Temporary Barriers to Reduce the Effects of Rubbernecking

Abstract

Driver distraction is an area of research which concerns both public safety and research. Much work has been completed on distractions inside the vehicle; however, distracting scenarios outside of the vehicle can garner visual attention away from driving as well. Occasionally drivers passing a traffic crash will be involved in the crash themselves, due to rubbernecking. To combat this problem one solution is to obscure the scene from view. We empirically examined the efficacy of crash barriers on both eye movements and human per-formance in regards to driver behavior. Participants drove in a simulator in three separate drives (two control drives and one with a highly salient traffic crash) with either no occlusion, partial occlusion or full occlusion. Significant effects of distraction (crash vs. no crash) were found. In addition, the full barrier occlusion had the biggest effect on decreasing the amount of time participants spend looking at the crash.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

British Broadcasting Channel (BBC) News UK (2012). Motorway Screens Bid to Stop Rubbernecking by Motorists. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20851775

Itti

Koch

(2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision research, 40(10-12), 1489-506. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10788654

Kennedy

R. S.

Lane

N. E.

Berbaum

K. S.

Lilienthal

M. G.

(1993). Sim-ulator Sickness Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness. International Journal Of Aviation Psychology, 3(3), 203.

Klauer

S. G.

Dingus

T. A.

Neale

V. L.

Sudweeks

Ramsey . (2006). The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data [Monograph] DOT HS 810 594

Little

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Associa-tion,83(404), 1198-1202. Retrieved from http://am-stat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722.

Masinick

Teng

(2004). An analysis on the impact of rubbernecking on urban freeway traffic. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=768696

McCartt

(2009). Driven to Distraction: Technological Devices and Vehicle Safety. Retrieved from http://www.iihs.org/laws/testimony/pdf/testi-mony_11-04-2009.pdf

McEvoy

S. P.

Stevenson

M. R.

Woodward

(2006). The impact of driver distraction on road safety: results from a representative survey in two Australian states. Injury prevention : journal of the International So-ciety for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 12(4), 242-7. doi:10.1136/ip.2006.012336

Merrian-Webster (n.d.). Rubbernecking. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-Webster.com/thesaurus/rubbernecking.

10.

Monk

C. A.

Boehm-Davis

D. A.

Trafton

J. G.

(2004). Recovering From Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research. Human Fac-tors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(4), 650–663. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.4.650.56816

11.

Mouloua

Rinalducci

Hancock

Abdel-Aty

(2002). Effects of Telematics on Driver’s Workload: A Protocol Development and Analysis.

12.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2012). 2010 Young drivers traffic safety fact sheet. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811622.pdf

13.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). 2009 Older popula-tion traffic safety fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811391.pdf

14.

Potts

Harwood

Hutton

Kinzel

(2010). Design treatments to reduce nonrecurrent congestion. Fourth International Symposium on Ge-ometric Design. Retrieved from: http://www.4ishgd.valencia.upv.es/in-dex_archivos/80.pdf.

15.

Regan

M. A.

Hallett

Gordon

C. P.

(2011). Driver distraction and driver inattention: definition, relationship and taxonomy. Traffic crash; analysis and prevention, 43(5), 1771-81. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.008

16.

Rupp

M. A.

(2012). Looking Back: Examining the Trends of Driver Distrac-tion from 2007-2011. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.

17.

Strayer

D. L.

Drews

F. A.

Johnston

W. a.

(2003). Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Applied, 9(1), 23-32. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.9.1.23

18.

Strayer

D. L.

Johnston

W. A.

(2001). Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psy-chological Science, 12(6), 462–466. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11760132

19.

Stutts

Feaganes

Rodgman

Hamlett

Meadows

. (2003). Distractions in Everyday Driving. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Available: http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/Distrac-tionsInEverydayDriving.pdf

20.

Stutts

J.C.

Reinfurt

Staplin

Rodgman

(2001). The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes. Washington, DC: AAA Founda-tion for Traffic Safety. Available: http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/dis-traction.pdf

21.

United States. (2001). Driver distractions: Electronic devices in the automo-bile : hearing before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representa-tives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session, May 9, 2001. Wash-ington: U.S. G.P.O.

22.

Wickens

C. D.

Horrey

W. J.

(2008) Models of Attention, Distraction, and Highway Hazard Avoidance. In Young

Lee

J. D.

Regan

M. A.

Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation (pp. 57-69). CRC Press

23.

Wride

Tran

(1999). Traffic crashes Close Freeway Nearly 4 Hours. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://arti-cles.latimes.com/1999/feb/01/local/me-3791

24.

Young

Lee

J. D.

Regan

M. A.

(Eds.). (2008). Driver distraction: The-ory, effects, and mitigation. CRC Press.