Environment, Energy and Transportation

Driver Focus and Technology Partnership Forum Summary

Forum Meeting Summary
Kansas City, Missouri June 12-13, 2001

Background

Wireless telecommunication technologies and distracted drivers have rapidly become the hot issues in traffic safety. More than 120 million Americans now subscribe to cellular telephone services and experts estimate that 73 percent of them use their phones while driving. Beyond the phone, a variety of other devices in vehicles can distract the driver. In many cars, drivers or passengers can now check email, surf the Web, watch movies or television and use real time navigation systems.

The tremendous increase of technology on the road has raised concerns among state legislators about driver focus and traffic safety. In response to this interest, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) initiated a project in 2001 designed to identify issues related to the use of telecommunications technology in motor vehicles. As part of the project, NCSL formed a working group composed of state legislators, state legislative staff, industry sponsors, safety advocates and other stakeholders to address and examine a wide range of topics. The working group - which was initially called the Telematics Partnership Forum, but is now the Driver Focus and Technology Forum - met for the first time June 12-13, 2001 in Kansas City, Missouri. The goals of the meeting were to define issues, concerns and views of working group participants and provide for the future direction of the group. Sprint Corporation hosted the meeting at the Fairmont Hotel on the Plaza.

Meeting Participants

Legislators and legislative staff

Senator Tracey Eide (WA)(Chair)
Senator Nick Rerras (VA) (Vice-chair)
Representative Richard Roy (CT)
Representative Gary Hayzlett (KS)
Representative Marsha Campbell (MO)
Assemblyman Feliz Ortiz (NY)
Representative Kory Holdaway (UT)
Patrick "Booter" Imhof, Staff Director, Florida House of Representatives
Ronald Grenoble (PA), Attorney, Joint State Government Commission

Industry Sponsors

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Vann Wilber, Director Vehicle Safety
AT&T Wireless, Cindy Daly, Vice-President, External Affairs
ATX Technologies, Gary Wallace, Vice President, External Affairs
Cingular Wireless, Roy McAllister, Vice President, External Affairs
Ford Motor Company, Bruce Bond, Manager State Public Policy Issues
General Motors Corporation, Deborah Nowak-Vanderhoef, Attorney
Intrado, Lisa Dator, Director, State Government Relations
Motorola, Inc., Chuck Eger, Director Office of Driver Safety
Sprint Corporation, Sheryl Wright, Director State Government Affairs
Verizon Wireless, Michael Gallagher, Staff Vice President
Voicestream Wireless, Jamie Hastings, Director of Government Affairs

Other Forum Members

National Safety Council, Chuck Hurley (did not attend)
National Transportation Safety Board, Dr. Paula Sind-Prunier, Senior Human Performance Investigator
National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, Rosalie Thornburgh, Kansas Department of Transportation
American Automobile Association, Elizabeth Vermette (did not attend)
ITS America, Oliver Yandle, Vice President and General Counsel

Faculty

Mike Gardner, Motorola, Inc.
Nick DiFiore, Platform Technical Planning Manager, Telematics and Multi-media Systems, Visteon
Bob Swor, M.D., Dept. of Emergency Medicine, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
Mary Boyd, Intrado
Patrick Kennedy, Chairman/CEO, Cellport Systems
Kevin Holland, American Trucking Associations
Alan Tilles, Attorney, Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy and Ecker, P.A.
John Lee, Associate Professor, University of Iowa
Donald Redelmeier, Professor, University of Toronto
Mardy Burns, Advocates for Cell Phone Safety
Raymond Alvarez, Sergeant, Office of the Chief of Patrol, Suffolk County Police Department, New York

Other Attendees

Linda Adams, Consultant, Statenet
William L. Ball, Vice President, Public Policy, OnStar
Mara Cook, Senior Manager of Government Affairs, Daimler Chrysler
Ann Dellinger, PhD, MPH, Epidemiologist, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Center for Disease Control
Joe Divis, Director External Affairs, Cingular Wireless
David Eisenberg, Vice President of State Regulatory Matters, Sprint Corporation
Vera Fish, Advocates for Cell Phone Safety
David Holmes, Director, Telematics and 3G Applications, AT&T Wireless
Murray Johnston, Manager State Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
William J. Kemp, Jr., Executive Director, Safety Communication Strategy and Legal Affairs, General Motors Corporation
Mike McDermott, Associate Director, Verizon Wireless
Dan Mullin, Director, Verizon Wireless
Mike Murray, Director of Government Affairs, Sprint Corporation
Andres J. Nuñez, Manager State Government Relations, Motorola, Inc.
Pete Souchock, Manager Accident Avoidance, Ford Motor Company
Ed Wallace, Manager State Government Relations, General Motors Corporation
James Walter, State Government Affairs Manager, Toyota
Dee Yankoskie, Manager Wireless Education Programs, Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
Amy Yarkoni, General Manager External Affairs, Cingular Wireless
Adrienne Hoffhines, Executive Assistant, Sprint Corporation
Andy Shaw, Altell Corporation

NCSL Staff

Jim Reed, Transportation Program Director
Matt Sundeen, Senior Policy Specialist, Transportation Program

Welcomes and introductions of panelists

Sheryl Wright (Sprint), Representative Marsha Campbell (MO), Senator Tracey Eide (WA) and Jim Reed (NCSL) welcomed participants to the first meeting of the Telematics Forum. All meeting participants introduced themselves.

Telecommunication devices used in motor vehicles

Panel presenters - Mike Gallagher, Verizon Wireless; Mike Gardner, Motorola; Nick Difiore, Visteon; Deb Nowak-Vanderhoef, General Motors Corporation.

Wireless phones - Mike Gallagher described the wireless industry today as well as technical innovations and growth. According to Mr. Gallagher:

Over 115 million wireless users in the U.S.
20 percent growth rate in wireless users each year
U.S. market is 40 percent penetrated and Europe is 80 percent penetrated so we will continue to have significant growth
$71 billion in capital is invested in the industry without the latest round of spectrum options
155,000 employees nationwide
Customers are winning because rates have dropped 40 percent over the last 7 years
140,000 emergency calls are placed on wireless phones every day
Companies are creating many new features for phones such as MP3 players, FM radios, and phone and PDA combinations that will benefit consumers

In-vehicle entertainment devices - Nick Difiore described the entertainment and communications devices available in motor vehicles. According to Mr. Difiore:

Consumers want convenience. Convenient devices are also safer to use
Technology combined with education will solve safety concerns.
Entertainment devices are available for front seat and rear seats.
Front seat focus until now has been the driver and devices such as AM/FM radios, CD players, tape players. Shifting focus towards information systems for the driver.
Rear seat focus on passenger entertainment devices such as movies, games, DVD players, video cassettes, video game ports.
Coming innovations in vehicles include sharing information with retailers maybe at the fuel pump, downloads of music such as MP3 players, e-commerce opportunities, communications with your home, news information, more AM/FM broadcast information, satellite digital radio the provides "cable TV for the car", more use of GPS and navigation systems, web access and PC applications.
Not just broadcasting audio to vehicles. Now including text and pictures.
Pre-recorded materials such as CDs and CD players are moving towrads compressed audio technology.
We will need to manage all of this new technology.

Information and communication systems - Deb Nowak-Vanderhoef discussed information and communication systems in vehicles including General Motor's On-Star system.

Information and communication systems can provide life saving benefits to consumers
Auto manufacturers can help drivers by integrating systems into cars
On-Star provides faster intervention after a crash. The system has three buttons and is easy to use.
More than 1 million vehicles are now equipped with On-Star
The "Sensible Driving" programs is a 3 year old effort with the Michigan Department of Motor Vehicles to better educate drivers about vehicle safety.

Wireless software - Mike Gardner described approaches to eliminating driver distractions and improving driver safety at Motorola. According to Mr. Gardner:

Look at criticisms and make improvements. People are trying to do more in the car, however distraction is a broad and complex issue. The AAA study found many distractions with cell phones far down on the list.
Motorola and others are conducting research including experiments with cognitive reactions related to driver performance. Motorola is working to develop metrics to measure cognitive distraction.
Technology may help improve safety on the road. For example sensors can assist with driver control by replicating rumble strips.
Goals are to improve highway safety and driver performance.
Driver education and training are also very important factors in improving safety. One example is the Michigan Secretary of State program with General Motors.
Be careful about legislating before getting sufficient information about the role of technology in crashes.

Applications and technology

Panel presenters - Oliver Yandle, ITS America; Bob Swor, M.D.; Gary Wallace, ATX; Mary Boyd, Intrado; Patrick Kennedy, Cellport Systems.

Intelligent transportation systems - Oliver Yandle discussed ITS American and issues related to technology on the road.

There are many benefits from technology in the car. Navigation systems, traveller information, collision warning systems, post crash 911 notification systems.
ITS America is a public/private partnership. ITS America has state chapters that can help states working on this issue.
A lot of factors in driver distractions. Not just cell phones. Includes drivers eating burgers, screaming kids, etc. Must encourage and help drivers maintain focus on the primary task of driving a vehicle in a safe and efficient manner.
There are many different technologies in the car.
There are many different drivers in the car that have different needs and ability. Older drivers and younger drivers for example may have different skills and may react different to technology.
Driver distraction is a very complex issue that needs more research. ITS America is working with NHTSA to find out how drivers interact with their vehicles.
Product liability issues are also very important.

Emergency response - Gary Wallace and Dr. Bob Swor discussed the ComCARE Alliance and the emergency response benefits of technology in motor vehicles.

Customers are purchasing emergency response services and telematics services primarily for improved safety.
Many auto manufacturers are offering these services including 32 GM models, Honda, Saab, Subaru and many others.
Technology can dramatically improve emergency response. Automatic Crash Notification (ACN) systems can be linked to airbag sensors to notify emergency personnel in the vent of a crash. May Day systems, road side response, on road diagnostic systems, and the ability to talk with live operators in emergencies are all technologies that are available.
Other telematics innovations include concierge services and email capability. Studies show there is a very limited desire for infotainment devices and mobile commerce devices, however the market may grow.
ATX has 500 new customers each day.
90 percent of emergency calls through ATX's system are answered within 20 seconds.
Trauma is the third leading cause of death overall, and the 3^rd leading cause of death for people between the ages of 1 and 40. 40,000 people die in motor vehicle crashes each year.
Over half of fatal crashes are rural.
40 percent of fatal crashes occur at night.
Golden hour - If care is administered within an hour of the initial injury, chances of survival are dramatically improved.
A lot of factors play in to the reporting of a crash. Is the crash recognized? Does someone report the crash? Do people know where the crash is located? For example, a Florida woman who went off the road did not know where she was and the emergency operator did not know the car location. The woman was not found in time and drowned.
Emergency notification systems can solve location problems and also give doctors more information about the crash itself such as the speed of the vehicles, type of crash, etc. This can improve medical care.

Public Safety and emergency response - Mary Boyd discussed state 911 systems and emergency response technology.

95 percent of the country has 911 service
In 1999, 650 counties were without 911 service
32 states with state agencies dedicated to 911 service
Need more policy focus on wireless emergency services
Difficulties locating people in wireless emergency calls.
115 million emergency calls in 200 according to the National Emergency Numbers Association.
45 million emergency calls were wireless 911 calls
In some places, 30-40 percent of the daily call volume is wireless.
People are more mobile and using their cell phones for access.
3 forms of wireless phones: installed phones, hand held and telematics devices
Beyond location, technology can provide information about the probability of injury.
Policy considerations are public education for driver safety, 911 access considerations fee breaks, and advanced networks.

Safety technology and hands-free systems- Patrick Kennedy discussed Cellport Systems' hands-free technology as a potential solution for driver distraction concerns. According to Mr. Kennedy:

70 percent of cell phone use takes place in vehicles
Of the 119 million cell phones, 117 million are portable
Greater concern about cell phones as a source of driver distraction
More high quality data on risks is needed. There is evidence of the real risks.
Industry response inadequate. Cellular carriers are slow in their commitment in finding real solutions to the real problem. Carriers are economically motivated and focused on the short-term costs.
Local legislative initiatives are not a good long term solution
Need to educate drivers, recognize consumer behavior, provide economic benefits to the consumers and the industry, and provide easy to implement solutions.
Cellport Systems is working to solve the problem with its uniform docking system. The system can remove problems with locating the phone, loose phones, dialing and placing calls, poor connection, poor audio and loose phones. The system helps keep eyes on the road and hands on the wheel. The system also eliminates the phone as a projectile, improves reception, decreases cognitive distractions, and over the lifetime of the phone is a cheaper system.
Cellport Systems is working with auto manufacturers to install the technology in vehicles.

Telecommunications on the road

Panel presenters - Kevin Holland of the American Trucking Associations and Alan Tilles, representing the Personal Communications Industry Association, discussed other uses of telecommunications devices and driving. Elizabeth Vermette of AAA was originally scheduled for the panel, but was unable to attend.

Trucks and commercial vehicles - Kevin Holland discussed the role of cell phones and other technology in commercial vehicles. Mr. Holland provided some background information about the trucking industry, wireless communications, on board computers and the modern truck.

More than 500,000 motor carriers registered in the U.S.
72 percent of motor carriers are 6 or fewer trucks.
80 percent of motor carriers are 20 or fewer trucks.
Trucks carry 86 1/2 percent of the nation's freight based on value. Trucks move 7.7 billion tons of freight each year.
Trucking companies employ 9.7 million Amercians, including 3 million truck drivers.
Safety important for the trucking industry. The road is their workplace. Large truck fatal accident rates fell 30 percent between 1989 and 1998. Large truck crash rates are half the rates for passenger cars. BAC levels for fatal crashes are 31 percent for motorcycle drivers, 18 percent for passenger cars and 1 percent for trucks.
Modern trucks are very sophisticated,highly electronic computerized equipment. Electronic systems include truck engines, data collection mechanisms and on board computers. Systems also interact with the driver such as collision warning systems, radar based systems that alert the driver if anything is in the driver's path.
Communications are a big part of truck technology. The QualCom technology allows motor carriers to keep track of drivers and allows communications with the driver. The technology basically works like an email system that allows the company to send messages and the driver to send messages back.
Types of communications in trucks. Vehicle and freight tracking, driver-dispatcher communications, driver-receiver communications, vehicle-company communications.
Driver-dispatcher communication. Dispatchers need to talk with drivers to tell them if there is a change in plans.
Driver-receiver communications. Drivers need to talk with the persons they are delivering the goods to if they are lost or late.
Vehicle-company communications. Vehicles can now communicate directly back to the terminal if there is something wrong with the truck. Companies can make sure that the vehicle is well maintained.
ATA did a survey of the types of technology used by companies on the road. 42 percent of carriers were using satellite communications. 64 percent were using wireless system other than or in addition to a satellite. 51 percent use cell phones in operations. 72 percent of the ones that used cell phones used hand-held cell phones, 13 percent hands-free and 15 percent used a combination of both.
Most motor carriers don't use cell phones while driving. No ATA policy, but many carriers have policies in place. Some systems designed so that they can't be used while the vehicle is in motion. Other systems configured so that drivers can't use them while they are operating the truck. Some carriers don't even let their drivers use radios in short routes or in city routes.
Difficult for trucks to just pull over to make a call if they are lost. Nationwide there is a shortage of truck parking spaces.
Trucks participate in Highway Watch programs sponsored by the FMCSA and active in CO, FL, OR, MN and son in KS and WA. Truck drivers in these programs work with law enforcement as an extra set of eyes on the road.
ATA has formed a task force to meet on this issue.
Legislation may be too broadly written and could impede trucking industry.
Concerned about the impact of broadbands and the variety of new potentially distracting technology. Some safety technology such as collision warning systems make actually cause a greater distraction and driver may become reliant on the systems.
70-80 percent of truck crashes caused by cars. Truck drivers hate car drivers on cell phones.
Truck driver training for use of devices varies per company.

Personal communication devices - Alan Tilles discussed proposed regulation of wireless technology and how it might affect dispatch services.

Radio devices and personal communications devices are used for things such as taxicab dispatch, hotel employee communications, construction and airport dispatch. Many companies use radio dispatch in their everyday business. Radio can't access the Public Switched Telephone Network landline, however radios are often included on cell phones.
Concerned about definitions in proposed legislation.
Washington House Bill definition of "moving vehicle" and "personal wireless service." The moving vehicle definition would include radios used for dispatch at the airport for luggage carriers, refueling trucks, tugs, etc. Concerned that legislation is written too broadly to include those devices.
Utah's bill a little better because it says "motor vehicle on a highway" so it doesn't have the airport problem. However, there is no definition of a telephone and dispatch radios could ultimately be included.
Dispatch calls are generally much shorter than a regular cell phone call.
Be careful with the definition of an emergency situation.
Arizona legislation defines a phone by frequency band, however it may create problems because not all phones operate at the same frequency.
You generally can't operate a dispatch radio hands-free.
Definitions are difficult for mobile phones. Even the FCC has problems creating a definition.

Driver distraction research and viewpoints

Panel presenters - John Lee, Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at the University of Iowa; Donald Redelmeier, Professor, University of Toronto; Mardy Burns, Advocates for Cell Phone Safety.

Human factors research - John Lee discussed his research on human factors issues related to use of technology in motor vehicles. Specifically, Mr. Lee focused on how drivers' attention to the road is affected by technology.

Human factors engineering focuses on designing technology according to human limitations.
In-vehicle technology can present substantial risk of driver distraction but can also make drivers more productive.
Distractions have important safety consequences. People die because of distractions.
In-vehicle technology can either mitigate or aggravate distraction. New technology can actually enhance safety.
Looking is not seeing. Approximately 10 percent of crashes are caused by drivers who look but didn't actually process the information.
Driver cognitive limits can undermine simple interface solutions such as heads-up displays and voice recognition.
13-50 percent of crashes are attributed to driver distraction.
Distraction accounts for approximately 10,000 lives each year and approximately $40 billion in damages. There may be some underreporting of cell phone involvement in crashes because people are unlikely to admit they were on a cell phone at the time of the crash.
In-vehicle technology will be a $30-50 billion industry by 2010.
People spend approximately 500 million hours in their car each week. Each person spends approximately 350 hours in a car each year. Many people consider that a lot of wasted time. So there may be more pull to include technology in the car.
A lot of new technology coming into vehicles.
Warnings and alerts designed to enhance safety may actually create distractions or undermine safety. For example a driver could rely on collision avoidance technology and perform riskier functions that they would not otherwise perform.
Routing and navigation systems can enhance safety by keeping people from pulling out a map, but can degrade safety by enticing drivers to go more places.
Information and entertainment systems can also distract drivers, but also can potentially improve safety by keeping drivers alert.
Cognitive skills have demonstrable limits. In driving situations, drivers may be looking at events on the road, but may not be actually seeing those events. When you disrupt people's visual attention by speech, you undermine people's ability to generate that coherent picture of what is happening. When you are in a car, that can kill you. You don't look out the window the same way when you're talking on your cell phone as you do when you're just driving. It changes the way you scan the environment. So even though there's nothing specific that you have to look at, even though you don't have to look at your cell phone to dial, just talking on the cell phone can disrupt the way you look around the world.
Speech interaction can disrupt visual attention.
Differences between simple drives and complex drives.
Differences between types of distractions. Conversing with a passenger is a low end distraction, whereas conversing with your in-vehicle computer and a cell phone are a high end distraction.
Conversation with a passenger is not like conversing on a phone. A passenger modulates the conversation. Also, the driver can pause a conversation without appearing rude. In bad situations where the driver is really distracted, a passenger can warn the driver of a danger.
Speech based interface can be very cognitively demanding because you have the task, the cognitive load of interpreting a synthetic voice which is much more difficult than just listening to a person talk. Also, if there is an error in the system when the system doesn't understand what you've said it can be burdensome. Dealing with a computer while you drive may be more like troubleshooting than a conversation.
If done correctly, speech-based interaction can be less demanding than a conversation on the cell phone. You don't have a social compunction to keep talking. You also can break it into simple, discreet commands. However, the speech based interface is not the panacea.
Studies with early warning systems showed that you can attract a driver's attention back to the road in a beneficial way. At U. of Iowa a test showed that crash rates were dramatically reduced with an early warning system.
Technology does not stand alone. Multiple devices in the car can have a greater cumulative affect than a single device.
Also, cell phones and other technology may make it more difficult to accommodate the erratic driving behavior of other drivers.

New England Journal of Medicine study on cell phones and driving risks - Professor Donald Redelemeier discussed the research and conclusion for his 1997 study on cell phones and driving published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Study of 699 drivers and 25,000 individual telephone calls.
Using a cell phone while driving was associated with a four-fold increase in the risk of a motor vehicle collision in comparison with the driver's usual circumstance. The risk is over and above the usual background distracters of listening to the radio, speaking with fellow passengers or eating a sandwich. Using a cell phone while driving is distinctly more risky than those other distractions.
Risks were the same for younger and older drivers.
Risks were highest for cars within 5 minutes before the crash suggesting a close link with the cell phone.
Same risks in the morning, afternoon and evening, suggesting that the problem was not linked to sleepiness.
Calls in high-speed conditions appeared more dangerous than calls occurring in low speed conditions.
The study used police records, individual statements and telephone listings to determine the precise time of the crash and eliminate calls that were placed after the crash.
Inexperience with the phone did not appear to be a factor. Drivers who owned a phone for more than 2 years still had the same relative risk.
Hands-free phones offered no significant safety advantage.
The act of dialing was not the big factor. Both incoming and outgoing calls had the same risk.
Drivers should use cellular phones sparingly. Drivers should avoid unnecessary calls, keep conversations brief and suspend dialog during hazardous circumstances. Drivers should also use established advice such as abstaining from alcohol, avoiding excessive speeds and minimizing other distractions.
Cell phones provide positive benefits for emergency calls. However, only 2 percent of the drivers in the study used their phones just for emergencies.
Using the cell phone while driving is not the same as driving drunk.
The brief duration of most phone calls helps explain why cell phone's popularity has not been accompanied by an immediate increase in overall collision rates. Cell phones could in fact be responsible for thousands of collisions each year, but changes in overall crash rates could be imperceptible.
Cell phones are different than drinking a cup of coffee. You can take a sip of coffee in a second, and the driver can select when the best moment is to take a drink. In comparison, a cellular telephone call lasts 1 or 2 minutes during which the driving circumstances can change a lot.
Cell phone calls also differ from a conversation with a passenger. A passenger can contribute to vigilance and is sensitive to roadway conditions. Also, a passenger is unlikely to be your boss, or an important client, or a surprise visitor or someone who truly commands your attention.
Bad driving imposes risks on other people. However, cell phones can also help in emergencies. So, regulations should provide emergency exemptions.
Since the study was published, technology has become more popular and more technology has come into the car.

Advocate for restricting cell phone use in the car - Mardy Burns discussed her reasons for advocating restrictions on cell phones in the car.

Mardy's 18-year-old daughter, Sarah Ann, and her boyfriend, were killed in a car crash caused by a driver using the cell phone.
Cell phones are a different distraction than some other distractions. Cell phone use requires a driver to think. Eating, drinking coffee, putting on make-up, tuning a radio and a noisy kid in the back seat do not require a driver to think. Also, your peripheral vision is not affected by the other distractions. Other distractions are sporadic and take seconds, not minutes.
110 million users indicates the sheer magnitude of the cell phone problem. 85 percent of cell phone users admit using the cell phone while driving, so 91 million drivers talking on the phone. There are 40,000 new subscribers each day. It has become fashionable to have a cell phone on your ear no matter where you are or what you are doing.
1999 AT&T study found that 500 deaths due to cell phone usage in the car.
We need to single out cell phones. There is a lack of statistical evidence, but not a lack of evidence as her daughter's death and the death and injuries of a number of people point out. If we wait for statistical evidence, we will have already lost lives. No one is hurt by legislation.
Legislation is a good tool to educate drivers.
Educational efforts by CTIA and industry are inadequate.

Law enforcement perspective

Sergeant Raymond Alvarez discussed local law enforcement experience with enforcing a ban on hand-held cell phones in Suffolk County, New York.

Suffolk County has 1.4 million people. More than 3000 people in the county police force.
Local law 26-2000, effective January 1, 2001. Will be superseded by state law. Prohibits talking and listening on a hand-held cell phone, but not dialing. Allows drivers to use a hands-free device. Exemptions for emergency situations. Fines up to $150. The offense does not go on your driving record.
Inadequacies in the law. The law excludes dialing, could address driver inattention as opposed to mobile telephone use, and doesn't allow for default judgments.
The county has issued 632 summonses so far, but the number has dropped over time as public knowledge about the law has increased over time.
Difficult to determine the affect on accident rates.
Some potential problems could be drivers recklessly pulling over to answer the phone.
The law appears to have public support.

Legislative update

Matt Sundeen from the NCSL staff updated forum participants on the latest legislative activity. Legislators and legislative staff updated participants on legislation in their states.

Matt Sundeen

Federal activity limited. NHTSA might have authority to regulate original imbedded technology in vehicles, however they have not issued regulations. NHTSA has studied driver distraction for several years and has reported that driver distraction is a factor in 20-30 percent of motor vehicle crashes.
Congressional action. Congress had hearings in May, 2001. Two bills were proposed in Congress this year. SB 927 and HR 1837 would require states to pass restrictions on hand-held phones in the car.
8 states have passed laws regarding cell phones and driving. (AZ, CA, FL, IL, MA, NY, OK, and OR. Note, this list was updated after the meeting). AZ and MA prohibit school bus drivers from using cell phones while operating a school bus. CA has a rental car posting requirement. Florida and Illinois have headset laws that apply to cell phones. OK and OR prohibit local jurisdictions from enacting restrictions on cell phones in the car. NY prohibits hand-held cell phones while driving.
Data collection. As many as 15 states track on crash report forms. Four states - PA, LA, NJ, VA - are studying the issue.
Legislative activity has grown in last 3 years. In 1999, 15 states considered bills but none passed. In 2000, 27 states considered bills and one resolution passed. 45 states considered bills in 2001, and bills passed in several states.
State cell phone legislation varied in 2001. States considered outright prohibitions (2), hands-free requirements (35, D.C., and P.R.), negligence proposals (11), data collection bills (14 and D.C.), young driver restrictions (7), and state studies.
Other significant state action. RI governor vetoed bill. CT house passed hands-free bill. NM Senate passed a study resolution. TN Senate passed a young drivers measure. NH passed a broad negligence bill.
13 local jurisdictions have passed prohibitions on hand-held phones in the car. Others may follow.
Internationally, 25 countries have passed restrictions on cell phones in the car.
Reasons for legislative activity include the large numbers of users, the increase in types of technology in the car, general backlash against cell phones, and greater scientific evidence.
Reasons that so little legislation has passed are the limited amount of data, the utility of cell phones and other devices, lack of a federal threat and other reckless driving laws.

Sen. Nick Rerras (VA)

4 different bills introduced last year that all pretty much died.
A study resolution passed by wide majorities in the Senate and the House. The VA DMV will conduct the study with the assistance of George Mason University.

Rep. Kory Holdaway (UT)

Interest in the issue stems from his experience as a high school teacher and the rising number of cell phones used by teenagers. Also, a retired couple was killed in Utah in a crash where a driver was using a cell phone.
Proposed a hands-free bill last year that moved out of committee and failed by three votes on the House floor. Proposed the bill to increase public awareness.
Open to new approaches, and will likely introduce legislation next session.

Rep. Marsha Campbell (MO)

Introduced a bill 2 years ago to ban cell phones while driving. Introduced a bill this year that proposed a hands-free solution.
Introduced legislation based on constituent concerns with anecdotal near misses or scrapes.
Everyone has a story of a bad cell phone driver. It will continue.
We have multiple tasks ahead. MO still needs a primary seat bill law, a ban on riding in pickup beds. It's more of an etiquette issue, people need to know how to act.
She gets 150 e-mails a week on this issue. More and more will be coming as usage comes up.

Rep. Gary Hayzlett (KS)

Had a bill in his committee that had a hearing. The proposed legislation would have banned hand held phones in the car. The bill would have made cell phone use a secondary violation with a $30 fine. The driver would have a 2 minute grace period to pull over.
Topeka has a local law already that they can't enforce.
Verizon spoke in favor of bill with 3 year faze in period. Opponents included General Motors, Cingular, Alltel, Sprint . Opponents testified that existing law is sufficient. They said they would try to work with customers to educate them on proper use of cell phones in motor vehicles. He favors hands free. Alltel testified that 911 callers should probably pull off to make a call.

Rep. Richard Roy (CT)

1999 bill died. 2000 bill came to the floor, got the attention of the lobbyists. 2001, 50 cosponsors, passed the House. Gained interest in legislation after a family member was in a crash caused by a driver using a cell phone.
Verizon spoke in favor, other industry against. Two Senate leaders didn't like the bill, sent it to a committee to die.
Education is important. Companies should put a safety message in their print ads and all their advertising. Does not want to ban cell phones. Only use hand-held for emergency calls. Hands-free is the proposed solution, however it doesn't solve the cognitive problem.

Assm. Felix Ortiz (NY)

We need cooperation on this issue.
First brought up at an NCSL meeting in 1996. Personal experience with this issue when his brother was hit. First introduced a ban in 1996.
In 2001 NY will pass a bill that is an agreement between the house, senate and governor. The legislation is not anti-business or anti-technology, but pro-safety.
Introduced 4 bills this year on this topic.
Several local ordinances in NY. Locals have sent resolutions in support of restrictions. One bill would create stiffer penalties.
Important to do what is right.

Booter Imhof (FL)

Encourages NCSL to invite more staff to participate in these meetings.
Florida had one bill that required hands-free devices that was withdrawn before introduction. The bill had no companion bill in Senate.
Had a driver distraction bill in senate, SB 11. Rep Heyman sponsored a study bill. The bill passed through some committees, but there were concerns over what constituted driver distraction.

Roundtable discussion of issues

Forum participants raised a number of different issues during an open discussion. These issues included:

Privacy and data collection concerns
Need for better understanding of the crash event
Integrating technology into a single source of packaging
Better mechanisms for collecting accident data
Determining who are the heavy cell phone users
Keeping the benefits of technology for transportation management and safety purposes
Resolving business liability issues
Providing improved driver education to resolve safety concerns
Improving driver etiquette
Future telematics technology in vehicles and the affects on safety
Need additional research
Affects of new technology on safety
Improving personal responsibility
Improve content of driving manuals
Weigh the costs and benefits of various approaches
A Pennsylvania study will be available in December
Focus on phones needs to be broadened to other distractions. Need to identify options and common ground.
Need to accommodate private dispatch networks
Need to work on the state level, not the local level.
Hands-free should be evaluated
Phase-in dates

Other meeting activity

Forum participants officially changed the name of the forum from the "Telematics Forum" to the "Driver Focus and Technology Forum."