ICBC PowerPoint without photos

A Strategic Approach to
Distracted Driving
CARSP Conference 2015
Rear-enders resulting in injury increased by
16% from 2009 to 2013
Crash Configurations in Casualty Crashes
ICBC claims data (2001-2013)
30,000
25,000
Incidents
20,000
REAR END
SIDE IMPACT
SINGLE VEHICLE
15,000
UNDETERMINED
REAR TO REAR
10,000
SIDE SWIPE - SAME DIRECTION
HEAD ON
SIDE SWIPE -OPPOSITE DIRECTION
5,000
0
2
Distraction is the most common contributing
factor in police-reported casualty rear-enders
Top 10 Contributing Factors in police-reported rear-end casualty crashes
in B.C. (Police data 2005-2013)
18,000
16,000
14,000
Distraction*
Following Too Closely
Incidents
12,000
Driver Error/Confusion
Speed*
10,000
Road Condition (Ice,Snow,Slush,Water)
8,000
Impaired*
Weather (Fog,Sleet,Rain,Snow)
6,000
Avoiding Veh./Ped./Cycle
Ignoring Traffic Control Device
4,000
Failing To Yield Right Of Way
2,000
0
Contributing Factors (see legend)
3
Crash data can only take us to the point of
hypothesis
• Police attend fewer than 15% of crashes reported
to ICBC
– Fatal crashes are police attended
– The lower the severity, the lower the probability of
police attendance
• We do not have contributing factors for the
majority of crashes reported to ICBC
– Claims are self-reported
– Contributing factors do not determine liability
4
Research can help fill the gaps in crash data
• Reviewed published literature from around the
world
– The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study found that 93%
of rear-end collisions involved distraction or inattention
– A recent study from the UK associated the use of social
media on smartphones with a 30% decrease in reaction
times
– Another recent study found that users of smartphones
were more distracted than users of more traditional
tactile phones
5
The most common distracting activities
involve use of electronic devices
Source: Infographic http://auto.erieinsurance.com/distracted-driving-infographic.aspx; data: NHTSA (FARS 2010-11)
6
Research showed the situation in B.C.
required more attention
– At 5.5%, B.C. has the highest prevalence of Electronic
Communications Device use by drivers among Canadian
provinces (CCMTA)
– Surveys of B.C. drivers found that they view the use of
electronic devices while driving as risky – but a
significant number still do it
• 74% of drivers believed that talking on a phone while driving was
risky, but 29% admitted to having done so in previous six months
• 88% of drivers believed that texting while driving was risky, but
26% admitted to having done so in the previous six months
• 94% of B.C. drivers own/use a cell phone
– 78% of those are smartphones
7
Our best estimate: between 25% and 33%
of casualty crashes in B.C. involve
distraction
• Based on the findings in our own
crash data, supplemented by the
findings in our literature review
• Comparisons with other jurisdictions
to validate
• Assumption: distracted driving is
underreported.
8
We chose a three pillars approach, with our
focus being on public education
• Effective legislation
• Strong enforcement
• Public education
9
Mass media focused on how even brief
distractions can result in crashes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NnYKUAhppU
10
We took our message into the community
11
We enlisted the help of other lines of
business at ICBC
12
We work closely with external partners and
stakeholders
13
Monitoring and evaluating the implemented
strategy will be an ongoing task
14
Caveats and definitions for crash data
1.
2.
3.
4.
Rounding has been applied to these data; averages and percentages based on unrounded numbers.
Casualty Crashes = Crash incidents resulting in an injury or fatality.
2013 counts are low as not all police reported data are entered into our system.
‘Conflicted’ and ‘blank’ crash configurations have not been included. ICBC configuration data is derived from selfreported information and is not verified by a third party. After excluding the following configurations - Other, Unknown,
Undetermined or Conflicted - the Crash Configuration data are estimated to be 75% accurate. If the incident is not
considered to be a crash incident, the field is shown as NULL (blank). CONFLICTED: Claimants did not report the same
crash configuration
5. Data exclude crashes on roads where the Motor Vehicle Act does not apply (such as forest-service roads, industrial roads
and private driveways); off-road snow mobile accidents; and homicides or suicides.
6. In 2008, legislation changed so that police are no longer required to attend all crashes and attendance is at their
discretion. For this reason, there has been a marked decrease in the number of police-attended reports submitted to
ICBC. We caution that decreasing crash counts which include police-reported data may be misleading.
7. Police may assign up to four different contributing factors may be assigned to each vehicle, motorcycle, cyclist and
pedestrian involved in a motor vehicle crash.
8. ICBC crash data is generally much larger in volume than police crash data because:
–
Basic insurance coverage through ICBC is mandatory, therefore ICBC is made aware of ALL crash occurrences.
–
Whereas, police do not attend all crashes. Typically only the more serious crashes involving injury or fatality are
attended. In addition, the number of reports submitted by individuals to police is very low, as it is not mandatory
that a crash be reported to police.
9. Distraction includes: use of communication/video equipment, driver inattentive and driver internal/external distraction.
10.Speed includes: exceeding speed limit, excessive speed over 40 km/h and driving too fast for conditions.
11.Impaired includes: Includes alcohol involvement, ability impaired by alcohol, alcohol suspected, drugs illegal, ability
impaired by drugs, drugs suspected and ability impaired by medication.
Other sources
Basacik, D, Reed, N and Robbins, R (Mar 2013). Smartphone use while driving: a simulator study. UK: Transport
Research Laboratory. Viewed Oct 9, 2013 at
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_smartphone_use_while_d
riving:_a_simulator_study.htm
Dingus, T. A., Klauer, S.G., Neale, V. L., Petersen, A., Lee, S. E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M. A., Hankey, J., Ramsey, D.,
Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z. R., and Jermeland, J. (In press). The 100-car naturalistic driving study, Phase II
- results of the 100-car field experiment (Contract No. DTNH22-00-C-07007). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. http://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/the-100-car-naturalistic-driving-study.pdf p. 411
Ipsos Reid (2013). ICBC Road Safety Tracking Study: Summary of Findings. Vancouver, BC: Ipsos
Reid.
Jonah, B. (Oct 2013). Use of Electronic Communication Devices by Canadian Drivers in Urban Areas: Summary
Report. Ottawa, Ont: Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. Viewed Jan 8, 2014 at
http://ccmta.ca/images/publications/pdf//Use_of_Electronic_Communication_Devices_ECD_by_Canadian_Drivers_in_U
rban_Areas_2013_10_15.pdf
Reimer, B; Mehler, B; Donmez, B (2014). “A Study of Young Adults Examining Phone Dialing While Driving Using a
Touchscreen vs. a Button Style Flip-Phone” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
23(0): 57-68
Questions?
Thank you
17