Cell phone use and crash risk: Evidence for positive bias

Epidemiology

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 116-118

  Young, Richard A ^a  

^a DETROIT RECEIVING HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DRIVER; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; MOBILE PHONE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT;

ACCIDENTS, TRAFFIC; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CELLULAR PHONE; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; HUMANS; RISK; RISK FACTORS; WASHINGTON;

EID: 83655184738     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31823b5efc     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Klauer SG, Dingus TA, Neale VL, Sudweeks JD, Ramsey DJ. The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: an analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study data. Report No. DOT HS 810 594. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2006.
2. Young RA, Schreiner C. Real-world personal conversations using a hands-free embedded wireless device while driving: effect on airbagdeployment crash rates. Risk Anal. 2009;29:187-204.
3. Olson RL, Hanowski RJ, Hickman JS, Bocanegra J. Driver distraction in commercial vehicle operations. Report No. FMCSA-RRR-09-042. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation; 2009.
4. Klauer SG, Guo F, Sudweeks J, Dingus TA. An analysis of driver inattention using a case-crossover approach on 100-car data: final report. Report No. DOT HS 811 334. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation; 2010.
5. Hickman J, Hanowski RJ, Bocanegra J. Distraction in commercial trucks and buses: assessing prevalence and risk in conjunction with crashes and near-crashes. Report No. FMCSA-RRR-10-049. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Vehicle Carrier Safety Administration; 2010.
6. Redelmeier D, Tibshirani R. Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:453-458. (Pubitemid 27074355)
7. McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, McCartt AT, et al. Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study. BMJ. 2005;331:428-430. (Pubitemid 41176378)
8. Rothman K, Greenland S, Lash T. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
9. Puget Sound Regional Council Traffic Choices Study. Available at: http://psrc.org/transportation/traffic. Accessed July 3, 2011.
10. National Renewal Energy Laboratory. Traffic Choices Study by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/vehicles andfuels/secure-transportation-data.html. Accessed July 3, 2011.
11. Taylor BN, Kuyatt CE. Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurements results. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD; 1994. Available at: http://www. gmee.deit.univpm.it/biblioteca/sala-tecnica/scaffale-teoria/incertezza/ NIST-tn1297s.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2011.
12. Phillips SD, Eberhardt KR, Parry B. Guidelines for expressing the uncertainty of measurement results containing uncorrected bias. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol. 1997;102:577-586. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ viewdoc/download?doi-10.1.1.41.6528&rep-rep1 &type-pdf. Accessed September 1, 2011.
13. Young RA. Driving consistency errors overestimate crash risk from cellular conversation in two case-crossover studies. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design; Lake Tahoe, CA 2011:298-305 Available at: http://drivingassessment.uiowa.edu/sites/default/files/DA2011/Papers/043-Young. pdf. Accessed August 1, 2011.