research on texting while driving

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Prev Med Rep
• v.4; 2016 Dec

Texting while driving: A study of 1211 U.S. adults with the Distracted Driving Survey

Emily gliklich.

a Clinical Outcomes Research Unit, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, United States

b Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, 243 Charles Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States

c Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States

Regan W. Bergmark

Associated data.

Texting and other cell-phone related distracted driving is estimated to account for thousands of motor vehicle collisions each year but studies examining the specific cell phone reading and writing activities of drivers are limited. The objective of this study was to describe the frequency of cell-phone related distracted driving behaviors. A national, representative, anonymous panel of 1211 United States drivers was recruited in 2015 to complete the Distracted Driving Survey (DDS), an 11-item validated questionnaire examining cell phone reading and writing activities and at what speeds they occur. Higher DDS scores reflect more distraction. DDS scores were analyzed by demographic data and self-reported crash rate. Nearly 60% of respondents reported a cell phone reading or writing activity within the prior 30 days, with reading texts (48%), writing texts (33%) and viewing maps (43%) most frequently reported. Only 4.9% of respondents had enrolled in a program aimed at reducing cell phone related distracted driving. DDS scores were significantly correlated to crash rate (p < 0.0001), with every one point increase associated with an additional 7% risk of a crash (p < 0.0001). DDS scores were inversely correlated to age (p < 0.0001). The DDS demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94). High rates of cell phone-related distraction are reported here in a national sample. Distraction is associated with crash rates and occurs across all age groups, but is highest in younger drivers. The DDS can be used to evaluate the impact of public health programs aimed at reducing cell-phone related distracted driving.

• • Nearly 60% of respondents reported a cell phone reading or writing activity.
• • Reading texts (48%), writing texts (33%) and viewing maps (43%) were most frequent.
• • Only 4.9% of respondents had a program to reduce cell-related distracted driving.
• • Distracted Driving Survey Scores significantly correlated with crash rate (p < 0.0001).

1. Introduction

Texting and other cell phone use while driving is a major risk factor for motor vehicle collisions and associated injury and death ( Wilson & Stimpson, 2010 ). In 2012, distracted driving was associated with 3300 deaths and 421,000 injuries in collisions in the US; there is evidence that smartphone use is increasingly contributing to these numbers ( US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2014 ).

Simulation and instrumented vehicle studies have shown that drivers who are viewing information on or writing with cell phones have significantly increased risk of collision or near-collision events, ( Yannis et al., 2014 , Owens et al., 2011 , Caird et al., 2014 ) and the problem is exacerbated in younger drivers ( Caird et al., 2014 , Hosking et al., 2009 ). Rigorous instrumented vehicle naturalistic studies have confirmed these results ( Klauer et al., 2014 , Olson et al., 2009 ).

In spite of the risk, texting and driving is widespread; among US adults 18 to 64 years old, 31% reported reading or sending text messages or emails while driving in prior last 30 days ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013 ). The issue is even more pronounced in younger drivers with nearly half of young drivers reporting texting in just the past 30 days ( Olsen et al., 2013 ). Observational studies on college campuses have also confirmed high rates of texting and driving ( Cook & Jones, 2011 ). In our prior work, 59.2% and 71.5% of young adults wrote and read text messages, respectively, while driving in the last 30 days ( Bergmark et al., 2016 ).

The purposes of this study were to describe the frequency of cell phone related distracted driving behaviors and self-reported accident rate by relevant demographic subgroups and confirm reliability in a national sample of drivers of all ages.

2.1. Metrics

The cell phone focused Distracted Driving Survey (DDS, ©Massachusetts Eye and Ear, 2013, Table 1 , with responses) is an 11-item validated driver-reported questionnaire assessing common cell phone reading and writing tasks, such as writing and reading text messages and email, social media site use, and GPS use ( Bergmark et al., 2016 ). The DDS includes questions about the speeds at which drivers have completed each task in the past 30 days as well as a question about perceived risk. It has been validated among drivers 18–24 years old ( Bergmark et al., 2016 ). A scoring algorithm is used to produce a score 0–44, with 44 being the highest risk survey result. The details of the questionnaire and scoring algorithm have been previously published ( Bergmark et al., 2016 ).

Distracted Driving Survey and responses ( N  = 1211 drivers, 2015, responses as percentage).

Additional questions covering topics such as crash rates, driving while intoxicated, and demographic information were also described in the initial validation study. Crash rate reporting has been previously described ( Bergmark et al., 2016 ) and was self-reported according to a single question, “In the last 12 months, have many car accidents have you been in with you as the driver? (Answers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more).” The colloquial term “accident” rather than the more modern term crash” was used based on our pilot testing.

2.2. Study design and oversight

The DDS was used to capture major reading and writing activities associated with smartphone use while driving. ( Bergmark et al., 2016 ) Items to evaluate driving while intoxicated, use of smartphone applications aimed at reduction of texting while driving, self-reported crashes in the previous 12 months, and demographic information were included.

The questionnaire was set up as a web-based survey using standard, Health Information Portability and Accountability Act compliant software, SurveyGizmo (Boulder, CO). After submitting the survey, the system was set up to provide a ‘thank you’ page that included the derived DDS score for that participant.

Sample size calculations were based on the ability to compare 4 major US Census divisions with 95% confidence and estimated 267 respondents per group or 1068 in total. The study was approved by the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Institutional Review Board.

2.3. Study population

Subjects were recruited using a third party survey panel (SurveyGizmo, Boulder, CO) and enrolled online through a generic link. Subjects received nominal incentives to participate (i.e. participation in sweepstakes) and were informed that through participation they would receive their DDS scores. Subjects who chose not to continue after reviewing the consent or who reported not having driven a motor vehicle in the prior 30 days were disqualified. Preset limits on subjects based on age cohorts, U.S. Census division and gender were also in place to ensure representativeness. These limits were established with demographic questions. For example, only the first 400 respondents per geographic area were allowed to complete the full survey. Other respondents were excluded, leading to a large number of excluded participants.

In all, 6370 people responded to the survey; 5117 respondents were disqualified primarily to obtain appropriate geographical diversity and 42 were eliminated for partial responses (survey was never finished or submitted). The remaining 1211 respondents constituted the analytical sample.

2.4. Survey reliability

Internal consistency was measured with the method of Cronbach (reported as Cronbach's alpha coefficient). Each item was further evaluated for its contribution to Cronbach's alpha (based on the overall DDS Cronbach's alpha coefficient with each variable deleted).

2.5. Statistical analysis

All data from the testing were transferred to SAS v. 9.0 (Cary, NC) for analysis. The Distracted Driving Survey score was generated as described previously ( Bergmark et al., 2016 ). Logistic regression was performed to evaluate the relationship between the DDS score and other variables as independent variables with a dependent variable of self-reported accidents. All items demonstrating correlations to DDS scores were evaluated using the Wilcoxon test. As there were many respondents with scores of zero or low scores as expected per our validation study, a nonparametric test was selected for analysis. Demographic questions were used to compare the sample to the 2010 U.S. Census for assessment of representativeness and to complete correlation analysis. Due to the infrequency of multiple crashes, analysis was performed comparing respondents with any crashes to respondents with no crashes, and therefore logistic regression was used for analysis.

2.6. Survey reliability and timing

In this study, Cronbach's alpha for the survey was excellent at 0.94 and demonstrates high levels of internal consistency at the individual and population levels. No individual item significantly changed Cronbach's alpha with deletion indicating the relatively equal contribution of each item. This result was similar to the initial validation study of this instrument which had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.93 ( Bergmark et al., 2016 ). In automated testing, the 11-item DDS took approximately 2 minutes to complete, and the full research survey (DDS, demographic questions, and several additional driving-related questions) required approximately four and a half minutes to complete.

3.1. Study population

1211 participants completed the survey from 50 states. There were 608 male (50.2%) and 603 female (49.8%) respondents. Mean age was 43.1 years (SD = 15.3 years; range 18 to 78 years; median = 42 years). Respondents were reasonably well distributed between major U.S. census divisions with 23% from West, 23% from Midwest, 19% from Northeast, and 35% from South. In terms of primary driving setting, 45% reported primarily urban driving, 40% suburban driving and 15% rural driving. Age, gender, geography and driving setting distributions were very similar to those reported for the general population in the 2010 U.S. Census ( US census ). Respondent education levels were somewhat higher than for the U.S. population in categories such as Bachelor's degree (25% versus 18%) and some college, no degree (27% versus 19%).

3.2. Reading and writing behaviors

Mean DDS score was 6.3 (SD = 8.39) with a range from 0 to 44. A non-zero DDS score indicating at least one distracted driving behavior was entered on the survey by nearly 60% of respondents.

As shown in Table 1 , reading texts was the most commonly reported distracted driving behavior (48%), followed by viewing maps (43%) and writing texts (33%). Reading and writing email and viewing social media sites were less common. By comparison, 11% of respondents reported having driven while impaired by any substance over the prior 30 days, half of which said they had done so rarely. Only 4.9% of respondents reported having enrolled in a program aimed at reducing cell phone related distracted driving.

3.3. DDS scores are strongly and inversely correlated with age

Age was significantly and inversely correlated with DDS score, indicating that younger drivers reported higher levels of cell phone-related distraction (r = − 0.46, p < 0.0001) ( Fig. 1 ). Total DDS scores were also significantly associated with whether a respondent believes that they can safely text and drive (r = 0.76, p < 0.0001). Further, in comparing respondents less than or equal to 24 years versus those older than 24 years, differences were significant (p < 0.0001). As expected, the mean scores and standard deviations were also lower in the 55–64 and 65 + age groups. No one age 55 or over had a score over 27 (all other age groups had maximum score 41–44).

Mean DDS score versus age cohort.

Age was significantly and inversely correlated with DDS score (r = − 0.46, p < 0.0001) among 1211 U.S. drivers in 2015, indicating that younger drivers reported higher levels of cell phone-related distraction.

3.4. DDS scores do not correlate with other demographic variables

DDS scores were not significantly associated with other demographic variables including gender, geography, driving setting or educational levels. As anticipated, DDS scores were also not significantly associated with driving while impaired by any substance in the prior 30 days (p = 0.09), further confirming that this survey is specific to risk from cell phone-related distraction.

3.5. DDS scores correlate strongly with self-reported crash rate

DDS scores were significantly correlated to self-reported crash rates in the prior 12 months (r = 0.18, p < 0.0001). To control for driving while intoxicated, logistic regression was performed with reported car accidents as the dependent variable and DDS and driving under the influence as independent variables. A higher DDS was significantly associated with the number of reported car crashes (p < 0.0001) even when driving under the influence was controlled for, and driving under the influence was still not significantly associated (p = 0.08).

For every increase of 1 point of the DDS, the odds of a reported car accident increased 7% (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05–1.10). In order to better characterize the relative risk of higher DDS, a two-way table of car accidents and DDS total was evaluated using the median DDS (3 points) compared to scores above the third quartile (10 and above). The odds of an accident being reported by subjects with a DDS > 10 is 4.3 times (95% CI 2.65–7.05) higher than of subjects with DDS ≤ 3. Differences in crash rates between respondents less than or equal to 24 years and those older than 24 years approached but did not reach significance (p = 0.06).

4. Discussion

In a large and representative sample of U.S. drivers, nearly 60% of drivers admitted to at least one cell-phone related distraction while driving in the past 30 days, higher than in other national studies ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013 ; Olsen et al., 2013 ). Scores were significantly correlated to self-reported 12-month accident rate, and inversely correlated with age, with 18–24 year old drivers having the highest rates of cell-phone related distraction. The finding of higher rates in younger drivers is consistent with other studies ( Tison et al., 2011–12 ).

Respondents in the highest tercile of scores were > 4 times as likely to have had a crash than subjects with scores in the lowest tercile of risk. The odds of a reported car accident increased 7% for every increase of one point of the DDS score, demonstrating a ‘dose response’ relationship. The effect persisted when controlling for driving under the influence. This correlation would indicate that the DDS could be used as a measure of risk.

The DDS had excellent internal consistency in this national sample (Cronbach's alpha of 0.94) ( Kline, 1999 ). The DDS is brief and easy to administer, with the 11-item scale taking just over 2 minutes to complete in automated testing. Through inclusion of multiple specific reading and writing activities, this survey may allow for a more accurate and specific analysis of cell phone related distraction.

Because survey recruitment was undertaken through the internet it is possible that the sample was not truly representative of all U.S. drivers. The respondent demographic profile is closely aligned with the U.S. census data, which may differ slightly from the US adult driving population. Respondents were more likely than the general U.S. population to have achieved a higher educational status although the lack of differences in DDS scores by educational status makes it unlikely that this significantly impacted the results. Distracted drivers tend to exhibit higher risk behaviors in multiple ways. Further research is required to elucidate the effect size of these reading and writing related distractions versus other distracted behaviors. This study associates DDS score with crash rates and other methodology would be required to determine causality.

Although multiple smartphone applications and other interventions aimed at reducing texting and driving have been created, few of these interventions have been closely studied to assess impact on behavior ( AT&T, 2014 , Verizon Wireless, 2014 , Lee, 2007 , Moreno, 2013 ). In this study, fewer than 5% of respondents reported participation in these programs and those who did participate were more likely to have been in an accident in the prior 12-months. As a brief validated instrument with excellent reliability, the DDS could be used in large populations of drivers to begin to evaluate such efforts.

5. Conclusion

Cell phone reading and writing activities are common in the general U.S. population and vary by activity, with reading and writing text messages and use of GPS being the most common. < 5% of respondents participate in any type of program, such as a cell phone application or pledge, to reduce or limit texting and driving. Higher DDS scores, indicating higher rates of cell-phone related distraction, are significantly correlated to higher self-reported crash rates and are inversely related to age. The DDS may be used to evaluate individual risk and the impact of public health programs aimed at reducing texting and other cell-phone related distracted driving.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Transparency document

Transparency document.

The transparency document associated with this article can be found, in online version.

• AT&T. It can wait. http://www.itcanwait.com /. Updated 2014. Accessed August 17, 2014.
• Bergmark R.W., Gliklich E., Guo R., Gliklich R.E. Texting while driving: The development and validation of the Distracted Driving Survey and risk score among young adults. Injury Epidemiology. 2016; 3 :7. (Epub 2016 Mar 1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caird J.K., Johnston K.A., Willness C.R., Asbridge M., Steel P. A meta-analysis of the effects of texting on driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014; 71 :311–318. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Mobile device use while driving—United States and seven European countries, 2011. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 2013; 62 (10):177–182. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook J.L., Jones R.M. Texting and accessing the web while driving: Traffic citations and crashes among young adult drivers. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2011; 12 (6):545–549. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hosking S.G., Young K.L., Regan M.A. The effects of text messaging on young drivers. Hum. Factors. 2009; 51 (4):582–592. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klauer S.G., Guo F., Simons-Morton B.G., Ouimet M.C., Lee S.E., Dingus T.A. Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014; 370 (1):54–59. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline P. Routledge; London: 1999. The Handbook of Psychological Testing Second Edition; p. 13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J.D. Technology and teen drivers. J. Saf. Res. 2007; 38 (2):203–213. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moreno M.A. Distracted driving and motor vehicle crashes among teens. JAMA Pediatr. 2013; 167 (10):984. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olsen E.O., Shults R.A., Eaton D.K. Texting while driving and other risky motor vehicle behaviors among US high school students. Pediatrics. 2013; 131 (6):e1708–e1715. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson R.L., Hanowski R.J., Hickman J.S., Bocanegra J. 2009. Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations. [ Google Scholar ]
• Owens J.M., McLaughlin S.B., Sudweeks J. Driver performance while text messaging using handheld and in-vehicle systems. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011; 43 (3):939–947. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tison J, Chaudhary N, Cosgrove L. National Phone Survey on Distracted Driving Attitudes and Behaviors. 2011–12.
• US census: Quickfacts 2010 census. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/00 . Updated 2015. Accessed January 26, 2015.
• US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . 2014. Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted Driving 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Verizon Wireless. Apps that block texting and driving. http://www.verizonwireless.com/insiders-guide/home-and-family/apps-that-block-texting-and-driving/ . Updated 2014. Accessed August 17, 2014.
• Wilson F.A., Stimpson J.P. Trends in fatalities from distracted driving in the United States, 1999 to 2008. Am. J. Public Health. 2010; 100 (11):2213–2219. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yannis G., Laiou A., Papantoniou P., Christoforou C. Impact of texting on young drivers' behavior and safety on urban and rural roads through a simulation experiment. J. Saf. Res. 2014; 49 :25–31. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Distracted Driving Awareness

No one knows better than the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute the extent of driving distraction as the cause of crashes. Driver distraction is a major contributing factor to crashes, which are a leading cause of death for the US population under 35 years of age. The top distractions are:

• Driver inattention, due to fatigue
• Texting while driving, particularly by inexperienced drivers

Driving is a visual task and non-driving activities that draw the driver's eyes away from the roadway (such as texting, dialing, and use of a laptop or dispatching device to perform complex tasks) should always be avoided.

Naturalistic driving studies, such as the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) , Naturalistic Teen Driving Study , Canada Naturalistic Driving Study, and Supervised Practice Driving Study, have shown that text messaging using a cell phone is associated with the highest risk of all sources of distraction. The Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations study found that texting while driving raises a driver's crash risk by 23 times.

Texting is not the only distraction to be a cause for concern; many other activities can take a driver's eyes and attention off of the road. VTTI research has determined that the following secondary tasks drivers engage in can put them at higher risk for crashes or near crashes:

• Eating and drinking
• Personal grooming
• Talking to passengers (newly licensed teens have a little higher risk while adults are safer drivers engaging in this activity)
• Watching a video
• Browsing the internet
• Adjusting the radio or climate controls
• Talking on the phone (hands-free does not increase risk)

Research Highlights

Impact of Temporary Browsing Restrictions on Drivers' Situation Awareness When Interacting with In-Vehicle Infotainment Systems

Looking away from the road during a task degrades situation awareness of potential hazards. Long glances back to the road rebuild this awareness and are thought to be critical for maintaining good vehicle control and recognizing conflicts.

Do Advanced Driver Assistance and Semi-Automated Vehicle Systems Lead to Improper Driving Behavior?

There is some evidence that driver behavior may be detrimentally impacted by the use of advanced-vehicle technologies; however, more research is needed regarding the possible adverse effects of driving automation systems on driver behavior (e.g., distraction and overreliance upon the system).

The effects of age on crash risk associated with driver distraction

Teenaged, young adult drivers and senior drivers are more adversely impacted by secondary-task engagement than middle-aged drivers. Visual-manual distractions impact drivers of all ages, whereas cognitive distraction may have a larger impact on young drivers.

Meet the Experts

Rich Hanowski

Division of freight, transit, & heavy vehicle safety.

Charlie Klauer

Division of vehicle, driver, & system safety.

Eddy Llaneras

Put the Phone Away or Pay

For the past decade, distracted driving has taken U.S. roadways by storm, endangering not only the distracted drivers, but their passengers, pedestrians and others using the road. When we're behind the wheel, we must focus on one task: safe driving. Anytime you shift your attention from driving, you're distracted.

Distracted driving comes in many forms: adjusting the radio or GPS, applying makeup, eating and drinking. But it’s cell phone use — specifically, texting, talking, and social media use — that is the most common distraction. Texting, which includes messaging, is considered the most dangerous type of distracted driving because it combines visual, manual and cognitive distraction.

Distracted Driving Is Deadly

NHTSA’s Put the Phone Away or Pay campaign reminds drivers of the deadly dangers and the legal consequences – including fines – of texting and other forms of messaging behind the wheel. In 49 states, as well as Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands, texting while driving is illegal. From April 4-8, you will see an increase in police enforcing texting and distracted-driving laws.  

• Youth Program
• Wharton Online
• Business Journal Articles
• Science & Technology

Tackling Texting While Driving: ‘The Decision to Reach for That Phone Can Be Impulsive’

Share Article:

Google Classroom:

You already know that you’re not supposed to text and drive. Your parents have lectured you endlessly about it, you’ve been taught the horror stories about it in driver’s ed class, and you probably live in one of the 49 states where it’s illegal for teens to text behind the wheel.

But the numbers suggest you’re not always getting the message.

Teens were responsible for 9% of all the fatal crashes involving distracted drivers in 2017, according to government figures. While the percentage seems small, that’s nearly 300 deaths that could have been prevented. Not to mention countless injuries.

Kit Delgado, an emergency room physician who’s also an assistant professor at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, gets that it’s hard to keep your hands off your phone. He sees it all the time in patients who come into his ER, like the college student who was heading down the highway to pick up his girlfriend when he heard his phone ding. He picked it up, dropped it on the floorboard, reached down to get it and crashed into the guardrail.

“You talk to any teenager in the country, and they’ve been beaten over the head that texting while driving is dangerous,” Delgado says. “But the decision to reach for that phone can be impulsive, it can be emotional, it can be subconscious and automatic. Even though if you were to step out of the situation, you would say you shouldn’t be doing this.”

The Imperfection of Human Decision-making

Years of treating people who have been hurt in distracted driving crashes is a big reason why Delgado is researching this topic. He’s heading up a multimillion-dollar grant, one of the largest ever funded by the federal government, to figure out the best ways to use technology to help drivers put down their phones. The research team includes experts from the fields of medicine, behavioral economics , psychology, insurance and technology. They hope their work leads to the development of more smartphone programs that can nudge drivers into the correct behavior, like apps that automatically switch on to prevent incoming notifications while in the car.

“What my research group is trying to focus on is how can we design around the imperfection of human decision-making,” Delgado says. “I think we can make a big difference if we can solve for it the right way.”

For starters, Delgado says, “texting while driving” is an antiquated term for talking about the problem. Distracted driving means anything that takes your attention away from the road, whether it’s that Starbucks frappuccino you’re trying to sip, or arguing with your best friend about your Spotify play list. Conversations, eating, drinking, texting, checking emails and social media notifications, using navigation and music apps, even putting on lipstick all contribute to distracted driving.

“For me, it’s not necessarily about cell phones, it’s about all the facets that can be distracting,” notes Catherine McDonald, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing who has been studying teen driving for a decade. She’s working on the grant with Delgado and, like him, is motivated by her own experiences as a nurse treating young people injured in car crashes.

“What’s important to remember about driving is that you’re making decisions not just about yourself, but about other cars that you’re not controlling.” — Catherine McDonald

The research is still in the data -collection phase. Some of that data is coming from an app developed by TruMotion and being used by Progressive Insurance to capture all kinds of driving information – like hard breaking, speed, acceleration and distance traveled. The information will help the researchers figure out how to best use smartphones to help drivers of all ages.

“Tech is pervasive in the lives of teens. It’s a part of their very fabric, and the technology that we think of often is their smartphones that are with them all the time,” says McDonald, who also works at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania Center for Injury Research and Prevention. “This generation of drivers has grown up with the cellphone. They’ve had phones, they’ve seen parents with cellphones, so that piece of tech is a big part of their lives. When we move to the role of driving with teens, it’s figuring out how to keep them safe with that technology.”

To be fair, teens aren’t the worst offenders. Delgado says millennials – typically people between 25 and 34 – are the most distracted drivers of any age group. But the professors say that the lack of driving experience makes distractions most dangerous for teens. “We know it’s one of the leading contributors to fatal crashes in that group,” Delgado notes.

Teens may be doing things they think are safer, like waiting until they’re stopped at a red light to check notifications. But that’s time they could be using to assess what’s coming next – changes in cross-traffic patterns, a ball rolling into the street, a stalled car, and so on. “They need to be using all opportunities to take in information about the road,” McDonald says. “What’s important to remember about driving is that you’re making decisions not just about yourself, but about other cars that you’re not controlling.”

McDonald believes the distracted driving will decrease when society accepts the danger as a norm. For example, smoking, drunken driving and not wearing seat belts are all risky behaviors that have been reduced as people have internalized the message that they are dangerous. She also believes individualized approaches are needed, including assistive technologies.

The professors, guided by their research, were asked to give their best advice for teen drivers, and here’s what they suggest:

• Use a Do Not Disturb app, which is automatically activated on many smartphones. The app prevents you from receiving notifications while driving and sends auto-responses to calls or texts. Some have settings that allow certain notifications to get through, so you can be reached in an emergency.
• Use Apply Auto or Android Auto, available in newer cars, so you can give voice commands for most functions.
• Get a phone mount for your dashboard. This will help you avoid looking down to find or use your phone.
• Pick your playlist ahead of time. Music is one of the biggest distractions for teens, so set up your tunes before you start the vehicle.
• Designate a passenger to handle your phone so that you don’t have to.
• Talk to your parents so they understand you will not answer their calls when driving. Call them back as soon as you’ve reached your destination. “That’s a really simple conversation for a parent and a teen to have,” McDonald says. “Teens can initiate that, and it makes them really responsible.”
• Know the laws in your state. Each jurisdiction is different, but 20 states and Washington, D.C., ban all handheld phone use.
• Turn off your phone.

The professors practice what they preach. McDonald uses Apple Auto, and Delgado has a phone mount and a Do Not Disturb app. “It helps keep me honest,” Delgado says. “I’m busy like everyone else, and taking a few minor steps to counteract those urges to use the phone helps. It’s not easy, but there are a few things you can do that help more than willpower, which almost never works.”

That college student who crashed into the guardrail survived, but he had a head injury. Delgado wants to see more of his patients walk away from car crashes, and that starts with drivers understanding that nothing is more important than what they are doing behind the steering wheel.

“Because, at the end of the day, what really matters is not taking your eyes off the road,” Delgado says. “Anything that takes your eyes off the road for more than a second exponentially increases your crash risk.”

Hear the story of safe-driving advocate Liz Marks , who was 17 when she crashed her car while trying to read a text from her mom. She suffered a traumatic brain injury and facial injuries, and lost her sight in one eye and sense of smell.

Related Links

• State Laws about Texting
• Government Crash Statistics
• Penn Medicine Grant
• Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: Distracted Driving
• Take the Pledge to End Distracted Driving
• For More Tips on Using a DND Function

Conversation Starters

Dr. Delgado says that his study is trying to figure out “how can we design around the imperfection of human decision-making.” What does that mean and how does it apply to the issue of texting while driving? What other issues might it involve?

How many of the professors’ driving tips do you follow?

As a passenger, are you confident enough to speak up if you think the driver is distracted by their phone or just not paying attention? Why or why not?

7 comments on “ Tackling Texting While Driving: ‘The Decision to Reach for That Phone Can Be Impulsive’ ”

As a teenager myself, I experience firsthand the sudden urges to respond to snapchats at a red light or skip to the next song on my phone. So I understand the misconceived notion—that taking your eyes off the road for a second or less is a relatively innocuous action. But it’s these several milliseconds that could change someone’s life forever, or worse, your own life…or worse, death. Think about the impact that checking a text has on others now with a, hopefully, new perspective.

While distracted driving is a serious issue, and while I could fill pages with my thoughts on it, I couldn’t help but think about another issue many teens (and people in general) have faced that is more or less out of their control. Given that the outline of this contest is to “practice critical and reflective thinking,” and “connect ideas, insights and opinions with what [has been] read,” I think that it is appropriate to share all that I have been able to think about recently, despite what I have been reading.

Reflecting on the article about texting and driving, I found it hard to concentrate on the issue that was presented. Rather, my mind kept drifting off to think about how many lives have been affected in the past two weeks. We can thank…

Santino Legan, who decided that an annual garlic festival with four decades of history would be a suitable setting to open fire on young children and their families,

Patrick W. Crusius, who decided to take the issue of illegal immigration into his own hands and target Mexicans in his mission,

and Connor Betts, who decided to kill his biological sister, as well as eight other bystanders with a pistol with a rapid fire rate, for shaking up the country and instilling a new level of fear in US citizens.

We shouldn’t be scared to go shopping, nor should we be scared to enjoy a garlic festival, let alone grabbing a drink with friends. Yet, averaging more than a shooting a day since the start to 2019 is enough for the masses to be “scared.”

Still aligning with the outline of Round 3, which asks for “a personal story,” I have two.

The first one is that tomorrow, I am going to a music festival with my friends and a small part of me is afraid, which shouldn’t have to be the case. The second one is that I am living in a time where unnecessary fear has accrued as a result of lacking administration. In fact, we are all living that story, every day.

I hope that my usage of this platform can help spark discussion and ultimately lead to change.

#endgunviolence

“McDonald believes the distracted driving will decrease when society accepts the danger as a norm. For example, smoking, drunken driving and not wearing seat belts are all risky behaviors that have been reduced as people have internalized the message that they are dangerous.”

McDonald’s claim that risky behaviors like distracted driving will decrease when we internalize the danger behind those behaviors seems to make sense. After all, most people do not put their hand back on the stove after being burned once. However, as the article acknowledges, we already know that we shouldn’t take a call, eat, or daydream while driving, yet we still do it. There’s a gap between knowing something is dangerous, or filling in the correct bubble on a permit test, and internalizing its danger and choosing not to drive distracted.

Maybe a clue to this gap lies in how drivers education teaches danger. After an hour and a half of writing down boring rules in our notebooks (if you are parking uphill with a curb, point the wheels away from the curb…), my driving instructor would play the next episode of a safety film produced by the California Highway Patrol, and it was magic. When the lights came off, our heads would perk up, and we’d all spend the next half hour with our eyes glued on the screen. We couldn’t get enough of the vivid, greater-than-life depiction of high school. After a wild night partying, virtuous teens would make the mistake of driving drunk instead of calling a taxi. While still having wild fun in the car, what was about to happen next would ruin their lives forever. A bump in the road or a patch of ice on a bridge would send the vehicle flipping through the air or spinning out of control. Teens would be rushed to the hospital, and police would later interrogate and arrest some of them. The driver of the car that fateful night would see their friends disappear and forever receive only hateful glances from every direction. Teachers and parents would come on the screen and talk about the bright future the unfortunate victims once had. A scientist would recreate the exact scene of the accident, including a slow-motion of the car flipping through the air, talking about how if they had missed that one pothole, bump, or patch of ice, they might have ended up okay. The movie would end with an officer reminding us sternly that accidents from distracted driving could happen to anyone at any time.

We didn’t think that would happen to us. Of course, some people choose to drive drunk, and maybe cars can flip that many times in the air. But that was entertainment, and it wasn’t us. We were good students who knew the rules of the road, and we had been driving for months without an accident. Perhaps one issue is that the movies seemed too exaggerated, too un-lifelike.

California Highway Patrol must have thought this as well because their older driver’s ed films tried to be more realistic. Red Asphalt, for instance, had been put together from footage of real accidents. While some experts argue that those horror films have lost their effectiveness due to the widespread violence in video games and movies, many drivers education instructors believe that the gorier films are more effective. Most people, including Tom Marshall, a spokesman for the California Highway Patrol, acknowledge that the film won’t permanently change driving habits, but “if it can get kids to focus on it for the first month or two [that they’re driving], it has done its job.” Whether gore is more effective than drama is up to debate, but educational films’ shift to emotion shows that shock was not effective enough in changing long-term behavior. Indeed, there’s a value in safety films to increase attention in the first few months of supervised driving. However, it seems that after that supervision, we think that those films can’t be us, and return to bad habits.

Unfortunately, this trend holds for other behavior as well. We think that the past will repeat itself in the future, which can lure us into a false sense of security. We are aware of economic bubbles, most famously the Dutch tulip-mania, yet a lot of us continued buying houses up to the Great Recession because the price had risen for the past few years. We cheat on exams because we haven’t been caught before and “only the bad cheaters get caught.” One of my favorite statistics is that 73% of drivers think they’re better than average. After a shock like a bubble collapse or getting caught on a test, we may swear we’ve learned our lesson and change our behavior only to return to bad habits days or weeks later. We’re creatures of habit, and it’s easier not to start a bad habit than to get out of one.

Maybe no driving film can pull us away from already-developed technology addiction. However, there is still another issue on the table: driver’s ed movies may promote the behavior they intend to prevent by glamorizing danger. As journalist Martin Smith notes, Red Asphalt may be one of the most-viewed movies ever, and that may be due to reasons of entertainment, not education.

In his riveting memoir This Boy’s Life, Tobias Wolff speaks to the risk of glamorizing harmful behavior. The World War II dramas he watched are hauntingly similar to the scare films of today, “always with a somber narrator to remind us that this wasn’t make-believe but actual history, that what we were seeing had really happened and could happen again.” While Wolff acknowledges that the depiction of the Nazis’ downfall produced “glimpses of humiliation and loss,” they only lasted a few minutes. Wolff believes that the point of the show was not to discourage Nazism: “the real point was to celebrate snappy uniforms and racy Mercedes staff cars and great marching, thousands of boots slamming down together on cobbled streets while banners streamed overhead and strong voices sang songs that stirred our blood though we couldn’t understand a word. These shows instructed us further in the faith we were already beginning to hold: that victims are contemptible, no matter how much people pretend otherwise, that it is more fun to be inside than outside, to be arrogant than to be kind, to be with a crowd than to be alone.”

Certainly, not everyone is driven to dangerous behavior in the way that Wolff was. However, the risk of glamorizing danger is real. In one famous example, the DARE program may have encouraged drug use through its aggressive scare tactics.

The dilemma of human nature is that we learn more from putting our hand on the stove than being lectured about the dangers of burning ourselves. Even when we get burned, our learning may be temporary. However, we can’t afford to burn ourselves when it comes to driving. Therefore, the paradox of safety education is to make the danger seem real and instill fear but not to glamorize risky behavior. The gap between learning and internalizing is how much we believe in the world inside the television screen. Through the difference between greater-than-life reality TV and my experiences in the world outside my window, the world on the screen seems slightly foreign. At times, it can even be enticing.

Sources on the effectiveness of Red Asphalt: https://medium.com/@martinjsmith/the-cinematic-genius-of-the-red-asphalt-road-splatter-series-5289d382ffa3 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jan-21-me-wheel21-story.html

Due to my research, I have found many surprising things about being on your phone while driving. At any given time in the day, 660,000 are attempting to use their phones while behind the wheel of an automobile. To me, this stat shows how many potential accidents there could be on any given day. Another stat that worries me is that 1 in 4 car accidents every day are caused by texting while driving. If we just tried to put down our phones while driving we could reduce the amount of deaths and injuries every day caused by distracted driving.

As a teen I see lots of people risking there lives and mine in cars where texting and driving is normal. I have never had any type or urge myself but that would be mainly due to my minimal use of my phone other than for calling or texting (I dont pick up often). Mainly I keep my phone on silent due to attending classes 5 days a week on top of working. To avoid interrupting situations like my phone going off in class or getting a call at work I’m not supposed to answer. I agree with the statement it goes farther than just the cell phone as well and that our actions that involve anything other than focusing on the road can be detrimental to our lives and it’s not acknowledged enough. Driving is treated lightly until an accident happens and if it is escaped it is regretted when it should not had even taken place. We live our lives through trial and error and it is a dangerous way to live. It’s a way that can end our lives at any moment. It’s like you have to come out lucky to have had the ability to reflect and change your ways but everyone doesn’t get those chances. Your life can be taken away from you at any second without you knowing and texting while driving in a vehicle that doesn’t have 100% protection rate is a risk it may only be 9% now but that can add up the more it’s not changed. -DeMarcus Kilgo kwhs wshs NC

Hey DeMarcus! You are so right that this is a big problem. During my commute, I literally see so many drivers looking down at their phones. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I especially like your line “We live our lives through trial and error and it is a dangerous way to live.” If we just acknowledged the statistics and used some common sense, we could avoid this experimental lifestyle and not put our lives or those of others at risk. Stay safe!

Texting while driving is a horrific yet common act that many still do every day on their commute. While this is not the only distraction a driver faces, it is one of the major causes of distracted driving. While the solution of setting one’s phone on the side seems viable, it is a natural instinct for people nowadays to pick up and check their phones. Even preventions such as turning on “Do Not Disturb” might not work in some cases. Indeed, it does block out notifications, but it still doesn’t prevent the actual act of a driver from reaching their phone to check on it. Despite that these simple approaches are great in preventing some of the causes of distracted driving, they do not cover all aspects of it.

Therefore, I propose a new solution to reduce the amount of distracted driving: tracking sensors on frame glasses or prescription glasses of the driver, which the driver would either wear when they get into the car or in their daily lives. Because being distracted refers to any aspect of not focusing on the road, a sensor on the glasses can detect a movement that is unnatural to driving, such as looking down below the dashboard and not onto the road or mirrors. These driver glasses can connect to a wireless relay box when they enter the car, and once on the road, whenever the driver looks down into an unnatural position, the relay box will beep back in consideration of how alert the driver is on the road, beeping louder the more unaware the driver is through its position of the sensors. We can expand this idea by disabling the phone when it senses movement of the driver trying to beat the system by raising the phone on top of the dashboard or just the standard looking down below the dashboard and reaching for the smartphone.

One might say this system is complicated, as one can just turn off their phone in general, but constantly shutting ones’ phone down may become annoying, which might result in the driver giving up the habit as a whole. On the other hand, studies from the NCBI have found that noise induction will most likely make a person respond accordingly to their surroundings, as the human race has evolved in humanity from nature, so humans will generally react to a sound to perceive danger. Therefore, we can use this ideology to direct our eyes to only focus on the road. Although this system might not beat out all the distractions a driver might face — such as daydreaming or getting distracted by the outer world — it still blocks out the core causes of distracted driving, which include checking the phone, eating, and arguing with someone else about a Spotify Playlist. I believe this innovation can help our society immensely, especially younger generations who are attached to smartphones, as this technology will help cut down their loss of attention on the road.

As Catherine McDonald explained when she stated, “What’s important to remember about driving is that you’re making decisions not just about yourself, but about other cars that you’re not controlling,” driving is a privilege given to us that requires a large amount of responsibility and control. When driving, it is your responsibility to keep yourself safe and to not do anything rash that would risk the safety of the fellow drivers.

There’s no doubt that we’ve all heard the phrase, “Don’t text while driving!” numerous times in the past. We’ve all seen the consequences of behaviors such as these, and yet, why do people still do it? Despite knowing just how dangerous and risky these actions may be, why do thousands of drivers do this on a daily basis? Perhaps the thought of “that’ll never happen to me because I’ll be careful” deceives us, but the severity of the situation cannot be taken lightly.

Many different ideas have been suggested to the public over recent years, with recent ones including a Do Not Disturb While Driving addition to the iPhones, and Auto Apply/Android Auto for newer models of cars. Although we’ve definitely all tried these methods at some point, our temptations may get the better of us at the end of the day. So is there really any method that can prevent texting while driving for sure? As of right now, there really isn’t. But that doesn’t mean that there can’t be one in the near future.

The only way to solve a problem is to get rid of the source of the problem itself. The source of the problem would be the phones, right? The easiest and best thing to do in this scenario would be to remove the phones from plain sight, so the driver could focus on driving. As John Heywood once said, “Out of sight, out of mind.” By implementing current technology, there could be a surefire way to prevent texting while driving. In the car, there could be a compartment installed, and that compartment would be there for one purpose: to hold your phone. However, this compartment would be directly connected to the car’s ability to move, and without the device being inside the compartment, the car wouldn’t be able to be put into drive. To prevent any possible loophole, the compartment would also have a sensor installed, and this sensor would be used to detect that the device has been put into the compartment. After the device has been placed into the compartment, it wouldn’t be able to be removed until the proper destination has been reached. The phone would then be released from the constraints of the compartment, and you could go on to do whatever you needed to do safely. In case of an emergency, the phone would be automatically linked to the car via bluetooth, and with a single sentence, you would be able to call 911. The compartment would then send a GPA location directly to the police, and within minutes, they would arrive to help you in your time of need. With the addition of a new gadget like this, driving while texting would no longer be a hindrance. Everyone could drive safely, and they could rest assured knowing that something as rash as texting while driving wouldn’t be the cause of injury or fatality.

If there’s anything that commenting on KWHS has taught me, it’s that nothing is impossible. Young scholars from all over the world are coming up with new innovative ways to make the world a much better place everyday, and with the current technology that we possess, creating new things is no longer a burden. With the combined innovative thoughts from scholars all over the world, problems such as these will no longer cause us so much harm. It’s all up to whether we’re willing to work together to achieve this goal.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Articles

Getting creative with money, the future of work.

Research & Statistics

• Research & Statistics

Distracted Driving Research & Statistics

Proceed to our Distracted Driving Resources page for links to sources for further information.

1)  Traffic Safety Facts 2)  Driver Attitudes & Behaviors 3)  Teens, Millennials & Young Drivers 3 A) GDL – Graduated Driver Licensing 4)  Parents & Adults 5)  Cognitive Distractions: “Hands Free", Voice Activated and Infotainment Systems 6)  Cell Phone Conversation vs. Talking With Passenger 7)  Cell Phone Driver vs. Drunk Driver 8)  Text Messaging 9)  Effectiveness of Bans on Texting and Hand-held Use of Cell Phones 10) Seat Belts 11) Pedestrians & Bicyclists 12) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Distracted Driving Initiatives

1) Traffic Safety Facts

NHTSA’s Report “The True Cost of Economic and Societal Impacts of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2019, (February 2023) indicated that rather than 3,100 deaths per years, distracted driving fatalities were likely in excess of 10,000 per year. Accordingly, the % of traffic fatalities caused by distracted driving was likely to be about 29% as opposed to 10%.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

New GHSA Report Finds That Traffic Crash Fatalities Disproportionately Affect Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC),  June 2021 .  The study found that traffic deaths overall increased during the pandemic despite less miles driven, with blacks being involved in fatal crashes at about 20% higher rate than whites. Suggested reasons for the disparity include black communities are crisscrossed by more dangerous roads, and during the pandemic, people of color were more likely to have been deemed “essential workers” without an option to stay home. The GHSA committed to working on a long-term plan to correct the inequity, including analyzing whether traffic enforcement inequities were contributory.

Cox, A. “A brief review of distracted driving research”. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety(IIHS), October 2021 . This is a great summary of distracted driving research covering a wide range of topics, including driver typography, the prevalence of distracted driving, perceptions about the safety of driving distracted and messaging and intervention strategies. It was prepared by the IIHS in support of the National Coalition on Distracted Driving(NCDD).

Distracted Parents -Survey Results, March 2021. National Safety Council and Cumberland Valley Firemen’s Association/Emergency Responder Safety Institute. The survey revealed that nearly all parents will alter their behaviors to reduce distracted driving when children are present in the car. Specifically a 44% decrease in manipulating GPS devices; 34% decrease in using digital music devices or apps; 21% decrease in glancing at or reading notifications. Parents reported that the largest deterrents to phone use while driving included having child(ren) tell them they felt scared when parents used phone while driving.

Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities for the First Half (Jan–Jun) of 2020 , October 2020. A statistical projection of traffic fatalities for the first half of 2020 shows that an estimated 16,650 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes. This represents a decrease of 2 percent as compared to the 16,988 fatalities reported to have occurred in the first half of 2019.   Preliminary data reported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) shows that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the first 6 months of 2020 decreased by about 264.2 billion miles, or about a 16.6-percent decrease. Accordingly, the fatality rate for the first half of 2020 increased to 1.25 fatalities per 100 million VMT, up from the 1.06 fatalities per 100 million VMT in the first half of 2019.

2109 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crash Data, December, 2020.  There were 36,096 fatalities in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2019, a 2% reduction from 2018 and the lowest rate for vehicle miles travelled since 2014. There was however, a 9.9% increase in distracted driving fatalities to 3,142 (284 more than 2018), representing 8.7% of all fatalities in 2019. Fatalities decreased in most other traffic categories compared to 2018 including an 11.2% decrease in drowsy driving fatalities, a 2.7% reduction in pedestrian fatalities (169 fewer), a 2.9% decrease in bicycle fatalities and a 5.3% decrease in alcohol impaired driving fatalities, the lowest percentage since 1982 when NHTSA began reporting alcohol data.

Status Report -Distracted Driving, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Vol. 54, No. 1 | January 24, 2019 -This IIHS Report has a number of useful findings including the frequency with which observed drivers are distracted, in 2018 57% more likely to be manipulating a cellphone than in 2014, and drivers much more likely to be actively manipulating a cellphone as opposed to talking on a hand-held cell phone. Additionally, it was determined from a survey that only 1 in 5 iPhone owners of newer iPhones had Apples’ “Do Not Disturb While Driving” feature set to automatically turn on while driving.

2018 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview , DOT HS 812 826, NHTSA, October, 2019 -Distracted driving deaths fell in 2018 by the largest percentage in 10 years. In 2017 3,242 people were killed in distracted driving crashes and in 2018, 2,841, an overall approximate 12% decrease. There were 36,560 total people killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes on U.S. roadways during 2018, a 2.4% decrease from 37,473 in 2017.  However, pedestrian and bicyclist deaths increased to a combined total of about 7,000 for the highest annual totals since 2009. Pedestrian and bicyclist deaths now account for about 20% of all highway fatalities.

U.S. DOT Announces 2017 Roadway Fatalities Down , NHTSA, Oct. 2018 — After two years of large increases, deaths caused by motor vehicles decreased by 2% for 2017. While the decrease is an improvement and appears to be a continuing trend for 2018, many of these deaths are still preventable. Of the 37,133 lives that were lost due to vehicle crashes in 2017, 8.5% (3,166) were due to distracted driving. Irresponsible behaviors such as distracted, drowsy, and reckless driving should be eliminated in order to ensure that these numbers continue to go down for following years.

NHTSA 2016 Fatal Traffic Crash Data (Oct. 2017)  – 37,461 lives were lost on U.S. roads in 2016, an increase of 5.6 percent from 2015. Distracted driving fatalities declined by 2.2% , drowsy driving fatalities declined by 3.5%, while deaths related to other reckless behaviors – including speeding, alcohol impairment, and not wearing seat belts – continued to increase. Pedestrian deaths increased 9% to 5,987 (the highest number since 1990) and bicyclist deaths increased by 1.3% to 840 (the highest number since 1991).

University of Iowa, Why talking on cell phones adversely affects driving performance , June 2017 – Researchers  used computerized experiments that tracked eye movements while asking subjects to answer true or false questions to mimic having a cell phone conversation or even a conversation with a passenger. Doing so caused participants to take about twice as long to direct their eyes to a new object than those who were not asked to respond. This phenomenon is referred to as “attentional disengagement.”  And, the more the brain was distracted the worse participants performance became, a “snowball effect.”

NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts, Distracted Driving 2015 , DOT HS 812 381, March 2017 – In 2015, there were 3,477 people killed and an estimated additional 391,000 injured in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers; 10% fatal crashes, 15% of injury crashes, and 14% of all police-reported traffic crashes were reported as distraction-affected; 9% of all drivers 15 to 19 years old involved in fatal crashes were distracted at the time of the crashes. This age group has the largest proportion of drivers who were distracted at the time of the fatal crashes; there were 551 nonoccupants (pedestrians, bicyclists, and others) killed in distraction-affected crashes.

NHTSA 2015 Motor Vehicle Crashes Overview , NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts, DOT HS 812 318, August 2016.  The nation lost 35,092 people in traffic crashes in 2015, ending a 5-decade trend of declining fatalities with a 7.2% increase in deaths from 2014. The final data released  by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed traffic deaths rising across nearly every segment of the population. The last single-year increase of this magnitude was in 1966, when fatalities rose 8.1% from the previous year. Distracted driving fatalities rose at a greater percentage than those for drunk or drowsy driving, speeding and failing to wear a seatbelt.

Motor vehicle crash fatalities in the U.S. could drop by half with proven strategies according to a July 2016 CDC report comparing fatality rates between US and other high-income countries. The US had quadruple the fatality rate of Sweden and the UK and is about double that of France, Germany and Canada. Speeding, using seat belts and  booster seats, drunk and distracted driving were all areas where the UCS could improve and save lives. Average seat belt use for the countries in the survey was 94% while the US is still under 90% seatbelt compliance.

NJ State Police Year to Date Statewide Fatal Crash Statistics for December 31, 2014 – 3.9%  increase in highway fatalities in 2013 by 21 victims, bringing the total to 563, up from 542 in 2013;  driver, passenger and pedacyclists fatalities all decreased from 2013; # of pedestrians killed spiked by 28%; in 2013, 132 pedestrians were killed and in 2014, 170

Traffic Safety Facts 2013 NHTSA, 2014 (DOT HS 812 101) – A compilation of motor vehicle crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System – data shows a 3.1% decrease from 2012 and a nearly 25% decline in overall highway deaths since 2004; in 2013, 32,719 people died in traffic crashes; estimated number of people injured in crashes also declined by 2.1%.

“The Economic and Societal Impact Of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010” , NHTSA, 2014 (DOT HS 812 013) – Distracted driving crashes responsible for $129 billion in societal costs in 2010

“Traffic Safety Facts 2012” , NHTSA (DOT HS 812 032) – A compilation of motor vehicle crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System

“Traffic Safety Facts 2011” , NHTSA (DOT HS 811 754) –  A compilation of motor vehicle crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System

“Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes as a Leading Cause Of Death in the United States, 2008 and 2009 ”,  NHTSA, 2012  (DOT HS 811 620) – Fatalities in motor vehicle crashes have declined by 25%  since 2005, yet remained the leading cause of death  for 8 to 34 year-olds in 2008 and for 8 to 24 year- olds in 2009; 2nd leading causes of death for 25 to 34 year- olds in 2009

“Crashes Involving Cell Phones: Challenges of Collecting and Reporting Reliable Crash Data” , NSC, 2013 – cell phone distracted driving crashes “vastly under-reported”; review of 180 fatal crashes from 2009 to 2011, where evidence indicated driver cell phone use –  in 2011 only 52% were coded in the national data as involving cell phone use;  in 2012, highway fatalities increased for the first time in seven years;  estimate that 25% of all crashes involve cell phone use

“Distracted Driving 2011” , NHTSA, 2013 (DOT HS 811 737) – In 2011: 3,331 people killed in crashes involving distracted drivers and 387,000 injured, representing 10% of all fatal crashes and 17% of all accidents that caused injuries; 12% of fatalities involved the use of a cell phone (talking/listening to a cell phone, dialing/texting or other cell-phone-related activities); 5% of those injured involved a cell-phone; for 15 – 19 yr.old drivers involved in fatal crashes, 21% were distracted by the use of a cell phone

“An Evaluation of the Visual Demands of Portable Telematics Technologies Among Young Adult Drivers” , Mehler, et al., (MIT Age Lab White Paper) 2012 – Study examines NHTSA’s 2012 proposal limiting glances away from the road to use electronic devices to no more than 2 seconds for any single glance and 12 seconds total to complete the task. Studied were times to dial a flip phone, input phone number using a touch screen, using a portable navigation device and for comparison purposes manual interaction with radio at three levels of complexity. All three radio tasks and flip phone dialing came closest to meeting the proposed standard, while touch phone entry and using navigation system did not.

“Distracted Driving 2009" , NHTSA, 2010 (DOT HS 811 379)  – over 5,000 people killed and over 440,000 injured in motor vehicle accidents connected to distracted driving, representing 16% of all fatal crashes and 20% of all accidents that caused injuries

“Driver Distraction in Commercial Motor Vehicle Operations”, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2009 – Increase likelihood of crashing while engaged in specific tasks: text messaging – 23 X, rummaging through grocery bag – 10 X, writing on pad or notebook – 9 X, using calculator – 8 X, looking at a map – 7 X, dialing a cell phone – 6 X, personal grooming – 4 X, reaching for object in vehicle – 3 X

“The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study – Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment," NHTSA 2006 – Observations recorded by in-vehicle instrumentation show that almost 80% of all crashes and 65% of all near-crashes involved the driver looking away from the roadway just prior to the event

“Distracted Driving and Risk of Road Crashes among Novice and Experienced Drivers” , Klauer, SG, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (N Engl J Med) 2014 – Data collected from recording devices installed in participants’ vehicles from 2003-04  (experienced drivers – average age 36.2 ) and 2006-08 (novice drivers – average age 16.4 );  actual crashes and near-crashes measured  and related to performance of secondary tasks including reaching for cell phone, dialing cell phone, talking on cell phone, texting, reaching for other objects, eating or drinking and adjusting vehicle controls –  secondary tasks requiring drivers to look away from the road ahead,  are significant risk factors for crashes and near-crashes, particularly among novice drivers

2) Driver Attitudes & Behaviors

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2019 Traffic Safety Culture Index , June 2020—An overwhelming number of drivers view typing (96.2%), reading (94.3%), and talking (79.7%) on a hand-held cellphone while driving to be very or extremely dangerous. Despite that, 43.2% of drivers report having driven while talking on a hand-held cellphone, having read (38.6%) and typed a text/e-mail (29.3%) on a hand-held cellphone while driving at least once in the past 30 days. Reported distracted driving behaviors were as follows, grouped by age: reading a text or e-mail and sending a text or e-mail,  respectively, 16-18 year-olds (46 and 35%);19-24 year-olds (54 and 50%); and 25-39 year-olds (56 and 49%.)

The Harsh Realities of Phone Distraction, Cambridge Mobile Telematics , November, 2020. This white paper looks at distracted driving using the company’s data from millions of miles of users of its telematics devices. Its data suggests that the true scope of distracted driving has been underestimated by traffic authorities and that the problem is much worse than generally believed to be. CMT references NHTSA data that about 10% of drivers are distracted at any given moment during daylight hours. However, its data revealed that in 2019, 37% of car trips involved at least 20 seconds of cumulative phone distraction, and that during daytime hours, that number rose to 41%. They concluded that “when looking at the average number of distractions per 100 miles, distraction has increased by 15% in three years across the U.S.” The Report provides a different look at distracted driving, statistics, and solutions.

Status Report -Distracted Driving, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Vol. 54, No. 1 | January 24, 2019 -This IIHS Report has a number of useful findings including the frequency with which observed drivers are distracted, in 2018 57% more likely to be manipulating a cellphone than in 2014, and drivers much more likely to be actively manipulating a cellphone as opposed to talking on a hand-held cellphone. Additionally, it was determined from a survey that only 1 in 5 iPhone owners of newer iPhones had Apples’ “Do Not Disturb While Driving” feature set to automatically turn on while driving.  Only 1 in 5 iPhone owners of newer iPhones had Apples’  “Do Not Disturb While Driving” feature set to automatically turn on while driving.

“2019 Distracted Driving Statistics" , The Zebra, March 2019—survey of 2,000 Americans – 37% of respondents aged 18 to 34 said they felt a high degree of pressure to respond to work-related messages while driving, compared to 25% of the national average among all age groups; parents with young children were 13% more likely to be distracted behind the wheel as opposed to drivers with no children; iPhone users repeatedly had a significantly higher trend of participating in distracting activities behind the wheel as opposed to Android users

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2018 Traffic Safety Culture Index , June 2019 — While 75% of drivers support a law against holding and talking on a cell phone, over half admit to driving while talking on a handheld device in the past 30 days; similarly, 88% of drivers support a law against typing, reading, or sending a text/email while driving, yet 41.3% admit to reading and 32.1% admit to typing while operating a motor vehicle in the past month. Although many confess to participating in distracted driving, 95.9% of drivers believe reading and 96.7% believe typing a text is very or extremely dangerous while driving a vehicle. Typically, talking on a handheld phone is believed to be less dangerous as that percentage decreases to 79.8%.

Parents of 4–10-Year-Olds Report on Their Distracted Driving Behaviors with Children in the Car . Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 2018. Despite well-known risks to driving distracted, many parents of 4–10-year-olds will still drive distracted. 

“2019 Distracted Driving Statistics" , The Zebra, March 2019 — survey of 2,000 Americans – 37% of respondents aged 18 to 34 said they felt a high degree of pressure to respond to work-related messages while driving, compared to 25% of the national average among all age groups; parents with young children were 13% more likely to be distracted behind the wheel as opposed to drivers with no children; iPhone users repeatedly had a significantly higher trend of participating in distracting activities behind the wheel as opposed to Android users

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2017 Traffic Safety Culture Index, March, 2018 – Reveals that drivers have a “do as I say, not as I do" attitude.  Most drivers (87.5%) perceive that distracted drivers are a bigger problem today than in past years. Moreover, distracted driving outpaced all other issues as a growing concern. It was followed by traffic congestion at 74.5%, aggressive drivers at 68.1%, drivers using drugs at 54.9% and drunk driving at 43.4%. Despite those feelings, 45% read a text and 34% sent a text in the 30 days prior to the survey.

Travelers Insurance Company pol l, Sept. 2017 – Of those who drive to or for work, 43% will answer or make work-related communications while driving, including texting, emailing and calling. The reasons those drivers gave for doing so were 38% felt they needed to always be  available, 37% feared missing out on something important at work and 17% did not want to upset the boss. By age groups, 18-34 and 35-44 year olds were tied at 54% for the largest percentage of drivers engaged in work-related communications while driving.

State Farm Distracted Driving Survey 2016 , March, 2017 –  revealed that  after several years of steady increases in self-reported distracting cellphone activities, only two distracted driving behaviors involving cell phones (taking pictures and recording video) increased this year. Drivers continued to engage in various cellphone activities while driving despite finding these activities distracting and despite thinking that those  behaviors increased the likelihood of a crash. The most cited reasons why drivers engaged in these risky behaviors were as follows: text messaging (habit, staying in touch, efficiency), accessing the internet (search for answer, habit, boredom), updating social media (habit, boredom, staying in touch).

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2016 Traffic Safety Culture Index , February, 2017 – While texting while driving remained about the same for 16-18 year olds at 34%, it skyrocketed to 60 % for 19-24 year olds and remained at  50% for 25-39 year olds. 88% of young millennials engaged in at least one risky behavior behind the wheel in the past 30 days, earning the top spot of worst behaved U.S. drivers. These  behaviors included texting while driving, red-light running and speeding.

DISTRACTED DRIVING TRENDS: USE OF HAND-HELD CELLPHONES FOR TALKING DECREASING, INCREASING FOR INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA , State Farm Insurance, Dec. 2015  ( Full report  here) – 7th annual online survey of 1,000 U.S.  consumers ages 18+. Accessing the internet while driving has more than doubled since 2009; texting has stayed nearly the same and talking on a hand-held cell phone has decreased

“ Smartphone Use Behind the Wheel Survey “, AT&T, April 2015 – Telephone survey of 2,000 + respondents aged 16 to 62: 62% keep phone within easy reach while driving; texting ranks the highest of all smartphone activities behind the wheel; Facebook tops the list of social platforms used while driving; 30% of people who post to Twitter while driving do it “all the time”; habit, the perception of being able to safely do 2 things at once and fear of missing something important are the primary reasons for smartphone activities behind the wheel

“ 2014 Traffic Safety Culture Index ,”   AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2014 – An attitude of “Do as I say, not as I do” continues to persist among drivers.  85% of respondents stated that distracted drivers were a safety concern.  While 78.6% say texting and e-mailing are a very serious threat and 84.4% say it is completely unacceptable, more than one-third read a text or e-mail while driving, with 27% admitting to typing one.  Two-thirds say hand-held cell phone use is unacceptable , while two-thirds also say hands-free phone is acceptable . Nearly half (46.6%) who use speech-based in-vehicle systems do not believe they are distracting.  Support for bans is as follows – Texting at 89.3%,  hand-held mobile devices at 67.8% and bans of both hand-held and hands-free devices is 40.2%.

“Driver Electronic Use in 2012 “, NHTSA, 2014 (DOT HS 811 884) – The percentage of drivers text-messaging or visibly manipulating hand-held devices increased from 1.3 percent in 2011 to 1.5 percent in 2012; held cell phone use continued to be higher among females, highest among 16 to 24 year-olds and lowest among drivers 70 and older

“2012 Traffic Safety Culture Index” , AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2013 –  More than 2 in 3 drivers report talking on their cell phone while driving at least once in the past month, and nearly 1 in 3 say they did so fairly often or regularly; more than 26.6% admit to typing or sending a text message or email while driving in the past month and 34.7%, reading a text message or email

“Driver Electronic Device Use in 2011" ,  NHTSA, 2013 (DOT HS 811 719) – % of drivers text-messaging or visibly manipulating hand-held devices increased significantly for a second year in a row from 0.9% in 2010 to 1.3% in 2011; 660,000 vehicles driven by people using hand-held cell phones at a typical daylight moment in 2011; higher among females and higher among 16-24 year- olds than older drivers

“Self-reported and Observed Risky Driving Behaviors Among Frequent and Infrequent Cell Phone Users” , Zhao, N., et al, (Accident Analysis & Prevention) 2012 – 2013   –  Study results revealed that those who use cell phones while driving more frequently are also likely to engage in other driving behaviors that increase overall crash risk, including driving faster, changing lanes more frequently and hard braking

“Stuck in the 70s: the Role of Social Norms in Distracted Driving” , Atchley, P.et al.,  Accident Analysis Prevention 2012 –  Participants were asked to rate responsibility for crash scenarios and to levy fines and jail time –  When social norms, laws against texting were provided,  texting drivers were found more responsible than when the social norms were not provided;  the author believes that in order to reduce texting while driving our social norms about distracted driving must change, similar to what occurred with respect to drunk  driving

“National Phone Survey on Distracted Driving Attitudes and Behaviors”, NHTSA, 2011 (DOT HS 811 55) – Survey of 6,002 drivers 18 and older from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Most commonly performed potentially distracting behaviors while driving: talking to passengers in the vehicle (80%), adjusting the car radio (65%), eating/drinking (45%), making/accepting phone calls (40%), interacting with children in the back seat (27%), and using a portable music player (30%); men more likely than women to use navigation systems (55% of men, 46% of women), use smartphones for driving directions (30% men, 21% women), and use portable music players with headphones (4% men, 1% women); women more likely than men to interact with children in the back seat (23% men, 31% women) and do personal grooming (3% men, 8% women); men and women equally likely to make or accept phone calls (42% men, 39% women), read incoming e-mail or text messages (10% men, 9% women), and send messages (both 6%); drivers younger than 25 are 2 to 3  times more likely than older drivers to read or send text messages or e-mails

“The Choice to Text and Drive in Younger Drivers: Behavior May Shape Attitude” ,  Atchley, P., et al., Transportation Research Board of the National Academies 2011. Study suggests that if we choose to engage in risky behaviors, i.e. texting while driving, we may change our attitudes, minimizing the risk because we engage in that behavior; attitudes may not shape behaviors but our behaviors may actually shape our attitudes

3) Teens,  Millennials & Young Drivers

In a USDOT study (August 2022), the EndDD.org teen distracted driving presentation was found to be effective in teaching students about distracted driving, increasing the likelihood that they would intervene when their drivers drove distracted, increased actual interventions and also reduced parent distracted driving behaviors.

Threat appeals reduce impulsive decision making associated with texting while driving: A behavioral economic approach (March 2019). In this study of college students the threat appeals reduced the degree of impulsive decision making associated with texting while driving, led to greater anticipated regret from texting while driving, and decreased intentions to text while driving. The results suggest that video-based threat appeals are promising intervention strategies for the public health challenge of texting while driving.

Teens and Speeding: Breaking the Deadly Cycle , GHSA, January, 2020. GHSA found that from 2015 to 2019, teen drivers and passengers (16-19 years of age) accounted for a greater proportion of speeding-related fatalities (43%) than all other age groups (30%). During this five-year period, 4,930 teen drivers and passengers died in speeding-related crashes. Other findings include that for speeding-related fatal crashes involving teens the driver is more likely to be male, have run off the road or rolled the vehicle and be unbuckled.

Attitudes on technological, social, and behavioral economic strategies to reduce cellphone use among teens while driving, Traffic Injury Prevention, 2018 . Delgado, et al. This study asked teens a number of questions about cellphone use and the likelihood of giving up that use under a number of situations. Most teens were willing or somewhat willing to give up reading texts (90%), sending texts (95%), and social media (99%) while driving. However, they were not willing to give up navigation (59%) and music applications (43%).  Overall, the following strategies were rated as likely to be very effective for reducing texting while driving: gain-framed financial incentives (75%), loss-framed financial incentives (63%), group-based financial incentives (58%), insurance discounts (53%), automatic phone locking while driving (54%), e-mail notifications to parents (47%), automated responses to incoming texts (42%), peer concern (18%), and parental concern (15%).

Global driving study finds American millennials are worst offenders of phone use behind the wheel , Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, August 13, 2019 –  53% of American millennials have sent emails or texts compared to 33% for Western European millennials. There were similar differences noted for using a phone, or glancing at incoming notifications or texts and emails.

“Attitudes on technological, social, and behavioral economic strategies to reduce cellphone use among teens while driving” M. Kit Delgado, et al., Traffic Injury Prevention March 2018 — Online survey of 153 teen drivers who own smartphones and admitted to texting while driving – Teens were more open to giving up reading (90%) and sending (95%) texts than they were for navigation (59%) and music applications (43%). Financial incentives appear to be the best strategy for encouraging teens to put away their phones while driving, as 75% of those surveyed were open to gain-framed incentives and 63% were open to loss-framed incentives. Insurance discounts, parental and peer involvement, and automated response systems also piqued the interest of teens. 60% of teens do not want their parents to be able to monitor their phone usage behind the wheel.

NTSB Safety Alert, “Drowsy Driving Among Young Drivers" , Feb. 2017 – 1 in 5 fatal crashes involve a drowsy driver and drivers aged 16 to 24 are most at risk. The problem is outlined, a related crash analyzed and tips provided for teens and parents

Teenagers Fatality Facts 2016 , Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute – A total of 2,820 teenagers ages 13-19 died in motor vehicle crashes in 2016. This is 68% fewer than in 1975 and 3% more than in 2015. About 2 of every 3 teenagers killed in crashes in 2016 were males. Teenagers accounted for 8% of motor vehicle crash deaths, comprised 9% of passenger vehicle (cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans) occupant deaths among all ages, 5% of pedestrian deaths, 3% of motorcyclist deaths, 8% of bicyclist deaths and 15% of all-terrain vehicle rider death. (Data collected and comparisons made in easy to read charts back to 1975).

“ Distraction and Teen Crashes: Even Worse Than We Thought ,”   AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2015 –   University of Iowa researchers studied  the extent  to which teen driver distraction was involved in crashes by viewing videos from 1,691 in-vehicle cameras taken for the 6 seconds leading up to the crash . The results indicated that some form of distraction was involved in 58% of the crashes studied, with speaking to passengers and cell phone use as the two most frequent causes. The frequency  of distraction-involved crashes was found go be about 4 times that previously reported by NHTSA (14%). Some of the videos are available for viewing.

“Distracted &  Dangerous – Helping States Keep Teens Focused on the Road,”  GHSA, Aug. 2014 – Comprehensive summary of nationwide efforts to date to combat teen distracted driving; highlights teen distracted driving research and the extent of the teen distracted driving problem;  summarizes applicable legislative and enforcement efforts; describes innovative programs from across the country that are showing promise in reducing distracted driving crashes

“I s that Mom on the Phone? Teen Drivers and Distraction “, LaVoie, et al,  American Psychological Association, Aug. 2014 – Interview and survey of over 400 teen drivers from 31 states ages 15 to 18 –  more than 1/2 of teens talk on cell phone to mom or dad while driving with  teens reporting that  parents expect to be able to reach them;  teens more likely to send text messages to friends than parents

“Fatality Facts, Teeneagers",   IIHS 2014-  Fatal crash rate per mile driven for 16-19 year-olds nearly 3 times the rate for drivers ages 20 and over and nearly twice as high for 16-17 year-olds as for 18-19 year-olds

“Teens and Technology 2013" , Pew Research Internet Project – Survey of  teens ages 12-17 and their parents – 78% of teens have a cell phone, 47% of those own smartphones – up 14% from 2011;  1 in 4 teens are “cell-mostly” internet users

“Special Considerations in Distracted Driving With Teens” , Durbin, D, et al, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) 2014  (Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine) –  Reviews a number of factors contributing to increased crash risk for teens, including use of mobile devices, inexperience, parental influences on attitudes and behaviors pertinent to distracted driving

“Are We Doing Enough to Prevent the Perfect Storm?: Novice Drivers, ADHD, and Distracted Driving ”,  Winston, FK, McDonald,CC. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) 2013 Journal of the American Medical Association -Pediatrics. Recognizing that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teens, but that the GDL laws have been the only really effective intervention to reduce deaths, the authors urge more effective interventions to reduce teen deaths

“Don’t Txt n Drive: Teens Not Getting Msg “, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013 –  43% of youths admit to texting while driving; prevalence higher among males, older teens

“Bridgestone Young Driver  Survey Results 2014” , –  More than half of teens admit they will occasionally text and drive; 70% likely to do so at a red light; 60% said they have texted while driving alone compared to 37% with a friend; 70% have asked a friend or parent to stop texting while driving

“ Bridgestone Young Driver Survey Results 2013 ”, –  Comprehensive survey of teen attitudes and behaviors, including participation in distracted driving behaviors,  broken down by daytime versus nighttime –  97% have texted while driving during daytime  and 47% at night; 92% when driving alone and 32% when driving with friends (suggesting perhaps social pressure may be reducing texting);   teens observed  parents’ driving distractions  including hand held cell phone use 60%, hands-free cell phone use 46%, using navigation 40%, reading texts 29%, sending texts 25%; nearly 2/3 of teens viewed texting as unacceptable but 45% admitted to reading and 37% to sending texts

“ Distracted driving Among Newly Licensed Teens “, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2012 – Part of an in-depth naturalistic three-phase study of 50 families in NC with a novice teenage driver. Use of electronic devices was the most common distracted driving behavior and was found in 7% of the clips; nearly twice as many teens were observed or suspected of operating an electronic device (e.g., texting) than were seen talking on a hand-held phone; excluding electronic device use, teens were observed engaging in distracting behaviors in 15.1% of video clips: adjusting controls was the most common (6.2%), followed by personal grooming (3.8%), and eating or drinking (2.8%); females twice as likely as males to be using an electronic device; electronic device use was most common when drivers carried no passengers, and were least common when a parent or other adult was in the vehicle

“Young Drivers Report the Highest Level of Phone Involvement in Crash or Near-Crash Incidences”, NHTSA, 2012 – 68% of drivers 18 to 20 are willing to answer incoming phone calls on driving trips; drivers 18 to 20 have the highest incidence of self- reported crash or near-crash experiences and the highest incidence of phone involvement at the time of the crash or near-crash; most do not think that talking on a phone while driving affects their driving performance

“Prevalence of Teen Driver Errors Leading to Serious Motor Vehicle Crashes “, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) & State Farm Insurance Companies (Accident Analysis & Prevention) 2011 – Analysis from federal database of more than 800 crashes involving teen drivers – 75% of crashes due a critical teen driver error, with 3 common errors accounting for nearly 1/2 of all serious crashes: 21% ue to lack of scanning that is needed to detect and respond to hazards;  21% due to going too fast for road conditions and 21% due to being distracted by something inside or outside the vehicle

Teen Driver Distraction Study   –  University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and Toyota, 2012 – Significant correlation between parent and teen distractions.  Teens whose parents drive distracted are 2 to 4 times likely to also drive distracted.

“U.S. High School Students Improve Motor Vehicle-related Health Behaviors" , CDC 2012 – Students showed improvement in seat belt usage, alcohol usage and driving, and not being driven by an impaired driver; the challenge – 1 in 3 high school students had texted or e-mailed while driving during the past 30 days

“Cause for Concern for Summer Drivers: Speeding, Texting, and Distracted Driving Prevalent in a High Percentage of Teens’ “Near Misses” According to Liberty Mutual/SADD Study” , 2011 – National study of 2,294 high school students, 68% of teens admit to have narrowly avoided a crash –  more than half of those reporting multiple instances — more apt to blame external causes such as other drivers or the weather; yet, as to what they were doing at the time of the incident, speeding: 30%, texting while driving: 21%, talking to passengers: 20%, changing songs on MP3 player: 17%

A) GDL – Graduated Driver Licensing

“ Long-Term Changes in Crash Rates After Introduction of a Graduated Driver Licensing Decal Provision “, Curry, Elliot, et al., (American Journal of Preventive Medicine) 2014 – NJ’s Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) decal provision is associated with a sustained two-year decline in crash rates among intermediate (i.e., probationary) teen drivers. Crash rates decreased 1.8% per year before the provision and 7.9% per year in the post-decal period. For several crash types, effects appeared to be particularly strong for 18- and 19-year-olds. Crash involvement of an estimated 3,197 intermediate drivers was prevented in the first two years after the decal’s implementation.

“ Graduated Driver Licensing Programs and Fatal Crashes of 16-year-old Drivers: A National Evaluation ”, Baker, et al., (John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)  2006 – Analysis of data collected from 1994 to 2004; as much as a 21% reduction in fatal crash rates attributed to GDL laws; “The most comprehensive graduated driver licensing programs result in the best reduction of fatal crashes of 16-year-old drivers.”

4) Parents & Adults

“Patterns of Texting and Driving in a US National Survey of Millennial Parents vs Older Parents”, Jennifer Glicklich, et al., JAMA Pediatrics,  May 2019 –  National survey of 435 parents – mllennial parents read text messages while driving more frequently than did older parents, 42.2% vs 26.7% ; no difference was seen for writing texts;  The DDS (Distracted Driving Survey) score for older parents was 2 points less than that of millennial parents, meaning younger parents are still generally more likely to participate in inappropriate driving habits. Only 24.6% of millennials and 17.3% of older parents used an app or cell phone feature aimed at reducing texting and driving, a difference that was not statistically significant

Parents’ Distracted Driving Behaviors , Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute, July 2018 —  Online survey of 760 parents and caregivers of children ages 4-10 years. from 47 US states, indicated they engaged in the following behaviors while driving, and the car was moving, with their child in the vehicle: 52.2% admitted to talking on a hands-free phone; 47% admitted to talking on a hand-held phone; 33.7% have read and 26.7% have sent a text message; 13.7 percent have used social media. A correlation was also found between parents engaging in other risky driving behaviors whether or not children were present in the car, such as not wearing a seat belt and driving under the influence of alcohol.

“Many parents multi-task while driving kids" , University of Michigan, 2014 published in American Journal of Pediatrics – Almost 90 percent of drivers reported engaging in at least one technology-based distraction while driving their child in the prior month, and most drivers reported engaging in 4 of the 10 distractions asked about in the study.

“Exclusive Survey from American Baby and Safe Kids Worldwide: Moms Make the Same Risky Driving Choices as Teens “, 2013 –  78% admit to talking on the phone while driving with their baby; 64% of moms have turned around to tend to their child’s needs while driving; 26% text or check email

“Nearly Half of Commuters  Admit to Texting While Driving" , AT&T survey, 2013 – 49% of adults admitted to texting while driving (43% for teens) – 40% call it a habit; 6 in 10 did not do it 3 years prior

Parent/Teen Correlation in Distracted Driving   –  University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and Toyota, 2012 -Parents who talk on cell phones, send texts or eat and drink while driving have teenagers who are 2 to 4 times more likely to do the same.

“Adults and Cell Phone Distractions," Pew Research Center, 2010 – Adults are just as likely as teens to have texted while driving and are substantially more likely to have talked on the phone while driving.

5) Cognitive Distractions: Hands Free vs. Hand Held & Voice to Text

In-Vehicle Infotainment Systems Especially Distracting to Older Drivers , AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, July 2019 — In-vehicle infotainment systems are intended to simplify tasks such as navigation and communication while driving, but are they actually causing an even bigger issue? Research suggests that this technology is adding to the risk of distraction behind the wheel, specifically for older drivers. Complicated menus and finicky voice command features can take attention away from the road for up to 40 seconds, depending on the task. Older drivers (55-75 yrs) in particular take anywhere from 4.7-8.6 seconds longer to perform these operations in comparison to younger drivers (21-36 yrs). Professionals claim that the issue is not in the age of the drivers, but rather the poor design of the technologies. Either way, it is important to use in-vehicle infotainment systems with caution.

Car Safety Features Lead to Riskier Driving Habits , State Farm Insurance, July 2019 — New advanced driver assist technologies such as Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and Lane Keeping Assist (LKA) are leading drivers to take more risks behind the wheel, specifically when it comes to smartphone usage. Drivers are misplacing their trust in these new systems; they are meant to assist drivers perform the functions necessary to navigate the road, not do it for them, as many expect. A trend was identified in this study as drivers with ACC and/or LKA consistently admit to participating in distracted driving behaviors more often than those without ACC and/or LKA. The lack of education on autonomous vehicles and technologies has led to an increase in comfort with distracted driving, which is very dangerous to those on the road. While the new systems are helpful, cars will not be driving themselves anytime soon, so it is important to eliminate any distractions while operating a motor vehicle.

Researchers Find Visual Distractions More of an Issue Than Cognitive Distractions , Ars Technica, July 2019 — Many believe that cognitive distractions are the biggest issue when it comes to concentrating on the road. However, new studies by MIT suggest that keeping your eyes focused while driving is more important. In a series of tests, researchers evaluated two variables when driving: cognitive distractions and visual attention. The study concluded that where the driver was looking had more of an impact on his/her ability to detect road activity than what the driver was thinking. This conclusion has added emphasis to the idea of “keep your eyes on the road” and will potentially influence future technologies such as vehicular infotainment to reevaluate their strategies and the risks that they contribute to drivers.

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, “Visual and Cognitive Demands of Using In-Vehicle Infotainment Systems”, Sept 2017 – Thirty 2017 vehicles tested  with not a single vehicle infotainment system  resulting  in a low user demand, only 7 a moderate demand and 23 high demand or very high demand. Visual and cognitive demand were tested, as well as the time it took drivers to complete a task .Study participants were required to use voice command, touch screen and other interactive technologies to make a call, send a text message, tune the radio or program navigation, all while driving down the road. Programming navigation was the most distracting task, taking an average of 40 seconds for drivers to complete.

SPIDER: A Framework for Understanding Driver Distraction, Strayer, et al, University of Utah, 2016 describes how  cognitive distraction adversely affects our ability to scan, predict, identify, decide whether action is necessary and execute appropriate driving responses. Understanding these concepts puts defensive driving in a  new light.

The Smartphone and the Driver’s Cognitive Workload: A Comparison of Apple, Google, and Microsoft’s Intelligent Personal Assistants ,  Strayer, et al /AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Oct. 2015  – 3 studies;  drivers who used voice-activated features on their phones had significantly increased reaction times for detecting potential hazards for up to 18 seconds after stopping the smart phone use; use of hands-free voice commands on smart phones found to be highly distracting to drivers;  voice-dialing, voice-contact calling and music selection using in-vehicle “infotainment” systems were examined  in 10 model-year 2015 vehicles –  3 were rated as moderately distracting, 6 as highly distracting and the system in the 2015 Mazda 6 as very highly distracting

“ Mental Workload of Common Voice-Based Vehicle Interactions across Six Different Vehicle Systems “, Strayer, et al/ AAAFoundation for Traffic Safety, 2014 – Evaluation of the two most common voice-based interactions in which drivers engage – changing radio stations and voice dialing – with the actual voice-activated systems found in six different automakers’ vehicles. The accuracy of voice recognition software significantly influences the rate of distraction. Systems with low accuracy and reliability generated a high level (category 3) of distraction. Composing text messages and emails using in-vehicle technologies (category 3) was more distracting than using these systems to listen to messages (category 2). Toyota’s Entune® system – lowest cognitive distraction ranking (at 1.7), which is similar to listening to an audio book. The Chevrolet MyLink® resulted in the highest level of cognitive distraction (rating of 3.7) Separate assessment of Apple’s Siri (version iOS 7). Hands- and eyes-free use of Apple’s Siri generated a relatively high category 4 level of mental distraction.

“Understanding the distracted brain – Why driving while using hands-free cell phones is risky behavior", NSC  2012 – Hands-free devices offer no safety  benefit when driving; multitasking is a myth; cell phone use while driving  impairs driving performance and also weakens the brain’s ability to capture driving cues;  drivers who use cell phones experience inattention blindness ( “look at” but not “see” up to 50 percent of the info in their driving environment) – references to more than 30 scientific studies and reports

“Voice-To-Text Apps Offer No Driving Safety Benefit; As With Manual Texting, Reaction Times Double” , Texas A & M Transportation Institute, 2013 –  Voice-to-text technologies found no safer than manual texting; all texting, manual or voice to text, took drivers eyes away from the road and resulted in doubling reaction times; even voice-to- text features resulted in drivers looking away from the road; voice to text took longer than manual texting

“Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile ”, Strayer, et al/ AAAFoundation for Traffic Safety, 2013 – created a scientifically-based 5 point rating scale to determine relative levels of cognitive distractions for specific tasks – listening to the radio was a category “1”, or minimal risk distraction, talking on a cell phone, hands free or handheld a category “2”, or moderate risk and listening to and responding to in-vehicle, voice activated e-mail features a category “3”, or extensive risk

“A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak” , Just, et al., Carnegie Mellon, Brain Research, 2008 – Functional MRI used to investigate the impact of  language comprehension (spoken sentences requiring a true/ false answer) on the brain activity associated with a simulated driving task –  significant deterioration in driving accuracy;  brain activity previously devoted to the task of driving was reduced by 37% ; “Language comprehension performed concurrently with driving draws mental resources away from the driving and produces deterioration in driving performance, even when it does not require holding a phone."

“Conversation limits the functional field of view” , Atchley, P, Dressel, J. (Human Factors) 2004 –  Subjects performed a task designed to measure the functional field of view in isolation and while performing a hands-free conversational task –  In both experiments, the addition of the conversational task led to large reductions in the functional field of view; because similar reductions have been shown to increase crash risk, reductions in the functional field of view by conversation may be an important mechanism involved in increased risk for crashes with in-car phone use

6) Cell Phone Conversation vs. Talking With Passenger

“Passenger and Cell-Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving" , Strayer, et al, (Human Factors and Ergonomics Society)  2004 – passenger conversations differ from cell phone conversations because the surrounding traffic becomes a topic of the conversation, helping driver and passenger to share situation awareness, and mitigating the potential effects of conversation on driving

“ Driving while conversing: Cell phones that distract and passengers who react “, Charlton (Accident Analysis and Prevention) 2008 –  research compared the driving performance and conversational patterns of drivers speaking with in-car passengers, hands-free cell phones, and remote passengers who could see the driver’s current driving situation (via a window into a driving simulator). Driving performance suffered during cell phone and remote passenger conversations as compared with in-car passenger conversations

7) Cell Phone Driver vs. Drunk Driver

“A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver" ,  Strayer, D., et al, 2006  ( Human Factors)   2006  –  When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone,  braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone; by contrast, when drivers were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking; when controlling for driving conditions and time on task, cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers

8) Text Messaging

“The effects of texting on driving performance in a driving simulator: The influence of driver age" , Rumschlag and Palumbo, et al, Wayne State University, (Accident Analysis and Prevention) Dec. 2014 – older drivers are more adversely affected by texting while driving than younger drivers while using a driving simulator to measure lane excursions

“Driver Electronic Use in 2012 “, NHTSA, 2014 (DOT HS 811 884) – The percentage of drivers text-messaging or visibly manipulating hand-held devices increased from 1.3 percent in 2011 to 1.5 percent in 2012; hand held cell phone use continued to be higher among females, highest among 16 to 24 year-olds and lowest among drivers 70 and older

“Distraction Effects of In-Vehicle Tasks Requiring Number and Text Entry Using Auto Alliance’s Principle 2.1B Verification Procedure “, NTHSA, 2012 (DOT HS 811 571) – Text messaging associated with the highest levels of driving performance degradation and more distracting than all other tasks due to its higher level of task demand, followed by destination entry; radio tuning  – lowest levels of driving performance degradation; the two phone dialing tasks (contact selection and 10 digit number dialing) equivalent in their effects on driving performance and were intermediate relative to the two extremes

“Distraction Effects of Manual and Text Entry While Driving “, NHTSA, 2011 (DOT HS 811 510) –  text messaging associated with the highest level of distraction potential, ten-digit dialing was the second most distracting task; radio tuning had the lowest level

Americans and Text Messaging," Pew Research Center 2011 , Cell owners between the ages of 18 and 24 exchange an average of 109.5 messages on a normal day;  text messaging and phone calling on cell phones have leveled off for the adult population as a whole

“Driver Distraction in Commercial Motor Vehicle Operations” , Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2009 – Text messaging creates a crash risk 23 times greater than driving without distraction (See Table 3 and page xx)

“Text Messaging During Simulated Driving” , Drews and Strayer, et al., (Human Factors) 2009 –  Sixfold increase in crashes by drivers texting while driving

9) Effectiveness of Bans on Texting and Hand-held Use of Cell Phones

Review of recent literature on the effectiveness of distracted driving laws . Ian J. Reagan, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), April 2021, A review of 16 studies examining the relationship between laws banning cellphone use and crash outcomes found an encouraging reduction in crashes. On average, bans of texting or cellphone use were associated with an approximate 6% reduction in fatal crash metrics, and those laws with a primary enforcement component were associated with a 12% reduction. The results do not represent strong evidence of a causal relationship, however, due to methodological limitations.

“ Impact of Texting Laws on Motor Vehicular Fatalities in the United States “, Ferdinand, et al, (American Journal of Public Health), August  2014 – Analysis of data from 48 states,  2000-2010 to determine within-state changes in fatalities from crashes after enactment of texting bans using data from Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and controlling for a number of variables, including economic and legal (seat belt laws, speed limits, BAC and GDL laws) –   concluded that primarily enforced laws banning all drivers (teens and adults) from texting associated with reduction in traffic fatalities in all age groups (19 people per state per yr); laws that are only secondarily enforced were not effective in reducing traffic fatalities;  states banning only young drivers from texting with primary enforcement had the greatest impact on reducing deaths among those aged 15 to 21 years;  handheld bans appeared to be most effective for adults.

“ Did California’s hand-held cell phone ban reduce accidents? ” Burger, et al., Transportation Research Part A 66, 162-172, June  2014 – Study examined the number of CA accidents for 2008, the 6 month period before enactment of a cell phone ban on July 1st and the 6 month period after enactment of the ban – No evidence that the ban had reduced traffic accidents. Authors suggested possible explanations for the “unexpected result”, including that substitution of hands-free use for hand-held use would not reduce crashes if, hands-free use was equally dangerous; that some drivers may be naturally more prone to taking risks and that those drivers could include those who would likely use cell phones while driving; that drivers are not complying with the law and that the law is not being enforced.

“ Driver cell phone and texting bans in the United States: Evidence of Effectiveness ” McCartt, et al., Engaged Driving Symposium, (Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine), March 31, 2014. The authors analyzed a number of peer reviewed papers and technical reports and concluded that all-driver (adults and teens) bans on hand-held cell phone use reduced hand-held cell phone use, increased hands-free cell phone use and reduced the overall use of phones while driving compared to states that did not have bans. Bans on all phone use by teens were not shown to reduce their phone use. As to the effect of bans on crashes, the studies varied widely and produced mixed results. Lack of controls and other variables were cited.

“ Texting Bans and Fatal Accidents on Roadways: Do They Work? Or Do Drivers Just React to Announcements of Bans? " Abouk and Adams, University of Wisconsin – Madison, ( American Economic Journal: Applied Economics , 5(2): 179-99), 2013 – Studied all states in which texting bans were applicable to all drivers, adults and teens, and in which enforcement was primary. Authors studied fatalities and restricted their study to only crashes involving single-occupants, theorizing that drivers are less likely to text with passengers in the car.  Results indicated that texting bans with primary enforcement reduced traffic fatalities in one-occupant crashes, but that the decreases were short-lived, only up to four months.

10) Seat Belts

“Seat Belts Fact Sheet “, CDC 2010 – Seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about 50%; adults age 18-34 are less likely to wear seat belts than adults 35 or older; states with primary enforcement of seat belt laws have 87% seat belt use as compared to states with secondary enforcement or no seat belt laws – 79%

11) Pedestrians & Bicyclists

2019 Pedestrian Fatalities Highest Since 1988. GHSA, February, 2020.  In recent years, the number of pedestrian fatalities in the United States has grown sharply. During the 10-year period from 2009 to 2018, the number of pedestrian fatalities increased by 53% (from 4,109 deaths in 2009 to 6,283 deaths in 2018); by comparison, the combined number of all other traffic deaths increased by 2%. Along with the increase in the number of pedestrian fatalities, pedestrian deaths as a percentage of total motor vehicle crash deaths increased from 12% in 2009 to 17% in 2018. The last time pedestrians accounted for 17% of total U.S. traffic deaths was over 35 years ago, in 1982.

2018 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview , DOT HS 812 826, NHTSA, October, 2019 –  While distracted driving deaths fell in 2018 by the largest percentage in 10 years, pedestrian and bicyclist deaths increased to a combined total of about 7,000 for the highest annual totals since 2009. Pedestrian and bicyclist deaths now account for about 20% of all highway fatalities.

“Distraction Shouldn’t Be Deadly”, August 30th, 2019, New York City Department of Transportation – Review of NYC pedestrian fatality reports from 2014-2017 and NHSTA fatality data nationwide from 2010 – 2015 reflect “little concrete evidence that device-induced distracted walking contributes significantly to pedestrian fatalities and injuries.” Nationally, fatalities involving the use of portable electronic devices by pedestrians ranged from one to twelve per year, representing 0% to 0.2% of pedestrian traffic fatalities. NYC records show two cases (0.2%) in which there was electronic device involvement, of 856 with available narratives. The most significant gains in reducing pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries can be made by continuing to target the most dangerous behaviors — such as driver speeding and failure-to-yield — and by implementing street improvement projects that reduce the severity of crashes.

Spotlight on Highway Safety  – Pedestrian Fatalities by State, 2018 Preliminary Data , GHSA , 2019— For the first time since 1990, pedestrian fatalities are expected to be at an all time high for 2018. Pedestrian related deaths are projected to be up by 3% for January-June in comparison to those same months in 2017. With 2,876 pedestrian traffic fatalities in the first 6 months of 2018, this is an increase of 86 lives lost in contrast to the previous year’s first half. Although pedestrian death rates vary from state to state, GHSA suspects that these numbers are on the rise due to factors like speed, roadway designs, and distracted/impaired driving.

Spotlight on Highway Safety – Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2017 Preliminary Data (Feb. 2018) – nearly 6,000 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes in the U.S. in 2017, marking the second year in a row at numbers not seen in 25 years. Pedestrians now account for approximately 16% of all motor vehicle deaths, compared with 11% just a few years ago. Pedestrian fatalities have increased 27% from 2007. Report suggests the correlation between growth in smartphone use nationally and the legalization of recreational marijuana in several states.

NHTSA 2016 Fatal Traffic Crash Data (Oct. 2017)  – In 2016 pedestrian deaths increased 9% to 5,987 (the highest number since 1990) and bicyclist deaths increased by 1.3% to 840  (the highest number since 1991).

Spotlight on Highway Safety – Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2016 Preliminary Data , March 2017, GHSA – Based on preliminary data provided by all 50 states, The Governors Highway Safety Association projects an 11% increase in the number of pedestrians killed on U.S. roadways in 2016, compared to 2015 and a 25% increase since 2010.  This would represent the steepest year-to-year increase since record-keeping began, both in terms of number of deaths and percent increase. Pedestrians now account for the largest proportion of traffic fatalities recorded in the past 25 years.

Spotlight on Highway Safety – Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2014 Preliminary Data , Feb. 2015, GHSA –  estimate that 2,125 pedestrians were killed in the first half of 2014, essentially unchanged when compared with the 2,141 pedestrian fatalities during the same period in  2013; pedestrian fatalities were up in 21 states, down in 24 states and D.C and remained the same in 5 states;  4 states, California, Florida, Texas, and New York – accounted for 43% of all pedestrians deaths in 2013; in 36% of the fatalities, the pedestrians aged 16 & older had a BAC of .08 or higher;  28% surge in deaths involving pedestrians ages 20 to 69 over this same period

Spotlight on Highway Safety – Bicyclists Safety , Oct. 2014, GHSA – yearly bicyclist deaths increased 16% between 2010 and 2012, while overall motor vehicle fatalities increased just 1% during the same time period; adults 20 and older represented 84% of bicyclist fatalities in 2012, compared to only 21% in 1975;  adult males comprised 74%  of bicyclists killed in 2012; urban areas accounted for 69% percent of  bicycle fatalities in 2012, compared with 50% in 1975; bicyclists killed in motor vehicle crashes increased in 22 states between 2010 and 2012 with 6 states comprising 54% of  all fatalities

NJ State Police Year to Date Statewide Fatal Crash Statistics for December 31, 2014 – 3.9%  increase in highway fatalities in 2013 by 21 victims, bringing the total to 563 up from 542 in 2013;  driver, passenger and pedacyclists fatalities all decreased from 2013;  pedestrians killed spiked by 28%; in 2013, 132 pedestrians were killed and in 2014, a total of 170

“Technology-related distracted walking behaviors in Manhattan’s most dangerous intersections" , Basch, et al., Department of Public Health, William Paterson University, (Injury Prevention), 2014 – Data was gathered by direct observations at 10 intersections in Manhattan with the highest frequency of pedestrian–motor vehicle collisions. More than 1 in 4 of the >3500 pedestrians observed were distracted by mobile electronic devices while crossing during the ‘walk’ (28.8%) and ‘don’t walk’ (26.3%) signals

“Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State, 2013 Preliminary Data “, GHTSA – Pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. decreased in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, but increased in 2010, 2011 and 2012; 15% increase in pedestrian deaths from 2009 to 2012 compares with a 3% decrease in all other motor vehicle deaths during the same time period;  overall decrease in first 1/2 of 2013 –  decreased in 25 states, increased in 20 states and D.C., stayed the same in 5;  uneven distribution of pedestrian deaths among states, with CA, TX & FL accounting for 1/3 of the 4,743 deaths in 2012

Traffic Safety Facts 2011 Data, “Pedestrians" ,  DOT HS 811 748,  Aug 2013 – In 2011, 4,432 pedestrians were killed and 69,000 injured in traffic crashes in the U.S.; a pedestrian was killed every 2 hrs. and injured every 8 minutes;  increase of 3% from 2010, but a decrease of 7% from 2002; in 2011, pedestrian deaths accounted for 14% of all traffic fatalities, and 3% of injuries (pedestrian defined as a person on foot, not bicycling, skateboarding, etc.)

“TEENS AND DISTRACTION: An In-Depth Look at Teens’ Walking Behaviors ”, Safe Kids Worldwide, 2013 – pedestrian injuries among teenagers in particular on the rise, up 25% in the last five years in the 16-19 year-old age group; 49% use a cell phone while walking to school and 40% admitted to listening to music while walking; 20% of high school students and 12% of middle school students cross the street while using a digital device

“Fatalities of Pedestrians, Bicycle Riders, and Motorists Due to Distracted Driving Motor Vehicle Crashes in the U.S., 2005–2010” ,  University of Nebraska Med. Ctr, Dept. of Health Services Research and Admin.,  2013 – Distracted drivers are the cause of an increasing share of fatalities  found among pedestrians and bicycle riders.

“Pedestrian Injuries Due to Mobile Phone Use in Public Places” , Ohio State University and DOT, 2013 –  Study of emergency room injuries, 2004-2010, nationwide – Injuries to pedestrians using mobile phones increased in numbers and as a percentage of total pedestrian injuries from 2004 to 2010; for cell-phone related injuries, the increase for pedestrians parallels that for drivers

“New Study Shows Three out of Five Pedestrians Prioritize Smartphones over Safety When Crossing Streets” , Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 2013 – 60% of pedestrians walk while texting, emailing, talking on the phone, or listening to music; yet, 70% percent consider those behaviors to be dangerous

12) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Distracted Driving Initiatives

“TeenDrivingPlan Effectiveness: The Effect of Quantity and Diversity of Supervised Practice on Teens’ Driving Performance “, Mirman, et al., Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) 2014 –  Evaluation of a web-based intervention, the TeenDrivingPlan (TDP), on teens’ driving performance – Exposure to TDP increased teen-perceived social support, parent engagement, and practice diversity. Both greater practice quantity and diversity were associated with better driving performance

“Evaluation of EndDD.org’s Student Awareness Initiative: Effectiveness of a Program to Prevent Teen Distracted Driving” , Jacobsohn and Winston, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Research Institute 2014 – in some areas the EndDD program was being effective- teen to parent conversations, reduced frequency of parents observed to text following presentation, and in other areas changes were necessary to increase effectiveness, teen to teen conversation and teen driving behaviors

Your contribution to EndDD.org allows us to:

Reach more than 70,000 students each year, all without cost to schools, work with leading experts to develop highly effective presentations, sponsor contests and campaigns to spread the word and gain momentum.

A Project of The Casey Feldman Foundation

• Latest Latest
• The West The West
• Sports Sports
• Opinion Opinion
• Magazine Magazine

Cell phones, speed and cars: Bad combos as ‘100 deadly days’ begin

Law enforcement will be out in force, but it’s the driver who keeps the road safe.

By Lois M. Collins

A smartphone in hand is like gasoline on a fire when it comes to driving safety. Things can blaze out of control shockingly fast.

Throw in speeding or aggressive driving, sleepiness or recklessness in its many forms, or general lack of attention, and you have some of the key factors that make the 100 days between Memorial Day and Labor Day a time when drivers make the roads an especially scary place to be if everyone isn’t paying close attention to their actions and those of others.

Law enforcement officials in nearly every state are using the few days leading to the Memorial Day weekend to warn drivers to be smart and keep the roads safe this summer. This weekend, they’ll be out in force.

No one knows the danger of even a momentary driving lapse better than Chelsie Laycock, a mother who was in visible pain as she addressed reporters, driving safety advocates and law enforcement officials Wednesday morning as Utah kicked off its safe driving campaign. She had come to speak for her son, who could not tell his own story because he’s in prison. She spoke sadly of the two women he killed by driving recklessly and two others who suffered serious injuries in the crash. Behind her were photographs of the crumpled wreckage, the crash’s aftermath blown up to poster size.

Her son, Cody Laycock, was 23 years old in November 2021, when he decided to show his cousin how well his Audi TTRS handled. They’d just come from a family member’s baby shower — a happy day — when he decided to take a “full throttle turn” onto Main and State Street in American Fork. It was a dangerous decision, as he later admitted.

Fatal distraction

Utah Highway Patrol Col. Michael Rapich emphasizes that “crashes are not accidents. They are the consequence of bad choices.”

He said a single decision can have enduring consequences, whether it’s driving drowsy, being distracted or simply opting not to buckle up.

While crash scene experts and law enforcement have tools to measure speed — more than 2,000 drivers were ticketed for going more than 100 mph in Utah in the last year, Rapich said — distracted driving is harder to count. People don’t usually admit they were on the phone or tweezing their brows. Sometimes, an eyewitness can fill in that detail, but it’s generally assumed any count of distracted driving is way under reality.

UDOT Safety Outreach administrator Kristen Hoschouer told Deseret News the list of things that officers have seen distracted drivers do is seemingly endless, from eating or texting or fiddling with technology, to putting on makeup or shaving while they drive. How distracted driving stands up to aggression and speed in terms of killing and maiming people isn’t really known for sure, though aggression and speed are highest in Utah’s count.

It all has potential to cause serious property damage, bodily injury and even death.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there are three kinds of driving distractions. They boil down to things that take your eyes off the road, your hands off the steering wheel or your mind off the fact that you are driving. Sometimes it’s a combination, a “triple whammy,” as distracted driving expert David Strayer, a professor of psychology at the University of Utah, puts it.

“ Understanding Driver Distraction ,” a National Safety Council report, says that at any given moment, nearly 1 in 10 drivers is using a cellphone — often to text or email someone.

The report says bluntly that “banning use of cell phones and interactive in-vehicle technology while driving can save lives.”

The report explains we evolved our way into the cars-and-technology crisis. “Car phones evolved into cell phones, then into smartphones with internet connectivity. Cell coverage became increasingly seamless and fast. This connectivity enabled us to be in constant real-time communication with work, family, friends and social media followers. It is only natural to think that hours spent driving, once thought of as wasted time, could now be made ‘productive’ with use of the phone.”

We think we’re multitaskers. We’re actually switch-taskers.

“The human brain is not capable of multitasking, of doing two things at once. Instead, the brain is constantly attention-switching between two tasks, never giving full focus to either one,” per the distracted driver report.

Switching between tasks doesn’t matter when you’re watching TV and doing your nails. Driving demands full focus.

Paying for your distraction

Drivers know when they’re speeding or being aggressive. It’s often a conscious choice. Distraction can be more subtle. People think they’re doing just fine — until something happens that says they’re clearly not.

Strayer said the people most apt to pay for a driver’s distraction are the “vulnerable road users”: the bicyclists and pedestrians and people on motorcycles. In the last decade, serious injury and death in those groups have increased greatly. “When you’re distracted, you’re usually killing someone else. Not always, of course. But often,” he said.

The council’s report says eight people die every day in the U.S. in distraction-related crashes. Others offer slightly varied estimates, but they’re all in the thousands in terms of deaths and hundreds of thousands for injuries and property damage. Council data said that in 2018, 2,841 people died in distracted-driving crashes, which are all preventable. An estimated 275,000 were injured and there were also 659,000 crashes with property damage only.

The CDC says that nine people die every day because of distracted driving — nearly 3,300 lives lost. Close to 425,000 people are injured.

That the numbers are low compared to reality is clear, the council asserts. More than half of the states didn’t even have a field on forms to report texting or hands-free cellphone use, and just three states record infotainment and voice-based systems in police reports. So when those cause crashes, they’re not directly blamed.

Still, the average driver does know that technology and driving are risky . In the council’s survey, 96% said texting or emailing while driving is dangerous. Nearly 9 in 10 said they support laws banning reading or typing or sending texts and emails while driving. A like number think talking on cellphones is a serious safety threat. Nearly three-fourths support banning handheld phone use while driving.

Even so, 60% say they talk on a hands-free cellphone while driving. Nearly half talk on a handheld cellphone while driving. And nearly 45% admit they read a text or email while driving and more than a third said they’ve sent or typed a text or email while driving.

“Drivers think cell phone use is distracting … for other people,” the report maintains.

Comparing hazards

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calls texting “the most alarming distraction.” It takes 5 seconds to send or read a text and with your eyes off the road for that long, at 55 mph, the vehicle will cover the length of a football field.

No one would drive that far with eyes closed — but the person who’s texting just did the equivalent of exactly that.

People have a hard time resisting the temptation to check what’s happening on their phone or to actively use it, Strayer said. Taking your eyes off the road substantially increases the risk of crashing. “You’re about six times more likely to be involved in a crash if you’re texting than if you weren’t. It’s an example of a behavior that’s quite hazardous.”

Cars are replete with temptations to be distracted, especially with cool tech like navigation systems and alerts. You can also be distracted by conversations with a passenger or someone on the phone. Taking your hands off the wheels to manipulate your cellphone or the touchscreen, your eyes off the road and concentration elsewhere, and people “just lose awareness of the driving context,” resulting in more crashes and, often, more deaths.

Strayer outlined research he has done with AAA measuring distraction when hands are on the steering wheel and eyes can be on the road. Listening to the radio creates a tiny bump in distraction, but not a really worrisome one. Listening to a book on tape elevates it a bit more. Talking to passengers or on the phone increases the crash risk; you’re about four times more likely to wreck when you talk on the cellphone.

Talking to a passenger would have about the same effect, except that the passenger you’re chatting with usually acts as a second set of eyes and can compensate for the driver’s distraction, pointing out potential danger. The distraction for the driver is the same whether having an in-person or phone conversation, but the crash risk is not.

Talking to Siri or other tech voice assistants “is substantial work and harder to do than even talking to humans,” Strayer adds. To get the answers you want from technology, you have to word things right and that takes a distracting amount of concentration if you’re trying to do it while you drive. Human conversations “tend to be a little more on the fly,” per Stayer.

Programming the navigation system while driving takes a dangerously long period of time, the distraction “well over 40 seconds, I think was the average. That’s well above any kind of acceptable limit,” he notes.

If you’re using a navigation system, program it before you enter traffic. Such a system is certainly better than messing around with a paper map for focus. And use voice direction rather than the visual picture to be safe. That way, eyes stay on the road, hands on the wheel, mind on the pathway.

It came with the car

Strayer has talked to people who assume a car wouldn’t have all that cool tech if it wasn’t safe. He warns that car companies likely haven’t tested them for safety and tech tools may even be poorly designed.

Companies sell lots of things that aren’t safe. It’s up to the user to use them safely.

Reaction time is 20% to 30% slower when someone is distracted. That includes taking evasive action.

Strayer did note that for a while, improvements like collision warnings and lane departure warnings helped compensate for some of the distraction factors. They no longer are able “to compensate for all the distractions on the road.” The driver’s job is to focus.

Who’s distracted?

The most distracted drivers were ages 15 to 34 and drivers 75 and older, according to the council and other experts.

Who’s distracted the most by their phones? According to an analysis of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data by the Florida personal injury law firm Anidjar & Levine , between 2018 and 2022, in Montana more than a quarter of distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes were distracted by their cellphone. In North Dakota, that was true of 22.5% of drivers, while Wyoming came in third with 21.8% of fatalities caused by distracted drivers using a cellphone.

Utah came in at No. 8, with 17% of distractions being the phone. The state had 135 fatalities chalked up to distracted driving in that five-year period, 23 of them involving cellphone distraction.

Said a spokesperson for the firm, in a written statement, “This data is an important insight into road safety and the danger of being distracted while driving. Cell phones are a dangerous distraction for drivers that can lead to fatal crashes. Even just simply changing a song or readjusting your map on your mobile puts you and others on the road at risk.”

A plea for caution

Her son had always been a “very good boy,” said Laycock — “kind, loving, very respectful.” He was good at his job and generous with its financial rewards. She never once expected she’d be visiting him in prison.

That day, in an instant, his decision to be reckless changed all the lives in those two cars — and had ripples that were actually a tidal wave that impacted many futures in extended families of the victims, too. His bad choice that day will never go away for any of them. Cody Laycock was convicted and given three zero to 5-year sentences, his mom said.

Chelsie Laycock exhorted people to please drive carefully, to obey the law, to be safe.

Rapich echoed that. Be safe this weekend, he said. But also be aware that on Utah roads, there will be 4,000 officers working extra shifts to help people get where they’re going and “looking for people making bad choices.”

That increased enforcement will be true nationwide.

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Register to vote Register by 18 June to vote in the General Election on 4 July.

• Driving and road transport
• Road safety, driving rules and penalties
• Driving and mobile phones
• Seatbelt and mobile phone use surveys: 2023
• Department for Transport

Mobile phone use by drivers: England 2023

Published 30 May 2024

Applies to England and Scotland

© Crown copyright 2024

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] .

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/seatbelt-and-mobile-phone-use-surveys-2023/mobile-phone-use-by-drivers-england-2023

About this release

This release provides an overview of the proportion of drivers observed using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving in England, from a roadside observation survey carried out in autumn 2023, with links to related information including self-reported use.

A different observation method was used in 2023.  Results are therefore not comparable with previous surveys.

These are  official statistics . For more information, see the About these statistics section .

Headline figures

These statistics show, for weekdays in England in autumn 2023:

0.3% of all vehicle drivers were observed using a mobile phone whilst driving (a similar proportion to that for Scotland based on data collected in early 2024)

0.6% of van drivers were observed using a mobile phone whilst driving, compared to 0.2% of car drivers

males, and drivers estimated as aged 17 to 29, were more likely to be observed using a mobile phone while driving than females and drivers estimated as being aged 60 or over respectively

based on data for a small selection of sites, a higher proportion of drivers (0.8%) were observed using a mobile phone during the evening (6pm to midnight)

These estimates are lower than those shown by previous surveys, though the groups with relatively higher phone use are broadly similar.  This could reflect changes in the survey method used for the 2023 survey, as described in the quality and methodology section below.

Things you need to know

Research has shown that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction and increases the risk of the driver crashing. This is one of a number of potential driver distractions .

Since 2002, the Department for Transport has commissioned surveys of driver mobile phone use. The results of the mobile phone survey can be used to assess compliance with the legislation in Great Britain.  These ad-hoc observational surveys, conducted every 4 to 5 years, compliment self-reported phone use while driving from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, and more in-depth research. For the 2023 surveys, a different collection methodology was used which means comparison with previous years is not advised.

Within this report, a hand-held mobile phone (or mobile phone) is used to mean a hand-held device that is being held by the driver at the time of observation. The driver may be receiving or making a call, texting or reading a text, or using it for some other interactive function. It was not possible for observers to determine what the mobile phone was being used for, but a distinction was made between drivers holding the phone to their ear or holding it in their hand. No data was collected on hands-free use of mobile phones whilst driving.

Methodology

For the core survey, observations of driver mobile phone use were made from static images captured at a total of 25 sites across England during October and November 2023.  Sites were surveyed once each on a weekday (either morning or afternoon) for a period of 6 hours, and a representative sample of observations analysed.  Further details are in the quality and methodology section and the accompanying technical report. 

Equivalent data were collected for 5 sites in Scotland during February 2024, and this is presented alongside the England data for comparison.  Data for 3 sites in England during the evening period was also collected during February 2024, to provide an initial indication of differences in wearing rates between daytime and evening periods.

All results are for weekdays.  Further figures are available in the accompanying data tables.

Overall phone use while driving

In autumn 2023, 0.3% of all vehicle drivers were observed using a mobile phone whilst driving on weekdays in England.  Based on data for early 2024, overall rates of phone use by drivers were estimated to be broadly similar in Scotland to those for England.  

These figures are lower than those shown in previous surveys, but as noted above direct comparisons should be avoided due to the changes in survey methods.  In broad terms, driver phone use has tended to fall following legislative changes, and then increase as illustrated in the 2021 survey report . The latest survey was carried out in autumn 2023, following changes to the legislation from March 2022.  However it is not possible to conclude whether the lower rate of phone use observed in 2023 reflects a genuine change, is a result of the different methodology or reflects random fluctuations.

The majority of phone use observed was where the phone was in the hand (0.2% of drivers, compared with 0.1% where the phone was held to the ear).

Data on self-reported driver mobile phone use is collected as part of the Crime Survey for England and Wales. The latest figures are for 2019 to 2020. Overall, 46.9% of drivers reported using a mobile phone while driving or stationary in traffic in the last 12 months, though this was mostly via Bluetooth, voice command or a dashboard holder, with 6.4% reporting using a phone in their hand. The equivalent figures for the previous year were 42.1% and 5.5% respectively.  This data is not directly comparable with the observational surveys covering a single moment in time, but provides an alternative source for monitoring trends.

By vehicle type

A higher rate of phone use was observed for van drivers than for car drivers.   Although these figures are not comparable with previous surveys, this pattern was also seen in the 2021, 2017 and 2014 surveys.

There was no phone use observed for bus, coach or minibus drivers.  Again, this was comparable to previous surveys, although the sample size for this vehicle type was relatively small (268 vehicles observed).

Chart 1: Hand-held mobile phone use by country and vehicle type, England (autumn 2023)

By sex and age

Driver sex and age were coded from images and the difficulties in estimation of age group or sex from images should be kept in mind.  In particular, the proportion of older drivers observed in the 2023 survey was lower than in surveys where roadside observation was used, and this may have impacted on the results shown here.

In England in 2023, a higher proportion of male drivers (0.3%) were observed using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving than female drivers (0.2%). For car drivers, the rates were lower (0.2% compared to 0.1%).    

Amongst all vehicle drivers and car drivers, the highest proportion of drivers observed using a mobile phone in England was the group estimated as aged 17 to 29 with a much lower proportion observed for those estimated 60 or older.

Chart 2: Hand-held mobile phone use by age group, England, autumn 2023

These findings are broadly in line with previous surveys, and with self-reported mobile phone use as collected via the Crime Survey for England and Wales RAS51106 which show that, based on all phone use while driving (including via Bluetooth, voice control or a dashboard holder, as well as in hand) that for the year 2019 to 2020, 49.7% of males reported using a mobile while driving, compared to 43.8% of females.

The same data showed 59.5% of those aged 25 to 29 reported using a phone while driving, compared to 36.3% of those aged 50 and over.

By time of day

In the 2023 surveys, for the first time the survey method allowed observation to take place during the evening period (6pm to midnight).  To explore the impact on driver phone use, a small selection of 3 sites were re-surveyed during the evenings only in February 2024.

This showed that driver phone user appeared to be higher during the evening than for the same sites when surveyed during the day. 0.8% of drivers were observed using a phone between 6pm and midnight, compared with 0.3% for the same sites when surveyed as part of the main daytime survey, although the differing survey month should also be kept in mind. In addition, this comparison is not weighted to allow for traffic flows.

The same broad patterns as noted above, for example higher phone use by van drivers compared to car drivers, and for males compared to females, were also observed for the evening survey.  In all cases there were higher rates of phone use than during the equivalent sites when surveyed during daytime.

Other variables

A range of other variables were captured in the observational survey.  The main points are summarised here, with further detail in the accompanying data tables.

Presence of passengers .  Driver mobile phone use was observed to be lower with passengers present at 0.2% of all vehicle drivers for England, compared with 0.3% where no passengers were observed.  This is in line with previous surveys.

Road type .  In general, the proportion of drivers observed using a mobile phone was higher for major roads (0.3% of all vehicle drivers in England) compared to minor roads (0.2%) and for urban roads than rural roads (0.3% compared to 0.2%).  However, the opposite was observed for van drivers, where for the proportion using phones on minor roads and rural roads was notably higher than for major roads and urban roads respectively. 

There are some differences here compared to previous surveys which may reflect changes in traffic patterns post-pandemic, random variation or changes to survey methodology.

Related information

Self-reported mobile phone use while driving.

These statistics are based on observation of driver mobile phone use.  Other evidence is available from surveys of self-reported mobile phone use, including the Crime Survey for England and Wales (see data table RAS51105 )

More in-depth ad-hoc surveys are also conducted to support policy development, for example research into the use of mobile phones while driving carried out in 2022.

Attitudes to mobile phone use while driving

The National Travel Attitudes Survey (NTAS) includes a series of questions related to road safety topics , including mobile phone use.  In the latest wave of the survey, most respondents reported a good understanding of the law on mobile phone use while driving.

Mobile phone use as a contributory factor in collisions

Data on contributory factors in reported personal injury road collisions is published annually as data tables alongside the reported road casualties Great Britain report. 

In 2022, 22 people were killed and 652 injured in road traffic collisions in Great Britain where the driver was assigned the contributory factor of using a mobile phone (table RAS0701).  This compares with 85 deaths and 4,103 injuries in collisions where ‘distraction in vehicle’ was recorded as a contributory factor.

It should be noted that figures for contributory factors relate to collisions where a police officer attended the scene and recorded at least one factor, which in their judgement, contributed to the collision.  It may be difficult for a police officer to identify certain factors that may have contributed to a collision after it has occurred, which should be kept in mind when interpreting these figures, which could be underestimates.

Mobile phone offences

Statistics on prosecutions for mobile phone offences are included in the ‘motoring data tool’ published annually by the Ministry of Justice as part of their criminal court statistics .

In 2023, there were 15,300 prosecutions for ‘using or causing others to use a handheld mobile phone whilst driving’.  This number fell steadily for a decade, from 35,300 in 2010 to 4,900 in 2020, but since 2020 has increased. 

Quality and methodology

Survey methodology.

Full details of the 2023 survey methodology are available in the accompanying technical report .

Observational surveys of mobile phone used have been carried out since 2002, with a reduced frequency from 2009 onwards. Over this period the survey methodology including areas sampled and sites selected has changed several times.  All surveys up to 2017 were based on roadside observation, and for the 2021 survey, a video-based approach with the same survey sites was used in an attempt to modernise the collection method.  Although the survey methods evolved, the broad approach was consistent. 

For the 2023 survey, there was a more radical departure from the established survey collection method, where data was collected via an infra-red camera, mounted to a survey vehicle.  This camera captured images of passing vehicles, which were then reviewed at a later stage to record any phone use, as well as estimating age and sex of the driver and front seat passenger.  

The use of this survey vehicle meant that changes were required to the survey sites.  A smaller number of sites in England (25, rather than 60) were surveyed once each during October and November 2023.  However each site was surveyed more intensively (with a greater proportion of vehicles observed), so that the overall number of observations analysed was greater than in past surveys.  An additional 5 sites were surveyed in Scotland during February 2024.  

As in previous years, an attempt was made to select sites in different areas of the country, and on different types of road.  While attempts were made to achieve a representative selection, there were some constraints related to the operation and storage of the survey vehicle.  More detail is available in the accompanying technical report.

For the mobile phone surveys, results are based on moving sites, those where observations are made of moving vehicles in traffic. The 2023 survey approach involved analysis of two images of each vehicle, which capture a snapshot at a single point in time but allow for re-review and identification of behaviour which may initially appear as phone use.  This compares with previous roadside identification, where observers could observe a vehicle as it moved, but only had one chance to capture the observation.

Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths . These observational studies provide an indication of the extent of mobile phone use by drivers in traffic at any one time, rather than relying on self-reporting.  They allow any large changes in driver phone use to be detected and allow monitoring of broad trends over time contributing to understanding the scale of driver phone use.

The image-based approach used in 2023 has the advantage of allowing cross-checking for quality assurance, particularly for observations of non-compliance.  As a result, it is less likely that there are false observations of phone use, and this may be one reason why the 2023 figures show a lower prevalence of phone use than in previous surveys.

Although overall a relatively small proportion of vehicles were observed which means results are subject to sample variation, particularly for smaller subsets (for example particular vehicle types), the survey method in 2023 allowed a greater number of vehicles to be analysed than in previous surveys.

The use of an infra-red cameras allows data to be captured during evening time periods, where roadside observation is not practical, which provides an insight into how phone use might differ throughout the day.

Limitations . Caution is required in interpretation of these results, based on the data collection methods used.  

For the 2023 survey, the use of a distinct marked survey vehicle may have impacted on the propensity of drivers to use a mobile phone in its vicinity and the images analysed represented only one snapshot at a point in time.  While work was done to attempt to explore this effect, it remains hard to determine the extent to which 2023 results may have been influenced by this factor.

In general, as the number of observations of driver phone use are rare, smaller changes or differences between groups should be interpreted carefully and the value of the survey is in detecting larger changes for bigger subgroups at national level.

Some observer judgement is required – either at the roadside or, in 2023, for image analysis.  Cross-checking was carried out to understand this, which showed that, for example, the estimation of age varied across coders to a larger extent than the recording of sex.  There is also evidence that the proportion of older drivers was lower than compared with previous roadside surveys (up to 2017), and the vehicle mix was also somewhat different (with fewer taxis observed).  While this could reflect changes in the traffic mix at different survey sites and post-pandemic, the observation method may also have had an impact.  

Finally, while an attempt was made to select a representative set of sites, covering different road types (major and minor roads with different speed limits) in urban and rural areas in different parts of the country, as noted above, the practicalities of data collection meant that it was not possible to survey as many sites as in previous surveys.  In particular, some types of site (in the middle of urban areas, or with low traffic flows) were excluded.  This is likely to impact on the extent to which results can be considered representative of the country as a whole.

Background information

Legislation on mobile phone use whilst driving.

In December 2003, legislation was introduced making it illegal to use a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving or riding a motor vehicle on the road. Drivers caught using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving may be issued with a fixed penalty notice with points on the driving licence and a fine.

In February 2007, the penalty for using a mobile phone whilst driving increased from a £30 fine to a £60 fine and three driving licence points. These fines increased to £100 in 2013 and then again to £200 and 6 penalty points in March 2017, with a maximum fine of £1,000 (£2,500 if driving a lorry or bus) if the case goes to court. If a case goes to court, the driver or rider may be disqualified from driving or riding.

Drivers or riders can use hands-free phones, sat navs and 2-way radios when driving or riding. However, if the police think the driver or rider is distracted and not in control of their vehicle they could still get stopped and penalised. Further information on the law on using a mobile phone whilst driving can be found in the legislation and on gov.uk .

About these statistics

These statistics are  official statistics . They comply with the standards of trustworthiness, quality, and value in the  Code of Practice for Statistics .

Instructions for printing and saving

Depending on which browser you use and the type of device you use (such as a mobile or laptop) these instructions may vary.

Tablets and mobile devices normally have the option to “find in text” and “print or save” in their sharing or quick options menu of their browser, but this will vary by device model.

How to search

Select Ctrl and F on a Windows laptop or Command and F on a Mac

This will open a search box in the top right-hand corner of the page. Type the word you are looking for in the search bar and press enter.

Your browser will highlight the word, usually in yellow, wherever it appears on the page. Press enter to move to the next place it appears.

Contact details

Road safety statistics

Email [email protected]

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

Color Scheme

• Use system setting
• Light theme

Dear Annie: More text talk

Dear Annie: My girlfriend’s father has a knack for calling or texting me at the most inconvenient times during the day or night. I get random texts from him while I’m in meetings or have my boss in my office.

Over the last few weeks, he’s started calling and texting me until I answer or reply to his text during the middle of the night. The last three times, I’ve been out on calls with the volunteer fire department I belong to. I don’t think he understands that I can’t answer if I’m out on a call or driving one of our engines.

I’ve talked to my girlfriend and her mom about it. My girlfriend’s dad and I get along very well, so I don’t want to offend him. How do I handle this situation? – Frustrated Boyfriend

Dear Frustrated: Since you have a good rapport with your girlfriend’s father, consider having a candid conversation with him. Express your appreciation for his eagerness to communicate but clarify your schedule and the demands of your commitments, especially your role with the volunteer fire department. Perhaps there are specific times during the day when you are more available to chat, or you two can set up a regular time to catch up. This could help him feel connected without disrupting your responsibilities.

Take advantage of your phone’s “Do Not Disturb” feature during meetings or at night but set him (and other important contacts) as exceptions who can reach you in case of an actual emergency. This way, you manage when and how communications happen without completely cutting off the possibility of necessary contact.

Navigating this with sensitivity and openness will likely lead to a solution that respects both your commitments and his desire to stay in touch.

Dear Annie: I suspect you will receive numerous letters to this effect, but I felt compelled to respond to the letter from “Tired of Text Messages,” whose retired father is also persistent in his daily text messages. I didn’t get the impression that the letter writer was estranged with their father or had a tough relationship, so I have to say, what a wonderful problem to have.

After college, I moved four hours away from home, and my dad and I kept in touch via daily emails and calls on our respective ways home from work. Once text messaging was commonplace, my dad and I would often shoot each other random texts throughout the day. Most were of very little significance, just daily observations and updates or comments on our favorite sports team. My brother, who also moved away, did the same thing with him. Yes, there were definitely times when the messages felt excessive while we may have been at work or on vacation, etc., and there were certainly times I got annoyed, but it was our way of staying in each other’s lives.

My dad died last year and I wanted to tell “Tired” that I would give literally anything to see my phone light up with one more text from my dad. I treasure the messages I do have saved on my phone because, mundane and ordinary as many of them are, rereading them feels like having another conversation with him. I know we all tend to take for granted the fact that our parents will always be there, and of course we get annoyed and frustrated by them at times. But there will come a time when the texts stop forever, so although I agree a conversation about boundaries is needed, I also hope “Tired” can appreciate that their dad is likely just trying to stay connected. – Missing My Dad

Dear Missing: Thank you for this beautiful and important reminder. Excessive and annoying as these communications may feel sometimes, they are only coming from a place of love and a desire for connection.

Send your questions for Annie Lane to [email protected].

Local seed grower grateful to Providence team for stroke care

On November 22, 2020, Fred Fleming was driving home when he started slurring his words.