Considering the Potential of Phone Application Driver Monitors for Young People – A Systematic Review of Monitoring Acceptability and Effectiveness. Presented by Aoife Kervick, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway. European Conference on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, Vienna, Austria, Aoife A. Kervick, Denis O’Hora & Kiran M. Sarma.

In-Vehicle Data Recorders – ‘IVDR’s

Phone Application Driver Monitors - ‘PADM’s e.g. ‘iOnRoad’

Systematic Review of IVDR Literature

Methodology Selected Electronic Databases: PsychInfo, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Transportation Research International Documentation database, Web of Knowledge. Keywords: Q1 + Q2: ‘young/ novice/ teenage driver’, ‘phone application/ in-vehicle/ advanced driver assistance system monitoring’, Q1: ‘acceptance’, ‘usability’. Identified ‘Grey Literature’: Key authors contacted. Hand Searched: Accident Analysis and Prevention, Journal of Safety Research, Transportation Research Part F, Safety Science and the ‘References’ sections from the reviewed studies.

Inclusion Criteria Peer reviewed research, in English, published between Participants had to be under the age of 25 to qualify as ‘young drivers’. Acceptance studies: detailed perceptions in relation to willingness to use monitoring devices had to be the primary focus of the data collected. Effectiveness studies: had to feature a monitoring device which gave real time feedback and post journey reports to drivers and/or parents/insurers.

1. Perceived Accuracy “You would just have to disconnect it, if it wasn’t 100% reliable.” “You could get... dependent on it and if it does malfunction, you are not even going to be paying attention.” “Put aluminium foil over the radar or cut a few wires. It could be easily tampered with, and there would be a commercial incentive to design a way to tamper with the technology”. (Young et al., 2003)

2. Perceived Accessibility 1. Cost: e.g. “You would not put it in there unless you got massive reductions on your insurance premium.” 2. Usability e.g. updating digital speed maps, accessing and interpreting online feedback. 3. Practical requirements e.g. need for vehicle alterations, expert installation/maintenance.

3. Perceived Risks and Gains

1. Extreme Maneouvres N = 6 studies. 2 RCTs – Significant decreases for spe specific treatment groups. 3 pre-post studies – Significant decreases ranging from 50-76% in event frequency reported. 1 pre-post study without external involvement – Improvements reported, however they were not statistically significant.

N = 3 studies RCT – Significant speeding reductions were reported for one of three treatment groups. These did not persist over time however. ISA study– reported significant improvements with insurance incentivisation. PADM study – Significant decrease from speeding 30.9% of track journey to 18.2% with alerts. 2. Speeding

3. Seatbelt Use N = 2 1: Initial belt use rates of 82% were increased to 97% following a 9 week intervention. 2: Non-use was improved by 90% and 61% for two treatment groups. Significant changes were not recorded for the third or control group however.

1.Perceived Accuracy 2.Perceived Accessibility 3.Perceived Gains and Risks Figure 1.1 PADM Adoption Model

1.Extreme Maneouvres 2.Speeding 3.Seatbelt Usage

Limitations 1.Given the limited number of IVDR and PADM young driver studies, few stringent exclusion criteria could be applied. 2.The diverse nature of the studies reviewed and inconsistent outcome measures, rendered the conduction of a meta-analysis inadvisable. 3.More diverse participant groups are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Conclusions Inability to conduct meta-analysis limits findings. PADMs represent a promising new monitoring medium. More extensive and PADM specific monitoring research is needed. Smartphone technology continues to develop at an incredible pace…

Thank you for your attention. Any Questions? Or, contact me at :