 |
Home | Contact Us | Press Room | Site Overview | Help | Login | Register |
 |
 |
| About NCSL | State & Federal Issues | Legislatures | Legislative Staff | Meetings | Bookstore | Legislators & Staff Only |
| NCSL Home > State & Federal Issues: Issue Areas > Transportation > | Add to MyNCSL |
Highway SafetyCell Phones and Highway Safety: 2005 Legislative UpdateJuly 2005 by Matt Sundeen, Program Principal ContentsState Crash Data
As long as there have been cars, drivers have been distracted in cars. Driver awareness—or lack thereof—is a major safety concern. Each year, more than 42,000 people are killed and more than 3 million are injured in more than 6 million motor vehicle crashes on the nation's roads. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that driver distraction is a contributing cause of 20 percent to 30 percent of all motor vehicle crashes—or 1.2 million accidents. One researcher has estimated that driver inattention may cause as many as 10,000 deaths each year and approximately $40 billion in damages. Although driver inattention has always been a traffic safety concern, state lawmaker interest in distracted driving has increased dramatically in recent years. Since 1999, every state has considered legislation related to driver distraction. In 2004, legislatures in 33 states considered bills, and legislators in at least 39 states had proposed driver distraction legislation as of June 2005. A virtually limitless number of events, activities and objects, both inside and outside the motor vehicle, have the potential to divert a driver from his or her main task—the safe operation of the vehicle. Distraction can come from kids and pets in the back seat, the radio, a billboard or a cup of coffee. It could come from a newspaper, a lawn decoration, a person walking along the road or from a driver's own abstract thoughts. Although opinions differ over which distractions cause the most crashes, most experts agree that, during the last decade, the rapid growth of new wireless technologies in the driving environment—most notably cell phones—is most responsible for the resurgence in driver distraction legislation. According to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), from 1995 to 2005, the overall number of wireless phone subscribers in the United States increased by more than 600 percent. More than 190 million people now use wireless services, compared to less than 30 million 10 years ago. The vast majority of wireless phone subscribers use hand-held phones that are highly portable and can be taken in and out of a vehicle. Such phones often are used for an extended duration and are easy to spot in the hands of other motorists. Anyone who has been in a car lately knows that it is common to see another driver maneuvering through traffic with one hand pressed against his or her ear. Other potential distractions—such as eating and drinking, personal grooming, or using a radio or CD player—often are not as easy to spot and can occur over a much shorter time period, making them less likely to draw the ire of other motorists, including state legislators and their constituents. Advances in cell phone complexity also have made them a target for potential regulation. Phones are much more sophisticated than they were a decade ago. Modern mobile phones can take, send and receive pictures. They allow users to surf the Web, check stock quotes and sports scores, play video games and perform a variety of additional functions beyond conversation. Although cell phones clearly are at the forefront of the driver distraction debate, they are not the only in-vehicle technology or potentially distracting activity that is attracting interest from legislators. Other wireless communications and entertainment devices in vehicles—such as navigation systems, televisions, DVD players and computers—are becoming more common. Such devices—often referred to as telematics—form part of a multi-billion dollar industry that has made it possible for drivers and passengers to do almost anything in their car that they can do in their home or office. In 2004 and 2005, state legislators proposed bills related to driver distraction that included measures to restrict the use and placement of televisions and DVD players in vehicles; prohibitions on personal grooming, reading and writing, restrictions on interaction with unsecured pets and cargo; and prohibitions on the types of videos that can be displayed in the car. Growing congestion and longer commutes give many drivers greater incentive to use their phones and other wireless technologies to make the extra time spent in their cars more productive. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, drivers in the United States spend approximately 3.7 billion hours in traffic delays each year. Although estimates of the percentage of wireless subscribers who use their phones while driving vary from 50 percent to as high as 70 percent, the number of drivers who use their cell phones appears to be growing. In 2005, NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis, which provides the only probability-based observed data on driver cell phone use in the United States, published the results of an annual study on observed driver cell phone use. The study found that, during a typical daylight moment in 2004, approximately 8 percent of drivers were using wireless phones in some manner, double the number estimated in 2000. The survey also found that cell phone use increased from 2000 to 2004 among most categories, including both male and female drivers, and among almost every age and racial group. It grew for drivers in all weather conditions, among drivers of all different categories of vehicles, and in three out of four geographic regions. Driver use of cell phones also increased from 2000 to 2004 in urban, suburban and rural areas, during weekday rush hours; and on weekends. No estimates were made regarding the number of drivers who use navigation systems, TVs and other telematic devices. Although it is clear that both the use and complexity of technology in the car have increased, the effects of this technology are in dispute. There is little consensus about whether cell phones and other wireless devices that are available in motor vehicles pose a significant enough threat to public safety to justify legislative restrictions. Proponents of restrictions, such as the Partnership for Safe Driving, have argued that the unique distraction caused by the use of phones and other in-vehicle communication devices takes a driver's attention away from the road more dangerously than do other activities. Unlike CD players or activities such as eating or drinking, communications technologies require a driver to cognitively interact with the device, often for long periods of time. According to those who support restrictions, this use of cognitive functions can diminish the ability to focus on the task of driving. Conversely, restriction opponents such as CTIA often cite the value of wireless phones and other devices as a reason against singling them out for regulation. Unlike other traffic safety issues such as drunk driving or seat belts, where few compelling reasons exist to allow a driver to operate a vehicle drunk or without a seatbelt, there are reasons to allow phones in the car. Wireless phones can be valuable tools. Phones help drivers make time spent in the car more productive, allow a driver to stay in touch with family, or help change dinner plans. Phones also can be used to promote on-the-road safety programs such as the Amber Alert system or provide assistance in an emergency. According to CTIA, more than 200,000 emergency calls are placed on wireless phones every day. Opponents also argue that there is little evidence that wireless phones are more distracting than other activities in the car. Any event, item or activity inside or outside a vehicle has the potential to distract a driver. One study ranked mobile phones as low as eighth among distractions that cause crashes. State Crash DataState crash statistics do not provide a widely accepted picture of which specific distractions cause motor vehicle crashes. Although law enforcement officers in 22 states and the District of Columbia currently collect information at crash scenes regarding the role of mobile phones and other distractions, in most states, such data collection started recently (see table 1). As of June 2005, only 12 states—California, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin—had published data on the number of crashes that cited phones or CB radios as a causal factor (see table 2). Many states have published statistics only for a single year. In other states, data were collected as part of a pilot study or by a single law enforcement agency. In Tennessee, for example, until recently only the Tennessee Highway Patrol collected data regarding cell phone involvement in crashes as part of a pilot study. Pennsylvania published data in December 2001 as part of a study by the Joint State Government Commission of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
Sources: AAA, Governor's Highway Safety Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, 2005.
Notes
Source: NCSL, 2005. Even where states track cell phone involvement in motor vehicle crashes, the statistics are controversial. Although the existing state data seem to indicate that mobile phones are a factor in less than 1 percent of motor vehicle crashes, critics have argued that the published statistics are not truly indicative of the problem. Compared with other factors in motor vehicle crashes such as alcohol or seatbelts, wireless phone use is difficult to detect. Phones leave no physical indicators at the crash scene, and investigators often must rely on witnesses or self-reporting to determine whether a phone was in use at the time of the crash, thus jeopardizing the reliability of the data. Several states have explicitly acknowledged difficulties tracking cell phone involvement in motor vehicle crashes. Oklahoma, for example, recognized in its crash statistics for 2003 that "cell phone use may be under reported." Similarly, in the section related to cell phone involvement in motor vehicle crashes, Michigan's 2003 Traffic Crash Facts state that, "…these are driver conditions that, in the opinion of the investigating officer, were involved in the crash. While some conditions may be evident, others (such as distraction) will only be known if the driver admits the condition, thus leading to possible under-reporting." New York's statistics acknowledge that, because some law enforcement officers are using older versions of crash report forms, driver distraction crashes in the state are underreported. Statistics published by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles noted that, although the total number of cell phone related crashes was relatively low, distractions were " … identified by staff from law enforcement crash reports, which are dependent in part upon driver and witness accounts of the respective crash, as well as the investigating officer's interpretation and documentation of the crash." In 2002, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) withdrew an initial draft of a report to the Legislature after a closer look at crash data indicated that some law enforcement agencies may have underreported the number of traffic crashes in their jurisdictions that involved cell phone use. The original report found that, during the final nine months of 2001, investigating officers determined that 913 accidents were directly linked to the driver's use of a mobile phone. Of those, 423 crashes resulted in injuries, and three involved a fatality. Before the final report was released, however, a study of the same crash data by the Los Angeles Times found that, during the same period, driver use of a mobile phone was linked to nearly 4,700 crashes. A subsequent report by the CHP showed that, from January 1 through June 30, 2002, inattentive driving was cited as a factor in 5,677 of the 491,083 crashes reported throughout the state. Cell phones were cited as a factor in 11 percent of inattention-related crashes, more than any other single factor. Academic Studies of RisksAcademic studies have provided mixed results when attempting to determine the risk posed by a driver using a cell phone. A study released by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) in June 2005 found that hand-held wireless devices were a significant safety concern. The study reported findings from a project to collect pre-crash naturalistic driving data from about 100 volunteers over a 12-month to 13-month period. Under the project, drivers used their own vehicles, equipped with an unobtrusive data collection instrument, in their normal daily routines. Virginia Tech researchers collected data for approximately 2 million vehicle miles of driving and 42,000 hours of drive time from 241 primary and secondary drivers. The study found that nearly 80 percent of all crashes and 65 percent of all near-crashes involved driver inattention just prior to the onset of the event. In addition, the researchers found that total crash involvement may be more than five times higher than police-reported crashes. The study concluded that driver inattention was the primary contributing factor in most crashes, and that hand-held wireless devices were among the highest distraction-related factors in crashes and were the leading distraction-related factor in near-crashes. A study published in July 2005 in the British Medical Journal concluded that drivers who use mobile phones are four times more likely to be involved in a crash serious enough to require hospital attendance. The study, which was conducted in Australia, found that gender, age and the availability of hands-free devices did not change the risk of crash. A 2003 article published by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) estimated that cell phone use by drivers may cause approximately 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate to critical injuries, and 1.5 million instances of property damage in America per year. The report cautioned, however, that because information on cell phone use by motorists is limited, the effects are difficult to gauge. HCRA concluded that fatalities could range from 800 to 8,000 per year, with injury estimates ranging from 100,000 to 1 million per year. In 2000, an HCRA analysis of the risks posed by the use of cell phones while driving concluded that the risks posed by cellular phone use while driving alone appeared small in comparison with other dangers on the road. A driving simulator study at the University of Utah found that talking on a cellular phone reduced young drivers' response times so significantly that they reacted to brake lights in front of them as slowly as 65– to 74- year-old drivers. The study also found that all drivers who used cell phones, regardless of age, were 18 percent slower hitting their brakes, had a 12 percent greater following distance to compensate for paying less attention to road conditions, and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked than drivers who did not use cell phones. In addition, the study concluded there was a twofold increase in the number of simulated rear-end collisions when drivers were conversing on their cell phones. Researchers from the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC) conducted a two-phase study of driver distractions. During the first phase, researchers analyzed North Carolina crash data and determined that cell phones ranked eighth in a list of distractions that caused crashes, below activities such as adjusting the radio or eating and drinking. During the second phase, researchers installed equipment in the vehicles of 70 volunteer subjects to record the occurrence of various driver distractions. HSRC reported that the data from both phases demonstrated that many distractions are neither new nor technological in nature. According to the study, however, researchers found it difficult to provide a definitive answer as to which driver distractions carry the greatest risk of crash involvement. A 2004 report published by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies predicted that the effects of bans on cell phone use while driving would be minimal. The study found that individuals who use hand-held phones are more likely to already be more careful drivers. It also estimated that the reduction in accidents from a ban on cell phone use while driving would be lower and less certain than indicated in previous studies. Public Opinion PollsAlthough data and academic studies are inconclusive on risks, polls indicate that many drivers support laws to curb cell phone use in the car. A March 2003 survey by the Gallup Organization found that 48 percent of drivers perceive that making outgoing calls can make driving dangerous. Forty-four percent of drivers perceive that receiving calls can be dangerous. Twice as many people—88 percent of drivers surveyed—indicated they support increased public awareness of the risk of wireless phone use while driving. Seventy-one percent of drivers support prohibitions of the use of hand-held phones while driving, and 67 percent support insurance penalties for being in a crash while using a cell phone, according to the Gallup poll. Sixty-one percent support double or triple fines for traffic violations involving cell phone use, and 57 percent support a ban on all wireless phone use while a car is moving, except in emergency situations. A 2005 survey conducted by Farmers Insurance Group confirmed many of the 2003 Gallup poll results. The Farmers survey found that 87 percent of adults believe that using a cell phone impairs a person's ability to drive. More than 80 percent of drivers admitted their competence behind the wheel suffers when they are subjected to distractions, and 83 percent of respondents acknowledged their ability to concentrate on driving is compromised by such activities as eating or drinking, talking on their cell phones, and adjusting their radios or CD players. In addition, more than 70 percent of survey respondents said motorists who use hand-held cell phones, read newspapers or operate in-dashboard computers while driving should be subject to a penalty or fine. More than 68 percent of the respondents felt that hands-free cell phones are safer than hand-held phones, and 63 percent of those polled favored stricter driving rules for teens. Although only 2 percent of drivers said they had been in a crash where one or more drivers were using a cell phone, more than 40 percent reported that they had close calls or near misses with a driver who was using a cell phone. State ActionDuring the last decade, states have taken an active role in addressing a broad range of driver distraction concerns. Since 2000, legislatures in every state have considered legislation related to wireless phones and driving or driver distraction. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have laws concerning wireless phone use in the car (see appendix A). Thirty-eight states prohibit or restrict placement of televisions in motor vehicles (see appendix B). A handful of other states restrict other devices or behaviors in the car. In 2004 and 2005, state legislative interest in driver distraction remained high. Legislatures in 33 states considered driver distraction bills in 2004. Lawmakers in California, Delaware, New Jersey and the District of Columbia passed legislation. Legislators in at least 39 states proposed 129 bills related to driver distraction in 2005 (see appendix C). As of July, lawmakers in ten states—Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington—passed legislation, with measures still pending in more than a dozen other jurisdictions. State legislative efforts to address driver distraction frequently are mislabeled as proposals to ban cell phone use while driving. In fact, no jurisdiction completely bans the use of all cell phones while driving, and only five states were considering such proposals as of July 2005. The vast majority of driver distraction bills considered by state legislatures since 2000 would not prohibit all wireless technologies for all drivers. Instead, legislation has covered a range of issues, including prohibition of specific wireless technologies, restriction of use of wireless technology by specific types of drivers, and data collection. The most common driver distraction measure considered by state legislatures has been to forbid driver use of hand-held phones. Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and the District of Columbia are the only state level jurisdictions that prohibit the use of hand-held phones while driving. All four jurisdictions allow drivers to use hand-held phones in emergency situations and hands-free phones in all circumstances. However, New Jersey's law is enforceable only as a secondary offense, requiring law enforcement officers to stop motorists for other offenses before they can issue a ticket for improper use of a hand-held phone. Connecticut, New York and the District of Columbia allow enforcement for hand-held phone use as a primary offense. As of June 30, legislatures in 23 other states were considering or had already considered similar hand-held ban proposals in the 2005 legislative session. Another common driver distraction proposal is to restrict novice driver cell phone use. Before 2005, Maine, New Jersey and the District of Columbia were the only jurisdictions that prohibited drivers with a learner's permit from using any type of wireless device while operating a motor vehicle. In 2005, 19 states considered restrictions on novice driver phone use. By July 31, 2005, lawmakers passed legislation in eight states—Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Tennessee and Texas. All the current novice driver laws prohibit young drivers—those under age 18 or 21—who only hold a learner's or instructional driving permit from using any type of wireless device while operating a motor vehicle, except in emergency situations. Most of the novice driver bills considered in 2005 would create similar restrictions. However, several bills proposed in 2005 would prohibit all teen drivers, regardless of license status, from using wireless devices. Eleven states—Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas—and the District of Columbia, prohibit school bus drivers from using phones while operating a school bus. Legislators in five states proposed school bus driver phone restrictions in 2004. Legislatures in seven states considered such measures in 2005. State legislatures also are taking an active role in improving the collection of data and information about the involvement of cell phones and other wireless devices in crashes. At least 22 states and the District of Columbia now require some or all law enforcement officers to collect information about cell phone involvement in crashes, up from just two states in 1998 (see table 1). In many states, such data collection is required by statute. In addition, legislatures or individual legislators in at least nine states—California, Delaware, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin—approved or asked for studies about the effects of wireless phones on traffic safety in their jurisdictions. The Pennsylvania General Assembly's Joint State Government Commission published a report on driver distraction and public safety in December 2001, and a special legislative task force in Delaware published a report on driver distractions in 2003. As of June 30, legislators in four states had proposed data collection legislation in the 2005 session. Washington passed a bill in 2005 that requires state police to track in accident report forms information about the involvement of wireless communication devices in motor vehicle crashes. The measure also requires the state police to include this information in its annual report of traffic safety statistics. States also are moving to assert authority over the distracted driving issue. Legislatures in nine states have moved to restrict local cell phone laws. Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Oregon preempt local jurisdictions from restricting cell phone use while driving. This move was significant in Florida, where several local communities, including Miami-Dade County, had prohibited the use of hand-held phones while driving. Four other states have enacted measures related to cell phone use while driving. Massachusetts generally allows cell phone use, provided the driver keeps at least one hand on the steering wheel at all times. Florida and Illinois require that drivers who use headsets with their phones can use only a headset that blocks sound to one ear. California requires that rental cars with embedded cell phone equipment provide written instructions on the safe use of the cell phone. Other states have considered legislation to increase driver negligence for being involved in a crash while using a cell phone; however, no state has passed such a proposal. An emerging trend in legislation is to address multiple behaviors—not only cell phone use—on the road. The ordinance passed by the District of Columbia in 2004 prohibits several potential distracting driver behaviors, including reading, writing, personal grooming, interacting with pets or unsecured cargo, using personal communications technologies, or engaging in other activities that cause distractions. Connecticut's cell phone bill, which passed in June 2005, includes a broad distraction provision that prohibits drivers from engaging in any activity not related to the actual operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of such vehicle on any highway. Other state legislatures have examined driver use of televisions and DVD players (see appendix B). At least 38 states restrict or prohibit televisions in motor vehicles. California and Louisiana enacted laws in 2003 to restrict the placement of DVD players and similar entertainment devices to locations out of the vision of the driver. Tennessee and Virginia prohibit the display of pornographic videos in cars. Federal ActionAs of June 30, 2005, the federal government has not acted on the distracted driving issue. In 2003, New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine (D) proposed legislation to prohibit driver use of hand-held phones. The bill, SB 179, would have required states to enact hand-held phone laws or risk losing 5 percent of federal transportation funding in the first year of violation, and 10 percent of funding for subsequent years in violation. After its introduction in January 2003, the bill was sent to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and did not move. Two similar measures proposed by Senator Corzine and New York Representative Gary Ackerman (D) in 2001 failed to make it out of committee. Several federal agencies have studied the effects of wireless phones on traffic safety. In June 2003, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a report about a 2002 crash in Maryland that involved a young driver who was using a cell phone. According to the NTSB analysis, the crash involved multiple risk factors, and the NTSB could not determine the exact extent of the role of distraction due to wireless phone use. However, NTSB concluded that, “ … current State laws are inadequate to protect young, novice drivers from distractions that can lead to accidents.” The NTSB recommended that the states that do not have restrictions for young drivers enact legislation to prohibit holders of learner’s permits and intermediate licenses from using interactive wireless communication devices while driving. In the same report, NTSB recommended improvements in driver education. The NTSB concluded that the public may not be aware of the risks associated with using the wireless phone while driving. NTSB urged that, “ … all drivers should be educated about the risks of distracted driving, including the cognitive demands associated with use of interactive communication devices.” NTSB also urged states to improve data collection by including codes for interactive wireless communications devices on their traffic accident investigation forms. NHTSA has long studied driver distraction and traffic safety but has not issued any regulations to address the topic. In 1997, NHTSA published a report—An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless Communications in Vehicles—that summarized driver distraction research. In 2000, NHTSA conducted a driver distraction online forum and accepted public comments on driver distraction issues. NHTSA also has published several observational surveys in an attempt to document driver cell phone use. The current NHTSA administrator, Dr. Jeffrey Runge, commented upon his appointment in August 2001 that it would be too soon to regulate the use of cell phones in cars. He added that NHTSA would not be able to formally regulate cell phone use because the phones are not part of the car and, therefore, do not fall under NHTSA jurisdiction. New technology, such as on-board navigation devices that are part of the car, does fall under NHTSA jurisdiction. Runge said more research needs to be conducted in this area before NHTSA issues any regulations. A policy statement regarding cellular phone use while driving which was posted on NHTSA's Web site in June 2005, warned drivers of potential cell phone risks. According to the statement, " … the primary responsibility of the driver is to operate a motor vehicle safely. The task of driving requires full attention and focus. Cell phone use can distract drivers from this task, risking harm to themselves and others. Therefore, the safest course of action is to refrain from using a cell phone while driving." Several federal agencies, national organizations, and state and local government agencies also have worked to improve data collection. In June 2003, the national Governors’ Highway Safety Association released a revised edition of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), which included changes intended to help gauge the effects of driver distractions. The criteria, which were developed in collaboration with NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and numerous state and local agencies, describe what kinds of information states need to collect at crash scenes. The changes to the MMUCC are intended to help policymakers paint a more accurate picture of the role of cell phones and other distractions in motor vehicle crashes. Local ActionMany counties, cities, towns and municipalities across the United States have considered restrictions on cell phone use while driving. The largest and most recent local jurisdiction to restrict cell phone use—Chicago, Illinois—prohibits motorists from using hand-held phones while driving. More than two dozen local communities—in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah—have enacted similar restrictions. Local jurisdictions that have passed ordinances include:
Although these communities passed cell phone restrictions, it is important to note that many currently are not enforcing the laws. A Pennsylvania appellate court struck down the ordinance in Hilltown Township, and the state attorney general issued an opinion against the provision in Brookline, Mass. New York’s statewide law now supersedes the measures passed in three New York counties. The Florida Legislature preempted the local regulations in that state. Local debate over the use of cell phones and other interactive communication devices while driving has significantly affected debate at both the state and national levels. In states where local communities have passed restrictions, the legislature may feel pressure to address the issue to avoid a piecemeal approach where the boundaries of the law may not always be clear to motorists. In New York, for example, the Legislature passed its statewide ban of hand-held phone use while driving after three large counties enacted similar prohibitions. In Florida, the Legislature preempted local laws after several communities, including Miami-Dade County, banned hand-held phones. International ActionIt has been reported that as many as 40 countries may restrict or prohibit the use of cellular phones while driving. Countries reported to have laws related to cell phone use include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Botswana, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. Most countries prohibit the use of hand-held phones while driving. Drivers in the Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom may use cell phones but can be fined if they are involved in crashes while using the phone. Drivers in the Germany and the United Kingdom also can lose insurance coverage if they are involved in a crash while talking on the phone. Enforcement and EffectivenessOpinions differ about the effectiveness of technological solutions to driver distraction problems. Only a few states prohibit the use of hand-held phones while driving, and there are few crash statistics to indicate whether hand-held phone bans in those jurisdictions have improved safety. Since New York's law went into effect in December 2001, New York law enforcement officers have issued more than 360,000 tickets to drivers for using hand-held phones, and the annual total has increased every year. Washington, D.C. police have issued an estimated 600 tickets and 250 warnings per month since their ordinance went into effect. A study in New York found that, after an initial surge in compliance, New York drivers have returned to using their hand-held phones. A March 2003 report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety showed that 2.1 percent of the 12,000 New York drivers observed were using hand-held phones. In comparison, a similar study found that 2.3 percent of drivers used handsets prior to the ban, and only 1.1 percent of drivers used hand-held phones immediately following enactment. Researchers suggested that, as the initial publicity generated by the new law waned, compliance also fell. Many academic studies—including one published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997 and another published in Sweden in 2003—suggest that the cognitive distraction caused by cell phone use is a problem that cannot be eliminated by hands-free requirements. Most have concluded that there is no distinction in accident rates between drivers who use hands-free and hand-held devices. According to some researchers, other in-vehicle devices—such as head-up displays and speech recognition technology—are intuitively appealing approaches that are designed for safety but that do not necessarily eliminate driver distraction. Head-up displays on the windshield of a vehicle can disrupt visual attention. Speech-based interfaces for an in-vehicle computer can be cognitively demanding because a person must perform a precise task, use complex menus, and interpret a synthetic voice that is more difficult to interpret than a human voice. Some lawmakers and manufacturers, however, see headsets and other technological innovations as a potential safety benefit. For example, a hands-free device can eliminate the search for a ringing phone or allow a driver to voice dial a number instead of fumbling with a hand-set. Voice-mail and caller ID allow drivers to screen calls and respond when appropriate. Navigation systems can reduce the need for paper maps. A researcher at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Dr. Thomas Dingus, has argued that a well-designed, hands-free interface is superior to a hand-held interface for complex manual tasks. According to Dr. Dingus, a Japanese study of crashes related to cell phone use found that 43 percent occurred while the driver was finding or reaching for a ringing phone. Another 23 percent occurred while the driver was dialing. According to Dr. Dingus, a law that bans the use of hand-held devices would likely convince 60 percent to 75 percent of drivers to stop using such devices. Nationwide, according to Dr. Dingus, this high compliance rate could translate into more than 10,000 lives saved by 2010. Although there is little consensus regarding the effectiveness of hand-held phone prohibitions in the car, there may be some agreement about the ability of younger drivers to handle potential cell phone distractions. Although the exact number of teenage drivers who use cell phones is unknown, an NHTSA observational survey found that the number of young drivers using cell phones at any given moment appeared to be more than all other age groups combined. The survey also found that the number of drivers who appeared to be ages 16 to 24 and were observed holding cell phones more than doubled the findings made in a similar NHTSA survey conducted in 2000. Although no studies indicate that novice driver cell phone prohibitions reduce crashes, a wide and accepted body of evidence suggests that immaturity and lack of driving experience make younger drivers less capable of handling additional distractions. Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death among teenagers, killing more young people than the next three leading causes of death combined. According to NHTSA, in 2003, 7,884 people age 15 to 20 died in motor vehicle crashes. Cell phones in the car give novice drivers one more distraction that they may not be able to manage as easily as more experienced drivers. Lack of experience makes younger drivers less able to recognize and respond to hazards, so they can get in trouble trying to handle unusual circumstances or even small emergencies. Teenage drivers also are more likely to participate in risky behaviors, such as speeding and tailgating, allowing them a smaller margin for error. Driver EducationDriver education often is touted as a potential solution to driver distraction concerns. A 1997 report from the California Highway Patrol noted that, “… education should be a key component to any effort to reduce the risk of traffic collisions resulting from cellular telephone use and could prove more effective than sanctions.” A July 2000 report by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis concluded, “NHTSA and industry, with support from the U.S. Congress and state legislatures, should develop a comprehensive educational effort aimed at drivers to promote the responsible use of cellular telephones while driving.” Several wireless service providers and automobile manufacturers have launched campaigns to improve awareness of the risks of driver inattention. CTIA recently released, in conjunction with the National Safety Council, a public service announcement reminding drivers that using a phone in an automobile is always secondary to operating that vehicle safely. CTIA also has developed brochures and promoted safety through radio ads and other media. Some researchers have expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of driver education efforts. Dr. Dingus, for example, has estimated that education alone will likely induce only 20 percent to 25 percent of drivers to stop using electronic devices. A recent survey by the American Automobile Association found that many state driver education manuals do not address driver distraction concerns. According to the study, driver’s license manuals in only six states include a section on distracted driving. Twenty states warn drivers about cell phone use while driving. Thirty-two states urge drivers to be cautious with emotions and concentration. Eight states warn drivers about risks with eating or drinking, while nine include information on reading, and 10 warn about radios and vehicle controls. Legal LiabilityAs legislatures have debated the merits of restrictions on cell phone use while driving, a second battleground over driver cell phone use has emerged in the courts. With increasing frequency, legal cases are testing whether drivers—or, in some instances, the driver’s employer—should be held civilly or criminally responsible for crashes caused by the driver’s use of a cell phone. Under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously liable for acts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment. Several cases have tested this doctrine as it applies to cell phone use by employees who use their phones in the course of employment while driving their vehicles. In 2004, a Virginia jury found that a former attorney, who was accused of talking on her cell phone when she struck and killed a teenager was liable in the teen's death and should pay the victim's family $2 million in damages. The attorney's employer at the time of the crash, Cooley Godward LLP, was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, but settled with the plaintiff prior to the final verdict. In 1999, the investment firm Smith Barney paid a $500,000 settlement to the family of a motorcyclist killed in Pennsylvania by one of its brokers. The employee had been making a sales call at the time of the crash. Although Smith Barney had not provided the cell phone, the plaintiffs argued that the company encouraged its brokers to make calls outside normal business hours to reach potential customers. The state of Hawaii paid $1.5 million to a New Jersey man in 2001 for injuries he suffered after being struck in 1996 by a Hawaii Department of Education special education teacher. The teacher had just finished using her cell phone on the way to work when she hit the man as he walked across the street. The court ordered the state to pay 20 percent of the $7.5 million in damages, and the state agreed to pay $1.5 million on appeal. An Arkansas lumber company, Dykes Industries, lost a $21 million lawsuit after a 78-year-old woman was struck and disabled by a Dykes salesman who was using his phone for a sales call at the exact time of the accident. The case was later settled for $16.2 million. The alleged involvement of cell phones and other wireless devices in motor vehicle crashes also has been the subject of several criminal cases. In 2000, a 19-year-old Maryland man was found innocent of vehicular manslaughter charges after he struck and killed two people who were stopped along the side of the road. The driver admitted that, at the time of the crash in 1999, he had been speaking on his phone. He was cleared of the vehicular manslaughter charges and, instead, was found guilty of negligent driving, which carries a $500 fine. In 2004, Alaska prosecutors charged a driver with second-degree murder for an accident they say was caused by a DVD player. Prosecutors accused the driver of watching a movie while operating his truck, causing him to swerve across the road and kill two occupants of another vehicle. The driver's truck had been wired with a DVD player, speakers and a Sony PlayStation 2, and prosecutors issued murder charges under the theory that the driver knew his conduct was substantially certain to cause death or that he knowingly engaged in conduct that showed extreme indifference to human life. The driver, who claimed he had been merely adjusting his CD player at the time of the crash, was acquitted at trial. ConclusionState legislatures continue to take the lead in response to driver distraction concerns. Although many things and activities can divert a driver's attention away from the road, the high visibility of cell phones, public opinion, local ordinances and judicial activity have made the cell phone the focus of much state legislative activity. As cell phones and other wireless devices in motor vehicles continue to increase in popularity, state legislatures will be increasingly challenged to examine and react to concerns about the relationship between phones and traffic safety. Driver distraction legislation, however, has expanded well beyond proposals to prohibit all cell phones in cars. More frequently, legislatures are considering proposals that target specific drivers or cover a wider range of potentially distracting activities. It is a trend that is likely to continue as state legislatures start their 2006 session. Appendix A. Existing State Laws Reqarding Mobile Phone Use While DrivingAppendix B. State Laws Regarding Televisons and Video MonitorsAppendix C. 2005 Distracted Driving LegislationNotes
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(
© 2008 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved
Denver Office: Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230 | Map
Washington Office: Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001
