THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMI\JGHAM

Primary Texting Bans Associated with Lower Traffic Fatalities, Study Finds Released:25-Jul-2014 12:15 PM EDT Source Newsroom: ' d

Contact Information

Availablefor logged-in reporters only

Newswise- BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health examined the impact texting-while-driving laws have had on roadway crash-related fatalities, and the findings are published in the August issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Of drivers in the United States ages 18-64 years, 31 percent reported they had read or sent text or email messages while driving at 1eaqt once in the 30 days prior, according to 2011 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That same year, 3,331 people were killed in crashes involving a distracted driver, and an additional 387,000 people were injured.

While completing her doctoral work in the Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, Alva 0. Ferdinand, Dr.P.H., J.D., conducted a longitudinal panel study to examine within-state changes in roadway fatalities after the enactment of state texting-while-driving bans using roadway fatality data captured in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System between 2000 and 2010.

"Very little is known about whether laws banning texting while driving have actually improved roadway safety," Ferdinand said. "Further, given the considerable variation in the types oflaws that states have passed and whom they ban from what, it was necessary to determine which types of laws are most beneficial in improving roadway safety."

Some states have banned all drivers from texting while driving, while others have banned only young drivers from this activity, Ferdinand says. Additionally, some states' texting bans entail secondary enforcement, meaning an officer must have another reason to stop a vehicle, like speeding or running a red light, before citing a driver for texting while driving. Other states' texting bans entail primary enforcement, meaning an officer does not have to have another reason for stopping a vehicle.

"Our results ind1cated that primary texting bans were significantly associated with a 3 percent reduction in traffic fatalities among all age groups, which equates to an average of 19 deaths

pre,·ented per year in states wi1h such bans.·· Ferdinand said. ''Primarily enforced texting taw~ that bmmeu only ynung driYl'T!> 1h1111 te:xting were the nw~t efl~c1in' :11 roouL.:ing deaths among the 15- to 21 ~yeaNlld cohort, with an as~ociatl>d 1 I percent reduction in tratlic t3talities ~mwng thb age grour in statl.''\ with such bans."

States with secondari]y enforced re~trictions did not see any significant reductions in traffic fatalities.

"We were a little surprised to see that primarily enforced texting bans were not associated with significant reductions in fatalities among those ages 21 to 64, who are not considered to be young drivers," Ferdinand said. ··However, states with bans prohibiting the use of cellphones without hand!>~free h.•dm~1lt\gy altogetl1er on all drivers saw significant reductions 111 fatalities among this particular age grour. Thus, although texting-while~driving bans were most effective for reducing traffic-related fatalities among young individuals, handheld bans appear to be most effective for adults."

Ferdinand says these results could aid policymakers interested in improving roadway safety in that they indicate the types oflaws that are most effective in reducing deaths among various age groups, as well as those in states with secondarily enforced texting bans advocating for stricter, primarily enforced texting bans.

Ferdinand's mentor, Nir Menachemi, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, says jt is a key responsibility of health poHcy researchers to generate high-quality evidence on the health impa<.:t of societal policies and laws.

"Clearly. distra~:t~d driving is a ~rowing problem affecting everyone nn th(' roadways;· Menachemi said. "]tis my hope that policymakers act upon our findings so that motor-vehicle deaths can be prevented .. ,

Study: Primary enforcement saves lives July 26, 2014 by ':lditn•

"Primary enforcement" of distracted driving laws leads to lower death rates in states with texting laws, while secondary enforcement does not, according to a new study.

Meanwhile, another research team found that California's handheld device failed to lower the number of vehicle crashes in its first six months.

The study on primary enforcement should bolster state lawmakers seeking to give police the ability to stop and cite distracted driving offenders.

"Very little is known about whether laws banning texting while driving have actually improved roadway safety," said researcher Alva Ferdinand of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

She was motivated by "considerable variation~ in state distracted driving laws, seeking to determine ''which types of laws are most beneficial in improving roadway safety."

Primary enforcement means that police have the ability to pull over violators of distracted driving laws, while secondary enforcement means another infraction- such as weaving or driving too slow - must be observed before a stop. Most states with texting laws call for primary enforcement, but four do not.

In states with primary texting laws, Ferdinand found "a 3 percent reduction in traffic fatalities among all age groups, which equates to an average of 19 deaths prevented per year" in those states.

Most effective were primary texting laws that targeted young drivers. They had "an associated 11 percent reduction in traffic fatalities among this age group in states with such bans."

States with secondarily enforced restrictions did not see any significant reductions in traffic fatalities, according to Ferdinand's analysis of federal data collected between 2000 and 2010.

The .JJ.:...:_ found that states that banned use of handheld cell phones for all drivers saw reductions in fatalities while texting laws were most effective with novice drivers.

"Handheld bans appear to be most effective for adults," she said.

Secondary enforcement laws sometimes result from compromises in the legislative process, a recent example being Florida's texting law. Some states have upgraded their enforcement to primary after widespread complaints from law officers that secondary enforcement equals no enforcement.

which has been published previously, researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder "didn't find any statistical evidence of a reduction" in traffic crashes in the six­month period following enactment of the state's handheld cell phone law.

California's cell phone driving ban went into effect July 1, 2008, with primary enforcement. Highway Patrol numbers from the first six months of the law's implementation did show a 20 percent reduction in fatalities and collisions, the :.§.w's in 2010, but the comparison period was spread over several years.

"Our results suggest that simply banning hand-held cell phone use may not produce the desired increase in traffic safety," Colorado researcher Daniel Kaffine said.

Possible reasons given for the lack of a decline included lack of compliance with the distracted driving law; distractions from hands-free devices such as Bluetooth headsets; and an overstatement of risks from cell phone use while driving.

"Disentangling these effects will be useful for policymakers in other states who are considering policies to address distracted driving, • Kaffine said.

The two studies add to a growing body of research that's split on the effectiveness of distracted driving laws.

Kaffine told HandsFreelnfo: "The evidence on bans is pretty mixed -some papers find evidence that these bans are effective and some find that they're not."

Unfortunately, he said, "there isn't a silver bullet" for researchers trying to find out if distracted driving laws work. "So what you see is a number of varying approaches" to studies.

aFactors like changes in how we use our phones, who's using phones, and who's driving in the first place have to be dealt with by researchers,p he said.

Hands free is not risk free

r ~~ , ·~ - - 1"' r

Safety on the Road

• In 2011 alone, motor vehicle crashes claimed more than 35,000 lives.

What are the leading concerns? According tC\ l!.ll!r~ : .. .' ... !!'' , , ,!'\, ::!014. the Council's annual re-port on unintentional injuries, the three biggest causes of fatalities on the road include:

I. Alcohol (30.8%) 2. Speeding (300/o) 3. Distracted driving (26%)

• Paving the Way to Safer Roads

•

With advancements in cell phone technology, distracted driving has been an increasing and misunderstood trend. In fact, findings from a recent NSC public opinion poll indicate 80% of drivers across America incorrectly believe that hands-free devices are safer than using a handheld phone.

J c' ''. 'I' distracted driving, regardless if it's hands-free or handheld, is a dangerous threat to roadway safety .

The brain quickly toggles between tasks - but can't do two things at the same time. -r The activity in the area of the brain () that processes moving images

when listening to talking on a phone.

• 0 G..._, ,.:# ,.

,.

Educating Teen Drivers

For teens just learning to drive, car crashes are the No. 1 cause of death - mostly due to inexperience. Graduated Driver Licensing systems are proven to reduce crashes involving teen drivers by as much as 40%, minimizing common risks such as passenger distraction, nighttime driving and cell phone use.

1 "l• • , , L , , , , to help keep teen drivers safe.

Employers are Taking Action

Millions of people drive as part of their jobs. Some are professionally trained drivers, many are not. If a job does not primarily involve driving, the employee often does not receive the same kind of safety management or engagement in driving safety that others may get.

Employers need to manage the safety of their employees on the roads, just as they manage other risks in the workplace. Start with an understwufing of keeping employees safe. The NSC lourg~v to Saf~l' Excellen~5 incorporates leadership and employee engagement, risk management, safety management systems and measurement.

Off-the-job crashes account for 80% of employer crash-related health benefit costs, and half of crash­related injuries cause employees to miss work. According to Injury Facts, the average economic cost due to a crash was more than $1 million per death and more than $78,000 per nonfatal disabling injury. Employers pay significant costs associated with off-the-job crashes, including decreases in employee health, well-being, and productivity, and increases in lost time from work and insurance costs.

To prevent motor vehicle crashes involving their employees on and off the job, employers should:

• Applyprinciplesofthe '"c'c'·, '.' c , ,,., ." !' 'l-y'h••L:

• Engage employees to understand the risks they face while driving, take action to address the risks and implement measures to track progress

• Offer defensive driving courses and other training specific to the risks faced • Offer programs for employees with alcohol or prescription or illegal drug problems • Enact a corporate cell phone policy to prevent all cell phone use behind the wheel • Enact a policy that requjres employees to wear seat belts • Ask NSC experts to assess your organization's road safety systems, and help design and execute a

program

0 Distracted Driving: One Call Can Change Everything

" An Estimated 1 in 4 Car Crashes Involves Cell Phone Use

Many distractions exist while driving, hut cell phones are a top distraction because so many drivers use them for long periods of time each day. Ahnost everyone has seen a driver distracted by a cell phone, but when you are the one who is distracted. you often don't realize that driver is you.

'11on about distracted driving.

• Hands-free is Not Risk-free

With some state laws focusing on handheld bans and carmakers putting hands-free technology in vehicles, it's no wonder people are confused. However, while many drivers honestly believe they are making the safe choice by using a hands-free device, it's just not true. Your brain remains distracted

by the conversation. \,_r" ·· · ~ '·' n . about distracted driving.

April is Distracted Driving Awareness Month

Did you know there is a lot you can do to help prevent distracted driving?

• Stop using your phone while driving. • Use social media to tell others about the dangers of cell phone distracted driving. • Take the pledge to drive cell-free. • Learn more about ':" ' ··wfe\' '· ·, ,.

o Employers Bring About Change

While no state has a law prohibiting all cell phone use while driving, employers are putting policies in place banning the use of handheld and hands-free devices to eliminate cell phone distracted driving and keep their employees safe. about distracted driving.

Driving while Texting Six Times More Dangerous than Driving while Drunk

Driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).1 The federal agency reports that sending or receiving a text takes a driver's eyes from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, the equivalent-- when traveling at 55 mph -­of driving the length of an entire football field while blindfolded. 2

Texting in cars and trucks causes over 3,000 deaths and 330,000 injuries per year,

according to a Harvard Center for Risk Analysis study. 3

Texting while driving a vehicle has now replaced drinking while driving as the

leading cause of accidents and deaths of teenage drivers.4 Texting in traffic isn't

simply a problem among teens and 47% of adults admit that they text while

driving.5 Texting drivers are 23 times more likely to be involved in a crash than

non-texting drivers. 6

The proportion of alcohol-related traffic crash deaths has dropped 52% since 1982,

and are now at historic lows, but the proportion of traffic accident fatalities that are

NOT alcohol-related has jumped 78% during the same time. 14 Although there are

still far too many, we're winning the war against alcohol-related traffic deaths. But

texting-related traffic fatalities are epidemic and we've barely begun to fight the

problem. Indeed, It appears that people are barely aware of it.

t I I t . , ' r t ' ' : li l,.· (MADD) could be of enormous help In the struggle,

but has not only shown no Interest but has repeatedly resisted any discussion of

this major cause of traffic crashes, injuries and deaths.

Fortunately, there's also good news. A survey conducted by NHTSA found that 90%

of drivers support laws to ban texting while driving .15 A survey reported by

Nationwide Insurance found that 80% of drivers support some type of cell phone

usage restrictions. The majority of respondents say they are supportive of laws

restricting any type of cell phone use while driving; 80% support a ban on text

messaging while driving; 80% support a ban on e-mailing while driving; and almost

75% believe that restrictions should apply to all drivers, not just specific groups

such as teens. 16

Texting And Driving Worse Tlhtan Drinking and Driving Phil LeBeau , @Lebeaucamews

Thursday, 25 Jun 2009 l 11:54 AM ETCNBC.com

Texting and driving

Admit it.

You've done it.

You've been driving down the side street (and yes, the highway as well) when your phone, blackberry, or

whatever you use to call and text with goes off.

You immediately grab it, even tho<:gh you are driving in traffic and really shouldn't.

It's a dangerous and terrible habit American drivers have developed.

The folks at Car and Driver Magazine have now documentedjust dangerous it can be.

Rigging a car with a red light to alert drivers when to brake, the magazine tested how long it takes to hit

the brake when sober, when legally drnnk at .08, when reading and e-mail, and when sendin.g a '!:ext. The

results are scary. Driving 70 miles per hour on a deserted air strip Car and Driver editor Eddie Alterman

was slower and slower reacting and braking when e-mailing and texting.

The results:

e> Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake

• Legally drunk: add 4 feet

• Reading e-mail: add 36 feet

e Sending a text: add 70 feet

When I took the test for reading e-mail or texting, l was just as slow to react. On average, it took me four

times longer to hit the brake. Mike Austin at Car and Driver told me in blunt terms that I was "way

worse" than the average driver.

None of this should surprise you.

Sure, the headline about texting and driving being more dangerous than drinking and driving got your

attention.

Maybe that's because the American public correctly views drinking and driving as wrong. But when it

comes to texting and driving, we are not as outraged.

Probably because many of us have done it and still do it (even though it's banned in 14 states).

Sadly, it will likely take more accidents and more deaths to change that attitude. There are countless

stories of teens dying in accidents because the driver was texting while driving.

Unfortunately, I fear there will be more. Too many people have become too accustomed to checking e­

mail or sending a text while behind the wheel, even though it's as dangerous as drinking and driving.

Wash. state panel: Rewrite cell phone laws October 21, 2014 by ~~ditut

state of Washington was an early leader in distracted driving laws, but a transportation panel says it's fallen behind the times. Washington's Traffic Safety Commission seeks a complete and unambiguous ban on the use of handheld cell phones while driving.

Washington state law ~doesn't preclude you from looking at Facebook or the Internet as you're driving, 8 said Darrin Grondel, director of the Traffic Safety Commission.

The new legislation, expected to be introduced early in the 2015-16 session, would cover smartphone activities such as accessing social media sites and emailing. "That technology wasn't available when our statute was drafted," Grendel says.

The attempt to update Washington's outdated distracted driving laws failed in the Senate last session. It was sponsored by state Sen. Tracey Eide, who won't be part of the new new biennium as her term is ending. "There's a stakeholder group supporting SB 6227 and they are searching for another senator to reintroduce the bill next year," her executive assistant Peter Dodds told HandsFreelnfo on Oct. 21.

The Washington state texting law dates back seven years, making the state one of the first in the nation to try to rein in distracted driving.

The interest in updated Washington state distracted driving laws is inspired, in part, by a desire for federal funding that would support safety education programs. The state is not eligible because of its laws' outdated wording, which simply bans text messaging and the holding of cell phones to the driver's ear.

"People were not doing things like Facebooking while they were driving" when the existing texting ban was designed, says Angie Ward of the Traffic Safety Commission.

The Washington State Patrol supports the legislative push to update the distracted driving laws. "The problem is holding the phone," WSP spokesman Bob Calkins "When

you're driving, you should be driving - not checking your email, not checking Facebook, not texting:

State Sen. Eide previously pushed through the laws that made text messaging and holding a cell phone while driving primary offenses. She tried again, unsuccessfully, in 2014 with with legislation that would bar drivers from holding wireless communications devices in any way. The restriction would have applied to any use in roadways, including while temporarily stopped at red lights or stop signs.

Meanwhile, the Traffic Safety Commission posted an online video (below) about the difficulties of enforcing the textlng law.

Read about < .,11 g_tou_t aL s u ~tr;:-l,{ d tit' 'ilt t& ~~.

The impact of texting laws on motor vehicle fatalities

The good news: Over the last century, driving has become significantly safer, with the per-mile fatality rate dropping 90% between 1925 and I 997. The bad news: Motor-vehicle crashes continue to kill more than 33,000 people in the United States every year, making them the leading type of unintentional injury resulting in death.

And fatalities rose in 2012, snapping a six-year streak of reduced deaths. In reporting the increase, the National Higlnvay Traffic Safety Administration stated that .. it is too soon to speculate on the contributing factors:· but

the potential role of distracted driving can't be ignored. According to the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC), in 2012 driver distraction was a factor in 3,328 deaths, and an estimated 421,000 people were injured in crashes involving a distracted driver- a 9% increase from 201 I. The Federal Highway Administration has estimated that distracted driving may be a factor in I 0% of all crashes. Many states have

passed laws to reduce the number of deaths and injuries due to distracted driving. These laws may ban all use of handheld devices or specifically prohibit texting. Some Jaws target young drivers while others apply to all

drivers. As of June 2014, 44 states and the District of Columbia had a law banning all drivers from tcxting and an additional 4 states prohibited young or new drivers ii·om texting. No states currently ban the use of hand­free phones for all drivers, even though research has shown that they offer no improvement over hand-held devices. A 2014 study published in the American Journal of Public Health ... Impact ofTexting Laws on Motor Vehicular Fatalities in the United States:· looks at effectiveness of state texting bans on the prevention of fatal

car accidents. The researchers- Alva 0. Ferdinand, Nir Menachemi, Bisakha Sen, Justin L. Blackbum and Michael Morrisey, based at the University of Alabama at Binning:ham and Leonard Nelson, based at Samford University- analyzed data from 48 states over the period 2000-10 (Alaska, Hawaii and the District of Columbia were not pru1 of the study). The authors compared motor-vehicle fatality rates in states with texting bans and those without. For states with texting bans, they also took into account within-state fatality rate changes before and after these laws took effect. The study's findings include: During the study period, 31 of the 48 states had a law banning texting while driving. Of these, 24 states banned all drivers from texting and 7

banned only drivers below a certain age. Laws allowing police officers to pull over all ddvers who are texting, regardless of age, resulted in a 5% reduction in the incidence offatal accidents among individuals ages 15-21. This figure includes deaths of both drivers and non-drivers. States with laws that only allow police to pull over young drivers who are texring experienced an 11% drop in the incidence of motor vehicle fatalities for individuals ages 15-21. "Secondary'' texting bans, which only allow police to issue texting citations while pulling a driver over for an unrelated offense, had no ctTect on fatality rates for any age group. No type of anti­tcxting law reduced fatality rates for individuals above age 21. Other factors that were associated with reduced motor-vehicle fatality rates it1cluded maximum speed limits not exceeding 70 miles per hour, administrative driver's license revocation laws, graduated driver's license laws. higher gasoline prices and higher state unemployment rates.'·Our analyses indicate that primarily enforced tcx1ing Jaws are associated with fatality reductions among younger individuals. both drivers and nondrivers:· the authors conclude. ··Thus. our second main finding is that our results provide strong evidence that the primarily enforced texting laws seem to be reaching the intended subpopulations who are most at risk for texting while driving."Rclatcd research: A 2013 study. ··u.s. Transportation Safety over Time: Cars, Planes. Trains. Walking. Cycling ... compares the relative safety of the primary modes of transportation in the United States. Among the findings: Highways are by far the most common place of transportation fatalities in the United States, 94%, and those in rural areas are particularly dangerous, with a fatality risk that is 2. 7 times greater than that in urban areas. Males are three times more likely to die in a road accident than females, while people bet\veen the ages of I 8 and 29 are at a

50% to 90% greater risk. Half of vehicle occupants who die in automobiles and light truck incidents ( 49%)

were not wearing seat belts or using child safety seats, and alcohol played a role i11 approximately a third of all

highway fatalities.- See more at: http:/doumalistsresource.org/studies/environmcnt/transportation/impact­

texting-la ws-motor-vehicle-fatalitics#sthash. V 4jpppJ G .dpuf

GM promo for Its Internet connectivity.

The connected car, offering multiple screens and wi-fi for all aboard, is in the immediate future. AAA has predicted a "five-fold increase in infotainment systems in new vehicles by 2018." Mora than 30 GM models are becoming :4~1: TE. hotspots in coming months, for example. On offer are direct connections to the Internet, unlike most of the hotspot products of recent years. Audi's 4G hotspot allows for up to eight independent connections.

Consumers expect the conveniences of the lntemet anywhere and everywhere, and automakers, tech giants and marketers will see that they get it. Driver distractions both foreseeable and unimagined are sure to result.

Some states dealt with the early dangers of in-vehicle video entertainment more than a decade back, as small screens became commonplace in family vans and SUVs. These laws, such as Alaska's, restricted placement so that drivers could not watch videos from sources such as DVDs and TV broadcasts. (A few of these laws since have been amended to allow for in-dash functions such as navigation.)

Entertainment aside, dashboard systems related to operation of the vehicle itself- and its convenience features such as climate and audio - continue to become more versatile, demanding and distracting. Add phone apps, increasingly sophisticated mapping and naVigation, and the lures of marketers eager to pitch captive audiences on roadside conveniences such as upcoming restaurants.

"It's time to consider limiting new and potentially dangerous mental distractions built into cars,• AAA president Robert Darbelnet says.

AAA researchers recently examined the differences in amount of distraction provided by automaker systems. Chevrolet's MyLink system was found far more distracting than Toyota's Entune system in a . (Apple's Siri system also graded poorly in the study.)

Potential dangers of these connected-car systems have drawn the attention of federal Department of Transportation, which has nonetheless tread carefully on the issue. Several

years ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued encouraging automobile manufacturers to limit the distraction risk for in-vehicle electronic devices. The DOT has come under sporadic fire for failure to regulate automakers' development of these interactive electronic devices

No states have yet sought to rein in electronic features built into vehicles, even though control of distracted driving is seen largely as a state-level issue in the U.S.

Complicating matters is the lobbying power of Google and Apple, both of whom have found early success in influencing distracted driving legislation that could affect their mobile products -or the rolling expansions of their electronic ecosystems. In the most notable cases, existing state laws have been modified to allow for hands-free and/or voice-activated texting and phone calling. This was the case 11 GalifOftl!( , which had been been a leader in fighting distracted driving before the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown. California is home of both Apple and Google.

Yet voice-activated technology- that is, hands-off operation -is no guarantee distraction won't arise. Drivers using voice-controlled systems take their eyes off the road more than expected, f\ H ~?ff>• ". rP!"P.a r9hE:!n have found.

M Just because a new technology does not take the eyes off the road does not make it safe," said another report from the University of Utah.

-Glenn Abel