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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NRN071 | 1989/ 01 |
Elderly Driver InterventionsRaymond C. Peck |
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 | |
| 262 | 2022/ 05 |
2021 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemIn this thirtieth annual legislatively mandated report, 2018 and 2019 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 cross-tabulated 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 each year over a period of 29 years. Also, the long-term recidivism curves for the cumulative proportions of DUI reoffenses are shown for all DUI offenders arrested in 2005. Two analyses were conducted to evaluate if referrals to alcohol and drug education programs were associated with reductions in 1-year subsequent DUI incidents 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 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 2018, who were referred to, enrolled in, 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 | |
| 261 | 2021/ 07 |
2020 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemIn this twenty-ninth annual legislatively-mandated report, 2017 and 2018 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 cross-tabulated 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 28 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 2017, who were referred to, enrolled in, 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 | |
| NRN069 | 1976/ 01 |
Comprehensive Long Range PlanTo summarize the department's plans for improving its effectiveness and service to the public, using a management-by-objectives (MBO) approach and moving beyond the two-year budget cycle in planning. |
V | |
| 210 | 2004/ 09 |
AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IGNITION INTERLOCK IN CALIFORNIAThis study is one of two studies of ignition interlock in California mandated by the California Legislature (AB 762). The first study, published in 2002, was a process evaluation that examined the degree to which ignition interlock has been implemented in California. This current study is an outcome evaluation that examines the effectiveness of ignition interlock in reducing alcohol-related crashes and convictions, and crashes overall (alcohol and nonalcohol). The results of the study show that interlock works for some offenders in some contexts, but not for all offenders in all situations. More specifically, ignition interlock devices work best when they are installed, although there is also some evidence that judicial orders to install an interlock are effective for repeat DUI offenders, even when not all offenders comply and install a device. California’s administrative program, where repeat DUI offenders install an interlock device in order to obtain restricted driving privileges, is also associated with reductions in subsequent DUI incidents. One group for whom ignition interlock orders do not appear effective is first DUI offenders with high blood alcohol levels. |
V | |
| 134 | 1992/ 01 |
1992 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information SystemTo start the publication of a yearly comprehensive data and monitoring system (or management information system) to provide measures of DUI system performance. |
V |