 |
Home | Contact Us | Press Room | Site Overview | Help | Login | Register |
 |
 |
| About NCSL | State & Federal Issues | Legislatures | Legislative Staff | Meetings | Bookstore | Legislators & Staff Only |
| NCSL Home > State & Federal Issues: Issue Areas > Transportation > | Add to MyNCSL |
Environment, Energy and Transportation ProgramState Traffic Safety Legislation, 199927-page document
November 1999Transportation Series No. 13By Melissa A. Savage, Janet B. Goehring, Jeanne Mejeur, James B. Reed and Matt Sundeen
ContentsSummary
SummaryThis report summarizes the nearly 1,000 bills regarding traffic safety considered by state legislatures during the 1999 legislative session. The purpose of this report is to provide state legislators, federal officials and other interested parties with information about current traffic safety issues and public policy solutions to these problems. Occupant Protection. State legislatures considered more than 250 bills regarding occupant protection during 1999. These bills ranged from primary enforcement of seat belt laws and strengthening child passenger protection laws to pickup trucks and air bag safety. Alabama and Michigan passed primary enforcement laws. Several states tackled driving under the influence with a child passenger, while other states addressed air bag safety. Aggressive Driving. Fifteen states introduced bills this session aimed at aggressive driving. Nevada and Delaware passed laws this session. Each of these new laws defines the crime and sets out penalties for those convicted of aggressive driving. Speed Limits. The Montana Legislature passed a law that establishes a daytime highway speed limit of 75 mph. Before the new law, motorists on highways in Montana simply had to drive at a "reasonable and prudent" speed. Thirty-two states considered speed limit legislation in 1999. Some states amended speed limits for trucks while other states increased penalties for speeders. Red Light Running. One common cause of traffic crashes is running red lights. To combat this increasing problem, some states have turned to traffic cameras to identify and ticket red light runners. During the 1999 legislative sessions, more than 15 states considered bills regarding traffic cameras. Although none of the bills passed, some states passed laws strengthening existing traffic camera provisions. Nevada passed a bill restricting traffic camera use. Driver's Licensing. In order to reduce injuries and fatalities caused by teen motor vehicle crashes, several states introduced bills this session to restrict the licensing of teen drivers. At least 18 states considered graduated driver licensing legislation during the 1999 sessions. Eleven states passed new laws. Sixteen states addressed issues involving elderly drivers. Some states passed resolutions and bills requiring that the issue of elderly mobility be studied to identify possible policy solutions. Motorcycle Helmets. In 1995, Congress repealed federal sanctions regarding motorcycle helmet use. Since then several states have relaxed their motorcycle helmet laws. Nearly all states require helmet use for individuals under age 21. Missouri passed legislation easing their motorcycle helmet law, but Governor Mel Carnahan vetoed the bill. School Bus Safety. School bus transportation is one of the safest forms of travel. Even so, each year many state legislatures consider bills to improve the safety of school bus travel. In 1999, 22 states introduced more than 60 bills concerning school bus safety. Some of these bills would have required the installation of seat belts on school buses. Other bills addressed overall school bus safety including mandatory school bus drills and installation of strobe lights and other safety equipment. Cell Phones. Growing concern over safety issues relating to the use of cellular telephones in cars caused some states to introduce legislation restricting their use. During the 1999 legislative sessions, 15 states considered restricting the use of cell phones in motor vehicles. Although bills are still pending in some states, none of the 1999 bills have passed so far. Some proposed laws would ban cell phone use while driving, while others would require using hands-free phones or keeping at least one hand on the steering wheel. Alcohol Issues. More than 150 bills were considered by state legislatures in 1999 regarding alcohol and driving. Several states introduced bills prohibiting open alcohol beverage containers in motor vehicles. Other alcohol issues addressed during the 1999 sessions include repeat offender provisions and legislation to lower blood alcohol content limits for drivers to .08.
IntroductionTo reduce injuries and deaths caused by motor vehicle crashes, many states impose laws to increase traffic safety. Every year state legislatures contemplate new methods to improve the enforcement of seat belt laws, strengthen child passenger protection laws, restrict licenses for unsafe younger and older drivers, deter driving under the influence and enhance overall traffic safety policies. This report summarizes state traffic safety legislation considered during the 1999 legislative sessions. It is the fourth in a series and serves as a follow-up to the 1996 report, Reducing Crashes, Casualties and Costs: Traffic Safety Challenges for State Legislatures (February 1997), State Legislative Progress in Improving Traffic Safety 1997 (January 1998) and last year's Traffic Safety State Legislative Summary, 1998 (February 1999). This report examines federal highway safety incentives, occupant protection, aggressive driving, speed limits, driver licensing, school bus safety, motorcycle helmets, cell phone use, red light running and alcohol-related issues. Tables and charts detailing state traffic safety laws are included as well as contacts and links for more information.
Federal IncentivesThe Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), passed in 1998, is a complex federal law covering a wide variety of highway safety and transportation issues, including a number of provisions related to occupant protection and drunk driving. In addition to establishing program mandates, TEA-21 provides funding incentives for states that comply with the act and penalties for states that have not met the drunk driving requirements by Oct. 1, 2000. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has developed a web site at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/index.htm to help states understand and comply with the requirements of TEA-21. Occupant Protection One incentive program encourages seat belt use through $500 million in grants to be awarded over five years to eligible states. To be eligible, states must show a seat belt use rate higher than the national average for the two preceding calendar years or a seat belt use rate higher than the state's "base seat belt rate" for the previous calendar year. If a state meets these requirements, the grant funds received through this program can be used for any project eligible for assistance under Title 23 of the U.S. Code, which covers highway programs. TEA-21 also offers $68 million in incentive grants to encourage states to adopt programs to reduce highway fatalities and injuries. To qualify for these grants a state must demonstrate that it has done at least four of the following six criteria.
If a state meets the eligibility requirements, the grants received under this program can be used only to implement and enforce occupant protection programs. Additionally, TEA-21 authorizes $15 million for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for child passenger protection education and programs. To become eligible for funding under this program, states must submit an application to the U.S. Department of Transportation to carry out these activities. States are required to use these grants to prevent deaths and injuries to children and to educate the public about all aspects of child restraint use. Drunk Driving States that adopt illegal per se laws with a blood alcohol content (BAC) limit of .08 are entitled to additional federal highway funding under TEA-21. The amount each state receives is based on the level of its current Section 402 funding. Eligible states will split $500 million in incentive grants from 1998 to 2003. An additional $219.5 million in incentive grants are available for states that adopt other types of drunk driving countermeasures or meet specific performance criteria in reducing drunk driving deaths. States that meet the requirements of either type of grant may also qualify for six types of supplemental funds through 2003. To qualify for incentive funds under Basic Grant A, a state must implement at least five of the following seven countermeasures to reduce drunk driving:
To qualify for incentive funds under Basic Grant B, a state must demonstrate that it reduced the percentage of drivers killed with a BAC of .10 or greater in each of the last three years, and that the percentage of drivers with a BAC of .10 or greater is lower than the national average for each of the last three years. A state that meets the requirements for either of the basic grants may also apply for one or more supplemental grants, by establishing any of the following laws or programs to reduce drunk driving:
TEA-21 also imposes penalties on states that don't enact open container laws and specific penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders. To avoid the loss of highway funds, states must have these laws in place by Oct. 1, 2000. Failure to do so will result in a loss of 1.5 percent of highway construction and maintenance funds in 2001 and 2002 and 3 percent in subsequent years. Each of the provisions is more complex than it seems on the surface. To comply with the requirements of TEA-21, states will have to enact both open container and anti-consumption laws. Forty states currently have anti-consumption laws that prohibit drinking alcohol in a car or truck, while only 28 states have open container statutes. States must enact all of the following penalties for repeat offenders, which TEA-21 defines as a second or subsequent drunk driving offense:
Occupant ProtectionIn 1998, traffic crashes killed 31,811 occupants in passenger vehicles (cars, light trucks, vans and utility vehicles). That's 77 percent of the 41,471 traffic fatalities for the year. Strong occupant protection laws, including seat belt and child passenger protection laws, are designed with the ultimate goal of protecting passengers and reducing injuries and deaths associated with crashes. Other laws designed to protect occupants of motor vehicles include air bag safety and passenger restrictions in pickup truck cargo areas. Each year state legislatures consider a variety of bills intended to help keep passengers safe. States considered more than 250 occupant protection bills during the 1999 legislative sessions. These bills covered a range of issues including strengthening seat belt and child passenger protection laws. Primary Enforcement Studies show that seat belts reduce injuries and fatalities in motor vehicle crashes. Currently every state except New Hampshire has a mandatory seat belt law. (New Hampshire does require seat belts for those under 18.) Most states use secondary enforcement laws requiring that the vehicle be stopped for another offense before an officer can issue a citation for failure to wear seat belts. Sixteen states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have primary enforcement laws that allow officers to stop vehicles solely for a seat belt violation. According to NHTSA, states with primary enforcement laws average 15 percentage points higher in seat belt use than states with secondary seat belt laws. (See Appendix B for current state seat belt laws.) During the 1999 state legislative sessions, 19 states considered more than 30 primary enforcement bills. But only Alabama and Michigan passed primary enforcement laws. In Alabama, the law went into effect on June 9, 1999. For the first six months the law is in effect, officers will only be issuing warnings. The new law in Michigan will go into effect on April 1, 2000. Although public support for primary enforcement laws is considerably high, some individuals and groups protest that these laws give police officers an excuse to stop minorities. Evidence from states with primary enforcement laws, however, has indicated that minorities are not targeted at a higher rate for seat belt violations. However, several studies have shown that minorities are stopped for other traffic violations at a proportionately higher rate than non-minority drivers. Other challengers assert that primary laws cause too much government intrusion and are an invasion of privacy.
Child Passenger Protection All 50 states and the District of Columbia have some form of child restraint laws. These laws all provide for standard or primary enforcement and set out guidelines regarding the safe transport of children. Child restraint laws require children under a certain age or weight to ride secured in a safety seat. Although these laws provide a good starting point, many have gaps where children seated in certain positions are not covered by either child passenger laws or seat belt laws. For example, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in seven states-Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina-child passenger laws apply only to children riding in vehicles registered in that state or only to children of residents. Each year states with these gaps in coverage introduce laws to help strengthen the child passenger protection laws and ultimately close the gaps. More than 90 bills were considered during the 1999 legislative sessions regarding child passenger protection. Several states addressed strengthening laws regarding driving under the influence with a child passenger. In Rhode Island for example, a new law requires that any person 18 years and older convicted of driving under the influence with a passenger 13 years or younger may be sentenced to one year imprisonment and not be allowed to defer license suspension or sentence.
In Colorado, legislators repealed a provision that allowed children to ride unsecured if all seats with seat belts were occupied. Under the new law, all children must be seated in a child safety seat or secured by a seat belt. A new law in North Carolina strengthens the child passenger protection law by increasing the age requirement for children to be seated in a child safety seat from 4 years to 5 years. In New Hampshire, legislators repealed the secondary enforcement of child passenger protection laws. (Appendices C and D contain more information about state laws regarding child passenger protection.) Air bags New safety equipment in automobiles helps save lives and reduce injuries in motor vehicle crashes. An example of this technology is vehicle air bags. In a motor vehicle crash, air bags deploy rapidly to provide a cushion for the occupants. However, air bags deploy at such a high rate of speed that if the occupant is not properly belted, the air bag can cause injury and even death. Since 1990, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has reported 141 deaths related to air bag deployment. NHTSA also notes that between 1987 and 1998, 3,706 lives were saved by air bags. Those at significant risk of being injured or killed by an air bag are children and small adults who are improperly belted or not belted at all. In order for air bags to work as intended, they need to be used together with seat belts. Adults should sit at least 10 inches away from the air bag and must be belted securely. Children under 12 years old should never ride in the front seat of a vehicle equipped with an air bag and should always ride in the back seat either properly restrained in a child safety seat or a seat belt. NHTSA also allows certain vehicle owners to receive a waiver for an air bag on/off switch. These switches are available to those individuals who are at high risk of injury or fatality due to an air bag and are unable to sit in the back seat. Those at high risk include small adults and children riding in the cab of a pickup truck. Although these switches offer a solution for some individuals, for most, the benefits of air bags far outweigh possible danger. During the 1999 legislative session Tennessee, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Missouri and Pennsylvania considered bills providing seating restrictions in vehicles equipped with air bags. Specifically, these bills would prohibit children under a certain age from sitting in the front seat of a motor vehicle equipped with air bags. Legislation in New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts is still under consideration. North Carolina passed a measure that requires children under five riding in a vehicle with a passenger side air bag to ride in the back seat. Pickup Trucks The cargo area of a pickup truck was not designed to transport people. However, space limitations inside the cabs of pickup trucks often force passengers into the back. As a consequence, as the use of pickup trucks increases, so do injuries and deaths associated with pickup truck crashes. Most deaths and injuries attributed to pickup truck crashes are a result of passengers being thrown out of the cargo area during a rollover. Each year, on average, 200 deaths can be attributed to passengers riding unrestrained in the back of pickup trucks. Currently, 11 states prohibit passengers from riding in the back of pickup trucks. Sixteen states restrict young passengers in the cargo area. In Maryland, for example, children under 16 are prohibited from riding in the back of a pickup truck. Nine states considered legislation in 1999 regarding the use of pickup trucks to transport passengers. After passing a bill last year to educate the public about the risks of allowing children to ride unrestrained in the back of pickup trucks, Tennessee this year passed a bill that prohibits children under 12 years from riding in the back of pickup trucks. A bill in Nevada would have restricted pickup truck use by limiting cargo area passengers to those over 16 years of age. The bill failed on third reading in the second chamber. The Pennsylvania legislature considered a bill this session that would have prohibited transporting animals in the cargo area of pickup trucks. Another bill in Oregon would impose a $75 fine for failing to secure a dog riding in the back of a pickup truck. (Appendix E contains current state laws regarding this issue.)
Aggressive DrivingEveryone seems to know aggressive driving when they see it. Cars racing down a crowded road, darting in and out of lanes, tailgating are all behaviors that are recognized as aggressive driving. Road rage is an extreme form of aggressive driving. In some instances the driving behavior escalates into assault with the vehicle itself or with a weapon, increasing the severity of the event from a traffic incident to a criminal offense. Drivers are becoming more and more fearful of the threat of violence on the highways and evidence indicates these incidents are occurring with greater frequency. Aggressive driving has become a significant public safety concern. Growing concerns about aggressive drivers and the hazards they create on the roads have led to a flurry of activity by safety groups, law enforcement, mental health professionals and legislatures. Some argue that aggressive driving is not new, that these driving behaviors have always existed except now the media have given it a catchy name and are drawing attention to these behaviors. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that aggressive driving and its causes have been "rediscovered" in the 1990s. Hostility on the road has been a continuing problem in one form or another for most of this century. The Institute supports enforcement techniques such as photo radar and red light cameras to reduce the types of violations that are often associated with aggressive driving. For legislators, the issue is how, if at all, to address aggressive driving through state legislation. Some legislators see no reason to introduce new laws; the traffic and criminal laws already on the books cover all aspects of aggressive driving. On the other hand, some legislators see a void in existing law between careless driving and reckless driving where aggressive driving might fit. Legislative interest has increased dramatically in the past few years. In 1997, only two states, Maryland and Virginia, introduced legislation to create specific penalties for aggressive driving offenses. Although none of those bills passed, interest in the issue continued. Nine states introduced a total of 26 bills in 1998 and 15 states introduced 31 bills in 1999. In 1998, Arizona was the first state to pass a law creating a specific aggressive driving offense. Nevada and Delaware followed in 1999 and established the offense of aggressive driving. The Nevada law defines aggressive driving as a driver speeding and committing two or more specific traffic violations in the course of one mile that creates an immediate hazard to another vehicle or person. Aggressive driving is a misdemeanor offense with penalties that include traffic safety courses and possible license suspension. A second offense in two years leads to license revocation. The offense of aggressive driving in Delaware is based on a combination of unsafe driving behaviors that show a disregard for safety. Drivers convicted of three or more specific traffic offenses resulting from a single incident are guilty of aggressive driving. The law requires offenders to attend behavior modification courses and repeat offenders face license suspensions. Attacking aggressive driving through driver's education is another approach. The Virginia legislature passed a law in 1998 that requires driver's education courses offered through the schools include instruction about aggressive driving. Aggressive Driving Research The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has conducted and is planning additional research efforts to examine the issue of aggressive driving. NHTSA recently completed a nationwide survey to determine driver attitudes about speeding and other unsafe driving behaviors, situations in which these occur, characteristics of unsafe drivers and possible countermeasures. The telephone survey involved 6,000 drivers of all ages. Drivers were asked a variety of questions including under what conditions they commit unsafe driving behaviors or exceed the speed limits and reasons why they do it. Selected results from the survey follow:
The study revealed that age and gender are important factors in unsafe driving. Men are more likely than women to engage in the unsafe driving behaviors identified in the survey. Young drivers commit more unsafe driving actions than older drivers. Unsafe driving tends to decline as age increases. Countermeasures judged to be effective in reducing unsafe driving and speeding included placing more police in traffic, issuing more tickets, increasing fines and revoking licenses. The participants also supported photo-enforcement efforts. Findings from a study by the Institute for Traffic Safety Management and Research at the University of Albany, in conjunction with Fact Finders, Inc., and the New York Governor's Traffic Safety Committee, showed that most drivers think that aggressive driving is a problem on the roads. Respondents to the telephone survey in New York said that drivers are more aggressive now than they were five years ago. Almost 29 percent of those surveyed say they see someone driving aggressively every day. Most of the participants admitted that they tend to drive more aggressively when in a hurry, but not when angry or in a bad mood. The survey also indicated that aggressive driving poses problems for teens. According to Anne McCartt, deputy director of the Institute for Traffic Safety Management, the survey found that 24 percent of those aged 16 to 24 say they sometimes or most of the time drive aggressively as compared with 11 percent for those aged 45 to 54. More young drivers reported unsafe lane changing, tailgating, gesturing and flashing their high beams in the previous few months than did older drivers. Young drivers are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior on the road when they are in a bad mood, angry with another driver or in a hurry. Male drivers reported driving more aggressively than female drivers. Law Enforcement Efforts The District of Columbia and at least 24 states established law enforcement programs that specifically target aggressive drivers. Many of the programs share similar characteristics and several are highlighted here. Colorado. Colorado started its ADAPT (Aggressive Drivers Are Public Threats) program in late 1997. The statewide effort includes an extensive media program and interagency enforcement efforts. Heavy enforcement campaigns focused on congested highways in the Denver area. The state patrol also implemented a cell phone number (*CSP) for motorists to report aggressive drivers. As a result of this emphasis, more tickets have been written for tailgating, lane violations, failure to yield and improper passing. The number of speeding tickets has dropped. The patrol has tried to focus on the behaviors that lead to crashes. The total number of tickets issued in Denver has increased from 49,026 for the first nine months of 1997 to 56,129 for the same period in 1998. Massachusetts. The Massachusetts State Police joined with the Governor's Highway Safety Bureau and the Registry of Motor Vehicles to address the problem of aggressive drivers. A study was commissioned to examine characteristics of aggressive drivers in the state to help focus enforcement efforts. The program includes enforcement that targets aggressive driving, the use of unmarked vehicles and public awareness efforts. The education campaign slogan is "Road Respect-Tame the Rage." Police will be focusing on traffic infractions that tend to constitute aggressive driving. These are actions that fall somewhat short of the "operating to endanger" law. In addition, officers can issue an "Immediate Threat Form" for aggressive driving. The form is forwarded to the Registry of Motor Vehicles where the driver may receive a 30-day license suspension. Violators will be required to attend the National Safety Council course called "The Attitudinal Dynamics of Driving." The Boston Police Department also established an aggressive driving program called "Operation Drive Safe." It serves as a model for applying community-policing strategies into the aggressive driving problem. New York. "Slick Roof" trooper cars are being used in New York's campaign to curb aggressive drivers. The marked cars are not equipped with traditional roof-mounted lighting. Instead, strobe lights are placed in several locations on the vehicle including headlights, tail lamps and turn signals. The vehicles come equipped with video cameras to record aggressive drivers. The state police also use "road rage vans" with video equipment. The vans work with marked trooper cars during aggressive driving enforcement campaigns. The vans record driving incidents and communicate them to the trooper cars who then make the traffic stop. The enforcement efforts complement a statewide education campaign sponsored by the Governor's Traffic Safety Commission. The slogan is: "Steer clear of aggressive driving. Getting there shouldn't be half the battle."
Speed LimitsEven though the vast majority of states raised speed limits in the wake of congressional repeal of the national maximum speed limit in 1995, some 60 bills in 32 states were considered during the 1999 state legislative sessions. However, only 14 of these bills passed. See Appendix F for more information about state speed limit laws. The most watched legislation was SB133 in Montana which set a numerical daytime speed limit of 75 mph on interstates, replacing the old standard requiring motorists to drive in a reasonable and prudent manner based on traffic, road and weather conditions. A night time limit of 65 mph was already in state law. The Legislature acted in response to a Montana Supreme Court ruling in December 1998 that struck down the old standard as constitutionally vague, saying drivers could not be sure whether they were obeying the law or not. "The state's 'reasonable and prudent' standard, while thought to be generally understood by natives, was never quite grasped by travelers accustomed to being told, in black and white, how fast they could drive," said a Feb. 27, 1999, Associated Press article entitled "Whoa-Governor Approves End to Montana Autobahn." The only state that raised limits was South Carolina, which enacted a 70 mph limit on interstate highways. Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Texas considered and rejected increased speed limits. A provision of the Texas bill would have allowed an interstate speed limit of 80 mph in counties with populations of fewer than 25,000 people. Ohio acted to decrease the speed limit at accident scenes by 10 mph. Oklahoma, Virginia and Texas approved lower speed limits for school buses. Bills to lower speed limits on interstate highways failed in Mississippi, New Mexico and Oregon. Differential speed limits between cars and trucks were examined in Montana, Texas, Louisiana and New Mexico. Montana's new limit is the same for cars and trucks, whereas previously, truck speed limits were posted at 65 mph. Texas eliminated its existing speed differentials, while Louisiana did not approve the recommendation to enact by the legislatively appointed Council on Automobile Insurance Rates and Enforcement a five mph slower limit for trucks. The New Mexico Senate approved a bill reducing the interstate speed limit on trucks from 75 mph to 65 mph, but it failed to pass the House Committee on Judiciary. Arkansas passed a bill increasing the fines for large trucks exceeding the speed limit. A study by Minnesota transportation officials in February 1999 showed a dramatic 66 percent increase in fatalities on the 1,550 miles of roads where speed limits were raised. The number of deaths was 80 compared to a previous six-year average of 48. According to the study's author, Alan Rogers, there was no direct proof that speed alone caused the extra deaths, but until speed limits were increased, traffic deaths had been slowly declining for years. Moreover, a study of 24 states with higher limits by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety showed a 15 percent increase in highway deaths. Former Minnesota legislator and current Commissioner of Public Safety Charlie Weaver said in a St. Paul Pioneer Press story on March 2, 1999, that there was no plan to undo the higher speed limits. Instead safety officials would focus on increased enforcement and education efforts to get drivers to take responsibility for themselves. He attributed many of the deaths to drivers going 85 mph and higher. Mississippi and Montana increased penalties for speeding in work zones, while Oklahoma and West Virginia addressed speed limits in school zones. Finally, Vermont set a limit of 35 mph on unpaved roads.
Red Light RunningDrivers running red lights cause 89,000 crashes each year. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, between 1992 and 1998 fatal motor vehicle crashes at traffic signals increased 16 percent, while all other types of fatal crashes increased only 5 percent. Most of these traffic signal crashes involved red light running. In an effort to decrease crashes at intersections, a number of states and localities have decided to install red light cameras at intersections. These cameras automatically photograph vehicles whose drivers are violating a targeted traffic law, like running a red light. The camera is connected to the traffic signal and sensors that monitor traffic. The sensors are triggered by vehicles moving through the intersection after the light has changed to red. The cameras record the date and time of the violation and take a photo that captures the license plate number. Tickets are usually mailed to the owner of the vehicle. Currently 16 states and the District of Columbia have laws regulating red light camera and photo radar use: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. During the 1999 legislative sessions, 17 states considered 31 bills regarding red light cameras.
Although none of the bills that would have established the use of traffic cameras passed, bills to strengthen and enhance existing traffic camera laws did. In Maryland, for example, HB 227 increases the number of points that can be assessed against an individual convicted of running a red light. On the other hand, a new law in Nevada would prohibit the use of traffic cameras unless the camera is hand held or installed, temporarily, in a vehicle owned by a law enforcement agency.
Driver's LicensingGraduated Licensing for Teens Driving is a complicated skill to learn; it takes time and practice. Safety is another big concern. The leading cause of death for 15- to 20-year-olds is traffic crashes; more than 5,600 young people died in 1998. Driver error accounts for a majority of fatal crashes for 16-year-olds. They are overrepresented in crashes involving speed or driver inattention as well as single vehicle crashes. Sometimes young drivers lack the driving experience to react safely to traffic situations. Drivers in this age group also commonly engage in more risky behaviors, exposing themselves to dangerous situations on the road. Graduated licensing allows young drivers to acquire more on-the-road driving experience in lower-risk settings, increases the learning time and gradually introduces young drivers to more difficult driving situations. 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. Components of each stage may include: Stage 1: Learner's Permit
Stage 2: Intermediate or Provisional License
Stage 3: Full License
Parents, safety advocates, law enforcement officials and medical professionals are among those who support graduated licensing laws. The American Automobile Association (AAA) has been at the forefront of this effort. Through its "Licensed to Learn" program, AAA has sought to reduce the number of teen traffic crashes. AAA clubs throughout the nation have organized grassroots coalitions to lobby for graduated licensing laws. Arguments in opposition to the law include concerns about implementation costs, questions about whether the law punishes teens and issues of governmental intrusion into parental decision making. Thirty-seven states have enacted some or all of the elements of graduated licensing. Sixteen states-California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island-have, according to safety groups, the core elements of a graduated licensing plan as compared with the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances model graduated licensing law. 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 full licensure. Drivers must remain free of traffic violations during the license phases. Twenty-one other states have at least some of the core provisions. Graduated licensing bills were introduced in at least 18 states and the District of Columbia this year. Eleven states enacted new laws and the existing law in Pennsylvania was strengthened. In Arkansas, a bill requiring teen drivers to hold a learner's permit or restricted license for at least six months was signed by Governor Mike Huckabee in February. Colorado, New Mexico and Oregon enacted laws that create a three-tiered graduated licensing system. A new Utah law places additional restrictions on teen drivers. Arizona and Hawaii enacted teen driving bills that include some of the components of graduated licensing but do not set up a tiered system. As of Oct. 1, 1999, bills were still pending in the District of Columbia, New York and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia Council passed its graduated licensing proposal; it now awaits approval from the D.C. Financial Control Board and Congress. (Appendix G contains a chart outlining the states' graduated licensing laws.) Evidence of Effectiveness Support for graduated licensing is widespread. For example, a survey of parents of teens in Michigan indicated that they think the state's law makes good sense. Parents report an improvement in their child's driving with the required 50 hours of supervised driving experience. The American Automobile Association conducted a national public affairs study in 1997 of more than 11,000 members; nine out of 10 support graduated licensing. Several studies have tracked the effectiveness of graduated driver's licensing systems. Most of the evidence shows that phased-in driving privileges lead to a reduction in deaths and injuries for young drivers. Extensive data are not yet available from states that have adopted the three-tiered plan because it has been in effect for only a few years. The laws must be in place several years before a full analysis will be possible. Initial statistics from three states show improved safety for the graduated systems. Florida adopted a three-tiered graduated licensing law that took effect in July 1996. The first-year statistics for the program also show positive results for the nighttime driving restriction. Crashes for 16-year-old Florida drivers decreased by 19 percent and fatalities decreased by 25 percent for incidents during the restricted hours. Crashes late at night for those aged 17 dropped by 22 percent. A study released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in January 1999 compared the crash rates for 15- to 17-year-old drivers in Florida with teens of the same age in Alabama, a state without a graduated licensing program. The study showed an overall decrease in crash rates of 9 percent for teens in Florida but no similar decline in Alabama. Newly compiled state traffic statistics show that graduated licensing in Michigan is preventing crashes and saving lives. State police statistics for last year show the number of crashes, injuries and deaths involving teen drivers all were lower than in 1996-the last year under the old, less stringent law.
The positive evidence about graduated licensing has led to legislation to remove the 2002 sunset date contained in the original bill. The Georgia Department of Public Safety reports that the number of people killed in crashes where the drivers are aged 16 to 17 decreased more than 26 percent after graduated licensing went into effect. Driver's license suspensions for this age group increased dramatically by 230 percent after the new law. Suspensions occur, for example, for driving 24 mph over the speed limit and for dropping out of school. Elderly Drivers In 2020, more than 50 million people over the age of 65 will be living in the United States. Eight states will double their 65-year-old and older population. Nineteen states will have at least one million individuals in this age bracket. The mobility and independence of these individuals is not only important to this group, but to society as a whole. The number of drivers over the age of 70 continues to increase and although licensed older drivers have fewer crashes compared to the total population, based on the miles driven, they do have higher fatal accident rates. Because of the aging process, eyesight can deteriorate, hearing ability can weaken and reflexes can slow down. These abilities are necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle. Family members often have the difficult task of taking the keys away from an older family member. Some states have tried to make this process easier through laws designed to make sure older individuals are able to operate a car safely. These laws range from imposing driving restrictions to limiting renewal periods and requiring vision tests. Through driving restrictions, states are able to allow older drivers a certain level of mobility and independence without sacrificing the safety of the older driver and other drivers. In some states, depending on ability, drivers can be only allowed to drive during the day or not on highways. In most states, these types of restrictions can be placed on any driver, regardless of age. Other ways to help determine the ability of a driver is through more frequent renewal periods and vision testing at every renewal. Some states even require a road test if the driver has been in several accidents. 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. During the 1999 legislative sessions, 16 states considered bills relating to older drivers. For example, a Senate bill considered in California initially proposed shorter driver's license renewal periods for those over age 75. The proposed law would also have required motorists over 90 to renew their license every year. Currently in California, an older motorist in good health with a good driving record can hold a license for five years before having to renew. The Assembly Transportation Committee amended the bill to remove all references to age. Instead, the measure would require a behind-the-wheel driver's test for "at risk" drivers defined as those who the Department of Motor Vehicles determines have a higher than average propensity to cause or be in a crash.
Motorcycle HelmetsIn 1998, more than 2,200 motorcycle riders were killed in motorcycle crashes-up 8 percent from 1997-according to NHTSA. In fact, riders are 14 times more likely to die in a crash than passengers in a car. Twenty percent of motor vehicle crashes result in serious injury or death, while 80 percent of motorcyclists involved in crashes will suffer injury or death. Despite the best prevention efforts, motorcycle crashes do occur. NHTSA recommends the use of protective clothing, including helmets, when motorcycling. Full-fingered gloves, long-sleeves, long-pants and over-the-ankle sturdy footwear are also suggested. Helmets, however, are by far the riders' most important safety equipment because they guard against injuries to the head and brain, according to NHTSA. All helmets sold in the United States must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218. From 1992 to 1995, as part of an incentive package for states to pass motorcycle helmet laws covering all riders, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act 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, four states 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. Kentucky now requires 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. In 1999, state legislatures introduced more than 40 bills concerning motorcycle 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. The Missouri legislature passed a bill in 1999 to ease helmet use requirements but Governor Mel Carnahan vetoed it, citing the public costs of medical treatment for those who survive a motorcycle crash. Twenty-one 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 26 other states require that specific riders wear them, usually those under age 18. (See Appendix H for current state motorcycle helmet laws.) Safety advocates and motorcycle enthusiasts disagree about the effectiveness of helmet use laws. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied motorcycle crash hospital data in Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wisconsin. The research showed that helmets are effective in preventing injuries and death in general, but were most effective in preventing brain injuries. Helmets are 29 percent effective in preventing death, but 67 percent effective against brain injuries. Unhelmeted injured riders are three times more likely to suffer brain injury as opposed to helmeted riders. In addition, head injury is a leading cause of death for motorcyclists. There were 50 deaths per 100,000 registered motorcyclists in 1997 as compared with 18 deaths per 100,000 in cars, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. NHTSA also surveyed helmet use. In states with a law requiring all riders to use headgear, helmet use was almost 100 percent. In states with no laws or laws directed at only minors the use rate ranged from 34 percent to 54 percent. Crash data indicated that in states where only minors must wear helmets, fewer than 40 percent of the fatally injured riders actually wore one. Enforcement is easier when all riders must wear helmets because of their high visibility. Another argument used in favor of helmet use laws is the high cost of injuries. Brain injuries are more than twice as costly as other injuries according to the NHTSA crash data. NHTSA estimates the use of helmets saved $646 million in 1997. The American Motorcyclist Association and other rider groups argue that preventing crashes is critical and that mandatory helmet laws do nothing to reduce crashes. Instead, motorcycle safety training and education of drivers about motorcycles would be more effective since the drivers of cars cause many of the crashes. Motorcycle groups contend that helmet laws interfere with their freedom. Adults are capable of assessing risks and making their own decisions about wearing a helmet. The American Motorcyclist Association encourages helmet use but opposes mandatory laws. They do not oppose laws to require their use for minors. Other riders argue that helmets make it difficult to hear. These groups also challenge the "social burden" of the medical costs argument. They contend that this rationale is not persuasive because motorcycles represent a very small percentage of the vehicles in crashes nationwide.
School Bus SafetyFor many children each day begins with a trip on a school bus. These big yellow buses travel approximately 4.3 billion miles each year and safely transport over 23.5 million children to and from school. Buses are one of the safest forms of travel and are nearly 2,000 times safer than traveling in the family car, according to the National School Transportation Association. Despite these impressive statistics, each year state legislatures propose legislation in an attempt to improve the safety of school bus transportation. Twenty-two states considered more than 60 bills during the 1999 legislative sessions regarding school bus safety. Most of these bills would have required the installation of seat belts on school buses. Some of the proposed bills, however, set out new regulations for overall school bus safety. Louisiana, Florida and California were the only states to pass laws this session that required the installation of seat belts on school buses. These three states join New York and New Jersey as the only states requiring seat belts on school buses. Louisiana HB 1955 requires that occupant restraint systems be installed on every school bus no later than June 30, 2004. On June 8, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed HB 1837 regarding child safety in motor vehicles and school buses. The bill, which passed 112-4 in the House and 38-0 in the Senate, requires the installation of seat belts on school buses leased or purchased after Dec. 31, 2000. The California bill was recently signed by Governor Gray Davis and requires the installation of seat belts on all new school buses purchased after Jan. 1, 2002. The governor signed the bill on the condition that legislators may rewrite the law to incorporate any future recommendations made by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A new law in Alaska, HB 216, requires school districts to instruct children how to safely board and exit school buses as well as how to ride the bus safely. The bill also requires the school board to conduct at least three school bus drills each school year with one of these drills occurring during the first three weeks of school. Examples of other school bus safety requirements include strobe-warning lights and sensors designed to detect children walking in the area surrounding the bus. In North Carolina, bus monitors ride on the school bus to increase safety. These monitors allow the bus driver to concentrate on driving by keeping an eye on the children as they get on and off the bus and ride the bus. Other states have installed video cameras on school buses to monitor passenger behavior during bus trips. Some states have developed safety-training programs to educate students and parents about how to avoid the potential for injury while getting on and off the school bus. The Federal Highway Administration has established the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) program that includes licensing requirements for school bus drivers. This requirement helps to ensure that the drivers of school buses are qualified. In most states, for example, strict standards are in place that go beyond the federal CDL requirements that regulate the licensing of school bus drivers. States are able to strengthen this program by requiring specific training, conducting background checks and fingerprinting individuals applying for a license. In Hawaii, for example, school bus drivers cannot have any felony convictions in the past five years or a misdemeanor conviction in the last three years. The Illinois Legislature passed HB 1869 this session, which prohibits any person who has lost his driver's license during the last three years from receiving a school bus driver's permit.
Cell Phones and DrivingCellular telephones are fast becoming an important factor in highway safety. More than 60 million people in the United States subscribe to wireless telephone services, and approximately 80 million people will own wireless telephones by the year 2000. Surveys indicate that 85 percent of wireless phone owners use them while driving to conduct business, stay in touch with loved ones, call for assistance, report emergencies, convey information about hazardous road conditions, and report aggressive or drunk drivers. In 1996 alone, cell phone users placed 2.8 million calls for emergency assistance. Studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine and by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have concluded that cellular phones often reduce response time to automobile crashes and actually save lives. State policymakers, however, must weigh the benefits of wireless technology against the growing evidence of the potential dangers of cell phones in automobiles. Several recent studies correlate driver use of cellular telephones with an increased risk of crash. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the distraction caused by phone use in motor vehicles quadrupled the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call, a rate equivalent to the impairment caused by legal intoxication. The report found no distinction in safety between hand-held cell phone devices and hands-free devices. The British Journal of Psychology recently published a study that provided additional evidence that speaking on mobile phones-even if they are hands-free-can make drivers more dangerous. The research, conducted at the University of Reading, found that drivers who were distracted by cellular telephones were significantly worse at judging safe stopping distances, anticipating hazards and choosing when to turn into a line of traffic. A report published by NHTSA similarly concluded that cellular phone use while driving increased the risk of a crash, and that greater numbers of cellular phones probably will increase the number of future crashes. Moreover, future technological developments-such as on-board navigation systems and portable facsimile machines-could heighten driver distractions and lead to more crashes. Wireless technology proponents argue that phones are no more distracting than a radio, food or the vanity mirror. They say that people who drive carelessly while using a car phone should be covered by the same reckless driving laws as any other driver. As more constituents report near misses with drivers using car phones, however, legislators may feel growing pressure to specifically restrict cellular phone use in automobiles. All states make reckless or careless driving illegal. Few states, however, specifically regulate cellular phone use in automobiles. California, Florida and Massachusetts impose minor restrictions on cellular telephones in automobiles. State Restrictions on the Use of Cellular Telephones
Note: All other states place no restrictions on cellular phone use in vehicles. Source: Westlaw and NCSL, 1999 At least 22 states since 1995 have proposed bills concerning cellular telephones in automobiles. In 1999 alone, 15 states proposed measures to restrict cellular telephones in motor vehicles. Legislation varied in severity from proposals that would ban all use in vehicles, to requirements for hands-free devices, phone call length restrictions, requirements to keep one ear free, solicitation restrictions and improved data collection. Although none of the bills have passed yet, legislation is still pending in Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York. Another measure was held for further study in Rhode Island. See Appendix I for bills regarding cell phone use considered by state legislatures this session. Several foreign jurisdictions regulate or ban cellular phones while driving. Countries with cell phone restrictions include Australia, England, Germany, Israel, Italy, Singapore, Spain and Switzerland. In March 1999, Brooklyn, Ohio, became the first jurisdiction in the United States to significantly restrict the use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles. The Cleveland suburb passed a hands-free ordinance that makes it a misdemeanor to use a cell phone while driving unless both hands are on the steering wheel. Exceptions are given to those using cell phones to call emergency crews and those who use the phone while the car is in the park position. Devices that utilize speakerphones are allowed.
Alcohol IssuesState legislatures continue to make progress in reducing drunk driving fatalities. Alcohol-related traffic deaths decreased 32 percent from 1987 to 1997, a significant reduction due largely to the impressive efforts of state legislatures in passing strict drunk driving laws over the last decade. Still, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 16,000 people lost their lives in 1997 because of drunk drivers and preliminary figures estimate 15,935 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes in 1998. There is cause for optimism, however, in drunk driving trends. Drunk driving deaths decreased 1.6 percent in 1998 from the 16,189 fatalities in 1997, and the estimated rate of alcohol involvement among traffic fatalities in 1998 was 38 percent, the lowest rate recorded since record-keeping began in 1975. Drunk driving fatalities and the percentage of alcohol-involvement in traffic deaths continue to drop slightly each year, as states have passed stricter drunk driving laws. The biggest debates in drunk driving now are whether to lower blood alcohol content (BAC) limits to .08 and what to do about repeat offenders and underage drunk drivers. Lending a sense of urgency to how state legislatures enact drunk driving countermeasures is the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which affects the amount of federal highway funding a state will receive, based on their drunk driving and highway safety laws. Following is an overview of current drunk driving issues: .08 BAC When states originally enacted illegal per se laws, most adopted a BAC limit of .10. Illegal per se laws make it a crime to drive with a BAC level in excess of a statutorily determined limit and no impairment need be demonstrated. Recently a number of states have lowered their legal level for intoxication to .08 and others have considered the issue. Studies sponsored by NHTSA show that at BAC levels of .10, almost all drivers show some impairment of critical driving skills, such as judgment, steering ability, vision and attention. Figures from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety demonstrate that alcohol significantly increases the chances of a fatal collision. The issue is not without conflict. Several studies conducted through NHTSA support the effectiveness of .08 BAC levels, but have come under attack for flawed methodology and bias. Another recent study, Evaluation of the Effects of North Carolina's 0.08% BAC Law, conducted by the Highway Safety Research Center at the University of North Carolina, concluded that there was little clear impact from the lowering of North Carolina's BAC limit from .10 to .08 over the 18-month period during which it had been in effect. The debate recently became even more controversial. A report issued in June 1999 by the General Accounting Office (GAO) supports those concerns, documenting that the conclusions of the .08 studies have been overstated and that problems in methodology do exist. The GAO report notes that reductions in alcohol-involved driving fatalities that were attributed to .08 BAC laws were actually the result of .08 being used in combination with other drunk driving countermeasures, particularly administrative license revocation, along with strict law enforcement efforts and sustained public education programs. Appendix J contains information regarding penalties in each state for driving under the influence. Currently, 17 states have adopted .08 as their legal level of intoxication: Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. Texas and Washington passed their laws this session. All other states have .10 as the standard for drunk driving, with the exception of Massachusetts and South Carolina, which have no illegal per se laws. High BAC Statistically, high BAC drivers are disproportionately involved in traffic accidents. 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 crashes during those hours. Penalties for drunk driving have traditionally been imposed based on the number of prior offenses, rather than on the level of intoxication of the driver. However, a number of states, including Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Tennessee and Washington, have recently established a second-tier BAC limit with significantly enhanced penalties and, in some cases, have created a separate offense, such as extreme or aggravated drunk driving. The second-tier BAC limit adopted by these states varies from .15 to .20, and is in addition to their standard illegal per se law. 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 drinkers, 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 are among the states requiring that high BAC drivers be evaluated for alcohol abuse or participate in mandatory treatment for hardcore problem drinking. In addition, Kansas and Montana require the installation of an ignition interlock device for those convicted at high BAC levels and a number of other states are considering the devices. Youth Drunk Driving Teenagers comprise less than 7 percent of the total U.S. population but according to NHTSA statistics accounted for more than 13 percent of motor vehicle deaths in 1997. Drivers ages 16 to 20 years were involved in 7,670 fatal motor vehicle accidents in 1997, and 21.5 percent of those crashes involved alcohol. In 14 percent of those fatalities, the young driver's BAC level was above .10. Those are disturbing figures, particularly when considering young people under age 21 cannot legally purchase alcohol in any state. Although teens still account for a disproportionate share of traffic fatalities, an encouraging trend is that teenage drunk driving rates have decreased 32 percent from 1987 to 1997 and NHTSA estimates that more than 17,000 lives have been saved by the passage of state minimum drinking age laws. Another factor in the reduction of underage drinking and driving has been the adoption of "zero tolerance" laws. As of July 1998, all states have enacted zero tolerance laws for drivers under age 21, in compliance with the National Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995. Failure to do so would have resulted in the loss of federal highway funding. To comply with the act, states must apply zero tolerance laws to drivers age 21 and under, set a BAC of .02 or less as the illegal per se standard for those drivers, provide for primary enforcement of zero tolerance laws and require license suspension or revocation for violation of the laws. Eleven states have adopted a "not a drop" standard for drivers age 21 and under, with a .00 BAC limit. Those states are Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Utah, plus the District of Columbia. California and New Jersey have set a .01 BAC, while all other states adopted the .02 BAC standard for drivers age 21 and under. A number of states have established innovative state laws to reduce underage drinking and driving. In Arkansas, courts collect an additional $5 fine for every moving traffic violation and use the money to fund programs to educate junior and senior high school students about drunk driving, seat belt use, and the potential for injuries in traffic crashes. They also require underage drunk drivers to participate in community service and attend alcohol education programs. In the Virgin Islands, the department of education provides programs at all grade levels on the dangers of drinking and driving. New Mexico funds school-based alcohol abuse and drunk driving awareness programs, and additionally, provides enhanced server training requirements and stiffer penalties for selling alcohol to minors. California has adopted the Youthful Drunk Driver Visitation Program, which requires underage drunk drivers to participate in supervised visits to hospital emergency rooms, trauma centers, or county morgue facilities. The program has an excellent history of discouraging repeat offenders and has been copied in Florida, Illinois and Iowa. Both Connecticut and Vermont make it a crime for minors to misrepresent their age to buy alcohol and require violators to participate in alcohol treatment programs, in addition to significant fines and possible jail sentences. New Jersey not only sanctions minors attempting to purchase alcohol but also adults who buy liquor on their behalf. Both are subject to a fine of $500 and a six-month license suspension. Minors convicted of drunk driving face additional penalties and must participate in alcohol treatment programs. New Hampshire requires that first-time applicants for a driver's license be fully informed about the state's drunk driving laws, including standards, penalties and fines, administrative license revocation, implied consent requirements, and penalties for unlawful possession or transportation of alcoholic beverages by a minor. Georgia provides for a lengthy license suspension and requires underage drunk drivers to complete a state-approved alcohol use reduction program. Tennessee has established a separate offense of Underage Driving While Drunk, punishable by a one-year license suspension and $250 fine, while Texas punishes underage drunk drivers with fines up to $2,000, 180 days in jail, or both. Vehicle Forfeitures Although asset forfeiture laws have long been used by states and cities to target drug dealing and a variety of other crimes, they are a relatively new mechanism for traffic safety. Thirty-five states, plus the District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands, have already enacted some sort of vehicle impoundment or forfeiture law for drunk drivers. Most of the laws provide for temporary impoundment of a convicted drunk driver's vehicle, license plates or vehicle registration; some states permit hardship exceptions where a spouse or family would be unduly harmed by the loss of their means of transportation. Permanent forfeiture of a vehicle is generally reserved for those convicted of multiple offenses. (See Appendix K for current state laws regarding vehicle impoundment and forfeiture.) Concerns about the constitutionality of asset forfeiture laws in general have been set aside by state and federal courts, which have ruled that seizure of an "instrumentality of crime" is constitutional. In the case of drunk drivers, the instrumentality of the crime is the vehicle itself. As long as drunk driving cases receive the constitutional protections of due process, forfeiture of the vehicle is an acceptable sanction. Treatment and Education Almost every state and territory has alcohol education and treatment programs to address the underlying substance abuse problems of convicted drunk drivers. Although many of the laws are mandatory, a significant number of states have made their programs discretionary options based on a judge's decision at sentencing. (See Appendix L for current state policy regarding treatment and education.) Alcohol or drug rehabilitation used to be reserved for repeat offenders or hardcore drinking drivers, but many states now require education and treatment for all convicted drunk drivers, including first time offenders, as a way of reducing recidivism. A growing number of states make a convicted drunk driver complete an alcohol or drug education program before having his license restored. In many instances, treatment programs are self-funded from fines or fees assessed to convicted drunk drivers. The progress states have made in reducing drunk driving deaths over the last decade is impressive. State legislatures have worked hard to pass stricter laws and develop innovative programs to deal with the continuing problem. But there is more to do. Despite encouraging statistics, state legislatures must continue to strengthen their drunk driving laws.
ConclusionTraffic fatalities fell to 41,471 in 1998 compared with 41,967 in 1997 and experts expect this trend to continue. This decrease in fatalities is a direct result of efforts by state legislatures and the federal government to increase overall traffic safety. State laws, whether occupant protection laws, aggressive driving laws or alcohol-related laws, are designed with the same goal of reducing deaths and injuries resulting from traffic crashes. This report illustrates the commitment by an increasing number of states to improve traffic safety.
ReferencesAchieving a Credible Health and Safety Approach to Increasing Seat Belt Use Among African-Americans. Nashville: Meharry Medical School, 1999. 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, September 15, 1998. 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. (February 28, 1999). Lawrence, Steve. "Assembly Panel Tosses Hot Issue of Older Drivers' Tests to DMV." Capitol Alert. (August 18, 1999). 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. 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. _______. "Capital Beltway Update: Beltway User Focus Groups." URL=http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov:80/people/injury/research/aggressive/final.rpt _______. 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 0.08 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 Safety Council. Operation ABC Mobilization Zero Tolerance for Unbuckled Children. Washington, D.C., July 13, 1999. 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.; Janet B. Goehring; Jeanne Mejeur; and Chris Burnett. "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., James B. Reed, Janet B. Goehring and Jeanne Mejeur, "Traffic Safety State Legislative Summary, 1998." Transportation Series (National Conference of State Legislatures) no. 9 (February 1999). Texas House of Representatives. Committee on Transportation. Interim Report to the 76th Texas Legislature. Austin, November 1998. U. S. General Accounting Office. Highway Safety: Effectiveness of State .08 Blood Alcohol Laws. RECD-99-179. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GAO, 1999. 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. Website Links AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Aggressive Driving: Research and Resources American Automobile Association American Institute for Public Safety American Motorcyclist Association Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving (CASAD) "Dr. Driving" (Professor Leon James) Insurance Institute for Highway Safety National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Transportation Safety Board Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, "Road Rage: Causes and Dangers of Aggressive Driving" Appendices (PDF Version)
|
© 2008 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved
Denver Office: Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230 | Map
Washington Office: Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001
