California cellphone rules don't appear to be reducing car accidents, study finds

Think your commute is safer now that California requires drivers to use hands-free cellphones?

Think again.

A new study from the nonprofit Highway Loss Data Institute found that rates of crashes before and after the landmark law took effect in 2008 have not significantly changed. It also found that the trend of California’s crashes before and after the law followed that of neighboring states -- like Arizona and Nevada -- that do not have bans on hand-held phones.

“The laws aren’t reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use, and several studies have established that phoning while driving increases crash risk,” Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and its affiliate, the data institute, said in a statement.

“If crash risk increases with phone use and fewer drivers use phones where it’s illegal to do so, we would expect to see a decrease in crashes. But we aren’t seeing it. ... We’re currently gathering data to figure out this mismatch,” Lund said. 

The group, which receives claims information from more than 80% of the nation’s insurers, looked at data on crashes involving cars that are brand-new to 3 years old, and concluded that there is no evidence the hands-free rule is reducing crashes.

About 1.7 million claims in all were used for the study, according to officials with the group. In California there were slightly more than eight crashes per 100 vehicles 18 months before the ban on hand-held phones went into effect.

Twelve months after the law, there were about 7.5 crashes per 100 vehicles, the study shows. Authors of the study were quick to point out that the slight decline in crashes follows a similar trend in neighboring states where there is no such ban.

In Arizona, Nevada and Oregon (which recently passed its own ban), there were a little over seven crashes per 100 vehicles 18 months before the ban was passed in California. Twelve months after the ban in California, there were a little over five crashes per 100 vehicles in those three states, the study shows.

-- Ari B. Bloomekatz

Credit for 2007 photo: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[jay]

I was a simple study. You'd need to factor in enforcement for a study to be statistically valid.

I hope no one received any monies for this 'study'.

Jay

[John Marshall]

Oviously, it's not working because few obey the law. I see just as many people on cell phone while driving as before the law went into effect.

Some laws turn out to be jokes. Like the 65 MPH speed limit? How 'bout the ban on leaf blowers passed thirty years ago?

[alan]

If the roads are not safer, and drivers have been ticketed, shouldn't ticketed drivers get their money back?

[andrew]

The study is flawed. It should be tracking actual observed cell phone use against car accident. As we all anecdotally observe, nobody is observing the hands-free law here. Besides if it's more to do with brain being distracted rather than the "hands", the result is not surprising.

[David]

Who follows the CA. law? .....

[Peter]

Well you pass a law whose penalty is absurdly low and then you don't even pretend to enforce it. So why would anyone be surprised that there has been no effect on accident rates?

[Chris]

...and a good reason is probably because everybody's still talking on their cell phones while driving... A law is useless unless it's enforced. Nobody is scared of a warning...Oooo!

[rtot]

Maybe because people don't actually follow the law? Everyday I notice plenty of folks talking on the phone while driving. They're really easy to pick out; they're the jerks who aren't paying attention to the traffic around them...

[jay]

I just read the study and my initial feeling was correct.

Lack of enforcement makes a law void. We pay income tax because we have to, we stop at stop signs because it's expensive not to; does anyone know anyone who has been stopped for this infraction?

Jay

[Anonymous]

Don't you think it's not being effective because it's not being enforced, nor is the penalty steep enough to keep people from doing it? Furthermore, maybe this study supports that it has nothing to do with holding the phone or not, rather, it's talking on the phone period which is so distracting. There are other studies that show this, that have been published by this newspaper.

[Susan]

Why don't they mention the obvious: few people obey the law. I regularly see people texting and talking while driving. On freeways, on streets, everywhere.

[Joe]

One reason would be that the law is not being enforced. I've seen plenty of situations where people are on their phones right in front of a cop and nothing is done about it.

[MikeOHara]

One reason might be that hordes of people willfully violate the hands-free law.

[M]

There might be a ban in place, but somehow there are still an huge number of people using non-hands free phones. The likelihood of getting caught by someone that can issue a ticket (and not an innocent pedestrian or bicyclist myself who is almost run down) seems to be extremely low.

[arik]

but !!!!!!
also at the same time, on one stop using the phone!!!!!

[Capital Capitol]

Sure, it's not enforced. How can it have a significant impact if drivers don't get at least fined?
Likewise, fine drivers who don't use their turn signals.
Lost 3 months of my life to a driver on her cell phone last year.

[arik]

but !!! at the same time no one stop using there phones in the cars

[Donna]

Perhaps if the law was actually enforced there might be a change. If the state or city wants to close the budget gap, simply issue tickets for this violation. It doesn't seem to matter where you are in the state, at any intersection you can see at least one driver still holding a phone.

[Altair]

This simply emphasizes a conclusion that has long since been established in previous studies. Hands-free cell phones are no safer than handsets. Talking on any phone while driving is dangerous.

California should get serious and ban ALL cell phone use while driving. With or without a handset, driving while talking on the phone has been demonstrated to be more dangerous than driving drunk. As it stands, the law is simply an inconvenience that doesn't even improve public safety. It profits only Bluetooth manufacturers and lawmakers who would like to pretend sanctimoniously that they have done something meaningful.

[Howitzer]

This is no surprise. When's the last time you saw a cop writing a ticket for this. No enforcement means no change.

[Bob Thomas]

There hasn't been a change because no one obeys the law. Look around and you will see behavior has not changed. Let's ban driving and talking period and see where we get.

[yang chong]

duh!~

Maybe because nobody follows the law and it isn't enforced? I see everybody using their cell phones all the time. The only people I see using the hands free are pedestrians.

Make the penalties stiffer and actually do so enforcement.

Talk about retarded 'studies'

[lbgrrl]

Another meaningless "We-Know-Better" law from the Nanny State.

[Earth Advocate]

Statistics on # of crashes per 100 vehicles are only part of the picture. I'd have expected an estimate, based on studies, of just how much of a drop in phone use there is. Based on empirical evidence around LA, I'd say not much- every third driver is still pressing a phone to his or her ear, and either failing to use turn signals, or being unaware of their surroundings in general at 30-50-70mph. Plenty of careless behavior on the road, still.

That $20 ticket isn't much of a bite, and clearly not enforced. Hey local municipalities! Can you say Revenue Stream?

Or maybe an actual decrease in accidents is overridden by an increase in mobile phone use overall. Or an increase in rudeness...

Or maybe fewer people are willing to confess that they're driving recklessly with a phone in one hand, a dog in their lap, an iPod in the other hand, and a latte to sip.

[Denise Thain]

They say they know there is -less- phone usage...I wonder how they figured that....no one will admit in a survey they still don't use a hands-free device.

Have these folks seen the number of people -still- talking with their phones to their ears on the roads despite it being illegal?

If they have, then this should be no shock....