Cellphone Legislation and Self-Reported Behaviors Among Subgroups of Adolescent U.S. Drivers

The impact of Illinois' comprehensive handheld phone ban on talking on handheld and handsfree cellphones while driving

INTRODUCTION

Distracted driving has been linked to multiple driving decrements and is responsible for thousands of motor-vehicle fatalities annually. Most U.S. states have enacted restrictions on cellphone use while driving, the strictest of which prohibit any manual operation of a cellphone while driving. Illinois enacted such a law in 2014. To better understand how this law affected cellphone behaviors while driving, associations between Illinois' handheld phone ban and self-reported talking on handheld, handsfree, and any cellphone (handheld or handsfree) while driving were estimated.

METHODS

Data from annual administrations of the Traffic Safety Culture Index from 2012-2017 in Illinois and a set of control states were leveraged. The data were cast into a difference-in-differences (DID) modeling framework, which compared Illinois to control states in terms of pre- to post-intervention changes in the proportion of drivers who self-reported the three outcomes. Separate models for each outcome were fit, and additional models were fit to the subset of drivers who talk on cellphones while driving.

RESULTS

In Illinois, the pre- to post-intervention decrease in the drivers' probability of self-reporting talking on a handheld phone was significantly more extreme than that of drivers in control states (DID estimate -0.22; 95% CI -0.31, -0.13). Among drivers who talk on cellphones while driving, those in Illinois exhibited a more extreme increase in the probability of talking on a handsfree phone while driving than those control states (DID estimate 0.13; 95% CI 0.03, 0.23).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that Illinois' handheld phone ban reduced talking on handheld phones while driving among study participants. They also corroborate the hypothesis that the ban promoted substitution from handheld to handsfree phones among drivers who talk on the phone while driving.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

These findings should encourage other states to enact comprehensive handheld phone bans to improve traffic safety.

Talking on hands-free and handheld cellphones while driving in association with handheld phone bans

INTRODUCTION

Concurrent use of a cellphone while driving impairs driving abilities, and studies of policy effectiveness in reducing distracted driving have yielded mixed results. Furthermore, few studies have considered how hands-free phone use associates with handheld phone bans. It is not clear whether hand-held phone bans dissuade some drivers from using the phone while driving completely, or whether it simply promotes a shift to hands-free use. The present study estimates the association between handheld phone policies and self-reported talking on hands-free and handheld cellphones while driving.

METHODS

Our data consisted of 16,067 respondents to annual administrations of the Traffic Safety Culture Index from 2012-2017. Our primary exposure variable was handheld phone policy, and our primary outcome variables were self-reported talking on any phone, self-reported talking on a handheld phone, and self-reported talking on a hands-free phone while driving. We estimated adjusted prevalence ratios of the outcomes associated with handheld phone bans via modified Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Drivers in states with handheld bans were 13% less likely to self-report talking on any type of cellphone (handheld or hands-free) while driving. When broken down by cellphone type, drivers in states with handheld bans were 38% less likely to self-report talking on a handheld phone and 10% more likely to self-report talking on a hands-free phone while driving.

CONCLUSIONS

Handheld phone bans were associated with more self-reported talking on hands-free phones and less talking on handheld phones, consistent with a substitution hypothesis. Handheld bans were also associated with less talking on any phone while driving, supporting a net safety benefit.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

In the absence of a national ban on handheld phone use while driving, our study supports state handheld phone bans to deter distracted driving and improve traffic safety.

Analysis of Drivers’ Eye Movements on Roundabouts: A Driving Simulator Study

Roundabouts are considered as one of the most efficient forms of intersection that substantially reduce the types of crashes that result in injury or loss of life. Nevertheless, they do not eliminate collision risks, especially when human error plays such a large role in traffic crashes. In this study, we used a driving simulator and an eye tracker to investigate drivers’ eye movements under cell phone-induced distraction. A total of 45 drivers participated in two experiments conducted under distracted and non-distracted conditions. The results indicated that, under distracting conditions, the drivers’ fixation duration decreased significantly on roundabouts, and pupil size increased significantly.

Support for distracted driving laws: An analysis of adolescent drivers from the Traffic Safety Culture Index from 2011 to 2017

INTRODUCTION

Adolescent drivers are often the focus of traffic safety legislation as they are at increased risk for crash-related injury and death. However, the degree to which adolescents support distracted driving laws and factors contributing to their support are relatively unknown. Using a large, nationally weighted sample of adolescent drivers in the United States, we assessed if perceived threat from other road users' engagement in distracted driving, personal engagement in distracted driving behaviors, and the presence of state distracted driving laws was associated with support for distracted driving laws.

METHODS

The sample included 3565 adolescents (aged 16-18) who participated in the Traffic Safety Culture Index survey from 2011 to 2017. A modified Poisson regression model with robust errors was fit to the weighted data to examine support for distracted driving laws. Models included age, gender, year, state distracted driving laws, personal engagement in distracted driving behavior, and perceived threat from other road users' engaging in distracted driving.

RESULTS

Approximately 87% of adolescents supported a law against texting and emailing compared to 66% who supported a universal handheld cellphone law. Support for distracted driving legislation was associated with greater perceived threat of other road users engaging in distracted driving while accounting for personal engagement in distracted driving, state distracted driving laws, and developmental covariates.

DISCUSSION

Greater understanding of the factors behind legislative support is needed. Public health interventions focused on effectively translating the risks of cellphone use while driving and effective policy will further improve the traffic safety culture.

Cellphone laws and teens' calling while driving: analysis of repeated cross-sectional surveys in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019

Background

Distracted driving among teens is a public health and safety concern. Most states in the U.S. have sought to restrict cellphone use while driving by enacting laws. This study examines the difference in prevalence of self-reported calling while driving (CWD) between states with different cellphone bans.

Methods

Demographics and CWD data were extracted from state Youth Risk Behavior Surveys (YRBS) from 14 states in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019. The state YRBS is conducted every 2 years with a representative sample of 9th through 12th grade students attending public school. States were grouped by type of cellphone law(s): no ban (the absence of both handheld calling ban and young driver ban), young driver ban (a ban on all forms of cellphone use while driving, for young drivers only), or concurrent ban (a young driver ban plus a ban on handheld calling for all drivers irrespective of age). Poisson regression models with robust variance were used to estimate prevalence ratios comparing CWD prevalence across ban types.

Results

In total, 157,423 high school students participated in the surveys, and 65,044 (45%) participants reached the minimum age to obtain an intermediate license and drove during the 30 days prior the survey. Approximately 53% of participants reported CWD at least once during the previous 30 days, and the percentages varied widely by states (range: 51–55%). Compared to students from states with no ban, those from states with concurrent bans were 19%(95% CI: 14–24%) less likely to engage in CWD. Students in states with concurrent bans were 23% less likely to engage in CWD compared to students in states with young driver bans (95% CI:17–27%).

Conclusions

Engaging in CWD is common among teen drivers. The concurrent implementation of a handheld calling ban and a young driver ban was associated with a lower prevalence of CWD.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40621-020-00290-x.

Social distance and texting while driving: A behavioral economic analysis of social discounting

Objective: Texting while driving is a dangerous behavior. Drivers continue to engage in the behavior despite knowing its risks, and the factors responsible for the decision to text while driving are poorly understood. This study examined how the relationship of the sender to the driver, in addition to the delay to the destination, may affect the decision to text while driving with the use of a social- and delay-discounting paradigm. Methods: Ninety-four (N = 94) undergraduate students completed a hypothetical social- and delay-discounting task in which they rated their likelihood of replying to a text message immediately versus waiting to reply until arriving at a destination. The social distance of the sender and the delay to the destination were varied across trials. Results: For both social and delay discounting, the likelihood of replying and waiting, respectively, decreased as a function of social distance and delay to the destination. Participants were more likely to text while driving as the social distance of the sender decreased and the delay to the destination increased. Social discounting varied inversely as a function of delay to the destination: The shorter the delay to the destination, the greater the social discounting. Conclusion: The findings indicate that social distance of the sender is an important factor involved in the decision to text while driving. Participants were more likely to reply to a text while driving if the sender was less socially distant. When they were closer to their destination, they were less likely to reply to socially distant people than those closer to them. The roles that social consequences play in drivers' decision making to text while driving are discussed.

Association between cellphone use while driving legislation and self-reported behaviour among adult drivers in USA: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Cellphone use behaviours can vary demographically in the USA. This study examined whether legislation restricting cellphone use while driving was associated with lower self-reported hand-held cellphone conversations or texting behaviours among adult drivers of different ages (19-24, 25-39, 40-59,≥60 years), sex, race/ethnicity (white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, Other) or rurality (urban, rural).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals ≥19 years of age who indicated they were a current driver and participated in the 2011-2014 Traffic Safety Culture Index Surveys (n=9706).

PRIMARY OUTCOME

The exposure was the presence of a hand-held calling or texting ban applicable to all drivers (ie, universal) at time of survey. Modified Poisson regression with robust SE was used to estimate the risk of engaging in these self-reported behaviours.

RESULTS

In fully adjusted models, universal texting bans were not associated with lower texting behaviours (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]=0.92; 95% CI 0.84, 1.01). In stratified, fully adjusted models, men and those of other racial/ethnic origin were 13% and 33% less likely, respectively (aRR=0.87; 95% CI 0.77, 0.98; aRR=0.67; 95% CI 0.46, 0.97), to engage in texting behaviours if a universal texting ban was effective in their state. Conversely, universal hand-held calling bans were associated with lower self-reported hand-held cellphone conversations across every sub-group. In fully adjusted models, the presence of a hand-held calling ban was associated with 40% lower (aRR=0.60, 95% CI 0.54, 0.67) self-reported hand-held cellphone conversations while driving.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal hand-held calling bans were associated with lower self-reported cellphone conversations for adult drivers. More interventional work targeting adult drivers may be needed to reduce texting while driving.

Examination of associations between risky driving behaviors and hazardous drinking among a sample of college students

OBJECTIVE

Hazardous drinking is associated with other risky behaviors and negative health-related outcomes. This study examined covariation between hazardous drinking scores and the following risky driving behaviors: Falling asleep while driving, texting (receiving and sending) while driving, and driving after consuming alcohol.

METHODS

The participants in this study were a sample of undergraduate students (N = 1,298) who were enrolled in an introductory health course at a large Southeastern university in spring 2016 and completed an online health survey that assessed hazardous drinking, falling asleep while driving, texting while driving, and driving after consuming alcohol. We conducted a series of 2-step regression analyses to examine covariation between hazardous drinking scores (using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption [AUDIT-C]) and the risky driving behaviors of interest.

RESULTS

We found that the majority of participants did not drink and drive (91.8%), nor did they fall asleep while driving (80.4%); however, the majority did read a text while driving (81.7%) and sent a text while driving (75.3%). In the full multivariable model, hazardous drinking score was positively associated with drinking and driving (step 2 odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18, 1.38) and sending a text message while driving (step 2 b = 0.19, P = .01). Hazardous drinking score was also positively associated with reading a text while driving (step 1 b = 0.14, P < .001) and falling asleep while driving (step 1 b = 0.02, P = .02) in the model only controlling for demographic characteristics. The analyses also indicated covariability between the following risky driving behaviors: (1) drinking and driving/reading a text message while driving, (2) drinking and driving/falling asleep and driving, (3) reading a text while driving/sending a text while driving, and (4) sending a text while driving/sleeping and driving.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicate a need for interventions discouraging both hazardous drinking and risky driving behaviors in college student populations; recommendations to reduce risky driving and hazardous drinking are discussed.

Risk Perceptions of Cellphone Use While Driving: Results from a Delphi Survey

Cellphone use while driving has been recognized as a growing and important public health issue by the World Health Organization and U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveys typically collect data on overall texting while driving, but do not differentiate between various forms of cellphone use. This study sought to improve the survey indicators when monitoring cellphone use among young drivers. Experts and young drivers were recruited to propose behavioral indicators (cellphone use while driving behaviors) and consequential indicators (safety consequences of cellphone use while driving) in 2016. Subsequently, experts and young drivers selected the top indicators using the Delphi survey method. We enrolled 22 experts with published articles on cellphone use while driving nationally, and seven young drivers who were freshmen at a state university. Sending a text or e-mail on a handheld phone was picked as the top behavioral indicator by both groups. However, young drivers chose playing music on a handheld phone as the second most important behavioral indicator, which was overlooked by experts. Injury/death and collision were the top two consequential indicators. Experts and young drivers identified the important survey indicators to monitor cellphone use while driving.