ABSTRACT
Introduction Concurrent use of a cellphone while driving impairs driving abilities, and studies of policy effectiveness in reducing distracted driving have yielded mixed results. Furthermore, few studies have considered how hands-free phone use associates with handheld phone bans. It is not clear whether hand-held phone bans dissuade some drivers from using the phone while driving completely, or whether it simply promotes a shift to hands-free use. The present study estimates the association between handheld phone policies and self-reported talking on handsfree and handheld cellphones while driving.
Methods Our data consisted of 16,067 respondents to annual administrations of the Traffic Safety Culture Index from 2012-2017. Our primary exposure variable was handheld phone policy, and our primary outcome variables were self-reported talking on any phone, self-reported talking on a handheld phone, and self-reported talking on a hands-free phone while driving. We estimated adjusted prevalence ratios of the outcomes associated with handheld phone bans via modified Poisson regression.
Results Drivers in states with handheld bans were 13% less likely to self-report talking on any type of cellphone (handheld or handsfree) while driving. When broken down by cellphone type, drivers in states with handheld bans were 38% less likely to self-report talking on a handheld phone and 10% more likely to self-report talking on a hands-free phone while driving.
Conclusions Handheld phone bans were associated with more self-reported talking on hands-free phones and less talking on handheld phones, consistent with a substitution hypothesis. Handheld bans were also associated with less talking on any phone while driving, supporting a net safety benefit.
Practical Applications In the absence of a national ban on handheld phone use while driving, our study supports state handheld phone bans to deter distracted driving and improve traffic safety.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research did not receive any specific grant funding from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally obtained by contacting the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and filling out a data request form.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Updated a citation now that papers are listed on MedRXiv.
Data Availability
The study's survey data can be obtained by contacting the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and submitting a data request form. Programs for data processing and analysis can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.
