At the cross-roads: An on-road examination of driving errors at intersections

A significant proportion of road trauma occurs at intersections. Understanding the nature of driving errors at intersections therefore has the potential to lead to significant injury reductions. To further understand how the complexity of modern intersections shapes behaviour of these errors are compared to errors made mid-block, and the role of wider systems failures in intersection error causation is investigated in an on-road study. Twenty-five participants drove a pre-determined urban route incorporating 25 intersections. Two in-vehicle observers recorded the errors made while a range of other data was collected, including driver verbal protocols, video, driver eye glance behaviour and vehicle data (e.g., speed, braking and lane position). Participants also completed a post-trial cognitive task analysis interview. Participants were found to make 39 specific error types, with speeding violations the most common. Participants made significantly more errors at intersections compared to mid-block, with misjudgement, action and perceptual/observation errors more commonly observed at intersections. Traffic signal configuration was found to play a key role in intersection error causation, with drivers making more errors at partially signalised compared to fully signalised intersections.     

Prevalence of teen driver errors leading to serious motor vehicle crashes

Objectives

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of adolescent deaths. Programs and policies should target the most common and modifiable reasons for crashes. We estimated the frequency of critical reasons for crashes involving teen drivers, and examined in more depth specific teen driver errors.

Methods

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey collected data at the scene of a nationally representative sample of 5470 serious crashes between 7/05 and 12/07. NHTSA researchers assigned a single driver, vehicle, or environmental factor as the critical reason for the event immediately leading to each crash. We analyzed crashes involving 15–18 year old drivers.

Results

822 teen drivers were involved in 795 serious crashes, representing 335,667 teens in 325,291 crashes. Driver error was by far the most common reason for crashes (95.6%), as opposed to vehicle or environmental factors. Among crashes with a driver error, a teen made the error 79.3% of the time (75.8% of all teen-involved crashes). Recognition errors (e.g., inadequate surveillance, distraction) accounted for 46.3% of all teen errors, followed by decision errors (e.g., following too closely, too fast for conditions) (40.1%) and performance errors (e.g., loss of control) (8.0%). Inadequate surveillance, driving too fast for conditions, and distracted driving together accounted for almost half of all crashes. Aggressive driving behavior, drowsy driving, and physical impairments were less commonly cited as critical reasons. Males and females had similar proportions of broadly classified errors, although females were specifically more likely to make inadequate surveillance errors.

Conclusions

Our findings support prioritization of interventions targeting driver distraction and surveillance and hazard awareness training.     

Stuck in the 70s: The role of social norms in distracted driving

Successful campaigns to end distracted driving must understand prevailing social norms for behaviors such as texting and phoning while driving. The current work examined this issue by asking younger drivers to read car crash scenarios and rate the responsibility of the driver for the crash, and to levy fines and assign jail time, as a function of whether the driver was attentive, had been drinking, or was distracted by phoning or texting. In the first experiment, ratings were performed in the absence of injunctive norm information (laws against drunk and distracted driving). In the second experiment, injunctive norm information was included. Impaired drivers were viewed as more responsible in both experiments, with texting drivers viewed as the most responsible. However, drunk drivers received the most fines and jail time. When compared to data from the 1970s, the results show that anti-drunk driving campaigns have changed how younger drivers view drunk driving, but that norms have not yet changed for distracted driving, despite consistent results showing they know the risk of driving distracted. Implications for social norm distracted driving campaigns are discussed.     

A rear-end collision risk assessment model based on drivers’ collision avoidance process under influences of cell phone use and gender—A driving simulator based study

Driver’s collision avoidance performance has a direct link to the collision risk and crash severity. Previous studies demonstrated that the distracted driving, such as using a cell phone while driving, disrupted the driver’s performance on road. This study aimed to investigate the manner and extent to which cell phone use and driver’s gender affected driving performance and collision risk in a rear-end collision avoidance process. Forty-two licensed drivers completed the driving simulation experiment in three phone use conditions: no phone use, hands-free, and hand-held, in which the drivers drove in a car-following situation with potential rear-end collision risks caused by the leading vehicle’s sudden deceleration. Based on the experiment data, a rear-end collision risk assessment model was developed to assess the influence of cell phone use and driver’s gender. The cell phone use and driver’s gender were found to be significant factors that affected the braking performances in the rear-end collision avoidance process, including the brake reaction time, the deceleration adjusting time and the maximum deceleration rate. The minimum headway distance between the leading vehicle and the simulator during the rear-end collision avoidance process was the final output variable, which could be used to measure the rear-end collision risk and judge whether a collision occurred. The results showed that although cell phone use drivers took some compensatory behaviors in the collision avoidance process to reduce the mental workload, the collision risk in cell phone use conditions was still higher than that without the phone use. More importantly, the results proved that the hands-free condition did not eliminate the safety problem associated with distracted driving because it impaired the driving performance in the same way as much as the use of hand-held phones. In addition, the gender effect indicated that although female drivers had longer reaction time than male drivers in critical situation, they were more quickly in braking with larger maximum deceleration rate, and they tended to keep a larger safety margin with the leading vehicle compared to male drivers. The findings shed some light on the further development of advanced collision avoidance technologies and the targeted intervention strategies about cell phone use while driving.     

Are child occupants a significant source of driving distraction?

Driver distraction represents a well-documented and growing contribution to the road safety problem. This study used a naturalistic, observational approach to examine if children in vehicles are a significant source of driving distraction. Families with children aged between 1 and 8 years drove an instrumented “study vehicle” on their regular trips for 3 weeks. A discrete video recording system in the vehicle provided images of the driver and front seat passenger, the rear seat child passengers and the traffic ahead. The video-recordings inside and outside the vehicle were analysed to identify potential distracting activities, where ‘distraction’ was broadly defined as any activity that distracted the driver or competed for their attention while driving. In addition, all potentially distracting activities that involved the driver looking away from the forward roadway for more than 2 s while the vehicle was in motion were also coded. Video-recordings were analysed for 92 driving journeys undertaken by 12 families including 25 children and 19 drivers. The mean journey duration was approximately 16 min (range: 2 min–3 h 34 min). Most journeys were undertaken during the day (89%), with the mother driving (65%) and without a front seat passenger (64%). Driving journeys were predominantly undertaken in urban areas (97%), on suburban roads/streets (94%), and under low complexity traffic conditions (91%). Most journeys involved some source of potential driver distraction (98%), with drivers distracted for 18% of the driving journey. The most frequent types of distracting activities that drivers engaged in included: touching their head or their face (35%), interacting with child passengers in the rear seat (12%), and engaging with the front seat passenger (9%). Almost three-quarters of these potentially distracting activities were engaged in by the driver while the study vehicle was in motion (72%) and 14% of all potentially distracting activities involved the driver's eyes off the roadway for greater than 2 s while the vehicle was in motion, thereby potentially doubling their crash risk. The most frequent child-related activities that drivers engaged in included: turning to look at the rear seated occupants or viewing the children using the rear-view mirror (76.4%), engaging in conversation with their children (16%), assisting their children (e.g., passing food and drink [7%]) and playing with their children (1%). Drivers spent significantly longer periods of time engaged in non-child occupant-related activities compared with child occupant-related activities and were significantly more likely to have their eyes off the forward roadway for greater than 2 s while engaged in non-child occupant-related activities (14%) compared to child occupant-related activities (10%). The results suggest that drivers need to be educated about the potential crash and injury risks associated with both child occupant-related and non-child occupant-related activities while driving their vehicle.     

Impact of mobile phone use on car-following behaviour of young drivers

Multitasking, such as the concurrent use of a mobile phone and operating a motor vehicle, is a significant distraction that impairs driving performance and is becoming a leading cause of motor vehicle crashes. This study investigates the impact of mobile phone conversations on car-following behaviour. The CARRS-Q Advanced Driving Simulator was used to test a group of young Australian drivers aged 18–26 years on a car-following task in three randomised phone conditions: baseline (no phone conversation), hands-free and handheld. Repeated measure ANOVA was applied to examine the effect of mobile phone distraction on selected car-following variables such as driving speed, spacing, and time headway. Overall, drivers tended to select slower driving speeds, larger vehicle spacings, and longer time headways when they were engaged in either hands-free or handheld phone conversations, suggesting possible risk compensatory behaviour. In addition, phone conversations while driving influenced car-following behaviour such that variability was increased in driving speeds, vehicle spacings, and acceleration and decelerations. To further investigate car-following behaviour of distracted drivers, driver time headways were modelled using Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE). After controlling for various exogenous factors, the model predicts an increase of 0.33 s in time headway when a driver is engaged in hands-free phone conversation and a 0.75 s increase for handheld phone conversation. The findings will improve the collective understanding of distraction on driving performance, in particular car following behaviour which is most critical in the determination of rear-end crashes.     

Driving with pets as a risk factor for motor vehicle collisions among older drivers

Increasing rates of distraction-related motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) continue to raise concerns regarding driving safety. This study sought to evaluate a novel driving-related distraction, driving with a pet, as a risk factor for MVCs among older, community dwelling adults. Two thousand licensed drivers aged 70 and older were identified, of whom 691 reported pet ownership. Comparing pet owners who did and did not drive with their pets, neither overall MVC rates (rate ratio [RR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–1.26) nor at-fault MVC rates (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.57–1.24) were elevated. However, those who reported always driving with a pet in the vehicle had an elevated MVC rate (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.10–3.25), as compared to those who did not drive with a pet. The MVC rate was not increased for those reporting only sometimes or rarely driving with a pet in the vehicle. The current study demonstrates an increased risk of MVC involvement in those older drivers who always take a pet with them when they drive a vehicle. When confronted with an increased cognitive or physical workload while driving, elderly drivers in prior studies have exhibited slower cognitive performance and delayed response times in comparison to younger age groups. Further study of pet-related distracted driving behaviors among older drivers as well as younger populations with respect to driver safety and performance is warranted to appropriately inform the need for policy regulation on this issue.     

Critical older driver errors in a national sample of serious U.S. crashes

Objective

Older drivers are at increased risk of crash involvement per mile traveled. The purpose of this study was to examine older driver errors in serious crashes to determine which errors are most prevalent.

Methods

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey collected in-depth, on-scene data for a nationally representative sample of 5470 U.S. police-reported passenger vehicle crashes during 2005–2007 for which emergency medical services were dispatched. There were 620 crashes involving 647 drivers aged 70 and older, representing 250,504 crash-involved older drivers. The proportion of various critical errors made by drivers aged 70 and older were compared with those made by drivers aged 35–54.

Results

Driver error was the critical reason for 97% of crashes involving older drivers. Among older drivers who made critical errors, the most common were inadequate surveillance (33%) and misjudgment of the length of a gap between vehicles or of another vehicle’s speed, illegal maneuvers, medical events, and daydreaming (6% each). Inadequate surveillance (33% vs. 22%) and gap or speed misjudgment errors (6% vs. 3%) were more prevalent among older drivers than middle-aged drivers. Seventy-one percent of older drivers’ inadequate surveillance errors were due to looking and not seeing another vehicle or failing to see a traffic control rather than failing to look, compared with 40% of inadequate surveillance errors among middle-aged drivers. About two-thirds (66%) of older drivers’ inadequate surveillance errors and 77% of their gap or speed misjudgment errors were made when turning left at intersections. When older drivers traveled off the edge of the road or traveled over the lane line, this was most commonly due to non-performance errors such as medical events (51% and 44%, respectively), whereas middle-aged drivers were involved in these crash types for other reasons. Gap or speed misjudgment errors and inadequate surveillance errors were significantly more prevalent among female older drivers than among female middle-aged drivers, but the prevalence of these errors did not differ significantly between older and middle-aged male drivers. These errors comprised 51% of errors among older female drivers but only 31% among older male drivers.

Conclusions

Efforts to reduce older driver crash involvements should focus on diminishing the likelihood of the most common driver errors. Countermeasures that simplify or remove the need to make left turns across traffic such as roundabouts, protected left turn signals, and diverging diamond intersection designs could decrease the frequency of inadequate surveillance and gap or speed misjudgment errors. In the future, vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications may also help protect older drivers from these errors.     

Factors associated with civilian drivers involved in crashes with emergency vehicles

Motor vehicle crashes involving civilian and emergency vehicles (EVs) have been a known problem that contributes to fatal and nonfatal injuries; however, characteristics associated with civilian drivers have not been examined adequately. This study used data from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System to identify driver, roadway, environmental, and crash factors, and consequences for civilian drivers involved in fatal and nonfatal crashes with in-use and in-transport EVs. In general, drivers involved in emergency–civilian crashes (ECCs) were more often driving: straight through intersections (vs. same direction) of four-points or more (vs. not at intersection); where traffic signals were present (vs. no traffic control device); and at night (vs. midday). For nonfatal ECCs, drivers were more often driving: distracted (vs. not distracted); with vision obstructed by external objects (vs. no obstruction); on dark but lighted roads (vs. daylight); and in opposite directions (vs. same directions) of the EVs. Consequences included increased risk of injury (vs. no injury) and receiving traffic violations (vs. no violation). Fatal ECCs were associated with driving on urban roads (vs. rural), although these types of crashes were less likely to occur on dark roads (vs. daylight). The findings of this study suggest drivers may have difficulties in visually detecting EVs in different environments.     

Driving errors of learner teens: Frequency,nature and their association with practice

Background

Despite demonstrating basic vehicle operations skills sufficient to pass a state licensing test, novice teen drivers demonstrate several deficits in tactical driving skills during the first several months of independent driving. Improving our knowledge of the types of errors made by teen permit holders early in the learning process would assist in the development of novel approaches to driver training and resources for parent supervision.

Methods

The purpose of the current analysis was to describe driving performance errors made by teens during the permit period, and to determine if there were differences in the frequency and type of errors made by teens: (1) in comparison to licensed, safe, and experienced adult drivers; (2) by teen and parent-supervisor characteristics; and (3) by teen-reported quantity of practice driving. Data for this analysis were combined from two studies: (1) the control group of teens in a randomized clinical trial evaluating an intervention to improve parent-supervised practice driving (n = 89 parent-teen dyads) and (2) a sample of 37 adult drivers (mean age 44.2 years), recruited and screened as an experienced and competent reference standard in a validation study of an on-road driving assessment for teens (tODA). Three measures of performance: drive termination (i.e., the assessment was discontinued for safety reasons), safety-relevant critical errors, and vehicle operation errors were evaluated at the approximate mid-point (12 weeks) and end (24 weeks) of the learner phase. Differences in driver performance were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and Pearson's Chi-square test for categorical variables.

Results

10.4% of teens had their early assessment terminated for safety reasons and 15.4% had their late assessment terminated, compared to no adults. These teens reported substantially fewer behind the wheel practice hours compared with teens that did not have their assessments terminated: tODA_early (9.0 vs. 20.0, p < 0.001) and tODA_late (19.0 vs. 58.3, p < 0.001). With respect to critical driving errors, 55% of teens committed a total of 85 critical errors (range of 1–5 errors per driver) on the early tODA; by comparison, only one adult committed a critical error (p < 0.001). On the late tODA, 54% of teens committed 67 critical errors (range of 1–8 errors per driver) compared with only one adult (p < 0.001). No differences in teen or parent gender, parent/teen relationship type or parent prior experience teaching a teen to drive were observed between teens who committed a critical error on either route and teens that committed no critical errors. A borderline association between median teen-reported practice quantity and critical error commission was observed for the late tODA. The overall median proportion of vehicle operation errors for teens was higher than that of adults on both assessments, though median error proportions were less than 10% for both teens and adults.

Conclusion

In comparison to a group of experienced adult drivers, a substantially higher proportion of learner teens committed safety-relevant critical driving errors at both time points of assessment. These findings, as well as the associations between practice quantity and the driving performance outcomes studied suggest that further research is needed to better understand how teens might effectively learn skills necessary for safe independent driving while they are still under supervised conditions.     

The role of alcohol use on recent trends in distracted driving

Distracted driving is now an increasingly deadly threat to road safety. We provide evidence that intoxicated driving is increasingly responsible for recent increases in fatalities from distracted driving crashes. This study describes trends in deaths on U.S. public roads caused by alcohol-involved and distracted drivers using the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)—a census of fatal crashes on U.S. public roads. Fatality rates per vehicle-miles traveled are calculated using data from the Federal Highway Administration. Alcohol-involved drivers who are simultaneously distracted were responsible for 1750 deaths in 2009, an increase of more than 63% from 2005 when there were 1072 deaths. Alcohol use while driving is increasingly responsible for a growing number of fatalities from distracted driving, accounting for 32% of deaths from distracted driving in 2009 versus 24% in 2005. The fatality rate from these crashes increased from 35.9 to 59.2 deaths per 100 billion vehicle-miles traveled after 2005. Alcohol use is quickly increasing as an important factor behind distracted driving fatalities. This has implications for policies combating distracted driving that do not address the role of alcohol use in distracted driving.     

Mental workload when driving in a simulator: Effects of age and driving complexity

Driving errors for older drivers may result from a higher momentary mental workload resulting from complex driving situations, such as intersections. The present study examined if the mental workload of young and older active drivers vary with the difficulty of the driving context. We adopted the probe reaction time (RT) technique to measure the workload while driving in a simulator. The technique provided clear instructions about the primary (driving) and secondary (RT) tasks. To avoid structural interference, the secondary task consisted of responding as rapidly as possible with a vocal response (“top”) to an auditory stimulus. Participants drove through a continuous 26.4-km scenario including rural and urban sections and probes (stimuli) were given in a baseline static condition and in three different driving contexts embedded into the overall driving scenario. Specifically, stimuli were given randomly when (a) driving on straight roads at a constant speed, (b) approaching intersections for which the driver had to stop the car, and (c) when overtaking a slower vehicle. Unless a driving error was made, drivers did not need any emergency responses. Reaction time was defined as the temporal interval between the auditory stimulus and the onset of the corresponding verbal response detected from the analog signal of a piezo-electric microphone fixed on a headset (ms accuracy). Baseline RTs were similar for both groups. Both groups showed longer RTs when driving and RTs increased as the complexity of the driving contexts increased (driving straights, intersections, overtaking maneuvers). Compared to younger drivers, however, older drivers showed longer RTs for all driving contexts and the most complex driving context (overtaking maneuvers) yielded a disproportionate increase. In conclusion, driving leads to a greater mental workload for the older drivers than for the younger drivers and this effect was exacerbated by the more complex driving context (overtaking maneuvers).     

Reliability of drivers in urban intersections

The concept of human reliability has been widely used in industrial settings by human factors experts to optimise the person-task fit. Reliability is estimated by the probability that a task will successfully be completed by personnel in a given stage of system operation. Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) is a technique used to calculate human error probabilities as the ratio of errors committed to the number of opportunities for that error. To transfer this notion to the measurement of car driver reliability the following components are necessary: a taxonomy of driving tasks, a definition of correct behaviour in each of these tasks, a list of errors as deviations from the correct actions and an adequate observation method to register errors and opportunities for these errors. Use of the SAFE-task analysis procedure recently made it possible to derive driver errors directly from the normative analysis of behavioural requirements. Driver reliability estimates could be used to compare groups of tasks (e.g. different types of intersections with their respective regulations) as well as groups of drivers’ or individual drivers’ aptitudes. This approach was tested in a field study with 62 drivers of different age groups. The subjects drove an instrumented car and had to complete an urban test route, the main features of which were 18 intersections representing six different driving tasks. The subjects were accompanied by two trained observers who recorded driver errors using standardized observation sheets. Results indicate that error indices often vary between both the age group of drivers and the type of driving task. The highest error indices occurred in the non-signalised intersection tasks and the roundabout, which exactly equals the corresponding ratings of task complexity from the SAFE analysis. A comparison of age groups clearly shows the disadvantage of older drivers, whose error indices in nearly all tasks are significantly higher than those of the other groups. The vast majority of these errors could be explained by high task load in the intersections, as they represent difficult tasks. The discussion shows how reliability estimates can be used in a constructive way to propose changes in car design, intersection layout and regulation as well as driver training.     

The prevalence of, and factors associated with, serious crashes involving a distracting activity

The study's objectives were to determine the prevalence and types of distracting activities involved in serious crashes, and to explore the factors associated with such crashes. We interviewed 1367 drivers who attended hospital in Perth, Western Australia between April 2002 and July 2004 following a crash. A structured questionnaire was administered to each driver and supplementary data were collected from ambulance and medical records. Over 30% of drivers (433, 31.7%) cited at least one distracting activity at the time of crashing and driver distraction was reported to have contributed to 13.6% of all crashes. The major distracting activities were conversing with passengers (155, 11.3%), lack of concentration (148, 10.8%) and outside factors (121, 8.9%). Using logistic regression, a distracting activity at the time of a crash was significantly more likely among drivers with shorter driving experience (0-9 years, 38.3% versus >or=30 years, 21.0%, p<0.001). Distracting activities at the time of serious crashes are common and can cause crashes, and the types of activities reported are varied. Increased driver awareness of the adverse consequences of distracted driving with a focus on novice drivers, enforcement of existing laws (e.g. those requiring a driver to maintain proper control of a vehicle), and progress on engineering initiatives (such as collision warning systems) are needed to reduce injury.     

Self-report measures of distractibility as correlates of simulated driving performance

The present study investigated the relationship between self-reported measures pertaining to attention difficulties and simulated driving performance while distracted. Thirty-six licensed drivers participated in a simulator driving task while engaged in a cell phone conversation. The participants completed questionnaires assessing their tendency toward boredom, cognitive failures, and behaviors associated with attention deficit and hyperactivity. Scores on these measures were significantly correlated with various driving outcomes (e.g., speed, lane maintenance, reaction time). Significant relationships were also found between one aspect of boredom proneness (i.e., inability to generate interest or concentrate) and self-reports of past driving behavior (moving violations). The current study may aid in the understanding of how individual differences in driver distractibility may contribute to unsafe driving behaviors and accident involvement. Additionally, such measures may assist in the identification of individuals at risk for committing driving errors due to being easily distracted. The benefits and limitations of conducting and interpreting simulation research are discussed.     

Driving anger in Malaysia

The present study examined the types of situations that cause Malaysian drivers to become angry. The 33-item version of the driver anger scale (Deffenbacher et al., 1994) was used to investigate driver anger amongst a sample of 339 drivers. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the fit of the original six-factor model (discourtesy, traffic obstructions, hostile gestures, slow driving, illegal driving and police presence), after removing one item and allowing three error pairs to covary, was satisfactory. Female drivers reported more anger, than males, caused by traffic obstruction and hostile gestures. Age was also negatively related to five (discourtesy, traffic obstructions, hostile gestures, slow driving and police presence) of the six factors and also to the total DAS score. Furthermore, although they were not directly related to crash involvement, several of the six forms of driving anger were significantly related to the crash-related conditions of: near misses, loss of concentration, having lost control of a vehicle and being ticketed. Overall the pattern of findings made in the present research were broadly similar to those from Western countries, indicating that the DAS is a valid measure of driving anger even among non-European based cultures.     

The effect of distractions on the crash types of teenage drivers

Teenage drivers are overrepresented in crashes when compared to middle-aged drivers. Driver distraction is becoming a greater concern among this group as in-vehicle devices, opportunities for distractions, and teenage drivers' willingness to engage in these activities increase. The objective of this study was to determine how different distraction factors impact the crash types that are common among teenage drivers. A multinomial logit model was developed to predict the likelihood that a driver will be involved in one of three common crash types: an angular collision with a moving vehicle, a rear-end collision with a moving lead vehicle, and a collision with a fixed object. These crashes were evaluated in terms of four driver distraction categories: cognitive, cell phone related, in-vehicle, and passenger-related distractions. Different driver distractions have varying effects on teenage drivers' crash involvement. Teenage drivers that were distracted at an intersection by passengers or cognitively were more likely to be involved in rear-end and angular collisions when compared to fixed-object collisions. In-vehicle distractions resulted in a greater likelihood of a collision with a fixed object when compared to angular collisions. Cell phone distractions resulted in a higher likelihood of rear-end collision. The results from this study need to be evaluated with caution due to the limited number of distraction related cases available in the U.S. GES crash database. Implications for identifying and improving the reporting of driver distraction related factors are therefore discussed.     

Comparison of teen and adult driver crash scenarios in a nationally representative sample of serious crashes

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and acquired disability during the first four decades of life. While teen drivers have the highest crash risk, few studies examine the similarities and differences in teen and adult driver crashes. We aimed to: (1) identify and compare the most frequent crash scenarios—integrated information on a vehicle's movement prior to crash, immediate pre-crash event, and crash configuration—for teen and adult drivers involved in serious crashes, and (2) for the most frequent scenarios, explore whether the distribution of driver critical errors differed for teens and adult drivers. We analyzed data from the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, a nationally representative study of serious crashes conducted by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from 2005 to 2007. Our sample included 642 16- to 19-year-old and 1167 35- to 54-year-old crash-involved drivers (weighted n = 296,482 and 439,356, respectively) who made a critical error that led to their crash's critical pre-crash event (i.e., event that made the crash inevitable). We estimated prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to compare the relative frequency of crash scenarios and driver critical errors. The top five crash scenarios among teen drivers, accounting for 37.3% of their crashes, included: (1) going straight, other vehicle stopped, rear end; (2) stopped in traffic lane, turning left at intersection, turn into path of other vehicle; (3) negotiating curve, off right edge of road, right roadside departure; (4) going straight, off right edge of road, right roadside departure; and (5) stopped in lane, turning left at intersection, turn across path of other vehicle. The top five crash scenarios among adult drivers, accounting for 33.9% of their crashes, included the same scenarios as the teen drivers with the exception of scenario (3) and the addition of going straight, crossing over an intersection, and continuing on a straight path. For two scenarios ((1) and (3) above), teens were more likely than adults to make a critical decision error (e.g., traveling too fast for conditions). Our findings indicate that among those who make a driver critical error in a serious crash, there are few differences in the scenarios or critical driver errors for teen and adult drivers.     

Quasi-induced exposure method: Evaluation of not-at-fault assumption

Crash rates are used to establish the relative safety of various variables of concern such as driver classes, vehicle types and roadway components. Appropriate exposure data for estimating crash rates is critical but crash databases do not contain information on driver or vehicle exposure. The quasi-induced exposure method, which uses not-at-fault driver/vehicle data as an exposure metric, is a technique used in order to overcome this problem. The basic assumption made here is that not-at-fault drivers represent the total population in question. This paper examines the validity of this assumption using the Kentucky crash database to define two samples of not-at-fault drivers. One sample included only not-at-fault drivers selected from the first two vehicles in a multi-vehicle crash (two or more vehicles involved) while the other included the not-at-fault drivers from multi-vehicle crashes with more than two vehicles involved and excluding the first two drivers. The assumption is that the randomness of the involvement of drivers in the second sample is more reasonable than the drivers in the first two vehicles involved in crashes. The results indicate that these two samples are similar; there is no statistical evidence demonstrating that both samples represent two different populations in the maneuvers and other variables/factors examined here; and they are representative simple random samples of the driver population with respect to the distribution of the driver age when there is no reasonable doubt about investigating officers’ judgments. Thus, estimating relative crash propensities for any given driver type by using the quasi-induced exposure approach will yield reasonable estimates of exposure.