?
You received two messages whil
B1.
What item of clothing did
Hat
B2.
What medal did Fiona win
Gold
SECTION C: How you fe
For each question, please mark
feel about these behaviours. Ple
Important: please try to descr
were using your phone.
EXAMPLE OF HOW TO COMPL
Please read the description of ea
your answer. For example, if re
you might mark the scale below
Do you value comfort or
Responsivene
ss
C1.
Compared to how you n
motorway section?
Very poorly

C2.
How easy or difficult was
the curve following tas
Very difficult
44
ou remember about the text me
le driving; can you remember:
d Edward forget for the wedding?
Cufflinks Bow
n in the 100m sprint?
Silver Bro
eel you performed during the dr
the line in the place that you feel most clos
ease see below for an example.
ribe how you felt you drove in general, not
LETE SCALE
ach end of the line and then mark a point w
sponsiveness and comfort were about equa
as follows:
responsiveness more when choosing a new
normally drive, how well do you think yo
s it to drive at 40mph and stay in the cen
k?
PPR592
essages you
wtie
onze
rive in general
sely reflects how you
only at the times you
which corresponds to
ally important to you,
w car?
Comfort
ou drove in the first
Very Well
tre of the lane during
Very easy
Version 2.0
C3.
Compared to how you no
during the curve follow
Very poorly

C4.
think you drove in the ca
Very poorly
C5.
How easy or difficult wa
task?
Very difficult

C6.
Very difficult
C7.
observed?
Very difficult

C8.
Very poorly
SECTION D: How you fe
driving affected your pe
feel about these aspects of your
D1.
What proportion of y
phone when updatin
Complete
concentration

D2.
phone when reading
Complete
concentration
45
ormally drive on curved roads, how well do
ing task?
normally drive when following other vehic
ar following section?
as it to maintain a constant distance durin
s it to respond to any tones you might have
s it to respond to the red bar stimulus w
ormally drive, how well do you think you dr
eel accessing social networking
erformance during the trial
r drive.
your concentration were you direct
ng your status?
g private messages from Daniel?
PPR592
o you think you drove
Very Well
cles, how well do you
Very Well
ng the car following
Very easy
e heard?
Very easy
which you might have
Very easy
ove overall?
Very Well
g sites while
ting to your smart
Virtually no
concentration
ting to your smart
Virtually no
concentration
Version 2.0
D3.
phone when sending
Complete
concentration

D4.
Do you believe that u
Drove slower
D5.
Do you believe that r
Drove slower

D6.
Do you believe that s
Drove slower
D7.
Did you keep the sa
status, or did it chan
More distance

D8.
Did you keep the
messages from Dani
More distance
D9.
Did you keep the s
messages to Daniel,
More distance

D10.
How did updating y
lane?

Maintained
normal
positioning
D11.
How did reading pr
keep within your lan
Maintained
normal
positioning

46
g private messages to Daniel?
updating your status affected your
reading messages from Daniel affec
sending messages to Daniel affecte
me distance to vehicles in front wh
nge?
same distance to vehicles in fro
el, or did it change?
same distance to vehicles in fro
or did it change?
your status affect your ability to
rivate messages from Daniel affec
ne?
PPR592
ting to your smart
Virtually no
concentration
speed?
Drove faster
cted your speed?
Drove faster
ed your speed?
Drove faster
hen updating your
Less distance
ont when reading
Less distance
nt when sending
Less distance
keep within your
Struggled to
maintain
normal
positioning
ct your ability to
Struggled to
maintain
normal
positioning

Version 2.0
D12.
How did sending pri
within your lane?

Maintained
normal
positioning
D13.
When updating you
awareness of road h
you feel there was n
More aware
D14.
When reading priva
change in your awa
centre of the line if y
More aware
D15.
When sending priva
change in your awa
centre of the line if y
More aware
D16.
How do you feel you
status?
Improved
D17.
How do you feel y
private messages fro
Improved
D18.
How do you feel y
private messages to
Improved
47
ivate messages to Daniel affect yo
r status, did you feel there was
hazards? (Remember to tick the ce
o difference)
te messages from Daniel, did you
areness of road hazards? (Reme
you feel there was no difference)
ate messages to Daniel, did you
areness of road hazards? (Reme
you feel there was no difference)

ur driving performance changed wh
your driving performance change
om Daniel?
your driving performance change
Daniel?
Please stop here
PPR592
our ability to keep
Struggled to
maintain
normal
positioning
a change in your
entre of the line if
Less aware
feel there was a
ember to tick the
Less aware
feel there was a
ember to tick the
Less aware
hen updating your
Worsened
ed when reading
Worsened
ed when sending
Worsened
Version 2.0
DRIVE 2
SECTION E: How you fe
feel about these behaviours. Ple
EXAMPLE. Do you value
Responsivene
ss
E1.
motorway section?
Very poorly

E2.
the curve following tas
Very difficult
E3.
during the curve follow
Very poorly

E4.
think you drove in the ca
Very poorly
E5.
Very difficult

E6.
Very difficult
E7.
you might have observed
Very difficult

48
eel you performed during the dr
ease see below for an example.
e comfort or responsiveness more when ch
normally drive, how well do you think yo
s it to drive at 40mph and stay in the cen
k?
ormally drive on curved roads, how well do
ing task?
normally drive when following other vehic
ar following section?
s it to maintain a constant distance during t
s it to respond to any tones you might have
s it to respond to any changes in your red
?
PPR592
rive
oosing a new car?
Comfort
ou drove in the first
Very Well
tre of the lane during
Very easy
o you think you drove
Very Well
cles, how well do you
Very Well
the car following?
Very easy
e heard?
Very easy
d bar stimulus which
Very easy

Version 2.0
E8.
Very poorly
Any other commen
SECTION F: How you fe
For each question, please mark the
these behaviours.
What difference do you feel t
driving?
F1.
Less dangerous
F2.
Less dangerous
F3. When a drive
Less dangerous

F4. When a d
Less dangerous
49
ormally drive, how well do you think you dr
ts?
eel about different driving beha
line in the place that you feel most closely refle
the following behaviours make to a per
When a driver is tired
When a driver is speeding
er has been drinking alcohol (regardless of
river is talking on their mobile phone (han
PPR592
ove overall?
Very Well
aviours
ects how you feel about
rsons safety when
More
dangerous
More
dangerous
f amount)
More
dangerous
dheld)
More
dangerous
Version 2.0
F5. W
Less dangerous

F6. Oth
Less dangerous
F7.

Less dangerous

F8.
Less dangerous
F9. When
Less dangerous

F10.
Less dangerous
F11. When a driver is
Less dangerous

F12. W
Less dangerous
F13. When a dr
Less dangerous

F14.
Less dangerous
F15. Wh
Less dangerous

50
When a driver is reading a text message
her drivers on the road are acting unsafely
When a driver is in a hurry
When a driver is inexperienced
n a driver is angry enough to have road rag
When passengers are in the car
s browsing a social networking application
When a driver is writing a text messaging
river is talking on their mobile phone (hand
When a driver is racing others
en a driver is selecting music while driving
PPR592
More
dangerous
More
dangerous
More
dangerous
More
dangerous
ge
More
dangerous
More
dangerous
while driving
More
dangerous
More
dangerous
ds free)
More
dangerous
More
dangerous
g
More
dangerous

Version 2.0
F16. When a drive
Less dangerous
51
er is updating a social networking site whil
PPR592
lst driving
More
dangerous
SECTION G: Your driving behaviour
Please think about your driving over the past 12
months. For each of the statements please tick the
most appropriate box in each row. Remember, we
do not expect precise answers, merely your best
guesses; so please do not linger too long over any
one item.
N
e
v
e
r
H
a
r
d
l
y
e
v
e
r
O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
Q
u
i
t
e
o
f
t
e
n
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
A
l
m
o
s
t
a
l
w
a
y
s
G1. Attempt to overtake someone that you hadnt noticed to
be signalling a right turn.
G2. Stay in a lane that you know will be closed ahead until the
last minutes before forcing your way into another lane.
G3. Miss Stop or Give way signs and narrowly avoid
colliding with traffic having right of way.
G4. Pull out of a junction so far that the driver with right of
way has to stop and let you out.
G5. Fail to notice that pedestrians are crossing when turning
into a side street from a main road.
G6. Drive especially close to the car in front as a signal to its
driver to go faster or to get out of the way.
G7. Sound your horn to indicate your annoyance to another
driver.
G8. Queuing to turn left onto a main road, you pay such close
attention to the mainstream of traffic that you nearly hit the
car in front.
G9. Cross a junction knowing that the traffic lights have
already turned against you.
G10. On turning left nearly hit a cyclist who has come up your
inside.
G11. Disregard the speed limit on a motorway.
G12. Fail to check your rear-view mirror before pulling out,
changing lanes, etc.
G13. Become angered by a certain type of driver and indicate
your hostility by whatever means you can.
G14. Become impatient with a slow driver in an outer lane and
overtake on the inside.
N
e
v
e
r
H
a
r
d
l
y
e
v
e
r
O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
l
yQ
u
i
t
e
o
f
t
e
n
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
A
l
m
o
s
t
a
l
w
a
y
s
G15. Underestimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle when
overtaking.
G16. Race away from the traffic lights with the intention of
beating the driver next to you.
G17. Brake too quickly on a slippery road, or steer the wrong
way in a skid.
G18. Drive even though you suspect you may be over the legal
blood-alcohol limit.
G19. Disregard the speed limit on a residential road.
G20. Become angered by another driver and give chase with
the intention of giving him/her a piece of your mind.
SECTION H: Your beliefs about accidents
Please indicate your agreement with the following
statements by ticking the most appropriate box in
each row.
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
S
o
m
e
w
h
a
t
d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
S
o
m
e
w
h
a
t
a
g
r
e
e
A
g
r
e
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
a
g
r
e
e
H1. Driving with no accidents is mainly a matter of luck.
H2. Accidents happen mainly because of different
unpredictable events.
H3. People who drive a lot with no accidents are merely lucky;
it is not because they are more careful.
H4. The careful driver can prevent any accident.
H5.
When a driver is involved in an accident, it is because
they did not drive correctly.
H6. If you are going to be involved in an accident, it is going
to happen anyhow, no matter what you do.
H7. Drivers do not have enough control over what happens on
the road.
H8. Most accidents happen because of mechanical failures.
H9. It is always possible to predict what is going to happen on
the road and so it is possible to predict almost any
accident.
H10 Accidents happen because the driver does not make
enough effort to detect all sources of danger while
driving.
SECTION I: How you see your self, and how you believe others see
you
Please use the rating scale to the right to describe
how accurately each of the below statements
describe you.
Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as
you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as
you honestly see yourself, in relation to other
people you know of the same sex as you are, and
roughly your same age.
V
e
r
y
I
n
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
l
y
I
n
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
I
n
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
n
o
r
A
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
l
y
A
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
V
e
r
y
A
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
I1. Am sure of my ground.
I2.
Easily resist temptations.
I3.
Have little to contribute.
I4.
Love to eat.
I5.
Tend to vote for liberal political candidates.
I6.
Like to stand during the national anthem.
I7.
Am able to control my cravings.
I8.
Do things I later regret.
I9 Believe laws should be strictly enforced.
I10. Know how to get things done.
I11.
Never spend more than I can afford.
I12.
Excel in what I do.
I13.
Never splurge.
I14.
Believe that we coddle criminals too much.
I15.
Misjudge situations.
I16.
Believe that there is no absolute right or wrong.
I17.
Believe that too much tax money goes to support
artists.
I18 Don't see the consequences of things.
I19.
Rarely overindulge.
I20.
Believe that criminals should receive help rather than
punishment.
I21.
Often eat too much.
I22.
Go on binges.
I23.
Don't understand things.
I24.
Don't know why I do some of the things I do.
I25.
Believe in one true religion.
I26.
Complete tasks successfully.
I27.
Handle tasks smoothly.
I28. Believe that we should be tough on crime.
I29
Come up with good solutions.
I30
Tend to vote for conservative political candidates.
Version 2.0
SECTION J: MOBILE P
For the following questions,
Try not to think about any
answer seems closest at firs
J1.
How many months
months
J2.
How many times ea
conversations? Th
or handheld) as we
0

1 5

J3.
How many text m
week? This includ
times you are outsi
0

1 5

J3.
How many times d
week, using any co
are driving as well
0 1 5
J4.
How many times do y
using your smartpho
all the times you are
0 1 5
J5.
How easy do you f
networking sites in
Very
difficult

J6.
Do you take your s
Yes

No
58
HONE USAGE
please tick the box which you feel is m
y question for too long, your first insti
st glance will be fine.
and/or years have you owned a sm
years

ach week do you use your smart p
is includes times when you are driv
ell as all the times you are outside o
6 10
11 20
21 30
messages do you typically send or
des times when you are driving as
ide of your car.
6 10
11 20
21 30
do you access social networking s
omputer or device? This includes
as all the times you are outside of
6 10 11 20 21 30
you access social networking sites in a
ne? This includes times when you are
outside of your car.
6 10 11 20 21 30
ind it to use your smart phone for
n general?
mart phone with you when driving?
PPR592
most appropriate.
nct or which ever
mart phone for?
hone for spoken
ving (hands free
of your car.
31+

r receive in one
s well as all the
31+
sites in a typical
times when you
your car.
31+

typical week,
driving as well as
31+

accessing social
Very easy
?
J7.
How often do you leave your smart phone switched on when you are
driving?

Always

Often

Sometimes

Occasionally

Never
go to J13
J8.
If you do leave your mobile phone switched on how often do you
leave it on silent?
Always

Often

Sometimes

Occasionally

Never

J9.
Do you have a cradle for your phone in your car? If so how often do
you use it when driving?

No go to J11
Yes
Always Sometimes Never
J10.
Do you use your phone hands-free when driving?

No
go to J13 Yes
Always

Sometimes

Never

J11. Do you access social networking sites on your smartphone while driving?
No go to J13
Yes
Always Sometimes Never
J12.
Does your phone have a speech-to-text function (you speak a
message and your phone transcribes it for you), if so how often do
you use it when driving?

No
go to J13
Yes

Always

Sometimes

Never

J13. Are there any features of your mobile phone which you feel make accessing
social networking sites difficult, or that you dislike? How would you like it
to be improved?

SECTION K: LEGALITY OF PHONE USAGE WHILE DRIVING
These questions are designed to ask you what you understand about the legality of
using your phone social networking sites whilst driving, and what you feel the law
should be.
Is it currently legal to use your phone whilst driving to

Legal Illegal
Not
sure
K1.
write a status update or other message if
it is in a cradle?

K2.
read a status update or other message if
it is in a cradle?

K3.
you are using it handheld?

K4.

K5.
you are using a text-to-speech function?

Should it be legal to use your phone whilst driving to

Legal Illegal
Not
sure
K6.
it is in a cradle?

K7.
it is in a cradle?

K8.

K9.

K10
.
you are using a text-to-speech function?

End of questionnaires

TRL
Crowthorne House, Nine Mile Ride
Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 3GA
United Kingdom
T: +44 (0) 1344 773131
F: +44 (0) 1344 770356
E: enquiries@trl.co.uk
W: www.trl.co.uk
ISSN 0968-4093
Price code: 3X
Published by IHS
Willoughby Road, Bracknell
Berkshire RG12 8FB
United Kingdom
T: +44 (0) 1344 328038
F: +44 (0) 1344 328005
E: trl@ihs.com
W: http://emeastore.ihs.com P
P
R
5
9
2
Smartphone use while driving a simulator
study
Previous research has shown that use of a mobile phone while driving impairs driving performance.
With smartphones now becoming common in the commercial marketplace, more and more
drivers are able to engage in a broad range of possible activities on their phone. This study set out
to investigate whether there was an effect of social networking using a smartphone on driving
performance. Twenty-eight young male and female participants took part in the study and drove a
driving simulator through the same test scenario twice: once while using a smartphone to interact
with a social networking site, and once without this distraction. The results of the experiment
clearly show that participants driving performance was impaired by the concurrent smartphone
task, and the smartphone task was also affected by driving.
Other titles from this subject area
INS005 How can we produce safer new drivers? S Helman, G B Grayson and A M Parkes. 2010
TRL673 Monitoring progress towards the 2010 casualty reduction target 2008 data. J Broughton and J Knowles.
2010
PPR522 Cross-modal safety: risk and public perceptions phase 2 report. D Lynam, J Kennedy, S Helman and T
Taig. 2010
PPR513 Linking accidents in national statistics to in-depth accident data. D C Richards, R E Cookson and R W
Cuerden. 2010
PPR498 Further analyses of driver licence records from DVLA. J Broughton and B Lawton. 2010
PPR446 The potential for cycle helmets to prevent injury a review of the evidence. D Hynd, R Cuerden, S Reid
and S Adams. 2009
PPR442 Passion, performance, practicality: motorcyclists motivations and attitudes to safety motorcycle safety
research project. S Christmas, D Young, R Cookson and R Cuerden. 2009

Smartphone Use PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smartphone Use PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Published Project Report

You might also like