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. 

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.

393 Results

Report ID Date Published Title Section Links
08 1961/ 02

Control of the Negligent Driver–Part I: Characteristics of Negligent Drivers

By: Ronald S. Coppin & Ira Samuels

To discover if there are characteristics differentiating negligent drivers from the "average" driver, and if relationships exist between actual driving performance and mileage driven, occupation, age, or sex.

III
87.1 1983/ 08

An Abstract of The Traffic Safety Impact of California’s New Drunk Driving Law (AB 541)- An Evaluation of the First Nine Months of Experience

By: Raymond C. Peck

To determine if the new drunk driving law (AB 541) had any impact on the incidence of alcoholrelated traffic accidents.

III
97 1986/ 01

The California DUI Countermeasure System: An Evaluation of System Processing and Deficiencies. (Volume 5 of “An Evaluation of the California Drunk Driving Countermeasure System”)

By: Clifford J. Helander

Specific objectives of this study were: (1) identification of deficiencies in the California DUI countermeasure system, and (2) evaluation of the frequency with which DUI offenders avoid timely processing or circumvent system countermeasures due to these deficiencies. The general objective of the study was to empirically describe and analyze the flow of DUI offenders through the DUI countermeasure system.

III
NRN022 1981/ 01

The Sanctioning Process and the DUI Offender

By: Roger E. Hagen

To increase knowledge and awareness of the state-of-the-art of drunk driver sanction effectiveness.

III
NRN024, NRN025, NRN026, NRN027, NRN028, NRN029, NRN030 2020/ 04

Post Licensing Control Reporting and Evaluation System (PLCRES): Negligent Operator Program Costs and Effectiveness

By: Daniel Kadell, William Howe, John Magistad, Ph.D., Raymond C. Peck, William Epperson, Steve Fong, William C. Marsh, David W. Carpenter, Philip Wootton

To implement and maintain an automated on-line evaluation system tor monitoring the effectiveness of negligent-operator programs.

III
NRN031 1986/ 06

Accident Rates, Financial Responsibility, and Restriction Compliance of SB-38 Participants

By: Clifford J. Helander

To collect data regarding the accident rates, financial responsibility, and restriction compliance of SB-38 alcohol treatment program participants, in response to a legislative proposal requiring proof of financial responsibility for SB-38 program participants.

III
102 110 115 117 128 137 2020/ 04

Negligent-Operator Treatment Evaluation System (NOTES): Program Effectiveness Reports

III
104 1986/ 01

An Evaluation of the Impact of a Warning Letter for First-Time DUI Offenders (Volume 6 of “An Evaluation of the California Drunk Driving Countermeasure System”)

By: Gary Arstein-Kerslake

To develop, implement, and evaluate a package consisting of a warning letter and pamphlet suitable for the first-DUI offender.

III
107 1986/ 05

An Evaluation of the California Habitual Traffic Offender Law

By: Clifford J. Helander

To evaluate the California habitual traffic offender law (AB 3529 - Mountjoy) interms of: (1) the number of habitual traffic offenders (HTO) identified, (2) their prosecution and conviction rates, and (3) the degree of traffic safety risk posed by HTOs

III
11 1962/ 10

Control of the Negligent Driver–Part II: Driving Performance of Negligent Drivers

By: Ronald S. Coppin & G. van Oldenbeek

To make thorough and comparative analyses of performance of negligent drivers before and after departmental action, and of the differences, if any, associated with age, type of action taken, mileage driven, occupation, sex, type of license, and other factors or combinations of factors.

III