 |
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 |
Environment, Energy and Transportation ProgramCell Phones and Highway Safety: 2003 State Legislative Update
Updated January 23, 2004To read portable document format (.pdf) files, you must install Adobe Acrobat Reader. By Matt Sundeen, Program Principal Since the invention of the car, driver awareness--or lack thereof--has been a safety concern. Hundreds of things inside and outside the car can divert a driver's attention from the road. 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 opinions differ over which distractions cause the most crashes, one activity has drawn the bulk of the attention from lawmakers across the United States: the use of the wireless phone while driving. Since 1999, every state has considered legislation related to driver use of wireless phones. During the 2003 session alone, legislatures in 42 states considered such measures. Seventeen states have passed laws regarding mobile phone use while driving, at least 17 track mobile phone involvement in crashes, and legislatures in six states have approved studies to gather more information on the issue. Heightened interest in the relationship between mobile phones and traffic safety corresponds with a dramatic increase in the number of phones available on the road. Since 1998, the number of wireless phone subscribers in the United States has more than doubled. According to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), more than 151 million people now use wireless services. Simultaneous with the rapid growth in subscribers has been the increase in complexity. The technology available in cars today is much more sophisticated than it was a decade ago. Modern mobile phones can take, send and receive pictures. They allow users to surf the Web, check stock quotes or sports scores, play video games and perform a variety of functions in addition to conversation. Other devices--including televisions, navigation systems, fax machines and computer--have been embedded in vehicles. Growing congestion and longer commutes may have an effect on phone use in the car. Americans spend more than 500 million hours in their cars each week. The average American spends more than 300 hours in the car every year. Many drivers may feel pressure to make this extra time in their car more productive by using the phone. A vast majority of wireless subscribers--more than 140 million--use portable devices that can be taken in and out of a car. Estimates of the number of people who use their phones while driving vary from 50 percent to as high as 73 percent. 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 phones or other communication and information 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 a drunk driver, wireless phones can be valuable in the car. According to CTIA, more than 160,000 emergency calls are placed on wireless phones every day. Phones also can be used to promote on-the-road safety programs such as the Amber Alert system. Opponents also argue that little evidence exists that wireless phones are more distracting than other normal activities in the car, such as eating, grooming or using the radio. Some studies have ranked cell phones as low as eighth among distractions that cause crashes. In fact, there are few concrete crash statistics on the topic. Until recently, only a handful of states collected information regarding the role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes. As of November 2003, only seven states--California, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee--have published data on the number of crashes that cited phones or CB radios as a causal factor (see table 1). Table 1 - Published State Statistics Regarding Cell Phone Involvement in Crashes
Although the existing state data seem to indicate that cell 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. Investigators often must rely on witnesses or self-reporting to determine whether a cell phone was in use at the time of the crash, jeopardizing the reliability of the data. Several states have explicitly acknowledged the difficulties with tracking cell phone involvement in motor vehicle crashes. Oklahoma, for example, counted 130 crashes involving cellular telephone usage in 2001. However, a footnote to Oklahoma's 2001 Crash Facts states that, "cell phone use may be under reported" in the statistics. 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 have provided mixed results when attempting to determine the risk posed by a driver using a cell phone. A widely quoted 1997 study published by researchers at the University of Toronto in the New England Journal of Medicine found that drivers who used mobile phones while driving were four times more likely to crash than drivers who did not. A study published by the University of Utah in 2001 found that mobile phone conversation created distraction levels that were much higher than other activities such as listening to the radio or audio books. 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. 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. Although 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. State ActionsStates have taken an active role addressing the relationship between the driver use of wireless phones and traffic safety. In 2003, legislatures in 42 states considered 116 bills related to cell phones and driving or distracted driving (see Appendix A). During the last three years, every state has considered legislation regarding cell phones and driving or distracted driving. Overall, 17 states have laws concerning cell phone use in the car (see Appendix B). Six states--Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada and Tennessee--passed cell phone legislation in 2003. A common misperception is that many states have banned cell phone use while driving or are considering such legislation. In fact, no state completely bans the use of the cell phone while driving. Although 11 states considered total prohibition bills in 2003, none of the measures passed. More frequent are measures to forbid driver use of hand-held phones. One state--New York--prohibits the use of hand-held phones while driving except during emergency situations, but allows driver use of hands-free devices. Thirty-three states considered similar measures in 2003. Although none of the 48 hand-held bills considered by states won the approval of the full legislature and the governor, the California Assembly, Connecticut House and New Jersey Senate passed measures. The Hawaii House also approved a hand-held bill--HB 49--which was carried over in the Senate for consideration in 2004. Laws in other states are much less severe. Several states regulate which drivers can use a phone. Maine and New Jersey forbid drivers under age 21 who have only a learners' or instructional permit from using any type of cell phone while driving. Nine states considered bills related to young drivers and cell phones in 2003. Seven states--Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Tennessee--prohibit school bus drivers from using phones while operating the school bus. Legislators in six states proposed school bus legislation in 2003. An emerging trend in legislation is to address a broad range of behaviors--not only cell phone use--on the road. In 2003, Oregon considered prohibiting distracting activities while driving. Oregon defined distracting activity as responding to events, persons or objects inside or outside the vehicle that are not related to the safe operation of the vehicle. Under the bill, violators would have been punished with fines of up to $150. The Oregon legislature amended the bill to eliminate provisions. However, nine other states considered broad distraction bills in 2003. State legislatures also are taking an active role in improving data collection. At least 17 states now require law enforcement officers to collect information about cell phone involvement in a crash, up from just two states five years ago. In addition, legislatures in six states--Delaware, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia--approved measures to study the effects of wireless phones on traffic safety. Pennsylvania's Joint State Government Commission published a report on driver distractions and public safety in December 2001, and a special legislative task force in Delaware published a report on driver distractions in 2003. Nine states considered data collection proposals in 2003. States also are moving to assert authority over the distracted driving issue. Legislatures in eight states have moved to restrict local cell phone laws. Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma and Oregon preempt local jurisdictions from restricting cell phone use while driving. This move was most relevant 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. State legislatures considered a variety of other distracted driving proposals in 2003. Louisiana enacted a law that prohibits driving a motor vehicle with a television capable of receiving any pre-recorded visual presentation unless it is behind the driver's seat or otherwise not visible to the driver. Similar legislation passed the Assembly in California. Legislators in six states considered measures that would have increased driver responsibility for involvement in a crash while using a cell phone. None of the bills passed. Federal ActionTo date, 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. If passed, SB 179 would require 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. However, the bill has remained in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works since January 2003 and is not expected to 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 48 states without restrictions for young drivers should 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 published an observational survey in July 2001 to 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 done in this area before NHTSA issues any regulations. 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. More than two dozen local communities--in Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah--have passed ordinances that prohibit the use of hand-held phones while driving. These include:
Although these communities passed cell phone restrictions, it is important to note that many are not currently enforcing their 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 had a significant effect on 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 ActionAs 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 United Kingdom and Germany also can lose insurance coverage if they are involved in a crash while talking on the phone. Enforcement and EffectivenessOpinions differ over the effectiveness of technological solutions to driver distraction problems. New York is the only state to prohibit the use of hand-held phones while driving, and there are few crash statistics to indicate whether hand-held phone bans improve safety. In addition, because New York's law is relatively new, it is too early to determine whether it has affected safety. Since the law went into effect in December 2001, New York law enforcement officers have issued more than 140,000 tickets to drivers for using hand-held phones. After an initial surge in compliance, however, New York drivers have returned to using their hand-held phones. A March 2003 study 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 fell with it. 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. Driver EducationDriver education is often 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 has also 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 AAA 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. 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 accident. 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. In 2000, a 19-year-old Maryland man was found innocent of vehicular manslaughter charges after striking and killing two people 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. ConclusionDriver distraction has always been a problem. Although many activities can potentially divert driver attention, the cell phone has drawn attention to the issue. The cell phone is a highly noticeable distraction in the car, which makes it any easy target for restriction. It is easy to spot a driver with a hand to the ear and know they are distracted by a phone call. It may not be so easy to spot the driver whose mind is elsewhere. During the next few years, states and researchers will begin to accumulate more information about the implications of mobile phones and other devices on traffic safety. In the interim, as the quantity of phones and other wireless communications devices available on the road continues to grow, greater constituent concerns, local ordinances, and judicial activity will increasingly challenge lawmakers to address driver distraction as a traffic safety concern. As legislatures begin their 2004 sessions, it is likely that cell phones and driving will remain a significant part of their legislative agendas. Appendix A. 2003 State Distracted Driving Legislation Appendix B. Existing State Laws Regarding Mobile Phone Use while Driving ReferencesCain, Alasdair, and Mark Burris. Investigation of the Use of Mobile Phones While Driving. Tampa, Fla.: Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering, University of South Florida, April 1999. Cohen, Joshua T. and John D. Graham. "A Revised Economic Analysis of Restrictions on the Use of Cell Phones while Driving."" Risk Analysis 23, no. 1 (February 2003)5. Department of California Highway Patrol, Office of Research and Planning. Effects of Cellular Telephone Use on Driver Behavior. Sacramento, Calif., September 1997. The Gallup Organization. National Survey of Distracted and Drowsy Driving Attitudes and Behaviors: 2002 Volume 1- Findings Report. Washington, D.C.: 2003. General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission. Driver Distractions and Traffic Safety. Harrisburg, Pa., December 2001. Hahn, Robert W., and Paul C. Tetlock. The Economics of Regulating Cellular Phones inVehicles. Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, October 1999. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Status Report. 37 no. 7 (August 17, 2002). Lissy, Karen S.; Joshua T. Cohen; Mary Y. Park; and John D. Graham. Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, July 2000. McKnight, James A., and Scott A. McKnight. The Effect of Cellular Phone Use Upon Driver Attention. Landover, Md.: National Public Services Research Institute, prepared for AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, January 1991. National Conference of State Legislatures. Along for the Ride: Reducing Driver Distractions. Denver, Colo.: NCSL, March 2002. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless Communications in Vehicles. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, November 1997. National Transportation Safety Board, Ford Explorer Sport Collision with Ford Windstar Minivan and Jeep Grand Cherokee on Interstate 95/495 Near Largo Maryland February 1, 2002 (Washington, D.C.) Highway Accident Report NTSB/HAR-03/02, PB2003-916202 (2003). Redelmeier, Donald A., and Robert J. Tibshirani. "Association Between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions." The New England Journal of Medicine 336, no. 7 ( Feb. 13, 1997),453-458. Stutts, Jane, et al. Distractions in Everyday Driving. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, prepared for AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, June 2003. Stutts, Jane C.; Donald W. Reinfurt; Loren Staplin; and Eric Rodgman. The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, prepared for AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, May 2001. Utter, Dennis. Passenger Vehicle Driver Cell Phone Use Results from the Fall 2000 National Occupant Protection Use Survey. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Research Note, July 2001. Internet Links Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association NCSL's Driver Focus and Technology Legislative Tracking Database National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Contact for Additional Information Matt Sundeen |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(
© 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
