Anne T. McCartt

Almost all U.S. states have laws limiting drivers' cellphone use. The evidence suggests that all-driver bans on hand-held phone conversations have resulted in long-term reductions in hand-held phone use, and drivers in ban states reported higher rates of hands-free phone use and lower overall phone use compared with drivers in non-ban states. Bans on all phone use by teenage drivers have not been shown to reduce their phone use. The effects of texting bans on the rates of drivers' texting are unknown. With regard to the effects of bans on crashes, 11 peer-reviewed papers or technical reports of all-driver hand-held phone bans and texting bans were reviewed. Some were single-state studies examining crash measures before and after a state ban; other national or multi-state studies compared crashes in states with and without bans over time. The results varied widely. The lack of appropriate controls and other challenges in conducting strong evaluations limited the findings of some studies. Thus, despite the proliferation of laws limiting drivers' cellphone use, it is unclear whether they are having the desired effects on safety. Priorities for future research are suggested.

Objective: To examine the effects of changes to Washington State's ignition interlock laws: moving issuance of interlock orders from courts to the driver licensing department in July 2003 and extending the interlock order requirement to first-time offenders with blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) below 0.15 percent (“first simple driving under the influence [DUI]”) in June 2004. Method: Trends in conviction types, interlock installation rates, and 2-year cumulative recidivism rates were examined for first-time convictions (simple, high-BAC, test refusal DUI; deferred prosecution; alcohol-related negligent driving) stemming from DUI arrests between January 1999 and June 2006. Regression analyses examined recidivism effects of the law changes and interlock installation rates. To examine general deterrent effects, trends in single-vehicle late-night crashes in Washington were compared with trends in California and Oregon. Results: After the 2004 law change, the proportion of simple DUIs declined somewhat, though the proportion of negligent driving convictions (no interlock order requirement) continued an upward trend. Interlock installation rates for first simple DUIs were 3 to 6 percent in the year before the law change and one third after. Recidivism declined by an estimated 12 percent (e.g., expected 10.6% without law change vs. 9.3% among offenders arrested between April and June 2006, the last study quarter) among first simple DUI offenders and an estimated 11 percent (expected 10.2% vs. 9.1%) among all first-time offenders. There was an estimated 0.06 percentage point decrease in the recidivism rate for each percentage point increase in the proportion of first simple DUI offenders with interlocks. If installation rates had been 100 vs. 34 percent for first simple DUI offenders arrested between April and June 2006, and if the linear relationship between rates of recidivism and installations continued, recidivism could have been reduced from 9.3 to 5.3 percent. With installation rates of 100 vs. 24 percent for all first offenders, their recidivism rate could have fallen from 9.1 to 3.2 percent. Although installation rates increased somewhat after the 2003 law change, recidivism rates were not significantly affected, perhaps due to the short follow-up period before the 2004 law change. The 2004 law change was associated with an 8.3 percent reduction in single-vehicle late-night crash risk. Conclusions: Mandating interlock orders for all first DUI convictions was associated with reductions in recidivism, even with low interlock use rates, and reductions in crashes. Additional gains are likely achievable with higher rates. Jurisdictions should seek to increase use rates and reconsider permitting reductions in DUI charges to other traffic offenses without interlock order requirements.

Objective: To highlight the issues and discuss the research evidence regarding safety, mobility, and other consequences of different licensing ages. Methods: Information included is based on presentations and discussions at a 1-day workshop on licensing age issues and a review and synthesis of the international literature. Results: The literature indicates that higher licensing ages are associated with safety benefits. There is an associated mobility loss, more likely to be an issue in rural states. Legislative attempts to raise the minimum age for independent driving in the United States—for example, from 16 to 17—have been resisted, although in some states the age has been raised indirectly through graduated driver licensing (GDL) policies. Conclusions: Jurisdictions can achieve reductions in teenage crashes by raising the licensing age. This can be done directly or indirectly by strengthening GDL systems, in particular extending the minimum length of the learner period. Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Traffic Injury Prevention for the following supplemental resource: List of workshop participants.

Objectives: On May 1, 2010, New Jersey implemented a law requiring teenagers with learner's permits or probationary licenses to display reflective decals on the front and rear license plates when they drive. The current study examined attitudes of parents and teenagers toward this requirement, use of decals, and reported violations and police enforcement of the graduated driver license law. Method: Statewide telephone surveys of representative samples of parents and teenagers were conducted in February to April 2010 and March to June 2011. Use of decals among probationary license holders was observed at 4 high schools in fall 2010 and in spring 2011 and hand-out surveys were distributed. Data on citations issued for violations of the graduated driver license law were obtained. Results: When interviewed in spring 2011, a large majority of parents of probationary license holders, parents of learner's permit holders, and teenagers with probationary licenses disapproved of decals for probationary licenses. About two thirds of both sets of parents and about half of teenagers disapproved of decals for learner's permits. Support for decals for both license types declined significantly from 2010 to 2011. For parents and teenagers alike, opposition was mainly attributed to concern about identifying and/or targeting teenage drivers by other drivers, predators, or police. In 2011, 77 percent of parents of probationary license holders said that their teenagers had decals for the vehicles driven most often; 46 percent said their teenagers always used decals. Fifty-six percent of parents of learner's permit holders said that their teenagers had decals for the vehicles driven most often; 37 percent said that their teenagers always used decals. Teenagers’ reported violations of license restrictions either increased or were similar in 2011 compared to 2010. Observed rates of decal use by probationary license holders at high schools in spring 2011 ranged from 24 to 64 percent. The number of statewide citations for teenage licensing law violations doubled in the year after the decal requirement took effect compared to the prior year. Excluding decal violations, citations increased by 52 percent. Conclusions: Early examination of New Jersey's decal requirement found widespread opposition, primarily due to concerns about identifying/targeting teenage drivers, though first-hand reports of such incidents were very rare. Many teenagers do not use the decals. Increased issuance of citations for violations of the teenage licensing law suggests that decals are facilitating police enforcement. However, based on teenagers’ self-reports, the requirement does not appear to have achieved the ultimate goal of increased compliance.

Objective: To obtain information on attitudes and experiences related to red light camera enforcement in cities with camera programs and in Houston, Texas, where cameras were removed after voters rejected the program in November 2010. Methods: Telephone surveys were conducted with 3111 drivers in 14 large cities (population greater than 200,000) with long-standing red light camera programs and 300 drivers in Houston, using random samples of landline and cell phone numbers in each city. For analyses combining responses from the 14 cities, cases were weighted to reflect each city's share of the total population for the 14 cities. Results: Among drivers in the 14 cities with red light camera programs, two thirds favor the use of cameras for red light enforcement and 42 percent strongly favor it. The chief reasons for opposing cameras were the perceptions that cameras make mistakes and that the motivation for installing them is revenue, not safety. Forty-one percent of drivers favor using cameras to enforce right-turn-on-red violations. Nearly 9 in 10 drivers were aware of the camera enforcement programs in their cities, and 59 percent of these drivers believed that the cameras have made intersections safer. Almost half know someone who received a red light camera citation, and 17 percent had received at least one ticket themselves. When compared with drivers in the 14 cities with camera programs, the percentage of drivers in Houston who strongly favored enforcement was about the same (45%), but strong opposition was higher in Houston than in the other cities (28 versus 18%). Conclusions: Most drivers in cities with long-standing red light camera programs support cameras and believe that the cameras have improved safety, but communities could do a better job of educating the public about the dangers of right-turn-on-red violations and the need for enforcement. Given that camera opponents frequently said cameras make mistakes, it appears that communities also could do a better job of explaining the safeguards that ensure that citations are issued only to drivers who clearly run red lights.