Good intentions: drivers’ decisions to engage with technology on the road and in a driving simulator

8Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Distraction-related accidents are, more often than not, due to the drivers’ voluntarily engagement with a secondary task. Therefore, the strategic management of in-vehicle tasks and the drivers’ decision to engage with them is an important aspect of the driver distraction phenomenon that needs to be addressed. While the consequences of distracting tasks are often assessed in settings where the risk of engaging is reduced (i.e., simulators), the drivers’ decision to engage with secondary tasks is often ignored. This study assessed the drivers’ decision to engage with secondary tasks using verbal protocols to provide insights into the drivers’ intention within a naturalistic driving setting, on the road, and in a simulated driving environment. This enabled an understanding of when drivers engage with technological distractions, why they choose to do so, as well as how they may go about doing it. Different road types were found to differentially impact the drivers’ intention to engage, as did the types of secondary tasks, with some tasks having an increased willingness to engage compared to others. Factors that increase and/or reduce the likelihood of engaging are presented. The decisions that drivers made to engage with secondary tasks in the simulator were found to correlate strongly to their decision to so on the road. This provides support for the use of simulators when assessing the drivers’ decision to engage with secondary tasks. The effect of verbal protocols on the drivers’ speed metrics was assessed to determine how they may have affected their driving performance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Parnell, K. J., Stanton, N. A., & Plant, K. L. (2018). Good intentions: drivers’ decisions to engage with technology on the road and in a driving simulator. Cognition, Technology and Work, 20(4), 597–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0504-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free