• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Environment, Energy and Transportation Program

Reducing Casualties and Costs: State Legislative Progress in Improving Traffic Safety, 2002

Transportation Series No. 18

(printer-friendly version)

To read portable document format (.pdf) files, you must install Adobe Acrobat Reader.

December 2002

By Melissa A. Savage, Irene Kawanabe, Jeanne Mejeur, James B. Reed and Matt Sundeen

This report summarizes hundreds of bills regarding traffic safety issues considered by state legislatures during the 2002 legislative sessions. The purpose of this report is to provide information about current traffic safety issues to legislators, federal officials and other interested parties.

During the 2002 legislative sessions, state legislators considered more than 100 bills designed to protect passengers in motor vehicles. Most of these bills proposed amendments to current seat belt laws; others would have created new requirements for protecting child passengers. Eleven states considered primary seat belt enforcement laws; a bill in Washington passed. Proposals relating to the use of booster seats were considered in 16 states. Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska and Virginia passed laws requiring the use of booster seats by certain age groups.

More than 100 distracted driving bills were introduced in 31 states during the 2002 state legislative sessions. Five states debated legislation that would have banned the use of cell phones and other technology in the car. Most bills introduced during the 2002 sessions were proposals to restrict the use of certain devices, such as hand-held equipment and to improve data collection.

State legislatures consider hundreds of bills during each legislative session designed to make changes to driver's licensing policy and procedures. State legislatures were especially active on this issue after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. More than half the terrorists involved in the hijackings had acquired state driver's licenses. To remedy this problem, every state legislature that was in session during 2002 considered bills regarding driver's licensing procedures. Other driver licensing issues considered during 2002 legislative sessions included graduated licensing for teen drivers and the safety of older drivers. At least 25 states introduced 77 proposals regarding teen driving. A handful of states considered bills relating to older driver safety.

State legislatures considered hundreds of bills regarding impaired driving during 2002. Many states introduced bills to lower the allowed blood alcohol content level, while other states examined open container proposals and new laws geared toward repeat offenders. During 2002, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming lowered their blood alcohol content (BAC) laws to .08 BAC. Maryland and Virginia passed laws prohibiting open alcoholic beverage containers in the passenger areas of motor vehicles. At least 16 states considered bills regarding repeat offenders.

A handful of states considered legislation in 2002 relating to aggressive driving. The Virginia legislature enacted two laws. One new law established the offense of aggressive driving and sets up penalties for committing aggressive driving. The other proposal defines driving with the intent to annoy, harass, molest, intimidate, injure or obstruct another vehicle as a Class 1 misdemeanor and establishes penalties.

During the 2002 state legislative sessions, 17 states debated 23 bills regarding speed limits. Those speeding in construction and school zones in New Mexico will face higher penalties under a new law. In Tennessee, legislators increased penalties for speeding while construction workers are present. Under a new law in Virginia, law enforcement officers are allowed to exceed the speed limit without activating sirens or warning lights.

Crashes at intersections and speeding are major problems in many states. To combat these problems without draining resources, many states and local governments have turned to automated enforcement. In 2002, at least 11 states considered 26 bills relating to the use of automated enforcement. The Hawaii Legislature passed a law to repeal the automated enforcement law. Bills in Virginia to expand the use of automated enforcement programs failed to pass.

At least 25 bills were introduced during the 2002 legislative sessions regarding motorcycle helmets. Most of the proposals were to amend current motorcycle helmet use requirements. The California Legislature considered a bill that would have limited the existing helmet provision to riders age 17 and younger. The bill failed on third reading. In Illinois, a bill was considered that would have made damages caused by a failure to wear a motorcycle helmet unrecoverable in a civil action.

School bus transportation is the safest form of travel, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In an effort to maintain this high level of safety, state legislatures considered more than 120 bills during 2002. Some of these bills would have required the installation of seat belts on school buses; others would have made changes to the licensing process for school bus drivers. Legislators in Illinois and Rhode Island passed laws to prohibit school bus drivers from using cellular telephones while driving. Maryland and Virginia considered-but did not pass-bills to prohibit the use of 15-passenger vans for student transportation.

More than 100 bills regarding pedestrian and bicycling issues were introduced during the 2002 state legislative sessions. Some states introduced bills regarding funding for pedestrian and bicycle programs and facilities. Florida passed a bill establishing a Safe Routes to Schools Program to encourage school-age children to bike and walk to and from school. Nearly every state that was in session during 2002 considered legislation permitting the use of Segway scooters on pedestrian walkways. As of July 2002, 31 states had passed laws allowing the use of Segway scooters on sidewalks.

As evidenced by the several hundred traffic safety bills considered in state legislatures each year, these issues are of concern to many people, including state legislators. Each year, state legislators consider proposals regarding seat belt laws, child passenger protection, distracted driving, impaired driving and many others. These proposals are designed to reduce injuries and fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes.

Although each death or injury caused by a traffic crash is tragic, the economic effects of motor vehicle crashes also are significant. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that in 2000, traffic crashes imposed a burden of $230.6 billion in the form of property damage, lost productivity and medical expenses. This figure does not include the cost of pain and suffering or the nonmonetary value of life. Each death costs society $970,000, while each nonfatal disabling injury costs $35,300. If a measure of the value of lost quality of life is factored in, each death costs society $3.1 million, and each incapacitating injury costs $153,000. Seventy-five percent of these costs are paid by people who are not involved in the motor vehicle crash.

This report summarizes state traffic safety legislation considered during the 2002 state legislative sessions. It is the seventh in a series, following Reducing Crashes, Casualties and Costs: Traffic Safety Challenges for State Legislatures (February 1997), State Legislative Progress in Improving Traffic Safety 1997 (January 1998), Traffic Safety State Legislative Summary, 1998 (February 1999), State Traffic Safety Legislation, 1999 (November 1999), State Traffic Safety Legislative Summary 2000 (December 2000) and Traffic Safety Legislative Update 2001 (February 2002). Issues examined in this report include occupant protection, distracted driving, driver licensing, impaired driving, aggressive driving, speed limits, motorcycle helmets, automated enforcement, school bus safety, and pedestrian and bicycle safety issues. Tables and charts detailing state traffic safety laws are included as are contacts and links for further information.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) became law in June 1998. This federal law restructured many programs and reauthorized highway safety grant programs. TEA-21 also established six incentive programs and two penalty provisions for the states.

Congress must reauthorize TEA-21 in 2004. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is working with the states, highway safety advocates and other organizations to obtain feedback on TEA-21 and suggestions for the new legislation (for NHTSA contact information see appendix A).

The Governors' Highway Safety Association (GHSA) released a report in 2002 that evaluated TEA-21 programs. According to the report, many states have encountered difficulties with the administrative side of the incentive and sanction programs outlined in TEA-21. The report also points out that TEA-21 emphasized occupant protection and impaired driving programs but neglected to provide funding to address other pressing transportation safety problems.

The incentive programs set out in TEA-21 were to reward states for improving highway safety. A total of $68 million was set aside for this incentive program. States were eligible for funding if they met at least four of the following six criteria.

TEA-21 also created incentive programs to combat drunk driving. Under the act, states received additional funding for adopting illegal per se laws with a .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) or laws dealing with repeat offenders, open containers and other driving under the influence (DUI) countermeasures. In some cases, states that complied with TEA-21 provisions were able to keep funds designated for highway construction instead of having these funds transferred to highway safety.

Steady efforts over the years have seen seat belt use grow from only 11 percent in 1980 to 49 percent by 1990 to 73 percent in 2001. The increased use, due to a combination of legislation, law enforcement efforts and public awareness campaigns, saved an estimated 80,000 lives between 1982 and 1999.

More than 42,000 people were fatally injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2001, up slightly from 41,945 in 2000. However, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) went up from 2.75 trillion in 2000 to 2.778 trillion in 2001. Therefore, the fatality rate per 100 million VMT actually decreased slightly, from 1.53 in 2000 to 1.52 in 2001.

Nearly 60 percent of those killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2001 were not wearing seat belts. Seat belt use is the most effective way to prevent injuries and deaths from motor vehicle crashes. In the states that have primary seat belt enforcement laws, seat belt use is, on average, 17 percentage points higher than in the states that have secondary enforcement laws. By increasing the national seat belt use rate from 68 percent to 90 percent, more than 5,500 lives could be saved and approximately 132,000 injuries could be prevented, leading to a savings of $8.8 billion each year, according to NHTSA.

During the 2002 legislative sessions, state legislatures considered hundreds of bills with the goal of increasing motor vehicle safety and occupant protection. Many of these proposals would have strengthened existing seat belt laws, and some would have increased child occupant protection through new child safety seat requirements.

Today, 49 states-New Hampshire is the exception-have seat belt laws. Eighteen states-Alabama, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Washington-and the District of Columbia have primary enforcement seat belt laws that allow police officers to stop a vehicle solely for a seat belt violation. In the remaining 32 states, officers must stop the vehicle for some other traffic offense before they can issue a citation for a seat belt violation; this is known as a secondary offense.

Several states considered primary enforcement bills during the 2002 legislative sessions. Most of these bills died in committee or in the house in which they were introduced. One of the main reasons these bills died so quickly is the perception that they will provide law enforcement officers the opportunity to stop and search vehicles under the guise of enforcing the seat belt law. Washington was the only state to pass a primary enforcement law in 2002 (see appendix B for information on state seat belt laws).

In Oklahoma, HB 1982 passed regarding municipal enforcement of seat belt laws. Under the new law, municipal governments are permitted to enact ordinances relating to seat belts. However, these municipal ordinances cannot be enforced more stringently than the state seat belt law. Specifically, the new law limits the amount municipalities can fine motorists for not wearing seat belts.

Some states have turned to media and public education campaigns to increase seat belt use in their states. Programs like "Click It or Ticket" have effectively increased seat belt use through enforcement in many states. North Carolina started the "Click It or Ticket" program in 1993. Today, several states rely on "Click It or Ticket" and similar programs. In 2002, the South Carolina legislature considered SB 603, which would have prevented the use of the "Click It or Ticket" program as a law enforcement tool to stop vehicles solely for a seat belt violation; the South Carolina seat belt law is secondary. SB 603 died in committee.

Seat belt use for the general population also has a bearing on child passenger protection. According to the National Safety Council, if a driver is wearing a seat belt, 87 percent of the time children also will be restrained. If the driver is not wearing a seat belt, however, the restraint rate for children drops to 24 percent.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have some form of child restraint law, and most are primary enforcement laws. The exceptions are Colorado-where the new booster seat law for children ages 4 through 5 allows for secondary enforcement-and Nebraska-where the law is secondary only for children who may use seat belts and standard or primary for those who must be secured in a child safety seat. Most states require the use of child restraint systems by a certain age group of children. For example, requiring children age 4 and under to be restrained in a child safety seat. Some safety advocacy groups argue that gaps exist in coverage for the child restraint laws in some states. In some cases, the laws fail to cover children in all seating positions or may provide an exemption for out-of-state visitors. Regardless of the current gaps in state laws, 49 percent fewer children died in motor vehicle crashes in 2000 compared to 1975 (see appendices C and D for child safety seat laws).

Although the rate of death for children in motor vehicle crashes has declined, 2,197 children died in 2001 and 267,000 more were injured. Child safety seats are an effective way to keep child passengers safe. Children are put at greater risk when they ride unrestrained or improperly restrained in a motor vehicle. NHTSA estimates that, when child safety seats are used correctly, they reduce fatal injuries by 71 percent for infants and by 54 percent for toddlers. In 2000, more than 50 percent of all children under age 15 who were killed in crashes were completely unbuckled.

Some states have passed other laws in an effort to increase child safety seat use and improve overall child passenger protection. In some states, for example, parents who purchase a child safety seat can receive a tax credit. In other states, the purchase of a child safety seat is exempt from sales tax. Some states have passed legislation requiring insurance companies to cover the replacement of child safety seats involved in car crashes.

Arkansas, California and Washington were the first states to pass laws requiring the use of booster seats by children who have outgrown their safety seats. The laws in Arkansas and California require children age 5 and younger and who weigh less than 60 pounds to ride restrained in a booster seat. The Washington law requires children between the ages of 4 and 5 and between 40 pounds and 60 pounds to use a booster seat.

At least 15 states considered booster seat legislation during the 2002 legislative sessions. Colorado passed a law requiring children between the ages of 4 and 5 to ride restrained in booster seats. The Maine Legislature passed a law to require that children ride in a booster seat if they weigh between 40 pounds and 80 pounds and are younger than age 8.

Several states consider booster seat legislation each year. Today, 13 states have some type of booster seat law. Some safety organizations argue that certain new booster seat laws do not reflect best practices. In a few states, for example, the law covers only those children who weigh less than 40 pounds.

Many children outgrow their safety seats when they reach 40 pounds. At this point, booster seats can be used to secure child passengers. Some traffic safety advocates believe children should ride in booster seats until they weigh at least 80 pounds. According to Dr. Jeffrey Runge, NHTSA administrator, "All children who have outgrown child safety seats should be properly restrained in booster seats until they are at least 8 years old, unless they exceed 4'9" in height." Whether the determination is based on height or weight, NHTSA firmly believes that children who are too big for traditional safety seats are too small to be seated directly in the seat of the car and to use an adult shoulder/lap belt.

Delaware is one of the few states to have a law to address the risk of air bags. Specifically, children under 65 inches and younger than age 12 are required to ride in the back seat of vehicles that are equipped with passenger air bags. North Carolina and Washington have similar laws. In North Carolina, children under age 5 who weigh less than 40 pounds must be seated in a child safety seat in the rear seat if the vehicle has a passenger air bag. Washington's law, effective July 1, 2002, requires children under age 6 who weigh less than 60 pounds to be seated in a child safety seat in the back seat in vehicles equipped with passenger air bags. Louisiana, Rhode Island and South Carolina require children of a certain age to ride in the rear seat of any vehicle.

A bill in New York, still under consideration, would prohibit child passengers younger than age 7 from riding in the front seat. A bill still under debate in Pennsylvania would require child passengers younger than age 10 to sit in the back seat.

Thirty-one states directly address passengers riding in the cargo areas of pickup trucks to varying degrees through state law. Eight states prohibit people of all ages from riding in cargo areas with some exceptions. Twenty-one other states prohibit children of varying ages (from 8 to 18) from riding in a cargo area, also with some exceptions. Exceptions often include parades, agricultural workers, if the bed is completely enclosed, hunters, and emergency situations. Child passenger protection laws in virtually all states that require child safety seats would preclude very young children (generally age 4 and younger) from riding in the back of pickup trucks (see appendix E for a detailed state chart).

Evidence from California shows that laws prohibiting passengers in cargo areas prevents deaths: before the pickup law was passed, deaths totaled 57; after it was enacted, deaths totaled 32. One-third of those killed were age 18 or younger. Implementation of the law was aided by the "Don't Be Human Cargo" educational campaign. The American Academy of Pediatrics believes the best way to reduce the number of deaths and injuries to children in pickup trucks is to prohibit them from riding in the cargo area and to require the use of age-appropriate restraints inside the cab.

Since 1997, 24 states have considered bills on this topic; the most recent was passed in Michigan. According to the law, which went into effect March 28, 2001, no person under age 18 is permitted to ride in the open bed of a pickup truck that is traveling at speeds higher than 15 miles per hour. The law allows use of the open bed by passengers for parades and farm operations. Four bills were considered during the 2002 legislative sessions. An Iowa bill, which failed to pass, would have required seat belts in pickup truck cargo areas. In Mississippi, legislation died in committee that would have prohibited passenger use of pickup truck beds.

Driver distractions continued to be a major focus of traffic safety legislation in 2002. Legislators in 31 states considered approximately 100 bills regarding distracted driving; 43 states had considered more than 140 bills in 2001.

NHTSA estimates that every year, approximately 20 percent to 30 percent of all motor vehicle crashes are caused by distracted drivers. Although many activities can potentially distract a person from their primary role of driving, the main issue for many legislators has been the use of technology such as cell phones and other wireless communications devices in the car. According to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), more than 137 million people now subscribe to cellular telephone services in the United States, up from 60 million subscribers just three years ago. Surveys indicate that between 70 percent and 85 percent of subscribers use their phones while driving to stay in touch with loved ones, call for assistance, report emergencies, convey information about hazardous road conditions and report aggressive or drunk drivers. At least one expert has stated that as much as 70 percent of all cell phone use may occur in the car.

Cell phones are not the only potential technological distraction in the car, however. A variety of information and entertainment devices, once available only at home or in the office, now are available in motor vehicles. Drivers can check e-mail, surf the Web, send and receive faxes, and use navigation systems from the comfort of the car. It is estimated that the global market for such in-vehicle devices will exceed $40 billion by 2010.

Wireless service providers tout the safety benefits wireless devices can provide in the car. CTIA estimates that cell phone users make more than 143,000 emergency calls each day. In addition, new technologies can automatically notify emergency personnel of motor vehicle crashes, improve crash data and help emergency personnel locate vehicles.

Lawmakers must weigh the advantages of wireless technology against potential problems. The tremendous influx of potentially distracting gadgets and technologies in motor vehicles has heightened concern about traffic safety. Studies conducted in the United States, Great Britain and Japan have concluded that people who use mobile phones while driving pose a greater risk of crashing. One widely quoted report published in 1997 in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the distraction caused by phone use in motor vehicles quadrupled the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call, a rate equivalent to the impairment caused by legal intoxication. However, there is no consensus on whether cell phones are a greater threat in the car than are eating, applying make-up, tuning the radio or talking with passengers, and no researcher has suggested that cell phones pose the same threat as intoxication.

Some academic studies and preliminary crash data results indicate that few motor vehicle crashes are caused by the use of mobile phones. Studies published by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Analysis both concluded that the risks posed by cellular phone use while driving alone appeared small in comparison with other dangers on the road. A study of North Carolina crash data by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center concluded that cell phones ranked eighth in a list of distractions that caused crashes, below activities such as adjusting the radio or eating and drinking. Data released in California, Florida, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee showed that drivers cited cell phone use as a factor in less than 1 percent of motor vehicle crashes.

Eleven states have laws regarding the use of mobile telephones while driving. However, most state laws impose minor restrictions on drivers. Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts and Rhode Island prohibit school bus drivers from using cell phones. California requires rental cars with embedded cell phone equipment to contain written instructions on the safe use of the cell phone. Florida and Illinois require drivers to use only one-sided headsets with cell phone equipment. Massachusetts requires all drivers to keep one hand on the steering wheel while using a cell phone. New Jersey prohibits drivers with only a learner's permit from using cell phones while driving (see table 1).

New York imposes the strongest restrictions against cell phone use in the car. Under legislation passed in 2001, New York drivers can use only hands-free phones while operating a motor vehicle. Drivers caught using a hand-held phone can be fined up to $100 for a first violation and more for subsequent offenses.

Four states-Florida, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Oregon-have passed laws to clarify that distracted driving is a state issue. In each of those states, laws now preempt local jurisdictions from passing restrictions on the use of mobile phones while driving.

In addition to these laws, many states are working to improve their knowledge about the potential risks of driver distractions. Eighteen states now collect information about cell phones and driver distractions on crash report forms. In addition, legislators in Delaware, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Virginia passed resolutions to study the issue.

In 2002, state legislators in 31 states proposed approximately 100 bills regarding distracted driving. Legislation varied in each jurisdiction. Only five states considered outright prohibition of cell phones and other technology in the car. More common were proposals to restrict certain types of devices or to improve data collection. Twenty-four states considered legislation to prohibit the use of hand-held phones while driving. Eleven states considered measures to improve data collection or to study the relationship between driver distractions and crashes. Five states considered legislation that would increase penalties for drivers who crash while using a cell phone. Six states attempted to prohibit school bus drivers from using a cell phone, while six states considered cell phone prohibitions for young drivers. Five states considered measures that would prohibit all driver distractions, including, but not limited to, cell phones.

Legislatures in six states passed bills or resolutions regarding driver distractions. Delaware and New Jersey legislators created task forces to study and make recommendations regarding driver distractions, including mobile telephone use. The Florida Legislature passed a measure that requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to include distracted driver information on crash report forms. Illinois and Rhode Island legislators prohibited school bus drivers from using cell phones while operating the school bus. A new law in New Jersey prohibits drivers with a learner's permit from using a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle. Florida and Mississippi passed laws to preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of cell phones and other devices in cars.

Each year, state legislatures consider hundreds of bills regarding driver's licenses. During the 2002 legislative sessions, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, every state legislature that was in session considered bills to strengthen the driver's license process in an effort to eliminate identity theft and fraud and address issues relating to illegal immigrants and residency status.

The driver's license application process differs throughout the country. Some states rely on state statutes to guide the process, while others use statutes and departmental policy and administrative code. Thus, it can be difficult to determine how each state administers its driver's license process. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, many states tightened their application processes through administrative rulemaking or departmental process. For example, some states made changes to the accepted documentation applicants may use to prove citizenship and residency. Other states proposed legislation to amend current law regarding the driver's license process. Whatever the method, driver's license security has been a major issue during the past year.

Proposals have been made at the federal level to establish a "national identification card." The goal of these proposals is to create a uniform and standard licensing process throughout the states. Many believe this is a good idea; however, they feel this uniform and standard licensing process is something that should be established at the state level, not at the federal level. During the 2002 state legislative sessions, 44 states considered more than 150 bills relating to the driver's license application process.

According to NHTSA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, injury from motor vehicle crashes is the leading cause of death among U.S. teenagers. Crash rates among drivers between the ages of 16 and 19, per mile driven, are higher than those for all other age groups. The crash risk among 16- to 17-year-old drivers is almost three times as high as among 18- to 19-year-old drivers. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, young drivers' inexperience and risk-taking have contributed to the high incidence of crashes. The inexperience of young drivers makes it difficult for them to recognize and respond to hazards, resulting in unsafe driving practices. These unsafe practices manifest themselves in risk-taking behavior such as speeding, tailgating and not wearing seat belts.

Graduated driver licensing (GDL) attempts to address youthful risk-taking and inexperience by limiting exposure to high-risk situations and gradually phasing in the driving privilege. GDL allows young drivers to gain experience and maturity under controlled conditions before they progress to more risky driving situations.

Forty-three states and the District of Columbia have enacted some or all of the elements of graduated licensing. According to highway safety groups, most states have enacted the core elements of a graduated licensing plan in accordance with the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO). The core NCUTLO components are a learner's phase of at least six months, an intermediate license phase of at least six months that also includes a prohibition against unsupervised nighttime driving, and full licensure. Drivers must remain free of traffic violations during the license phases. Eleven other states have at least some of these provisions (see appendix F).

A nighttime driving restriction is a key element of a graduated licensing system, according to safety advocates. In 1999, 41 percent of motor vehicle deaths among teenagers occurred between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. The nighttime restriction is not a curfew, but a requirement for supervised nighttime driving. The night driving environment is a more difficult situation to master for all drivers because of reduced visibility, glare from oncoming traffic and fatigue. The risk of fatal crashes at night for all drivers is approximately 30 to 40 times greater than during the day. This risk is even higher for teen drivers.

A study in North Carolina showed that the time for highest risk to teens was between 9 p.m. and midnight. As a result of this study, the North Carolina legislature included a nighttime driving restriction from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. in its graduated licensing law. South Carolina adopted restricted nighttime driving from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., the earliest requirement for nighttime supervised driving in the country. Idaho restricts teen drivers from driving unsupervised from sunset to sunrise. Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia have nighttime driving restrictions, although the times vary.

Another component of graduated licensing systems is the requirement that novice drivers complete a specified amount of supervised driving practice. California, Michigan and Ohio require 50 hours, with 10 of those at night, while Illinois requires 25 hours and Massachusetts requires 12 hours. Increased parental involvement in the education process is a cornerstone of AAA's Licensed to Learn program, which is designed to improve teen driving through driver training from a professional instructor, combined with an additional 50 to 100 hours of adult-supervised driving experience.

One rationale behind passenger restrictions is that teen drivers can be distracted by teen passengers. Studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety show that teenage drivers are at much greater risk of being involved in a fatal crash when teen passengers are present as opposed to when they are driving alone or with an adult. A 2000 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that nighttime driving restrictions are appropriate for teen drivers, but that they need to be used with passenger restrictions because more than 50 percent of fatal crashes involving teenage drivers with passengers occur during the day.

California was the first state to impose passenger restrictions as part of its graduated licensing system. For the first six months of the provisional license, drivers are prohibited from transporting passengers under age 20 unless accompanied by a parent or an adult over age 25. A family exemption allows teens unaccompanied by an adult to drive immediate family members under age 20 during the first six months with parental authorization. Eighteen other states-Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin-and the District of Columbia now impose passenger restrictions on novice drivers.

Numerous studies have been conducted following the passage of GDL laws. Florida was the first state to enact comprehensive GDL legislation on July 1, 1996. An evaluation of Florida's graduated license law showed a 9 percent reduction in fatality and injury crashes among 15- to 17-year-old drivers. Michigan's law took effect on April 1, 1997. An evaluation in 2000 of the Michigan law at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute examined the crash rates of 16-year-old drivers before and after the GDL law. The study found that the rate of 16-year-old drivers (per 1,000 population) involved in crashes declined from 154 in 1996 to 111 in 1999. After adjusting for population trends, the overall crash risk for 16-year-olds was reduced 25 percent between 1999 and 1996. Significant reductions also occurred in nonfatal injuries and both fatal and nonfatal crashes.

The North Carolina law became effective Dec. 1, 1997, and, despite an increase of nearly 500,000 new drivers, the number of youth fatalities declined slightly in the first year of its GDL law. A report by the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Institute indicated North Carolina's graduated licensing law is being credited with a 29 percent decline in crashes involving 16-year-olds. The law is attributed with having an even greater effect on nighttime crashes, reducing late night crashes for 16-year-old drivers by 47 percent.

In 2002, at least 25 states introduced a total of 77 bills that addressed some form of teen driving, including graduated driver licensing. Some bills attempted to change or add to the current graduated driver licensing laws. Others would allow additional reasons to revoke a driver's license, including motor vehicle theft, truancy and attempted purchase of alcoholic beverages. Virginia enacted a law that requires all applicants for a driver's license who are under age 19 to submit proof that they have completed driver's education. Legislators in South Dakota passed a bill linking driving privileges to illegal possession or consumption of alcohol for those under age 21. Specifically, the new bill requires driver's license suspension for 30 days to one year for minors under age 21 who are convicted of purchasing, possessing or consuming alcohol. In Alabama, a resolution passed requiring the Governor's Task Force on Alcohol and Drug Abuse to study teen drinking and driving.

By 2020, more than 50 million people over age 65 will be living in the United States. The mobility and independence of this age group is something many states and organizations are researching. Even today, the number of licensed older drivers is increasing. Although they have fewer crashes compared to younger drivers, they do have higher fatal crash rates.

Because of the aging process, some older drivers discover that their eyesight is deteriorating, their reflexes are slowing and their hearing is weakening. Some older drivers place self-imposed restrictions on their driving. For example, some will choose to limit their driving to daylight hours only and some will choose not to drive on highways. Other older drivers choose not to restrict their driving, which often causes family members to take away their keys. Some states have tried to make this process easier through laws designed to ensure that older individuals are able to safely operate a car. These laws range from driving restrictions to shortening time between renewals and requiring regular vision and driving tests (see appendix G).

At least 35 states rely on medical review boards, made up of health care professionals, to make recommendations about licensing laws in general and about the licensing of individuals on a case-by-base basis. These boards, through examination and review, determine whether an individual has the ability to drive safely. They determine whether individuals may retain their licenses, have their licenses revoked or have their driving privileges restricted.

Other ways to help determine a driver's ability is by requiring more frequent renewals and vision testing at every renewal. Some states require a road test if the driver has been in several crashes. Illinois law requires everyone over age 75 to take a road test. By shortening the length of time a driver's license is valid, state licensing agencies are able to check up on the individual during the renewal process to detect any impairments or problems that would limit the person's ability to drive. In Colorado, for example, people over age 66 must renew their driver's license in person and are not able to renew through the mail.

In Maryland, a consortium representing more than 30 state, national and private organizations has been established to "create and offer a program of safe mobility for Maryland older drivers." One of the main goals of the consortium is to plan for 2011-the year the first boomers will reach age 65. The consortium currently is developing data that will enable it to make reasonable recommendations to state legislators on possible solutions. At this time, the consortium does not recommend the passage of new laws. The focus, it believes, should be on research and on generating quality data to help make future recommendations for policies and laws that will effectively help keep older drivers safe.

Another way to help ensure older driver safety is through driver's education courses. Thirty-six states have passed laws requiring insurance discounts be given to older drivers who take a re-education course like 55 Alive, a driver's education course offered by the American Association of Retired Persons. Some insurance companies voluntarily offer such discounts.

During the 2002 legislative sessions, a handful of states considered bills relating to older drivers. Idaho enacted a bill that removes the restriction that prohibits an insurance reduction for drivers age 65 and over who complete a self-instructed course or a course that does not offer classroom or field driving instruction. The bill became effective on July 1, 2002. Hawaii introduced a bill that would require drivers age 70 and over to have a vision test every four years. The bill failed in committee. Mississippi introduced two bills requiring a vision test for license renewals, one for drivers age 70 and older and the other for drivers age 75 and older. Both bills failed.

As of October 2002, 34 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have adopted illegal per se laws with a legal limit of .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) (see figure 1). All other states have a standard of .10 BAC as the legal level for drunk driving offenses. The exception-Massachusetts-has not adopted an illegal per se law. During the 2002 state legislative sessions, 11 states considered more than 20 bills relating to .08 BAC. This year, Missouri, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming passed laws to lower the illegal per se limit to .08 BAC.

Illegal per se means that a BAC level above the legally established limit is a violation in and of itself, so impairment need not be demonstrated. Although Massachusetts has no illegal per se law, it has adopted a .08 administrative per se law for the purposes of administrative license revocation.

During the 1990s, the debate for state lawmakers about whether to adopt .08 as the drunk driving standard for their state focused on the effectiveness of the lower standard in reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities and injuries. That debate has been resolved to the satisfaction of most lawmakers, because .08 laws have been demonstrated to reduce drunk driving fatalities and injuries when used in conjunction with other drunk driving countermeasures, particularly administrative license revocation.

During the last few years, the debate on .08 BAC has shifted away from its effectiveness to the financial effects states will experience through federal government funding incentives and imposed financial sanctions related to the adoption of .08 BAC laws. As an incentive, approximately $500 million in additional highway funding has been made available for states to share under provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) from 1998 through 2003, for states that enact an illegal per se law with a standard of .08 BAC.

Sanctions for states that do not adopt a .08 BAC illegal per se law come in the form of reductions in highway construction funding. States that fail to enact .08 BAC laws by 2004 will have 2 percent of their Section 402 highway construction funding withheld in 2004. Four percent of funds would be withheld in 2005, increasing to 6 percent in 2006 and 8 percent in 2007. By 2007, reductions in highway construction funding for affected states could total almost $775 billion in funds withheld. States that adopt .08 BAC standards by 2007 would have full funding restored and would be reimbursed any lost funds.

Another provision of TEA-21 established funding sanctions to compel states to adopt open container laws that would prohibit the possession of an open container of an alcoholic beverage or the consumption of an alcoholic beverage in the passenger area of a motor vehicle. To comply with federal requirements on open containers, the state's law must meet the following criteria:

• Prohibit both possession of an open alcoholic beverage container and consumption of an alcoholic beverage;
• Cover the passenger area of any motor vehicle, including unlocked glove compartments and any areas of the vehicle that are readily accessible to the driver or passengers while in their seats;
• Apply to all open alcoholic beverage containers and all alcoholic beverages, including all beer, wine and spirits;
• Apply to all vehicle occupants except for passengers of vehicles such as buses or taxi cabs or the living quarters of motor homes;
• Apply to vehicles on a public highway or the right-of-way (including the shoulder) of a public highway; and
• Require primary enforcement of the law, allowing law enforcement officers to stop vehicles for probable cause for violation of the open container law.

States that do not have or are not enforcing a federally qualifying open container law will have 1.5 percent of their highway construction funds for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and 3 percent for fiscal year 2003 transferred either to the state's highway safety funds to be used for enforcement of drunk driving laws or to the state's highway hazard elimination funds. Currently, 34 states and the District of Columbia comply with the federal open container requirements (see figure 2). A handful of states considered open container bills in 2002. Maryland and Virginia passed bills that prohibit open alcoholic beverage containers in the passenger areas of vehicles.

To bolster the case for adoption of state open container laws, NHTSA recently released a new report with a preliminary analysis of the effectiveness of state open container laws, which prohibit open alcoholic beverage containers in the passenger compartment of a vehicle. Before release of this preliminary data, no specific research had been conducted into the effectiveness of open container laws in reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities and injuries. The NHTSA study analyzed the before and after experiences of four states-Iowa, Maine, Rhode Island and South Dakota-that had existing open container laws but modified them to conform to the new federal requirements. The study found that in the six months following enforcement of the new open container laws, alcohol-related crashes decreased slightly in Maine, Rhode Island and South Dakota, but that the decrease was not statistically significant. Iowa saw no change in the number of fatalities.

In a second comparison, the study divided all the states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico into four categories based on the status of their open container laws as of October 2000. The study found that for the 13 states and the District of Columbia that had fully conforming open container laws prior to enactment of the federal requirements, the rate of alcohol-related fatalities was 38 percent; in the 17 states that adopted or modified open container laws to conform to federal requirements, the fatality rate was 37 percent. For the three states and Puerto Rico that had no open container laws, the alcohol-related fatality rate was almost 42 percent, while in the 17 states that had non-conforming open container laws, alcohol was a factor in 40 percent of traffic fatalities. Although the study noted that other drunk driving countermeasures and the level of enforcement also could affect the rate of alcohol-related fatalities, states without open container laws experienced significantly higher rates of alcohol-related traffic fatalities than states with open container laws.

Although alcohol-related traffic fatalities in general have declined 25 percent since 1990, the decrease in the percentage of child passenger deaths has not been as significant. Between 1985 and 1996, more than 5,500 child passengers died as a result of alcohol-related traffic crashes (see table 2).

According to a recent study conducted by the University of North Carolina, the percentage of alcohol involvement for child fatalities has actually increased at times for specific age groups. The study also notes that drunk drivers who had children in the vehicle at the time of their offense were more likely to have previous drunk driving convictions or prior driver's license suspensions and were less likely to use seatbelts or child restraints to protect vehicle occupants.

State lawmakers have taken seriously the potential harm children face when they ride with a drunk driver. Since the early 1990s, at least 27 states have passed laws to expand protection for children and punish those drunk drivers who would put them at risk (see appendix H).

The approach most states have taken is to increase the penalties for drunk driving with a child in the vehicle. At least 21 states have added stiffer penalties if the basic drunk driving offense occurred with a child present. From higher fines and longer mandatory jail sentences to longer license suspensions and felony convictions, drunk drivers who endanger children with the offense often find themselves facing double the penalties they would have earned had they left the children at home. Under the laws passed in most of these states, the child need not suffer physical harm for the stiffer penalties to apply.

At least four states have adopted laws making it a separate offense to have a child present in the vehicle while driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. In creating separate offenses, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho and Ohio have followed the trend of creating aggravated drunk driving offenses where there are special circumstances, such as a particularly high level of intoxication or endangering a child. The child need not be injured or killed for the driver to be charged with the aggravated offense; the mere presence of a child in the vehicle at the time of the offense is sufficient to warrant the elevated charge.

Although enhanced penalties or separate drunk driving offenses are the more common approaches to addressing the problem, Colorado and Iowa have used existing child abuse and neglect statutes to cover drunk driving with a child in the vehicle. In Colorado, a person is guilty of child abuse if he or she knowingly or recklessly commits an act that injures or kills a child. Colorado case law has supported that the child abuse statute applies to drunk driving, regardless of whether the child is in the car being driven by the drunk driver or is a passenger in another vehicle involved in a collision with the drunk driver. Iowa's law is similar, in that an adult can be charged with child neglect for recklessly exposing a child to danger by driving in an intoxicated condition with a child in the vehicle. As in Colorado, the Iowa statute has been tested and supported in the courts.

Traditionally, drunk drivers have been punished based on the number of their prior offenses. Tiered sanctioning systems take into consideration the level of intoxication at the time of the offense, even if was the first offense. The high BAC thresholds adopted by the states range from .15 BAC to .20 BAC; these are in addition to the standard illegal per se limits of either .08 BAC or .10 BAC.

Twenty-nine states currently have enacted tiered sanctioning systems that either create a separate offense, such as aggravated drunk driving, or increase the type and severity of penalties for driving while extremely drunk (see table 3). Enhanced penalties may include longer or more intensive alcohol abuse treatment; limits on plea bargaining and deferred judgments; the use of ignition interlock devices; and significant, sometimes doubled, increases in fines, jail time and license suspensions. In some states, high BAC levels also are considered an aggravating factor during sentencing.

The first study on the effectiveness of high BAC laws, Evaluation of Enhanced Sanctions for Higher BACS: Summary of States' Laws, was recently released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The two-stage study, conducted under an NHTSA grant by Preusser Research Group Inc., provides an initial review of state experiences with tiered sanctioning. Based on interviews with officials from each state's highway safety agency, most of the 29 states reported few problems in implementing a tiered sanctioning system and indicated a positive effect on drunk driving enforcement.

However, some states reported concerns that tiered systems further complicate an already intricate system of drunk driving laws and may encourage more drivers to refuse to take a BAC test because of the threat of increased penalties. To address that concern, Maine increased the penalties for test refusals. In Minnesota, refusal rates have declined since the high BAC law was adopted in 1998, but other states-including Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and Washington-have noted an increased number of refusals as an overall trend.

An additional concern for at least two states is that having a tiered sanctioning system seems to have encouraged the use of plea bargaining to a lesser offense, permitting high BAC offenders to evade enhanced sanctions. Both Arizona and Washington have noted problems with plea bargaining, and in Washington, preliminary figures indicate that about half of high BAC offenders pleaded to lower BAC charges.

Finally, a few states-including Arizona, Ohio and Tennessee-noted jail overcrowding and increased incarceration costs have caused complications in enforcing high BAC penalties. In Tennessee, for example, some offenders have had to serve their sentences piecemeal, rather than in a single term. At least one state-Oklahoma-noted a lack of sufficient treatment services to support the requirements of more intensive alcohol rehabilitation.

Adoption of high BAC laws has faced little opposition in state legislatures and has had the support of the public and interest groups, including the beverage industry. Despite concerns, the relative ease of implementation and the deterrent effect of high BAC laws have made them a popular addition to states' arsenal of drunk driving countermeasures. In addition, states that adopt high BAC laws may qualify for Section 410 incentive funding under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).

A follow-up study will evaluate the effectiveness of the sanctions being imposed for high BAC offenses in selected jurisdictions and will focus on the concerns raised by states in the first stage of the study, particularly whether a tiered sanctioning system creates additional problems for law enforcement agencies, courts and correctional systems.

In 1998, Arizona became the first state to pass a law creating a specific aggressive driving offense. Since then, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada, Rhode Island and Virginia also have established the offense of aggressive driving. In addition, Utah amended its reckless driving law to provide for an offense similar to ones enacted in the other states.

Aggressive driving includes a range of driving behavior that might include speeding, tailgating, weaving and running red lights, or any combination of these activities. Gesturing, yelling and flashing high beams are other actions often mentioned in any description of aggressive driving. It is difficult, however, to concisely define aggressive driving in one simple statement. Another issue is the distinction between aggressive driving and road rage. Aggressive driving acts are traffic offenses, while road rage involves a criminal act.

Three states introduced a total of eight bills in 2002 that addressed various aspects of aggressive driving. New York enacted SB 1136 at the end of 2001, requiring that pre-licensing and defensive driving courses contain a component of road rage awareness education. In 2002, Virginia enacted two bills. One creates the offense of aggressive driving, punishable as reckless driving and assigning the offense four points. The other bill makes driving with the intent to annoy, harass, molest, intimidate, injure or obstruct another vehicle a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by a mandatory fine of $500 and mandatory attendance at a driver improvement clinic. Arizona attempted to add the offense of dangerous driving to the existing aggressive driving definition; however, that bill failed in the Senate.

More than 20 states and local governments have established law enforcement programs to target aggressive drivers. Many of the programs share characteristics similar to the Ohio program. The Ohio State Highway Patrol established the Operation TRIAD-Targeting Reckless, Intimidating and Aggressive Drivers-program. The patrol uses aircraft, highway patrol officers and local law enforcement personnel to target specific traffic sites. They look for aggressive driving behaviors at congested locations, complaint areas, school bus routes and dangerous rail crossings. The patrol pairs enforcement with extensive media coverage to increase public awareness about aggressive driving and encourage safer driving habits.

In 2002, 23 bills regarding speed limits were considered or are still under consideration in 17 states. New Mexico, Tennessee and Virginia enacted legislation. The New Mexico Legislature passed legislation doubling the penalty for speeding in construction or other safety zones. In Tennessee, identical bills-HB 2509 and SB 2181-were signed into law to clarify that fines imposed for violation of a lower speed limit while construction workers are present is not to be less than $250 nor more than $500.

Virginia enacted two bills related to speeding. HB 539 permits law enforcement personnel to exceed the speed limit without turning on warning lights or sirens in order to pace vehicles suspected of speeding. HB 606 requires the Traffic Infractions and Uniform Fine Schedule adopted by the Supreme Court for the prepayment of fines to include a fine of not less than $5 per mile over the posted speed limit for speeding on certain roads where the maximum speed limit is 55 miles per hour (mph) or 65 mph.

Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and New Hampshire rejected bills to increase speed limits on various types of roadways, although the Hawaii Department of Transportation raised speeds from 55 mph to 60 mph on certain parts of the H-1 and H-3 freeways after studying roadway geometrics. Missouri examined and rejected a reduced limit for trucks. Ten states currently maintain lower limits for trucks (see appendix I for state speed limit laws).

Identical pending bills in New Jersey would exempt physicians who exceed the speed limit from penalties if they are engaged in an emergency situation. Mississippi and South Dakota considered bills related to emergency vehicles. West Virginia rejected a bill to set maximum limits for passing lanes on interstates. Colorado defeated a bill to make the speed limits specified in statute the only maximum limits for the state.

In Florida, a bill to allow school boards to extend speed limits in school zones to cover the entire day was reported favorably from the Senate Education Committee, but died on the calendar.

In Texas, the state cut the speed limit for all vehicles in Houston to 55 mph in December 2001 to help Houston meet clean air standards. During the summer of 2002, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) recommended to the Texas Department of Transportation that the limit on passenger cars be restored to 70 mph, citing negligible environmental benefits. However, TNRCC said clean air benefits from requiring trucks to travel at 55 mph were significant enough to keep the lower limit in place for trucks. The decision is under consideration at the Texas Department of Transportation.

During 2001, an estimated 100,000 crashes were caused by drivers who ran a red light. These crashes caused 84,000 injuries and 1,131 fatalities. More than 55 percent of Americans admit that they have run a red light. Many cities and other local governments (with limited resources) often are unable to effectively enforce some traffic laws. Through the use of automated enforcement, cities and communities are able to enforce laws that help their roads remain safe without diverting law enforcement resources from other areas.

Automated enforcement technology is used to detect motor vehicles that have run red lights or are speeding. Red light cameras are used to enforce laws involving traffic signals, and photo radar technology is used to detect speeding violations. Automated enforcement laws vary throughout the states. Some laws allow the use of cameras in certain communities, others allow the use statewide, and some state laws prohibit the use of automated enforcement altogether.

Each year several states consider legislation to establish new automated enforcement programs and some consider further restricting and regulating current automated enforcement programs. Several state legislatures considered legislation regarding red light cameras and photo radar during the 2002 legislative sessions. Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi and Missouri proposed legislation that would permit the use of some form of automated enforcement. All the bills-except in Illinois, where the legislature still is in session-failed to pass. Virginia unsuccessfully introduced bills to expand the use of red light cameras to additional municipalities.

Most automated enforcement systems operate the same way. Red light cameras are linked to the traffic signal and monitor each phase of the traffic signal-green, yellow and red. When a motorist drives through the intersection after the signal has turned red, sensors trigger the cameras to take two photographs. One photograph is taken of the vehicle entering the intersection while the light is red, and one photograph shows the vehicle traveling through the intersection on a red light. The cameras photograph only vehicles that clearly are running the red light.

Use of photo radar to enforce speed limit laws functions almost the same as red light cameras. Usually, the photo radar system is located in a mobile unit, like a van. The system is equipped with both a radar detector and a camera. Once a speeding vehicle is detected, the camera is triggered and a photograph is taken of the vehicle. The photos, with the date, time and speed recorded, then are used to determine the vehicle owner, and tickets are generated and distributed.

Red light cameras have been shown to reduce both red light violations and crashes. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducted a study in Oxnard, Calif., which showed that red light violations dropped 42 percent after the installation of cameras. Oxnard also witnessed a reduction in violations at intersections without cameras. According to the institute, the fear of a ticket-not the fear of a crash-is what prevents people from speeding or running red lights. However, a 1996 study conducted in Richmond, Va., by the Survey Research Laboratory and Center for Urban Development found that 60 percent of people surveyed felt that less than 10 percent of red light runners would be stopped or ticketed.

In New York City, after one year of the photo red light camera project, 175,000 violations were processed. In a before-and-after analysis of one intersection, crashes due to red light running had decreased by approximately 70 percent. In Howard County, Md., red light crashes at one intersection were reduced by almost 50 percent in one year. An analysis in Fairfax, Va., calculated the reduction in red light running violations. After three months of camera use, a 7 percent reduction in violations was reported. After a year, this figure jumped to 44 percent.

Scottsdale, Ariz., began issuing automated enforcement tickets in January 1997 for speeding. Collisions at locations with speed cameras decreased 20 percent from 1996 to 1997. During this time period, total collisions in Scottsdale decreased by only 3 percent. In the District of Columbia, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety measured travel speeds on seven neighborhood streets before photo radar was deployed and again at the same sites six months after deployment. At all the sites, the proportion of motorists going fast enough to warrant a ticket went down. The reductions ranged from 38 percent to 89 percent. At the same time, the proportion of motorists going more than 10 mph faster than the speed limit in Baltimore, Md.-where photo radar is not being used-stayed the same or increased slightly.

Although these statistics are impressive, some individuals and organizations feel that the use of automated enforcement is a violation of privacy. For example, the National Motorist Association (NMA) has many concerns regarding the use of this technology. The NMA feels that the notification of defendants via first class mail is inadequate because there is no "reasonable guarantee that the person whom the letter is addressed will actually get the letter." Further, some feel that it is difficult, if not impossible, to positively identify the driver of the motor vehicle in question. The NMA is concerned with what it sees as an abuse of power and what some refer to as "big brother."

These concerns cause many people to challenge automated enforcement laws each year. An example of this occurred in Hawaii during the 2002 legislative session. HB 2167, which became law without the governor's signature on May 1, 2002, repealed Hawaii's photo radar law. A court challenge was the impetus behind the debate in the Hawaii Legislature on photo radar.

Fifteen states-Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Washington-and the District of Columbia use automated enforcement technology. However, not all these states have passed enabling statutes. In Arizona and Ohio, automated enforcement technology is used without statute by local governments. Statutes in New Jersey and Wisconsin prohibit the use of automated enforcement technology (see appendix J for state policies regarding automated enforcement).

Thirty million motorcyclists drive on the roads and highways of the United States. A motorcyclist is approximately 15 times more likely to die in a crash than an occupant in a car. In 2001, motorcycle crashes killed more than 3,100 riders and injured more than 58,000. Head injury is the leading cause of death, and an unhelmeted motorcyclist is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal head injury, according to NHTSA. In addition, NHTSA estimates that helmets reduce the likelihood of a crash fatality by 29 percent.

For these reasons, numerous safety groups support laws to require riders to wear helmets. NHTSA also recommends protective clothing and motorcycle safety programs that promote rider education, operator licensing and responsible use of alcohol.

Another reason for helmet use laws is the economic effects that result from motorcycle crashes. Results of NHTSA's Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System study, released in February 1996, show average inpatient hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcycle crash victims were 8 percent higher than for helmeted riders ($15,578 compared with $14,377). After California introduced a helmet use law in 1992, studies showed that health care costs associated with head-injured motorcyclists declined. The average charges for head-injured motorcyclists admitted to hospitals in San Diego County fell 32 percent from 1991 to 1992, from $53,875 to $36,744, and average charges for all injured motorcyclists fell 17 percent. For head-injured patients treated and released from emergency rooms, the drop was 43 percent. The total charges for head-injured motorcyclists seen in San Diego County trauma centers fell from $9.8 million in 1991 to $5.5 million in 1992 and to $5.4 million in 1993. A study of the effects of Nebraska's reinstated helmet use law on hospital costs found the total acute medical charges for injured motorcyclists declined 38 percent after the law was implemented.

From 1992 to 1995, as part of an incentive package for states to pass motorcycle helmet laws covering all riders, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) provided for the transfer of federal funds from highway construction accounts to highway safety accounts in states that did not have all-rider helmet laws. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 repealed these sanctions.

Since the federal sanctions were lifted that required the transfer of highway funds to safety programs for states without helmet laws, five states-Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana and Texas-have relaxed their provisions. Texas and Arkansas were the first, changing helmet requirements from all riders to those under a certain age. Texas law also states that motorcyclists who have not completed a rider training course or do not have $10,000 in medical insurance coverage must wear helmets. Louisiana modified its law to allow riders age 18 or older to go without a helmet if they have medical benefits of at least $10,000 for bodily injury. In 1999, Kentucky passed a law requiring riders to wear helmets if they are under age 21, are operating with an instructional permit, have less than one year of experience, or do not provide proof of health insurance to the county clerk. In 2000, Florida enacted legislation to allow individuals over age 21 to ride without a helmet if covered by an insurance policy with at least $10,000 in medical benefits coverage. This legislative session, at least 12 states introduced bills on motorcycle helmets. California failed to enact a bill on third reading that would limit its existing helmet provision to riders under age 17.

Twenty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico require all riders to wear helmets. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not mandate any helmet use. The 27 other states require that helmets be worn by specific riders, usually those under age 18 (see appendix K for state motorcycle helmet laws).

Every week during the school year, 23.5 million children begin and end each day with a trip on a school bus. Between 1989 and 1999, an average of 10 passengers were killed each year in school bus crashes. During 2001 alone, motor vehicle crashes claimed the lives of approximately 1,939 children between the ages of 5 and 15. According to NHTSA, school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation. To maintain school bus safety, nearly 30 states considered more than 120 bills relating to school transportation during the 2002 legislative sessions.

Because of the importance of school bus transportation, NHTSA has established 35 safety standards that apply to school buses. These standards require that school buses be structurally and mechanically safe. They apply not only to the structural and equipment safety of the bus, but also to occupant and pedestrian safety. NHTSA also makes determinations regarding school bus recalls for mechanical and safety problems.

The area surrounding the bus at loading and unloading areas often is referred to as the "danger zone" because it is where children are at the greatest risk of being hit by the school bus or by a passing car. Every year, on average, 19 children are killed while loading and unloading around school buses. In most cases, the child is waiting to board the bus or has just gotten off and is struck by the bus or a passing motorist. Because bus drivers may have several blind spots, they are not always able to see students who are walking in front of or behind the bus. According to NHTSA, there are three times as many pedestrian fatalities as school bus occupant fatalities.

In an effort to reduce child fatalities in the danger zone, NHTSA has identified three areas of focus. First, it is important to educate children about the danger zone and instruct them about how to safely get on and off the bus. Next, school bus drivers must be trained in the necessary safety skills. Finally, motorists must be taught safe driving practices near a school or school bus.

In addition to pedestrian safety, NHTSA has established guidelines and standards to protect children while they are riding on school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires "compartmentalization" in school buses to provide crash protection; this is a protective pocket consisting of closely spaced seats with energy-absorbing seat backs. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have confirmed the effectiveness of compartmentalization in frontal and rear impact studies. However, after several investigations of school bus crashes in the late 1990s, the NTSB found that compartmentalization does not provide adequate protection during side impacts. NTSB believes that new seating systems need to be developed that provide occupant protection for all types of crashes.

Debate continues about whether seat belts should be installed on school buses. Seat belts provide excellent protection in other types of motor vehicle crashes; however, the effectiveness of seat belt use on school buses is unknown. The types of seat belts that would be installed on school buses would differ from those installed in motor vehicles. Lap belts are the type of restraint most often installed on school buses. The lap belt or two-point belt fastens across the child's lower abdomen. Studies have concluded that lap belts may cause injuries to children.

According to a study conducted by the NTSB, occupants who remained within the seating compartment benefited from compartmentalization, while those outside the compartment came into contact with surfaces within the bus that are not designed to absorb energy. Injuries could be decreased if an occupant protection system were used to retain passengers within the seating compartment and if hard surfaces within the bus-sidewalls, window frames and seat frames-were padded to offer protection. When occupants are seated in the impact area, they can be seriously or fatally injured. The NTSB found that seat belts could not prevent these injuries.

The national statistics on school bus transportation indicate that it is the safest method of transportation in the United States. Because very little data exists, it remains difficult to assess whether seat belts would provide protection to children in school bus crashes. The number of school bus crashes is minimal, and such crashes usually result in no serious injuries. To date, no school bus crash that involved children who were wearing seat belts resulted in serious injuries, according to the NTSB. For this reason, data needs to be developed to determine the effects of these belts on children involved in a school bus crash. Some states have passed resolutions or created study committees to examine overall school bus safety in their states.

Some cost-benefit analysis on this issue has shown that installing seat belts on school buses is not cost effective. The Partnership for Prevention published a report in 2001 to help state legislators and other policymakers understand the purpose and uses of cost-effectiveness analysis. According to this group, interventions that cost no more than $25,000 to $75,000 per quality-adjusted life year saved or per life year saved are considered to be cost effective. Quality-adjusted life is a measure that adjusts years of life based on quality. The cost per life year saved for installing seat belts on school buses is estimated to be almost $3 million, which is not cost effective, according to the Partnership for Prevention guideline.

In May 2002, NHTSA sent a report regarding school buses to Congress. The report, a result of an extensive two-year study to assess occupant protection in school buses, shows that school bus travel is nearly eight times safer than travel by car. The report concluded that requiring lap belts on large, new school buses would have little, if any, benefit in reducing serious or fatal injuries in severe frontal crashes. In some crash tests, it was noted that there might be an increase in injuries among passengers wearing lap belts. In small school buses, the benefits of using lap belts outweighs the potential for injuries because the buses are much smaller and more likely to roll over than large school buses.

The study found that combination lap/shoulder belts, when used correctly, provide some benefit in all school buses. However, if the lap/shoulder belts are misused, the NHTSA study discovered that neck and abdominal injuries are likely. According to the study, assuming 100 percent usage and no misuse, lap/shoulder belts could save one life per year.

The NHTSA study also found that installing the lap/shoulder belts could reduce school bus capacity by up to 17 percent because of the necessary seat redesign. This would add approximately $40 to $50 per seating position to the cost of a new school bus, with a total annual cost of more than $100 million.

If states and localities decided to install seat belts on school buses, NHTSA recommends that they determine methods to ensure proper use of the seat belts and to ensure that no passengers are forced to find alternate means of transportation to and from school.

NHTSA is continuing to study the safety of school buses; it will focus on side impact protection in the future. The agency is considering making the following changes to federal motor vehicle safety standards:

• Increase seat back height from 20 inches to 24 inches;
• Require buses under 10,000 pounds to have lap/shoulder restraints; and
• Develop standardized test procedures for voluntarily installed lap/shoulder belts.

Although no federal requirement is in place regarding the use of seat belts on large school buses, state legislatures can, if they wish, require their use and installation. Each year, several states introduce legislation to require seat belts on school buses. New York and New Jersey were the first states to pass such laws. California, Florida and Louisiana are the most recent states to pass laws requiring the installation of seat belts on school buses. All three states passed laws during the 1999 legislative session. California requires that combination pelvic and upper torso passenger belts be installed on all school buses manufactured after Jan. 1, 2002. The Louisiana law requires that occupant restraint systems be installed on every school bus no later than June 30, 2004. In Florida, seat belts must be installed on school buses leased or purchased after Dec. 31, 2000.

Although government agencies do not currently recommend the use of seat belts on school buses, they do believe restraints should be used for smaller children. The use of school buses to transport preschool-age children is increasing. Because school bus compartmentalization was designed for larger children, it does not provide appropriate occupant protection for preschool-age children, according to NHTSA. NHTSA recommends that smaller children-until they reach 50 pounds-be secured in child passenger restraints when they ride as a passenger on a school bus.

Another issue facing school bus transportation is the increased use of passenger vans to transport students to and from school and school activities. Although leasing such vans can reduce transportation costs to school districts, they are not as safe as school buses. Any vehicle used to transport children to and from school and school-related activities is required to meet the same federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) as traditional school buses. Fifteen-passenger vans are not required to meet the same FMVSS as school buses, do not have the same occupant protection standards as school buses, nor are they built to the same crashworthiness standards. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recommended that states prohibit the use of 15-passenger vans for student transportation.

Federal law prohibits the sale of new 15-passenger vans for transporting high school age and younger children to and from school or school-related activities. No such prohibition exists for the sale of used vehicles or for vehicles used to transport college students or other passengers. Indiana and South Carolina have passed legislation prohibiting the use of 15-passenger vans for student transportation. Maryland and Virginia considered similar bills in 2002 but neither passed.

NHTSA is proposing a new rule that will establish a subcategory of school buses. This new category-referred to as the "multifunction school activity bus"-would be built to meet federal school bus occupant protection and crashworthiness standards, but would not be required to have flashing lights and stop arms. This type of bus could be used for extracurricular activities, Head Start and day care.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration oversees the state-administered commercial driver's license (CDL) program that includes licensing requirements for school bus drivers. This program helps to ensure that the drivers of school buses are qualified. In most states, strict standards are in place that go beyond the federal CDL requirements that regulate the licensing of school bus drivers. States are able to strengthen this program by requiring specific training, conducting background checks and fingerprinting individuals who apply for a license. In Hawaii, for example, school bus drivers cannot have any felony convictions in the past five years or misdemeanor convictions in the last three years.

In many states, individuals who apply for a CDL to operate a school bus are required to attend training through that state's department of education. In Alabama, drivers must complete a 12-hour training program presented by the Department of Education. School bus drivers in Michigan must complete a school bus safety course and pass a physical exam each year. In Rhode Island, bus drivers must take at least 10 hours of training, and West Virginia school bus drivers are required to pass the 30-hour West Virginia School Bus Operator Program. Minnesota SB 2949, passed in 2002, modifying background check requirements for potential school bus drivers by allowing for checks with national criminal history records.

States also have identified the risk associated with motorists who illegally pass school buses. Education campaigns have been geared toward decreasing the number of motorists who ignore the stop arm and pass buses illegally. Some states have passed laws in the last few years to increase penalties for motorists who are convicted of illegally passing a school bus. Several states considered similar bills in 2002. A bill introduced in Illinois would have made illegally passing a school bus a Class 4 felony. The bill failed in committee.

Some state legislatures have addressed other safety issues relating to school buses. Most are related to the safety of the school bus itself. Examples include strobe warning lights and sensors designed to detect children in the danger zone surrounding the bus. In North Carolina, bus monitors ride on the school bus to increase safety. These monitors allow the bus driver to concentrate on driving, while the monitors watch the children as they get on and off the bus and while they are riding on the bus. Other states have installed video cameras on school buses to monitor students' behavior. Some states have developed safety training programs to educate students and parents about how to avoid crashes while getting on and off the school bus. The Illinois and Rhode Island legislatures passed bills in 2002 that make it illegal for school bus drivers to use a cell phone while driving a school bus.

Many states have enacted legislation that provides for requirements in addition to the federal guidelines for school bus safety. Some states require noise reduction switches to be used by a driver stopped at a grade crossing so that a train's horn can be heard. A bill still under consideration in Pennsylvania requires the installation of satellite tracking devices on school buses. In 2002, the Virginia legislature passed a bill making it illegal to pass a school bus on a private road, and in Wisconsin, a bill passed requiring the installation of crossing gates on school buses.

During the past 25 years, pedestrian deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes have decreased by 43 percent. Even so, pedestrian deaths were up slightly during 2001. The number rose to 4,882 in 2001 compared to 4,739 in 2000. About 78,000 pedestrians were injured in crashes in 2000.

Many health officials tout the benefits of walking and biking for nearly every age group. Safety remains a significant factor in whether people engage in these activities. Thus, pedestrian and bicycling safety has become an important issue to state legislatures. During the 2002 legislative sessions, at least 30 states considered more than 75 bills relating to pedestrian and bicycling safety. Many of these bills would have amended current pedestrian and bicycling safety laws, making it safer for people to walk and bike. Other proposals would have established new transportation design policies that incorporated pedestrian and bicycling facilities. Under a new law in Virginia, the transportation board must create a statewide pedestrian plan that promotes pedestrian access to schools, work, recreation and major activity centers.

During the 2002 state legislative sessions, nearly every state considered legislation to allow the operation of the Segway scooters on pedestrian walkways and bike paths. The Segway Human Transporter can travel at speeds up to 12 miles per hour. The transporters use technology to imitate human balance and movement. For example, when the rider moves forward the Segway moves forward. Segways are designed to travel along sidewalks and other pedestrian areas. Therein lies the potential problem. To protect the safety of pedestrians, many state and local laws ban the use of motorized vehicles and scooters on sidewalks.

At least 31 states have passed legislation regarding Segway scooters. Most of these bills define Segways as "electric personal assistive mobility devices" and provide an exemption for these devices from existing laws. Traffic safety advocates argue that not enough is known about these new transportation devices. Some feel that legislation is being introduced and passed without any data or research on their safe use. Although most bills being considered by state legislatures would permit the operation of Segways on sidewalks and streets, very little has been done to establish licensing standards or helmet rules. Many traffic safety advocates believe the Segway has potential, but that legislators should carefully examine its use and devise proposals that encourage Segway use in safe and appropriate settings. Although legislation was considered and passed in several states, Segways will not be available for purchase by the public until late 2002 (see appendix L for more information).

Hundreds of pedestrians between the ages of 5 and 18 are killed each year during school transportation hours. In order to increase safe bicycling and walking as a way to get to school, many communities are turning to "Safe Routes to Schools" programs. Under these programs, parents, teachers, students, state and local governments, and law enforcement agencies work together to identify pedestrian routes to schools and to improve the safety and usability of the routes. The Florida Legislature passed HB 1181, which established the Safe Paths to Schools program. Under the new law, the Department of Transportation administers the program and can establish a grant program to fund local, regional and state bicycle and pedestrian projects that support the program.

Safe Routes to Schools programs assess current pedestrian conditions, then make changes to increase safety in the area. The ultimate goal is increased walking and biking. The programs take a comprehensive approach by examining current traffic laws, speed limits, law enforcement, and education programs that are geared toward traffic safety.

Almost 700 bicyclists were killed and more than 51,000 were injured in crashes in 2000. Although these deaths and injuries are tragic, the number of bicyclists fatally injured or injured has been decreasing each year. From 1990 to 2000, the number of bicyclists killed dropped 20 percent. State legislatures have played a role in helping to decrease fatalities and injuries and increase safety for bicyclists.

One age group that is especially affected by bicycling safety is children. Except for motor vehicles, bicycles are responsible for more injuries to children than any other product, according to the National SAFE KIDS Campaign. The rate of bicycle-related injuries is highest for children between the ages of 5 and 15. Each year, almost 400,000 children under age 14 are treated in emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries. Head injuries, the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes, account for 60 percent of the fatalities.

Wearing a helmet is one of the most effective ways to protect a rider from the risk of traumatic brain or head injury. Helmets are 85 percent to 88 percent effective in reducing head and brain injuries in all types of bicycle incidents. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all cyclists wear properly fitting helmets and that children riding as passengers also wear helmets.

Despite the fact that the majority of all fatal bicycle crashes involve head injuries, less than 25 percent of riders wear protective headgear. Some of the reasons for not wearing helmets include lack of social acceptance and a belief they are too hot in the summer.

A number of studies have examined the effectiveness of bicycle helmets in reducing head injuries. Researchers in Seattle found that bicycle safety helmets provide substantial protection against head injuries for cyclists of all ages. They included more than 3,000 cyclists who had been treated for injuries in hospital emergency rooms. The study found that wearing helmets reduced the risk of head injury by 69 percent to 74 percent. The study also compared the effectiveness of different kinds of helmets-those with a hard shell, a thin shell and no shell. No significant differences were found in the protective effect of the different helmets.

Compulsory helmet laws have been shown to increase helmet use and decrease bicycle injuries. Most compulsory helmet laws are geared toward a specific age group. In New York, the annual rate of cyclists hospitalized from bicycle-related traumatic brain injuries in the under age 14 group fell from 464 in 1990 to 209 in 1995 after a helmet use law was adopted for that age group. After New Jersey enacted a helmet law for those age 14 and under, bicycle-related fatalities for that group fell by 60 percent. After the helmet use law passed in Victoria, Australia, injuries decreased by 48 percent, and usage rates increased to 80 percent. In 2002, the Wisconsin Legislature considered AB 822 that would have required bicyclists under age 14 to wear a helmet; it died in committee (see table 4).

Lightweight, foot-propelled scooters came on the market a few years ago and have grown increasingly popular. With that popularity came an increase in injuries; scooter injuries now exceed in-line skating injuries.