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

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

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

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

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

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

Environment, Energy and Transportation Program

State Traffic Safety Legislative Summary 2000

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

December 2000
No. 15

By Melissa A. Savage, Janet B. Goehring, Jeanne Mejeur, James B. Reed and Matt Sundeen

Summary

This report summarizes the more than 1,000 bills regarding traffic safety issues considered by state legislatures during the 2000 legislative sessions. The purpose of this report is to provide information about current traffic safety issues to legislators, federal officials and other interested parties.

Occupant Protection. During the 2000 legislative sessions, state legislatures considered more than 200 bills regarding occupant protection. Most of the bills concerned the enforcement of current seat belt laws, while others set out to strengthen child passenger protection laws.

Aggressive Driving. In 2000, 19 state legislatures considered 36 bills regarding aggressive driving. Most of these bills established new offenses while others focused on addressing the problem through driver's education.

Speed Limits. Speeding can be blamed for more than 12,000 deaths each year. Several state legislatures consider bills each session concerning speed limits. In 2000, 18 states introduced 75 bills regarding speed limits; two were enacted.

Red Light Running. Red light running is the leading cause of motor vehicle crashes, in cities, causing approximately 200,000 crashes each year and more than 800 deaths. To help solve this problem a number of U.S. cities have installed red light cameras at some intersections. In some cases, state legislatures have passed enabling legislation regarding the operation of automated enforcement by local governments. In 2000, 17 states considered 43 bills regarding red light running. Some of these bills dealt with red light cameras while others increased penalties associated with running red lights.

Driver's Licensing. In an effort to reduce injuries and fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes, state legislatures address the issue of licensing older and younger drivers. Some states introduce bills establishing graduated licensing for teen drivers, while others introduce bills geared toward strengthening these laws. Meanwhile, some states are looking into the safety of older drivers. During the 2000 legislative sessions, more than 150 bills were introduced regarding the licensing of older and younger drivers.

Motorcycle Helmets. After the 1995 congressional repeal of federal sanctions regarding motorcycle helmet use, a few states have relaxed their motorcycle helmet laws. However, nearly all states require helmet use for riders under 21. More than 30 bills were introduced during the 2000 legislative sessions regarding this traffic safety issue.

School Bus Safety. School bus transportation is one of the safest forms of travel. In an effort to maintain this high level of safety, several states consider school bus safety bills each year. Some of these bills would have required the installation of seat belts on school buses while other bills sought to increase overall school bus safety through equipment requirements. During the 2000 legislative sessions, states considered 148 bills regarding school bus safety.

Cell Phones. The increased use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles has led many to question the safety of their use, including state legislators. At least 27 states considered legislation during the 2000 session to ban or restrict the use of cell phones while driving.

Impaired Driving. Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), states must enact certain drunk driving provisions or have money transferred from construction funds to highway safety funds. The states had until Oct. 1, 2000. In an effort to comply with these provisions several states introduced bills regarding repeat offender sanctions, open container laws and administrative license revocation.

Introduction

To reduce deaths and injuries attributed to motor vehicle crashes, states consider legislation regarding traffic safety. State legislators grapple over the enforcement of seat belt laws, child passenger protection, and drunk driving and licensing laws designed to reduce the risk associated with motor vehicle travel.

This report summarizes state traffic safety legislation considered during the 2000 state legislative sessions. It is the fifth in a series and serves as a follow-up to the 1996 report, Reducing Crashes, Casualties and Costs: Traffic Safety Challenges for State Legislatures (February 1997), State Legislative Progress in Improving Traffic Safety 1997 (January 1998), Traffic Safety State Legislative Summary, 1998 (February 1999) and last year's State Traffic Safety Legislation, 1999 (November 1999). Issues examined in this report include occupant protection, aggressive driving, speed limits, driver licensing, school bus safety, motorcycle helmets, cell phone use, red light running and alcohol-related issues. Tables and charts detailing state traffic safety laws are included as well as contacts and links for further information.

Federal Incentives through TEA-21

In June 1998, President Clinton signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This federal law included several provisions regarding highway and transportation safety issues. Included in these provisions were funding incentives for states that complied with the act and penalties for those states that did not meet the requirements by Oct. 1, 2000.

To encourage seat belt use, TEA-21 established an incentive program with $500 million in grants to be dispersed over five years to eligible states. To qualify for the incentives, a state must show a seat belt use rate higher than the national average for the two preceding calendar years or show a seat belt use rate higher than the states "base seat belt rate." If a state qualifies for the funds the money can be used for any project eligible for assistance under Title 23 of the U.S. Code, which covers highway programs.

TEA-21 also sets out incentives to encourage states to adopt programs designed to reduce highway fatalities and injuries; $68 million has been set aside for this incentive program. States are eligible by meeting at least four of the following six criteria:

• Pass laws that require seat belt use by front seat passengers in passenger vehicles (and, by 2001, in any seat in the vehicle);
• Enact primary enforcement legislation
• Assess minimum fines and penalty points for violations of seat belt and child seat belt use laws;
• Establish a statewide publicity program that emphasizes occupant protection;
• Create a statewide education program about child passenger protection that includes proper seating positions for children in air bag-equipped vehicles, as well as instruction on how to reduce the improper use of child restraint systems; and
• Implement a child passenger protection law that requires minors to be secured in a child safety seat or other appropriate restraint system.

Another program created through TEA-21 provides $15 million for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 to provide education on child passenger protection. To be eligible for the funding, states must apply to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

TEA-21 also created incentive programs to combat drunk driving. Under TEA-21, states that adopt laws regarding illegal per se laws with .08 blood alcohol content, repeat offenders, open containers and other driving under the influence (DUI) countermeasures can receive additional funding. In some cases, states that comply with TEA-21 provisions will be able to keep funds designated for highway construction instead of having these funds transferred to highway safety. See the impaired driving section of this report for additional information about TEA-21 sanctions and incentives.

Occupant Protection

Motor vehicle crashes kill approximately 40,000 people each year. Most of these crashes involve passenger vehicles (cars, light trucks, vans and utility vehicles). Through the use of seat belts and child safety seats many lives can be saved. State legislators considered more than 200 bills regarding primary enforcement of seat belts laws, child passenger protection laws and passenger use of pickup truck beds.

One of the best ways to reduce the risk of death and injury in a motor vehicle is through the use of seat belts. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have mandatory seat belt laws. New Hampshire is the only state without one. Most of these state laws cover front-seat passengers only. Seat belt laws in 17 states (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas) and the District of Columbia are standard, or primary enforcement. Primary enforcement seat belt laws allow law enforcement officers to stop vehicles solely for belt law violations. In states with secondary enforcement, officers must first stop the vehicle for another offense before citing the driver for a seat belt violation.

States that have primary enforcement laws in place have an average seat belt use rate of 78 percent, compared with the national average of 69 percent. These states on average have a seat belt use rate 15 percentage points higher than states that have secondary enforcement laws.

During the 2000 legislative session, more than 90 bills were introduced regarding seat belt laws. Although some bills are still pending, most of these bills failed. Some bills made changes to current seat belt laws by increasing fines for violations and limiting the number of passengers in a vehicle to the number of seat belts available. Most of these bills, however, were regarding primary enforcement seat belt laws. Tennessee passed a primary enforcement law for children, but not adults. The most recent states to enact primary enforcement laws are Michigan, Alabama and New Jersey. These three states passed laws during the 1999 legislative session. For more information on state seat belt laws see Appendix B.

Although most agree that primary enforcement laws save lives and prevent injuries, some argue that the laws unfairly target minority drivers and give police officers an excuse to stop these drivers. Studies have shown that states with primary enforcement laws do not target minority drivers at a higher rate. Others argue that these laws are an invasion of privacy and provide too much government intrusion.

Research has shown that adult behavior is the single greatest predictor of child protection in a vehicle. According to the Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign that is because children model adult behavior. A Ford Motor Company study found that 70 percent of the time, if a driver is unbuckled, children riding in that vehicle would not be buckled up. Conversely, if the driver is buckled, restraint use for children increases to 94 percent. In fact, after a primary enforcement law was enacted in Louisiana, child restraint use increased from 45 percent to 82 percent in two years.

All 50 states have laws regarding child passenger protection. Child restraint laws usually cover young children, while safety belt laws cover older children and adults. The age at which belts can be used instead of child restraints differs among the states. Because enforcement and fines differ under belt use and child restraint laws, it's important to know which law is being violated when a child isn't restrained.

Most child restraint laws require children to be secured in a child safety seat, depending on their age and weight, when riding in a motor vehicle. However, some of these laws fail to cover all children in all situations. Only 28 states have child restraint laws and seat belt laws that cover all children.

In an effort to close this gap, the Washington Legislature passed Anton's Law during the 2000 session. In 1996, while visiting family in Yakima, Wash., Autumn Skeen and her four-year-old son Anton were both buckled up using standard lap/shoulder belts. Autumn became distracted and lost control of her sport utility vehicle. The ensuing crash caused Anton's small body to slip out from under the seat belt and to be thrown from the vehicle-he was killed instantly. Skeen made a common mistake in thinking that Anton was big enough to fit in the vehicle seat without a child safety seat. In truth, most children outgrow child safety seats but are still too small to be secured with seat belts designed to fit adults. Booster seats are the answer in this situation. Anton's Law requires that children ages 4 through 5 and between 40 lbs. and 60 lbs. to be secured in a booster seat.

The California Legislature debated similar legislation. Senate Bill 567 requires children, who have outgrown child safety seats, to be secured in booster seats until they reach 60 lbs. or 6 years, whichever comes first. The bill passed through both houses during the 1999 session, but a threat of a governor veto caused the sponsor to withdraw the bill. During the past session negotiations have been ongoing between the sponsor of the bill and the governor's office. The governor's office expressed concern that in its original form, the bill was too broad. It provided no exception for children, who may be big for their age and are able to be secured in an adult-sized lap/shoulder belt. Another issue is the effective date of the law. The sponsor would like the law to go into effect after a one-year public education program. The governor's office would like a longer waiting period. Negotiations on the bill were successful and the governor signed the bill at the end of September.

Twenty-nine states considered 110 bills regarding child passenger safety during the 2000 legislative sessions. Some of these laws established a tax credit for the purchase of a child restraint system. Other bills would have required auto insurers to cover the replacement costs of child safety seats after a motor vehicle crash. One bill in Indiana would have established mandatory jail time for driving under the influence with a child passenger under 16. In Michigan, a bill passed that will establish a grant program to provide training, promotion and education regarding child safety seats. See Appendix C and D for additional information on child passenger protection laws.

Combined with seat belts, air bags save lives and prevent injuries. Since 1990, air bags have been deployed in 3.3 million crashes and have saved approximately 5,100 lives. However, since 1990, air bags also have been blamed for the deaths of 96 children and 66 adults. If drivers and passengers are not buckled up and seated correctly when an air bag deploys, the risk of serious and fatal injuries increases.

For air bags to provide an effective buffer between the occupant and the dashboard or steering wheel, they must deploy at a very rapid speed-sometimes up to 200 miles per hour. The impact of a deploying air bag often is what causes the reported injuries and deaths related to air bags among unrestrained adults or children. A simple solution to this potential danger is to have everyone buckle up and ensure that children ride in the back seat.

Because of the possible dangers associated with air bags, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has granted on/off switch waivers for air bags in certain situations. Since air bags are beneficial in most cases, the on/off switch waiver is granted only to those car owners who show an absolute necessity. These waivers can be granted in situations where a child is unable to be seated in the back seat of the car due to a lack of space or if an individual is unable to be seated at least 10 inches away from the location of the air bag.

NHTSA has recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding improvements to air bags. In order to minimize the risk of injury and death to infants, children and small adults, NHTSA is requiring that air bags have the ability to cushion and protect occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted. The advanced air bags would be required in some new cars beginning Sept. 1, 2002 and in all new cars beginning Sept. 1, 2005.

During the 2000 legislative sessions several states considered bills that would have prohibited children from riding in the front seat of a vehicle equipped with air bags. Although some bills are still pending, most of these bills were unsuccessful. In Florida, the Justin Marksz Teen Safety Protection Act was signed by the governor in June. This law, among other things, requires all passengers under 18 to be restrained by a seat belt or a child restraint device while riding in a motor vehicle. In May, the governor of Hawaii approved a bill requiring children to be seated in the back seat of motor vehicles.

Due to limited space inside the cabs of pickup trucks many passengers are forced to ride unrestrained in the back. The cargo area of a pickup truck was not designed for this. Most injuries and deaths occurring in pickup truck crashes (200 per year) involve a passenger, riding unrestrained in the cargo area, being thrown out of the vehicle during a rollover crash.

Currently, 25 states restrict passenger use of the back of pickup trucks. A few other states use child passenger protection laws to cover children riding in the back of pickup trucks. Seventeen states restrict certain ages of passengers from riding in the back. Under a new law in Virginia, for example, children under 16 are prohibited from riding in the back of a pickup truck. Virginia was the only state to pass a bill restricting passenger use of pickup truck beds during the 2000 legislative session. See Appendix E for current state laws regarding passenger use of pickup truck beds.

Aggressive Driving

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

Growing concerns about these drivers and the hazards they create on the roads have lead to a flurry of activity by safety groups, law enforcement, mental health professionals, legislatures and the federal government. Some argue, however, that aggressive driving is not new, that these behaviors have always existed except now the media have given it a catchy name and are drawing attention to them. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that aggressive driving and its causes have been "rediscovered" in the 1990s. Hostility on the road has been a continuing problem in one form or another for most of this century. It is a problem that needs to be addressed and the Institute supports enforcement techniques such as photo speed enforcement and red light cameras to reduce the types of violations that are often associated with aggressive driving.

The issue of aggressive driving has come to the attention of a growing number of legislatures. In the past four years, more and more states have introduced legislation on the topic. In 1998, Arizona was the first state to pass a law creating a specific aggressive driving offense. Nevada, Delaware and Rhode Island followed and established the offense of aggressive driving. In addition, Utah amended its reckless driving law to provide for an offense similar to ones enacted in the other three states.

Nineteen states introduced a total of 36 bills in 2000 that addressed various aspects of aggressive driving. Some looked a creating a new offense; others considered driver's education requirements. Rhode Island enacted legislation that creates a specific aggressive driving offense when two or more listed traffic offenses occur while operating a motor vehicle. The General Assembly stated that "aggressive driving has become a significant public safety concern in recent years and specific legislation designed to severely curtail this problem driving behavior is in the public interest." Penalties for violating the new law include a fine of not less than $260. Drivers may be required to attend an educational program may lose their license for 30 days.

More than 20 states and local governments have established law enforcement programs to target aggressive drivers. Many of the programs share similar characteristics and two are highlighted here.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol established the Operation TRIAD, Targeting Reckless, Intimidating and Aggressive Drivers, program. The patrol uses aircraft, highway patrol officers and local law enforcement personnel to target specific traffic sites. They include congested locations, complaint areas, school bus routes and dangerous rail crossings. The officers look for the following driving behaviors:

• Following too close
• Passing off the travel portion of the highway
• Changing lanes illegally
• Speeding
• Merging into traffic through safety or gore areas
• Failing to yield
• Violating rail crossing rules
• Displaying or using a weapon.

The patrol pairs enforcement with extensive media coverage to increase public awareness about aggressive driving and encourage safer driving habits.

The Pennsylvania State Police use two different aggressive driving programs; Operation Centipede and TAG-D (Ticket the Aggressive Driver). Centipede uses eight to 10 officers positioned throughout a target area, one to two miles apart. They use marked and unmarked cars, some with radar speed detection units, others with radar detectors. Their role is to strictly enforce all speed limits and cite aggressive driving behaviors.

The TAG-D program also uses marked and unmarked cars as well as airplanes and a vehicle that appears disabled by the side of the road. They target different driving behaviors during each enforcement effort.

During 1998, Pennsylvania saw a 5 percent decrease in crashes with fatalities or injuries in areas targeted by the programs.

Speed Limits

Speeding-related crashes are estimated to cost society $28 billion per year. In 1998, speeding was a contributing factor in 30 percent of all crashes and cost 12,477 people their lives. State legislatures have an important policy role in ensuring the safety of the motoring public through the setting of speed limits.

The big push in state legislatures to enact new speed limits in the wake of congressional repeal of the national maximum speed limit in 1995 has ended. Though at least 75 speed limit bills were introduced in 18 states (36 in New York alone), only two were enacted.

Arizona enacted HB 256 which, among other provisions, establishes a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour (mph) for heavy vehicles or vehicle combinations weighing more than 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, or a vehicle pulling a pole trailer over 6,000 pounds. It allows the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to designate a speed greater than 65 mph for heavy vehicles if it determined, based on an engineering and traffic investigation, that an increased speed would facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Speed for all other vehicles is 75 mph. After the study, the ADOT concluded the reduction in speed to 65 mph for trucks would not contribute to the safe and orderly movement of traffic. The legislature is examining the findings contained in the ADOT study. The other enacted bill was in Indiana, which increased fines for speeding in school zones.

Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania and South Carolina considered and rejected various bills to increase speed limits. Thirteen such bills are still pending in New York, while two are pending in Michigan. Nebraska and Missouri rejected bills to lower highway speed limits, while a lower limit for trucks is pending in New York. A bill to raise truck limits is pending in Michigan.

In other bills that did not pass, Georgia examined a different speed limit for trucks; Hawaii and Pennsylvania considered higher speeding fines; and Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin studied school zone safety. Appendix F has further information regarding state speed limit laws.

Law enforcement, federal safety officials, advocacy groups and members of the public have expressed growing concern about the public's disregard for speed limits. Despite the fact that speed directly relates to the severity of a crash, the motoring public generally does not view speeding as a safety problem. Further, speed limits are generally viewed as guides with few consequences for being ignored. About two-thirds of all drivers report they at least occasionally exceed what they consider to be the maximum safe speed on roads they regularly travel. Twenty-one percent say they exceed it a few days a week and another 19 percent exceed it a few days a month.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and other agencies are working to address these challenges. NHTSA's plan includes:

• Improved Information and Analysis-to gather and analyze information designed to provide insight into the speeding problem and its associated consequences.
• Speed Zoning-to develop and implement rational criteria for setting speed limits.
• Technology Development-to identify, develop and evaluate applicable speed management technologies.
• Enforcement-to develop innovative and effective speed enforcement methods, strategies and programs.
• Public Information and Education-to develop methods, strategies and programs to inform the public, law enforcement agencies, engineers and the judiciary of the dangers of speeding and the steps being taken to reduce speeding and its consequences.

A recent report by the Transportation Research Board, Managing Speed: Review of Current Practices for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits, is the basis for dialogue and action on the topic by traffic safety and law enforcement officials. The desire to increase the credibility of speed limits by states is reflected by a bill introduced in Michigan that would have required the state department of transportation to produce a pamphlet explaining how speed limits are established. A bill in California would have directed traffic engineers to make pedestrian and bicycle safety and vehicle accident rates primary factors in setting speed limits.

Red Light Running

During the past decade, photo radar use to enforce traffic laws has increased dramatically. Five years ago, only one city was using this technology. Today, nearly 40 cities and towns throughout the country rely on it. Currently 12 states and the District of Columbia permit the use of red light cameras-Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia and Washington. Several states consider legislation each session to amend current automated enforcement laws and to propose new ones. During the 2000 state legislative sessions, 17 states introduced legislation regarding automated enforcement of traffic violations. See Appendix G for state policies regarding red light cameras and photo radar.

Most of these bills set out to create enabling legislation. The enabling legislation sets the parameters under which the enforcement program must operate. The provisions in these laws generally include allowing the enforcement agencies the ability to ticket the vehicle owner by mail. In New York, the law makes registered vehicle owners responsible regardless of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offense. Although most cities operate these programs through the passage of state enabling legislation, Paradise Valley, Ariz., used automated enforcement for 10 years without enabling legislation.

On April 9, 2000, Virginia Governor James Gilmore vetoed Senate Bill 414 that would have expanded the current red light running program. Red light running programs exist in Alexandria, Fairfax County, Arlington County and Vienna. The new bill would have expanded the program to eight more localities. Red light running crashes are on the increase in Virginia. In 1997, 45,213 citations were issued. In 1998, those figures rose to 45,946 citations and 2,517 crashes.

During the 2000 legislative session, legislators in Florida debated House Bill 1159, the "Red Light Safety Act of 2000." This act would have created a pilot project focusing on red light running in Palm Beach and Broward counties. The bill before the Florida Legislature authorized counties and municipalities participating in the pilot project to enact ordinances permitting the use of automated enforcement technology to catch red light runners. The act defined the term "traffic infraction detector" as a device that uses a vehicle sensor in conjunction with a camera synchronized with the traffic light that automatically takes two photographs of the rear of the vehicle committing the violation. The bill established guidelines for the county and municipality administration of the pilot project. House Bill 1159 died while under consideration in the House Transportation Committee.

Although most of the bills up for debate in the states this session concern the creation of red light camera pilot projects, one bill attempted to prevent the use of this type of technology. In Iowa, House Bill 2016, which failed, would have prohibited the use of automated traffic enforcement systems. Wisconsin has a similar law that prohibits state and local governments from using automated enforcement to detect speeders.

Other bills introduced during the 2000 legislative sessions set out to fight red light running through alternative means. In Delaware, for example, a bill signed by the governor increases the fine for running a red light.

Driver's Licensing

Turning 16 has traditionally been a significant rite of passage for teens, signaling newfound freedom in the form of a driver's license. But states are rapidly making life harder for teen drivers by imposing tougher restrictions on licensing. Thirty-seven states have adopted some form of graduated licensing for teens. Graduated licensing requires young drivers to acquire more on-the-road driving experience in lower-risk settings, increases the learning time, and gradually introduces young drivers to more difficult driving situations. It requires young drivers to demonstrate responsible driving behavior through three phases of licensing-learner's permit, intermediate or provisional license and full license.

Safety is the big concern that has led to these license restrictions. The leading cause of death for 15- to 20-year-olds is traffic crashes; more than 4,700 died in 1998. Drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 account for 7 percent of the driving population but are involved in 14 percent of all fatal crashes. Their lack of driving experience and tendency to take risks contribute to this high fatality rate. Driver error accounts for a majority of fatal crashes for 16-year-olds.

Safety advocates recommend a three-tiered graduated licensing system. The core components are a learner's phase of at least six months, an intermediate license phase of at least six months that also includes a prohibition against unsupervised nighttime driving and passenger restrictions, and full licensure. Drivers must remain free of traffic violations, including driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, during the license phases.

Another component of graduated licensing is a minimum amount of supervised driving practice during the learner's phase. For example, New Mexico and nine other states require 50 hours with 10 of those at night. Illinois requires 25 hours and Massachusetts 12.

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia now require at least one component of graduated licensing. See Appendix H for a chart outlining state graduated licensing laws.

The nighttime driving restriction is a key element according to safety advocates. It is not a curfew, but a requirement for supervised nighttime driving. Night driving is more difficult than day driving for all drivers. Visibility is reduced, the glare of oncoming headlights can be difficult and drivers tend to be more tired. The risk of fatal crashes at night for all drivers is approximately 30 to 40 times greater than during the day. The fatal risk for teen drivers at night is higher. Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia impose nighttime driving restrictions.

Twelve states (California, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia impose a restriction on the number of passengers that teens can have in the car during the intermediate phase. One of the rationales behind these restrictions is that teen passengers can distract teen drivers. Studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety show that teenage drivers are at much greater risk of being involved in a fatal crash when teen passengers are present as opposed to driving alone or with an adult.

At least 29 states introduced a total of 120 bills in 2000 that addressed some aspect of teen driving and graduated licensing. Some states considered requiring school attendance before obtaining a license. Others looked at conditions for suspending a teen license. Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia passed full three-tiered licensing systems for teens. Idaho, Mississippi and Vermont passed laws that included several aspects of graduated licensing.

Support for graduated licensing is widespread. For example, a survey of parents of teens in Michigan indicated that they think the state's law makes good sense. Parents report an improvement in their child's driving with the required 50 hours of supervised driving. The American Automobile Association conducted a national study in 1997 of more than 11,000 members; nine out of 10 support graduated licensing.

Several studies have tracked the effectiveness of graduated driver's licensing systems. Most of the evidence shows that phased-in driving privileges reduce deaths and injuries for young drivers. Extensive data are not yet available from states that have adopted the three-tiered plan because it has been in effect for only a few years. The laws must be in place several years before a full analysis will be possible.

Initial statistics from two states show improved safety with the graduated systems. Florida's three-tiered graduated licensing law took effect in July 1996. The first-year statistics for the program show positive results for the nighttime driving restriction. Crashes for 16-year-old drivers decreased by 19 percent and fatalities decreased by 25 percent during the restricted hours. Crashes late at night for those aged 17 dropped by 22 percent. A study released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in January 1999 compared the crash rates for 15- to 17-year-old drivers in Florida with teens of the same age in Alabama, a state without a graduated licensing program. The study showed an overall decrease in crash rates of 9 percent for teens in Florida but no similar decline in Alabama. Three years after North Carolina enacted its graduated licensing law, crashes caused by 16-year-olds have dropped 26 percent and deaths dropped 29 percent.

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

Because of the aging process, some older drivers discover their eyesight deteriorating, their reflexes slowing and their hearing weakening. Some older drivers place self-imposed restrictions on their driving. For example, some will choose to limit their driving to daylight hours and some will choose not to drive on expressways. Other older drivers choose not to restrict their driving and this often causes family members to take the keys from them. Some states have tried to make this process easier through laws designed to make sure older individuals are able to safely operate a car. These laws range from driving restrictions to shortening time between renewals and requiring regular vision and driving tests. For more information regarding state licensing laws for older drivers see Appendix I.

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

Through driving restrictions, states allow older drivers a certain level of independence without sacrificing safety on the roads. State motor vehicle departments, depending on the ability of the driver, have the authority to place restrictions on these drivers. In most states, these restrictions can be placed on any driver, regardless of age. The restrictions usually prohibit nighttime driving or require the individual to stay on familiar roads or within a limited area.

Other ways to determine the ability of a driver is by requiring more frequent renewals and vision testing at every renewal. Some states require a road test if the driver has been in several accidents. Illinois law requires everyone over 75 to take a road test. By shortening the length of time a driver's license is valid, state departments of motor vehicles are able to check up on the individual during the renewal process to detect any impairments or problems that would limit the person's ability to drive. For example, in Colorado, people over 66 must renew their driver's license in person rather than renew through the mail.

In Missouri, a law was passed in 1998 that makes it easier for family, police and doctors to confidentially report people whom they believe are unable to drive safely. The old law gave the director of revenue the authority to require drivers to submit to a hands-on test if there was "good cause" to believe that they were unfit to drive. The new law states that "good cause" may be established from confidential reports by certified peace officers, physicians, physical therapists, chiropractors, registered nurses, psychologists, social workers and family members. The new law also provides immunity from civil liability to any person who reports an unfit driver in good faith. Further, the new law includes all drivers and not just older drivers. For that reason, groups like the Alzheimer's Association and the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) were able to support the legislation.

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

Another way to help ensure the safety of older drivers is through education. Thirty-five states have passed laws requiring that insurance discounts be given to older drivers who take a re-education course like 55 Alive, a driver's education course offered by the AARP. Some insurance companies offer these types of discounts voluntarily.

During the 2000 legislative sessions, more than 30 bills were considered relating to older drivers. In Alabama, a bill passed that reduces insurance premiums for drivers over 55 who complete an approved accident prevention course. A bill in Massachusetts would have required the registrar of motor vehicles to study the licensing of drivers over 70. The bill died in committee.

Motorcycle Helmets

Thirty million motorcyclists ride on the roads and highways of the United States. A motorcyclist is approximately 15 times more likely to die in a crash than an occupant in a car. In 1998, motorcycle crashes killed more than 2,400 riders and injured almost 50,000. Head injury is the leading cause of death, and an unhelmeted motorcyclist is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal head injury according to NHTSA. In addition, NHTSA estimates that helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29 percent in a crash.

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

From 1992 to 1995, as part of an incentive package for states to pass motorcycle helmet laws covering all riders, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act required the transfer of federal funds from highway construction accounts to highway safety accounts in states without helmet laws for all riders. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 repealed these sanctions.

Since lifting federal sanctions Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana and Texas have relaxed their helmet requirements. Texas and Arkansas were the first, changing helmet requirements from all riders to those under a certain age. Texas law also states that motorcyclists who have not completed a rider-training course or do not have $10,000 in medical insurance coverage must wear helmets. Louisiana modified its law to allow riders 18 or older to go without a helmet if they have medical benefits of at least $10,000 for bodily injury. In 1998, Kentucky passed a law requiring riders to wear helmets if they are under age 21, are operating with an instructional permit, have less than one year of experience, or do not provide proof of health insurance to the county clerk. This year, the legislature repealed the insurance requirement. Also in 2000, Florida enacted legislation to allow individuals over 21 years of age to ride without a helmet if covered by an insurance policy with at least $10,000 in medical benefits coverage. Georgia no longer makes failure to wear protective headgear a moving violation. A new Oklahoma law clarifies the type of helmet to be worn. A total of 23 states introduced 35 bills on this topic.

A study recently released by NHTSA indicated that motorcycle deaths and injuries increased in Texas and Arkansas after the states repealed the mandatory helmet law for all riders. Helmet use dropped in both states. In Arkansas, motorcycle fatalities rose 21 percent in the first full year after the repeal. In Texas, deaths increased by 31 percent. The percentage of head injuries also increased in Arkansas.

Twenty states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia require all riders to wear helmets. Colorado, Illinois and Iowa do not mandate any helmet use. The 27 other states require that specific riders wear them, usually those under age 18. See Appendix K for current state motorcycle helmet laws.

School Bus Safety

Every week 24 million children begin and end each school day with a trip on a school bus. More than 440,000 school buses travel approximately 4.3 billion miles every year. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation. On average nine passengers under the age of 19 die in school bus crashes each year. Additionally, an average of 23 school age children die in these crashes as pedestrians. Although each of these fatalities is tragic, this is a small figure in comparison with the numbers of children who die in other types of motor vehicle crashes. More than 5,600 children between the ages of 5 and 19 died in motor vehicle crashes during 1998.

These statistics indicate that school buses are very safe. Because of the importance of school bus transportation, NHTSA has established several safety standards to maintain this level of safety. Based on data from school bus crashes, NHTSA is able to determine what types of school bus safety standards are necessary. Specifically, the agency has prepared safety standards focusing on the human, vehicle and environmental variables that effect the level of safety associated with school bus transportation.

Although NHTSA and several other safety organizations acknowledge that school bus transportation is virtually the safest mode of transportation in the United States, these organizations remain committed to making this safe form of transportation even safer.

Several states considered legislation during the 2000 legislative sessions to improve overall school bus safety. More than 140 bills were introduced including proposals to require seat belts on school buses, improve equipment, enhance communications and regulations for drivers and monitors.

In Alabama, a bill passed that will require all new school buses to be equipped with crossing arms. A resolution in Kentucky encourages the department of education to develop and promote ways to help school districts provide safe school transportation and to report to the Legislature by Jan. 1, 2001.

Cell Phones and Driving

Wireless telecommunication technologies are a significant concern in regard to highway safety. More than 90 million people subscribe to wireless telephone services; 85 percent of those subscribers use their phones while driving. In 1999, General Motors and Ford formed agreements with telecommunications companies that will enhance wireless features in even more vehicles. Future cars will provide drivers with concierge services, Web-based information, online e-mail capabilities, CD-ROM access, on-screen and audio navigation technology, and a variety of other information and entertainment services.

Telecommunications companies say that new technology in cars will improve highway safety and commerce. Already, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association estimates that cell phone users place 98,000 emergency calls each day, and billions of dollars of business may be transacted by drivers each year. Cellular phones often reduce emergency response times to crashes, allow people to stay in touch with loved ones and can help people use their time more efficiently.

State policymakers, however, must weigh the promises of wireless technology in cars against the growing evidence of the potential dangers. A 1997 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the distraction caused by phone use in motor vehicles quadrupled the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call, a rate equivalent to the impairment caused by legal intoxication. Other studies-conducted in the United States as well as in Great Britain and Japan-have similarly concluded that speaking on mobile phones, even if they are hands-free, can make drivers a risk on the road. The basic conclusion of these studies is that the distraction of the call, not the actual act of dialing, impairs a driver's ability to safely operate the vehicle.

Growing anecdotal evidence about cell phone dangers have also heightened legislator concerns. Cell phones have been suspect in numerous motor vehicle crashes across the country. In 1999, for example, a driver who was also using a cell phone killed a 2-year-old girl in Pennsylvania. Another driver, distracted by a cell phone, hit and killed a state corrections officer in North Carolina.

Wireless technology proponents argue that phones are no more distracting than a radio, food or the vanity mirror. They say that the same reckless driving laws that apply to other drivers should cover people who drive carelessly while using a car phone. As the number of traffic incidents involving cell phones and other technologies continues to rise, however, legislators may feel growing pressure to specifically restrict these technologies in cars.

All states make reckless or careless driving illegal. Few states, however, specifically regulate cellular phone use in automobiles. Only California, Florida and Massachusetts impose minor restrictions on cellular telephones in automobiles. (See table 1.)

Table 1. State Restrictions on the Use of Cellular Telephones

Note: All other states place no restrictions on cellular phone use in vehicles.
Source: NCSL, 2000.

Minnesota, Oklahoma, Michigan, Montana and Pennsylvania require police to include information about cellular telephones in accident reports. Tennessee requires some law enforcement agencies to collect data about cell phone use and crashes. No state bans wireless phones in automobiles.

At least 37 states since 1995 have proposed bills concerning cellular telephones in automobiles. In 2000, at least 27 states considered measures that targeted cellular telephones and other technology in motor vehicles. Legislation varied in severity from proposals that would ban all use in vehicles, to requirements for hands-free devices, improved data collection, and bills that would make drivers more liable if they are involved in a crash while using a cell phone. Although no legislation passed, bills are still pending in several states. Only 15 states proposed legislation in 1999.

To date, the federal government has not acted to limit cellular telephone use in automobiles. However, in July 2000, NHTSA held two public events that focused on the potential safety problems of driver distraction and advanced in-vehicle technologies that receive, transmit or display various types of information. NHTSA will use the information from these events to make recommendations for reducing the distraction of these technologies, acquiring better data and establishing appropriate research methodologies.

Although no state has restricted cell phones in cars, local jurisdictions are moving to address the issue. At least five local jurisdictions now require drivers to use hands-free cell phone devices while operating a motor vehicle. These include:

• Brooklyn, Ohio;
• Conshohocken, Pennsylvania;
• Lebanon, Pennsylvania;
• Hilltown Township, Pennsylvania;
• Marlboro, New Jersey;
• West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania;
• Suffolk County, New York;
• Carteret, New Jersey;
• Brookline, Massachusetts; and
• Rockland County, New York.

An estimated 300 additional local jurisdictions including Aspen, Colo.; Boca Raton, Fla.; Santa Monica, Calif.; Philadelphia; Cleveland and Chicago may be considering or already have considered similar ordinances. New York City prohibits taxicab drivers from using cell phones while driving.

Twenty countries now restrict or prohibit cell phones and other wireless technology in motor vehicles. These include Australia, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, England, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, the Philippines, Romania, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. Delhi, India and Hong Kong also impose restrictions on car phones.

Impaired Driving

State legislatures have been very effective in reducing drunk driving fatalities in the last decade. Preliminary figures show there were 15,794 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 1999, the lowest annual figure since record-keeping began in 1975. While states continue to explore ways to further reduce drunk driving, four issues have been prominent in legislative sessions because of related funding incentives and sanctions passed by Congress in 1998 as part of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).

Under TEA-21, states adopting .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) illegal per se laws by Oct. 1, 2000, are eligible for additional federal highway funding incentives. Additional incentive grants are also available for states that adopt a series of programs designed to reduce drunk driving, including administrative license revocation, or that meet specific statistical reductions in drunk driving fatalities.

TEA-21 also provides for funding sanctions, by transfer of federal highway funds out of state highway construction and maintenance accounts, for states that fail to enact specific repeat offender penalties and open container provisions by Oct. 1, 2000. Transferred funds will be used instead for state alcohol-related highway safety programs funded under Section 402.

The .08 BAC provisions of TEA-21, which also extend to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, permit states to share in $380 million in additional highway funding available for FY 2000 through FY 2003 for those that have .08 illegal per se laws in place by Oct. 1, 2000.

As of August 2000, 19 states and the District of Columbia have adopted .08 BAC laws. Those states include Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington as well as Washington, D.C. All other states have a BAC standard of .10, with the exception of Massachusetts, which does not have an illegal per se law. Bills to lower the BAC limit were considered in Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii (to .04), Iowa, Illinois (to .00 for commercial drivers), Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New York and Oklahoma. Both Vermont and Washington introduced bills to create a separate offense of driving with a BAC level between .02 and .08.

In October 2000, President Clinton signed a new law that establishes a stricter national standard for drunken driving. Under the new law, states are required to adopt a .08 blood alcohol level as the legal threshold for drunk driving. States have until 2007 to implement a .08 BAC standard. The new law cuts federal highway funding by 2 percent for those states that do not implement a .08 law by 2004 with the penalty continuing to increase to 8 percent by 2007. States that eventually implement the law by 2007 would get back lost highway funds. The new law differs from TEA-21, which provided an incentive for states to adopt .08, rather than a penalty for failure to do so.

TEA-21 also offers incentive grants to states that adopt a series of specific drunk driving countermeasures that reduce the incidence of drunk driving. One of the qualifying countermeasures is administrative license revocation, which permits law enforcement officers to confiscate the driver's license of a person stopped for suspected drunk driving if the person fails a breathalyzer test or refuses to take a test. Administrative license revocation has long been regarded as one of the most effective drunk driving countermeasures because it provides a swift and sure sanction at the time of the incident. Drivers failing or refusing BAC tests are subsequently charged with drunk driving or implied consent violations, which courts have ruled do not constitute double jeopardy. Forty-two states currently have administrative license revocation laws in place.

States must adopt five out of seven qualifying programs in order to receive the incentive grant funding. In addition to administrative license revocation, other qualifying programs include programs to prevent drivers age 21 and under from obtaining alcohol, intensive drunk driving law enforcement programs, graduated licensing provisions for young drivers, programs aimed at high BAC drivers, programs to reduce drinking among young adults, and strategies for increasing the rate of BAC testing following fatal accidents. Currently Washington, D.C. and all states except Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Tennessee, plus Puerto Rico, have enacted administrative license revocation laws.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), as of Aug. 21, 2000, only 28 states and the District of Columbia had enacted open container laws that meet the requirements of TEA-21. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Additional states have open container laws, but don't meet the specific requirements of TEA-21.

The open container provision of TEA-21 calls on states to enact laws that prohibit the possession of any open alcoholic beverage container, or the consumption of alcoholic beverages, in the passenger compartment of any motor vehicle. The laws must apply to both drivers and passengers in the vehicle. Bills regarding open container provisions were considered during the 2000 legislative session in Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee.

The TEA-21 provisions related to sanctions against repeat offenders are quite specific. States must enact laws that provide for all of the following penalties for repeat offenders, defined as a second or subsequent drunk driving offense:

• Suspension of the driver's license for a period of not less than one year,
• Vehicle impoundment or immobilization or the installation of an ignition interlock device,
• Alcohol assessment and treatment, and
• Thirty days of community service or not less than five days of imprisonment for a second offense and 60 days of community service or not less than 10 days imprisonment on third or subsequent offenses.

According to NHTSA, as of Aug. 21, 2000, only Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia and Washington currently have all the required penalties in place. All other states, plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, have until Oct. 1, 2000 to enact the required repeat offender penalties, to avoid sanctions on their federal highway funding.

Further information on the requirements of TEA-21 can be found on the Internet at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/index.htm. Information about drunk driving laws is available on NCSL's Drunk Driving Home Page at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/Dui/dui-home.htm. Legislative tracking services on highway safety issues are available through a joint NCSL/NHTSA page at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncsl/. For more information on state penalties for drunk driving see appendices L through Q.

Conclusion

Legislators considered more than 1,000 bills on traffic safety during the 2000 state legislative sessions. Some of these bills would have established stricter seat belt laws while other sought to restrict the use of cellular phones while driving. Regardless of each bill's specific topic, they were introduced for the same purpose: to reduce injuries and fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes. State legislators play an important role in developing policy alternatives for increasing safety on our nation's highways.

PDF Version of all Appendices

A. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Office

PDF Version of all Appendices

Visitor counts for this page.