Cell phone use while driving in North Carolina : 2002 update report

Stutts, Jane C.; Huang, Herman F.; Hunter, William W. · 2002 · ROSA P / United States. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the safety implications of cellular telephone use while driving in North Carolina, serving as a follow-up to earlier research funded by the North Carolina Governor’s Highway Safety Program. The research addresses the growing prevalence of cell phone ownership and the resulting debate regarding the magnitude of associated crash risks and appropriate regulatory responses. The study employed three distinct methodologies: a statewide telephone survey of licensed drivers, an analysis of historical crash data, and a supplementary data collection effort by the North Carolina State Highway Patrol. The telephone survey, conducted in mid-2002, targeted 500 cell phone users and 150 non-users aged 18 and older. Results indicated that an estimated 58.8% of licensed drivers in the state had used a cell phone while driving. Usage was highest among drivers aged 25–54 and was more prevalent among males and SUV drivers. On average, users reported spending 14.5 minutes per day talking on the phone while driving, though the median was only 5.0 minutes. Approximately 28% of users possessed hands-free devices, which they perceived as making driving easier and safer, though they did not always utilize them. Notably, users generally viewed cell phone use as less distracting than non-users and were less supportive of strict legislative bans or harsher penalties for cell phone-related crashes. To assess crash characteristics, researchers analyzed 452 cell phone-related crashes identified via computerized narrative search of state data from 1996 to 2000, comparing them to nearly 1.1 million non-cell phone crashes. Cell phone crashes were less likely to result in serious or fatal injuries but were nearly twice as likely to involve rear-end collisions (45.1% vs. 25.6%). These crashes occurred more frequently during mid-day or afternoon hours, in urban areas, and on local streets. Drivers involved in these crashes were predominantly male, under 55, and driving SUVs. The most common driver violations cited were failure to reduce speed (23.5%) and traffic signal violations (9.6%). A two-month data collection period by the State Highway Patrol identified 29 additional cell phone crashes, all but one involving hand-held phones. The primary activity during these crashes was talking or listening, rather than dialing. Based on this patrol data, researchers estimated that cell phones are involved in approximately 1,475 crashes annually in North Carolina, accounting for roughly 0.16% of crashes in non-metropolitan areas. The study concludes that while cell phone use is widespread and associated with specific crash patterns—particularly rear-end collisions in urban settings—users often underestimate the distraction risk, complicating efforts to implement effective safety regulations.

Key finding

Cell phone-related crashes were nearly twice as likely to involve rear-end collisions (45.1 percent) compared to non-cell phone crashes (25.6 percent).

Methodology

mixed_methods

Sample size: 650

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified_with_issues.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• mobile phones
• distraction laws
• incidence prevalence
• sex gender

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: policy recommendations
• Empirical Findings: observational prevalence, crash risk outcomes