Skip to main content

No evidence California cellphone ban decreased accidents, says researcher

In a recent study, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder found no evidence that a California ban on using hand-held cellphones while driving decreased the number of traffic accidents in the state in the first six months following the ban. The findings, published in the journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, are surprising given prior research that suggests driving while using a cellphone is risky; past laboratory studies have shown that people who talk on a cellphone wh
July 18, 2014 Read time: 3 mins

In a recent study, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder found no evidence that a California ban on using hand-held cellphones while driving decreased the number of traffic accidents in the state in the first six months following the ban.

The findings, published in the journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, are surprising given prior research that suggests driving while using a cellphone is risky; past laboratory studies have shown that people who talk on a cellphone while using driving simulators are as impaired as people who are intoxicated.

“If it’s really that dangerous, and if even just a fraction of people stop using their phones, we would expect to find some decrease in accidents,” said Daniel Kaffine, an associate professor of economics at CU-Boulder and an author of the study. “But we didn’t find any statistical evidence of a reduction.”

California enacted its ban on hand-held cellphones on 1 July 2008. For the new study, Kaffine and his co-authors—Nicholas Burger of the 2036 RAND Corporation and Bob Yu of the Colorado School of Mines—looked at the number of daily accidents in the six months leading up to the law’s enactment and compared that to the number of accidents in the six months following the ban.

They chose to look a relatively narrow window of time to reduce the number of other variables that might have an impact on accident rates, including the possible introduction of safer cars into the market, an economic recession that leads to a drop in overall driving, or other changes to state traffic laws.

The researchers also corrected their data to account for precipitation, which can cause more accidents; gas prices, which can affect how many vehicles are on the road; and other unobservable factors that may have influenced accidents.

The study was not designed to determine why accidents did not decrease, but there are several possible reasons, Kaffine said. One is that people switched from using hand-held devices to hands-free devices, such as ones with Bluetooth technology. Prior studies in the lab have suggested that both types of devices may be equally distracting.

It’s also possible that people were not complying with the new law, though past studies suggest that cellphone use dropped in other states when bans were enacted.

Kaffine says the reason could also be that the type of people who would drive recklessly using a cellphone are generally prone to distracted driving and would potentially cause accidents by fiddling with things, such as CD players or GPS devices, if they weren’t using their cellphones.

It may also be  that past studies of the risk of using cellphones while driving overestimate the danger. Since many of these studies were done in the lab, it could be that people perform differently using a driving simulator than they do on a real road.

Determining which, if any, of these reasons may have led to the ineffectiveness of California’s ban could lead to better cellphone policies in the future. For example, if the problem is just that compliance is low, then an increase in fines might be all that’s necessary to decrease accidents.

“Disentangling these effects will be useful for policymakers in other states who are considering policies to address distracted driving,” Kaffine said. “However, our results suggest that simply banning hand-held cellphone use may not produce the desired increase in traffic safety.”

Related Content

  • June 5, 2015
    The red light camera choice: 60 killed or save US$231 million a year
    David Crawford investigates new cost-benefit analysis of red light cameras. US states can now realistically calculate the economic benefits of using red light safety cameras, alone or in combination with other measures, to cut road traffic accident levels. The results could be of material value in making the case for the cameras as a number of state legislatures continue to debate their acceptability.
  • September 7, 2017
    Lane departure warning, blind spot detection help drivers avoid trouble, say researchers
    According to new research from the US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), lane departure warning, a technology designed to address an often-fatal type of crash, is preventing crashes on US roads. A separate study shows that blind spot detection also is yielding benefits when it comes to preventing lane-change crashes.
  • June 17, 2024
    As many as '50,000' daily cases of illegal phone use on English roads
    Results from UK DfT and Aecom using Acusensus tech suggest worrying scale of problem
  • June 26, 2014
    Nearly 54,000 UK learner drivers rack up penalty points
    New research from insurance price comparison website Confused.com has found that there are currently nearly 54,000 learner drivers in the UK who have penalty points on their provisional licence. The findings, obtained from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, reveal that learner drivers are racking up penalty points for motoring offences before officially passing their driving test. According to official figures 53,988 provisional licence holders have valid penalty points on their licence, meaning