Status Report
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
|
Highway Loss Data Institute
Distracted
driving
Cellphone manipulations up
57 percent over prior survey
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
Vol. 54, No. 1 | January 24, 2019
4Talking not texting accounts
for most phone use by drivers
4Modest use for ‘Do Not Disturb
While Driving’ phone blocker
4HLDI analysis of Hyundai/Kia fires
points to possible engine problem
2
|
Status Report — Vol. 54, No. 1
M
anipulating a cellphone was a con-
tributing factor in more than 800
crash deaths on U.S. roads during
2017 amid a marked increase in the per-
centage of drivers observed interacting
with cellphones, new IIHS research in-
dicates. e estimated number of deaths,
however, still represents a fraction of the
overall crash death toll.
Virginia drivers observed in a 2018 IIHS
roadside survey were 57 percent more likely
to be manipulating a cellphone than drivers
in a 2014 survey. e percentage of drivers
observed manipulating a phone rose from
2.3 percent in 2014 to 3.4 percent in 2018.
At the same time, drivers were less likely
to be seen simply holding a cellphone or
talking on a hand-held phone than in the
prior survey. e nding is consistent with
research indicating that drivers are talking
on hand-held phones less and ddling with
them more oen than in recent years.
In 2018, 3.7 percent of drivers in North-
ern Virginia were observed talking on a
hand-held cellphone, compared with 4.1
percent of drivers in 2014, while 2.8 per-
cent of drivers in 2018 were seen holding
a cellphone, compared with 4.9 percent in
the prior survey.
e problem of distracted driving, espe-
cially cellphone use, continues to raise con-
cerns. A 2018 national survey by the AAA
Foundation for Trac Safety found that 64
percent of respondents consider distracted
driving a much bigger problem today than
it was three years ago.
Estimating crash risk
About 37,000 people died in motor vehi-
cle crashes in 2017, the most recent year of
data available. Assuming the prevalence of
phone manipulation nationwide rose as it
did in Northern Virginia to 3.4 percent, and
assuming, based on the latest research, that
fatal crash risk is 66 percent higher when
manipulating a phone, then more than 800
of the estimated crash deaths in 2017 could
be attributed to phone manipulation.
is estimate is based on work by IIHS
and other researchers describing how the
estimated risk and prevalence of phone use
can be combined to estimate the number
of crash deaths that could be attributed
to phone use in a given year (see Status
Report, Feb. 27, 2010, at iihs.org). e 66
percent increase in fatal crash risk associ-
ated with manipulating a cellphone relative
to driving when other secondary behaviors
were present is a nding of a 2018 study by
the AAA Foundation for Trac Safety and
the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute.
“e latest data suggest that drivers are
using their phones in riskier ways,” says
David Kidd, who co-authored the study
and is a senior research scientist with
HLDI. “e observed shi in phone use
is concerning because studies consistently
link manipulating a cellphone while driv-
ing to increased crash risk.”
Cellphone use aects how drivers scan
and process information from the roadway.
Drivers generally take their eyes o the
road to dial, send texts and browse the web
on a hand-held phone — all activities that
fall under the rubric of manipulating the
phone. Drivers engaged in cellphone con-
versations tend to concentrate their gaze
toward the center of the roadway, but their
attention still may be diverted from driv-
ing and make it dicult for them to process
what they are looking at.
Researchers
collected data
along roads
in Northern
Virginia.
January 24, 2019
|
3
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
otherwearing
headphones/
earbuds
smokingtalking/
singing
without
passenger
talking/
singing
with
passenger
eating/
drinking
holding
cellphone
manipulating
cellphone
talking on
hand-held
phone
any
hand-held
phone
interaction
CELLPHONE USE OTHER SECONDARY BEHAVIORS
Overall cellphone use fell between 2014 and 2018
as drivers interact with phones in different ways
Percent of vehicles observed during the daytime, by year
n 2014
n 2018
Tracking trends in distraction
Procedures for the 2018 update followed
those used in 2014 (see Status Report,
March 31, 2015). IIHS stationed observ-
ers at 12 locations across four Northern
Virginia communities, on straight stretch-
es of roads, at signalized intersections
and at roundabouts in March 2018. Ob-
servers noted nearly 12,000 drivers in the
2018 survey and more than 14,000 driv-
ers in 2014 during the morning, aernoon
or early evening on weekdays. Research-
ers noted if drivers were engaging in one
or more of 12 visible secondary behaviors
while moving or stopped at red lights.
About 23 percent of drivers were en-
gaged in one or more distracting activities:
4 Talking on hand-held cellphone
4 Manipulating hand-held cellphone
(excludes looking at phone in mount)
4 Simply holding hand-held cellphone (i.e.
not obviously manipulating or talking)
4 Wearing Bluetooth earpiece or head-
set with mic
4 Wearing headphones or ear buds
4 Manipulating in-vehicle system
(touching radio, climate control,
touchscreen display or other controls;
excludes operating stalks or buttons
on steering wheel)
4 Manipulating or holding mobile elec-
tronic device other than cellphone
4 Talking or singing
4 Eating or drinking
4 Smoking
4 Grooming
4 Other (reaching for object, reading
print material, adjusting sun visor, put-
ting on glasses, holding another object)
“When people talk about distracted driv-
ing, most oen cellphones are the focus,
but drivers are distracted by other second-
ary behaviors more oen than cellphones,”
Kidd points out. “ings as simple as drink-
ing coee or talking to your kids (see p. 6 »)
4
|
Status Report — Vol. 54, No. 1
Talking not texting accounts
for most phone use, drivers say
D
rivers say they use their smartphones
more oen for calls than for texting,
or reading or sending emails, a na-
tionwide survey of smartphone users by
IIHS indicates.
IIHS in January to March 2018 surveyed
adult drivers who own smartphones to see
how they use them while driving. Eighty
percent of the 800 drivers surveyed reported
talking on their phone while driving in the
previous 30 days, and 30 percent said they
talk on the phone daily. Most drivers who
reported talking on the phone said they only
do so hands-free using voice commands.
When IIHS conducted the survey, 15
states and the District of Columbia banned
talking on a hand-held cellphone while driv-
ing. Georgia in July 2018 became the 16th
state with a hand-held phone ban. Texting is
banned for all drivers in 47 states and D.C.
irty-one percent of respondents in
states without a hand-held phone ban re-
ported that they sometimes engage in
hand-held conversations, compared with
14 percent of drivers surveyed in states
with a hand-held phone ban.
irty-eight percent of drivers surveyed
said they had read emails or texts while
driving during the past month, and a third
surveyed reported that they sent emails or
texts. is percentage is in line with the
2017 Trac Safety Culture Index survey
by the AAA Foundation for Trac Safety
nding that about a third of respondents
said they had typed or sent a text or email
while driving in the past 30 days.
“Manipulating a cellphone increases the
chances of a crash, so it is worrisome that
drivers admit to texting, even though the
practice is banned in most states,” says Jes-
sica Cicchino, IIHS vice president for re-
search, who co-authored the study with Ian
Reagan, a senior research scientist with the
Institute.
Middle-age drivers gab most oen. Sixty-
four percent of drivers age 30 to 59 re-
ported talking on their phone a few times
a week or more either hands-free or hand-
held, compared with 44 percent of drivers
ages 25-29, 37 percent of drivers ages 18-24
and 36 percent of drivers age 60 and older.
In the survey, men were 22 percent more
likely to report making phone calls a few
Percentage of respondents who engaged in three cellphone
behaviors in the preceding month by driver characteristic
IIHS national survey of smartphone users, 2018
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
sent emails or texts
a few times per week
or more
read emails or texts
a few times per week
or more
talked on phone
a few times a week
or more
(hand-held or hands-free)
n 18-24
n 25-29
n 30-59
n 60 and older
January 24, 2019
|
5
Modest use for iPhone
‘Do Not Disturb’ blocker
O
ne way to ght distracted driving is
to take smartphones out of the equa-
tion by limiting their functional-
ity while the vehicle is moving. e catch,
though, is convincing drivers to use a
blocker app if installed. A new IIHS survey
found that only 1 in 5 owners of iPhone 6
and newer phones have Apple’s Do Not Dis-
turb While Driving feature set to automat-
ically turn on when driving or connected
to their car’s Bluetooth system.
Smartphone blocker apps use sensors
and proximity to known network connec-
tions to detect driving. e apps generally
work when vehicles are in motion and can
silence the phone, redirect incoming calls
to voicemail or respond to text messages
with a preprogrammed message. Users
must opt in to activate the apps.
Apple’s Do Not Disturb While Driv-
ing cellphone blocker has been included
in iPhone soware updates since iOS 11
was released in fall of 2017 for iPhone 6
and newer models. e rst time owners
use a compatible iPhone or download the
update, they are prompted to try the Do
Not Disturb While Driving feature. Users
can choose from two options: “turn on
while driving” or “not now.”
e Do Not Disturb feature mutes incom-
ing calls and notications and sends auto-
replies to text messages. Users can override
the feature by tapping the “do not disturb”
message that appears when the phone is
handled and selecting a subsequent “I’m not
driving” option. Drivers still can use Ap-
ple’s Siri voice assistant or make and receive
hands-free calls via Bluetooth. ey also can
elect to always allow calls from the people
in their “favorites” contact list. If using the
phone for navigation, maps and directions
still will appear on the lock screen.
Selecting the “not now” option in re-
sponse to the initial prompt means users
will have to manually activate the blocker
in their phone’s settings menu before each
drive if they want to use it. Users also must
manually activate the feature if their iPhone
is connected via Apple CarPlay to their ve-
hicle’s infotainment system.
People who chose not to automatically
engage the blocker said they mainly did so
because they needed to access their phone
while driving and were concerned about
missing important notications — or they
weren’t aware that the app was in manual
mode or existed at all.
e manual user group appeared open to
revisiting setting the feature to activate au-
tomatically. Nearly 40 percent reported »
Apple’s blocker app has been included in
iPhone iOS updates since fall 2017.
times a week or more while driving in the
past 30 days than women.
Smartphone ownership in the U.S. is
widespread. In 2018, 77 percent of the U.S.
population owned a smartphone, up from
35 percent in 2011, according to the Pew Re-
search Center.
For a copy of “Do Not Disturb While
Driving — use of cellphone blockers among
adult drivers” by I.J. Reagan and J. B. Cic-
chino, email S[email protected]rg. n
IIHS conducted the national telephone
survey of drivers 18 and older who own a
smartphone and drive at least once a week
during the rst three months of 2018. Of the
800 respondents who met the requirements
for the full survey, half owned iPhones com-
patible with Apple’s Do Not Disturb While
Driving feature, and the remainder owned
older iPhones or Android cellphones.
Most drivers with compatible iPhones
who had used the feature within the past
month were aware that they could override
it but said they seldom opt to do so.
About 3 of 4 respondents who had used
the cellphone blocker feature within the
past month agreed that it isn’t annoying
and should be an automatic feature for all
cellphones.
Drivers reporting various types of
smartphone use in past 30 days
IIHS national survey of smartphone users, 2018
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
send
emails
or texts
read
emails
or texts
talk on
phone
n at least once
n a few times a
week or more
6
|
Status Report — Vol. 54, No. 1
(« from p. 3) can take your attention away
from the road.”
About 14 percent of drivers were engaged
in nonphone-related secondary behaviors
in 2014 and 2018, which exceeded the pro-
portion of drivers seen using phones in both
years. Relative to 2014, drivers were more
likely to be observed manipulating an in-
vehicle system, grooming themselves, or ma-
nipulating or holding an electronic device
other than a phone aer researchers adjust-
ed for community, perceived driver gender
and age, time of day and roadway situation.
Drivers in 2018 were less likely to be talk-
ing or singing while driving alone, smok-
ing, or wearing headphones or earbuds. e
prevalence of eating or drinking, talking
or singing with a passenger present, wear-
ing a Bluetooth device, or engaging in some
other visible secondary behavior wasn’t sig-
nicantly dierent between 2014 and 2018.
“We didn’t nd evidence of an increase
in distracted driving overall between the
2014 and 2018 roadside surveys,” Kidd
says. “For cellphone-related distraction in
general, we expect a continued shi in the
way people interact with the devices as the
technology evolves.”
e percentage of crash deaths related to
distraction in recent years has hovered at
about 8–10 percent of all crash deaths, data
from the National Highway Trac Safety
Administration show. During the past three
years, distraction-aected crash deaths have
trended downward. e number of fatalities
in distraction-aected crashes fell 9.3 per-
cent from 3,490 in 2016 to 3,166 in 2017,
representing 8.5 percent of total fatalities for
the year. In 2015, 3,526 people were killed in
distraction-aected crashes.
Fatality data likely underestimate the
number of deaths caused by distracted
drivers. Despite eorts to determine cell-
phone use by drivers in crashes, such data
continue to be dicult to collect as they
largely depend on people truthfully telling
law enforcement ocers what they were
doing or voluntarily handing over their
phones for inspection.
“Changes in the sources of distracted
driving among Northern Virginia driv-
ers in 2014 and 2018: A comparison of
the results from two roadside observation
surveys” by D.G. Kidd and N.K. Chaud-
hary appears in Journal of Safety Research,
Volume 68. n
Do Not Disturb While Driving
activation setting
Most iPhone owners surveyed don’t use it
automatically
19%
automatically
when connected to Bluetooth 2%
manually
50%
Apple
CarPlay
user
16%
don’t
know
13%
(« from p. 5) that they wouldn’t be frustrat-
ed at all if they received a reminder prompt
from Apple encouraging them to try the
application again. And 27 percent of the
manual group said they would be some-
what or very likely to try Do Not Disturb if
they received a prompt.
Nineteen percent of drivers with Androids
or older iPhones reported having a cellphone
blocker, but only about half of this group said
they use it all or almost all the time when
driving. Most drivers with Androids and
older iPhones somewhat or strongly agreed
that cellphone providers should put blockers
on phones that work like Apple’s app.
Drivers who said they used blockers were
less likely to report making calls and send-
ing emails or texts while driving than driv-
ers who didn’t use them. e results varied
between people who used Do Not Disturb
and drivers who used other blockers.
“Even though smartphone owners aren’t
rushing to use blocker apps, they do seem
open to reminders nudging them to re-
consider,” says Ian Reagan, the study’s co-
author and a senior research scientist for
the Institute. “Periodic follow-up prompts
from Apple might boost use of Do Not Dis-
turb While Driving’s automatic mode and
help to curb at least one form of driver
distraction.”
For a copy of “Do Not Disturb While
Driving — use of cellphone blockers among
adult drivers” by I.J. Reagan and J. B. Cic-
chino, email S[email protected]rg. n
Smartphone owners aren’t
rushing to use blocker
apps, but they do seem
open to reminders
nudging them to try
them. Follow-up
prompts might
boost their use.
Hyundai and Kia vehicles with a 2.0-liter turbocharged engine have the highest frequency
of noncrash fire claims, followed by 2.4-liter engine models. NHTSA is investigating both
of these Theta II engines.
January 24, 2019
|
7
HLDI analysis of Hyundai/Kia noncrash fires
points to small and turbocharged engines
A
n elevated number of complaints
about certain Hyundai and Kia
models bursting into ames has
prompted a recall campaign to x faulty re-
pairs that the aliated companies say were
carried out during previous recalls of 2011
14 Hyundai Sonatas, 201314 Hyundai Santa
Fe Sports, 201114 Kia Optimas, 201214
Kia Sorentos and 201113 Kia Sportages.
Analysis by HLDI suggests that the com-
panies are correctly targeting vehicles with
small and/or turbocharged engines, though
it’s unclear whether their proposed remedy
will eliminate the additional re risk these
models carry. HLDI research also points to
an increased risk of re for turbocharged
engines generally, across brands.
In June 2018, the Center for Auto Safety
petitioned the National Highway Trac
Safety Administration (NHTSA) to inves-
tigate potential defects in Kia Optima and
Sorento and Hyundai Sonata and Santa Fe
vehicles from certain model years. e pe-
tition, which pointed to a high number of
re reports unrelated to collisions, prompt-
ed HLDI to examine noncrash re claims
in the data it receives from insurers.
HLDI found that rates of noncrash re
claims were signicantly higher for the
201113 Optima and Sonata than for other
midsize sedans. e 201115 Sorento, 2012
Santa Fe and the 201314 Santa Fe Sport
also had higher noncrash re claim rates
than other midsize SUVs. e Sportage,
which wasn’t part of the original petition,
wasn’t included in the analysis.
HLDI analysts shared these ndings with
NHTSA, and, based on those discussions,
expanded the study to look at re claim fre-
quency by engine type. ey found that the
Hyundai and Kia vehicles with a 2.0-liter
turbocharged engine had the highest fre-
quency — 4.2 claims per 10,000 insured
vehicle years — compared with 1.7 for the
control vehicles. Hyundai and Kia models
with a 2.4-liter engine also had an elevat-
ed noncrash re claim frequency of 2.7. In
contrast, Hyundai and Kia vehicles with a
3.3- or 3.5-liter engine had about the same
rate of re claims as the control group.
For vehicles with the 2.0-liter turbo-
charged and 2.4-liter engines, re risk went
up dramatically as the vehicles aged.
e two engines were the focus of the
original recalls by Hyundai and Kia. ey
are both from the eta II engine family,
which is the subject of ongoing NHTSA
investigations. e higher re rates HLDI
found could be related to an issue with this
engine type.
It’s also possible that there is something
specic to the turbocharged engine causing
additional re risk in that variant. A sepa-
rate HLDI study found that, across brands,
turbocharged and supercharged engines
have higher noncrash re rates than non-
turbocharged engines. Turbocharged en-
gines use recycled exhaust to increase
power, allowing a smaller engine to match
the power of a larger nonturbocharged one.
On the other hand, the problem may be
unrelated to the engine. Reports also have
linked a large number of res, including
one in which a driver died, to the Kia Soul,
and the Center for Auto Safety amended its
original petition to add the 201015 Soul.
e small car has a dierent type of engine
from the vehicles that HLDI studied. e
Soul wasn’t part of Kia’s earlier recall cam-
paign and isn’t named in the current one.
As news of the fresh recalls broke,
NHTSA, which oversees such safety cam-
paigns, was mostly closed due to the partial
U.S. government shutdown. Hyundai and
Kia said they would proceed anyway.
HLDI studies have helped NHTSA get
to the bottom of such issues in the past.
Last year, certain Smart ForTwo vehicles
were recalled aer HLDI found they had
a much higher than normal noncrash re
claim frequency. e problem turned out
to be connected to insulation in the engine
compartment.
HLDI plans to continue looking at the
issue and will add the Soul and the Sportage
to any future studies. n
2014 Hyundai
Santa Fe Sport 2.0T
IIHS is an independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries and
property damage — from motor vehicle crashes.
HLDI shares and supports this mission through scientific studies of insurance data representing the human and economic losses
resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make
and model.
Both organizations are wholly supported by the following auto insurers and funding associations:
MEMBER GROUPS
AAA Carolinas
Acceptance Insurance
Alfa Insurance
Allstate Insurance Group
American Agricultural Insurance Company
American Family Insurance
American National
Ameriprise Auto & Home
Amica Mutual Insurance Company
Auto Club Enterprises
Auto Club Group
Auto-Owners Insurance
Bitco Insurance Companies
California Casualty Group
Celina Insurance Group
Censtat Casualty Company
CHUBB
Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Commonwealth Casualty Company
Concord Group Insurance Companies
COUNTRY Financial
CSAA Insurance Group
Desjardins General Insurance Group
ECM Insurance Group
Elephant Insurance Company
EMC Insurance Companies
Erie Insurance Group
Esurance
Farm Bureau Financial Services
Farm Bureau Insurance of Michigan
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho
Farmers Insurance Group
Farmers Mutual of Nebraska
Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Companies
Frankenmuth Insurance
Gainsco Insurance
GEICO Corporation
The General Insurance
Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Goodville Mutual Casualty Company
Grange Insurance
Grinnell Mutual
Hallmark Financial Services, Inc.
The Hanover Insurance Group
The Hartford
Haulers Insurance Company, Inc.
Horace Mann Insurance Companies
Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company
Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance
Indiana Farmers Insurance
Infinity Property & Casualty
Kemper Corporation
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
The Main Street America Group
MAPFRE Insurance
Mercury Insurance Group
MetLife Auto & Home
Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company
MMG Insurance
Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.
Mutual Benefit Group
Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company
Nationwide
NJM Insurance Group
Nodak Insurance Company
Norfolk & Dedham Group
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Northern Neck Insurance Company
NYCM Insurance
Ohio Mutual Insurance Group
Oregon Mutual Insurance Company
Pekin Insurance
PEMCO Mutual Insurance Company
Plymouth Rock Assurance
Progressive Insurance
PURE Insurance
Qualitas Insurance Company
Redpoint County Mutual Insurance Company
The Responsive Auto Insurance Company
Rider Insurance
Rockingham Insurance
RSA Canada
Safe Auto Insurance Company
Safeco Insurance
Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Company
SECURA Insurance
Selective Insurance Company of America
Sentry Insurance
Shelter Insurance Companies
Sompo America
South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company
State Farm Insurance Companies
Stillwater Insurance Group
Swiss Reinsurance Company, Ltd
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies
The Travelers Companies
United Educators
USAA
Utica National Insurance Group
Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
West Bend Mutual Insurance Company
Western National Insurance Group
Westfield Insurance
FUNDING ASSOCIATIONS
American Property Casualty Insurance Association
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
This publication is printed on recycled paper.
Inquiries/print subscriptions:
StatusReport@iihs.org
Copy may be republished with attribution.
Images require permission to use.
Editor: Kim Stewart
Writer: Sarah Karush
Art Director: Steve Ewens
Photographers: Steve Ewens, Dan Purdy
Drivers in 2018 manipulated cellphones
more than in 2014 roadside survey42
Drivers are more likely to talk on a
cellphone than send or read texts44
Cellphone blocker apps are largely
unused among iPhone owners45
Possible engine issue might be culprit
behind Hyundai/Kia noncrash fires47
Vol. 54, No. 1
January 24, 2019
Status Report
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Highway Loss Data Institute
IIHS
iihs.org/rss
iihs.org
@iihs_autosafety
@IIHS_autosafety
/iihs.org
