People Unvaccinated Against COVID Are 48 Percent More Likely To Get Into Traffic Accidents

When researchers set out to study traffic accidents in Ontario, Canada, they didn’t expect to stumble across a striking pattern related to COVID-19 vaccination. Yet a large-scale analysis of more than 11 million individuals revealed a surprising trend: people who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine were significantly more likely to be involved in serious motor vehicle accidents.

At first glance, the connection might seem implausible. After all, what does a virus have to do with driving? But as the data show—and as researchers carefully unpack—the link isn’t about biology. It’s about behavior. The study, published in the American Journal of Medicine, suggests that certain personality traits or belief systems that influence vaccine hesitancy may also correlate with a greater likelihood of engaging in riskier behavior on the road.

A Surprising Link Between Vaccination Status and Road Safety

An extensive Canadian study has uncovered a surprising and statistically significant connection between COVID-19 vaccination status and the likelihood of being involved in a serious motor vehicle accident. Published in the American Journal of Medicine, the research analyzed anonymized health data from over 11 million adult residents of Ontario, representing a broad cross-section of the population. Among this group, about 16 percent had not received a COVID-19 vaccine. Yet this same subgroup accounted for roughly 25 percent of traffic accidents that resulted in hospital admissions during the study period—a discrepancy that prompted further scrutiny from researchers.

After controlling for variables such as age, sex, geographic location, pre-existing medical conditions, and socioeconomic status, the study’s authors found that unvaccinated individuals faced a 48 percent higher risk of being involved in a traffic accident serious enough to warrant emergency medical care. This elevated risk remained consistent across diverse demographics and was not confined to any particular age group or community. To offer context, the researchers compared the risk to other known health-related factors that influence driving safety. For instance, the increased accident risk among unvaccinated individuals was comparable to the heightened danger associated with sleep apnea—a condition that impairs alertness—and exceeded the risk levels observed among individuals with diabetes. However, it was notably less severe than the elevated risk posed by driving under the influence of alcohol.

Crucially, the study does not suggest that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine directly alters a person’s ability to drive or their physiological response behind the wheel. Instead, the researchers propose that vaccination status may act as a behavioral indicator, reflecting underlying attitudes toward health guidelines, risk perception, and authority. “Simple immune activation against a coronavirus… has no direct effect on traffic behavior,” the authors wrote, emphasizing that their focus was not on biological causality but rather on behavioral correlation. The underlying theory is that individuals who resist public health recommendations—such as vaccination—may also be more likely to disregard other safety norms, including those related to driving.

This correlation raises important questions about how personal beliefs, trust in institutions, and willingness to engage in collective risk-reduction efforts might extend beyond health decisions and into other domains of daily life, such as transportation safety. While causation cannot be definitively established from this data alone, the findings underscore the potential for broader social behaviors to manifest in unexpected and sometimes dangerous ways.

Behavioral and Psychological Traits as Underlying Factors

While the headline finding—that unvaccinated individuals are significantly more likely to be involved in traffic accidents—may appear puzzling at first glance, the researchers offer several plausible explanations rooted in behavioral psychology and social attitudes. Rather than attributing the increased risk to any physiological effect of the vaccine itself, the study points to broader personality traits and belief systems that may influence both health choices and risk-taking behaviors more generally.

One central hypothesis is that people who choose not to get vaccinated may also be more inclined to question or resist rules and recommendations, including those related to road safety. This mindset can manifest as skepticism toward regulations, aversion to perceived government overreach, or a strong emphasis on personal freedom over collective responsibility. In this light, the decision to forgo vaccination could be one expression of a broader pattern of behavior that includes ignoring seatbelt laws, speeding, or using mobile devices while driving—actions that increase the likelihood of accidents.

The researchers also suggest that unvaccinated individuals may be more susceptible to misinformation, have lower health literacy, or belong to social networks where public health guidelines are viewed with suspicion. These same factors could contribute to a distorted perception of everyday risks—not only underestimating the dangers of COVID-19, but also misjudging the risks involved in behaviors like distracted or aggressive driving. Political identity and past negative experiences with healthcare or government institutions may further reinforce a sense of distrust that extends beyond vaccination decisions.

This behavioral framing aligns with existing research on the psychology of risk. Previous studies have demonstrated that individuals who are more prone to impulsive or oppositional behavior tend to take greater risks in various domains, including driving. A 2018 meta-analysis published in Personality and Individual Differences found that traits like aggression, sensation-seeking, and low conscientiousness were predictive of risky driving behaviors. By linking vaccination status to these broader traits, the current study opens a window into how deeply held beliefs and psychological predispositions might influence seemingly unrelated outcomes—like the likelihood of winding up in an emergency room after a crash.

Correlation, Not Causation—Understanding the Study’s Limitations

Despite the compelling nature of the findings, the study’s authors are careful to note that the research demonstrates correlation, not causation. In other words, while the data shows a statistically significant link between being unvaccinated and being involved in a traffic accident, it does not prove that one directly causes the other. This distinction is crucial in avoiding misinterpretation or overreach in public discourse, especially given the politicized context surrounding vaccination.

The research was based on observational data from emergency medical records in Ontario and was limited to accidents that led to hospitalization. This means the analysis does not account for minor accidents that did not require emergency care, nor does it consider self-reported driving behaviors or data from traffic citations. As a result, the scope of the study is confined to the most serious incidents, which may not capture the full picture of risk on the road.

Additionally, the study did not investigate the specific reasons individuals chose not to get vaccinated, nor did it directly assess their attitudes toward traffic laws or driving habits. Without this behavioral data, the authors cannot definitively link the choice to remain unvaccinated with concrete risk-taking actions while driving. Instead, they rely on existing psychological theories and patterns observed in prior research to hypothesize why such a link might exist.

Another caveat is that the data is geographically specific to Ontario, Canada. While the province’s healthcare system and driving regulations are broadly comparable to other developed regions, cultural and political factors influencing vaccine uptake—and potentially driving behavior—may differ significantly elsewhere. As a result, generalizing the findings beyond the Canadian context should be done cautiously and with attention to local variables.

These limitations don’t invalidate the study’s conclusions, but they do underscore the importance of interpreting the data within its proper context. The association between vaccination status and traffic risk is an important finding that merits further investigation, particularly through interdisciplinary studies that integrate behavioral science, public health, and transportation safety. For now, the takeaway is not that vaccines make people better drivers, but rather that vaccination status may serve as a proxy for deeper psychological or sociocultural factors that influence how individuals assess and respond to everyday risks—including those behind the wheel.

Implications for Public Health and Road Safety Policy

The unexpected association between COVID-19 vaccination status and traffic accidents opens a new dimension in understanding how health behaviors may reflect broader patterns of risk assessment and personal decision-making. For public health and safety officials, the findings present both a challenge and an opportunity: how to communicate more effectively with populations that may be simultaneously skeptical of health advice and prone to engaging in higher-risk behaviors in other areas of life.

At the heart of the issue is the recognition that vaccine hesitancy often overlaps with distrust in institutions, skepticism toward authority, and strong beliefs in individual autonomy. These attitudes are not limited to healthcare decisions—they can also shape how individuals respond to laws and safety recommendations in other domains, including road use. As such, traditional public safety messaging that relies on appeals to expert authority or broad-based mandates may not resonate with these groups.

Dr. Donald Redelmeier, one of the study’s co-authors and a physician at the University of Toronto, emphasized this point in a media briefing: “Our analysis doesn’t say that vaccination makes you a safer driver—it says that people who resist public health recommendations might also resist basic safety measures like speed limits or seatbelt use.” This insight suggests that integrated, cross-sector communication strategies—ones that connect health literacy, civic responsibility, and practical safety—could be more effective than siloed messaging campaigns.

Moreover, the study’s findings may prompt reevaluation of how certain demographic groups are assessed for risk in driving contexts. While no one is advocating for using vaccination status as a criterion for insurance premiums or driver licensing, the study raises valid questions about behavioral profiling in risk management. For example, insurers already consider factors like sleep disorders, age, and driving history in their models; could attitudes and behaviors linked to health decision-making become part of a broader conversation around predictive risk assessment?

Beyond the Numbers—A Call for Nuanced Understanding

The finding that unvaccinated individuals are significantly more likely to be involved in serious traffic accidents is not just a statistical curiosity—it’s a window into how personal beliefs, institutional trust, and risk perception can converge in unexpected and sometimes dangerous ways. But this research should not be interpreted as a tool for judgment or division. Rather, it invites a more nuanced conversation about how we understand the intersections between individual behavior and public wellbeing.

As tempting as it might be to draw sweeping conclusions, responsible interpretation of this study requires restraint and context. The increased traffic risk among unvaccinated individuals does not mean vaccines influence driving ability, nor should it be used to stigmatize people with differing views. Instead, it serves as a reminder that behavior in one area of life often reflects broader worldviews and values—many of which are shaped by personal experience, access to information, social networks, and trust in institutions.

For policymakers, educators, and public health communicators, the findings highlight the need to move beyond top-down messaging and toward approaches that acknowledge psychological, cultural, and emotional drivers of behavior. Building safety—on the road, in our communities, and in public health—depends not just on rules and enforcement, but on empathy, dialogue, and engagement.

For the public, the takeaway is equally vital: individual choices have consequences that ripple outward. Whether it’s wearing a seatbelt, slowing down in traffic, or getting vaccinated during a public health crisis, the decisions we make do not occur in a vacuum. They are part of a collective ecosystem where personal responsibility and social impact are deeply intertwined.