Computers, Materials & Continua Tech Science Press

DOI:10.32604/cmc.2021.015989
Article

Detecting Driver Distraction Using Deep-Learning Approach

Khalid A. AlShalfan1 and Mohammed Zakariah2, *

1
College of Computer and Information Sciences, Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University,
Riyadh, 11564, Saudi Arabia
2
College of Computer and Information Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11442, Saudi Arabia
*
Corresponding Author: Mohammed Zakariah. Email: mzakariah@[Link]
Received: 17 December 2020; Accepted: 02 February 2021

Abstract: Currently, distracted driving is among the most important causes of

traffic accidents. Consequently, intelligent vehicle driving systems have become
increasingly important. Recently, interest in driver-assistance systems that
detect driver actions and help them drive safely has increased. In these studies,
although some distinct data types, such as the physical conditions of the driver,
audio and visual features, and vehicle information, are used, the primary data
source is images of the driver that include the face, arms, and hands taken with
a camera inside the car. In this study, an architecture based on a convolution
neural network (CNN) is proposed to classify and detect driver distraction. An
efficient CNN with high accuracy is implemented, and to implement intense
convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition, a new architecture
was proposed based on the available Visual Geometry Group (VGG-16) archi-
tecture. The proposed architecture was evaluated using the StateFarm dataset
for driver-distraction detection. This dataset is publicly available on Kaggle
and is frequently used for this type of research. The proposed architecture
achieved 96.95% accuracy.

Keywords: Deep learning; driver-distraction detection; convolution neural

networks; VGG-16

1 Introduction
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) [1], every year approximately 1.35 mil-
lion people die due to traffic accidents. On average, globally, approximately 3,700 people die every
day due to road accidents. A heartbreaking statistic in this report is that injuries caused by road
accidents lead to the death of young people between 5 and 29 years of age [1]. As per the WHO
report, the total number of mortalities increases each year, and the most common cause is vehicle
driver distraction. In Saudi Arabia, a report by the Department of Statistics of King Abdul-Aziz
City for Science and Technology (KACST) indicated that, in 2003, approximately 4,293 people
were killed and more than 30,439 were injured due to traffic accidents [2]. The use of mobile
phones is becoming common, and young people in particular talk on their mobile phones while
driving. Using a mobile phone while driving increases the possibility of accidents leading to death.
The KACST report indicates that mobile-phone usage during driving would increase the risk of

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
690 CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1

being in an accident by a factor of 4. In addition, texting while driving is approximately 23 times

riskier than talking on a mobile phone. Driver reaction time is significantly reduced when talking
on a mobile phone while driving; the KACST report states that reaction time is reduced by
approximately 50%, and further indicates that, for years, distracted driving has been considered
one of the main causes of car accidents [3].
Apart from loss of life, other issues, such as property damage, are associated with traffic
accidents, and such damage is attributed to distracted drivers. According to American National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, approximately 20% of traffic accidents in the United
States are due to driver distraction, and 90% of accidents are caused by human error [4]. Driver
error is considered the major reason for the increasing number of accidents [5]. For example, in
2015, approximately 3,477 people died and nearly 391,000 people were injured in traffic accidents
because of distracted drivers [6]. Drivers are distracted for various reasons, including talking on
a mobile phone, changing the radio station, eating, drinking, and talking to fellow passengers.
Therefore, to reduce the number of accidents, these actions should be monitored and checked [7,8].
A considerable number of studies have been conducted to investigate these problems. For example,
mobile-phone usage has been detected using acoustic or cell-phone sensing techniques to locate
the phone. Another technique involves monitoring and tracking a driver’s gaze movement [9,10].
Driver distraction is detected by capturing images using a camera placed in front of the driver
or inside the car. The captured images are transmitted for classification to detect driver actions.
As noted above, drivers are distracted in many ways. The common distractions are eating and
drinking while driving [11], communicating with fellow passengers [12–14], using in-vehicle elec-
tronic devices [15,16], observing roadside digital billboards/advertisings/logo signs [17], and using
a mobile phone to call or text. An effective way to address distracted driving is by developing a
system that can monitor the distractions. These techniques adapt the in-vehicle information-system
functionalities according to the driver’s state. In these systems, correctly identifying the driver’s
state is very important.
In this study, the focus is on identifying the driver’s state. In the future, this technology could
be applied in smart cities to detect driver distraction automatically and then send a warning
message to the driver to prevent accidents. This technique can allow law-enforcement authorities
to identify a distracted driver and monitor them using radar and cameras. Once detected, these
drivers can be penalized. Moreover, recently developed semi-autonomous commercial cars require
drivers to pay attention to road and traffic conditions [18]. Autonomous steering-control [19]
systems require drivers to be ready to take control of the wheel [18]. Thus, distracted-driver
detection is an important system component in these cars. Distraction detection can also be
used to enable advanced driver-assistance system features [20], such as collision-avoidance systems
that plan evasive maneuvers [21]. To reduce vehicle accidents and improve transportation safety,
a system that can classify distracted driving is highly desirable and has attracted much research
interest. In this study, a deep-learning technique is applied, which is part of the machine-learning
methods based on artificial intelligence. Deep learning is applied in many fields, e.g., computer
vision, speech recognition, natural language processing, and audio recognition. In this work,
experimental work was conducted on driver images to detect if the drivers are distracted while
driving. As discussed above, the consequences of distracted driving can be grave. Driver distraction
is classified into nine different classes based on driver actions while driving. In this study, the
StateFarm dataset is used, and the convolution-neural-network (CNN) technique is applied to
learn the machine and further classify the real image.
CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1 691

The rest of this article is organized as follows. In Section 2, work related to driver-distraction
detection is reviewed, and, in Section 3, the dataset used in this study is described. In Section 4,
the overall methodology of distraction detection is explained. The experimental setup is described
in Section 5 and experimental results presented in Section 6. Finally, conclusions are presented in
Section 7 and future scope detailed in Section 8.

2 Related Work
The authors of [22] developed a support vector machine-based (SVM-based) model to detect
the use of a mobile phone while driving. The dataset used in this work consists of frontal images
of the driver’s face. The pictures used to develop the model showed both hands and face with
a pre-made assumption and were focused on two driver actions, i.e., a driver with a phone and
one without a phone. A SVM classifier was applied to detect the driver actions and frontal
images of the drivers were used. In a similar study [23], SVM classification was used to detect
the use of a mobile phone while driving. The dataset used in this study was collected using
transportation imaging cameras placed on highways and traffic lights. The authors of another
study [24] did some extraordinary work by sitting on a chair and mimicking a certain type of
distraction (e.g., talking on a mobile phone). In this work, the AdaBoost classifier was applied
along with hidden Markov models to classify Kinect RGB-D data. However, this study had
two limitations, i.e., the effect of lighting and the distance between the Kinect device and the
driver. In real-time applications, the effect of light is very important, and this should be taken
into consideration for efficient results. The authors of [25] suggest using a hidden conditional
random-fields model to detect mobile-phone usage. The database was created using a camera
mounted above the dashboard and the hidden conditional random-fields model used to detect
cell-phone usage. The model considers the face, mouth, and hand features of images obtained
from a camera mounted above the dashboard. In another study related to phone usage [26],
a faster Region Based Convolutional Neural Networks (R-CNN) model was designed. In that
study, both the use of a phone by the driver and hands on the wheel were detected. Here, the
main contribution was the segmentation of hand and face images. The dataset used to train the
faster R-CNN was the same as that used in [27], in which a novel methodology called multi-
scale faster R-CNN was proposed. With this methodology, higher accuracy with low processing
time was obtained. In [27], the authors created a dataset for hand detection in an automotive
environment and achieved an average precision of 70.09% using the aggregate channel features
object detector. Another study [28] discusses the detection of cell-phone usage by a driver. In that
work, the authors applied a histogram of gradients (HOGs) and AdaBoost classifiers. Initially, the
supervised descent method is applied to locate the landmarks on the face, followed by extraction
of bounding boxes from the left-hand side of the face to the right-hand side. A classifier was
applied to train these two regions to detect the face, followed by left- and right-hand detection.
Finally, after applying segmentation and training, 93.9% accuracy at 7.5 frames per second was
obtained. Motivated by the same, several researchers worked on cell-phone usage detection while
driving. In [29], the authors designed a more inclusive distracted-driving dataset with a side view
of the driver considering four activities: Safe driving, operating the shift lever, eating, and talking
on a cell phone. The authors achieved 90.5% accuracy using the contourlet transform and random
forest. The authors also proposed a system using a pyramid of histogram of gradients (PHOG)
and multilayer perceptron that yields an accuracy of 94.75% [30] and Faster R-CNN [31]. Also
investigated in [32] was action detection using three actions, i.e., hands on the wheel, interaction
with the gears, and interaction with the radio; an attempt was then made to classify these actions.
Separate cameras were fixed to capture face and hand actions. A SVM classier was applied
692 CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1

to determine the driver’s actions; 90% and 94% accuracy were achieved for hand actions and
face and hand-related information, respectively. In another study [33], the Southeast University
dataset was used. In this study, the authors focused on hands on the wheel, usage of a phone,
eating, and operating the shift lever. The dataset consists of labels for each image for these four
driver actions. The authors applied various classifiers and obtained 99% accuracy for the CNN
classifier [33]. Another study [34] focused on the following seven actions: Checking the left-hand
mirror, checking the right-hand mirror, checking the rear mirror, handling in-hand radio devices,
using the phone (receiving calls and texting), and normal driving. In a pre-processing step, the
author cropped the driver’s body from the image, removed the background information, and
applied the Gaussian mixture model; after pre-processing the data, CNN classification was applied
to classify these actions. Using AlexNet [35], 91% accuracy was achieved for predicting driver
distraction. In other studies, [36,37], segmentation was performed to extract the drivers’ actions
by applying Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF) [36] key points. After pre-processing, HOG
features were extracted and K-NN classification applied. A recognition rate of approximately 70%
was achieved. In [37], a similar methodology was applied. However, in that study, two different
CNN models were applied to classify the actions. In the first model, triplet loss was applied
to increase the overall accuracy of the classification model. By doing this, the authors achieved
a 98% accuracy rate. They used 10 actions and the StateFarm dataset [38], which comprises
labeled images, for distraction detection. Here, the detected actions included safe driving, texting
using the right hand, talking on the phone using the right hand, texting using the left hand,
talking on the phone using the left hand, changing the radio station, drinking, talking to the
passenger sitting behind the driver, checking hair and makeup, and talking to the passenger sitting
beside the driver. In [39,40], the American University in Cairo (AUC) dataset was used to detect
distraction. This dataset is similar to the StateFarm dataset. In [39], training was done using five
different types of CNNs. After applying the CNN, the experimental results were weighted by
implementing a genetic algorithm to further classify the actions. In another work conducted by
the authors of [40], a modified CNN was applied, followed by numerous regularization techniques.
These techniques helped reduce the overfitting problem. The accuracy achieved by that work
was 96% for driver distraction. A deep-learning technique was applied in [41] using the AUC
and StateFarm datasets in which the video version of the dataset was worked on. The authors
proposed a deep neural network approach called multi-stream long short-term memory (LSTM)
(M-LSTM). The features used in this work were from [42], with contextual information, which
was retrieved from another pertaining CNN; 52.22% and 91.25% accuracy were achieved on
the AUC and the StateFarm distracted-driver datasets, respectively. In [43], a deep-convolution-
network technique was applied for the recognition of large-scale images. Similar work for the
recognition of face was implemented in [44] in three dimensions by applying feature-extraction
techniques and classification methodologies. Another recognition technique [45] has been applied
for palmprints by applying a robust two-dimensional Cochlear transformation technique.

3 Dataset
The StateFarm distraction-detection dataset was used in the present study. It was published on
Kaggle [38] for a competition. This dataset is the most commonly used dataset for the detection
of driver distraction and has been applied in many studies. The StateFarm dataset includes nine
classes, and each image is classified among these classes. The categories include the following
driver actions: Driving safely, texting with the right hand, talking on the phone with the right
hand, texting with the left hand, talking on the phone with the left hand, operating the radio,
reaching behind, dressing the hair and makeup activities, and talking to passengers, as shown in
CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1 693

Fig. 1 and discussed in [46]. There are approximately 2,200 RGB images for each class and each
image’s resolution is 640 × 480 pixels. The number of pictures for each class is listed in Tab. 1. The
holdout split technique was applied to produce 10% and 30% testing sets to create new training
and testing subsets from the original training set. The number and percentage of samples for each
class label in the training and testing sets are shown in Tab. 2.

C0: Safe Driving C1: Texting with right hand C2: Talking on Phone with
Right Hand

C3: Texting with the left hand C4: Talking on Phone with Left C5: Operating the Radio
Hand

C6: Drinking C7: Reaching behind C8: Makeup

C9: Taking to passenger

Figure 1: Sample images representing different actions in the StateFarm dataset

694 CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1

Table 1: Dataset details with the number of images per class

Classes Driver actions Images
C0 Driving normal 2489
C1 Texting with right 2267
C2 Talking with right 2317
C3 Texting with left 2346
C4 Talking with left 2326
C5 Operating the radio 2312
C6 Drinking 2325
C7 Reaching behind 2002
C8 Makeup 1911
C9 Talking to passenger 2129
Sum 33,636

Table 2: Distribution of images into training and testing samples

Driver actions Class label Training samples Testing sample
Driving normal C0 2489 260
Texting with right C1 2267 210
Talking with right C2 2317 230
Texting with left C3 2346 220
Talking with left C4 2326 225
Operating the radio C5 2312 230
Drinking C6 2325 236
Reaching behind C7 2002 195
Makeup C8 1911 184
Talking to passenger C9 2129 229

4 Methodology
A deep CNN is a type of artificial neural network. Deep CNNs are motivated by the
animal visual cortex. Currently, for several recent years, CNNs have demonstrated tremendous
achievements in various applications, e.g., image classification, object and action detection, and
natural language processing.

4.1 Basic CNN Architecture

A CNN includes filters/layers, activation functions, pooling layers, and a fully connected
layer, as shown in Fig. 2. A complete CNN is a collection of these layers in the proper form
and sequence.

4.2 Proposed Architecture

Currently, a standard CNN is modified and enhanced by introducing large amounts of labeled
data and increasing computational power. Some modifications to CNNs have been performed with
the following architectures, e.g., AlexNet, ZFNet, VGGNet, GoogleNet, and ResNet, which were
CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1 695

developed for computer-vision tasks. In the work described in this study, the Visual Geometry
Group (VGG-16) architecture was considered, which was modified to detect distracted drivers as
shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 2: Basic CNN architecture

Figure 3: CNN architecture for distracted driver detection

696 CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1

Original and Modified VGG16 Architecture: According to the literature, VGGNet is the most
powerful CNN architecture, in which the main idea is to develop a network that should be
deep and simple. The VGG architecture is shown in Fig. 4. VGG is an efficient tool for image-
classification and localization tasks. The standard VGG architecture comprises 3 × 3 filters in all
convolution layers, ReLu is used as the activation function, pooling is 2 × 2 with a stride of 2,
and the loss calculation is performed using a cross-entropy function. The pre-trained ImageNet
model weight were applied for initializations, and then all layers were fine-tuned according to our
dataset. Pre-processing was also performed on the images, and the images were resized to 224×224
pixels, and further from each pixel, the RGB planes are removed. The pre-processed data were
transferred to the network. The initial layers of the CNN perform filtering to extract features.
Softmax is employed as an activation function in the network’s final layer to classify images into
one of the pre-defined categories. Here, parameter reduction is significant; thus, numerous regular-
ization techniques were applied to handle generalization errors [40]. The fully connected layer was
then replaced with convolutional layers because dense layers become increasingly computationally
complex as it takes nearly all of the parameters. In addition, to control overfitting, the batch
normalization technique and dropout were applied between layers. Several of the neurons were
randomly dropped in the training phase, as shown in Fig. 5.

4.3 Activation Function

The ReLU function is currently the most used activation function in the World because it is
used in almost all the CNNs or deep learning, as shown in Eq. (1).
R (z) = max (0, z) (1)

As can be seen, the ReLU function is half-rectified (from the bottom). f(z) is zero when z is
less than zero and equal to z when z is above or equal to zero.
The dense layer’s output is then passed through a dropout layer, and a dense layer with several
neurons equals the number of class labels and softmax activation function, as shown in Eq. (2).
The softmax activation function is used to compute the probability of each class label, and can
be calculated as
exi
pi =  n xj . (2)
j=1 e

4.4 Performance Metrics

To evaluate the experimental results, two standard performance metrics were used, i.e., Accu-
racy and Sensitivity. These evaluation metrics are computed by using the following equations in
which TP is the number of true positives samples in the testing set, which were correctly detected,
and TN is the number of true negatives, which truly gives the number of negative samples in the
testing set. FP is the number of false positives, which give the number of false positives in the
testing set that are actually incorrectly detected. FN is the number of false negatives, which gives
the number of false negative samples in the testing set that are incorrectly detected. The equations
are as follows:
(TP + TN)
Accuracy = , (3)
(TP + FP + TN + FN)
TP
Precision = , (4)
(TP + FP)
CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1 697

Figure 4: Original VGG architecture

698 CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1

Figure 5: Modified VGG architecture

CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1 699

TP
Sensitivity = . (5)
(TP + FN)

Accuracy is used to calculate the portion of samples that are detected correctly during the
testing phase with all the datasets. Precision is used to calculate the percentage of samples that
are correctly detected during the testing phase with the total number of FP and TP samples. The
sensitivity is calculated by dividing the number of TP samples at testing with the overall sum of
TP and FN samples as shown in Eqs. (3)–(5).

5 Experimental Setup
A CNN was designed to detect distracted-driver behaviors. In this network, the weights were
initialized using the ImageNet model, followed by the application of the transfer learning concept.
Moreover, depending on the dataset, the weights at each network layer of the network were
adjusted, and various hyperparameters were fine-tuned through a trial-and-error process. Here,
stochastic gradient descent [42] was used for training with a learning rate of approximately 0.0001.
The batch size was 64 and the number of epochs was 100. Training the neural network was
performed by optimizing the objective functions. Here, the objective function was the cross-entropy
loss function. The purpose of applying this function is to optimize loss to make the model able to
handle large datasets and select samples at random, which are then used to estimate the gradients
at each layer and iteration. Here, the proposed model was evaluated using a standard stochastic
gradient descent algorithm and the Adam optimizer. As mentioned previously, the learning rate
was set to 0.0001. The learning rates were applied to manage the weights and update them
according to the expected errors. Note that the learning rate should be evaluated carefully. If it is
shallow, then the learning process will be slow, and, as the learning rate increases, weights would
become very large, which could lead to divergence. With these issues in mind, the model was
optimized using prevalent learning rates of 0.1–0.0001. In addition, overfitting is handled using
dropout and regularization techniques. Typically, the difference is training accuracy, and validation
is called overfitting, which must be addressed. Overfitting should be as low as possible for an ideal
model to predict test datasets accurately. Dropout is achieved by dropping a few network nodes
during the training process. After dropout, the batch size was tuned. The batch size defines the
number of instances to be propagated prior to updating the model’s parameters. In addition, the
pixel values should be adjusted before training and testing the model. The pixel values of the input
images should be normalized between 0 and 1. Here, the normalization process was performed,
dividing the pixel values over the maximum intensity value of 255.
Initially, the original VGG-16 architecture was applied to distracted-driver detection, and good
results were obtained in the training phase; however, during testing, the results were not so good
and resulted in overfitting. To overcome these issues, dropout was applied to improve the model’s
performance. In addition, weight regularization and batch normalization were used, significantly
enhancing the results and accuracy rate. It was found that this model could handle an average of
39 images per second. Tab. 3 presents the results of the system in the form of a confusion matrix
and Tab. 4 shows the class-wise accuracies for each of the 10 classes in the dataset. Another issue
with the core VGG-16 architecture is the number of parameters. As the number of parameters
was huge, memory problems were inevitable. To overcome this issue, the model was modified to
reduce the parameters by 75%, which reduced memory costs and improved accuracy.
700 CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1

6 Results and Discussion

As can be seen from the confusion matrix, the “Driving Normal” and “Talking to Passenger”
classes are somewhat similar and were difficult to differentiate because the hand posture in both
images is on the wheel; thus, the lack of hand movement caused this misclassification. In addition,
the “Talking with the right” and “Texting with the right” classes were also mismatched and
difficult to differentiate because, in the images in these classes, the right is used and had to make
the action. This misclassification is the cause of a few temporal information of the image and its
analysis. As shown in Tab. 3, the “C0” and “C9” classes achieve almost near accuracy, and the
remaining classes also show promising results. The “Driving Normal” class obtained an accuracy
of 96.15% and the “Talking to Passenger” class obtained 95.19% accuracy. The best accuracy
(96.95%) was obtained for the “Operating the Radio” class (with class name “C5”). The worst
accuracy was obtained for the “Texting with Right” class (90.47%), as shown in Tab. 4. However,
real-time performance was realized with real-time dynamic data. To achieve real-time prediction
accuracy and apply the system to real images, the parameters list should be reduced. If the number
of parameters is large, computational overhead increases, which may lead to breaking the system.
The loss and accuracy of the proposed model is shown in Fig. 6.

Table 3: Confusion matrix of the proposed model on StateFarm Dataset

C0 250 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 9
C1 2 190 2 4 0 2 4 0 3 2
Actual label C2 0 4 218 0 0 3 6 0 0 0
C3 0 0 0 206 4 1 0 0 0 0
C4 0 2 0 0 210 0 1 1 0 0
C5 2 1 0 3 5 223 0 2 0 1
C6 0 0 3 0 0 0 217 0 0 0
C7 3 0 5 3 6 0 0 188 2 0
C8 2 7 0 1 0 0 0 3 176 0
C9 1 3 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 218
C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
Predicted Label

Table 4: Accuracy of the proposed method for all ten classes

Classes Description Total samples Corrected predicted Predicted wrong Sensitivity (%)
C0 Driving normal 260 250 10 96.15
C1 Texting with right 210 190 20 90.47
C2 Talking with right 230 218 12 94.47
C3 Texting with left 220 206 14 93.36
C4 Talking with left 225 210 15 93.33
C5 Operating the radio 230 223 7 96.95
C6 Drinking 236 217 19 91.94
C7 Reaching behind 195 188 7 96.41
C8 Makeup 184 176 8 95.65
C9 Talking to passenger 229 218 11 95.19
CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1 701

Figure 6: Loss and accuracy of the proposed method

7 Conclusions
Driver distraction is a major issue leading to a consistent increase in the number of vehicle-
related accidents. Drivers can become distracted by various activities, e.g., talking on the phone,
texting on the phone, eating, drinking, and talking to passengers. A system to detect such actions
and warn drivers to avoid them to reduce accidents is therefore required. The StateFarm dataset
was developed to facilitate such research and is available on Kaggle for public use. This dataset
comprises many images, each action is classified, and their images are listed separately. The total
number of actions (classes) in this dataset is 10. The dataset is divided into training and testing
data, where 70% of the data are dedicated to training and 30% for testing and validation. These
images were applied to deep learning to learn the image features and train the system with some
efficient models. These models were tested on the test images. In this study, the VGG architecture,
which has shown promising results in the past, was used. However, the VGG architectures include
a vast number of parameters. In this study, this parameter issue was handled, and our modified
VGG architecture achieved an accuracy of approximately 96.95%.

8 Future Scope
The current methodology is working fine, but, in the future, developing our own dataset with
a larger size and applying this methodology to further try and use the more intensive techniques
and customize the current methodology are desirable. Planned future work also includes develop-
ment of real-time detection of driver distraction and application of wireless techniques to impose
tickets on drivers based on images of driver distraction. Such a system would detect the distraction
and send a traffic violation ticket as a message to the driver’s mobile phone.

Funding Statement: This work is a partial result of a research project supported by Grant Number
13-INF2456-08-R from King Abdul Aziz City for Sciences and Technology (KACST), Riyadh,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report regarding
the present study.

References
[1] WHO, “Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018: Summary,” 2018.
[2] Al-Turaiki, Isra, Maryam Aloumi, Nour Aloumi and Khulood Alghamdi, “Modeling traffic accidents
in Saudi Arabia using classification techniques,” in Proc. SICIT, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, pp. 1–5, 2016.
702 CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1

[3] P. F. Ehrlich, B. Costello and A. Randall, “Preventing distracted driving: A program from initiation
through to evaluation,” American Journal of Surgery, vol. 219, no. 6, pp. 1045–1049, 2020.
[4] Testimony of The Honorable David L. Strickland, “Administrator national highway traffic safety
administrationitle,” House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1–8, 2013.
[5] G. Savelli, S. Silveira Stein, G. Bernard-Granger, P. Faucherand and L. Montès, “Driving to safety,”
Superlattices Microstruct, vol. 20, no. 16, pp. 124–134, 2016.
[6] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Traffic safety facts 2015: A compilation of motor
vehicle crash data from the fatality analysis reporting system and the general estimates system,” U.S.
Department of Transportation, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 45–55, 2015.
[7] G. M. Fitch, S. A. Soccolich, F. Guo, J. McClafferty, Y. Fang et al., “The impact of hand-held and
hands-free cell phone use on driving performance and safety-critical event risk,” National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 23–33, 2013.
[8] C. Streiffer, R. Raghavendra, T. Benson and M. Srivatsa, “DarNet: A deep learning solution for
distracted driving detection,” in Proc. IMC, Las Vegas Nevada, USA, pp. 22–28, 2017.
[9] F. Vicente, Z. Huang, X. Xiong, F. TDe La Torre, W. Zhang et al., “Driver gaze tracking and eyes
off the road detection system,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 16, no. 4,
pp. 2014–2027, 2015.
[10] Q. Ji and X. Yang, “Real-time eye, gaze, and face pose tracking for monitoring driver vigilance,” Real-
Time Imaging, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 357–377, 2002.
[11] M. S. Young, J. M. Mahfoud, G. H. Walker, D. P. Jenkins and N. A. Stanton, “Crash dieting: The
effects of eating and drinking on driving performance,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 40, no. 1,
pp. 142–148, 2008.
[12] S. Koppel, J. Charlton, C. Kopinathan and D. Taranto, “Are child occupants a significant source of
driving distraction?,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 1236–1244, 2011.
[13] A. Theofilatos, A. Ziakopoulos, E. Papadimitriou and G. Yannis, “How many crashes are caused
by driver interaction with passengers? A meta-analysis approach,” Journal of Safety Research, vol. 65,
pp. 11–20, 2018.
[14] F. Zhang, S. Mehrotra and S. C. Roberts, “Driving distracted with friends: Effect of passengers and
driver distraction on young drivers’ behavior,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 132, pp. 1–9, 2019.
[15] K. Shinohara, T. Nakamura, S. Tatsuta and Y. Iba, “Detailed analysis of distraction induced by in-
vehicle verbal interactions on visual search performance,” International Association of Traffic and Safety
Sciences Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 42–47, 2010.
[16] M. Krause, A. S. Conti, M. Henning, C. Seubert, C. Heinrich et al., “App analytics: Predicting the
distraction potential of in-vehicle device applications,” in Proc. AHFE, Las Vegas, USA, pp. 2658–
2665, 2015.
[17] J. Edquist, T. Horberry, S. Hosking and I. Johnston, “Effects of advertising billboards during simulated
driving,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 619–626, 2011.
[18] A. Eriksson and N. A. Stanton, “Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: Noncritical transitions
to and from Manual Control,” Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 689–705, 2017.
[19] H. M. Eraqi, M. N. Moustafa and J. Honer, “End-to-end deep learning for steering autonomous
vehicles considering temporal dependencies,” in Proc. NIPS, Long Beach, CA, USA, pp. 10–15, 2017.
[20] H. M. Eraqi, J. Honer and S. Zuther, “Static free space detection with laser scanner using occupancy
grid maps,” in Proc. NIPS, Long Beach, CA, USA, pp. 1–8, 2017.
[21] H. M. Eraqi, Y. E. Eldin and M. N. Moustafa, “Reactive collision avoidance using evolutionary neural
networks,” in Proc. IJCCI, Portugal, pp. 1–7, 2016.
[22] R. A. Berri, A. G. Silva, R. S. Parpinelli, E. Girardi and R. Arthur, “A pattern recognition system for
detecting use of mobile phones while driving,” in Proc. VISAPP, Portugal, pp. 1–8, 2014.
[23] Y. Artan, O. Bulan, R. P. Loce and P. Paul, “Driver cell phone usage detection from HOV/HOT NIR
images,” in Proc. CVPR, Columbus, Ohio, USA, pp. 225–230, 2014.
CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1 703

[24] C. Craye and F. Karray, “Driver distraction detection and recognition using RGB-D sensor,” in Proc.
CVPR, Las Vegas, USA, pp. 1–11, 2015.
[25] X. Zhang, N. Zheng, F. Wang and Y. He, “Visual recognition of driver hand-held cell phone use based
on hidden CRF,” in Proc. ICVES, Beijing, China, pp. 248–251, 2011.
[26] T. H. N. Le, Y. Zheng, C. Zhu, K. Luu and M. Savvides, “Multiple scale faster-RCNN approach to
driver’s cell-Phone usage and hands on steering wheel detection,” in Proc. CVPR, Las Vegas, NV, USA,
pp. 46–53, 2016.
[27] N. Das, E. Ohn-Bar and M. M. Trivedi, “On performance evaluation of driver hand detection
algorithms: Challenges, dataset, and metrics,” in Proc. ITSC, NW Washington, DC, USA, pp. 2953–
2958, 2015.
[28] K. Seshadri, F. Juefei-Xu, D. K. Pal, M. Savvides and C. P. Thor, “Driver cell phone usage detection
on Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) face view videos,” in Proc. CVPR, Boston, MA,
USA, pp. 35–43, 2015.
[29] C. H. Zhao, B. L. Zhang, J. He and J. Lian, “Recognition of driving postures by contourlet transform
and random forests,” IET Intelligent Transport Systems, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 161–168, 2012.
[30] C. H. Zhao, B. L. Zhang, X. Z. Zhang, S. Q. Zhao and H. X. Li, “Recognition of driving postures
by combined features and random subspace ensemble of multilayer perceptron classifiers,” Neural
Computing and Applications, vol. 22, pp. 175–184, 2013.
[31] S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick and J. Sun, “Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with
region proposal networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 6,
pp. 1137–1149, 2017.
[32] E. Ohn-Bar, S. Martin, A. Tawari and M. M. Trivedi, “Head, eye, and hand patterns for driver activity
recognition,” in Proc. ICPR, Sweden, pp. 660–665, 2014.
[33] C. Yan, F. Coenen and B. Zhang, “Driving posture recognition by convolutional neural networks,” IET
Computer Vision, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 103–114, 2016.
[34] Y. M. Song, S. Noh, J. Yu, C. W. Park and B. G. Lee, “Background subtraction based on Gaussian
mixture models using color and depth information,” in Proc. ICCAIS, Gwangju, South Korea, pp. 132–
135, 2014.
[35] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever and G. E. Hinton, “ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural
networks,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 84–90, 2017.
[36] I. Jegham, A. Ben Khalifa, I. Alouani and M. A. Mahjoub, “Safe driving: Driver action recognition
using SURF keypoints,” in Proc. ICM, Sousse, Tunisia, pp. 60–63, 2018.
[37] O. D. Okon and L. Meng, “Detecting distracted driving with deep learning,” in Proc. ICR, Russia,
pp. 170–179, 2017.
[38] StateFarm, State Farm Distracted Driver Detection. Kaggle, 2016.
[39] H. M. Eraqi, Y. Abouelnaga, M. H. Saad and M. N. Moustafa, “Driver distraction identification with
an ensemble of convolutional neural networks,” Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 2019, pp. 1–
12, 2019.
[40] B. Baheti, S. Gajre and S. Talbar, “Detection of distracted driver using convolutional neural network,”
in Proc. CVPR, Salt Lake City, Utah, pp. 1032–1038, 2018.
[41] A. Behera, A. Keidel and B. Debnath, “Context-driven multi-stream LSTM (M-LSTM) for recognizing
fine-grained activity of drivers,” in Proc. GCPR, Dortmund, Germany, pp. 298–314, 2019.
[42] A. Sharif Razavian, H. Azizpour, J. Sullivan and S. Carlsson, “CNN features off-the-shelf: An
astounding baseline for recognition,” in Proc. CVPR, Columbus, Ohio, USA, pp. 806–813, 2014.
[43] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,”
in Proc. ICLR, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 1–14, 2015.
[44] G. Chaudhary and S. Srivastava, “A robust 2D-Cochlear transform-based palmprint recognition,” Soft
Computing, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 2311–2328, 2020.
704 CMC, 2021, vol.68, no.1

[45] Afzal, H. M. Rehan, L. Suhuai, M. Kamran Afzal, G. Chaudhary et al., “3D Face reconstruction from
single 2D image using distinctive features,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 180681–180689, 2020.
[46] B. Baheti, S. Talbar and S. Gajre, “Towards computationally efficient and realtime distracted driver
detection with MobileVGG network,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 1–
11, 2015.