What State Was the First to Ban Drivers From Talking on Handheld Devices?
Longer term effects of New York State's law on drivers' handheld cell phone use
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether substantial brusque term declines in drivers' utilise of handheld cell phones, after a country ban, were sustained one twelvemonth later.
Design: Drivers' daytime handheld cell phone employ was observed in iv New York communities and ii Connecticut communities. Observations were conducted one month before the ban, shortly after, and xvi months after. Driver gender, estimated historic period, and vehicle type were recorded for phone users and a sample of motorists.
Intervention: Effective 1 Nov 2001, New York became the only state in the The states to ban drivers' handheld cell telephone employ. Connecticut is an adjacent state without such a police force.
Sample: 50 033 drivers in New York, 28 307 drivers in Connecticut.
Outcome measures: Drivers' handheld cell phone use rates in New York and Connecticut and rates past driver characteristics.
Results: Overall use rates in Connecticut did not change. Overall utilise in New York declined from 2.3% pre-law to 1.1% shortly later (p<0.05). One year later, employ was 2.1%, higher than immediately mail service-law (p<0.05) and not significantly unlike from pre-law. Initial declines in use followed by longer term increases were observed for males and females, drivers younger than threescore, and car and van drivers; employ patterns varied amidst the four communities. Publicity declined subsequently the police'south implementation. No targeted enforcement efforts were evident. Cell phone citations issued during the first 15 months represented 2% of all traffic citations.
Conclusions: Vigorous enforcement campaigns accompanied by publicity appear necessary to achieve longer term compliance with bans on drivers' prison cell phone use.
- motor vehicle crashes
- legislation
- cellular phones
- CI, conviction interval
- SUV, sport utility vehicle
Statistics from Altmetric.com
- motor vehicle crashes
- legislation
- cellular phones
- CI, confidence interval
- SUV, sport utility vehicle
In Dec 2002, there were an estimated 142 million subscribers of cellular telephones (hereafter referred to as jail cell phones) in the The states. Americans talked more than than 600 billion minutes on their cell phones in 2002.1 In a 2002 national phone survey, ane in three drivers reported using a prison cell phone while driving during at least some trips, and 1 in four reported using a phone during at least half of all trips.2 Based on observations of motorists at controlled intersections in 2002, an estimated 4% of drivers of rider vehicles were talking on handheld cell phones at any given time during daylight hours, upwards from 3% in 2000.3
Experimental studies (using driving simulators, test tracks, or on-the-road driving in controlled settings) take found impairments in driving functioning associated with prison cell phone utilize.four– eight Some studies propose that degradations in operation are similar for either handheld or hands-gratuitous devices.seven, 9, 10 Other studies have reported greater impairment with handheld phones.4, xi, 12 Experimental studies use selected measures of driving performance in controlled settings and selected components of the phone task, and their applicability to driving in the existent world is unknown. Epidemiological research has found increased crash risk associated with drivers' employ of prison cell phones,13, xiv although the size of the estimated risk varies among studies. Redelmeier and Tibshirani examined cell phone billing records of Canadian drivers in holding-harm crashes and found a fourfold increase in crash risk associated with drivers' phone utilise.15 Epidemiological studies take not established the relative risks of hands-free and handheld devices.
Since January 2002, eight state legislatures in the United States take considered limitations on all types of prison cell phones, and 35 have considered limiting but handheld devices. Ii states limit cell telephone utilise by drivers holding provisional licenses; six states ban cell phone utilize by school bus drivers.xvi Even so, New York is the only state to ban talking on a handheld prison cell phone while driving past all drivers of all vehicles. In New York, information technology is a traffic violation, punishable by a $100 fine, for a driver to talk on a prison cell phone while the vehicle is moving, unless the driver is placing an emergency telephone call.17 The law does not apply to hands-complimentary devices; nor does it prohibit transmission dialing or using a handheld phone when the vehicle is stopped. The constabulary, effective one November 2001, was implemented in 3 phases. During Nov 2001, law enforcement officers could issue verbal warnings. Citations could be issued from 1 December through 28 February 2002, but judges could waive fines for the first law-breaking upon proof of purchase of a headset or speakerphone. Effective 1 March 2002, fines no longer were waived.
McCartt et al reported a substantial curt term event of the constabulary on drivers' use of handheld cell phones.18 Observed apply declined significantly from two.iii% before the police force to 1.1% in the first few months after the law. In Connecticut, an adjacent land with no such law, the use charge per unit of two.9% measured before New York'south law did not change significantly. Although at that place was considerable unpaid publicity in New York when the law was enacted and implemented and when the fine-with-waiver period began, this rapidly dissipated. At that place was no statewide enforcement campaign targeting cell phone violations. Thus, results suggested that enacting legislation restricting drivers' use of handheld cell phones and the accompanying publicity had a strong effect on motorists' behavior, even in the absence of publicized intensive enforcement.
However, experience with other highway prophylactic laws indicates that publicized vigorous enforcement is needed to sustain initial compliance with a new law. Thus, an important question is whether the observed short term decline in New York drivers' handheld cell phone utilise has been sustained. To answer this question, drivers' handheld cell phone apply was observed in March 2003, ane year after the law took full effect.
METHODS
Collecting ascertainment data
A detailed business relationship of the method for conducting observations, summarized hither, is provided in McCartt et al.18 Daytime observations of drivers were conducted at controlled intersections in four small to medium sized upstate communities in New York State (Albany County, Cities of Binghamton and Kingston, Hamlet of Leap Valley) and in two communities in central Connecticut (Boondocks of Hamden, City of Hartford). Areas considered for ascertainment in New York excluded the downstate counties of Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester due to pre-existing local bans on cell telephone utilize while driving; New York Metropolis because of its unusual traffic patterns, major congestion, and the difficulty of finding suitable observation sites; and the western and northernmost counties due to inclement winter weather weather.
Observations were conducted at controlled intersections on geographically dispersed, heavily traveled roads. Express access highways were excluded. Observations were conducted on a Thursday or Fri in seven ascertainment periods throughout the twenty-four hours. Approaching vehicles in the closest 2 lanes were observed by a person positioned at the roadside at or most the intersection. Emergency vehicles, tractor-trailer trucks, and buses were excluded. In accordance with the law, jail cell phone use was recorded equally "yes" only if the commuter was belongings the telephone to the ear while the vehicle was moving.
Pre-police observations were conducted near ane calendar month before the warning menses began on 1 Nov 2001; short term compliance was measured by observations conducted immediately after the fine-with-waiver phase took result on i Dec and immediately after the fine-without-waiver phase took effect on 1 March 2002. Longer term compliance was measured in observations conducted during the start 2 weeks of March 2003.
Thirty five minutes of each ascertainment flow focused on enumerating prison cell phone utilise. A handheld counter recorded drivers not using a handheld cell telephone. For drivers using a prison cell phone, the counter was not clicked and the following information was recorded: estimated age category (younger than 25, ages 25–59, ages threescore and older), gender, and vehicle type (car, pickup truck, sport utility vehicle (SUV), van or minivan, large unmarried unit truck with more than four tires). During five minutes before and five minutes later the 35 infinitesimal cell telephone observations, the age category, gender, and vehicle type were recorded for a sample of drivers in passing traffic.
Analyses
Estimates were derived of the proportion of drivers in qualifying vehicles who were using handheld cell phones. For each customs and for the communities combined in each land, prison cell phone use rates for the December 2001 and March 2002 surveys were not significantly different; thus, data for these surveys were combined to measure out curt term compliance. Utilize rates were compared between the pre-law and brusk term post-constabulary surveys, the short term and follow upwardly mail-law surveys, and the pre-police and follow up surveys.
Assuming that patterns of handheld cell telephone employ in New York would have followed the trends observed in Connecticut, absent New York's law, logistic regression models made a direct statistical comparing between the changes observed in cell phone use rates in New York relative to the changes in Connecticut. The models approximated a linear relationship between the logarithm of the odds of cell phone use and variables representing the state (New York/Connecticut), time menstruation (later on/earlier), and the interaction of state and time period. The estimated pct change in apply rates in New York relative to those in Connecticut (based on the ratio of after/before odds ratios) was a role of the model coefficient for the interaction variable. An Appendix provides additional detail on the logistic models.
To derive the proportions of observed jail cell phone employ for the recorded driver characteristics, the pct distributions of driver characteristics observed during the 10 minute observations of passing traffic were applied to the full vehicles counted during the 35 infinitesimal prison cell phone observation periods. The formulae for these calculations and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are provided in McCartt et al.18
RESULTS
Table 1 provides observed rates of handheld jail cell phone apply in New York and Connecticut during each of the three observation periods. For the New York communities combined, the pre-law handheld prison cell phone utilize rate of 2.three% declined significantly to i.1% immediately after the law took effect. Use then rose during the following year to 2.1% in March 2003, a level significantly higher than the brusque term compliance rate and non significantly different than the pre-law charge per unit. During the aforementioned time periods, the rate for the Connecticut communities combined was 2.ix% before the New York police force, ii.9% immediately afterwards the constabulary, and 3.3% in March 2003. The pre-constabulary use rate for Connecticut was college than that for New York, but the divergence was much larger immediately after the law when the New York use rates declined, and was however somewhat larger 1 year later when the increase in New York use rates was only partially offset by a rise in the Connecticut apply charge per unit.
View this table:
- View inline
Table 1
Percentage using handheld jail cell phones in New York and Connecticut cities before and later effective appointment of New York State jail cell phone law
The logistic regression modeling estimated that, when compared with pre-law survey results and corresponding utilise rates in Connecticut, the short term mail service-police use charge per unit in New York was approximately 53% (95% CI forty% to 63%) lower than would have been expected absent the law; this decline was significant (p<0.0001). The logistic model estimated that the March 2003 utilise charge per unit in New York compared to the pre-law rate was 21% lower than would have been expected (relative to Connecticut). This estimated reduction is much smaller than immediately afterward the law and was not statistically significant.
Patterns of handheld jail cell phone use rates over time were not uniform amongst the four New York areas (table ane). In 1 community (Binghamton) the significant short term decline in use was sustained in the follow upward survey. This community deemed for most of the estimated long term reduction in handheld jail cell telephone use in New York. In ii communities (Albany and Kingston), the significant short term declines were followed by returns to pre-law use rates. The use rate for the fourth community (Spring Valley) was significantly higher than rates for the other communities in surveys both before and afterward the police, and the brusque term post-law decline in the cell phone apply rate was smaller than declines in the other communities and not pregnant.
Cell telephone utilise rates by driver gender, age, and vehicle type
In New York, use rates by driver characteristics were calculated for the pre-law survey, the December 2001 and March 2002 surveys combined, and the March 2003 survey (table 2). Differences were judged significant if the 95% CIs of the estimated use rates did not overlap. Beyond all surveys in New York, cell phone use rates were similar for males and females. Apply rates were higher for drivers younger than 25 than for drivers ages 25–59, but the differences were non significant. Apply amongst drivers ages 60 and older was negligible beyond all surveys. With regard to vehicle type, drivers of cars had the lowest use rates, just only the difference between drivers of cars and drivers of SUVs was meaning in all surveys.
View this table:
- View inline
Table 2
Estimated prison cell phone use rates in New York and Connecticut past gender, historic period, and vehicle blazon pct (95% CI)
In New York, the pattern in handheld cell phone use observed for all drivers—an initial significant post-law decline followed by a render to virtually pre-law utilize rates one year afterward—was observed for men and women, for estimated ages younger than 25 and ages 25–59, and for drivers of cars and vans (table 2).
In Connecticut, estimated handheld cell phone use rates for the driver subsets were examined with data from all surveys combined. Differences were not significant between male and female drivers or between drivers of estimated ages younger than 25 and ages 25–59; cell telephone utilize amid the oldest drivers was very low. Cell phone use was lowest amidst drivers of cars, and the difference between drivers of cars and drivers of SUVs was significant.
Give-and-take
Initial substantial declines in drivers' use of handheld prison cell phones, measured soon afterward New York's ban took issue,xviii were not sustained. There was a pregnant decrease in employ during the first few months of the law, just virtually of this dissipated during the subsequent yr. Relative to the change in use rates in Connecticut over the same time menstruum, the March 2003 employ rate in New York relative to the pre-law rate was 21% lower than the expected utilise rate, but this difference was not statistically meaning. The overall tendency in compliance in New York occurred for both males and females, drivers younger than 60, and drivers of cars and vans.
Both the brusk term and longer term results of New York's ban on handheld prison cell telephone employ are consistent with experience with other highway prophylactic laws. Studies in the United states of america and elsewhere take found that publicity and enforcement are disquisitional factors in the extent of drivers' compliance with a police force. When seatbelt utilise laws showtime were enacted, in that location were initial increases in belt use, especially when the law was accompanied by publicity. Increases occurred fifty-fifty in the absence of vigorous enforcement, but compliance declined a few months after the law became effective.19 Numerous studies have shown that vigorous, well publicized enforcement campaigns are required to achieve increased seatbelt use.20, 21 In 1967, the U.k. adopted new legislation aimed at alcohol impaired driving that at the time was controversial and as a issue generated a lot of publicity. Although the law initially was effective in reducing highway deaths and injuries, these effects dissipated within a few years. Co-ordinate to a study of the constabulary's furnishings, this occurred because drivers discovered that their bodily risk of being charged and punished was negligible.22
In New York, a spate of unpaid publicity surrounded the passage and initial implementation of the jail cell telephone ban. However, this publicity dissipated soon thereafter. There was no statewide intensive enforcement campaign targeting cell phone use violations. According to the New York Land Section of Motor Vehicles, approximately 100 250 cell phone tickets were issued during the first 15 months of the law (December 2001 to February 2003). The number of cell phone citations (79 876) issued during 2002 represented nearly two% of all traffic citations during this period and about 4% of all moving and seatbelt violations. Monthly citation totals increased from 2380 in December 2001 to 6226 in Apr 2002, and so averaged near 7800. These numbers indicate that enforcement has occurred at a steady level since the law was enacted. Although data on the incidence of news stories were not collected for this study, information technology seems that this enforcement has not been sufficient to concenter the attention of the media. Thus it seems unlikely that the public is enlightened of the very real possibility of tickets for violating the law.
There were differences amongst the New York communities in the patterns in handheld cell phone apply over time. Equally levels of enforcement could be related to use rates in these communities, information was obtained on the number of cell phone citations issued December 2001 to February 2003 and the number of licensed drivers in 2001 in the counties in which these areas were located. The number of citations per 1000 licensed drivers was three.one in Binghamton (Broome County), where a pregnant initial post-law pass up in cell phone apply was sustained in the follow up survey. The rates were four.ane and 6.7 in Albany County and Kingston (Ulster County), respectively, where significant initial declines were not sustained. The highest citation charge per unit, 7.ix, occurred in Spring Valley (Rockland County), where a non-significant initial pass up occurred, followed by a significant increase. As the post-law use rates increased, so did the citation rates, and therefore the commendation rates do not appear to propose a differential deterrent effect from enforcement per se. Publicity levels in these communities were not measured, and cell phone subscription levels for these communities could not exist obtained. Thus, the reasons for the variation among communities are unclear.
This research did not address the effect of New York's handheld cell phone ban on motor vehicle crashes and associated injuries. The study indicates that compliance with handheld cell phone utilize bans volition exist a challenge over the long term for communities and states that enact such laws, limiting the ability of such laws to mitigate whatever increased crash take a chance associated with handheld cell phones. Without substantial and highly publicized enforcement efforts, compliance is likely to be quite depression. As a number of studies have found deleterious effects on driving performance of hands-free every bit well as handheld devices,7– 11 whatsoever potential crash effects of New York'southward law may accept been diluted if drivers substituted hands-free phones for handheld phones rather than not using phones at all. Information technology was not possible to examine the extent to which New York drivers complied with the law by using a hands-gratis device, or whether some of these drivers' telephone use may actually have increased afterward the constabulary. Such information and a better understanding of the relative crash risks associated with hands-free and handheld phones are necessary to establish the effectiveness of bans on handheld cell telephone employ in reducing motor vehicle crash risk.
Key points
-
Drivers' employ of handheld jail cell phones declined essentially in the first few months after New York's ban on such use, based on observations conducted in four upstate communities.
-
Most of this initial decrease dissipated during the subsequent year.
-
Initial publicity about the law declined, and in that location was no publicized targeted enforcement entrada.
-
Publicized enforcement campaigns appear necessary to achieve longer term compliance with bans on drivers' cell phone apply.
APPENDIX
Logistic regression models to compare changes in observed handheld cell phone use rates in New York relative to Connecticut
Two dummy variables were created. The dummy variable NY took the value 1 if the ascertainment was made in New York and 0 if the observation was fabricated in Connecticut. The dummy variable After took the value 1 if the ascertainment occurred in the later time period and 0 if it occurred in the earlier time period.
Using these two variables, the following logistic regression model was fitted:
where Oij is the odds of cell phone apply when NY = i and after = j, where i and j tin can each be either 0 or 1.
For example, if we are looking at the two time periods of December 2001/March 2002 and September 2001 in New York, and so the log odds for cell telephone use in New York in December 2001/March 2002 is:
The log odds for September is:
For New York, the log odds ratio for the odds of cell telephone use in December 2001/March 2002 and the odds in September 2001 would exist log(O11/O10). For Connecticut, it would be log(O01/O00).
To derive the ratio of the odds ratio for New York and Connecticut, find log((O11/Ox)/(O01/O00)) every bit follows:
Thus, (O11/Oten)/(O01/O00) = exp(b3). The odds ratio needed is equal to the exponentiated parameter estimate of the interaction term ((NYi)*(Afterj)). The pct modify in utilise rates in New York relative to that in Connecticut is then estimated equally 100*(1−exp(bthree)).
For instance, for the two time periods of December 2001/March 2002 and September 2001, the estimate for the interaction term is negative and significant (−0.7466, p<0.0001), indicating that the change in use rates in New York (from two.3% to ane.ane%) was significantly greater than that in Connecticut (from ii.9% to 2.9%). The exponentiated interaction term (0.474, 95% CI 0.373 to 0.602) yields the signal gauge of the odds ratio such that the relative decrease in cell telephone utilise in New York is approximately 53% (95% CI 40% to 63%).
Acknowledgments
This work was supported past the Insurance Constitute for Highway Safety.
REFERENCES
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
-
-
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
- ↵
Asking Permissions
If y'all wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link beneath which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Middle'due south RightsLink service. You lot will be able to get a quick cost and instant permission to reuse the content in many unlike means.
Copyright information:
Copyright 2004 Injury Prevention
Source: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/1/11
0 Response to "What State Was the First to Ban Drivers From Talking on Handheld Devices?"
Post a Comment