Cell phone use while driving (CUWD) is an underreported contributor to crashes in the U.S.A. Although research indicates that the public is at least somewhat aware of its risks, law enforcement officers’ beliefs have been understudied. Officers’ attitudes are important for the following reasons: they influence citation rates; enforcement of the law is necessary to change driver behavior; and officers have experience and knowledge with respect to CUWD that the public may not. Ohio law enforcement officers ( N = 1,549) were recruited via convenience samples from multiple agencies in May 2019. We were primarily interested in officers’ support for legislative strategies and their perceptions of barriers to enforcing the law. We also assessed how they prioritized the enforcement of laws restricting CUWD relative to common automobile offenses, the level of risk they assigned to CUWD, and their estimation of CUWD frequency among Ohio drivers. We found that officers supported stronger enforcement of laws restricting CUWD (i.e., preferring primary to secondary enforcement) and viewed CUWD as risky and prevalent. Officers frequently cited secondary enforcement as an obstacle to enforcing laws restricting CUWD. Officers were less supportive of secondary enforcement in relation to CUWD because it is a less-effective version of regulation; their support for secondary enforcement was even lower if they supported primary enforcement. Drivers and policymakers may need to be educated about the problems secondary enforcement poses for law enforcement and be made aware that officers support stronger enforcement, including primary methods.

In March 2020, Ohio, along with many other states, enacted a stay-at-home order (i.e., “shutdown”) to limit the spread of COVID-19. As a result of lower traffic, crashes should also have declined. We investigated whether crash rates declined in Ohio during the stay-at-home order and explore possible predictors for the decrease, such as reduced travel in compliance with the order, along with speeding, alcohol, and drug use. In addition, we examined whether support for President Trump would relate to greater travel and greater crashes (particularly during the stay-at-home order, when greater travel indicated lower compliance). The overall rate of crashes fell as people stayed home, mainly due to a decline in minor crashes. In contrast, the rate of serious crashes did not fall. Instead, percentage of alcohol-related crashes increased during the stay-at-home order, and the reduction in travel was associated with greater speeding-related crashes. Because alcohol and speeding tend to increase crash severity, these two factors may explain why severe crash rates were not reduced by lower traffic. Instead, it appears that those drivers remaining on the roads during the shutdown may have been more prone to risky behaviors, evidenced by a greater percentage of alcohol-related crashes across the state during the shutdown and greater speed-related crashes in counties with less traffic. In addition, county-level support for President Trump indirectly predicted greater rates of crashes (of all types) via increased travel (i.e., lower compliance with the shutdown), even while controlling for county-level income, rurality, and Appalachian region. Importantly, this mediated effect was stronger during the weeks of the shutdown, when greater travel indicated lower compliance. Thus, lower compliance with the stay-at-home order and increased risky driving behaviors by remaining drivers may explain why lower traffic did not lead to lower serious crashes.