Research Studies & Reports
DMV’s Research & Development Branch has been conducting research and producing studies and reports since the 1950s. Research & Development reports help DMV to measure the impact of new laws on making drivers safer. We also identify areas where we can improve our processes, explore new approaches to solving existing problems, and branch out into new opportunities to serve you better.
Studies & Reports Sections
Studies and reports are assigned to a Section that best describes the type of report. Click on a section title below to see a short description.
I. Driver Education & Training Studies
II. Driver Licensing Screening Studies
III. Studies on Improvement and Control of Deviant Drivers
IV. Basic Research & Methodological Studies: Driver Performance, Accident Etiology, Prediction Models, and Actuarial Applications
V. Driver Licensing / Control Systems & Safety Management Studies
VI. Studies on Special Driver Populations
VII. Miscellaneous Studies & Reports
Request printed copies of studies and reports by mail at:
Department of Motor Vehicles
Research and Development Branch
2415 1st Ave. Mail Station: F-126
Sacramento, CA 95818
(916) 914-8125
Note Please include the report number, the number of copies requested, and your name, address, and phone number.
| Report ID | Date Published | Title | Section | Links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 121 | 1989/ 09 |
Development of a California DUI Management Information SystemTo develop the design specifications for a comprehensive California Dill management information system. |
V | |
| 138 | 1993/ 01 |
1993 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemTo continue the publication of a yearly comprehensive data and monitoring system (or management information system) to provide measures of DUI system performance. |
V | |
| 146 | 1995/ 01 |
AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CALIFORNIA DRINKING DRIVER PROGRAMSThere has been longstanding interest in determining which sanctions work best to reduce drunk driving. This study, mandated by the California Legislature (SB 1344) and funded by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (DADP), examined the degree to which first offender, SB 38 and 30-month drinking driver programs (DDPs) in California reduced drunk driving recidivism, relative to other sanctions, such as driver license suspension. Based on the findings from this study, as well as those from prior research, this report recommends combining alcohol treatment with driver license actions as the best strategy for reducing drunk driving recidivism and enhancing overall traffic safety. |
V | |
| 159 | 1996/ 01 |
1996 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMIn this fifth annual report, 1993 and 1994 DUI data from several diverse sources were compiled and cross-referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data and monitoring system. This report presents crosstabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, court sanctions, administrative actions and alcohol-involved accidents. In addition, this report provides an evaluation of the effectiveness of alternative court and administrative sanctions (including alcohol treatment programs and license actions) upon the postconviction records of first and second DUI offenders. The postconviction driving records of DUI offenders arrested in 1989, 1991, and 1993 were evaluated for five-, three-, and one-year periods, respectively. |
V | |
| 251 | 2016/ 06 |
AB 91: Specific Deterrent Evaluation of the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in CaliforniaThis study presents an evaluation of the specific deterrence effects of California’s ignition interlock pilot program mandated by AB 91 to operate in four California counties — Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare — from July 1, 2010 to January 1, 2016. This study is a follow-up to an earlier legislatively-mandated general deterrence evaluation of AB 91’s IID pilot program. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the specific deterrent capacity of AB 91’s IID pilot program, that is, whether it led to reductions in DUI recidivism and crashes among DUI offenders. Results show that, while the AB 91 pilot program can be associated with reductions in DUI recidivism among specific DUI offender groups, it is also associated with an increase in subsequent crashes among all first DUI offenders in AB 91 pilot counties and among all DUI offenders who installed an IID and obtained an AB 91 IID-restricted driver license. Although the reduction in DUI recidivism provides evidence of benefits associated with IID restrictions, the increased crash risks associated with the AB 91 pilot program suggest that additional investigation and research could be beneficial. Inclusion of information regarding crash responsibility (i.e. at-fault/not-at-fault), alcohol involvement, or severity level (i.e. fatal/injury crashes vs property-damage only crashes) may provide further insight. The report recommends to (1) evaluate California's incentive IID program mandated under Senate Bill 598, (2) conduct and report to the Legislature a quantitative evaluation of the efficacy of current or potential DUI countermeasures (including IIDs) and their combined use, (3) explore the option of using IIDs as an “alcohol-abstinence-compliance” monitoring tool, as part of a modified version of the traditional DUI court model, and (4) convene a task force to develop recommendations for strengthening components of California's comprehensive DUI countermeasure system. |
V | |
| 249 | 2014/ 10 |
Evaluation of Law Enforcement Use of Driver License Card Readers to Improve Detection of Suspended and Revoked Drivers at DUI/License CheckpointsIntroduction. Driving privilege suspension and revocation are known to improve traffic safety, but research suggests the majority of suspended or revoked (SR) drivers continue to drive while they are SR. These drivers are about three times more likely to be involved in crashes and to cause a fatal crash. In most U.S. states, drivers arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) are subject to immediate driver license (DL) card confiscation by law enforcement. Drivers SR for other reasons are typically mailed notices directing them to surrender their DL cards to the licensing agency, yet they frequently do not comply. At DUI checkpoints in California, and many other U.S. states, law enforcement officers briefly inspect drivers’ DL cards and check for signs of intoxication. Hence, such checkpoints are deemed DUI/License status checkpoints. Previous research found that about 41% of SR drivers contacted at such checkpoints avoided detection for SR driving because they illegally retained possession of their DL cards. In this study, DL card readers with the capacity to identify and alert officers to drivers with SR statuses were used at the checkpoints. The purpose was to evaluate the utility of implementing this type of technology on a broader scale. Method. Checkpoint police officers used DL card readers that contained lists of SR drivers that would alert if a card was scanned that matched a DL number on the list. Data for 13,530 drivers were recorded. Subsequently, license statuses of contacted drivers were verified and compared to checkpoint citation records. Results. About 3% (n=384) of drivers contacted at the checkpoints were SR. Seventy-one percent of them were detected and cited for driving while SR. There were no differences in detection rate as a function of the suspension/revocation reasons. Significant differences were found in detection rate as a function of whether drivers’ DL numbers were on the SR list. Conclusion. SR drivers’ ability to pass undetected through DUI/License checkpoints weakens both the specific and general SR driving deterrence of checkpoints, and may diminish the effectiveness of suspension and revocation for reducing the crash risk posed by problem drivers. These findings show that despite technical limitations, a list-based DL card reader can improve the detection rate of SR drivers by law enforcement. Future studies that evaluate scanning technologies capable of real-time license validity verification are warranted. |
V | |
| 259 | 2020/ 01 |
2018 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemIn this twenty-seventh annual legislatively-mandated report, 2015 and 2016 driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) data from diverse sources were compiled and cross-referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data reference and monitoring system. This report presents crosstabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, postconviction sanctions, driver license suspension/revocation actions, and on drivers in alcohol-or drug-involved crashes. In addition, this report provides 1-year proportions of DUI recidivism and crash rates for first and second DUI offenders arrested in each year over a time period of 26 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves of the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 2005. An analysis was conducted to evaluate if referrals to the 9-month DUI program were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent DUI incidents and crashes when compared to referrals to the 3- month DUI program among first DUI offenders. The proportions of convicted first and second DUI offenders arrested in 2015, who were referred, enrolled, and completed DUI programs are also presented. Additionally, the numbers and percentages of DUI offenders who installed ignition interlock devices are presented by county and DUI offender status. |
V | |
| 250 | 2015/ 01 |
2015 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemIn this twenty-fourth annual legislatively-mandated report, 2012 and 2013 driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) data from diverse sources were compiled and cross-referenced for the purpose of developing a single comprehensive DUI data reference and monitoring system. This report presents crosstabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, court sanctions, administrative actions, and alcohol- or druginvolved crashes. In addition, this report provides 1-year proportions of DUI recidivism and crash rates for first and second DUI offenders arrested in each year over a time period of 23 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves of the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 1994. Two analyses were conducted to evaluate if referrals to DUI programs were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent violations and crashes among those convicted of the reduced charge of alcohol- or drug-related reckless driving, and if referrals to the 9-month DUI program were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent violations and crashes when compared to referrals to the 3-month DUI program among first DUI offenders. The proportions of convicted first and second DUI offenders arrested in 2012, who were referred, enrolled, and completed DUI programs are also presented. |
V | |
| 142 | 1994/ 01 |
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRUG ARRESTS AND DRIVING RISKThis study compared the driving records of 106,214 persons arrested for drug offenses in 1989 with 41,493 comparison drivers drawn from the general driving population. The drug arrestees were grouped according to the six summary offense categories used by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which were felony narcotics, marijuana, dangerous drugs, and other drugs, and misdemeanor marijuana and other drugs. Time periods examined were 1 year pre-arrest, 1 year post-arrest and 2 years post-arrest. Each drug arrestee group had significantly more traffic violations and total accidents than the control group, except for 2 year post-arrest accidents for the felony narcotics group. Measures of accident culpability showed drug arrestees to be more responsible for the accidents in which they were involved than was the general driving population. Individuals arrested for drug offenses clearly pose an elevated traffic safety risk. These findings provide a public safety justification for state and federal initiatives designed to institute driver licensing actions against drug offenders, and support for the implementation of Public Law 101-516 in California. |
V | |
| 197 | 2005/ 09 |
DUI COUNTERMEASURES IN CALIFORNIA: WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGISLATIVE REFORMIn response to recent increases in driving-under-the-influence (DUI) crashes and fatalities in California, after years of decline, the California legislature (Senate Bill 776, Torlakson, 2001) mandated a review of scientific evidence on effective DUI countermeasures. As shown in this review, the following driver-based countermeasures have proven significantly effective in reducing alcohol-impaired driving: minimum drinking age laws, per se BAC laws, administrative per se license action laws, "Zero-tolerance" laws for youth, other licensing actions including restriction and probation, alcohol treatment, server intervention programs, house arrest in lieu of jail, lower per se BAC for repeat offenders, sobriety checkpoints, and public information and education. Effective vehicle-based countermeasures include vehicle impoundment, vehicle immobilization, and ignition interlock, while other countermeasures impacting alcohol-impaired driving include seat belts, graduated driver licensing, and alcoholic beverage control. Traditional DUI sanctions of fines and jail are shown to be among the least effective DUI countermeasures. Most importantly, there are four major initiatives which offer the potential for large-scale reductions in alcohol impaired driving, including new pharmaceutical treatments (naltrexone), increased alcoholic beverage control, reducing the contribution of on-premise drinking to the DUI problem, as well as prevention efforts focused on youth. There continues to be strong public support for anti-DUI efforts, including the raising of alcohol taxes, provided the funds are used against drunk driving. In general, prevention efforts, as opposed to further increased punishments, are seen as having a greater potential for future reductions in the incidence of DUI. |
V |