Cell Phone Study

7/27/2019 Cell Phone Study

1/34

92

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2013, 5(3): 92125http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/pol.5.3.92

Driving under the (Cellular) Infuence

By Saurabh Bhargava and Vikram S. Pathania*

We investigate the causal link between driver cell phone use andcrash rates by exploiting a natural experiment induced by the 9pm

price discontinuity that characterizes a majority o recent cellularplans. We frst document a 7.2 percent jump in driver call likelihoodat the 9pmthreshold. Using a prior period as a comparison, we nextdocument no corresponding change in the relative crash rate. Ourestimates imply an upper bound in the crash risk odds ratio o 3.0,

which rejects the 4.3 asserted by Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997).Additional panel analyses o cell phone ownership and cellular bansconfrm our result. (JEL R41)

D w ? T New York Times/CBS Nw - 80 A .1 T . O w , 125 x

.2 I New England Journalo Medicine, R T (1997), RT 4.3. L w (RT; S, Dw, C 2006).

I , w, 40 7 , N Hw T S A

1 T 829 w O 2009. T q . T ://www../2009/11/02/-/ 02x.

2 A MC, H, B 2006.

*B: D S D S, C M U, 5000 F A,P, PA, 15213 (-: @w..); P: D M, L S E, H S, L, WC2A 2AE (-: ..@..). T AA, P B, D B, D C, Rj C, S DV, L E, R F,R H, M G, J G, E K, B Kz, P K, RMj, T M, E M, O N, J P, Mw R, J S, A V,G W w E D UC B, G S P P UC B, H B S, H S P H, MS P H C U, U C B S B . G W, G D, N E, Aw S E O R . W w UC B IBER j. D , w.

G ://x../10.1257/.5.3.92 () .


2/34

VOL. 5 NO. 3 93BHARGAVA AND PATHANIA: DRIVING UNDER THE(CELLULAR) INFLUENCE

(NHTSA), F 1 zz. C w (.., /) w 1988, 140 740 1993, 81 w w -

.N w

. I , w q , , w . S,w x x w z 2002 2005 9pm w.

W

w . O w j j C w-w 2005. G w, . W , w 106,000 477,000 w 300 400 w. T w, - US , , .

F 2 M T, F, w . W ww , 7.2 9 pm w . W 9 pm w. W

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0In

dexedcrashesperbillionhighway

milestraveled

C

ellularownership(asashareofU

Spopulation)

Fatalcrashes

All crashes

Cellularownership

Figure 1. Cellular Ownership and Crashes Per Vehicle Mile Traveled in the

United States for 1988 to 2005


3/34

94 AMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL: ECONOMIC POLICY AUGUST 2013

( ) 30,000 26 9 pm . T 9 pm

.W x w -

. I j w z , w z. W , w . T , w - 9 pm z w .

F 3 C M T 2005 1995 1998. 3 T, q , 2005, x 2002 2005, 9 pm - . W z - w w . P w x , w , .

O 9 pm 3.0 ( 1 .. 1.4)

3 T F 3 .

150

200

250

300

8 PM 8:30 PM 9 PM 9:30 PM 10 PM

Averagenumberofscaledmovingcalls

Monday to Thursday

Weekend

Friday

Time (1-minute bins)

Figure 2. Cell Phone Call Volume from Moving Vehicles for California from 8pm to 10pm in 2005


4/34


. T j 4.3 RT,

w RT. T . T 7 w 13 w (L P 2001).

O j . F, w - 9 pm M T. C , RT,

. W w x , , , x .S, w j , . I , w - . F, w - . Hw, w - w q .

W w w . A x - w w . A ,

0

5

10

15

20

8 PM 8:20 PM 8:40 PM 9 PM 9:20 PM 9:40 PM 10 PM

Postperiod

Preperiod

Time (10-minute bins)

Averagenumberofcrashes

Figure 3. Crash Rate for California from 8pm to 10pm in Preperiods(1995 to 1998)and Postperiods (2005) (Monday to Thursday)


5/34


, .

W x w x .O -

(Pz 1975). H T (1999) x : w - (.., w ) w (.., ). A -, (K 2009).

O . E q -w , 37 .4 Y (.., H T 1999; H, T, B 2000; L .2000; C G 2003), . F , w , -z , , . I , . A , . M , w w -

.

T w. S I - w . T w - . I S III, w , w x , . T .

I. Background

T w q x w . O : () L j , , ; () - ; () w; () . B ,

4N 28 ( G Hw S Aw F 2012).


6/34


q . S x- x.5

Cell Phone Use and Crash Risk.I x

, j (.., q, , , w, ) . T - j (S, Dw, J 2003) x (S, Dw, C 2006). I, w - (C . 2008). S , , w, w w w-, , .

A , , - . I x- , q 100 w 241 (NHTSA 2006).A 43,000 , w (.., 1.3 - , w 95 CI 0.93 1.90).6L ,

z . G , w, z (L . 2000). A, x , x ,(.., ), w .

A , w , - w w , . I x , K (2009) - w w

1997 2005. A x, K (2009) , w , 16 (w 95 CI 7 +39 ).7 K (2009) , , w w (.., w w).

5 Ex H P 2006; MC, H, B 2006; P

H 2007; C . 2008. A w x.6 T 78 69 65 761 -

w . T - 3.0.

7 T x w .


7/34


K (2009) x w w . A w , (.., ),

C, C, Nw Y, W DC, (HLDI 2009). O, q .8

T 1990 ( F 1) .F x, - - - - w .9 T w w-, x - w , q. O K (2009) w w , w , .

A . T w RT. I , 699 T .10 T -

q, q - - x . F , x , w x . U -, 4.3 (w 95 CI 3.0 6.5) w (5.3) - (3.9).11 A - A

4.1 , , w - (4.9) - (3.8)(ME . 2005).W RT , , -

, w. F,

8 T w . T - . N .

9 W K (2009) x w , w x -. T 3 K (2009)

w (.., w, , w, w ). G , z , w .

10 A U S .

11 T .


8/34


(H P2006). A , P H (2007) W .(2003) w . S, w RT

x , - .12 F, w w RT , , .

I , Y S (2009) w - - OS. OS w .T 2001 2003 - 3 OS w 0.62 (w 95 CI 0.37 1.05). W , w , . I , ww. A - .13

T 1 z . T , w, q .

Frequency o Cellular Use by Drivers.A q . T w N O P U S (NOPUS) - () 2000 NHTSA. F 2005 NOPUS,

w 8 am 6 pm 1,200 w J 2005. Sx 43,000 w . T , x , 4 w - 10 (NHTSA 2005).14 NOPUS : 6 2002, 7 2003, 8 2004 10 2005 (NHTSA 2002 2005). NOPUS

12 H T(1999) w (.., w

) x .13 T w B, L, MC q II Hw S w M 2009.

14 NOPUS - w, 2005, w 0.7 . T NOPUS - - w ( S . 2003 D E D).


9/34


w 10 16 24 2005 (G 2005).15

O .W w w x .T - . I , 2006, q - w 113 I

9:30 pm 5:45 am (V . 2008). T 6.9 9:30 pm 12 am (N= 3774) w NOPUS .16 A , 2001, - 40,000 NJ T (J . 2004). O , 1.5 - w NOPUS .A, w (.., 8 pm 12 am) (.., 12 pm 4 pm)

15 A - - W, DC,M V (MC H 2007). T 5.8 2004.T 4 NOPUS 2004.

16 T 2 am (.., 3.1 2 4 am 1.3 4 5:45 am).

Table 1Effect of Cellular Use on Crash Risk: Comparison by Methodology

R A

P 1.0 0%

(9 pm ) (3.0 ) (20% )

Ex 3 4 20 30% (S 2003, 2006) (x 2005)

N 1.3 3% (NHTSA 2006) (x 2005)

P 1.25 1% (L . . 2000)

Ow 2.6 16% ( )11% w

(K 2009)

I 4.3 33% (RT) (x 2005)

Notes: T x -. I w w x , w x w, , , q w . Ex 2005, x- w . F x, 2005 w RT 4.3 , w - NOPUS 2005 10 - (.., (0.9 1)+ (0.1 4.3)) 33 .


10/34


. P , , D.

T 1 -

w . C 10 NOPUS 2005, z , w .17

II. Empirical Analysis

A.Description o Data

T w w, , , . T T A1 Ax. W - Ax.

Cellular Ownership.M w q w . W 1999 2007, 1985 2005, FCC E A 2001 2005 2007 FCC CT I A (CTIA).18 F A1 Ax w w w w

.19 O, w x . B 2007, x w w j .

Cellular Pricing Plans.T x . W - 1999 2005 E O R, FCC S&P I R.20 T

26 j , 30 , 30,000 , w - .

17 A x 10 , , , 4.3 33 . R . A, 1 33 .

18

H w w B L S.19 D CMRS C R FTC.20 T E O W S: A I S C PCS

P P. I - w . E O R . T FCC A R C S C C M R S I, FCC w.


11/34


Call Likelihood.T w , w 2005 q j w . T w ,

, C x300 400 w ( w). T w w ( w x ). A w w w w w x . D w , w w.21R x x w w w w w . Hw, w j ww w . T 11 - 2005 w .22 W , w 276,000 1.24 .23 A - 2.6 ( TNST w), 106,000 477,000 .

Tw x . T (, MIT) w q MIT M L w

j , -, .24 A 65j x 80,000 A 2004 M 2005. A , , , 741,000 9,864 2000 2001 w - TNS T (, TNS). T Ax .

Crash Records.O w .F, S D S (SDS) 1990 2005 C, F, I, K, M, M,M, O, P.25 A w z w - . T

21 E w x w w w w. T, .

22M 14- , w x.

23

T w .

24 E, N, Ax P. 2006. R M: S Cx S S. Personal andUbiquitous Computing 10 (4): 25568.

25A SDS, w - . A -


12/34


j . O - , ,

, w . W q , z NHTSA w z .26F 4 z - 2005 . A x 11 x , 31 , , q , 61 z .

S, F A R S (FARS), NHTSA, 1987 2007 50 . FARS w30 . L SDS , FARS .

F 1 , x w , 1988 2007.27 T - , w -1990. M

- w (.., P 2002; I 2004 2005).

26 S q . M w ( $400 $500) q w-w .

27 C G E S, NHTSA, FARS.

Totalnumberofcrashes

Representative minute

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

0 20 40 60

Figure 4. Periodicity in SIDS Crashes across Representative Hour in 2005 for All States in Sample


13/34


w . T -1990 x w (NHTSA 2005).I , 40,000 , x x

w.

B.Estimation Strategy and Identiying Assumptions

W - . L (Crashrpwt) r , p, w (.., M T) w, w, t. P z w

(.., 2002 2005)(p = 1), w w 9 pm (..,1995 1998)(p = 0). I w, j , Trafcrpwt, , RepBiasrpwt, , CallVolrpwt, w .

CallVolrpwt . T , Trafcrpwt,

, CallLikerpwt. T - w, , , , w - . A , X, , w , :

(Crashrpwt) = + 1Trafcrpwt+ 2RepBiasrpwt+ 3Xrpwt

+ CallVolrpwt(CallLike,Trafc) + rpwt.

I w , ,R, :E(|R) 0. S CallLikerpwt

, w . O w 9 pm . A w w

.O z ww -

, t, , t, - ,Dr11t. W


14/34


X - CallLikerpwt

Dr11t= (Crashr11t) (Crashr11t) = 1Trafcr11t

+ 2RepBiasr11t+ CallVolr11t+ vr11t.

T , CallVolr11t, w - .

O . T w , , 9 pm w . S , w, 9 pm .

T , w - x, .28

I , , , - , , w ,

DDrp1t, - . Cw q:29

DDrp1t=Dr11tDr01t= (CallVolr11t CallVolr01t) + vrp1t.T w . W , ,

. I , 9 pm .30 F, - , , w w,DDrp 0 t, x .

I x w, w x - , x , CallVolr11t|price, ,CallVolr01t|price, z . W x ,

28 W RD 9 pm q. W , w . T w ( RD ).

29 A x 9 pm , w -

, .30 I, ,

, . F x, , 2 9 pm , q 0.4 .


15/34


16/34


Call Likelihood.D x ? A Pw R C -

1,503 2006, 44 .33 I 30,000 , w x w j w, , 50 60 .34 T w w .

W x w w 106,000 477,000 C 11- 2005.F 2 8 10 pm M

T, F, w . A 9 pm w w w . C, - M T 9 pm w F.35 W F w? O

w (, x, w , , ), , w , w 1999 . W w w w w.

33

S Pw R C Pw I A LPj A 2006.

34 T 30,000 T CustomerValue Metrics Service 2006.

35 A w j F q w.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Estimatedlegacyshare

Year

No threshold

9 PM

8 PM

10PM6 PM

7 PM

Weighted 9 PMaverage (2002 to 2005)

Figure 5. Estimated Legacy Share for National Plans by Price Threshold and Year for 1999 to 2005


17/34


18/34


w w 9 pm w x - . M, w 1999 w w, w , - - -- .39

39

T , 1998 9 pm 2 . Aw 2 ( 2000 NOPUS 4 -, w, - w , w 2 ) 9 pm 0.04 (.., 0.02 0.02). G 2005, w 10 , q w q 0.4

Table 2Change in Call Likelihood at 9 pm Threshold

D ( /)

M T F

8:009:59 8:309:29 8:459:14 8:559:04 8:559:0460 30 15 5 5

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

A 9 pm 0.072*** 0.067*** 0.082*** 0.070*** 0.041***

(0.004) (0.005) (0.006) (0.009) (0.008)

O N= 600 N= 300 N= 150 N= 50 N= 20

M T A W8 pm 1 pm 5 10 pm 9 pm

( 9 pm)

7:558:04 9:5510:04 x:55x:04 8:559:04

5 5 5 5 A 9 pm 0.025

(0.021)

A 8 pm 0.027*(0.015)

A 10 pm 0.006(0.018)

A 0.016(0.027)

O N= 50 N= 50 N= 400 N= 20

Notes: T - . T ( /). D . T M T ww 9 pm , w 9 pm F . T w x (.., 8 10 pm) M T, 5 10 pm,x 9 pm, , 9 pm w. A w OLS , F 5- . R .

***S 1 . *S 10 .


19/34


A - . W , w 9 pm. W

x (.., NOPUS). T dierentially 9 pm .

W - . W w , w x -. NOPUS w 4 (NHTSA 2006). I , , , w q . O w 9 pm . Hw, , 7.2 6.8 w . I w , 6.4 . F, - three times , 5.4 .40 I

, w - w w .

Generalizability o First Stage.W x w x - z , , . A w, FCC , 2005 w w (78 ) w w w- (68 ) w (71 ).

9 pm . W 9 pm 2 2005 1998 (10 /2 ).

40 W w () (2005 C 23 970,000 ); () NOPUS (13.3 3.3 , , - ); () - ; () . T 2x , 6.4 . I 3x , 5.4 . T 2x , 19 (.., 0.23/(0.77 + 0.23 + 0.23)). G

, 2x , 13 (.., 2 (0.19 0.033)/(2 0.19 0.033 + 0.19 0.033 +0.63 0.134)).Nx, x 9 pm, w 2x , , 0.87x + 0.13 2x = 7.2 w x= 6.4 .I w , w x.


20/34


T MIT TNS w z , , ( Ax ). O Ax F A2 80,000 - MIT 23

9 pm M T F, w . O Ax T A3 , TNS , q 23 M T, .41

C, , , , , .W , w w z . Wx q w .

D. Change in Crash Rate at9 pmThreshold

Reporting Bias.A - . O w w w (.., 30 60 ). W w ,

. A w w . A , w j .42 A, w w , -, - .

Crash Analysis.W

C 2005. F 3 - M T C 8 10 pm 2005 1995 1998. T .T 9 pm . F A3 Ax M T C 8 10 pm 2005 w . N .

41 T w , w .

42 I , , w w - , j, .


21/34


W 9 pm M T w w P :43

E[Crashsymdtb | . ] = x( + (Posty Ater9 pmb)yb+ 1Ater9 pmb

+ 2Posty+ s+ y+ m+ d),

w Crashsymdtb s, y, m, wd, t, b.Posty w w 9 pm, Ater9 pmb w 9 pm. T (Post Ater9 pm)yb x . T , , , w .

I, x ww 9 pm M T. W 60- ww / C 8 9:59 pm 2005 w 1995 1998. I , w 30- w-w 8:30 9:29 pm. T w ww 9 pm , .A x, ww. T

w 9 pm w 1999, w - w , , w . O - .44

T T 3 C.T w -z - w 30- ww.

O . W x

C. F, w - w PMS .45 W 9 pm .46 S, , 30- , w

43 T . M z . O (.., , ).

44 R q. N 1990 - .

45

W PMS w . T x w . Hw, , DOT w, 9 pm w .

46 W - x C 8 10 pm, M T, . T b=0.0040, = 0.0045 2005 b=0.0012, = 0.0042 2002 2005. T x


22/34


w 30 . A, w j .

Nx, , w

x 2002 2005 w . T w w 30- 60- ww.F, w w w :C, F, I, K, M, M, M, O, P.47 T x - x 8 . O Ax F A4 x .

, , , w . E .

47 S - SDS w q . S, I 1996 2003, P 2002.

Table 3Relative Prepost (Monday to Thursday) Change in Crash Rate at 9 pm Threshold

D

C

2005 2002 2005

8:009:59 8:309:29 8:009:59 8:309:2960- 30- 60- 30-

(1) (2) (3) (4)

PostAter9 pm 0.001 0.004 0.010 0.012(0.019) (0.024) (0.012) (0.016)

O N= 2,088 N= 2,088 N= 3,342 N= 3,342

Ex

2005 2002 2005

8:009:59 8:309:29 8:009:59 8:309:29

60- 30- 60- 30-

PostAter9 pm 0.014 0.003 0.006 0.002(0.013) (0.015) (0.008) (0.010)

O N= 17,960 N= 13,784 N= 28,410 N= 21,726

Notes: T 9 pm M T (..,2005, 2002 2005) (1995 1998) x. T PostAter9 pm 9 pm . T C. T w 60- 30- 2005, w x w 2002 2005. T x w : C, F, I, K, M, M,M, O, P. P 2002 I 1995, 2004, 2005. M O x 30- -

. A P . Fx ,, , w w . R .


23/34


T w T 3 x .I x 2005 .T , w 30- ww, x M O , ,

2000.48

Ex . O w , x 60- , 0.97 2002 2005 1.18 2005.49 O, .50

W w FARS. A x , SDS , x 50 . A () w 150 q w j 40,000 . M, w . Cq . T 9pm M T 2002 2005 1995 1998 (b=0.058, ..: 0.033). T w (b= 0.028, ..:0.042).51

Placebo and Robustness Checks.T 4 -

x . T 8 10 pm 30- 60- ww. T w w 30- 60- ww 9 pm. T w x , w 9 pm, 9 pm. A, w , , ,

48 W 60- 30- .Ex M, O, I, 60- PostAter9 pm 2005 b=0.008, = 0.013, 2002 2005 b=0.003, = 0.009. T 30-- 2005 b=0.003, = 0.016 2002 2005 b= 0.000, = 0.010.

49 N z, P . U 95 w .

50 O -- . A , w w ww 9 pm. P 1-, 15-, 30-, 60- - w, . W j

ww 9 pm. R ( F 3 A4).

51 J , P -- . W x- 60- 9 pm 2002 2005 1995 1998 . W x , , , w. D z , w .


24/34


x 9 pm w, w w .52

T w T 4 -

ww 15 . D j - , ww - ww . T w ww . T w q - . A, C 2, w 8:01 9:00

52

W x . T - 30- ww 9 pm b=0.0082, = 0.0138, w 10 pm , = 0.0004, = 0.0135, w 8 pm . W 60- ww x w . T w w , 60- ww, b=0.0177, = 0.0147.

Table 4Relative Prepost (Monday to Thursday) Change at 9 pm Placebo and Robustness Checks

D

P

x , 2002 2005

8 pm 10 pm W7:008:59 7:308:59 9:0010:59 9:3010:29 8:009:59 8:309:29

60- 30- 60- 30- 60- 30- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

PostAterX pm 0.006 0.002 0.006 0.007 0.011 0.010

(0.007) (0.009) (0.007) (0.010) (0.012) (0.013)

O N= 28410 N= 21,726 N= 28,410 N= 21,726 N= 14,176 N= 10,840

R Ex , 2002 2005

8:459:14 8:0110:00 8:019:59 8:0110:00 8:019:59 8:319:29

15- 60- 59- 58- 48- 24- S :01 N :00 N :00, :30 N :05 N :05

PostAter9 pm 0.001 0.013 0.011 0.004 0.006 0.017(0.013) (0.008) (0.009) (0.009) (0.011) (0.015)

O N= 21,726 N= 21,726 N= 21,726 N= 21,726 N= 21,726 N= 21,726

Notes: T - x 2002 2005, x. T M T 8 pm 10 pm, w 9 pm w. A - 60- 30- ww . T w . T 15- ww 9 pm M T. T -

, w w . I , 9 pm w 9 pm 60- , w - ( x - ) ww . T x T 3. R .


25/34


w 9:01 10:00 . T x - eliminating -

j . F, w x x 8:00 9:00

; w x 8:30 9:30; , , w x - .O - . T - ww. A , w , , w M T .

I , 9 pm . T z. T 0.97 x 1.18 x 2005.

E. Panel Analyses o Ownership, Legislation, and Crashes

W w w . F Ax.

I , w - w EA. EA FCC (172 w) w w -. O x 60 EA 1990 2005, 1989 2007. U w x , w w w w , w - w w (b=0.0004,

..: 0.0014 ; b= 0.002, ..: 0.001 ).I , w Nw Y, Nw J, C, w C W, DC.N w w -, w - w .

F 6 w w . W x Nw Y, w (t+ 5).W Nw Y, , S 11, 2001. I , Nw Y , w


26/34


N 2001, w w M 2002 w (t+ 4) . L z

. A , Ax, z.

III. Discussion

Sensitivity o Results to Assumptions.T - w . W j

x , 4.3 - RT, q w 9 pm w . T w w 9 pm.

A 9 pm - . E x w . B w (V . 2008;J . 2004), w 106,000 477,000 2005. A x , 8 am 6 pm 8 9 pm M T, 8 9 pm , , , 8 9 pm

0

50

100

150

t 5 t= 0 t+ 5 t+ 10 t+ 15 t+ 20 t+ 25

Months since ban enacted

Numberoffatalcrashes

New York

New Jersey

Connecticut

Washington, DC

Chicago, IL

Figure 6. Fatal Crash Rate Before and After Cellular Ban


27/34


NOPUS (b= 0.317, ..: 0.004). A 9 pm NOPUS (b= 0.353, ..: 0.020). T, NOPUS

(.., 7.8 2002 2005, 10 2005) , , x .A 9 pm.53 T

7.2 M T . O w 9 pm - 2005 2002 2005.

T x ,T 5 (.., x 2002 2005, x 2005) 9 pm. F x, 7.8 , 9 pm 7.2 , 0.97 (x 2002 2005) 95 3.0 ( 1 .. 1.4).54 Fx 9 pm 7.2 , w 6 wj RT ( 4.3) w 3.6 (x 2002 2005). M, x j

9 pm, , x 4.3.

Plausible Explanations or the Eect.I , , w , , ? T x w q.

O x w . S Pz E,

z Pz (1975) x , ww, , , . I Ax, w

53 I ww 9pm w. T - . T w q w w.

54 T x 9 pm -: %CrashRat et

UB CrashRat et = CrashRat etCell + CrashRat et

NonCell = [x CellUs et]+ [1 NonCellUset]. CrashRatet

Cell w ,x,

z , CellUset, w 9 pm . CrashRatet

NonCell , z 1, 9pm(.., NonCellUset). S, , CrashRatet, 9pm. T q 2002 2005 0.0097[1 (1 0.078)+ x(0.078)] = [x(0.072 0.078) + 1(0.072 0.078)]. S x 3.0.


28/34


w w , , . T x. I ,

w j - ( C . 2008 - 33 ).55 Hw, (.., R, G, W 2004), w (R2006).56T w w x (.., S, T, C 2005).

T w . I x , Mzz . (2004) , - (

q ), . W , , w , w w . T Nw J T (.., 15 ) 20 w ( ) (J . 2004).

A x w (H T 1999). I , - (.., w ,

55

C . (2008) z - ( w ) r= 0.23 (w 95 CI 0.06 0.40 N= 495), w z r= 0.39 (w 95 CI 0.26 0.52 N= 160). T , w, z .

56 W .

Table 5Sensitivity of Crash Risk Implied by Upper Bounds of 9 pm Analysis

C

Ex (2002 2005) Ex (2005)

B 9 pm B 9 pm

9 pm 6% 7% 7.8% 9% 7% 7.8% 9% 10%

5.2% 4.8 4.3 3.9 3.5 5.2 4.8 4.3 3.9

6.2% 4.1 3.6 3.4 3.1 4.4 4.0 3.6 3.4

7.2% 3.6 3.2 3.0 2.7 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.0

8.2% 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.5 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.7

9.2% 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.5

Notes: T

9 pm x 60- ww. T - w , w 9 pm. T w x w x: ub[1 (1b) + x(b)]=[x(bc) + 1(bc)], w ub , b , c j 9 pm. A x.


29/34


w , DVD). P H - z (2007). I 3,869 C -,

- , - , -, (W . 2003).F, -

.57 W z, w , w w . F x, . T NHTSA 100,000 , 1500 (2004), 100 , 20 12 - w (NHTSA 2006).58

Limitations to the Result.W w .A 9 pm. W w w - z ( w ). F, , , z . Hw,

(NHTSA 2000). T , , w , , . T x x , j , , .59

S, (.., ) x w 9 pm . F ww , w 9 pmw , ,

9 pm w w . W , w w , w ( ).60

57 S H P (2006) .58 T

. T , F M C S A, 2003, - 13 - ( R C L T C

C ).59 D w C 2005, PMS w Ax, 9 10 pm 6 .

60 T D S F Dw : ://www.../ACL/A..


30/34


F, . S w 9 pm . T w -

9 pm j . I x w , w - ww .61 W w -, w x ,w TNS .

A w w - , 95 w - 3.0 (1.4 0.9 1 .. ). W w . F, w .., 4.3 RT, - 4.1 (ME . 2005), 3 4 (S 2003 S 2006) . R -, , . S, . I , - w ,

, .O w , , w w -w . L, - . W w.

Implications or Welare and Policy.W , w w -. A x , w , z , , . F, -, w . P

61 W x.


31/34


. M w ( w ).

A , . O

. T HC R A - $43 (C G 2003), w C TI A 200,000 . U , w (.., A G 2004).

A , T 6, w x - ( w j -), 4.3 RT 13,000 $3.3 , w 6.5 RT 22,000 w $2.0 .62 O 1.0 - , w 1 .. 1.4 (x 2002 2005 ) 1,600 $27 95 8,000 $5.4 .

W , 2004 US D T $3 (A 2006). T x

, w - 7 (13) w () $1.8 ($0.9 ) (L P 2001). T T 6 , , w 13,582 (NHTSA 2005). W , - .

IV. Conclusion

T x x w . U w , w-, , , w , w x , , . T w x . T ,RT, 4.3 ,

62H, T, B (2000) w , j, , , x.


32/34

Vol. 5 No. 3 123Bhargava and Pathania: driving Under the(CellUlar) inflUenCe

q h g h v h. Th w h h k RT vg kh. Tw g

h h w h h.W h h h h h . I

h v h. I h v wh h v h vg . Av, h k-vg v- h h, q g, .F, w vg , h h g v ( vg ) h, h v , x v-

, .I h , w v g h w h

xg h h h g h . O h, whh v k, vg whh h v vg . O hg w h v hg x v vg kh gh g v.

F, g h g whh h gh h k w h. F x, g v, h hh - wh h x h k w g.

Table 6Value of a Statistical Life Implied by Cellular Bans

A Rv k

A v

IVSL (>)

F vv

k vg

9 pm 1.0 0 0%

9 pm + 1 .. 1.4 1,600 $27 12%

9 pm 3.0 8,000 $5.4 59%

RT 4.3 13,200 $3.3 97%

RT 6.5 22,000 $2.0 162%

L 3.0 4.0 8,000 12,000 $3.6 $5.4 59% 78%

Ntes: Th h v (VSL) hh gv

v h-k . Th h 9 pm , w h RT . Th Lv P (2001) h k v v h. F 40,000 . VSL v h $43 h (Ch Gh 2003). Th h v gv h wh h 13,582 k vg v x (NHTSA 2005).


33/34


REFERENCES

Ashenelter, Orley. 2006. M V S L: P P. Eco-nomic Journal 116 (510): C1023.

Ashenelter, Orley, and Michael Greenstone. 2004. U M S L M V S L.Journal o Political Economy 112 (S1): S22667.

Bhargava, Saurabh, and Vikram S. Pathania. 2013. D (C) I: D.American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. ://x../10.1257/.5.3.92.

Caird, Je K., Chelsea R. Willness, Piers Steel, and Chip Sciala. 2008. A M- E C P D P.Accident Analysis &Prevention 40 (4): 128293.

Cohen, Alma, and Liran Einav. 2003. T E M S B Lw D B T F.Review o Economics and Statistics 85 (4): 82843.

Cohen, Joshua T., and John D. Graham. 2003. A R E A R U C P W D.Risk Analysis 23 (1): 517.

Glassbrenner, Donna. 2005. TrafcSaety Facts: Research Notes: Driver Cell Phone Use in 2005Overall Results. U.S. D T, N Hw T S A-, NC S A. W, DC, D.

Hahn, Robert W., and James E. Prieger. 2006. T I D C P U A.

B. E. Journal o Economic Analysis & Policy 6 (1): A 9.Hahn, Robert W., and Paul C. Tetlock. 1999. T E R C P V-

. AEI-B J C R S W P 99-09.Hahn, Robert W., and Paul C. Tetlock, and Jason K. Burnett. 2000. S Y B Aw U

Y C P W D?Regulation 23 (3): 4655.Highway Loss Data Institute. 2009. H-H C Lw C C Fq.

Highway Loss Data Institute Bulletin 26 (17).Johnson, Mark, Robert Voas, John Lacey, Scott McKnight, and James Lange. 2004. L D-

: D D H S. Trafc InjuryPrevention 5 (1): 17.Kahneman, Daniel. 1973.Attention and Eort. Ew C, NJ: P-H, I.Kolko, Jed D. 2009. T E M P H-F Lw T F. B. E.

Journal o Economic Analysis & Policy 9 (1): A 11.

Levitt, Steven D., and Jack Porter. 2001. Hw D A D D?Journal o Politi-cal Economy 109 (6): 11981237.

Levitt, Steven D., and Jack Porter. 2001. S S E A B SB E.Review o Economics and Statistics 83 (4): 60315.

Lissy, Karen S., Joshua T. Cohen, Mary Y. Park, and John D. Graham. 2000. Cellular Phone UseWhile Driving: Risks and Benefts. H S P H, H C R A-. B, J.

Mazzae, Elizabeth N., Michael Goodman, W. Riley Garrott, and Thomas Ranney. 2004. NHTSAsResearch Program on Wireless Phone Driver Interace Eects. U.S. D T,N Hw T S A N. 05-0375: 17.

McCartt, Anne T., and Laurie A. Hellinga. 2007. L-T E W, DC, Lw D H-H C P U. Trafc Injury Prevention 8 (2): 199204.

McCartt, Anne T., Laurie A. Hellinga, and Keli Bratiman. 2006. C P D: Rw R. Trafc Injury Prevention 7 (2): 89106.McEvoy, Suzanne P., Mark R. Stevenson, Anne T. McCartt, Mark Woodward, Claire Haworth, Peter

Palamara, and Rina Cercarelli. 2005. R M P M V C R H A: A C-C S.British Medical Journal 331 (7514): 42830.

National Highway Trafc Saety Administration. 1997.An Investigation o the Saety Implications oWireless Communications in Vehicles. U.S. D T. N.

National Highway Trafc Saety Administration. 2000, 2002, 2005. National Occupant ProtectionUse Survey. U.S. D T, N C S A.

National Highway Trafc Saety Administration. 20002005. Trafc Saety Facts [Various Years]:Overview. U.S. D T, N C S A.

National Highway Trafc Saety Administration, and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. 2006.The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study: A Descriptive Analysis o Light Vehicle-Heavy Vehicle

Interactions rom the Light Vehicle Drivers Perspective. U.S. D T. M.Peltzman, Sam. 1975. T E A S R.Journal o Political Economy

83 (4): 677726.Prieger, James E., and Robert W. Hahn. 2007. A D W U C P I L

S?Applied Economics Quarterly 53 (4): 32752.


34/34


Rakauskas, Michael E., Leo J. Gugerty, and Nicholas J. Ward. 2004. E N CP C D P.Journal o Saety Research 35 (4): 45364.

Redelmeier, Donald, and Robert J. Tibshirani. 1997. A w C-T C M V C.New England Journal o Medicine 336 (7): 45358.

Rosenbloom, Tova. 2006. D P W U C P: A O S.Journal o Saety Research 37 (2): 20712.

Shinar, David, Noam Tractinsky, and Richard Compton. 2005. E P, A, TD I P T W D.Accident Analysis and Prevention 37(2): 31526.

Strayer, David L., Frank A. Drews, and Dennis J. Crouch. 2006. A C C PD D D.Human Factors 48 (2): 38191.

Strayer, David L., Frank A. Drews, and William A. Johnston. 2003. C P-I F V A D S D.Journal o Experimental Psychology: Applied9 (1):2332.

Stutts, Jane, John Feaganes, Eric Rodgman, Charles Hamlett, Thomas Meadows, Donald Reinurt,

Kenneth Gish, Michael Mercadante, and Loren Staplin. 2003.Distractions in Everyday Driving.AAA F T S. W, DC, J.

Sundeen, Matt. 2007. Cell Phones and Highway Saety: 2006 State Legislative Update.National Con-

erence o State Legislatures. D, M.Vivoda, Jonathon M., David W. Eby, Rene M. St. Louis, and Lidia P. Kostyniuk. 2008. C

P U W D N. Trafc Injury Prevention 9 (1): 3741.Wilson, Jean, Ming Fang, Sandra Wiggins, and Peter Cooper. 2003. C V I-

D W U C T. Trafc Injury Prevention 4 (1): 4552.Young, Richard A., and Christopher Schreiner. 2009. R-W P C U

H-F E W D W D: E A-D CR.Risk Analysis 29 (2): 187204.

Documents

Cell Phone Study