federal efforts reduce distracted driving

8/6/2019 Federal efforts reduce distracted driving

1/12

NHTSAs Ofce o Behavioral Saety Research 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590

TRAFFIC SAFETYFACTSResearch Note

DOT HS 811 845 July 2011

interim report addressing the frsttwo waves is available (Cosgrove

et al., 2010).

BackgroundIn 2009, NHTSA estimated that5% o drivers nationwide wereusing a hand-held cell phonewhile driving at any given day-

light time, down rom6% in 2008 (Pickrell& Ye, 2010). The esti-mated total numbero drivers using hand-held cell phones was672,000 (5% o 134million drivers on theroad) at a typical day-light moment in theUnited States in 2009.

Driving while dis-tracted increases thelikelihood o a crash(NHTSA, 2010) and

even experienced driv-ers who divert theirgaze rom the roadway or longer than 2 sec-onds increase their crash risk (Klauer et al.2006). A meta-analysis (Horrey & Wickens2006) o 23 experiments that measured theeects o cell phone use on driving peror-mance ound that, across all studies, reactiontimes were consistently slower when using acell phone than when not using a phone.

The National Highway TrafcSaety Administration initiated

distracted driving demonstrationprograms in two communitiesto test whether a high-visibilityenorcement (HVE) model couldreduce two specifc instanceso distracted drivingtalkingor texting using a hand-heldcell phone. TheHVE model com- bines dedicated lawenorcement duringa specifed period,

paid and earned media that emphasizes anenorcement-based message, and evalua-tion beore and ater. NHTSAs best knownand most successul HVE campaign isthe Click It or Ticket seat belt enorcementmobilization. HVE has also been eectivein combating aggressive driving, impaireddriving, and speeding. The demonstrationprojects were aimed to test whether HVEwould be eective in modiying driver behavior to not use hand-held phones

to talk or text, whether law enorcementwould be able to observe violations, andwhether an HVE campaign would increasedrivers perceived risk o receiving a cita-tion or violating the law.

This report summarizes results rom ourHVE waves over the course o one yeartargeting distracted driving in Hartord,Connecticut, and Syracuse, New York. An

Drivers using

hand-held

cell phones

while driving

dropped 57%

in Hartford

(from 6.8% to

2.9%) and 32%

in Syracuse

(from 3.7% to

2.5%).

Drivers who

were texting

while driving

declined 72%

in Hartford

(from 3.9% to

1.1%) and 32%

in Syracuse

(from 2.8% to

1.9%).

Good laws

coupled

with tough

enforcement

can reduce

deadly dis-

tracted driving

behavior.

TransportationSecretary

Ray LaHood

Four High-Visibility EnforcementDemonstration Waves in Connecticut andNew York Reduce Hand-Held Phone UseBy Linda Cosgrove, Neil Chaudhary, and Ian Reagan

Distracted Driving is any

non-driving activity a

person engages in that takes

attention away rom the

primary task o driving.

Internal distractions occur

inside the vehicle and can

be in the orm o using a cellphone, eating and drinking,

talking to other passengers,

watching a video, or

changing the radio station.

External distractions occur

outside the vehicle and can

include looking at other

motorists, pedestrians,

road conditions, or even

the scenery.

DISTRACTED DRIVINGA deadly epidemic

The Defnition:


2/12

2


Many State legislatures have introduced laws banninghand-held cell phone use and texting in the past ewyears. New York1 and Connecticut2 passed laws ban-ning hand-held cell phone use while driving in 2001and 2005, respectively. At the time o this report, 8States and the District o Columbia have banned hand-held cell phone use or all drivers, and 32 States and

the District have banned texting or all drivers (GHSA,2011). Thirty States also ban any use o a cell phone(even with a hands-ree device) or novice teen drivers.

Under the leadership o the U.S. Department oTransportation Secretary Ray LaHood, NHTSAawarded two $200,000 cooperative agreements toConnecticut and New York to implement and evaluatedemonstration programs that apply the high-visibilityenorcement model to distracted driving at the commu-nity level. Each state contributed an additional $100,000to the ederal unds. Syracuse and Hartord (a combina-

tion o three contiguous citiesEast Hartord, Hartord,and West Hartord) conducted the demonstrations.

Program DescriptionNHTSA worked with the Connecticut Departmento Transportation and the New York Departmento Motor Vehicles (DMV) Governors Trafc SaetyCommittee to conduct model high-visibility enorce-ment programs in communities in the two States. InConnecticut, the participating law enorcement agen-cies were the Connecticut State Police and the Hartord,

West Hartord, and East Hartord Police Departments.In New York, the New York State Police, the SyracusePolice Department, and the Onondaga County Sheris

1 New Yorks Hand-Held Law: Eective December 1, 2001. Use o ahand-held cellular telephone to engage in a call while driving isprohibited. Violators may be issued a ticket or a trafc inraction,resulting in a fne o up to $100. Eective February 16, 2011, 2driver penalty points will be assessed, in addition to the fne, orviolations o the cell-phone law. Source: NY Vehicle and Trafc,Title 7, Article 33 1225-c-d. New Yorks Texting Law: Eective November 1, 2009. New Yorks

hand-held law prohibits all drivers rom using portable electronicdevices to send text messages or e-mails while driving. The penaltyor a violation o this law is a fne o up to $150. It is a secondary law,which requires other probable cause to initiate a stop.

2 Connecticuts Hand-Held/Texting Law: Eective October 1, 2010.Connecticuts new law imposed stronger penalties or motoristsusing a hand-held electronic device or talking or texting. Forexample, the original exemption or frst-time oenders whoprovide proo o hand-held devices to the court is eliminated;and the fnes or violations increase with each subsequent lawviolation. Texting is a primary, stand-alone, basis or a ticket. Thefrst oense fne is $100, $150 or the second oense, and $200 orthird and subsequent oenses. Source: CT Public Act No. 10-109.

Waves 2, 3, and 4 With One Week of Paid Media

MAYAPRMAR 2010

Earned Media

Paid Media

Enforcement

Evaluation ActivitiesPublic Awareness

Cell Phone Observations

First Wave With Two Weeks of Paid Media

Earned Media

Paid Media

Enforcement

Evaluation Activities

Public Awareness


OCTSEPAUGJUL 2010 MAR 2011 APR

Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4

Wave 1

Ofce participated. There were our waves o enorce-ment over the course o one year.

Under separate contracts, NHTSA provided evaluationand communications support to both sites. PreusserResearch Group was the evaluation frm and theTombras Group was the communications frm.

The our waves o ocused enorcement took place inApril, July, and October 2010 and March-April 2011. Thetimeline shows the schedule or evaluation data collec-tion, media ights, and enorcement in test and controsites beore and ater each o the our waves.

Development of the Creative Material

NHTSAs Ofce o Communications and ConsumerInormation developed and tested new TV, radio, andonline creative materials. Phone in One Hand, Ticket inthe Other became NHTSAs distracted driving highvisibility enorcement message. The creative materialwas designed to generate high awareness o stepped-up enorcement eorts about local cell phone lawsand convince drivers to adhere to those laws. The cre-ative materials are available at www.distraction.gov/campaign-tools/broadcast-materials.

Earned Media

Secretary LaHood, NHTSA Administrator DavidStrickland, and senior State and local ofcials launchedthe campaign with press events (U.S. DOT, 2010) in bothNew York and Connecticut on April 8, 2010. For NewYork, ormer Governor Paterson, Congressman Dan

Figure 1

Demonstration Program and Evaluation Timeline inHarford, CT & Syracuse, NY
http://www.distraction.gov/campaign-tools/broadcast-materialshttp://www.distraction.gov/campaign-tools/broadcast-materialshttp://www.distraction.gov/campaign-tools/broadcast-materialshttp://www.distraction.gov/campaign-tools/broadcast-materials


3/12

3


Maei, ormer DMV Commissioner David Swarts, andSyracuse Police Chie Frank Fowler led the Syracuse,New York event. For Connecticut, Lt Governor MichaelFedele, Governors Highway Saety RepresentativeRobbin Cabelus, ormer State senator Billy Ciotto orCongressman John Larson, Hartord Police DepartmentLt Robert Allan, and Dr. Brendan Campbell rom the

Connecticut Childrens Medical Center led the Hartordevent. Both events generated considerable coveragerom local and national media outlets, including a ea-ture on ABC-TVs Good Morning America (Clarke, 2010)and a eature on ABC News (San Miguel, 2010).

Each o the demonstration sites received sample earnedmedia templates so that they could develop localizedpress releases, act sheets, and post wave press releases.Outreach with the news media and various partnersduring each wave resulted in scores o articles andevents in both States. In Connecticut and New York,

more than 100 news organizations developed newsstories about the demonstration projects. Syracuse andHartord actively generated opportunities to earn addi-tional media or the program. For instance, New Yorkinitiated a media tour and the Connecticut DMV joinedwith Travelers Insurance Company to sponsor a teendriving video contest. Hartords WFSB Channel 3 spon-sored the I Promise campaign and there were ride-alongs or local media. Coverage included televisionand newspaper stories in Connecticut and New York

communities and universities, and national coverageincluding The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, TheBoston Globe, Consumer Reports, MSNBC.com, ABC NewsGood Morning America, FOX News, CBS, and ABCs 20/20

To support social norming messages between the high-visibility enorcement periods, ESPN, NHTSA, andState Farm Insurance promoted the Put It Down cam-

paign to generate awareness o the dangers caused bydistracted driving.

Paid Media

NHTSAs Ofce o Communications and ConsumerInormation purchased air time to promote the pro-gram activity and emphasize the enorcement compo-nent among the target audience o men and women 18to 45 years old. The television spots are available onlineat www.distraction.gov/hartord and www.distractiongov/syracuse.

For the frst wave o enorcement in April 2010, NHTSApurchased two weeks o advertising in each demon-stration location at a level o about 535 gross ratingpoints (GRPs) or television/cable, 400 GRPs or radioand an additional 2 million online impressions on Websites like USAToday.com. This was considered a strong buy that would reach the target audience enougtimes that the ads message would resonate with themAdvertisers use GRPs to determine how much o their

Table 1

Media BuyWave 1

(2 weeks)Wave 2

(1 week)Wave 3(1 week)

Wave 4(1 week)

TotalHartford Syracuse Hartford Syracuse Hartford Syracuse Hartford Syracuse

TV Cost $108,651 $36,898 $57,098 $21,517 $70,244 $21,607 $68,727 $32,249 $416,991

Radio Cost $27,204 $12,338 $17,586 $9,431 $14,628 $5,198 $15,954 $8,282 $110,621

Online Cost $4,624 $4,425 $3,750 $3,750 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $5,000 $31,549

Total Cost $140,479 $53,661 $78,434 $34,698 $87,372 $29,305 $89,681 $45,531 $559,161

Table 2

Enforcement Hours and Citations Issued

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Average per wave

Hartford Syracuse Hartford Syracuse Hartford Syracuse Hartford Syracuse Hartford Syracuse

DedicatedHours

1,345 1,370 1,345 1,337 1,045 1,345 1,272 1,307 1,252 1,340

Hand-HeldPhone Use

2,229 2,185 2,327 1,977 2,257 2,341 2,621 2,354 2,359 2,214

Text/E-mail/Distraction

24 115 21 169 64 183 115 263 56 183

Citations/10k Population

97 167 100 156 99 183 117 190 103 174
http://www.distraction.gov/hartfordhttp://www.distraction.gov/syracuse/http://www.distraction.gov/syracuse/http://www.distraction.gov/syracuse/http://www.distraction.gov/syracuse/http://www.distraction.gov/hartford


4/12

4


target audience is reached by a specifc advertisementmultiplied by the number o times the target audiencesees it. For the next three enorcement waves in July andOctober 2010 and March-April 2011, NHTSA purchasedone week o advertising in each demonstration locationat a level o about 300 GRPs or television/cable, approx-imately 240 GRPs or radio, and an additional 1.5 mil-

lion online impressions. The media expenditures were$559,161 in both Hartord and Syracuse over the courseo the year (See Table 1).

The Connecticut Highway Saety Ofce also ran thePhone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other slogan on 19 vari-able message boards in and around the Hartord areaand purchased digital billboards on major Hartordinterstate highways I-84 and I-91. The billboard mes-sage also ran at the XL Center, a sports and concertvenue in downtown Hartord. This message ran on theXL Center digital billboard and outdoor marquee.

Enforcement

Hartord and Syracuse chose enorcement strategiestailored to their communities. Hartord preerred aspotter technique, where an ofcer, usually standingon the side o the road, radioed ahead to another of-cer whenever a passing motorist using a hand-held cellphone was observed. The second ofcer made the stopand wrote the ticket. Syracuse preerred roving patrolswhere ofcers actively sought out distracted driv-ers using cell phones or texting in their jurisdictions.Ofcers reported that higher vantage points, SUVs, andunmarked vehicles were particularly eective in assist-ing to identiy violators. Both States ound that havingthe exibility to schedule overtime shits as needed was

critical to the successul implementation o the enorce-ment mobilizations. Both Highway Saety ofces pre-pared citation holders that ofcers used to hold thetickets and provide specifc inormation about theStates cell phone laws, the fne amount, and the risksassociated with distraction.

Both Hartord and Syracuse dedicated ofcers to vigor-ously enorce the hand-held cell phone ban during theour waves, exceeding benchmarks based on previous

high-visibility enorcement campaigns. Table 2 showsthe number o enorcement hours and phone and tex-ting citations issued in each site, along with the rate ocitations per 10,000 o each citys population.

Evaluation MethodologyBeore and ater each enorcement wave, NHTSA con-

ducted observations o driver cell phone use and collectedpublic awareness surveys at driver licensing ofces ineach test and comparison site. Albany, New York, servedas the comparison area or Syracuse. Bridgeport andStamord, Connecticut, were non-contiguous controareas to match the demographics o the three Hartordarea cities. Control sites allow evaluators to separate theeect o the demonstration program rom extraneousinuences that may be going on in the State. No mediawas purchased in the control sites and law enorcementofcers continued their usual enorcement activities

without special emphasis on cell phone laws.


Cell phone use observations were taken at 15 sites ineach intervention area, plus 15 sites in Albany, 15 inStamord, and 7 sites in Bridgeport. Sites were selectedrom road segments based on trafc volume estimatesThree o the sites in each area were expressway orinterstate o-ramps. The rest o the sites were identifedrom the highest volume segments, assuring that theywere geographically dispersed throughout the areasThe main goal o site selection was to capture the bulko the trafc streams in the given area.

Observation protocols were based on NHTSAs NationalOccupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) observationprotocols, adapted to increase sample size. An earlierormulation o the method, consistent with NOPUSobservation protocols, had observers sampling romtrafc stopped at red lights. Thereore all selected siteswere at trafc light controlled intersections. Pilot test-ing o this method resulted in ew observations andNHTSA modifed its method to observe moving tra-

fc only. Observations were made rom street cornersobserving one direction o trafc (the vehicles travel-ing in the lanes nearest the observer) or one hour ateach site. When trafc signals turned red, observerspivoted and sampled vehicles rom the moving trafcon the cross street. Observers coded vehicle type (pas-senger vehicle, SUV, pickup truck, van), sex, estimatedage (16-24, 25-59, 60+) and whether the driver was hold-ing a hand-held phone to her or his ear, manipulatinga cell phone (other than by holding to ones ear), and i


5/12

5


the driver had a hands-ree headset (e.g., Bluetooth) inthe visible ear.

The main analyses were the average percentage oeach o the three cell phone use categories calculatedseparately or each test and control area. Binary logisticregression analyses evaluated the signifcance o dier-ences and chi squares were conducted or raw data orsubsets o the data (e.g., age). Over 225,500 vehicles wereobserved or the our waves in test and control areas othe demonstration program.

Self-Reported Use and Awareness Surveys

Motorists who visited driver licensing ofces in the testand comparison sites completed a single-page ques-tionnaire asking whether they had seen or heard o thedistracted driving program, enorcement, or messag-ing. They were asked about their cell phone use whiledriving and whether they had changed their cell phoneuse in the past 30 days, among other topics. Surveyorscollected more surveys or the frst (pre-Wave 1) and thefnal (post-Wave 4) administration to increase the powero analyses or both baseline and fnal data. Over 20,624sel-report surveys were collected or the our waveso the demonstration program in test and comparisonsites (9,480 in NY and 11,144 in CT).

Results

Observed Phone Use in Connecticut

The percentage o drivers observed holding theirphones to their ears decreased rom baseline to the endo the ourth wave in Hartord and the Connecticutcontrol sites. The reduction was signifcantly greater inHartord (rom 6.8% to 2.9%) than the control site (rom6.6% to 5.6%). These changes represent a 57% drop in

observed cell phone use or the Hartord site comparedto a 15% drop at the control site.

Analysis o pre- to post- observations or each wave(e.g., pre-Wave 1 versus post-Wave 1, pre-Wave 2 versuspost-Wave 2) indicated that the changes in the controareas were not signifcant. In contrast, analysis o eacho these pre- to post-wave comparisons or Hartord

indicated a signifcant reduction in observed hand-heldcell phone use (see Figure 12 located on the fnal page othis Research Note).

Drivers estimated to be between the ages o 25 to 59accounted or most o the decrease in observed hand-held cell phone use in the Hartord area. There weresignifcant reductions in observed hand-held cell phoneuse or the two younger age groups; drivers whose esti-mated age was between 16 to 24 dropped 6.4 percentagepoints (rom 9.0% to 2.6%) while those whose esti-

mated age was 25 to 59 dropped 3.6 percentage points(rom 6.8% to 3.2%). In the control sites, the changes inobserved hand-held cell phone use were signifcantamong the middle group (rom 6.7% to 5.7%) but notsignifcant or the youngest and oldest age categories(16 to 24 or 60 and above).

There were signifcant drops in observed hand-heldphone use or both men and women in the Hartord areaSurprisingly, there was a signifcant (p < .05) decreaseamong emale drivers but no change or male drivers inthe control areas in observed hand-held phone use.

There were signifcant reductions in hand-held cellphone use or each vehicle type (passenger vehicle, SUVpickup truck, or van) in the Hartord area. The largestreductions in observed hand-held cell phone use wereor pickup trucks (rom 9.9% to 4.0%) and SUVs (rom7.3% to 2.0%), while there were no signifcant changesin the control areas or pickup trucks, SUVs, or vansHowever, there was a signifcant reduction in hand-held phone use in the control area or passenger cars.

The overall change in observed headset use was signif-

cant in both the Hartord and control areas. Observedheadset use signifcantly decreased in the Hartordarea (3.5% to 1.3%) and in the control area (4.1% to 2.0%)For Hartord, observed use o earpieces ell rom thefrst wave through the second wave, increased throughthe third wave, and then dropped during observationsmade during the ourth and fnal wave (see Figure 14).

The percentage o drivers observed manipulating theirphones (e.g., texting, dialing) ollowed a pattern simi-

Figure 2

Observed Hand-Held Phone Use in Connecticut

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

ControlHartford

6.8

2.9

6.6

5.6

%O

bservedholdingphone

tohear Pre Wave 1 Post Wave 4


6/12

6


lar to that o drivers talking on their hand-held phones.Figure 3 shows that overall there was a signifcantdecrease in observed phone manipulation, rom 3.9% to1.1%. In contrast, there was no signifcant dierence inobserved cell phone manipulation in the control sites,rom 2.8% to 2.4%. At the end o each individual wave,observers counted signifcantly ewer Hartord drivers

manipulating their phones compared to the beginningo each wave (see Figure 13).

while women did not. Observed hand-held cell phoneuse or male drivers dropped rom 3.8% to 1.9%. InAlbany, there were signifcant changes in the percent-age o male and emale drivers observed using theirhand-held phones. Both sexes decreased their use ohand-held phones rom the baseline to the end o theourth wave observation.

Figure 4

Observed Hand-Held Phone Use in New York

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

ControlSyracuse

3.7

2.5

5.0

3.0

%O

bservedholdingphonetohear Pre Wave 1 Post Wave 4

Figure 3

Observed Manipulation of Hand-Held Phones inConnecticut

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

ControlHartford

3.9

1.1

2.8

2.4

%O

bservedmanipulatingphone

Pre Wave 1 Post Wave 4

Figure 5

Observed Manipulation of Hand-Held Phones in New York

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ControlSyracuse

2.8

1.9

6.35.7

%O

bservedmanipulatingphone


In Syracuse, observations o electronic device manipu-lation (e.g., texting, dialing) signifcantly decreased(p < .05) rom 2.8% to 1.9% by the end o the ourth

wave. Albanys observed rate o manipulating a phonewhile driving was much higher than Syracuse at thebaseline period. However, there was no signifcant dierence in observed cell phone manipulation in Albanyover the course o the program (see Figure 5). Acrossthe our waves, there was more variability in observedcell phone manipulation in Albany than Syracuse (seeFigure 16). Syracuse showed an overall decrease o 32%in observed phone manipulation rom the baseline tothe end o the ourth wave.

Observed Phone Use in New York

Fewer drivers in Syracuse were observed holdingcell phones to their ears at the end o the ourth wave(rom 3.7% to 2.5%) and this 32% decrease was statis-

tically signifcant. In the control site, there was also asignifcant 40% reduction in observed hand-held cellphone use rom 5.0% to 3.0% (see Figure 4). The inter-action between location and demonstration wave wasnot signifcant, which suggests that the reductions inhand-held cell phone use were similar in both loca-tions. Figure 15 presents the trends in observed hand-held phone use or Syracuse and the control site acrossall our waves.

In Syracuse, drivers estimated to be between the ageso 25 to 59 accounted or most o the decrease in hand-

held cell phone use. None o the other age categories inSyracuse showed an overall decrease. In the control site,drivers whose estimated ages were 16 to 24 and 25 to 59showed signifcant reductions in hand-held phone use.Drivers estimated to be 60 and older showed no signif-cant changes in observed hand-held cell phone use ineither location.

Overall, male drivers showed a signifcant decreasein using a hand-held phone while driving in Syracuse


7/12

7


There were no signifcant changes in Syracuse in thepercentage o drivers observed with a hands-ree head-set. Across the our waves the observed rate rangedrom 1.2% to 2.3% in Syracuse and rom 4.3% to 2.6%in Albany. There was a signifcant decrease rom 4.3%to 2.9% in Albany by the end o the ourth wave (seeFigure 17).

Self-Reported Cell Phone Use and Program

Awareness in Connecticut

Respondents in Connecticut were aware o and knowl-edgeable about the program and enorcement. Fromthe baseline to the end o the program, Hartord areadrivers reported increased chances (perceived risk) ogetting tickets while there was no eect in the controlarea. In both Hartord and the control sites, respon-dents also reported hearing more general distracteddriving inormation and police enorcement o the cell

phone and texting laws by the end o the ourth wave.The percentage o Hartord drivers who reported hav-ing ever gotten a cell phone ticket did not change sig-nifcantly rom the baseline (rom 7% to 8%), but therewas a statistically signifcant increase (rom 9% to 12%)in the control areas.

At the end o the ourth wave the percentage o respon-dents in the Hartord area who heard about enhancedpolice enorcement was signifcantly greater than thebaseline (rom 31% to 71%). There was a smaller but sig-nifcant increase o awareness o special police enorce-

ment in the control areas as well (rom 32% to 43%).

Awareness o the Phone in One Hand, Ticket in theOther slogan started at 5% in both Hartord and theConnecticut control sites. Over the course o the pro-gram, recognition increased signifcantly to 54% inHartord. There was also a signifcant increase in thecontrol area but not o the same magnitude (rom 5%to 12%).

Recognition o other slogans was not as high. Theother most recognized slogan in the Hartord area

was I-Promise Not to Drive Distracted which was recog-nized by 15% o respondents. Local TV station WFSBran messages with this slogan between enorcementwaves. Recognition o Oprah Winreys No Phone Zonedropped rom 7% to 5% in Hartord and rom 6% to 5%in the control sites.

There were no signifcant dierences in sel-reportedrequency o cell phone use while driving in Hartord(rom 9% to 7%) or the control group (rom 8% to 7%).

Similarly, there were no reliable dierences in sel-reported texting while driving in Hartord (rom 4% to3%) or the control sites (remained at 5%).

Self-Reported Cell Phone Use and Program

Awareness in New York

Overall, Syracuse respondents knew about the enorce-

ment and messaging campaign. Drivers in Syracusereported having heard about cell phone enorcementwith a signifcant increase rom the baseline to theend o the ourth wave. Drivers in both Syracuse andAlbany also reported hearing about distracted drivingin general more by the end o the program.

Sel-reported hand-held cell phone use decreased inSyracuse rom 8% to 5% and this decline was statisti-cally signifcant. Albanys rates increased rom 6%to 9% and this change approached but did not reachstatistical signifcance. Sel-reported texting decreasedin Syracuse rom 6% to 3%, a statistically signifcantchange. In Albany, sel-reported texting remained atthe same level o 3%.

Recognition o the main message, Phone in One HandTicket in the Other, increased 24 percentage points inSyracuse (5% to 29%). The rates were at in Albany,going rom 4% to 5%.

Recognition o other slogans was considerably lowerat the end o Wave 4 in Syracuse. For example 6% othe respondents recognized Oprah Winreys NoPhone Zone.

Figures 6 through 11 show public awareness fndingscomparing pre-Wave 1 to post-Wave 4 or SyracuseHartord, and the control sites.

Law Enforcement Lessons LearnedAll the law enorcement agencies had extensive experi-ence conducting high-visibility enorcement campaignsand were enthusiastic about the challenge o applyingthe model to distracted driving. They held debriefngs

ater each wave to discuss ways to improve the cam-paign. Some o the lessons learned over the course othe our waves include:

Targeted enorcement using stationary patrols, spot-ters, and roving patrols can result in high levels oobserved violations.

Traditional Click It or Ticket stationary checkpointsor marked cruisers with uniormed ofcers were


8/12

8


Figure 6

In the Past Month, Have You Seen or Heard AboutDistracted Driving in [Connecticut/New York]?

0

20

40

60

80

100

ControlHartford ControlSyracuse

59

83

5665 64

76

52

68

PercentReporting

Yes


Connecticut New York

Figure 7

Awareness of Phone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other

Slogan in Connecticut and New York

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


5

54

5

12

5

29

4 5PercentReporting

Recognition



Figure 8

What Do You Think the Chances Are of Getting a Ticket IfYou Use a Hand-Held Cellular Phone While Driving?

0

10

20

30

40


15

33

22 24 22

26

1720

%A

lwaysorNearl

yAlways



Figure 9

Strictness of Enforcement of Hand-Held Phone Law

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


39

49

37

43 42

5348

46

%S

trictorV

eryStrict



Figure 10

In the Past Month, Have You Seen or Heard About PoliceEnforcement Focused on Hand-Held Cellular Phone Use?

0

20

40

60

80


31

71

32

43 41

76

34

49

Percentage

Reporting

Yes



Figure 11

It Is Important for the Police to Enforce Hand-Held Phoneand Texting Laws

0

20

40

60

80

100


8089 88 89

8387

8186

Percentage

Reporting

Yes




9/12

9


less eective in Syracuse, while Hartord ofcers eltthe spotter technique was more efcient and visible.Hartord patrols moved between locations to takeadvantage o trafc patterns and known high riskareas in their communities during the intense sevenday morning and aternoon schedules. Syracuse rov-ing patrols targeted high risk and high trafc volume

areas in their communities. Texting oenders requently commit other tra-fc violations, such as lane departure, traveling tooslowly, or weaving on high-speed highways, provid-ing additional cues to ofcers.

Use o spotters on overpasses and elevated roadways,as well as use o taller SUVs and trucks, are eec-tive in identiying drivers manipulating electronicdevices given the elevated observation angle.

Unmarked vehicles may be an advantage when usingroving patrols.

Roll call training videos or participating ofcersare benefcial to describe specifc enorcement tech-niques and timelines, discuss coordination withneighboring law enorcement agencies, and describemedia support or enorcement activities.

Citation holders with inormation about the Stateslaw are helpul or ofcers in educating motoristseven when they contain a ticket.

Extensive community outreach and public educationbetween waves creates and reinorces social normsthat using cell phones or texting while driving isunacceptable.

Law enorcement ofcers were pleased with thelevel o media coverage throughout the campaignand became eective spokespersons as the scale anddepth o the problem became more apparent.

Public awareness o ticketing or cell phone and tex-ting can be raised in a short period o time. Hartordmotorists in later waves commented to ofcers thatthey should have known better given all the pub-licity surrounding the campaign.

DiscussionPublic awareness o distracted driving is remarkablyhigh, even beore NHTSAs distracted driving dem-onstration programs began in Hartord and Syracuse.About 6 in 10 motorists in both communities had heard

something about distracted driving, beore the newPhone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other advertisementsaired and this rose to 8 in 10 at the end o the campaign

High public awareness most likely reects the inuxin media discussing the issue. Insurance companiesmobile phone providers, saety organizations, and vic-tims activists groups have been addressing the dan-gers o using a cell phone and texting while driving,especially or teens. Many sponsored advertisementson national television.

A number o state legislatures have passed texting andcell phone bans. The U.S. Department o Transportationheld summits in Washington, DC, in September 2009and October 2010 bringing together researchers, gov-ernment agencies, industry representatives, publicadvocates, victims organizations, and elected ofcialsto discuss what could be done to reduce the preventable

deaths and injuries that distracted driving is causingin America. The President issued an Executive orderadvising Federal workers to put it down.

Oprah started the No Phone Zone and on April 30, 2010the Oprah Winrey Show launched a No Phone ZoneDay with a live TV broadcast, rallies in fve citiesAtlanta, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, andWashingtonand a national public service announce-ment campaign. ABCs 20/20 eatured distracted driv-ing enorcement in Syracuse and videotaped road testsin Virginia demonstrating how drivers do not recog-

nize the degree to which texting and cell phone usedegrades their driving perormance on April 11, 2011.

The national attention has contributed to increases inoverall awareness o distracted driving, which is a positive step in changing social norms about the unaccept-ability o using cell phones or texting while driving. Italso played a role in the evaluation o the Hartord andSyracuse demonstration programs in that both controlsites were also exposed to messages about distracteddriving, cell phones, and texting. Ideally, the compari-

son sites should not be exposed to the program at all,but that did not occur with Hartords and Syracusescontrol sites as measured in public awareness andobservation surveys. Law enorcement agencies in thecomparison sites enorced their States cell phone lawsvigorously as well. One troop o the New York StatePolice wrote cell phone tickets (ollowing press releaseswarning o enorcement) around Albany, the New Yorkcontrol site, and law enorcement in Connecticuts com-parison sites engaged in work zone enorcement pro-


10/12

10


grams, also writing cell phone tickets whenever theyobserved violators.

An interesting fnding is that the driver licensing ofcesurveys show that motorists are willing to use their cellphones and text while driving while believing that itis important or the police to enorce hand-held phoneand texting laws at the same time. Changing driversassessment o the risk associated with their own behav-ior presents a challenge. High-visibility enorcementcampaigns are a proven countermeasure to changedrivers behavior quickly in a variety o trafc saetyareas. The intent o a high-visibility enorcement cam-paign is not to issue tickets, but to take advantage omotorists desire to avoid citations, escalating fnes orrepeat oenders (as in Connecticut), or points on theirdrivers license (as in New York). The model seeks todeter drivers rom engaging in a particular behavior inthe frst place and is most eective when there is a high

certainty that motorists will receive a ticket when theyviolate the trafc law.

The new slogan, Phone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other,proved eective in conveying the message o increasedcell phone enorcement to the public. Over 50% o respon-dents in Hartord and 30% in Syracuse reported that theyhad seen and heard the message by the end o the ourthwave o the program, signifcantly higher than in thecontrol areas. Drivers reported having heard about theenorcement, recognized the increased strictness o thepolice, and thought that their chance o getting a ticketincreased i they used a hand-held cell phone.

Sel-reported use o a hand-held cell phone or textingwhile driving uctuated between waves in all sites,ending lower in both test sites at the end o the ourthenorcement wave. It actually increased at the end othe frst wave in Hartord and Syracuse, which seemedunusual since observations showed a decline in bothsites. One explanation is that drivers were becom-ing more aware o their cell phone use while drivingbecause o the increased media at that time. There was

strong public support or the program, with 9 out o 10drivers believing that it is important or the police toenorce the hand-held cell phone law.

Observed cell phone use decreased in both sites by theend o the ourth wave o the Phone in One Hand, Ticketin the Other demonstration program. Beore the dis-tracted driving programs began, observed cell phoneuse in Syracuse was about hal that o the rest o theNation and Hartord was close to the average. Both

States have had hand-held cell phone bans while driv-ing or some timeenacted in 2001 in New York and2005 in Connecticut. Ater the ourth wave o the high-visibility enorcement campaign, hand-held cell phoneuse decreased 32% in Syracuse (rom 3.7% to 2.5%) and57% in Hartord (rom 6.8% to 3.9%) and with someuctuations over the year observed use fnished much

lower than the baseline. The laws alone may have servedto keep these States rates at or below the national aver-age, but the addition o high-visibility enorcement andmedia emphasizing the enorcement drove the ratesdown even lower.

Typically, periodic enorcement waves yield a ratchetingeect, or uctuation between waves where the observedbehavior reverts close to previous levels. The ratchetingeect was very slight in both sites, occurring in somebut not all waves or observed hand-held use or manip-ulating electronic devices. Generally there was a steady

decline in the comparison sites, as well. This is a prom-ising fnding and suggests that social norms towardsphone use and texting while driving may be shitingbecoming less acceptable behaviors to the public.

The law enorcement agencies in both sites exceededprogram expectations. Ticketing rates around 20 cita-tions per 10,000 population have been shown eectivein seat belt enorcement programs, a rate deemed suf-cient to change motorists behaviors. Enorcement ratesor the distracted driving demonstration programs inSyracuse and Hartord were more than fve times that

benchmark. Ofcers reported that they were enthusiastic about the dedicated advertising that ocused ontheir increased enorcement. They reported that coor-dinated enorcement activities with neighboring lawenorcement agencies expanded the visibility o theirenorcement eorts. They reported positive public reac-tionsthe general theme or both ofcers and motor-ists was that it was about time. The positive publicreaction may have reinorced ofcer eorts and contrib-uted to heightened levels o enorcement.

There are challenges to enorcing hand-held cell phoneand texting bans. The most obvious challenge is the di-fculty in observing the oense. Syracuse law enorce-ment ofcers preerred roving patrols and ound higherobservation locations or taller vehicles like SUVs useulin seeing down into a passenger vehicle to observe texting oenses. Hartord ofcers ound the spotter, or sta-tionary, strategy eective but both chose strategies thasuited their community and resources. Both used otherstrategies as well. Because this was a demonstration


11/12

11


program, additional reporting paperwork was requiredto document activity and results. The Hartord ofcerselt that their post ticketing paper work was more timeconsuming than a seat belt ticket and they worked toimprove the administrative demands.

These demonstration programs document thatNHTSAs high-visibility enorcement model can be

eectively applied to distracted driving enorcementand that various law enorcement strategies can beused to observe and ticket cell phone and texting vio-lations. Targeted behaviors were reduced during eacho the waves and ended lower than the baseline in allsites, test as well as comparison sites. Surveys at thesites indicate there is widespread support rom motor-ists and law enorcement or cell phone and textingenorcement. These demonstrations confrm earliereorts with occupant protection, impaired driving,aggressive driving, and speed that high-visibility

enorcement campaigns encourage compliance withState laws and modiy behavior.

NHTSAs Ofce o Behavioral Saety Research plans topublish a ull detailed technical report detailing datacollection or all our waves.

ReferencesABC news 20/20,Hunting for Cell Phone Drivers, Availableat http://abcnews.go.com/2020

Blumberg, S. J., & Luke, J. V. (2010). Wireless Substitution:

Early Release o Estimates rom the National HealthInterview Survey, JulyDecember 2009. Hyattsville, MD:National Center or Health Statistics. Available at www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201005.pd

Clarke, S. (2010, April 15). Shut Up and Drive: Feds TargetTalking, Texting Behind the Wheel. New York: ABCNews Internet Ventures. Available at http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10377741.

Connecticut Public Act No. 10-109 (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/PA/2010PA-00109-R00SB-00427-PA.

htm).

Cosgrove, L., Chaudhary, N., & Roberts, S. (2010). High-Visibility Enorcement Demonstration Programs inConnecticut and New York Reduce Hand-held PhoneUse. (Report No. DOT HS 811 376). Washington, DC:National Highway Trafc Saety Administration.Available at www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/High-Visibility-Enorcement-Demo.pd

Governors Highway Saety Association. (2011). CellPhone and Texting Laws: May 2011. www.ghsa.org/html/stateino/laws/cellphone_laws.html

Horrey, W. J., & Wickens, C. D. (2006). Examining theimpact o cell phone conversations on driving usingmeta-analytic techniques. Human Factors, 48, 196-205

Klauer, S. G., Dingus, T. A., Neale, V. L., Sudweeks, J.& Ramsey, D. (2006). The Impact o Driver Inattentionon Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data (Report No. DOTHS 810 594). Washington, DC: National Highway TrafcSaety Administration.

NHTSA. (2010, April). Overview o the National HighwayTrafc Saety Administrations Driver DistractionProgram. (Report No. DOT HS 811 299). WashingtonDC: National Highway Trafc Saety Adminis-tration. Available at www.distraction.gov/fles/dot/

6835_DriverDistractionPlan_4-14_v6_tag.pd

New York Vehicle and Trafc, Title 7, Article 331225-c-d (http://www.saeny.com/phon-ndx.htm).

Pickrell, T. M., & Ye, T. J. (2010, September). DriverElectronic Device Use in 2009. Trafc Saety FactsResearch Note. (Report No. DOT HS 811 372)Washington, DC: National Highway Trafc SaetyAdministration. Available at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811372.pd

San Miguel, M. (Reporter). (2010, April 25). NewProgram Aims to End Distracted Driving. ABCNews Video [Television news broadcast]. New YorkABC News. Available at abcnews.go.com/US/video/program-end-distracted-driving-10738019

U.S. Department o Transportation. (2010, April 8)Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood AnnouncesFirst Enorcement Crackdown Campaign on DistractedDriving. Press release. Washington, DC: Department oTransportation. Available at www.distraction.gov/fles/or-media/4.08.10-Demo.pd
http://abcnews.go.com/2020http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201005.pdfhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201005.pdfhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201005.pdfhttp://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10377741http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10377741http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10377741http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/PA/2010PA-00109-R00SB-00427-PA.htmhttp://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/PA/2010PA-00109-R00SB-00427-PA.htmhttp://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/PA/2010PA-00109-R00SB-00427-PA.htmhttp://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/High-Visibility-Enforcement-Demo.pdfhttp://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/High-Visibility-Enforcement-Demo.pdfhttp://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.htmlhttp://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.htmlhttp://www.distraction.gov/files/dot/6835_DriverDistractionPlan_4-14_v6_tag.pdfhttp://www.distraction.gov/files/dot/6835_DriverDistractionPlan_4-14_v6_tag.pdfhttp://www.safeny.com/phon-ndx.htmhttp://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811372.pdfhttp://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811372.pdfhttp://abcnews.go.com/US/video/program-end-distracted-driving-10738019http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/program-end-distracted-driving-10738019http://www.distraction.gov/files/for-media/4.08.10-Demo.pdfhttp://www.distraction.gov/files/for-media/4.08.10-Demo.pdfhttp://www.distraction.gov/files/for-media/4.08.10-Demo.pdfhttp://www.distraction.gov/files/for-media/4.08.10-Demo.pdfhttp://abcnews.go.com/US/video/program-end-distracted-driving-10738019http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/program-end-distracted-driving-10738019http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811372.pdfhttp://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811372.pdfhttp://www.safeny.com/phon-ndx.htmhttp://www.distraction.gov/files/dot/6835_DriverDistractionPlan_4-14_v6_tag.pdfhttp://www.distraction.gov/files/dot/6835_DriverDistractionPlan_4-14_v6_tag.pdfhttp://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.htmlhttp://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.htmlhttp://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/High-Visibility-Enforcement-Demo.pdfhttp://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/High-Visibility-Enforcement-Demo.pdfhttp://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/PA/2010PA-00109-R00SB-00427-PA.htmhttp://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/PA/2010PA-00109-R00SB-00427-PA.htmhttp://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/PA/2010PA-00109-R00SB-00427-PA.htmhttp://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10377741http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10377741http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201005.pdfhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201005.pdfhttp://abcnews.go.com/2020


12/12

12


Figure 12

Connecticut: Percent of Drivers Observed Holding Hand-Held Phone to Ear

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

PostPre

Hartford Bridgeport/Stamford

PostPre PostPre PostPreWave 1 (2899 hh tx) Wave 2 (2327 hh tx) Wave 3 (2773 hh tx) Wave 4 (2621 hh tx)

6.8

6.6

4.3

5.9 5.6

4.6

3.1

5.36.1

5.5

3.9

4.9

4.9

5.05.6

2.9%H

and-heldUse

Figure 13

Connecticut: Percent of Drivers Observed ManipulatingHand-Held Phone

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

44.5

PostPre


PostPre PostPre PostPreWave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4

3.9

2.8

2.1

2.72.6

2.6

1.4

2.5

2.5

2.5

1.3

2.2

2.2

2.3 2.4

1.1

PercentageManipulatingHand-h

eld

Figure 14

Percent of Connecticut Drivers Observed Wearing anEarpiece

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

PostPre


PostPre PostPre PostPre1 2 3 4

4.1

3.5

2.7

2.8

2.1

2.11.7

2.1

2.2

2.4

2.3

3.5

2.3

2.42.0

1.3%

EarpieceObserved

Figure 15

New York: Percent of Drivers Observed Holding Hand-HeldPhone to Ear

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

PostPre

Syracuse Albany

PostPre PostPre PostPreWave 1 (2185 hh tx) Wave 2 (1977 hh tx) Wave 3 (2341 hh tx) Wave 4 (2354 hh tx)

5.0

3.7 3.2

3.94.5

3.2

2.3

3.9

5.7

3.22.8

3.9

3.02.9 3.0

2.5

%H

and-heldUse

Figure 16

New York: Percent of Drivers Observed ManipulatingHand-Held Phone

0

1

2

3

4

56

7

89

PostPre

Syracuse Albany

PostPre PostPre PostPreWave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4

6.3

2.82.2

5.4 5.7

2.21.6

3.0

6.4

2.31.6

5.3

1.6

8.4

5.7

1.9

Figure 17

Percent of New York Drivers Observed Wearing anEarpiece

0

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5

5

PostPre

Syracuse Albany

PostPre PostPre PostPre1 2 3 4

4.3

2.2 2.3

2.83.3

1.8 1.7

2.6

1.9

3.2

1.2

2.9

2.0

3.7

2.9

2.3

%E

arpieceUse

This research note and other general inormation onhighway trafc saety may be accessed by Internetusers at: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/CATS/index.aspx
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/CATS/index.aspxhttp://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/CATS/index.aspx

federal efforts reduce distracted driving

Documents