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.”

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Self-driving car safety perspectives
    June 2, 2015
    At yesterday’s Opening Plenary, Chris Urmson’s keynote speech dealt with the reality of driverless cars on our roads. By far and away their greatest benefit to mankind will be the potential to achieve an incredible saving of life and injury on the roads, as Urmson, director of the Google Self-Driving Car program, revealed to delegates. In response to an Associated Press article last month disclosing that self-driving cars have been involved in four accidents in the state of California, Urmson revealed th
  • ‘How do you connect your dots with their dots?’
    May 24, 2022
    Ahead of the European Congress in Toulouse, Joost Vantomme tells Adam Hill how Ertico-ITS Europe is looking to bring partners together in pursuit of smarter and more sustainable mobility
  • Aecom seatbelt and phone use trial expanded in England
    March 6, 2024
    More police forces join National Highways’ safety cameras pilot to detect motorists breaking law
  • Polarisation is glaringly obvious, says Sony
    December 3, 2018
    Glare from the sun is a factor in a large number of road accidents – many of them fatal. But there is a solution at hand: using polarisation can mitigate the effect of glare and improve ITS camera enforcement, explains Stephane Clauss The effect of glare on driver safety has been well documented. A 2013 UK study by the country’s largest driver organisation, the AA, calculated sun glare was a contributing cause in almost 3,000 road accidents in 2012 alone. This represented one in 33 accidents on Britain’s