Traffic Safety Trends | State Legislative Action 2022

Transportation

Easily browse the critical components of this report…

Adult Occupant Protection

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) data shows that among passenger vehicle occupants killed in 2021 where it was known whether they were wearing a seat belt, 50% were unrestrained. The agency estimates that 85% of passenger vehicle occupants who survived fatal crashes in 2021 were restrained, while 15% were unrestrained.     

Wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of fatal injury by nearly half for occupants of passenger cars and by more than half for occupants of light trucks and vans. The national seat belt use rate by adult front-seat passengers was 91.6% in 2022, a record high, although not statistically different from 90.4% in 2021. However, seat belt use rates varied by region in 2022, they ranged from 96.2% in the west to 89.3% in the midwest.    

Front-seat belt use also varies by age and gender. Occupants ages 16 to 24 continued to have the lowest rate of front seat belt use among any age group at 88.2%, according to NHTSA’s 2021 data. The seat belt use rate for male occupants was 88.8% compared to 92.4% for female occupants.     

While the number of occupants who buckle up in the back seat has increased in recent years, it continues to be significantly lower than front-seat belt users. Rear-seat belt use among occupants eight years and older was 77.9 % in 2021 compared to 90.4% for those in the front seat.    

AAA’s 2021 Traffic Safety Culture Index shows that while drivers completely (74.2%) or somewhat (22.4%) disapproved of driving without wearing a seat belt, 12.8% reported having driven at least once without buckling up in the last month. Nearly 54% of drivers said it was somewhat or very unlikely for a driver to be caught by police for not buckling up.     

Primary and Secondary Laws  
Primary seat belt laws allow police to stop and ticket a motorist solely based on if the driver or passengers are not buckled up. Secondary belt laws allow police to issue a citation only if the driver is first stopped for another infraction.    

Research affirms that seat belt laws significantly increase seat belt use and that primary enforcement laws are more effective than secondary enforcement laws. According to NHTSA, 92.2% of occupants in states with primary enforcement laws buckled up, in contrast to 89.5%  of occupants in states with secondary enforcement or no laws in 2022.     

The effect of seat belt laws on rear-seat occupants is also noteworthy. In 2021, the latest year for which data is available, 77.7% of occupants in back seats used belts in states with seat belt laws for all seating positions, while 78.8% of occupants in rear seats used belts in states with front-seat-only belt laws.    

State adult seat belt laws (as of March 2023) can be grouped into the following categories:     

Primary enforcement laws for all occupants: 20 states—Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.  
Primary front-seat belt law and secondary rear-seat belt law: Five states—Alabama, Kansas, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina.  
Secondary laws for all occupants: Six states—Idaho, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Vermont and Wyoming.  
Primary front-seat-only belt laws: Nine states—Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia—and the Virgin Islands.   
Secondary front-seat-only belt laws: Nine states—Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Virginia.  
New Hampshire and American Samoa are the only state and territory without a seat belt law for adults.

State Legislation   

During the 2022 legislative session, 24 states considered at least 25 bills related to adult seat belt use. However, no bills were enacted. See NCSL’s Seat Belts and Child Passenger Safety webpage for an overview of current state seat belt and restraint laws. 

Child Passenger Safety

 According to the latest NHTSA data, of the 42,939 fatalities in 2021, 1,184 were children 14 and younger. Children that died while an occupant of a passenger vehicle accounted for 863 of those deaths, and in those cases, 308 were unrestrained—based on crashes where it is known whether the occupant was wearing a seat belt or car seat. NHTSA estimates car and booster seats reduce fatal injury by 71% in passenger cars for infants under age one and by 54% for toddlers ages one to four.     

The national restraint use rates for children up to 7 years old was 93.4% in 2021, the latest data available, similar to 93.6 % in 2020. NHTSA also points out that restraint use for children driven by adults who buckle up (95.1%) continues to be much higher than for children driven by unbelted drivers (76.6%).    

Car Seat Recommendations for Children     
The most effective method to protect children in cars is to properly secure them in an appropriate car seat or booster seat in the back seat. Children should remain in the back seat until at least age 12. NHTSA recommends that state child passenger laws cover children up to age 16 in every seating position.     

For the best possible protection, NHTSA and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend that children remain in rear-facing car seats as long as possible—until they reach the top height or weight limit recommended by the seat’s manufacturer. AAP’s previous recommendation, released in 2011, was that children should be in rear-facing car seats until at least age 2. As of March 2023, a total of 18 states—California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Virginia and Washington—and the District of Columbia have strengthened their child safety laws to require rear-facing car seats until age 2.     

Once children outgrow the rear-facing car seat, they should travel in a forward-facing car seat with a harness and tether until they reach the height and weight limits for these seats (many forward-facing car seats can accommodate children up to 65 pounds). Children ages 4 to 7 should use either a forward-facing car seat or a booster seat, depending on the child’s height and weight.    

State Legislation 

At least 17 states considered child passenger protection legislation in 2022, and two states—Hawaii and Maryland--enacted bills. Maryland and Hawaii are the 17th and 18th states, respectively, to strengthen their child safety laws to require rear-facing seats until age two, in line with the AAP recommendations.  

Hawaii’s (SB 152) law required that children must be restrained in a rear-facing car seat with a harness that meets federal motor vehicle safety standards until they reach 2 years of age. Additionally, children between ages 2 and 4 must be restrained in a rear or forward-facing car seat with such a harness. The new law also extends the age until children no longer need to use a child safety booster seat from age 8 to age 10. A driver is exempt from these requirements if a child between 7 and 10 years of age is properly restrained by a lap and shoulder seat belt assembly and is over 4 feet, 9 inches tall. Previously this exemption applied to children between the ages of 4 and 8 who weighed over 40 pounds and met the height requirement.   

The Hawaii legislature also raised the fines for repeat violations of the law from between $100 and $200 to $250 and $500 for a second offense. A third or subsequent offense results in a fine between $500 and $800 rather than the previously established penalty range of $200 and $500.   

Maryland enacted legislation (SB 176) requiring children to be restrained in a rear-facing car seat until they reach 2 years of age or the weight or height limit set by the manufacturer. First time violations of the law result in a written warning rather than a fine. 

Alcohol and Other Drug-Impaired Driving

According to NHTSA, 13,384 people were killed in alcohol-impaired traffic crashes in 2021, a 14% increase from 2020. Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities made up 31% of all traffic fatalities in 2021. All vehicle types experienced a rise in the number of alcohol-impaired drivers involved in fatal traffic crashes; however, SUVs saw the highest increase—27%—from 2020 to 2021.  

With the increase in alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2021, impaired driving remains a major traffic safety and public health issue for states. NHTSA’s data show that in 2021, an average of one alcohol-impaired-driving fatality occurred every 39 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-involved crashes accounted for $69 billion or 20% of all economic costs such as medical expenses or property damage in 2019, according to NHTSA. About 84% of these occurring in crashes where the highest BAC was ≥.08 , resulting in $58 billion in costs.     

Additionally, NHTSA’s analysis of state percentages of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities among total traffic fatalities ranged from a low of 20% in Mississippi to a high of 44% in Montana in 2021, compared to the national average of 31%.  

Driving under the influence of drugs and polysubstance-impaired driving—driving after using a mix of drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol—also contributes to the steadily increasing number of impaired driving crashes. NHTSA found that drug use among fatally injured drivers who were tested rose from 25% in 2007 to 42% in 2016, and marijuana presence doubled in this time frame. While the use of drugs does not necessarily indicate impairment, the agency’s research shows that drugs can impact cognitive and psychomotor tasks associated with driving.   

While these studies provide a good picture of impaired-driving in the United States in recent years, the prevalence of drugs in drivers tested increased during the COVID-19 public health emergency.  

NHTSA collected data in trauma centers to examine the prevalence of alcohol and other drugs in the blood of seriously or fatally injured drivers and other crash victims. Most samples were collected between September 2019 and January 2020, before the COVID-19 public health emergency. However, the final samples were collected on July 31, 2021, during the emergency period. While drug prevalence was high among seriously and fatally injured roadway users before, the results indicate it increased during the public health emergency, especially for alcohol, marijuana and opioids. Almost 56% of injured or killed roadway users tested positive for at least one drug (including alcohol) and 19.9% tested positive for two or more categories of drugs, compared to 50.8% and 17.6% before the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also found that 25.1% of drivers tested positive for cannabis followed by 23.1% for alcohol, 10.8% for stimulants and 9.3% for opioids.  

To better understand the crash risk associated with different drug categories and their prevalence among drivers, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) examined toxicological data from five populations of drivers, including drivers arrested for impaired driving and fatally injured drivers, gathered by four laboratories. Each laboratory collected the data during different periods, ranging from 2015 to 2021. Their analysis yielded that between 71% and 99% of drivers tested positive for one or more potentially impairing drugs. Additionally, approximately 50% of drivers tested positive for multiple drug categories.  

NTSB also found that alcohol was the most detected drug category followed by cannabis. However, cannabis was often detected in combination with alcohol or other drugs rather than alone. For example, analysis of one of the larger sample sizes from the Orange County Crime Laboratory shows that 89% of drivers tested positive for alcohol and/or cannabis and 11% tested positive for other substances. Of those who tested positive for cannabis and/or alcohol, 56% tested positive for alcohol only, while 21% tested positive for alcohol and cannabis. Only 12% of drivers tested positive for just cannabis. The remaining 11% tested positive for substances other than alcohol or cannabis. While alcohol remains the primary drug for endangering traffic safety, the use of cannabis and other potentially impairing drugs also contribute significantly to the problem of impaired driving crashes. 

NTSB provides several recommendations such as requiring cannabis products to have a warning label about impaired driving and enhancing state drug-impaired driving laws. Researchers also recommend the widespread adoption of standardized drug testing and reporting to improve our understanding of drug impairment trends and use, impaired driving countermeasures and treatment options for offenders. 

To gain insight into public opinions and behaviors regarding traffic safety, AAA publishes an annual Traffic Safety Culture Index which surveys drivers on their perception of traffic safety issues. The 2021 index reveals that 94% of drivers perceive driving after drinking as very dangerous or extremely dangerous. Among surveyed participants, 7% admitted to driving after consuming enough alcohol in the previous 30 days that they believed they might be over the legal limit.  Over 50% of respondents support lowering the legal BAC limit from .08% to .05% whereas 71% of drivers supported lowering such the BAC  limit for people transporting young children.  

AAA’s index reveals a significant disparity between perceptions of alcohol use and marijuana use before driving as only 65% of respondents consider driving shortly after using marijuana to be very or extremely dangerous. The index also found 79% of survey participants support making it illegal to drive with a certain amount of marijuana in a person’s system. Most (86%) respondents believe driving after using potentially impairing prescription drugs is very or extremely dangerous. Nearly three in four respondents support making it illegal to drive with any drug that’s not legally prescribed in an individual’s system.  

The federal government, states and traffic safety organizations are continually examining and implementing interventions and new technologies to combat alcohol-impaired driving.   

NHTSA developed a Drug-Impaired Driving Criminal Justice Evaluation Tool for state, local and territorial and tribal governments to self-assess readiness to implement certain programs or policies aimed to reduce impaired driving. The tool can identify gaps in drug-impaired driving programs, inform strategies to strengthen such programs and track development progress over time.  

Maryland became the second state in 2019, after Virginia in 2018, to pilot the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) Program. This program, a public-private partnership research project between the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety and NHTSA, aims to develop a non-invasive, seamless technology that would use small programmable sensors built inside vehicle panels to measure the BAC in a driver’s breath. Drivers whose BAC is above the set limit would be unable to move the vehicle. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) released a study in 2020 suggesting that the technology has the potential to save more than 9,000 lives when added to all new vehicles. 

The federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted in November 2021, directs the U.S. Transportation Department to set an alcohol detection technology safety standard within three years, and give automakers at least two additional years to install the technology in all new vehicles. The bill does not specify any details about the technology or its implementation but says it must “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired” and “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.” NHTSA’s IIJA webpage provides more information on other impaired driving provisions within the IIJA.  

The Utah legislature became the first and only state to lower its impaired driving per se BAC limit, in 2018, from the national standard of .08% to .05%.  NHTSA’s evaluation of Utah’s law reveals that Utah’s fatal crash rate (the number of crashes resulting in someone’s death) dropped by 19.8% and the fatality rate (the number of people killed in crashes) decreased by 18.3% between 2016 and 2019. 2016 was the last full year before lawmakers approved lowering the BAC limit. Comparatively, the rest of the United States showed a 5.6% fatal crash rate reduction and 5.9% fatality rate reduction. Utah’s neighboring states—Arizona, Colorado and Nevada—did not show similar levels of improvement in fatal crash and fatality rates.   

Despite a more stringent BAC standard, NHTSA reports that alcohol-impaired driving arrests did not increase markedly after the law went into effect, as some had feared. Additionally, NHTSA’s analysis reveals that in 2019, more than 22% of alcohol consumers indicated they had changed their behaviors such as ensuring a sober ride was available once the law went into effect.  

NCSL’s Drunken Driving and Drugged Driving/Marijuana-Impaired Driving webpages provide a detailed and up-to-date overview on state interventions to reduce and prevent all forms of impaired driving.  

State Legislation  

Lawmakers in 45 states considered over 512 bills related to alcohol and drug-impaired driving in 2022. Approximately 95 bills were enacted by 33 states. Laws addressed ignition interlock devices and restricted driving privileges, implied consent and testing, drugged driving and penalties, among other topics. 

Ignition Interlock Devices and Restricted Driving Privileges 

Ignition Interlock Devices (IIDs) are connected to the starter or other on-board computer system in a motor vehicle to prevent the car from being operated if a set level of alcohol is detected on the driver’s breath. Most devices require random retesting while the car is running to ensure that the driver is not drinking once the car is started. Courts often require the use of IIDs for drivers convicted of a DUI. During sentencing, an offender whose driver’s license has been suspended or revoked can be granted limited driving privileges if an IID is installed in the vehicle(s) they use.   

NHTSA data shows that IIDs reduce recidivism among first-time and repeat offenders, including high-risk offenders. However, once IIDs were removed from a repeat or high-risk offender’s vehicle, the offender’s recidivism rates increased. Offenders with higher rates of failed BAC tests were also found to have higher rates of recidivism once their IID was removed. In contrast, a CDC study of a Florida policy mandating alcohol treatment for DUI offenders using interlocks did find decreased recidivism. Offenders who accumulated three interlock violations—defined as two occasions within four hours in which the device prevented the driver from starting the vehicle—were required to participate in alcohol use disorder treatment. Recidivism among such offenders was reduced by 32% after the device was removed, compared to the control group that did not receive treatment. 

Since 2011, all 50 states have passed legislation that allows or requires the use of IIDs for certain drunk driving offenses—from drivers who refuse to submit an impaired driving chemical test to first-time, repeat and/or high BAC offenders. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring all offenders, including first-time offenders, to install an IID. 

Laws in some states provide for restricted driver’s licenses for DUI offenders in addition to or alternative to an IID, or as a substitute to having the license suspended. People with a restricted license are limited on where and when they can drive, but do not have to install an IID. 

At least seven states—Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee—enacted legislation regarding ignition interlock devices and restricted, suspended or revoked driving privileges in 2022. Kansas and Tennessee’s legislation include provisions that address IID program costs. 

Arizona (SB 1334) enacted legislation to offer offenders who are subject to a driver’s license suspension due to a DUI test refusal the option to apply for a special ignition interlock restricted driver license (SIIRDL) after completing any ordered alcohol or drug screening, before serving 90 days of the suspension period. Additionally, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) must issue an SIIRDL upon request to an offender who did not cause death of serious injury during the offense, has not been convicted of certain DUI offenses within the previous 84 months and provides evidence of completion of alcohol and other drug screening ordered by the department. The time that an offender used an IID after DUI conviction must be subtracted from the total time ADOT requires them to use an IID. An SIIRDL does not reduce or eliminate the required use of an IID. 

The bill also specifies that an individual may apply for an SIIRDL if the person’s BAC was more than .08% or if the offense involved alcohol or a combination of drugs and alcohol. Previously, these provisions provided only for alcohol related offenses.  

Finally, the bill increases the license suspension period from 15 to 30 days for a DUI test refusal. Individuals can receive a temporary driving permit for 30 days, rather than the previously established 15, if they surrender a valid driver’s license following such a refusal.  

Colorado (SB 55) passed legislation to permit an individual whose license has been revoked for one year or more because of a DUI or driving while ability impaired (DWAI) related conviction, or for nine months for a first offense, to immediately apply for an ignition interlock-restricted license. Under previous law, such offenders had to wait until their license was revoked for one month before applying for reinstatement.  

Hawaii (SB 3165) adjusted the driver’s license revocation period for first-time DUI offenders or offenders who refuse to install an ignition interlock device from one year to between one year and 18 months. An offender can apply to terminate the revocation period early if they install an IID in all vehicles they operate for six months, after which they maintain an IID in such vehicles for three months without a violation like providing a breath sample of .04 or more grams of alcohol when starting the vehicle. The bill also expands the definition of circumventing or tampering with a device to include obscuring the attached camera lens or failing to provide a picture of the driver. Additionally, the bill extends the lookback period for two or more DUI offenses from five to 10 years. 

Kansas (HB 2377) removed the period required for DUI offenders to wait before applying for a restricted license with an IID. Previously, offenders with a BAC of .15 or greater had to wait 45 days for reinstatement or 90 days if they refused an impairment test. The new law also allows offenders who finish the applicable IID period and IID program to apply for license reinstatement. Individuals cannot have more than two standard violations such as a test failure in the 90 days prior to the application for reinstatement to complete the program. The Division of Vehicles must approve the application for reinstatement if the offender has not committed a subsequent impaired driving offense during the IID installation period and has not been convicted of an IID circumvention offense. The law created an indigency program for IIDs which has an income-based sliding scale for offenders who may need financial assistance. 

Lastly, the bill reduces the required IID restriction period from 330 to 180 days for first-time DUI offenders under 21 who produce a BAC between .02 and .08. 

New Hampshire (HB 1085) enacted legislation to clarify that IIDs must be installed in any vehicle registered to or used by a DUI offender subject to an IID order. Previously, offenders did not have to install an IID in a vehicle they operated if it wasn’t on a “regular basis.” New Hampshire (HB 1246) also passed legislation to provide that a DUI offender with an IID order must install a device in any commercial vehicle they operate.   

Oklahoma (SB 366) established that the first license revocation for a DUI offense, within 10 years preceding the date of arrest, will remain in effect until the offender completes the Impaired Driver Accountability Program (IADP), which requires program participants to install an IID. A second and third revocation within 10 years must remain in effect for at least a year and two years, respectively, until the offender completes the IDAP. Previously, the third license revocation was in place for at least three years. The bill also transfers the IADP from the Department of Public Safety to the Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence, which is housed within the Public Safety and Corrections Agency. The board must establish rules for the IADP which address IID violations, criteria to determine program participation, IID medical exemptions, employer exceptions to IID requirements and affordability accommodations for offenders on public assistance programs.  

South Dakota (HB 1108) added childcare delivery or pickup to the list of permissible activities for DUI offenders who hold a restricted driver’s license. Such offenders can also operate a vehicle for the purposes of employment, 24/7 sobriety testing, attendance at school or counseling programs. 

Tennessee (SB 887) created the electronic monitoring indigency fund task force to examine components of the existing fund and make recommendations on the future of the fund. The fund includes an account that covers the associated costs of ignition interlock devices for individuals experiencing financial hardship. The task force must have nine members, including the chair of the house criminal justice committee, the chair of the senate judiciary committee and the state treasurer or their designee. The task force submitted their recommendations to the governor and speakers of the house and senate by Sept. 30, 2022.  

Tennessee (HB 1188/SB 882) also enacted legislation to provide that the use of an IID is a mandatory condition of bail for a DUI offender or offender of other crimes such as vehicular assault. The new requirements apply to an offense where a minor was present in the vehicle, the offender’s driver’s license has previously been suspended for a test refusal, the collision resulted in property damage or the offender has a prior DUI conviction or charge for a related vehicular crime. If the court determines the offender needs financial assistance to install and maintain the IID, costs must be paid by the electronic monitoring indigency fund. The court can deny an offender an IID as a condition of bail if it determines that the option would not be in the best interest of public safety. 

Tennessee (HB 2184/SB 2434) passed legislation to provide that DUI offenders who violate the implied consent law cannot receive a restricted driver’s license unless they install an IID. The bill also removes the requirement for repeat DUI offenders with a subsequent violation within 10 years to maintain an IID for six months after the conclusion of their license revocation period. Such offenders can apply for reissuance of their driver’s license once the IID period has been completed. The bill also provides that when an offender applies for driver’s license reinstatement and shows proof of IID installation, a one-year IID usage requirement commences on the date that the license is reinstated. If an offender fails to comply with maintenance requirements of the IID or tampers with the device, it must be reinstalled, and the yearlong usage period starts again from the date of installation.  

Additionally, the bill clarifies that provisions in state statute or a court order can be used to prohibit an offender from operating a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an IID. If an offender violates such operating requirements, they must complete an additional IID usage period of one year, regardless of whether the offender has already completed an IID usage period for the underlying offense.  

Finally, the bill allows an offender transporting themselves or an immediate family member to and from medical treatment to the list of limited purposes for which a court can permit a person to operate a motor vehicle with a restricted driver’s license. 

Implied Consent and Testing 

All driver’s license applicants agree to comply with requests by law enforcement officers to take breath, urine or blood samples to determine impairment when they sign their driver’s license application forms. A breath test can be administered roadside or at any location; urine and blood testing can only be performed at a medical or detention facility. These laws, called implied consent laws, are based on the premise that driving is a privilege and not a right. Every state has some sort of implied consent law, but the penalties vary for offenders who refuse to submit to a test. Kentucky amended its law related to test refusal and three states--Colorado, Maryland and Tennessee—enacted legislation regarding impairment testing in 2022.   

Kentucky (HB 154) enacted emergency legislation to allow law enforcement officers to obtain search warrants when an individual charged with a DUI refuses to take a blood, breath or urine test. Previously, search warrants could only be issued when a fatality or physical injury occurred in connection with a DUI case. Additionally, an individual must be detained in custody for at least four hours after their arrest if their breath test, rather than previously established required blood test, reveals a BAC of .15 or more. 

The bill also clarifies that the court can suspend an individual’s driver’s license if they refuse a blood, breath or urine test to identify impairment. The courts can also impound the license plate or plates from all motor vehicles owned by a DUI offender. However, the new law provides that if an offender does not surrender their plate(s) at their sentencing or within 45 days after their sentencing hearing, the court may permit the sheriff or any other law enforcement officer to seize their license plate(s). 

Colorado (HB 1321) passed legislation to require the Colorado Department of Transportation to study and report on the viability of devices that can assess cognitive and physical impairment of motorists by detecting the presence of drugs during roadside sobriety investigations. The report must also include legislative recommendations regarding a pilot program to further analyze the devices. The Department must share the findings with the General Assembly and the Colorado Task Force on Drunk and Impaired Driving by June 1, 2023. 

Maryland (SB 216) transferred approval and oversight authority relating to breath and blood alcohol and drug tests required during a DUI investigation from the state toxicologist under the Postmortem Examiners Commission to the toxicologist in the Department of State Police’s (DSP), Forensic Services Division. According to the Maryland Department of Health, the state toxicologist’s responsibilities related to such testing are a burden as their unit is mostly focused on postmortem investigations. DSP’s toxicology program’s mission is more closely related with impairment testing for DUI-related cases as it already includes both blood and breath testing for alcohol and drugs. 

Tennessee (SB 399) enacted legislation to require each law enforcement officer assigned to a traffic division or chosen by a county sheriff or chief of police, to undergo training by a law enforcement instructor on the proper testing procedures like standardized field sobriety testing, in cases of driving under the influence. Any such training completed on or after Jan. 1, 2023, must be completed as part of the annual in-service training required to maintain law enforcement certification by the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission of Tennessee. 

Drugged Driving  

Six states—Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi and Washington—enacted legislation regarding drug-impaired driving in 2022.  

Hawaii (HB 2337) clarified its definitions of substance abuse, substance and drug for the purposes of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. The bill provides that “substance abuse” means the misuse of alcohol or specific drugs to any extent deemed unsafe to the user or society, whereas “substance” refers to materials such as cannabis, inhalants or hallucinogens. “Drug” refers to any controlled substance or its metabolites or any substance that can impair the ability to operate a vehicle safely. 

Louisiana (HB 234) toughened its impaired driving law by prohibiting the operator or any passengers in a motor vehicle from smoking or vaping any form of marijuana while the vehicle is operated on a public highway or right-of-way. Offenders are subject to a fine of $100 and a nonmoving violation, which cannot be included on the driver’s operating record. The new prohibition is a secondary law, which means that law enforcement officers cannot pull over a vehicle solely for this offense.

Maryland (HB 837) renamed “marijuana” as “cannabis” in its state statues. The bill also proposed a constitutional amendment to authorize individuals 21 or older to use or possess cannabis beginning July 1, 2023, if approved by voters in the November 2022 election; Maryland voters approved to legalize recreational cannabis on Nov. 8, 2022. The bill provides that a passenger or driver cannot smoke or consume cannabis in a motor vehicle that is driven, stopped, standing or located on a highway. Passengers who violate this law are subject to a civil offense and maximum fine of $25 whereas drivers face a misdemeanor and fine up to $500. Previously, these provisions only applied to consuming alcohol in a motor vehicle on a highway.  

The new law also requires the Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission (MMCC) to complete a comprehensive study of cannabis use in the state that includes arrests, crashes and fatalities related to cannabis-impaired driving. The MMCC must submit their findings to the governor and several committees of the legislature by March 1, 2023 and a follow up report by March 25, 2025, and every year after.  

Mississippi (SB 2095) enacted legislation to allow for medical use of cannabis products, and the bill provides that the state’s DUI laws apply to individuals who operate a vehicle or watercraft under the influence of medical cannabis.  

Ohio (SB 288) expanded the list of “drugs of abuse” in its operating a vehicle while under the influence (OVI) law to include harmful intoxicants that can be inhaled like gas or cleaning fluid. Previously, controlled drugs or an impairing quantity of prescriptions drugs fell under the scope of “drugs of abuse,” among other substances. The bill also prohibits commercial driver’s license holders from operating a vehicle under the influence from a harmful intoxicant.  

Washington (HB 1210) replaced the term “marijuana” with “cannabis” in the state’s impaired driving laws as well as other drug and public health related provisions. 

Penalties 

Five states—Hawaii, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Utah—created new or enhanced penalties for DUI or driving under the influence of drug offenses. 

Colorado (SB 55), referenced in the ignition interlock devices and restricted driving privileges section, required offenders sentenced to probation for a felony or third or subsequent DUI or DWAI sentence to participate in continuous alcohol monitoring for at least 90 days. This provision previously applied only to offenders guilty of a second or subsequent DUI or DWAI charge. 

Hawaii (SB 2163) changed the penalty of negligent homicide in the first degree from a class B felony to class A felony for DUI offenders who have committed one or more subsequent DUI offenses within a 15-year lookback period. Drivers who operate a vehicle with a suspended driver’s license or with a BAC of .15 or higher, are also subject to the penalty change.  

Louisiana (SB 337) added the offense of committing a third or subsequent violation of operating a vehicle while intoxicated to its list of violations that require offenders to be imprisoned between 90 days and one year. Previously, qualifying offenders were subject to at least 60 days but no more than six months of jail time.  

Ohio (SB 288), referenced in the drugged driving section, reduced the penalty for OVI offenders under 21 years old from six months of imprisonment to 60 days and the fine from $1000 to $500. 

Pennsylvania (HB 773) enacted legislation, also known as Deana’s law in honor of DUI homicide victim Deana DeRosa, that increased penalties for individuals convicted of a fourth or subsequent DUI offense. Such offenders are guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable by at least one year of imprisonment with a maximum sentence of 10 years. Previously, the law only specified that individuals with two or more offenses were guilty of a felony of the third degree, with a mandatory minimum of one year of imprisonment with a maximum sentence of seven years. Both offenses result in an 18-month license suspension.   

The law also mandates that DUI offenders must serve an imprisonment sentence consecutively to any other sentence, whether or not it’s DUI related, if they have two or more prior DUI offenses. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission must develop a sentencing enhancement for offenders who refuse chemical testing and have four or more prior DUI offenses.  

Tennessee (HB 2270/SB 2736) toughened its DUI law to specify that a prior conviction of boating under the influence within a 10-year lookback period must be treated the same as a previous DUI conviction when determining punishment for the offense. The law is also known as Nicholas’ Law, after a child who was killed in a DUI-related crash.  

Tennessee (HB 1834) also became the first state to require offenders convicted of vehicular homicide due to intoxication, or aggravated vehicular homicide, involving the death of a parent, to pay child support for each child until they are 18 and have graduated high school or until the class of which the child is a member when turning 18 has graduated. The law, also known as “Ethan’s, Hailey’s and Bentley’s Law,” all children of victims killed in impaired driving crashes, requires the court to determine a reasonable amount of child support by considering the financial needs of the surviving parent or guardian and child as well as the child’s standard of living. 

Utah (HB 137) amended its testing law to clarify that breath alcohol level qualifies as admissible evidence for an extreme DUI, which includes high BAC (.16) offenses, offenders with a .05 BAC plus any measurable controlled substance or individuals who test positive for two or more substances that were not prescribed for medical reasons. Previously, the law only provided that blood alcohol level could be used in such cases. The bill sponsor, Representative Steve Eliason shared that this new addition ensures that offenders qualify for an extreme DUI if they only provided a breath rather than blood test. The bill also provides that individuals who refuse a chemical test for impairment and meet other criteria such as prior DUI offenses, are subject to a class A misdemeanor. Other penalties for test refusal include a class B misdemeanor and third-degree felony.  

Utah (HB 143) also revised its DUI law by elevating a second offense from a class B to class A misdemeanor. According to Representative Nelson, the bill sponsor, a class A misdemeanor allows judges to offer a broader range of sentencing options, including treatment for substance use, which may reduce DUI recidivism.  

Miscellaneous  

Arizona (HB 2583) established the “Driving Under the Influence Data Collection Study Committee” to examine and gather information on the state’s processes for DUI related data collection among the various law enforcement agencies, crime labs, prosecutorial offices and courts. Committee membership includes the Director of the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, the Director of the Department of Public Safety or their designee and one member of the House of Representatives and Senate, among other members. The committee must submit a report regarding their recommendations to centralize DUI-related data collection to the governor, president of the senate and speaker of the house of representatives by Dec. 16, 2022. The committee is repealed on Sept. 30, 2023.  

California (AB 2198) replaced the term “accident” with “crash” for collisions involving alcohol and/or drug impaired driving. Assemblymember Mike Fong, the bill sponsor, shared that the change is necessary because driving impaired or distracted is not an accident, but a choice, and lives are put at risk. The bill also removed provisions of the Youth Drunk Driver Visitation Program that allowed courts to require defendants to visit a facility that cares for advanced alcoholics to observe patients in the terminal states of alcoholism or drug abuse. 

Distracted Driving

NHTSA defines distracted driving as “any activity that diverts attention from driving,” including talking or texting on the phone, eating or drinking, or manipulating the stereo, entertainment or navigation system. Texting is especially concerning since it is a combination of visual, manual and cognitive distractions. However, hand-held mobile device use, in general, is associated with an increased crash or near-crash risk.    

Distracted driving can lead to deadly outcomes. According to NHTSA, 3,522 people died in distraction-related crashes—defined as crashes involving at least one driver who was distracted—in 2021. This number accounts for 8.2% of total fatalities and represents a 12% increase from 2020. NHTSA also notes that distracted driving crashes caused $98 billion in costs in 2019.    

Drivers younger than 34 continue to be overrepresented in distraction-related fatal crashes. Fifteen- to 20-year-old drivers had the largest proportion of distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2021. Drivers aged 15-to-20 had the highest proportion of cellphone use as the cause of their distraction, followed by drivers 21-to-24.    

It is important to note that NHTSA recognizes some limitations to the collection and reporting of data concerning driver distraction. Challenges include the difficulty in identifying distraction, which can include non-technological factors like fatigue or substance impairment, as a crash factor and the lack of uniformity among police crash reports. Many crashes involving distraction also involve other factors, including fatigue, alcohol and/or drug impairment, or running a red light or stop sign. In such cases, distraction is not always included in the crash report. Additionally, differences in crash reporting forms make it difficult to collect and compare data nationwide. Harmonization of reporting protocols and more data are needed to better understand the prevalence of driver distraction in vehicle crashes.    

Novel approaches to distracted driving data collection, such as the use of telematics, suggest that, while mobile device use by drivers was already a concerning issue prior to 2020, phone distraction per mile driven became more frequent during the COVID-19 public health emergency. According to Cambridge Mobile Telematics (CMT), measures of cellphone motion—an indicator of smartphone distraction—increased roughly 15% between March and April 2020. CMT's latest report reveals that distracted driving increased by 20% between 2020 and 2022. Additionally, 34% of drivers studied who were involved in a crash interacted with their phones within a minute before the incident. Overall, drivers that handle their mobile device and interact with their screens are 240% more likely to crash than drivers who avoid such behavior.     

AAA’s 2021 Traffic Safety Culture Index provides insight into Americans’ opinions about the use of personal electronic devices while driving. The study shows that over 90% of respondents view texting emailing or reading on a hand-held mobile device to be very or extremely dangerous. Nearly 80% consider talking on a hand-held mobile device as very or extremely dangerous. In contrast, 17% of respondents consider using their phone while driving with the help of hands-free technology to be very or extremely dangerous. Approximately 79% of respondents supported a law against talking on and holding a mobile device while driving. However, only 45% were in favor of a law against using hands-free technology, such as voice command devices, to read, text or email while driving.     

Currently, 27 states and D.C. prohibit all drivers from using hand-held cellphones while driving. An additional 20 states ban text messaging for all drivers. While no state bans all cellphone use for all drivers, 36 states and D.C. ban all cellphone use for novice and teen drivers. Except for emergencies, 18 states and D.C. also ban use of cellphones for school bus drivers. NCSL’s interactive charts provide a detailed overview of current cellphone use while driving laws in all 50 states and D.C.    

Definition of Hand-Held and Texting Bans 

States primarily use hand-held and texting bans to combat distracted driving. Hand-held bans are laws that only allow the use of mobile devices while driving in hands-free mode—usually through voice communication or by activating with a single tap or swipe. A growing number of states also prohibit accessing, viewing or reading non-navigation related content. Texting bans prohibit drivers from typing or sending text messages while driving but allow talking on a hand-held mobile device. Many of these bans provide for various exemptions, including use for emergencies and by law enforcement and first responders. Several states have laws banning all mobile device use for novice drivers or drivers under a certain age—generally 18, but some states set the maximum age at 19 or 21.    

NHTSA has not adopted an official position on the effectiveness of various distracted driving laws. Research on the effectiveness of cellphone and texting laws remains mixed, and evaluations of the efficacy of these laws are challenged by barriers to obtaining accurate distracted driving data. Most studies reveal that hand-held bans have been somewhat effective in reducing hand-held phone use, but the evidence does not necessarily point to a reduction in crashes. NCSL’s Distracted Driving Traffic Safety Review includes detailed summaries of these findings.   

Despite these challenges, CMT examined the prevalence of distracted driving among 34 million drivers in eight states—Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia--that have enacted hand-held bans since 2018. Telematics software detected that these states saw an average decrease of 13% in phone motion within the first three months of the bans going into effect.     

The National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) adopted the Distracted Driving Model Act in 2021 which provides recommendations for structuring a hands-free, primary offense law. NCOIL committee members, consisting of mostly state lawmakers, gathered perspectives from a diverse group of stakeholders before finalizing the model. California Assemblymember Ken Cooley, a sponsor of the Act, stated “During discussions in developing the model, we were able to take note of the valid concerns regarding the potential negative effect of primary enforcement of distracted driving laws on minorities, and the compromise made will permit valid enforcement and at the same time will ensure accountability.”    

The Model Act requires a law enforcement officer to record the race and ethnicity of drivers who receive a citation for a violation of the act. Such information would be reported to the appropriate state agency which would annually report the data to the governor, president of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives. The Model Act also includes provisions such as limiting the use of a mounted or hands-free device to engage in texting, viewing videos or images, entering data and talking or broadcasting content while driving. Additionally, the Model Act suggests a system of fines ranging from $150 to $500 and two to six points on a driver’s license for violation of the act.    

According to the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, enforceability of distracted driving laws is key to providing the full possible benefit of the law; however, research and approaches to support these efforts are lacking. A 2017 NHTSA study on the enforceability of texting laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts concludes that texting laws can be enforced whether the state has a hand-held ban or not. Additionally, a 2014 NHTSA study conducted in California and Delaware points out that high-visibility enforcement over statewide or large multi-jurisdiction areas is feasible and may be effective in modifying behavior. CDC’s fact sheet on distracted driving presents promising actions that states can use to address the issue—strategies include high-visibility enforcement and requiring passenger limits for young drivers. 

*Ohio prohibits hand-held cell phone or electronic device use while driving. However, drivers are still allowed to swipe their phones to answer calls and hold them to their ears during a conversation.

State Action    

Legislatures in 32 states considered at least 116 bills related to driver distraction in 2022; however, only four states—Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia—enacted legislation.    

Ohio (SB 288) upgraded its texting ban from a secondary to primary enforcement law for all drivers. Previously, texting while driving was only a primary offense for drivers under 18 years old. A driver may still use their device in certain circumstances, such as when their vehicle is parked or stopped at a red light. Drivers are also permitted to swipe their phones to answer a call and hold their phone to their face during a conversation. First-time offenders of the new law face a fine up to $150 and two points on their driver’s license; however, both penalties can be waived if they complete a distracted driving safety course. A second or third offense within two years of the first violation results in a fine up to $250 and up to $500, respectively. The court may increase such fines for Individuals who text while driving in a work zone. Additionally, law enforcement officers can only issue warnings rather than citations to drivers who violate the law during the first six months following the effective date of April 3, 2023.     

Oklahoma (HB 4100) created the Operation Work Zone Awareness program for drivers who commit certain offenses, including distracted driving. Program participants may have any fines associated with their moving violations dismissed if they participate in the program.      

Utah (SB 102) replaced the term “hand-held wireless communication device” with “wireless communication device” which includes cellular phones, stand-alone computers and electronics used to display a video, movie broadcast television or visual image, among other devices. The new law also prohibits an individual from using a wireless communication device to view or take a photograph while operating a motor vehicle.     

Virginia (SB 78) required the parent/student driver education program, a component of the driver education curriculum that emphasizes responsibilities for parents regarding juvenile driver behavior, to cover teachings on the dangers of distracted driving.   

Teen Drivers

With almost 12 million licensed young drivers on the road in 2021, state legislatures have consistently considered legislation intended to increase young drivers’ safety, improve driving behaviors and enhance their driving skills.  

Young drivers ages 15 to 20 have higher crash rates than older, more experienced drivers. The Federal Highway Administration notes young people aged 15 to 20 represented about 5% of the total driving population in 2021. According to NHTSA, fatalities among drivers ages 15 to 20 increased 11% between 2019 (1,616) and 2020 (1,885).  

NHTSA notes the percentage of young drivers ages 15 to 20 who were speeding at the time of fatal crashes in 2021 was higher than any other age group.  Further, of the young passenger vehicle drivers involved in fatal crashes where it was known whether or not restraints were used, 52% of those who died were not wearing seat belts, which is higher than the unrestrained rate for passenger vehicle drivers of all ages (50%). Of drivers ages 15 to 20 who died in 2021 crashes, 29% had BACs of .01 or higher, and 25% had BACs of .08 or higher. 

State Legislation 

In 2022, at least five states—Alabama, Delaware, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia—enacted legislation addressing teen drivers. The topics mostly addressed licensing for homeless youth and youth in the foster care system and licensing requirements related to satisfactory academic performance.  

Licenses for Homeless Youth and Youth in Foster Care 

Alabama (HB 385) exempted homeless youth from certain fees associated with a driver’s license such as issuance fees, duplicate licenses and examination fees. 

Delaware (SB 151) established a pilot program in the Office of the Child Advocate to pay the cost of driver education, licensing costs and motor vehicle insurance for children in the custody of the Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families. The bill also prohibits vehicle insurers from using certain factors in determining a foster child’s automobile insurance rates and prohibits the Department of Motor Vehicles from charging certain fees related to licensure for a foster child participating in the pilot program.  

Academic Requirements for Licensing 

Tennessee (SB 2176) removed the ability to deny a license to a minor for unsatisfactory academic progress, but still allows the state to deny a minor a license if they are not enrolled in school.  

West Virginia (HB 4535) removed the requirement for satisfactory academic progress and school attendance to obtain a driver’s license. The bill also changed the license suspension requirement for individuals who are 15 to 17 years old that withdrawal from school or fail to maintain satisfactory academic progress to a restriction requirement allowing them to travel to work, medical, educational or religious activities.  

Older Drivers

According to the CDC, drivers over age 70 have higher traffic crash death rates per mile driven compared to drivers ages 35 to 54, in large part due to increased vulnerability to injury in a crash. The population of Americans over age 65 was 55.7 million people—17% of the total U.S. population—in 2021. Older drivers made up 21% of all licensed drivers, but only 13% of drivers involved in fatal traffic crashes in 2021.   

NHTSA data from 2021 reports a 29% increase in the population of Americans over age 65 between 2012 and 2021 and a 38% increase in older licensed drivers during the same period. According to the American Geriatrics Society (AGS), the predicted number of Americans over age 65 will double by 2060, and the distances they travel are expected to continue increasing.    

According to NHTSA, 7,489 people 65 and older were killed and an estimated 266,064 injured in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2021. Older people made up 17% of all traffic fatalities and 11% of all people injured during the year. NHTSA data also indicates older driver fatalities increased by 35% (3,471 in 2012 to 4,691 in 2021) from 2012 to 2021. 

 State Legislation   

At least two states—Arizona and Hawaii—enacted bills related to older drivers in 2022.   

Arizona (HB 2481) allows drivers to renew their licenses in successive five-year periods after their 60th birthday. Previously, an applicant’s license was renewable every five years after their 65th birthday.    

Hawaii (SB 2679) adjusts the driver’s license renewal period for licensees so that a license expires four years after issuance for individuals older than 24 but younger than 72 years old. Previously the renewal period applied to all licensees over 24 years old. The bill also adjusts license expiration, so a license expires on the first birthday of a licensee occurring no less than two years after the license is issued if the licensee is 80 years old or older—previously this was set at 72 years old. 

Driver's Licensing

All 50 states and the District of Columbia licensed nearly 233 million drivers, representing over 70% of the U.S. population in 2021, according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . States have administered driver’s licensing systems since 1903 when Massachusetts and Missouri enacted the first laws governing driver’s licenses. Every state required drivers to be licensed by 1954 and mandated examinations testing both driving skills and traffic safety knowledge by 1959.   

State Legislation 

The role of state licensing agencies has evolved from solely testing drivers and issuing licenses. The driver’s license now serves a purpose beyond traffic safety, as both government and private entities rely on it for personal identification. Thus, state legislatures and driver’s license agencies are concerned about the safety and security of using the license as an identifier. 

In 2022, at least 16 states—California, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin—and the District of Columbia enacted new driver’s licensing laws related to commercial driver’s licenses, military driver’s licenses, medical designations, digital licensing and driver testing. 

Commercial Driver’s Licenses 

Idaho (HB 525) extended the commercial learner’s permit period from 180 days to one year. 

Wisconsin (SB 642) prohibited the Department of Transportation from issuing commercial driver’s licenses to individuals under 21, individuals who do not meet certain physical qualifications or individuals who do not satisfy the rules concerning qualifications of drivers in interstate commerce.  

Tennessee (HB 2146) authorized the Department of Transportation to contract with one or more third party skills testing companies for the purpose of facilitating testing and licensure of commercial drivers. The bill requires the third party test company to charge test-takers no more than $250 per test, have an approved testing area and agree to issue a certificate of passage to successful test takers. 

Rhode Island (SB 3036) requires firefighters to complete a road safety test to obtain a commercial driver’s license, previously they were exempted from such a test.    

New Mexico (HB 144) aligned the state’s commercial driver’s license requirements with federal law and extended the period of time a commercial driver’s instruction permit may be issued from six months to one year. 

Kentucky (SB 124) allowed a person who has a valid commercial driver’s or operator’s license which has been expired for less than five years to renew their license without taking knowledge and skills tests.  

Military Driver’s Licenses 

California (SB 837) repealed the fee associated with obtaining the word “veteran” on the face of a driver’s license. 

Delaware (HB 318) deferred the driver’s license expiration for active duty, activated reserve and National Guard for 180 days after the individual or their spouse returns from active duty. Delaware (HB 408) also added a veteran designation to driver’s licenses. 

Medical Designations  

South Carolina (HB 3037) required the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide a form for driver’s license applicants to voluntarily disclose certain permanent medical conditions to be noted in driver’s license records.  

Digital Licenses 

Electronic methods for residents to show their license, verify age and confirm identity are gaining momentum in state legislatures. Louisiana became the first state to enact legislation allowing digital driver’s licenses in 2016. Since then, at least 17 other states—Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming—have enacted a digital driver’s license program or are running some sort of pilot program. The states with active digital driver’s license programs include Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Oklahoma and Utah.  

District of Columbia (B 43) allowed an electronic image of a driver’s license or permit to be presented instead of a physical license or permit. 

Illinois (SB 3096) directed the secretary of state to continue to monitor developments on digital driver’s license and deliver a report to the legislature by Dec. 31, 2022. 

Driver Tests   

Maryland (HB 206) prohibited a person taking a driver’s license test from engaging in fraudulent or dishonest conduct.  

Michigan (HB 4451) allowed driver’s license testing to be taken remotely. 

Mississippi (HB 971) increased the time period in which an expired driver’s license may be renewed without an examination to 60 days.  

Miscellaneous  

New Hampshire (SB 406) directed the commissioner of safety to adopt driver’s license reciprocity rules such as determining procedures for determining whether the education meets the state’s minimum standards. The bill also allows licenses to be suspended or revoked based on offenses that occurred out of state.  

Pennsylvania (HB 1958) requires any person that accumulates six or more points on their driving record to attend a driver improvement school or undergo a special examination. If the person attends driver improvement school, four points will be removed from their record, and if they pass the examination, two points will be removed from their record. 

Rhode Island (HB 8247) lowered the penalties for driving with a suspended or revoked license.  

Utah (HB 222) set the fee for obtaining a driver’s license as $32 and set the fee for license renewal as $23. 

Virginia (HB 540) extended the validity of a driver’s license extension for individuals who work for the U.S. government from three to six years and lengthened the extension period from one to two years for individuals granted a “good cause” extension. 

Speeding and Speed Limits

Total speeding-related fatalities increased by 18% in 2021 (12,330) compared to the prior year (11,428 in 2020), according to NHTSA. 2021 saw the highest number of speeding-related fatalities since 2007. NHTSA data also shows speed-related crashes accounted for 29% of all motor vehicles fatalities in 2021. NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if the driver was charged with a speeding-related offense or if a police officer indicated racing, driving too fast or exceeding the posted speed limit contributed to the crash. 

A report by IIHS shows younger drivers are more likely to be involved in speeding-related crashes compared to older age groups. According to NHTSA, in 2021, over one-third (35%) of male drivers in the 15- to 20-year-old age group involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time of the crash. NHTSA mentions this was the highest among all age groups. NHTSA data also suggests the proportion of speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes in general decreases relative to the driver’s age. The lowest rates of speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes were drivers 65 years of age or older. For males and females between the ages of 65 and 74, the fatal crash rate was 10% and 76%, respectively. 

In 2023, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a report analyzing the impact of lower speed limits in Seattle on crash rates. The data indicated crashes were less likely to cause injuries on city streets after speed limits were lowered on arterial roads. In 2020, Seattle lowered speed limits to 25 mph on most arterial roads and increased sign density in response to state legislation authorizing their ability to do so. This study is one of the first to evaluate the effect of lower speed limits on injury rates in a populous U.S. city. In 2016, the city lowered speed limits on most arterial roads from 30 to 25 mph, and lowered speed limits on smaller residential streets from 25 to 20 mph. The speed limit reduction was associated with a 17% drop in the odds of an injury crash downtown and a 7% reduction outside of the city center, and on arterial roads only there was a 20% drop in the odds of an injury crash downtown and a 11% reduction outside of the city.  

State Legislation 

In 2022, at least nine states—California, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Utah and Washington—enacted new speeding and speed limit laws regarding flexibility for local governments to lower speed limits, penalties for speeding offenses and move over laws. 

Local Flexibility to Lower Speed Limits 

Since 2011, at least 22 states have passed legislation authorizing localities to lower prescribed speed limits on certain roads within their jurisdiction. Some states have enacted broad authority for localities in general to lower speed limits, while some states enacted specific authority for certain localities in particular to lower speed limits. While the broader trend has been to increase speed limits, a number of states are making legislative efforts to allow localities to reduce speed limits in busy residential and business districts where there are many pedestrians and other vulnerable users. At least six states—California, Maryland, New York, Utah, Vermont and Washington—enacted such legislation in 2022.  

Washington (SB 5687) allowed the secretary of transportation to establish a maximum speed limit of 20 mph on a nonarterial state highway without an engineering and traffic investigation. Vermont (HB 444) authorized the city of Barre to establish a speed limit of less than 25 mph on city streets. 

Utah (HB 235) allowed counties and municipalities to establish a speed limit without a traffic engineering and safety study. Maryland (HB 434) authorized Baltimore City to decrease speed limits or raise to a previously established maximum speed limit on a highway in its jurisdiction without performing an engineering and traffic investigation.  

New York legislation (AB 1007) allowed municipalities to reduce the speed limit to 25 mph in their communities, however, the speed limits must be determined t in accordance with engineering considerations and factors for speed limits set forth in the state’s manual for traffic control devices maintained by the Commissioner of Transportation. 

California (AB 1938) adjusted existing law, which requires Caltrans or local authorities to round speed limits up or down to the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic, allowing authorities lowering speed limits to lower by an additional 5 mph for a total reduction of no more than 12.4 mph. The bill also exempts a speed limit adopted by local authorities from the definition of a speed trap, meaning enforcement methods such as radar may be used.  

Speeding Penalties  

Delaware (SB 126) prescribed specific penalties for violating the state’s move over statute, including a $150 fine for a first offense and a $300 fine for a subsequent offense. Previously the offense was subject to a general penalty provision of no less than $25 and not more than $75 for a first offense, no less than $57.50 and not more than $95 for subsequent offenses. 

Maryland (HB 222) adjusted the statute requiring drivers travelling at a slow speed to travel in the furthest right lane so that a driver violating the statute on a highway in a rural area may not receive a citation. 

Ohio (SB 288) expanded the scope of the existing “enhanced penalty” to apply when an offender operates a vehicle faster than one of the specified speeds in specified circumstances, such as speeding in a school zone, business district or within other portions of a municipal corporation, regardless of the number of their prior offenses.   

Move Over 

Move over laws, which vary state to state, typically require a driver to slow down and/or change lanes when approaching an authorized emergency vehicle, or other prescribed vehicles, that are parked or otherwise stopped on the roadway.  

Oklahoma (HB 4100) enacted the Operation Work Zone Awareness Act in 2021 which establishes a website dedicated to public awareness on the dangers of committing moving violations while in work zones. The bill also allows motorists who are cited for work zone violations to participate in a Operation Work Zone Awareness program to get their fine dismissed. The program may include information on facts and figures representing the dangers of motorists committing work zone moving violations, testimonials from highway construction workers and their families, information on the importance of awareness and slowing down in work zones and a question-and-answer section to ensure participants understand and retain the information presented. The fee for participation in the program is $75, $35 of which is allocated to the Department of Public Safety Revolving Fund, $15 to the Department of Public Safety Patrol Vehicle Revolving Fund and $25 to the Oklahoma Court Information System Revolving Fund. 

Oklahoma (HB 1584) also named the state’s move over law “Bernardo’s Law” in honor of Bernardo Martinez, a tow truck driver who lost his life while working roadside.  

Miscellaneous 

Michigan (HB 5286) authorized the Michigan Department of Transportation, a county road commission or local authority to include one or more flashing lights and an illuminated changeable digital message displaying the speed limit in a work zone that has a speed limit in effect only when workers are present. 

Illinois (HB 343) adjusted the time period for special school zone speed limits to 6:30 am, rather than 7:00 am. 

Aggressive Drivers

Running red lights, speeding, weaving through traffic or tailgating are all dangerous behaviors that exhibit aggressive driving. NHTSA defines aggressive driving as operating a motor vehicle “in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger persons or property.” NHTSA also notes that there are diverse reasons for aggressive driving, including increased traffic congestion and commuting distances, stressed drivers and disregard for others and the law.   

AAA’s 2021 Traffic Safety Culture Index reveals that 88% of drivers surveyed perceive aggressive driving behaviors, such as switching lanes quickly or driving closely behind a vehicle, as extremely or very dangerous. Over half, 53.1%, of drivers said that it was somewhat or very likely to be caught by the police for driving aggressively. Additionally, about 33.9% of drivers ages 19-24 shared that they have exhibited general aggressive driving behavior at least once in the past 30 days. In contrast, 12.7% of drivers ages 60-74 reported driving aggressively during the same time span. 

State Legislation  

Most states have some sort of reckless, negligent, careless or aggressive driving law. Legislatures in 30 states considered at least 97 bills related to aggressive driving in 2022. Five states—California, Delaware, Florida, Tennessee and Utah—enacted legislation.   

California (AB 2000) made it a crime to engage in a motor vehicle speed contest in an off-street parking facility or to aid such an activity. 

California (SB 1472) expanded its criteria for gross negligence in the case of vehicular manslaughter to include participating in a sideshow, defined as an event when two or more people impede traffic on a highway for the purpose of conducting motor vehicle stunts and other activity at high speeds for spectators, engaging in a speed contest and speeding over 100 mph. The law, also known as Ryan’s Law, is named after Ryan Koeppel, a 16-year-old who was killed by a reckless driver in August 2020.  

Delaware (HB 328) prohibited individuals from accelerating a vehicle in a manner that produces smoke from tire slippage or leaves acceleration marks on a highway, ground or other surface. Previously, the law prohibited only acceleration that causes the wheels to spin or slip on the road. First time offenders of the new law are subject to an unclassified misdemeanor with 16 hours of community service. Individuals who commit a subsequent offense within five years of a prior offense are subject to a Class A misdemeanor, 40 hours of community service and a mandatory fine established upon conviction. The court may also impound a vehicle up to 90 days for a first offense and up to a year for a subsequent violation. The law does not apply during inclement weather unless the conduct is done in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others or property.  

Florida (HB 399) expanded its list of prohibited conduct related to aggressive driving to include activities like “street takeovers,” which involve taking over a portion of a highway roadway or parking lot by impeding the flow of traffic to perform activities such as a race. A violation of the state’s aggressive driving law results in a $65 fine and other penalties assigned upon conviction. The bill also adds that a person may not operate a motor vehicle for the purpose of filming aggressive driving behavior or carrying fuel for another vehicle involved in such activities. Additionally, the bill amends the definition of “spectator” to include a person who is knowingly present at and films a street takeover or posts details of such an event to social media. Spectators of a race or street takeover are subject to a noncriminal traffic infraction. 

The new law also provides that operating a vehicle displaying red, red and white or blue lights, in positions reserved for emergency vehicles to stop another vehicle, is a first-degree misdemeanor. 

Tennessee (SB 1673) created an aggravated reckless driving offense for individuals who commit reckless driving and intentionally impede traffic upon areas such as highways, parking lots or other premises accessible to motor vehicles. A violation of this new offense results in a Class A misdemeanor, which involves up to 11 months and 29 days imprisonment and a fine up to $2,500. The court is also authorized to assess an additional fine up to $2,500. Previous law only included a reckless driving offense, defined as operating a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of people or property. Reckless driving is a Class B misdemeanor, which imposes a fine up to $500 and up to six months imprisonment.  

Utah (SB 53) amended the definition of operating a vehicle with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others to include traveling on a highway at a speed of 105 mph or more or committing three or more traffic violations in a continuous driving period of three miles. The bill also adds a fine of at least 150% of the suggested fine amount in the uniform fine schedule for operating a vehicle going 100 mph or more. The bill elevates the penalty for participating in a speed contest from a class B to class A misdemeanor and establishes the penalty for creating a barricade on a road as a class B misdemeanor. Additionally, a vehicle that is not street legal that is engaged in a speed race is subject to seizure. 

Automated Enforcement

Automated enforcement with red-light cameras and speed cameras allows state and local governments and law enforcement agencies to remotely capture images of drivers violating traffic laws. Red-light cameras link to traffic signals and monitor the green, yellow and red phases of traffic lights. After the light turns red, the camera takes a picture or a video of a moving vehicle before the vehicle enters the intersection and again when the vehicle is in the intersection. Both photos must show the signal in the red phase before issuing a citation. The date, time and location of the violation is also documented. 

Speed cameras use radar or lidar presence detectors embedded in the road to measure a vehicle’s speed. If a vehicle is traveling faster than the posted speed limit, the camera will record its speed and license plate, along with the date, time and location. A citation will be mailed to the registered owner if the driver exceeded the speed limit, typically by more than 10 or 11 mph, according to IIHS.  

More than two people are killed each day by drivers running red lights in the U.S., according to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. AAA’s report concluded that 28% of crash deaths occurring at signalized intersections were caused by drivers running red lights. IIHS data shows red-light running resulted in 928 deaths in 2020, as well as an estimated 116,000 red light running related injuries. NHTSA reports 12,330 fatalities resulted from speeding-related crashes in 2021. 

Studies evaluating the effectiveness of automated enforcement generally show a positive effect on traffic safety. A 2016 IIHS report mentioned that removing red-light cameras from intersections costs lives. To reach this conclusion, researchers compared trends in annual fatal crashes in 14 cities which ended their camera programs with those in 29 cities in the same regions that continued their programs. They found that in the 14 cities where cameras were removed, fatal red-light-running crash rate increased by 30%, and the rate of all fatal crashes increased by 16% at all signalized intersections. The study estimated 63 deaths could have been prevented if the cities did not end their red-light camera programs. 

IIHS conducted a 2016 study of speed cameras in Montgomery County, Md., and found that about 7½ years after the program began, the proportion of drivers traveling at least 10 mph over the speed limit had declined on streets with speed cameras. The cameras reduced the likelihood of fatal or severe injury crashes by 19%. The IIHS study concluded the likelihood of a driver exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph on roads with cameras decreased by 62% compared to similar roads without cameras. 

Speed Cameras 

According to IIHS, as of February 2023, speed cameras were in operation in 185 U.S. communities in 18 states and the District of Columbia, compared to around 140 communities in 2016, according to media sources and other public information tracked by IIHS. Cameras are used statewide in highway work zones in Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon and Pennsylvania. At least 10 states—Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia—have legislatively authorized speed cameras to be used in highway work or construction zones, see NCSL’s 2022 Automated Enforcement Review for more details.   

According to speed safety camera guidelines from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration, speed cameras reduce roadway fatalities and injuries by 20% to 37% and are particularly effective at reducing fatalities in school and work zones. The guidelines state that the main concerns with implementing speed safety cameras are equity, building public trust, increasing program reliability and maintaining a focus on safety. The guidelines also suggest that any revenue generated by speed safety cameras should be used for related safety programs, and not be used for unrelated expenses. The report notes many jurisdictions use speed safety cameras in special circumstances, such as in work zones and school zones, which focus on the safety of construction workers and children. 

Communities in 18 states—Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington—and the District of Columbia operate speed cameras. Nevada prohibits speed camera programs unless law-enforcement personnel is present when cameras are used. Arkansas allows speed cameras in school zones and at railroad crossings, but speed cameras are not currently in use. In Utah, communities are not using speed cameras, even though the state allows them in school zones and areas with speed limits of 30 mph or less. Finally, Iowa allows red-light and speed cameras if they are approved via local ordinance and New Mexico allows speed cameras to be approved via local ordinance. 

Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin prohibit speed cameras via state law. Missouri's Supreme Court issued two rulings in 2015 which found that red-light and speed cameras were unconstitutional and speed cameras are no longer used anywhere in the state. 

Red Light Cameras 

While some states and municipalities continue to enhance automated enforcement programs, the recent trend has been toward fewer governments using red-light camera programs. IIHS notes that 338 communities operate red-light cameras as of January 2022, compared to 430 communities in 2016.   

In most cases, states who permit the use of red-light cameras have passed enabling statutes with specific provisions to allow local governments to develop red-light camera programs. Currently, city and local governments in 23 states—Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington—and the District of Columbia have established red-light camera programs or pilot programs. Iowa allows red-light and speed cameras if they are approved via local ordinance.  

Conversely, seven states—Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia—have statutes prohibiting using red-light cameras to issue citations to motorists. Nevada prohibits red-light camera programs unless law-enforcement personnel is present when cameras are used. Notably, while Texas enacted a bill banning red-light cameras in 2019, some communities with existing contracts are allowed to continue operating cameras for the time being.

Missouri's Supreme Court issued two rulings in 2015 which found that red-light and speed cameras were unconstitutional; only the city of Hannibal, Mo., still employs red-light cameras.  

State Legislation 

At least five states—Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Oregon and Washington— and D.C. enacted automated enforcement legislation in 2022.  

D.C. (B 714) required the mayor’s office to ensure the district has at least 40 red light cameras, 80 speed cameras and 6 stop sign cameras in operation by Jan. 1, 2023; increasing to 67 red light cameras, 267 speed cameras and 29 stop-sign cameras and 20 bus lane cameras by Jan. 1, 2024. The director of the Department of Transportation is allowed to alter the number of cameras after evaluating the effectiveness of each camera type and providing the council with written notice with rationale if proposing to decrease the number of cameras. 

Red Light Cameras 

Hawaii (HB 2336) extended the lapsed fund return date for the state’s red-light imaging detector pilot program from fiscal year 2023 to June 30, 2025 to ensure proper funding is available during the entire two year pilot program. Previously, the law required any funds for the 2021-2022 fiscal year that were unused by June 30, 2022, to be returned to the special fund.  

Oregon (HB 4105) increased enforcement capacity by enacting legislation to permit duly authorized traffic enforcement agents to review red-light photos and other photo radar pictures for purposes of signing and issuing citations. Such agents are appointed by the governing body of the incorporated city and trained to review photographs related to automated enforcement. Previously only law enforcement officers were able to issue citations based on red-light camera photo evidence. 

Legislation Related to Local Use 

Maryland (HB 434) prohibited local jurisdictions from using speed monitoring systems on certain highways in the state.  

New York (SB 415) authorized the village of Pelham Manor to adopt a local ordinance to install a red-light camera at no more than one intersection within its jurisdiction at any one time. A vehicle owner is liable for any violations which cannot exceed $50; however, any violations will not be included in a driver’s record nor used for insurance purposes. The law requires the village to submit an annual report to the governor and legislature detailing where cameras were placed, along with crash data and the number of citations issued.  

School Zone Cameras 

According to IIHS and NCSL research, at least 12 states—Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Washington—conduct school zone automated speed enforcement. In Georgia and Rhode Island, school zones are the only locations where automated speed enforcement is allowed in the state. At least two states—New York and Washington—enacted school zone camera legislation in 2022.  

New York’s legislature (SB 5602) eliminated the restriction for cameras to operate solely between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. as of August 2022. The 750 school zone cameras are operational and issuing tickets 24 hours a day to help the city achieve its goal to reduce traffic fatalities to zero.  

Washington (SB 5974) expanded the authorized use of traffic cameras in school walk areas, public park speed zones and hospital speed zones. The bill also allowed cities to use speed cameras, authorizing one camera per 10,000 in population. Revenue generated from the expanded speed camera programs must go 50% to the state Cooper Jones Active Transportation Safety Account and 50% may be used for any local purposes. The bill also extended the Seattle automated traffic safety camera pilot program by two years to 2025. 

Motorcyclist Safety

NHTSA reported the number of motorcyclists killed in 2021 (5,932) was the most deaths since the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) started in 1975, according to the latest NHTSA motorcyclist safety fact sheet. While motorcycles only represent a fraction (3.5%) of all registered vehicles in the United States and account for an even smaller fraction (.6%) of the vehicle miles traveled in 2021, motorcyclists accounted for 14% (5,932) of all traffic fatalities in 2021. NHTSA data suggests this was significantly higher for motorcyclists. The fatality rate per mile for motorcyclists was five times higher compared to passenger vehicles.    

Of two-vehicle fatal crashes involving a motorcycle and another moving vehicle, 43% (1,315) involved the other vehicle turning left while the motorcycle was heading straight, passing or overtaking other vehicles. Moreover, 21% (640) of crashes occurred when both vehicles were going straight. Among motorcycle operators between 15 and 20 years old, NHTSA recorded a 35% increase in fatalities from 218 to 294 between 2020 and 2021. The average age of a motorcyclist killed has remained mostly consistent over that same period and is currently reported by NHTSA at 43 years of age.  

There were 1,6246 motorcyclists killed in alcohol-impaired (BAC equal or greater than .08) driving fatalities in 2021. Motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes also reported higher percentages of alcohol impairment at 28% compared to “24% for passenger car drivers, 20% for light-truck drivers, and 3% for large-truck drivers” Further, NHTSA reports 43% of motorcyclists who died in single-vehicle crashes were deemed alcohol-impaired. Motorcycle operators killed in crashes at night were also three times more likely to be alcohol-impaired compared to those killed during the day (42% and 16%, respectively).  

State Legislation  

At least six states—Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, New Hampshire and Utah—enacted motorcycle-related legislation in 2022. Alabama, Colorado and Utah enacted legislation regarding autocycles. New Hampshire passed legislation regarding motorcycle profiling, Arizona passed legislation regarding motorcycle operation and Delaware passed legislation regarding motorcycle equipment.  

Alabama (HB 37) expanded the definition of an autocycle to include a vehicle that is equipped with a steering mechanism, a roll cage or roll hoops, a seat belt for each occupant, brakes that meet federal safety requirements and is manufactured to comply motorcycle safety standards. The bill clarifies that operators of autocycles are not subject to the motorcycle helmet requirement. The bill also makes the Secretary of the Alabama State Law Enforcement Agency responsible for adopting rules and standards regarding protective headgear for motorcyclists.  

Arizona became the fourth state to enact a law allowing a motorcyclist to lane-split or lane-filter.  Lane-filtering is defined as when a motorcycle travels in-between lanes of stopped or barely moving traffic. Lane splitting is when a motorcycle operates in-between lanes of moving traffic.   

Arizona’s 2022 legislation (SB 1273) enables motorcycles to overtake and pass a car that is in the same lane, including operating the motorcycle between lanes of traffic, provided the street’s speed limit is 45 mph or less and the motorcyclist does not exceed 15 mph. 

Additionally, Utah extended their lane-filtering law via HB 10. California legalized lane-splitting in 2016 (AB 51) and Montana legalized lane-filtering in 2021 (SB 9).    

Colorado (HB 22) removed autocycles from the definition of a motorcycle and classifies an autocycle as a motor vehicle. Autocycle drivers are not required to have a motorcycle endorsement. Autocycle drivers are also not required to wear eye protection or a helmet if the autocycle has a maximum speed of less than 25 mph, has a windshield and has seatbelts. These exceptions do not apply to motorcycle operators.   

Delaware (SB 288) allows modulating headlights to be installed on motorcycles to order to warn other vehicles of their presence and requires those headlights to conform to motorcycle headlamp modulation system requirements.   

New Hampshire (HB 1000) prohibits law enforcement from motorcycle profiling, meaning they may not stop someone because they ride a motorcycle or wear motorcycle paraphernalia.   

Utah (HB 391) changes the definition of an autocycle to add the presence of seat belts.  

School Bus Safety

Every school day, around 480,000 school buses transport 26 million children to school, according to the American School Bus Council (Council). School buses are statistically the safest way to transport school children, but crashes and death do still occur.

According to NHTSA’s latest data, 61 passengers and 52 drivers died while riding in school transportation vehicles between 2012 and 2021.

A total of 206 school-age children (18 and younger) died in school-transportation-related crashes during that period, either as occupants of school buses or other vehicles, or on foot or bike. Pedestrians were 1.6 times more likely to be killed in in school transportation-related crashes than occupants of school transportation vehicles between 2012 and 2021. A total of 1,110 people of all ages died in school-transportation-related crashes between 2012 and 2021.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s new Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) is now operational. This centralized database will be used by school districts and student transportation providers to report drug and alcohol program violations. School transportation providers will also be able to query whether school bus driver applicants have violations disqualifying them from driving. State driver licensing agencies will be required to utilize the Clearinghouse beginning in 2023.

State Legislation

School Bus Drivers

Illinois (HB 4230) clarified that a license suspension for failure to pay child support disqualifies an applicant from receiving a school bus driver permit.

Rhode Island (SB 2901) changed the requirement for school bus drivers to pass the written school bus exam from annually to once every 10 years.

Illegally Passing School Buses and Stop-Arm Cameras

Illinois (SB 3793) added community service to the penalties for failing to stop for a school bus displaying visual signals which is stopped in order to receive or discharge pupils.

Tennessee (SB 2512) raised the fine for a first violation of the requirement to stop upon approaching a school bus from a maximum of $50 to the set amount of $200.

Maryland (HB 813) required Montgomery County to work with the Maryland Department of Transportation (DOT) to examine data regarding school bus stop violations, including the number and nature of the violations, as well as the total amount of fines. Montgomery County must then coordinate with the Maryland DOT to identify the ten school bus stops with the highest number of citations and implement operational alternatives for these stops. These alternatives include ensuring school bus camera public outreach is provided in multiple languages, producing hyperlocal education materials, improving signage at school bus stops, examining alternative penalties for driver’s first offense to not financially penalize a driver for failure to know the law or the area, relocating school bus stops with the most violations to safer locations and convening stakeholders to examine data and explore other options to reduce violations and improve safety at school bus stops.

School Bus Equipment and Operation

Arizona (SB 1630) allowed a school district or school that contracts for school transportation to use a motor vehicle that is designed to carry at least 11 and not more than 15 passengers or a motor vehicle that is designed as a type A school bus or type B school bus as defined by the Department of Public Safety.

Louisiana (HB 1081) revised its school bus drop-off laws to allow loading or unloading of students at or near their homes only if the bus is in the lane farthest to the right side of the road so there is not a lane of traffic between the bus and the right-side curb. The bill also requires any school bus that transports students to have a stop signal arm mounted on the left side of the bus, as well as four amber and four red school bus signal lamps.

New Jersey (AB 3990) allowed a school bus to have its retirement date extended one year upon request.

Bicyclist, Pedestrian and Electric Scooters

Bicyclist, Pedestrian and Scooter Safety

According to the latest data from NHTSA, 7,388 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in 2021, compared to 6,565 pedestrians killed in 2020; a 12.5% increase. This is the highest number of pedestrian deaths since 1981 when 7,837 pedestrians died in traffic crashes.

Pedestrian deaths accounted for 17.2% of all traffic deaths in 2021, while pedestrian injuries increased 11% from 2020 to 2021, rising to an estimated 60,577 pedestrians injured in traffic crashes. Nearly a quarter of pedestrian fatalities involved hit-and-run drivers.

Statistics from NHTSA show there were 966 bicyclist deaths in 2021, an increase of about 2% from 2020. Bicyclists made up 2.2% of all traffic fatalities. In 2021 an estimated 41,615 bicyclists were injured, a 7% increase from 38,886 bicyclists injured in 2020.

Overall, pedestrians and bicyclists comprised 19.5% of all traffic fatalities in 2021, increasing from 16.4% of fatalities in 2012, according to NHTSA.

State Legislation

Safely Passing Bicyclists and Other Vulnerable Road Users

California (AB 1909) became the latest state to require motorists to move to an adjacent lane of traffic if one is available before passing or overtaking a bicycle. No other state created or revised their safe passing laws in 2022.

Bicycle Operation

Colorado (HB 1028) became the ninth state to allow bicyclists and similar vehicles to treat a stop sign as a yield sign in certain specified situations. These are variously known as an “Idaho Stop” or “Safety Stop” or bicyclist “Stop-As-Yield” laws. A Traffic Safety Fact sheet on such laws from NHTSA found that “these laws showed added safety benefits for bicyclists in states where they were evaluated, and may positively affect the environment, traffic, and transportation."

The new Colorado law applies to those over the age of 15, or those under the age of 15 accompanied by an adult. Bicyclists and electric scooters must slow to a “reasonable speed” of 10 mph or less and yield, if necessary, before crossing an intersection with a stop sign. Local governments may raise the maximum reasonable speed to 20 mph if the local government also posts signs at the intersection stating the higher speed limitation for bicyclists and scooter riders.

For stoplights, a rider over the age of 15 or one accompanied by an adult may cross a stoplight-controlled intersection after coming to a complete stop. Once the person has stopped and yielded to other traffic, they may cautiously proceed in the same direction through the intersection or make a right turn. Left turns are only allowed when turning onto a one-way street.

Laws in Arkansas, Idaho and Oklahoma also allow bicyclists to treat a stoplight as a stop sign in some instances. The Colorado law also required the state department of transportation to collaborate with the departments of education and public safety to create educational materials for this new “safety stop” law and required the state division of motor vehicles to include updates in the Colorado Driver handbook.

Virginia clarified (SB 362) that bicyclists riding two abreast must not impede the reasonable movement of traffic and must move into single file as quickly as possible. However, the failure to move into single file does not constitute negligence.

Vulnerable Road Users

Virginia (SB 247/HB 920) added careless driving and infliction of injury or death on a vulnerable road user to the list of offenses where a motorist’s license may be suspended for a period of not less than 10 days or no more than six months and requiring the convicted driver to surrender their license.

Pedestrian Safety

California (AB 2264) enacted legislation requiring that when a traffic signal owned or operated by a state is installed, it must be a traffic-actuated signal with a "leading pedestrian interval," which means an official traffic control signal that advances the "WALK" signal for three to seven seconds before vehicles are allowed to proceed through the intersection. The bill also requires an existing traffic-actuated signal owned or operated by a state to be programmed with a leading pedestrian interval when maintenance work is done, if the signal is in a residential, business, or business activity district, a safety corridor, a school zone, or an area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists.

Maryland (HB 19) revised state law to require high-density counties seeking state funds for new school construction or renovation that would increase capacity by more than 100 students, to submit a pedestrian safety plan to the Interagency Commission on School Construction. The plan, among other requirements, must identify existing and potential safe bicycling and walking routes to school for students, evaluate sidewalk and cyclist infrastructure, analyze existing and potential school zones and any need for expanding school zones, and include documentation of the public participation process.

Electric Bikes

Kansas (SB 101) changed the definition of electric bikes (e-bikes) to mean a bike with two or three wheels, a saddle, pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts. Kansas became the latest state to adopt the three-class definition system for e-bikes:

Class 1 e-bikes provide assistance only when the rider is pedaling and do not provide assistance when the bike reaches 20 MPH.
Class 2 e-bikes are equipped with motors to propel the bicycle which do not provide assistance when the bike reaches 20 MPH.
Class 3 e-bikes only provide assistance when the rider is pedaling and do not provide assistance when the bike reaches 28 MPH.

The bill also establishes that an e-bike is defined as a regular bicycle, and riders do not need insurance, a driver’s license, registration, a title or a license plate. Starting Jan. 1, 2023, e-bike manufacturers must apply a permanent label to each e-bike which provides the classification number, top assisted speed and motor wattage, and tampering with the e-bike is prohibited unless the label is updated. The bill allows for e-bike operation wherever bicycles may be operated, but local governments may adopt rules regarding the operation or prohibition of e-bikes on a multi-use path or trail within their jurisdiction. E-bikes may not be operated on designated non-motorized trails with a natural surface. Additionally, individuals under 16 years of age may not operate a Class 3 e-bike.

California (AB 1909) removed the prohibition on Class 3 e-bikes operating on equestrian, hiking or recreational trails. However, localities and the Department of Parks and Recreation may now prohibit any e-bike class on trails in their jurisdiction.

Electric Scooters

Two states enacted legislation regarding the definition and operation of scooters in 2022.

Oklahoma (SB 1430) modified the definition of an electric scooter to raise the allowable maximum designed speed from 25 MPH to 35 MPH, but clarifies that local governments are authorized to set maximum speed requirements via local ordinances. The bill also sets the minimum age for operating a scooter at 14 years old. A local government may set an older age requirement, as well as require a driver’s license for scooter operation, as well generally regulate scooters and determine appropriate locations for their use. The bill also establishes that scooter operators do not need to comply with insurance or financial liability requirements unless required by a local ordinance and requires operators to follow all applicable state and local traffic safety regulations.

South Dakota (HB 1084) allowed municipalities to adopt regulations permitting the use of motorized scooters. The bill also clarifies the definition of motorized foot scooters to specify that they are designed to operate at a maximum of 15 MPH on a flat surface with not more than one percent grade in any direction when the motor is engaged. Additionally, a motorized scooter is meant to be stood or sat upon by the operator, have handlebars and be powered by an electric motor capable of propelling with or without human propulsion.

Miscellaneous

California (AB 2028) allowed a school district to provide time and facilities to law enforcement for bike, scooter, motorized bike and motorized scooter safety instruction.

California (AB 1909) clarified that a pedestrian control signal also applies to a bicyclist using a crosswalk. The bill also disallowed local governments from requiring a license to operate a bicycle.

Additionally, California (AB 2147) tackled the controversial issuing of tickets for so-called “jaywalking” by prohibiting law enforcement from stopping a pedestrian for an illegal crossing of the street unless they cross when there's immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle. The commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, in consultation with two California universities, must submit a report to the Legislature by Jan. 1, 2028, on statewide traffic safety pedestrian-related traffic crash data, including an evaluation of whether and how the changes impacted pedestrian safety.

Washington D.C. (B111) amended state law to make motor vehicle accident prevention courses available for all licensed drivers, not just drivers over age 55. Course criteria must be consistent with the goals of the District’s Vision Zero Initiative, with a focus on how drivers can ensure the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. All insurance companies authorized to sell motor vehicle insurance in the district must provide a discount to all licensed drivers who have successfully completed an approved course; an individual must complete an approved course every two years to maintain discount eligibility.

Maryland (HB 73) required excess revenue from automated enforcement systems in Baltimore such as red-light and speed cameras to be used specifically for eligible safe routes to school and complete streets activities and infrastructure. Maryland (HB 254) also required the state highway administration to conduct an infrastructure review for each pedestrian or bicyclist fatality that occurs on a state highway or an intersection of a state highway. The review must identify deficiencies in engineering, traffic control and operations and appropriate corrective actions and crash reduction countermeasures consistent with Maryland’s vision zero program and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s best practices.

New York (SB 1078) required the state’s commissioner of motor vehicles to include a pedestrian and bicyclist safety awareness component as part of the driver’s pre-licensing course as a prerequisite to obtain a driver’s license.

The State of Distracted Driving in 2023 & the Future of Road Safety

Electronic Monitoring Indigency Fund Task Force | 2022 Task Force Report

Contact NCSL
For more information on this topic, use this form to reach NCSL staff.
Email
Full Name
What is your role?
Is this a press or media inquiry?
Message
Captcha
Admin Email

Related Resources

Updated November 11, 2024

Forecast ’25 Special Report

From education to the environment, from elections to energy, the stories in this State Legislatures News special report offer insights from NCSL experts on what lies ahead for state lawmakers in 2025.

Civil and Criminal Justice Education Elections Energy Environment and Natural Resources Fiscal Health Human Services Labor and Employment Military and Veterans Affairs Technology Transportation

State Legislatures News

Updated December 02, 2024

NCSL Post-Election Forum Predicts Top 2025 State Issues

At a recent forum for NCSL Foundation members in Washington, D.C., Kate Blackman and Natalie Wood, NCSL vice presidents of state research and policy, shared their forecasts for key issues likely to dominate the 2025 legislative sessions.

Education Energy Fiscal Health Labor and Employment Technology Transportation

State Legislatures News

Updated December 02, 2024

Autonomous Vehicles Legislation Database

This database covers topics related to autonomous vehicles, including definitions, licensing and registration, operation requirements, inspections, testing and more. It includes all introduced legislation from 2017 to the present and is updated monthly as legislation is identified by NCSL staff.

Transportation

Database

Report Traffic Safety Trends | State Legislative Action 2022

Adult Occupant Protection

Child Passenger Safety

Alcohol and Other Drug-Impaired Driving

Distracted Driving

Teen Drivers

Older Drivers

Driver's Licensing

Speeding and Speed Limits

Aggressive Drivers

Automated Enforcement

Motorcyclist Safety

School Bus Safety

Bicyclist, Pedestrian and Electric Scooters

Contact NCSL

Related Resources

Forecast ’25 Special Report

NCSL Post-Election Forum Predicts Top 2025 State Issues

Autonomous Vehicles Legislation Database

Contact Us

Denver

Washington, D.C.