Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Cell Phone Ordinance_2nd Reading Background_Driven to Distraction Article
NTSB - Statement of Deborah Hersman Remarks of Deborah A.P. Hersman, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board at the 2009 Press Event on Distracted Driving Washington, DC December 9, 2009 Page 1 of 3 Good morning, everyone. Chairman Brady, thank you for your kind introduction and for inviting me to participate today. Curbing distracted driving is a commitment I share with you, and I applaud your leadership on this important issue. I also extend my appreciation to the other participants for their efforts as well. I am here representing my fellow Board Members, Vice Chairman Chris Hart and Member Robert Sumwalt, and the men and women of the NTSB, nearly 400 strong. As many of you know, the NTSB is a small, independent federal agency. Our mission is to investigate accidents, determine their probable causes, and to issue recommendations to prevent future accidents. Making our highways, skies, railways and waterways safer is our mandate. That is why I am honored to join Chairman Brady to highlight the dangers of distracted driving and to share with you the NTSB's efforts to reduce this growing problem. The President, in signing an Executive Order banning federal employees from text messaging while on official government business and using government cars and equipment, sent a clear signal to the American public that distracted driving is dangerous and unacceptable. We at the Safety Board share the President's concern and have initiated our own policy to reduce the hazards of distractions while driving. In September, the NTSB issued a policy banning board employees from texting or using cell phone while on official business or when using government provided equipment. If you are driving a government car, you may not use a cell phone. If you are driving on official business, you may not use a cell phone. If you are driving your own car on personal time, you may not use a government cell phone. Period. It's that simple. And this goes for the chairman too. Let me tell you, this has not been easy. Like so many in this room, I was hooked on my blackberry and cell phone. We are connected to them 24/7. To remain relevant in our fast - moving environment, we want to stay connected, and phoning or texting while driving seems like a great way to conduct an extra hour of business and stay in touch. It's very convenient. But it's not safe. Many may think they won't be able to function without their blackberry, but this reliance on our electronic devices is a relatively new phenomenon. I recall back in the early 1990's, cell phones were not all that common. At that time, I was working for a member of Congress, and was charged with getting him his first cell phone, which was so large we had to carry it in a http: / /www.ntsb.gov/ speeches /hersman /daph09l209.html 12/23/2009 NTSB - Statement of Deborah Hersman Page 2 of 3 bag! And we had to install a permanent antenna in the Congressman's car to get coverage, which wasn't really reliable — talk about frustrating! We have come a long way since then. Cell phones today are ubiquitous. Over 90% of US residents have one. Yet, this greater use of cell phones is not without consequences. Let me share with you a few unsettling statistics: • Approximately 40,000 people die each year on our nation's highways. Distracted driving is a cause of many of these accidents. • Crashes caused by cell phone use alone is estimated to cost $43 billion per year. • Drivers who use a hand held device are at a 1.3 times greater risk of a crash or near crash than drivers who are simply driving — and if the driver is dialing, that number increases to a 2.8 times greater risk. . The dangers of distractions while driving are wide - spread and not dissipating. Of drivers in the United States, 81 % admit to cell phone use while at the wheel, and 45% acknowledge that they have been hit or nearly hit by a driver using a cell phone. . As suggested by one study, driver distraction is identified in around 11 -12% of crashes; yet we know that even that number may be too low since the true level of distraction is not known in up to 40% of accidents. Improving transportation safety must be a priority. It's not easy. But the risk of catastrophic consequences is just too great. Sometimes we have to choose to do the right thing, instead of the more convenient things. It's an issue of leadership. It's an issue of integrity. And it's an issue of safety. Despite the statistics, deaths and injuries caused by distracted driving are preventable. We just need to start by being agents of change in our own lives. It's not enough to just talk the talk. We must walk the walk. As the 12th Chairman of the NTSB and a Board Member for the past five years, I have learned to appreciate how leadership can be a strong layer of defense in preventing incidents and accidents. If we are going to make a difference and save lives, we may have to take a more aggressive stance and embrace our leadership roles. We may need to be the role models. Let me share a quote with you about leadership. Rosslyn Carter said, "A leader takes people where they want to go, but a great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be." applaud Chairman Brady, the other participants and many others for taking the courageous path and leading us not just where we want to go, but where we, as a society and as individuals, ought to be. Changing human behavior is hard, I know. But with our collective leadership, it can be done. Thank you to each of you for being agents of change, and for this opportunity to join you here today. http: / /www.ntsb.gov/ speeches /hersman /daph09l209.html 12/23/2009 ab U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA www.nhtsa.gov DOT HS 810 787 Driver Distraction: A Review of the Current State -of- Knowledge April 2008 This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 DISCLAEMR This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions,_ findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If products or trade names are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. ii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. GovemmentAccession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT HS 810 787 4. Tide and Subtitle 5. Report Date Driver Distraction: A Review of the Current State -of- Knowledge April 2008 6. Perforating organization Code NHTSA/NVS -312 7. Author(s) 8. Perforating OrganizationRerort No. Thomas A. Ranney, Transportation Research Center, Inc. 9. Perfomdng Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (7RAIS) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Research and Test Center 11. Contract or Grant No. P.O. Box 37 East Liberty, OH 43319 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Final Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. Washington, DC 20590 15. Supplementary Notes The author wishes to thank Mike Perel and David Shinar for their helpful suggestions and Julie Barker for assembling relevant references. Distinct from other forms of driver inattention, distraction occurs when a driver's attention is diverted away from driving by a secondary task that requires focusing on an object, event, or person not related to the driving task. Although existing data is inadequate and not representative of the driving population, it is estimated that drivers engage in potentially distracting secondary tasks approximately 30 percent of the time their vehicles are in motion. Conversation with passengers is the most frequent secondary task followed by eating, smoking, manipulating controls, reaching inside the vehicle, and cell phone use. Driver attention status is unknown for a large percentage of crash - involved drivels in the Crashworthiness Data System (CDS). However for the period between 1995 and 2003 it is estimated that 10.5 percent of crash - involved drivers were distracted at the time of their crash involvement. Approximately 70 percent of distracted drivers' crashes were either non - collision (single- vehicle) or year- end collisions. A significant proportion of the existing literature is devoted to assessing the impact of cell phone use on driving performance and safety. Although cell phone use represents a relatively small part of the overall distraction problem, use among drivers is steadily growing with approximately 10 percent of drivers using some type of cell phone at any point in time. Although not representative of the U.S. experience, the available evidence suggests that cell phone use increases drivels' crash risk by a factor of 4. Experimental studies consistently reveal driving performance degradation (primarily slowed response time) associated with cell phone use; however phone tasks used in these studies are generally unrealistic and often more complex than everyday phone conversations. Insufficient data exist to assess the distraction effects of in- vehicle information systems (MS), however experimental results suggest that voice-based interfaces are less distracting than those requiring manual entry (e.g., via keyboard). Standard behavioral countermeasures, including laws, enforcement, and sanctions, are considered unlikely to be effective because distraction is a broad societal problem associated with lifestyle patterns and choices. Options for environmental (roadway) strategies are limited. Considerable activity has been devoted to the development of guidelines for MS interface design, resulting in some improvements. Promising future developments include large -scale naturalistic data collections to provide objective and representative data on distraction incidence and crash risk, and advanced driver assistance technologies that monitor drivers'visual behavior and manage the flow of information to the driver. Recommendations for future research are presented. 17. Key Words IS. Distribution Statement driver distraction, inattention, driving performance, crash risk, cognitive distraction, Document is available to the public from the IVIS, naturalistic data, cell phones, countermeasures National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified I Unclassified 25 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8 -72) . Reproduction of completed page authorized iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS ......................................................................... ............................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. ..............................1 2.0 METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................... ..............................2 2.1 Definitions of Distraction ........................................................... ............................... 2 2.2 Measurement of Driver Distraction ............................................ ............................... 3 3.0 INCIDENCE AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF DISTRACTION ....................... 9 3.1 What Activities Comprise Distraction? ...................................... ............................... 9 3.2 Incidence of Distraction Among Crash - Involved Drivers ......... .............................10 4.0 TECHNOLOGY-BASED DISTRACTIONS ................................... .............................13 4.1 Mobile Telephones ...................................................................... .............................13 4.1.1 Future Problems With Cell Phone Use ................................ .............................15 4.2 In- Vehicle Route Guidance Systems .......................................... .............................15 4.3 In- Vehicle Internet and E -mail Capabilities ............................... .............................16 4.4 Radio Tuning/CD Players ..................................... ............................... .................... 5.0 COUNTERMEASURES FOR DISTRACTED DRIVING ............. .............................18 5.1 Behavioral Strategies .................................................................. .............................18 5. 1.1 Cell Phone and Related Laws .........:..................................... .............................18 5.1.2 Communications and Outreach on Distracted Driving ........ .............................19 5.2 Environmental Strategies ............................................................ .............................20 5.3 Vehicular Strategies .................................................................. ............................... 20 5.3.1 Guidelines for Interface Design ......................................... ............................... 20 5.3.2 Advanced Driver Assistance Technologies ........................ ..... ........................... 21 6:0 RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ........................................................... ............................... 22 7.0 REFERENCES ..............................:................................................... .............................23 iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION The increasing use of cellular phones has served as a catalyst for growing interest in driver distraction in recent years. While the use of cellular phones poses a significant and increasing risk to roadway safety (McCartt, Hellinga, & Braitman, 2006), studies show that it represents a relatively small proportion of a bigger distraction problem. At one extreme, distraction can be caused by everyday activities such as eating, smoking, and selecting radio stations. At the other extreme, distraction also results from drivers' interactions with advanced in- vehicle information systems (IVIS), which deliver traffic information and other forms of driver support. Accurate and timely traffic information can decrease travel times and costs as well as distraction if the driver does not have to divert attention to obtain the information. However, there exists the significant potential for distraction associated with these information systems. The responsibility for managing distraction is complicated by the fact that the capabilities of such systems appear independent of whether the systems exist as original equipment, add -on, or are brought into the vehicles by drivers. Indeed, Stutts et al. (2001) concluded that as the proliferation of wireless communication, entertainment and driver assistance systems continues, it is likely that the rate of distraction - related crashes will escalate. The objective of this report is to consolidate current knowledge on driver distraction to help state and local governments formulate effective policies, regulations and laws. In addition, this report identifies areas in which scientific evidence is weak or lacking, thus providing information necessary to focus the Federal research effort in the most productive directions. The document begins by discussing the definition of distraction and the approaches and challenges involved in measuring distraction. Next, we consider the specific behaviors that comprise distraction and summarize what is known about their incidence and influence on crash involvement. This is followed by a discussion of the effects of cell phones on driving behavior and crash risk. We then consider in- vehicle technological advancements, such as navigation systems, and their potential for distraction. Next, we discuss the effectiveness of countermeasures that have been developed, including laws restricting cell phone use. Finally, we identify research needed to better understand and address the problem of driver distraction. 1 2.0 METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS Numerous research studies have addressed driver distraction. Most of these studies address issues relating to the distraction effects of cellular phones. The relevant literature has grown to the point that several comprehensive reviews have recently been published. One study (McCartt et al., 2006) reviewed 125 studies relating to cell phones and driving. For this report, we therefore use these secondary sources where possible, supplemented with primary sources where necessary for completeness. 2.1 Definitions of Distraction Consolidating the existing knowledge about distraction runs into difficulty from the outset with the realization that there is no generally accepted definition of driver distraction (Trezise et al., 2006). The International Standards Organization developed the following rudimentary definition: Distraction is "attention given to a non - driving- related activity, typically to the detriment of driving performance" ( Pettitt, Burnett, & Stevens, 2005). Stutts and colleagues distinguished distraction from other forms of driver inattention (Stuffs, Reinfurt, Staplin, & Rodgman, 2001). They defined distraction as a form of inattention in which a driver "is delayed in the recognition of information needed to safely accomplish the driving task because some event, activity, object, or person within or outside the vehicle compels or induces the driver's shifting attention away from the driving task." Attempts to create a more comprehensive definition have focused on several issues. The first issue is whether driver distraction requires an identifiable source, including either an observable event (e.g., unexpected movement of an animal inside the vehicle) or an activity in which the driver chooses to engage (e.g., inserting a CD or eating). There is general agreement that the existence of a triggering activity is a critical part of the definition (Trezise et al., 2006; Pettitt et al., 2005); however, there is also a growing realization that "cognitive distraction" is a significant component of driver distraction (Young, Regan, & Hammer, 2003). Cognitive distraction refers to the mental workload associated with a task and is generally not observable. Moreover, one agency — The New Zealand Ministry of Transport — included "emotionally upset/preoccupied," among the categories of driver distraction. A second issue concerns the question of how much control the driver has over the triggering activity. One analysis proposed three categories: (1) purposeful (e.g., inserting a CD); (2) incidental (e.g., answering a phone or eating); and (3) uncontrolled (e.g., movement of animal or child inside the vehicle) (Trezise et al., 2006). The distinction between the first two categories seems weak; however the importance of this dimension is underscored by one reporting authority's inclusion of sneezing/coughinghtching as a category of distraction. While it is generally agreed that activities in all three categories relate appropriately to driver distraction, inclusion of the latter group of involuntary responses seems beyond the focus of contemporary concern about driver distraction. 0) A third issue is whether distractions should include events or activities external to the vehicle as well as those inside the vehicle. Sudden, unexpected movements, for example by wild animals outside the vehicle, may be examples of external distractions. However, the inclusion of relatively common driving situations (e.g., driver blinded by sun or by oncoming headlights, sirens of police emergency vehicles) in one study seems inconsistent with the notion of distraction as involving unusual or unexpected events. In contrast, a potentially important source of distraction involves advertising signage, which is becoming both more prevalent and more dynamic and thus potentially more effective at capturing drivers' attention in certain areas (Wallace, 2003). Typically, categorizations allow external sources (e.g., "Outside person object or event ") and it is generally found that these sources are associated with approximately 20 to 30 percent of the crashes caused by distraction. (Trezise et al., 2006) Based on consideration of these issues, the Australian Road Safety Board (2006) presented the following comprehensive definition: Driver distraction is the voluntary or involuntary diversion of attention from the primary driving tasks not related to impairment (from alcohol, drugs, fatigue, or a medical condition) where the diversion occurs because the driver is performing an additional task (or tasks) and temporarily focusing on an object, event, or person not related to the primary driving tasks. The diversion reduces a driver's situational awareness, decision making, and/or performance resulting, in some instances, in a collision or near -miss or corrective action by the driver and/or other road user. Restricting distraction to situations in which a secondary task, event, or object can be identified creates a clean boundary between this and other forms of inattention. This criterion thus serves to maximize the objectivity of reporting, which is essential given that the data sources are primarily administrative documents (e.g., police crash reports) rather than research - quality data. The main weakness of this definition is that it allows cognitive distraction only as part of the driver's performance of an identifiable secondary task and not alone (as in being lost in thought or emotionally upset). However, as detailed in the next section, data collection capabilities are expanding to the point that video data of drivers' pre -crash behaviors may soon be available. These data are expected to provide insights into the visual behaviors associated with episodes of cognitive distraction, which may facilitate a broadening of the definition of distraction to include some behaviors not associated with an identifiable secondary task. 2.2 Measurement of Driver Distraction Distraction contributes to motor vehicle crashes when a driver's attention is diverted away from the driving task at a time when the driver is required to identify and respond to an unexpected hazard or a changing driving situation (e.g., lead vehicle braking). Distraction may also be associated with lapses of vehicle control, resulting in unintended speed changes or allowing the vehicle to drift outside the lane boundaries. Because of the significant difficulties inherent in measuring driver attention, the magnitude and particularly the 3 safety implications of driver distraction have been very difficult to determine. Indeed, as pointed out by Stutts et al. (2005a), unlike seat belt use, the driver's attention status cannot be categorized as "yes" or "no," and it cannot be quantified in the same manner as blood alcohol level. The effects of distraction have been measured in several types of studies, including: • Observational studies; • Crash -based studies; and • Experimental studies of driving performance. Observational studies provide direct information about the types and incidence of secondary tasks that drivers attempt while driving. Two types of observational studies have been conducted, including fixed -site observations and naturalistic in- vehicle observations. In the former, a stationary observer records the activities and demographic characteristics of drivers as they pass a selected location. The information obtained is limited by the time available and the fidelity of the discriminations that can be made by observers as vehicles move past a fixed location. In naturalistic studies, volunteer participants drive vehicles instrumented with sensors and video cameras, which allows driving behavior to be recorded at all times. Instrumentation is generally unobtrusive and does not damage the driver's vehicle when removed. Advances in data storage and remote communication technologies allow researchers to access vehicles infrequently and often remotely. A complete video record provides valid data concerning the incidence of potentially distracting activities in which the sampled drivers engage. These studies are limited by the possibility that drivers will not behave naturally if they know their vehicles are instrumented, as well as the relatively small samples of drivers who can be included due to the expense associated with instrumenting each vehicle. Another limitation is that the vast majority of everyday driving behavior is uneventful and thus the cost of continuously recording and examining all driver activity relative to the number of resulting crashes is high, given the low probability that a given driver will be involved in a crash in a given year. The result is that very large numbers of drivers are needed to obtain a useful number of crashes. Crash -based studies provide the most direct information about the safety implications of performing secondary tasks. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to accurately determine whether driver distraction or any other form of inattention was a contributing factor in a crash. Investigating officers typically do not report the occurrence of a distracting activity unless there is direct evidence and drivers are understandably reluctant to admit that they were engaged in a secondary task, particularly if that involvement may have contributed to the crash. Therefore, it is generally thought that the incidence of distraction among crash - involved drivers is underestimated in crash studies (Trezise et al., 2006; Stutts et al., 2001; McCartt et al., 2006). Crash studies are also limited by the absence of matched exposure data, which are necessary to determine the relative crash risks associated with distracting secondary tasks. In the absence of exposure data, crash data analyses are limited to reporting the incidence of distracting activities among crash - involved drivers. 4 Thus, when crash and exposure data are used together, it is possible to determine which secondary activities are more likely to result in crashes. However, crash data alone provide no information about crash causation. Naturalistic observational studies offer the promise of providing both detailed crash and matched exposure data. Experimental studies are conducted in controlled settings, including driving simulator laboratories and closed test tracks. The research methodologies are derived from laboratory studies of attention, which have demonstrated that certain combinations of tasks cannot be performed together without interference. This finding applies directly to driving. For example, secondary tasks that require drivers to look away from the roadway (e.g., to view a navigation map display) are likely to interfere with drivers' abilities to visually monitor the roadway ahead. Moreover, the effort devoted to interpreting the map display is likely to interfere with drivers' ability to interpret an emerging hazardous situation ahead. Because almost all secondary tasks involve some perceptual- cognitive components, it is likely that some interference with driving will be observed (Wickens, 1999). Experimental studies measure the potential for distraction, which is a relative assessment of the level of primary -task (driving) degradation associated with a given secondary task. Participants are typically instructed concerning when and how often to engage in secondary tasks while driving. Experimental studies do not incorporate motivational factors that influence drivers' willingness to engage in secondary tasks in real -world driving. Experimental studies thus do not provide direct information about the real -world risk of a given secondary task, only the level of primary (driving) task degradation when performed in a given setting. The real -world risk associated with a secondary task relates to the priority given by the driver to this task and the driving situations in which the driver is willing to engage in the task. Drivers' willingness to engage in secondary tasks is related to the benefits they associate with the secondary tasks. Secondary tasks may be perceived as beneficial because they provide entertainment, counteract the effects of boredom or fatigue, or because they allow the driver to accomplish "work," such as making business calls or scheduling appointments while driving. It is also'likely that over time drivers become so accustomed to driving while performing secondary tasks (e.g., listening to the radio) that the combination of primary and secondary task becomes the rule rather than the exception. Difficulties characterizing factors that contribute to drivers' willingness to engage in secondary tasks have raised questions about the ability to generalize experimental results to real -world driving. For example, two secondary tasks may be equivalent in their potential for distraction when tested using an experimental protocol in which task priorities are set and the driving task demands are fixed. However, if one task is perceived to be more essential to real -world users, this task will likely be performed more often while driving and in more - dangerous driving situations. The real -world result would be that the more essential task poses a significantly greater risk, even though the laboratory experiments found them to have equal potential for distraction. A related obstacle to the measurement of distraction is that the level of distraction associated with a given secondary task depends on the extent to which a driver is engaged in the task. Consider the difference between a casual phone conversation and a complex conversation of significant importance to the driver. The latter will typically demand more concentration resulting in a higher level of engagement than the former. Factors such as engagement and concentration, while not observable, contribute to the level of cognitive distraction associated with a secondary task. Similarly, individual differences in drivers' abilities to switch between primary and secondary tasks, and other factors including intelligence, will determine how difficult a given task is for a given driver. Thus, a task may be relatively easy and less distracting for one individual than for another. These factors contribute to the difficulty of measuring distraction and are typically not addressed in experimental studies. The measurement of distraction was the focus of several large scale research projects conducted by consortia of researchers, government agencies, and automotive manufacturers. The consortia include the recently completed European project HASTE (Human machine interface And the Safety of Traffic in Europe) (Carsten & Brookhuis, 2005a), the Driver Workload Metrics (DWM) Consortium of the Collision Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) (Angell et al., 2006) and the German Advanced Driver Attention Metrics (ADAM) program (Mattes, 2003). The projects adopted slightly different approaches and came to slightly different conclusions about how best to measure driver distraction. The HASTE program was undertaken by eight European partners and Canada. The goal was to develop methodologies and guidelines for the assessment of In- Vehicle Information Systems (IVIS). Numerous experiments were conducted across Europe and Canada using a variety of test venues. HASTE researchers found differences between the testing venues. Specifically, they found that driving was degraded more on real roads than in simulators when drivers performed the same secondary tasks. They speculated that the relatively limited fidelity of existing simulators may have been the main reason for this discrepancy. However, emphasizing the efficiency and reproducibility of the assessment environment that can be obtained in driving simulators over the realism of real -road driving, they concluded that an assessment regime that uses a reasonably advanced driving simulator, incorporating scenarios that require rural road driving, can provide meaningful and potentially reliable results (Carsten et al., 2005a; Carsten et al., 2005b). They also concluded that between four and six behavioral parameters would be sufficient to evaluate any system offered for assessment. One major finding of this work was that the effects of cognitive distraction differ considerably from those of visual distraction on driving performance. Secondary tasks that were mostly visual led to decrements in steering and lateral vehicle control. In contrast, secondary tasks that were mostly cognitive led to decrements in longitudinal vehicle control, particularly car - following (Carsten et al., 2005a). One apparently anomalous finding was that when secondary task cognitive demands increased, drivers' lateral control was found to improve. Analysis of drivers' eye glance patterns revealed that when 0 cognitive demands increased, drivers increased their concentration on the road center and decreased looking at the periphery. Although the underlying behavioral mechanism is not well understood, it is thought that the increasing demands of the secondary task cause drivers to simplify their driving by focusing on what is immediately in front of them. The "improvement' ' in lateral control is thus an unintended consequence of this simplification as lateral vehicle control becomes guided by central rather than by peripheral vision. The cost to drivers is that they no longer have the ability to monitor their periphery and thus will not detect hazards until they are immediately in front of the vehicle. These results reveal the importance of analyzing drivers' eye glance patterns for understanding the attentional mechanisms involved in distraction. The Driver Workload Metrics Project was conducted by the CAMP consortium, which included researchers from Ford, GM, Nissan, and Toyota. The main objective was to develop performance metrics and test procedures that could be used to assess how the distraction associated with an in- vehicle system might degrade or interfere with driving performance. They also sought to develop a toolkit of evaluation methods that would allow developers to minimize the workload implications of future in- vehicle systems during the design process. They conducted experiments in three test venues, including laboratory, test track, and on -road driving. Their focus was on the selection of driving performance metrics obtained in an experimental context that can be used to predict the safety implications of distraction in real driving. Four categories of driving performance metrics were identified as having direct implications for safety. These included driver eye - glance patterns, lateral vehicle control, longitudinal vehicle control, and object- and -event detection. The researchers also identified a number of potential surrogates, which included laboratory measures, ratings, and analytical methods thought to have predictive values with respect to the above - mentioned performance measures. They performed a series of analyses to determine which of their performance metrics discriminated driving with a secondary task from driving alone. They also determined which metrics discriminated high- from low- workload secondary tasks. The majority of metrics that passed one or both of these tests were eye - glance measures. In addition, they found that measures generally discriminated high- from low- workload tasks much better for visual - manual than for auditory -vocal secondary tasks. Visual -manual tasks affected driving performance more than auditory -vocal tasks. The main conclusion of the CAMP project was that the interference to driving caused by in- vehicle secondary tasks was multidimensional and no single metric could measure all effects. In agreement with the HASTE results, CAMP researchers found that visual- manual secondary tasks exhibited different performance profiles than auditory -vocal tasks. They concluded that eye - glance data contains important information for assessing the distraction effects of both auditory -vocal and visual - manual tasks. Based on the secondary tasks they used, they concluded that cognitive distraction plays a much smaller role than visual distraction. Finally, because they found some degradation in the laboratory that was not found in the driving behavior, they concluded that the laboratory results alone were not sufficient to assess the distraction potential associated with secondary tasks. 7 The ADAM project has focused on the development of a lane change task (LCT). This task requires drivers to respond to a sequence of lane- change assignments while performing secondary tasks (Mattes, 2003). The summary measure derived from the LCT has been shown to be sensitive to different types of secondary tasks and is being promoted as a standardized measure of distraction potential. These projects were ambitious attempts to select driving performance metrics with some known relationship to on -road safety. However, as they progressed it became clear that it is virtually impossible to use experimental results to predict real -world risks associated with different secondary tasks. Thus, while the metrics identified in these studies may be very helpful for assessing the relative potential for distraction associated with in- vehicle systems during their development, the ultimate safety effects of new in- vehicle technologies cannot be known until the technologies are used in real -world driving, and data pertaining to drivers' willingness to engage in the secondary tasks are obtained. 3.0 INCIDENCE AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF DISTRACTION With these methodological considerations as background, we now consider what is known about the incidence of potentially distracting secondary tasks and their effects on safety. First, we summarize the results of observational studies that document the incidence of various secondary tasks. Next, we consider what is known about the involvement of distraction in crashes. We then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of naturalistic observational studies for providing detailed information about distracted driving and its consequences. 3.1 What Activities Comprise Distraction? In 2001, the Highway Safety Research Center at the University of North Carolina conducted a "naturalistic' observational study to determine the types of activities drivers attempt while driving and their potential consequences (Stuffs et al., 2005a). Seventy drivers drove their own vehicles for a week during which approximately 10 hours were video - recorded and analyzed to identify the incidence of various distracting secondary tasks. They found that drivers spent approximately 15.3 percent of the time the vehicles were moving engaged in conversation with passengers. Drivers engaged in some other activity 14.5 percent of the total driving time. Percentages of times for specific activities included: preparing to eat, eating or spilling (4.6 %); reaching for something or leaning, plus other internal distractions (3.8 1 /o); cell phone use (including dialing, answering, and talking) (1.3 %); manipulating audio controls (1.4 %); and smoking (1.6 %). Sayer, Devonshire, and Flannagan (2005) observed samples of 5- second video clips obtained from 36 drivers during routine driving. Their analysis was based on approximately 120 hours of driving. They found that 34 percent of the 5- second episodes involved a secondary task. Most common was conversation with another passenger, which occurred in 15 percent of the samples, followed by grooming (6.5 %), use of a hand -held cellular phone (5.3 %), and eating or drinking (1.9 %). They found that the occurrence of secondary -task engagement decreased with driver age. Samples taken from younger drivers (mean age 25) were more than twice as likely to involve secondary activities as were those of older drivers (mean age 64). For this study, drivers used borrowed vehicles, which were equipped with lane - departure warning systems as well as data acquisition instrumentation. Thus, the behavior observed was not fully natural. These two studies are- fairly consistent in their finding that drivers spend approximately 15 percent of their total driving time engaged in conversation with passengers and an approximately equal amount of time engaged in other identifiable activities. 3.2 Incidence of Distraction Among Crash - Involved Drivers Using 1995 -1999 Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) data, which only include crashes serious enough that one vehicle was towed from the scene, Stutts et al. (2001) reported that 8.3 percent of the crash - involved vehicles had distracted drivers. Driver attention status was not recorded for 36 percent of the drivers. If the distribution of driver attention status among the unknowns was similar to that for the known cases, then the incidence of distraction among drivers involved in crashes would increase from 8.3 percent to 12.9 percent. However, the evidence in support of this assumption is equivocal (Stuffs et al., 2001). Therefore, if one adopts a more conservative assumption that the incidence of distraction among drivers with unknown attention status is half the incidence of distraction among drivers with known attention status, then the overall incidence of distraction among crash - involved drivers is approximately 10.6 percent. Stutts et al. (2005b) performed similar analyses using the 2000 -2003 CDS data. They found that 6.6 percent of crash - involved drivers were distracted; however, the attention status was unknown for 46 percent of the drivers. If one applies the same conservative assumption concerning the incidence of distraction among the unknowns, the overall percentage of distracted crash - involved drivers becomes approximately 10.4 percent. Thus, while there are variations between years, it appears that over the period from 1995 to 2003, approximately 10.5 percent of drivers involved in crashes serious enough to require at least one vehicle to be towed from the scene were distracted at the time of their crash involvement. Moreover, the fact that the estimated percentages for the two data collection intervals are virtually identical indicates that there was no discernible increase in the percentage of distracted, crash - involved drivers over this period. In the 1995 -1999 analysis, approximately 70 percent of the reported distractions were inside the vehicle, with the remaining 30 percent occurring outside the vehicle. Passengers and audio devices were the most prevalent reported distractions. Among the specific sources cited in the 2000 -2003 analysis were an outside object/person/event (23.7 %) and another vehicle occupant (20.8 %). These were followed by using or reaching for an object (5.2 %), a moving object inside the vehicle (3.7 %), cell phone (3.6 %), adjusting radio /cassette /CD (2.9 %), eating /drinking (2.8 %), adjusting climate control (1.5 %), and smoking (1 %). Contextual factors were found to be important in the earlier study. Specifically, Stutts et al. (200 1) reported that crashes associated with adjusting audio devices were more likely at night, moving objects inside the vehicle were more likely on non -level grades, and distractions involving communication with other occupants were more likely at intersections. The later study included more detail on the circumstances and consequences of collisions involving driver distraction (Stuffs et al., 2005b). Younger (under 20) and older (70 +) crash - involved drivers were more likely than drivers of other ages to have been distracted at the time of their crashes (12 to 14 % versus 6 to 9 1 /o). Distracted drivers were 50 percent more likely to have been seriously injured or killed in their crashes, relative to attentive drivers. Distracted drivers were more likely than attentive drivers to have been involved in non - collision (i.e., single- vehicle) or rear -end crashes. Approximately 70 percent of the distracted driver crashes involved one of these two events, with the 10 remainder being primarily angle collisions. Compared to the crashes of attentive drivers, the crashes of distracted drivers were more likely to occur during evening or nighttime hours and less likely to occur on high -speed roadways, multi -lane roadways, curves, and intersections. The analyses also revealed differences between collisions involving distracted drivers and those involving drivers with other forms of inattention. Specifically, 82 percent of the crashes involving inattentive drivers who "looked but did not see" were angle collisions, with the vast majority of these involving turns. Almost 78 percent of the crashes sustained by drowsy drivers were single- vehicle noncollision crashes. These differences underscore the importance of considering distraction as a distinct problem, different from other categories of inattention. Naturalistic observational studies are emerging as one approach to solve the problem of determining exactly what the driver was doing immediately prior to a crash. Naturalistic studies also provide the potential for combining exposure data with crash data to allow computation of odds ratios or other measures of the relative crash risk associated with various secondary tasks. In the absence of large numbers of crashes, naturalistic studies have focused on the precursors of "near- crashes," on the assumption that the types of precipitating errors, including the incidence of distraction, would be similar for near - crashes and crashes. However, this assumption has not been adequately validated. One such study merits consideration (Klauer, Dingus, Neale, Sudweeks, & Ramsey, 2006). The 100 -Car Naturalistic Driving Study was performed by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) for NHTSA. One hundred drivers who commuted into or around the northern Virginia/Washington, DC, metropolitan area were recruited. They used either their own vehicles or leased vehicles. The sample was restricted to six passenger vehicle types, due to instrumentation feasibility issues. The driver sample was selected to include disproportionate numbers of younger (18 to 25 years old) drivers and drivers with high annual mileage. This was intended to maximize the potential for recording crashes and near -crash events. Data were recorded over a 12- to 13 -month period. In all, there were 2 million vehicle miles and approximately 43,000 hours of data from 241 drivers. Data were obtained from 69 crashes, 761 near - crashes, and approximately 20,000 baseline segments, selected randomly to represent normal uneventful driving. Distraction due to a secondary task was reported in 33 percent of the crashes and 27 percent of the near crashes. Using the crash and near -crash data together with the baseline data, the authors computed odds ratios, which represent the relative risk associated with a given secondary task. They defined three categories of secondary tasks, based on the number of button presses and/or glances away from the forward road. Complex tasks required more than two button presses or eye - glances away from the road and included applying makeup, reaching for a moving object or hand -held device, and dialing a hand -held device. Moderate secondary tasks, defined as requiring at most two button presses or eye - glances, included talking or listening to a hand -held device, inserting a CD or cassette, or eating, among others. Simple tasks required at most one button press or eye glance and included adjusting the radio, drinking, or smoking. The odds ratios support the conclusion that secondary -task complexity, as defined above, influences crash and near -crash risk. Specifically, computed odds ratios 11 were 3.1 for complex secondary tasks, 2.1 for moderate secondary tasks, and 1.0 for simple secondary tasks. This means that when performing a complex secondary task, drivers were exposed to approximately three times the risk of involvement in a crash or near -crash as were drivers who were not engaged in a secondary task. For moderate secondary tasks, there was approximately twice the risk as driving with no secondary task and for simple secondary tasks there was no appreciable increase in risk. Additional analyses were conducted to identify the environmental conditions associated with distraction- related crashes and near - crashes. For these analyses, only the complex secondary tasks were associated with elevated odds ratios, indicative of elevated risk. Specifically, for drivers performing complex secondary tasks, elevated odds ratios were found for the following conditions: dusk and unlighted darkness, rain, divided roads, and roads with grades (straight or curved). Thus with the exception of divided roads, which are normally considered safer than undivided roads, the results support the conclusion that engaging in a complex secondary task is more likely to result in a crash or near -crash in relatively difficult driving situations. There are several caveats that must be considered in the interpretation of this data. First, 90 percent of the outcome events were near - crashes, not crashes. Furthermore, the definition of a crash allowed inclusion of events that would not have reached the damage criterion for police reporting of crashes. Thus the elevated odds ratios indicate that drivers were more likely to be involved in relatively minor events, most of which did not result in a crash. Second, the inclusion of multiple crash or near -crash events from each driver creates statistical problems, which raise questions about how well the study results represent the experience of the driving population more generally. Third, the baseline samples were selected randomly and were thus not matched in terms of any descriptors (e.g., time of day, location, environmental conditions) to the crash or near -crash events. McCartt et al. (2006) concluded that naturalistic studies have the potential for providing useful data when adequate and representative samples of drivers are combined with exposure or control - group data. This potential was recognized by the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP II), which is planning to fund a naturalistic study of much larger scale than the 100 - car study. It is expected that the data obtained in that study will be more representative of the entire country and will contain significantly larger numbers of crashes so that estimates of crash risk associated with various secondary tasks can be more precisely computed. 12 4.0 TECHNOLOGY-BASED DISTRACTIONS 4.1 Mobile Telephones Cell phones are the contemporary icon of driver distraction. The fact that their use among drivers in the United States is steadily increasing has been demonstrated by four daylight surveys conducted by NHTSA ( Glassbrenner, 2005a; Glassbrenner, 2005b; Glassbrenner, 2005c; Utter, 2001). According to these surveys, the incidence of handheld phone use among drivers has increased from 3 percent in 2002, to 4 percent in 2003, 5 percent in 2004, and 6 percent in 2005. In the most recent survey, there was wide variation among age groups, with 10 percent of 16- to 24 -year -olds holding-phones versus 1 percent of drivers over age 70. Females were more likely to be holding a phone (8% versus 5% for males). Using additional data, NHTSA estimated that in 2005 approximately 10 percent of drivers in a typical daytime moment were using some type of phone, whether hand -held or hands - free ( Glassbrenner, 2005c). Roadside surveys conducted in the United Kingdom revealed that phone use declines with increasing age and, in contrast to the U.S. results, that men were slightly more likely to use phones than women (Trezise et al., 2006). A considerable body of research has been published in an attempt to understand the effects of cellular phone use on driving behavior and safety as well as the effects of attempts to limit cellular phone use while driving. McCartt and colleagues (2006) have recently published a comprehensive review of this literature, in which they synthesized the results of 125 studies. Over 50 of these were experimental studies in which volunteer drivers were tested on driving simulators or instrumented vehicles on test tracks or public roads. According to their review, experimental studies typically find that performance on driving simulators in instrumented vehicles is compromised by tasks that attempt to replicate the demands of phone conversation. Slowed reaction time is the most consistent finding and degraded performance is more pronounced among older drivers (age 50 to 80) than among younger drivers. More difficult phone tasks, which may involve complex computational or recall tasks, produce greater performance decrements. McCartt et al. (2006) present some evidence that phone conversations are more disruptive than conversations with passengers or manipulating a radio, CD, or cassette player. Despite the fact that the preponderance of experimental evidence consistently reveals driving performance degradation associated with phone use, McCartt et al. (2006) question the usefulness of the experimental data for assessing the safety implications of phone use while driving. They refer to a lack of "operational clarity," which refers to the difficulties involved in comparing results from studies that used different methods. This raises concerns about the reliability of the findings as well as their ecological validity, which refers to how well the experiments recreate the real -world challenges of phone use while driving. This area of research has been criticized for using artificial phone tasks and has had considerable difficulty characterizing the content and level of driver involvement in phone conversations. Clearly, the level of distraction and corresponding primary task degradation are likely to be much higher when a driver is heavily engaged in a meaningful, serious conversation 13 than when engaged in a superficial meaningless conversation. The same is true for complex versus simple conversations. These two dimensions, the level of driver engagement and conversation complexity, combine to influence the amount of mental workload or effort that a driver devotes to a phone conversation while driving. This level of effort translates directly into the level of cognitive distraction. The inability to characterize the dynamics of naturalistic phone conversations is one problem that has raised concerns about the ecological validity of this research (Haigney & Westermen, 2001). Horrey and Wickens (2006) conducted a meta- analysis using published data from 23 experimental studies of distraction effects of phone use. They found that phone use was associated with definite costs to driving performance, but that these costs were to measures of response time and not for measures of lane- keeping or tracking performance. On average, the decrement in response time associated with phone use while driving was 130 milliseconds. They found that hands -free phone use did not reduce these costs, which led them to the conclusion that the main effect of phone use was the cognitive distraction. They also found that conversations with passengers were just as detrimental to driving performance as cell phone conversations. McCartt et al. (2006) reviewed over 20 studies that assessed the crash risk associated with cell phone use while driving. They noted that most states do not provide data elements on police report forms to record drivers' phone use. Moreover, as noted above, even when data elements are available, phone use data obtained from crash reports are unreliable. They concluded that for accurately assessing crash risk, it is essential that phone use among crash - involved drivers be established independently. Several studies have been conducted using cell phone company billing records for this purpose, however these have all been conducted in other countries because cell phone billing records have not been available in the United States. One such study was conducted in Toronto (Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 1997). Researchers obtained cell phone company billing records from approximately 700 Canadian drivers to establish phone use at the time of the crash. Crash - involved drivers were used as their own controls in a case - crossover design. Phone use at the time of the crash was compared with phone use among the same drivers at a comparable time of day during the week prior to the crash. They found that drivers' use of a cell phone up to 10 minutes before the crash was associated with a fourfold increased likelihood of being involved in a crash. Hands -free phones did not appear to help, however the study may not have had sufficient statistical power to assess this effect. A similar study was undertaken in Perth, Western Australia (McEvoy et al., 2005), in which phone records were obtained for approximately 500 drivers involved in crashes that required hospital treatment. Using the same type of design, they found a fourfold increase in the risk of serious crash involvement among drivers using a phone at the time of the collision. Despite their concerns about existing methods, McCartt et al:, (2006) concluded that phone use represents a significant driving hazard. Moreover, because phone use may involve a relatively extended period of exposure relative to other shorter - duration distractions such as eating, drinking, or radio - tuning, it likely represents a bigger problem than these other common in- vehicle tasks. 14 4. 1.1 Future Problems With Cell Phone Use While phone use may represent a relatively small proportion of the current incidence of distracting activities, two trends combine to suggest that the associated problems may increase. First is the continually increasing number of cell phone users. Second is the fact that phones are now being used for many more activities than for talking. Specifically, they are being used for text messaging and to download audio or video from the Internet, to play games and in some countries to pay bills (Trezise et al., 2006). Moreover, it is younger people who are leading the way in these secondary uses of mobile phones (Trezise et al., 2006). To the extent that such auxiliary uses of cell phones are being performed largely by drivers without fully- developed driving skills, we may expect to observe a synergistic acceleration in the resulting safety problem. Hosking, Young, and Regan (2006) examined the effects of text messaging on the driving performance of young novice drivers in a driving simulator. Drivers were instructed to initiate text messaging to coincide with programmed scenario events. They found that retrieving and sending text messages had a detrimental effect on driving performance. Specifically, when text messaging, drivers were more likely to drive outside the lane boundaries and were less likely to respond appropriately to traffic signs. Driving while text messaging was also associated with a 400 percent increase in the amount of time spent looking away from the road, relative to driving without text messaging. In particular, drivers spent approximately 10 percent of the time looking away from the road when driving normally, versus 40 percent when text messaging. These authors reported the results of a separate Australian study in which it was found that 30 percent of drivers surveyed had sent text messages while driving. They concluded that mobile phone safety education and advertising campaigns should be targeted heavily to younger drivers. 4.2 In- Vehicle Route Guidance Systems In- vehicle route - guidance or navigation systems are designed to guide drivers to a specified destination. Drivers enter a destination and the system provides a route from the vehicle's present location to the destination. While such systems may be helpful to drivers in unfamiliar locations, they have the potential to distract drivers in several ways. These include the physical distraction associated with manual destination entry, which typically uses a keyboard; the visual distraction when looking at the display while entering a destination or viewing a map or directions; the aural distraction when listening to auditory turn-by -turn, instructions; and also the cognitive distraction when the driver thinks about the information presented by the system. There is also some evidence to suggest that the mere presence of a navigation system in a vehicle might encourage increasingly frequent and unnecessary use of the system, including browsing through lists of attractions (Burnett, Summerskill, & Porter, 2004). Destination entry can be a time - consuming process and is considered the most distracting component of using in- vehicle navigation systems (Young et al., 2003). Tijerina et al., (1998) examined the effects of destination entry using four route guidance systems on 15 closed - course driving performance. Three systems required manual entry while the fourth used voice commands. They found that destination entry using the visual/manual systems had a generally higher potential for distraction than the voice activated system. This was evidenced as longer completion times, more frequent glances at the device, longer eyes - off -road times, and a greater number of lane exceedances. They concluded that destination entry using voice recognition technology was less distracting than manual entry (Tijerina, Parmer, & Goodman, 1998). Navigation systems have several ways of presenting route guidance information, including visual displays and audio messages. Visual displays can be either maps or turn-by -turn instructions. Because most information needed for driving is obtained visually, it has been assumed that audio messages would be less distracting than information presented on visual displays. Srinivasan and Jovanis (1997) used a driving simulator experiment to compare different methods of information presentation, which included a map display alone, map plus visual turn=by -turn displays, map plus voice guidance, and a paper map. The voice guidance system was associated with the best driving performance, defined as the fewest navigational errors, lowest workload, and fastest speeds. Because drivers were instructed to maintain posted speeds, slower speeds were interpreted as indicating greater distraction. Use of the paper map resulted in the slowest speeds, highest workload and most navigational errors. Based primarily on these results, voice instructions are considered to be less distracting than a visual display and turn -by -turn instructions are less distracting than maps (Young et al., 2003; Trezise et al., 2006). 4.3 In- Vehicle Internet and E -mail Capabilities The availability of in- vehicle Internet and e-mail access is predicted to become an important component of new infotainment systems (Young et al., 2003). Drivers will be able to download traffic updates and weather reports, among other things, and to access e -mail and web capabilities more generally. As the functionality of in- vehicle computing capabilities approaches that of desktop or portable computers, secondary task possibilities will proliferate and it will become increasingly difficult not only to define secondary task boundaries but also to determine which tasks may be acceptable to perform while driving and which may not. Moreover, given drivers' freedom to determine when and how much attention to divert from driving to perform secondary tasks, it is likely that some drivers may choose to switch between multiple secondary tasks while driving, much as they do when using a personal computer. This scenario could create significant challenges for interface designers and for those who seek to develop methods for assessing the distraction potential of secondary tasks. 16 4.4 Radio Tuning/CD Players Few studies have considered the distracting effects of operating vehicle radios or other entertainment systems (e.g., cassette, CD) because these secondary tasks are generally considered to pose acceptable levels of distraction. Several studies have demonstrated that tuning or even simply listening to a radio while driving can distract a driver and degrade driving performance (Young et al., 2003). Research has also suggested that operating a CD player while driving is more distracting than dialing a mobile phone or eating (Young et al., 2003). 17 5.0 COUNTERMEASURES FOR DISTRACTED DRIVING 5.1 Behavioral Strategies Developing effective countermeasures for distracted driving is hampered by the abovementioned difficulties in defining, observing, and measuring driver distraction. This also holds true for measuring countermeasure effectiveness. The standard behavioral countermeasures of laws, enforcement, and sanctions, which have been used successfully for alcohol impairment, safety belt use, aggressive driving, and speeding, are considered unlikely to be effective for distracted driving (NHTSA, 2006). The main reason is that distracted driving is more than a driving or transportation system issue. Rather, it is'a societal issue, resulting in part from lifestyle patterns and choices. This point is also made by Lee and Strayer (2004), who suggest that social norms govern what constitutes an acceptable risk. For example, if it is socially acceptable to use a cell phone while driving, then it may be very difficult to influence this behavior. The same is true for other more commonly accepted distractions such as eating or drinking, and listening to music. According to NHTSA, the obvious way to reduce distracted driving is to convince or require drivers to pay attention to their driving. Behavioral strategies to reduce distracted driving include attempting to remove underlying causes and promoting awareness of the risks (NHTSA, 2006). Removing the underlying causes of distraction may be extremely difficult due to the lifestyle component mentioned above. However, one noted exception is that some graduated driver licensing (GDL) provisions may help reduce distraction among younger drivers. GDL is a three -phase system for new drivers that consists of a learner's permit, a provisional license, and a full license. GDL helps new drivers acquire experience gradually by limiting exposure to higher -risk situations such as nighttime driving. As of August 2004, 47 States and the District of Columbia had some GDL components. GDL components that may have an impact on driver distraction include limiting the number of passengers and prohibiting cell phone use by drivers with learner's permits, provisional licenses, or by drivers under 18. There have been no evaluations of the GDL distraction provisions; however there is evidence supporting the overall effectiveness of GDL in reducing crashes and injuries among teenage drivers (Baker, Chen, & Li, 2007; NHTSA, 2006). 5. 1.1 Cell Phone and Related Laws The use of hand -held phones by drivers is illegal in most European Union countries, in all Australian states, and in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador-. Japanese drivers are not permitted to use any type of phone; however enforcement only occurs with another traffic violation. In the United States, use of hand -held phones is not permitted in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia. California's ban on hand- held phones will begin in 2008. Several additional communities prohibit hand -held cell phone use while driving. Twelve States prohibit all cell phone use by drivers under 18 or 18 21 and several States prohibit use among drivers with GDLs and school bus drivers. Other States do not allow communities to restrict cell phone use. Legislatures in over two- thirds of the States have considered bills related to cell phone use in recent years. The National Conference of State Legislatures monitors developments in legislation pertaining to distracted driving and maintains a Driver Focus and Technology Database that summarizes the current status of existing or pending restrictions on wireless or cellular phones. This information is available at: www.ncsl.org/ programs /transportation/DRFOCUS.httn The effectiveness of New York State's cell phone law has been evaluated. Initially, there was significant compliance, but 18 months later phone use had increased to a level that was not significantly different from that observed before the law took effect. It was concluded that a drop -off in publicity and the lack of a publicized enforcement campaign may have combined to reduce compliance to this law (McCartt et al., 2006). Several economic analyses have been conducted to compare the costs and benefits associated with cell phone use restrictions. These studies do not provide a clear consensus on the net effects of these laws (McCartt et al., 2006). Other than cell phone laws, there are no laws that address driver distraction explicitly. However, reckless driving laws implicitly prohibit driving while significantly distracted. No studies have evaluated whether such laws affect distracted driving, however it is expected that any such law will have little or no effect unless it is vigorously publicized and enforced (NHTSA, 2006). 5.1.2 Communications and Outreach on Distracted Driving Developing effective communications and outreach programs for the general public is difficult due to the wide range of possible sources of distraction. Some distractions occur outside the vehicle and are thus not under the driver's control. Other distractions, such as listening to the radio, music, or eating, are intentional and may help keep drivers alert on a long trip (NHTSA, 2006). Some States (California, New York) have conducted driver alertness campaigns for the general public, but there are no known studies of the effects of these campaigns on driver knowledge, attitudes, or behavior (NHTSA, 2006). To the extent that distraction is a problem for commercial drivers, employer programs may be a viable approach; however, to date employers have developed or implemented programs to combat employee drowsiness but not driver distraction (NHTSA, 2006). The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) of the Transportation Research Board undertook a study to identify countermeasures for reducing crashes of drowsy and distracted drivers (Stuffs et al., 2005b). As part of this study, the authors described a data collection initiative in Virginia aimed at improving the reliability of reporting associated with distraction and other forms of driver inattention. In addition to the improvement in the quality of reporting, they argued that such activities also help increase awareness of distraction by law enforcement officials. 19 5.2 Environmental Strategies The NCHRP report (Stuffs et al., 2005b) identifies two broad objectives relating to the environment, including (1) making roadways safer for drowsy and distracted drivers, and (2) providing safe stopping and resting areas. Two specific strategies were judged by Stuffs et al, (2005b) as having the highest potential effectiveness. These included installing shoulder and/or centerline rumble strips and improving access to stopping and resting areas. The main weakness of this report is that no distinction is made between approaches to address distraction- related problems and the broader problems of inattention and driver fatigue, which have different causes. Countermeasures that address inattention in realtime may be useful both for inattention generally and for distraction in particular, however countermeasures that address the underlying causes may not work equally well for all categories of inattention. For example, rumble strips may have the potential for improving the alertness of drivers who allow their vehicles to wander from the travel lane for whatever reason; however the placement of and access to rest areas are not likely to address distracted driving unless they include offering services such as wireless Internet access, which might encourage drivers to defer engagement in secondary tasks until they arrive at the rest area. 5.3 Vehicular Strategies 5.3.1 Guidelines for Interface Design Vehicular strategies for mitigation of driver distraction are focused primarily on the design of interfaces associated with in- vehicle systems that have the potential for distraction. Considerable effort has been devoted by the automotive manufacturers, not only in North America but also in Europe and Japan, to the development of design guidelines to optimize the interface characteristics associated with in- vehicle technologies. Specifically, during the past decade, there have been three major HMI guidelines developed, including one each in Europe, the United States, and Japan (Eckstein& van Gijssel, 2006). In the United States, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers drafted a set of voluntary design, installation, and use guidelines for telematic systems. These guidelines were based on the European Statement of Principles on Human - Machine Interface and comprised a "best practices" document to address the safety aspects of driver interactions with future in- vehicle and communications systems (Eckstein & van Gijssel, 2006). Transport Canada has funded research to assess these guidelines. Results of this work have concluded that while the principles are generally valid, they are difficult to apply and the results difficult to interpret (Morton & Angel, 2005). Burns (2007) assessed the effectiveness of the various guidelines more generally. He concluded that despite the existence of numerous standards and guidelines and despite the significant improvements in telematics interfaces in the past 10 years, designers are not consistently applying principles of good ergonomic design. Burns argues for a mechanism within the product development process that would allow the risks of driver distraction to be routinely and systematically considered during the product design, development, 20 and testing (Burns, 2007). However, it is increasingly difficult to focus exclusively on the auto manufacturers because technologies with significant distraction potential may also be purchased as aftermarket devices or as devices brought by drivers into the vehicle. Improvements to human machine interface design that improve usability may also have unintended effects. Lee and Strayer (2004) discussed the "usability paradox," which occurs when the improved design of an in- vehicle device makes it easier to use and thus less distracting. When drivers become aware of the increased ease of use, they may use the device more frequently, thus increasing their overall exposure to risk. The "usability paradox" is one form of behavioral adaptation or risk compensation, which has been proposed to explain why highway and vehicle safety improvements may have short-lived effects (Smiley, 2000; Wilde, 1982). Accordingly, such improvements as clearer roadway delineation, wider lanes, and even such safety features as air bags may eventually lead some drivers to feel safer and therefore drive faster, thus possibly reducing some of the safety benefits associated with the improvements. 5.3.2 Advanced Driver Assistance Technologies A few new vehicles are being sold with in- vehicle technologies that can detect driver distraction by monitoring driver performance and eye - glance directions. They may also be able to warn drivers of risky situations and control their use of distracting devices, such as wireless phones. For example, some Volvo vehicles have a system called the Intelligent Driver Information System, which delays incoming phone calls or other nonessential information if the driving situation is busy (e.g., during acceleration). Toyota recently announced that its 2008 Lexus LS600hl will be equipped with a camera to monitor the driver's face. If the glance- monitoring system detects that the driver is not looking ahead when the radar detects a potential crash, the driver will receive a warning. In anticipation of the emergence of multiple, distracting technologies, NHTSA has undertaken a research program with Delphi Electronics to determine the safety benefits associated with a system that employs in- vehicle analysis of drivers' glance directions to monitor and manage driver distraction. The system integrates driver data and traffic data collected from radar and other sensors to control the information flow to the driver. The goal is to develop and test a prototype adaptive interface that incorporates decision rules to prioritize information flow to the driver, to alert distracted drivers, and to improve the performance of collision warning systems. The program is called SAVE -IT (SAfety VEhicle using adaptive Interface Technology (www- nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov /departments /nrd -13/ newDriverDistraction.html). 21 6.0 RESEARCH DIRECTIONS 1. Naturalistic studies providing incidence data on distracting activities have typically been small -scale studies. A larger, more representative, study of the incidence of distracting activities is planned as part of the SB RP II program. The design of this program should give a high priority to driver distraction to ensure that appropriate data are obtained to better understand trends in driver distraction. 2. Better reporting of driver attention status for crash - involved drivers is needed to provide better estimates of the incidence of distraction in crashes. Research is needed to identify ways to reduce the percentage of unknown attention status among crash - involved drivers. 3. In- vehicle and portable information and entertainment technologies are emerging rapidly, making it increasingly difficult to determine the scope of the potential distraction problem. An effort is needed to develop an inventory of existing and emerging technologies and services accessible to drivers. From this, research is needed to define a taxonomy of driver distractions and specific sources. 4. The extent of distraction among drivers is determined by drivers' willingness to engage in potentially distracting secondary tasks while driving. Analysis of naturalistic data is needed to understand the factors that contribute to drivers' willingness to engage in potentially distracting tasks while driving. Information is needed to determine the extent to which the presence of in- vehicle technologies encourages unnecessary or incidental use while driving. An assessment of potentially distracting events and objects, such as dynamic advertisements, that occur outside the vehicle is needed to better understand this part of the distraction problem. 6. Work should continue on the development of objective, standardized measures of distraction. Emphasis should be given to improving the reliability and validity of eye - glance measures. 7. Methods must be determined to estimate the benefits as well as the costs of various distracting activities. 8. To help anticipate future distraction problems, an effort should be undertaken to identify segments of the driving population or other transportation system users who may have future potential for increased incidence of distraction. Possible examples include police officers, emergency responders, pedestrians using portable communication or entertainment devices, and young drivers. 9. Evaluation of the effectiveness of State distraction- related laws is needed. 22 7.0 REFERENCES Angell, L., Auflick, J., Austria, P. A., Kochhar, D., Tijerina, L., Biever, W., Diptiman, T., Hogsett, J., & Kiger, S. (2006). Driver workload metrics task 2 final report DOT HS 810 635. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Baker, S. P., Chen, L., & Li, G.L. (2007). Nationwide review ofgraduated driver licensing. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Burnett, G. E., Summerskill, S. J., & Porter, J. M. (2004). On- the -move destination entry for vehicle navigation systems: Unsafe by any means? Behaviour & Information Technology, 23, 265 -272. Burns, P. C. (2007, in press). North American approach to principles, codes and guidelines for in- vehicle HMI. In M.A. Regan, J. D. Lee, & K. L. Young (Eds.), Driver distraction, London: Taylor & Francis. Carsten, O., & Brookhuis, K. (2005a). Issues arising from the HASTE experiments. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8F, 191 -196. Carsten, O., Merat, N., Janssen, W. H., Johansson, E., Fowkes, M., & Brookhuis, K. (2005b). Human machine interaction and the safety of traffic in Europe. Rep. No. HASTE Final Report 1.0. University of Leeds: Institute for Transport Studies. Eckstein, L., & van Gijssel, A. (2006). HMI Guidelines and the effect on process, product and traffic safety. Rep. No. SAE 2006 -01 -0574. SAE International, Warrendale PA. Glassbrenner, D. (2005a). Cell phone use on the roads in 2002. DOT HS 809 580. Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Glassbrenner, D. (2005b). Traffic safety facts research note: Driver cell phone use in 2004 - Overall results. DOT HS 809 847. Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics andAnalysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration._ Glassbrenner, D. (2005c). Traffic safety facts research note: Driver cell phone use in 2005 - Overall results. DOT HS 809 967. Washington, DC: National Center forStatistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Haigney, D., & Westermen, S. J. (2001). Mobile (cellular) phone use and driving: a critical review of research methodology. Ergonomics, 44, 132 -143. Horrey, W. J., & Wickens, C. D. (2006). Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta - analytic techniques. Human Factors, 48, 196 -205. Hosking, S., Young, K. L., & Regan, M. A. (2006). The effects of text messaging 23 on young novice driver performance. Rep. No. 246. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Klauer, S. G., Dingus, T. A., Neale, V. L., Sudweeks, J. D., & Ramsey, D. J. The impact of driver inattention on near- crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100 -car naturalistic driving study data. DOT HS 810 594. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Lee, J. D., & Strayer, D. L. (2004). Preface to the special section on driver distraction. Human Factors, 46, 583 -586. Mattes, S. (2003). The lane change task as a tool for driver distraction evaluation. In GfA/17th Annual Conference of the International- Society- for - Occupational - Ergonomics- and- Safety (ISOES). Stuttgart, Germany: Ergonomia Verlag OHG, Bruno - Jacoby -Weg 11, D- 70597. McCartt, A. T., Hellinga, L. A., & Braitman, K. A. (2006). Cell phones and driving: Review of research. Traffic Injury Prevention, 7, 89 -106. McEvoy, S. P., Stevenson, M. R., McCartt, A. T., Woodward, M., Haworth, C., Palamara, P., & Cercarelli, R. (2005). Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: A case - crossover study. British Medical Journal, 12 July 2005. Morton, A. H., & Angel, H. A. (2005). Evaluation of industry safety principles for in- vehicle information and communication systems. Guelph, Ontario: Humansystems Incorporated. NHTSA (2006). Countermeasures that work: A highway safety countermeasure guide for state highway safety offices. DOT HS 809 980. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Pettitt, M., Burnett, G., & Stevens, A. (2005). Defining driver distraction. Paper presented at World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, San Francisco, CA. Redelmeier, D. A., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1997). Association between cellulartelephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. The New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 453-458. Sayer, J. R., Devonshire, J. M., & Flannagan, C. A. (2005). The effects of secondary tasks on naturalistic driving performance. Rep. No. UMTRI- 2005 -29. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Smiley, A. (2000). Auto safety and human adaptation. Issues in Science and Technology. Available at www.nap.edu/issues /17.2 /Smiley.htm Srinivasan, R., & Jovanis, P. P. (1997). Effect of in- vehicle route guidance systems on driver workload and choice of vehicle speed: Findings from a driving simulator 24 experiment. In Y. I. Noy (Ed.), Ergonomics and safety of intelligent driver interfaces (pp. 97 -114). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Stutts, J. C., Reinfurt, D. W., Staplin, L., & Rodgman, E. A. (2001). The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Stutts, J., Feaganes, J., Reinfurt, D., Rodgman, E., Hamlett, C., Gish, K., & Staplin, L. (2005a). Driver's exposure to distractions in their natural driving environment. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37, 1093 -1101. Stutts, J., Knipling, R. R., Pfefer, R., Neuman, T. R., Slack, K. L., & Hardy, K. K. (2005b). Guidance for implementation of the AASHTO strategic highway safety plan: A guide for reducing crashes involving drowsy and distracted drivers. NCHRP Rep. No. 500- 14. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Tijerina, L., Partner, E., & Goodman, M. (1998). Driver workload assessment of route guidance system destination entry while driving: A test track study. Seoul, Korea: Proceedings of the 5th ITS World Congress. Trezise, I., Stoney, E. G., Bishop, B., Eren, J., Harkness, A., Langdon, C., & Mulder, T. (2006). Report of the road safety committee on the inquiry into driver distraction. Rep. No. 209. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Road Safety Committee, Parliament of Victoria. Utter, D. (2001). Research note: Passenger vehicle driver cell phone use results from the Fall 2000 National Occupant Protection Use Survey. DOT HS 809 293. Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Wallace, B. (2003). External -to- vehicle driver distraction: Research findings. Rep. No. 168. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Executive. Wickens, C. D. (1999). Letter to the editor. Transportation Human Factors, I, 205- 41161 Wilde, G. J. S. (1982). The theory of risk - homeostasis: Implications for safety and health. RiskAnalysis, 2, 209 -255. Young, K. L., Regan, M. A., & Hammer, M. (2003). Driver distraction: A review of the literature. Rep. No.. 206. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. 25 Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News I Reuters.com Page 1 of 2 U.S. safety group calls for mobile phone driving ban Mon, Jan 12 2009 By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The National Safety Council, which campaigned to get U.S. states to enforce seatbelt laws, is taking on mobile phones, saying on Sunday it was starting a campaign to ban all use of mobile phones while driving. Even so- called hands -free devices should be banned, because studies show they do not make it any safer to talk on the telephone while driving, the group said. "It's time to take the cell phone away," said Janet Froetscher, president and chief executive officer of the non - profit group. "Studies show that driving while talking on a mobile phone is extremely dangerous and puts drivers at a four times greater risk of a crash," Froetscher said in a telephone interview. Many states and Washington, D.C. have laws requiring the use of a hands -free device while driving and using a cellphone. But several recent studies have shown drivers are far more distracted when speaking on a mobile phone, even with a speaker or headset, than talking to a live passenger. Last month Dave Strayer of the University of Utah and colleagues demonstrated that drivers using a hands -free device drifted out of their lanes and missed exits more frequently than drivers talking to a passenger. Strayer's team has also shown that drivers using mobile telephones are as impaired as drivers who are legally drunk. A study from the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis estimates that cellphone use while driving contributes to 6 percent of crashes. Froetscher's group says that translates to 636,000 crashes, 330,000 injuries and 2,600 deaths in the United States each year. "When you're on a call, even if both hands are on the wheel, your head is in the call, and not on your driving," Froetscher said. "Unlike the passenger sitting next to you, the person on the other end of the call is oblivious to your driving conditions. The passenger provides another pair of eyes on the road." CALLING GOVERNORS Froetscher said her group would call governors and state legislators and ask them to ban all use of mobile phones while driving. She is confident the group can get states to change their laws. "We have been through this before with seatbelts, with drunk driving. We do research. When the research demonstrates that something is very dangerous and we can save lives, we educate the public about it. We educate legislators about it," she said in a telephone interview. John Ulczycki, a spokesman for the group, said it was behind the "Click it or Ticket" campaigns that have helped states enforce seatbelt laws. Ulczycki said his group, which helps run court- ordered driver safety education courses, was also working with the wireless telephone industry. "Some people suggest and you might hear the argument that there might be a lot of things that are distracting in a vehicle and why are you picking on a cell phone ?" he said. He cited data from the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry that show there are 270 million wireless telephone subscribers in the United States, and more than 80 percent admit to using a mobile phone while driving. "There are over 100 million people engaged in this behavior," Ulczycki said. "There may be other things that people do in their cars that are more dangerous than talking on mobile phones. I think one of the most dangerous thing people do is turn around in their seats. But we don't have 100 million people doing that regularly for hours a day." (Editing by Eric Walsh) © Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non - commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world. http: / /www.reuters.com/ assets /print ?aid= USTRE50B3PF20090112 1/25/2010 Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News I Reuters.com Page 2 of 2 Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests. hftp://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE50B3PF20090112 1/25/2010 Home I National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) I U.S. Departm... Page 1 of 2 N National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Our Mission: Save rives, prevent injuries. reduce vehicle =re €sled crashes `aiii�nhtia.goS• - . -- — -- - - - - ° Horne I Traffic Safety I VehicleslEquipmenf LawslRegulationsiGuidance I NCSR What's Toyota Announces Fix for Accelerator Pedal Entrapment Problem (11/25/09) New: Toyota Announces Fix for Accelerator Pedal Entrapment Problem NHTSA announced today that Toyota has identified a vehicle - based remedy to fix a sudden acceleration safety issue involving floor mats trapping accelerator pedals in various Toyota and Lexus models. Toyota recalled these vehicles in early October and said it would develop a remedy to reduce the risk of a crash due to accelerator pedal entrapment. Toyota will begin making the necessary fixes to the recalled vehicles beginning early in 2010, perhaps in January. News Release Motorcoach Safety Action Plan Released by DOT The Motorcoach Safety Action Plan lays out concrete steps for Improving motorcoach safety across the board, addressing major issues such as driver fatigue and inattention, vehicle File A Complaint If you believe _ there is a safety - related problem with your vehicle or child seat 5����fC�f How Safe is Your Car? -Report a Vehicle Defect -Crash & Rollover Ratings - Recall Information Stopi mpairedD riving.org Information and resources to fight drunk and drugged driving 4 Steps For Kids How to keep your littlest passengers safe http: / /www. nhtsa.dot.gov /? ref = http %3A // search. yahoo .com /search /o3B_ylt ° /`3DA... 1/25/2010 Top Stories Search NHTSA FocusDriven Launched to Raise National } Awareness of Dangers of Distracted Driving Information on Jan. 12. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and National ... Safety Council President Janet Froetscher announced the creation of FocusDriven, the first national nonprofit organization devoted specifically to raising awareness about Quick Clicks the dangers of distracted driving. The group Is led by Jennifer Nationwide traffic safety events Smith, who has been an outspoken advocate against distracted driving since her mother was killed by someone talking on his Latest studies and reports cell phone while driving in 2008. FocusDriven is a direct outgrowth of the September 2009 national Distracted Driving Current research in progress Summit in Washington called by Secretary LaHood. "I first met several of the founding members of FocusDriven at our Highway safety programs and grants Distracted Driving Summit, and I'm deeply impressed by their commitment to turn these tragic events into positive actions Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) that will help save lives," said LaHood. "Their stories are not just heartbreaking; they're also a clear and compelling call to Recalls, defects, and complaints action." News Release I Distraction.gov I FocusDriven.org File a complaint about your vehicle or child safety seat - Research Finds Increase in Use of Hand -Held Child Passenger Safety: seat ratings, Devices Among All Drivers Inspection stations, LATCH, and more. Kicking off a two -day Distracted Driving Summit to highlight the under - recognized dangers of distracted behavior behind the Teen Drivers: a comprehensive wheel, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood announced new research approach to teen driver safety findings by NHTSA that show nearly 6,000 people died in 2008 In crashes involving a distracted or inattentive driver, and more NHTSA Press Room than half a million were injured. On any given day in 2008, more than 800,000 vehicles were driven by someone using a About NHTSA hand -held cell phone. "Every single time someone takes their eyes or their focus off the road - even for just a few seconds - Contact NHTSA they put their lives and the lives of others In danger," said Sec. LaHood Sept. 30 in Washington, D.C. "Distracted driving is Subscribe to NHTSA email alerts unsafe, irresponsible and in a split second, its consequences can be devastating." News Release I Examination of Driver Distraction Driver Electronic Device Use in 2008 Research Note Additional NHTSA Research and Reoorts on Driver Distraction, Including Cell Phone Use Toyota Announces Fix for Accelerator Pedal Entrapment Problem NHTSA announced today that Toyota has identified a vehicle - based remedy to fix a sudden acceleration safety issue involving floor mats trapping accelerator pedals in various Toyota and Lexus models. Toyota recalled these vehicles in early October and said it would develop a remedy to reduce the risk of a crash due to accelerator pedal entrapment. Toyota will begin making the necessary fixes to the recalled vehicles beginning early in 2010, perhaps in January. News Release Motorcoach Safety Action Plan Released by DOT The Motorcoach Safety Action Plan lays out concrete steps for Improving motorcoach safety across the board, addressing major issues such as driver fatigue and inattention, vehicle File A Complaint If you believe _ there is a safety - related problem with your vehicle or child seat 5����fC�f How Safe is Your Car? -Report a Vehicle Defect -Crash & Rollover Ratings - Recall Information Stopi mpairedD riving.org Information and resources to fight drunk and drugged driving 4 Steps For Kids How to keep your littlest passengers safe http: / /www. nhtsa.dot.gov /? ref = http %3A // search. yahoo .com /search /o3B_ylt ° /`3DA... 1/25/2010 Home I National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) I U.S. Departm... Page 2 of 2 rollover, occupant ejections and oversight of unsafe carriers. "We are committed to making sure that bus travelers reach their destinations safely," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today. "These Improvements will not only help reduce the number of motorcoach crashes, it will also help save lives and reduce injuries." While motorcoach travel is a very safe mode of transportation in the U.S., carrying 750 million passengers annually, an average of 19 motorcoach occupants are killed in crashes each year according to data collected by NHTSA. More fatalities result among pedestrians, and occupants of other vehicles involved In these crashes. News Release I Read the Action Plan Seat Belt Use Nationwide Reaches 84 percent A new report shows that seat belt use nationally has hit a record high of 84 percent. To view the new NHTSA research, click here. What's New, Latest Updates and Features on Our site r Nov. 30, 2009: Geospatial Analysis of Rural Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities Fatal Crashes Involving Young Drivers ► Overall Traffic Fatalities Reach Record Low in 2008 r Tough New Braking Rules For Large Trucks Issued F New Tire Fuel Efficiency Ratings Proposed ► An Examination of the Criticisms of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age 21 Laws in the U.S. from a Traffic - Safety Perspective r New Data Show Drinking Age Laws Saved 4,441 Lives Over 5 Years More ... Web Policies & Notices I Terms of Use I FOIA I Privacy Policy I Cookle Policy I Accessibility I Emall NHTSA MpMmt'+. 9f U g http: / /www. nhtsa.dot.gov /? ref= http %3A/ /search.yahoo.com /search %3B_ylt %3DA... 1/25/2010 Driver Electronic Device Use in 2008 The percentage of drivers visibly manipulating hand -held devices has reached 1 percent while the hand -held cell phone use by drivers stood at 6 percent in 2008. This result is from the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), which provides the only nationwide probabil- ity-based observed data on driver electronic device use in the United States. The NOPUS is conducted annually by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The 2008 hand -held cell phone use rate translates into 812,000 vehicles being driven by someone using a hand- held cell phone at any given daylight moment 1 It also translates into an estimated 11 percent of the vehicles whose drivers were using some type of phone (hand -held or hands -free) in the typical daylight moment. The 2008 survey also found the following: 0 Hand -held cell phone use continued to be higher among 16- to 24 -year -olds and lower among drivers age 70 and older. Figure 2 Driver Hand -Held Cell Phone Use by Age 10% 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 4% 6% 6% __ - -- ---. ......._ %___.._...__......_. -. .___.___._.__.-.._.---.-._.-- 4 '1 1% - _1 % -n- Data Source: NOPUS, NHTSNs National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2002 -2008 Data Source: NOPUS, NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis, ZUUZ —'LUUd Data Source: NOPUS, NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2002 -2008 ' For more details about this calculation, please refer to the Survey Methodology section of this report. NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, OC 20590 DOT HS 811 184 September, 2009 Figure 1 Driver Use of Electronic Devices Figure3 Driver Use of Electronic Devices by Region 2 Table 1 The Percent of Drivers Holding Phones to Their Ears, by Major Characteristics 200T ° of Diivers D r e '.G o Ho ding Phone to Ears AlI Drivers r mss, Y 6% Males 5% Females 8% ' fonfidence- That's Use Is High o o . iG�aup _ _ -� 100% 100% " PA) :Confidence °That' Use igh• or Low�in Group' �t 6 °/ f 5% 100% 8 100% IkIIM200 oil Difference. Confide ce:in.a n Percen age Change to = °° of Drivers Poin s _- og 0 m X38 °l W 0 23% 0 36% TDriversWhoA eartoBe� - _ r 9 T y = 8 Age 16 -24 %° 1 %° 100% -1 46% Age 25-69 6% 79% 6% 74% 0 49% Age 70 and Older 1 % 100 1 % 100% 0 52% _ � =Drivers Who Appear White 6% 86% 6% 98% 0 48% Black 8% '99% 8% 99% 1 0 2% Members of Other Races 6% 86% 6% 54% 0 38% . Drivers on ,_, � �... _ i 25 � - - _ _ -_ _ �__ � - - -_ - -- _ Expressway Exit Ramps 7% 99% 6% 93% -1 62% Other Surface Streets 6% 99% 6% 93% 0 18% _— - -- Driv ersrTrave hn Throu h -� =�- - �� -� �- J 5% v, _ —te - ' 7 17 1 -- n - a- — - ;���::� =� - `` = - - - - - �� f 60 = =A � - - _ —__ ,r:a z _ - - - - =���- , ors - =5 Light Precipitation 92% 6 ° %° 1 1 37% Fog 5% 83% 4% 89% -1 1 13% Clear Weather Conditions 6% 95% 6% 64 I 0 49% - Passenger Cars 6% 100 %° 6 %° 99% 1 0 21% Vans and SUVs 7% 100% 7% 100% 0 70% Pickup Trucks 6% 89% 6% 52% 0 1 21% � =sm _ . Esc D in rivers - - -- - � _ : � � — _ _ - _ �i� -• � X 100 - - _ -V 4% — — s ».26 _ _ - -- _ - - -- -- - _ - Northeast 4% %% 97% 0 26% Midwest 6% 76% 5% 99% -1 82% South 8% 100% 7% 87% -1 60% West 6% 68% 1 7 96% 1 94% • _ °_F`�= _._'?gym- i�:.... _a- — .3 • Drivers m .rt�. - = -� —� .�. - -•. -F .._ __= =_,FfS — } - `° - a - -- _ __ _ _�— J 7% ` _ _— _ ___ — _F� =_ - _ - Urban Areas 6% 53% 91% 1 33 %° Suburban Areas 7% 99% 1 7% 98% 0 23% Rural Areas 5% 100% 1 4% 1 100% 1 -1 63% T � �28% Weekdays 7% 100% 100 % ° 0 Rush Hours 8% 100% A4% . 100% 0 12% Nonrush Hours 6% 100% 100% 0 36% Weekends 4% 100% 100% 0 44% - - -- - - - - - - _ = No Passengers 8% 100 %°� 8% 100% 0 17% At Least One Passenger 2% 100% 2% 100% 0 1 30% � n r -�= r z�� -- _�_��:•�� »� __ ;Drivers With L Y - ^Y 1 8% _ s µ No Passengers 8% 100% 100% 0� 17 Passengers All Under Age 8 7% 76% 6% 55% -1 36% Passengers All Age 8 and Older 2% 100% 2% 100% 0 34% Some Passengers Under Age 8 and Some Age 8 or Older 2% 100% 2% 100% 0 1 % ' Drivers of passenger vehicles with no commercial or government markings stopped at a stop sign or stoplight between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. z The percent of drivers who appeared to be holding a phone to their ears. Age, gender, and racial classifications are based on the subjective assessments of roadside observers. 3 The level of statistical confidence that use in the driver group (e.g., drivers who appear to be White) is higher or lowerthan use in the corresponding complementary driver group (e.g., combined drivers who appear to be Black or members of other races). Confidence levels that meet or exceed 90 percent are formatted in boldface type. Confidence levels are rounded to the nearest percentage point, and so levels reported as "100 percent" confidence are between 99.5 percent and 100.0 percent. "The degree of statistical confidence that the 2008 use rate is different from the 2007 rate. Confidence levels that meet or exceed 90 percent are formatted in boldface type. 5 Among passengers observed in the right -front seat and the 2nd row of seats (but NOPUS only counts up to two passengers in the 2nd row and none in the 3rd row and beyond). Data Source: NOPUS, NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 Table 2 The Percent of Drivers Speaking With Visible Headsets On, by Major Characteristics Dr ve : oup "AII Drivers 2007 °/ of D`nvers BoniidencerThat Baking ith Use Is High or ea, sets aa� in Group _ =0.6% T 2008. f Drivers= Co'ntidence� M eaktng with ° Use'Is High o Hea a sstsz ow tn - 2007;2008 Dif(erence.in _ConfidencS Percen age - Point�Te the Change - o .Drive `S -eakmg Wi i Headsets° Males 59% 98% 0.6% 80 %° 0.0 6% Females 0.5% 98% 0.5% 80% 0.0 31% :Drivers Who A earto Be = - - -- _ - - _ X 0.9% - -= - -- Age 16 -24 0.6 %°_ 52% " 91 %° 0.3� 54% Age 25 -69 0.6% 93% 0.6% 68% 0.0 7% Age 70 and Older 0.1% 100% % % 100% 0 2% ;Dnue WhoA eartoBe= - - - -- _ � _ 91% z 6 - - _ -_ _ - __ _ _ White 0.6% 59% 0.4% 99% -0.2 61% Black 0.9% 98% 0.8% 86% -0.1 17% Membe of Other Races 0.3% 99% 1.4% 97% 1.1 97% 69% = - Expressway Exit Ramps 0.7% 85% 1.0% 99% 0.3 65% Other Surface Streets 0.5% 85% 0.4% 99% -0.1 60% =Drivers Traveling Through 3 _ -- - " -_ Light Precipitation 0.5 %° 66 %° 0.3% 93% -0.2 59% Fog NA NA NA NA NA NA Clear Weather Con ditions 0.6% 79% 0.6% 94% 0.0 18% - =�0.6% U " Passenger Cars 79% 0.6% 78% 0.0 15% Vans and SUVs 0.6% 60% 0.6% 51% 0.0 7% Pickup Trucks 0 .4% 90% 0.4 91% 0.0 13% _ _ - - -- -- Drivers in the � _ - - � � _ - == r = � -�-� - = - - e�� - =� =_ - -- - - -- - - - Northeast 0.7% 70% 0.5% 65% -0.2 50 %° Midwest 0.3% 98% 0.3% 98% 0.0 32% South 0.7% 69% 0.3% 97% -0.4 99% West 0.5% 60% 1.3 97% 0.8 88% _ -- -- - - - -- _ _ f - - -= � - _ . = - 0.7 - - - -- -- � Urban Areas 0.4% 86% 1.1% 99 %° 96% Suburban Areas 87% 0.6% 62% 0.0 30% Rural Areas 0.5% 76% 0.3% 1 98% -0.2 82% Drivers Travelin During: = g - Weekdays 0.7 % 100 %° 0.6% 84% -0.1 21% Rush Hours 0.9% 95% 0.9% 99% 0.0 5% Nonrush Hours 0.5% 95% 0.4% 99% -0.1 40% Weekends 0.2% 100% 0.5% 84% 0.3 83% ( Driv e rs Wi th 6 ._" _ = -= - = � �0.0 No Passenger s 0.8% 100% 0.8% 100% 15 %° At Least One Passenger 0.1% 100% 0.2% 100% 0.1 47% Drivers With = - = - - _ �0.8% {_ ` No Passengers 0.8% 100% 100% 0.0 15% Passengers All Under Age 8 0.2% 100% 0.6% 58% 0.4 93% Passengers All Age 8 and Older 0.1% 100% 0.1% 100% 0.0 5% Some Passengers Under Age 8 and Some Age 8 or Older NA NA 0.3% 98% NA NA NHTSAs National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 Table 3 The Percent of Drivers Visibly Manipulating Hand -Held Devices, by Major Characteristics 200 M Group' ° /a= ofDiivers T anipulating,Hadnd= ink e_d Det1 cesr .All Drivers - T 7 0 7� = = V IN M Con idenee That se, IsHig a Lo - _n Group 7, ANON* 2008 %:of:D'rivers Magr ILI tmg Hand= Hel d_Bev ces- - 1 0 %_ _ Confidence ?That .Use IsHigh or a L:ow in_GroppS - _ t _ 20072008Change Difference in Confidence in a Change:in >P.ercentage ° °'o Drivers anipulating .Point, sift s Hand Held Devices'_ 0 3 z� 76 / T Males 0.5% 99% 0.8% 100% 0.3 85% Females 0.9% 99% 1.2% 10 0.3 67% Dnvers_Who Appear to Bey. _ i :, _�:2 z -- - Age -- `} ` 0.7 16 -24 1.0% 99% 100% 84% Age 25 -69 0.6% 69% 0.9% 99% 0.3 65% Age 70 and Older 0. 2% d - - Driver aP_to ._�; _��= - 99% 0.4% 100% 0.2 1 69% - ; , � - - - _ _ - '_�''_ - _- - - - $ - -- White 0.7% 80 % 1.0% 57% 0.3 65% Black 0.6% 64% 0.8% 91% 0.2 47% Me mbers o f Other Races 0.4% 84% 1.2 87 0.8 99% Drivels one �� =° - - - - - _= �°_ -=� - -- � - _ `- _ -- Expressway Exit Ramps 0.7% 67% 0.8% 96% 0.1 21% Other Surface Streets 0.6% 67% 1.1 % 96% 0.5 86% Drivers Traveling Throught=_ -_ 5a = 1.9 Light Precipitation %° 93% 62% -1.1 66% Fog NA NA NA NA NA- NA Clear Weather Conditions 0.5% 92% 1 1.0% 1 66% 1 0.5 1 94% - - - - - -= �- _ _ - � - _ - - �0.2 - _ -- _- y 60% Passenger Cars 0.8% 96 % 1.0% 74% Vans and SUVs 0.7% 52% 1.1% 94% 0.4 79% Pickup Trucks 0.3% 98% 0.6% 99% 0.3 1 82 -- _ _- = _ Northeast 0.9% 73% 0.4% 99% -0.5 62 %° Midwest 0.5% 73% 0.8% 68% 0.3 39% South 0.6% 58% 0.5% 98% -0.1 26% West 0.6% 56% 2.1% 99% 1.5 95% dii 11C _ - _ =•_f ;_- tea- Urban Areas 0.6% 63% 1.5% 87% 0.9 86% Suburban Areas 0.9% 96% 1.1% 87% 0.2, 53% Rural Areas 0.3 99% 0.3% 1tin 0.0 3 = _Drive Traveling During t = =_' _ = - Weekdays 0.8% 97% 1.1% 100% 0.3 77% Rush Hours 0.7% 70% 1.2% 57% 0.5 75% Nonrush Hours 0.8% 70% 1.1% 57% 0.3 68% Weekends 0.4% 97% 0.6% 100% 0.2 63% Dri W ,. - - } � #' ` _ = 4 YT No Passengers 0.8% 99 % 1.3% 100% 1 0.5 1 77% At Least One Passenger 0.3% 99% 0.4% 100% 1 0.1 1 76% _ �Dnvers With:- - - 8A `_ �_ � _:. - - - - 99% � 1 z �= r� No Passengers 0.8% 1.3% 100% 0.5^ 77% Passengers All Under Age 8 0.6% 61% 1.5% 100% 0.9 99% Passengers All Age 8 and Older 0.2% 100% 0.3% 100% 0.1 59% Some Passengers Under Age 8 and Some Age 8 or Older 0.3% 92% 0.3% 100% 0.0 19% Drivers of passenger vehicles with no commercial or government markings stopped at a stop sign or stoplight between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. 2 The percent of drivers who appeared to be wearing a headset with a microphone and speaking. Age, gender, and racial classifications are based on the subjective assessments of roadside observers. a The level of statistical confidence that use in the driver group (e.g., drivers who appear to be White) is higher or lowerthan use In the corresponding complementary driver group (e.g., combined drivers who appear to be Black or members of other races). Confidence levels that meet or exceed 90 percent are formatted in boldface type. Confidence levels are rounded to the nearest percentage point, and so levels reported as 100 percent" confidence are between 99.5 percent and 100.0 percent. The degree of statistical confidence that the 2008 use rate is different from the 2007 rate. Confidence levels that meet or exceed 90 percent are formatted in boldface type. 5 Among passengers observed in the right -front seat and the 2nd row of seats (but NOPUS only counts up to two passengers in the 2nd row and none in the 3rd row and beyond). NA: Data not sufficient to produce a reliable estimate. Data Source: NOPUS, NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis NHTSA s National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 • Hand -held cell phone use by drivers in the Western Northeast, is higher or lower than in the complementary United States has increased from 6 percent in 2007 to 7 driver group, e.g., combined drivers in the Midwest, in the percent in 2008. South and in the West, are provided in columns 3 and 5. • The use of visible headsets while driving was still less Such comparisons are made within categories delineated than 1 percent. by changes in row shading in the tables. The exception to this is the grouping "Drivers Traveling During...;' in ® The percentage of drivers visibly manipulating hand - which weekdays are compared to weekends, and week - held devices in the West significantly increased from day rush hour to weekday non -rush hour. 0.6 percent in 2007 to 2.1 percent in 2008. Survey Methodology Sites and Vehicles Observed Y Numbers of 200_. ` 008 . Percen #a ge Change Sites Observed 1,534 1,504 -2% Vehicles Observed 58,216 55,199 -5% The NOPUS is the only nationwide probability -based observational survey of driver electronic device use in the United States. The survey observes usage as it actu- ally occurs at randomly selected roadway sites, and thus provides the best tracking of the extent to which people in the United States use cell phones and other electronic devices while driving. The survey data is collected by trained observers at proba- bilistically sampled intersections controlled by stop signs or stoplights, where the vehicle occupants are observed from the roadside. Data is collected between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Only stopped vehicles are observed to allow time to collect a variety of information required by the survey, including subjective assessments of occupants' age and race. Observers collect data on the driver, right - front passenger, and up to two passengers in the second row of seats. Observers do not interview occupants, so that the NOPUS can capture the untainted behavior of occu- pants. The 2008 NOPUS data was collected between June 2 and June 22, while the 2007 data was collected between June 4 and June 25, 2007. . As we will discuss in much more detail later in the defini- tion section, some cell phone use, such as hands -free cell phone use via a Bluetooth car kit or drivers using wireless earpieces obscured by hair or clothing or on their left ears, could not be observed from the roadside and thus would not be captured by NOPUS. NHTSA's 2007 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey (MVOSS) estimated that, for drivers using cell phones while driving, 55 percent tended to use hand -held cell phones and 45 percent tended to use hands -free phones. Applying the proportion 0.8182 (= 45/55) of these percent- ages to the 6 percent estimate of drivers using hand -held cell phones in 2008 from NOPUS shows an estimated 5 percent of drivers using hands -free cell phones. Thus, 11 percent of drivers are estimated to be using either a hand- held or hands -free cell phone while driving in a typical daylight moment in the United States in 2008. The estimate of the number of drivers using hand- held phones was calculated based on the methodology explained in our report "Cell Phone Use on the Roads in 2002 ", but with some modifications. Unlike the estimates for previous years which used either an exponential or linear growth model for estimating the number of drivers on the road in a typical moment, we use the ratio estima- tor'(VMTs versus drivers on road) which better reflects the reality that drivers on road in the United States has been declining in the past two years. The 2002 report is available at the Web site http: / /www- nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov / Pubs /809580.PDF. Because the NOPUS sites were chosen through probabi- listic means, we can analyze the statistical significance of its results. Statistically significant increases in the use of hand -held phones (respectively, headset use or manipu- lation of hand -held devices) between 2007 and 2008 are identified in the table of "the percent of drivers holding phones to their ears" on Page 2 (respectively, "the percent of drivers speaking with visible headsets on" on Page 3 or "the percent of drivers visibly manipulating hand -held devices" on Page 4) by having a result that is 90 percent or greater in column 7 Statistical confidence levels that hand -held use, headset use, or the manipulation of hand- held devices in a given driver group, e.g., drivers in the The NOPUS uses a complex multistage probability sam- ple, statistical data editing, imputation of unknown val- ues, and complex estimation and variance estimation pro- cedures. The 2008 NOPUS continued the transition to the newly designed sample of observation sites, which was implemented in 2006. The 2008 results reflect the partial 2 The final estimate of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for 2008 has not been released by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The 2008 VMTs used in our calculations are derived from FHWA's "December 2008 Traffic Volume Trends" (http: // www. fhwa .dot.gov /ohim /tvtw /08dectvt/ index.cfm). NHTSAs National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 incorporation of a set of observation sites from the new design (about 60 %) and a set of the observation sites from the old design (about 40 9 /6). Data from 2005 and prior years was obtained from the old observation sites only. Data collection, estimation, and variance estimation for the NOPUS are conducted by Westat, Inc., under the direc- tion of the National Center for Statistics and Analysis in NHTSA under Federal contract number DTNH22- 07-D- 00057. Definitions The estimates of the number of vehicles or drivers on the road during the typical daylight moment were formed from data collected at stop signs and stoplights. The esti- mates effectively assume that the number of vehicles and occupants on a road do not depend on whether the road has a stop sign, stop light, or neither. To the extent that driver cell phone use at stop signs and stop lights is dif- ferent than elsewhere, the NOPUS estimate of the number of drivers holding phones to their ears during the typical daylight moment might overestimate or underestimate the true quantity. Drivers were counted as "holding phones to their ears" if they were holding to their ears what appeared to the observer to be a phone. This would include such behav- iors as drivers engaged in conversation, listening to mes- sages, or conducting voice - activated dialing while holding a phone to their ears. Note that PDAs such as Blackberrys would count as phones. Drivers were counted as "speaking with visible headsets on" if they appeared to be speaking and wearing a head- set with a microphone. This would include such behaviors as talking in conversation or conducting voice - activated dialing via a wireless earpiece on the driver's right ear or via an ear bud connected by wire to a cell phone. It would not include drivers using headsets that do not involve cell phones (such as iPods) since these headsets do not involve microphones. Note that wireless earpieces that are obscured by hair or clothing or are on the driver's left ear would not be included because they would not be vis- ible to the roadside observer. In addition, some wireless earbuds would not be included as they are too small to be observed from the roadside. Drivers with headsets who were not speaking at the time of observation were not included because they might not have, e.g., recently com- pleted a call or be waiting for an expected call. We estimate that each driver in the survey was observed for about 10 seconds before the data collector decided whether or not the driver was speaking. Note also that drivers counted as speaking with a visible headset on might have been talk- ing to a passenger or using voice - activated computer soft- ware rather than using a phone. Drivers were counted as "visibly manipulating hand -held devices" if they appeared to be manipulating some type of electronic device, whether a cell phone, PDA, video game, or other device. This would include such behaviors as: manual dialing; text messaging; using a Web - capable cell phone or a PDA (such as a Blackberry) to view travel directions, check e -mails or calendar appointments, or surf the Internet; playing hand -held games; and holding phones in front of their face to converse or check mes- sages via speakerphone or use voice - activated dialing. Manipulation of non - hand -held devices (adjusting volume on stereos, pressing buttons on a dashboard GPS unit, etc.) was not included. Also note that a driver characterized by the survey as "manipulating hand -held devices" might or might not have been speaking. We note that there are means by which drivers can use cell phones that would neither be recorded as "holding phones to their ears" nor as "speaking with visible head- sets on" nor as "visibly manipulating hand -held devices" in the NOPUS. These would include but not limited to: (1) a driver using a cell phone headset who is not speak- ing during the approximately 10 seconds the driver is observed, and (2) a driver using technologies that cannot be observed from the roadside. Such technologies would include: a driver using a wireless earpiece obscured by hair or clothing or on the left ear; a driver conversing via a speakerphone with the phone on the passenger seat or in a cell phone holder on the vehicle dashboard; a driver using a phone that is built into the vehicle (such as OnStar); and a driver using the cell phone hands -free via a Bluetooth car kit or via a Bluetooth system that is built into the vehi- cle (such as Sync). It is possible that at some point in the future, NOPUS may be able to capture such behaviors by directing a device that can detect cell phones in use at passing vehicles. The racial categories "Black," "White," and "Members of Other Races" appearing in the tables reflect subjective characterizations by roadside observers regarding the race of occupants. Likewise observers recorded the age group (8 to 15 years; 16 to 24 years; 25 to 69 years; and 70 years or older) that best fit their visual assessment of each observed occupant. "Expressway Exit Ramps" are defined as the access roads from roadways with limited access, while "Other Surface Streets" comprise all other roadways. NHTSAs National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 r States With Laws Banning Hand -Held Cell Phone Use While Driving' 'States with laws in effect as of June 30, 2008. Also includes DC. Driver cell phone use is largely unrestricted by State laws. No States ban use outright. Currently, jurisdiction - wide bans on driving while talking on a hand -held cell phone are in place in 6 States (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Utah and Washington) and the District of Columbia. Twenty -one States and the District of Columbia have special cell phone driving laws for novice drivers. A few States ban use in certain situations, such as when operating a school bus or public transit vehicle. In addition, some major cities have hand -held bans or other- wise restrict use. Using a headset while driving is even less restricted by traf- fic laws. No States or major cities ban such use outright. As with driver hand -held cell phone use, a small number of States restrict the manner of use, e.g., by requiring sound to travel unimpaired to at least one of the driver's ears, or ban certain types of use in certain situations, such as by banning cell phone use (whether hand -held or hands -free) when operating a school bus or public transit vehicle. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 13 States (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 3 Utah calls the offense careless driving. flaw U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington) and the District of Columbia. NHTSA's policy on using cell phones while driving is con- veyed in the following statements from www.nhtsa.gov: "The primary responsibility of the driver is to operate a motor vehicle safely. The task of driving requires full attention and focus. Cell phone use can distract drivers from this task, risking harm to themselves and others. Therefore, the safest course of action is to refrain from using a cell phone while driving." More information on the agency's policy can be found on this Web site. For More Information This research note was written by Timothy M. Pickrell, a mathematical statistician in the Mathematical Analysis Division, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA, and by Tony Jianqiang Ye, a contractor employed by URC Enterprises, Inc., working with the Mathematical Analysis Division, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA. For questions regarding the informa- tion presented in this document, please contact timothy. pickrell@dot.gov. Additional data and information on the survey design and analysis procedures will be available in upcoming publications to be posted at the Web site http: / /www -nrd. nhtsa.dot.gov /CMSWeb /index.aspx in 2009. NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 -- - -� ` �Term E of :Hand= Held� Cell - bone =�� �? La a ®�_= - E s= o nLDriver H zCellphone _ - - M -1-9 Y der --- o o INSURANCE INSTITUTE 1005 NORTH GLEBE ROAD ARLINGTON, VA 22201 PHONE 703/247 -1500 FAX 703/247 -1678 www.iihs.org ABSTRACT Objectives: As of September 2009, seven US states and the District of Columbia (DC) ban driving while talking on a hand -held cellphone. The current study examined the long -term effects of such bans on driver use of hand -held phones in DC, New York State, and Connecticut. Methods: The percentage of drivers talking on hand -held cellphones was measured over time based on daytime observation surveys in the three jurisdictions with bans and in comparison jurisdictions without bans. Trends in phone use rates overtime were modeled using Poisson regression to estimate differences between actual rates and rates that would have been expected without a ban. Results: The ban in DC immediately lowered the percentage of drivers talking on hand -held cellphones by 41 %. Nearly 5 years after the ban, the phone use rate was 43% lower than would have been expected without the ban. Cellphone use in Connecticut declined an estimated 76% immediately after the ban; 3'/ years later, phone use was 65% lower than would have been expected without a ban. In New York, cellphone use declined an estimated 47% immediately after the ban; when measured more than 7 years later, phone use was 24% lower than would have been expected without the ban. Fifteen months after the laws took effect, compliance in New York was lower than in DC, and the difference appeared due to more intensive enforcement in DC. However, this linkage is no longer clear because enforcement in New York has picked up such that levels of enforcement in 2008 appeared comparable in DC and New York, whereas enforcement in Connecticut lagged behind. In all of the jurisdictions, the likelihood was low that a driver violating the ban would receive a citation, and there were no publicized targeted enforcement campaigns in any of the three jurisdictions. Conclusions: Jurisdictional bans on driver use of hand -held cellphones have reduced hand -held phone use and appear capable of maintaining reductions for the long term. However, it is unknown whether overall driver phone use has been reduced because many drivers may have switched to hands - free devices. Further research is needed to determine whether the reductions in hand -held cellphone use have reduced driver crash risk. Keywords: Cellphones; Hand -held cellphones; Cellphone driving laws INTRODUCTION Surveys of US drivers indicate that many are talking on cellphones. Observational surveys conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at intersections controlled by stop signs or stop lights indicate that, at any given time during daylight hours in 2008, 6% of drivers were talking on hand -held phones; this was double the rate observed in 2000 (Glassbrenner, 2005; NHTSA, 2009). This means that about 812,000 passenger vehicle drivers on the road at any given daylight moment in 2008 were talking on hand -held phones. The phone use rate for the youngest drivers estimated to be ages 16 -24 was 8 %, significantly higher than the use rates for drivers estimated to be ages 25 -69 (6 %) or 70 and older (1 %). The rate of visible headset cellphone use was 0.6 %, and the rate of visible manipulation of hand -held devices was 1 %. Precise measurements of hands -free cellphone use cannot be obtained through observation surveys, but many drivers report using hands -free phones in telephone surveys (Boyle and Lampkin, 2008; Harris Interactive, 2006; Nationwide Insurance, 2008). A large body of research has addressed the risk of talking on a cellphone while driving (McCartt et al., 2006a). Two controlled epidemiologic studies directly linked talking on a cellphone to increased crash risk. It is important that studies of crash risk verify the phone use of crash - involved drivers independent of police crash reports or driver self- reports, which are unreliable sources of information. One source for verifying phone use is cellphone company billing records. Such records have been unavailable in the United States, but studies conducted elsewhere have found a fourfold increase in the risk of a property- damage -only crash associated with cellphone use (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997) and a fourfold increase of a crash serious enough to injure the driver (McEvoy et al., 2005). The increase in crash risk did not differ significantly between male and female drivers or between younger and older drivers, and the increased risk was similar for hand -held and hands -free phones. The studies were unable to estimate crash risk from different types of hands -free devices. Nor were they able to determine whether there was any benefit associated with .hands -free devices while placing a call. A review of more than 120 cellphone studies reported that experimental studies found impairment in simulated or test -track driving performance measures among users of hand -held and hands -free cellphones (McCartt et al., 2006a). Phone conversation tasks typically decreased reaction times and increased lane deviations and steering wheel movements. Statistical analyses that aggregated the results of multiple studies reported similar findings (Caird et al., 2008; Horrey and Wickens, 2006). There are fewer experimental studies of the effects of dialing on performance measures, and the evidence is mixed with regard to whether hands -free dialing is less impairing than manual dialing (Jenness et al., 2002; McCartt et al., 2006a; Schreiner, 2006). Other evidence comes from "naturalistic" research involving drivers observed in their own vehicles that are outfitted with cameras and other technologies. In a study of 100 vehicles monitored for about a year, cellphone use was a common source of driver distraction (Klauer et al., 2006). The odds of an at -fault near - crash /crash was 2.8 times higher when dialing a hand -held device than when phones were not being used; the odds when talking on a hand -held phone was 1.3 times higher, a nonsignificant increase. However, the sample of crashes was small and only a few were serious enough to be reported to police. There is growing concern about the dangers of text messaging while driving. A 2008 survey of drivers found that 40% of drivers 30 and younger who own cellphones said they send or read text messages while driving (Nationwide Insurance, 2008). There has not been a lot of research on texting and driving, but two studies of young drivers found that receiving, and especially sending, text messages led to decrements in simulated driving performance, particularly lane keeping and reaction time (Hosking et al., 2006; Reed and Robbins, 2008). A soon- to -be- released naturalistic study reports a 23 -fold increase in the risk of crashing, nearly crashing, traffic conflicts, or drifting from the driving lane among truckers who texted while they drove (Hanowski et al., 2009; Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, 2009). Most of the incidents involved lane drifts. A number of jurisdictions worldwide, including several US states, make it illegal to use a hand- held cellphone while driving. Such bans are in effect in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York State, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and the District of Columbia (DC) (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,.2009). More common in the United States are laws that restrict young drivers from using any type of cellphone or school bus drivers from using all cellphones. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 18 states and DC. In addition, young drivers are banned from texting in 9 states, and school bus drivers are banned from texting in 1 state. 3 Prior research has evaluated the effects of restrictions on driver cellphone use. New York was the first state to ban drivers talking on hand -held phones. A study of the New York law found that the proportion of drivers talking on hand -held phones declined by about half during the first few months after the law was implemented in November 2001, relative to changes in use rates in Connecticut, an adjacent state with no such law at that time (McCartt et al., 2003). Much of this decrease had dissipated 1 year later (McCartt and Geary, 2004). In contrast, soon after DC began banning hand -held cellphone use while driving in July 2004, driver hand -held phone use dropped by about half, and this decline was largely sustained about a year later (McCartt and Hellinga, 2007). It appeared that stronger enforcement of the DC ban may have led to the sustained lower use rates compared with New York: citations for cellphone violations represented 8% of all moving violations in DC compared with 4% in New York (McCartt and Hellinga, 2007). A study of a North Carolina law prohibiting use of any mobile communication device by drivers younger than 18 found that the law had little effect on observed teenage driver cellphone use shortly after the law took effect (Foss et al., 2008). The proportion of teenagers using cellphones rose slightly from 11 % before the law took effect to almost 12% shortly after. In post -law interviews, only 22% of teenagers and 13% of parents believed the law was being enforced fairly often or a lot. The laws in New York and DC are mature. New York's law has been in effect for nearly 8 years; the DC law has been in place for almost 5 years. The current study focused on the longer term effects of the DC and New York laws on driver hand -held cellphone use. On October 1, 2005, a law prohibiting hand -held phone use while driving took effect in Connecticut, which had served as a comparison state in the earlier studies of New York's law. By comparing current observed hand -held cellphone use rates among drivers in Connecticut to earlier use rates, the effects of the Connecticut law on driver hand -held phone use also are estimated. METHODS Patterns of changes in the rates of drivers talking on hand -held cellphones in New York State, the DC metro area, and Connecticut were examined before and after laws in these jurisdictions took effect. Driver hand -held phone use was observed in spring 2009 using the methods followed in prior observation surveys in New York and Connecticut (McCartt et al., 2003; McCartt and Geary, 2004) and in the DC metro area (McCartt et al., 2006b; McCartt and Hellinga, 2007). 4 Laws in the three jurisdictions are similar. All prohibit talking on hand -held cellphones when the vehicle is moving; dialing a hand -held phone and talking when the vehicle is stopped are allowed. Violations result in a fine up to $100; no license penalty points are assessed. Driver hands -free phone use is permitted in all three jurisdictions; fines are waived for the first offense in DC and Connecticut upon proof that a hands -free device has been obtained. Connecticut and DC prohibit all phone use by school bus drivers; Connecticut bans all phone use by drivers younger than 18, and DC bans all phone use by learner's permit holders. All three jurisdictions have an all - driver ban on texting; New York's texting law takes effect on November 1, 2009. DC Metro Area: Observations and Analyses Changes in the rates of hand -held cellphone use among drivers in DC before and after the DC law were compared with rate changes among drivers in nearby areas of Virginia and Maryland, states without bans. Observations were conducted simultaneously in all three jurisdictions in March 2004 (several months before the law took effect in July 2004), October 2004 (3 months after), October 2005 (15 months after), and April -June 2009. Observations were conducted in April 2009 rather than March 2009 because daylight saving time began in early March, and it would have been too dark to conduct the early morning observations. Observations also were scheduled to avoid Easter holidays and school recesses, which may have affected travel patterns. When the data were being prepared for analysis, low sample sizes and anomalies were identified for the DC sites. These data had been collected by a person who had not gathered data for the previous surveys; although the observer was thoroughly trained, a review of the data indicated they were not accurate. Therefore, in early June a second complete round of observations in DC was conducted by two experienced observers. In each jurisdiction, daytime observations were conducted Tuesday- Friday at eight signalized intersections located on major arterial roads. In Virginia and Maryland, sites were located approximately 1 -5 miles from the DC border on roads with heavy traffic traveling to and from DC. Only moving vehicles were observed, and emergency vehicles (police, fire, or ambulance), tractor - trailers, buses, and vehicles with diplomatic license plates were excluded. Observers recorded whether or not the driver was talking on a hand -held cellphone; the jurisdiction of vehicle registration (DC, Maryland, Virginia, other), based on the license plate;�and whether the vehicle was a passenger vehicle, taxicab, or commercial vehicle, defined as a vehicle with a commercial license plate or commercial signage. Estimates of the proportions of drivers who were talking on hand -held cellphones in each jurisdiction were derived, and percentage changes were computed between each post -law survey and the pre -law survey. To derive rigorous estimates of the effects of the DC ban on phone use in DC, relative to patterns of phone use in nearby areas of Maryland and Virginia, a Poisson regression model was used to estimate cellphone use over time (the GENMOD procedure in SAS). It was assumed that cellphone use rates increased exponentially over time when there were no restrictions, and the relative month -to -month increase was the same for DC and for the nearby areas of Maryland and Virginia. It also was assumed that cellphone use rates increased exponentially over time when there were restrictions. The month -to- month trend for the period when there were restrictions was not necessarily the same as that when there were no restrictions. The dependent variables in the model were an indicator of the jurisdiction (1 =DC, O= MDNA), an indicator of cellphone restriction (1 =restriction, O=no restriction), time (measured in months since December 2000), and the interaction of time and restriction. New York and Connecticut: Observations - and Analyses Daytime observations of drivers were conducted at controlled intersections on geographically dispersed, heavily traveled roads in four small to medium -size communities in upstate New York (Albany County, cities of Binghamton and Kingston, Village of Spring Valley) and in two communities in central Connecticut (Town of Hamden, City of Hartford). Areas considered for observation in New York excluded the downstate counties of Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester due to pre- existing local bans on cellphone use while driving; New York City because of its unusual traffic patterns, major congestion, and difficulty in finding suitable observation sites; and the western and northernmost counties due to inclement winter weather conditions. Limited access highways were excluded. Observations were conducted on a Thursday or Friday. Emergency vehicles, tractor - trailer trucks, and buses were excluded. Cellphone use was recorded as "yes" only if the driver was talking on a hand -held cellphone while the vehicle was moving. Observations were conducted about 1 month before New York's warning period began on November 1, 2001; immediately after a fine- with - waiver phase took effect on December 1, 2002; immediately after a fine- without - waiver phase took effect on March 1, 2002; during March 2003; and during April 2009. Thirty -five minutes of each observation period focused on recording cellphone use. A hand -held counter recorded drivers not using a hand -held cellphone. For drivers using phones, the following information was recorded: estimated age (younger than 25, 25 -59, 60 or older), gender, and vehicle type (car, pickup truck, SUV, van or minivan, large single -unit truck with more than four tires). During the 5 minutes before and 5 minutes after the 35- minute cellphone observations, age category, gender, cellphone use, and vehicle type were recorded for a sample of drivers in passing traffic. Estimates were derived of the proportion of drivers who were talking on hand -held cellphones. For each community and for the communities combined in each state, cellphone use rates for the December 2001 and March 2002 surveys were not significantly different; thus, data for these surveys were combined to measure short-term compliance. Percentage differences in state use rates (i.e., with communities combined) were compared between each of the post -law surveys and the pre -law survey: To derive the proportions of observed cellphone use for the recorded driver characteristics, the percentage distributions of driver characteristics observed during the 10- minute observations of passing traffic were applied to the total vehicles counted during the 35- minute cellphone observation periods. The formulae for these calculations and associated 95% confidence intervals (Cls) are provided in (McCartt et al., 2003). Observations in Connecticut were not available for the months immediately before and after the restriction began on October 1, 2005. However, if it is assumed that trends in use rates over time were similar for Connecticut and New York, then these missing observations can be estimated. A Poisson regression model was used to accomplish these estimations. The dependent variable was the logarithm of the cellphone use rate. The independent variables in the model were an indicator of the state (I =NY, O =CT), an indicator of cellphone restriction (1 =restriction, O=no restriction), the interaction of state and restriction (1 =NY after restriction began, 0 =all other), time (measured in months since December 2000), and the interaction of time and restriction. In these models, data for the December 2001 and March 2002 surveys were not combined. M RESULTS Results for DC When drivers were observed several months before the DC law took effect in July 2004, 6.1 % were talking on hand -held cellphones (Table 1). Post -law use rates were 3.5% shortly after the law in October 2004, 4% 1 year later in October 2005, and 4.2% in spring 2009. The percentage difference in post -law use rates compared with the pre -law rate declined over time, from 43% in October 2004 to 31 % in spring 2009, and all three differences were statistically significant. Hand -held phone use in nearby areas of Maryland did not follow a consistent pattern. The use rate declined slightly from 6.3% before the law to 5.7% shortly after the law took effect, increased substantially (to 8 %) a year later, and then declined to 5.2% in spring 2009. In nearby areas of Virginia, the use rate increased steadily from the pre - law rate of 4.7% to the spring 2009 rate of 8.5 %. Table 2 summarizes the rates of talking on hand -held cellphones in DC based on the jurisdiction of vehicle plate registration. Although trends in the post -law surveys varied by jurisdiction, use rates for all three post -law surveys were significantly lower than the pre -law rates for DC, Virginia, and Maryland drivers. A Poisson regression model estimated the effects of the DC law on driver hand -held cellphone use rates (Table 3); the predicted trends in use rates for DC and Maryland/Virginia sites combined are shown in Figure 1. According to the model, use rates increased by an estimated 0.31 % per month (100(exp(0.0031) -1)) in both DC and at Maryland/Virginia sites before the restriction took effect. The restriction on driver phone use immediately lowered rates by an estimated 41% (100(1 -exp(- 0.5266))) in DC. Use rates then began to rise in DC by approximately 0.28% per month (100(exp(0.0031- 0.0003) -1)). If there was no cellphone ban in DC, the model predicted that the April 2009 use rate would have been 7.41 % (100xexp(- 2.9477 +0.0348 +0.0031(100))); the observed rate of 4.22% was 43% lower than the expected rate of 7.41 %. Thus, when measured against the phone use rates that would have been expected without the ban, initial reductions in phone use in DC have been largely sustained. Results for New York and Connecticut Table 4 shows rates of hand -held cellphone use in New York and Connecticut during each of the four observation periods spanning September 2001 -April 2009. For the New York communities combined, the New York pre -law use rate of 2.3% declined to 1.1 % immediately after the law took effect. Use then rose during the following year to 2.1 % in March 2003. During the same time period, the rate for the Connecticut communities combined was 2.9% before the New York law and immediately after the law, and 3.3% about a year later. In surreys conducted in April 2009, 3.7% of drivers observed in New York were talking on hand -held phones. This was 64% higher than the pre -law rate of 2.3% and also substantially higher than the prior survey in March 2003. In Connecticut, where a law prohibiting hand- held cellphone use took effect in October 2005, 2.1 % of drivers were observed talking on hand -held phones in April 2009. This was 35% lower than the use rate observed in March 2003 and 25% lower than the use rate of 2.9% observed in September 2001, prior to New York's law. A Poisson regression model estimated the effects of the New York and Connecticut laws on driver hand -held cellphone use rates (Table 5); the predicted trends in use rates for New York and Connecticut are shown in Figure 2. According to the model, use rates increased by an estimated 0.84% per month (100(exp(0.0084) -1)) in Connecticut and New York before the restrictions took effect. Restrictions on driver phone use immediately lowered rates by an estimated 76% (100(1 -exp(- 1.4229))) in Connecticut and an estimated 47% (100(1 -exp(- 1.4229 +0.7885))) in New York. Use rates then began to rise again in both Connecticut and New York by approximately 1.23% per month (100(exp(0.0084 +0.0038) -1)). If there was no cellphone ban in Connecticut, the model predicted that the Aprit 2009 use rate would have been 6.04% (1 00xexp(-3.6471 +100(0.0084))); the observed rate of 2.14% was 65% lower than the expected rate of 6.04 %. If there was no cellphone ban in New York, the model predicted that the April 2009 use rate would have been 4.91 % (100xexp(- 3.4671 - 0.2072 +100(0.0084))); the observed rate of 3.74% was 24% lower than the expected rate of 4.91 %. Thus, if trends in use rates over time were similar for Connecticut and New York, the model indicated that the bans reduced driver hand -held cellphone use in both states. Although compliance faded over time, use rates still were lower than would have been expected without the laws, particularly in Connecticut. Cellphone Use Rates by Driver Gender, Age, and Vehicle Type In New York and Connecticut, cellphone use rates by driver characteristics were calculated for the April 2009 survey (Table 6). Differences were judged significant if the 95% confidence intervals of the estimated use rates did not overlap. In both states, the cellphone use rate was higher for females than for males. The difference among New York drivers was marginally significant. Also in both states, use rates were substantially higher for drivers younger than 25 than for drivers ages 25 -59; in New York, this difference was significant. In both states, less than 1% of drivers ages 60 and older were talking on hand -held phones, and this rate was significantly lower than rates for the younger drivers. Use rates were higher for SUV drivers in both states, but differences by vehicle type were not statistically significant. DISCUSSION The current study is a continuation of research assessing how bans on driver hand -held cellphone use affect such use. As of September 2009, seven US states and DC ban talking on hand -held cellphones while driving. Rates of driver hand -held phone use were tracked in New York, Connecticut, and DC. For all three jurisdictions, there were substantial declines in driver hand -held phone use immediately after the ban. When observed several years after the ban, phone use still was lower than would have been expected without the ban, but the size of the reduction varied. Determining the effects of a ban was most straightforward in DC, where one pre -law observation survey and three post -law surveys were conducted in DC and in nearby areas of Virginia and Maryland, states without bans. Relative to trends in driver cellphone use in Maryland and Virginia, the ban produced an estimated 41 % reduction in phone use immediately after the law and an estimated 43% reduction nearly 5 years later. Long -term reductions were observed among drivers in DC no matter in which jurisdiction the vehicles were registered. In earlier studies of the effects of New York's ban on hand -held cellphone use, patterns of use in New York before. and after the ban were compared with patterns of use in Connecticut, which had no law (McCartt et al., 2003; McCartt and Geary, 2004). However, in October 2005 Connecticut implemented its own ban, so effects of the bans in New York and Connecticut were modeled by assuming similar increases over time in the two states before the ban, and similar increases after the ban. The rate of phone use observed in Connecticut in April 2009 was much lower than the observed rate in prior surveys, and the model also predicted large immediate (76 %) and longer term (65 %) reductions in phone use compared with the expected use without a ban. In New York, observed phone use fell by about half after 10 the ban, but use then increased in subsequent surveys. However, the observed phone use rate for April 2009 (more than 7 years after the law) was 24% lower than would have been expected without the ban. It is unclear why the effects of the bans appear stronger in DC and Connecticut than in New York. Earlier research found that compliance was lower in New York than in DC 15 months after the laws took effect (McCartt and Geary, 2004; McCartt and Hellinga, 2007). It was hypothesized that this difference was due at least in part to more intensive enforcement in DC. Cellphone citations represented 4% of citations for all moving traffic violations in New York, but 8% in DC. Based on traffic citation data provided by Connecticut, DC, and New York, enforcement of the hand -held cellphone ban in New York has picked up such that levels of enforcement in 2008 appear comparable in DC and New York, whereas enforcement in Connecticut lagged behind. In 2008, cellphone citations represented 6% of citations for all moving violations in Connecticut (data from the Office of Chief Court Administrator) compared with 15% in New York State (data from the Department of Motor Vehicles) and 11 % in DC (data from the Department of Motor Vehicles). DC also maintains records of cellphone warning tickets; in 2008, there were 7,519 warnings issued for cellphone violations in addition to 12,936 citations issued. When measured per capita or per licensed driver, rates of cellphone citations also were lower in Connecticut than in New York or DC (Federal Highway Administration, 2007; US Census Bureau, 2008a). Patterns of observed driver hand -held cellphone use rates varied among the four New York communities. The percentage of drivers talking on hand -held phones in April 2009 ranged from 2.9% in Kingston to 4.8% in Binghamton. Information was obtained on citations issued in the four counties in which observations were conducted. As a percentage of citations issued for all moving violations in 2008, the rates of cellphone citations in all four counties were lower than the statewide rate of 15 %: 6% in Broome County, where Binghamton is located; 8% in Ulster County, where Kingston is located; 9% in Rockland County, where Spring Valley is located; and 11 % in Albany County. Although the lowest rates of cellphone citations and the lowest rates of driver hand -held phone use occurred in Broome County, it is unclear to what extent enforcement was a factor in the higher rate of phone use. The phone use rates observed in April 2009 were similar in the two Connecticut communities; information on citations issued in the Connecticut counties in which observations were conducted was not available. 11 The review of citation data indicate.that cellphone citation rates and hand -held phone use rates do not line up well among the three jurisdictions. Enforcement levels were higher in New York than in Connecticut, but the effects of the ban on phone use appeared stronger in Connecticut than in DC, and particularly in New York. However, citations are an imperfect measure of enforcement effort because they reflect both the amount of. resources devoted to enforcement and levels of compliance with a law. Regardless of the relative intensity of enforcement in the study jurisdictions, the chance was very low in all of them that a driver violating the cellphone ban would receive a citation. None of the jurisdictions has had well - publicized, sustained enforcement campaigns directed at cellphone violations. Considerable research has found that neither education alone nor the enactment of a law is sufficient to achieve longer -term compliance with a law intended to change driver behavior. Publicized, targeted enforcement campaigns are needed. An example is the US experience with seat belt use. Early education on the safety benefits of seat belts increased belt use only a little (Williams and Wells, 2004). When seat belt laws first were enacted in the 1980s, there were initial increases in belt use even in the absence of vigorous enforcement. However, compliance faded over time (Williams and Lund, 1988). Numerous studies have shown that vigorous, well - publicized enforcement campaigns are needed to achieve high levels of seat belt use (Solomon et al., 2002; Williams et al., 2000). Even if bans on driver hand -held cellphone use are effective in reducing such use, effects of the bans on traffic crashes are unknown. Controlled studies of the effects of bans on crashes are difficult to conduct because police reports do not reliably report cellphone use as a crash factor. In addition, epidemiologic studies have found that the increased crash risk associated with talking on cellphones is similar for hands -free as well as hand -held devices. If many drivers switch to hands -free cellphones following a ban on hand -held phone use, this would dilute any effects of the bans on safety. However, driver use of hands -free phones, especially fully hands -free devices, cannot be measured reliably with observers standing at the roadside. 'Some evidence of patterns of hands -free cellphone use following a ban comes from statewide telephone surveys of drivers in New York conducted before and after that state's ban (Dowling et al., 2005). Among drivers who said they talk on a cellphone at least some of the time while driving, the percentage who said they use hands -free features or adapters most or all of the time increased from 64% before the ban took effect in November 2001 to 77% in 2005. However, the 12 overall percentage of drivers who'said they ever talk on phones of any type while driving declined from 66% in 2001 to 57% in 2005; 12% in 2001 said they did so very often, compared with 8% in 2005. Although a ban on all cellphone use while driving makes sense based on the epidemiologic studies of crash risk associated with phone use, enforcement of a hands -free ban would be problematic. Enforcement or court officials could obtain cellphone billing records of a driver involved in a crash, but general traffic enforcement of a hands -free ban would be nearly impossible. Texting while driving is dangerous and appears to be common (Nationwide Insurance, 2008), but laws banning this behavior also are difficult to enforce. Thus, compliance with laws targeting hands -free phone use or texting will be hard to achieve. Devices are being developed that prevent driver cellphone use while vehicles are moving. Some systems use the GPS feature in cellphones to prevent calls from being placed or answered when the driver's vehicle exceeds a certain speed threshold. There are challenges in making these systems practical for widespread use. For example, some systems have an override feature that allows a passenger to use the cellphone while the vehicle is in motion. However, it is unclear whether drivers can be prevented from activating the passenger mode to circumvent the purpose of the system. The main use of such technology may be among fleet managers to control phone use by employees or among parents who want to monitor their teenage drivers. The technology is not yet in widespread use, and the effects are not known. Thus, although the preponderance of research shows that talking on cellphones while driving increases crash risk, it is not clear that laws that ban such use can solve the problem. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the staff of Preusser Research Group Inc. for gathering observation data at the New York and Connecticut sites, especially Tara Casanova, Research Associate, who managed data collection, and Katie Ledingham, Research Associate. Data at the DC, Maryland, and Virginia sites were collected by the staff of Center for Automotive Research Inc.; we thank the observers and also Richard L. Knoblauch, Director, for coordinating the work. The authors thank the following individuals and agencies for providing traffic citation data: Larry D'Orsi, Deputy Director, Criminal Matters, Superior Court Operations Division of Connecticut Judicial Branch, Division of the Office of Chief Court Administrator; Terry Herbert, Senior Budgeting Analyst, New York State Department of Motor Vehicles 13 Data Services; and the Information Technology Office of the District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles. This work was supported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. REFERENCES Boyle JM, Lampkin C. (2008) 2007 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey, Volume 4: Crash Injury and. Emergency Medical Services Report. Report no. DOT HS- 810 -977. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC. Caird A Wiliness CR, Steel P, Scialfa C. (2008) A Meta - analysis of the Effects of Cellphones on driver Performance. Accid Anal Prev, Vol. 40, pp. 1282 -1293. Dowling AM, Rood DH, Varone RA. (2005) Study of the effects of Cell Phone Use and Other Driver Distractions on Highway Safety. Institute for Traffic Safety Management and Research, Albany, NY. Federal Highway Administration. (2007) Table DL -22; Licensed Total Drivers by Age, 2007. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Available: http: / /www.fhwa.dot.gov /policyinformation / statistics /2007 /d 122. cfm. Foss RD, Goodwin AH, McCartt AT, Hellinga, LA. (2008). Short-Term Effects of a Teenage Driver Cellphone Restriction. Accid Anal Prev, Vol. 41, pp. 419 -424. Glassbrenner D. (2005) Driver Cellphone Use in 2004, Overall Results. Report no. DOT HS- 809 -847. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC. Hanowski R, Olson R, Bocanegra, J. (2009). Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations. Webinar, June 3. Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration, Washington, DC. Harris Interactive. (2006) Despite Understanding Risks Many U.S. Adults Still Use Cellphones while Driving. The Harris Poll #46, June 6. Available: http:// www. harrisinteractive .com /harris_poll/ index.asp ?PID =673. Harris Interactive, New York. Horrey WJ, Wickens CD. (2006) Examining the Impact of Cellphone Conversations on Driving Using Meta - Analytic Techniques. Hum Factors, Vol. 48, pp. 196 -205. Hosking S, Young K, Regan M. (2006) The Effects of Text Messaging on Young Novice Driver Performance. Report no. 246. Monash University Accident Research Center, Victoria, Australia. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2009) Cellphone Laws (as of September 2009). Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, VA. Available: http: / /www.iihs.org /laws /cellphonelaws.aspx. Jenness, JW, Lattanzio RJ, O'Toole M, Taylor N, Pax, C. (2002). Effects of Manual Versus Voice - activated Dialing during Simulated Driving. Percept Mot Skills, Vol. 94, pp. 363 -379. Klauer SG, Dingus TA, Neale VL, Sudweeks JD, Ramsey DJ. (2006) The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near -Crash /Crash Risk. An Analysis Using the 100 -Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data. Report no. DOT HS- 810 -594. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC. McCartt AT, Braver ER, Geary LL. (2003) Drivers' Use of Handheld Cellphones before and after New York State's Cellphone Law. Prev Med, Vol. 36, pp. 629 -635. McCartt AT, Geary LL. (2004) Longer Term Effects of New York State's Law on Drivers' Handheld Cell Phone Use. Inj Prev, Vol. 10, pp. 11 -15. 14 McCartt AT, Hellinga LA. (2007) Longer Term Effects of Washington, DC, Law on Drivers' Hand -Held Cell Phone Use. Traffic Inj Prev, Vol. 8, pp. 199 -204. McCartt AT, Hellinga LA, Braitman KA. (2006a) Cell Phones and Driving: Review of Research. Traffic Inj Prev, Vol. 7, pp. 89 -106. McCartt AT, Hellinga LA, Geary LL. (2006b) Effects of Washington, D.C. Law on Drivers' Hand -Held Cell Phone Use. Traffic Inj Prev, Vol. 7, pp. 1 -5. McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, McCartt AT, Woodward M, Haworth C, Palamara P, Cercarelli R. (2005) Role of Mobile Phones in Motor Vehicle Crashes Resulting in Hospital Attendance: A Case - Crossover Study. Br Med J do!: 10.1 136/bmj.38537.39512.55 (published 12 July 2005). National. Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2009) Driver Electronic Device Use in 2008. Report no. DOT HS- 811 -184. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Nationwide Insurance. (2008) Driving while Distracted, Public Relations Research. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Columbus, OH. Redelmeier DA, Tibshirani RJ. (1997) Association between Cellular - Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions. N Eng J Med, Vol. 336, pp. 453 -458. Reed N, Robbins R. (2008) The Effect of Text Messaging on Driver Behavior. A Simulator Study. Report no. PPR 367. Transport Research Laboratory, Berkshire, United Kingdom. Schreiner CS. (2006) The Effects of Phone Interface and Dialing Method on Simulated Driving Performance and User Preference. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings — Surface Transportation, pp. 2359 -2363. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA. Solomon MG, Ulmer RG, Preusser DF. (2002). Evaluation of Click It or Ticket Model Programs. Report no. DTNH 22 -99 -D- 25099. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC. US Census Bureau. (2008a) United States — States. GCT -T1 -R, Population Estimates (Geographies Ranked by Estimate), Data Set. 2008 Population Estimates. Available: http: / /factfiinder.census.gov/ serviet/GCTTable? bm=y&-geo id=01000US&- head — nbr= GCT- T1- R & -ds name = PEP - 2008 — EST &- redoLog= false & - format= — US -40S. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. (2009) New Data from VTTI Provides Insight into Cell Phone Use and Driving Distraction. Press Release, July 27. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blacksburg, VA. Williams AF, Lund AK (1988). Mandatory Seat Belt Use Laws and Occupant Crash Protection in the United States: Present Status and Future Prospects. In: Preventing. Automobile Injury, Ch. 3 (ed. John D. Graham), pp. 51 -72. Auburn House Publishing Company, Dover, MA. Williams AF, Wells JK. (2004) The Role of Enforcement Programs in Increasing Seat Belt Use. J Safety Res, Vol. 35, pp. 175 -180. Williams AF, Wells A McCartt AT, Preusser DF. (2000) Buckle Up NOW!: An Enforcement Program to Achieve High Belt Use. J Safety Res, Vol. 31, pp. 195 -201. 15 Table I Rates of talking on hand -held cellphones for drivers in the District of Columbia (DC) and in nearby locations in Maryland and Virginia before and after DC hand -held cellohone law Table II Rates of talking on hand -held cellphones for drivers in the District of Columbia (DC) by plate of vehicle registration before and after DC hand- held cellphone law Percent cellphone use: % (N) Percent cellphone use: % (N) Percent differences in use rates (95% Cl) Pre -law Post -law 1 Post -law 2 Post -law 3 Post -law 1 Post -law 2 Post -law 3 March 2004 October 2004 October 2005 Spring 2009 vs. pre -law vs. pre -law vs. pre -law District of Columbia (DC) 6.1 (19,906) 3.5 (16,185) 4.0 (15,854) 4.2 (18,112) -43 (48, -37) -35 (-41, -29) -31 ( -37, -24) Maryland suburbs of DC 6.3 (12,951) 5.7 (12,200) 8.0 (11,645) 5.2 (15,098) -9 ( -18, 1) 27 (15, 40) -18 (-25,-9) Virginia suburbs of DC 4.7 (15,262) 6.2 (13,221) 6.5 (14,550) 8.5 (17,428) 34 (21, 48) 39 (26, 53) 82 (66, 99) Table II Rates of talking on hand -held cellphones for drivers in the District of Columbia (DC) by plate of vehicle registration before and after DC hand- held cellphone law Post -law 1 Post -law 2 Percent cellphone use: % (N) vs. pre -law vs. pre -law Pre -law Post -law 1 Post -law 2 Post -law 3 Vehicle plate jurisdiction March 2004 October 2004 October 2005 Spring 2009 District of Columbia (DC) 5.3 (6,114) 2.8 (5,016) 2.7 (4,934) 3.9 (5,127) Maryland 6-2(7,943) 4.1 (6,267) 5.3 (5,706) 4.3 (7,245) Virginia 6.7 (4,766) 3.4 (3,833) 3.3 (4,213) 4.1 (4,316) Other 7.7 (1,083) 3.5 (1,066) 5.7 (1,001) 5.2 (1,424) Table III Results of Poisson regression on cell phone use rates of drivers in the District of Columbia (DC) and nearby locations in Maryland and Virginia Parameter Estimate Standard error p -value Intercept - 2.9477 0.0323 <0.0001 Jurisdiction (DC) 0.0348 0.0332 0.2938 Restriction (yes) - 0.5266 0.0784 <0.0001 Time (months) 0.0031 0.0005 <0.0001 Time x restriction - 0.0003 0.0011 0.7761 Post -law 1 Post -law 2 Post -law 3 vs. pre -law vs. pre -law vs. pre -law -47 (-56,-35) -50 ( -26 (-38,-12) -34 (-44,-23) -14 (-26,-1) -30 (-40,-20) -49 (-58,-38) -51 (-60,-40) -39 (-49,-27) -55 (-69.-34) -26(-47.3) -33 ( -51. -8) M E Table IV Rates of talking on hand -held cellphones for drivers in New York and Connecticut before and after New York hand -held cellphone law Percent cellphone use: % (N) Post -law 1 Percent differences in use rates (95% CI) Pre -law tep 2001 Dec 2001/ Post -law 2 Post -law 3 Post -law 1 Post -law 2 Post -law 3 Post -law 3 Mar 2002 Mar 2003 Apr 2009 vs. pre -law vs. pre -law vs, pre -law vs. post -law 2 Connecticut (2 cities combined) 2.9 (7,110) 2.9 (14,205) 3.3 (6,992) 2.1 (6,651) 2(-14,20) 14 ( -5, 38) -25 (-40,-7) -35 (-47,-19) Hamden 2.9 (3,884) 2.8 (7,634) 2.8 (3,976) 2.1 (3,999) -3(-23,22) -1(-24,28) -28 (-46,-4) -27 (-45,-3) Hartford 2.8 (3,226) 3.0 (6,571) 3.8 (3,016) 2.2 (2,652) 8(-16,38) 35 (3, 78) -21 (-43,9) -42 (-57,-20) New York (4 cities combined) 2.3 (11,768) 1.1 (25,694) 2.1 (12,571) 3.7 (12,962) -51 (-59,-42) -10(-24,7) 64 (41, 90) 81 (56, 110) Albany 2.2 (3,537) 0.8 (8,328) 2.1 (3,917) 3.3 (4,423) -66 (-76,-53) -7(-32,26) 61 (23, 109) 73 (34, 125) Binghamton 2.2 (3,327) 0.8 (6,198) 0.7 (2,872) 4.8 (2,843) -65 (-76,-50) -70 (-82,-51) 117 (63, 187) 628 (351, 1077) Kingston 1.9 (2,805) 1.1 (6,329) 2.1 (2,901) 2.9 (2,663) -44 ( -61, -20) 9(-24,58) 55 (9, 120) 42(1,98) Spring Valley 3.0 (2,099) 2.3 (4,839) 3.5 (2,881) 4.0 (3,033) -25(-45,2) 16(-16,59) 34(-1,82) 16(-11,51) Table V Results of Poisson regression on cellphone phone use rates of drivers in New York and Connecticut Parameter Estimate Standard error p -value Intercept - 3.6471 0.0869 <0.0001 State (NY) - 0.2072 0.0784 0.0082 Restriction (yes) - 1.4229 0.1427 <0.0001 State x restriction 0.7885 0.1233 <0.0001 Time (months) 0.0084 0.0049 0.0882 Time x restriction 0.0038 0.0050 0.4482 17 Table VI Percentage of drivers in Connecticut and New York observed using cell phones by driver demographics (April 2009) State Demographic Proportion of sample Number using cellphones Use rate 95% confidence limits Lower Upper Connecticut Male 0.59 75 1.9 1.4 2.3 Female 0.41 66 2.4 1.8 3.1 <25 yrs 0.02 7 6.0 1.0 11.1 25 -59 yrs 0.93 134 2.2 1.8 2.5 60+ yrs 0.05 1 0.3 -0.3 0.9 Car 0.61 85 2.1 1.6 2.6 Pickup 0.08 8 1.4 0.4 2.5 SUV 0.23 40 2.6 1.8 3.5 Van 0.08 9 1.8 0.6 3.0 New York Male 0.55 233 3.3 2.8 3.7 Female 0.45 252 4.3 3.7 4.9 <25 yrs 0.12 104 6.8 5.2 8.3 25 -59 yrs 0.80 373 3.6 3.2 4.0 60+ yrs 0.08 8 0.8 0.2 1.3 Car 0.55 245 3.4 3.0 3.9 Pickup 0.10 48 3.5 2.4 4.6 SUV 0.24 144 4.6 3.7 5.5 Van 0.10 48 3.6 2.5 4.7 18 Figure I Predicted percentage of drivers in the District of Columbia and nearby locations in Maryland and .Virginia: using cellphones, January 2001 -April 2009; Observed values are labeled 8.0 T 7.15 7.0 • r r r 6.14 - r rrrr 6.96 r r r r r r r 6.0 _ r A 6.00 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.51 3.97 4.22 DC ■ DC ---MD-VA • MD -VA 0.0 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 Months since December2000 Figure If Predicted percentage of drivers in Connecticut and New York using cell phones, January 2001 -April 2009; Observed values are labeled 4.5 -r 4.0 3.5 / I 3.06 3.0 2.86 • 3.26 1112.74 2.5 r + + .• 2.29 �+ 2.0 1 • 2.07 +' 1.5 { rr ++ fir+ • • 1.14 1.0 1.09 ,.1 3.74 0.5 2.14 -CT ■ CT ---NY • NY 0.0 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 - Months since December2000 19 Text Free Driving Put brakes on driving while textina Banning texting q_hile, driving: Florida must act now NIHS Data: Cell Phone and Texting Laws, by State Text - messaging teen driver crashes into police car Florida Representative Introduces Leaislation to Ban Texting While Driving Allstate Study Reveals Areas with Highest Rates of Deadly Teen Crashes Texting and Driving — A Deadly Combination Fam fly 'couldn't be happier' about bicyclist death indictment Driving while texting - Do you know the cost? READ MORE NEWS LAWS 11 LAWS PASSED II Welcome to the Text Free Driving Organization. We are a group of concerned citizens who want to make our highways, roadways and neighborhood streets as safe as possible. Everyone knows that the use of cellular phones while driving has reached epidemic levels. This increased usage has caused countless car accidents but driving while texting is even more dangerous. 80% of crashes, and 65% of near crashes, involved some form of driver inattention within 3 seconds of the event Texting requires the use of two hands and frequent reference to the cellular telephone view screen. Obviously, attempting to operate an automobile while texting is recklessly dangerous. 57% of American drivers admit to texting behind the wheel. Our organization hopes to raise the awareness of motorists to this growing danger and to act as an Page 1 of 3 Tuesday, De SUPPORTERS (I IN THE NEWS II CLEMSON — As sales of electronic device continue to soar, so does the amount of time motorists spend driving outside the yellow highway lines. Text messaging and using !Pods caused drivers to leave their lanes 10 percent more often in a simulated driving study conducted by researchers in the Clemsoi University psychology department. The study tested drivers' ability to stay I their lanes on a curvy road while they completed such tasks as talking on cell phones, text messaging and operating MP3 players. Read more tiajc : h +fl e0 http: / /www.textfreedriving.org /index.html 12/22/2009 Study measures danger of driving while texting Text Free Driving Page 2 of 3 information center for interested citizen's groups. We will update this site with information for people to use to lobby their own legislators to pass laws prohibiting driving while texting. 89% of Americans adults think sending text messages or e- mails while driving is distracting, dangerous and should be outlawed. Texting By the Numbers • 790 - Average number of texts sent per month by 18 -24 year olds♦ • 600.5 - Billion text messages sent in the U.S. in 2007* • 357 - Average number of monthly texts by all cell users♦ • 273 - Million cell phones In the U.S. in 2009* • 204 - Average number of monthly voice calls by all cell users♦ • 89 - % of people who want a ban on texting while driving^ • 84 - % of the population with cell phones* • 80 - % crashes caused by distraction within 3 seconds of the event" • 75 - Billion text message sent per month in the U.S. in 2008* • 65 - % of near crashes caused by distraction" http: / /wwW.textfreedriving.org /index.html 12/22/2009 Text Free Driving • 57 - % of drivers who text while driving^ • 53 - Feet travelled in an automobile in one second at 35 mph • #1 - Cause of death ages 18 -27 - automobile crashes' There are currently 12 bills pending before the Florida legislature to ban texting while driving. More cell users text than use their cell phones to talk. The time to text is not while driving.* The time has come to outlaw driving while texting. ♦Neilsen Mobile - Print 2008 Texting by * CTIA - The Wireless the Association 2009 Numbers ^ Harris Interactive 2007 " Va. Tech /NHTSA Survey 2006 'U, S Centers for Disease Control Page 3 of 3 www.TextFreeDriving.org is supported by Fonvielle, Lewis Foote & Messer and the Florida Justice Association. Website design provided by Itech Information Design. http:// www .texfr'eedriv /index.html 12/22/2009 Schwarzenegger Signs Ban on Teen Cell Phone Use While Driving Comment You May Also Like • Phoenix Passes Driving While Text Messaging Ordinance • Teen Cell Phone Ban While Driving Passes Calif. State Assembly • Washington Governor Signs Legislation to Ban Use of Cell Phones, Text Messaging While Driving • Illinois Bans Cell Phone Use By Drivers Under 18 • Hand -Held Cell Phone Ban While Driving Related Links Delivering innovative enterprise case management solutions for government agencies: Lagan T 1 - 1 T Sep 14, 2007, News Report Thursday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 33 by Senator Joe Simitian which bans teenage drivers from using all electronic devices -- such as cell phones, pagers and laptops -- while behind the wheel.. "The simple fact is that teenage drivers are more easily distracted. They are young, inexperienced and have a slower reaction time. We want to eliminate any extra distractions so they can focus on paying attention to the road and being good drivers," said Schwarzenegger. According to the California Highway Patrol, cell phone use is a leading cause of distracted - driver accidents in California. A study conducted by Ford Motor Company revealed that teenage drivers are four times more distracted than adult drivers by cell phone use. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among 16 to 20 year olds. Motor vehicle crashes account for 44 percent of teen deaths in the U.S., with approximately 6,000 teenage drivers or passengers dying each year. Despite the fact that young drivers represent only 6.3 percent of the nation's licensed drivers, they are involved in 13.6 percent of fatal crashes. According to a 2004 study from the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, drivers age 16 to 19 have a fatality rate that is four times the rate of drivers ages 25 to 69. Currently, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting the use of wireless communication devices by new and inexperienced drivers. The National Transportation Safety Board has urged all states to enact legislation to prohibit inexperienced drivers from using, cell phones and other mobile service devices while driving. SB 33 takes effect on July 1, 2008 -- the same date as a law Schwarzenegger signed last year that requires all drivers to use hands -free devices while talking on cell phones. Violating either law will result in a $20 fine for the first offense and $50 for each additional offense. Both laws also provide exemptions for emergency calls. In Comments By Anonymous on Apr 14, 2009 This is stupid ... teens are not the only ones causing accidents while on their cell phones. Adults are more than likely on their cell phones more often making business calls or what not. I think this ban shouldnt only be for teens, but also for adults as well. No matter who you are you will still have the same reaction time while driving and being on a cell phone. I do not agree with this at all Respond to a comment. Latest Government Technology News • Site Reveals Salaries of Kentucky's Louisville City and Jefferson County Employees - Dec 21 • New 911 Dispatch System in Missouri Cuts Call Times - Dec 21 • Federal Transportation ID Program Lacks IT Continuity Plan Report Says - Dec 21 • Real ID Act Postponed by Department of Homeland Security - Dec 18 • Automating FOIA Processes no Longer a Luxury for Government (Analysis) - Dec 18 View All Government Technology News -Map of hand -held cellphone b z ans = ' ` - :_ _ - = Fagg 1 of 2 Cellphone laws December 2009 A jurisdiction -wide ban on driving while talking on a hand -held cellphone is in place in 7 states (California, Connecticut, New New York, Oregon,. Utah, and Washington) and the District of Columbia. Utah has named the : offense careless driving. Unde law, no one commits an offense when speaking on a cellphone unless they are also committing some other moving violation speeding. Local jurisdictions may or may not need specific state statutory authority to ban cellphones. Localities that have enacted rest cellphone use include: Oahu, HI; Chicago, IL; Brookline, MA; Detroit, MI; Santa Fe, NM; Brooklyn, North Olmstead, and Wall OH; Conshohocken, Lebanon, and West Conshohocken, PA; Waupaca County, WI; and Cheyenne, WY. Localities are prohibited from banning cellphone use in 8 states (Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahorr and Utah). The use of all cellphones while driving a school bus is prohibited in 17 states and the District of Columbia. The use of all cellphones by novice drivers is restricted in 21 states and the District of Columbia. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 19 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, novice drivers are banned frorr 9 states (Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, and West Virginia) and school bus driv( banned from text messaging in 1 state (Texas). The table below shows the states that have cellphone laws, whether they specifically ban text messaging, and whether they enforced as primary or secondary laws. Under secondary laws, an officer must have some other reason to stop a vehicle bel driver for using a cellphone. Laws without this restriction are called primary. Table ! Map. hand -held bans Map: driver bans I Map: bus driver bans Map: texting bans Map of hand -held cellphone bans ers ption http: / /www.iihs.org /laws /maphandheldcelibans.aspx 12/22/2009 (hover over the map for more detail) Map of hand -held cellphone bans Page 2 of 2 B As of July 1, 2008, all learner's permit holders, irrespective of age, and all intermediate license holders were prohibited from driving while using a har cellphone and all drivers younger than 18 were prohibited from using any cellphone. Effective April 1, 2010 all drivers, irrespective of age, issued a fir license will be prohibited from using a cellphone for one year. 01996 -2009, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute 1005 N. Glebe Road, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22201 USA I tel 703/247 -15001 fax 703/247 -1588 http: / /www.iihs.org /laws /maphandheldcellbans.aspx 12/22/2009 Illinois Driving Laws I Cell Phone I Text Messaging I Hands Free Driving Laws Home 2009 New Laws Ma by GOO& Iowa DWI Defense Skilled Iowa DWI Lawyers Free Call - Free Case Review! DrunkDrivingDefense.com State Traffic Laws Free Legal Information & Resources on Different State Traffic Laws. www.FindLaw.com OWI - Criminal Defense Nicholas A. Sarcone, Esq. Criminal Defense Attorney www. blocklambertigocke.coin 7upiter3ack As Seen On TV Turns Your Car Radio Into A Hands Free Phone. Buy 1 Get 1 Free! FreeJupiterJack.com DUI Laws Get Answers to Your Questions About DUI Laws. Free DUI Consultations www.TotaiDUI.com DUI Laws Home Teen Driving Laws Site Map I I i Page 1 of 3 FAQ I EFind a DUI Attorney I I Illinois Text Messaging and Ce Phone Laws Read "Hands Free Phones" or Illinois SR22 Insl The Illinois Text Messaging Ban The new Illinois text messaging law goes into effect on January 1st, 2010. Acc the new law: "A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read an electronh message" And goes on to define an "electronic message" as; Electronic message" includes, but is not limited to electronic mail, a text message, an instant message, or a command or request to access an Internet site." There are exceptions however including emergencies, public safety officials and the following; "A driver using an electronic communication device in hands -free or voice - activated mode" Fines for the new offense begin at $75 To read the text of the new law please read Public Act 096 -0130 No Cell Phones in a School Zone Law Another law that will take effect on January 1 st, 2010 is Senate Bill 72 titled "V Phone Use in School Zones ". According to the new law: http : / /www.drivinglaws.org /ill.php 1/4/2010 I IR1n mranrP.0nlinP nom Illinois Driving Laws I Cell Phone I Text Messaging I Hands Free Page 3 of 3 the United States, there are exceptions for emergency situations.The other cell phone law in Illinois pertains to school bus drivers. The driving law prohibits the use phone by a school bus driver while the bus is transporting children. Like the tet above there are exceptions for emergency situations. If a school bus driver is c using a cell -phone while driving children to or from school, the driver will face to $250. More Information Regarding the Illinois Cell -Phone Laws If you are interested in visiting a government website with information regardin State of Illinois Cell -phone laws, please proceed to the links listed below. u a. Information on the Illinois Cell Phone Driving Law For Minors Information on the Illinois Cell Phone Driving Law for School Bus Drivers Additional Illinois Information on this Website Information on Illinois SR22 Auto Ihsurance Information on Illinois Teen Drivina Laws and Insurance Requirements http : / /www.drivinglaws.org /ill.php 1/4/2010 Information on Drunk Driving Laws, Penalties and Fines in Illinois $earcti , '"custom Search State Cell Phone Driving Laws Cell Phone Driving Laws December 2009 Current state cell phone driving law highlights Include the following: Handheld Cell Phone Bans for All Drivers: 6 stales (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington) , the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from talking on handheld cell phones while driving. With the exception of Washington State, these laws are all primary enforcement —an officer may ticket a driver for using a handheld cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense taking place. All Cell Phone Bans: No slate completely bans all types of cell phone use (handheld and hands -free) for all drivers, but many prohibit cell phone use by certain segments of the population. Novice Drivers: 21 states and the District of Columbia ban all cell use by novice drivers. School Bus Drivers: In 17 states and the District of Columbia, school bus drivers are prohibited from all cell phone use when passengers are present. Text Messaging: 19 states, the District of Columbia and Guam now ban text messaging for all drivers. Novice Drivers: 9 states prohibit text messaging by novice drivers. School Bus Drivers: 1 slate restricts school bus drivers from texting while driving. Preemption Laws: 6 states have laws that prohibit local jurisdictions from enacting restrictions. In other states, localities are allowed to ban cell phone use or texting while driving. Some states, such as Maine, New Hampshire and Utah treat cell phone use as a larger distracted driving issue. Utah considers speaking on a cellphone to be an offense only if a driver is also committing some other moving violation (other than speeding). Page 1 of 3 Learn More Issue Brief: Cell Phones & Distracted Driving GHSA's Distracted Driving Policy Polldco Article (Sept. 14, 2009) DOT Distracted Driving Summit http://www.ghsa.org/htmi/stateinfo/laws/cellphone 12/22/2009 Hand All Cell Phone Ban Text Messaging Ban Crash Enforce Data Pre - State held - School Novice Enforce All School Novice Enforce Col- emption Ban ment Bus Drivers _ Drivers Bus Drivers lected Law Drivers ment Drivers ment Alabama A laska Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes ban Arizona Yes Primary A rkansas Yes <18; 18 - 20 Primary: Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes can use bus drivers ban hands free only Secondary: novice drivers California Yes Primary Yes <18 Primary: Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes bus drivers ban Secondary: novice drivers Colorado <18 Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes ban Connecticut Yes Primary Yes Learners Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Permit and ban <18 Delaware Yes Learner's Primary Learner's . Primary Yes permit and permit and Intermediate Intermediate license license holders holders D.C. Yes Primary Yes Leamers Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes Permit ban Florida Yes Georgia Yes Primary Yes Guam Yes Primary Hawaii Idaho Illinois 1 See Yes <19 Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes footnote (eff.1 /10) an Indiana <18 Primary <18 Primary Yes Iowa Yes Kansas Learner or Primary Learner or Primary Yes Intermediate Intermediate License License (ef.. 1/10) (eff. 1/10) Kentucky Yes Primary Yes http://www.ghsa.org/htmi/stateinfo/laws/cellphone 12/22/2009 State Cell Phone Driving Laws Page 2 of 3 Louisiana Yes Yes Primary: Yes Covered under all driver Secondary Yes Yes (eff. 4110) bus drivers ban Secondary: novice drivers Maine <18 Primary <18 Primary Yes Maryland <18 w/ Secondary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes Learner or ban Provisional License Massachusetts Yes Primary Yes Michigan See Yes footnote Minnesota Yes Learner or Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes Provisional ban License Mississippi Learner or Primary Yes Provisional License Missouri <21 Primary Montana Yes Nebraska <18 w/ Secondary <18 w/ Secondary Yes Leamers or Learners or Provisional Provisional License License Nevada Yes Yes New Yes Covered under all driver Primary Flampshire (eff. 1/10) ban New Jersey Yes Primary Yes <21 w/ GDL Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes or ban Provisional License New Mexico In State Yes vehicles New York Yes Primary Yes Covered under all driver Secondary Yes ban North Carolina Yes <18 Primary Yes Covered under all driver an Primary North Dakota Yes Ohio Oklahoma Yes Yes Oregon Yes Primary <18 Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes (eff. (eff. 1/10) (eff. 1/10) ban 1/10) Pennsylvania Yes Rhode Island Yes <18 Primary Yes Primary South Carolina South Dakota Yes Tennessee Yes Leamers Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes Permit or ban Intermediate License Texas Yes, w/ Intermediate Primary Yes, w/ I Intermediate Primary Yes passenger Stage, 1st passenger Stage, 1st <17 12 mos. <_17 12 mos. Utah s See Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes footnote ban Vermont Virgin Islands Yes No data Yes Virainla Yes <18 Primary: Yes Covered under all driver Primary: Yes bus drivers ban bus drivers Secondary: Secondary: http : / /www.ghsa.org /html /stateinfo /laws /cellphone_laws.html 12/22/2009 State Cell Phone Driving Laws Page 3 of 3 Illinois bans the use of cell phones while driving In a school zone or in a highway construction zone. 2 Maine has passed a law making it against the law to drive while distracted in the stale. 3 In Michigan, teens with probationary licenses whose cell phone usage contributes to a traffic crash or ticket may not use a cell phone while driving. 4 Dealt with as a distracted driving Issue; New Hampshire enacted a comprehensive distracted driving law. 5 Texas has banned the use of hand -held phones and texling in school crossing zones. e Utah's law defines careless driving as committing a moving violation (other than speeding) while distracted by use of a handheld cellphone or other activities not related to driving. Sources: American Automobile Association (AAA1 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and State Highway Safety Offices http : / /www.ghsa.org /html /stateinfo /laws /cellphone_laws.html 12/22/2009 novice novice drivers drivers Washington Yes Secondary Yes Covered under all driver Secondary Yes ban West Virginia Leamer or Primary Leamer or Primary Intermediate Intermediate Stage Stage Wisconsin Wyoming Yes Total 6+ Primary (5) 17 + D.C. 21 + D.C. Primary 19 + D.C., 1 9 Primary 33+ 6 D.C., Secondary (20) Guam (25) D.C., Virgin (1) Secondary Secondary Virgin Islands (2) (4) Islands Varies (4) Varies (1) Illinois bans the use of cell phones while driving In a school zone or in a highway construction zone. 2 Maine has passed a law making it against the law to drive while distracted in the stale. 3 In Michigan, teens with probationary licenses whose cell phone usage contributes to a traffic crash or ticket may not use a cell phone while driving. 4 Dealt with as a distracted driving Issue; New Hampshire enacted a comprehensive distracted driving law. 5 Texas has banned the use of hand -held phones and texling in school crossing zones. e Utah's law defines careless driving as committing a moving violation (other than speeding) while distracted by use of a handheld cellphone or other activities not related to driving. Sources: American Automobile Association (AAA1 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and State Highway Safety Offices http : / /www.ghsa.org /html /stateinfo /laws /cellphone_laws.html 12/22/2009 SB -06 -65 Page 1 of 2 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 21, 2006 SB -06 765 NTSB RECOMMENDS BAN ON CELL PHONE USE BY BUS DRIVERS Washington, D.C. - In a final report on a motor coach accident in Virginia, the National Transportation Safety Board today urged the federal and state governments to prohibit motor coach and school bus drivers from using cell phones while driving those vehicles, except in emergencies. "Professional drivers who have dozens of passengers' lives entrusted to them should devote their full attention to their task," NTSB Chairman Mark V. Rosenker said. "What we saw in this accident is appalling and could have resulted in great tragedy." The recommendations are contained in the Board's report on a non -fatal bus accident that occurred November 14, 2004, on the George Washington Parkway in Alexandria, Virginia. The motor coach was traveling from Baltimore Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport to Mount Vernon, Virginia. The accident bus was the second of two traveling together. At about 10:40 a.m., the bus was traveling in the right lane of the Parkway when it struck a bridge carrying Alexandria Avenue over the Parkway. There were signs warning of the 10 -foot, 2 -inch clearance for that lane and the 13 -foot, 4 -inch clearance for the left lane. The bus was 12 feet high. During the impact the bus's roof was destroyed and 11 students were injured, one of them seriously. The bus driver had been talking on a hands -free cell phone at the time of the accident, and he said that he saw neither the warning signs nor the bridge itself before the impact. Evidence indicates that he did not apply any brakes before impacting the bridge. The Safety Board concluded that the driver's cognitive distraction resulting from his use of a hands -free cell phone caused the accident. The use of either a hand -held or hands -free cellular telephone while driving can impair the performance of even a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) holder, such as the driver in this accident, the Board said. "Payment for transportation services creates an implicit contract between the passenger and the carrier that the carrier will transport the passenger safely and not allow the vehicle operator to take unnecessary risks," the Board stated in its report. "Consequently, these drivers have a. special obligation to provide the safest driving environment possible for the passengers in their care." The Board recommended that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the 50 States and District of Columbia prohibit CDL holders with a passenger- carrying or school bus endorsement from using cell phones while driving those vehicles, except in emergencies. The Board also recommended that the bus associations develop formal policies for their members containing the same proscriptions. The Board noted that the extent of the problem of cell phone use is unknown'because of http: / /www.ntsb.gov /pressrel /2006/061121 a.htm 12/23/2009 SB -06 -65 Page 2 of 2 inadequate statistics, and the Board reiterated previous recommendations to the 20 states that do not have driver distraction codes on their accident investigation forms to add interactive wireless communication device use to those forms. In its report, the NTSB also found that the low vertical clearance of the bridge, which does not meet current standards, contributed to the accident. A summary of the Board's findings, including conclusions, probable cause and safety recommendations, may be found on the Board's website under "Publications." The full report will be available at that site in a few weeks. NTSB Press Contact: Ted Lopatkiewicz (202) 314 -6100 lopatt @ntsb.gov NTSB Home News & Events NTSB Home I Contact Us I Search I About the NTSB I Policies and Notices I Related Sites http: / /www.ntsb.gov /pressrel /2006/061121 a.htm 12/23/2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 5, 2003 Contact: Paul Hallums (520) 403 -9915 phallums(a-,ntsi.us NTSI Joins Federal Panel in Calling for Ban on Cell Phone Use Among Novice Drivers (TUCSON, Ariz.) - -- Citing the increasing rate of vehicular accidents involving driver distractions, the National Traffic Safety Institute (NTSI) has joined the call for a ban on cell phone use among drivers with learners' permits. The position was declared on the heels of a similar recommendation issued by the National Transportation Safety Board, a federal government agency. Laws governing cell phone usage among drivers are under the jurisdiction of the individual state legislatures, and the NTSI has pledged to work aggressively to promote the ban in all 50 states. "Driver distractions are a leading contributor to traffic collisions," stated Paul Hallums, Vice President of NTSI. "The National Traffic Safety Institute has historically held that new drivers need to understand the consequences of their decisions, and need to devote their full attention to the driving task," he continued. "The privilege of driving combines appropriate knowledge with personal behavior and values, and this ethic can be significantly compromised among new drivers who allow themselves to be distracted." The National Traffic Safety Institute has trained millions of people across the country to be safer drivers. Through classes and educational programs in 24 states, the nation's oldest and largest traffic safety program stands among the Tucson's most valuable and reliable public services. Ban on hand- held- devices,takes effect in Philadelphia - The Delaware. County D.... Page 1 of 2 The Delaware County Daily Times (delcotimes.com), Serving Delaware County, PA News Ban on hand -held devices takes effect in Philadelphia Tuesday, November 3, 2009 By JOHN M. ROMAN jroman @delcotimes.com PHILADELPHIA —A city ban prohibiting the use of hand -held phones and text messaging while operating a motor vehicle or using a bicycle, scooter, skateboard or in -line skates became effective Sunday. Fines start at $75 if the violator chooses not to contest the ticket and range from $150 -$300 if the ticket is contested in court, according to the city's law department. Drivers can still use hands -free devices or call 911 in an emergency. Police will only issue warnings for the first month of the ban, but will begin ticketing drivers Dec. 1. The ban was initially signed into law by Mayor Michael Nutter six months ago. When it comes to cell phone use while driving, AAA prefers a comprehensive, statewide, distracted - driving law. "We object to a patchwork of texting and cell phone laws across various jurisdictions," AAA says. It advocates a ban on texting while driving in all 50 states. "Distracted driving is one of the top three safety concerns for Philadelphia -area motorists and the majority fear drivers who text message while driving," said AAA Mid - Atlantic Catherine Rossi. "Texting is simply not an activity that can be done safely while driving. Philadelphia's ban will make city streets safer." Several bills that would ban texting and hand -held cell phone use while driving are pending in Harrisburg. House Bill 67, which passed the House in April, contains an amendment sponsored by state Rep: Rick Geist, R- Blair, that would withhold state funds from municipalities that enact ordinances contrary to the state vehicle code, such as the Philadelphia cell phone /texting ordinance. If the bill and its amendment become law, the city would forfeit $90 million of the state's gas -tax revenue and money for bridges and highways. Earlier this year, AAA polled its five- county Philadelphia area members about various transportation issues, including distracted driving. About 70 percent favor banning the use of all cell phones by drivers, both hand -held and hands -free. http: / /delcotimes.com/articles /2009 /11/03 /news /doc4aefc06b3laa2740246Kl 12/22/2009 Pan on hand -held devices takes effect in Philadelphia - The Delaware County D... Page 2 of 2 About 97 percent of the respondents favor banning the use of cell phones while driving for new teen drivers; 94 percent favor banning the use of text messaging /e -mail for all drivers; and 79 percent favor creating a more comprehensive distracted - driving law. Polled about their top three safety concerns as a motorists, 78 percent cited drunken drivers; 64 percent said distracted drivers; and 63 percent said aggressive drivers. The remainder of their safety concerns was as follows: poor road quality, 24 percent; sharing the road with large trucks, 20 percent; unlicensed drivers, 20 percent; senior drivers, 11 percent; teen drivers, 11 percent; drowsy drivers, 6 percent. Asked what distracted driving activity poses the biggest danger, 68 percent cited text messaging; using a hand -held cell phone, 25 percent; using a cell phone with a hands -free device, 3 percent; personal grooming while driving, 2 percent; changing the radio station, CD or MP3 player, driver talking to passenger and eating while driving, all 1 percent. Wilmington City Council in Delaware passed a ban on hand -held cell phone use while driving in August. A poll by AAA then showed 96 percent of Delaware residents think states should pass laws that make it illegal for drivers to text message while driving. URL: http : / /www.delcotimes.com/articles/ 2009 /11/03/ news /doc4aefcO6b3laa2740246841.prt 02009 delcotimes.com, a Journal Register Property . ............ http: / /delcotimes.com/articles/ 2009 /11/03/ news /doc4aefcO6b3laa2740246841.prt 12/22/2009 Should Cell Phones Be Banned While DrivingT[ LiveSclence Lit SCIENCE,, Health Page 1 of 2 <n Back to Article 19 Send to Printer 1 60s €dbe to RSS v all Art icle s Should Cell Phones Be Banned While Driving? By LiveScience Staff posted: 12 January 2009 o9:18 am ET Note: Scroll down to vote The National Safety Council today called on state and federal lawmakers to ban the use of cell phones and text - messaging devices while driving and also urged businesses to prohibit it. The nonprofit, nongovernmental group cites studies showing that the practice is as dangerous as driving drunk. "Studies show that driving while talking on a cell phone is extremely dangerous and puts drivers at a four times greater risk of a crash," said Janet Froetscher, president and CEO of the NSC. "Driving drunk is also dangerous and against the law. When our friends have been drinking, we take the car keys away. It's time to take the cell phone away." A study from the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis estimates that cell phone use while driving contributes to 6 percent of crashes, which equates to 636,000 crashes, 330,000 injuries, 12,000 serious injuries and 2,600 deaths each year and a tab of $43 billion, according to a statement from the NSC today. Other distractions Talking on a cell phone may be less distracting than some other activities people may engage in while driving, Froetscher admits, but she points out that the use of cell phones and texting devices is much more pervasive, making it more dangerous overall. Studies from the University of Utah show that hands -free devices do not make cell phone calls while driving safe. Another study demonstrates that talking to passengers, as opposed to talking on a cell phone, actually makes adult drivers safer, because passengers help alert drivers to potential driving risks, the NSC stated. "Talking on a phone while driving is dangerous, period and our advice to drivers is to simply don't do it," Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association of Washington, DC, said last year. "It taxes the cognitive skills of your brain at the expense of the driving at hand, and if the conversation is stressful your reaction time will not be as quick. Also, whoever you are talking with on the phone does not know what is going on around you, whereas someone in the car talking to you is aware of the circumstances." John Walls, vice president of CTIA -The Wireless Association, a cell phone trade group, objected to a complete ban, according to the Associated Press. "We think that you can sensibly and safely use.a cell phone to make a brief call," Walls said. http: / /www.livogcienc6.com/ health /090112 -cell= phone- ban.html 1/25/2010 Should Cell Phones Be Banned Driving ?] tiveScience Page 2 of 2 California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Utah, Washington and the District of Columbia ban the use of hand -held cell phones while driving, and 17 states and D.C. restrict or ban cell phone use by young drivers. Worse than drunk driving One of the leading researchers in this realm is Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Utah. His team has done several studies using volunteers who drive simulators while talking on cell phones. In one study, some of the volunteers got drunk first so their reactions could be compared to people who were talking while driving and to a control group that was entirely focused on driving. "We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood - alcohol limit," Drews said. In fact, while some of the participants crashed in a virtual vehicle while sober and chatting, none of them crashed while drunk. Should lawmakers ban use of cell phones while driving? El Yes, it's insane to drive while talking on the phone or texting. I_ Let's find the middle of the road on this issue. No, this is America! Mew Results Polldaddy.com • New Device Prevents Driving While Using Cell Phone Space I Animals I Health I Environment I Technology I Culture I History I Strange News I Videos I Galleries I Hot Topics I Community I Tech Reviews media ii ii�f r � 9cmN.u. dam+.., ® �[IL■l � Site MaplAbout UslContact UslPrivacy Pol!cylTerms and Conditions I Advertise with UsI Publishers IDMCA /Copyright Copyright © 2010 TechMediaNetwork.com All rights reserved. http: / /www.livescience.com/ health /090112- cell - phone- ban.htmi 1/25/2010 State Cell Phone Driving Laws Cell Phone Driving Laws January 2010 Current state cell phone driving law highlights include the following: Page 1 of 3 Handheld Cell Phone Bans for All Drivers: 6 states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and r Washington), the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from talking on handheld cell phones while - I driving. Crash With the exception of Washington State, these laws are all primary enforcement —an officer may ticket a driver for using a handheld cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense taking place. Enforce All Cell Phone Bans: No state completely bans all types of cell phone use (handheld and hands -free) for all drivers, but Pre - many prohibit cell phone use by certain segments of the population. Learn More Novice Drivers: 21 states and the District of Columbia ban all cell use by novice drivers. School Bus Drivers: In 17 states and the District of Columbia, school bus drivers are prohibited from all cell phone use when passengers are present. Issue Brief: Cell Phones Text Messaging: 19 states, the District of Columbia and Guam now ban text messaging for all drivers. Fifteen states, & Distracted Driving D.C., and Guam have primary enforcement. In the other four states, all driver texting bans are secondarily enforced. Some GHSA's Distracted states have limited texting bans. Driving Policy Novice Drivers: 9 states prohibit text messaging by novice drivers. Distractlon.gov School Bus Drivers: 1 state restricts school bus drivers from taxiing while driving. _ Local Laws: While this chart addresses only statewide laws, many local jurisdictions have enacted cell phone and /or Bus texting while driving bans. However, six states have preemption laws that prohibit local jurisdictions from enacting such restrictions. Some states, such as Maine, New Hampshire and Utah treat cell phone use as a larger distracted driving issue. Col - Utah considers speaking on a celiphone to be an offense only if a driver is also committing some other moving violation (other than speeding). http : / /www.ghsa.org /html /stateinfo /laws /cellphone_ laws '.html 1/25/2010 Hand All Cell Phone Ban Text Messaging Ban Crash Enforce Pre - School Enforce School Enforce State - Data emption held ment Bus Novice _ All Bus Novice. Col - Law Ban Drivers Drivers ment Drivers Drivers Drivers ment lected Alabama Alaska Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes ban Arizona Yes Primary Arkansas Yes <18; 18 - 20 Primary: Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes can use bus drivers ban hands free only Secondary: novice drivers California Yes Primary Yes <18 Primary: Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes bus drivers ban Secondary: novice drivers Colorado <18 Primary. Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes ban Connecticut Yes Primary Yes Learners Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Permit and ban <18 Delaware Yes Leamer's Primary Learner's Primary Yes permit and permit and Intermediate intermediate license license holders holders D_C Yes Primary Yes Learners Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes Permit ban Florida Yes Geor is Yes Primary Yes Guam Yes Covered under all driver Primary ban Hawaii Idaho Illinois i See Yes <19 Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes footnote ban Indiana <18 Primary <18 Primary Yes Iowa Yes Kansas Learner or Primary Learner or Primary Yes Intermediate Intermediate License License http : / /www.ghsa.org /html /stateinfo /laws /cellphone_ laws '.html 1/25/2010 State Cell Phone Driving Laws Page 2 of 3 Kentucky Yes Primary Yes Louisiana Yes Yes Primary: Yes Covered under all driver Secondary Yes Yes (eff. 4110) bus drivers ban Secondary: novice drivers Malne <18 Primary <18 Primary Yes Maryland <18 w/ Secondary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes Learner or ban Provisional License Massachusetts Yes Primary Yes Michigan See Yes footnote Minnesota Yes <18 w/ Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes Learner or ban Provisional License Misslsslaai Learner or Primary Yes Provisional License Missouri <21 Primary - Montana Yes Nebraska <18 w/ Secondary <18 w/ Secondary Yes Learners or Learners or Provisional Provisional License License Nevada Yes Yes New Yes Covered under all driver Primary Hamoshire ban New Jersey Yes Primary Yes <21 w/ GDL Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes or ban Provisional License New Mexico In State Yes vehicles New York Yes Primary Yes Covered under all driver Secondary Yes ban North Carolina Yes <18 Primary Yes Covered under all driver an Primary North Dakota Yes Ohio Oklahoma Yes Yes Oregon Yes Primary <18 Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes ban Pennsylvania Yes Rhode Island Yes <18 Primary Yes Primary South Carolina South Dakota Yes Tennessee Yes Learners Primary Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes Permit or ban Intermediate License Texas Yes, w/ Intermediate Primary Yes, w/ I Intermediate Primary Yes passenger Stage, 1st passenger Stage, 1st :S1 7 12 mos. <_17 12 mos. Utah g See Yes Covered under all driver Primary Yes footnote ban Vermont Virgin Islands Yes No data Yes Virainla Yes <18 Primary: Yes Covered under all driver Secondary Yes bus drivers ban http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone—laws.htmi 1/25/2010 State Cell Phone Driving Laws Page 3 of 3 ' Illinois bans the use of cell phones while driving In a school zone or in a highway construction zone. 2 Maine has passed a law making it against the law to drive while distracted In the stale. 3 In Michigan, teens with probationary licenses whose cell phone usage contributes to a traffic crash or ticket may not use a cell phone while driving. 4 Dealt with as a distracted driving Issue; New Hampshire enacted a comprehensive distracted driving law. 5 Texas has banned the use of hand -held phones and texting in school zones. 6 Utah's law defines careless ddving as committing a moving violation (other than speeding) while distracted by use of a handheld cellphone or other activities not related to ddving. Sources: American Automobile Association (AAA) Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and State Highway Safety Offices http : / /www.ghsa.org /html /stateinfo /laws /cellphone_laws.html . 1/25/2010 Secondary: Primary: novice bus drivers drivers Washington Yes Secondary Yes Covered under all driver Secondary Yes ban West Virginia Leamer or Intermediate Primary Learner or Intermediate Primary Stage Stage Wisconsin Wyoming Yes Total 6+ Primary (5) 17 + D.C. 21 + D.C. 19 + D.C., 1 9 33+ 6 D.C., Secondary All Primary (15 Guam Primary Primary (8) D.C., Virgin (1) Primary +D.C.) Primary Secondary Virgin Islands Secondary (17+ (1) Islands (6) D.C., Guam) Secondary (2) ' Illinois bans the use of cell phones while driving In a school zone or in a highway construction zone. 2 Maine has passed a law making it against the law to drive while distracted In the stale. 3 In Michigan, teens with probationary licenses whose cell phone usage contributes to a traffic crash or ticket may not use a cell phone while driving. 4 Dealt with as a distracted driving Issue; New Hampshire enacted a comprehensive distracted driving law. 5 Texas has banned the use of hand -held phones and texting in school zones. 6 Utah's law defines careless ddving as committing a moving violation (other than speeding) while distracted by use of a handheld cellphone or other activities not related to ddving. Sources: American Automobile Association (AAA) Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and State Highway Safety Offices http : / /www.ghsa.org /html /stateinfo /laws /cellphone_laws.html . 1/25/2010 Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 096 -0130 Page 1 of 1 Public Act 096 -0130 HB0071 Enrolled LRB096 02938 AJT 12952 b AN ACT concerning transportation. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by adding Section 12 -610.2 as follows: (625 ILCS 5/12 -610.2 new) Sec. 12- 610.2. Electronic communication devices. (a) As used in this Section: "Electronic communication device" means an electronic device, including but not limited to a wireless telephone, personal digital assistant, or a portable or mobile computer while being used for the purpose of composing, reading, or sending an electronic message but does not include a global positioning system or navigation system or a device that is physically or electronically integrated into the motor vehicle. "Electronic message" means a self- contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. "Electronic message" includes, but is not limited to electronic mail, a text message, an instant message, or a command or request to access an Internet site. (b) A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read an electronic message. (c) A violation of this Section is an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles. (d) This Section does not apply to: (1) a law enforcement officer or operator of an emergency vehicle while performing his or her official duties; (2) a driver using an electronic communication device for the sole purpose of reporting an emergency situation and continued communication with emergency personnel during the emergency situation; (3) a driver using an electronic communication device in hands -free or voice - activated mode; or (4) a driver of a commercial motor vehicle reading a message displayed on a permanently installed communication device designed for a commercial motor vehicle with a screen that does not exceed 10 inches tall by 10 inches wide in size; (5) a driver using an electronic communication device while parked on the shoulder of a roadway; or (6) a driver using an electronic communication device when the vehicle is stopped due to normal traffic being obstructed and the driver has the motor vehicle transmission in neutral or park. Effective Date: 1/1 /2010 http: / /www. ilga.gov /leg islation /publicactstfuIltext. asp ?Name= 096- 0130 &print= true &... 1/5/2010 Illinois Genbr6l Ass6mb(y _F ull Act-096- 0:'130 " , _; .; : Page -1 pi 1 Public Act 096 -0130 HB0071 Enrolled LRB096 02938 AJT 12952 b AN ACT concerning transportation. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by adding Section 12 -610.2 as follows: (625 ILCS 5/12 -610.2 new) Sec. 12- 610.2. Electronic communication devices. (a) As used in this Section: "Electronic communication device" means an electronic device, including but not limited to a wireless telephone, personal digital assistant or a portable or mobile computer while being used for the purpose of composing, reading, or sending an electronic message, but does not include a global Positioning system or navigation system or a device that is physically or electronically integrated into the motor vehicle. "Electronic message" means a self- contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. "Electronic message" includes, but is not limited to electronic mail, a text message, an instant message, or a command or request to access an Internet site. (b) A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read an electronic message. (c) A violation of this Section is an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles. (d) This Section does not apply to: (1) a law enforcement officer or operator of an emergency vehicle while performing his or her official duties; (2) a driver using an electronic communication device for the sole purpose of reporting an emergency situation and continued communication with emergency personnel during the emergency situation; (3) a driver using an electronic communication device in hands -free or voice - activated mode; or (4) a driver of a commercial motor vehicle reading a message displayed on a permanently installed communication device designed for a commercial motor vehicle with a screen that does not exceed 10 inches tall by 10 inches wide in size; (5) a driver using an electronic communication device while parked on the shoulder of a roadway; or (6) a driver using an electronic communication device when the vehicle is stopped due to normal traffic being obstructed and the driver has the motor vehicle transmission in neutral or park. Effective Date: 1/1/2010 http:// www. ilga. gov/ legislation /publicacts/fuIItext.asp? Name =096- 0130 &print =-true &... 1/5/2010 Illinois General Assembly - Full of Public Act 096 -0131 Page 1 of 2 Public Act 096 -0131 Public Act 096 -0131 HB0072 Enrolled LRB096 02955 AJT 12969 b AN ACT concerning transportation. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by changing Section 12 -610.1 as follows: (625 ILCS 5/12 - 610.1) Sec. 12- 610.1. Wireless telephones. (a) As used in this Section, "wireless telephone" means a device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic communications without a wire connecting the device to the telephone network. (b) A person under the age of 19 years who holds an instruction permit issued under Section 6 -105 or 6- 107.1, or a person under the age of 19 years who holds a graduated license issued under Section 6 -107, may not drive a vehicle on a roadway while using a wireless phone. (c) This Section does not apply to a person under the age of 19 years using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health .care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity. (d) If a graduated driver's license holder over the age of 18' committed an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of Section 6 -107 or Section 12 -603.1 of this Code in the 6 months prior to the graduated driver's license holder's 18th birthday, and was subsequently convicted of the violation, the provisions of paragraph (b) shall continue to apply until such time as a period of 6 consecutive months has elapsed without an additional violation and subsequent conviction of an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation.of Section 6 -107 or Section 12 -603.1 of this Code. (e) A person, regardless of acre, may not use a wireless telephone at any time while operating a motor vehicle on a roadway in a school speed zone established under Section 11 -605, or on a highway in a construction or maintenance spe zone established under Section 11- 605.1. This subsection (e) does not apply to (i) a person engaged in a highway construction or maintenance protect for which a constructio or maintenance speed zone has been established under Section http: / /www. ilga.gov/ legislation /pubIicacts/fuIItext.asp ?Name= 096 -0131 1/5/2010 Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 0964 31 Page 2;of 2 11-605.1, (ii) a person using a - telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, law enforcement aaencv, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity, (iii) a law enforcement officer or operator of an emergency vehicle when performing the officer's or operator's official duties, or (iv) to a person usina a wireless telephone in voice - activated mode. (Source: P.A. 94 -240, eff. 7- 15 -05; 95 -310, eff. 1 -1 -08; 95 -338, eff. 1 -1 -08; 95 -876, eff. 8- 21 -08.) Effective Date: 1/1/2010 http: / /www.ilga.gov/ legislation /publicacts/fullfext.asp ?Name= 096 -0131 1/5/2010 Illinois. General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 096 -0131 Page 1 of 2 Public Act 096 -0131 Public Act 096 -0131 HB0072 Enrolled LRB096 02955 AJT 12969 b AN ACT concerning transportation. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by changing Section 12 -610.1 as follows: (625 ILCS 5/12- 610.1) Sec. 12- 610.1. Wireless telephones. (a) As used in this Section, "wireless telephone" means a device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic communications without a wire connecting the device to the telephone network. (b) A person under the age of 19 years who holds an instruction permit issued under Section 6 -105 or 6- 107.1, or a person under the age of 19 years who holds a graduated license issued under Section 6 -107, may not drive a vehicle on a roadway while using a wireless phone. .(c) This Section does not apply to a person under the age of 19 years using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity. (d) If a graduated driver's license holder over the age of 18 committed an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of Section 6 -107 or Section 12 -603.1 of this Code in the 6 months prior to the graduated driver's license holder's 18th birthday, and was subsequently convicted of the violation, the provisions of paragraph (b) shall continue to apply until such time as a period of 6 consecutive months has elapsed without an additional violation and subsequent conviction of an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of Section 6 -107 or Section 12 -603.1 of this Code. (e)-A person, regardless of age, may not use a wi reless telephone at any time while operating a motor vehic on a roadway in a school speed zone established under Section 11 -605, or on a highway in a construction or maintena speed zone established under Section 11- 605.1. This subsect (e) does not apply to (i) a person engaged in a highw construction or maintenance project for which a const or maintenance speed zone has been established under Section http: / /www.ilga.gov/ legislation /pubIicactstfuIItext.asp ?Name= 096 -0131 1/5/2010 Illinois General Assembly -Full Text of Public Act_ 096 -0131 Page 2 of 2 11 -605.1 (ii) a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, law enforcement agency, - health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity, (iii) a law enforcement officer or operator of an emergency vehicle when performing the officer's or operator's official duties, or (iv) to a person usina a wireless telephone in voic activated mode. (Source: P.A. 94 -240, eff. 7- 15 -05; 95 -310, eff. 1 -1 -08; 95 -338, eff. 1 -1 -08; 95 -876, eff. 8- 21 -08.) Effective Date: 1/1/2010 http: / /www. ilga.gov/ legislation /publicactstfuIItext.asp ?Name= 096 -0131 1/5/2010 Illinois'Genera] Assembly Full Text of Public Act 096 -0131 Public Act 096 -0131 Public Act 096 -0131 HB0072 Enrolled LRB096 02955 AJT 12969 b AN ACT concerning transportation. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by changing Section 12 -610.1 as follows: (625 ILCS 5/12 - 610.1) Sec. 12- 610.1. Wireless telephones. (a) As used in this Section, "wireless telephone" means a device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic communications without a wire connecting the device to the telephone network. (b) A person under the age of 19 years who holds an instruction permit issued under Section 6 -105 or 6- 107.1, or a person under the age of 19 years who holds a graduated license issued under Section 6 -107, may not drive a vehicle on a roadway while using a wireless phone. (c) This Section does not apply to a person under the age of 19 years using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity. (d) If a graduated driver's license holder over the age of 18 committed an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of Section 6 -107 or Section 12 -603.1 of this Code in the 6 months prior to the graduated driver's license holder's 18th birthday, and was subsequently convicted of the violation, the provisions of paragraph (b) shall continue to apply until such time as a period of 6 consecutive months has elapsed without an additional violation and subsequent conviction of an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation.of Section 6 -107 or Section 12 -603.1 of this Code. (e) A person, regardless of age, may not use a w ireless telephone at any time while operating a motor vehicl on a roadway in a school speed zone established under Section 11 -605, or on a highway in a construction or maintenance speed zone established under Section 11- 605.1. This subsection (e) does not apply to (i) a person engaged in a highway construction or maintenance pro for which a cons truction_ or maintenance speed zone has been established under Section http: / /www.ilga.gov/ legislation /publicactstfulitext.asp ?Name= 096 -0131 Page 1.of 2 1/5/2010 Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of Public Act 096 70131 ; .Page. -2 of 2 11-605.1, (ii) a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity, (iii) a law enforcement officer or operator of an emergency vehicle when performing the officer's or operator's official duties, or (iv) to a person usina a wireless telephon in voice - activated mode. (Source: P.A. 94 -240, eff. 7- 15 -05; 95 -310, eff. 1 -1 -08; 95 -338, eff. 1 -1 -08; 95 -876, eff. 8- 21 -08.) Effective Date: 1/1/2010 http: / /www.iIga.gov/ legislation /pubIicactstfuIItext.asp ?Name= 096 - 013.1. - :1/5/2010 Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of,Public Act 096 -0131 Page 1 of 1 Public Act 096 -0131 HB0072 Enrolled LRB096 02955 AJT 12969 b AN ACT concerning transportation. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by changing Section 12 -610.1 as follows: (625 ILCS 5/12- 610.1) Sec. 12- 610.1. Wireless telephones. (a) As used in this Section, "wireless telephone" means a device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic communications without a wire connecting the device to the telephone network. (b) A person under the age of 19 years.who holds an instruction permit issued under Section 6 -105 or 6- 107.1, or a person under the age of 19 years who holds a graduated license issued under Section 6 -107, may not drive a vehicle on a roadway while using a wireless phone. (c) This Section does not apply to a person under the age of 19 years using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity. (d) If a graduated driver's license holder over the age of 18 committed-an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of Section 6 -107 or Section 12 -603.1 of this Code in the 6 months prior to the graduated driver's license holder's 18th birthday, and was subsequently convicted of the violation, the provisions of paragraph (b) shall continue to apply until such time as a period of 6 consecutive months has elapsed without an additional violation and subsequent conviction of an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of Section 6 -107 or Section 12 -603.1 of this Code. (e) A person regardless of acre, may not use a wireless telephone at any time while operating a motor vehicle on a roadway in a school speed zone established under Section 11 -605 or on a highway in a construction or maintenance speed zone established under Section 11- 605.1. This subsection (e) does not apply to (i) a person engaged in a highway construction or maintenance protect for which a construction or maintenance speed zone has been established under Section 11- 605.1, (ii) a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity, (iii) a law enforcement officer or operator of an emergency vehicle when performing the officer's or operator's official duties or (iv) to a person using a wireless telephone in voice - activated mode. (Source: P.A. 94 -240, eff. 7- 15 -05; 95 -310, eff. 1 -1 -08; 95 -338, eff. 1 -1 -08; 95 -876, eff. 8- 21 -08.) Effective Date: 1/1/2010 http: / /www.ilga.gov/ legislation /publicacts/fulltext. asp ?Name= 096- 0131 &print= true &... - 1/5/2010 _ Phoenix Sec. 36 -76.01 Use of personal digital assistants while driving; prohibited; exceptions.* *Note: Section 2 of Ordinance No. G -4985, adopted September 19, 2007, effective September 19, 2007 provides the following: Warning period. For the purpose of informing and educating persons who operate motor vehicles, beginning on September 20, 2007 through October 19, 2007, any peace officer may stop motor vehicles and issue verbal warnings to persons who would be violating Section 36- 76.01, Phoenix City Code, as added by this Ordinance. A. A person shall not operate a motor vehicle on a street while using a personal digital assistant to send or receive a written message while the motor vehicle is in motion. B. This section does not apply to any of the following: 1. Law enforcement and safety personnel. 2. Drivers of authorized emergency vehicles. 3. Holders of commercial driver licenses while driving within the scope of their employment. 4. Public transit personnel. 5. A person who is reporting reckless or negligent behavior. 6. The use of a personal digital assistant for the sole purpose of communicating with any of the following regarding an emergency situation: (a) An emergency response operator. (b) A hospital, physician's office or health clinic. (c) A provider of ambulance services. (d) A provider of fire fighting services. (e) A law enforcement agency. 7. A person who believes the person is in physical danger if the person is the only adult in the motor vehicle. C. For purposes of this section,'personal digital assistant" means a wireless electronic communication device that provides for data communication other than by voice. D. A violation of this section is a nonmoving civil traffic violation. E. If a person violates this section and the person is not involved in a motor vehicle accident, the person is subject to a civil penalty of not less than one hundred dollars plus any other penalty assessments authorized by law. F. If a person violates this section and the person is involved in a motor vehicle accident, the person is subject to a civil penalty of not less than two hundred fifty dollars plus any other penalty assessments authorized by law. G. If a person is cited for violating this section, the person is involved in a motor vehicle accident and a written accident report is required by law, the law enforcement officer investigating the accident shall indicate on the written accident form the use of a personal digital assistant to send or receive a written message at the time of the accident. - (Ord. No. G -4985, § 1, adopted 9 -19 -2007, eff. 9 -19 -2007; Ord. No. G- 5034, § 1, adopted 12 -5- 2007, eff. 1 -4 -2008) Editor's note: Ord. No. G- 5034, § 1, adopted Dec. 5, 2007, effective Jan. 4, 2008, repealed § 4 of Ord. No. G -5034, which states: Legislative agenda. The subject of using personal digital assistants while driving shall be placed at the top of the City of Phoenix's legislative agenda so that the City may work toward a statewide solution and may request the Arizona legislature to enact maximum penalties by putting violators' drivers licenses at risk or having violators' vehicles impounded. HLS 09RS -394 ENGROSSED Regular Session, 2009 HOUSE BILL NO. 146 BY REPRESENTATIVES AUSTIN BADON AND LEGER Prefiled pursuant to Article III, Section 2(A)(4)(b)(i) of the Constitution of Louisiana. TRAFFICNIOLATIONS: Prohibits the use of a cellular telephone or electronic communications device while driving 1 AN ACT 2 To enact R.S. 32:300.8, relative to the use of telephones and electronic communication 3 devices while driving; to prohibit the use of wireless telephones while driving; to 4 prohibit text messaging and e- mailing while driving; and to provide for related 5 matters. 6 Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana: 7 Section 1. R.S. 32:300.8 is hereby enacted to read as follows: 8 §300.8. Wireless telephones and electronic communication devices: use prohibited 9 while driving 10 AID The use of a wireless telephone or electronic communication device 11 by an operator of a moving motor vehicle on a public road or highway shall be 12 unlawful, except when the telephone is a hands -free wireless telephone or the 13 electronic communication device is used hands- free, provided that its placement does 14 not interfere with the operation of federally required safety equipment, and the 15 operator exercises a high degree of caution in the operation of the motor vehicle. 16 (2) This Section does not apply to the use of a wireless telephone or 17 electronic communication device for the purpose of communicating with any of the 18 following regarding an emergency situation: 19 (a) An emergency system response operator & 911 public safety 20 communications dispatcher. Page 1 of 3 CODING: Words in sh tick through type are deletions from existing law; words are additions. HLS 09RS -394 ENGROSSED HB NO. 146 1 (b) A hospital or emergent room. oom. 2 (c) A 1hvsician's office or health clinic. 3 (d) An ambulance or fire department rescue service. 4 (e) A fire department fire protection district or volunteer fire department. 5 ,(_) A law enforcement agency., 6 B For purposes ofthis Section the following words and phrases shall mean: 7 (11) 'Electronic communication device" shall mean a handheld device 8 cUable of sending or receiving communications without an access line for service 9 and which requires the operator to manually insert letters or figures. It does not 10 include citizens band radios, citizens band radio hybrids, commercial two -wav radio 11. communication devices or electronic communication devices with a push -to -talk 12 function. 13 (2) "Hands -free wireless telephone" shall mean a mobile telephone that has 14 an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an attachment or addition, 15 whether or not permanently part of such mobile telephone by which a user engages 16 in a conversation without the use of either hand, provided, however, this definition 17 shall not preclude the use of either hand to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function 18 of the telephone. 19 (33) "Use" of a wireless telephone or electronic communication device shall 20 include but not be limited to talking or listening to another person on the telephone, 21 text messaging or sending an electronic message via the wireless telephone or 22 electronic communication device. 23 (4) "Wireless telephone" shall mean a handheld device capable of sending 24 or receiving telephone communications without an access line for service and which 25 requires the operator to dial numbers manually. It does not include citizens band 26 radios or citizens band radio hybrids. 27 C A person found in violation of this Section shall be fined, for a first 28 violation not less than one hundred dollars: for a second violation, not more than one Page 2 of 3 CODING: Words in struck throug! type are deletions from existing law; words underscored are additions. HLS 09RS -394 ENGROSSED HB NO. 146 1 hundred fifty dollars: for a third violation, not more than two hundred dollars: and 2 for a fourth or subsequent violation. not more than two hundred fifty dollars. 3 Section 2. This Act shall become effective on January 1, 2010. DIGEST The digest printed below was prepared by House Legislative Services. It constitutes no part of the legislative instrument. The keyword, one - liner, abstract, and digest do not constitute part of the law or proof or indicia of legislative intent. [R. S. 1:13(B) and 24:177(E)] Austin Badon HB No. 146 Abstract: Prohibits the use of wireless telephone or electronic communication devices by operators of moving motor vehicles except when the device is a hands -free wireless telephone or the electronic communication device is used hands -free or for an emergency and provides for penalties. Proposed law prohibits the use of wireless telephone or electronic communication devices by operators of moving motor vehicles except when the device is a hands -free wireless telephone, or the electronic communication device is used hands -free or for an emergency. Proposed law defines the terms "electronic communication device ", "hands -free wireless telephone ", "use ", and "wireless telephone ". Proposed law provides that the penalty for a violation of proposed law shall be not less than $100 for the first violation, not more than $150 for a second violation, not more than $200 for a third violation, and not more than $250 for a fourth or subsequent violation. Effective Jan. 1, 2010. (Adds R.S. 32:300.8) Summary of Amendments Adopted by House Committee Amendments Proposed by House Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works to the original bill. 1. Makes changes to the definitions of "electronic communication device" and "wireless telephone" Page 3 of 3 CODING: Words instrack dirough type are deletions from existing law; words underscored are additions. Public Act 096 -0130 HB0071 Enrolled LRB096 02938 AJT 12952 b AN ACT concerning transportation. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by adding Section 12 -610.2 as follows: (625 ILCS 5/12 -610.2 new) Sec. 12- 610.2. Electronic communication devices. (a) As used in this Section: "Electronic communication device means an electronic device, including but not limited to a wireless telephone, personal digital assistant, or a portable or mobile computer while being used for the purpose of composing, reading, or sending an electronic message, but does not include a global - positioning system or navigation system or a device that is physically or electronically integrated into the motor vehicle. "Electronic message" means a self- contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. "Electronic message includes, but is not limited to electronic mail, a text message, an instant message, or a command or request to access an Internet site. (b) A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read an electronic message. (c) A violation of this Section is an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles. (d) This Section does not apply to: (1) a law enforcement officer or operator of an emergency vehicle while performing his or her official duties; (2) a driver using an electronic communication device for the sole purpose of reporting an emergency situation and continued communication with emergency personnel during the emergency situation; (3) a driver using an electronic communication device in hands -free or voice - activated mode; or (4) a driver of a commercial motor vehicle reading a message displayed on a permanently installed communication device designed for a commercial motor vehicle with a screen that does not exceed 10 inches tall by 10 inches wide in size; (5) a driver using an electronic communication device while parked on the shoulder of a roadway; or (6) a driver using an electronic communication device when the vehicle is stopped due to normal traffic being obstructed and the driver has the motor vehicle transmission in neutral or park. Effective Date: 1/1 /2010 Chicago Use Of Mobile Telephones (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, no person shall drive a motor vehicle while using a mobile, cellular, analog wireless or digital telephone. (b) The provisions of the ordinance shall not apply to: (1) Law enforcement officers and operators of emergency vehicles when on duty and acting in their official capacities. (2) Persons using a telephone with a "hands free" device allowing the driver to talk into and listen to the other party without the use of hands. (3) Persons using a telephone to call 911 telephone numbers or other emergency telephone numbers to contact public safety forces. (4) Persons using a telephone while maintaining a motor vehicle in a stationary parked position, and not in gear. (c) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to a fine of Fifty Dollars ($50), provided however, that if a violation occurs at the time of a traffic accident, the driver may be subject to an additional fine not to exceed Two Hundred Dollars ($200). Municipal Code of Chicago, III. § 9 -40 -260 (rev. 2005)J By its terms, the ordinance went into effect 30 days "after its passage and publication." Id. at 49148. The City Clerk published the journal of City Council's May 11, 2005, meeting on June 8, 2005, see Council Journal, Jun. 8, 2005, at 51272; the ordinance therefore became effective on July 8, 2005. On October 8, 2008, City Council corrected the text of the ordinance by replacing "capabilities" in subsection (b)(1) with "capacities" and "Person" in subsection (b)(4) with "Persons ". See Council Journal, Oct. 8, 2008, at 40123. Philadelphia § 12 -1132. Prohibiting Use of Mobile Telephones by Persons Operating Vehicles. 76.2 (1) Legislative Findings. The Council of the City of Philadelphia finds: . (a) The City of Philadelphia is the largest city in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the sixth - largest city in the United States. (b) As a result of its large and dense population, the City of Philadelphia experiences significant motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic within its boundaries. (c) Philadelphia has consistently been named as one of the most walkable cities in the United States and. this bill will protect the health, safety and welfare of pedestrians, bicyclists, skateboarders and inline skaters. (d) Mobile telephone usage has continued to increase in popularity in the United States. (e) Studies show: (.1) Mobile = usage while driving increases the likelihood of a crash fourfold; (2) Drivers operating motor vehicles while using a mobile = are as impaired as drivers with a 0.08 percent blood alcohol level — the level that defines drunk driving in most states; (3) The act of dialing a mobile • • - is the most dangerous part of making a mobile • • - call while operating a motor vehicle; (A) The cost of crashes caused by mobile = usage while operating a motor vehicle is estimated at $43 billion, annually. (f) Text messaging, instant messaging, web browsing and other mobile technologies are becoming increasingly popular and present an additional danger to motor vehicle operators. (g) Studies show: (.1) The use of text messages has increased over 1,000 percent from June of 2005 to June of 2007. (2) Today, Americans send and receive more text messages per month than = calls. (h) The use of mobile while operating a motor vehicle, skateboard, inline skates or bicycle poses a great risk to the health, safety and welfare of the operator of those vehicles, as well as pedestrians. (i) Requiring the use of a hands -free device for mobile • . - while operating a vehicle within the City of Philadelphia is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Philadelphia. 0) Failure to use a hands -free device for a mobile M while operating a vehicle within the City of Philadelphia shall constitute a violation of the Philadelphia Code. (2) Definitions. (a) "Hands free device" shall mean an external device that connects to a mobile telephone or wireless communication device that allows the user to engage in -a call without touching the user's telephone or wireless communication device. (b) "Street" shall have the same meaning as stated in § 12- 102 (16) of this Chapter. (c) "On -board communications device" shall mean a communications system or device that is hard -wired into the motor vehicle. (3) Prohibited Conduct. No person shall use a mobile telephone or wireless communication device in any way, including for voice communication, messaging or emailing: (a) while operating a motor vehicle on any Street within the City; (b) while using a skateboard, scooter, inline skates or bicycle on any Street within the City. (4) Exceptions. (a) Persons using a hands -free device for voice communication, provided that such person does not touch the mobile telephone or wireless communication device connected to such hands -free device while operating or using the vehicle, except as permitted under subparagraph (c). (b) Persons using a mobile telephone for voice communication to call "911" in an emergency, or to report a traffic accident or unsafe driving by another motorist. (c) Persons using a mobile telephone or wireless communication device while maintaining a motor vehicle in a stationary position in a parking lane or space out of moving traffic lanes, and not in gear. (d) Persons using on -board communications device for non - personal communication in the course of ordinary business in their employment with a City, State or Federal agency or authority. (5) Penalties. (a) The penalty for a violation of this Section shall be a fine of not less than $150, nor more than $300. In lieu of payment of such fine, a person who receives a notice of violation of this Section may, within 10 days of receipt of such notice, pay $75, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 1 -112 of The Philadelphia Code. Public Act 096 -0131 HB0072 Enrolled LRB096 02955 AJT 12969 b AN ACT concerning transportation. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by changing Section 12 -610.1 as follows: (625 ILCS 5/12- 610.1) Sec. 12- 610.1. Wireless telephones. (a) As used in this Section, "wireless telephone" means a device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic communications without a wire connecting the device to the telephone network. (b) A person under the age of 19 years who holds an instruction permit issued under Section 6 -105 or 6- 107.1, or a person under the age of 19 years who holds a graduated license issued under Section 6 -107, may not drive a vehicle on a roadway while using a wireless phone. (c) This Section does not apply to a person under the age of 19 years using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity. (d) If a graduated driver's license holder over the age of 18 committed an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of Section 6 -107 or Section 12 -603.1 of this Code in the 6 months prior to the graduated driver's license holder's 18th birthday, and was subsequently convicted of the violation, the provisions of paragraph (b) shall continue to apply until such time as a period of 6 consecutive months has elapsed without an additional violation and subsequent conviction of an offense against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles or any violation of Section 6 -107 or Section 12 -603.1 of this Code. (e) A person, regardless of age, may not use a wireless telephone at any time while operating a motor vehicle on a roadway in a school speed zone established under Section 11 -605, or on a highway in a construction or maintenance speed zone established under Section 11- 605.1. This subsection (e) does not apply to (i) a person engaged in a highway construction or maintenance project for which a construction or maintenance speed zone has been established under Section 11- 605.1, (ii) a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity, (iii) a law enforcement officer or operator of an emergency vehicle when performing the officer's or operator's official duties, or (iv) to a person using a wireless telephone in voice - activated mode. (Source: P.A. 94 -240, eff. 7- 15 -05; 95 -310, eff. 1 -1 -08; 95 -338, eff. 1 -1 -08; 95 -876, eff. 8- 21 -08.) Effective Date: 1/1/2010 CITY of ALBUQUERQUE SEVENTEENTH COUNCIL COUNCIL BILL NO. F/S 0 -06 -57 ENACTMENT NO. SPONSORED BY: Michael Cadigan 1 ORDINANCE 2 AMENDING SECTION 8- 2 -1 -24 ROA 1994, A PORTION OF THE TRAFFIC CODE, 3 TO PROVIDE A CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR TALKING ON OR OTHERWISE 4 OPERATING A HAND -HELD CELLULAR PHONE WHILE DRIVING A VEHICLE; 5 CREATING EXCEPTIONS. 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL, THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF 7 ALBUQUERQUE: 8 Section 1. Section 8- 2 -1 -24 ROA 1994 is amended to read as follows: 9 "§ 8- 2 -1 -24 DRIVER'S PROHIBITED ACTS. 10 It shall be unlawful for any person to: 0 11 (A) Drive while having in his lap any person, adult or minor, or any z 12 animal, nor shall the driver of a vehicle be seated in the lap of any other .p ±� 13 person. a, . 14 (B) Drive a vehicle while having either arm around another person. 2 15 (C) Knowingly permit any other person to interfere with the steering 2 16 mechanism or the acceleration of the vehicle. 0 L 17 (D) Carry any animal in or upon any vehicle in a cruel, inhumane, or a) c 18 unsafe manner. Animals carried in the bed of trucks must be crated or 19 restrained upon a non metal mat so that they cannot fall or jump from the 20 truck. wI 21 (E) Except as otherwise provided below, no person shall operate a m ± 22 motor vehicle upon a public highway while using a mobile telephone to 23 engage in a call or create, send or read text messages while such vehicle is in 24 motion. 25 (1) For purposes of this subsection the following definitions apply: 26 (a) "Engage in a call" shall mean talking into, dialing or 1 I listening on a hand -held mobile telephone, but shall not include holding a 2 mobile telephone to activate, deactivate or initiate a function of such 3 telephone. 4 (b) "Hands -free mobile telephone" shall mean a mobile 5 telephone that has an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an 6 attachment or addition, whether or not permanently part of such mobile 7 telephone, by which a user engages in a call without the use of either hand (or 8 prosthetic device or aid in the case of a physically disabled person), whether 9 or not the use of either hand(or prosthetic device) is necessary to activate, 10 deactivate or initiate a function of such telephone. 11 (c) "Hand -held mobile telephone" shall mean a mobile 12 telephone with which a user engages in a call using at least one hand (or 13 prosthetic device or aid in the case of a physically disabled person). 14 (d) "Mobile telephone" shall mean the device used by 15 subscribers and other users of wireless telephone service to access such 16 service and shall include Personal Digital Assistants. 17 (e) "Personal Digital Assistant" shall mean a device operated g 18 using a wireless telecommunications service that provides for data z 19 communication other than by voice. �0 + 20 (f) "Wireless telephone service" shall mean two -way real time 21 voice telecommunications service that is interconnected to a public switched c� 22 telephone network and commonly referred to as cellular service or personal R 23 communication service. L 24 (2) An operator of a motor vehicle who holds a mobile telephone to, m 25 or in the immediate proximity of his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion D 26 is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section. The Y 27 presumption established by this subdivision is rebuttable by evidence tending U M 28 to show that the operator was not engaged in a call. "Immediate proximity" ± 29 shall mean that distance as permits the operator of a mobile telephone to hear 30 telecommunications transmitted over such mobile telephone, but shall not 31 require physical contact with such operator's ear. 32. (3) Subdivision (E) shall not apply to: E I (a) the use of a mobile telephone for the sole purpose of 2 communicating with any of the following regarding an emergency situation: an 3 emergency response operator; a hospital, physician's office or health clinic; 4 an ambulance company or corps; a fire department, district or company; or a 5 police department; 6 (b) any law enforcement, public safety or police officers, 7 emergency services officials, first aid, emergency medical technicians and 8 personnel, or any fire safety officials in the performance of duties arising out 9 of and in the course of their employment as such; or 10 (c) the use of a hands -free mobile telephone when being used 11 in a hands free manner. 12 (F) The penalty for a first conviction or plea of nolo contendere for a 13 violation of Subsection E shall be $100.00. The penalty for all subsequent 14 convictions or pleas of nolo contendere for violation of Subsection E shall be 15 $200.00." 16 Section 2. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. If any section, paragraph, sentence, 17 clause, word or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or 0 18 unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not z m 19 affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The Council 10 + 20 hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, ( . 21 paragraph, sentence, clause, word or phrase thereof irrespective of any c� 2 22 provision being declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. a 2 23 Section 3. COMPILATION. Section 1 of this ordinance shall be 0 24 incorporated in and made part of the Revised Ordinances of Albuquerque, a) c 25 New Mexico, 1994. D 26 Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect five days a� Y 27 after publication by title and general summary. `�° 28 m- ± u 29 30 31 32 33 X:I SHAREILegislationlSeventeenlO- 57fsfinal.doc 3 BE .IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 6 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 46.61 RCW 7 to read as follows: 8 (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person 9 operating a moving motor vehicle who, by means of an electronic 10 wireless communications device, other than a voice - activated global 11 positioning or navigation system that is permanently affixed to the 12 vehicle, sends, reads, or writes a text message, is guilty of a traffic 13 infraction. A person does not send, read, or write a text message when 14 he or she reads, selects, or enters a phone number or name in a 15 wireless communications device for the purpose of making a phone call. 16 (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person 17 operating: 18 (a) An authorized emergency vehicle; or p. 1 EHB 1214.SL 1 (b) A moving motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless 2 communications device to: 3.(i) Report illegal activity; 4 (ii) Summon medical or other emergency help; 5 (iii) Prevent injury to a person property; or 6 (iv) Relay information between a transit or for -hire operator and 7 that operator's dispatcher, in which the device is permanently affixed 8 to the vehicle. 9 (3) Enforcement of this section by law enforcement officers may be 10 accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor 11 vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of this title or an 12 equivalent local ordinance or some other offense. 13 (4) Infractions under this act shall not become part of the 14 driver's record under RCW 46.52.101 and 46.52.120. Additionally, a 15 finding that a person has committed a traffic infraction under this 16 section shall not be made available to insurance companies or 17 employers. 18 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. This act takes Passed by the House April 17, 2007. Passed by the Senate April 13, 2007. Approved by the Governor May 11, 2007. Filed in Office of Secretary of State EHB 1214. effect January 1, 2008. May 11, 2007. ORDINANCE NO. 106-2009 INTRODUCED BY: Legislative Committee of Council AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 432 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY ENTITLED "OPERATION GENERALLY" BY ENACTING SECTION 432.41 PROHIBITING THE USE OF WIRELESS HANDSETS TO TEXT MESSAGE WHILE DRIVING, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association, four states — Alaska, Minnesota, New Jersey and Washington — outlaw text messaging while driving and legislation is being considered in 16 other states; and WHEREAS, mobile texters in the United States sent 158 billion messages in 2006, up 95 percent from 2005, according to industry statistics cited by the New York Times; and WHEREAS, according to a 2006 study by Nationwide Insurance, 19 percent of drivers use text messaging while at the wheel, and that number jumped to 37 percent among drivers aged 18 to 27; and WHEREAS, a national American Automobile Association survey of 1,000 16 and 17- year -old drivers found that 46 percent send text messages with their cell phones while driving; and WHEREAS, each year, 21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 were the result of cell phone use, and this result is, expected to grow as much as 4% every year; and WHEREAS, in one tragic accident in Canandaigua, New York, police found that text messages were sent and received on a 17 -year -old driver's cell phone moments before the vehicle slammed head -on into a truck, killing her and four other recent high school graduates; and WHEREAS, this Council believes that regulation of text messaging while driving is necessary for the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Olmsted Falls. Now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OLMSTED FALLS, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, STATE OF OHIO THAT: Section 1. That the Codified Ordinances of the City of Olmsted Falls are hereby supplemented by enacting new Section 432.41 to read as follows: Section 432.41 TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING. (a) As used in this section: (1) "Text message" means a message sent or received via a process using wireless handsets. For the purposes of this section, an e-mail shall be considered a "text message." (2) - "Wireless handset" means a portable electronic device capable of transmitting or receiving data in the form of a text message. (b) No person shall use a wireless handset to compose, send or read text messages while driving a motor vehicle in the City of Olmsted Falls. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of division (b), this section shall not be construed to prohibit the use of a wireless handset inside a motor vehicle to compose, send or read text message by: (1) A driver using a wireless handset to contact any law enforcement, police officers, emergency services personnel, emergency medical technicians, or fire safety officials to report an emergency situation; or (2) A driver using a wireless handset inside a motor vehicle while such vehicle is parked, standing or stopped and is removed from the flow of traffic, in accordance with applicable laws or rules, or is stopped due to the inoperability of such vehicle; or (3) A driver operating a public safety vehicle who uses a wireless handset in the course of that driver's duties. (d) Penalty. Whoever violates this section shall be fined one hundred dollars for the first offense, two hundred and fifty dollars for a second offense, and no more than five hundred dollars for each subsequent offense. SECTION 2. The Council finds and determines that all formal actions of this Council relating to the adoption of this Ordinance have been taken at open meetings of this Council; and that deliberations of this Council and of its committees, resulting in such formal action, took place in meetings open to the public, in compliance with all statutory requirements including the requirements of Section 121.22 of the Ohio Revised Code. SECTION 3. This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Olmsted Falls because it will provide added protection to the traveling public in the City. Therefore, this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the affirmative vote of not less than five (5) members elected to Council, and signature by the Mayor, or otherwise at the earliest time allowed by law. Garry Thompson, President of Council PASSED: I•r '�3•lil � e • Robert Blomquist, Mayor Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: First Reading: Second Reading: Paul T. Murphy, Law Director Angela Mancini, Clerk of Council Third Reading: CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5037 60th Legislature 2007 Regular Session Passed by the Senate April 16, 2007 YEAS 33 NAYS 15 President of the Senate Passed by the House April 11, 2007 YEAS 59 NAYS 38 Speaker of the House of Representatives Approved CERTIFICATE I, Thomas Hoemann, Secretary of the Senate of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5037 as passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on the dates hereon set forth. Secretary FILED Secretary of State State of Washington Governor of the State of Washington ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5037 AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE Passed Legislature - 2007 Regular Session State of Washington 60th Legislature 2007 Regular Session By , Senate Committee on Transportation (originally sponsored by Senators Eide, Weinstein, Murray, Berkey, Regala, Rockefeller, Kauffman, Keiser, Spanel, Jacobsen and Kohl - Welles) READ FIRST TIME 02/22/07. 1 AN ACT Relating to the use of a wireless communications device 2 while operating a moving motor vehicle; adding a new section to chapter 3 46.61 RCW; creating a new section; prescribing penalties; and providing 4 an effective date. 5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 6 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The use of wireless communications devices 7 by motorists has increased in recent years. While wireless 8 communications devices have assisted with quick reporting of road 9 emergencies, their use has also contributed to accidents and other 10 mishaps on Washington state roadways. When motorists hold a wireless 11 communications device in one hand and drive with the other, their 12 chances of becoming involved in a traffic mishap increase. It is the 13 legislature's intent to phase out the use of hand -held wireless 14 communications devices by motorists while operating a vehicle. 15 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 46.61 RCW 16 to read as follows: 17 (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person P. 1 ESSB 5037.PL 1 operating a .moving motor vehicle while holding a wireless 2 communications device to his or her ear is guilty of a traffic 3 infraction. 4 (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person 5 operating: 6 (a) An authorized emergency vehicle, or a tow truck responding to 7 a disabled vehicle; 8 (b) A moving motor vehicle using a wireless communications device 9 in hands -free mode; 10 (c) A moving motor vehicle using a hand -held wireless 11 communications device to: 12 (i) Report illegal activity; 13 (ii) Summon medical or other emergency help; 14 (iii) Prevent injury to a person or property; 15 (d) A moving motor vehicle while using a hearing aid. 16 (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not restrict the operation 17 of an amateur radio station by a person who holds a valid amateur radio 18 operator license issued by the federal communications commission. 19 (4) For purposes of this section, "hands -free mode" means the use 20 of a wireless communications device with a speaker phone, headset, or 21 earpiece. 22 (5) The state preempts the field of regulating the use of wireless 23 communications devices in motor vehicles, and this section supersedes 24 any local laws, ordinances, orders, rules, or regulations enacted by a 25 political subdivision or municipality to regulate the use of wireless 26 communications devices by the operator of a motor vehicle. 27 (6) Enforcement of this section by law enforcement officers may be 28 accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor 29 vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of this title or an 30 equivalent local ordinance or some other offense. 31 (7) Infractions that result from the use of a wireless 32 communications device while operating a motor vehicle under this 33 section shall not become part of the driver's record under RCW 34 46.52.101 and 46.52.120. Additionally, a finding that a person has 35 committed a traffic infraction under this section shall not be made 36 available to insurance companies or employers. ESSB 5037.PL p. 2 1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. This act takes effect July 1, 2008. - -- END - -- p. 3 ESSB 5037.PL California SEC. 3. Section 12810.3 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read: 12810.3. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (f) of Section 12810, a violation point shall not be given for a conviction of a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 23123. (b) The section shall become operative on July 1, 2008. SEC. 4. Section 23123 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read: 23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands -free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 42001 or any other provision of law, a violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense. (c) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity. (d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties. (e) This section does not apply to a person when using a digital two -way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk and does not require immediate proximity to the ear of the user, and the person is driving one of the following vehicles: (1) (A) A motor truck, as defined in Section 410, or a truck tractor, as defined in Section 655, that requires either a commercial class A or class B driver's license to operate. (B) The exemption under subparagraph (A) does not apply to a person driving a pickup truck, as defined in Section 471. (2) An implement of husbandry that is listed or described in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 36000) of Division 16. (3) A farm vehicle that is exempt from registration and displays an identification plate as specified in Section 5014 and is listed in Section 36101. (4) A commercial vehicle, as defined in Section 260, that is registered to a farmer and driven by the farmer or an employee of the farmer, and is used in conducting commercial agricultural operations, including, but not limited to, transporting agricultural products, farm machinery, or farm supplies to, or from, a farm. (5) A tow truck, as defined in Section 615. (f) This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125. (g) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor vehicle on private property. (h) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2008, and shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2011, and, as of July 1, 2011, is repealed. SEC. 5. Section 23123 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read: 23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands -free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 42001 or any other provision of law, a violation of this sections is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense. (c) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity. (d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties. (e) This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125. (f) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor vehicle on private property. (g) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2011. Driven to Distraction - Despite Risks, Carmakers Integrate the Web With the Dash - Serie... Page 1 of 4 i5 Or vItt flurk E lmo PR- NTER�FRIFU1113 FORMAT This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation -ready 5FVNS0RE0 EY copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now. January 7, 2010 DRIVEN TO DISTRACTION Despite Risks, Internet Creeps Onto Car Dashboards By ASHLEE VANCE and MATT RICHTEL LAS VEGAS — To the dismay of safety advocates already worried about driver distraction, automakers and high -tech companies have found a new place to put sophisticated Internet - connected computers: the front seat. Technology giants like Intel and Google are turning their attention from the desktop to the dashboard, hoping to bring the power of the PC to the car. They see vast opportunity for profit in working with automakers to create the next generation of irresistible devices. This week at the Consumer Electronics Show the neon - drenched annual trade show here, these companies are demonstrating the breadth of their ambitions, like 10 -inch screens above the gearshift showing high - definition videos, 3 -D maps and Web pages. The first wave of these "infotainment systems," as the tech and car industries call them, will hit the market this year. While built -in navigation features were once costly options, the new systems are likely to be standard equipment in a wide range of cars before long. They prevent drivers from watching video and using some other functions while the car is moving, but they can still pull up content as varied as restaurant reviews and the covers of music albums with the tap of a finger. Safety advocates say the companies behind these technologies are tone -deaf to mounting research showing the risks of distracted driving — and to a growing national debate about the use of mobile devices in cars and how to avoid the thousands of wrecks and injuries this distraction causes each year. "This is irresponsible at best and pernicious at worst," Nicholas A. Ashford, a professor of technology and policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technoloy said of the new efforts to marry cars and computers. "Unfortunately and sadly, it is a continuation of the pursuit of http: / /www.nytimes.com/ 2010 /01/07/ technology /07distracted.html ?pagewanted =print 1/8/2010 Driven to Distraction - Despite Risks, Carmakers Integrate the Web With the Dash - Serie... Page 2 of 4 profit over safety — for both drivers and pedestrians." One system on the way this fall from Audi lets drivers pull up information as they drive. Heading to Madison Square Garden for a basketball game? Pop down the touch pad, finger - scribble the word "Knicks" and get a Wikipedia entry on the arena, photos and reviews of nearby restaurants, and animations of the ways to get there. A notice that pops up when the Audi system is turned on reads: "Please only use the online services when traffic conditions allow you to do so safely." The technology and car companies say that safety remains a priority. They note that they are building in or working on technology like voice commands and screens that can simultaneously show a map to the driver and a movie to a front -seat passenger, as in the new Jaguar XJ "We are trying to make that driving experience one that is very engaging," said Jim Buczkowski, the director of global electrical and electronics systems engineering at Ford "We also want to make sure it is safer and safer. It is part of what our DNA will be going forward." Ford's new MyFord system lets the driver adjust temperature settings or call a friend while the car is in motion, while its built -in Web browser works only when the car is parked. Audi says it will similarly restrict access to complex and potentially distracting functions. But in general, drivers will bear much of the responsibility for limiting their use of these devices. Computer chips and other components improve every year while dropping in cost, allowing carmakers to introduce more sophisticated devices. Harman, based in Stamford, Conn., and a maker of such systems for cars, has created a pair of high -end multimedia systems due out this year that use full- fledged PC chips from Intel and Nvidia Such chips once consumed too much electricity to be used in cars. "We have always looked at the PC market with envy," said Sachin Lawande, the chief technology officer at Harman, which works with Audi, BMW Mercedes, Toyota and others. "They've always had these great chips we could not use, but now that's changing." A complex new dashboard console from Ford, which it plans to unveil Thursday, brings the car firmly into the land of electronic gadgets. The 4.2 -inch color screen to the left of the speedometer displays information about the car, like the fuel level, while a companion screen on the right shows things like the name of a cellphone caller or the title of the digital http: / /www.nytimes.coml 2010 /01/07/ technology lO7distracted.html ?pagewanted =print 1/8/2010 Driven to Distraction - Despite Risks, Carmakers Integrate the Web With the Dash - Serie... Page 3 of 4 song file being played. An eight -inch touch screen tops the central console, displaying things like control panels and, when the car is not moving, Web pages. The system has Wi -Fi capability, two U.S.B. ports and a place to plug in a keyboard — in short, many of the features of a standard PC. The automakers' efforts are backed by companies that make chips for PCs and that want to see their processors slotted into the 70 million cars sold worldwide each year. "Cars are going to become probably the most immersive consumer electronics device we have," said Michael Rayfield, a general manager at Nvidia, a chip company that on Thursday plans to announce a deal with Audi. "In 2010, you will sit in these things, and it will be a totally different experience." The giants of the industry contend they are giving consumers what they want — and the things that smartphones and the Internet have trained them to expect. "Customers are expecting more and more, especially business people who expect to find in the car what they find in their smartphone," said Mathias Halliger, the chief engineer for Audi's multimedia interface systems. "We should give them the same or a better experience." The muscle of the computer industry adds powerful new backing to efforts by carmakers to introduce new technologies as a source of profit. Once they promoted advanced stereos, but now navigation and integrated phone systems are the hot items. " Carmakers assume, as most consumers do, that most cars are alike in terms of line quality and safety, and all the old attributes," Art Spinella, an auto industry analyst with CNW Research, said. "Now the way to distinguish yourself is through higher tech." "But they're totally ignoring one of the key issues of the future of driving, which is distracted driving." Awareness of that issue is growing. Even in 2003, when fewer people were multitasking in cars, researchers at Harvard estimated that motorists talking on cellphones caused 2,600 fatal accidents and 570,00o accidents involving injuries a year. Charlie Klauer, a researcher at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, says motorists face a much greater crash risk when looking at a screen, even if it is just a simple GPS map. She says the overall danger for drivers will rise as screens deliver additional streams of data. http: / /vwvw.nytimes.com/2010 /01/07/ technology /07distracted.html ?pagewanted =print 1/8/2010 Driven to Distraction - Despite Risks, Carmakers Integrate the Web With the Dash - Serie... Page 4 of 4 The longer a motorist looks away from the road, "the risk of crash or near crash goes up exponentially — not a linear increase, but exponentially," Ms. Mauer said. "So when you start introducing things like e -mail, Internet access, restaurant options or anything like that, the risk goes up." Regulators worry about the developments, too. Ray LaHood the transportation secretary, said the companies involved were on the wrong track. "The idea they're going to load automobiles up with all kinds of ways to be distracted that's not the direction we're going, and I will speak out against it," he said. The companies contend that they are creating helpful systems that display crucial information. And they are quick to point out that more computing power could mean better safety technology as well, like sensors that try to predict dangerous driving situations. Ford and Audi say they extensively tested and tweaked their systems to cut down on the amount of time that drivers spend looking at screens. Brad Stertz, a spokesman for Audi of America, said that this testing was voluntary. "Because a lot of this is so new, there's not a ton of regulatory testing that's required, like would be required with crash testing," Mr. Stertz said. He added that the company was also hoping to avoid legal troubles, saying, "It could be a legal issue if someone gets into a car accident and the cops blame the car company for a system that's too elaborate." Darrin Shewchuk, a spokesman for Harman, said his company was working on safety technology like voice systems for listening to and composing e-mail messages. But he said that "generally speaking, the safety testing is really the responsibility of the automakers." Ashlee Vance reported from Las Vegas, and Matt Richtel from San Francisco. Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company Privagy Policy I Terms of Service Search Corrections RSS I First Look I Help I Contact Us I Work for Us I Site Mao http: / /www.nytimes.coml 2010/ 01/ 07 /technologylO7distracted.html ?pagewanted =print 1/8/2010