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
Please include the report number, the number of copies requested, and your name, address, and phone number.
| Report ID | Date Published | Title | Section | Links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51 | 1976/ 03 |
An Evaluation of California’s Drivers Licensing ExaminationTo assess the ability of the written knowledge test and the drive test to screen out accident-prone drivers; to provide descriptive data on the licensing process, with particular interest in the performance of older drivers. |
II | |
| 50 | 1974/ 01 |
The Prediction of Driving Record Following Driver Improvement ContactsTo construct prediction equations for post-contact driving records based on three data sources-prior driving record, driver questionnaire responses, and driver improvement analyst (DIA) interview information. |
IV | |
| 49 | 1974/ 07 |
The Psychometric Prediction of Negligent Driver RecidivismTo determine whether the subsequent driving record of problem drivers could be predicted following a group driver improvement meeting, and to assess the contribution of psychometric and personality test variables in improving prediction. |
IV | |
| 48 | 1974/ 10 |
Projected Motor Vehicle Registration & Drivers Licenses Outstanding 1970-1990The ownership of motor vehicles in California has long been used by economists, bankers, planners, and administrators at all levels of government and the private sector as an important measure of the State's economy. Members of these professions have continued to seek long-range estimates of vehicle registration data in order to forecast future growth and development of the State and to plan necessary facilities for this expected growth. This is the third set of estimates released by the department. In addition, for the second time, are included estimates on number of drivers license holders by county (to 1976) and statewide (to 1990). It is anticipated that these registration estimates will need revision at least every two years and perhaps more frequently should drastic changes occur in the base estimators. A multiple linear regression model was employed as the statistical tool to the development of the estimates. Separate equations were developed for each vehicle type (passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, trailers and motorcycles) for each of the 58 counties of California. The predictor variables used were total population and year. The county population estimates were provided by the department of Finance and reflect the statewide totals. |
VII | |
| 46 | 1974/ 03 |
An Evaluation of California’s “Good Driver” Incentive ProgramTo study the effects of rewards and/ or incentives in the form of one-year license extensions (no testing or visit to field office required) for drivers with one-year-clean prior records. |
II | |
| 45 | 1974/ 05 |
An Evaluation of Some Additional Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Warning LettersTo determine the effectiveness of two types of warning letters and an informational pamphlet in reducing the subsequent collision and conviction records of pre-negligent drivers. An additional study objective was to determine the effectiveness of a follow-up reinforcement letter sent to collision- and conviction-free drivers. These hypotheses were suggested by an earlier warning letter study (McBride & Peck, Report #30). This study was designed to attempt replication of the previous results. |
III | |
| 44 | 1973/ 12 |
An Evaluation of the Drive Test as an Examination Requirement for Drivers Previously Licensed in Another StateTo determine if waiving the drive test for original applicants previously licensed in another state would be detrimental to their driving records. |
II | |
| 43 | 1973/ 05 |
Questionnaire Techniques in Traffic Safety Research: A Digest of California Department of Motor Vehicles’ ExperienceTo compile experiences concerning phases of studies dealing with questionnaires. |
IV | |
| 42 | 1973/ 05 |
Physically Handicapped Drivers: A Comparative Study of Driver RecordsThis study was conducted at the request of California State Assemblyman John P. Quimby, who was interested in the driving record of handicapped persons with loss of, or limited control of, one or more of their limbs. This study was expected to be useful in evaluating California's driver licensing policy and in providing some guidance to insurance companies in establishing premiums for handicapped drivers. California's policy has been to license physically handicapped persons who meet the same standards on the written and on-road examinations as non-handicapped persons. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not handicapped drivers have accident records different from those of non-handicapped drivers, and consequently, whether there is any basis for differential licensing standards or insurance premiums. |
VI | |
| 40 | 1973/ 03 |
An Evaluation of California’s Oral Licensing ExaminationTo analyze the cost and effect of orally examining illiterate applicants. |
II |