Introduction
Motor vehicle crashes persist as a leading cause of death in the United States.1 Advancements in technology have enabled new opportunities for enhancing behavioral road safety. One such technological frontier is driver monitoring systems, designed to monitor driver behavior in real time. The purpose of this study was to conduct a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults about their use of driver monitoring systems, and the factors influencing the adoption of these technologies.
Driver monitoring systems can measure behaviors such as distraction, speeding, hard braking and impairment. Driver monitoring can be included as original components in the vehicle, or connected to the vehicle through aftermarket devices, such as dedicated dash mounted devices or linked to personal smartphones.Reference Halin, Verly and Van Droogenbroeck2 Monitoring systems can be combined with feedback where drivers receive a rating on their overall driving performance or provide driver behavior to a third party such as the vehicle manufacturer or an insurance company.
With the advancement of sensor technology and machine learning algorithms, the capabilities of driver monitoring systems are evolving rapidly, offering a range of potential safety benefits. Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of driver monitoring to prevent distracted driving behaviors such as texting and talking on the phone.3 Furthermore, driver monitoring systems have the potential to identify drivers who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, enabling early intervention and preventing crashes caused by impaired driving.Reference Ehsani4
Despite the safety benefits offered by these systems, a clear understanding of the factors influencing their adoption remains elusive. For example, the prevalence of the use of driver monitoring systems in the United States is unknown. Motivations for the adoption of these systems, and engagement with the technology among current users is also poorly understood. We conducted a survey of a nationally representative sample of adults in the U.S. to address these gaps in our understanding of driver monitoring systems.
Methods
We fielded the survey from May 4 to June 10, 2022, using NORC’s AmeriSpeak Panel, a probability-based panel representative of the U.S. adult population.Reference Dennis5 The sample was drawn from this panel and the survey administered via telephone and online, in English and Spanish. NORC obtained informed consent prior to enrolling individuals in the panel. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institutional Review Board deemed this study not human subjects research. Reporting of the results follows AAPOR reporting guideline for survey studies.6
First, we defined driver monitoring as systems “that measure driving behavior. These are smartphone apps, devices installed in the car, or other devices that monitor things like location, speed, and braking.” We then measured the prevalence of the use of driver monitoring systems by asking respondents to indicate if they were currently using a driver monitoring device, previously used a driver monitoring device, or had never used a driver monitoring device. For those respondents who reported ever using a driver monitoring system, we asked about the type of technology, reasons for using it, and the frequency of engagement with the data being collected. We then examined factors that influence the likelihood of the adoption of driver monitoring devices for a range of factors, such as cost, accuracy of the data collection system, privacy, safety, and financial incentives.
For three items asking the factors influencing the adoption of driver monitoring technologies we created a variable for “more likely” and “less likely” by combining “much more/much less” and “somewhat” responses. For the four items asking about motivations influencing the likelihood of adoption of a driver monitoring system we created a variable for “likely” and “unlikely” by combining “highly” and “somewhat” responses. Prevalence estimates and their confidence intervals incorporated sampling weights to generate nationally representative estimates. Analyses were conducted using R version 4.2.2.
Results
The survey completion rate was 31.60%, with a final sample of 2,245 adults aged 18 years or older (see Table 1). The majority of the sample (N=1,805) had never used a driver monitoring device (80.35% [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 78.03–82.66]. The remainder of the sample (N=440) was currently using a driver monitoring device (10.25% [CI 8.5–12.00]) or was previously using a driver monitoring device (9.41% [CI 7.74–11.07]) (see Table 2). Among those who ever used a driver monitoring device, the majority reported it allowed them to get less expensive insurance (60.59% [CI 54.42–66.76]). Approximately one quarter of those who used driver monitoring said it was something they used to monitor their own driving (24.13% [CI 18.69–29.56]). Two thirds of current and former users of driver monitoring systems said the system collected data on every drive (66.06% [CI 60.14– 71.97]) and the remainder reported the system did not consistently collect data or they were unaware of when data was collected. Less than half of the respondents who ever used driver monitoring systems said they frequently or occasionally reviewed the data collected by the system (48.81% [CI 37.89–59.71]). The remainder rarely or never reviewed the data or did not have access to the data that was being collected by the driver monitoring system.
Table 1. Participant demographics N=2,245
Figure 1 Factors influencing the likelihood of adoption of a driver monitoring system.
Table 2. Prevalence and Engagement with Driver Monitoring Systems
When all respondents were asked about the factors that would influence the likelihood of adoption of driver monitoring systems, less than half the sample considered accuracy a factor that would make them more likely to use a driver monitoring system (41.97% CI [39.88–44.05]). Roughly the same percentage rated privacy as a factor that would make them more likely to use a driver monitoring system (45.82% [CI 43.7–47.93]). Less than half the sample also said that they would be more likely to use a driver monitoring system if it came at no extra cost (43.59% [CI 41.5–45.69]). There were no significant differences in the likelihood of these factors to influence the adoption of driver monitoring systems.
Over three quarters of the sample said they would be likely to use a driver monitoring system if it reduced their crash risk (77.1% [CI 75.32–78.88]), led to a discount in their insurance premium (79.58% [CI 77.87–81.29), or could lead to weekly rewards for safe driving (75.84% [CI 74.03–77.66]). Over two thirds of respondents said they would be likely to use a driver monitoring system if they could win prizes as part of a safe driving competition (69.95% (CI 68.01–71.9). The likelihood of adoption of driver monitoring systems was significantly lower for contests where participants could win prizes for safe driving than for weekly rewards (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Motivations influencing the likelihood of adoption of a driver monitoring system.
Discussion
In this nationally representative survey of U.S. adults, we provide the first estimate of the prevalence of the use of driver monitoring systems in the United States. While the majority of U.S. adults (80.35%) have not yet used driver monitoring devices, one in five U.S. adults were currently using or had previously used driver monitoring systems. The majority of those who used driver monitoring systems did so to obtain a discount on their insurance premium. When all respondents were asked about the factors that would influence the likelihood of adoption of driver monitoring systems, the accuracy and security of the data, and the cost of the service were similarly rated in importance. The majority of respondents said they would be likely to use driver monitoring if it reduced their crash risk, gave them a discount on their insurance premium, or could lead to weekly rewards for safe driving. These findings suggest that the public is generally receptive to the potential benefits of driver monitoring, even among those who have not yet used these technologies.
The majority of respondents said they would be likely to use driver monitoring if it reduced their crash risk, gave them a discount on their insurance premium, or could lead to weekly rewards for safe driving.
These findings suggest that individuals are more likely to adopt driver monitoring systems when they perceive clear benefits such as reduced crash risk, insurance premium discounts, and rewards for safe driving. Privacy concerns and the cost of the system appear to be less influential factors. However, safe driving contests showed lower likelihood of adoption compared to other incentives. These insights can be valuable for policymakers, insurers and technology providers with an interest in the adoption of driver monitoring systems.
Limitations and Future Research
This study has several limitations. First, while the NORC AmeriSpeak panel used probability-based recruitment consistent with best-practice standards for survey research, these results may still be vulnerable to sampling biases. Second, the survey did not assess all potential factors that may influence public acceptability of driver monitoring systems. Future research should address these limitations by exploring a wider range of factors that may influence public attitudes toward driver monitoring technologies.
Conclusion
The findings of this survey suggest that there is potential for further growth in the adoption of driver monitoring systems. By addressing the concerns of potential users, promoting awareness of the safety benefits, and developing effective incentive programs, the adoption of driver monitoring systems could be nurtured, leading to improvements in road safety.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant from the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (grant number 1R49CE003090).
Open access
