Challenges of enforcing cell phone use while driving laws among police: a qualitative study

Rudisill, Toni Marie; Baus, Adam; Jarrett, Traci

doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2018-042931

Cited by 26 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 8 However, to the authors’ knowledge, only two studies have actually consulted police on the potential barriers to enforcing CPWD laws in the USA. 9 10 These qualitative studies were conducted separately with police in West Virginia and Washington states, which have all three CPWD laws in effect. 1 9 10 Despite the states’ geographical distance from one another, both studies found that numerous but similar barriers to CPWD enforcement were experienced by officers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Laws can also be written in such a manner where certain behaviours are permitted, while other behaviours are not. 9 10 An example would be if the law prohibits drivers from texting but allows them to operate a global positioning system (GPS), which is often a cellphone application. It would be nearly impossible for the officer to identify whether the driver is texting or using GPS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Challenges of enforcing cellphone use while driving laws among police in the USA: a cross-sectional analysis

Rudisill

Zhu

2021

BMJ Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesResearch suggests that cellphone use while driving laws may be difficult for police to enforce in the USA, but this is unknown. A national survey of police officers was conducted to determine whether barriers to enforcing these laws exist, what aspects of laws make them easier to enforce and ways to discourage the behaviour among drivers.DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingUSA.ParticipantsIndividuals >18 years of age employed as a law enforcement officer from all 50 states were recruited via convenience sampling through multiple modalities from November 2019 to April 2020. Officers (N=353) from 31 states participated.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDescriptive statistics and multi-level logistic regression analyses were run to assess the responses.ResultsThe most common barriers to enforcing texting bans (ie, the most prevalent law) were drivers concealing their phone use (78%) and the officer not being able to determine what the driver was doing on their phone (65%). If a universal hand-held cellphone ban was in effect in their state, officers were 77% less likely (adjusted OR=0.23; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.70) to report that a texting ban was difficult to adjudicate. The majority of officers (86%) agreed that having one general law that prohibits any type of hand-held cellphone use would aid with enforcement, and that laws must be a primary offence (87%), and be applicable to all licensed drivers (91%). Most officers felt that driver education is needed.ConclusionsWhile numerous barriers to enforcement were identified, opportunities exist to improve current legislation to aid enforcement efforts and to prevent the behaviour among drivers.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges of enforcing cellphone use while driving laws among police in the USA: a cross-sectional analysis

Rudisill

Zhu

2021

BMJ Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could be due to greater compliance; comprehensive bans clearly send the message that cellphones are not to be handled at all while driving. 44 In addition, drivers may be more likely to believe that enforcement is possible when the laws govern cellphone use broadly. A survey found that drivers became more anxious when touching a cellphone after a comprehensive handheld ban was implemented in Georgia in 2018.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 45 Drivers may doubt that texting-only bans are enforceable. 44 , 46 For example, drivers may believe that if stopped by a police officer, they can avoid a citation by claiming they were calling, not texting. A comprehensive ban is easier to enforce, because it is impossible for police to differentiate texting from dialing and other phone use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bans on Cellphone Use While Driving and Traffic Fatalities in the United States

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: As of January 2020, 18 of 50 US states comprehensively banned almost all handheld cellphone use while driving, 3 states and the District of Columbia banned calling and texting, 27 states banned texting on a handheld cellphone, and 2 states had no general cellphone ban for all drivers. However, it remains unknown whether these bans were associated with fewer traffic deaths and whether comprehensive handheld bans are more effective than isolated calling or texting bans. We evaluated whether cellphone bans were associated with fewer driver, non-driver, and total fatalities nationally. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal panel analysis of traffic fatality rates by state, year, and quarter. Population-based rate ratios and 95% CIs were estimated comparing state-quarters with and without cellphone bans. Results: From 1999 through 2016, 616,289 persons including 344,003 drivers died in passenger vehicle crashes in the United States. Relative to no ban, comprehensive handheld bans were associated with lower driver fatality rates (adjusted rate ratio aRR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.90, 0.97) but not for non-driver fatalities (aRR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.95, 1.07) or total fatalities (aRR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.94, 1.01). We found no differences in driver fatalities for calling-only bans (aRR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.97, 1.03), texting-only bans (aRR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.99, 1.05), texting plus phone-manipulating bans (aRR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.93, 1.04), or calling and texting bans (aRR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.88, 1.09). Conclusions: Comprehensive handheld bans were associated with fewer driver fatalities.

show abstract

“…Qualitative research has also shown that police officers have a sense of discomfort in ticketing for cellphone-related distracted driving. As it can be ambiguous what drivers are actually doing with their phone while driving, along with the low rate of admittance from drivers on their engagement in distracted driving (Rudisill et al 2019 ; Nevin et al 2017 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cellphone laws and teens’ calling while driving: analysis of repeated cross-sectional surveys in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019

Pope

Andridge

et al. 2020

Inj. Epidemiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Distracted driving among teens is a public health and safety concern. Most states in the U.S. have sought to restrict cellphone use while driving by enacting laws. This study examines the difference in prevalence of self-reported calling while driving (CWD) between states with different cellphone bans. Methods Demographics and CWD data were extracted from state Youth Risk Behavior Surveys (YRBS) from 14 states in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019. The state YRBS is conducted every 2 years with a representative sample of 9th through 12th grade students attending public school. States were grouped by type of cellphone law(s): no ban (the absence of both handheld calling ban and young driver ban), young driver ban (a ban on all forms of cellphone use while driving, for young drivers only), or concurrent ban (a young driver ban plus a ban on handheld calling for all drivers irrespective of age). Poisson regression models with robust variance were used to estimate prevalence ratios comparing CWD prevalence across ban types. Results In total, 157,423 high school students participated in the surveys, and 65,044 (45%) participants reached the minimum age to obtain an intermediate license and drove during the 30 days prior the survey. Approximately 53% of participants reported CWD at least once during the previous 30 days, and the percentages varied widely by states (range: 51–55%). Compared to students from states with no ban, those from states with concurrent bans were 19%(95% CI: 14–24%) less likely to engage in CWD. Students in states with concurrent bans were 23% less likely to engage in CWD compared to students in states with young driver bans (95% CI:17–27%). Conclusions Engaging in CWD is common among teen drivers. The concurrent implementation of a handheld calling ban and a young driver ban was associated with a lower prevalence of CWD.

show abstract

Challenges of enforcing cell phone use while driving laws among police: a qualitative study

Cited by 26 publications

References 21 publications

Challenges of enforcing cellphone use while driving laws among police in the USA: a cross-sectional analysis

Challenges of enforcing cellphone use while driving laws among police in the USA: a cross-sectional analysis

Bans on Cellphone Use While Driving and Traffic Fatalities in the United States

Cellphone laws and teens’ calling while driving: analysis of repeated cross-sectional surveys in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About