Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 602e610

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ergonomics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo

Distraction ‘on the buses’: A novel framework of ergonomics methods

for identifying sources and effects of bus driver distraction
Paul M. Salmon a, *, Kristie L. Young a, Michael A. Regan b
a
Human Factors Group, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Building 70, Clayton Campus, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia
b
French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research (INRETS), Institut National de Recherche Sur Les Transports Et Leur Securitie, 25 Avenue Francois Mitterand,
69675 Bron Cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Driver distraction represents a significant problem in the public transport sector. Various methods exist
Received 14 October 2009 for investigating distraction; however, the majority are difficult to apply within the context of naturalistic
Accepted 20 July 2010 bus driving. This article investigates the nature of bus driver distraction at a major Australian public
transport company, including the sources of distraction present, and their effects on driver performance,
Keywords: through the application of a novel framework of ergonomics methods. The framework represents a novel
Distraction
approach for assessing distraction in a real world context. The findings suggest that there are a number of
Bus drivers
sources of distraction that could potentially distract bus drivers while driving, including those that derive
Ergonomics methods
Task analysis
from the driving task itself, and those that derive from the additional requirements associated with bus
operation, such as passenger and ticketing-related distractions. A taxonomy of the sources of bus driver
distraction identified is presented, along with a discussion of proposed countermeasures designed to
remove the sources identified or mitigate their effects on driver performance.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction are working might be exposed to additional distracting factors as part

Driver distraction is now widely recognised as a significant road
safety issue (Hosking et al., 2009; Regan et al., 2008a). The findings
from the ‘100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study’ identified distraction as
a contributory factor in around 23 percent of crashes and near-
crashes (Klauer et al., 2006). In addition, a range of studies have
observed that distracted drivers demonstrate degraded performance
on a number of safety critical driving measures, including impair-
ments in longitudinal (e.g., Rakauskas et al., 2004; Strayer and Drews,
2004) and lateral control (e.g., Engström et al., 2005; Reed and Green,
1999); a reduced awareness of surrounding traffic and events (e.g.,
Kass et al., 2007); an increased tendency to miss traffic signals and
signs and increased response time to roadway events (e.g., Burns
et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2001), and a reduction in time spent check-
ing instruments and mirrors (Nunes and Recarte, 2002).
Although there has been a plethora of distraction-related research
in recent years, the majority has focussed on the drivers of conven-
tional passenger vehicles (e.g., Horberry et al., 2006; Stutts et al.,
2005). Notwithstanding this, distraction may also represent a signif-
icant problem within the public transport sector (i.e., bus, taxi and
train driving); this assumption is made on the basis that drivers who
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 (0)3 99051907; fax: þ44 (0)3 99051914.
E-mail address: paul.salmon@muarc.monash.edu.au (P.M. Salmon).
of their work task. For example, whilst driving buses, drivers under-
take a number of additional ‘bus operation’ tasks, such as selling
tickets, communicating with control room operators and monitoring
passengers, which often involve interaction with non-driving-related
devices (e.g., ticket machines, radios and radio handsets etc) and also
passengers. Furthermore, urban bus driving is an example of a high-
stress task, characterised by high workloads and conflicting demands.
Indeed, simply the physical attributes of the bus imposes a greater
level of demand on the driver to maintain vehicle control than do
passenger vehicles. This combination of high workload and the
performance of multiple additional activities can make bus drivers
more vulnerable to the negative effects of distraction.
Recent incidents in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, involving
bus drivers crashing buses whilst operating mobile phones, or bus
drivers being photographed by passengers operating mobile phones
whilst driving, support the need for research in this area. Despite
this, relatively little research has been undertaken to investigate the
nature of distraction in a public transport context. In the area of bus
driving, for example, knowledge regarding the sources of distraction
present during bus operation and the effects of these distractions on
bus driver performance is currently limited.
This article presents a case study application of a novel frame-
work of ergonomics methods for identifying sources of bus driver
distraction and assessing their effects on bus driver performance.

0003-6870/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2010.07.007
 P.M. Salmon et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 602e610
As part of research undertaken for a major transport company in
Australia, the potential for bus drivers to be distracted while driving
buses was investigated. Specifically, the research aimed to identify
what sources of distraction bus drivers are exposed to while
operating buses, what their potential impact on performance and
safety is likely to be, and what can be done to minimise driver
exposure to them. The aim of this article is to present the findings
derived from this research and to outline the methodology applied.
2. Driver distraction in the public transport sector
Driver distraction refers to those instances when a driver’s
attention is diverted from activities critical for safe driving toward
a competing activity (Regan et al., 2008b). Sources of distraction
can either derive from within the vehicle (e.g., a passenger, tech-
nology) or from outside the vehicle (e.g., roadway advertisement,
pedestrians). Distraction can also take a number of distinct, but not
mutually exclusive, forms; including visual, cognitive, auditory and
bio-mechanical distraction, some of which have been shown to
have diverse effects on driving performance (e.g., Consiglio et al.,
2003; Engström et al., 2005).
Distraction remains largely unexplored in a public transport
context. In addition to conventional driving (e.g., Noy et al., 2004),
some research has focussed on distraction in the commercial trans-
port sector, such as heavy goods vehicle (Barr et al., 2003) and truck
driving (e.g., Hanowski et al., 2005; Olson et al., 2009). In the context
of bus driving, in particular, very little research has been undertaken,
and the majority has focussed on mobile phone use by bus drivers
(e.g., Chen et al., 2006). Although taxonomies of distraction sources
have been developed for conventional driving (e.g., Stutts et al.,
2005), to date there has been no attempt to ascertain what sources
of distraction exist within the context of bus driving. Further, the
effects of distracted driving on bus driving performance remain
unknown. Further research into the sources and effects of driver
distraction in the public transport sectors is therefore required.
3. A framework of methods for assessing driver distraction
in the real world
Various methods have been proposed for identifying sources of
distraction and for assessing its effects on driver performance (see
Data Collection
Documentation Subject Matter Bus driver focus
review Expert Interviews
Data Analysis &
Representation
Content Analysis
Analysis Outputs
Sources of
distraction
Fig. 1. Framework of ergonomics methods for assessing bus driver distraction.
603
Young et al., 2008 for a critical review). For example, methods
used previously for identifying sources of driver distraction
include reviewing police crash databases (e.g., Stutts et al., 2001),
using self-report questionnaires (e.g., Young and Lenné, 2008) and
conducting naturalistic driving studies involving in-vehicle video
recording (e.g., Klauer et al., 2006). On the other hand, evaluating
the effects of distraction has typically involved laboratory, simu-
lator, test track and on-road studies, and has utilised surrogate
driving methods such as the lane change test (e.g., Harbluk et al.,
2007) and the visual occlusion paradigm (e.g., Noy et al., 2004). In
the context of bus driving, applicable methods for identifying
sources of bus driver distraction in a naturalistic setting are
currently sparse. For example, naturalistic driving studies are
difficult and expensive to set up and run, self-report data
are flawed for many reasons (McEvoy and Stevenson, 2008), and
bus crash databases containing the level of detail required are
rarely available (Gordon, 2008). Similarly, assessing the effects of
distraction on bus driver performance is also difficult, given that
the surrogate tests typically used to assess distraction have limited
generalisability to the bus driving context, and, within Australia at
least, there is a lack of bus driver simulators that can be used for
research purposes.
The assessment of distraction in a bus driving context therefore
represents a significant challenge. Aside from presenting the find-
ings derived from our case study on bus driver distraction, the aim
of this paper is to present a novel approach for assessing driver
distraction in the real world where in-vehicle recording, simula-
tion, and laboratory tests are not available. The methodology
applied (presented in Fig. 1) involved the application of various
ergonomics methods in an integrated manner. Using ergonomics
methods in an integrated manner is attractive for a number of
reasons, and has been used or recommended to study a range of
ergonomics constructs, including workload (e.g., Brookhuis et al.,
2009), human error (e.g., Kirwan, 1998), situation awareness
(Salmon et al., 2006) and command and control (e.g., Walker et al.,
2009).
The key requirement in this study was that the sources and
effects of distraction be identified from existing and naturalistic
data sources. There was no opportunity for simulated or test drives.
The data collection phase therefore involved the conduct of docu-
mentation reviews (e.g., standard operating procedures, company
Ergonomic
Observational
assessment of
groups study
bus driver cabins
Hierarchical
Error Analysis
Task Analysis
Effects of
distraction
604 P.M. Salmon et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 602e610
policy, training manuals), administration of a questionnaire, inter-
views with Subject Matter Experts (e.g., bus driver trainers), focus
groups involving bus drivers, direct observation of bus operating
activities, and an ergonomic assessment of different bus cabins.
The data obtained was analysed using content analysis proce-
dures (to identify sources and effects of distraction) and informed
the development of a Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA; Stanton,
2006) of bus operation. HTA is used to describe systems in terms
of the goals, sub-goals and physical and cognitive operations
required to achieve them, including the goal-based human-
machine interactions required during task performance. Describing
the bus operation ‘system’ in this manner provides a description of
the bus driving task that supports the identification of sources of
driver distraction, since it offers a description of the operations
associated with each goal underpinning bus operation, the inter-
faces or artefacts involved in the performance of each operation,
and the physical and cognitive operations required. The contextual
triggers of goals and operations are also described. The utility of
HTA is also such that its outputs inform the conduct of further
analyses, including human error identification (e.g., Lane et al.,
2007; Stanton et al., 2009), which was used in this case to assess
the effects of distraction on bus driver performance. The HTA was
used to inform the conduct of Systematic Human Error Reduction
and Prediction Approach (SHERPA; Embrey, 1986) which involved
predicting potential errors that might arise when the bus driver is
distracted. The outputs from these three analyses were then used to
develop a taxonomy of sources of bus driver distraction and
determine the effects of distraction on bus driver behaviour.
4. Case study on bus driver distraction
4.1. Methodology
4.1.1. Participants
Forty four bus drivers employed by the transport company were
involved in the various components of the study. Due to the nature
of the study, it was not possible to collect demographic data for all
of the drivers involved.
4.1.2. Materials
Various company documents were subject to review during the
data collection phase, including the relevant road rules and regu-
lations (e.g. motor traffic act, road and traffic authority road rules),
the Road and Traffic Authority heavy vehicle competency-based
assessment guide, the transport operator’s employee folder (which
included bus driver code of conduct and a bus operations hand-
book), the passenger transport act and regulations, the occupa-
tional health and safety act regulations and the state transit code of
conduct. Audio recording equipment was used to record the SME
interviews and focus group discussions. A video camera was used to
record bus operation activities during the observational study
component, and observational transcripts were constructed on-line
using pen and paper. A HTA software tool was used to construct the
HTA and undertake the SHERPA human error analysis. The HTA and
SHERPA outputs were reproduced for presentation in this article
using the Microsoft Visio drawing software package.
4.1.3. Procedure
Three researchers from the Monash University Accident
Research Centre (MUARC) visited the transport company for
a period of two days to undertake data collection activities. This
involved collecting data regarding the bus operation task and any
sources of distraction that might be present. This involved con-
ducting a review of relevant company documents (supplied by the
transport company, see materials section), the conduct of four
interviews with SMEs (e.g., 2 driver trainers, 2 experienced bus
drivers), the conduct of three focus group discussions involving 18
current bus drivers, and the conduct of observational studies of
three bus drivers driving a range of representative routes. The
observational studies were undertaken naturalistically during
standard bus operation, with the observers located in the passenger
area of the bus in close proximity to the bus drivers. The informa-
tion derived from the data collection activities was used to inform
the development of a HTA of bus operation and to conduct
a SHERPA human error analysis. A content analysis was performed
on the data collected and the HTA in order to identify potential
sources of distraction. To ensure validity, all analysis outputs were
reviewed and refined where appropriate by an SME from the
transport company. This involved the SME reviewing the docu-
ments in conjunction with the researchers and identifying any
erroneous or incorrect elements. Any errors in the outputs were
subsequently corrected based on SME input.
5. Results
5.1. Bus driver task analysis
An extract of the HTA of bus operation is presented in Fig. 2.
Overall, seven key goal-based categories of tasks that the bus
drivers currently perform while operating buses were identified.
These were: preparation tasks; physical vehicle control tasks;
cognitive vehicle control tasks; route/timetabling tasks; passenger-
related tasks; communication tasks; and personal comfort tasks. A
description of each task category is presented below.
1. Preparation Tasks. Preparation tasks include tasks that the bus
driver performs to prepare the bus prior to setting off on
a particular route. These include the conduct of a series of pre-
departure checks designed to determine whether the bus is
roadworthy and is performing appropriately, such as making
engine compartment and electrical checks, checking the tyres,
checking the vehicle posture, and checking for leaks and loads.
The bus drivers are also required to perform a walkthrough of
the bus to check instrumentation and identify any protruding
objects. Once the pre-departure checks are complete, the bus
driver then makes any pre-driving adjustments as required.
These include adjusting the seat, checking and adjusting the
mirrors and visor, familiarizing themselves with the required
route and modifying the destination board.
2. Physical Vehicle Control Tasks. The physical vehicle control tasks
category includes the physical tasks that the bus driver has to
perform while driving the bus. These include steering the bus,
operating the accelerator and brake pedals, changing gears and
operating indicators and other vehicle controls.
3. Cognitive Vehicle Control Tasks. The cognitive vehicle control
tasks category includes the cognitive tasks that the bus driver
has to perform while driving the bus. These include planning,
checking the mirrors, monitoring other road users and pedes-
trians, forecasting and anticipating other road users’ behaviour,
navigation, perceptual and decision-making tasks, and tasks
required for situation awareness achievement and maintenance.
4. Route/Timetabling Tasks. The route/timetabling tasks category
includes tasks that the bus driver is required to perform in
order to keep to the desired route and timetable. These include
checking the route journal and planning the route, entering the
route section points on the ticket machine and also checking
the current time against the time specified by the route journal.
5. Passenger-Related Tasks. The passenger-related tasks category
includes tasks related to dealing with passengers. These include
opening and closing the bus doors, lowering and raising the bus,
 P.M. Salmon et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 602e610
Fig. 2. Extract of bus operation HTA.
operating the ticket machine and issuing tickets, changing
section points, checking tickets, monitoring passengers and
assisting passengers.
6. Communication Tasks. The communication tasks category
includes the tasks that the bus driver has to perform in order to
maintain communications with the transport operations centre
(TOC). These include listening to general and personal broad-
casts, using the radio and handset to initiate communication
with the TOC, reporting incidents and making emergency calls.
7. Personal Comfort Tasks. The personal comfort tasks category
includes the tasks that the bus driver performs in order to
maintain personal comfort while driving the bus. These include
making adjustments to the seat, sun visor, mirrors and driving
controls, drinking and eating and using personal entertainment
equipment (e.g., portable radio).
Aside from the preparation tasks that are completed by the bus
driver prior to setting off, all of the other tasks identified can be
performed by the bus driver while he or she is driving the bus.
According to company policy, rules and regulations, only the
physical vehicle control tasks and the cognitive vehicle control
tasks should be performed while driving the bus (i.e., company
policy prohibits the drivers from performing the other tasks while
driving). Therefore, the other tasks are all ‘secondary’ tasks that
the driver should, according to company policy, perform only
while the bus is stationary. Data collected from the focus groups
indicated, however, that a significant proportion of company bus
drivers currently undertake at least some of these secondary tasks
while the bus is in motion. It was therefore concluded that these
tasks represent a potential source of distraction to bus drivers,
605
since they represent secondary tasks which, when engaged in,
have the potential to divert drivers’ attention from activities crit-
ical for safe driving. It was concluded that the performance of
passenger-related tasks, communication tasks and personal
comfort tasks while driving may result in the drivers being
distracted from the primary task of driving the bus safely. That the
main sources of bus driver distraction are likely to arise from the
passenger-related, communication and personal comfort tasks
that the bus driver performs while driving and from the tech-
nologies used when performing these tasks. To investigate this
further the data and HTA were used to identify the different
sources of distraction.
5.1.1. Sources of distraction for bus drivers
From the data collected during the focus groups, SME inter-
views, HTA and observational study, a taxonomy of bus driver
distraction sources was constructed. The taxonomy contains all
potential sources of distraction that were identified during the
study. The potential sources of distraction identified were cat-
egorised into seven main categories (see Fig. 3). A brief summary of
each category is presented below.
1. Technology-related distractions. Technology-related sources of
distraction include any technological devices that the driver
interacts with while driving the bus, including mobile phones,
CD players, the broadcast radio and handset, and the ticket
machine.
2. Operational distractions. Operational sources of distraction
include any aspects of bus operation that may be distracting,
including operating the ticket machine, communicating with
606 P.M. Salmon et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 602e610
Fig. 3. Sources of bus driver distraction identified. Note, within the table, those sources of distraction that are representative of violational activity (i.e. activities prohibited by
company policy while the vehicle is in motion) are marked with a ‘V’.
the TOC, listening to general and personal broadcasts and
reading and/or modifying the route journal.
3. Passenger-related distractions. Passenger-related sources of
distraction include any aspects of managing passengers that
can potentially distract the bus driver, including listening to
passenger conversations, monitoring passenger behaviour,
talking to passengers, issuing tickets, providing passenger
assistance, dealing with unruly passengers and listening to
passengers talking loudly on mobile phones.
4. Environmental distractions. Environmental sources of distrac-
tion include any environmental conditions that might distract
the driver such as weather conditions (e.g., shielding oneself
from sun glare). Environmental conditions can become
a distraction if they induce the driver to perform activities to
reduce the discomfort brought about by the conditions, such as
adjusting the climate controls or sun visor.
5. Bus cabin-related distractions. Bus cabin-related sources of
distraction include any features of the particular bus and bus
cabin in question that might distract the driver, including
annoying rattles (e.g., cabin door, ticket machine), adjusting the
sun visor, seat, controls and the seat belt.
6. Infrastructure-related distractions. Infrastructure-related sour-
ces of distraction include any features of the road infrastructure
that the driver might find distracting, such as road side
advertising (e.g., on bus stops and vehicles).
7. Personal distractions. Personal sources of distraction include
any driver states that might distract the bus driver or make the
bus driver more susceptible to distraction, such as fatigue,
incapacitation and medication.
The sources of distraction within each category are presented in
Fig. 3. Within the table, those sources of distraction that are repre-
sentative of violational activity (i.e., activities prohibited by company
policy while the vehicle is in motion) are marked with a ‘V’.
5.1.2. Human error identification analysis
Human Error Identification (HEI) techniques allow analysts
to predict potential errors that might arise during a particular
human-machine-interaction (HMI), working on the notion that an
understanding of an employee’s work task and the characteristics
of the technology being used allows analysts to identify potential
errors that may arise from the resulting interaction (Stanton and
Baber, 1996). A distraction-based HEI analysis was conducted
using the HTA of bus operation as its input. The SHERPA HEI method
was used to predict potential errors that might arise when the bus
driver is distracted. Of the various HEI methods available, SHERPA is
the most popular and has the most supporting validation evidence,
with recent application in aviation (e.g., Stanton et al., 2009),
healthcare (e.g., Lane et al., 2007) and the military (Salmon et al.,
2010).
Each bottom-level task step from a HTA is first classified as one
of the five SHERPA behaviour types (Action, Check, Information
Retrieval, Information Communication, Selection). Each behaviour
classification has a set of associated errors. The SHERPA error
taxonomy is presented in Fig. 4. The SHERPA error taxonomy and
domain expertise are then used to identify, based on the analyst’s
subjective judgement, any credible error modes for the task step in
question. For each credible error identified, a description of the
form that the error would take is provided and the analyst
describes any consequences associated with the error and any error
recovery steps that could be taken. Ratings of ordinal probability
(Low, Medium or High) and criticality (Low, Medium or High) are
then provided. The final step involves specifying any potential
design remedies (i.e., how the interface or device might be modi-
fied in order to remove or reduce the chances of the error occur-
ring) for each of the errors identified.
In order to identify the errors that could potentially arise when
the driver is distracted, a modified SHERPA analysis was conducted.
This involved taking each bottom level task step from the HTA and
predicting the driver errors that might arise in the event of the
driver being distracted, either physically, visually or cognitively,
while performing the task in question. An extract of the SHERPA-
Distraction analysis is presented in Table 1. The errors identified
were categorised as either safety critical (i.e. could potentially
negatively affect performance and safety during bus operation) or
operational errors (i.e. could negatively effect performance but are
not likely to influence safety). A summary of the errors identified is
presented in Table 2.
 P.M. Salmon et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 602e610 607

Fig. 4. SHERPA error taxonomy.
6. Discussion
This study represents one of the first attempts to investigate the
issue of bus driver distraction. It aims were two-fold: to identify the
sources of distraction that have the potential to distract bus drivers
and degrade bus driver performance and safety, and to identify the
effect on bus driver performance that different sources of distrac-
tion are likely to have. The findings suggest that bus driver
distraction is a potentially significant road safety problem within
the public transport sector. The risk of distraction is particularly
significant in this domain where drivers are compelled, as part of
their job, to perform additional secondary tasks over and above the
primary task of driving the vehicle. These additional tasks are
coupled with the fact that driving a bus is, by itself, a high workload
task (Evans and Johansson, 1998; Rydstedt et al., 1998). As
a consequence, bus drivers are not only regularly exposed to
various distraction sources, but they may have less spare capacity
than conventional drivers to attend to these distractions without
compromising driving performance.
A number of sources of distraction that could potentially
distract bus drivers while driving buses were identified. These
include those that are present during conventional driving, such as
eating, drinking and roadside advertisements, but also include an
additional set of distraction sources that are present due to the
requirements associated with bus operation, such as those
deriving from interaction with passengers and ticketing machines.
These distraction sources were classified into the following cate-
gories: technology-related distractions; operational distractions;
passenger-related distractions; environmental distractions; bus
cabin-related distractions; infrastructure-related distractions; and
personal distractions. Each of these categories was decomposed,
based on the data collected during our investigations, in order to
create a taxonomy of distraction sources for bus drivers. Of the
sources identified in this study, 15 were classified as representing
instances where the driver is engaging in violational activities (i.e.,
activities prohibited by company policy, rules and regulations),
such as using a mobile phone or conversing with a passenger while
driving. In developing distraction mitigation strategies, it would
seem appropriate to focus first on these sources.
Beyond any violational activities, the requirement for bus
drivers to take on multiple, and at times competing, roles while
driving may be exacerbating the problem of driver distraction in
the public transport sector. In addition to driving the bus, bus
drivers have a range of other, competing tasks that they are
required to undertake, including dealing with passengers and
communicating with the TOC. A significant proportion of the
distraction sources identified during this research arose from these

Table 1
SHERPA distraction analysis extract.

Task step Error mode Description Consequence P C Remedial measures

2.2.1.1 þ 2.2.1.2 C1 Driver fails to check the front and back There may be passengers located in or M H Audible prompt to check doors
doors before closing them due to being around the doors as the driver before opening/closing
visually distracted closes them Intelligent doors that automatically
open/close
C1 Driver fails to check the front and back There may be passengers located in or M H Audible prompt to check doors
doors before closing them due to being around the doors as the driver before opening/closing
visually distracted closes them Intelligent doors that automatically
open/close

2.2.1.3 þ 2.2.1.4 A3 Driver moves door operation lever in the Doors remain open and do not close L M Intelligent doors that automatically
wrong direction open/close
A3 Driver moves door operation lever in Doors remain open and do not close L M Intelligent doors that automatically
wrong direction open/close
A8 Driver fails to close the doors before The bus will automatically stop as L M - Intelligent doors that automatically
attempting to pull away the doors are still open open/close

2.2.4.1  2.2.4.4 C1 Driver fails to check mirrors before Driver may not see a pedestrian or other H H Audible prompt to check mirrors
pulling away road user that is in close proximity before pulling away
to the bus
C1 Driver fails to check mirrors before Driver may not see a pedestrian or M H Audible prompt to check mirrors
pulling away other road user that is in close proximity before pulling away
to the bus
608 P.M. Salmon et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 602e610
Table 2
Summary of distraction-related errors identified through SHERPA analysis.
Safety critical errors
Driver fails to check front/back doors before closing them
Driver fails to fully check mirrors before pulling away from bus stop
Driver fails to turn on indicator when pulling away from bus stop
Driver under steers or over steers.
Driver fails to maintain an appropriate position in lane.
Driver fails to negotiate bend appropriately.
Driver fails to change lanes or changes lanes at the wrong time.
Driver fails to check current speed or the current speed limit.
Driver fails to check current speed or the current speed limit.
Driver fails to check surrounding traffic.
Driver brakes too late or fails to brake in time.
Driver fails to brake or brakes too sharply or does not brake sufficiently.
Driver fails to check mirrors.
Driver fails to adequately monitor traffic and pedestrians around the bus.
Driver fails to turn on an indicator or turns on an indicator too late.
Driver fails to check passengers and doorways when lowering the bus
or checks passengers too late.
Driver fails to adequately monitor passengers on-board while en-route.
Driver fails to set parking brake.
additional tasks (over and above driving the bus), which bus drivers
are required to undertake as part of their job. The importance of
efficient procedural and interface design in minimising distraction
is therefore apparent.
The SHERPA analysis of bus operation indicated that a number of
distraction-induced errors could potentially be made by drivers who
are engaging in distracting activities while driving the bus. These
include safety critical errors, which have the potential to adversely
affect bus driver performance and bus crash risk, and operational
errors, which have the potential to reduce the efficiency of bus driver
performance when undertaking bus operation tasks other than
driving the bus. The safety critical errors included errors affecting the
physical (e.g. braking too late or failing to brake, oversteering or
understeering, poor lanekeeping, failing to operate vehicle controls
such as indicators) and cognitive vehicle control tasks (e.g. failing to
check doors before closing, failing to check mirrors before pulling
away, failing to check current speed, failing to monitor traffic and
pedestrians, failing to monitor passengers) which might lead to
conflict with other road users. Remedial measures for the errors
identified included a number of design changes to the bus cabin, the
use of ITS technology (e.g., intelligent speed adaptation systems,
following distance warning systems, lane departure warning
systems, automatic lane-keeping systems and route navigation
systems) to automate some of the bus operation tasks and the use of
training on coping with the effects of distraction. Other remedial
measures included the use of training and company policy to prevent
instances of drivers engaging in violational activities. However, it was
also concluded that a number of the errors identified would require
the development of novel ITS technologies and driver support
systems, such as close proximity warning systems and situation
awareness displays that present pedestrian and other road user
location information to the driver. Further to the remedial measures
suggested by the SHERPA analysis, a range of other countermeasures
may be useful for mitigating the effects of driver distraction in the bus
and wider public transport domain.
6.1. Research steps required to support countermeasure
development
Regan et al. (2008a) discuss three groups of distraction coun-
termeasures: 1. Data collection, legislation and enforcement,
Operational errors
Driver fails to check bus stop for waiting passengers.
Driver fails to hear bus stopping alert.
Driver charges wrong fare or gives the wrong change.
Driver stops the bus in an appropriate position (e.g. too far away from the kerb).
Driver fails to stop and secure bus (e.g. apply park brake, select neutral gear etc).
Driver fails to check the kerb height.
Driver fails to lower the bus.
Driver fails to check the current time or misreads the current time.
Driver fails to check route journal or misreads the route journal.
Driver fails to hear incoming broadcast alert.
Driver misunderstands incoming broadcast or only hears part of the broadcast.
Driver fails to press the send button on the radio display or presses the wrong
button on the radio display.
Driver fails to press and hold the radio handset call button and the transport
operations centre do not receive message
Driver fails to hear transport operations centre message, misunderstands
transport operations centre message or only hears part of transport
operations centre message
vehicle fleet management, and driver licensing; 2. Education and
training; and 3. Vehicle, technology and road design; however,
before informed, appropriate countermeasures can be developed
and implemented, it is clear that much further targeted research is
required. The current study represents an initial exploratory study
in this area, and whilst the findings are useful, further investigation
is required. First, data on bus drivers’ exposure to different sources
of distraction is required. Whilst the present study has identified
what these sources are in the bus driving context, data on drivers’
exposure to each of the different sources is not currently available.
For example, there is little data available on how many bus drivers
actually use portable devices such as mobile phones while driving,
how often they use them, when they use them, and how they
interact with them. Such exposure information is an essential first
step in determining the level of risk to bus drivers in Australia.
There is therefore a need for research to obtain more detailed and
complete exposure data to sources of distraction. While surveys are
a cost and time efficient method for collecting exposure data, more
objective methods such as naturalistic driving studies are required
to ensure the collection of completed and accurate data. Second,
objective data on the effect of distraction on bus driver perfor-
mance is required. Given that bus drivers often operate under
additional stressors and higher workloads than passenger vehicle
drivers, the effects of distraction on these driver populations could
differ substantially to their light vehicle counterparts. It is therefore
important that authorities not rely solely on the results of research
with passenger vehicle drivers to inform distraction policy and
countermeasures for these driver groups. Again, survey-based and
on-road naturalistic studies are required to determine the effect of
distraction on bus driver performance. This should include identi-
fying the effects of distraction caused by the range of sources of
distraction identified through this research, including mobile
phones, passengers, bus radios and ticket machines. Third, there is
also a lack of data on the number of bus crashes attributable to
distraction. There is therefore a need to identify the role of
distraction in bus crashes. This requires the collection of such data
via police or bus company crash report forms, or the conduct of
large-scale naturalistic driving or in-depth crash studies. It should
be noted, however, that the collection of distraction-related crash
data is a difficult undertaking given that many distractions leave no
‘trace’, and drivers are often unwilling or unable (due to lack of
 P.M. Salmon et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 602e610
recall) to provide information on any distracting activities they
were engaged in prior to the crash.
Beyond identifying sources of bus driver distraction, a contribu-
tion of this study has been the development of a novel framework of
ergonomics methods that can be used to examine, in a real-world
context, driver distraction in the public transport domain. Methods
integration has been cited as a useful approach for studying a range
of ergonomics constructs, and is particularly useful when multiple
perspectives (e.g., both sources and effects of distraction in this
case) on the data available are required. In this case the method was
useful since it allowed analysts to describe the bus operation system
(through HTA) in a manner that supported the identification of
sources of distraction (HTA, supported by interviews, focus groups,
documentation review, observation) and some of the anticipated
effects of different distractors on driver performance (through
SHERPA). As noted by Regan et al. (2008c), it is important to develop
analytical tools that allow researchers to make a priori judgements
about the likely effects of different sources of distraction on driving
performance, given the considerable time and expense associated
with more traditional impact assessment techniques. SHERPA is
a promising tool for this purpose, and makes the important
conceptual link between distraction and human error. Recent
thinking and discussion about the mechanisms that appear to
mediate the effects of distraction on driving performance (see
Regan et al., 2008c) make it possible to further improve and validate
the use of SHERPA as an analytical tool for the assessment of
distraction. The approach presented here is a useful alternative
when existing crash data is inadequate and there is little opportu-
nity to undertake simulated or test track assessments of distraction.
The study presented does have some important limitations.
First, no objective data with regard to the role of distraction in bus
crashes is presented. This is currently lacking and so improved
distraction data collection approaches are recommended for public
transport accidents. Second, the errors identified through the
SHERPA analysis, although reviewed by SMEs, were not subject to
validation processes typically associated with error prediction
efforts (e.g. Stanton et al., 2009); however, it is our view that the
significant experience of the analysts involved in error prediction,
and the provision of a high level of SME judgement during the
review process negate this limitation somewhat.
This study represents the first known attempt to investigate the
sources and effects of bus driver distraction and much further research
effort is required in this area. While it is clear, from the literature and
the current study, that distraction may represent a safety problem
in the public transport sector, the road safety communities knowledge
of the extent, nature and actual impact of the problem is still in its
infancy. As yet, accurate or complete data regarding public transport
drivers’ exposure to distracting activities or how these activities affect
driving performance and crash risk do not exist. Such research is an
important step in establishing the role of distraction in crashes and
incidents within this transport domain and, ultimately, for informing
and guiding effective countermeasure development.
References
Barr, L.C., Yang, D.C.Y., Ranney, T.A., 2003. Exploratory analysis of truck driver
distraction using naturalistic driving data. In: Proceedings of the 82nd Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003.
Brookhuis, K.A., van Driel, C.J.G., Hof, T., van Arem, B., Hoedemaeker, M., 2009.
Driving with a congestion assistant; mental workload and acceptance. Applied
Ergonomics 40 (6), 1019e1025.
Burns, P.C., Parkes, A., Burton, S., Smith, R.K., Burch, D., 2002. How Dangerous is
Driving with a Mobile Phone? Benchmarking the Impairment to Alcohol. TRL
Limited, Crowthorne, UK.
Chen, W.-H., Lin, T.-W., Su, J.-M., Lee, S.-W., Hwang, S.-L., Hsu, C.-C., Lin, C.-Y., 2006.
The effect of using in-vehicle communication system on bus drivers’ perfor-
mance in car-following tasks. In: 13th World Congress on Intelligent Transport
Systems, London, UK.
609
Consiglio, W., Driscoll, P., Witte, M., Berg, W.P., 2003. Effect of cellular telephone
conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a braking
response. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (4), 495e500.
Embrey, D.E., 1986. SHERPA: a systematic human error reduction and prediction
approach. In: The International Meeting on Advances in Nuclear Power
Systems, Knoxville, Tennessee, 1986.
Engström, J., Johansson, E., Ostlund, J., 2005. Effects of visual and cognitive load in
real and simulated motorway driving. Transportation Research Part F 8,
97e120.
Evans, G.W., Johansson, G., 1998. Urban bus driving: an international arena for the
study of occupational health psychology. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 3, 99e108.
Gordon, C.P., 2008. Crash studies of driver distraction. In: Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D.,
Young, K.L. (Eds.), Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects and Mitigation. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Hanowski, R.J., Perez, M.A., Dingus, T.A., 2005. Driver distraction in long-haul truck
drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 8 (6),
441e458.
Harbluk, J.L., Noy, Y.I., Trbovich, P.L., Eizenman, M., 2007. An on-road assessment of
cognitive distraction: impacts on drivers’ visual behavior and braking perfor-
mance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 39 (2), 372e379.
Horberry, T., Anderson, J., Regan, M.A., Triggs, T.J., Brown, J., 2006. Driver distraction:
the effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age
on driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 38 (1), 185e191.
Hosking, S.G., Young, K.L., Regan, M.A., 2009. The effects of text messaging on young
drivers. Human Factors 51, 581e592.
Kass, S.J., Cole, K.S., Stanny, C.J., 2007. Effects of distraction and experience on
situation awareness and simulated driving. Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 10, 321e329.
Kirwan, B., 1998. Human error identification techniques for risk assessment of high-
risk systems e Part 1: Review and evaluation of techniques. Applied Ergonomics
29 (3), 157e177.
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. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blacks-
burg, Virginia.
Lane, R., Stanton, N.A., Harrison, D., 2007. Applying hierarchical task analysis to
medication administration errors. Applied Ergonomics 37 (5), 669e679.
Lee, J.D., Caven, B., Haake, S., Brown, T.L., 2001. Speech-based interaction with in-
vehicle computers: Tthe effect of speech-based e-mail on drivers’ attention to
the roadway. Human Factors 43, 631e640.
McEvoy, S.P., Stevenson, M.R., 2008. Measuring exposure to distraction. In:
Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D., Young, K.L. (Eds.), Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects and
Mitigation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 73e84.
Noy, Y.I., Lemoine, T.L., Klachan, C., Burns, P.C., 2004. Task interruptability and
duration as measures of visual distraction. Applied Ergonomics 35 (3), 207e213.
Nunes, L.M., Recarte, M.A., 2002. Cognitive demands of hands-free phone conver-
sation while driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour 5, 133e144.
Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., Bocanegra, J., 2009. Driver Distraction in
Commercial Vehicle Operations. Report no. FMCSA-RRR-09-242. Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, Washington, DC.
Rakauskas, M.E., Gugerty, L.J., Ward, N.J., 2004. Effects of naturalistic cell phone
conversations on driving performance. Journal of Safety Research 35, 453e464.
Reed, M.P., Green, P.A., 1999. Comparison of driving performance on-road and in
a low-cost simulator using a concurrent telephone dialling task. Ergonomics 42,
1015e1037.
Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D., Young, K.L., 2008a. Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects and
Mitigation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Regan, M.A., Young, K.L., Lee, J.D., 2008b. Introduction. In: Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D.,
Young, K.L. (Eds.), Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects and Mitigation. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 3e10.
Regan, M.A., Young, K.L., Lee, J.D., Gordon, C., 2008c. Sources of driver distraction. In:
Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D., Young, K. (Eds.), Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects and
Mitigation. CRC Press, Florida, Boca Raton, Florida.
Rydstedt, L.W., Johansson, G., Evans, G.W., 1998. A longitudinal study of workload,
health and well being among male and female urban bus drivers. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 71, 35e45.
Salmon, P.M., Stanton, N., Walker, G., Green, D., 2006. Situation awareness
measurement: a review of applicability for C4i environments. Journal of
Applied Ergonomics 37 (2), 225e238.
Salmon, P.M., Stanton, N.A., Jenkins, D.P., Walker, G.H., 2010. Hierarchical Task
Analysis Versus Cognitive Work Analysis: Comparison of Theory, Methodology,
and Contribution to System Design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. I-
first, 2nd February, pp. 1e28.
Stanton, N.A., 2006. Hierarchical task analysis: developments, applications, and
extensions. Applied Ergonomics 37, 55e79.
Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Harris, D., Demagalski, J., Marshall, A., Young, M.S.,
Dekker, S.W.A., Waldmann, T., 2009. Predicting pilot error: testing a new
method and a multi-methods and analysts approach. Applied Ergonomics 40
(3), 464e471.
Stanton, N.A., Baber, C., 1996. A systems approach to human error identification.
Safety Science 22, 215e228.
Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., 2004. Profiles in driver distraction: effects of cell phone
conversations on younger and older drivers. Human Factors 46, 640.
610 P.M. Salmon et al. / Applied Ergonomics 42 (2011) 602e610

Stutts, J.C., Reinfurt, D.W., Staplin, L., Rodgman, E.A., 2001. The Role of Driver
Distraction in Traffic Crashes. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, DC.
Stutts, J., Feaganes, J., Reinfurt, D., Rodgman, E., Hamlett, C., Gish, K., Staplin, L.,
2005. Drivers’ exposure to distractions in their natural driving environment.
Accident Analysis and Prevention 37, 1093e1101.
Walker, G.H., Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Jenkins, D., Stewart, R., Wells, L., 2009.
Using an integrated methods approach to analyse the emergent properties of
military command and control. Applied Ergonomics 40 (4), 636e647.
Young, K.L., Lenné, M.G., 2008. Victorian drivers’ exposure to technology-based
distractions: policy initiatives deriving from a driver survey. In: Proceedings of
the 2008 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference.
2008; Adelaide, SA.
Young, K.L., Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D., 2008. Measuring the effects of driver distraction:
direct driving performances methods and measures. In: Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D.,
Young, K.L. (Eds.), Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects and Mitigation. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, pp. 107e122.