It is widely recognised by safety researchers that mobile phone use affects driving performance and increases crash risk. This is because it places considerable cognitive demands on the driver and draws attentional resources away from the driving task. The most common response has been to ban phone use while driving and utilise enforcement of these laws to reduce its prevalence. However, the long-term effectiveness of such laws for reducing phone use while driving and associated crashes has yet to be proven. As an alternative, there is technology currently available that can block mobile phone calls and message services while driving. The aim of the present research was to identify and evaluate a few of the more promising technologies and determine if mobile phone blocking is an effective and acceptable method for reducing driver distraction. Two different technologies were chosen to have their performance assessed through a field trial involving drivers of corporate fleet vehicles. One technology (referred to here as ‘Technology A’) required software to be installed on mobile phones, while the other (referred to here as ‘Technology B’) used software in addition to external Bluetooth hardware that paired with the phones. With the assistance of the South Australian Motor Accident Commission (MAC), a sample of 104 study participants (97 males, 7 females; age range 25-66, mean=48.9, SD=9.1) who regularly drove a corporate fleet vehicle, were recruited through SA Power Networks (SAPN), a major corporation in South Australia. Seventy-six participants trialled Technology A and 28 trialled Technology B for a period of one month (November 2015) during which their phones were blocked only on weekdays. Their attitudes and behaviour with regard to phone use while driving, and their impressions of the phone blocking technologies that they experienced during the trial, were assessed using pre- and post-trial questionnaires. This study produced mixed results. Participants generally gave a negative appraisal of the two technologies, especially Technology A. Approximately 30 percent of participants reported not even experiencing phone blocking with Technology A, and only 20 percent said that it worked reliably every time. Interestingly, despite its inability on many occasions to block the phone, over 40 percent of participants also agreed or strongly agreed that it prevented phone use when it should not have done. There were also problems with accessing the phone at the end of a drive. Only 30 percent reported that they were satisfied with its performance. Technology B received a more favourable appraisal but participants still reported that they had difficulties overriding it when required and that it sometimes prevented phone use when seated in the vehicle as a passenger. Participants reported significantly greater battery drain with Technology B compared to Technology A. Despite these problems, around two thirds of the participants were satisfied with its performance. Participants held negative attitudes to phone use while driving before the trial, which could be due to their recruitment from a corporation with a strong driving safety culture. This made it difficult to detect any increase in the recognition of the risk of phone use while driving following the trial. The only items concerned with phone use attitudes which did demonstrate an effect were those related to phone blocking technology being a ‘good idea’: support for this idea dropped significantly following the trial, no doubt reflecting the negative experiences many participants had with the technologies. In keeping with the generally negative attitudes to phone use while driving, there were low levels of self-reported phone use even before the trial commenced. Despite this, the trial did result in reductions in this behaviour. There were increases during the trial in the likelihood of participants ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ making or answering calls, or reading text messages, regardless of which technology they trialled. The results of this trial suggest that phone blocking products may provide a useful method of changing mobile phone use behaviour while driving. However, the reliability and usability of the products need to improve to reach higher ratings of user acceptance and approval. A number of issues with the operation of the two technologies were identified in this trial, which will need to be addressed in order to support a recommendation for wider implementation or promotion of phone blocking as a countermeasure for phone use while driving. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting