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:
Departamento de Vehículos Motorizados
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 224 | 2008/ 01 |
2008 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMIn this seventeenth annual legislatively-mandated report, 2005 and 2006 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 cross tabulated information on DUI arrests, convictions, court sanctions, administrative actions and alcohol-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 sixteen years. Also, the longterm recidivism curves of the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 1994. Analyses were conducted on the effectiveness of alcohol education programs upon the 1-year postconviction records of those convicted of the reduced charge of alcohol-related reckless driving, and on the effectiveness of the 3-month versus 6-month alcohol education programs on the 1-year postconviction records of first offenders. Two additional subanalyses were conducted to determine if differences on the outcome measures were related to BAC level (below 0.20% and 0.20% and above). The proportions of 2005 convicted first and second offenders who were referred to alcohol education/treatment programs are also presented. |
V | |
| 231 | 2010/ 01 |
2010 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMIn this nineteenth annual legislatively-mandated report, 2007 and 2008 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-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 18 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves of the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 1994. Analyses were conducted on the effectiveness of DUI programs in reducing 1-year subsequent violations and crashes of those convicted of the reduced charge of alcohol-related reckless driving, and on the effectiveness of the 3-month versus 9-month DUI programs for first offenders. Two additional subanalyses were conducted to determine if differences in the outcome measures were related to BAC level (below 0.20% and 0.20% and above). The proportions of 2007 convicted first and second offenders who were referred, enrolled, and completed DUI programs are also presented. |
V | |
| 239 | 2012/ 09 |
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JAIL SENTENCES AND JAIL TERMS ACTUALLY SERVED AMONG DUI OFFENDERS IN SELECTED CALIFORNIA COUNTIESRecords of 32.7% of California’s DUI offenders convicted in 2006, who received jail or a jail alternative sentence, were used to compare jail terms at sentencing to actual jail time served, and to describe used alternative sanctions to jail. County data systems’ variation, tracking methods, quality and completeness of data, and lack of communication between Courts and Sheriff’s Departments limited sample size and representativeness. Percentages of jail time served across participating counties ranged from 0 to 67% for 1st offenders, 0 to 47% for 2nd offenders, and 0 to 67% for 3rd+ offenders. Median percentages of jail sentences actually served across participating counties were 0%, 19%, and 38% for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd+ offenders, respectively. Alternative sentences were used more often on 1 st DUI offenders, less so on 2 nd offenders, and least often on 3 rd offenders. The most popular alternative sentences in lieu of jail options were Sheriff’s Work Program and Caltrans Work Program. Jail sentences reported to DMV greatly overstate amount of jail time actually served by DUI offenders. Further evaluation of effectiveness of jail time served by California DUI offenders is not possible at present because California’s DUI Offender Tracking System does not keep good track of offenders. Recommendations are: results from previous California DMV studies and/or studies from other states showing jail terms as ineffective in reducing alcohol-involved crashes or DUI recidivism should be taken with caution; efforts should be made so California’s DUI Offender Tracking System is consistent with NHTSA’s 2006 guidelines; DMV’s court abstract collection system should require jail terms keyed in, if disposition code “J” is present; DMV’s JAG project to assess accuracy and timeliness of DUI conviction data sent to DMV should be finished, and its findings used in conjunction of this study’s findings to enable the implementation of recommendations from NHTSA’s 2011 California Traffic Records Assessment. |
V | |
| 243 | 2013/ 01 |
2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMIn this twenty-second annual legislatively-mandated report, 2010 and 2011 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-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 21 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-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 2010, 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 | |
| 208 | 2004/ 04 |
Department of Motor Vehicles Post-Licensing Control Management Information System Fiscal Year 2002/2003This is the second periodic management information system (MIS) report regarding the operations of the Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV) Administrative Per Se license suspension program. |
V | |
| 244 | 2013/ 10 |
THE PROBLEM OF SUSPENDED AND REVOKED DRIVERS WHO AVOID DETECTION AT DUI/LICENSE CHECKPOINTSAlthough driver license suspension and revocation have been shown to improve traffic safety, suspended or revoked (SR) drivers who continue to drive—which appears to be the majority— are about three times more likely to be involved in crashes and to cause a fatal crash. The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which these drivers avoid detection at driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) and license checkpoints because they illegally possess a physical license. Method. Law enforcement used electronic identification card readers at DUI/License checkpoints in Sacramento, California to record data for 13,705 drivers for purposes of estimating the extent to which SR drivers avoid detection. Differences in detection as a function of the reason for suspension or revocation were also investigated. Results. Although only 3% of the drivers contacted at the checkpoints were SR, about 41% of SR drivers were able to pass through undetected because they presented valid-looking licenses that should not have been in their possession. Drivers SR for DUI-related reasons were more likely to be detected, whereas those SR for failure to provide proof of financial responsibility were less likely to be detected. Discussion. The fact that many SR drivers were able to pass through DUI/License checkpoints undetected indicates a loophole in the traffic safety countermeasure system that needs to be addressed, because it undermines the efficacy of suspension/revocation and checkpoint countermeasures. Recommendations for improving licensing agency suspension orders and checkpoint screening methods are provided. |
V | |
| NRN067 | 1971/ 10 |
An Optimum System for Traffic Enforcement/Driver Control-Volumes I through IIIThis study was conducted in response to a 1968 Senate Resolution (SR 160) which directed the California Department of Motor Vehicles to make an in-depth study of functions performed by state traffic enforcement/ driver control agencies. |
V | |
| NRN070 | 1976/ 04 |
Administrative Adjudication of Traffic Offenses in California: A Feasibility StudyTo comply with Senate Concurrent Resolution 40 (1975 Resolution Chapter 86), which mandated a feasibility study of administrative adjudication of traffic infractions. |
V |