Elected State Legislators Sacramento, CA Subject: SWITRS Data Documenting Accidents Involving Inattention, and Teen-involved Accidents--Questioning The

Need For Addition Legislation (SB33). Elected Representative: Summary During the Spring of 2011, Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) introduced legislation to increase the fines on inattentive drivers, which made its way successfully through the both house of the Legislature. However, from the various media reports on this new law, there did not seem to be any reference to Staff Reports, or CHP SWITR Reports, that might justify such legislation. Given that Gov. Brown has vetoed Simitians bill (Appendix B), this communication will not be useful in defeating this legislation, but hopefully the information, and the analysis provided, will be helpful in dealing with future legislation that involves California drivers. Comments attributed to Simitian (Appendix A), such as: We know that driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes, and that cell phone use is the most common distraction should be buttressed by hard data from the SWITRS databases, common sense dictates. Are these claims actually true? Where is this data to prove these claims? This short paper provides much of this data, offering a different view of the world from that proposed by Sen. Simitian. The CHP SWITRS database provides raw data that can be analyzed to address this issue of inattention, and teen cell phone use. The material that follows, derived from the SWITRS data, provides an analysis of accidents over a fifteen year period that involved Inattention and Teen Cell Phone use. Additionally, as a control point, information about accidents involved Teens and Alcohol is provided. Accidents Caused By Inattention Traffic accidents are caused by any number of causeswith primary contributing factors range from unsafe speed to falling asleep. Inattention is but one of the many secondary causes. The table below lists the number of accidents, on a yearly basis from 1995-2009, showing the inattention data, and the cell phone involved data: Accidents Possibly Caused By Inattention (1995-2009)

Year

Total Accidents

Party Records

At Fault Parties

Not-AtFault Parties

Total Inattention Accidents

AtFault Inattention

NotAtFault Inattention

AtFaultCellphoneInvolved

Not-AtFaultCellPhoneInvolved

AtFaultHands Free

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

471758 475685 463894 482607 481764 511248 522562 544742 538955 538295 532725 519202 501907 452595 426228

927683 935817 913786 951329 956194 1014060 1037230 1086080 1068890 1067650 1051950 1024500 990499 888533 836862

420601 426372 418703 436420 431122 458675 469468 489517 483342 484614 480141 467149 450985 406616 385928

507082 509445 495083 514909 525072 555388 567758 596564 585550 583038 571813 557348 539514 481917 450934

85766 79898 74951 69617 66606 66832 48470 49916 42899 36827 37118 34188 31705 27601 25640

76399 71668 67531 63060 59921 59702 42385 43778 37422 32443 32794 30079 27901 24125 22726

9367 8230 7420 6557 6685 7130 6085 6138 5477 4384 4324 4109 3804 3476 2914

0 0 0 0 0 0 55190 109503 118608 50991 27700 21919 19833 14903 11074

0 0 0 0 0 0 68906 140720 150256 61256 30620 23701 20944 15678 11526

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 549 1937 3576 5009 6580 5865 4124

Table.1Total Accidents with details involving Inattention and Cell Phones.

Notes: 1) The CHP provides accident data in three files: a file containing master records, one (or more) party record(s), and if injuries were sustained by any of the occupants of the vehicles/parties involved, a victim record for each person in each of the vehicles where injuries occurred. 2) Police accident reports often are dirty, or contain erroneous data. 3) Concepts like inattention are hard to measure, requiring the full cooperation of parties involved with investigating police officers to insure truthful/correct data collection. 4) CHP did not collect much (if any) cell phone data prior to 2001. 5) Party records contain two fields that deal with inattention. Those fields are: Other_Associated_Factor_1, and Inattention. Review of these fields, by-and-large, reveals that not-stated as the overwhelming choice indicated by investigating officers. 6) Cell phone data was taken from the field: Special_Information_2. Discussion The first point to bring to the attention of the Legislature, as a whole, is that the number of accidents where inattention is a contributing factor has been going down, more-orless, continuously, from 1995 to 2009. While the reasons for this drop are not clear, it stands to reason that this decline probably can not be attributed to the various punitive measures that have been passed into law by the Legislature over the past couple of years. This decline is so great, that it would be difficult to make much out of any declines in the past two-three years without at least understanding the fifteen-year decline. The following graphic plots this total accident/Inattention cause relationship
Total Accidents vs Inattention Accident Count
600000 Number of Accidents 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0
19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 20 05 20 07 20 09

Total Accidents Inattention Accidents

Time Frame

Inattention Category Breakdown Because of the large amount of data involved in an inquiry such as this, only 2009 data will be presented. The following datasets are breakdowns of the Inattention field found in the Party records for 2009:
Party AT-FAULT: YES

other_associated_factor_1 Not Stated Violation Vision Obscurements Inattention Stop and Go Traffic Entering/Leaving Ramp Previous Collision Unfamiliar With Road Uninvolved Vehicle Other None Apparent Runaway Vehicle

Number 14868 49616 3469 22726 9317 4913 1523 2498 2586 4362 269391 826

Inattention Not Stated ( ) Not Stated (-) Cell Phone Handheld Cell Phone Hands Free Electronic Equip. Radio/CD Smoking Eating Children Animal Personal Hygiene Reading Other Cell Phone (Prior to 7/03)

Number 361184 16513 639 100 383 828 100 342 414 137 54 134 5087 13

Party AT-FAULT: NO

other_associated_factor_1 Not Stated Violation

Number 37221 13387

Vision Obscurements Inattention Stop and Go Traffic Entering/Leaving Ramp Previous Collision Unfamiliar With Road Uninvolved Vehicle Other None Apparent Runaway Vehicle

1164 2914 13926 3842 2461 370 899 2781 370686 797

Inattention Not Stated ( ) Not Stated (-) Cell Phone Handheld Cell Phone Hands Free Electronic Equip. Radio/CD Smoking Eating Children Animal Personal Hygiene Reading Other Cell Phone (Prior to 7/03)

Number 447697 2768 31 15 19 26 8 8 19 7 6 7 321 2

Table.2Details of Accidents Involving Inattention As can be seen, the number of accidents involving inattention as a primary contributory cause is fairly small.

Problems The following problems with accident data could affect the quality of this data: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Non-standard methodologies for accident reporting. Dirty Data Occasional inconsistencies in internal tallies. No checks-and-balances on soft data items (like cell phone use). Insufficient documentation about Accident Data from CHP.

The above list demonstrates the kinds of problems that using this data presents. However, given the vast resources of the State, and the hundreds of municipal law enforcement agencies, it is difficult to believe that those kinds of problems can not be overcome so that the data available from the CHP can be a reliable base of information for making reliable analyses, and for basing sound public polices. Accidents Involving Teenagers Senator Simitian seems concerned about teenagers being in accidents, which is understandableparticularly since teens as young as fifteen are legally behind the wheel here in California. Teens comprise only a small percentage of the total drivers using the streets and highways, but are responsible, by-and-large, more than ten percent of the total accidents that occur yearly. The following graphic tracks the actual percentage of accidents that involved teens over the past fifteen years:
Percentage Teen Accidents
14.0% Percentage of Total Accidents 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Time Frame Percentage Teen Accidents

The data in the graphic shows that teen-involved accidents have been decreasing over the past few years, although there is not enough data in the SWITRS data to discern reasons for this decline. However, there is enough data to see how driver age is a definite factor.

Cell Phone Involvement In Vehicular Accidents Cell phone involvement in accidents is reported in the SWITR Party records. This accident data allows for an analysis of at fault parties behavior, and not at fault parties behavior. The data also affords insight into the extent that handheld, and handsfree, cell phones, are involved in teen accidents. Note that there is a precipitous rise in the number of cell phone-involved accidents from 2001-2003, followed by a steep decline in the number of accidents where cell phones were in use by both at-fault, and not-at-fault, parties. Today, there are about 22,000 out of 425,000 accidents, statewide ,where cell phones are reported in use when an accident occurs (about 5%). Clearly, the decline of cell-phone involved accidents from the high in 2003, to 2007, preceded penalties imposed by legislation.

Vehicular Accidents In California Involving Teens

Year Total Accidents Total Teen Accidents % Teen Accidents 2001 522562 64108 12.3% 2002 544742 66943 12.3% 2003 538955 63959 11.9% 2004 538295 63110 11.7% 2005 532725 60638 11.4% 2006 519202 56894 11.0% 2007 501907 53422 10.6% 2008 452595 44648 9.9%

2009 426228 40059 9.4%

At-Fault: 15 Year Olds At-Fault: 16 Year Olds At-Fault: 17 Year Olds At-Fault: 18 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 15 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 16 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 17 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 18 Year Olds

1024 8450 12557 18798 356 4035 7271 11617

1085 8869 13266 19355 376 4334 7837 11821

Accidents Involving Teen Drivers 1096 1075 954 879 778 8292 7946 7109 6471 5769 12858 12558 12341 11654 10850 18685 19098 19105 18464 17646 376 324 351 274 254 3835 3759 3334 2776 2575 7263 6937 6734 6075 5722 11554 11413 10710 10301 9828

574 4622 8946 15511 177 1941 4578 8299

528 3877 7986 14471 163 1646 3812 7576

Total Teens Involved At-Fault: 15 Year Olds At-Fault: 16 Year Olds At-Fault: 17 Year Olds At-Fault: 18 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 15 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 16 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 17 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 18 Year Olds

8295 80 1073 1673 2690 33 474 844 1428

Accidents Involving Teen Drivers Using Cell Phones 17205 18543 8061 4128 3274 2815 1787 166 200 95 41 44 46 23 2286 2470 1015 495 372 309 181 3357 3842 1645 912 708 619 364 5232 5628 2468 1364 1087 965 650 84 89 35 13 16 13 7 1014 1041 478 212 152 134 76 1947 2049 867 416 357 273 159 3119 3224 1458 675 538 456 327 Teens Killed In Vehicular Accidents 246 285 274 222 209

1257 18 113 260 497 3 31 131 204

Total Teens Killed

238

283

163

118

Teens Killed/Cells Involved At-Fault: 15 Year Olds At-Fault: 16 Year Olds At-Fault: 17 Year Olds At-Fault: 18 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 15 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 16 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 17 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 18 Year Olds

28 1 0 7 16 0 1 0 3

Teens Killed In Vehicular Accidents Involving Cell Phone Use. 67 54 26 8 7 5 3 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 7 4 3 0 1 0 0 24 18 4 2 3 2 0 27 22 14 6 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Teens Killed In Vehicular Accidents Involving Alcohol. Teens Killed/Alcohol Involved At-Fault: 15 Year Olds At-Fault: 16 Year Olds At-Fault: 17 Year Olds At-Fault: 18 Year Olds 36 0 2 14 18 63 0 5 10 41 47 0 7 10 29 70 4 9 16 39 55 2 3 12 34 54 0 6 16 24 41 1 5 10 21 35 0 4 12 19

36 1 1 6 27

Not-At-Fault: 15 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 16 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 17 Year Olds Not-At-Fault: 18 Year Olds

0 0 1 1

0 0 2 5

0 1 0 0

0 0 1 1

0 1 2 1

0 2 1 5

0 0 1 3

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

Table.3Details of Teen-Involved Accidents Discussion While one might come to believe that the number of teenager-involved accidents seems to be too high, the actual number of deaths resulting from these accidents is fairly low. The data in Table.3 shows that the number of teen deaths in vehicular accidents where cell phones are involved is very small. (The number of teen deaths in accidents where alcohol is involved is included in Table.3 as a control point.) When the number of accidents gets to be this small, the likelihood of even further reductions in the death/accident rates can reasonably be called into question. Conclusion The legislation marshaled through the Legislature by Senator Joe Simitian intended to increase the fines on drivers that were using Cell Phones may, from a superficial analysis, seem appropriate. However, reviewing the data painstakingly complied by thousands of local law enforcement officers investigating traffic accidents around the stateit is not difficult to come to the opposite conclusion. The SWITRS data shows cell phone involvement (at least for the at-fault parties) to be fairly low. Declines in cell phone-involved accidents seems to have been on-going prior the introduction of any of legislation increasing fines to act as a detriment. This decline begs the question as to what exactly the purpose of this legislation might actually be? All responsible people would concur that texting while driving is not a good idea, but reasonable do doubts arise that increased penalties will force a further decline in cell in the already low phone-involved accident rates.

Legislators, there is a wealth of data about California traffic accident history in the SWITRS databases. It only seems reasonable to ask for Staff Reports, or CHP Reports, based on actual California data to be required as a part of the legislative process--so that all laws enacted by the Legislature be based on publicly-available data, at the least. The public has a right to expect that the legislative process is comprehensive, and based on credible data, not the predispositions of well-meaning individuals that may not bear out under scrutiny. If Sen. Simitian offers this bill again, at some time in the future, please demand that hard data from the SWITRS data repository be used to justify any such new laws. Thank you for your time considering this matter. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA www.twitter.com/wmartin46 www.scribd.com/wmartin46 www.youtube.com/wmartin46 09.08.2011

Appendix A
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 26, 2007 For More Information, Contact: Sarah Mason at (916) 651-4011 STATE SENATE PASSES SIMITIAN BILL TO PROHIBIT TEENS USE OF CELL PHONES WHILE DRIVING SACRAMENTO State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) announced today that the State Senate passed SB 33, his bill to prohibit drivers under the age of 18 from using a cell phone while driving, on a bipartisan 21-14 vote. The bill will now be sent to the Assembly for a hearing in June or July. I introduced this bill for one simple reason - it will save lives, said Simitian. No one would argue that just because we cant eliminate all the distractions affecting driver safety, we shouldnt eliminate the ones we can. This is especially true when it comes to young drivers. SB 33, which would go into effect on July 1, 2008, would prohibit drivers under the age of 18 from using cell phones or any mobile service devices (walkie-talkies, pagers, two-way messaging devices, and PDAs) while driving, even with a hands-free device. Violators would be assessed a $20 fine for the first offense, and a $50 fine for subsequent offenses, with no violation point on the violators driving record. According to a 2001 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 16 yearold drivers have a crash rate three times higher than that of 17 year-olds, five times greater than 18 year-olds and almost ten times greater than drivers ages 30-59. Additionally, according to Ford Motor Company research, teen drivers are four times more distracted than adult drivers when using a cell phone while driving. We know that driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes, and that cell phone use is the most common distraction, Simitian noted. And most alarmingly, teen-aged drivers are four times more distracted than adult drivers when using a cell phone. Asking young drivers to wait until the age of 18 before they pick up that cell phone is a modest imposition that will save lives. Thats why the National Transportation Safety Board recently put a cell phone ban for young drivers on their Most Wanted list of Safety Recommendations to States, he added. SB 33 is similar to laws already on the books in 13 states and the District of Columbia. Similar legislation is pending in 16 other states. Simitian is also the author of last years SB 1613, which was signed by the Governor last fall and requires all California drivers using their cell phones to use a hands-free device. SB 1613 will go into effect on July 1, 2008.

For more information on SB 33, visit http://www.senate.ca.gov .

Appendix B http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/series_can.do? storeName=computer_store&landing=notebooks&a1=Processor&v1=Intel&a2=Category &v2=High %20performance&aoid=82492/dm:_N5823.AdMeld_70084548_245364326_43838969

September 7, 2011 Jerry Brown vetoes fine hike for using cell phones while driving

Gov. Jerry Brown has nixed a proposal that would have made penalties more pricey for California motorists caught using cell phones behind the wheel. Senate Bill 28, by Democratic Sen. Joe Simitian, proposed upping the fine for drivers caught texting or talking on a cell phone without a hands-free device from $20 to $50 for the first offense. The final tab with local and state assessments could be up to $328 for fist-time offenders. A second ticket could have cost has much as $528 under the under the Palo Alto Democrat's proposal, which also called for new penalties for using cell phones while riding a bicycle. Simitian, who had authored the state's laws targeting talking and texting while driving, called the veto "a lost opportunity to save more lives." "I'm disappointed, but the Governor gets the last word," Simitian said in a statement. "I understand and accept that. My job now is to figure out where do we go from here." The Democratic governor announced his decision in a veto message released today. "I certainly support discouraging cell phone use while driving a car, but not ratcheting up the penalties as prescribed by this bill," he wrote. "For people of ordinary means, current fines and penalty assessments should be sufficient." PHOTO CREDIT: Effect July 1st, 2008 new law requiring ear devices for cell phones begins in California. Sacramento Bee photograph by Jose Luis Villegas, June 25, 2008.

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/jerry-brown-vetoes-increasein.html#ixzz1XI5BvrP9