Emergency Vehicle Operator On-Board Device Distractions

Overview

Distraction inside emergency vehicles is widely acknowledged but rarely measured with consistency. For years, agencies, investigators, and attorneys have treated in-cab device use as a general “contributing factor,” without clear data showing how each task affects driving performance.

The problem is that not all distractions are equal, and treating them the same leads to inaccurate conclusions.

This study shows that distraction levels change based on:

• The type of device involved (radio, MDT, GPS, status buttons)
• The task demand (reading, entering data, acknowledging alerts)
• The operator’s workload during routine and priority responses

The authors examine how in-vehicle technology and the tasks tied to it can overload emergency drivers, create distraction, and affect driving performance. They outline how human information processing works in these situations and offer design guidelines to help reduce distraction-related crashes and support safer system design.

Why On-Board Technology Increases Driving Risk

Driving an emergency vehicle already takes a lot of focus. Operators need to watch traffic, judge gaps, control speed, and react quickly. When they start using in-vehicle tech at the same time, like reading call notes, checking the MCT, listening to multiple radio channels, or looking at maps, their attention gets split.

• Visual and manual distractions (looking at a screen or typing on a terminal) pull eyes and hands away from the road.
• Mental distractions (listening to several radio channels or processing new updates) slow reaction time, even when the driver never looks down.

Interviews show many operators still use their devices while driving, even when rules say not to. They do it because:

• Calls are urgent and time is tight
• Crews are short-staffed
• Information changes fast
• They believe they can multitask safely

Since emergency vehicles often move faster, take tighter turns, and drive in more stressful conditions, the quickest glance away can also lead to a late reaction or a loss of control.

Technology Systems Evaluated

Emergency vehicles carry a long list of tools that help operators do their jobs, but many of these tools also add extra mental and visual load while driving. The main systems reviewed in the study include:

• Mobile Computer Terminals (MCTs)
• Cameras and Video Displays
• Multi-Channel Radios
• Light and Siren Controls
• Speed-Enforcement Tools
• Personal Mobile Devices

While these tools support day-to-day operations, they also create steady demands on a driver’s attention.

Crash Data and Real-World Examples

Crash records from several states show that distraction plays a steady role in emergency-vehicle collisions, although reports don’t always list the exact device involved.

• Kansas City logged 181 crashes tied to in-vehicle distractions over five years.
• Texas recorded 1021 distraction-related emergency-vehicle crashes, including several involving MCT use.
• Austin Police documented dozens of collisions where the officer was interacting with a device at the time.

Real-world reports describe operators hitting stopped vehicles, missing cross-traffic in intersections, drifting out of their lane, or striking roadside objects after glancing at maps, messages, or camera screens. Fire and EMS drivers also reported close calls while entering patient details or reviewing updated call notes during a response.

Crash Data and Real-World Examples

Researchers used human-factors science to understand why multitasking in emergency vehicles leads to slower reactions and more mistakes. The main takeaway is simple: people can only handle so much information at once.

1) Limited Attention

Drivers can’t look at a screen, listen to the radio, and monitor the road with full awareness at the same time. When too many things compete for attention, one of them, usually the road, gets less focus.

2) Shared Mental Resources

Driving and using on-board devices both rely on visual, manual, and thinking skills. When two tasks use the same brain resources, performance drops in one or both.

3) Cognitive Overload

Emergency operators already face high stress and time pressure. Adding complex device interactions increases their mental workload. The higher the workload, the slower the response.

4) Observed Effects

Studies and field data portray distracted emergency drivers as experiencing:

• delayed braking and slower hazard detection
• reduced scanning of mirrors and surroundings
• inconsistent lane keeping
• missed radio or siren cues

Essentially, most distraction-related events start with a brief lapse in attention that happens during a technology interaction.

High-Risk Secondary Tasks

Not every task inside an emergency vehicle creates the same level of distraction. Some actions only take a second, while others demand both hands and full attention. The study highlighted a few that stand out.

1) Radio Communication

Drivers often monitor and talk on several channels at once. It’s easy to lose focus when trying to process overlapping messages.

2) MCT Interaction

Reading messages, checking call notes, or navigating screens requires eyes and hands off the road. This is one of the most distracting and time-consuming tasks.

3) Map and Routing Searches

Looking up directions or confirming an address pulls eyes off the road and increases workload during critical moments.

4) Reading or Acknowledging Messages

Even short glances at updates or alerts can cause a delay in noticing changes ahead.

5) Fixing or Adjusting Systems

Trying to reset a frozen screen, adjust volume, or switch channels often takes longer than expected and diverts attention.

Insights From Interviews and Surveys

Interviews with police, fire, and EMS departments showed:

• Single-operator police units face the highest multitasking burden.
• Fire and EMS crews share tasks, but dynamic events can shift duties back to the driver.
• Some vehicles have equipment that obstructs visibility or requires awkward reach.
• Operators often override policy limitations based on operational needs.

The survey results were consistent: MCTs and smartphones were rated as the highest-workload devices, and many operators reported using them during vehicle movement.

Insights From Interviews and Surveys

The study found that certain conditions make distraction even more likely to lead to a mistake or delayed reaction. The most potent risk boosters include:

• Single-person crews
• Crowded or awkward equipment layouts
• Long shifts and fatigue
• High-speed or emergency responses
• Constant or complex dispatch updates

The study also found that operators often try to manage distractions on their own by prioritizing certain messages, muting channels, or waiting for straight roads. But these strategies aren’t always enough.

Design Recommendations

Better design can lower distraction by making equipment faster and easier to use. Helpful improvements include:

• Quicker, more responsive touchscreens
• Brighter, easy-to-read displays
• Simple menus and fewer steps per task
• Clear audio cues and consistent tones
• Controls placed within a natural line of sight
• Voice-activated or hands-free options

These changes shorten how long drivers look away from the road and reduce the mental effort needed to manage devices.

Key Takeaways

Emergency vehicle operators rely on multiple in-vehicle systems to do their jobs, but these tools also add steady visual and mental demands during driving. MCTs, radios, and map searches are the most distracting tasks and are linked to slower reactions, missed cues, and increased crash risk.

Field interviews, surveys, and crash data all point to the same conclusion: even brief lapses caused by on-board technology can have serious consequences, especially at higher speeds or under Code 3 conditions.

Reducing distraction requires a mix of changes: simpler equipment layouts, clear policies, and hands-on training reflecting real driving conditions. The goal is to make sure every interaction takes less time and attention.