Laws, Enforcement, and Other Factors Correlated with Fatalities
Why do some regions suffer more smartphone-related crashes than others? Research points to several key factors: the strength of distracted driving laws, the intensity of law enforcement, broader safety culture and demographics, and even economic factors like vehicle technology and wealth. Here's how these elements correlate with outcomes:
Legal Framework – Texting Bans vs. Hands-Free Laws
Virtually all developed countries and U.S. states now have some form of restriction on mobile phone use while driving. However, the strictness of these laws varies.
In the U.S., 48 states ban texting for all drivers (Missouri and Montana were the last holdouts, with Montana as of 2024 the only state without a full texting ban). But texting bans alone can be hard to enforce – a driver can claim they were dialing or using the GPS, which might be technically legal under a texting-only law.
Recognizing this, 24+ states (and growing) have enacted full hand-held phone bans, meaning a driver cannot legally hold or use a phone at all except via hands-free mode. Evidence suggests these comprehensive bans are more effective.
States like New York, Connecticut, Delaware, and California, which pioneered hand-held bans over a decade ago, not only have long-standing laws but also aggressive enforcement and now rank among the safest states in per-capita crash deaths.
By contrast, many states in the Deep South were slower to adopt such laws (e.g. Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina still have no statewide hand-held ban), and these states consistently have some of the highest traffic fatality rates in the nation.
Enforcement Practices
A law on the books is only effective if it's enforced. Enforcement varies widely, and this has a direct impact on driver behavior.
Some telling data: Delaware – a small state with one of the nation's toughest enforcement stances – has issued the most distracted driving tickets per capita since its ban took effect, even more than much larger states like New York. Not coincidentally, Delaware also reports relatively low fatality rates from distracted crashes.
By contrast, several states with high distraction fatality rates also have notoriously low enforcement. One analysis noted Louisiana, Wyoming, and Mississippi were among the top ten deadliest states for distracted driving, and all three had issued fewer than 100 tickets per 100,000 residents for distracted driving, ranking at the bottom for enforcement.
In other words, in some of the places where drivers are dying at the highest rates, police rarely ticket people for using phones.
Demographics and Culture
Demographic factors also influence distracted driving patterns. Younger drivers are by far the most frequent users of smartphones, and this is reflected in crash data.
Observational surveys show that at any given moment, drivers age 16–24 have the highest rate of phone manipulation (texting, tapping, etc.) – in one U.S. study, 6.5% of young drivers were observed manipulating a device, more than double the rate of older drivers.
This translates to higher risk: a naturalistic study found drivers who spent the greatest proportion of their driving time on the phone also had the highest rates of near-crashes and crashes overall.
Regions or communities with a higher share of tech-savvy teenagers and young adults may therefore see more distraction crashes. For example, college towns or fast-growing cities with young populations might have different challenges than areas with older drivers.
Cultural attitudes also matter – in countries like Japan, there is strong social disapproval of using a handheld phone while driving, reflected in its low incidence of such crashes (and harsh penalties). Meanwhile, in places where multitasking is often culturally tolerated or where commuters have long solo drives (say, rural areas), people may be more tempted to use phones.
Data and Reporting Differences
A final factor in comparing regions is simply how data are collected. Some jurisdictions have better mechanisms to investigate and record phone involvement in crashes.
If a state trooper can easily subpoena phone records or uses crash report forms that prompt for distraction factors, that state might log more "distracted driving" fatalities on the books than a state that lacks those processes.
This was alluded to in the Zutobi report, noting "different state guidelines on reporting distracted driving accidents" could explain some of the wide variation between states.
Similarly, international differences in defining "caused by a mobile phone" (some only count if phone use was the primary cause, others if it was any contributing factor) will affect the statistics.
Thus, a low number might indicate true safety or just less rigorous tracking. Nonetheless, regardless of reporting nuances, the consensus is that smartphone distraction is a real and preventable cause of crashes everywhere – and places that have systematically attacked the issue show markedly better outcomes.