Fact sheet

Distraction in traffic


The mobile phone is symbolic of ‘distraction in traffic’. But apart from mobile calls, texting, or listening to music, many drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are occupied with all sorts of other activities that may distract them. Examples are: operating the navigation system, eating, drinking, talking to passengers or daydreaming. Road users may also be distracted by striking matters and events outside the vehicle, such as billboards, a low flying plane, someone on the pavement, or a crash. Distraction negatively affects traffic behaviour. Activities which involve road users taking their eyes off the road are particularly dangerous: among other things, texting, reaching for objects in the car, and looking at objects outside the car for a lengthy period of time. Several measures to prevent distraction in traffic may be taken, such as legislation, public information and education campaigns or technical facilities that prohibit the use of mobile phones when on the road.


What is distraction and why does it constitute a problem in traffic?

Distraction may be seen as ‘misguided’ attention or attention paid to ‘the wrong things’. Since our mental capacity is limited, we can only pay attention to a part of our environment. A road user should first and foremost be focused on traffic. After all, a traffic situation may become life-threatening in a matter of seconds. A road user may get distracted when his attention is drawn to (striking) matters and events that have little or nothing to do with the traffic task at hand and that are unexpected, e.g. a low flying plane. He may also be distracted when combining a traffic task and a task of a different order which also needs attention, e.g. reading a text message. In addition, distraction may also be caused by traffic-related tasks, such as operating the navigation system while driving or trying out ways to operate the windscreen wipers. Secondary activities and (non)traffic-related matters and activities may demand so much attention of road users that the attention to the traffic task at hand is insufficient. Consequently, (driving) performance deteriorates and dangerous situations may arise.

There are several types of distraction [1]:

  • visual distraction, e.g. when a road user has his eyes on his smartphone screen instead of on the road;
  • auditory distraction, e.g. when a cyclist listens to music through a headphone or earphones, which diverts attention from traffic;
  • physical (biomechanical) distraction, e.g. when a road user enters a phone number manually or types a text message;
  • cognitive distraction, e.g. when a road user is daydreaming or concentrating on a conversation with a passenger and not on traffic.

Often, different types of distraction occur simultaneously. For example texting while driving involves visual, physical and cognitive distraction.

Some sources of distraction may, in addition to the different negative effects, also have positive effects on the traffic task. Music, for example, may relieve stress and aggression and a telephone conversation may help truck drivers stay awake and alert in monotonous traffic circumstances [2] [3].

What leads to distraction in traffic?

Distraction is often associated with technology-related activities, mobile phone use in particular (such as calling and sending or reading text messages). Road users often use mobile phones to be available during an emergency, out of habit (young people in particular) [4] and possibly even due to telephone addiction (see [5] for example). Other technology-related activities, such as listening to music and operating radio or navigation equipment, may also cause distraction. However, road users may also be distracted by matters unrelated to technology, such as by eating or drinking, by a crying child in the rear seat, by talking to passengers, reaching for certain objects (e.g. sun glasses) or daydreaming. Other things demanding attention are, for example, a noise, a striking person on the pavement, a crash or a (digital) advertising billboard.

Low-demand traffic situations may pave the way to distraction, e.g. when taking a familiar route or driving in monotonous traffic circumstances. The increasing automation of the driving task may also lead to an increasing tendency to be occupied with distracting activities. In a driving simulator study, drivers were more often occupied with non-traffic-related tasks when the driving task was partly automated and still more frequently when the driving task was highly automated [6].

How many casualties are caused by distraction in traffic?

Car drivers

The exact number of traffic casualties caused by distraction is unknown. Dutch police do not systematically register whether a driver was distracted during a crash. It is estimated that, in the Netherlands, the annual number at least amounts to several dozens of fatalities in car crashes, with an upper limit of well over a hundred [7]. This estimate is primarily based on foreign studies and is therefore merely indicative of the number of fatalities due to distraction in the Netherlands.


Concerning cyclists, the only Dutch data available are self-reported data about road crashes in which distraction might have played a part. Two earlier Dutch studies (dating from 2008 and 2009) indicated that phone use preceded 3 to 4 % of all injury crashes involving cyclists [8] [9]. For these crashes, listening to music was mentioned just as often: 3.5 to 5 %. In recent Dutch research [10] 19% of the casualties of bicycle crashes treated at accident & emergency departments indicated that the crash was (partly) caused by them being distracted. Talking to someone was mentioned in 4% of the cases as a (secondary) cause of the crash and being deep in thought in 2% of the cases. Notably, telephone use was deemed to be the (secondary) cause of the crash in fewer than 1% of the cases in this study. We would rather expect the percentage of bicycle crashes caused by telephone use to be higher, when compared to earlier studies, since a lot more cyclists send text messages or operate their telephone screens nowadays [11]. For, these activities belong to the category of most dangerous forms of distraction (also see the question How dangerous is it when drivers are distracted in traffic? And the question How does distraction affect cyclist and pedestrian behaviour?).


For the Netherlands, no data are available about the number of pedestrians who get injured or who die as a consequence of distraction while walking. In the United States, the percentage of pedestrians who die in a road crash while using a phone rose from less than 1% in 2004 to 3.6% in 2010 [12].

How often are drivers distracted in traffic?

A large number of drivers appear to be engaged in activities which are potentially distracting. Naturalistic Driving research[i] shows that drivers spend approximately 50% of their driving time on distracting activities[13] (see also Table 2, third column ‘Prevalence’ in the question How dangerous is it when drivers are distracted in traffic?). In this study, the most frequent distracting activity proved to be talking to passengers: in approximately 15% of the entire driving time. About 6% to 9% of the entire driving time was spent on mobile phone use [13] [14]. Drivers also like to listen to music; well over 90% of drivers regularly listen to music in their cars.

A recent Dutch questionnaire study shows that drivers are often engaged in distracting activities [4] (see Table 1). 62% of the drivers in this study indicated having sometimes used their phones while driving. Telephones were mainly used for handsfree calls (42%) and for reading or sending text messages (39 % and 34% respectively). A much smaller number of drivers, viz. well over 20%, reported having sometimes made handheld calls. Prevalence data are also available, derived from observational studies (see [15]for example). These data indicate the percentage of drivers that were, during one time or another, engaged in distracting activities while driving; these are therefore lower than the figures derived from questionnaire studies which are concerned with the general frequency of distracting activities.

A recent observational study showed that the number of drivers making handheld calls is almost equal to the number of drivers operating smartphone screens[ii] (4% and 3% respectively) [15].Twice as many drivers were also found to make handheld calls compared to handsfree calls. This disparity may be caused by the fact that handsfree calls are harder to observe than handheld calls. Concerning truck drivers; they use mobile phones more often than car drivers: 11% and 7% respectively.

Distraction source

Distracting activity

% of drivers engaged in an activity

Having a conversation

Handsfree calls


Handheld calls


Operating a screen

Reading/sending text messages


Searching for something on phone/checking one’s phone


Taking pictures/recording videos


Setting navigation on phone


Operating phone to play music


Playing games


Table: 1. Percentage of drivers that indicate having been engaged in different distracting activities[4].

[i] Naturalistic Driving is a research method used to observe natural driving behaviour of road users by means of devices which inconspicuously register vehicle movements, driver behaviour (such as eye, head and hand movements) and external circumstances.

[ii]Operating a screen was defined as ‘texting or such like, in any case visibly occupied with a phone screen’.

How does distraction affect driver behaviour?

Distraction affects a number of essential aspects of driving skills [16]. Drivers zigzag more, for example, during telephone calls, operation of screens or sending or reading text messages. In addition, drivers engaged in distracting activities miss all kinds of relevant matters. Taking one’s eyes off the road is the main cause, as happens during typing or updating a social network site. However, even when one’s eyes are on the road, cognitive distraction, for example on account of a phone call, may result in inattention to relevant matters. The driver looks in the right direction but does not consciously perceive an important object (this phenomenon is known as ‘inattentional blindness’) [17]. Moreover, distracted drivers are slower to respond to changes in their surroundings. Phoning drivers start braking later in response to a braking vehicle in front of them and eventually brake more forcefully. Distraction also often results in diminished speed and greater distance headways. Thus, road users seem to compensate for the effects of distraction.

How dangerous is it when drivers are distracted in traffic?

Many distracting activities seem to increase the risk of being involved in a road crash. American Naturalistic Driving studies show that activities causing visual distraction are most dangerous, entering a telephone number for example, reading or writing, typing or reading text messages, but also reaching for objects and prolonged glances to objects outside the car [13] [18]. Table 2 presents the risks (the so-called ‘odds ratios’) and the percentage of time American drivers in the ND study by Dingus et al. [13]. are engaged in (‘prevalence’) all kinds of distracting activities. What is important about this study is that the road crash risk was calculated on the basis of actual road crashes, unlike earlier studies in which near-crashes were also included. Including near-crashes may, however, bias the results (for more information see [7]).

An odds ratio higher than 1 means that an activity involves a higher risk than ‘ordinary’ driving does, whereas an odds ratio lower than 1 points to a lower risk. An odds ratio of 1.4 for the activity ‘talking to passengers’ in Table 2 means that the risk of a road crash is 1.4 times higher than when the driver is not talking to passengers. The odds ratio is an estimate. The confidence interval of 95%, presented in brackets behind the odds ratio, indicates that it is at least 95% certain that the odds ratio of talking to passengers is larger than 1.1 (the first number) and smaller than 1.8 (the second number). A prevalence of 14.58% for the same activity means that drivers talk to passengers for an average of 14.58% of their time behind the wheel.

Activity (not phone-related)

Odds Ratio

(95% confidence interval)


Reacting to children in the rear

0,5 (0,1 – 1,9)


Talking to passengers

1,4 (1,1 – 1,8)


Eating while driving

1,8 (1,1 – 2,9)


Drinking while driving

1,8 (1,0 – 3,3)


Dancing and swinging’ in one’s seat

1,0 (0,4 – 2,3)


Applying make-up/personal hygiene

1,4 (0,8 – 2,5)


Reading and writing (also on tablet, excluding phone)

9,9 (3,6 – 26,9)


Extended glance durations to external objects

7,1 (4,8 – 10,4)


Reaching for objects (for example in glove box)

9,1 (6,5 – 12,6)


Activity with a handheld mobile phone
(not defined whether it was a smartphone):



Browsing on phone (for example finding a contact, searching the internet)

2,7 (1,5 – 5,1)



12,2 (5,6 – 26,4)


Reaching for phone

4,8 (2,7 – 8,4)


Typing, sending and reading (’texting on whatsapp’)

6,1 (4,5 – 8,2)


Conducting a phone conversation

2,2 (1,6 -3,1)


All activities with a handheld phone together

3,6 (2,9 – 4,5)


Table 2. The odds ratios and prevalences of some of the activities distracting drivers [13].
Is handsfree phone use less dangerous than handheld phone use?


A large majority of studies concludes that handsfree calls have no significant advantage over handheld calls. Although during handheld calls only one hand is available for the driving task, the most negative characteristic of mobile phones equally applies to handsfree calls: shifting the focus of attention from the driving task to the conversation. The negative effects on the driving task, such as increased reaction time, are similar for handheld and handsfree calls [19]. Apart from making calls, some handsfree systems enable drivers to use other phone functions by means of speech recognition. Research has shown that the use of voice-recognition systems (among other things for entering a phone number, searching for a specific song, or sending a text message) while driving results in a deterioration of driving behaviour: drivers zigzag more, react more slowly and more often miss visual objects [20]. An increase of the cognitive workload has also been found [21]. Similar to a phone conversation, voice-recognition systems divert the driver’s attention from the driving task, even though he is looking at the traffic. According to that study, this cognitive distraction may continue until even twenty seconds after the use of the voice-recognition system [21].

As an argument against a prohibiton of mobile calls, the authorisation to talk to a passenger is often put forward. The two kinds of conversations do, however, differ: the passenger often adapts the complexity and pace of the conversation to the driving situation [22] and the sound quality of a conversation with a passenger is better. Some studies into behavioural effects find that mobile phone conversations result in worse performance than talking to a passenger does. Other studies, however, indicate that both kinds of conversation have similar consequences for the driving task. (see also [16]).


Cyclists riding with one hand on account of handheld calls have a harder time maintaining their balance than when they cycle with both hands, in particular when making an emergency stop [23]. During handheld calls cyclists are slower to react to a stop signal than during handsfree calls. No difference, however, has been found between handsfree and handheld calls by cyclists as far as speed, visual and auditory perception are concerned [24].


Pedestrian behaviour is also negatively affected by a handsfree call [25]. A reduction of walking speed, longer reaction times and deteriorated visual perception constitute the main findings.

Do navigation systems also distract?

Although a navigation system proves to facilitate the driving task, operating the system while driving diverts attention from traffic on the road. Navigation systems have clear advantages for users, provided drivers receive high quality data (updated and correct information). Drivers report to have more control over their journey (almost 80%), to be less stressed (almost 70%) and to have less trouble focusing their attention on the road (60%). Drivers using a navigation system also need to make less of a mental effort, measured both subjectively and objectively [26].

Operating a navigation system, however, results in less attention being paid to the surrounding traffic. Recent American research showed that operating a navigation system is more mentally demanding and takes more time than other secondary activities, such as operating audio equipment, making phone calls, or sending text messages. From a road safety point of view, a user of a navigation system needs to enter the destination before departure. A large majority of drivers agree that it is dangerous to set the system while driving. In spite of this, 64% of the interviewees reported having sometimes or frequently done this [27]. A recent Dutch Naturalistic Driving study shows that during journeys with an active navigation system, drivers spend 5% of their time operating the system. In about 65% of this operating time, drivers drove at a speed of 10 km/h or higher [28].

How distracting are (illuminated) advertising billboards along the road?

Advertising billboards may result in changes in driving behaviour and visual attention of drivers. Research shows that drivers are slower to react, need longer braking distance and zigzag more in the presence of advertising billboards (see for example [29] [30] [31]). A majority of studies into the effects of advertising billboards on visual attention find that drivers more often take their eyes off the road in the presence of advertising billboards. This is particularly true for billboards with moving images, emotional advertisements or billboards in one’s central field of view (for an overview see [16]). On the basis of existing research, no unequivocal conclusions may be drawn about the relationship between the placement of advertising billboards and a higher risk of road crashes. By way of illustration: Israeli research found a decrease in the number of road crashes after the removal of static billboards [32], whereas a Canadian study showed that the presence of digital illuminated billboards (rotating billboards which alternate ads every few seconds) had not resulted in a higher crash risk [33].

In addition to commercial ads, road safety is also ‘advertised’, and information and advice about traffic flow and congestion are given. Although these information signs are meant to improve road safety, they could also distract drivers in the same way as billboards do, with a contrary and unintentional negative effect on road safety. Research into these unintentional negative effects has, as far as we know, never been carried out.

Most countries have guidelines for (digital) advertising billboards along the road. In the Netherlands, a CROW guideline ‘Advertisements along the roads’ recommends diminishing distraction by advertising billboards by placing them at a safe distance from the road, not to let them resemble traffic-relevant information and to avoid undesirable content (which may for example evoke strong negative emotions) [34].

How often are cyclists and pedestrians distracted in traffic?


Recent Dutch questionnaire and observational studies show that many cyclists are engaged in potentially distracting activities. In a recent questionnnaire study, 54% of cyclists between the ages of 12 and 80 reported sometimes using their phones while cycling [4] (see also Table 3). Cyclists reported most often using their phones to read or send messages (36% and 32% of the questioned cyclists respectively), to make handheld calls (33%) or to take pictures or record videos (29%). Listening to music also proves to be very popular among cyclists, in particular among young people. Over 70% of 16 to 18-year-old cyclists reported sometimes listening to music while cycling [35]. Recent observational studies found that 17-23% of cyclists use devices while cycling: most (15-16%) listened to music, 2-4% operated a screen, and 0-2% made a call [36] [37] [38]. The use of devices while cycling appears to increase, particularly the share of cyclists listening to music. In 2015, 19% of the cyclists observed were occupied with their phones, and in 2017 the number grew to 23% [37].


In comparison to cyclists and drivers, pedestrians prove to use their phones most (see also Table 1 under the question How often are drivers distracted in traffic? and Table 3 below): 82% reported using their phones, mainly to make handheld calls (65%), to read and send messages (62-65%) and to take pictures or record videos (61%) [4]. An observational study in six European capitals, including Amsterdam, showed that 8% of pedestrians were texting while walking, almost 3% were phoning, and 5% were using ear phones [39]. In all, 16% of pedestrians were occupied with their smartphones. Notably, in Amsterdam the smallest share of pedestrians used a smartphone, viz 8.2%, in contrast to the highest share in Stockholm (23,5%).

Source of distraction

Distracting activity

% of cyclists engaged in an activity

% of pedestrians engaged in an activity

Conducting conversations

Handsfree calls



Handheld calls



Operating screens

Reading/sending messages



Searching for sth./checking one’s phone



Taking pictures/recording videos



Setting navigation on phone



Operating phone to play music



Playing games



Table 3. Percentage of cyclists and pedestrians reporting having been occupied with different distracting activities [4].
How does distraction affect cyclist and pedestrian behaviour?


Research shows that cyclists who converse on the phone or text, cycle at a lower average speed, more often miss relevant matters and more often exhibit dangerous behaviour (such as cycling in the wrong direction, , crossing an intersection with poor visibility of approaching traffic without braking or looking around first). Texting appears to affect cycling behaviour most. Cyclists who are texting cycle more towards the middle of the cycle path and are more unsteady than when they are not texting. When texting, cyclists less often look around, and also look at the cycle track less often and for a shorter period of time [40]. Furthermore cyclists themselves experience texting as the most dangerous activity [9].

Cyclists listening to music often miss important auditory information from traffic around them (a bicycle bell, horn), particularly those cyclists who are using in-ear headphones[i] or listening to loud or up-tempo music [24].It has been observed that cyclists listening to music more often display behaviour that violates traffic rules or other unsafe behaviour (e.g. jumping traffic lights, cycling in the wrong direction, or using the pedestrian crossing) [41]. Listening to music does not appear to affect cycling speed, lateral position or glance behaviour.


Pedestrians using a phone while walking display less safe (crossing) behaviour: they are more careless, take longer to cross the road, or cross when a car is approaching [42]. Particularly phoning and texting lead to less safe behaviour, whereas listening to music affects behaviour to a lesser extent [12] [43]. Texting pedestrians walk more slowly, deviate from a straight walking path line and are more unsteady [44]; they also bump into something or someone more often, while someone else also bumps into them more often [12].

[i] In-ear phones are earphones placed in the auditory duct.

How dangerous is it when cyclists and pedestrians are distracted in traffic?


On the crash risk of distracted cyclists hardly any data are available. The results of a recent questionnaire study by VeiligheidNL (SafetyNL) indicate that, contrary to expectations, cyclists using their phones are less often involved in bicycle crashes than cyclists who never use their phones [10]. These outcomes might point to a - very effective – adaptation of behaviour compensating for the effects of distraction. There are, indeed, indications of such a behavioural adaptation: a majority of cyclists indicate that, when phoning or listening to music, they adjust their behaviour by cycling more slowly and looking around more [35]. Nor can it be ruled out that other road users compensate for the behaviour of distracted cyclists. Another consideration to be taken into account is that the study by SafetyNL concerns self-reported behaviour, which depends on a respondent’s memory as well as his willingness to admit phone use while cycling. In view of the limitations of self-reported behaviour and the unexpected findings, more evidence is needed to draw conclusions about the crash risk of phone use among cyclists.


For the Netherlands, no data are available about the crash risk of distracted pedestrians. In the United States, the percentage of pedestrians who die in a road crash while using a phone increased from less than 1% in 2004 to 3.6% in 2010 [12]. Although distracted pedestrians display unsafe behaviour, a study with crossing passengers in virtual surroundings has not found any direct evidence that phone use while walking results in a higher crash risk [25]. Since studies among these road users are scarce, it is difficult to draw solid conclusions.

What do regulations about phone use in traffic amount to?

In the Netherlands, handheld calls and texting while driving are prohibited. Nor may telephones be clasped between ear and shoulder. All EU countries, excepting Sweden, ban handheld phone use. In most countries, handsfree mobile phone use is allowed. In many American states, however, a prohibition of handsfree mobile phone use by young drivers and school bus drivers applies.

In the Netherlands, it is currently (july 2018) not forbidden to use a mobile phone or other device while cycling or walking. In 2016, the Minister of Infrastructure and the Environment started to prepare a legal ban on phone use while cycling. This does not only involve a prohibition of handheld phone use (calling or texting), but also operating a smartphone in a holder on the handlebars. In Europe, legislation on this subject varies. E.g. In Sweden, Finland, Norway, Great Britain, and Ireland, handheld calling is not forbidden either. By contrast, it is banned in Denmark, Germany and Austria for example. A prohibition of phone use while walking, on the other hand, is extremely rare.

Which countermeasures targeting driver distraction are implemented, and how effective are they?

Some distraction countermeasures have already been taken. Thus, a CROW guideline has recently been drawn up concerning the placement of ad billboards along the road (see the question How distracting are (illuminated) advertising billboards along the road?. In addition, handheld calls have been legally banned (see the question What do regulations about phone use in traffic amount to?. In the United States, research shows that implementing an explicit ban on handheld calls has resulted in a decrease of 10% of the number of road deaths, and a texting prohibition to a 3% decrease [45]. However, as far as a legal ban is concerned, it is important to increase the subjective probability of detection and to augment the penalties on distracting activities. In the Netherlands, the 2017 fine for holding a mobile phone while driving was € 230. The probability of detection is, however, slight. Enforcement amounts to the police stopping someone after having seen them holding a mobile phone.

In the Netherlands, there have been a lot of public information campaigns to alert people to the dangers of distraction by devices (‘Don’t get distracted’ and more recently ‘OFFline ON the road’). The campaigns proved to be successful in that a large majority (92%) of Dutch drivers deem phone use while driving to be dangerous [4]. Nevertheless, 28% of drivers admitted having sometimes used a mobile phone while driving, and 9% admitted using a phone during almost every road trip.

On smartphones, apps may be installed (e.g. the ‘Auto Reply App’, ‘Drive Safely Keep Focused’, ‘Automodus’) which disenable the use of some telephone functions while driving. Research shows that these apps diminish phone use by novice drivers [46] [47] [48] and by adults [49] while driving. Such apps are, however, not highly appreciated by drivers and may easily be circumvented.

Which countermeasures targeting distraction among cyclists and pedestrians are implemented and how effective are they?

Education and public information campaigns may contribute to cyclists’ and pedestrians’ awareness that phone use increases their risk in traffic. In the Dutch public information campaign ‘ON the road I am OFFline’, both drivers and cyclists are incited to focus their attention on traffic and not to use a smartphone on the road. In addition, in late 2014, the app ‘Fietsmodus’ (‘Cycle mode’) was introduced to let young people experience what it is like to cycle safely without any distraction. When the app was activated during cycling, the smartphone screen switched off and could not be used. Cyclists using this app could collect reward points giving them a chance to win movie tickets, a T-shirt or a bicycle. Research into the effectiveness of the app in reducing phone use while cycling has not yet been carried out. The cycle mode app has recently been stopped since it was used less and less frequently. A new initiative by Veilig Verkeer Nederland (Dutch Traffic Safety Association) and KPN, called ‘Safe Lock’, has been developed (kpnsafelock.com). It is a smart bicycle lock that communicates with the mobile network of the bike owner: as soon as the bike is unlocked, internet use and mobile calls are blocked. Only when the bike is relocked, will telephone use be possible again. Safe Lock will be launched in late 2018.

Publications and sources

Below, you will find a list of references used in this fact sheet. In our library portal more literature on this subject may be found.

[1]. Ranney, T.A., Mazzae, E., Garrott, R. & Goodman, M.J. (2000). NHTSA driver distraction research: past, present, and future. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA, Washington D.C.

[2]. Regan, M. & Hallett, C. (2011). Driver distraction: definition, mechanisms, effects, and mitigation. In: Porter, B. (red.), Handbook of Traffic Psychology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

[3]. Jellentrup, N., Metz, B. & Rothe, S. (2011). Can talking on the phone keep the driver awake? Results of a field-study using telephoning as a countermeasure against fatigue while driving. Paper presented at the Driver Distraction and Inattention Conference 2011, Gothenburg, Sweden.

[4]. Christoph, M.W.T., Kint, S. van der & Wesseling, S. (2017). Interpolis Barometer 2017. Vragenlijststudie mobiel telefoongebruik in het verkeer. R-2017-19. SWOV, Den Haag. 

[5]. Billieux, J., Maurage, P., Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D.J., et al. (2015). Can Disordered Mobile Phone Use Be Considered a Behavioral Addiction? An Update on Current Evidence and a Comprehensive Model for Future Research. In: Current Addiction Reports, vol. 2, nr. 2, p. 156-162.

[6]. Carsten, O., Lai, F.C.H., Barnard, Y., Jamson, A.H., et al. (2012). Control task substitution in semiautomated driving: does it matter what aspects are automated? In: Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 54, nr. 5, p. 747-761.

[7]. Stelling, A. & Hagenzieker, M.P. (2015). Schatting aantal verkeersdoden door afleiding. Een actualisatie. R-2015-13. SWOV, Den Haag.

[8]. Schagen, I.N.L.G. van, Commandeur, J.F., Stipdonk, H.L., Goldenbeld, C., et al. (2010). Snelheidsmetingen tijdens de voorlichtingscampagne 'Hou je aan de snelheidslimiet'. R-2010-09. SWOV, Leidschendam.

[9]. Waard, D. de, Schepers, P., Ormel, W. & Brookhuis, K. (2010). Mobile phone use while cycling: Incidence and effects on behaviour and safety. In: Ergonomics, vol. 53, nr. 1, p. 30-42.

[10]. VeiligheidNL (2017). Fietsongevallen in Nederland. SEH-behandelingen 2016. VeiligheidNL, Amsterdam.

[11]. Waard, D. de, Westerhuis, F. & Lewis-Evans, B. (2015). More screen operation than calling: The results of observing cyclists' behaviour while using mobile phones. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 76, p. 42-48.

[12]. Fischer, P. (2015). Everyone walks. Understanding & addressing pedestrian safety. GHSA, Washington D.C.

[13]. Dingus, T.A., Guo, F., Lee, S., Antin, J.F., et al. (2016). Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data. In: National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PNAS. Volume 113, p. 2636-2641.

[14]. Knapper, A., Nes, N. van & Christoph, M. (2013). Naturalistic Driving-onderzoek bij de SWOV. In: Verkeerskunde, vol. 6/2013.

[15]. Broeks, J. & Bijlsma-Boxum, J. (2017). Apparatuurgebruik automobilisten. Rijkswaterstaat.

[16]. Stelling-Konczak, A. & Hagenzieker, M. (2012). Afleiding in het verkeer. R-2012-4. SWOV, Leidschendam.

[17]. Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A. & Johnston, W.A. (2003). Cell phone induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, vol. 9, nr. 1, p. 23-32.

[18]. Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S. & Bocanegra, J. (2009). Driver distraction in commercial vehicle operations. Report FMCSA-RRR-09-042. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.

[19]. Caird, J.K., Willness, C.R., Steel, P. & Scialfa, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 40, nr. 4, p. 1282-1293.

[20]. Simmons, S.M., Caird, J.K. & Steel, P. (2017). A meta-analysis of in-vehicle and nomadic voice-recognition system interaction and driving performance. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 106, p. 31-43.

[21]. Strayer, D.L., Cooper, J.M., Turrill, J., Coleman, J.R., et al. (2017). The smartphone and the driver's cognitive workload: A comparison of Apple, Google, and Microsoft's intelligent personal assistants. In: Canadian journal of experimental psychology, vol. 71, nr. 2, p. 93-110.

[22]. Drews, F.A., Pasupathi, M. & Strayer, D.L. (2008). Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, vol. 14, nr. 4, p. 392-400.

[23]. AVV (2006). Wat zijn de risico's van mobiel bellen op de fiets? Een literatuurstudie. Directoraat-Generaal Rijkswaterstaat, Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer AVV, Rotterdam.

[24]. Waard, D. de, Edlinger, K. & Brookhuis, K. (2011). Effects of listening to music, and of using a handheld and handsfree telephone on cycling behaviour. In: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 14, nr. 6, p. 626-637.

[25]. Neider, M.B., McCarley, J.S., Crowell, J.A., Kaczmarski, H., et al. (2010). Pedestrians, vehicles, and cell phones. In: Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 42, nr. 2, p. 589-594.

[26]. Vonk, T., Rooijen, T., Hogema, J. van & Feenstra, P. (2007). Do navigation systems improve traffic safety? TNO, Soesterberg.

[27]. Oei, H.L. (2002). Mogelijke veiligheidseffecten van navigatiesystemen; Een literatuurstudie, enkele eenvoudige effectberekeningen en resultaten van een enquête. R-2002-30. SWOV, Leidschendam.

[28]. Knapper, A., Nes, N. van, Christoph, M., Hagenzieker, M., et al. (2016). The use of navigation systems in naturalistic driving. In: Traffic injury prevention, vol. 17, nr. 3, p. 264-270.

[29]. Megías, A., Maldonado, A., Catena, A., Di Stasi, L.L., et al. (2011). Modulation of attention and urgent decisions by affect-laden roadside advertisement in risky driving scenarios. In: Safety Science, vol. 49, nr. 10, p. 1388-1393.

[30]. Chattington, M., Reed, N., Basacik, D., Flint, A., et al. (2009). Investigating driver distraction: the effects of video and static advertising. Client Project Report; CPR 208. Transport Research Laboratory, London.

[31]. Edquist, J., Horberry, T., Hosking, S. & Johnston, I. (2011). Effects of advertising billboards during simulated driving. In: Applied Ergonomics, vol. 42, nr. 4, p. 619-626.

[32]. Gitelman, V., Zaidel, D. & Doveh, E. (2012). Influence of billboards on driving behavior and road safety. In: 5th International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology ICTTP. 29-31 August 2012, Groningen, The Netherlands

[33]. Izadpanah, P., Omrani, R., Koo, S. & Hadayeghi, A. (2014). Effect of static electronic advertising signs on road safety: an experimental case study. In: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, vol. 28, nr. Supplement 1, p. S33-S36.

[34]. CROW (2017). Reclame langs wegen. CROW Kennisplatform, Ede.

[35]. Stelling-Konczak, A., Wee, G.P. van, Commandeur, J.J.F. & Hagenzieker, M. (2017). Mobile phone conversations, listening to music and quiet (electric) cars: Are traffic sounds important for safe cycling? In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 106, p. 10-22.

[36]. Groot-Mesken, J. de, Vissers, L. & Duivenvoorden, C.W.A.E. (2015). Gebruikers van het fietspad in de stad. Aantallen, kenmerken, gedrag en conflicten. R-2015-21. SWOV, Den Haag.

[37]. Broeks, J. & Zengerink, L. (2016). Eenmeting apparatuurgebruik fietsers. [internal note, not public]. Rijkswaterstaat, Utrecht

[38]. Broeks, J. & Zengerink, L. (2017). Vervolgmeting apparatuurgebruik fietsers. Rijkswaterstaat.

[39]. DEKRA (2016). DEKRA Road safety report 2016 - passenger transportation: accident prevention strategies on Europe’s roads. DEKRA Automobil GmbH, Stuttgart.

[40]. Ahlstrom, C., Kircher, K., Thorslund, B. & Adell, E. (2016). Bicyclists’ visual strategies when conducting self-paced vs. system-paced smartphone tasks in traffic. In: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 41, Part B, p. 204-216.

[41]. Terzano, K. (2013). Bicycling safety and distracted behavior in The Hague, the Netherlands. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 57, p. 87-90.

[42]. Schwebel, D.C., Stavrinos, D., Byington, K.W., Davis, T., et al. (2012). Distraction and pedestrian safety: How talking on the phone, texting, and listening to music impact crossing the street. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 45, nr. 0, p. 266-271.

[43]. Thompson, L.L., Rivara, F.P., Ayyagari, R.C. & Ebel, B.E. (2013). Impact of social and technological distraction on pedestrian crossing behaviour: an observational study. In: Injury Prevention, vol. 19, nr. 4, p. 232-237.

[44]. Schabrun, S.M., Hoorn, W. van den, Moorcroft, A., Greenland, C., et al. (2014). Texting and Walking: Strategies for Postural Control and Implications for Safety. In: PLOS ONE, vol. 9, nr. 1, p. e84312.

[45]. Rocco, L. & Sampaio, B. (2016). Are handheld cell phone and texting bans really effective in reducing fatalities? In: Empirical Economics, vol. 51, nr. 2, p. 853-876.

[46]. Creaser, J.I., Edwards, C.J., Morris, N.L. & Donath, M. (2015). Are cellular phone blocking applications effective for novice teen drivers? In: Journal of Safety Research, vol. 54, p. 75.e29-78.

[47]. Delgado, M.K., Wanner, K.J. & McDonald, C. (2016). Adolescent cellphone use while driving: An overview of the literature and promising future directions for prevention. In: Media and communication, vol. 4, nr. 3, p. 79-89.

[48]. Groot-Mesken, J., de, Wijnen, W., Stelling-Konczak, A. & Commandeur, J.J.F. (2016). Interpolis SlimOpWeg-programma: de AutoModus-app. Vragenlijstonderzoek naar het effect van een app om smartphonegebruik in de auto te verminderen. R-2016-3. SWOV, Den Haag.

[49]. Funkhouser, D. & Sayer, J.R. (2013). Cell phone filter/blocker technology field test. DOT HS 811 863. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA, Washington D.C. 

Print this page


31 Jul 2018