Report Traffic Safety Trends | State Legislative Action 2023

Fatal motor vehicle traffic crash data is obtained from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). FARS contains data on every fatal motor vehicle traffic crash within the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. To be included in FARS, a traffic crash must involve a motor vehicle traveling on a trafficway customarily open to the public and must result in the death of a vehicle occupant or a nonoccupant within 30 days of the crash. Estimates of crashes resulting only in injury and property damage since 2016 have been derived from the Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS). CRSS obtains its data from a nationally representative probability sample selected from the more than 7 million police-reported crashes that occur annually. For a crash to be eligible for the CRSS sample, a crash report must be completed by the police; it must involve at least one motor vehicle traveling on a trafficway; and the crash must result in property damage, injury or death. Information on FARS, CRSS, and other data collection systems can be found at Crash Data Systems | NHTSA. 

Adult Occupant Protection

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) data shows that among passenger vehicle occupants killed in 2022 where it was known whether they were wearing a seat belt, 50% were unrestrained. The agency estimates that 86% of passenger vehicle occupants who survived a crash with a fatality in 2022 were restrained, while 14% 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 91.9% in 2023, a record high, although not statistically different from 91.6% in 2022. However, seat belt use rates varied by region in 2023, ranging from 96.5% in the west to 88.4% in the south.

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 87.7%, according to NHTSA's 2022 data. The seat belt use rate for male occupants was 90.1% compared to 93.5% 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 81.7% in 2022 compared to 91.6% for those in the front seat.

AAA's 2022 Traffic Safety Culture Index shows that while drivers completely (72.6%) or somewhat (22.4%) disapproved of driving without wearing a seat belt, 8% reported having driven a few times without buckling up in the last month. Nearly 59% of drivers said that it was somewhat or very unlikely for a driver to be caught by police for not buckling up.

State Legislation

North Dakota (SB 2362) changed its seat belt law from secondary to primary enforcement. This allows law enforcement to stop drivers solely for seat belt violations, without needing another violation as grounds for the stop. Additionally, the law requires all adult vehicle occupants to wear seat belts, regardless of where they are sitting, removing previous exemptions for rear seat passengers. These provisions do not apply to the separate child restraint requirements. A violation of the new law results in a $20 fine. If a child is unrestrained in the vehicle, the fine is $25, as well as one point on a driver's license.

Connecticut (HB 6873) required the Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POST) to develop and issue a model policy for required seat belt use in municipal police vehicles by Dec. 31, 2023. This policy must also include procedures for officers to ensure passengers are properly secured. Municipal law enforcement agencies must adopt policies that meet or exceed these guidelines by April 1, 2024. The municipal chief law enforcement officer must report violations to POST if a law enforcement officer does not adhere to the policy. POST has the authority to schedule a hearing to determine if a violation occurred, which may result in the suspension or revocation of the officer's certification.

Maine (HP 370) extended the validity period for physician-issued seat belt exemption certificates for medical reasons from one year to a maximum of six years.

Aggressive Drivers

Running red lights, speeding, weaving through traffic or tailgating are all dangerous behaviors that exhibit aggressive driving. NHTSA describes aggressive driving as "violations that encroach on others' safe space, such as driving much faster than prevailing speeds, following too closely, making unsafe lane changes, and running red lights, either on one occasion or over a period of time." NHTSA also notes 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 2022 Traffic Safety Culture Index reveals that 89% of drivers surveyed perceive aggressive driving behaviors, such as switching lanes quickly or driving closely behind a vehicle, as extremely or very dangerous; 63% of drivers said that they were somewhat or very likely to be caught by the police for driving aggressively. Additionally, 30.3% of drivers ages 19-24 shared that they have exhibited general aggressive driving behavior at least once in the past 30 days. In contrast, 11.5% of drivers ages 60-74 reported driving aggressively during the same time span.

State Legislation

In 2023, at least nine states—Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin—enacted legislation related to aggressive driving.

Street Racing

Alabama (HB 29) specified that any motor vehicle speed contest or exhibition of motor vehicle speed (e.g., street racing, donuts and burnouts) is illegal on any public road or highway, off street parking facility or any other parcel of public or private property without the consent of the owner of that property.

First time violations result in a Class C misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation is a Class B misdemeanor. An individual who commits three or more violations shall have their motor vehicle seized. Additionally, courts may prohibit violators from driving on public highways for up to six months.

Violators who cause bodily injury to someone in any exhibition face a six-month license suspension and a Class A misdemeanor. A crash that results in severe injury to someone other than the driver leads to a two-year license suspension and a Class C felony. If a person other than the driver is killed during an exhibition, the driver is guilty of a Class B felony with a license suspension exceeding two years. The registered owner of a vehicle must cover the impoundment costs for any vehicle used in motor vehicle speed contest or exhibitions.

Alabama (HB 107) further enacted prohibitions on street racing, motor vehicle burnouts, donuts, speed exhibitions and sideshows in Jefferson County, Ala. Any motor vehicle in violation of the Alabama state prohibition is liable to have their vehicle impounded. If an individual is acquitted of the alleged violation in Jefferson County, the traffic enforcement agency that ordered the vehicle to be towed is responsible for covering the association towing service and storage fees.

Additionally, this law permits Jefferson County to capture violations via automated enforcement systems within the county limits. If a traffic enforcement officer witnesses a violation or obtains evidence through such a system, they are authorized to order the towing and impounding of a motor vehicle. The registered owner is responsible for the related expenses, and the duration of impoundment varies from 10 days for the first offense, 20 days for the second offense and 30 days for third or subsequent offenses.

Connecticut (SB 904) banned street takeovers, street racing, motor vehicle stunts and exhibitions of speed on public highways and in parking lots. Those who commit violations are liable to be fined from $75 to $600 and/or be imprisoned for one year. Subsequent violations would be fined between $100 to $1,000 and/or imprisoned for one year.

Additionally, any individual who encourages, promotes, facilitates or aids in the performance of any such prohibited takeover (e.g., acting as a judge or a timekeeper) or places a wager on the exhibitions is liable to be penalized. Those who encourage, promote or facilitate violations can be fined up to $1,000 and/or be imprisoned for up to six months.

Nevada (AB 408) expanded the prohibition of trick driving displays, which involve using a vehicle to perform tricks, stunts or other maneuvers, to include those that happen on any premises where the public has access in addition to highways. The bill also authorizes law enforcement officers to impound vehicles when a person is cited for reckless driving by performing trick driving. Further, if a law enforcement officer requests a tow, the usual requirement for towing agents to notify the owner does not apply.

Oregon (SB 615) defined individuals who commit the offense of organizing an illegal speed racing event as anyone who obstructs or places a barricade on a highway or assists in placing an obstruction or barricade upon a highway. Organizing or facilitating a street takeover is considered a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense. Any second or subsequent offense committed within five years of the first offense is considered a Class C felony. SB 615 further designates that any exhibition involving donuts and burnouts held on a public highway or public road attended by two or more persons is considered reckless driving which is a Class A misdemeanor.

Texas (HB 2899) legislated that any individual convicted of street racing or as a participant in reckless driving is liable to have their vehicle impounded. The vehicle owner must pay the towing and storage costs associated with impounding.

Texas (HB 1442) expanded the list of offenses that constitute organized criminal activity to include committing highway or passageway obstruction by engaging in reckless driving exhibitions. The bill also broadens the definition of "contraband" to include property that is used or intended to be used in such exhibitions. According to the Texas House Research Organization, this expanded definition allows for the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles involved in reckless driving exhibitions that obstruct a highway or passageway. Additionally, use of this contraband for reckless driving is a Class A misdemeanor.

Washington (SB 5606) expanded the prohibition of street racing by defining "drifting." Drifting is defined as a driver intentionally oversteering a vehicle, causing loss of traction, while maneuvering a vehicle in a turning direction. Drifting and any exhibition of vehicle speed is considered reckless driving. SB 5606 prohibits anyone from abetting racing on public highways or any off-street facility. Abettors can be considered an accomplice whether they were physically present at the time and location of a reckless driving event.

HB 5606 further outlines that vehicles used in reckless driving exhibitions are liable to be impounded. If a driver is arrested for street racing and is the registered owner of the vehicle, the vehicle cannot be released for 72 hours. However, if more than one person is registered as the vehicle's owner, a legal owner who is not the convicted driver may redeem the vehicle before 72 hours. If the arrested driver of the vehicle is not the registered owner, the legal or registered owner may redeem the vehicle before 72 hours.

Driver Improvement and Aggressive Driving

Virginia (HB 2247/SB 1063) increased the licensing fee for becoming a driver improvement clinic program instructor from $100 to $150. Under new Virginia law, instructor certificates are valid for two years. Driver improvement clinics give court-identified problem drivers' improvement programs and curriculum in areas like aggressive driving.

Penalties

Arkansas (HB 1623) legislated that fleeing in a motor vehicle is considered a Class D felony if that person also exceeded the posted speed limit. In Arkansas, the act of fleeing is considered a Class A misdemeanor, fleeing while endangering the life of others is a Class C felony and causing any physical harm to another person while fleeing results in a Class B felony.

Wisconsin (AB 55) increased penalties for reckless driving. For first-time offenders, the penalty range increased from $25 to $200 to a new range of $50 to $400. For second time and subsequent offenders, the fine was increased from between $50 and $500 to between $100 to $1,000. Additionally, previously established law provides that convictions of reckless driving include a driver improve surcharge of $435 and a safe ride program surcharge of $50.

Under AB 55, any reckless driving that results in bodily harm to another person increases the previous penalty range of $300 to $2,000 to a range of $600 to $4,000 and requires jail time between 60 days to two years. If reckless driving causes great bodily harm, the penalty is increased from a Class I felony to a Class H felony. A class H felony carries a fine up to $10,000, imprisonment up to six years or both.

Wisconsin (SB 92) permitted local governments to impound a vehicle used in a reckless driving incident if the owner of the vehicle was arrested or cited for reckless driving and that individual was found to have not paid for previous reckless driving charges. The cost of impounding the vehicle, including transportation and storage costs, must be paid in addition to the previous fine amount for the owner to receive the vehicle back. If an impounded vehicle remains for 90 days after the issuance of a reckless driving citation, a local government may dispose of the vehicle.

Virginia (HB 2370/SB 841) required any court that charged a person with a reckless driving violation that also included a driving under the influence violation to have continuing jurisdiction over the individual. This allows the court to refer the individual to an alcohol safety action program; provide a restricted driver's license permit; and imposing further terms, conditions and limitations for actions related to a person's participation in an alcohol safety action program.

Alcohol and Other Drug-Impaired Driving

With alcohol-impaired driving accounting for a significant portion of traffic fatalities, impaired driving remains a major traffic safety and public health issue for states.

According to NHTSA, 13,524 people were killed in alcohol-impaired traffic crashes in 2022. Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities made up 32% of all traffic fatalities. Nearly all vehicle types experienced a rise in the number of alcohol-impaired drivers; however, SUVs saw the highest increase—7%—from 2021 to 2022.

NHTSA's data show that in 2021, an average of one alcohol-impaired-driving fatality occurred every 39 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-impaired crashes accounted for $69 billion or 20% of all economic costs such as medical expenses or property damage in 2019, according to NHTSA. About 82% of these crashes cases were caused by alcohol, resulting in $57 billion in costs.

Additionally, NHTSA's analysis of state percentages of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities among total traffic fatalities ranged from a low of 22% in Utah to a high of 43% in Rhode Island and South Carolina in 2022, compared to the national average of 32%.

Driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol and polysubstance—impaired driving-driving after using a mix of drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol—may also contribute to the increasing number of impaired driving crashes. The 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) reveals that 11.7 million people aged 16 or older drove under the influence of illicit drugs, including marijuana, in the past year, compared to 13.5 million who drove under the influence of alcohol. While drug use does not necessarily indicate impairment, NSDUH notes that drug effects on driving skills can vary. For example, marijuana can slow reaction time and impair judgment of time and distance, while certain prescription medicines can cause drowsiness and impair cognitive functioning.

NHTSA collected data from trauma centers and medical examiners to examine the prevalence of alcohol and other drugs in the blood of seriously or fatally injured drivers and other crash victims. Samples collected between September 2019 and July 2021 informed two studies: one focused on changes in alcohol and drug prevalence during the COVID-19 public health emergency and a larger study that included additional trauma centers. The study conducted during the COVID-19 public health emergency revealed that while drug prevalence was high among seriously and fatally injured roadway users, it increased significantly during the pandemic. Alcohol prevalence rose from 21.3% to 26.9%, cannabis from 21.4% to 31.2%, and opioids from 7.6% to 12.9%. Overall, 51% of road users tested positive for at least one drug before the pandemic, which increased to 63.6% during COVID-19. Additionally, the presence of multiple drugs increased from 18.1% pre-COVID to 23.8% during the pandemic.

In the larger study, 55.8% of seriously 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. The study also found that 25.1% of road users tested positive for cannabis followed by 23.1% for alcohol, 10.8% for stimulants and 9.3% for opioids. Of the pedestrians in the study, 24.7% were positive for alcohol and 21.7% for cannabinoids, compared to drivers with 21.6% alcohol and 25% cannabinoid positive.

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 driver populations, 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 revealed that 71% to 99% of drivers tested positive for one or more potentially impairing drugs. Additionally, approximately 50% of drivers tested positive for multiple drug categories.

The 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 California 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; 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 may also be contributing 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 2022 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 alcohol in the previous 30 days. Additionally, nearly half of respondents favor reducing the legal BAC limit from.08% to.05%, and 68% support lowering it for those transporting young children.

AAA's index reveals a notable gap in perceptions between alcohol and marijuana use while driving, with only 70% considering driving shortly after using marijuana as very or extremely dangerous. The index also found that 75% of survey participants support making it illegal to drive with a certain amount of marijuana in a person's system. Most (85%) respondents perceive driving after consuming potentially impairing prescription drugs as very or extremely dangerous. Moreover, 72% of those surveyed support outlawing driving with any drug in one's system that hasn't been legally prescribed.

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.

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 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, the last full year before the BAC limit was lowered, and 2019. 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 see similar 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 in Utah indicated they had changed their behaviors, such as ensuring a sober ride was available, once the law went into effect.

At least six states—Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington—considered legislation to lower the BAC limit from.08% to.05% in 2023.

State Legislation

Lawmakers in 49 states considered over 450 bills related to alcohol and drug-impaired driving in 2023. Approximately 78 bills were enacted by 33 states. Laws addressed include ignition interlock devices and restricted driving privileges, drugged driving, penalties, sealing and expungement of records and implied consent and testing, 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 motor vehicles to prevent them from being operated if the driver's breath contains a certain level of alcohol. To ensure that the driver is not consuming alcohol while the car is in motion, most IIDs require random retesting. Courts often require IIDs for drivers convicted of a DUI. As part of the sentencing process, individuals whose driver's licenses have been suspended or revoked may be granted limited driving privileges if they have an IID 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.

Additionally, 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.

To combat attempts to drive drunk or circumvent or tamper with an IID, several states have enacted compliance-based removal (CBR) laws that require offenders to install an IID for a certain period without violations before removal is possible. A study published by the Governors Highway Safety Association examined CBR laws by analyzing DUI- and IID-related data from two states with such laws—Tennessee and Washington—and two states without—Arkansas and Iowa. The findings revealed lower rates of alcohol-impaired driving recidivism in Tennessee (1.7%) and Washington (3.7%) compared to Arkansas (5.6%) and Iowa (6%) between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2019.

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 nine states—Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah—enacted legislation regarding IIDs and restricted, suspended or revoked driving privileges in 2023. Louisiana and Tennessee's legislation includes provisions that address IID program costs.

Louisiana (SB 82) required the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, specifically the office of state police, to establish an Ignition Interlock Affordability Plan to address economic hardship for individuals required to install an IID. Individuals who demonstrate economic hardship, as determined by eligibility for programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or Medicaid, will only have to pay up to 50% of the fees associated with the installation, monthly calibrations, lease and removal of the device. Certain individuals also qualify if they provide a judge's order that they demonstrate an income below 125% of the federal poverty level. While individuals who meet the economic hardship standard are eligible for reduced fees, they are still responsible for any other fees related to interlock noncompliance or costs associated with damaged equipment. An IID service center is not allowed to refuse service to individuals who have demonstrated eligibility for the affordability plan.

The bill also amends IID usage compliance provisions by providing that no credit will be given towards suspension time or any driver's license reinstatement requirement if any of the eight compliance violations are violated during the IID period. These violations include tampering with the device, failing to take or pass an initial breath test with a BAC of.02 or more, or unauthorized removal of the device. Under the previous law, no credit would be given if an interlock user committed a combination or repeat of two of the eight violations within a one-month period. If the IID manufacturer reports a violation of these new provisions to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the interlock period will be extended by an additional month for a first offense and additional six months for a second offense, along with an extended driver's license restriction period.

Additionally, the new law provides that DUI offenders with a suspended license can apply for a restricted driver's license immediately after installing an IID. Previously, these offenders had to wait 12 months and provide proof they had installed an IID before being eligible for a restricted license.

Louisiana (HB 484) amended its DUI law to provide that first time DUI offenders with a BAC of.15 or more face a two-year license suspension. Similarly, a second offense with a BAC of.15 or more will result in a four-year license suspension. Previously, these suspensions and conditions applied to individuals with a BAC of.20 or higher. Additionally, upon a second conviction, an offender may also be eligible for a restricted license if they install an IID. Certain first-time offenders were already eligible for a restricted license upon demonstrating that their vehicle is equipped with an interlock device.

The bill also removes the restriction on eligibility of a hardship license for these high BAC offenders, which allows individuals to drive for certain purposes like work or medical appointments.

New Hampshire (SB 81) amended its ignition interlock law to clarify that the device will only allow a vehicle to start if the driver provides a breath sample with an alcohol concentration below.020.

New Jersey (AB 4800/SB 3011) extended the existing all-offender IID requirements until Jan. 1, 2029. Notably, the bill eliminated certain fines for DUI offenses if an offender voluntarily installs an IID in their car before being convicted. The bill maintains the previously established DUI fines for certain offenders who do not install an IID, which range from $250 to $400 for a first offense with a BAC between.08% and less than 10%, and $300 to $500 for a BAC of.10% or higher. Second DUI offenses carry fines of $500 to $1,000, while third and subsequent offenses carry a $1,000 fine.

The offender must obtain a driver's license from the Motor Vehicle Commission, which must include a notation indicating the IID requirement. They must also provide a copy of the court order that specifies the installation date and related charges. This provision only applies to individuals who have a valid New Jersey driver's license in good standing at the time of the offense, and who maintain such standing until the date of conviction. Additionally, the bill states that individuals who enter a plea agreement for operating or allowing another person to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of a narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit producing drug will have to forfeit their right to operate a vehicle for at least six months.

Oregon (SB 568) eliminated the requirement for a court hearing on every motion to remove an IID installed in a person's vehicle during their participation in a driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) diversion program unless the district attorney or city prosecutor contests, requests a hearing and files a written objection. Previously, individuals could request IID removal after six months of compliance with the diversion agreement and recommended treatment. However, the law mandated a hearing for every removal request, regardless of program adherence. According to Oregon Legislative Staff, this led to several motions lacking essential documents to verify program adherence. The new law aims to streamline the process and ensure that only necessary hearings are conducted.

South Carolina (SB 36) amended its IID law to require DUI offenders to install an IID upon their first conviction. Previously, IIDs were only required for repeat and high BAC (.15 or higher) offenders. The bill also allows individuals under 21 years old to install an IID in lieu of serving the remainder of their driver's license suspension or denial. Additionally, individuals whose driver's licenses were revoked prior to Oct. 1, 2014, excluding those convicted of a felony driving under the influence, can petition the circuit court in their county for reinstatement of their driver's license if they' have met certain conditions. These conditions include having an improved overall driving record completing an alcohol or drug assessment and treatment program.

The bill also provides that habitual DUI offenders are prohibited from obtaining a driver's license for five years, but this period can be reduced to two years if they enroll in the IID program. After this period, the individual can apply to have their license reinstated if they meet specific criteria, including not having another habitual offender suspension in another state or any other impaired driving violations during the suspension period.

Finally, individuals can request a hearing to apply for a temporary alcohol license, which allows them to drive until conviction, within 30 days of receiving notice of their driver's license suspension If the suspension is upheld, the person must enroll in the IID program.

Tennessee (HB 77/SB 258) required IIDs installed on or after Jan. 1, 2024, to include global positioning system technology that will geotag a vehicle's location whenever an initial startup test, random retest or a skipped test occurs, or if any attempts to circumvent the device are detected. The law already requires the IID to have photo-capturing capability to identify individuals providing breath samples.

Tennessee (SB 855) allocated funding from the electronic monitoring indigency fund which includes the IID account, to pay eligible costs for a functioning IID. The bill requires the fund to be comprised of $40 ignition interlock fees for driving and boating under the influence violations. The allocation includes $30.50 for eligibility costs and expenses incurred for administering the fund, $4.50 for grants to critical access hospitals, $1.25 for the alcohol and drug addiction treatment fund, $1.25 for the highway safety office for local government grants for impaired driving enforcement, $1.25 for expenses related to alcohol and drug offenses and $1.25 for grants to halfway houses assisting drug and alcohol offenders.

Half of any surplus in the fund must be transferred to the department of mental health and substance abuse services and placed in the alcohol and drug addiction treatment fund and the other half must be used by the highway safety office for grants to local law enforcement to maintain equipment or personnel needed to enforce alcohol-related traffic offenses.

Additionally, if a court finds someone to be indigent, the person must pay at least $30 per month towards the eligible costs of a functioning interlock device or an alternative device. The fund will cover the rest of the monthly eligible costs, but the remaining costs cannot exceed $170 per month. If a person ordered to install a device claims they cannot afford it, the court must hold a comprehensive hearing to determine the person's indigency. The IID provider can end services if the defendant fails to pay their monthly fee, or if the court has issued a warrant for the defendant's arrest and they have been arrested and the court has issued an order allowing the provider to terminate services.

Texas (HB 291) allowed an individual whose license has been suspended due to a DUI or refusal to submit to impairment testing to apply for an occupational driver's license (ODL), which grants them the ability to drive to and from work. To obtain an ODL, eligible individuals must file a petition in the jurisdiction in which they reside or where the incident that led to the license suspension or revocation occurred. However, a judge may deny an ODL if the individual has been convicted of more than one DUI within a 10-year period, if they are unable to provide proof of auto insurance or if they are currently subject to a previous ODL revocation. ODL holders are not permitted to operate commercial vehicles.

Petitioners seeking an ODL due to a DUI-related license revocation or suspension must attend counseling and rehabilitation services for alcohol dependence. The court can waive this treatment requirement if good cause is shown. If an individual fails to attend the required program, the court may modify the terms of their ODL occupational driver's license to include the use of an IID.

Additionally, the bill grants judges the authority to limit individuals to operating only vehicles equipped with an IID if they are already under a court order restricting them to such vehicles, including orders imposed as a condition of bond. This requirement also extends to individuals who have had their license suspended, revoked or canceled due to specific impaired driving convictions. The court can waive the IID requirement if it determines it is unnecessary for community safety.

Utah (HB 62) amended its IID law to allow certain individuals who have been convicted of impaired driving to install the device. If an individual installs the device, the Driver License Division cannot suspend their license unless the person fails to complete the prescribed period of interlock use. Failure to successfully complete the full period results in a 120-day license suspension from the date the interlock was removed, with no reduction for days of previous compliance with the interlock restriction.

Additionally, an interlock user is required to have their device monitored by the manufacturer or dealer every 60 days to ensure proper functionality of the interlock and to gather data on any attempts to start the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration level that exceeds the permissible limit. An interlock user can request to remove the device if they can provide documentation from a physician citing a medical condition that prevents them from providing the required lung sample.

The new law also provides that if a person's driving privilege is revoked, they may petition the Driver License Division to become an ignition interlock restricted driver. To be eligible they must serve at least 90 days of the license revocation period, provide a valid driving privilege like employment, install and maintain an IID for three years, pay license reinstatement fees, pay appropriate original license fees and complete the license application process. If approved, they must install and maintain the interlock for three years. Individuals who remove the device and do not replace it within 24 hours face an 18-month driver's license revocation.

24/7 Sobriety and Drug Monitoring Programs and Treatment Programs

DUI recidivism is a significant concern for lawmakers and enforcement officials. To address this issue, states have debated and enacted legislation requiring offenders to participate in sobriety monitoring programs and treatment programs. Judges have always had the option to use court-mandated treatment, which requires impaired driving offenders to participate in evaluation and treatment for their substance abuse issues. However, recent interest includes combining behavioral treatment with more punitive sanctions.

Sobriety programs involving 24/7 monitoring emphasize sobriety and require certain DUI offenders to submit to a breath or urine test multiple times (usually twice) daily at a designated site. Many programs also allow the use of breathalyzers, transdermal alcohol monitoring devices (ankle bracelets) and drug monitoring patches to monitor an offender's sobriety when certain factors such as distance from or lack of access to a testing site make primary testing methods unreasonable. If the offender fails or does not appear for a test, he or she will receive swift, certain and moderate sanctions, which can include bond revocation, parole or probation, and incarceration for 24 or 48 hours, in most cases. These 24/7 sobriety monitoring programs do not require participants to enter treatment.

The RAND Corporation published a paper in 2020 analyzing South Dakota's 24/7 sobriety monitoring program's causal effect on the probability of rearrest or probation revocation for repeat DUI offenders—offenders who have been charged with a second or third DUI violation. South Dakota was the first state to establish a statewide 24/7 sobriety monitoring program in 2007. The authors concluded that the probability of rearrest or probation revocation was 49% lower for program participants than for non-participants 12 months after their DUI arrest. The authors also found a "substantive decrease at 24 and 36 months."

The NHTSA published a study assessing North Dakota's 24/7 sobriety program, initially piloted in select counties in 2008 before statewide expansion in 2010. In 2013, the state passed legislation (HB 1302) mandating participation for repeat DUI offenders, contributing to a notable surge in program enrollment and duration, particularly among second-time offenders (from 58 days pre-law to 246 days post-law). The study also highlighted a 23% increase in the likelihood of second offenders avoiding recidivism within two years post-2013 legislation compared to before.

Currently, at least 14 states—Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming—have 24/7 sobriety monitoring programs or pilot programs at the state or county level.

Utah expanded its 24/7 sobriety and drug monitoring program to include additional offenders and Michigan and Montana enacted legislation that addresses treatment program requirements. The new legislation from each state also links treatment and monitoring requirements to driving privileges.

Utah (HB 62) allowed the Driver License Division to shorten a person's license revocation period if they participate in a 24/7 sobriety monitoring program. However, individuals who do not complete or fail the program face another 18-month revocation without eligibility for an interlock. In the case of second or subsequent failures in the 24/7 program, an individual's license will be revoked for three years. The Division cannot count any days of previous suspensions or revocations related to the same conviction toward the new revocation period.

Utah (SB 80) also allowed the Driver License Division to shorten the driver's license revocation period for individuals participating in a problem solving or drug court program who have also installed an IID.

Michigan (SB 134) expanded the previous DWI/Sobriety Court Interlock Program into the Specialty Court Program. "Specialty court" includes drug treatment, DWI/sobriety, mental health and veterans treatment courts. The expanded program allows eligible participants in a broader range of certified specialty courts to install an IID in their vehicle and obtain a restricted driver's license. However, mental health courts not certified by the Supreme Court Administrative Office are prohibited from certifying eligibility for a restricted license under the interlock program. Additionally, all DWI/sobriety courts that participate in the interlock program must comply with the "Ten Guiding Principles of DWI Courts," published by the National Center for DWI Courts. Michigan (SB 135) also aligned the Michigan Vehicle Code with SB 134's definition of "specialty court," meaning both must be enacted for either to take effect.

Montana (HB 92) provided that if certain DUI offenders have not completed chemical dependency treatment before their driver's license suspension or revocation period ends, the Department of Justice may restore or renew their driving privileges if they have completed a chemical dependency assessment that concludes treatment is not required.

Drugged Driving

Eight states—California, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New York and Oregon—enacted legislation regarding drug-impaired driving in 2023.

California (AB 103) allocated $2 million for the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research in San Diego to establish a study on the impact of commercial cannabis products on driving capabilities. If the study's parameters are reviewed and accepted by the University of California, the school will collaborate with the Cailfornia Highway Patrol and the Center to evaluate the public safety consequences of driving after cannabis use and explore effective methods for detecting related impairment. Researchers may use driving simulations and conduct blood, oral fluid and breath analysis, cognitive tests and standardized field sobriety tests. The Center is required to submit the study results to the Department of Cannabis Control, the Legislature and the governor by Jan. 1, 2027.

Colorado (HB 1102) expanded the scope of high-visibility enforcement (HVE) for drunk driving to include drug-impaired driving. Additionally, the state Transportation Commission must allocate $1.5 million annually from the state highway fund to the Office of Transportation Safety in the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). This funding will be distributed to local governments engaged in HVE. Previously, CDOT received $2 million from the First Time Drunk Driver (FTDD) Account of the Highway Users Tax Fund for HVE. However, in recent years funds in the FTDD have not been available to CDOT as available funding has gone to other prioritized uses.

CDOT must establish rules for qualified HVE and publish an annual report on HVE enforcement episodes and any subsequent investigations. CDOT must also create rules for law enforcement agencies conducting HVE. These rules should address factors such as requiring agencies to submit policies and procedures to address profiling and prohibiting citation quotas.

Additionally, the bill requires law enforcement agencies to complete in-service training before conducting impaired driving HVE. Additionally, agencies under a judicial decree, for issues like misconduct, may not receive funding for HVE. Agencies that do not comply with the bill's requirements are subject to funding suspensions and the attorney general may bring a civil action.

Delaware (HB 2) enacted the Marijuana Control Act to legalize and regulate adult-use cannabis. The act provides that to prioritize public health and safety, it is still prohibited to drive under the influence of or be impaired by marijuana.

Maryland (HB 556/SB 516) enacted its cannabis regulation law, which mandates that all labels and packages of cannabis distributed to consumers must include various disclaimers. One of these disclaimers is that the consumption of cannabis may impair an individual's ability to operate a motor vehicle.

Minnesota (HF 100) legalized adult-cannabis and as a part of legalization, required the commissioner of public safety to develop and implement a pilot project. This project, which will run from Sept. 1, 2023, to Aug. 31, 2024, aims to study oral fluid roadside testing devices. These devices are designed to detect controlled or intoxicating substances in individuals suspected of impaired driving. Oral fluid samples must be collected by a certified drug recognition evaluator and obtained only with voluntary consent. Test results cannot be used as a basis for arrest decisions or legal proceedings but to be analyzed solely to evaluate the practicality and effectiveness of the instrument. The commissioner must consult with relevant stakeholders such as law enforcement officials and prosecutors when implementing and evaluating the pilot.

The commissioner must submit a comprehensive report on the project's results to the chairs and ranking minority members of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over public safety by Feb. 1, 2025. The report must include information on factors like the accuracy of the instruments as tested against laboratory results, how often individuals had controlled or intoxicating substances in their systems and the types and the number of participants in the project. The report must also evaluate the practicality and reliability of the instruments and provide recommendations for the project's permanent continuation.

Additionally, the bill requires the office to conduct a study on impaired driving, focusing on crashes involving drivers who have used cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinol, arrests made for driving under the influence of cannabis as indicated by positive cannabis or THC tests and convictions for driving under the influence of cannabis or related products. A preliminary report on these factors must be submitted to the legislature by Jan. 15, 2024, and the final report by Jan. 15, 2025.

Lastly, the bill adds cannabis flower, cannabis products, a lower-potency hemp edible, a hemp-derived consumer product, artificially derived cannabinoids and THC as substances prohibited under its impaired driving provisions.

Montana (SB 13) clarified its implied consent law to allow law enforcement officers to administer an oral fluid or blood test to individuals suspected of operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs and other substances. As of March 2024, the state does not conduct oral fluid testing in practice.

Montana (HB 437) closed a loophole in its DUI law to provide that any type of THC, not just the previously established Delta-9 THC, can be present to constitute driving under the influence. Representative Zolnikov, the bill sponsor, stated that "Delta-9-THC is not all encompassing, so you could have the situation arise where someone is driving under influence of marijuana but they're not using a Delta-9 strain, they're using Delta-10 or 11. By striking Delta-9, and just having THC in the law, we can ensure that we are protecting people on the roads no matter what kind of marijuana they have been using. "

New York (SB 2712) mandated that a portion of the revenue collected from surcharges for alcohol and other drug-related offenses to be paid to counties monthly starting April 1, 2024, for efforts to reduce drug-impaired driving events.

Oregon (HB 2316) expanded the definition of "intoxicant" to include any drug, either by itself or in combination with intoxicating liquor, inhalants, psilocybin, cannabis or a controlled substance, that affects a person's mental and/or physical faculties. Previously, the law only considered intoxication by drugs listed as controlled substances under ORS 475.005. The bill removed the requirement to explicitly state in the accusatory document that the person was under the influence of a controlled substance or inhalant. This change allows for a wider consideration of drug-related impairment in driving under the influence of intoxicant (DUII) convictions, without the need for specific mention in the legal charging document.

Rhode Island (HB 5768) required the Community College of Rhode Island to incorporate curriculum from the American Automobile Association or an equivalent provider into driver's education, specifically focusing on the hazards of marijuana-impaired driving. The state board of education must approve the curriculum before it's implemented.

Penalties

Nine states—Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia—created or revised penalties for DUI or driving under the influence of drug offenses.

At least 19 states considered or enacted legislation in 2023 requiring impaired drivers convicted of vehicular homicide to pay child support for victims' surviving children. Tennessee became the first state to enact such legislation in 2022, followed by Kentucky, Maine and Texas in 2023.

Maine (HP 967) and Texas (HB 393/SB 703) required offenders convicted of vehicular homicide due to impaired driving, involving the death of a parent or guardian, to pay child support until the child reaches 18 years of age or graduates from high school, whichever occurs later. Louisiana (HB 91) introduced similar legislation, but Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed the law.

Kentucky (SB 268) expanded the restitution requirement to include not only children whose parents or guardians were killed in an impaired driving-related crash but also parents who were severely injured and disabled due to such a crash. Kentucky's law, also known as "Melanie's Law," is named after a parent who became permanently disabled after being involved in a crash with an intoxicated driver.

The amount of restitution for each state is based on factors such as the child's standard of living, financial needs and required resources for the child. However, in Maine, any unpaid amount accumulated while the defendant was in prison must be paid upon their release. In Texas, if a defendant is incarcerated, restitution payments must begin within one year of their release, and any outstanding amount must be addressed through a payment plan. Restitution payments can be deducted from any civil judgment against the defendant.

Kentucky (HB 262) enacted "Lily's Law" named in honor of a 16-year-old who tragically lost her life in 2021 after an impaired driver struck the vehicle she was traveling in. The bill amends the state's homicide related provisions by adding that an individual is guilty of vehicular homicide if they cause the death of another person or the death results from the individual driving under the influence of alcohol, a controlled substance or any other substance that impairs driving ability. Vehicular homicide is a Class B felony. Additionally, the bill extended the maximum detention period for potential DUI offenders upon arrest from four to six hours.

Maryland (HB 483/SB 74) established that if an individual is convicted of impaired driving, that conviction will be considered when determining penalties for offenses of operating a vessel, which includes any type of watercraft like a boat, while impaired by alcohol and/or drugs. Conversely, if someone has a prior conviction for operating a vessel while impaired, that previous conviction will be considered when deciding the penalties for repeat offenses of impaired driving. Additionally, individuals convicted of such impaired driving offenses are subject to increased subsequent penalties if they've previously been convicted of manslaughter involving a vehicle or vessel, which qualifies as gross negligence.

Nevada (AB 17) eliminated the mandate for DUI offenders to wear identifiable clothing during community service due to an impaired driving conviction.

Oregon (HB 2316) enacted legislation to provide that a person charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUII), which includes impairing substances like alcohol and cannabis, while riding a bicycle is subject to a minimum fine of $500. An individual riding a bicycle with a BAC of.15% or more is subject to a minimum fine of $1,000. Additionally, a person with a BAC of.15% within two hours after riding a bicycle is also subject to a $1,000 fine. Offenders are also required to complete 48 hours of community service and possibly attend a victim treatment session. Unlike motor vehicle DUII offenses, these do not result in driver's license suspension. The term "bicycle" excludes electric-assisted bicycles.

South Dakota (SB 115) enhanced penalties for habitual offenders by incorporating out-of-state DUI convictions within the state's 10-year lookback period for DUI offenses. If an individual has two DUI offenses within the previous 10 years, the lookback period extends to 25 years.

South Dakota (HB 1170) also established mandatory sentences for repeat DUI offenders. A fourth DUI conviction within a 10-year lookback period is considered a class 5 felony and carries a minimum two-year sentence. Similarly, five convictions within a 10-year period is classified as a Class 4 felony, resulting in a three-year sentence. If an individual is imprisoned again before completing their driver's license revocation period, the time spent in prison does not count towards the revocation period.

Individuals convicted of a sixth or subsequent DUI within a 25-year lookback period, with at least two occurring within the previous 10 years, face an aggravated offense classified as a Class 4 felony. In these cases, the court is required to impose a minimum six-year sentence for aggravated violations involving at least six convictions within a 15-year timeframe. Also, offenders at each of these levels may be eligible for parole, which depends on fulfilling requirements such as participation in an alcohol or drug accountability program or installation of an IID.

Tennessee (SB 328) reduced the incarceration period for a second DUI conviction from 25 to 17 days. The bill also mandates a 90-day minimum continuous sobriety period with a transdermal alcohol monitoring device as a condition of probation for third or subsequent DUI convictions involving alcohol or a combination or alcohol and other intoxicants. Individuals convicted of three or more offenses are required to pay all costs associated with alcohol monitoring devices regardless of whether they qualify as indigent.

Tennessee (HB 1198) enacted the "Silas Gable Flatt Law" named after an unborn child who tragically lost their life in a crash caused by a driver under the influence. This law makes it a crime for individuals to knowingly lend a vehicle to someone who is under the influence or has a suspended license due to alcohol or drug-related offenses. However, there are exceptions for those who hold a restricted driver's license granted by the court. Penalties for violating this law include at least 48 hours in jail for a first offense, 72 hours for a second offense and seven days for repeat offenders. In addition to these jail terms, offenders will also face a Class A misdemeanor charge.

West Virginia (HB 3302) amended its DUI law to include an unborn child, which includes an embryo or fetus, as a victim in cases of DUI causing death. The existing penalties for DUI-induced fatalities, which are considered a felony and carry a prison sentence ranging from three to 15 years, a fine between $1,000 and $3,000, and a 10-year driver's license suspension, now also apply to these new provisions.

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. Breath tests can be conducted at the roadside or any location, while urine and blood testing must be done at a medical or detention facility. These laws, known as implied consent laws, are based on the principle that driving is a privilege and not a right. Every state has some form of implied consent law, but the penalties for refusing to take a test vary. Minnesota amended its law related to impairment testing, and New Hampshire clarified provisions in its implied consent law in 2023.

Minnesota (HB 2980/SB 2909) allowed peace officers to administer breath tests to commercial vehicle drivers when there is reasonable suspicion of impairment in violation of federal regulations prohibiting the consumption of alcohol. The bill also permits the use of the breath test results as evidence in impaired driving cases involving commercial vehicle operators.

Additionally, the bill provides that individuals facing DWI charges are exempt from the electronic alcohol monitoring program during the trial period if they become a participant in the ignition interlock program. Judges, counties and probation officers are prohibited from recommending interlock providers unless the recommendation involves a specific program for indigent individuals.

New Hampshire (SB 182) closed a loophole in its DUI law by applying the administrative definition of "way" to DUI cases involving violations of the implied consent law. The definition of "way" includes the boundary lines of areas such as public highways, streets, alleys, and certain parking lots. A state police prosecutor testified that this definition was necessary to ensure consistency in enforcing impaired driving laws, as there had been inconsistent application of the law depending on where an individual was arrested. Previously, individuals could be charged with a DUI after being stopped in a parking lot, and if they refused to submit to a breathalyzer test, their license would not be suspended until a hearing was conducted.

Sealing and Expungement of Records

States have the authority to seal criminal cases, which means those records can only be accessed with a court order. Individuals can also completely remove certain offenses from their criminal record through a process called expungement. Three states—Arkansas, Idaho, and Tennessee—amended their expungement laws concerning DUI offenders.

Arkansas (HB 1352) prohibited individuals who have been convicted of a boating or driving while intoxicated (BWI or DWI) offense for the fourth or fifth time within a 10-year lookback period from filing a petition to seal the conviction until the period has passed. Under previous law, individuals could file such a petition after five years. Individuals convicted of a BWI or DUI for a fourth or fifth time within the lookback period commit an unclassified felony.

Idaho (HB 149) prohibited individuals arrested, prosecuted or convicted of an assaultive or violent misdemeanor, which includes DUI offenses where an individual possesses a BAC of.20 or higher, from petitioning the court to shield their records from disclosure.

Tennessee (HB 412/SB 362) required the expungement of public records for individuals charged with an implied consent violation, at no cost to the individual, if the violation is dismissed. Expungement does not apply to commercial driver's license (CDL) holders or CDL permit holders.

Miscellaneous

Arizona (SB 1085) required the time limitations for prosecutions for simple and extreme DUI offenses resulting in serious physical injury or death, as indicated in a crash report, to be initiated within two years after the offense occurred. A simple DUI offense is committed if an individual's BAC is.08 or higher within two hours of operating a vehicle, while an extreme DUI offense is committed if their alcohol concentration is between.15 and.20 or higher within two hours of driving a vehicle.

Illinois (SB 1212) required the Illinois Department of Transportation to maintain DUI memorial markers and fatal crash memorial markers for at least four years from the date the last person was memorialized on the marker. The markers must bear the message "Please Don't Drink and Drive" or "Don't Drive Under the Influence."

Virginia (HB 2204/SB 1398) required the Department of Motor Vehicles to annually collect and disseminate state and local level data related to driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or a combination. The required data must encompass the number of motor and commercial vehicle crashes, injuries, serious injuries and fatalities that involved alcohol, drugs or both, the number of passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians killed in vehicle crashes, including the BAC and any drugs identified in the driver. Other data requirements include information on the number of installed IIDs in vehicles and DUI-related blood sample submissions, specifying the drugs detected in these samples.

The department must submit an annual report on the data collected by Oct. 1 to the General Assembly, the governor and the Virginia State Crime Commission. The report must be made available to the public on the department's website; the first report must be submitted by Oct. 1, 2024 and must include relevant impaired driving data from 2019 through 2023.

Virginia HB (2370/SB 841) also required one criminal defense attorney with experience representing individuals charged with driving while intoxicated and one local attorney to sit on the Commission on the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program.

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.

Red Light Cameras

More than two people are killed each day by drivers running red lights in the U.S., according to AAA. AAA's report concluded that 28% of crash deaths occurring at signalized intersections were caused by drivers running red lights. IIHS indicates there were over 1,109 people killed and 127,000 people injured in red-light running crashes. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of automated enforcement generally show a positive effect on traffic safety. A 2016 IIHS report concluded that removing red-light cameras from intersections costs lives. To reach this conclusion, researchers compared trends in annual fatal crashes in 14 cities that ended their camera programs to 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.

According to IIHS, as of July 2024, automated red-light cameras are operated in 339 U.S. communities across 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 Washington, D.C. operate automated red-light camera enforcement. Texas prohibited the use of automated enforcement cameras in 2019. However, local governments were permitted to continue operating automated enforcement cameras until their contract agreements expired.

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. Iowa allows red-light and speed cameras if they are approved via local ordinance. New Mexico state law authorizes red-light cameras, but no cities currently use them. Connecticut became the latest state to authorize red-light cameras, but they are not yet in use in the state.

Conversely, eight states—Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas 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 are present when cameras are used. As previously mentioned, while Texas enacted a bill banning red-light cameras in 2019, some communities with existing contracts can continue operating cameras until their contract agreements expire.

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.

Speed Cameras

NHTSA reports 12,330 fatalities resulted from speeding-related crashes in 2021.

According to IIHS, communities in 22 states—Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington—and Washington, D.C. operate speed cameras.

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.

According to IIHS, as of July 2024, speed cameras were in operation in 247 U.S. communities compared to around 242 communities in 2023.

Currently, 26 states—Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Washington—in addition to Washington, D.C., permit the use of speed cameras.

Eight States—Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin—have prohibited the use of automated speed enforcement cameras.

At least 13 states—Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington—have legislatively authorized speed cameras to be used in highway work or construction zones.

State Legislation

At least 14 states—Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington—enacted automated enforcement related legislation in 2023. State legislation largely focused on speed cameras, red-light cameras and miscellaneous topics.

Speed Cameras

In 2023, eight states—California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia—enacted automated speed camera enforcement laws. Three states—Delaware, Indiana and Washington—enacted automated speed camera enforcement systems specifically in work zones.

California (AB 645) authorized six cities—Glendale, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose—to establish a Speed Safety Pilot program and develop a Speed Safety System Use Policy. A speed safety system, defined as a "fixed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speed laws and obtains a clear photograph of a speeding vehicle's license plate," may only be in operation for five years, or until Jan. 1, 2032.

AB 645 limits the number of speed safety systems in a city based on the city's population size. Speed safety systems are allowed in school zones, however zones with posted higher speed limits when children are not present may only enforce the lower school zone speed limit up to one hour before school begins, for up to one hour during the lunch period and for one hour after school ends. Flashing beacons designating the time the lower school zone speed limit is in operation are required.

The jurisdiction must approve a Speed Safety System Impact Report prior to implementing a program. The report must include an assessment of any civil liberties and civil rights impacted by the program. The report must also include details of where the systems will be located and how they work in addition to the fiscal costs for establishing and operating the program. If the automated systems may be deployed in predominantly low-income areas, a determination of why low-income areas experience high fatality and injury collisions must be included in the report. The final report shall be made publicly available 30 days before the report's adoption by the local jurisdiction at a public hearing.

At least 30 days before the program is implemented, cities are required to engage in public information campaigns that share information on when automated systems would begin detecting violations and where the automated systems will be installed. All speed safety systems must be clearly indicated by a "Photo Enforced" sign along with the posted speed limit no more than 500 feet before the placement of the system. The implementing municipality must identify the locations approved for speed safety systems and the hours of enforcement on the municipality's internet website, which must be updated whenever the municipality changes enforcement locations. Speed safety systems may not be used on a California state route, nor federal highway.

This bill specifies that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system would be subject to civil penalties only. Violations will not result in the suspension or revocation of driving privileges or points being assessed against the violator. The bill provides for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program.

The speed safety system shall capture images of the rear license plate of vehicles. The bill would require a participating city or county to issue warning notices for violations detected within the first 60 calendar days of the program. Motorists captured traveling 11 mph more over the posted speed limit will be assessed a $50 fine. Surpassing the speed limit by 16 to 25 mph results in a $100 fine. Driving at a speed of 26 mph or more over the posted speed limit results in a $200 fine. Driving at a speed of 100 mph or over results in a $500 fine, regardless of the speed limit. A local government must offer a diversion program for indigent speed violators, with options to pay reduced fines based on income, pay fines over time or perform community service instead of paying the fine.

A speed safety system cannot be in operation after 18 months of the initial installation of a system, unless the system resulted in any of the following: a reduction in the 85th percentile speed of vehicles compared to data collected before the system was in operation; a 20% reduction in vehicles that exceed the posted speed limit by 10 mph or more compared to previous data; or a 20% reduction in the number of violators who received two or more violations at the location since the system became operational.

Revenue generated from speed camera systems must be used for program costs first, then excess funds may be used for traffic-calming measures. If traffic-calming measures are not planned or constructed after the third year of automated enforcement section, excess revenue shall revert to the state's Active Transportation program.

Any local jurisdiction using an automated speed safety system must submit a report by March 1 of its fifth year in use. The report must be made available on the city's webpage that includes data on the average speed of vehicles, the number and proportion of vehicles speeding, the number of speeding violations, the number of traffic collisions, the number of delinquents, paid and contested violations, the cost of the systems operation and upkeep and a racial and economic equity impact analysis.

Colorado (SB 200) provided guidelines on state and local government use of "automated vehicle identification systems," to enforce speeding laws. In addition to speed enforcement, systems may be used to detect violations of bus lane or bicycle lane restrictions. SB 200 expanded the areas eligible to use such systems, which was previously restricted to streets bordering a park, in school and work zones and in residential areas, to also include any streets designated as an automated vehicle identification corridor by a local government.

Prior to implementation, a permanent sign must be placed not fewer than 300 feet before the beginning of the automated enforcement zone and each individual camera. Additionally, a local government must illustrate incidents of crashes, speeding, reckless driving and community complaints on streets that are designated for automated enforcement. SB200 also requires the local government to coordinate with the Colorado Department of Transportation and Colorado State Patrol on implementing the system.

Additionally, SB 200 permits the Colorado Department of Public Safety, upon request by the state department of transportation, to employ automated vehicle identification systems within a highway maintenance, repair or construction zone. The department of public safety may procure a vendor to notify violators, collect and remit penalties to the state treasury, reconcile payments against outstanding violations and implement collection efforts.

Also, SB 200 outlined that alleged violation notices can be sent to the alleged violator via first-class mail, rather than served in-person and must contain information on how to pay the penalty. In-state violators must receive violation notices within 30 days whereas out-of-state violators must receive this notice within 60 days. Vehicle owners may be required to submit evidence that they were not the driver at the time of violation; however, they are not required to disclose who the driver who committed the violation was.

Like CA AB 645, Colorado required that any government using automated enforcement must announce the implementation of the system on their website 30 days prior to first use. During the automated system's first 30 calendar days of use, only warnings of violations may be issued. Publicly available reports on citation data and revenue generated from violations must be accessible on any county or municipality website.

Regarding privacy, SB 200 requires that all photographs and videos collected by the automated system remain confidential. Additionally, it is prohibited to sell or permit access to the data. SB 200 further outlines that all photographs and videos of violations must be destroyed within three years after the final disposition of the violation unless further needed by law enforcement.

Florida (HB 657) defined "automated speed detection systems" and authorized municipalities to utilize such systems in school zones to catch drivers exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph. Automated speed detection systems in school zones require signage notifying motorists a detection system is in use. Additionally, it requires a 30-day public notice on automated enforcement use, specifies the times automated systems will be used and requires annual reports to be open to the public.

Any motorists that violate the speed limit provision are prohibited from receiving points on their licenses and violations may not be used to set motor vehicle insurance rates. In terms of fine revenue, HB 657 dictates that $20 of each fine must be placed in the state's general fund. Of the remaining fine revenue, $60 dollars must be used to administer speed detection systems, $3 must be deposited in the Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards and Training Trust Fund and $12 must be allocated to the school district where the violation occurred for use in school security initiatives, student transportation or to improve student walking safety. Lastly, $5 of violation fees must be retained by the county or city in which the violation occurred for the School Crossing Guard Recruitment and Retention Program.

Maryland (SB 679) permitted Anne Arundel County to use speed monitoring systems on highways in residential districts and school zones with a maximum speed limit of 35 mph.

Maryland (HB 435) authorized no more than six mobile or stationary speed monitoring systems to be used on Maryland Route 210. It further required that an annual report on findings, recommendations, and general information be given to the governor and General Assembly. HB 435 specifies that fines collected shall be distributed to cover the costs of examining what factors may contribute to safety issues on Maryland Route 210 and implementing any solutions to the identified safety issues.

Maryland (HB 700) authorized the town of Oxford to implement one speed-monitoring camera until 2028, provided a real-time speed display device is placed close to the camera. Excess fees collected from speed monitoring system violations must go to roadway and safety pedestrian safety improvements near a specified intersection.

Oregon (HB 2095) authorized all cities in the state to operate photo radar systems on streets in residential areas, school zones or other areas of cities where speeding has had a negative impact on traffic safety if the cost of operation is paid for by the cities. Previously, only 10 cities could deploy such cameras. The bill also removed the four-hour daily time limit to use a camera at one location. HB 2095 also permitted cities to set speeds up to 10 mph lower than the statutory speed on highways in residential districts, except it cannot set speed limits below 20 mph.

Pennsylvania (HB 1284) authorized adding five more automated speed enforcement systems in Philadelphia along highway corridors. The bill further provides that only violations occurring after the effective date of this legislation shall be counted to increase penalties for second and subsequent offenses. An individual named in a notice can protest the violation by submitting evidence that they were not driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. HB 1284 also grants a 15 day grace period after the mailing date of the first written warning. A second violation will only be considered an offense if it occurs after the 15 day grace period. The bill removed the five-year time limit for automated speed enforcement systems used by the state DOT and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.

HB 1284 also revised how work-zone camera fine revenue is allocated after paying for program administration costs. The remaining fine revenue must be used by the state DOT and the Pennsylvania Turnpike to fund a Work Zone and Highway Safety Program. Funds from this program must be used for work zone safety improvements, like enforcement and countermeasure projects, and to increase awareness of distracted driving and transportation enhancements. Additionally, the bill authorizes a pilot program for automated speed enforcement systems in up to five school zones in Philadelphia.

HB 1284 also authorized the expansion of Philadelphia's use of automated speed enforcement systems beyond Roosevelt Boulevard to no more than five corridors, provided the following conditions are met:

• First, in coordination with the Department of Transportation, a city must propose a new corridor within the city's borders by citing speed data and speed-related accidents involving vehicles or pedestrians.
• Second, an engineering and traffic investigation on the posted speed limit within a local highway corridor must be completed for further automated enforcement consideration.
• Third, the city must provide at least one opportunity for public comments to be heard regarding the use of automated speed enforcement systems on the highway corridor.

HB 1284 further outlines that within two years of implementation the Local Government Commission must submit a report to the legislature on the findings and recommendations on the use of automated enforcement systems on highway corridors and streets owned by local governments.

Virginia (SB 861) temporarily permitted local governments in proximity to the Hampton Roads-Bridge Tunnel Express Lanes construction project to utilize automated traffic signal enforcement programs.

Work Zone Speed Cameras

In 2023, three states—Delaware, Indiana and Washington—passed work zone speed automated enforcement legislation.

Delaware (HB 94) permitted the use of electronic speed monitoring systems in work zones. Violators would receive civil penalties for exceeding the speed limit by 11 mph or more but would not be assessed points on their driver's license. Excess funds generated from penalty payments can only be allocated towards highway safety education, enforcement, engineering and administrative costs.

Indiana (HB 1015) established a Worksite Speed Control Pilot Program to enforce construction and worksite speed limits. The Indiana Department of Transportation (Indiana DOT) can purchase up to four worksite speed control systems that must be operated by a trained and certified employee of the Indiana DOT or a police officer.

Before implementation, a public information campaign on the pilot program is required in addition to signs that indicate the use of the systems in the work zone areas. The Indiana DOT must coordinate with the state police department to administer the program and agree to share information. Also, the Indiana DOT can procure third-party vendor services to assist in administering the program.

Exceeding the posted speed limit by 11 mph constitutes a violation. A first violation results in a warning, a second violation is a civil penalty worth $75 with increasing monetary penalties fees for every additional violation thereafter. Penalty fee revenue will be added to the state general fund.

No later than Nov. 1 of every calendar year, the Indiana DOT must submit a report to an interim study committee with the following information: the number of motor vehicle accidents and related serious injuries and deaths, data on the speed of motor vehicles passing through work zones, the number of violations issued and the amount of fines imposed for violations. A comprehensive report is due no later than July 1, 2028, assessing the program.

Washington (SB 5272) expanded the use of automated speed monitoring systems to state highway work zones. An infraction notice must be sent to registered vehicle owners within 30 days of the violation, the alleged violator has 30 days from date of receiving the violation notice to pay the fee. Funds raised from fee collection must first pay for operating and administrative costs; additional revenue must be distributed for traffic safety purposes, such as driver training education and local DUI emphasis patrols.

Miscellaneous

Arkansas (SB 481) removed the requirement that law enforcement be present to operate automated enforcement devices in highway work zones. However, as stated in an Arkansas DOT press release, "Information regarding the speeding vehicle will be transmitted to an officer stationed downstream, who will then have the authority to issue a warning or citation." SB 481 also codified that data from automated enforcement shall not be retained by a county or state government agency unless it is related to an active criminal or civil investigation.

Illinois (HB 3903) prohibited any automated enforcement systems vendor from contributing to political campaigns and prohibited office seekers from accepting contributions from automated enforcement systems vendors. Additionally, SB 3903 outlines that the ability to issue tickets based on automated traffic law system violations lies with local jurisdiction. SB 3903 further prohibits ticketing authorization to be delegated to any vendor or third-party vendor.

Bicyclist, Pedestrian and Electric Scooters

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

In 2023, states enacted notable bills regarding electric bicycles and scooters, pedestrian safety, vulnerable road users, bicyclist safety and bicyclist and pedestrian infrastructure.

Electric Bicycles and Scooters

New Mexico (SB 69), Nebraska (LB 138) and West Virginia (HB 2062) became the latest states to adopt the three-class definition system for e-bikes became the latest states 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.

New Mexico's new law requires e-bike manufacturers to affix a label displaying the classification number, top assisted speed and motor wattage to each e-bike. The law prohibits an individual from modifying the top assisted speed or motor wattage of an e-bike without replacing the label. New Mexico requires the motor in class 2 e-bikes to disengage when brakes are applied, and the motor in class 1 and 3 e-bikes must disengage when the user stops pedaling.

The New Mexico law allows users to operate class 1 e-bikes on pedestrian trails, although local governments may disallow their use on certain trails within their jurisdiction. The operation of class 2 and 3 e-bikes on pedestrian trails is prohibited unless the path is within a street or highway, or a local government permits class 2 and 3 e-bikes their operation within their jurisdiction. The bill prohibits individuals under 16 years old from operating a class 3 e-bike on any street, highway or path, although they may ride as a passenger. Lastly, class 3 e-bikes must be equipped with a speedometer.

West Virginia (HB 2062) revised its e-bike definition, adding a class 2 e-bike definition, which the state previously did not have. E-bikes have the same rights and privileges as motor vehicle operators, outside of registration, titling, driver's licensing and financial responsibility requirements. The bill prohibits users from tampering with the motor-powered speed capability or motor engagement of an e-bike. West Virginia requires class 3 e-bikes to be equipped with a speedometer, while those operating a Class 2 e-bike can use a throttle to propel the bicycle.

The bill allows class 1 and 2 e-bikes to operate on roads and trails where traditional bikes operate. Class 3 e-bikes are prohibited from operating on a bike path, multiuse trail or single use trail unless within a highway or road, unless a municipality permits class 3 e-bike operation. The bill requires individuals under 15 years old to wear a helmet when operating an e-bike. The operation of all e-bikes while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance is prohibited.

Nebraska (LB 138) defined e-bikes using the same three-class definition system, but its definition includes additional language beyond the standard definition. An e-bike may have two, three, or four wheels; a saddle or seat for the rider and may produce no more than one brake of horsepower.

California (SB 381) required San Jose State University's Mineta Transportation Institute to conduct a study on electric bicycles to inform efforts to improve the safety of users of the transportation system, and to submit a report of the findings to the Legislature. The study must identify and analyze available information regarding, among other things, data on injuries, crashes, emergency room visits, deaths related to bicycles and electric bicycles and policies to promote safe use of such bicycles.

Minnesota (HB 2887) defined a micromobility device as a vehicle propelled only by human power, powered by an electric motor from a rechargeable battery or both. A micromobility device must not be capable of going faster than 30 MPH when powered by an electric motor. A micromobility device includes a bike, motorized foot scooter and an electric personal assistive mobility device with an unloaded weight of up to 500 pounds.

Pedestrian Safety

Arkansas (SB 504) prohibited pedestrians on controlled-access highways.

California (AB 413) prohibited the stopping, standing or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of any unmarked or marked crosswalk or 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present. This practice is known as "daylighting" which can be effective at increasing safety for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. According to a recent Bloomberg article, after 80 intersections in San Francisco began using daylighting, there was an 14% decrease in reported collisions.

A local government may establish a different distance by ordinance if the government justifies the different distance, which must be marked using paint or a sign at the intersection. Prior to Jan. 1, 2025, jurisdictions may only issue a warning for a violation. A citation may not be issued unless the violation occurs in an area marked using paint or a sign.

Delaware (SB 50) codified into statute the state's Pedestrian Council, which previously existed only via executive order. The bills also updated the council's membership, purpose and goals.

Virginia (SB 1069) amended its pedestrian crossing language to require a motorist to stop, rather than yield, when any pedestrian is crossing a road. Motorists must also stop when a pedestrian is within the driver's lane or within an adjacent lane and approaching the driver's lane until such pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped.

Vulnerable Road Users

California (AB 251) required the California Transportation Commission to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and injuries to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, and degradation to roads, and to study the costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee. The task force must summarize its findings, including an analysis of the relationship between passenger vehicle weight and vulnerable road user injuries and fatalities, an analysis of the relationship between passenger vehicle weight and degradation of road infrastructure, discussion of how a passenger vehicle weight fee may change driver behavior and discussion of how any revenues generated by a passenger vehicle weight fee could be directed to enhance road infrastructure that increases safety for vulnerable road users. The commission must submit a report to the legislature no later than Jan. 1, 2026.

Hawaii (SB 1025/HB 600) established a safe route to school advisory committee within the state department of transportation. The bill outlines members and responsibilities, including the development of a statewide safe routes to school plan. The committee is also responsible for reviewing project proposals and selecting priority projects within one mile of any school. The safe routes to school program must develop and publish goals and performance measures in coordination with the committee and provide technical assistance to counties and community organizations by July 1, 2024.

Illinois (HB 2131) required the secretary of transportation to establish and convene the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force to develop policies to reduce traffic fatalities to zero. The bill lays out membership, and requires the task force to submit, by Jan. 1, 2025, a report of findings. The report must include a detailed analysis of the following issues, amongst others:

• The existing process for establishing speed limits.
• Existing policies on how to reduce speeds on local streets and roads.
• A recommendation regarding whether an alternative to the use of the 85th percentile as a method for determining speed limits should be considered, and if so, what alternatives should be looked at.
• Engineering recommendations on how to increase vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle safety and additional steps that can be taken to eliminate vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle fatalities on the road.

The task force is repealed on Jan. 1, 2026.

North Dakota (HB 1506) added language prohibiting a person from riding a bicycle or riding an animal on a roadway under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, with a $200 penalty for violations.

Oregon (SB 895) clarified a motorist may pass a bicyclist in a no-passing zone, if they yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction and drive at least 5 mph under the posted speed limit.

Tennessee (HB 685) required the department of transportation to identify locations of state and local government roads where injuries to bicyclists and pedestrians are higher than the statewide average. The state DOT must submit a report of its findings and recommendations regarding the development of a strategic statewide plan, as well as identify intersection design factors or other factors that may have an impact regarding pedestrian and bicycle-related traffic crashes. The report was released in November 2023 and submitted to the relevant legislative transportation committees.

Washington (HB 1112) added a new offense of negligent driving with a vulnerable user victim in the first degree, which is a gross misdemeanor. A person commits such an offense if the person operates a vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and proximately causes the death of a vulnerable user of a public way. The offense is punishable by up to 364 days of imprisonment; a $5,000 fine, which may not be reduced below $1,000 and suspension of driving privileges for 90 days. The Washington Traffic Safety Commission must, subject to appropriation, produce and disseminate informational and educational materials explaining the penalties for Negligent Driving with a Vulnerable User Victim in the first degree.

Bicyclist Safety

California (AB 361) authorized local governments to equip parking enforcement vehicles with cameras to take photographs of parking violations in bicycle lanes. Before issuing violations, the local government may only issue warning notices for 60 days. The public must be provided with information about the enforcement program, existing parking regulations and the payment options available for low-income people prior to violations being issued. Any local government that uses cameras must submit a report to the legislature by December 2028 regarding the enforcement system's effectiveness, impact on privacy and traffic outcomes, cost to implement, change in citations issued and revenue generated.

Indiana (HB 1049) authorized and defined a bicycle traffic control signal as a "traffic control signal with green, red, and yellow bicycle stenciled lenses that is used to direct bicycle traffic on a roadway."

Maine (SB 210) clarified that a driver operating a vehicle near a bicyclist who is proceeding in the opposite direction may not make a left turn unless the turn can be made with reasonable safety and without interfering with the safe and legal operation of the bicycle.

Minnesota (HB 2887) became the tenth 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."

In Minnesota, a bicyclist who approaches a stop sign must slow to a speed that allows for stopping before entering the intersection or the nearest crosswalk; if there is not a vehicle in the vicinity, the bicyclist may now make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping. The new law did not similarly empower bicyclists to treat stoplights as stop signs, a provision Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho and Oklahoma have in place.

Bicyclist and Pedestrian Infrastructure

Alabama (SB 298) directed the Alabama Council on Outdoor Recreation to develop the Sweet Trails Alabama Project, a master plan for a network of greenway trails throughout the state.

California (SB 538) required the California DOT director to appoint a chief advisor on bicycling and active transportation with the primary goals of lowering bicyclist and pedestrian deaths, better allocating resources and promoting active transportation.

Florida (SB 106) adjusted duties for the Greenways and Trails Council and provided funding for trails. The council must recommend trails for inclusion by the state DOT in the Florida Shared-Use Nonmotorized Trail Network. The council must also coordinate and facilitate land acquisition efforts for the network. SB 106 increased funding for the network from $25 million to $50 million annually, while also appropriating $200 million in one-time funds for planning, designing and constructing trail network projects. Beginning in June 2026, the state DOT must periodically report to the governor and legislature regarding the status of the Florida Shared-Use Nonmotorized Trail Network.

Illinois (SB 2014) required the state DOT to develop a policy that ensures the safety of pedestrians and cyclists on roadways. The policy must require improvements, such as high visibility signage, crosswalk improvements, curb bump outs, barrier protected bike lanes and bus shelters, to be made during routine maintenance. Beginning Jan. 1, 2024, the state DOT must provide a biannual report to the Illinois General Assembly on pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements on non-highway state routes that have been initiated, are in progress or are recently completed.

Illinois (SB 1710) directed state or local authorities with maintenance jurisdiction over paved bicycle trails to erect permanent warning signage alerting pedestrians and bicyclists of highway crossings.

Maryland (HB 70) required the state DOT to implement all possible incremental, near-term safety improvements if a new approved pedestrian or bicyclist safety construction project is projected to take more than 12 months to complete.

Oregon (HB 2099) expanded the eligibility criteria for Safe Routes to School grants from one to two miles from a school. Projects can also now serve schools with grades 9-12. Previously, only projects that served schools up to 8th grade were eligible.

Utah (SB 185) created the Active Transportation Investment Fund to pay for planning, design, construction, maintenance, reconstruction or renovation of paved pedestrian and nonmotorized trail projects that have been prioritized by the transportation commission, serve a regional purpose and are part of an approved active transportation plan.

Washington (SB 5452) authorized development impact fee revenue to be used for bicycle and pedestrian facilities designed for multimodal commuting. Washington (SB 5742) also directed the state DOT to create a bicyclist and pedestrian grant program to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility and increase active transportation trips. Projects may include buffered bike lanes, sidewalks, crossing improvements and speed management. The state DOT must annually report on the status of projects funded as part of the bicyclist and pedestrian grant and safe routes to school grant programs.

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 in passenger cars by 71% 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 93.3% in 2022, the latest data available, similar to the 93.4% use rate in 2021. NHTSA also points out that restraint use for children driven by adults who buckle up (94.7%) continues to be much higher than for children driven by unbelted drivers (70.6%).

State Legislation

At least 11 states considered child passenger protection legislation in 2023, and two states—Delaware and New Hampshire—enacted bills. Delaware and New Hampshire are the 19th and 20th states, respectively, to strengthen their child safety laws to require rear-facing seats until age two.

Delaware (SB 68) required children under two years old who weigh less than 30 pounds to be properly secured in a rear-facing child restraint with a five-point harness. Those under four years old and 40 pounds must be restrained in such a device, either rear-facing or forward-facing, until they meet the restraint's height or weight limits. Children aged four to 16, must be restrained in a belt positioning booster until they exceed the height and weight parameters set by the manufacturer.

Notably, a $25 fine only applies for second or subsequent violations of the new law. Also, law enforcement must refer violators to the Office of Highway Safety car seat fitting station for guidance and education on proper child restraint use.

Similarly, New Hampshire's (SB 118) law required children to be in a rear-facing car seat until they reach the height and weight limits specified by the manufacturer.

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. Additionally, 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, 3,308 people died in distraction-related crashes—defined as crashes involving at least one driver who was distracted—in 2022. This number accounts for 8% of total fatalities. NHTSA notes that distracted driving crashes caused $98 billion in costs in 2019.

Drivers under 44 were overrepresented in distraction-related fatal crashes in 2022. Fifteen-to-34-year-old drivers and drivers 75 or older had the largest proportion of distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes. Drivers aged 15 to 34 and 45 to 54 had the highest proportion of cellphone use as the cause of their distraction.

It is important to note that NHTSA recognizes there are some limitations to the collection and reporting of data concerning driver distraction. For example, relying on self-reported data, like admitting to texting while driving, is prone to bias, as drivers may not disclose negative behaviors truthfully. Additionally, the fast-paced evolution of technology can pose difficulties in accurately capturing driver interaction with such devices within police crash reports. Differences in crash reporting forms also 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 by 20% between 2020 and 2022. CMT's latest report shows that phone screen interaction—where drivers tap their phone's screen—fell by 4.5% in 2023. However, 69.7% of trips in 2023 included some form of screen interaction. Overall, the 10% of drivers who handle their mobile device and interact with their screens the most are 240% more likely to crash than drivers who avoid such behavior.

AAA's 2022 Traffic Safety Culture Index provides insight into Americans' opinions about the use of personal electronic devices while driving. The study shows that roughly 93% of respondents view texting, emailing or reading on a hand-held mobile device to be very or extremely dangerous. Nearly 76% consider talking on a hand-held mobile device as very or extremely dangerous. In contrast, 19% of respondents consider using their phone while driving with the help of hands-free technology to be very or extremely dangerous. Approximately 80% of respondents supported a law against talking on and holding a mobile device while driving. However, only 42% were in favor of a law against using hands-free technology, such as voice command devices, to read, text or email while driving.

Currently, 29 states prohibit all drivers from using hand-held cellphones while driving. The bans implicitly include texting; however, laws in 49 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands ban text messaging for all drivers. While no state bans all cellphone use for all drivers, at least 36 states and D.C. ban all cellphone use for novice and teen drivers. Except for emergencies, at least 20 states and D.C. also ban the 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.

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.

CMT collaborated with the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) to examine the impact of hands-free laws in Alabama, Michigan, Missouri and Ohio—all of which implemented such legislation within the past two years. CMT's analysis of phone motion distraction after the implementation of these bans revealed an average decline of 6.6% during the initial three months. While distraction levels fluctuated in Alabama post-enactment, by the seventh month, CMT observed a 7.6% decrease. Michigan experienced an average distraction drop of 9.5% since the law's inception in June 2023, while Missouri and Ohio saw decreases of 7.8% and 8.1%, respectively, six months after enforcement of the law.

CMT observes that the effectiveness of hands-free laws tends to diminish over time due in part to the fading impact of initial awareness campaigns and media attention. However, Ohio capitalized on widespread media coverage and Gov. Mike DeWine's endorsement, which leveraged a CMT report indicating a significant decrease in distracted driving within the law's first month. This sustained engagement, coupled with press releases from the Department of Transportation and the Traffic Safety Office, prolonged media attention and heightened public awareness, ultimately enhanced the law's effectiveness. Notably, a survey by Fix Our Roads Ohio revealed that 90% of drivers in the state were aware of the hands-free law, with 75% expressing a commitment to reduce distracted driving.

Learn more about the recent hand-held bans in Alabama, Michigan and Missouri in the "State Legislation" section below. See NCSL's 2022 Traffic Safety Trends report for a summary of Ohio's ban.

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 includes language requiring 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 Behavioral Traffic Safety Cooperative Research Program, a partnership between GHSA, NHTSA and the Transportation Research Board, enforceability of distracted driving laws, and the extent of public outreach campaigns regarding enforcement, are key elements to providing the full possible benefit of the law. A 2017 NHTSA study on the enforceability of texting laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts concludes that texting laws can be enforced whether or not the state has a hand-held ban. 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.

State Legislation

Hand-Held Phone Bans

Three states—Alabama, Michigan and Missouri—enacted hand-held bans for all drivers in 2023.

Michigan amended its distracted driving law by enacting three tie barred House Bills—4250, 4251 and 4252—meaning they must all pass for any to take effect.

HB 4250 expanded the scope of the state's distracted driving law beyond texting while driving to prohibit physically supporting or using a mobile electronic device while operating a motor vehicle. This encompasses actions such as making or receiving calls, watching or recording videos and posting on social media platforms. However, certain activities are exempt from this prohibition, such as reporting emergencies, using GPS navigation or using the device in voice-activated or hands-free mode. Additionally, school bus and commercial vehicle drivers are also prohibited from using such devices while operating a vehicle. The law specifies that school bus drivers must not use a device in a manner that requires them to reach for it in a way that compromises their seated driving position or seat belt restraint.

Individuals who violate the new law while operating a motor vehicle face a civil infraction. For a first offense, penalties include a $100 civil fine or 16 hours of community service, or both. A subsequent violation incurs a fine of $250, or 24 hours of community service, or both. Individuals guilty of three or more civil infractions within a three-year period must complete a basic driver improvement course. School bus or commercial vehicle drivers face a civil infraction and are subject to a $200 civil fine or 32 hours of community service, or both, for a first violation, and a $500 fine or 48 hours of community service, or both for a subsequent violation. Fines double in either case for individuals involved in a distracted driving-related crash where they are at fault. While the law is classified as primary enforcement enforced, a law enforcement officer is not permitted to search a motor vehicle or the driver solely because they have violated these provisions.

HB 4251 outlines additional penalties for violations of the provisions in HB 4250 concerning commercial motor vehicle operators, deeming such violations as serious traffic infractions. The secretary of state is required to suspend or revoke all commercial learner's permits for drivers found guilty of multiple serious traffic infractions. Specifically, these drivers face a 60-day suspension for two serious traffic infractions within a three-year period and a consecutive 120-day suspension, to be served consecutively to any 60-day suspension, for three such violations within three years. Additionally, drivers, excluding commercial vehicle or school bus drivers, will receive one point on their driver's license for a second violation of the provisions in HB 4250 and two points for a third or subsequent violations.

HB 4252 expands the existing ban on individuals with a level 1 or level 2 graduated license from using a cell phone for texting or calling while driving to include the provisions outlined in HB 4250. According to the Michigan Department of State, these drivers are typically 14 to 16 years old.

The new law also required the Department of State Police to submit a report by December 2026 to the governor and the Legislature that includes the number of distracted driving citations given to all license holders, the race and ethnicity of those given citations and the number of crashes, serious injuries and fatalities caused by those violations.

Alabama (SB 301) and Missouri's (SB 398) both enacted new handheld bans. However, both are secondary offenses, meaning that police officers can stop or ticket a driver for use of a wireless device only if they have committed another traffic violation. Similar to Michigan's hand-held phone ban, both laws specify that drivers are prohibited from physically holding a wireless communications device, such as cell phones or laptops, to engage in various activities such as writing, sending, or reading text-based communications, watching videos, recording or broadcasting videos, or using more than a single button or swipe of a finger to initiate voice communication. Both states offer exemptions including hands-free or voice-operated features, using a device to view a map for navigation or using a device when a vehicle is lawfully stopped or parked. Law enforcement officials and individuals can use these devices for emergency purposes.

Violating Alabama's new law results in a Class C misdemeanor. For violations within a two-year period, offenders are subject to a $50 for a first conviction and one point to a driver's license, $100 for a second conviction with a two-point license penalty, and $150 for a third or subsequent conviction, carrying a three-point license penalty. Law enforcement may only issue warnings to drivers who violate the new provisions until June 14, 2024.

Similarly, law enforcement officers in Missouri can only issue warnings for electronic device use while driving until the end of 2024. Starting Jan. 1, 2025, offenders face fines for violations within a two-year period: up to $150 for a first offense, up to $250 for a second offense, and up to $500 for subsequent offenses. If the violation occurs in a work or school zone, the court can impose a fine up to $500. Property damage exceeding $5,000 constitutes a class D misdemeanor, while causing serious physical injury to another person is a class B misdemeanor. Violations resulting in someone's death are classified as a class D felony. If the violation involves a commercial motor vehicle, it is deemed a serious traffic violation, potentially affecting the driver's license status.

Additionally, when law enforcement stops a noncommercial motor vehicle for such a violation, they must inform the driver of their right to refuse a search of their electronic device. Access to the device without a warrant is prohibited, except in cases where the violation caused serious bodily injury or death.

Missouri's hand-held phone ban also specifies that school bus operators are prohibited from using electronic communication devices while the bus is in motion, except a two-way radio to facilitate communication with school or public safety officials. This usage is not permitted while loading or unloading passengers.

Revisions to Hand-Held Bans

Illinois and West Virginia expanded their hand-held bans to include a wider range of devices and prohibited activities with such devices.

Illinois (HB 2431) broadened its definition of "electronic communication device" to include tablets. Additionally, the new law prohibits the use of such devices for various activities, including participating in video conferencing through applications like Zoom or Microsoft Teams, and accessing social media platforms such as Facebook or Instagram. While exemptions previously allowed for hands-free or voice-operated mode, or for pressing a single button to initiate or terminate voice communication, the new law stipulates that these exemptions no longer apply when using the device to watch or stream video, engage in video conferencing, or access social media.

Similarly, West Virginia (HB 2218) added laptops and devices capable of displaying video to its scope of prohibited wireless communication devices for drivers. The new law specifies that drivers are prohibited from actions like physically holding such a device to text, searching the internet or recording videos, as well as reaching for a device that distracts the driver from being properly seated or restrained by a safety belt. However, the law exempts drivers who are lawfully parked or reporting an emergency, as well as for law enforcement and other public safety-first responders carrying out their official duties. Law enforcement officers are prohibited from seizing an electronic device in cases of distracted driving.

A school bus driver must not use a device while operating the bus unless it is used similarly to a two-way radio for live communication with school or public safety officials, except during passenger loading or unloading.

Enhanced Penalties

Arkansas (HB 1486) enacted legislation, known as "Ashton's and Abbie's Law," in honor of two victims of distracted driving crashes, that classified offenses for drivers who cause serious physical injury or death while using a wireless communications device as a Class A misdemeanor. Additionally, the court may mandate up to 100 hours of public service. The bill upholds existing fines for distracted driving, ranging from $25 to $250 for a first offense and $50 to $500 for subsequent offenses, with the possibility of a fine increase imposed by the court.

Tennessee (HB 485/SB 589) toughened its distracted driving law to provide that individuals under 18 years of age will receive seven points on their driving record for violating the state's hand-held phone ban.

Driver's Licensing

All 50 states and the District of Columbia licensed roughly 235 million drivers in 2022, the latest year in which data is available, according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Massachusetts and Missouri became the first states to enact laws regulating driver's licenses in 1903. 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 driver's 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.

States considered approximately 438 bills regarding driver's licenses, with at least 39 states enacting laws in 2023. The most common topics included commercial driver's licenses, digital driver's licenses, driver's education and application requirements and medical designations on driver's licenses.

Commercial Driver's Licenses

At least six states—Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia—enacted legislation related to CDL licensing requirements such skills testing to license reinstatement in 2023.

Kentucky (HB 320) allowed non-residents with a valid operator's license and commercial driver's instruction permit, who meet all federal requirements, to take the CDL skills test. This expands access for those who were previously ineligible.

Non-residents are required to pay a $150 fee to take the skills test. However, exceptions to this fee include individuals applying for a CDL with an "S" endorsement, as well as military personnel. Revenue collected from this fee is directed into a State Police CDL skills-testing fund. The fund is used by the State Police to train CDL skill test examiners and enhance the skills-testing process for all applicants.

Similarly, Texas (HB 1846) mandated that the Department of Public Safety allow out-of-state commercial driver learner's permit holders to undergo the skills test in Texas. Following the skills test, the results will be shared with the state or jurisdiction that initially issued the commercial driver learner's permit.

Maine (SP 269) reinstated commercial licenses for certain license holders previously disqualified for life. Reasons for disqualification include operating a commercial vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 0.04 or higher, refusal to comply with law enforcement requests for blood alcohol level testing or attempting to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This new law aligns with Code of Federal Regulations, specifically 49 CFR, § 383.51 (a)(6), which permits states to reinstate such licenses after 10 years if holders meet specific requirements, such as successfully completing a rehabilitation program.

Maryland (SB 709) exempted commercial driver license holders who renew their licenses from taking a vision test if they have an up-to-date physical examination on file with the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. Additionally, the new law extended the expiration of commercial driver's instructional permits to one year after their date of issuance, replacing the previous six-month expiration period.

Tennessee (SB 105) allowed the Tennessee Department of Safety to waive temporary commercial learner permit knowledge tests for active duty and honorably discharged military, national guard, and military reserves. Eligibility extends to individuals who held positions like motor transport operator in the Army, motor vehicle operator in the Air Force, or equipment operator in the Navy. Honorably discharged members must have one year of relevant commercial motor vehicle experience that is representative of the license class and endorsement for which they are applying, before their separation from the armed forces. Conversely, members still on active duty must demonstrate one year of such experience before the application date, regardless of future separation or discharge from the armed forces.

All applicants with military backgrounds must provide documentation that they have not received any convictions such as driving under the influence of certain substances, while operating any motor vehicle, or any violation of any military, state, or local law related to motor vehicle operation.

West Virginia (SB 463) specified that only residents who have passed the skills test for operating a commercial motor vehicle may be issued a CDL. Third-party testers are permitted to conduct skills tests if they have entered into an agreement with the state to administer such tests in alignment with the state's standards.

Examiners are not liable for any injury or incident that occurs during a skills test, unless for negligence or intentional harm to the applicant. Additionally, applicants cannot obtain a permit or license for commercial vehicle operation if they have any disqualifications, lack a valid or current medical certification, or if their personal driver's license is suspended, revoked or canceled in any state.

The new law also extended the permit holder's time to meet all criteria to earn a CDL from six months to one year. A permit holder may operate a commercial vehicle only when accompanied by a valid CDL holder 21 years of age or older.

Digital Driver's 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. At least 20 other states—Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming and the District of Columbia—have enacted a digital driver's license program or are running a pilot program. The states with active digital driver's license programs include Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Oklahoma and Utah.

Arkansas and Montana amended their laws related to digital driver's license in 2023.

Arkansas (HB 1244) required the Office of Drivers Services to provide driver's license applicants with the option to access a digitized or mobile driver's license (mDL) for an additional $10 alongside regular issuance fees. While legislation was passed in 2017 allowing digital driver's licenses, technological implementation has been pending. To assist with implementation, this bill clarifies the requirements for digital driver's licenses by defining a digitized license or mDL as a data file that can be accessed on a mobile device through an application. This digital license will display the same front and back information as a physical license.

Additionally, motorists must still carry and present physical licenses upon request, and public and private entities are not obliged to accept mDLs. Displaying an mDL does not imply consent for device searches by law enforcement, who must promptly return the device post-verification. Surrendering a physical license does not extend to mDLs. The law takes effect on Feb. 1, 2025.

Montana (HB 519) required the Motor Vehicle Division to offer a mobile driver's license application by Sept. 1, 2025. Beginning on the same date, license holders are permitted to access their driver's license digitally using the application as an alternative to a physical copy while driving.

Montana (SB 396) also clarified that displaying an electronic driver's license or showing the license to a law enforcement officer does not imply consent for a search or seizure of the device.

Driver's Education and Application Requirements

States also addressed legislation regarding noncommercial driver's licenses and application requirements in 2020. At least five states—Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Utah and Washington—enacted such laws.

Arkansas (HB 1548) removed the 30-day waiting period for individuals who have not been issued a driver's license by another jurisdiction, such as migrants, to apply for a regular driver's license. Additionally, the bill includes an emergency clause that emphasizes the significance of the state's agriculture industry. The clause notes that by eliminating the waiting period for a driver's license, migrant workers who are interested in joining the agricultural labor force can drive and provide their labor services more promptly.

Connecticut (SB 994) required class D driver exams to be offered in 26 languages in addition to the established English and Spanish versions. Tests must also be offered in electronic, audio and any other format the commissioner deems appropriate. Each knowledge test offered in other languages must be reviewed by an approved representative fluent in that language. Applicants must have sufficient understanding of English for the interpretation of traffic control signs.

Illinois (HB 2091) permitted the Illinois Secretary of State to raise the age that senior residents are required to demonstrate control over motor vehicle operation as part of the driver licensing process. Currently, residents aged 75 and older must take a driving skills test for every driver's license renewal.

Utah (HB 141) clarified that refugees, asylees or humanitarian parolees can take the driving skills exam in their preferred language when they first apply for or renew their driver's license. However, upon renewing their driver's license for the second time, they may be reexamined on their knowledge of state traffic laws in English.

A translator may assist with completing the exam if the Driver License Division cannot administer an exam in an individual's preferred language. The Utah Division of Motor Vehicles is permitted to contract with a private vendor to secure translation services or technology.

The division must submit a report including a breakdown of costs, the number of exam languages provided, the potential of adding more languages in the future and other relevant information to the Utah Transportation Interim Committee by Oct. 1, 2023.

Washington (HB 1540) required traffic safety education programs to include curriculum on sharing the road with larger vehicles, like commercial vehicles, buses and other large vehicles.

Medical Designations

In the last few years, a handful of states have considered or passed legislation that would allow for medical or emergency information to be displayed on a driver's license. At least five states—Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, Texas and Utah—enacted laws allowing medical designations on driver's licenses in 2023.

Louisiana (HB 516) clarified that identification stickers designating motorists as deaf or hard of hearing on their vehicle registration are no longer required to be imprinted on the back of an individual's driver license.

Individuals who have an autism spectrum disorder or any other mental, physical or developmental disability designation, or for their caregiver, can request a flag code to be placed on their vehicle registration and a specific "orange square" decal that can be placed on their vehicle. Those with an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis, or their caregiver, can receive a special decal or sticker featuring the autism awareness symbol for their vehicle. The previously established requirement for an autism spectrum designation on a person's driver's license remains unchanged.

All stickers and decals must be placed on the rear windshield of the vehicle in a location that does not obstruct the driver's view.

Additionally, documentation must be provided to prove any disability when requesting identification stickers and decals. It is also stated that all documentation related to the registration of a motorist's disability is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law.

Nevada (AB 161) required the Department of Motor Vehicles to indicate, upon request, on an applicant's driver's license, identification card or vehicle registration if the applicant has a communication need. This designation includes individuals who have speech or auditory disorders or are neurodivergent. The department cannot require any person to disclose that they have such a need.

Nevada (SB 362) also required the DMV to adopt a single symbol—the "Star of Life"—to imprint on a driver's license to indicate a medical condition. However, the symbol is optional for driver's license applicants. This symbol indicates any of the following conditions: if a person is on anticoagulants; or if a person has diabetes, epilepsy, blindness and low vision, deafness, coronary atherosclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, food allergies, malignant hyperthermia, sickle cell disease, systemic lupus, heart disease, hemophilia, schizophrenia, depression or mental illness. The Nevada DMV must provide information on obtaining the symbol and required documentation on their webpage.

New Jersey (SB 761) permitted that an individual diagnosed with an autism spectrum or communication disorder, or their caretakers, can indicate so on their driver license or identification card. The New Jersey Commissioner of Human Services must establish documentation requirements for obtaining this special designation.

The New Jersey Commissioner of Human Services and attorney general are required to consult with the Division of State Police and one organization involved in autism spectrum and/or communication disorder advocacy to develop guidance to assist law enforcement officers in effectively communicating with a person diagnosed with the disorders. Each police department in New Jersey must receive a copy of this guidance report.

Texas (HB 3132 /SB 656) permitted an optional designation on a driver's license or identification card for people with health conditions or disabilities that may impede effective communication with a police officer. HB 3132 specifically includes a designation for deaf or individuals who are hard of hearing. Applicants must provide a written statement affirming their condition by a licensed physician or psychiatrist to obtain these designations.

Utah (SB 148) required the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct outreach on the invisible condition alert program and include education materials for health care professionals regarding the program. The invisible condition alert program is a voluntary program that permits decals and stickers to be placed onto driver licenses for those with such conditions or their authorized guardians. In Utah, invisible conditions can include hearing loss, a drug allergy, post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, epilepsy, diabetes or a heart condition.

Individuals with invisible disorders, or their guardians, may voluntarily disclose this information to local law enforcement. This agency must upload this information, including the individual's name, residence and condition as verified by a certified health professional, into its record management system. The agency must ensure these details are available to a dispatcher if they receive a report concerning an individual.

Moreover, an individual may opt out of this program any time. Upon request, the local law agency must remove all information on that individual from their record management and computer-aided dispatch system within 30 days.

Miscellaneous

California (AB 1606) authorized the Director of Motor Vehicles to establish a program assessing the traffic safety and other impacts of offering driver's license renewals through virtual or remote processes, rather than in-person applications. The department may conduct license renewals through virtual means under this program and has the authority to terminate this option at any time. Additionally, the department must submit a report to the Legislature detailing the program's implementation, including measures to prevent fraud, the number of virtual knowledge tests and eyesight tests conducted and verification procedures for submitted tests by Jan. 1, 2034.

Virtual license renewals are prohibited for individuals aged 70 and above without an eyesight test. Licenses cannot be renewed remotely if previously done so twice consecutively for five-year periods by mail or virtually, or if the applicant is 80 years of age or older.

Motorcyclist Safety

In 2022 there were 6,218 motorcyclists killed in traffic crashes. Additionally, an estimated 82,687 motorcyclists were injured in 2022. While motorcycles only represent a fraction (3.4%) of all registered vehicles in the United States and account for an even smaller fraction (0.7%) of the vehicle miles traveled in 2022, motorcyclists accounted for 15% of all traffic fatalities in 2022. The fatality rate per mile for motorcyclists was almost five times higher than for passenger vehicle occupants.

Of two-vehicle fatal crashes involving a motorcycle and another moving vehicle, 44% involved the other vehicle turning left while the motorcycle was heading straight, passing or overtaking other vehicles. Moreover, 19% of crashes occurred when both vehicles were going straight. In 2022 motorcyclist fatalities were the highest in the 30-to-34 age group at 750, accounting for 12 percent of motorcyclist fatalities.

State Legislation

At least 12 states—Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia and Washington—enacted legislation related to motorcyclist safety in 2023. The topics addressed motorcycle helmets, motorcyclist licensing and education, motorcycle lighting and operation requirements, and autocycles.

Motorcycle Helmet Laws

In 1975, helmets were mandatory for all riders in 47 states and in Washington, D.C., partly because federal highway funding was tied to having such laws. But Congress removed that requirement in 1976 and repealed financial incentives offered to states by 1995. In response, since 1995, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Texas have relaxed or repealed mandatory helmet laws.

Currently, 17 states, Washington, D.C., the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands require all riders to wear helmets.

Another 30 states require helmet use for certain groups, typically those under age 21 or age 18. The laws in Florida, Michigan and Texas exempt riders over age 21 who carry a certain amount of insurance, pass a safety course, or both. In Missouri, motorcyclists over age 26 are exempt from helmet requirements if they are covered by a health insurance policy that provides medical benefits for injuries resulting from operating or riding on a motorcycle. In Nebraska, state law exempts motorcyclists aged 21 years old or older from helmet requirements if they have successfully completed basic motorcycle safety courses.

Three states—Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire—do not have helmet requirements. Louisiana weakened its motorcycle helmet use law in 1999 but reenacted it in 2004. It is the only state to do so.

In 2022, use of DOT-compliant motorcycle helmets was 66.5%, according to NHTSA. However, there is considerable difference in helmet use between states with all-ages helmet requirements and states without them. As has been the case in previous surveys, states with all-ages helmet requirements have much higher rates of DOT-compliant helmet use. States requiring all motorcyclists to use helmets had 81.5% compliance. States with less stringent helmet requirements had 56.2% of motorcyclists using DOT-compliant helmets.

In the study, "State-level helmet use laws, helmet use, and head injuries in emergency medical services (EMS) patients involved in motorcycle collisions" by Morgan K. Anderson et al. it was found that states without helmet requirements had nearly five times as many motorcycle collision patients needing emergency medical services with moderate to severe head injuries. Also, those in motorcycle crashes or collisions not wearing helmets were more likely to have moderate or severe head injuries and significant head trauma. The latest NHTSA motorcyclist safety fact sheet found that, "in states without universal helmet laws, 55% of motorcyclists killed in 2021 were not wearing helmets, as compared to 9% in States with universal helmet laws."

Two states made significant changes to their motorcyclist helmet requirements in 2023.

Nebraska (LB 138) repealed their all-ages motorcycle helmet laws in 2023. The new law allows for motorcyclists aged 21 years old or older to opt out of using a helmet if they have successfully completed basic motorcycle safety courses and submitted proof of completion to the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles. The new helmet law will be treated as a secondary offense for enforcement purposes. The law requires motorcycle and moped riders to wear protective eye wear or have motorcycles or mopeds equipped with a windshield.

Delaware (SB 86) changed their helmet law to require that any person obtaining a new motorcycle endorsement must wear a helmet and protective eye equipment for the first two years after they obtain their new endorsement. This changes the previous law that required motorcyclists aged 19 years old and younger to wear a helmet and eye protection, while motorcyclists over age 19 were required to wear eye protection, as well as carry a helmet, though not required to wear the helmet. Fines for this new helmet and eye equipment law for new motorcyclists' range between $25 to $50.

Motorcyclist Licensing and Education

Florida (SB 838) allocated safety education fees paid for upon registration of motorcycles or mopeds towards safety and education programs that will be taught by three contracted motorcycle non-profit organizations.

Illinois (HB 2582) removed the requirement for motorcyclists under the age of 18 to complete a Secretary of State motorcycle driver's examination.

Kentucky (SB 60) provided exemptions for motorcycle license applicants who have successfully completed motorcycle license written and skill testing.

Nevada (SB 423) enacted legislation that requires motorcyclists caught driving without an issued license, endorsement or permit to take and successfully complete a motorcycle safety course within nine-months instead of being assessed a fine.

New Mexico (SB 396) increased the annual motorcycle training fund fee due at registration from $2 to $7.

Rhode Island (HB 6102) amended its motorcycle driver education program requirements to ensure reasonable accommodations are made for persons with disabilities to participate in all motorcycle safety educational courses.

Texas (SB 478) set restrictions on who may obtain a motorcycle instructor license. An applicant who committed a certain number of moving violations or violations resulting in an accident in the preceding three years is ineligible for an instructor license.

Virginia (HB 2304) amended class size requirements for motorcycle education courses to align with recommendations from the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.

Washington state (HB 1171) modified the membership term requirements and length for the Washington Motorcycle Safety Education Advisory Board. The board increased its membership to seven and requires that two of the seven board members be motorcycle safety instructors.

Motorcycle Lighting and Operation Requirements

Three states—Illinois, Texas and Virginia-—enacted legislation on headlight and auxiliary lighting requirements and provisions in 2023. One state-Texas-also enacted legislation on motorcycle lane use on roadways.

Illinois (SB 896) specified that auxiliary lights on a motorcycle should not be blue. The auxiliary lights may be red only while the motorcycle is braking or stopped. SB 896 also grants the option that motorcycles may be equipped with two forward facing electric turn signals on or near the handlebar grip, front fork or front fender assemblies; these signals must emit white or amber lights. Also, a motorcycle may have two forward-facing electric driving lights which display a steady-on white or amber light.

Texas (HB 3313) allowed motorcycles or mopeds to be equipped with ground effects if the lights emit a non-flashing white or amber color.

Virginia (SB 855) prohibited motorcycle and autocycle headlights that emit a blue or glaring light.

Regarding motorcycle lane use, Texas (HB 4122) specified that motorcyclists are entitled to full use of a lane and may ride motorcycles two abreast in one lane maximum. Motorcyclists may not ride in one lane with more than two abreast motorcycles, may not operate a motorcycle between lanes of traffic moving in the same direction and may not pass motor vehicles while sharing the same lane as the vehicle being passed.

Autocycles

As the use of autocycles—generally three-wheeled motor vehicles with cabs that are either open, partially closed or fully closed—increases on roadways, two states—Montana and Texas—enacted legislation on autocycle safety.

Montana (SB 144) exempted autocycle riders from helmet requirements if an autocycle is completely enclosed with a windshield, a roof and non-removable doors.

Texas (SB 1115) similarly exempted autocycle riders from helmet requirements if the autocycle has a partially or a fully enclosed cab. The definition of autocycle was revised to include being equipped with seat belts and a steering mechanism.

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 in traffic crashes 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. There were 1.6 times more pedestrian deaths than occupants of school transportation vehicles in school transportation-related crashes between 2012 and 2021. A total of 1,110 people of all ages died in school transportation-related crashes between 2012 and 2021.

State Legislation

Hand-Held Device Usage

Four states—Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia—enacted laws regarding school bus drivers using hand-held mobile devices in the 2023 legislative sessions. Missouri (SB 398) and West Virginia (HB 2218) toughened their distracted driving laws by prohibiting school bus drivers from using an electronic communication device, such as a cell phone, while operating a bus. Exceptions are granted for devices used similarly to two-way radios for live communication with school or public safety officials. However, such device usage is forbidden while loading or unloading passengers.

Michigan (HB 4250) expanded its recent hand-held ban, which prohibits activities like texting or recording a video, to include school bus drivers. The law also specifies that these drivers must avoid using such devices in a manner that requires reaching for them in a way that compromises their seated driving position or seat belt restraint.

Lastly, Tennessee (SB 1434) allowed school bus drivers to use a portable electronic device for navigation purposes if the following conditions are met: the driver is not using the device to enter data into the device while driving, the device is hands-free and mounted to the bus windshield, dashboard or center console that does not obstruct the driver's view and, lastly, the driver only uses the device to navigate pick-up and drop-off locations of students.

School Bus Driver Exams & Requirements

Kentucky (HB 13) changed the physical examination requirement for commercial driver licenses, which must now be submitted every two years, rather than annually. Also, HB 13 allowed school bus driver applicants to submit citizenship documentation from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Tennessee (SB 579) moved the responsibility of requiring physical and mental examinations for school bus drivers and revoking licenses from the State Board of Education to local boards of education.

SB 579 also shifted the responsibility on setting specific school bus safety requirements from the State Board of Education to the Department of Safety. The board of education shall provide recommendations to the Department of Safety on specifications for school buses.

Virginia (HB 1928) requires the State Board of Education to develop a safety program for school bus operators that includes in-person instruction or remote online instruction on proper safety protocols for inclement weather, students on the wrong bus scenarios, unsafe conditions during loading and unloading of students and other situations that put student safety at risk. HB 1928 also permits an applicant to request training in Spanish for all or a portion of the instruction.

School Bus Equipment and Operation

Maryland (HB 492) added Anne Arundel to the list of counties that are allowed to operate a school vehicle for 15 years, rather than 12 years, if the school vehicles meet additional maintenance plans approved by the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration and state police. The maintenance plan requires at least two more inspections annually after the 12th year the vehicle is in use. Additionally, all structural repairs must be certified by the Motor Vehicle Administration and the vehicle must have specified safety features.

New Jersey (AB 5329) extends the service life of school buses to 20 years if manufactured on or after 2007 or to school buses manufactured prior to 2007 with closed crankcase technology and a vehicle total weight under 25,000 pounds.

AB 5329 also permits the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission Chief Administrator to extend the retirement date of Type S school buses once by a maximum of one year upon request by the school bus owner, provided that the school bus passes additional safety inspections.

Illegally Passing School Buses and Stop-Arm Cameras

States continue to be active authorizing school bus stop-arm camera systems to detect motorists who illegally pass stopped school buses, with one state, Florida, newly authorizing local use of such cameras in 2023, and six states—Colorado, Illinois, Montana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Virginia—refining their stop-arm camera laws.

Montana (HB 366) enacted stricter penalties for motorists who fail to yield to stopped school buses. Previously, motorists were fined a maximum penalty of $500. Under HB 366, violations are considered a misdemeanor. A first violation fine is increased to a range of $500 to $1,000 and/or mandatory community service between 50 to 100 hours. A second violation has a fine range between $1,000 to $2,000 and/or mandatory community service between 100 to 200 hours. Third and subsequent offenses result in a fine between $3,000 to $5,000 and/or imprisonment for a minimum of 30 days.

Florida (SB 766) authorized school districts to install and operate school bus infraction detection systems to enforce any failure to stop violations. School districts must post high-visibility reflective signage on the rear of school buses with operational infraction detection systems installed to alert motorists, as well as make a public announcement and conduct a public awareness campaign regarding the proposed use of a school bus infraction detection system at least 30 days before commencing enforcement.

School districts are required to enter into agreements with local law enforcement agencies to review video evidence and issue violations if necessary. Additionally, SB 766 specifies that detection systems cannot be used for surveillance purposes. Any recorded video and/or images must be destroyed 90 days after final dispositions of the recorded event occur.

SB 766 enacts a $225 penalty on violators, with $200 revenue allocated to the school district. The revenue must be used to maintain the infraction detection systems or technology that increases the safety of student transportation. $25 is to be dedicated to the state's safe schools fund via the state Department of Education. By the end of 2024 and every year thereafter, the department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles must submit an annual report to the governor and Legislature, along with any recommendations and any recommended legislation.

Colorado (SB 94) created a School Transportation Modernization Task Force. Among the task force's duties is to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of requiring automated vehicle information systems on school buses that capture motorists illegally passing stopped school buses.

Illinois (SB 2340) permitted school buses to be equipped with extended stop arms that partially obstruct roadways to ensure student safety. The stop arms are required to have flashing red lights, not extending further than 78 inches off the side of a bus and must be operated at a height of 36 inches or more. A school bus may be equipped with two stop arm extensions on the driver's side of the school bus. Motorists cannot make any contact with school buses, including the stop arms. Violators of this provision are subject to a maximum penalty of $500.

Pennsylvania (SB 851) added further detail to their existing law authorizing "signal arm enforcement systems."

Overtaking a stopped school bus when the red signal lights on the school bus are flashing and the side stop signal arms are activated is a violation with a $300 fine; $250 of the $300 fine is to go back to school entities for the installation, operation and upkeep of the automated stop arm camera system. The primary police department that reviewed the violation evidence receives $25 of the $300 fine.

The remaining $25 is deposited into the School Bus Safety Grant Program Account, which may award grants of up to $100,000 to promote and increase school bus safety, education and training. The grant may be used to reimburse or pay for education, training and other costs for the issuance of commercial driver permits, license or school bus driving endorsements. Eligible grantees are independent school bus contractors, schools and municipalities.

Enforcement of stop arm violations shall only occur in jurisdictions where the school entity has a written intergovernmental agreement with a primary police department. The primary police department may randomly conduct audits of a school entity, or a system administrator on the school entity's behalf, to ensure compliance with this section as determined by the department.

Notice of violations must be mailed via first class within 30 days after the offense or within 30 days after the discovery of the identity of the registered owner. The notice of violation shall include the following: the recorded image of the violation, the motor vehicles registration and license plate number, the date, time and place of the alleged violation, a certification of the alleged violation from the primary police department with written documentation that the side stop signal arm enforcement system was operating correctly at the time of the alleged violation as required under subsection, amongst other required information. The registered vehicle owner may submit evidence that they were not the driver at the time of the alleged violation. The owner of the motor vehicle may not be required to disclose the identity of the operator of the motor vehicle at the time of the violation. Images captured through the automated stop arm system shall not identify, nor be configured to identify, the driver, passengers or the interior contents of the motor vehicle.

A report from the primary police department and Pennsylvania State Police for the preceding calendar year must be jointly submitted annually to the Senate and House Transportation Committees. The report shall be publicly posted on the school district webpage, or the system administrator on the school entity's behalf.

The report must include: the name of the system administrator, the number of school buses equipped with a side stop signal arm enforcement system, the number of notices of violation issued, the number of fines imposed and collected, the amounts paid under agreements authorized by this section, the results of contested violations and the use of additional revenue funds and any grants awarded from the program.

Tennessee (SB 1281) revamped their stop-arm camera law. Local education agencies are permitted to purchase, operate and maintain cameras on school buses to ensure motorists stop when approaching a stopped school bus.

Violators are issued a notice of violation or citation if evidence is based solely on the camera's capture. Camera-captured violations are considered nonmoving traffic violations. The registered owner of the motor vehicle is responsible for the violation payment, unless the owner provides documentation proving they were not behind the wheel of the vehicle in question.

A first violation is a $250 fine, whereas second and subsequent violations are $500. The bill also amended the existing penalties to prescribe that a person who violates the provision and strikes another person with a vehicle is a Class E felony. If the person struck is killed, the violation is a Class C felony.

A local education agency that installs cameras must enter a memorandum of understanding with local law enforcement that includes, but is not limited to, the review of evidence from a camera and overall enforcement. The bill also clarifies that school resource officers are also authorized to review evidence from a camera.

Photographs or videos produced by a camera that has been installed on the exterior of a school bus depicting a violation of subdivision must be made available for inspection in any proceeding in which the citation or violation is contested. The notice of violation or citation must include: the date, location, and time of the alleged violation; the amount of the fine; the means by which the owner may elect to shift responsibility for the payment of the citation to the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation and information detailing the process for contesting the citation, including the applicable court having authority.

Revenue generated from any violation is allocated to the local education agency. The local education agency may use revenue to purchase, install, operate, or maintain the cameras, or reimburse or compensate the vendor contracted regarding the purchase, installation, operation, or maintenance of the cameras.

Virginia (SB 868/HB 1995) extended the time summons are issued following a violation for passing a stopped school bus from ten to 30 business days.

Virginia (HB 1723) also established that recorded images from a video-monitoring system installed on a school bus demonstrating the use of a warning device shall be considered prima facie evidence that a school bus was picking up or discharging passengers.

Speeding and Speed Limits

Total speeding-related traffic fatalities increased by 8% in 2021 (12,330) compared to the prior year (11,428 in 2020), according to NHTSA. Data from NHTSA also shows speed-related crashes accounted for 29% of all motorist 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 rates of speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes was 10% and 7%, respectively.

In 2023, IIHS released a report analyzing the impact of lower speed limits in Seattle on crash rates. 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 in 2020, Seattle lowered speed limits to 25 mph on most arterial roads and increased sign density in response to state legislation authorizing the city's ability to do so. The data indicated crashes were less likely to cause injuries on city streets after speed limits were lowered on arterial roads. This study is one of the first to evaluate the effect of lower speed limits on injury rates in a populous U.S. city. 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 center.

State Legislation

At least 20 states enacted speeding and speed limit related legislation in 2023. The legislation addressed move over laws, local jurisdiction and speed limits and miscellaneous speeding related topics.

Move Over Laws

In 2023, 10 states—Colorado, Florida, Maine, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington—enacted move over related bills.

Colorado (HB 1123) required drivers to move over one lane when approaching a stationary motor vehicle with its hazard lights activated or displaying warning signs, or slow down if changing lanes or moving over is not possible. HB 1123 also requires motorists to move over when approaching a motorist equipping chains to their vehicle's tires.

Florida (HB 425) required a motorist to safely move over to the next vacant lane when approaching a disabled motor vehicle, emergency vehicle, utility service vehicle, wrecker, construction vehicle or sanitation vehicle with warning and hazard lights activated. Additionally, motorists must slow down to a speed 20 mph less than the posted speed limit on roads with a speed limit over 25 mph, or 5 mph when the posted speed limit is 20 mph or less.

Maine (SB 399) legislated that motorists must either safely move into an empty lane or reduce their speed when passing a stationary vehicle with activated flashing lights.

Montana passed a trio of move over bills in 2023. (HB 320) revised its move over law to require motorists to safely move lanes and reduce speed when approaching a highway maintenance vehicle or utility service vehicle that is stationary on the road.

Montana (HB 374) detailed penalties for a person convicted of failing to move over or reduce speed when approaching emergency and maintenance vehicles could face fines, community service requirements or, for repeat offenders, imprisonment. Fines range from between $500 to $1,000 for a first conviction, between $1,000 to $2,000 for a second conviction and from $3,000 to $5,000 for a third conviction.

Montana (HB 470) required motorists approached by authorized emergency or law enforcement vehicles to yield the right of way to the approaching vehicle and, unless already stationary and out of the way, cautiously move their motor vehicle as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway that is not in an intersection. Failure to move over for an emergency vehicle with its siren or emergency lights activated is considered reckless driving.

New York (SB 5129) required motorists to change lanes and practice caution upon approaching a stationary or stopped motor vehicle on the shoulder of a controlled access highway.

North Dakota (HB 1141) required motorists to yield the right of way by changing lanes or reducing the speed of their vehicle to safely pass any stationary vehicle on the interstate or highway system.

Similarly, Rhode Island (HB 5294 and SB 88) required that motorists must move over or reduce their speed when approaching stationary non-emergency vehicles, tow trucks, transporters and roadside assistance vehicles.

Utah (SB 27) enacted legislation that requires drivers to change lanes and slow their vehicles when approaching a stationary vehicle with active flashing hazard lights. Motorists in an HOV lane, if possible, shall move out of the HOV lane into a lane not adjacent to the stationary vehicle. Further, SB 27 specifies that when a snowplow is displaying flashing yellow lights, an approaching motorist may not pass a snowplow on the side where the plow blade is deployed. If three or more snowplows are in a diagonal formation displaying flashing yellow lights, a motorist may not overtake or pass the snowplows on either side.

Virginia (HB 1932) included language in its move over laws pertaining to stationary vehicles displaying hazard warning flashers, caution signs or properly lit flares or torches. Upon the approach of motorists displaying any of these signals, drivers must change lanes or reduce speed when passing.

Washington (SB 5023) required motorists approaching an emergency or work zone to reduce their speeds to at least 10 mph below the posted speed limit. On roads with a speed limit above 60 mph, motorists must reduce their speed below 50 mph. Drivers that violate this provision may have their license suspended for 60 days.

Washington (HB 1125) appropriated funds related to their move over laws: The Washington Department of Licensing received $243,000 to develop new driver training curricula that includes materials on move over laws. An additional $251,000 was allocated to the licensing department to provide written material on the move over law to every driver license applicant in addition to placing signage on the move over law in licensing offices.

Local Flexibility to Lower Speed Limits

In 2023, six states—Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, Oregon, Tennessee and Virginia—enacted legislation that expanded authority for local governments to lower speed limits. Some states have enacted broad authority for localities to lower speed limits, while other states have enacted specific authority for certain localities to lower speed limit in busy residential and business districts where there are many pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.

Alabama generally prohibits municipalities from setting speed limits on county-maintained streets. Under SB 33, municipalities that conduct a traffic investigation and receive written approval from the county engineer may set reduced speed limits.

Arizona (SB 1102) requires a speed limit of at least 65 mph on the interstate system in any county with a population of three million or more persons. Any desired reductions in the speed limit by the county require three conditions be met: (1) a determination made by a department approved third-party engineering study or road safety assessment, (2) an opportunity for public input is provided and (3) no reduction in the system's capacity and transportation mobility.

Michigan (HB 4126) removed the 2024 sunset provision for a law establishing a 25 mph speed limit on highway segments that are a part of any local street system.

Oregon (HB 2095) permitted cities to set speeds up to 10 mph lower than the statutory speed on highways in residential districts, although speed limits may not set 20 mph lower than the statutory speed limit.

Oregon (HB 3188) authorized the Oregon DOT to permit Marion County to set speed limits where highways are low volume or unpaved. Tennessee (SB 505) permitted municipalities to establish special speed limits on public roads, streets or sections of highway within its jurisdiction adjacent to or within a quarter mile of a residential area.

Virginia (HB 2104) expanded local governing body authority to place school crossing signs within 750 feet of school property and school crossing zones to decrease speed limits. This increases the permissible distance from the previous outlined 600 feet. The maximum allowable speed limit in the school crossing zones is 25 mph. Any motor vehicle that exceeds the school crossing zone maximum speed limit is guilty of a traffic infraction and may be fined up to $250. School zones speed limits in residential areas may be decreased to 15 mph if the nearest school board requests it.

Speed Limits

Montana (SB 452) permitted the Montana DOT to review and reset special speed zones and temporarily reduced speed limits previously set by the Montana Transportation Authority. A committee within the Montana DOT consisting of staff appointed by the director and two members from city, town, or county associations will hold review and reset authority.

All requests to change speed limits in special speed zones and temporary special speed zones are reviewed by the committee and must include an engineering review of the route. If approved, the temporary speed limit increase or decrease is implemented until a complete traffic and engineering study has been conducted.

Texas (HB 1885) authorized the Texas Transportation Commission to establish variable speed limits and temporarily lower speed limits at least 10 mph to address inclement weather, congestion, road construction or any other condition that affects the safe movement of traffic on a roadway. Signage indicating the speed limit changes must be posted 500 to 1,000 feet before the point at which the speed limit begins. HB 1885 also specifies that the commission may not divert traffic to a toll road to increase revenue from toll charges.

Miscellaneous

Arkansas (HB 1712) amended its speed trap law definition to now include oversight over any highway in which a decrease in the posted speed limit is required when entering a municipality. Additionally, Arkansas amended their definition of revenue under the Arkansas Speed Trap Law to exclude money received from an arrest by or traffic offense citation written by a law enforcement officer who does not belong to the affected municipality's law enforcement agency.

Colorado (HB 1267) permitted the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to designate 5% or greater steep downhill grade zones with higher fines for commercial vehicles that violate speed limits on public highways. CDOT must place signage indicating double fines are enacted in the steep downhill grade zones. Violators of this provision are subject to increased penalties.

HB 1267 creates a Mountain Highways Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Account with 50% of fines placed into the account. This account covers runaway truck event educational outreach and public information material costs. Also, the account will use funds to pay for equipment that reduces the frequency of runaway truck events and to conduct studies on how to improve commercial motor vehicle safety on mountain highways.

Illinois (HB 2131) established a Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force within the Illinois Department of Transportation. The task force must analyze the 85th percentile speed rule which is used to set speed limits.

By Jan. 1, 2025, the Secretary of Transportation must prepare and submit a report with findings to the Illinois General Assembly. The report must include the following: (1) a detailed discussion on the existing process for setting speed limits and where speed limits can deviate from the 85th percentile, (2) an analysis of existing policies on how to reduce speeds on local streets and roads and (3) engineering suggestions on how to increase vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle safety. HB 2131 also requires the report to analyze how speed limits are set using the 85th percentile at the local, state, national and international levels, the usage of the 85th percentile in urban and rural settings and how the 85th percentile affects bicycle and pedestrian safety. The task force expires on Jan. 1, 2026.

Teen Drivers

According to NHTSA, there are 11.7 million licensed young drivers in the United States as of 2021. State legislatures have consistently considered legislation intended to increase young drivers' safety, improve driving behaviors and enhance their driving skills.

Young drivers between the ages 15 and 20 have higher crash rates than older, more experienced drivers. The Federal Highway Administration noted 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 2020 (1,899) and 2021 (2,116).

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 if restraints were used, 52% of those who died were not wearing seat belts. This 52% rate 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, 27% had BACs of.01 or higher, and 22% had BACs of.08 or higher.

State Legislation

At least six states—Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington—enacted legislation related to teen driving in 2023. The topics addressed driver's education, graduated driver licensing restrictions anddriving school and instructor accreditation fees.

Driver's Education

Louisiana (HB 592) permitted the development of web-based applications to receive electronic signatures from parents and guardians for all approvals for a minor's driving application. However, Louisiana requires the first or initial issuance of any license or permit to be an in-person transaction. Also, HB 592 removed the requirement that driving instructors also be licensed as third-party instructors. HB 592 further permitted driving instructors, at their discretion, to administer the driving skills test before the eight hours of driving instruction was completed.

Maine (HB 760) required the Department of the Secretary of State and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to convene a working group to study potential solutions on cost and access barriers to obtaining driver's education for underserved populations and low-income families. The working group must be comprised of one member from each of the following areas: the Senate, the House of Representatives, the driver education school industry, the state police traffic division, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the commissioner of education, the commissioner of health and human services, the deputy secretary of state, the secretary of state or their designee and the Bureau of Highway Safety.

The working group shall assess the status of Maine's driver education program, examine methods for providing driver education at a lower cost for underserved populations and low-income families and identify funding mechanisms to pay for part or all of driver education for low-income families. The working group had to submit a report on the findings and recommendations of the study to the Maine Joint Standing Committee on Transportation by Feb. 1, 2024.

Rhode Island (SB 667) amended their driver education law to require driver education courses to include curriculum on the dangers of cannabis-impaired driving.

Washington (SB 5583) passed a comprehensive driver's education bill in 2023 to improve young driver safety. SB 5583 requires the Washington Department of Licensing to develop an implementation plan for the expansion of current driver education requirements for 18- to 24-year-olds. The bill also amended the definition of classroom driving instruction to include virtual courses with live instructors and condensed and self-paced online course options. SB 5583 further created an exemption for intermediate license holders to operate a vehicle between 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. if it is for school, religious, or employment activities or if accompanied by a licensed driver at least 25 years old.

SB 5583 also legislated that the Department of Licensing may develop alternative pathways to assess a driving instructor's fitness, knowledge, skill and ability to teach the classroom and provide behind-the-wheel instruction. Washington also required the Department of Licensing to publish an interactive map of all driver training education programs in the state showing location, title, contact information, cost and language services offered. Lastly, the bill requires an evaluation of how to improve access to driver training education courses in consultation with the Office of Equity.

Graduated Driver Licensing Restrictions

Every state has enacted various laws intended to develop drivers' skills and expertise. Commonly referred to as graduated driver licensing (GDL), the laws provide more time for teen drivers to learn the complex skills required to operate a vehicle. Although GDL laws vary from state to state, all GDL approaches consist of three stages identified by the type of license, provisions, and restrictions. In each stage, the young driver gains experience and knowledge about safe driving, which allows them to advance to the next stage when they reach the appropriate age. According to NHTSA, the stages include:

Stage 1: Learner's Permit

• Minimum age.
• Minimum duration.
• Required supervised driving hours.

Stage 2: Intermediate (Provisional) License

• Minimum age.
• Nighttime driving restrictions.
• Passenger restriction (except for family, unless noted).

Stage 3: Full Licensure

• Minimum age.

North Carolina (SB 157) reduced the time a stage 1 limited learner's permit is needed to be held prior to obtaining a stage 2 provisional license from one year to nine months. SB 157 also permitted an exception to provisional licenses passenger restrictions for teen drivers. If an unsupervised limited provisional licensee is driving a vehicle with a family or household member passenger under the age of 21, it is permissible for an additional passenger under 21 years old to be in the vehicle if that passenger is a student being driven directly to or from school.

Driving School and Instructor Accreditation Fees

Virginia (SB 1063) increased licensing fees for driver training schools, including computer-based driver education providers, from $100 to $150. These licenses are valid for a two-year period. SB 1063 also set a nonrefundable instructor licensing fee at $75 for a two-year accreditation. To account for staffing changes, SB 1063 required that the first instructor's license expire on the same date as the driving school's license.