Commentary: culpability analysis won't help us understand crash risk due to cell phones.

traffic accidents; what is wrong with this picture? J Safety Res 2007;38:453–59. 32 Af Wahlberg AE. The determination of fault in collisions. In Dorn L, Matthews G, Glendon I (eds). Driver Behaviour and Accident Research Methodology: Unresolved Problems. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009. 33 McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, Woodward M. The prevalence of, and factors associated with, serious crashes involving a distracting activity. Accid Anal Prev 2007;39:475–82. 34 Jacobson PD, Gostin LO. Reducing distracted driving. Regulation and education to avert traffic inuries and fatalities. JAMA 2010;303:1419–20. 35 Lenguerrand E, Martin JL, Moskal A, Gadebeku B, Laumon B. The SAM Group. Limits of the quasi-induced exposure method when compared with the standard case-control design: application to the estimation of risks associated with driving under the influence of cannabis or alcohol. Accid Anal Prev 2008;40:861–68. 36 WorkSafe BC. Cell phone usage and motor vehicle accidents. WorkSafe BC. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Policy and Research Division Report, 2009. 37 Brubacher J, Chan H, Asbridge M. Development and validation of a Canadian culpability scoring tool. Traffic Inj Prev 2012;13:219–29. 38 Robertson MD, Drummer OH. Responsibility analysis: a methodology to study the effects of drugs in driving. Accid Anal Prev 1994;26:243–47. 39 Movig K, Mathijssen M, Nagel P et al. Psychoactive substance use and the risk of motor vehicle accidents. Accid Anal Prev 2004;36:631–36. 40 StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP, 2009. 41 Af Wahlberg AE. The relation of non-culpable traffic incidents to bus drivers’ celebration behavior. J Safety Res 2008;39:41–46. 42 Bergstralh EJ, Kosanke JL. Computerized Matching of Controls. Section of Biostatistics Technical Report 56. Rochester, MN, USA: Mayo Foundation, 1995. 43 Rosenbaum PA. Optimal matching for observational studies. JASA 1989;84:1024–32. 44 McCartt AT, Hellinga LA. Longer term effects of Washington DC, law on drivers’ hand-held phones. Traffic Inj Prev 2007;8:199–204.

[1]  Anne T McCartt,et al.  Cell Phones and Driving: Review of Research , 2006, Traffic injury prevention.

[2]  Mark Asbridge,et al.  Cell phone use and traffic crash risk: a culpability analysis. , 2013, International journal of epidemiology.

[3]  Jeff K Caird,et al.  A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[4]  Lawrence O Gostin,et al.  Reducing distracted driving: regulation and education to avert traffic injuries and fatalities. , 2010, JAMA.

[5]  M. Woodward,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  Tami Toroyan,et al.  Global Status Report on Road Safety: Time for Action , 2009 .

[7]  P. Burns,et al.  Observed Driver Phone Use Rates in Canada , 2008 .

[8]  E Lenguerrand,et al.  Limits of the quasi-induced exposure method when compared with the standard case-control design. Application to the estimation of risks associated with driving under the influence of cannabis or alcohol. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[9]  W. Haddon Advances in the epidemiology of injuries as a basis for public policy. , 1980, Public health reports.

[10]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  M. Woodward,et al.  The prevalence of, and factors associated with, serious crashes involving a distracting activity. , 2007, Accident; analysis and prevention.