Insurance Institute for Highway Safety_Article on Phoning While DrivingSPECIAL ISSUE: PHONING WHILE DRIVING
win T
INSURANCE NCE I �1S rrr ull
FOR I IIGI IE4\Y" s� IT:TY
ItLii
Vol. 45, No. 2, Feb. 27, 2010
Sometimes research findings fit together to produce
a coherent set of knowledge, but other times they
DON'T FIT AT ALL.
This doesn't necessarily mean any of the find-
ings are wrong. It might be a matter of uncov-
ering new information to solve the puzzle
so the pieces fit together. This is the case
when it comes to the hot - button topic of
PHONING WHILE DRIVING,
a risky practice that has increased dra-
matically. A new survey (see p. 2) indi-
cates drivers use their phones not
only on the open road but also in
stop - and -go traffic. A quarter say
they phone in fast, heavy traffic.
Based on how much phoning
while driving motorists admitted
to surveyors and the estimated
risk of driver phone use, an In-
stitute analysis suggests this
practice could account for
22 percent of all crashes, or
about 1.3 million in 2008.
These (continues on p. 4)
2 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 2, Feb. 27, 2010
DRIVERS PHONE
AND TEXT EVEN
AT RISKIEST TIMES
Cruise any road and chances are good you'll
see drivers gabbing on hand -held cellphones
or thumbing text messages. Are motorists re-
ally doing as much electronic multitasking as
it seems? The short answer is yes, no matter
traffic conditions or weather, a new Institute
survey indicates. Another key finding is that
drivers don't talk on cellphones as much in
states where hand -held phones are outlawed,
but they largely ignore bans on texting.
The Institute surveyed 1,219 drivers 18
and older during the last 2 months of 2009 by
landline phone or cellphone, asking ques-
tions about how much time they talk and
text, when and where they use phones, and if
they use hands -free or hand -held ones. Re-
searchers also tried to gauge awareness of
bans on using hand -held phones and texting.
"Some drivers self -limit phone use by
pulling off the road to make or take calls and
avoiding phoning when they are in heavy
traffic or bad weather," says Anne McCartt,
Institute senior vice president for research
and an author of the new study. "Most of the
drivers told us that they use phones in clear
weather. What is surprising is how many
drivers reported that they have used cell -
phones in risky situations."
Overall, 40 percent of drivers reported
talking on phones at least a few times per
week, and 19 percent talk daily. Thirty-five
percent said they never phone while driving.
On average drivers said they spent about an
hour in the car each day, with about 4 min-
utes of that time on the phone. This trans-
lates into roughly 7 percent of time behind
the wheel on the phone, which is much lower
than the federal government's latest estimate
of 11 percent, based on self - reports and road-
side observations (see chart p.4).
"People tend not to fess up to behavior
that has a negative image, so drivers in our
survey may have understated how often
they talk on the phone," McCartt says. "It's
worth noting, too, that government re-
searchers observed drivers waiting at inter-
sections during the daytime, while our sur-
vey estimates driver phone use on all kinds
of roads during all hours."
Cellphone use proliferates: There were
more than 276 million wireless phone sub-
scribers as of June 2009, according to the
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
Association. That's up 42 percent from 194
million in June 2005. Texting is becoming
more popular, too. More than 600 billion
text messages were sent in 2008, up nearly 4
times from 2006, the association says.
In the Institute survey, drivers reported
using phones more on weekdays and during
afternoons and evenings. Use rates were 8
percent during these times.
"It makes sense that there's more phon-
ing on weekday afternoons and evenings,"
McCartt says. "Right after work or school
people want to connect with friends and
family, and lots of drivers do that once
they're in the car."
Men in the survey reported spending
slightly more time on the phone than wom-
en (7 percent versus 6 percent). This differs
from the government's observation that
women drivers use cellphones more.
Young drivers phone and text: Younger
drivers were more likely to say they use
phones than older people. Drivers younger
than 30 spent 16 percent of driving time on
the phone, compared with 7 percent for
drivers 30 -59 years old, and just 2.5 percent
for drivers 60 and older.
Texting is more common among younger
drivers, the survey found. Contrary to pop-
ular perceptions, though, the habit isn't en-
trenched — yet. Drivers who said they text,
email, or use the internet or other applica-
tions make up a small percentage in the sur-
vey. Texting was the most common, with 13
percent of drivers reporting some texting
while driving. Thirty -seven percent of driv-
ers 18 to 24 years old said they text at least
a few times a month compared with less
than 1 percent of drivers 60 and older.
"The 18-24 year -old set is the most
plugged -in generation, and the ranks of tex-
ting drivers likely will grow as today's tweens
and teens get their licenses," McCartt notes.
250
150
50
CELLPHONE SUBSCRIBERS,
IN MILLIONS, 1985 -2009
1985 90 95 2000
Source: Cellular Telecommunications and
Internet Association
05
Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 2, Feb. 27, 2010
DISTRIBUTION OF HOW OFTEN DRIVERS TALK
ON CELLPHONES WHILE DRIVING
Daily
Few times per week
Few times per month
Less than once per month
Never
States with
hand -held bans
13%
17%
12%
14%
44%
States without
hand -held bans
22%
22%
12%
13%
30%
DISTRIBUTION OF HOW OFTEN DRIVERS USE
HANDS -FREE VS. HAND -HELD CELLPHONES
Phoning in risky situations: Fender - benders fre-
quently happen in stop - and -go traffic. taxing any driv-
er's concentration. No matter. People still pick up the
phone. Forty -two percent of drivers surveyed said
they used phones when traffic was stop and go.
just shy of the 45 percent who used them in
free- flowing traffic on high -speed roads, pre-
sumably when driving requires less concen-
tration. Even in heavy. fast traffic a quarter of
drivers said they have talked on phones.
Bad weather deters some motorists from using
phones but not all. Twenty -nine percent of drivers sur-
veyed reported talking on the phone on snowy or wet
roads. compared with 61 percent who said they have
used phones in clear weather.
Fifty -three percent of drivers surveyed reported using
cellphones on trips of more than an hour. Fifty -one percent
said they talked at intersections. and 45 percent used cell -
phones at night.
Business calls aren't taking up most of the airtime, the
survey found. Only 20 percent of people who talk on
phones while driving reported that more than half of their
calls are work - related. A third of men reported mostly
business calls compared with 8 percent of women.
Reducing phone use: Hand -held bans appear to dis-
suade some drivers from using phones at all. Drivers in
states with hand -held bans were less likely to say they talk
on phones while driving. Forty -four percent of drivers in
states with bans reported they don't use phones when driv-
ing. compared with 30 percent in states without such laws.
Seven states and the District of Columbia restrict hand-
held phones for all drivers, but no state bans hands -free
phones for all drivers. Nineteen states and DC ban all drivers
from texting (see www.iihs.org/laws/CellPhoneLaws.aspx).
Hand -helds are the norm, and they are frequently used
even in states that ban all drivers front using them. Thirty -
four percent of drivers in states with hand -held bans for
all drivers report using these phones (continues on pi)
States with
hand-held bans
Only talk hands -free 22%
Sometimes talk hands -free 15%
Only talk hand -held 19%
Never talk while driving 44%
PERCENT OF DRIVERS WHO TEXT, BY AGE
AND PRESENCE OF STATE TEXTING BAN
18 -24 years old
25 -29 years old
30 -59 years old
60 years and older
States with
all- driver texting bans
45%
40%
12%
0%
States without
hand -held bans
13%
17%
40%
30%
States without
texting bans
48%
55%
12%
1%
3
4 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 2, Feb. 27, 2010
(continued from p. 1) numbers are so big
that they would be expected to produce
an increase in the total number of
crashes, and the conundrum is that
there's no such increase. Data from
several sources reveal that crashes
have been holding steady in recent
years, even as cellphone use in gen-
eral and driver use of phones in par-
ticular have proliferated.
"Don't take this to mean that phon-
ing while driving isn't risky," cautions
Institute president Adrian Lund. "It is.
We just don't know yet why the risk
isn't showing up in higher crash rates."
Crash patterns in federal data:
Based on data from the federal Fatality
Analysis Reporting System and Gen-
eral Estimates System, a total of about
5.8 million police - reported motor ve-
hicle crashes occurred during 2008,
the latest year for which data are
available. This count doesn't differ
much from the approximately 6 mil-
lion crashes recorded annually during
the early 1990s, when cellphones
started getting popular, or from the 6.4
million crashes in 2000, when federal
researchers began documenting the
increase in phone use while driving.
Federal estimates of drivers using
phones nearly tripled during 2000-08,
from 4 to 11 percent. (The Institute's
new survey pegs phone use at 7 per-
cent, but this could be due to under-
reporting). Yet crashes didn't rise
during these years. In fact, federal
data indicate a slight decline.
Of course, the number of crashes
over time is subject to multiple influ-
ences besides the increasing propor-
tion of drivers using cellphones, and
some of these other influences are
likely to offset any increase in colli-
sions associated with phone use. In
particular, crashes are known to fluc-
tuate along with economic condi-
tions, and the struggling US economy
during recent years would be expect-
ed to suppress both miles driven and
the number of crashes.
10
6
2
"Still the increase in driver phone use is so dra-
matic and the risk associated with it is so substan-
tial that we expected to see an uptick in total
crashes, but we haven't," Lund points out.
Insurance data show similar patterns: Anoth-
er source of information on crash trends is the
Highway Loss Data Institute, which collects and
analyzes insurance claims and coverage informa-
tion. This group, affiliated with the Insurance In-
stitute for Highway Safety, reports no increase in
the frequency of insurance claims for crash dam-
age filed under collision coverage during 1998-
2008, as driver phone use escalated.
Yet numerous studies establish a definite in-
crease in crash risk associated with phone use
(see Status Report, Oct. 13, 2009; on the web at
iihs.org). For example, 2 studies that examined
the cellphone billing records of crash- involved
drivers peg the increase at 4 -fold. That is, the risk
of a crash involving injury or property damage is
4 times higher during a phone conversation.
It doesn't matter whether a driver uses a phone
that is hand -held or hands -free because the esti-
mated risk is about the same, regardless of phone
Note about the charts: The source for the bar chart
on this page and the one labeled "All crashes" on
the facing page is the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. The percent of drivers using
hand -held phones (below) is observed while total
phone use is estimated. The "All crashes" chart
combines data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System, a census of fatal crashes on US roads, and
the General Estimates System, a nationally repre-
sentative sample of all police- reported crashes. The
collision claim frequencies (facing page) during
1998 -2008 are from the Highway Loss Data Institute.
PERCENT OF DRIVERS
TALKING ON PHONES
■ total phone use
hand -held phone use
2000
02
o4
05
7
8
type (see Status Report, July 16, 2005; on the
web at iihs.org). The risk also is about the
same for men and women and for motorists
young and old.
One reason the trends in phone use and
crashes are out of sync may be that phoning
isn't a unique risk. It is distracting, but then
again drivers always have been distracted
by eating, fiddling with radios, tending to
children, and so on. These distractions
could be just as risky as phoning.
"If so, then laws banning driver phone use
won't have much effect on safety. They
might curb phoning among drivers, but any
benefit of this might be offset by driver en-
gagement in other distractions," Lund says.
Technology to block driver cellphone use
might work to reduce phoning while driving
(see p. 7), but the safety payoff is unknown.
Crash avoidance features like lane depar-
ture warning and forward collision warning
seem more promising (see Status Report,
April 17, 2008; on the web at iihs.org). These
address all kinds of distractions, not just
cellphones, by bringing drivers' attention
back to the road.
6
4
2
6
4
2
ALL POLICE - REPORTED CRASHES, IN MILLIONS, BY YEAR
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1988
1998
90
95
2000
COLLISION CLAIMS PER 100 INSURED VEHICLE YEARS,
BY CALENDAR YEAR, 4 MOST RECENT MODEL YEARS
2000
05
05
6
4
2
6
4
2
18
14
10
2
6 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 27, Feb. 27, 2010
PHONE USE BANS
AREN'T PRODUCING
EXPECTED BENEFIT
Driver use of hand -held phones already is il-
legal in 8 US jurisdictions, and these laws
are proving successful in reducing propor-
tions of drivers using such phones (see Sta-
tus Report, Oct. 13, 2009; on the web at iihs.
org). A new Institute survey also confirms
that fewer people are phoning while driving
in states with bans, and some have switched
to hands -free cellphones (see p.2). Given
COLLISION CLAIMS PER 100 VEHICLE YRS.
FOR NEW VEHICLES, BEFORE AND AFTER
HAND -HELD PHONE USE LAWS
CALIFORNIA
. —law effective
July 2008
ca
AZ. NU OR
months before /after ban: -5
10
B
MA, NY
CONNECTICUT
4 — law effective
October 2005
111111111 1111
months before /after ban: -15 -10 -5
MD, NA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
•—law effective July 2004
months before /after ban: -5
months before /after ban: -5
5
5
5 10 15 20 25
CT, MA, PA
NEW YORK
.—law effective
November 2001
5 10 15
20
25
the established risk associated with phon-
ing while driving, banning hand -held use
would be expected to reduce crashes. But
so far it hasn't. Crashes aren't declining.
This is the major finding of a new study
comparing insurance claims for crash dam-
age in 4 jurisdictions before and after hand-
held phone use bans.
Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) re-
searchers found steady claim rates before
and after the bans. Month -to -month fluctua-
tions in rates of collision claims in jurisdic-
tions with bans didn't change. Nor did the
patterns change in comparison with trends
in jurisdictions that didn't have such laws.
Specifically, the researchers calculated
monthly collision claims per 100 insured ve-
hicle years (a vehicle year is 1 car insured
for 1 year, 2 insured for 6 months each, etc.)
for vehicles up to 3 years old during the
months immediately before and after hand-
held phone use was banned while driving in
New York (November 2001), the District of
Columbia (July 2004), Connecticut (October
2005), and California (July 2008).
The other 4 US jurisdictions where driv-
er use of hand -held phones is banned are
New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
Data were collected not only in the 4 study
jurisdictions but also in nearby jurisdic-
tions without the bans. This method con-
trolled for possible changes in collision
claim rates unrelated to the bans — changes
in miles driven because of the economy, sea-
sonal changes in driving patterns, etc.
"The laws aren't reducing crashes, even
though we know that such laws have re-
duced hand -held phone use, and several
studies have established that phoning while
driving increases crash risk," says Adrian
Lund, president of both the Insurance Insti-
tute for Highway Safety and HLDI.
The HLDI database doesn't identify driv-
ers using cellphones when their crashes oc-
cur. However, reductions in observed phone
use following bans are so substantial and
estimated effects of phone use on crash risk
are so large that reductions in aggregate
crashes would be expected. In New York
HLDI researchers did find a decrease in col-
lision claim frequencies, relative to compar-
ison states, but this decreasing trend began
well before the state's ban on hand -held
phoning while driving and actually paused
briefly when the ban took effect. Trends in
the District of Columbia, Connecticut, and
California didn't change.
"So the new findings don't match what
we already know about the risk of phoning
and texting while driving," Lund points out.
"If crash risk increases with phone use and
fewer drivers use hand -held phones where
it's illegal to do so, we would expect to see a
decrease in crashes. But we aren't seeing it.
Nor do we see collision claim increases be-
fore the phone bans took effect."
HLDI researchers compared the District
of Columbia's collision claim frequency
trend not only with statewide trends in Vir-
ginia and Maryland but also with the nearby
city of Baltimore's trend. Again, the finding
is no difference in the pattern of collision
claims. Nor were any differences apparent
when HLDI researchers applied a time -
based regression model to insurance claims
data for each of the study and comparison
jurisdictions.
Lund points to factors that might be
eroding the effects of hand -held phone bans
on crashes. One is that drivers in jurisdic-
tions with such bans may be switching to
hands -free phones. In states with all - driver
bans on using hand -held cellphones, 22 per-
cent of drivers the Institute surveyed re-
ported using cellphones and always talking
hands -free. In this case crashes wouldn't go
down because the risk is about the same,
regardless of whether a phone is hand -held
or hands -free.
No US jurisdiction bans all drivers from
using hands -free phones. Twenty -one states
and the District of Columbia do prohibit be-
ginning drivers from using any type of
phone, including hands -free, but such laws
are difficult to enforce. This was the finding
in North Carolina, where teen drivers didn't
curtail phone use in response to a ban, in
part because they didn't think the law was
being enforced (see Status Report, June 9,
2008; on the web at iihs.org).
(continued from p.3) some or all of the
time, compared with 57 percent in
states without such restrictions.
People who spend a lot of time talk-
ing behind the wheel are more likely to
go hands -free, the survey found. Thirty
percent of drivers who said they use
their phones every day when driving
reported using hands -free phones all
the time. Drivers in states with hand-
held bans also were more likely to pick
hands -free phones. Twenty -two percent
of drivers surveyed in states with hand-
held bans reported always talking
hands -free, compared with 13 percent
in states without bans.
Texting bans are a different story.
Among 18-24 year -olds — the group
most likely to text — 45 percent report-
ed texting while driving in states that
bar the practice, just shy of the 48 per-
cent of drivers who reported texting in
states without bans.
"Many drivers we surveyed weren't
clear about the laws in their state. And
people who knew using hand -held
phones or texting was banned fre-
quently told us they didn't think po-
lice officers strongly enforce the laws,"
McCartt says.
Eighteen percent of drivers in states
with a universal ban on hand -held
phone use either believed there was no
law or were unsure. The proportion was
even higher (48 percent) among drivers
in states with a universal texting ban.
Only 29 percent of drivers in states with
universal hand -held phone bans who
knew about the bans and 22 percent of
drivers in states with universal texting
bans who were aware of the restrictions
felt they were strongly enforced.
For copies of "National survey of
cellphone use when driving" by K.A.
Braitman and A.T. McCartt and "Cell -
phone use while driving and attribut-
able crash risk" by C.M. Farmer and
K.A. Braitman, write Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety, 1005 N. Glebe Rd.,
Arlington, Va. 22201; or email publica-
tions @iihs.org.
Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 2, Feb. 27, 2010
HIGH -TECH OPTIONS TO CURB DISTRACTION
When it comes to distracted driving, technology is part of the problem, but it also could be
part of a solution that doesn't rely on drivers to hang up their phones or police officers to
enforce cellphone and texting bans.
"Distracted driving is bigger than cellphone calls and texting, and we may need a bigger
remedy," says Anne McCartt, Institute senior vice president for research. "Promising ap-
proaches include assistance systems that alert drivers to impending danger. Preventing driv-
ers from using phones when they are out on the road may help, too."
Automakers are rolling out crash avoidance systems that warn drivers when they are not
paying attention. Systems like lane - departure warning and forward- collision warning promise
to prevent many kinds of distracted driving crashes, not just those that result from cellphone
use (see Status Report, April 17, 2008; on the web at iihs.org). But this isn't a quick fix. Most new
vehicles don't have crash avoidance features, and it will take some time before the systems
are in wide use as newer vehicles supplant older ones.
For cellphone - specific distractions, several blocking technologies are available right now,
and more are on the way. They are designed to block or limit driver cellphone communica-
tions while a car is in motion. Most can be set up so drivers can always phone a family member
or other prespecified contact, and passengers still get to use their phones even if drivers' are
blocked. Calls to 911 and other emergency numbers aren't prohibited. Companies mainly mar-
ket these technologies to parents of teen drivers and business and fleet owners to keep tabs
on employees. Costs range from about $35 to $200 a year, including monthly service fees.
Some companies offer free trials.
Current blocking software is designed for GPS- capable smart phones such as Androids or
BlackBerrys. Software for iPhones is in the works but not yet available. Once the software de-
tects through GPS that a vehicle is moving faster than a trigger speed (15 mph, for example),
the blocking technology kicks in. Systems like iZUP and ZoomSafer block outgoing calls and
texts, send incoming calls to voicemail and hold incoming texts and emails until vehicles stop.
ZoomSafer also can send auto replies via Facebook, Twitter, or email that a person is driving.
Another service, Textecution, blocks text messages in a moving vehicle and is currently avail-
able only for Androids. ZoomSafer allows phone users to enter a password to override the
system when they ride as passengers, while iZUP and Textecution require permission from a
system administrator such as a parent or fleet manager to do so.
CellControl, Guardian Angel MP, and others combine blocking software for phones with a
small device that plugs into a vehicle's onboard computer. These units use Bluetooth to transmit
speed and other data to a driver's phone. System administrators can customize settings to block
any or all calls, texts, and emails once the car tops a set speed. Pas-
senger phones aren't affected. Like iZUP and
Textecution, drivers need administrator
permission to override.
STATUS ]IEi ORT
1005 N. Glebe Rd., Arlington, VA 22201
Phone 703/247 -1500 Fax 247 -1588
Internet: www.iihs.org
Vol. 45, No. 2, Feb. 27, 2010
Patterns of phone use and crashes don't
match, and researchers are trying to figure
out why this is the case 1
New survey of driver phone use indicates
this is a widespread practice, even in risky
circumstances on the road 2
Laws that ban hand - held phone use while
driving aren't producing the expected re-
sult, which is a reduction in the frequency of
crashes 6
Technology to block phone use while driving
is emerging but so far isn't widely used, and
the safety payoff is unknown 7
Contents may be republished with attribution.
This publication is printed on recycled paper.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a
nonprofit scientific and educational organization
dedicated to reducing deaths, injuries, and property
damage from crashes on the nation's highways.
The Institute is wholly supported by auto insurers:
21st Century Insurance
AAA Mid - Atlantic Insurance Group
AAA Northern California, Nevada, and Utah
Affirmative Insurance
Agency Insurance Company of Maryland
Alfa Alliance Insurance Corporation
Alfa Insurance
Allstate Insurance Group
American Family Mutual Insurance
American National Property and Casualty Company
Ameriprise Auto & Home
Amica Mutual Insurance Company
Auto Club Group
Auto Club South Insurance Company
Bituminous Insurance Companies
Bristol West Insurance Group
Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company
California Casualty
Capital Insurance Group
Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
Concord Group Insurance Companies
Cotton States Insurance
COUNTRY Financial
Discovery Insurance Company
Erie Insurance Group
Esurance
Farm Bureau Financial Services
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho
Farmers Insurance Group of Companies
Farmers Mutual of Nebraska
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
First Acceptance Corporation
Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Companies
Frankenmuth Insurance
Gainsco Insurance
GEICO Group
Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
GMAC Insurance
Grange Insurance
Hanover Insurance Group
The Hartford
Haulers Insurance Company, Inc.
High Point Insurance Group
Homeowners of America Insurance Company
ICW Group
Kemper, A Unitrin Business
Kentucky Farm Bureau Insurance
Liberty Mutual
Markel Corporation
Mercury Insurance Group
MetLife Auto & Home
Michigan Farm Bureau Insurance
Michigan Insurance Company
MiddleOak
MMG Insurance
Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company
Nationwide
New Jersey Manufacturers
NLC Insurance Companies, Inc.
Nodal( Mutual Insurance Company
Norfolk & Dedham Group
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance
OneBeacon Insurance
Oregon Mutual Insurance
Palisades Insurance
Pekin Insurance
PEMCO Insurance
The Progressive Corporation
Response Insurance
Rockingham Group
Safeco Insurance
Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Company
SECURA Insurance
Sentry Insurance
Shelter Insurance
Sompo Japan Insurance Company of America
South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
State Auto Insurance Companies
State Farm
State Farm Bureau Insurance
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
Tokio Marine Nichido
The Travelers Companies
Unitrin
USAA
Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
West Bend Mutual Insurance Company
Zurich North America
FUNDING ASSOCIATIONS
American Insurance Association
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America