Browsing College of Engineering and Mines (CEM) by Subject "Hawaiians"
Now showing items 1-3 of 3
2007–2016 FATAL TRAFFIC CRASHES IN ALASKA, HAWAII, IDAHO, AND WASHINGTON AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TRAFFIC FATALITIES INVOLVING HAWAIIANS AND CSET MINORITIESData for this comparative study were collected from the Fatality Analysis and Reporting System (FARS) for the years 2007 to 2016 for the states of Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, and Washington. The rates of roadway fatalities, especially those of American Indians (which include Aleuts and Eskimos), Guamanians, Samoans, and Native Hawaiians (which include part-Hawaiians) were the focus of the study; they are referred to as “CSET Minorities” in this report; all other races are referred to as “All Others.” Three main contributing factors for fatal crashes—alcohol use, speeding, and non-usage of restraint—were analyzed for each population group. CSET states are lagging behind many countries in terms of traffic safety. Significant differences in the involvement of alcohol, speeding, and non-usage of restraint were indicated between CSET Minority fatalities and All Others. For all types of crashes examined, CSET Minorities exhibited statistically significant differences, nearly all of them being higher or worse than All Others, except for motorcycle crashes. In Hawaii, the proportion of Hawaiians in the population is steady at approximately 21%, but their proportion in FARS database is at 28% and rising. Aggregate data analysis of traffic fatalities focused on three rural, indigenous, tribal, and isolated (RITI) communities in Hawaii, the entire Big Island of Hawaii, and the rural communities of Waianae and Waimanalo on the island of Oahu. All three locations are known for their relatively large number of Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians. The percentage of Hawaiians in traffic fatalities was 32% on the Big Island, 50% in Waianae, and 78% in Waimanalo.
Effects of Reading Text While Driving: A Driving Simulator StudyAlthough 47 US states make the use of a mobile phone while driving illegal, many people use their phone for texting and other tasks while driving. This research project summarized the large literature on distracted driving and compared major outcomes with those of our study. We focused on distraction due to reading text because this activity is most common. For this research project, we collected simulator observations of 203 professional taxi drivers (175 male, and 28 female) working at the same Honolulu taxi company, using the mid-range driving simulator VS500M by Virage. After a familiarization period, drivers were asked to read realistic text content relating to passenger pick up displayed on a 7-inch tablet affixed to the dashboard. The experimental scenario was simulated on a two-lane rural highway having a speed limit of 60 mph and medium traffic. Drivers needed to follow the lead vehicle under regular and text-reading conditions. The large sample size of this study provided a strong statistical base for driving distraction investigation on a driving simulator. The comparison between regular and text-reading conditions revealed that the drivers significantly increased their headway (20.7%), lane deviations (354%), total time of driving blind (352%), maximum duration of driving blind (87.6% per glance), driving blind incidents (170%), driving blind distance (337%) and significantly decreased lane change frequency (35.1%). There was no significant effect on braking aggressiveness while reading text. The outcomes indicate that driving performance degrades significantly by reading text while driving. Additional analysis revealed that important predictors for maximum driving blind time changes are sociodemographic characteristics, such as age and race, and past behavior attributes.
RESULTS OF A SURVEY ON TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EQUITY IN HAWAIIFive transportation equity questions were developed for this assessment. Question 1 addressed EMS response in urban and rural areas. People with a bachelor’s degree or higher thought slightly more that rural response is worse. Rural residents believed it is worse and half of urban residents agreed. CSET minority respondents thought that rural response is slightly worse. These groups have a perception that reflects reality, according to FARS data, but the overall response to the question “Compared to urban areas, in rural areas emergency response is?” is “about the same.” Every demographic group did not support the proposal of question 2 for the government to increase gasoline taxes to collect money to invest in EMS response improvements in rural areas of Hawaii. The overall result for question 3 is that respondents were divided when it comes to converting rural roads into high standard roads in Hawaii. No demographic group had a majority response, pro, against or neutral. The response to question 4 was much clearer: all demographic groups disagreed with the proposition that the government should raise gasoline taxes to collect funds for the purpose of making rural roads safer by converting them to high standard roads. Question 5 addressed the urban-rural road funding balance: “Should more money, less money or about the same amount of money be provided to support urban road and highway improvements?” The response was mostly divided between same amount and more money, suggesting that an equal share should be allocated between urban and rural roads. Overall, the results suggest a lack of awareness of conditions on rural roads.