Cellphone bans and fatal motor vehicle crash rates in the United States

Lim, Siew Hoon; Chi, Junwook

doi:10.1057/jphp.2013.3

Cited by 29 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this analysis, UHB were associated with 10% lower driver fatalities overall. This was comparable to other studies which have shown that UHB were associated with 7–13% lower fatalities for all drivers [13, 14, 19, 21]. As for specific age groups, in this analysis driver fatalities were 14% lower for 16–39 year olds, 11% lower for 40–59 year olds, and 8% lower for drivers ≥60 years of age when UHB were effective compared to when they were not.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…As for specific age groups, in this analysis driver fatalities were 14% lower for 16–39 year olds, 11% lower for 40–59 year olds, and 8% lower for drivers ≥60 years of age when UHB were effective compared to when they were not. Other studies have similarly reported that UHB were associated with 6–9% lower fatalities amongst 18–54 year old drivers [19], ~8% less for drivers <21 years [18], and 4% less for drivers aged 22–64 years [16]. However, the findings concerning UTB were akin to some studies and dissimilar from others.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Another study concluded that among 22–64 year old, total fatal crashes were 4% lower and total fatalities were 6% lower when UHB were effective [16]. Another study found that among 18–54 year old age groups, UHB were associated with 7–9% lower driver fatalities [19]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cell phone use while driving laws and motor vehicle driver fatalities: differences in population subgroups and location

Rudisill

Chu

Zhu

2018

Annals of Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cell phone use while driving laws and motor vehicle driver fatalities: differences in population subgroups and location

Rudisill

Chu

Zhu

2018

Annals of Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While pedestrian deaths due to distracted driving are reportedly on the rise, we were unable to test this in our population because driver distraction was not consistently reported (Stimpson et al, 2013;Wilson and Stimpson, 2010). Perhaps prevention efforts designed to decrease distracted driving are working to suppress a rise in pedestrian crashes overall as seen in other studies (McCartt et al, 2014;Lim and Chi, 2013). 1,2,3 Declining incidence over time may also reflect diminishing outdoor activity time in children and adolescents as suggested by other studies (Clements, 2004;Hofferth and Sandberg, 2001).…”

Section: Pedestrian Injury Trends Over Timementioning

confidence: 79%

“…The most notable of these regulations included the 2005 Chicago ban on handheld cellphone devices while driving, the 2008 Chicago texting while driving ban, and the 2010 Illinois state-wide texting while driving ban. 1,2,3 However, studies have shown varying efficacy of similar policies in other locals (McCartt et al, 2014;Lim and Chi, 2013). …”

Section: Influence Of Traffic Technology Changes Personal Electronicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban crash-related child pedestrian injury incidence and characteristics associated with injury severity

Koopmans

Friedman

Kwon

et al. 2015

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Goel,

Tiwari,

Varghese

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRoad Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high‐income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence‐based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high‐income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.ObjectivesThe objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.Search MethodsThe EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.Selection CriteriaThe interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post‐crash pre‐hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non‐fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.Data Collection and AnalysisThe EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case‐control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.Main ResultsThe EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post‐crash pre‐hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non‐fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety‐six percent of the studies were reported from high‐income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper‐middle‐income countries, and only 1.4% from lower‐middle and low‐income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.Authors' ConclusionsThe EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence‐synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

show abstract

Cellphone bans and fatal motor vehicle crash rates in the United States

Cited by 29 publications

References 15 publications

Cell phone use while driving laws and motor vehicle driver fatalities: differences in population subgroups and location

Cell phone use while driving laws and motor vehicle driver fatalities: differences in population subgroups and location

Urban crash-related child pedestrian injury incidence and characteristics associated with injury severity

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About