skip to main content
research-article

Money Drives: Can Monetary Incentives based on Real-Time Monitoring Improve Driving Behavior?

Published:08 January 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper examines the effectiveness of monetary incentives based on real-time monitoring as means to improve driving behavior of company car drivers. We conducted a 5-months 60-drivers field study with one of the largest public transportation companies in Israel. Driving behavior was measured continuously using In-Vehicle Data Recorders (IVDR) that were pre-installed in the vehicles, enabling naturalistic, objective and concise measurements. The driving behavior measurements were then used to examine two different monetary incentive schemes: (1) a simple individual incentive scheme where each driver was rewarded based on his own improvement in driving behavior, and (2) a peer-reward scheme where each driver was rewarded based on the improvement of his peers. Drivers were also provided with daily feedback about their improvement and the reward they gained using text messages and a dedicated smartphone app. We find that the two incentive schemes presented an average improvement of 25% in driving behavior, whereas the control group (that did not use any monetary incentive) presented no improvement at all. Surprisingly and in contrast to the reported superiority of the peer-reward scheme in previous studies, we find the individual scheme to perform better in our setting (31% vs. 15% improvement). Finally, we find that the monetary incentive schemes were able to reduce fuel consumption significantly, suggesting that such incentives can serve as a sustainable mechanism for improving driving behavior in real-world applications.

References

  1. Nadav Aharony, Wei Pan, Cory Ip, Inas Khayal, and Alex Pentland. 2011. Social fMRI: Investigating and shaping social mechanisms in the real world. Pervasive and Mobile Computing 7, 6 (2011), 643--659. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A Boulanger, M Divjak, I Orozova-Bekkevold, and V Zabukovec. 2007. Typology of Evaluation Methods: Current Practices and Campaign Evaluation. Public Campaigns and Awareness Raising Strategies in Traffic Safety, CAST, Belgian Road Safety Institute (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jeffrey N Buxbaum. 2006. Mileage-Based User Fee Demonstration Project: Pay-As-You-Drive Experimental Findings. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ron Christie. 2001. The effectiveness of driver training as a road safety measure: An international review of the literature. In Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, 2001, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. ISR Integrated Systems Research Corp. 2017. (2017). http://isrfleettrack.com/ Accessed: 2017-05-04.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Amanda Delaney, Bella Lough, Michelle Whelan, Max Cameron, et al. 2004. A review of mass media campaigns in road safety. Monash University Accident Research Centre Reports 220 (2004), 85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Dimiter M Dimitrov and Phillip D Rumrill Jr. 2003. Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work 20, 2 (2003), 159--165.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Rune Elvik. 2014. Rewarding Safe and Environmentally Sustainable Driving: Systematic Review of Trials. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2465 (2014), 1--7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Leonard Evans. 2004. Traffic safety.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Haneen Farah, Oren Musicant, Yaara Shimshoni, Tomer Toledo, Einat Grimberg, Haim Omer, and Tsippy Lotan. 2013. The First Year of Driving: Can an In-Vehicle Data Recorder and Parental Involvement Make It Safer? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2327 (2013), 26--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Charles M Farmer, Bevan B Kirley, and Anne T McCartt. 2010. Effects of in-vehicle monitoring on the driving behavior of teenagers. Journal of Safety Research 41, 1 (2010), 39--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. H Fidderman. 1993. Company car driver behaviour. Health and Safety Information Bulletin 214 (1993), 9--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Angelica C Grindle, Alyce M Dickinson, and William Boettcher. 2000. Behavioral safety research in manufacturing settings: A review of the literature. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 20, 1 (2000), 29--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Narelle Haworth and Mark Symmons. 2001. The relationship between fuel economy and safety outcomes. Number 188. Monash University Accident Research Centre.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Patricia Hedges and Dennis Moss. 1996. Costing the effectiveness of training: case study 1-improving Parcelforce driver performance. Industrial and Commercial Training 28, 3 (1996), 14--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Hans-Jürgen Heinmann and Franz-Dieter Schade. 2003. Moderne Verkehrssicherheitstechnologie: Fahrdatenspeicher und junge Fahrer. Wirtschaftsverl. NW.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lars Hultkrantz and Gunnar Lindberg. 2003. Intelligent economic speed adaptation. In 10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Lucerne, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Lars Hultkrantz and Gunnar Lindberg. 2011. Pay-as-you-speed An Economic Field Experiment. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP) 45, 3 (2011), 415--436.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Harry Lahrmann, Niels Agerholm, Nerius Tradisauskas, Teresa Næss, Jens Juhl, and Lisbeth Harms. 2012. Pay as You Speed, ISA with incentives for not speeding: A case of test driver recruitment. Accident Analysis 8 Prevention 48 (2012), 10--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Gunnar Lindberg. 2006. Valuation and pricing of traffic safety. Ph.D. Dissertation. Örebro universitetsbibliotek.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lawrence P Lonero. 2008. Trends in driver education and training. American journal of preventive medicine 35, 3 (2008), S316--S323.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. P Lynn and CR Lockwood. 1999. The accidental liability of company car drivers. TRL REPORT 317 (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ankur Mani, Iyad Rahwan, and Alex Pentland. 2013. Inducing peer pressure to promote cooperation. Scientific reports 3 (2013), 1735. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Undine Mazureck and Jan Hattem. 2006. Rewards for safe driving behavior: Influence on following distance and speed. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1980 (2006), 31--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Mary Pat McKay. 2004. Unprecedented nationwide paid media campaign on impaired driving yields strong results: “You Drink 8 Drive. You Lose.” campaign scores with target market. Annals of emergency medicine 44, 2 (2004), 155--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Metropoline. 2017. (2017). https://www.metropoline.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. W Murray, D Durkin, and M Williams. 1996. Benchmarking commercial vehicle accidents. Technical Report. Research report, Department of Transport and Logistics, University of Huddersfield, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Oren Musicant, Hillel Bar-Gera, and Edna Schechtman. 2014. Temporal perspective on individual driver behavior using electronic records of undesirable events. Accident Analysis 8 Prevention 70 (2014), 55--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Oren Musicant, Tsippy Lotan, and Tomer Toledo. 2007. Safety correlation and implications of in-vehicle data recorder on driver behavior. In Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kathryn E Newcomer. 1997. Using performance measurement to improve programs. New directions for evaluation 1997, 75 (1997), 5--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Mariam Nouh, Abdullah Almaatouq, Ahmad Alabdulkareem, Vivek K Singh, Erez Shmueli, Mansour Alsaleh, Abdulrahman Alarifi, Anas Alfaris, et al. 2014. Social information leakage: Effects of awareness and peer pressure on user behavior. In International Conference on Human Aspects of Information Security, Privacy, and Trust. Springer, 352--360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. National Safety Council. Annual Estimate of Cell Phone Crashes 2011. 2011. http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Resources/Documents/December_2013.pdf. (2011). Accessed: 2014-04-25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Ian J Reagan, James P Bliss, Ron Van Houten, and Bryan W Hilton. 2013. The effects of external motivation and real-time automated feedback on speeding behavior in a naturalistic setting. Human factors 55, 1 (2013), 218--230.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Yaara Shimshoni, Haneen Farah, Tsippy Lotan, Einat Grimberg, Oren Dritter, Oren Musicant, Tomer Toledo, and Haim Omer. 2015. Effects of parental vigilant care and feedback on novice driver risk. Journal of adolescence 38 (2015), 69--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Traffilog Fleet Management Solutions. 2017. (2017). http://website.traffilog.com/ accessed: 2017-05-04.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Beth Sulzer-Azaroff and John Austin. 2000. Does BBS work? Professional Safety 45, 7 (2000), 19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Alan Tapp, Ashley Pressley, Mike Baugh, and Paul White. 2013. Wheels, skills and thrills: A social marketing trial to reduce aggressive driving from young men in deprived areas. Accident Analysis 8 Prevention 58 (2013), 148--157.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Orit Taubman-Ben-Ari, Sigal Kaplan, Tsippy Lotan, and Carlo Giacomo Prato. 2015. Parents' and peers' contribution to risky driving of male teen drivers. Accident Analysis 8 Prevention 78 (2015), 81--86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Galit Toledo and Yoram Shiftan. 2016. Can feedback from in-vehicle data recorders improve driver behavior and reduce fuel consumption? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 94 (2016), 194--204. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Tomer Toledo and Tsippy Lotan. 2006. In-vehicle data recorder for evaluation of driving behavior and safety. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1953 (2006), 112--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Tomer Toledo, Oren Musicant, and Tsippy Lotan. 2008. In-vehicle data recorders for monitoring and feedback on drivers' behavior. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 16, 3 (2008), 320--331. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Carmela Troncoso, George Danezis, Eleni Kosta, Josep Balasch, and Bart Preneel. 2011. Pripayd: Privacy-friendly pay-as-you-drive insurance. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 8, 5 (2011), 742--755. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Mark S Young, Stewart A Birrell, and Neville A Stanton. 2011. Safe driving in a green world: A review of driver performance benchmarks and technologies to support smart driving. Applied ergonomics 42, 4 (2011), 533--539.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Money Drives: Can Monetary Incentives based on Real-Time Monitoring Improve Driving Behavior?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
      Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 1, Issue 4
      December 2017
      1298 pages
      EISSN:2474-9567
      DOI:10.1145/3178157
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 January 2018
      • Accepted: 1 October 2017
      • Revised: 1 August 2017
      • Received: 1 May 2017
      Published in imwut Volume 1, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader