• 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 Legislation Update 2001

Transportation Series No. 17

(printer-friendly version)  To view PDF files, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed.

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

Summary

This report summarizes the more than 1,200 bills regarding traffic safety considered by state legislatures during the 2001 legislative sessions. This report, for legislators, federal officials and other interested parties, provides information about current traffic safety issues.

State legislatures considered more than 250 bills to protect occupants of motor vehicles during the 2001 legislative sessions. Some of these bills proposed changes to seat belt laws while others established new provisions regarding child passenger protection including passenger use of pickup truck beds, booster seats and air bags. At least 16 states considered primary enforcement laws -- none passed. In New Mexico a bill passed that requires all occupants of a motor vehicle to use seat belts. Seven states have new laws either specifically or indirectly requiring the use of booster seats for kids.

During the 2001 legislative sessions 43 states considered 140 bills to limit devices that distract drivers. New York was the first state to pass a law prohibiting the use of hand-held cellular telephones while driving. Resolutions to study the risks associated with cell phones and driving passed in Louisiana, New Jersey and Virginia.

Each year state legislatures consider numerous bills regarding driver's licensing. Many of these bills focus on driver licensing for younger and older drivers. This year, 36 states proposed 128 bills relating to graduated driver licensing for teens. Legislation in Georgia, Texas and Virginia strengthened current laws by adding curfews and passenger restrictions, or enacted new provisions. A handful of states looked into the safety of older drivers. In Maine, a bill passed that reduces insurance premiums for drivers over 55 if they complete a state-approved driver training program.

State legislatures considered hundreds of bills regarding impaired driving during 2001. Many states examined .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) limits in response to the federal .08 BAC law, signed in 2000. Other issues covered by state legislatures included high-BAC initiatives and bills to reduce the number of impaired drivers on the road. Ten states lowered the legal limit for drunk driving to .08 BAC. At least 15 states considered proposals regarding aggravated drunk driving and five states (Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada and Utah) enacted specific provisions for high BAC offenders.

Twelve states considered legislation in 2001 regarding aggressive driving. Some proposed bills would have established a new offense while other bills would have established educational programs. In Georgia, a bill passed that defines the offense "aggressive driving" and sets out penalties. The Maryland legislature passed a bill that requires the motor vehicle administrator to assess five points to the driving record of those convicted of aggressive driving.

Thirty-five states proposed more than 100 bills regarding speed limits during the 2001 legislative sessions. Texas legislators passed legislation allowing the state department of transportation to set a 75-mph speed limit in areas with less than 10 people per square mile. Bills to allow school buses to travel at posted speed limits were vetoed by the governors in Maryland and Virginia. Bills to establish differential speed limits-lower limits for trucks-were considered in eight states.

Running red lights causes nearly 200,000 crashes each year. To help solve this problem, many U.S. cities have turned to automated enforcement devices. These devices assist law enforcement in detecting red light and speed violators. During 2001, state legislatures considered nearly 70 bills regarding automated enforcement. Georgia legislators passed a law establishing a photo red light program.

Nearly 50 bills were considered by state legislatures regarding motorcycle helmets during 2001. Most of these bills would have allowed a certain group of people to operate a motorcycle without wearing a helmet. Although eight state legislatures are still in session, none of these bills have passed so far.

Traveling by school bus is one of the safest forms of transportation. To keep it that way state legislatures considered nearly 200 bills during the 2001 legislative sessions. Some of these bills would have required seat belts on school buses. Other bills would have changed licensing requirements of school bus drivers. Bills making changes to current laws regarding overtaking and passing school buses also were considered. A bill in Arkansas passed that prohibits passengers from standing while buses are in motion.

Nearly 200 bills were proposed during 2001 regarding pedestrians and bicycling. Most of these bills would have established statewide pedestrian and bicycle programs. Some required state departments of transportation to consider biking and walking paths when constructing or redesigning roads. In Pennsylvania two bills passed regarding pedestrian safety. One sets penalties for motorists failing to give pedestrians the right-of-way, the other established the Pennsylvania Pedalcycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to study issues facing pedestrian and bicycling programs in Pennsylvania.

Introduction

Motor vehicle crashes killed 41,821 people in 2001, just slightly more than the 41,717 deaths in 1999. Traffic safety issues are of concern to many people including state legislators. Each year more than 1,000 bills are considered by state legislatures regarding seat belt laws, child passenger protection, distracted driving, impaired driving and many others. These laws are designed to reduce injuries and fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes.

This report summarizes state traffic safety legislation considered during the 2001 state legislative sessions. It is the sixth in a series and serves as a follow-up to Reducing Crashes, Casualties and Costs: Traffic Safety Challenges for State Legislatures (February 1997), State Legislative Progress in Improving Traffic Safety 1997 (January 1998), Traffic Safety State Legislative Summary, 1998 (February 1999), State Traffic Safety Legislation, 1999 (November 1999) and last year's State Traffic Safety Legislative Summary 2000 (December 2000). Issues examined in this report include the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century, occupant protection, distracted driving, driver licensing, impaired driving, aggressive driving, speed limits, motorcycle helmets, automated enforcement, school bus safety, and pedestrian and bicycle 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

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

The incentive programs set out in TEA-21 are to reward states for improving highway safety. Sixty-eight million dollars have 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 high visibility enforcement for occupant protection.
• Create a statewide education program about child passenger protection that includes proper seating positions for children in vehicles with air bags, as well as instruction on how to reduce the improper use of child restraint systems.
• Implement a child passenger protection law that requires minors to be secured in a child safety seat or other appropriate restraint system.

The incentive program has $500 million in grants to be dispersed over five years to states demonstrating an increase in seat belt use. 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 state's "base seat belt rate," which is the State's highest seat belt use rate for any calendar year from 1996 through the calendar year preceding the previous calendar year

In October 2001, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta announced that 36 states plus the District of Columbia had qualified for incentive grants for increasing seat belt use. The states will share more than $55 million. The amount given to each state is based on savings in medical costs to the federal government and range from $6,000 to $14 million. The grants can be used to fund highway safety programs, enforcement programs and highway construction. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that by increasing seat belt use, more than 11,000 lives are saved in America each year.

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

As of Jan. 2002, 29 states have enacted .08 BAC laws. Thirty states plus the District of Columbia have passed open container laws as of June 2001. Repeat offender provisions have passed in 23 states and the District of Columbia.

The National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR) released a report evaluating TEA-21 programs in the summer of 2001. According to the report, many states have had difficulty with the administrative side of the incentive and sanction programs outlined in TEA-21. The report also points out that TEA-21 emphasized occupant protection and impaired driving programs but neglected to provide funding to address other pressing transportation safety problems.

Congress must reauthorize TEA-21 in 2004. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is working with the states, highway safety advocates and other organizations to get feedback on TEA-21 and what they would like to see in the new legislation.

Occupant Protection

A continuing increase in seat belt use and child passenger protection has helped to gradually decrease the number of traffic deaths, though fatalities went up slightly last year. During the 2001 legislative session state legislatures considered more than 250 bills regarding occupant protection. These bills included proposals to strengthen seat belt laws, increase child passenger protection, restrict the use of pickup trucks and regulate the use of airbags. The ultimate goal of these proposals is to save lives.

Forty-nine states require all motor vehicle occupants to wear seat belts. New Hampshire requires only children under 18 to buckle up. Safety advocates say that the use of seat belts is the way to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes. State efforts have improved seat belt use -- from only 11 percent in 1980 to 49 percent in 1990 to 73 percent in 2001. This growth is due to a combination of legislation, law enforcement efforts and public awareness campaigns. From 1975 to 1998 seat belts have been credited with saving an estimated 112,086 lives, according to the National Safety Council.

During the 2001 legislative session 37 states considered almost 90 bills regarding seat belt laws. Some bills made amendments to current laws by increasing fines or requiring all passengers to buckle up instead of just front seat occupants. Last year New Mexico passed SB 499 which requires all passengers to wear seat belts while the vehicle is in motion. Prior to the bill's enactment, only front seat passengers were required to wear seat belts.

Some states have looked to public education campaigns to increase their seat belt use. North Carolina started the "Click It or Ticket" program in 1993. Before the program began, seat belt use in North Carolina was about 65 percent. Today seat belt use is 82 percent. The program uses stepped up enforcement, checkpoints and media coverage to explain the importance of seat belt use. Today several states use the "Click It or Ticket" program. The program is coordinated by traffic safety organizations and provides interested states with materials. In Florida, during a "Click It or Ticket" campaign this summer, 29,724 seat belt citations were issued and the seat belt use rate increased from 61 percent to 69 percent.

Seventeen states -- Alabama, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas -- the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have primary seat belt laws, meaning that law enforcement officers are allowed to stop a vehicle solely for a seat belt violation. Laws in the other states are considered secondary , which require law enforcement officers to pull the vehicle over for another offense before issuing a seat belt violation ticket. In states with primary enforcement laws, seat belt use averages 78 percent. States without primary enforcement laws average about 67 percent use. See Appendix B for more information about state seat belt laws.

Each year several of the 32 states with secondary laws consider primary enforcement bills. Eighteen states considered primary enforcement bills in 2001 -- none passed. The majority of these bills died in committee.

One reason primary enforcement bills are hard to pass is the perception that they will provide law enforcement officers the opportunity to stop and search vehicles driven by minorities. But studies have shown that primary laws do not target minority drivers at a higher rate. Others argue that these laws are an invasion of privacy and lead to an increase in government intrusion.

The National Safety Council, a nonprofit research and advocacy group, does not believe these laws give government more power and the group feels the states can do more. In a recent report card, the group gave 19 states Ds and Fs for driver and passenger safety. Eight states received a C minus, 13 received Bs and California was given an A. California has an aggressive enforcement program that resulted in an 89 percent seat belt use rate in 2000. The safety council's efforts include educating the public, encouraging law enforcement to step up ticketing, and pressing states to enact primary belt laws and remove loopholes so that all vehicle passengers are protected by a seat belt.

National Safety Council Report Card of Driver and Passenger Safety

More than 274,000 children are injured each year in motor vehicle crashes. Fatal injuries resulting from car crashes are the leading cause of death for children age 5 through 12 claiming the lives of 2,108 children in 1999. Kids are put at greatest risk by riding unrestrained. In 1999 more than 50 percent of all children ages 5 to 9 who were killed were completely unbuckled.

All 50 states have child passenger protection laws and all of these laws, except Nebraska, are primary. Most of these laws require children under a specific age to be seated in an age appropriate safety seat or wear seat belts. Some of these laws have gaps in coverage. They fail to cover all children in all seating positions. In some states, children age 4 and older are not required to buckle up in rear seats. Other states do not require out-of-state drivers to comply with their laws. Each year many state legislatures consider new laws that would close the gaps in child passenger protection laws. Appendices C and D contain additional information about child passenger protection laws in each state.

The National SAFE KIDS Campaign recently reviewed state child passenger laws in all 50 states and gave each state a grade. Twenty-four got an F, 17 states plus the District of Columbia got Ds, seven received Cs, Florida got a B and California was given the only A. The states were graded against model laws established by the National SAFE KIDS Campaign.

During the 2001 state legislative sessions, 30 states considered more than 100 bills regarding child passenger protection and nearly 20 bills passed. Some of these bills would have increased fines for violations of child passenger laws. Others increased the age of those required to ride restrained in either a child safety seat or a seat belt. In Illinois, a bill passed that requires children between 4 and 16 to be seated in a child safety seat or wear a seat belt. The old law covered children only between 4 and 6.

Some bills were passed that establish exemptions from current child passenger protection laws. In Georgia, a bill passed allowing physicians to issue notes stating that certain children are not required to ride in a child safety seat.

National SAFEKIDS State Report Card

One problem facing many parents of small children is correctly installing the child safety seat. In fact, they are installed incorrectly approximately 80 percent of the time, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fire departments and other organizations across the country have established programs to help parents learn how to install the seats. To protect these technicians from liability, the Maryland state legislature passed SB 35 this year that provides immunity for them if they acted in good faith.

NHTSA recommends that all children 12 years old and under ride in the back seat, properly buckled into age-appropriate safety seats. A study recently conducted by NHTSA showed that only a little over 6 percent of children who should have been in a booster seat-according to age and weight guidelines-actually were. Because of this, NHTSA created a public education campaign-Boost 'Em Before You Buckle 'Em-to instruct people about booster seats and their use.

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

In 2000 the Washington and California passed legislation to require the use of booster seats by children who have outgrown their safety seats. The Washington law requires children between ages 4 and 5 and between 40 and 60 pounds to ride secured in a booster seat. In California, children 5 years and younger or less than 60 pounds must ride in a booster seat.

During the 2001 state legislative sessions, 18 states considered 29 bills that would have established similar provisions. Seven states-Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Tennessee-passed booster seat laws. New Jersey's law is the most comprehensive requiring all children up to age 8 and weighing less than 80 pounds to ride in a child safety seat or a booster seat. Further, children in New Jersey are not allowed to ride in the front seat of the vehicle unless it has no back seat. The bills in Florida and Hawaii were vetoed. Governor Jeb Bush vetoed the Florida bill citing, among other reasons, that requiring the purchase of booster seats presented a financial hardship for needy families.

In 1996 air bags were blamed for the deaths of 35 children. The use of air bags was on the rise at this time and many were concerned that as use increased so would deaths associated with their use. But, by 2000, as the use of air bags continued to increase, the rate of children being killed by them dropped to 18. The rate of total air bag deaths went down 80 percent. Improvements in technology have contributed to the decrease in deaths. However, many safety advocates believe that parents can also take some of the credit since more parents are following safety recommendations and having their children ride in the back seat.

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

A handful of states considered laws with similar provisions. Only one bill passed. Under a law passed this session in Connecticut, children under 4 are required to sit in the back seat of motor vehicles equipped with airbags.

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 sit in the back seat of a car due to space limitations or if an individual is unable to sit in a position that allows at least 10 inches between his/her sternum (breast bone) and the air bag cover on the steering wheel.

Currently auto manufacturers are working to improve the way air bags work. Under a rule proposed by NHTSA, manufacturers are developing advanced air bags that would cushion and protect occupants of different sizes, belted and unbelted.

Due to the increase in popularity of pickup trucks, more and more people are riding in the cargo area of pickup trucks. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia restrict the use of cargo areas by passengers. Most of these laws are designed to protect children under age 16. Seven states considered 12 bills that would have prohibited riding unrestrained in the cargo areas of pickup trucks. None of the bills have passed.

Michigan passed a law last year regulating passenger use of cargo areas of pickup trucks. According to the law, which went into effect on March 28, 2001, no person under 18 is permitted to ride in the open bed of a pickup truck traveling at speeds higher than 15 miles per hour. The new law does allow for the use of the open bed by passengers for parades and farm operations. See Appendix E for more information about state laws regarding passenger use of pickup truck beds.

Distracted Driving

The tremendous influx of potentially distracting gadgets and technologies in motor vehicles has heightened concern about traffic safety. Although many activities can make driving perilous, the use of cell phones while driving has rapidly become one of the hot issues in traffic safety. Lawmakers in 43 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico proposed approximately 140 bills regarding cell phones and driving in 2001, compared with 27 states that considered legislation last year and 15 states the year before. No bills passed in 1999, and one joint study resolution passed in Pennsylvania in 2000.

Lawmakers must weigh the advantages of wireless technology against potential problems. However, much is still not known about the safety impact of using cell phones in cars in comparison to eating, applying make-up, tuning the radio or talking with passengers. Studies conducted in the United States, Great Britain and Japan have concluded that people who use mobile phones while driving pose a greater risk of crashing. One widely quoted report published in 1997 in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the distraction caused by phone use in motor vehicles quadrupled the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call, a rate equivalent to the impairment caused by legal intoxication. Using a different approach, another study in Canada in 2001 concluded that cell phone users are at a 38 percent increased risk of crashing.

Conversely, studies published by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Analysis both concluded that the risks posed by cellular phone use while driving alone appeared small in comparison with other dangers on the road. A study in North Carolina by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center concluded that cell phones ranked eighth in a list of distractions that caused crashes, below activities such as adjusting the radio or eating and drinking. NHTSA estimates that driver distraction is a contributing factor in 25 percent to 30 percent of all motor vehicle crashes. This study relied on national crash data with driver self-reported behavior as collected by police officers at the scene.

Few states specifically regulate cellular phone use in motor vehicles. In 2001, New York became the first state to prohibit drivers from talking on hand-held cell phones while operating a motor vehicle. California requires that rental cars with cellular telephone equipment must include written operating instructions for the safe use of the cell phone. Florida and Illinois allow cellular telephone use in the car as long as the device does not impair sound to both ears of the driver. Arizona and Massachusetts prohibit school bus drivers from using cell phones while operating a school bus. Massachusetts also requires that all drivers have at least one hand on the steering wheel at all times while using a cell phone. See Appendix F for more information about state laws regarding cell phone use.

In addition to these laws, many states are working to improve their knowledge about the potential risks associated with cell phones. Two years ago, only Minnesota and Oklahoma tracked mobile phone involvement in motor vehicle collisions. Now, at least 14 states collect information about cell phones and driver distractions on crash report forms. Additionally, legislators in Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Virginia approved cell phone and driving studies.

In 2001, state legislators proposed approximately 140 bills regarding cell phones and driving in 43 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Legislation varied in each jurisdiction. Thirty-five states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico considered measures to prohibit the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia considered proposals to improve data collection about cell phone involvement in motor vehicle crashes. Legislators in 11 states proposed bills to increase the penalties or responsibility of drivers who crash while using a cell phone. Seven states considered measures to prohibit school bus drivers from using a cell phone. Seven states considered proposals to restrict or prohibit cell phone use by young drivers. Legislators in three states proposed time limits for calls. Legislatures in two states considered bills that would have prohibited all use of cell phones in cars. Two states also considered legislation to prohibit local restrictions on cell phone use in vehicles.

Several bills passed legislative bodies. Legislation to prevent teenage drivers from using cell phones while driving passed the Tennessee Senate, but died in the House. The Connecticut House approved a measure to prevent the use of hand-held phones by drivers. It was defeated in the Senate. A bill in Rhode Island to prohibit hand-held cell phones in motor vehicles passed both the House and the Senate but was vetoed by the governor. Appendix G contains information about local and international distracted driving laws.

To date, the federal government has not acted to regulate use of mobile phones and wireless technologies in motor vehicles. Federal lawmakers proposed legislation to curb cell phone use in cars for the first time in 2001. If passed, Senate Bill 927, authored by Senator Jon Corzine (N.J.), and House Resolution 1837, sponsored by Representative Gary Ackerman (N.Y.), would require states to prohibit hand-held cell phone devices in motor vehicles or risk losing federal highway funds. Testimony was presented to Congress about mobile phones and driving in a hearing before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit on May 9, 2001.

NHTSA has long studied the traffic safety implications of mobile telecommunications technology in motor vehicles. In 1997, it published a report "An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless Communications in Vehicles," summarizing driver distraction research. In 2000, NHTSA began taking public comment about the potential safety implications associated with driver distraction while using advanced in-vehicle technologies that receive, transmit or display various types of information, including those that allow drivers to phone, fax, obtain route guidance, view infrared images on a heads-up display and use the Internet. Following a public comment workshop, former Deputy Administrator Rosalyn Millman indicated that "NHTSA's consumer information will now include advice that growing evidence suggests using a wireless phone or other electronic device while driving can be distracting, and drivers should not talk on the phone or use other devices while their vehicles are in motion."

The new NHTSA Administrator, Dr. Jeffrey Runge said, upon his appointment in August 2001, that he was not yet ready for the federal government to regulate the use of cell phones in cars. He added that NHTSA would not be able to formally regulate cell phone use because the phones are not part of the car and therefore do not fall under NHTSA jurisdiction. New technology, such as on-board navigation devices that are part of the car, does fall under NHTSA jurisdiction. Dr. Runge said more research needs to be done in this area before NHTSA would issue any regulations.

A survey published by NHTSA in July 2001 indicates that, at any given time during daylight hours, about 3 percent of drivers of passenger cars, vans, SUVs and pickups-or approximately 500,000 drivers- are using a hand-held cell phone. The report also estimates that 54 percent of drivers "usually" have some type of wireless phone in their vehicle with them. Fifty-five percent of these drivers report that their phone is on during all or most of their trips, and 73 percent reported using their phone while driving. The study was based on street corner observations and does not include data on highway use or hands-free models.

If trends continue, cell phones and driving are likely to remain a high profile issue in 2002. The New York law, along with increases in driver cell phone use and the new prospect of federal legislation, have drawn attention to the issue. In 2001, for the first time, state legislatures approved measures to regulate and restrict cell phones in motor vehicles and worked to improve information about the potential dangers of talking on a cell phone while driving. In 2002, state legislators will be increasingly challenged to balance safety concerns against the obvious benefits.

Driver's Licensing

Graduated licensing is designed to provide a safer learning environment for novice drivers. Graduated licensing 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 restrictions. The leading cause of death for 15- to 20-year-olds is traffic crashes; more than 4,900 died in 2000. Drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 make up 6.8 percent of the driving population but were involved in 14 percent of all fatal crashes. Their lack of 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. New Hampshire and Missouri require 20 hours and Massachusetts 12.

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 difficult for all drivers; more fatal crashes occur at night. The risk for teen drivers at night is even higher. Forty-one percent of teenage motor vehicle deaths in 1999 occurred between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia impose nighttime driving restrictions.

Eighteen states 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. In 1999, 63 percent of teenage passenger deaths occurred in crashes in which another teenager was driving. Among people of all ages, 20 percent of passenger deaths occurred when a teenager was driving.

According to a report by the Highway Safety Research Center, fatal crashes in North Carolina dropped 57 percent since that state enacted a graduated licensing law. When North Carolina's graduated licensing law went into effect in 1997, the state had 52 fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers. In 1999, the number fell to 27. The study also reported that 16-year-olds have had 23 percent fewer total crashes since the law went into effect. By comparison, the 25 to 54 age group had almost 10 percent more crashes in that same time period.

At least 36 states introduced a total of 128 bills in 2001 that addressed some aspect of teen driving and graduated licensing. Some states considered requiring school attendance before obtaining a license or linking licenses to truancy. Others looked at changing the current laws. Georgia added restrictions to the current graduated licensing laws. Texas and Virginia passed new graduated licensing programs. North Carolina passed a law that permits grandparents to supervise the driving of minors during the learner's phase. See Appendix H for more information about state graduated licensing laws.

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 compared with 35 million in 2000. The mobility and independence of this age group is something many states and organizations are researching. Even today the number of licensed older drivers is increasing. Although they have fewer crashes per drivers 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 only, avoid rush hour or choose not to drive on highways. Other older drivers may be unaware of their deficiencies or are unwilling to restrict their driving. Most families are concerned but are uncertain about what they can do or are unwilling to act. 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. Appendix I contains more information about state laws regarding older drivers.

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 has the ability to drive safely. They determine who may retain their licenses, have their licenses revoked or have restrictions placed on their driving.

Through driving restrictions, states allow drivers with medical problems 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 person to stay on familiar roads or within a limited area.

Some older drivers feel compelled to continue to drive even after they recognize their declining skills because no alternative transportation exist. Some states and cities are addressing this issue by developing transportation alternatives.

Other ways to help 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 accumulates a certain number of points on their license. 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, not through the mail.

In Missouri, legislators passed a law in 1998 that makes it easier for family, police and doctors to report people confidentially who 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 that any person who reports an unfit driver in good faith is immune from civil liability. 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 and laws that will keep older drivers safe.

Another way to help increase older driver safety is through driver's education courses. Thirty-six states have passed laws requiring insurance discounts 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 2001 legislative sessions, at least 12 bills were considered relating to older drivers. In Maine, a bill passed providing a reduction in insurance premiums for drivers over 55 who complete an approved accident prevention course. A bill in Hawaii would have required vision tests every 12 years for drivers under 72 and vision tests for drivers over 72 every four years. The bill died in committee.

See Appendix J for additional information regarding state driver's licensing laws.

Impaired Driving Issues

Although state legislatures have been very effective in reducing drunk driving fatalities in the last decade, figures for 2000 show a modest rise in alcohol-related traffic deaths, the first increase since 1990. There were 16,653 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2000, compared with 15,976 in 1999, according to NHTSA. In 2000, 40 percent of all traffic fatalities involved alcohol, up from the historic low of 38 percent in 1999.

States continue to explore ways to reduce drunk driving deaths and to respond to the funding incentives and penalties imposed by the federal government through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21), passed in 1998, and the Transportation Appropriations Bill (H.R. 4475) passed in 2000.

During the 2001 session, nearly 900 drunk driving related bills were introduced in state legislatures. Among the key issues considered was the adoption of .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) illegal per se laws, high-BAC initiatives, drunk driving-related child endangerment and stronger penalties for implied consent refusals.

During the 2001 legislative session, 10 states lowered the legal limit for drunk driving from .10 to .08 BAC. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana (effective 2003), Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma adopted .08 BAC laws, bringing the total to 29, plus D.C. and Puerto Rico. All other states remain at .10 BAC, with the exception of Massachusetts and South Carolina, which have not adopted illegal per se laws, although Massachusetts has a standard of .08 BAC for administrative license revocation purposes. Appendix K for has more information on state .08 BAC laws.

States that don't adopt .08 BAC laws by 2004 will have 2 percent of their highway construction funds withheld in 2004, with an additional 2 percent withheld each year through 2007 (4 percent of funds would be withheld in 2005, 6 percent withheld in 2006 and 8 percent withheld in 2007). Reductions in highway construction funding for states affected in 2002 would total more than $193 billion, with almost $775 billion in funds being withheld by 2007. States that adopt .08 BAC standards by 2007 would have full funding restored and would be reimbursed for previously withheld funds.

In addition to the penalties imposed through the Transportation Appropriations bill, the funding incentives created under TEA-21 are still available for states that adopt a .08 BAC standard. Approximately $500 million in incentives is available for states to share under TEA-21 provisions from 1998 through 2003.

One of the hottest issues in drunk driving has been how to deal with drivers who are excessively drunk, with blood alcohol levels often twice the legal limit. The problem of hard core drinkers is complex, and no single countermeasure appears to be sufficient to address it. In August 2000, the National Transportation Safety Board completed a study of ways to reduce crashes involving hard core drinking drivers. While recognizing that states should not necessarily have identical countermeasures, the safety board recommended that states adopt an 11-point model program. Among the program's key elements were:

• Vehicle sanctions to restrict or separate hard core drinking drivers from their vehicles.
• Legislation to require that offenders maintain a zero blood alcohol concentration.
• Legislation that defines a high blood alcohol concentration (0.15 percent or greater) as an "aggravated offense that requires strong intervention similar to that ordinarily prescribed for repeat offenders."
• Alternatives to confinement that include home detention with electronic monitoring, special facilities, intensive supervised probation.
• A DUI record retention for a minimum period of at least 10 years.

In the past several years, states have been enacting so-called high-BAC laws, or two-tiered sanctioning systems, aimed at taking extremely drunk drivers off the roads. The higher thresholds adopted by states range from 0.15 to 0.20 percent BAC.

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

The first study on the effectiveness of high-BAC laws, Evaluation of Enhanced Sanctions for Higher BACS: Summary of States' Laws, has recently been released by NHTSA. The two-stage study was conducted by Preusser Research Group, under a NHTSA grant.

This report on the first stage of the study summarizes state high-BAC sanctioning systems and includes a detailed chart on state laws. It also reviews states' experiences with tiered sanctioning. Based on interviews with officials from each state's highway safety agency, most of the 29 states reported few problems in implementing a tiered sanctioning system and indicated a positive impact on drunk driving enforcement.

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

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

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

During the 2001 legislative session, 20 bills dealing with aggravated drunk driving offenses were introduced, though no additional states adopted two-tiered systems.

At least 27 states have adopted laws making it a crime to drive while intoxicated or impaired while having a child in the car. States have taken a variety of approaches to this issue, some through their criminal statutes or vehicle codes and others in child abuse and neglect laws.

The most basic law is in Nevada, which considers having a minor in the vehicle while driving drunk to be an aggravating factor for sentencing. Colorado has the most stringent statute, imposing fines up to $1 million and up to 24 years in jail if a child is killed while riding in a car driven by a drunk driver. The common factor in all the states' laws is significant increases in fines, license suspensions, and jail time for drunk driving with a child in the car, and in many states, it becomes a felony offense, rather than a misdemeanor. See Appendix M for more information on drunk driving-related child endangerment.

At least 11 states considered bills on drunk driving related child endangerment during the 2001 legislative session.

State implied consent laws were supposed to eliminate the option of refusing a BAC test for suspected drunk driving. For the most part, implied consent laws have been successful, as most drivers do submit to the tests. But with increasing frequency, drivers are realizing they have a choice: do they want to be punished for refusing to take the test or do they want to be punished for drunk driving?

To give implied consent laws some teeth, most states suspend the driver's license of a person who refuses to take a BAC test. For a first refusal, license suspension periods range in the states from 10 days to one year, with the typical sanction being a three-to-six months suspension. For a second refusal, a one-year license suspension is the typical punishment, with some states providing for a two-year suspension. Those are significant penalties and all but six states-Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee-provide for some suspension of a person's driving privileges to punish those who refuse to take the test.

On the other hand, in most states, if a suspected drunk driver takes and fails a BAC test, on conviction they will still have their driver's license suspended, but also be subject to hefty fines and jail time. Twenty-eight states, plus Guam and the Virgin Islands, have enacted mandatory minimum fines for first-time drunk drivers; 20 states have mandatory imprisonment for first-time offenders and almost every state and territory has mandatory jail time for a second offense.

In effect, the disparity in punishment for refusal versus failure of the test gives drivers the choice between a certain license suspension or the possibility of a license suspension, fine and jail. Many drivers realize they're better off taking the test, but for those who know they're going to fail, refusing to take the test may be in their best interest.

To make refusals less attractive, four states-Alaska, Nebraska, Ohio and Rhode Island-have added significant fines and jail time as penalties for refusing a BAC test, in addition to a suspension of driving privileges. New Jersey has established fines for refusal, while Arkansas fines drivers 21 and under for refusals, and Indiana enhances penalties for refusing a test if there has been an injury accident as a result of suspected drunk driving.

Bills related to implied consent were considered in 13 states during the 2001 legislative session and Georgia and Louisiana passed laws strengthening implied consent provisions. Appendix N has more information regarding implied consent laws.

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.

The issue of aggressive driving has come to the attention of a growing number of legislatures. In the past five 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 an aggressive driving offense. In addition, Utah amended its reckless driving law to provide for an offense similar to ones enacted in the other three states.

Twelve states introduced a total of 32 bills in 2001 that addressed various aspects of aggressive driving. Some looked at creating a new offense; others considered educational programs. Georgia enacted legislation that creates the offense of aggressive driving when a person operates a motor vehicle with the intent to annoy, harass, molest, intimidate, injure or obstruct another person. A person convicted of aggressive driving is guilty of a misdemeanor "of a high and aggravated nature." Maryland also enacted legislation that requires the motor vehicle administrator to assess five points to the driving record of a person convicted of aggressive driving. The offense of aggressive driving occurs if a person commits three of more specified offenses.

More than 26 states and local governments have established law enforcement programs to target aggressive drivers. The Ohio State Highway Patrol's Operation TRIAD (Targeting Reckless, Intimidating and Aggressive Drivers) uses aircraft, highway patrol officers and local police officers to look for aggressive driving at congested locations, complaint areas, school bus routes and dangerous rail crossings. The patrol combines enforcement with extensive media coverage to increase public awareness about aggressive driving and encourage safer driving habits. Many programs in other states share similar characteristics.

Speed Limits

Speeding-related crashes are estimated to cost society $28 billion per year. Speeding is a contributing factor in about 30 percent of all crashes, costing approximately 12,000 people their lives each year. State legislatures have an important policy role in ensuring public safety by setting speed limits.

More than 35 states considered 100 bills in 2001, with 12 passing. Texas passed legislation allowing the state department of transportation, after a safety study, to establish a 75 mph limit in counties where the population is less than 10 people per square mile. Enacted bills in Nebraska and Maine address the authority of local governments to set speed limits. A new law in Montana eliminates the 40 mph speed limit for agricultural vehicles during harvest.

Arkansas now allows emergency vehicles to exceed the speed limit when emergency lights are on. Hawaii and Illinois passed stiffer fines for speeding in school or construction zones. Alabama and Indiana doubled fines and penalties for construction zone speeding. North Dakota set a $40 fine for school zone speeding. Virginia enacted higher speed limits for high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Maine clarified the times when school zone speed limits of 15 mph are in effect.

Maryland and Virginia passed bills to allow school buses to travel at the posted limits, but governors in both states vetoed the legislation.

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Tennessee considered, but failed to enact, bills to raise speed limits. The Oregon legislature passed a bill to increase speed limits on rural interstate highways from 65 to 75 mph, except for trucks, but the governor vetoed it. Four states rejected bills to lower speed limits: Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York and Oklahoma.

Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Oregon rejected differential speed limits-a lower limit for trucks or commercial vehicles. A failed Montana bill would have eliminated the daylight speed limit outside urban areas and set a 75 mph night time limit.

Bills in South Carolina and Vermont would have limited the circumstances in which a law enforcement vehicle could exceed the posted limit. A Minnesota law would have required drivers to slow down when approaching or passing an emergency vehicle.

Bills to authorize the use of photo radar for speed limit enforcement died in North Carolina but are pending in New York. A bill to allow enforcement officers to keep the driver's licenses of those caught exceeding the speed limit by 15 mph or more was rejected in Louisiana.

A pending bill in New York would establish a maximum speed limit of 55 mph for snowmobiles, unless participating in an authorized special event or engaged in emergency operation. See Appendix O for information about state speed limit laws.

Automated Enforcement

Running red lights causes more than 250,000 crashes each year and is responsible for approximately 750 fatalities. In response, many states and communities are turning to automated enforcement. As the number of drivers and vehicle miles traveled continues to increase, automated technology offers law enforcement agencies the ability to catch traffic violations without depleting their personnel resources, or to conduct enforcement operations where traffic conditions make it unsafe or impractical to conduct traditional patrol operations.

Over the last 10 years, the use of photo radar has increased dramatically. As recently as five years ago only one city was using this technology. Today more than 60 U.S. communities are using cameras to enforce traffic laws including red light running and speeding.

Nearly all automated enforcement systems function the same way. In the case of red light running, the camera is connected to the traffic signal system and is able to monitor red, yellow and green phases. Sensors are used to detect the vehicle and its speed. After the light has turned red, a vehicle traveling over the detectors will trigger the camera causing it to take two photographs. One photograph shows the vehicle entering the intersection while the light is red and the second photograph shows the vehicle driving through the intersection on a red light. The cameras are set to photograph vehicles that enter the intersection only after the light has turned red.

Twenty-four states considered 68 bills during the 2001 legislative sessions regarding automated enforcement. In Georgia, a bill passed establishing a photo red light program. Most of these bills would have established red light camera or photo radar programs in cities and towns by enacting enabling legislation. The enabling legislation establishes guidelines for local governments to use when setting up an automated enforcement program. These laws generally allow law enforcement agencies to ticket the violators through the mail and usually make the vehicle owner responsible. Some bills proposed increasing penalties for red light runners.

Currently, 17 states-Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin-have laws regarding automated enforcement. Most of these states have passed enabling legislation for the use of red light cameras or photo radar of speeders. Other states have enacted laws providing for the use of photo technology at highway-rail crossings. New Jersey and Wisconsin have passed laws that prohibit the use of photo technology to enforce traffic laws. Appendix P contains information about current state automated enforcement laws.

Motorcycle Helmets

Thirty million motorcyclists drive on the roads and highways of the United States. A motorcyclist is approximately 15 times more likely to die in a crash than an occupant in a car. In 2000, motorcycle crashes killed more than 2,862 riders and injured over 58,000. Motorcyclist deaths have increased 35 percent since reaching a historic low (2,116) in 1997. Head injury is the leading cause of death and an unhelmeted motorcyclist is 40 percent more likely to die of a head injury, according to NHTSA. In addition, NHTSA estimates that in a crash, helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29 percent.

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

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

Since lifting the federal provision that required the transfer of highway funds to safety programs for states without helmet laws, five states (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana and Texas) have relaxed their provisions. Texas and Arkansas were the first, changing helmet requirements from all riders to those under a certain age. Texas law also states that motorcyclists who have not completed a rider-training course or do not have $10,000 in medical insurance coverage must wear helmets. Louisiana modified its law to allow riders 18 or older to go without a helmet if they have medical benefits of at least $10,000 for bodily injury. In 1999, Kentucky passed a law requiring riders to wear helmets if they are under age 21, are operating with an instructional permit, have less than one year of experience, or do not provide proof of health insurance to the county clerk. 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. It now is no longer a moving violation in Georgia if you fail to wear protective headgear. A new Oklahoma law clarifies the type of helmet to be worn. A total of 23 states introduced 46 bills on this topic.

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 Q for state motorcycle helmet use laws.

School Bus Safety

One controversial area of traffic safety is the installation and use of seat belts on school buses. NHTSA is responsible for regulating vehicles used to transport students to and from school and activities and does not require the installation or use of seat belts on school buses. But states can require seat belts on school buses. Each year several states introduce legislation to require seat belt installation on school buses. New York, New Jersey, Louisiana, Florida and California are the only states that have passed these laws.

This issue is controversial because school buses represent one of the safest forms of transportation, and some argue that seat belts would have little effect on the already low fatality rate. Approximately 130 people are killed in school bus crashes each year. Of those, only about 10 percent are passengers. Many feel that the cost of installation far outweighs any benefit. But others believe it is confusing to young children to insist they wear seat belts in every other form of transportation except school buses.

Most school buses rely on compartmentalization to protect passengers, which, according to NHTSA, is the most effective way to provide crash protection in school buses. It provides a protective pocket consisting of strong, closely-spaced seats with energy-absorbing seat backs. Although NHTSA recommends the use of compartmentalization, the agency is still conducting research to determine the effectiveness of seat belts in school bus crashes.

The debate over seat belts is not the only safety issue regarding school buses. Some bills considered each year by state legislatures deal with special licensing provisions for school bus drivers. Others increase fines and penalties for motorists illegally passing a stopped school bus. Forty-two states considered nearly 200 bills regarding school bus safety in 2001. In Nebraska, a bill passed that adds overtaking and passing a school bus to the offenses which make up a habitual offender. A South Dakota bill passed that requires that school districts be notified when the commercial driver's license of a school bus driver has been suspended or revoked.

Congress has asked the National Research Council to research the safety of different modes of transporting students to and from school. The request comes after some school districts have considered the use of public transit to transport some students. Those who support the use of the standard yellow school bus point out that the strict federal regulations make traveling by these buses much safer than traveling by public transit. On the other side, public transit experts say that their buses have good safety records. The National Research Council will study the safety of all modes of student transportation including school buses, transit buses, vans, private vehicles, bicycles and walking.

The federal government regulates the standards to which vehicles must be built, but the states decide what type of vehicle should be used to transport children. In 1998 and 1999, the National Transportation Safety Board investigated four school-related bus accidents in which eight children were killed and 33 were injured. These accidents involved non-conforming buses -- that is vans or buses that did not conform to the federal regulations that the yellow school buses must meet. The safety board recommends that states review their laws and take any necessary action to ensure that vehicles designed to carry more than 10 children and used to transport children to and from school, day care centers, and for similar purposes, meet all federal standards applicable to small school buses.

In response, Indiana enacted S.B. 501, the Indiana School Bus Transportation Law, requiring all licensed day care centers transporting 10 or more children, and all public schools, to use only vehicles that comply with federal school bus standards.

Pedestrian/Bicycling

Pedestrian deaths and injuries have decreased over the years, dropping 43 percent from 1975 to 1998. Yet, 5,220 pedestrians were killed in 1999 and another 69,000 injured. Most were young children, older adults and drunks. All told, pedestrian deaths account for 13 percent of all motor vehicle-related deaths.

Hawaii considered a bill during 2001 that would have required motorists to stop for pedestrians at intersections and in crosswalks, a practice common in Canada and other countries and many towns and cities in the United States. The bill would have imposed a mandatory first offense fine of $250, with fines of $500 and $750 for second and third violations. Jaywalker fines would also have been increased in a similar manner. Current fines are $77 for failure to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and $55 for jaywalking. After reporting out of the Transportation Committee, the bill was referred to House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs where it missed the crossover deadline, and effectively died.

In general, however, most states are beginning to look at pedestrian issues in a more comprehensive manner. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has drafted a state pedestrian plan, a 20-year program to improve pedestrian safety and transportation access for walkers. The plan describes ways to increase the number of walkways in the state and make walking safer.

In Wisconsin, there were 55 traffic accidents that included pedestrians in 1999; about 80 percent of these crashes occurred where the speed limit was 25 mph or lower. The proposal stresses the need to ensure the safety of people with special needs, including children, the elderly and the disabled. WIDOT held public meetings in March and April to gather comments on the plan, and it is planning to release a pedestrian planning guide for local governments in February 2002.

Working with local officials is important to ensure that roads and county highways include safe places for pedestrians, according to the plan. The proposal requests that the Wisconsin DOT study pedestrian accident statistics and find ways to reduce them, including enforcing lower speed limits where pedestrian traffic is heavy.

Almost 200 bills relating to pedestrian and bicycle safety were considered during the 2001 legislative sessions. In Pennsylvania, two bills passed regarding pedestrian safety. House Bill 154 establishes penalties for motorists who fail to give pedestrians the right-of-way in crosswalks. Another bill, House Bill 157, creates the Pennsylvania Pedacycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to review pedestrian and bicycling issues. In Virginia, a bill passed that will increase fines for failing to yield to pedestrians.

In 1999, about 51,000 bicyclists were injured in crashes and 750 died. Bicycle helmets are nearly 90 percent effective in mitigating head and brain injuries, according to NHTSA, which makes helmet use the single most effective way to reduce head injuries and fatalities. Despite the proven success, only 20 percent to 25 percent of all bicyclists wear helmets.

Injuries from bicycle crashes increase tremendously for those aged 4 through 15. In fact, each year almost 400,000 children 14 and under are treated in emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries.

These injuries are expensive since most involve head wounds that could need treatment for a lifetime. For every $10 spent on bicycle helmets in this country, $395-$30 in health costs and $365 in societal costs-could be saved, according to NHTSA. If 85 percent of all children wore helmets, lifetime medical savings would total $109 million to $142 million.

The number of head injuries from bicycle crashes has increased 10 percent since 1991. This increase comes even as the rate of helmet use has risen. Many safety advocates are puzzled as to why injuries have increased while helmet use has also increased. Some argue that many riders were helmets improperly. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is investigating this increase by examining emergency room reports and interviewing crash victims.

Seventeen states have laws requiring helmet use. Most of these are age specific and cover bicyclists under 16. As scooter riding becomes increasingly popular, state legislatures are amending current helmet laws to include motorized and nonmotorized scooters. Maine, Maryland, Oregon and Rhode Island passed laws regarding the operation of motorized scooters.

Conclusion

Motor vehicle crashes kill approximately 41,000 people each year. During the 2001 legislative sessions state legislators considered more than 1,800 bills regarding a variety of traffic safety issues. Each of these bills is proposed with the goal of decreasing injuries and fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes. The number of deaths on the roads has reached a plateau and state legislatures have played an important role in reducing this number through traffic safety legislation or by promoting public education.

References

Bolen, Julie Russell; David A. Sleet; and Valerie R. Johnson, ed. Prevention of Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 1997.

Boyle, John; Stephen Dienstfrey; and Alyson Sothoron. Nationwide Survey Regarding Speeding and Other Unsafe Driving Actions. Washington, D.C.: Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Sept. 15, 1998.

Cain, Alasdair and Mark Burris. Investigation of the Use of Mobile Phones While Driving. Tampa, Fla.: Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering, University of South Florida, April 1999.

Capps, Steven A. "Battle for Child Booster Seats Waged Anew: Speier Hopes to Win Davis' Support For Compromise Bill." Sacramento Bee, Aug. 16, 2000.

Evaluation of the Effects of North Carolina's 0.08% BAC Law. Chapel Hill: Highway Safety Research Center University of North Carolina, 1998.

Gastel, Ruth. Auto Safety and Crashworthiness. Washington, D.C.: Insurance Information Institute, 1999.

Glazer, Sarah. "Aggressive Driving." The CQ Researcher 7, no. 28 (July 25, 1997).

Graham, Ginnie. "School Bus Accidents Put Focus on Seat Belts." Tulsa World (Feb. 28, 1999).

Griffin, Lindsey and Sandra DeLaZerda. Unlicensed to Kill. Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, June 2000.

Hahn, Robert W., and Paul C. Tetlock. The Economics of Regulating Cellular Phones in Vehicles. Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, October 1999.

Lawrence, Steve. "Assembly Panel Tosses Hot Issue of Older Drivers' Tests to DMV." Capitol Alert (Aug. 18, 1999).

Lissy, Karen S.; Joshua T. Cohen; Mary Y. Park, and John D. Graham. Cellular Phone Use While Driving Risks and Benefits. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, July 2000.

McCartt, Anne T., et al. Spring 1998 Telephone Survey of New York State Licensed Drivers, Volume 1: Highway Safety Issues. Albany, N.Y.: Institute for Traffic Safety Management and Research and Fact Finders Inc., 1998.

McCartt, Anne. "Attitudes and Self-reported Behaviors of New York State Motorists Regarding Aggressive Driving: Preliminary Results." Presentation at the New York State Aggressive Driving Symposium, Albany, N.Y., May 1998.

McKnight, James A., and Scott A. McKnight. The Effect of Cellular Phone Use Upon Driver Attention. Landover, Md.: National Public Services Research Institute, prepared for AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, January 1991.

National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives. Survey of the States. November 1998.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless Communications in Vehicles (DOT HS 808-635). Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, November 1997.

___. "Aggressive Driving Enforcement: Strategies for Implementing Best Practices." URL=http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/aggressdrivers/aggenforce/introduction.html

___. "Capital Beltway Update: Beltway User Focus Groups." URL=http://

www.nhtsa.dot.gov:80/people/injury/research/aggressive/final.rpt

___. An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless Communications in Vehicles. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, November 1997.

___. Presidential Initiative for Increasing Seat Belt Use Nationwide. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, September 1998.

___. Setting Limits, Saving Lives, The Case for .08 BAC Laws. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 1998.

___. Standard Enforcement Saves Lives: The Case for Strong Seat Belt Laws. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, January 1999.

___. Summary of Vehicle Occupant Protection Laws. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, January 1999.

___. The Effects of .08 BAC Laws on Crashes and Consumption of Alcohol. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 1998.

___. The Relationship of Alcohol Safety Laws to Drinking Drivers in Fatal Crashes. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 1998.

National Safe Kids. Child Passengers at Risk in America: A National Rating of Child Occupant Protection Laws. Washington, D.C., February 2001.

National Safety Council. Operation ABC Mobilization Zero Tolerance for Unbuckled Children. Washington, D.C., July 13, 1999.

National Safety Council. Mired in Mediocity: A Nationwide Report Card on Driver and Passenger Safety. Washington, D.C., May 2001.

National Safety Council. Injury Facts. Washington, D.C., 2000 edition.

Redelmeier, Donald A., and Robert J. Tibshirani. "Association Between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions," The New England Journal of Medicine 336, no. 7 (Feb.13, 1997).

Reed, James B. "Primary Enforcement of Seat Belt Laws," LegisBrief (National Conference of State Legislatures) 6, no. 38 (October 1998).

Reed, James B. et al. "State Legislative Progress in Improving Traffic Safety, 1997." Transportation Series (National Conference of State Legislatures) no. 8 (January 1998).

"Road Rage." Status Report (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) 33, no. 10 (December 5, 1998): 1-6.

Savage, Melissa A. et al. "Traffic Safety State Legislative Summary, 1998." Transportation Series (National Conference of State Legislatures) no. 10 (February 1999).

Savage, Melissa A. et al. "State Traffic Safety Legislation, 1999." Transportation Series (National Conference of State Legislatures) no. 13 (November 1999).

Savage, Melissa A. et al. "State Traffic Safety Legislative Update 2000." Transportation Series (National Conference of State Legislatures) no. 15 (December 2000).

Savage, Melissa A. "The Safety of Older Drivers." LegisBrief (National Conference of State Legislatures) 8, no. 21 (April 2000).

Stutts, Jane C.; Donald W. Reinfurt; Loren Staplin; and Eric Rodgman. The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, prepared for AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, May 2001.

Transportation Research Board. Managing Speed: Reviewing Current Practices for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. Special Report 254. Washington, D.C.: TRB, 1998.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Highway Safety: Effectiveness of State .08 Blood Alcohol Laws. RECD-99-179. Washington, D.C.: GAO, 1999.

Utter, Dennis. Passenger Vehicle Driver Cell Phone Use Results from the Fall 2000 National Occupant Protection Use Survey. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Research Note, July 2001.

Vaughan, Kevin and Ann Carnahan. "State Patrol Tickets Are all the Rage." The Rocky Mountain News. January 4, 1999.

Zimmerman, Gary. "Arizona's Aggressive Driving Program." Presentation to the California NETS Aggressive Driving and Road Rage Conference, Los Angeles, Calif., October 1998.

Links

Advocates for Cell Phone Safety

Aggressive Driving: Research and Resources

American Automobile Association

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

American Institute for Public Safety

American Motorcyclist Association

Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association

"Dr. Driving" (Professor Leon James)

Federal Highway Administration

GAO report on .08 BAC laws

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Motorcycle Riders Foundation

Motorcycle Safety Foundation

NCSL/NHTSA Traffic Safety Legislative Tracking

NCSL's Driver Focus and Technology Legislative Tracking Database

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

NHTSA .08 BAC reports

NHTSA Fact Sheets

National Transportation Safety Board

National Safe Kids

National Safety Council

North Carolina .08 BAC study

TEA-21 home page

U.S Department of Transportation

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank project officer Brian Chodrow of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for his support and advice on this report. Appreciation for providing information, reviewing the report and making helpful comments is extended to numerous staff members at NHTSA. Thanks also to Steve Blackistone, of the National Transportation Safety Board for his review and comments to the report. Thanks also are extended to NCSL staff who reviewed and assisted with the report: Scott Liddell and Julie Lays.

List of Appendices (pdf file)

1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Offices
2. State Safety Belt Use Laws
3. State Laws on Child Restraint Use
4. Children Not Covered by Safety Belt or Child Restraint Laws
5. State Laws Restricting the Passenger Use of Light Truck Cargo Areas
6. State Laws on Use of Cellular Telephones
7. Local and International Distracted Driving Laws
8. Graduated Licensing Laws
9. Licensing Procedures for Older Drivers
10. Penalties by State for Driving While Revoked, Suspended or Otherwise Unlicensed
11. States with .08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws
12. High Blood Alcohol Content Provisions
13. Drunk Driving Related Child Endangerment Laws
14. State Implied Consent Penalties
15. Maximum Posted Speed Limits for Passenger Vehicles
16. State Policies Regarding Use of Traffic Cameras
17. Motorcycle Helmet Use Requirements

Transportation page

Visitor counts for this page.