Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,669

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data: (729262011-001)

Open access
Klauer, S. G., Dingus, T. A., Neale, V. L., Sudweeks, J. D., Ramsey, D. J.·2006·PsycEXTRA Dataset

Abstract

The purpose of this report was to conduct in-depth analyses of driver inattention using the driving data collected in the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study. An additional database of baseline epochs was reduced from the raw data and used in conjunction with the crash and near-crash data identified as part of the original 100-Car Study to account for exposure and establish near-crash/crash risk. The analyses presented in this report are able to establish direct relationships between driving behavior and crash and near-crash involvement. Risk was calculated (odds ratios) using both crash and near-crash data as well as normal baseline driving data for various sources of inattention. The corresponding population attributable risk percentages were also calculated to estimate the percentage of crashes and near-crashes occurring in the population resulting from inattention. Additional analyses involved: driver willingness to engage in distracting tasks or driving while drowsy; analyses with survey and test battery responses; and the impact of driver’s eyes being off of the forward roadway. The results indicated that driving while drowsy results in a four- to six-times higher near-crash/crash risk relative to alert drivers. Drivers engaging in visually and/or manually complex tasks have a three-times higher near-crash/crash risk than drivers who are attentive. There are specific environmental conditions in which engaging in secondary tasks or driving while drowsy is more dangerous, including intersections, wet roadways, and areas of high traffic density. Short, brief glances away from the forward roadway for the purpose of scanning the driving environment are safe and actually decrease near-crash/crash risk. Even in the cases of secondary task engagement, if the task is simple and requires a single short glance the risk is elevated only slightly, if at all. However, glances totaling more than 2 seconds for any purpose increase near-crash/crash risk by at least two times that of normal, baseline driving.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/e729262011-001

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,669

Metadata

Authors
Klauer, S. G., Dingus, T. A., Neale, V. L., Sudweeks, J. D., & Ramsey, D. J.
Venue
PsycEXTRA Dataset
Published
2006
OpenAlex
W116278252
Cited by
1,669
References
1
Type
dataset
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data: (729262011-001). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/e729262011-001
The paper
Klauer, S. G., Dingus, T. A., Neale, V. L., Sudweeks, J. D., & Ramsey, D. J. (2006). The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data: (729262011-001). PsycEXTRA Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/e729262011-001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.