Challenges of enforcing cellphone use while driving laws among police in the USA: a cross-sectional analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
Research 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.Design
Cross-sectional survey.Setting
USA.Participants
Individuals >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 measures
Descriptive statistics and multi-level logistic regression analyses were run to assess the responses.Results
The 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.Conclusions
While numerous barriers to enforcement were identified, opportunities exist to improve current legislation to aid enforcement efforts and to prevent the behaviour among drivers.
SUBMITTER: Rudisill TM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8246366 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCell phone use while driving laws do not appear to be heavily enforced in the USA. This study seeks to gain law enforcements' perspective and learn potential barriers to cell phone law enforcement.MethodsQualitative interviews (ie, focus groups) were conducted with officers (N=19) from five West Virginia law enforcement agencies. The officers who participated were >18 years of age, sworn into their departments and employed in law enforcement for >1 year. Focus group sessions lasted 45-60 min and followed a standardised, pilot-tested script. These sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. Qualitative content analysis was employed among three researchers to determine themes surrounding enforcement.ResultsFour themes emerged including current culture, the legal system, the nature of police work and issues with prevention. Specific barriers to enforcement included cultural norms, lack of perceived support from courts/judges, different laws between states, the need for a general distracted driving law, unclear legislation, officers' habits and perceived risk, wanting to maintain a positive relationship with the public, not being able to see the driver (impediments of vehicle design, time of day), phones having multiple functions and not knowing what drivers are actually doing, risk of crashing during traffic stops and lack of resources. Prevention activities were debated, and most felt that technological advancements implemented by cell phone manufacturers may deter use.ConclusionsNumerous barriers to cell phone law enforcement exist. Legislation could be amended to facilitate enforcement. Prevention opportunities exist to deter cell phone use while driving.
| S-EPMC6486438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCellphone use behaviours can vary demographically in the USA. This study examined whether legislation restricting cellphone use while driving was associated with lower self-reported hand-held cellphone conversations or texting behaviours among adult drivers of different ages (19-24, 25-39, 40-59,≥60 years), sex, race/ethnicity (white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, Other) or rurality (urban, rural).DesignCross-sectional study.SettingUSA.ParticipantsIndividuals ≥19 years of age who indicated they were a current driver and participated in the 2011-2014 Traffic Safety Culture Index Surveys (n=9706).Primary outcomeThe exposure was the presence of a hand-held calling or texting ban applicable to all drivers (ie, universal) at time of survey. Modified Poisson regression with robust SE was used to estimate the risk of engaging in these self-reported behaviours.ResultsIn fully adjusted models, universal texting bans were not associated with lower texting behaviours (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]=0.92; 95% CI 0.84, 1.01). In stratified, fully adjusted models, men and those of other racial/ethnic origin were 13% and 33% less likely, respectively (aRR=0.87; 95% CI 0.77, 0.98; aRR=0.67; 95% CI 0.46, 0.97), to engage in texting behaviours if a universal texting ban was effective in their state. Conversely, universal hand-held calling bans were associated with lower self-reported hand-held cellphone conversations across every sub-group. In fully adjusted models, the presence of a hand-held calling ban was associated with 40% lower (aRR=0.60, 95% CI 0.54, 0.67) self-reported hand-held cellphone conversations while driving.ConclusionsUniversal hand-held calling bans were associated with lower self-reported cellphone conversations for adult drivers. More interventional work targeting adult drivers may be needed to reduce texting while driving.
| S-EPMC6398625 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7713022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adolescent use of marijuana is associated with adverse later effects, so the identification of factors underlying adolescent use is of substantial public health importance. The relationship between US state laws that permit marijuana for medical purposes and adolescent marijuana use has been controversial. Such laws could convey a message about marijuana acceptability that increases its use soon after passage, even if implementation is delayed or the law narrowly restricts its use. We used 24 years of national data from the USA to examine the relationship between state medical marijuana laws and adolescent use of marijuana.Using a multistage, random-sampling design with replacement, the Monitoring the Future study conducts annual national surveys of 8th, 10th, and 12th-grade students (modal ages 13-14, 15-16, and 17-18 years, respectively), in around 400 schools per year. Students complete self-administered questionnaires that include questions on marijuana use. We analysed data from 1?098?270 adolescents surveyed between 1991 and 2014. The primary outcome of this analysis was any marijuana use in the previous 30 days. We used multilevel regression modelling with adolescents nested within states to examine two questions. The first was whether marijuana use was higher overall in states that ever passed a medical marijuana law up to 2014. The second was whether the risk of marijuana use changed after passage of medical marijuana laws. Control covariates included individual, school, and state-level characteristics.Marijuana use was more prevalent in states that passed a medical marijuana law any time up to 2014 than in other states (adjusted prevalence 15·87% vs 13·27%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·07-1·51; p=0·0057). However, the risk of marijuana use in states before passing medical marijuana laws did not differ significantly from the risk after medical marijuana laws were passed (adjusted prevalence 16·25% vs 15·45%; adjusted OR 0·92, 95% CI 0·82-1·04; p=0·185). Results were generally robust across sensitivity analyses, including redefining marijuana use as any use in the previous year or frequency of use, and reanalysing medical marijuana laws for delayed effects or for variation in provisions for dispensaries.Our findings, consistent with previous evidence, suggest that passage of state medical marijuana laws does not increase adolescent use of marijuana. However, overall, adolescent use is higher in states that ever passed such a law than in other states. State-level risk factors other than medical marijuana laws could contribute to both marijuana use and the passage of medical marijuana laws, and such factors warrant investigation.US National Institute on Drug Abuse, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York State Psychiatric Institute.
| S-EPMC4630811 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFrom 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).ConclusionsComprehensive handheld bans were associated with fewer driver fatalities.
| S-EPMC8318565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe majority of U.S. teens admit to handheld cellphone use while driving, an increasingly common cause of crashes. Attitudes toward novel cellphone applications and settings that block use while driving are poorly understood, potentially limiting uptake. We examined teens' willingness to reduce cellphone use while driving and perceptions of potential strategies to limit this behavior.MethodsTeen drivers (n = 153) aged 16-17 who owned smartphones and admitted to texting while driving completed an online survey. Survey instruments measured willingness to give up cellphone use and perceptions of technological and behavioral economic strategies to reduce cellphone use while driving. We used chi-square tests to test the hypothesis that willingness to give up certain types of cellphone use while driving and the perceptions of strategies to reduce cellphone use while driving would differ by self-reported frequency of texting while driving in the past 30 days (low [1-5 days] vs. high [6 or more days]).ResultsMost teens were willing or somewhat willing to give up reading texts (90%), sending texts (95%), and social media (99%) while driving. However, they were not willing to give up navigation (59%) and music applications (43%). Those who engaged in high-frequency texting while driving were more likely to say that they were not willing to give up navigation applications (73 vs. 44%, P <.001), music applications (54 vs. 32%, P <.001), and reading texts (15 vs. 4%, P =.029). Overall, the following strategies where rated as likely to be very effective for reducing texting while driving: gain-framed financial incentives (75%), loss-framed financial incentives (63%), group-based financial incentives (58%), insurance discounts (53%), automatic phone locking while driving (54%), e-mail notifications to parents (47%), automated responses to incoming texts (42%), peer concern (18%), and parental concern (15%). Those who engaged in high-frequency texting while driving were less likely to say that following strategies would be very effective: automated responses to incoming texts (33 vs. 53%, P =.016), peer concern (9 vs. 29%, P =.002), and parental concern (9 vs. 22%, P =.025). The strongest perceived benefit of cellphone blocking apps was decreasing distraction (86%). The predominant reason for not wanting to use this technology was not wanting parents to monitor their behavior (60%).ConclusionsPromising strategies for increasing acceptance of cellphone blocking technology among teen drivers include automated screen locking and permitting hands-free navigation and music combined with behavioral economic incentives to sustain engagement.
| S-EPMC6215497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Approximately 10% of teens report experiencing sexual dating violence (SDV) or physical dating violence (PDV), collectively represented as teen dating violence (TDV). This study examines the association between laws incorporating TDV education in schools on TDV prevalence. TDV prevalence was estimated using data contributed by 36 states that participated in the 2015 Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance Survey (YRBS). Presence of TDV laws was determined using Westlaw, a legal search engine. The adjusted odds of TDV victimisation was estimated by the presence or absence of a state law and length of time the law was in effect using hierarchical regression modelling, clustering on state, controlling for individual-level and state-level covariates and incorporating the YRBS-weighted survey design. After controlling for individual-level and state-level covariates, the presence of a law was not associated with TDV (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.97; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06), PDV (aOR 1.12; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33) or SDV (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08). These odds did not differ across the length of time the policies were in effect. This study suggest that just the presence of a law incorporating TDV education in schools is not associated with reduced TDV victimisation but further research is needed to understand the association of the content of these laws and their implementation on TDV victimisation.
| S-EPMC8080304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesUnderstanding trends of marijuana use in the USA throughout a period of particularly high adoption of marijuana-legalisation, and understanding demographics most at risk of use, is important in evolving healthcare policy and intervention. This study analyses the demographic-specific changes in the prevalence of marijuana use in the USA between 2005 and 2018.Design, setting and participantsA 14-year retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database, a publicly available biennially collected national survey, weighted to represent the entire US population. A total of 35 212 adults between 18 and 69 years old participated in the seven-cycles of surveys analysed (2005-2018).Primary outcome measuredLifetime use, first use before 18 years old, and past-year use of marijuana.ResultsThe majority of adults reported ever using marijuana. While the overall prevalence of lifetime marijuana use remained stable (p=0.53), past-year use increased significantly between 2005 and 2018 (p<0.001) with highest rate of past-year use among younger age groups (p<0.001), males (p<0.001) and those with income below poverty level (p<0.001). Past-year use was the most common among non-Hispanic blacks, and less common among Hispanic/Mexican populations (p<0.002). Trends in past-year use increased among all age categories, males/females, all ethnicities, those with high school education/above, and those at all income levels (p<0.01 for all).ConclusionsWhile lifetime marijuana use remained stable, past-year use significantly increased between 2005 and 2018. While past-year use remained the most common in younger age groups, males, non-Hispanic blacks and those with lower income; increasing trends in past-year use were significant for all age, sex, race and income categories, and for those with high school education/above. With high adoption of marijuana-legalisation laws during this period, our results suggest an associated increase in past-year marijuana use.An accurate understanding of those most at risk can help to inform decisions of healthcare policy-makers and professionals, and facilitate a safe transition of changing marijuana legalisation and use in the USA.
| S-EPMC7389483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cross-sectional study of the human vaginal microbiome in Flanders
| PRJEB50407 | ENA
Project description:Tobacco and alcohol use are strongly associated. This cross-sectional study examined the relationship of smoke-free law coverage and smoke-free bar law coverage with hazardous drinking behaviors among a representative sample of U.S. adult drinkers (n = 17,057). We merged 2009 National Health Interview Survey data, American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation U.S. Tobacco Control Laws Database, and Census Population Estimates. Hazardous drinking outcomes included heavy drinking (>14 drinks/week for men; >7 drinks/week for women) and binge drinking (?5 drinks on one or more days during past year). Chi-square tests compared hazardous drinking by sociodemographic factors. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine if smoke-free law and bar law coverages were associated with hazardous drinking, controlling for sociodemographics and smoking status. Subset analyses were conducted among drinkers who also smoked (n = 4074) to assess the association between law coverages and hazardous drinking. Among all drinkers, smoke-free law coverage was not associated with heavy drinking (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.99-1.50) or binge drinking (AOR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.93-1.26). Smoke-free bar law coverage was also found to be unrelated to hazardous drinking. Similar results were found among those drinkers who smoked. Findings suggest that smoke-free laws and bar laws are not associated with elevated risk for alcohol-related health issues.
| S-EPMC5409613 | biostudies-literature