• 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

Traffic Safety State Legislative Summary, 1998

21-page document

March 1999

Transportation Series No. 10

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

Contents

Summary
Introduction
Occupant Protection
Aggressive Driving
Speed Limits
Drivers' Licensing
Motorcycle Helmets
Drunk Driving
Conclusion
References
Appendices A through N (This is a PDF document that must be viewed with Adobe Acrobat Reader.)

Summary

During the 1998 legislative session, state legislatures considered more than 600 bills regarding traffic safety. This report summarizes the major traffic safety issues considered and enacted by state legislatures in 1998. The purpose of this document is to provide state legislators, federal officials and interested parties with a useful tool to assess current approaches in developing public policy solutions to various traffic safety issues.

Occupant protection. In 1998, states considered legislation concerning four occupant protection issues: primary enforcement of seat belt laws, seat belts on school buses, air bag safety and passenger safety in cargo areas of pickup trucks. Indiana passed a primary enforcement law. More than 20 states introduced legislation regarding seat belts on school buses, but none passed. Delaware enacted legislation requiring children of certain ages to be seated in the back seat of vehicles that are equipped with air bags.

At the federal level, the U.S. Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This bill includes incentive grants for states to use to promote traffic safety in many areas, including occupant protection.

Aggressive driving. Nine states considered 26 aggressive driving and road rage bills. In 1998, Arizona became the first state to pass such a law. Arizona's law uses several different components to define the crime of aggressive driving. Other states considered legislation to educate drivers about aggressive driving.

Speed limits. Several states have raised their speed limits during the past few years in response to the elimination of federal penalties. In 1998, Connecticut and Tennessee increased the speed limit on specific roads. Seven other states attempted to raise speed limits but failed. A New Mexico bill to lower speed limits failed.

Driver licensing. In response to an increasing number of teen crashes, several states introduced legislation concerning graduated licensing programs for teens. Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island and South Dakota enacted bills that would grant teen licenses though a series of steps. Other states addressed the issues of unlicensed driving and elderly driving.

Motorcycle helmets. In response to the repeal of federal sanctions in 1995, several states have changed their motorcycle helmet laws. Nearly all states require helmets for all individuals under age 21. Kentucky repealed the provision that required those over age 21 to wear helmets. In Pennsylvania, the governor vetoed a bill amending the current helmet law. More than 30 bills were considered regarding motorcycle helmets in 1998.

Alcohol issues. Fourteen states considered legislation to lower legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limits for drivers. Only Washington adopted a .08 BAC during the 1998 session, becoming the 16th state to adopt .08 BAC. Michigan and Oregon enacted laws in 1998 regarding asset forfeiture and vehicle impoundment for convicted drunk drivers. California, Nevada and New Hampshire passed bills that strengthen their laws regarding education and treatment for convicted drunk drivers.

Introduction

In 1998, state legislatures passed a variety of legislation designed to increase traffic safety and ultimately reduce injuries, fatalities and economic costs resulting from traffic crashes. Legislators acted on a variety of measures designed to reduce drunk and drugged driving, strengthen seat belt and child passenger protection laws, make driver licensing a more strenuous process for teenagers, and address the increasing problem of aggressive driving and road rage.

This report, the third in a series, summarizes state traffic safety legislation considered during the 1998 legislative session. It serves as a follow-up to the 1996 report, Reducing Crashes, Casualties and Costs: Traffic Safety Challenges for State Legislatures (February 1997) and last year's State Legislative Progress in Improving Traffic Safety 1997 (January 1998). This report examines occupant protection, aggressive driving, speed limits, driver licensing, motorcycle helmets and alcohol-related issues. The report includes 50-state tables about seat belt laws, child passenger protection laws, children not covered by seat belt or child passenger protection laws, pickup truck cargo area laws, speed limits, graduated licensing for juveniles, penalties for unlicensed driving, motorcycle helmet laws, asset forfeiture laws, and drunk driving education and treatment programs.

Occupant Protection

Occupant protection laws address methods of keeping vehicle passengers and drivers safe. Specifically, these laws address seat belt safety, child passenger protection, and air bag and pickup truck safety with the goal of ensuring occupant protection. Research has shown that these types of laws encourage seat belt use and therefore help to reduce injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic crashes. Several organizations, including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), recommend these types of laws (for a listing of NHTSA Regional Offices see appendix A). Currently, 49 states and the District of Columbia have seat belt laws in place. Although the specifics of these laws vary from state to state, the main goal remains constant to prevent injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic crashes. According to NHTSA, for example, if seat belt use rates were increased to 90 percent from the current rate of 69 percent, an estimated additional 5,536 lives could be saved and 132,670 injuries could be prevented annually.

Primary Enforcement

One way that some states are trying to increase seat belt use is by enacting primary seat belt enforcement laws, also known as standard enforcement laws. These laws, unlike secondary enforcement laws, give police officers the ability to stop vehicles solely for a seat belt violation similar to other traffic laws. Drivers and passengers fear stiff fines more than injury or death, according to an NHTSA study. Primary enforcement increases seat belt use. Evidence from states where primary enforcement laws are in place shows notable increases in seat belt use rates. In California, for example, seat belt use has climbed to 90 percent from 70 percent since a primary enforcement law was enacted in 1993. Traffic deaths have fallen 24 percent since then. In July 1996, Georgia enacted primary enforcement legislation, and by November 1996 the seat belt use rate had increased from 51 percent to 63 percent. Seat belt use rates in states that have primary enforcement laws are, on average, 15 percent higher than states that have secondary enforcement laws.

During the 1998 legislative session, 13 states considered several proposed primary enforcement laws (see appendix B for current state seat belt laws). Indiana, however, was the only state to pass such legislation. Specific language in Indiana's primary enforcement law currently is being challenged in the courts on the grounds that the law gives police officers too much discretion and power and violates constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizures.

The federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) helps the effort to increase seat belt use nationwide. TEA-21 offers incentive grants for states that enact primary enforcement laws. Additionally, TEA-21 sets aside $500 million in incentive grants for states that increase seat belt use rates.

Child Passenger Protection

Every state has enacted some form of child passenger protection law for motor vehicles. These laws require adults to ensure that children up to a certain age are secured in a child safety seat and that older children are properly buckled up. In some states, child passenger protection laws provide that children must sit in the back seat of vehicles that are equipped with air bags. Although these laws are an excellent way of keeping child passengers safe, some do not offer comprehensive coverage to all children in all situations (see appendices C and D). For example, in some states, out-of-state visitors are not required to obey state laws regarding child passenger protection. Other state laws allow passengers age 10 and older to legally ride unrestrained in the back seat. In an effort to close some of these gaps, 18 states introduced legislation regarding child passenger protection. Iowa, Mississippi and Wyoming enacted laws to close gaps in their child passenger protection laws. In Mississippi, a law was passed to make its child seat belt laws primary or standard enforcement. Iowa's child passenger protection law now applies to out-of-state visitors.

Air Bags

Together with seat belts, air bags have been proven to save lives and prevent injuries. Air bags have deployed in nearly 3 million crashes and have saved more than 3,000 lives. Air bags, however, also have been blamed for more than 100 deaths since 1990. Most of these deaths are attributed to the fact that those killed were either improperly restrained or not wearing a seat belt at all.

In order for air bags to work effectively, they must be used together with seat belts. Air bags are meant to provide a buffer between occupants and the interior of the vehicle in a crash. To effectively provide a buffer, they must deploy at a high rate of speed, sometimes up to 200 miles per hour. When an air bag deploys at this high rate of speed and occupants are not wearing seat belts, the chances for fatalities and injuries increase, especially among children and small adults. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign and other safety organizations recommend that all children ride in the back seat of air bag-equipped vehicles.

During the 1998 legislative session, 11 states considered legislation concerning air bags. Most of these laws require children of a certain age to ride in the back seat in air bag-equipped vehicles. Delaware successfully passed legislation regarding air bag safety. Specifically, children younger than age 12 and shorter than 65 inches are prohibited from sitting in the front seat of a vehicle that is equipped with an air bag. Other states passed resolutions making public education about air bags a priority.

Because of the noted risks associated with air bags, NHTSA has instituted an air bag on/off switch program. This switch is available to vehicle owners who complete a waiver application and submit it for approval to NHTSA. If NHTSA approves the waiver application, the vehicle owner can have a mechanic or car dealership install the on/off switch in his or her vehicle.

Although the on/off switch offers a solution to a potential risk, in almost every situation it is recommended that the air bag be left operational. For that reason, waivers are granted only if the vehicle owner can prove a necessity. One example is if a small child must sit in the front seat of an air bag-equipped vehicle due to a lack of space. In this case, it is clear that the risk of having the child seated so close to the air bag is cause for an air bag to be dismantled.

Pickup Trucks

An increasing safety risk for passengers is riding in the cargo area of pickup trucks. According to safety experts, cargo areas in pickup trucks should not be used for transporting passengers. However, as pickup truck popularity increases, more passengers are riding unrestrained in the cargo areas of these trucks. Each year, more than 200 deaths can be attributed to passengers who ride unrestrained in pickup truck beds. Most of these deaths involve children and teenagers. For the most part, these deaths occur when the pickup truck is involved in a rollover crash and the occupants in the cargo area are ejected from the truck. Because children and teenagers are at an especially high risk, many states have included pickup truck regulations in child passenger protection laws. Exceptions exist, for example, in some states where agricultural workers may ride in the cargo area.

During the 1998 legislative session, Tennessee enacted SB 2061, which encourages the department of public safety to educate the public about the risks of allowing children to ride in the cargo areas of pickup trucks. The Arizona Legislature passed a bill that would have prohibited children from riding in the bed of pickup trucks, but the governor vetoed it. Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Vermont also considered bills relating to occupant protection and pickup trucks. See appendix E for current state laws on this topic.

Seat Belts On School Buses

Each year school buses transport millions of school children to and from school and extracurricular activities. NHTSA reports that, since 1984, an average of 11 passengers are killed each year in school bus crashes. Although these fatalities are unfortunate, it is a rather small percentage in comparison to the number of children who are killed each year in passenger vehicle crashes. In 1997, passenger vehicle crashes claimed the lives of more than 6,000 children age 19 and younger, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Pedestrian fatalities account for the highest number of school bus related fatalities each year. An average of 26 deaths occur each year as a result of a pedestrian either being hit by the school bus itself or by a passing car. According to the National Academy of Sciences, children are at "greater risk of being killed in school bus loading zones (i.e., boarding and leaving the bus) than in the bus, a larger share of the school bus safety effort should be directed to improving the safety of school bus loading zones."

State legislatures regularly consider legislation pertaining to seat belts on school buses. However, very few laws have been passed requiring seat belts on school buses. Currently, New York and New Jersey are the only states that require seat belts on school buses. In New Jersey, school buses must be equipped with seat belts and students are required to wear them. The New York law requires that school buses be fitted with seat belts but not that the students wear them.

School bus seat belt proponents argue that, since children are not required to buckle up on school buses, the wrong message is being communicated to them. Specifically, it is feared that children will get the message that seat belt use is not important. Others argue that, because of the relatively low incidence of fatalities, the cost of installing seat belts on school buses would far outweigh any potential benefit.

In answer to safety concerns, the federal government has required the use of "compartmentalization" on all school buses. Based on safety studies, the federal government believes that seat belts on school buses are not necessary. Compartmentalization requires well-padded, anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats to protect riders without the use of seat belts. A study by the National Transportation Safety Board found that most school bus occupant fatalities occurred at the impact point of the crash where a seat belt would not have made a notable difference.

During the 1998 legislative sessions, more than 20 states considered legislation regarding mandatory seat belts on school buses. None of these laws passed. In Louisiana, a school bus safety belt pilot program currently is under way and will continue into the next year, at which time a report will be made to the state Legislature with recommendations regarding seat belts on school buses. Last session, the New Mexico Legislature considered legislation authorizing similar studies, but this attempt failed.

Aggressive Driving

Everyone is talking about aggressive driving, it seems. Stories abound of drivers who speed, tailgate, drive on the shoulder of the road to pass, and then gesture and shout as they go by. Drivers know it when they see it, but pinpointing a specific definition of aggressive driving is difficult. Dr. Mark Edwards, managing director of traffic safety for the American Automobile Association, defines aggressive driving as "operation of a motor vehicle without regard to others' safety." He sees road rage as "assault with intent to do harm arising from the use of a motor vehicle." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines aggressive driving as "the operation of a motor vehicle in a manner which endangers or is likely to endanger persons or property."

Psychologists have attempted to understand aggressive driving behavior. Dr. Arnold Nerenberg, a California psychologist who treats people who have aggressive driving problems, says, "Road rage is a reaction to endangerment." He identifies three kinds of aggressive driving:

• Road rage that includes felonious behavior like criminal assault and non-felonious behavior that is a distraction from safe driving.

• Breaking the rules of the road.

• Lack of courtesy.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration used focus groups to study drivers' perceptions of aggressive driving on the beltway around Washington, D.C. Focus group discussions were held with eight different groups. Three of them represented the general population of beltway drivers, two represented aggressive drivers and three consisted of commercial drivers. Aggressive driving was rated as the number one concern of the general population group. Congestion was another factor. Participants described aggressive driving, in general, as weaving in an out of traffic to get ahead, following too closely, speeding and engaging in conflicts with other motorists.

The focus group results showed that aggressive drivers tend to be more competitive and drive faster than the general population. Most of the participants wanted to see more law enforcement on the roadway. Other suggestions to help deal with the aggressive driving problem included photo imaging of violators, enforcement campaigns, more emphasis on safe driving and tougher sanctions for repeat offenders.

State Legislative Action

The 1998 legislative sessions saw a significant increase in activity that addressed aggressive driving. Nine states-Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, Virginia and Washington-introduced a total of 26 aggressive driving bills. Most of the bills introduced in 1998 defined a specific aggressive driving offense and set out penalties for it. Arizona is the first state to pass such a law.

The Arizona law amends the reckless driving statute by adding the new misdemeanor offense of aggressive driving. The statute defines "aggressive driving" as an event where a driver speeds and commits two or more listed traffic offenses. The other infractions include failing to obey a traffic control device (including a prohibition against driving over the painted "gore" area when entering or exiting a highway), driving recklessly, passing a vehicle on the right by traveling off the pavement, changing lanes erratically, following too closely and failing to yield right of way. The gore area provision came about because a law enforcement officer was killed by a motorist who crossed over the area.

To qualify as an aggressive driving offense under Arizona's law, the person's driving must be an immediate hazard to another person or vehicle. In addition to a fine of up to $2,500 and up to six months in jail, the law requires drivers who are convicted of the offense to attend driver training and education and allows suspension of the driver's license for 30 days. If a driver is convicted of a second offense within 24 months, the person is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor and his or her driver's license will be revoked for one year, in addition to other penalties allowed by law.

The Arizona bill's sponsor, Representative Jerry Overton, says, "Obviously we have a problem with aggressive drivers out here." He sees more of it on the highways every day. But, Overton says, the law "is only a tool and it won't be effective unless it's properly enforced."

Although Arizona created a specific aggressive driving offense, many states are struggling to define aggressive driving or road rage. Legislation introduced this past session cover a number of different approaches to aggressive driving. For example, the bill introduced in Illinois envisions a progression of offenses from a basic moving violation to aggressive driving to reckless driving to road rage or aggravated road rage to reckless homicide. It defines road rage as driving a motor vehicle with malice in an unlawful manner that endangers the bodily safety or property of another. Malice is the will to do harm to another. The Illinois bill died at the end of session.

Other definitions of aggressive driving in bills this year include:

• Committing any two or more specific traffic violations within five consecutive miles in a manner that "intimidates or threatens another person."
• Driving that intentionally creates a risk of harm or endangers the safety of another.
• Operating a vehicle with a wanton or reckless disregard for another.
• Driving that evidences dangerous conduct contributing to the likelihood of a collision or evasive action by another.
• Driving in a deliberately discourteous and impatient manner.

Proposed legislation in Hawaii, New York and Virginia includes brandishing or displaying a weapon in a manner that induces fear in another as one component of aggressive driving.
Addressing aggressive driving through driver's education is another approach. The Virginia bill requires that school driver education courses must include instruction about aggressive driving. The bill passed and was signed by the governor on March 13, 1998. This is the second success in Virginia with aggressive driving education requirements. Last year, a Virginia bill to mandate that driver improvement courses for repeat offenders include curriculum about aggressive driving was withdrawn by its sponsor, Delegate Joe May, after the Department of Motor Vehicles agreed to implement it administratively.

Four other states also considered education components in their bills. Penalty provisions in the Arizona law require attendance at driver training programs aimed at dangerous driving behavior. A bill in Connecticut contained a similar provision. Maryland proposed that driver improvement courses address aggressive driving and ways to modify it. New York is considering several approaches to education about aggressive driving. Appendix F contains a summary of the aggressive driving legislation introduced this year.

Speed Limits

Since Congress repealed the national maximum speed limit in 1995, 43 states have acted to increase speed limits on rural and urban interstate highways and on other limited access roads. Most of the action to raise speed limits occurred in 1996. State speed limit legislation in 1998 signaled the end of the trend to raise limits and indicates the beginning of a period of ongoing evaluation and, perhaps, future decreases in existing speed limits.

Connecticut and Tennessee were the only states in 1998 to increase posted speed limits on rural interstates, raising them from 55 mph to 65 mph and 65 mph to 70 mph, respectively. Virginia enacted legislation to raise limits to 65 mph on certain limited access roads. New Jersey's new 65 mph limits were enacted in 1997, and took effect in January 1998.

Bills to raise speed limits failed in Iowa, Indiana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. The Louisiana Legislature enacted several resolutions requesting lower limits on certain road segments. Bills to both lower and raise speed limits are pending in New York. A New Mexico bill to lower speed limits in from 75 mph to 70 mph failed.

More caution in further raising limits has been exercised in light of the growing body of evidence that shows that higher travel speed means more deaths. In states where speed limits were raised to 65 mph in 1987, the higher limits are causing about 15 percent to 20 percent more deaths on rural interstates each year than otherwise would be expected, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Its studies show that, in states that raised rural interstate speed limits, about 400 lives are lost each year because of higher limits.

An October 1997 study by IIHS about the preliminary effects of the 1995 repeal of the national maximum speed limit indicates that higher speeds continue to increase death rates. The institute estimates that 500 more people died in motor vehicle crashes in the last nine months of 1996 than would otherwise have been expected in the 12 states that raised speed limits on interstates and freeways between December 8, 1995, and April 1, 1996. Researchers compared the number of deaths between April and December 1996 in 12 states with corresponding fatality counts for the same nine-month periods in 1990 to 1995, as well as fatality counts from 18 states that did not change maximum speed limits during 1996 or that raised speed limits on fewer than 10 percent of urban interstate roadways. IIHS estimated a 12 percent increase in fatalities on interstates and freeways and a 6 percent increase on all roads in these 12 states.

In all, more than 200 bills related to speed limits were considered by state legislatures and most were rejected. Many dealt with giving local governments authority to set limits. Giving municipalities the power to use photo radar to catch speeders was rejected in Hawaii and West Virginia and is pending in New York. Work zone speeding was addressed in Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York and Virginia.

Five states considered measures concerning speed limits for trucks. Idaho enacted legislation mandating a 65 mph limit for trucks on rural interstates where passenger cars can go 75 mph. Illinois and Oregon considered bills to eliminate car-truck differentials but declined to pass legislation. Conversely, Tennessee passed SB 2609 which equalizes speed limits for cars and trucks on state highways. Virginia changed the limit for vehicles with oversize and overweight permits from 10 mph less than the posted limit everywhere to 55 mph on highways where the posted limit is more than 55 mph. A recent Montana state Supreme Court ruling has declared that the Montana state speed limit law is unconstitutional. Current law does not provide for a numeric daytime speed limit. The Legislature will be asked to determine a daytime speed limit during the next legislative session. Appendix G contains information about speed limit laws for the 50 states.

Driver's Licensing

Graduated Licensing

Motor vehicle related crashes are the leading cause of death and disability resulting from head and spinal cord injuries for youth between the ages of 16 and 20. Almost 6,000 die each year. This age group is overrepresented in traffic crash statistics. Teenagers comprised 10 percent of the U.S. population in 1996, but accounted for 15 percent of vehicle occupant deaths. The death rate for 17- to 19-year-olds has been declining since the mid-1970s; however, the rate still exceeds that of the adult population. Since 1985, however, more 16-year-olds have been dying on the roads than 17- to 19-year-olds. Approximately 35 of 100,000 16-year-olds died in 1996, compared to 25 deaths in the 17- to 19-year-old age group. The population of 16- to 19-year-olds also is increasing, which raises concerns about more fatalities.

One solution being considered by many states is graduated licensing. Graduated licensing allows young drivers to acquire more on-the-road driving experience in lower-risk settings, increases the learning process 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.

Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island and South Dakota enacted graduated licensing laws in 1998. For example, Delaware requires a 12-month permit where a minor's driving must be supervised during the first six months. A nighttime driving restriction applies for the second six months. Indiana's probationary license prohibits driving during state curfew hours. During the first 90 days of the probationary license, passengers are prohibited unless a licensed driver age 21 or older is in the car. The law requires the driver and all occupants to wear seat belts. Teens receive a full operator's license at age 18 as long as they did not receive two moving violations during the probationary period.

Minnesota established a provisional license for novice drivers under 16. To obtain the license, drivers must complete driver's education, six months of an instructional permit and 30 hours of supervised driving, 10 of those at night. The provisional license is distinct in appearance from the full license. When riding in a vehicle with a driver who holds a provisional license, all occupants of the vehicle who are under age 18 must wear a seat belt.

At least 26 states have enacted some elements of graduated licensing to create various programs to phase in new drivers. Safety groups argue that not all license programs measure up to the standards of a full, three-tiered graduated plan. The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) has developed a model graduated licensing law that sets out detailed provisions of a graduated licensing plan. The National Transportation Safety Board, NHTSA, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety used the NCUTLO model to classify state graduated licensing laws. Eleven states (California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio and Rhode Island) have, according to these groups, the core elements of a graduated licensing plan. The core components are a learner's phase of at least six months, an intermediate phase of at least six months that also includes a prohibition against unsupervised nighttime driving and, finally, full licensure. Drivers must be free of traffic violations during the license phases. Appendix H shows an analysis of state graduated licensing laws as compared to the NCUTLO model.

Florida's graduated licensing law became effective July 1996. It allows the department of motor vehicles to issue a learner's driver's license to a 15-year-old who has passed vision and hearing tests and the written exam for the license. The applicant must have completed a traffic law and substance abuse education course. The law requires that the holder of the permit be supervised at all times and that driving occur during daylight hours for the first three months of the learner's license. Three months after its issuance, driving can occur between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Nighttime driving bans-from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. at age 16 and 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. at age 17-continue through age 18.

The first-year statistics for the graduated licensing program show positive results for the nighttime driving restriction. Crashes for 16-year-old drivers decreased 19 percent and fatalities went down 25 percent for incidents during the restricted hours. Crashes for those age 17 dropped by 22 percent late at night.

Unlicensed Driving

An effective method to stop drivers who have suspended or revoked licenses from continuing to drive is impoundment of the person's motor vehicle. California, Delaware, Illinois, Nebraska, New York and Virginia have such laws, and Connecticut enacted impoundment legislation in 1998. The Connecticut bill (SB 503) allows impoundment and forfeiture of motor vehicles owned and operated by unlicensed or uninsured drivers. A bill pending in Pennsylvania would do the same. Bills pending in New York would strengthen existing impoundment provisions.

California's law has proven effective. A recent study found that California's on-the-spot impoundment of vehicles of drivers who lack a valid license cut down on subsequent offenses and convictions by those drivers. Fewer crashes also were reported by offenders whose vehicles were impounded. California's law also appears to be more effective for repeat offenders-those high-risk drivers who traditionally have been resistant to change. Appendix I contains a summary of state laws regarding penalties for driving with a revoked or suspended license. (See related section on asset forfeiture for drunk drivers.)

Elderly Drivers

Although car crashes are not the leading cause of death for elderly people, older drivers do have higher rates of fatal crashes per mile driven, per 100,000 people and per licensed driver than other ages except teens, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Elderly drivers tend to get more tickets for failure to yield, illegal turns and running stop signs or red lights. This tendency leads to more multi-vehicle crashes in intersections. Because of their susceptibility to medical complications, the elderly are more likely to die from their injuries. More than 7,000 people age 65 and older died in car crashes in 1997, a 3 percent increase from 1996.

Demographics will play a significant role in the issue of the safety of older drivers. By 2020, the nation will have more than 40 million drivers who are at least 70 years old; there are 24 million now. No one test exists that accurately predicts whether an older driver is safe on the road. Vision, hearing and mental capacity vary widely among the elderly. Restrictions on older drivers reduce their mobility and quality of life. The loss of driving privileges often means the loss of independence.

State legislatures have attempted to address the issues of elderly drivers, in part, through restrictions on driver's licenses or incentives to keep drivers safe. At least 28 older driver bills were considered in the 1998 legislative sessions; two passed. Hawaii enacted legislation to require that a commercial driver's license expire on the second birthday following the issuance of the license for people over age 72. The age cutoff for this requirement formerly was 65. New Hampshire passed a bill to set up a commission to study the creation of incentives for older drivers to participate in driver training programs.

Other issues covered in the bills that did not pass include reducing the fees for older people who are renewing their driver's licenses. Some sought to impose shorter license renewal time frames for older drivers. Minnesota considered legislation setting license renewal at two-year intervals for drivers over age 70. Several states also tried to set up study panels on the issue. For example, Massachusetts legislators introduced a bill to study the licensing of people over age 70. Others sought an insurance rate reduction for drivers who completed safe driving courses. Safety groups and other organizations3/4such as the American Association of Retired Persons3/4have tried to help elderly drivers maintain their skills through these special driving courses.

Motorcycle Helmets

The National Highway System Designation Act, passed in 1995, removed the federal penalties established in 1992 for states that did not have motorcycle helmet laws. States annually reexamine helmet use requirements and efforts to repeal them have intensified. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia require all motorcyclists to wear helmets. Two states-Arkansas and Texas-repealed part of their helmet laws in 1997, as did Kentucky in 1998. At least 15 other states have introduced bills to relax helmet laws, although, as yet, none have passed. Of those states that have repealed parts of their helmet laws, all kept the requirement that minors wear helmets. Twenty-five states require helmets for some riders, usually those under age 18. Illinois, Iowa and Colorado are the only states that have no motorcycle helmet requirements. Illinois, however, has considered legislation to require minors to wear helmets.

Kentucky revised its helmet law in 1998 by removing the mandate that all riders wear helmets. The law now requires those under age 21, who are operating or are a passenger on a motorcycle, to wear protective headgear. In addition, anyone who possesses a motorcycle instruction permit, or has held a license for less than one year, or fails to show proof of health insurance when registering the motorcycle must wear a helmet. The county clerk will provide a license plate decal for operators who provide proof of insurance.

In late November, the Pennsylvania legislature passed SB 279, which amends the state's helmet law. This bill would allow experienced adult motorcyclists the option of riding without a helmet. In December, Governor Tom Ridge vetoed SB 279, due to a technical flaw. The governor has expressed his support of voluntary helmet use and has vowed to work with the legislature next session to pass such a law.

Serious head injuries are a common cause of fatalities for motorcycle riders. Death rates from head injuries are higher in states that have less restrictive helmet laws, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Safety advocates, medical professionals and insurance companies support helmet laws. They argue that safety concerns and societal costs support the use of motorcycle helmets. An analysis of motorcycle crashes sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that unhelmeted riders in the seven states studied were more than three times as likely to suffer a brain injury as those wearing helmets. The study also showed that brain injury cases are twice as costly as other types of injuries for the one-year period of the project. Long-term costs were not identified. NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $638 million in health care costs in 1996 alone.

Helmet use laws that govern all riders significantly increase helmet use. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration surveys showed helmet use at close to 100 percent in states where the law required all riders to wear them. In states that have no helmet laws, or laws that cover only minors, usage ranges from 34 percent to 54 percent. Even where minors are required to wear helmets, only 40 percent of those fatally injured in a crash wore them. Helmet laws that govern only minors are very difficult to enforce because it is difficult to gauge the operator's age. Also, if some motorcyclists can go without a helmet, then violations by young riders are less obvious than when all riders must wear headgear (see appendix J for state motorcycle helmet laws).

The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) encourages helmet use, but opposes mandatory helmet laws for adults. The AMA does not oppose laws that require helmet use for riders and passengers who are minors. They accept that many young motorcyclists lack the maturity to make an informed choice about wearing a helmet.

Other advocacy groups, such as the Motorcycle Riders Foundation and ABATE, want to preserve individual freedom and assert that mandatory helmet laws interfere with personal choice. They argue the imposition of such requirements singles out motorcyclists, and that automobile crashes cause more injuries and death than do motorcycles. They do, however, support rider training, safety and educational programs. Foes of helmet laws dispute the many studies that show higher fatality rates for unhelmeted riders. They also claim the real cost to society comes from the expense of enforcing and prosecuting tickets for failure to wear helmets.

Drunk Driving

States have reduced the incidence of drunk driving by 32 percent from 1987 to 1997 by enacting tough standards, such as .08 BAC limits, administrative license revocation, and zero tolerance laws for younger drivers. In a continuing effort to reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths, state legislatures have imposed longer sentences and higher fines, and have mandated treatment and education to address the underlying substance abuse problems of drinking drivers. States have enacted asset forfeiture laws and ignition interlock provisions, and are experimenting with ways to get extremely drunk drivers off the roads. States are taking advantage of federal grants that allow them to try innovative programs to identify drunk drivers, curb underage drinking and reduce repeat offenses. Finally, states are supporting law enforcement efforts to apprehend, prosecute, convict and treat drunk drivers.

.08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws

One of the most effective steps states have taken to reduce drunk driving is the establishment of illegal per se laws, which make it a crime for anyone to operate a motor vehicle who has a blood alcohol content (BAC) above a statutorily established level. Simply put, if a driver has a BAC level above the legal limit, there is an irrefutable presumption that he or she is drunk and impairment need not be shown. When states began enacting illegal per se laws, most adopted a BAC level of .10. However, during the last several years, a number of states have reconsidered the effectiveness of the .10 standard in reducing drunk driving, and some have lowered the legal level for intoxication to .08.

Studies from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that almost all drivers show significant impairment of critical driving skills at BAC levels of .10. Driver performance decreases significantly in skills such as judgement, braking, steering, vision and attention. Additionally, research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows that drivers who have BAC levels between .05 and .09 are 11 times more likely to be killed in a single vehicle crash than drivers who have no alcohol in their system.

Currently, 16 states have adopted .08 as the legal level of intoxication. All other states have .10 as the standard for drunk driving, with the exception of Massachusetts and South Carolina, which have not adopted such per se laws. States that have already adopted a .08 BAC limit are Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington (effective January 1, 1999).

Alcohol-related traffic fatalities decreased 32 percent from 1987 to 1997, a significant reduction due largely to the efforts of state legislatures in passing strict drunk driving laws. For the first time since record-keeping began in 1975, drunk driving deaths accounted for fewer than 40 percent of traffic fatalities. The figures released by the U.S. Department of Transportation show there were 16,189 alcohol-related traffic deaths in 1997, a decrease of more than 1,000 from 1996 deaths.

The 1997 figures also showed that Utah had the lowest percentage of drunk driving deaths, at 20 percent, followed by New York with 27 percent. The District of Columbia had the highest percentage of alcohol-related traffic deaths, at 58 percent, followed by Rhode Island at 54 percent. The complete report on 1997 drunk driving statistics is available on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration web site at www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/Alcohol97.pdf.

Bills to lower their state's BAC limit were introduced during the 1998 legislative session in Alaska, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia, but only Washington adopted a .08 BAC in the 1998 legislative session.

TEA-21 Incentive Grants

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which was signed into law on June 9, 1998, provides funding for the rebuilding of the nation's highways and programs to make roads safer, including providing $500 million in incentive grants from 1998 to 2003 for states that enact .08 illegal per se laws. The act also provides for incentive grants to states that adopt administrative license revocation laws or graduated licensing provisions for newly licensed drivers or that meet performance criteria showing reductions in alcohol-related fatalities. Finally, the act imposes penalties for states that fail to enact open container laws or minimum mandatory penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders. Failure to enact these laws will cause a transfer from various highway construction and maintenance funds of 1.5 percent in 2001 and 2002 and 3 percent in subsequent years. Texas estimates it would transfer $15.7 million for 1.5 percent and $31.3 million for 3 percent should it fail to enact these laws.

Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia currently have open container laws (see map), which prohibit the possession of an open alcoholic beverage container in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle. The strength of open container laws lies in the fact that the mere presence of an open alcoholic beverage container is sufficient for law enforcement officers to refer charges. It need not be proven that the driver or passengers consumed alcohol. The following states have open container laws: Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Under the new federal requirements for repeat offenders, states must enact the following sanctions for drivers who are convicted of a second or subsequent drunk driving offense:

• License suspension of not less than one year.

• Vehicle impoundment/immobilization or installation of an ignition interlock device.

• Alcohol abuse assessment and treatment as needed.

• Thirty days of community service or five days in jail for a second offense and 60 days of community service or 10 days in jail for a third or subsequent offense.

No state currently has all the required sanctions in place.

Zero Tolerance

State legislatures continue to address the problem of youthful drunk driving. Drivers under age 21 constitute only 9 percent of the U.S. population, but account for more than 14 percent of alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Taking advantage of an incentive, most states moved quickly to comply with the 1995 National Highway System Designation Act mandate that ties federal highway funds to passage of zero tolerance (less than .02 BAC) laws by 1998 for drivers under age 21.

A study by Boston University shows that lower BAC limits for youth are effective. In the first four states-Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina and Wisconsin-to lower their BAC levels for younger drivers, statistics indicate that nighttime alcohol-related fatal accidents among minors decreased 34 percent. In addition to lowering BAC levels, the study noted that, to be effective, young drivers needed to learn about the laws and know that punishment for violation was sure and swift. Figures for 1997 show that intoxication rates decreased for all age groups involved in fatal crashes, but the largest decrease was in the group of drivers aged 16 to 20, a positive sign for lower limits for younger drivers. Unfortunately, drivers age 21 to 44 continue to have the highest percentage rates of alcohol-related traffic deaths. See appendix K for more information about states zero tolerance laws.

Asset Forfeiture

Asset forfeiture is a relatively new mechanism for traffic safety. Forfeiture laws already target prostitution, drug dealing and a variety of other crimes. The majority of states have enacted vehicle impoundment or forfeiture laws, and most states have targeted repeat offenders, requiring impoundment or forfeiture of a vehicle once it becomes apparent the person's behavior remains unchanged by the traditional sanctions of fines and jail time. States laws vary on whether forfeiture is permanent and if exceptions can be made to accommodate family members. In some states, only the plate or the registration is taken, still making it more difficult for convicted drunk drivers to drive. The courts have sided with law enforcement, declaring asset forfeitures constitutional for many crimes. Now, asset forfeiture laws are becoming a popular mechanism for keeping drunk drivers off the roads. (Appendix L contains more information about state forfeiture laws.)

Michigan and Oregon enacted laws during the 1998 legislative session on vehicle impoundment and forfeiture for convicted drunk drivers. Oregon already provided for vehicle impoundment on the second or subsequent offense, but added impoundment for those convicted of drunk driving while on a suspended or revoked license. The Michigan law revives vehicle forfeiture as a sanction against convicted drunk drivers; previous use of vehicle forfeiture was repealed several years ago.

High BAC Initiatives

Statistically, high BAC drivers are disproportionately involved in traffic crashes. According to the National Hardcore Drunk Driver Project sponsored by The Century Council, drivers who have alcohol levels in excess of .15 BAC account for only 1 percent of weekend nighttime drivers, but are involved in nearly 50 percent of fatal traffic accidents during those hours. In 1995, 27 percent of fatally injured drivers had alcohol levels in excess of .15.

Eight states have targeted so-called high BAC drivers, whose level of intoxication frequently is twice the legal limit. Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Washington have significantly enhanced penalties and, in some cases, have created a separate offense when a driver is found to be extremely drunk, in excess of a statutorily determined high BAC standard. (See appendix M for more information about state high BAC initiatives.)

At least nine states now require alcohol assessments or mandatory treatment for people who are convicted with high BAC levels. Since high BAC drivers often are defined as problem, rather than social drinkers, addressing the underlying substance abuse is key to reducing drunk driving by this population. California, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Maine, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota and Washington require that high BAC drivers be evaluated for alcohol abuse or participate in mandatory treatment for hardcore problem drinking. In addition, two states require installation of an ignition interlock device for those convicted at high BAC levels. Kansas has set its high BAC standard at .15 and Montana at .18; convicted drunk drivers who have BAC levels in excess of those limits are subject to mandatory installation of ignition interlock equipment on their vehicles.

Treatment and Education

The majority of states have adopted provisions requiring alcohol or drug treatment for convicted drunk drivers. In the past, alcohol abuse treatment often was required by judicial discretion and only for multiple offenses. Increasingly, states are making treatment mandatory and requiring evaluations and treatment for first-time offenders to reduce the likelihood of repeat offenses. During the 1998 legislative session, California, Nevada and New Hampshire passed additional provisions to strengthen their laws on education and treatment for convicted drunk drivers. (Appendix N contains a 50-state chart of state laws regarding education and treatment programs for drunk driving offenders.)

Conclusion

The concerted effort by states and the federal government to improve traffic safety is paying dividends. Traffic fatalities dropped in 1997 to a low of 41,967. This drop comes despite an ever-increasing number of miles being driven by American motorists, estimated by the Federal Highway Administration to be 2.56 trillion miles in 1997. Each year, more states enact legislation intended to reduce the death toll and injuries to the American public, as this report illustrates.

References

• Edwards, Mark Lee. "AAA Study on Aggressive Driving." Presentation at the Taming the Road Warrior: Aggressive Driving and Road Rage Conference. Los Angeles, Calif., October 1998.
• Moore, Melissa. "Court bars no seat-belt stops." The Advocate (Louisiana), Nov. 6, 1998.
• National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives. Survey of the States. November 1998.
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Capital Beltway Update: Beltway User Focus Groups. DOT HS 808 705. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, April 1998.
• ---. Presidential Initiative for Increasing Seat Belt Use Nationwide. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, September 1998.
• Nerenberg, Arnold. "Downsizing Road Rage." Presentation at the Taming the Road Warrior: Aggressive Driving and Road Rage Conference. Los Angeles, Calif., October 1998.
• Reed, James B. "Primary Enforcement of Seat Belt Laws." LegisBrief (National Conference of State Legislatures) 6, no. 38 (October 1998).
• Reed, James B., Janet B. Goehring, Jeanne Mejeur and Chris Burnett. State Legislative Progress in Improving Traffic Safety, 1997. Denver, Colo.: National Conference of State Legislatures, January 1998.
• Texas House of Representatives. Committee on Transportation, Interim Report to the 76th Texas Legislature. November 1998.

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, http:/www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Visitor counts for this page.