Messaging During Simulated Driving, Drews Et Al.

¶ … messaging during simulated driving," Drews et al. (2009) study the effect that text messaging has on driver attention spans and response times. The authors studied drivers in a driving simulation to examine how the drivers responded to texting while driving. Their findings indicate that texting while driving results in poor driver performance with respect to attention span and response time. The authors note the their scores, which are some of the first in the field, indicate that texting while driving is more dangerous than other forms of driver distraction.

The authors first provide an extensive literature review discussing the issue of distracted driving. They present evidence of how different forms of distracted driving have been show to affect driver competence. The authors also discuss the issue of texting and driving specifically, noting that there has not been much research to this point on the subject, but that they believe texting and driving has many of the same factors that contribute to poor driver performance with other distraction factors. That the authors are studying the issue from the ergonomic perspective lends them some authority on factors such as eye movements, hands movements and other issues pertaining to texting and driving. The authors also note the popularity of texting and how this adds relevance to their study. They cite consumer surveys that indicate that there is a high level of prevalence of texting and driving, and that most people recognize the act to be higher than average with respect to danger.

The study was compromised of 40 participants, ranging in age from 19 to 23 years. This is perhaps a suboptimal sampling of participants because they are controlled for age. However, that they are all in the same age group helps to eliminate other factors such as differential usage of text messaging by people from different generations. The drivers were tested using a driver's simulation program. The name of the program, PatrolSim, and the fact that it is based on the Crown Victoria indicates that this is a program normally used to train law enforcement officers. The simulator has strengths and weaknesses in its use for a study of this nature. A weakness, for example, is that it has a fixed base, which means that it does not accurately simulate movement. Movement could affect the length of time a person texts while driving, for example, by sending a physical cue that the person is moving, and should therefore pay more attention. However, for the purposes of this study the use of a simulator eliminates any physical risk to the drivers or other people on the road, thereby removing considerable ethical liability for the researchers.

The drivers were tested on their text messaging, while being run through the simulation, which was programmed with a specific set of stimuli. The results were then subject to ANOVA processing. The authors found that drivers increased their following distance while texting, which they interpret as being a response to the driver seeking to reduce risk, knowing that response times are lowered while using the mobile device. A similar response is noted with drivers who use their cell phones. The drivers were found to have significantly increased car-following behavior as the result of their texting, something that confirms the null hypothesis. There was a more varied following profile when texting, which demonstrates increasingly erratic driver behavior as a response to the distraction.

The authors also found that the drivers left their lanes more frequently when they were texting. Drivers would then discover their lack of lane discipline and make sudden corrective maneuvers in response. Gross lateral displacement was also found to be more frequent. Thus, the authors confirmed their null hypotheses that texting and driving increases dangerous and erratic driving behavior. They also found that their numbers were greater than those observed in similar studies regarding other driver distractions like cell phone use, fiddling with the radio/CD player and engaging in conversation.

I see that this article is generally strong with its research and with its methodology. Ideally, this would be tested with real road conditions, as there are variables in real world driving that even the best simulations cannot replicate. However, I understand that there are ethical considerations with respect to compelling people to engage in dangerous activities in the real world, and that people could be affected who were not even part of the study. Thus, the simulator is the best solution to study this issue, despite its shortcomings. A broader study would also benefit this issue, one with more study participants and perhaps greater demographic scope as well. Furthermore, this is a study subject that can be done using a qualitative methods such as observer or participant-observer methodology, as long as there is a mechanism for measuring the response times and other variables.