Smart Defensive Driving School

We offer a large selection of online classes services,

Emailing While Driving Among High School Students

Link to study

Purpose: Determine the Incidence and explore individual- And state-level factors related to texting/emailing while driving (TWD) among adolescent drivers in America.

Methods: Data from 35 states that administered 2015 Say Youth Risk Behavior Survey were examined. We utilized Poisson regression models with robust error variance to estimate prevalence ratios (PRs) for TWD.

Results: One of the 101,397 high school students aged ≥ 14 Years who had driven a car during the previous 30 days, 38% reported TWD at least once. TWD prevalence ranged from 26 percent in Maryland to 64 percent in South Dakota. TWD incidence was higher in states with a lower minimum learner’s license age and states where a larger proportion of students drove. Multivariable analyses revealed that the probability of TWD increased substantially with age, and white students were more likely to participate in TWD than pupils of the rest of the races/ethnicities. Infrequent seatbelt users were 21 percent more likely to join in TWD compared with regular seatbelt users (corrected PR = 1.21, 95% confidence interval: 1.16-1.26), and students who reported drinking and driving were nearly two times as likely to TWD when compared with students who didn’t (attuned PR = 1.91, 95% sureness intermission: 1.79-2.04).

Conclusions: Prevalence of TWD amongst US high school students Varied by over two-fold across countries. TWD incidence was higher in states with lower minimum learner’s license ages and states where a larger proportion of pupils drove. Adult age, white race/ethnicity, and other risky driving behaviors were correlated with TWD.

This study found that overall, 38% of high school students in 35 US states who were elderly ≥14 years and drove participated in TWD on at least one day during the 30 days before the poll, with 16 percent of pupils engaging in TWD ≥ ten days. State-level incidence of TWD varied by greater than two-fold, with greater incidence seen in states with lower minimum learner’s license ages or more significant percentages of students who drove. These findings imply that contextual factors associated with state-level licensing policy and other socio-cultural conditions that affect adolescent driving patterns probably also influence a person’s TWD behavior. For instance, the five countries in this study with TWD incidence of ≥50 percent are contiguous, each with mostly rural populations of over two million individuals. Each includes a minimal learner’s license age of ≤15 years.

Moreover, these five countries had one of the most significant proportions of students who drove. Adolescents in these countries are more likely to start driving at younger ages than teenagers living in more densely populated countries. Due to these countries’ rural nature, they may drive longer distances, thereby increasing the chance to take part in TWD.

TWD prevalence doubled between ages 15 and 16 years, and it Continued to grow substantially for ages 17 and ≥18 years. The diminishing of TWD majority in the era when teens can legally begin unsupervised driving wasn’t surprising because risky driving behaviour is known to be much rarer in an adult supervisor’s presence. The association between age and TWD highlights the need for continuing attention to TWD through the teenage years. Moreover, we discovered that more than 1 in 5 pupils aged 14 or 15 years reported driving until they were eligible for a learner’s license, and 1 in 6 of those drivers reported TWD.

Besides the crash risk imposed by their inexperience, unlicensed teen drivers have higher rates of risky driving behaviors than their accredited counterparts, such as speeding, nonuse of seatbelts, and driving after drinking alcohol or using drugs. TWD could increase the intense crash risk for unlicensed teenage drivers.

Consistent with previous studies, we discovered that TWD was more Prevalent among teenagers engaging in other risky driving/ riding behaviors (e.g., drinking and driving, riding with a driver who had been drinking, and infrequent seatbelt use). But about one-third of pupils who didn’t participate in another measured risky driving/riding behaviors reported TWD. This finding suggests that the motives for and perceived advantages of TWD may differ from those associated with other dangerous driving/riding behaviors.


Recent research provides a better understanding of Adolescents’ perceptions of in-vehicle cellphone use and suggests strategies to help limit these behaviors. By way of instance, Hafetz et al. reported that adolescent drivers’ beliefs regarding the benefits and disadvantages of abstaining from cellphone usage while driving were correlated with their self-reported use.

Perceived weaknesses of abstaining were associated with navigation issues, the inability to convey location and time of birth, and the inability to be contacted by their parents when necessary. The authors recommended using health messages which understand the legitimate benefits of having a cellphone in the car while highlighting safe in-vehicle cellphone usage, like pulling over to a secure location before making or receiving calls.

Studies examining the context and motivations around phone use While driving provide additional insights. An internet survey that queried adolescent drivers about their willingness to give up different phone use while driving reported that many respondents were at least somewhat willing to give up text messages and social media but were willing to give up navigation and audio programs.

In a qualitative study, adolescent drivers reported they were more likely to respond to a text or call if it had been out of a close friend, girlfriend, boyfriend, or parent. Carter et al. found that teens whose parents and peers participated in distracted driving behaviors such as mobile use often engaged in distracted driving behaviors themselves.

Strategies that encourage positive parental role modeling, clear communication of principles around in-vehicle cellphone usage, and increased parental monitoring of newly licensed teen drivers are invited to help manage these contextual and motivational aspects. Social marketing techniques aimed at adjusting teens’ misperceptions, like the belief that their pals engage in distracted driving behaviors more frequently than they do, are also proposed.

Different approaches that warrant further investigation include Providing positive incentives for not participating in TWD and in-vehicle phone blocking technologies. Monetary incentives, for example, could be provided by Parents or through car insurance companies. Although some financial incentive Programs exist, we didn’t find any evaluations of these programs. An Evaluation of a smartphone blocking program employed with recently licensed Teens found that teen drivers who had the blocking program on their cell phones participated in significantly less TWD and made substantially fewer telephone calls while driving. This was particularly true in the exposure group and the program That both obstructed mobile use and sent instant notifications to Parents if their adolescents performed risky driving behaviors, such as speeding. However, about 15 percent of teenagers found ways to bypass the blocking system, Indicating that continuing voluntary use of these applications may below. Suggestions for enhancing young driver acceptance of mobile blocking Programs include allowing automated responses to incoming messages, Allowing hands-free navigation, enabling emergency calls, and between young Drivers in the program design procedure.