Transportation | MAY 2018

Trafc SafetyTrends State LegislativeAction 2017

iii NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Trafc Safety Trends State Legislative Action 2017

BY AMANDA ESSEX, DOUGLAS SHINKLE, AMANDA MILLER AND KEVIN PULA

v NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................1 Aggressive Drivers ............................................................................30 Federal Traffic Safety Update ............................................................3 Automated Enforcement .................................................................31 Occupant Protection ..........................................................................4 Motorcyclist Safety...........................................................................33

3434

Child Passenger Protection........................................................6 Motorcycle Helmets................................................................. Smoking in Cars with Children...................................................8 Motorcycle Licensing, Safety and Education ..........................Impaired Driving.................................................................................8 High BAC ...................................................................................10 Motorcycle Operation and Equipment ...................................35

36 37373839 4040

Ignition Interlock Requirements..............................................10 Autocycles................................................................................. Ignition Interlock Compliance Laws ........................................12 School Bus Safety ............................................................................. Implied Consent, Blood Alcohol Testing and Test Refusals ....14 Seat Belts on School Buses ...................................................... Enhanced Criminal Penalties for Repeat Offenders ...............14 Illegal Passing of School Buses................................................. Treatment Programs & 24/7 Sobriety Programs....................15 School Bus Drivers.................................................................... Other 2017 Impaired Driving Legislation................................16 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety........................................................ Utah Enacts First in the Nation .05 BAC Limit.........................16 Idaho Stop Law.........................................................................Drugged Driving................................................................................16 Distracted Driving..............................................................................20 Trails and Bicyclist Safety Task Forces .....................................41Teen Drivers 42

444445 45

.......................................................................................23 2017 State Electric Bicycle Laws .............................................. Graduated Driver’s Licensing...................................................24 Pedestrian Safety...................................................................... Driver’s Education ....................................................................24 Vulnerable Users ...................................................................... Distraction and Young Drivers .................................................24 School Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety .................................... Traffic Stop Education ..............................................................25 Slow and Medium Speed Vehicles..................................................Older Drivers.....................................................................................26 Driver Licensing ................................................................................27 Mopeds.....................................................................................46 License Suspensions, Revocations and Reinstatements ........27 Medical Designations on Driver’s Licenses.............................28

46 Driver’s Test and Educational Requirements ..........................28 General Estimates System (GES) .....................................................Speeding and Speed Limits..............................................................29

Motorcycle and Ignition Interlocks..........................................35

Safe Bicycle Passing ..................................................................41

Golf Carts ..................................................................................45

Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) Replaces the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)

Tables and Figures Table 1 Seat Belt Use Rates by States and Territories................................................................4 Table 2 Alcohol-Impaired Traffic Fatalities, 2016.......................................................................8 Figure 1 States Requiring Cameras on Ignition Interlock Devices for Some Offenders ......... 13 Figure 2 States that have Statutorily Defined “Autocycle” ...................................................... 36 Figure 3 School Bus Safety......................................................................................................... 39

Appendices Appendix A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Offices................ 47 Appendix B Safety Belt Laws 2017..................................................................................... 48 Appendix C State Laws on Child Restraint Use 2017 ........................................................ 51 Appendix D Restrictions on Riding in Cargo Areas of Pickup Trucks ................................ 57 Appendix E Licensing Procedures for Older Drivers ......................................................... 60 Appendix F Teen Driving Restrictions ................................................................................ 64 Appendix G State Aggressive Driving Laws ........................................................................ 69 Appendix H State Maximum Posted Speed Limit Laws..................................................... 73 Appendix I State Policies Regarding Use of Traffic Cameras............................................ 76 Appendix J Motorcycle Helmet Use Requirements ......................................................... 80

1 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Introduction

More than 37,000 people died on U.S. roadways in 2016. The total, 37,461, represents a 5.6 percent in-crease from 35,485 fatalities in 2015. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), fatalities related to distracted and drowsy driving declined, while deaths related to other behav-iors such as speeding, alcohol impairment and not wearing seat belts increased. The number of passenger vehicle occupant and motorcyclist fatalities reached their highest levels since 2008, and bicyclist and pe-destrian deaths continued a worrying rise, reaching levels not seen in nearly 30 years. Injury estimates are not available for 2016, thus no injury estimates will be presented in this publication. For more information about injury estimates, read Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) Replaces the National Automotive Sam-pling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES) at the end of this publication.

AAA’s 2016 Traffic Safety Culture Index shows that nearly everyone in America is affected by traffic crash-es. Nearly one in three drivers has had a friend or relative seriously injured or killed in motor vehicle crash. Almost 20 percent of drivers have been involved in a serious crash at some point in their lives and over 10 percent of drivers have been seriously injured in a crash.

According to AAA’s index, 81.9 percent of drivers are very concerned about roadway safety but only 60.2 percent believe their state government is similarly concerned. However, traffic safety is a costly, personal and important public health issue for many people, including state legislators.

In 2017, state legislators debated nearly 2,000 traffic safety bills. Issues examined in this report include:

• Occupant protection.

• Child passenger protection.

• Impaired driving.

• Drugged driving.

• Distracted driving.

• Teen drivers.

• Older drivers.

• Drivers licensing.

• Speeding and speed limits.

• Aggressive drivers.

• Automated enforcement.

• Motorcycle safety.

• School bus safety.

• Pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

• Slow and medium speed vehicles.

Tables and charts detailing state traffic safety laws are included, as are contacts and links for further infor-mation (Appendix A contains National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regional office contact infor-mation). All bills discussed in this report can be found in the NCSL - NHTSA Traffic Safety Legislative Track-ing Database.

3 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Federal Trafc Safety Update Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in December 2015. The FAST Act is a five-year bill that provides authority and funding for federal surface transportation programs and approved $305 billion for surface transportation programs through 2020.

The FAST Act includes highway safety provisions in Title IV, which provides grants to states to advance a number of traffic safety-related programs if they adopt, or have adopted, certain provisions. Grants are available for programs that involve occupant protection, traffic data systems improvements, impaired driving, distracted driving, motorcyclist safety, bike and pedestrian safety, and graduated driver’s licens-es. For more information about grants available in the FAST Act, please see NHTSA’s Highway Safety Grant Programs Resource Guide.

A few other notable federal traffic safety actions in 2017 included:

• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sought public comment on state Highway Safety Im-provement Program (HSIP) implementation and effectiveness reports required by the FAST Act. HSIP’s purpose is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

• In September, NHTSA released new federal guidance for Automated Driving Systems (ADS), A Vision for Safety 2.0, the latest guidance for automated driving systems to industry and the states. For more

information read NCSL’s Info Alert.

Cost Calculator Tool

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides an innovative web tool for state policymakers called “Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States” (MV PICCS). A newly updated MV PICCS was released in early February of 2018 and enables easy access to CDC’s intervention fact sheets and a completely new user-friendly interface. It re-views the costs and benefits of different statewide traffic safety interventions, allowing the user to select the following countermeasures:

• Automated Red-Light Enforcement • High-Visibility Enforcement for Seat Belts and Child Restraint and Booster • Automated Speed-Camera Laws Enforcement

• License Plate Impoundment • Alcohol Interlock • Limits on Diversion and Plea • Sobriety Checkpoints

Agreements • Saturation Patrols

• Vehicle Impoundment • Bicycle Helmet Laws for Children

• In-Person License Renewal • Universal Motorcycle Helmet Laws

• Increased Fines for Seat Belt Use • Primary Enforcement of Seat Belt Laws

The tool calculates the expected number and monetized value of injuries prevented and lives saved by instituting a selected countermeasure. The tool can adjust to state-specific informa-tion, assess the potential revenue to the state from fines and fees and analyze a combination of policies to find the most cost-effective way to spend limited dollars on traffic safety.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 4

Occupant Protection According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), motor vehicle crashes are a lead-ing cause of death among those ages 1 to 54 in the United States. Nearly half of all passenger fatalities (10,428 passengers, 48 percent) in 2016 were not restrained. Research indicates that lap/shoulder seat belts, when used properly, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45 per-cent and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50 percent.

The latest data via NHTSA’s National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) reports that seat belt use in 2017 was 89.7 percent. Seat belt use since 2000 has generally increased, accompanied by a steady de-cline in motor vehicle occupant fatalities who were not wearing seat belts. In 2016, NHTSA found that seat belts in passenger vehicles saved an estimated 14,668 lives of occupants 5 and older. An additional estimated 2,456 lives would have been saved in 2016 if all unrestrained passengers involved in fatal crash-es had worn their seatbelts.

The American Automobile Association (AAA), releases a Traffic Safety Culture Index each year. In 2016, 87.8 percent of drivers said it is unacceptable to drive without wearing a seat belt but 1 in 6 drivers admit-ted to doing so in the last month. NHTSA’s data shows that seat belt use varies widely in the states—from

70.2 percent in New Hampshire to 97.2 percent in Georgia in 2016. (See Table 1)

Table 1. Seat Belt Use Rates by States and Territories

State or U.S. Territory 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2015–2016

Change

Alabama 90.0 91.4 88.0 89.5 97.3 95.7 93.3 92.0 -1.3

Alaska 86.1 86.8 89.3 88.1 86.1 88.4 89.3 88.5 -0.8

Arizona 80.8 81.8 82.9 82.2 84.7 87.2 86.6 88.0 1.4

Arkansas 74.4 78.3 78.4 71.9 76.7 74.4 77.7 75.1 -2.6

California 95.3 96.2 96.6 95.5 97.4 97.1 97.3 96.5 -0.8

Colorado 81.1 82.9 82.1 80.7 82.1 82.4 85.2 84.0 -1.2

Connecticut 85.9 88.2 88.4 86.8 86.6 85.1 85.4 89.4 4.0

Delaware 88.4 90.7 90.3 87.9 92.2 91.9 90.4 91.4 1.0

Dist. Of Columbia 93.0 92.3 95.2 92.4 87.5 93.2 95.5 94.1 -1.4

Florida 85.2 87.4 88.1 87.4 87.2 88.8 89.4 89.6 0.2

Georgia 88.9 89.6 93.0 92.0 95.5 97.3 97.3 97.2 -0.1

Hawaii 97.9 97.6 96.0 93.4 94.0 93.5 92.8 94.5 1.7

Idaho 79.2 77.9 79.1 79.0 81.6 80.2 81.1 82.9 1.8

Illinois 91.7 92.6 92.9 93.6 93.7 94.1 95.2 93.0 -2.2

Indiana 92.6 92.4 93.2 93.6 91.6 90.2 91.9 92.4 0.5

Iowa 93.1 93.1 93.5 92.4 91.9 92.8 93.0 93.8 0.8

Kansas 77.0 81.8 82.9 79.5 80.7 85.7 82.1 87.0 4.9

Kentucky 79.7 80.3 82.2 83.7 85.0 86.1 86.7 86.5 -0.2

Louisiana 74.5 75.9 77.7 79.3 82.5 84.1 85.9 87.8 1.9

Maine 82.6 82.0 81.6 84.4 83.0 85.0 85.5 85.8 0.3

Maryland 94.0 94.7 94.2 91.1 90.7 92.1 92.9 90.8 -2.1

Massachusetts 73.6 73.7 73.2 72.7 74.8 76.6 74.1 78.2 4.1

Michigan 98.0 95.2 94.5 93.6 93.0 93.3 92.8 94.5 1.7

Minnesota 90.2 92.3 92.7 93.6 94.8 94.7 94.0 93.2 -0.8

Mississippi 76.0 81.0 81.9 83.2 74.4 78.3 79.6 77.9 -1.7

5 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

State or U.S. Territory 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2015–2016

Change

Missouri 77.2 76.0 79.0 79.4 80.1 78.8 79.9 81.4 1.5

Montana 79.2 78.9 76.9 76.3 74.0 74.0 77.0 76.0 -1.0

Nebraska 84.8 84.1 84.2 78.6 79.1 79.0 79.6 83.3 3.7

Nevada 91.0 93.2 94.1 90.5 94.8 94.0 92.1 89.4 -2.7

New Hampshire 68.9 72.2 75.0 68.6 73.0 70.4 69.5 70.2 0.7

New Jersey 92.7 93.7 94.5 88.3 91.0 87.6 91.4 93.4 2.0

New Mexico 90.1 89.8 90.5 91.4 92.0 92.1 93.3 92.3 -1.0

New York 88.0 89.8 90.5 90.4 91.1 90.6 92.2 91.8 -0.4

North Carolina 89.5 89.7 89.5 87.5 88.6 90.6 89.9 91.7 1.8

North Dakota 81.5 74.8 76.7 80.9 77.7 81.0 80.4 82.8 2.4

Ohio 83.6 83.8 84.1 82.0 84.5 85.0 83.9 83.8 -0.1

Oklahoma 84.2 85.9 85.9 83.8 83.6 86.3 84.5 86.6 2.1

Oregon 96.6 97.0 96.6 96.8 98.2 97.8 95.5 96.2 0.7

Pennsylvania 87.9 86.0 83.8 83.5 84.0 83.6 82.7 85.2 2.5

Rhode Island 74.7 78.0 80.4 77.5 85.6 87.4 86.7 87.5 0.8

South Carolina 81.5 85.4 86.0 90.5 91.7 90.0 91.6 93.9 2.3

South Dakota 72.1 74.5 73.4 66.5 68.7 68.9 73.6 74.2 0.6

Tennessee 80.6 87.1 87.4 83.7 84.8 87.7 86.2 88.9 2.7

Texas 92.9 93.8 93.7 94.0 90.3 90.7 90.5 91.6 1.1

Utah 86.1 89.0 89.2 81.9 82.4 83.4 87.2 87.9 0.7

Vermont 85.3 85.2 84.7 84.2 84.9 84.1 86.0 80.0 -6.0

Virginia 82.3 80.5 81.8 78.4 79.7 77.3 80.9 79.0 -1.9

Washington 96.4 97.6 97.5 96.9 94.5 94.5 94.6 94.7 0.1

West Virginia 87.0 82.1 84.9 84.0 82.2 87.8 89.0 86.8 -2.2

Wisconsin 73.8 79.2 79.0 79.9 82.4 84.7 85.8 88.4 2.6

Wyoming 67.6 78.9 82.6 77.0 81.9 79.2 79.8 80.5 0.7

Nationwide 84 85 84 86 87 86.7 88.5 90.1 1.6

Puerto Rico 92.3 NA 91.9 90.2 89.7 89.5 91.8 93.8 2.0

American Samoa 60.0 73.0 77.0 75.0 74.9 76.3 77.0 82.9 5.9

Guam 80.0 85.0 81.0 81.4 93.8 90.1 91.5 90.1 -1.4

No. Mariana Islands 84.6 80.9 93.7 NA 90.5 91.4 95.6 92.3 -3.3

U.S. Virgin Island 85.6 86.4 85.6 77.9 76.8 66.1 82.7 79.1 -3.6

Note: Rates in jurisdictions with primary belt enforcement during the calendar year of the survey are shaded.

Sources: NHTSA 2017

Seat belt laws and enforcement can encourage drivers and passengers to buckle up. Every state except New Hampshire has an adult safety belt law. Seat belts laws can be primary or secondary. Primary laws al-low police officers to stop motorists solely for violating the seat belt law. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have primary enforcement seat belt laws. Fifteen states have secondary seat belt laws that require police to stop the vehicle for other reasons before they can cite the driver for failure to use a seat belt. According to NHTSA, states with primary laws averaged a bit over 5 percent higher seat belt use than secondary law states in 2017.

Laws in 19 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands have primary laws that require occupants in both the front and rear seats to be belted. According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, seat belt use by adults in the back of passenger vehicles is about 10 percentage points

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 6

lower than by those in the front. (Appendix B contains information about safety belt use laws and Appen-dix D contains information on occupants in cargo areas in trucks.)

The CDC released a report in September 2017, Rural and Urban Differences in Passenger-Vehicle-Occu-pant Deaths and Seat Belt Use Among Adults – United States, 2014. The report found that the passenger vehicle occupant death rates increased in more rural counties, as did the proportion of vehicle occupants who were not wearing seat belts at the time of the fatal crash.

The Virginia DMV released a report in 2017 examining seat belt use in the state. The report found a seat belt use rate of 85.3 percent which is the highest rate that has been recorded in the state. Drivers were observed wearing a seat belt more often than passengers and females had a higher seat belt use rate than males.

State Legislation During the 2017 state legislative session, 27 states considered bills related to seat belts. Kansas estab-lished a seat belt safety fund to be used to educate children regarding occupant protection. A portion of the fine for each seat belt violation is allocated to the fund. New York’s new law requires drivers and pas-sengers in the front seat of taxis or other for-hire vehicles to wear a seat belt.

Mississippi enacted legislation requiring passengers in all seats, including rear seats, to wear seat belts. This expanded the law that previously only applied to passengers in the front seat and children younger than 7 in the back seat. Alabama, Connecticut, New York and Virginia considered, but did not enact, simi-lar legislation.

Utah enacted a primary seat belt law in 2017. However, the court will waive the fine for a violation of the requirement for a child under 8 who is 57 inches tall or taller to be in a child restraint device if the per-son submits proof of acquisition, rental, or purchase of a child restraint device.

Other states that considered primary seat belt legislation include Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Ne-vada, Vermont and Wyoming. Arkansas debated changing its law from primary to secondary.

Child Passenger Protection Although child deaths in motor vehicle crashes have declined since 1975, an average of three children (de-fined as age 14 and under) were killed every day during 2016, for a total of 1233 fatalities, according to the latest NHTSA data. The most effective way to keep children safe in cars is to ensure they are properly restrained in appropriate child restraint systems in the back seat. NHTSA estimates that child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71 percent for infants (under one year) and by 54 percent for toddlers (age 1 to 4) in passenger cars. In 2016, NHTSA estimates that 328 children age 4 and younger were saved by the use of child restraints, an increase from an estimated 272 lives saved in 2015.

NHTSA’s recommendations and child restraint guidelines include: • For the best possible protection, infants should be kept in the back seat, in rear-facing child safety

seats until a minimum of age 1 and at least 20 pounds. The child should be kept rear-facing as long as possible—until he or she reaches the top height or weight limit allowed by the car seat’s manufactur-er. Once a child outgrows the rear-facing car seat, the child is ready to travel in a forward-facing car seat with a harness and tether.

• When children outgrow their rear-facing seats they should ride in forward-facing child safety seats, in the back seat, until they reach the upper weight or height limit of the particular seat.

• Once children outgrow the forward-facing seats, they should ride in booster seats, in the back seat, until vehicle seat belts fit properly. For a seat belt to fit properly the lap belt must lie snugly across the upper thighs, not the stomach. The shoulder belt should lie snugly across the shoulder and chest and not cross the neck or face.

NHTSA notes the primary reasons for injuries to children restrained at the time of motor vehicle crashes

7 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

The most efective way to keep children safe in cars is to ensure they are properly restrained in appropriate child restraint systems in the back seat.

relate to prematurely turning a child forward, premature moving from harnessed safety seats to boost-er seats, premature moving from booster seats to adult safety belts, misuse of safety restraints and seat belts and children seated in the front seat of the vehicle.

State Legislation Every state and the District of Columbia has child restraint laws that require children of certain ages and sizes to ride in appropriate, federally approved child safety restraint systems. While every state has a law, there is variation in the age and size requirements. Some laws cover children only up to a certain age (usu-ally age 4), while others allow use of adult safety belts to restrain children.

Child restraint laws are primarily enforced in all states except Nebraska and Ohio. Nebraska’s law is sec-ondary for children between 6 and 18 who are required to wear seat belts and primary for those who are required to be in a child safety seat. Nebraska considered legislation that would have made the state’s law subject to primary enforcement but the bill was pending at the time of publication.

Ohio’s law is secondary for children between 4 and 14 who are not required to be in a child safety seat. (Appendix C contains information on state child restraint use laws.) According to the CDC, booster seat use reduces the risk of serious injury by 45 percent for children ages 4 to 8 compared with seat belt use alone.

In 2017, 22 states debated child passenger protection legislation and five states—New York, North Da-kota, Oregon, Rhode Island and South Carolina—enacted laws. New York’s law now requires child safety seats be rear-facing for children under two unless they exceed the weight or height limits.

North Dakota law previously required that children under 7 be secured in a child restraint system unless they are over the height or weight limitations of the system. This year, the state passed legislation to in-clude all children under 8 who are less than 57 inches tall. Children under 8 who are at least 57 inches tall must be correctly buckled in a seat belt.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 8

Oregon’s law now requires that children under two years old must be in a rear-facing child safety seat. Previously, the law required a rear-facing seat for children under 1 or who weigh 20 pounds or less. Rhode Island’s new law requires that children under 2 or less than 30 pounds must be in a rear-fac-ing seat. Children who are 2 or older or who have outgrown the height or weight requirements of the rear-facing car seat should use a forward-facing car seat with a harness.

South Carolina’s new law made a number of changes to the state’s child safety seat law. The law requires that children under 8 be properly secured in a vehicle; the law previously applied to children 5 and young-er. Children under 2 must be in a rear-facing child passenger restraint system in the rear passenger seat until the child exceeds the height or weight limit of the seat. Children at least 2 years old or who have out-grown the rear-facing seat must be in a front-facing child passenger restraint system with a harness in the rear passenger seat of the vehicle. Children at least 4 years old or who have outgrown the forward-facing child passenger restraint system must be in a belt-positioning booster seat in the rear of the vehicle until an adult seat belt fits appropriately. If a child is at least 8 years old or over 57 inches tall, they may be re-strained by a seat belt.

Smoking in Cars with Children Protection for child passengers has also come in the form of reducing a child’s exposure to tobacco smoke by prohibiting adult drivers and passengers from smoking while in a vehicle with a child. Five states—Ar-kansas, California, Louisiana, Maine and Utah—have such prohibitions. Utah’s 2013 law prohibits drivers from smoking in a vehicle containing a passenger who is 15 or younger. The infraction carries a $45 fine. In 2017, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Mississippi and West Virginia considered similar laws but none were enacted.

Impaired Driving In 2016, according to NHTSA, 10,497 people were killed in alcohol-impaired traffic crashes, accounting for 28 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities. Of those fatalities, 6,479 (62 percent) were drivers who had BACs of .08 g/dL or higher, while the remainder were motor vehicle occupants (3,070 making up 29 percent) and nonoccupants (948 deaths accounting for 9 percent).

Impaired driving continues to be a serious traffic safety and public health issue for states (see Table 2). According to NHTSA, an alcohol impaired-driving fatality occurred, on average, every 50 minutes in 2016. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes is more than $44 billon according to the most recent data.

Table 2. Alcohol-Impaired Trafc Fatalities, 2016

State/Jurisdiction Total Traffic Fatalities Alcohol-Impaired Driving

Fatalities (BAC ≥.08) Percentage

Alcohol-Impaired

Alabama 1,038 279 27%

Alaska 84 30 36%

Arizona 962 232 24%

Arkansas 545 117 21%

California 3,623 1,059 29%

Colorado 608 161 27%

Connecticut 293 100 34%

Delaware 119 37 31%

District of Columbia 27 10 38%

Florida 3,174 841 26%

Georgia 1,554 368 24%

9 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

State/Jurisdiction Total Traffic Fatalities Alcohol-Impaired Driving

Fatalities (BAC ≥.08) Percentage

Alcohol-Impaired

Hawaii 120 34 28%

Idaho 253 77 30%

Illinois 1,082 315 29%

Indiana 821 211 26%

Iowa 404 106 26%

Kansas 429 94 22%

Kentucky 834 175 21%

Louisiana 757 225 30%

Maine 161 54 33%

Maryland 505 130 26%

Massachusetts 389 119 31%

Michigan 1,064 236 22%

Minnesota 392 93 24%

Mississippi 690 128 19%

Missouri 945 244 26%

Montana 190 85 45%

Nebraska 218 62 29%

Nevada 328 101 31%

New Hampshire 136 40 30%

New Jersey 601 137 23%

New Mexico 402 118 29%

New York 1,025 283 28%

North Carolina 1,450 354 24%

North Dakota 113 50 45%

Ohio 1,132 324 29%

Oklahoma 683 180 26%

Oregon 495 154 31%

Pennsylvania 1,188 327 28%

Rhode Island 51 19 37%

South Carolina 1,015 331 33%

South Dakota 116 46 39%

Tennessee 1,041 223 21%

Texas 3,776 1,438 38%

Utah 281 52 19%

Vermont 62 27 43%

Virginia 760 220 29%

Washington 537 161 30%

West Virginia 269 68 25%

Wisconsin 607 193 32%

Wyoming 112 32 29%

U.S. Total 37,461 10,497 28%

Puerto Rico 279 92 33%

Source: NHTSA, Alcohol impaired driving: 2016 data.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 10

In June 2017, NHTSA released a study looking at the Feasibility of Voluntary Ignition Interlocks as a Pre-vention Strategy for Young Drivers. Though ignition interlock devices are commonly used as a deterrent for those convicted of alcohol-impaired driving offenses, NHTSA studied the idea of using these devices to prevent teenage drivers from driving drunk. When researchers spoke with ignition interlock companies, they found that only a small number of individuals in the U.S. had voluntarily signed up for the ignition in-terlock program; most were court ordered to install ignition interlock devices in their vehicles. When re-searchers spoke with car insurance companies, the insurance companies said they were open to the idea of offering discounted premiums and other driving incentives when drivers used ignition interlocks, but they would need more research that shows that the ignition interlock lowers driving risks, changes behav-iors and makes young drivers safer. Parents and teens seemed to think that, overall, the device could be helpful in preventing drunk driving, but it could lead to teens using drugs instead of drinking and finding other methods to circumvent ignition interlock devices. Parents and teens also felt that installing the de-vice would be too invasive and the reputation of the device, something used for punishment, would need to change before voluntary installation of these devices becomes acceptable.

NHTSA released an exploratory study in August 2017 that looked at how ignition interlock data is used for offender monitoring and offender-related programs and to find if that ignition interlock data can be used effectively to reduce alcohol-impaired driving recidivism. Researchers found that automated uploading of ignition interlock data has made it easier to track program statistics and success, but it has yet to be seen if this automatic uploading of information is helpful in evaluating alcohol-impaired driving recidivism.

According to the study, it appears offenders are not dealing with their underlying drinking problem or re-ducing their alcohol consumption while using an ignition interlock device. The study suggests this may mean a combination of treatment for alcohol use disorders with interlock programs may be needed. This need, though known, has not been realized in part because of lack of coordination of sanctioning and treatment programs for these offenders. Issues relating to turf, cost, privacy laws and technological im-pediments are factors that may be contributing to a lack of coordinating and sharing this information be-tween states, courts and probation offices.

State Legislation Legislation on impaired driving was considered in 48 states, with over 450 bills debated in 2017. Legis-lation was enacted in 35 states. Ultimately, these laws are intended to reduce impaired driving, thereby reducing injuries and fatalities. Legislation was enacted on a range of topics addressing impaired driving, from modified ignition interlock requirements to higher penalties for repeat offenders and sobriety moni-toring programs.

High BAC According to NHTSA, in fatal crashes in 2016, the driver with the highest blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in the crash had a BAC of .15 or greater in 19 percent of such crashes. That makes up over 57 per-cent of all drivers that had been drinking and were involved in fatal crashes in 2016.

To address this problem, states have enacted high-BAC laws with enhanced sanctions for offenders with higher BACs. The sanctions, which vary from state to state, include longer license suspension, longer terms of imprisonment, additional fines, installation of ignition interlocks, vehicle sanctions or mandatory treatment. The BAC levels at which these sanctions are applied vary as well, ranging from .15 to .20. NHT-SA recommends that the enhanced penalties for first-time high-BAC offenders should be comparable to those for repeat offenders.

No states enacted high BAC laws in 2017.

Ignition Interlock Requirements Ignition interlock devices are installed in motor vehicles to prevent the car from being started if a set level of alcohol, usually .02 or .025, is detected on the driver’s breath. Most devices require random retesting while the car is running to ensure that the driver is not drinking once the car is started. Many courts in-

11 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

clude the use of ignition interlock devices when sentencing offend-ers convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). (It is understood At least 12 states—Arizona, that while many states refer to impaired driving as “driving while im-paired,” or “operating while impaired,” or “operating under the influ- Arkansas, California, ence,” the term “DUI” will be used for this document.) During sen- Kansas, Minnesota, tencing, an offender whose driver’s license has been suspended or Nevada, New Hampshire, revoked can be granted limited driving privileges if an ignition inter- New Mexico, Oklahoma, lock device is installed on the vehicle(s) they use. All 50 states have passed legislation that allow or require use of ignition interlocks for Oregon, Pennsylvania, some drunk driving offenders. Virginia and Washington—

enacted ignition interlock In 2005, New Mexico became the first state to require ignition in-terlock devices for all convicted drunk drivers, including first-time related legislation in offenders. As of December 2017, 27 states—Alabama, Alaska, Arizo- 2017. New Hampshire, na, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisi- Oregon, Pennsylvania and ana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hamp-

Washington enacted laws shire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia— and that in part specifcally the District of Columbia all require ignition interlock devices for all addressed compliance and convicted drunken driving offenders. Pennsylvania’s law is unique are addressed in the Ignition because it requires interlocks for first time offenders if they had a

Interlock Compliance Laws blood alcohol concentration of .10 or greater. The other states set the limit at .08 or greater. Colorado’s ignition interlock law does not section. make installation of the devices mandatory for first-time offenders, but they provide strong incentives for installation.

At least 12 states—Arizona, Arkansas, California, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington—en-acted ignition interlock related legislation in 2017. New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washing-ton enacted laws that in part specifically addressed compliance and are addressed in the Ignition Interlock Compliance Laws section.

Nevada’s new law requires a person whose license is revoked for a BAC over .08 to install an ignition inter-lock device for at least 185 days in order to obtain a restricted license. The law also allows a court to ex-tend the required time for the interlock in certain instances.

The new law in Arkansas requires a person whose license has been revoked for a repeat DUI conviction to install an ignition interlock on their vehicle if they regain their driver’s license. Individuals who have com-mitted a first time DUI offense may petition the court to waive the ignition interlock requirement. The court may do so if the person has to operate a vehicle for their work, if a doctor certifies that the person cannot provide a deep lung breath sample for an ignition interlock device, or an ignition interlock provider is not located within 100 miles of the person’s residence.

Kansas amended its law to specifically require that every person who has an ignition interlock installed must complete the program and have proof of completion prior to full reinstatement of their driving priv-ileges. New Hampshire’s law now permits a court to require the installation of an ignition interlock device in order to have a license reinstated for a driver convicted of vehicular manslaughter involving alcohol.

Oklahoma’s 2017 legislation allows revocation of driving privileges for violating an ignition interlock. The law also requires courts to mandate as a condition of bond that an interlock device be installed on the ve-hicle for someone charged with a second or subsequent DUI.

Arizona’s enacted bill allows the potential extension of time an individual has an interlock restricted li-cense if that person attempts to operate a vehicle while over the presumptive limit twice during the peri-od of license restriction. Previously, the law allowed the extension after three attempts. The law also pro-hibits any marking of an individual’s physical driver’s license regarding an ignition interlock requirement unless it is a second or subsequent conviction. The law also includes a number of requirements for igni-tion interlock device manufacturers and service providers.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 12

Oregon now allows a court to order an individual to complete additional treatment if the court receives at least two negative reports, which includes tampering with an ignition interlock device, unauthorized removal of an ignition interlock device, lockout or a test violation. The law also requires the identification of the location of a failed test. Furthermore, Oregon added a number of requirements for providers of ignition interlock devic-es, such as offering service centers statewide, manning a 24 hour assistance line and performing background checks on ignition interlock device (IID) technicians. Providers must pay fees, with funds placed in the new-ly created Ignition Interlock Device Management Fund, housed in the State Treasury. In 2019, the oversight of ignition interlock providers will be transferred from the Department of Transportation to the Department of State Police.

New Mexico, which has an ignition interlock licensing requirement for a first DWI conviction, clarified that re-quirement does not apply when a person only has only one prior conviction for DWI in another jurisdiction and has completed all their sentencing conditions, allowing them to procure a driver’s license.

Virginia clarified that the period of time during which a person is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle unless it is either equipped with an ignition interlock system or required to have an ignition interlock system in-stalled on each motor vehicle owned by or registered to the offender, is calculated from the date the Depart-ment of Motor Vehicles issues a restricted license.

Pennsylvania now allows individuals enrolled in an accelerated rehabilitative disposition program the option of applying for an Ignition Interlock Limited License for the duration of their suspension.

Minnesota clarified that an ignition interlock device may not permit location tracking capabilities unless or-dered by a court.

California made small technical revisions to their ignition interlock program.

Ignition Interlock Compliance Laws States are amending provisions of their ignition interlocks laws to include compliance-based removal provi-sions. To attain compliance-based removal, an offender must use the interlock device and not fail any tests for a set amount of time prior to removal. Washington passed its compliance-based removal provision in 2011. The law states that, when the requirement period is over, the offender can have the device removed if he or she has not: • Tried to start the vehicle with a breath alcohol concentration of .04 or more. • Failed to take or pass any required retests. • Failed to obtain scheduled maintenance, repairs, calibration, monitoring, inspection or replacement of the

device.

Previously, the requirement period in Washington was four months. Legislation this year increased that to 180 days.

New Hampshire enacted legislation in 2017 to specify that failure to comply with certain requirements, for in-stance failing to take a retest or taking a retest with a BAC over .025 can result in an additional period of time requiring the interlock device.

Oregon now allows a court to order an individual to complete alcohol or drug treatment if the court receives at least two negative reports regarding an individual’s interlock, which includes tampering with an ignition inter-lock device, unauthorized removal of an ignition interlock device, lockout or a test violation.

Pennsylvania legislation requires individuals enrolled in an accelerated rehabilitative disposition program with an Ignition Interlock Limited License to receive a declaration of compliance from the vendor stating they have complied during the 30-day suspension.

13 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Figure 1. States Requiring Cameras on Ignition Interlock Devices for Some Ofenders

AK

ID

MT

WY

ND

SD

NM

NE

OK

IA

KS

TX

WI

MO

IL

AR

KY

IN

TN

MI

OH

NC SC

DC

PA NJ

LA MS AL

FL

GA

WA MA

CT

NHVT

OR

CA

NV

UT

CO

AZ

MN

WV VA

NY

MD

DE

RI

ME

HI

No camera requirements

IID Camera requirements

Ignition Interlock Camera Based Compliance Laws Seventeen states—Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington—re-quire all or some offenders to install interlock devices that are equipped with a camera. The camera cap-tures an image of the person using the interlock to ensure the driver is the person taking the test to start the vehicle. Missouri and Vermont have GPS requirements for some offenders. Although Colorado has no requirement in statute, the DMV’s contracts with ignition interlock vendors require all devices have cameras.

No new legislation was enacted in 2017 concerning camera-based interlock compliance. However, in Iowa, a new administrative rule is likely to go into effect in 2018 that will require all ignition interlocks to be equipped with cameras. While the vehicle will start if someone other than the driver is filmed blowing into the device, the offender may be to subject to losing their license, as well as being charged with a misde-meanor for tampering with the device. Offenders using an interlock device will have to pay an additional $15 a month for the devices to be equipped with cameras. The Iowa Governor’s Traffic Safety Bureau rec-ommended this administrative change to strengthen the state’s ignition interlock program.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 14

Implied Consent, Blood Alcohol Testing and Test Refusals When a person signs the forms to apply for a driver’s license, they agree to comply with requests by law en-forcement officers to take breath or blood samples to determine blood-alcohol content (BAC). A breath test can be administered roadside or at any location; blood and urine testing can only be performed at a medical facility or detention facility. These laws, called implied consent laws, are based on the premise that driving is a privilege and not a right. Offenders who refuse will still face administrative penalties, like having their driv-er’s license suspended. All states have some sort of implied consent law but the penalties vary.

States such as Nebraska, Mississippi and Wyoming require a 90-day license suspension for a first time BAC refusal. Other states require a six month or even a year suspension. Some suspected DUI offenders will re-fuse to take BAC tests and take a license suspension in order to avoid or reduce the chance of facing more serious criminal sanctions. NHTSA research indicates about 20 percent of people arrested for drunken driving refuse to submit to a BAC test. In response to high refusal rates, at least 15 states currently crimi-nalize refusal to consent to a BAC. Criminal penalties typically include fines and jail time.

Throughout the years, questions arose as to whether these laws violated the Fourth amendment. In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in Birchfield v. North Dakota that police had to obtain a warrant in order to test the blood of an individual suspected of impaired driving, but that a warrant is not required for a breath test. States may criminalize an arrestee’s refusal to take a warrantless breath test. If states criminalize the refusal to take a blood test—police must obtain a warrant. Per the search-incident-to-arrest exception, police officers are allowed to search an arrestee’s person, without first obtaining a warrant, to protect of-ficer safety or evidence. To determine if this exception applies, the Court weighed the degree to which the search “intrudes upon an individual’s privacy” with the need to promote “legitimate government in-terests.” The Court concluded the privacy intrusion of breath tests was minimal but the privacy intrusion of blood tests was not. “[W]hile humans exhale air from their lungs many times per minute, humans do not continually shed blood.” For this reason the Court concluded if states criminalize the refusal to take a blood test, police must obtain a warrant.

This year, a few states passed legislation to bring state law in line with the court’s decision. States that passed such legislation include Arkansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington. The Minnesota legislation also requires a search warrant for urine tests. Rhode Is-land decriminalized the refusal of a blood test, but still subjects second or subsequent refusals to a fine and community service, along with a license suspension, alcohol or drug treatment and ignition interlock.

Oklahoma enacted legislation removing the requirement for automatic license revocation for a test result or refusal, allowing a person to participate in an impaired driver accountability program.

Virginia also enacted legislation making the refusal to submit to a breath test a civil offense on a first re-fusal and a misdemeanor if they have been convicted of certain prior violations in the past 10 years.

Enhanced Criminal Penalties for Repeat Ofenders Colorado’s legislation requires that, if a felony DUI offender (someone who commits a fourth or subse-quent DUI offense) is sentenced to probation, the judge must require they serve between 90 and 180 days in the county jail and they are not eligible for good-time credit during that time. They must also com-plete between 48 and 120 hours of community service and complete a specified alcohol and drug driving safety education or treatment program.

Maine now allows a 10-year license suspension for a DUI driver who has a prior felony DUI. Montana au-thorized sentencing an individual with three or more prior convictions to a treatment court program for up to five years, in addition to a fine between $5,000 and $10,000.

When a driver is convicted of a second or subsequent DUI offense in Utah, they may now be subject to ei-ther a jail sentence of at least 240 hours or a jail sentence of at least 120 hours in combination with home confinement for at least 720 consecutive hours using electronic monitoring that includes substance abuse testing.

15 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Previously in Washington, a fifth DUI was a felony. In 2017, the legislature modified this to make a fourth DUI a felony offense.

Treatment Programs and 24/7 Sobriety Monitoring Programs One significant legislative trend related to impaired driving is the interest in using treatment programs and sobriety monitoring programs to help prevent DUI recidivism. Court-mandated treatment, which re-quires impaired driving offenders to participate in an evaluation and treatment for their substance abuse issues, has always been an option for judges when sentencing DUI offenders. Recently, however, more interest has been shown in combining behavioral treatment with more punitive sanctions, leading to a more comprehensive approach in dealing with impaired driving offenders and those who have committed other offenses while impaired. One of these programs is called a “24/7 sobriety monitoring program.” In 2007, South Dakota became the first state to pass a statewide program of this kind. The pre-trial program emphasizes offender sobriety and requires repeat- and high-BAC DUI offenders to submit to a breath or urine test twice a day at a local sheriff’s office or other designated site. Breathalyzers, transdermal alcohol monitoring devices (ankle bracelets) and drug monitoring patches also may be used to moni-tor an offender’s sobriety. If the offender fails or does not appear for

In 2013, the RANDa test, the offender’s bond, parole or probation may be immediate-ly revoked and, in most cases, the infraction will result in immediate Corporationpublished incarceration. the frst peer-reviewed

evaluation of whether In 2013, the RAND Corporation published the first peer-reviewed evaluation of whether 24/7 sobriety monitoring programs improved 24/7 sobriety monitoring public health in South Dakota. Key findings indicated that, between programs improved public 2005 and 2010, more than 17,000 South Dakota residents—includ- health in South Dakota. ing more than 10 percent of men ages 18 to 40 in some counties— participated in a 24/7 program. At the county level, researchers Key fndings indicated that, documented a 12 percent reduction in repeat DUI arrests and a 9 between 2005 and 2010, more percent reduction in domestic violence arrests following adoption of than 17,000 South Dakota the program. Evidence pertaining to traffic crashes was mixed. residents—including more A 2015 study by the Upper Great Plains Institute at North Dakota than 10 percent of men ages State University studied the deterrent effect of the 24/7 program on 18 to 40 in some counties— offenders. Researchers found that among DUI offenders in this sam- participated in a 24/7 ple, positive behavioral improvements were made upon enrolling in the program. The program appears to have more of a deterrent program. effect on women than on men. The mandatory 12-month enroll-ment period has a stronger deterrent effect than did prior sentenc-es, which generally were left to judicial discretion. Nonetheless, for the group of high-risk offenders who likely have alcohol abuse problems, the program was found to have little deterrent effect.

Other states have used South Dakota’s model and Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming have enacted statewide legislation.

In 2017, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, South Dakota, Utah and Washington enacted laws concerning 24/7 So-briety Monitoring programs.

Hawaii’s 2017 legislation allows the court to require repeat DUI offenders to submit to continuous alcohol monitoring for at least 90 days. Utah now allows a court to order a person convicted of DUI to participate in a 24/7 sobriety program. The law also requires the establishment of a 24/7 sobriety pilot program in the state.

Legislation in South Dakota allowed the use of mobile breath alcohol testing in the state’s 24/7 program.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 16

Washington’s law now allows for second time offenders with a lower BAC at the time of testing to avoid the mandatory two year license suspension by participating in the 24/7 program.

Delaware’s law enables an individual whose license has been revoked but who has not been convicted to obtain a conditional license if they are in a continuous sobriety monitoring program. The law specifies that it will go into effect when a continuous sobriety monitoring program is created in the state.

Iowa enacted legislation directing the state department of public safety to establish a 24/7 sobriety and drug monitoring program for Iowa counties that choose to volunteer for the program. It has been an-nounced that Woodbury County in western Iowa will pilot the 24/7 program beginning in the spring of 2018, with the goal of expanding to all counties in the state.

Other 2017 Impaired Driving Legislation Arkansas enacted a law prohibiting the possession of an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, as well as a law removing the authority for the court to order public service instead of imprisonment for DUI offenses.

Michigan has a provision in law that periodically sunsets the state’s BAC level for a DUI and would raise the limit from .08 to .10, which was due to take effect on Oct. 1, 2018. Legislation in 2017 changed that date to Oct. 1, 2021.

New Jersey established the crime of strict liability vehicular homicide which occurs when an impaired driv-er kills someone.

Utah Enacts First in the Nation .05 BAC Limit

Utah became the first state to lower their legal BAC limit from .08 to .05 for a DUI, with the law slated to go into effect on Dec. 30, 2018.

A 2018 report from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recommend-ed states adopt a .05 BAC limit and the federal government help encourage such a change, as did a 2013 National Transportation Safety Board report. Notably, the AAA Foundation’s 2017 Traffic Safety Culture Index (Mar. 2018) found that the majority (63.7 percent) of drivers support lower-ing the BAC limit from .08 to .05 (31.3 percent strongly; 32.4 percent somewhat).

However before the Utah change, no state had come close to making the move to the lower lim-it. Hawaii and Washington did consider but did not enact similar legislation in 2017. The Hawaii legislation has been re-referred to the Judiciary and Transportation and Energy committees re-spectively for the 2018 session. One of the Washington bills passed out of the House Committee on Public Safety, but made it no further and is still pending in 2018.

Drugged Driving In addition to alcohol-impaired driving, drugged driving is implicated in an increasing number of crashes and fatalities. In the 2013-2014 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers, about 20 percent of weekend nighttime drivers tested positive for at least one drug, up from 16.3 percent in 2007. The percent of weekend nighttime drivers who tested positive for the presence of marijuana rose from 8.6 percent of drivers in 2007 to 12.6 percent in 2014.

According to a 2015 Governors Highway Safety Administration (GHSA) analysis of 2015 NHTSA data, drugs were present in 38 percent of the fatally-injured drivers with a known test result. It is difficult to use crash

17 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

data to quantify how widespread the drugged driving problem is because many states do not test for the presence of drugs, do not test for the same drugs or do not test to the same cutoff lev-els. Currently, specific drug concentration levels cannot be reliably equated with levels of impair-ment or effects on driver performance.

A NHTSA study released in December of 2016 collected data from 9,000 Virginia Beach drivers, 3,000 of whom were in crashes, to help gauge the prevalence of drugs and alcohol in drivers’ systems. Active THC was detected in 7.6 percent of drivers involved in a crash and 6.1 percent of drivers not involved in a crash. Anti-depressants were detected among 4.3 percent of drivers in a crash, as compared to 2.5 percent of drivers not involved in a crash.

The AAA Foundation’s 2016 Traffic Safety Culture Index found less concern from the public regarding driv-ing after using prescription drugs compared to using illegal drugs. Almost 60 percent of U.S. drivers view people driving after using illegal drugs as a very serious threat, while about 34 percent say the same about people driving after using prescription drugs. Notably, 59 percent of drivers felt that “drivers using drugs” was somewhat or a much bigger problem than three years ago; 89 percent of drivers felt it is unaccept-able for a driver to drive one hour after using marijuana.

The Governors Highway Safety Administration notes in its 2016 report, “Drug Impaired Driving: A Guide for What States Can Do” that drugged driving is more complex than alcohol-impaired driving for many reasons including: • Hundreds of different drugs can impair drivers. • Some drugs that can impair driving are illegal to use, some are legal to use under certain conditions

and some are freely available over-the-counter. • For many drugs, the relation between its presence in the body, its effect on driving, and its effects on

crash risk is complex, not understood well and varies from driver to driver. • Data on drug presence in crash-involved drivers are incomplete in most jurisdictions, inconsistent

from state to state and sometimes inconsistent across jurisdictions within states. • It’s more difficult for law enforcement to detect drug impairment at the roadside than alcohol

impairment. • Laws regarding driving while under the influence of drugs (DUID) vary across the states. • It’s more difficult to prosecute and convict a driver for DUID than for alcohol-impaired driving (DUI).

The legalization of recreational marijuana has brought a new challenge for lawmakers who want to pre-vent impaired drivers on the roads. As of February 2018, nine states— Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington—and the District of Columbia, have legalized the adult use of marijuana. Washington legalized medical marijuana in 1999 and its recreational use in 2012. A study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that, in Washington, the proportion of driv-ers in crashes who tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the component that gives cannabis its psychological effects, rose from 20 to 30 percent between 2005 and 2014.

In 2017 the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s (IIHS) Highway Loss Data Institute (HDLI) analyzed collision claims in three states that have legalized recreational marijuana—Colorado, Oregon and Wash-ington. They found that legalized recreational marijuana appeared to result in collision claims 3 percent higher than expected in those three states when compared to neighboring states without legalized recre-ational marijuana.

Some states have chosen to enact versions of drug per se laws. In these states, a driver cannot have any

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 18

presence of a prohibited drug or substance in his or her body while driving. These laws vary, however. In Colorado and Washington, the per se applies only to the presence of THC, the primary ingredient found in marijuana. In South Dakota, the per se law applies to people under age 21 only, and in Minnesota, the per se law does not include THC. In all, 22 states—Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin—have some version of a drug per se law. For more information about Drugged Driving Per Se Laws, see NCSL’s Drugged Driving Per Se Laws Chart.

As referenced above, some states set a blood content threshold for THC. In Colorado, Illinois, Montana and Washington, anyone who drives a motor vehicle and has a THC blood concentration of 5 nanograms or more is presumed to be guilty of driving under the influence. Nevada and Ohio statutes establish a threshold of 2 nanograms of illegal substances per milliliter of blood, and Pennsylvania’s administrative law establishes the threshold at 5 nanograms.

Regarding driving while impaired by prescription drugs, a 2017 Columbia University study found that the number of drivers who died in a fatal crash that were under the influence of prescription painkillers in-creased sevenfold between 1995 and 2015. This suggests that not only are overdoses related to opioids a public health crisis, but deaths as a result of traffic crashes are a cause for concern for policymakers.

State Legislation In 2017, five states—California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts and Nevada—enacted legislation that in some manner addressed drug-impaired driving. California, Florida and Nevada’s legislation focused on marijuana impaired driving, while Colorado and Massachusetts’ bills were more broadly focused on vari-ous types of drugs and their impact on impaired driving.

California passed legislation prohibiting the ingestion of marijuana in any form while driving or riding as a passenger in a motor vehicle.

A 2017 Colorado bill created a requirement for the division of crimi-nal justice within the department of public safety to annually report on substance-affected driving to the Colorado General Assembly to A 2017 Colorado bill created a try and get a better handle on the breadth of the problem. The re-

requirement for the division port must include information on the number of citations for sub-of criminal justice within stance-affected driving violations, the number that result in a charge

the department of public being filed, including how many involve one or more drugs or a com-bination of alcohol and drugs and other information. The new law safety to annually report on also created a $2 data-analysis surcharge for persons convicted of

substance-afected driving substance-affected driving with the money deposited in a new sub-to the Colorado General stance-affected driving data-analysis cash fund. Those funds can be

Assembly to try and get a used to reimburse state, municipal and private agencies and labs for payment of costs they incur in complying with the law. beter handle on the breadth

of the problem. As part of larger legislation addressing medical marijuana in Flori-da, the state required the Department of Highway Safety and Mo-tor Vehicles to implement a statewide impaired driving education campaign. The bill also requires the establishment of baseline data on the number of marijuana-related citations for driving under the

influence, marijuana-related traffic arrests, marijuana-related traffic accidents and marijuana-related traf-fic fatalities. The department or a contracted vendor must evaluate and compile a report on the efficacy of the driver education campaign based on the data and annually report to the Governor, the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives. The legislature appropriated $5 million to carry out these provisions.

A new Massachusetts law requires the establishment of a commission to study the regulation and testing of operating a vehicle under the influence of marijuana, narcotic drugs and depressant and stimulant sub-stances. The commission is tasked with studying: (1) scientific and medical types of testing and data; (2)

19 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

possible new technological forms of testing; (3) civil liberties of the operator; (4) social economic aspects of the testing; (5) admissibility of evidence of impaired driving in court proceedings; (6) burden on law en-forcement; (7) the current status of law in the state; (8) training of law enforcement; (9) intrusiveness of tests; (10) cost analysis of testing; (11) the current threshold for determining impairment; (12) the rate of success in stopping impaired operators and (13) anything else the commission deems necessary or sig-nificant. Additionally, the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security must establish a public awareness campaigns to educate the public about impaired driving including, but not limited to, impairment by the use of marijuana.

Nevada changed its law to specify that testing for marijuana or marijuana metabolite when someone is suspected of DUID can only be done through blood tests, removing the option for urine tests.

Federal Action Section 4008 of the FAST Act required the U.S. Department of Transportation to conduct a study on mari-juana-impaired driving. The issues to be examined included: • Methods to detect marijuana-impaired driving, including devices capable of measuring marijuana

levels in drivers. • A review of impairment standard research for driving under the influence of marijuana. • Methods to differentiate the cause of a driving impairment between alcohol and marijuana. • State-based policies on marijuana-impaired driving. • The role and extent of marijuana impairment in motor vehicle crashes.

The findings of the report were released in July of 2017 and made a series of recommendations, besides also examining the requited issues. The report recommends: • Increase the use of effective methods for training law enforcement personnel, including drug recog-

nition experts, to detect or measure the level of impairment of a motor vehicle operator who is un-der the influence of marijuana by the use of technology or otherwise.

• Continue research to aid development of an impairment standard for driving under the influence of marijuana. Maintain training and other support to enable officers and prosecutors to pursue cases using available evidence.

• Encourage states to collect data regarding the prevalence of marijuana use by drivers and those ar-rested for impaired driving.

• States should develop record systems that distinguish among alcohol, drugs, or both for impaired driving cases. These records should be integrated into computerized data systems of statewide arrest records, the court record systems and motor vehicle records. One way to accomplish this would be to have separate offenses for driving impaired by alcohol and driving impaired by drugs.

• State records systems should document which drugs are used by drug-impaired drivers. This informa-tion would be helpful for law enforcement, toxicologists and prosecutors.

• Standard toxicological screening and confirmation procedures should be developed for drug test-ing laboratories to use in identifying and confirming the presence of drugs that impair driving. These methods should include standard analytic procedures and minimum detection thresholds. There also should be training requirements for the personnel operating these tests.

Lastly, the report recommends state statutes be amended to provide separate and distinct offenses and sanctions for alcohol- and drug-impaired driving that could be applied individually or in combina-tion to a single case. This would provide an incentive for law enforcement officers to pursue a possible drug-impaired driving charge even when a BAC equal to or above the limit of .08 g/dL has already been established.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 20

Distracted Driving NHTSA defines distraction as any activity that diverts attention from driving, which can include using your cell phone, eating and drinking, talking to other people in the car and other behaviors. Distraction is “any-thing that takes your attention away from the task of safe driving.” Distractions are generally grouped into three categories: 1. Visually distracting: Tasks that require the driver to look away from the roadway to visually obtain

information. 2. Manually distracting: Tasks that require the driver to take a hand off the steering wheel and manipu-

late a device or object. 3. Cognitively distracting: Tasks that require the driver to think about something other than driving.

Each one of these types of distraction can increase crash risk.

When a driver reads or sends a text message, their eyes are off the road for five seconds according to NHTSA. When someone is driving at 55 mph that results in traveling the length of a football field without looking at the road.

Distracted driving can lead to costly and deadly outcomes. NHTSA reports 3,450 people were killed in crashes involving distracted driving in 2016, a 2.2 percent decrease from 2015. A “distraction-affected” crash is any crash in which a driver is identified as distracted at the time of the crash. Distraction-affected crashes accounted for over 9 percent of fatal crashes in 2016. According to NHTSA, based on all police-re-ported crashes that occurred in 2010, the economic cost of distraction-affected crashes was nearly $40 billion (in 2010 dollars).

NHTSA’s June 2017 research note looked at electronic device use by drivers in 2016. It found the percent-age of drivers visibly manipulating handheld devices decreased from 2.2 percent in 2015 to 2.1 percent in 2016 and handheld cell phone use decreased from 3.8 percent in 2015 to 3.3 percent in 2016. As has

21 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

been the case in previous years, handheld cell phone use was higher among females than males and was highest among 16- to 24-year-old drivers.

AAA’s Traffic Safety Culture Index found that 81.1 percent of drivers believe that texting and emailing while driving is a very serious threat to safety but 40.2 percent report having read a text or email while driving in the past 30 days. Almost one in every three drivers (31.4 percent) had typed a text or email while driving. Over 65 percent of drivers reported talking on a cell phone while driving in the past 30 days, with 32.4 percent indicating they do it regularly.

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety released a report in September 2017 exploring the visual and cognitive demands of using in-vehicle information systems. The report looked at a number of tasks—calling or di-aling, text messaging, tuning the radio or programming navigation—to determine what was the most de-manding. Programming navigation was determined to be most demanding and texting showed a higher level of overall demand than tuning the radio or calling/dialing. Unsurprisingly, all of the tasks were asso-ciated with higher levels of cognitive demand. Texting and programming navigation took longer to com-plete while radio tuning and programming navigation resulted in higher levels of visual demand, meaning time looking away from the road.

California enacted legislation in 2016 that toughened their distracted driving law, clarifying that a driver cannot operate an electric device that is held in one’s hand while driving and may only use a device if it is mounted on the windshield, dashboard or center console and is operated by a single swipe or tap, ad-dressing, for example, GPS. This law went into effect on Jan. 1, 2017. California’s Office of Traffic Safety released a report analyzing the use of hand-held mobile devices while driving in the state since the advent of this refined law. The study found the rate of hand-held usage while driving dropped from 7.6 percent of drivers in 2016 to 3.58 percent of drivers in 2017. This data was collected via field observations at 204 sites in 17 counties and included over three times as many observations (19,387) compared to past years of the study.

New Jersey expanded its #77 program in 2017 to allow motorists to call a number to report distracted, ag-gressive and impaired drivers. The program previously was only for aggressive driving. Callers provide the vehicles make, model and license plate and then the state may send the driver a warning letter, or issue a summons if the driving behavior is witnessed by law enforcement.

Oregon’s distracted driving task force released a report in February 2017, making several recommenda-tions for the state. The first recommendation was to engage in distracted driving research. The second was to amend the current cell phone statute to improve enforcement of and promote education on dis-tracted driving. Third was to implement a coordinated education and media campaign and the fourth to develop a distracted driving toolkit.

A study from NHTSA released in March 2017 evaluated the enforceability of texting laws, looking at strat-egies tested in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Law enforcement agencies used a variety of enforcement strategies, including spotter, stationary and roving patrols. The strategies were varied and “included one-and two-officer patrols, uniformed and plainclothes officers, marked and unmarked patrol vehicles, and a variety of vehicle types, including SUVs, vans, pickup trucks, motorcycles, and cruisers.” One conclusion of the study was that having a strong set of distracted driving laws helps with the enforcement of texting laws, allowing officers to utilize various laws for enforcement if a law, such as a particular texting statute, doesn’t address a particular behavior.

State Legislation In 2017, legislators in 44 states considered more than 230 driver-distraction bills. No state completely bans all phones for all drivers. State legislation usually addresses a range of issues, including particular wireless technologies and specific drivers, such as teenagers. Fifteen states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Ha-waii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia—and the District of Columbia prohibit driver use of hand-held phones.

Rhode Island implemented a hands-free law in 2017. A violation is subject to a fine of up to $100. The state also created an exception to the texting law for the activation, viewing, or deactivation of GPS.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 22

Oregon expanded its hands-free law to include other uses of a mobile electronics device beyond text mes-saging or phone calls. The bill also modified the penalties for violations, making the first offense a class B traffic violation and increasing the penalty for subsequent offenses or violations that result in crashes. Vi-olations of the handheld law in work zones where personnel are present or school zones can now result in four points against a driver’s license.

Washington’s new law expanded the state’s distraction law, making it illegal to use a cell phone while driv-ing, including when temporarily stopped. There are a few very specific exemptions to Washington’s new law, such as a driver contacting emergency services.

Texting while driving also remains a common driver distraction measure debated in legislatures. As of De-cember 2017, 47 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands specifically ban text messaging while driving for all drivers. Texas’ 2017 legislation created a statewide ban on texting while driving for all drivers, making it the 47th state with such a ban. A violation of the Texas texting law is subject to a fine between $25 and $99 for a first offense and between $100 and $200 for subsequent of-fenses. If a distracted driver causes the death or serious bodily injury of another person, the offense is a class A misdemeanor subject to a fine of up to $4,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.

Most of the states with texting with driving laws enforce them with primary enforcement, but four states—Florida, Nebraska, Ohio and South Dakota—have secondary enforcement laws that allow police to issue a texting-while-driving citation only if the motorist was first stopped for another infraction. Iowa modified its law to make texting while driving a primary offense. Missouri bans texting while driving for novice drivers under 21. In 2017, Missouri debated expanding that prohibition to all drivers, but the legis-lation failed. Arizona’s new law prohibits cell phone use by a driver with an instruction permit while driv-ing and makes it a secondary offense, leaving Montana as the only state without any sort of texting ban.

Arkansas passed legislation this year expanding the state’s distracted driving law to include the use of so-cial media, in addition to texting while driving. The law provides an exemption for the use of GPS. The penalty is increased to include a fine of up to $250 for a first violation and a fine of up to $500 for subse-quent violations. If a distracted driver is involved in a crash, the court may double the fine for the driver. Iowa similarly expanded the state’s distracted driving law to include internet sites, social media applica-tions and games.

Colorado increased the penalty for distracted driving to $300, making it a class 2 misdemeanor traffic of-fense and a four point offense. If the distracted driver is the cause of bodily injury or death to another per-son, the offense is a class 1 misdemeanor traffic offense. The law specifies that drivers can be cited by law enforcement if they witness the driver texting while driving and it causes the driver to drive in a “careless and imprudent manner without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and use of the streets and highways…”

Delaware established the offense of operation of a vehicle causing serious physical injury to a vulnerable user. This offense applies if someone engages in careless or inattentive driving and seriously injures some-one defined as a vulnerable user, including pedestrians, workers in a work zone, bicyclists and motorcy-clists, among others. The offense results in a fine of $550, license suspension for up to one year, a require-ment to complete a traffic safety course and a requirement for between 10 and 100 hours of community service. The court may suspend the fine and license suspension and dismiss them if the other require-ments are successfully completed.

North Dakota created a more general distraction offense of failure to maintain control. The offense occurs when a driver commits a traffic violation and the driver was distracted at the time by an activity that is not necessary to the operation of the vehicle and impairs the ability of the individual to safely operate the vehicle. Washington created the offense of driving while dangerously distracted, subject to a fine of $30. This can include distractions such as eating or applying make-up. This violation is a secondary offense. The bill as passed by the legislature would have made the state’s changes effective Jan. 1, 2019. However, the governor vetoed this provision, making the law effective in 2017.

Lastly, Tennessee made it a class C misdemeanor, subject to a $50 fine, to use a cell phone while driving in a school zone.

23 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Teen Drivers Young, inexperienced drivers are considerably overrepresented in fatal crashes, according to NHTSA. The latest NHTSA data on younger drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 shows that in 2016, 1,908 young drivers were killed in car crashes. An additional 654 passengers age 15 to 20 who were riding with young drivers were killed in crashes. Unintentional motor vehicle traffic deaths were the leading cause of death for people between 15 and 24 in 2015 according to the CDC and the risk of crashes is higher among 16- to 19-year-olds than for any other age group. Given these statistics, teen driving remains a top traffic safety issue for legislatures.

Due to immaturity and inexperience, young drivers may often exhibit dangerous driving behaviors. Teen drivers are three times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than drivers age 20 and older accord-ing to the CDC. Injury and fatality rates are high for teens because they are more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as speeding, driving under the influence, running red lights and not wearing safety belts, all of which contribute to high fatality and injury rates.

In every state, some type of law has been enacted intend-ing to protect young drivers as they develop skill and ex-perience. Commonly referred to as graduated driver’s li-censing (GDL), the laws provide a gradual process for teen drivers to gain experience in a safer environment.

NHTSA has made recommendations regarding what con-stitutes a good GDL program. GDL laws vary from State to State, but all GDL approaches consist of three stages, identified by the type of license, provisions, and restric-tions. Novice drivers 15 to 18 years old must demonstrate responsible driving behavior during each stage of licensing before advancing to the next level.

NHTSA recommends the following provisions and restrictions for each stage:

Stage 1: Learner’s Permit • Minimum age

• Minimum duration

• Required supervised driving hours

Stage 2: Intermediate (Provisional) License

• Minimum age

• Nighttime driving restriction

• Passenger restriction (except for family, unless noted)

Stage 3: Full Licensure

• Minimum age

Source: NHTSA Teen Driving Page (Appendix F contains information about teen driving restrictions.)

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 24

In late 2016, the CDC released the Graduated Driver Licensing System Planning Guide. The guide includes background information on GDL, the use of data in planning for GDL improvements and strategy develop-ment to improve GDL, in addition to other information.

A 2017 study from AAA found that 16- and 17-year old new drivers are three times as likely as adults to be involved in a deadly crash. The study found that these drivers are 3.9 times as likely as drivers over 18 to be in a crash and 4.5 times as likely as drivers between 30 and 59 to be in a crash. They are 2.6 times as likely to be in a fatal crash as drivers over 18 and 3.2 times as likely as drivers between 30 and 59. The study points to three factors that commonly result in fatal crashes for teen drivers: distraction, not wear-ing a seat belt and speeding.

State Legislation In 2017, 36 states considered over 130 bills related to teen drivers.

Graduated Driver’s Licensing A number of states considered legislation addressing GDL, though very few new laws were enacted in 2017. Alabama made violations of the state’s GDL law a primary offense. The driver must attend defensive driving school for a first violation and, for a second or subsequent violation, will have their intermediate license suspended and must revert to a learner’s permit for six months before reapplying for an interme-diate license. Any parent or legal guardian who knowingly allows their child to operate in violation of the GDL law may be fined between $150 and $350.

New Hampshire enacted legislation in 2017 allowing a youth operator to have their license suspended, af-ter a hearing, when a crash involving death or bodily injury is being investigated and there is evidence that the license holder was involved in the crash while in violation of a provision of the state’s GDL law. Rhode Island modified the nighttime driving restrictions to allow a young driver to operate between 4 and 5 a.m. when driving to a school event when other transportation is not provided by the school.

In California, a bill passed the legislature that would have extended requirements typically required for 16- and 17-year old drivers to drivers age 18-21, but the bill was vetoed. The bill would have required 18-21-year-old drivers to complete 50 hours of supervised driving and wait at least 60 days after obtaining a learner’s permit before applying for a driver’s license. The law also would have put into effect nighttime and passenger restrictions for these drivers. The bill was vetoed by the governor. In his veto message, Governor Jerry Brown wrote “[w]hile I understand the author’s intent of needing to address factors that contribute to the unnecessary collisions and deaths of young Californians on our highways, the provisions of this bill create a burden on a segment of adult Californians that are no longer seen as a minor in the eyes of the law.”

States continue to discuss requiring young drivers to place a decal on their car which would assist law en-forcement officers in the enforcement of GDL restrictions. New Jersey is the only state that requires plac-ing decals on vehicles driven by young drivers. A few other states, including Maine and Missouri, offer optional decals. New York considered legislation to allow a decal to be placed on the license plates of ve-hicles driven by individuals under 18. Concerns have been expressed that these decals could lead to other drivers targeting young drivers in some way. As has been the case in prior years, New Jersey considered, but did not pass, legislation to repeal the decal requirement in the state.

Driver’s Education A few states enacted new laws concerning driver’s education for young adults or their parents in 2017.

Indiana’s new law requires that drivers under 21 who have had points assessed against their license in at least two separate instances must complete a driver safety program.

In some states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Rhode Island, driver’s education courses are offered or required for parents. Rhode Island passed 2017 legislation requiring parents with children under the age of 18 to take a course on the content of driver’s education and the requirements for graduated driver licensing in the state.

25 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Distraction and Young Drivers Distracted driving among young drivers is a serious safety issue. In 2016, the latest NHTSA data shows 10 percent of drivers ages 15 to 19 who were involved in fatal crashes were distracted at the time of the crashes. According to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, as many as 25 percent of teens respond to a text message at least once every time they drive, even though 38 states and D.C. ban all cell phone use by novice drivers.

Five states—Alabama, Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas—enacted legislation in 2017 concerning teen drivers and distraction, mostly centered on increased penalties and more driver’s education targeted toward distraction.

Alabama’s new legislation makes cell phone use by drivers with a learner’s license or restricted regular li-cense while driving a primary offense. The law also modifies the penalties for a violation of this provision. The law requires defensive driving school for a first offense and authorizes a fine between $150 and $250 for a second or subsequent offense. A violation results in two points against a driver’s license.

Arizona’s new law prohibits cell phone use by a driver with an instruction permit while driving and makes it a secondary offense. It also prohibits drivers under 18 from using a cell phone except during an emer-gency or when using an audible turn-by-turn navigation system.

Tennessee’s law also makes it a delinquent act, subject to a $50 fine, for a minor to talk on a cell phone equipped with a hands-free device while driving. Texas makes it a misdemeanor for minors to use a phone while driving, subject to a fine of between $25 and $99 for a first violation and between $100 and $200 for subsequent offenses.

Oklahoma passed a bill this year requiring driver education courses to include information on the dangers of texting while driving and impaired driving. Texas requires the driver licensing examination to test the applicant’s knowledge of the effect of using a cell phone or engaging in other distracting activities on the safe operation of a vehicle.

Trafc Stop Education Continuing a trend from the last few years, focus on the actions of law enforcement and drivers during traffic stops has increased to prevent unnecessary tragedies, particularly for teen drivers in driver educa-tion courses. In 2016, Illinois was the first state to pass legislation requiring driver education courses to include instruction regarding law enforcement procedures during stops as well as a demonstration of the appropriate actions for drivers during a stop. A number of additional states passed similar legislation in 2017, including Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

Alaska’s new law requires motor vehicle instructional manuals to cover drivers’ rights and responsibilities when stopped by an officer. Arkansas also requires the written driver’s license test to include questions on stops. Texas’ new law requires traffic stops to be part of police training and public high school coursework. The curriculum must include the duties of police, the rights of the public, the proper actions for civilians and officers, how to file a complaint and more.

AAA released a resource in 2017, Getting Pulled Over: The Driving Instructor’s Guide to Interacting with Law Enforcement at the Roadside. The resource helps driver’s education instructors to educate students on what drivers should and should not do during a traffic stop.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 26

Older Drivers In 2016, 15.2 percent of the total U.S. resident population—approximately 49.5 million people—were 65 and older. According to data from FHWA, 41.7 million licensed drivers were age 65 or over in 2016. Addi-tionally, in 2016, NHTSA reports that 6,764 people 65 and older were killed in traffic crashes. Older people accounted for 18 percent of all traffic fatalities. While older drivers have lower rates of crashes reported to the police, the likelihood of a crash being fatal increases after age 70, probably largely due to increasing frailty and fragility.

Older drivers use seat belts, rarely speed and are less likely than other age groups to drive while impaired. Females are more likely than males to self-restrict driving as they age: they are more likely to limit drives

to familiar and lower speed routes, not drive in inclement weath-er, at night or in heavy traffic. On the other hand, AAA notes that age-related decline in vision, hearing and cognitive functioning,

A 2017 study from the AAA along with physical changes, may affect driving ability. In addition, Foundation for Trafc Safety older drivers are more likely to become seriously injured in a crash

due to increased frailty, and more likely to have long term implica-examined older drivers’ tions or death from their injury due to increased fragility (less likely use and atitudes toward to recover from a serious injury). Medical conditions, such as heart

in-vehicle technologies disease and diabetes, may make it more difficult for older drivers to and aftermarket vehicle heal from a traffic crash-related injury.

adaptations that make A 2017 study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety examined driving safer. Researchers older drivers’ use and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies and

found that 57 percent of aftermarket vehicle adaptations that make driving safer. Researchers found that 57 percent of vehicles driven by study participants had vehicles driven by study in-vehicle technologies such as voice-control, blind spot and lane de-

participants had in-vehicle parture warnings, navigation assistance systems and adaptive cruise technologies such as voice- control. About 70 percent of participants claimed that these in-vehi-control, blind spot and cle technologies made them safer drivers while 19 percent claimed

these technologies did not make them safer drivers. lane departure warnings, navigation assistance NHTSA conducted a July 2017 study looking at older-driver foot systems and adaptive cruise movements and how drivers 60 and older control the accelerator

and brake pedals while driving and parking. Researchers found that control. stature and length of one’s tibia and/or femur rather than medical status accounted for the majority of significant differences in foot movement while driving; drivers with shorter legs were more like-ly to lift their foot when moving from the brake to the accelerator

while taller ones were more likely to pivot. When it came to parking, however, drivers with medical condi-tions scored significantly poorer than normally aging drivers. The study concludes that installing pedal ex-tenders or power adjustable pedals can facilitate improved pedal control.

In cooperation with NHTSA, the American Geriatrics Society provides the Clinician’s Guide to Assessing and Counseling Older Drivers, updated every three years. The guide helps health care providers assess older drivers at risk for crashes and counsel them on how to enhance driving safety. The guide also pro-vides resources to help transition older people away from driving when necessary.

State Legislation While five states considered legislation addressing older drivers in 2017, North Dakota was the only state to enact legislation.

North Dakota enacted legislation allowing for noncommercial driver’s license applicants to renew a li-cense electronically during every other renewal cycle. During this electronic renewal process, the director may use vision information provided by the applicant to meet the vision requirements of renewal. How-ever, this provision only applies to applicants under the age of 65. For those 65 years of age and older, ap-

27 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

plicants must provide a certificate of examination from the driver’s licensing or examination authorities. Applicants over 65 can also provide a statement as to the corrected or uncorrected vision of the applicant from a licensed physician or optometrist.

States debated legislation on a range of other topics related to older drivers in 2017, but those bills have not been enacted.

Iowa considered legislation that would provide reduced automobile insurance premiums for older drivers. The premium reduction would be at least 10 percent for an insurance policy issued to someone 55 years and older who completed a certified driver safety course or a recertification course in the last three years.

For the fifth consecutive year, New York introduced legislation to establish a statewide “Yellow Dot” pro-gram in its Department of Transportation. The legislation is currently pending. States with a “Yellow Dot” program provide a bright yellow circle decal to drivers, including seniors, who sign up for the program. This decal, which is placed in the car’s back window, tells first responders to look for a “Yellow Dot” fold-er in the glove box that contains a photo and detailed medical information, including prescriptions, drug allergies, surgeries, presence of pacemakers or other information that could affect emergency treatment. The nation’s first “Yellow Dot” program began in Connecticut in 2002. Currently, 22 states have imple-mented “Yellow Dot” Programs.

Another bill in New York would establish the Senior Driver Safety Commission. The commission would be assigned to study, examine and review the issues of senior driver safety and then evaluate the effective-ness of current laws and regulations regarding these issues, survey and assess the leading causes of senior driver car crashes, identify and analyze preventative measures the state could implement and make regu-latory and legislative recommendations to increase safety to all drivers.

Driver Licensing The states and the District of Columbia, according to the Federal Highway Administration, license more than 221 million drivers who represent roughly 85 percent of Americans eligible to drive. States have administered their driver’s licensing systems since 1903, when Massachusetts and Missouri enacted the first state driver’s licensing laws. Since 1959, all states have required an examination to test driving skills and traffic safety knowledge before a license is issued.

Testing drivers and issuing licenses, however, no longer is the sole concern of state licensing agencies. Be-cause the driver’s license now serves a role beyond traffic safety—where both government and private entities rely on it for personal identification—state legislatures and driver’s license agencies are con-cerned about the safety and security of using the license as an identifier.

State Legislation In 2017, state legislatures debated numerous bills related to various aspects of driver’s licensing, including suspensions, revocations and reinstatements, medical conditions and tests and education.

License Suspensions, Revocations and Reinstatements Three states, Colorado, Georgia and Maryland, passed bills in 2017 regarding license suspensions related to traffic safety issues.

In 2017, Colorado passed a bill giving the Department of Revenue the power to suspend an individu-al’s driver’s license for leaving the scene of a car accident that resulted in the serious bodily injury or the death of another. The Department shall determine if it is more likely than not that the individual left the scene based upon the officer’s affidavit and a copy of the citation and complaint filed with the court be-fore a license can be suspended.

Georgia enacted two bills regarding license suspensions as well. In Georgia, an individual can have their license suspended if they fail to appear for court for a uniform traffic citation. The license will remain sus-

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 28

pended until the clerk of court notifies driver services that the charge against the accused is adjudicated, proof of the adjudication is submitted and a restoration fee is paid.

Georgia passed a second bill in 2017 affecting drivers convicted of operating a vehicle while under the in-fluence of drugs or alcohol. If an individual in Georgia has a third or subsequent conviction of driving un-der the influence of drugs or alcohol, they will be considered habitual violators and their license will be revoked.

Maryland also put a provision into law in 2017 that would allow the Motor Vehicle Administration to sus-pend a driver’s license for failure to complete a driver improvement program. If a driver is convicted of one or more moving violations in Maryland, they must attend a driver improvement program. If the in-dividual fails to attend this driver improvement program, an alcohol education program required under section 16-212 or a private alternative program, the administration may suspend that individual’s driver’s license.

Medical Conditions and Driver’s Licenses Five states addressed medical conditions that affect driving via 2017 state legislation: Alabama, North Car-olina, Kansas, South Carolina and Texas. These five states addressed two different medical conditions: in-dividuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals with autism spectrum disorder.

Alabama and North Carolina both addressed how those who are deaf or hard of hearing can indicate this through their driver’s license or related records.

Now, in Alabama, anyone who applies for or renews a driver’s license, nondriver ID card, vessel license, or a learner’s license or permit may also provide documentation of deafness to the Alabama State Law En-forcement Agency. This information will then be stored in records of the agency and law enforcement per-sonnel will have access to this information for use during their official duties.

The Division of Motor Vehicles in North Carolina will now, at the request of someone who is deaf or hard of hearing, put a unique symbol on the front of the individual’s driver’s license. An individual would need to provide proof that they are deaf or hard of hearing via documentation substantiating their hearing loss that is recommended by the Division of Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing as acceptable.

Kansas, South Carolina and Texas’s 2017 legislation addressed drivers who need assistance with cognition and autism.

Kansas now allows anyone who needs assistance with cognition, like those with autism spectrum disor-der, to request that the division of vehicles issue the person a driver’s license that indicates the impair-ment. The individual must submit satisfactory proof of their impairment to the director of vehicles. Satis-factory proof includes a statement from an individual licensed to practice the healing arts in any state, an advanced practice registered nurse, a licensed physician’s assistant, or someone licensed by Kansas be-havioral science regulatory board certifying that the individual needs assistance with cognition.

South Carolina passed a bill in 2017 allowing all driver’s license applicants to voluntarily disclose that they are autistic. This information could be indicated on their driver’s license via a symbol. The applicant must provide documentation that they are autistic from a physician licensed in South Carolina.

Texas’s 2017 legislation will allow the Department of Public Safety to make informational materials and videos regarding driving with autism publicly accessible and available at a driver’s license office.

Driver’s Test and Educational Requirements In 2017, Kentucky mandated that drivers under the age of 18 must enroll in a driver education course.

29 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Speeding and Speed Limits In 2016, 10,111 traffic fatalities occurred in speeding-related crashes, a 4 percent increase from 9,723 in 2015. Speeding was a factor in 27 percent of motor vehicle fatalities in 2016 and has been implicated in more than 25 percent of crash deaths since 2007 according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

The latest NHTSA speeding statistics also showed that the age group with the highest percentage of speeders involved in fatal crashes in 2016 were 15- to 20-year-old male drivers, with a rate of 32 percent. 33 percent of motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes in 2016 were speeding, more than drivers of any other vehicle type. NHTSA additionally found that, in 2016, 37 percent of speeding drivers in fatal crashes were alcohol impaired. See page 8 for recent state action related to impaired driving.

NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if the driver was charged with a speeding-related offense or if a police officer indi-cated that racing, driving too fast for conditions or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash. AAA’s 2016 The latest NHTSA speeding Traffic Safety Culture Index reported that nearly half of drivers have

statistics also showed recently sped excessively on residential streets (>10 mph over post-ed speed) and freeways (>15 mph over posted speed) in the past that the age group with month. Further, nearly a quarter of respondents found it socially ac- the highest percentage of ceptable to excessively speed on freeways compared to only 12 per- speeders involved in fatal cent who said the same for residential streets.

crashes in 2016 were 15- to In 1995, Congress repealed the maximum speed limit of 55 mph, 20-year-old male drivers, which had been established in the early 1970s, and the states have with a rate of 32 percent. 33 been given more power to set maximum speed limits. Since then, 41 states have set speed limits of 70 mph or higher on some por- percent of motorcycle riders tion of their roadway systems. In April 2016, IIHS released a new involved in fatal crashes in study evaluating the impact of increased speed limits. It found that 2016 were speeding, more increased speed limits have resulted in more than 33,000 additional than drivers of any other traffic deaths in the last 20 years. The study found that “each 5 mph increase in the maximum speed limit resulted in a 4 percent increase vehicle type. in fatalities,” increasing to 8 percent on interstates and freeways. An additional IIHS study from October 2016—focusing on Utah’s 2010 and 2013 increases in speed limits on rural interstates to 80 mph— found, “the likelihood that a passenger vehicle was traveling over 80 mph within the 80 mph zones was more than 120 percent higher than would have been expected with-out the speed limit change.”

In December 2017, NHTSA released Matching Countermeasures to Driver Types and Speeding Behaviors which explores new speeding countermeasures targeted at various driver types and roadway scenarios. Also included are survey results from Idaho drivers on situational recall and self-reporting of behaviors. The results provide insight into driver perception of many countermeasures and “while there was no clear ‘silver bullet’ countermeasure identified in the survey, there are several promising findings, such as with the stopping-distance education and radar-based, roadside displays that could form a starting point for the development of more detailed countermeasure strategies.” A summary Traffic Tech document of this report was released in June 2017.

NHTSA released additional data analyses connected to that agency’s study regarding motivations for speeding in March 2016. The analyses found that incidental speeding was the most common type of speeding, where individuals went slightly over the limit for short periods of time. Casual speeding, where an individual was likely aware that they were speeding, was also relatively common. The study also identi-fied four types of speeders: deliberate speeders, typical speeders, situational speeders and unintentional speeders.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 30

State Legislation In 2017, 38 states considered more than 150 bills related to speed limits. A total of 13 bills were enact-ed in 12 different states related to speed limits in passing situations, residential and work zones and local speed issues.

Arkansas increased the maximum allowable speed limit on “controlled-access highways” by 5 mph to 75 mph.

All states have laws requiring vehicles traveling slower than the normal speed of traffic to operate in the furthest right-hand lane available. This year, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Oklahoma all passed legislation regarding, to some degree, speed limits in passing zones or created exemptions on speed limits for pass-ing situations on highways. Virginia strengthened its requirement to travel in the right-hand lane when not passing by establishing a new $100 fine for such a violation.

NHTSA notes that in 2016 only 14 percent of speeding-related fatalities occurred on interstate highways, meaning that many fatal crashes occur on city streets and in work zones. In 2017, the Oregon legislature enacted HB 2682, which enables the city of Portland to, by ordinance, lower the designated speed by 5 mph lower than otherwise statutorily allowed on highways located in residential districts. Previously, be-fore lowering the speed limit, Portland had to determine that the streets had a traffic volume of fewer than 2,000 motor vehicles per day, with more than 85 percent traveling less than 30 miles per hour, as well as ensure there was a traffic control device on the highway that indicated the presence of pedestri-ans or bicyclists. The new law does not apply to arterial highways and requires giving notice of the desig-nated speed at each end of the portion of highway where the designated speed is imposed and other lo-cations as necessary.

Additionally, New York authorized the town of Malta in Saratoga County to reduce speed limits to no low-er than 25 mph on certain highways within the town.

South Carolina passed legislation replacing their speeding-in-a-work-zone violation with a more gener-al endangerment of a highway worker violation, creating an additional distinction for a violation where bodily harm is caused and raising penalties for endangerment of a highway worker. Montana’s work zone law provides that any traffic violation fine is doubled when the violation occurs in a work zone, however they amended that law in 2017 to only have the doubled fine apply when a worker is present in the work zone at the time of the violation.

Aggressive drivers Running red lights or stop signs, speeding, preventing other drivers from passing and illegal driving on the shoulder are examples of aggressive driving. NHTSA, in cooperation with law enforcement agencies, de-fines aggressive driving as occurring when “an individual commits a combination of moving traffic offens-es so as to endanger other persons or property.”

AAA’s Traffic Safety Culture Index for 2016 found that 45.6 percent of drivers admitted to exceeding speed limits by at least 15 mph in the past month. The survey found that 73.3 percent of drivers believe that ag-gressive drivers are a bigger problem today compared to three years ago and nearly 90 percent of drivers ranked “people driving aggressively” as a “very serious threat” or “somewhat serious threat” to their per-sonal safety.

Each year, a handful of states debate legislation addressing aggressive driving. Several states have laws defining the offense of aggressive driving and establishing penalties. Eleven states—Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia—have aggressive driving laws. (Appendix G contains more information about state aggressive driving laws.) Cal-ifornia and Utah have reckless driving laws that include behaviors similar to those other states classify as aggressive.

In Maryland, a driver must commit three specified offenses at the same time or in a continuous period of

31 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

driving for his or her behavior to constitute aggressive driving. Maryland has considered legislation in each of the last three years to modify the law in some way. This year, legislation would have lowered the num-ber of offenses to two if certain offenses were committed. That legislation did not pass.

New York considered legislation that would create the crime of aggressive driving but the legislation had not moved out of committee as of the time of publication. North Carolina considered two pieces of legis-lation regarding road rage in 2017. One bill would require the state Division of Motor Vehicles to study the issue of road rage in addition to distracted driving. The other would allow for an assault committed as an act of road rage to be considered as an aggravating factor during sentences. Both bills were still pending at the time of publication, though no action had been taken on either bill since they were introduced.

Automated Enforcement Motorists disobeying a red light is a dangerous yet com-mon occurrence. According to IIHS, in 2015, crashes caused by red-light running resulted in 771 deaths and an estimat-ed 137,000 injuries. Data shows that more than half of the fatalities were to people other than the drivers making the infraction—including bicyclists, pedestrians, passengers or other motorists.

Automated enforcement technology—red light camer-as and photo radar—allow local law enforcement agen-cies to enforce traffic laws remotely by detecting motor-ists who violate traffic regulations. Red light cameras are linked to traffic signals and monitor the green, yellow and red phases of traffic lights. When a motorist drives through an intersection after the signal has turned red, sensors trig-ger the cameras to take two photographs—one of the vehi-cle entering the intersection while the light is red, and one showing the vehicle traveling through the intersection on a red light.

Photo radar functions are similar. Typically housed within a mobile unit such as a van or truck, the photo radar system is equipped with both speed detection devices and cameras. Once a speeding vehicle is de-tected, the camera is triggered. The photos, stamped with the date and time, are used to identify the ve-hicle owner and tickets are issued.

Results of studies on the effectiveness of automated enforcement vary, but mostly show a positive impact on traffic safety. A study from Northwestern University conducted for the city of Chicago, which has one of the nation’s largest red light camera programs, found that red light cameras have resulted in decreases in overall injury crashes (by 10 percent) and angle injury crashes (by 19 percent). However, intersections with cameras did have an increased amount of rear-end injury crashes (by 14 percent). Typically rear-end crashes do tend to be less severe than angle crashes. Other studies have noted that red-light cameras may increase rear-end crashes; however, overall they tend to lead to an overall decrease in the number and se-verity of crashes.

Additionally, a 2016 IIHS report showed that removing red-light cameras from intersections actually cost lives. Researchers compared trends in annual crash rates in 14 cities that had ended their camera pro-grams with those in 29 cities in the same regions that continued their programs. They found that, after adjusting for other factors, red-light-running crashes increased by 30 percent at intersections where cam-eras were removed. The study estimated that 63 deaths would have been prevented in the 14 cities if they had not turned off their cameras.

IIHS has also studied the effectiveness of speed cameras. In 2015, more than a quarter of motor vehi-cle fatalities—9,000 deaths—occurred in crashes where speed was a factor. In an August 2017 study, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) called for a renewed focus on speeding noting that in the

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 32

decade from 2005-2014, speeding contributed to more than 112,500 deaths. The NTSB encouraged in-creased use of speed cameras and for “high-visibility enforcement.”

IIHS has found positive impacts from speed cameras. Speed cameras were introduced in Montgomery County, Md., in 2007. As of 2014, the county had 56 fixed cameras, 30 portable cameras and six mobile speed vans; the cameras are used on residential streets with speed limits of 35 mph or less and in school zones. IIHS found that, during the program’s first year, the proportion of drivers traveling at least 10 mph over the speed limit had declined on streets with cameras. Researchers found that in 2014 the camera programs had reduced by 59 percent the likelihood of a driver exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph, compared with similar roads in two nearby Virginia counties that do not have speed cameras. The researchers also looked at crashes on camera-eligible roads in Montgomery County and compared them to other similar roads in Virginia. They found that the camera program resulted in a 19 percent reduction in the likelihood that a crash would involve a fatality or an incapacitating injury, as reported by a police of-ficer on the scene.

Politically, red-light and speed cameras remain controversial. Opponents of the programs point to recent bribery-for-contract scandals in Chicago and Florida to argue they are corrupt and designed to bring in revenue to cash-strapped cities. While still being launched in some places, the total number of communi-ties with red-light cameras fell to 422 in 2017, down from 430 in 2016 and from the peak of 533 in 2012. Speed cameras are less prevalent, according to IIHS, as of February 2018, 143 communities (and 14 states) utilize them.

City and local governments in 23 states— Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Geor-gia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington—and the District of Columbia use red-light cameras. In most cases, state legislatures have passed enabling statutes with specific provisions to allow local governments to develop red-light camera programs. No state law exists in Iowa and Missou-ri, but local communities have chosen to develop programs. In New Mexico, NMDOT has banned red light cameras on state and federal roadways but they are allowed to be used by local governments under some circumstances.

Communities in 14 states—Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington—and the District of Columbia use speed camer-as. Although Iowa and Ohio have no specific statutes, cameras are used in certain cities. Some states pro-hibit use of automated enforcement altogether. Arkansas, New Jersey, South Carolina and Wisconsin pro-hibit photo radar enforcement. South Carolina law provides a narrow exception that speed enforcement cameras can be used in a state of emergency. In Texas, municipalities are prohibited from using automat-ed enforcement to enforce speed. Statutes in Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, South Caro-lina, South Dakota and West Virginia prohibit red light camera use to issue citations to motorists. Nevada effectively prohibits red-light camera programs because their laws require law-enforcement personnel to be present if cameras are used. (Appendix I contains more information about state automated enforce-ment laws.)

State Legislation Twenty-four states considered 85 bills related to red light and speed cameras in 2017. However, only two states enacted such legislation. Louisiana (SB 154) established a new requirement for local authorities to post signage indicating a mobile speed camera is being used. The signs, which must be placed between 250 and 500 feet of the speed camera, must be clearly visible and unobstructed. Under the new law, the use of speed cameras is prohibited without proper signage.

Oregon (HB 2409) will now allow cities and localities to use automated enforcement technologies for speed violations (previously only allowed for traffic signal violations). The new provisions included re-quirements on signage, delivery of the citations, police officer involvement and a speed requirement, that the motorist must be exceeding the posted speed limit by at least 11 miles per hour.

33 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Federal Action The FAST Act discusses automated enforcement in Title 23, Sections 148 and 402. Under federal law, states are prohibited from using federal funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program and the Highway Safety Grant Program to purchase, operate or maintain automated traffic-enforcement camer-as, except for those located in school zones. Further, every two years, states with automated-enforcement systems are required to compile a list of automated-enforcement systems in the state; data to measure transparency, accountability and safety, and a comparison of their systems to earlier Department of Trans-portation guidelines on automated red-light-running enforcement programs. These requirements will take effect in fiscal year 2018.

Motorcyclist Safety According to the latest numbers from the U.S. DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were over 8.6 million registered mo-torcycles in the country in 2016, an increase from 2015 and an all-time high number of registrations.

The latest data from NHTSA shows motorcy-clist fatalities increased between 2015 and 2016 by 5.1 percent, from 5,029 in 2015 to 5,286 in 2016. This increase was slightly lower than the overall traffic fatality percentage in-crease of 5.6 percent from 2015 to 2016. This was the highest number of motorcyclist deaths since 5,312 in 2008. The proportion of overall traffic fatali-ties that were motorcyclists increased from 13 percent in 2015 to 14 percent in 2016.

A quarter of the 4,950 people operating motorcycles that were killed in 2016 in traffic crashes had a BAC of over .08. The number of motorcycle drivers involved in alcohol related crashes stayed largely the same as 2015, going from 1,350 in 2015 to 1,351 in 2016.

Quite notably, and part of an overall trend towards more older Americans driving motorcyclists in larger numbers, motorcyclist fatalities for those over age 60 increased by 21.5 percent between 2015 and 2016, an increase of 156 fatalities, according to NHTSA’s latest data.

States with universal motorcycle helmet laws had far fewer unhelmeted fatalities (166) than states with-out such laws (1,923). NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,859 motorcyclists in 2016.

The 2016 National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) found that the use of DOT-compliant mo-torcycle helmets increased between 2015 to 2016 with use at 60.7 percent and 65.3 percent, respective-ly, although that difference is not considered statistically significant. A DOT-compliant motorcycle helmet, for the purpose of this study, is a helmet meeting the safety requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218.

The NOPUS “is the only survey that provides nationwide probability-based observed data on motorcycle helmet use in the United States... The survey observes helmet use as it actually occurs at randomly select-ed roadway sites, and thus provides the best tracking of helmet use in this country.”

At the time of the study, 19 states and the District of Columbia required all motorcyclists to wear helmets while three states, Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire, had no motorcycle helmet requirements.

Overall, the survey found that helmet use is significantly higher in the states that require all motorcyclists to wear helmets than in other states. Notably, the use of non-compliant helmets fell significantly for mo-

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 34

torcyclists riding alone, from 11.8 percent in 2015 to 7.7 percent in 2016. The western states (Alaska, Ari-zona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming) saw a significant increase in helmet use from 2015 (74.8 percent) to 2016 (90.9 percent). Fur-ther, overall helmet use among motorcyclists traveling in medium speed traffic (31-50 mph) increased sig-nificantly in 2016 to 68.5 percent from 52.3 percent in 2015. It appears helmet use among motorcyclists is increasing overall, but 34.7 percent of motorcyclists were still not wearing DOT-compliant helmets accord-ing to the survey’s observations.

Motorcycle Helmets No states enacted legislation regarding motorcycle helmet use in 2017, although a large number of states did introduce and consider legislation. Thus, another year of considerable debate but no action on the motorcycle helmet front.

Currently, 19 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands still require all riders to wear helmets. Another 28 states require helmet use for certain groups, typically those under age 21 or age 18. The helmet laws in Florida, Michigan and Texas exempt rid-ers who carry a certain amount of insurance or who pass a safety course or both, despite evidence show-ing those exemptions have no safety benefit. Three states—Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire—do not have any helmet requirements. Louisiana weakened its motorcycle helmet use law in 1999, but reenacted it in 2004. It is the only state to do so in the past decade.

State Legislation In 2017, state legislatures enacted a number of bills regarding motorcycle licensing, safety and education and operation and equipment.

Motorcycle Licensing, Safety and Education In 2017, four states, California, Nevada, New York and Oregon, implemented legislation relating to motor-cycle licensing, safety and education.

California passed legislation allowing the Department of Motor Vehicles to accept any certificate of sat-isfactory completion of an approved motorcyclist training program in lieu of a driving test for motorcycle license applications. For those under 21 years of age, the bill requires completion of a novice motorcycle safety training program for issuance of a class M1 or M2 license or endorsement.

One of the Oregon bills passed in 2017 also discusses driving requirements for motorcycle endorsement or licensing applicants. This bill states that the Department of Transportation can waive the actual demon-stration that is usually required of an applicant for a restricted motorcycle endorsement if the applicant is only authorized to drive a motorcycle with more than two wheels.

In 2017, Nevada implemented new rules surrounding motorcycle licensing focusing on drivers between the ages of 15 ½ and 18. Now, anyone between the ages of 15 1/2 and 18 years may apply to the Depart-ment of Public Safety for a one-year motorcycle instruction permit. If someone is 18 years old or older and applies and receives a motorcycle instruction permit, this permit is valid for six months. These per-mits allow drivers to drive between sunrise and sunset and prohibit drivers from carrying any passengers or taking the motorcycle on a controlled-access highway. If an individual does need to take the motorcycle driving test and fails two or more times, they may not be issued an instruction permit.

Motorcycle operators 16 or 17 years of age who have held a motorcycle instruction permit and apply for a driver’s license that authorizes them to operate a motorcycle must: (1) complete a course of motorcy-cle safety; (2) have at least 50 hours of experience driving a motorcycle with an instruction permit and (3) submit to the Department of Public Safety a log containing dates and times of the hours of experience that is signed by applicant’s parents. The applicant is also not responsible for completing the written ex-aminations for a motorcycle license if they already have the instruction permit, are at least 18 years old, have had the instruction permit for not less than six months and the instruction permit expired not more

35 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Motorcycles and Ignition Interlocks

According to NHTSA, approximately 279,000 interlock devices were installed in the U.S. in 2012. However, only about .1 to .2 percent of those interlock devices were installed on motorcycles. With 30 percent of the motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes having blood alcohol levels at or above the legal limit (.08 g/dL or higher) it is important to examine the feasibility of a wider use of interlock devices on motorcycles. Therefore, NHTSA funded a study to examine the use of interlock devices on motorcycles.

Three major interlock manufacturers agreed that motorcycle interlocks are technically feasible, but availability of interlock devices made for motorcycles is an issue. As of June 2017, only two manufacturers in the U.S. provide limited support for ignition interlocks on motorcycles. The oth-er manufacturers do not allow the installation of interlock devices on motorcycles. Further, no interlock devices are designed specifically for motorcycles.

Motorcycles present several difficulties for interlock device installation including lack of secure storage, lack of protection from inclement weather, heavy vibration while driving a motorcycle, danger of retesting while driving, installation difficulties and battery usage. These issues make it more difficult to install an interlock device on motorcycles, keep the device running without kill-ing the battery of the motorcycle and safely perform retests while driving, which interlock devic-es may require.

Though an interlock system specifically for motorcycles does not exist at this time, it does appear that the issues can be overcome, eventually allowing these devices to be used on motorcycles more often as appropriate.

than 30 days before the application for a motorcycle driver’s license.

A second piece of 2017 legislation passed in Oregon changes the law of vehicular assault to include a per-son who, while recklessly operating a vehicle on the highway, comes into contact with a person operating a motorcycle, a passenger on a motorcycle, or a pedestrian.

Additionally, New York now includes a mandatory “Motorcycle Safety” awareness education component to its pre-licensing course. Therefore, Motorcycle Safety is now a prerequisite for obtaining a license to op-erate a motor vehicle in New York.

Motorcycle Operation and Equipment In 2017, Montana passed legislation applying to the operation of a motorcycle or quadricycle when the motorcycle is being operated on a paved highway. Montana law now states that if a motorcycle is oper-ated on an unpaved highway, the driver shall operate the motorcycle or quadricycle in a reasonable and prudent manner. Further a child who is at least 12 years of age may now operate a motorcycle or quadri-cycle on unpaved roads or highways. The individual must, however, be accompanied by an adult and the motorcycle or quadricycle must be operated in a reasonable and prudent manner.

In 2017, two states, Maryland and New Hampshire, passed legislation addressing regulations dealing with motorcycle handlebars. Maryland changed the maximum height of handlebars from 15 inches to 20 inch-es in height above the seat occupied by the driver of the motorcycle. New Hampshire removed the height restriction of handlebars and now prohibits the handlebars of a motorcycle to be improvised, defective or repaired.

Four states addressed motorcycle lighting requirements in 2017: Delaware, Kentucky, New Hampshire and Oklahoma.

Delaware amended its statute regarding LED ground effect lighting equipment on motorcycles. Delaware

Autocycles States continue to enact legislation defining “autocycles” and developing safety and equipment requirements necessary to operate these vehicles. In 2017, 11 states enacted legislation pertaining to autocycles: Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Ten of these states— Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming, created or refined their autocycle statutory definition in 2017. For instance, New Mexico now defines an au-tocycle as “a three-wheeled motorcycle on which the driver and all passengers ride in a completely or partially enclosed seat-ing area and that is manufactured to comply with all applicable federal standards, regulation and laws and is equipped with: (1) non-straddle seating; (2) rollover protection; (3) safety belts for all occupants; (4) antilock brakes; (5) a steering wheel and (6) pedals.”

Most 2017 laws defining an autocycle included similar equipment requirements. Indiana, however, did create a provision in 2017 exempting autocycles manufactured before July 1, 2015, from the antilock brakes requirement. There are now a total of 37 states across the nation that have statutorily defined “autocycle.”

Figure 2. States that have Statutorily Defned “Autocycle”

HI

ID

MT

WY

ND

SD

NM

NE

OK

IA

KS

TX

WI

MO

LA

IL

AR

KY

MS

IN

TN

MI

AL

OH

NC

FL

GA

SC

DC

MA

CT

NHVTAK

WA

OR

CA

NV

UT

CO

AZ

MN

WV VA

PA

NY

NJ

MD

DE

RI

ME

States that have statutorily defned “autocycles”

In 2017, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Oregon, West Virginia and Wyoming joined 31 other states— Alabama, Arizona, Arkan-sas (drivers over the age of 18), California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Okla-homa, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia—that do not require a motorcycle en-dorsement on the driver’s license to operate an autocycle.

Though most states require seatbelts in autocycles, other autocycle safety requirements vary across the U.S. For instance, starting in 2017, Hawaii now requires drivers to wear eye protection if there is no front windshield in the autocycle. On the other hand, Kentucky and West Virginia passed 2017 legislation exempting operators of autocycles from wearing protective headgear. In 2017, Arkansas looked at protections in autocycles for children. Arkansas now requires an autocycle to have a fully-enclosed metal or metal-enforced cab with glass and mirrors made with safety glass before a child is allowed to ride in the autocycle. Arkansas further requires that this type of cab, glass and mirrors must be in place for the operator of the auto-cycle to be exempt from wearing protective headwear and eyewear.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 36

37 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

now requires that if a person operates a motorcycle equipped with LED ground effect lighting that the light must be a non-flashing amber or white light.

Kentucky now prohibits blue lights affixed to a motor vehicle; however, this kind of light on a motorcycle is not prohibited as long as it is not affixed to the front of the motorcycle. A motor vehicle, motorcycle, or moped shall only have headlamps that meet the US Department of Transportation regulations including nonhalogen headlamps that have a slight blue tint. A motorcycle shall not be retrofitted with a headlamp cover or film that changes the light color to anything other than white and any visible front light shall only be white or amber.

As of 2017, New Hampshire allows any headlamp color approved by the director for motor vehicles to be considered approved for motorcycles.

Oklahoma now allows a motorcycle to be equipped with, or an operator of a motorcycle to use, standard bulb running lights or light-emitting diode pods and strips. This lighting, however, must be nonblinking, nonflashing, nonoscillating and directed toward the engine and the drive train of the motorcycle.

School Bus Safety School buses transport more than 25 million children to and from school each year, according to the American School Bus Council. Buses travel approximately 5.7 billion miles annually and students are 70 times more likely to arrive at school alive when they take the bus according to the National Highway Traf-fic Safety Administration (NHTSA). From 2007 to 2016, 281 school-age (18 and younger) children died in school-transportation-related crashes. 58 of those children were in school transportation vehicles.

As an update to 2016 school bus safety legislation, the report requested by the Louisiana legislature in 2016 to “study and make recommendations regarding student transportation and school bus passenger safety” was released in February 2017. The report concluded that seat belts should not be mandated for school buses in the state but if they are, the legislature should appropriate funding to install three-point seat belts and to have a school bus attendant for every bus with seat belts. The report also recommended that driver education include information on state laws addressing when drivers must stop for school bus-es and that the use of passing cameras be encouraged to prevent illegal passing.

State Legislation State legislatures saw a significant amount of debate regarding school bus safety in 2017. States contin-ue to consider legislation that would increase the safety of passengers on school buses. Far and away, the most legislative activity this year relating to school bus safety involved seat belts on school buses. There was also a great deal of legislation regarding school bus passing laws.

Seat Belts on School Buses School buses are the safest form of transportation to school for children. NHTSA has mandated a num-ber of safety standards that must be met for school buses in order to ensure this remains the case. Those safety standards do not include a requirement that school buses have seat belts for the passengers on the bus.

In November 2016, six young students were killed in a school bus crash in Chattanooga, Tenn. The crash received a great deal of national media attention and resulted in increased legislative attention around the topic of seat belts on school buses. In most years, approximately 10 states consider legislation in some way addressing seat belts on school buses. This year, that number approached 30.

Tennessee considered a number of bills related to school bus safety in the 2017 legislative session follow-ing the crash, including some that would require seat belts on school buses but most of the bills were not enacted, with the exception of a school bus driver bill described on page 39.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 38

In 2017, Arkansas and Nevada joined California, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York and Texas as states that have passed some variation of a seat belt law for school buses.

The Arkansas law requires that school buses purchased on or after Jan. 1, 2018 be equipped with a pas-senger restraint system if the following occurs: a petition requesting seat belts on school buses is signed by at least 10 percent of a school district’s qualified electors and submitted to the district, then the dis-trict proposes an additional property tax to cover the cost of the seat belts, then the proposal is vot-ed on at the annual school election. The law requires that if a student rides on a bus with seat belts, the student must use the seat belts. It also allows a district to implement a disciplinary policy to enforce this requirement.

Nevada’s law requires that buses purchased after July 1, 2019 be equipped with three-point seat belts.

Texas has a law requiring that three-point seat belts be installed in school buses. However, that law was contingent on the legislature appropriating funds for the costs. This year, the legislature removed the lan-guage that tied the requirement to appropriations, thereby putting it into effect without funds being ap-propriated by the legislature. Buses that are model years 2018 or later must have seat belts unless the board of trustees for the school district determines that the district’s budget does not allow it to purchase a bus equipped with seat belts.

New Hampshire enacted legislation establishing a committee to study requiring passengers on school buses to wear seat belts.

Illegal Passing of School Buses A school bus stopped with lights flashing indicates students are getting on or off of the bus. Boarding and exiting the bus put students most at risk of injury or death because drivers may ignore or don’t under-stand laws requiring them to stop for school buses.

An annual survey of school bus drivers organized by the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services is charged with collecting first-hand information to help understand the preva-lence of illegally passing school buses. In 2017, more than 104,000 school bus drivers observed 77,972 vehicles illegally passing school buses in a single day. At that rate, more than 14 million violations would occur in a school year. From 2006-2015, 102 pedestrians under 18 were killed in school-transportation re-lated crashes.

Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming have laws allowing the use of cameras on school bus stop-arms in order to capture images of motorists that illegally pass stopped school buses. The laws in Arkansas and Utah were enacted this year. A number of other states considered legislation on school bus cameras this year, including Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas, but none of those bills were enacted.

The new Arkansas law allows the use of automated school bus safety cameras by public school districts or open enrollment public charter schools. Utah’s legislation allows the use of school bus passing cameras by a school district or private school. The law specifies that 20 percent of any fine collected for a violation is to be used to offset the cost of the operation of the cameras.

North Carolina passed legislation allowing the use of images captured by passing cameras to be used for civil violations. Before the enactment of this legislation, images captured by the cameras could only be used for criminal proceedings. The civil penalty for passing is set at $400 for the first offense, $750 for the second and $1,000 for each subsequent violation.

Florida passed legislation to allow a court to mandate a driver who causes serious bodily injury or death when passing a stopped school bus to serve 120 hours of community service in a trauma center or hos-pital that regularly treats victims of vehicle crashes and to participate in a victim’s impact panel or attend a driver improvement course relating to the rights of vulnerable road users. It also sets the penalty at

39 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Figure 3. School Bus Safety

AK

ID

MT

WY

ND

SD

NM

NE

OK

IA

KS

TX

WI

MO

IL

AR

KY

IN

TN

MI

OH

NC SC

DC

PA NJ

LA MS AL

FL

GA

WA MA

CT

NHVT

OR

CA

NV

UT

CO

AZ

MN

WV VA

NY

MD

DE

RI

ME

HI

Allows stop-arm cameras

Requires seat belts on large school buses

Both laws in place AS GU MP PR VI

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services and the National Conference of State Legislatures 2017

$1,500 for causing serious bodily injury or death by illegally passing a school bus and increases it to a six point offense.

Illinois’ new law requires the revocation of a driver’s license when someone illegally passes a school bus and the violation leads to a motor vehicle crash resulting in death. Maryland increased the penalty for il-legally passing a school bus from $250 to $500. The law also requires that Montgomery County report to the legislature the number of violations recorded by school bus monitoring cameras after the effective date of the new penalty legislation.

South Dakota modified the school bus passing law to require that vehicles on a road with less than two lanes slow to no more than 15 miles per hour to pass a school bus that has its amber warning lights flash-ing and must stop if the bus has its red signal lights flashing. If the road has more than two lanes in each direction and the bus is traveling the opposite direction, the vehicle operator does not need to slow or stop.

School Bus Drivers States also debated legislation addressing the training, licensing and behaviors of school bus drivers. Ten-nessee enacted legislation requiring that new school bus drivers complete a training program and that they be at least 25 years old. The driver in the fatal Chattanooga crash was 24 years old at the time.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 40

   

 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities both increased again in 2016 on the heels of increases in 2015 as well. According to the most recent data from NHTSA, the deaths were the most in a year since 1990 for pedes-trians and 1991 for bicyclists.

Pedestrian deaths increased by 9 percent between 2015 and 2016; this was the largest increase for any group and came on top of a 9.5 percent increase between 2014 and 2015. It’s important to note that overall traffic fatalities increased 5.6 percent between 2015 and 2016. Nearly 6,000 (5,987) Americans lost their lives while walking in 2016; 48 percent of these deaths involved alcohol use by the driver and/or pedestrian.

Bicyclist fatalities increased more slowly, but still reached an almost 30-year peak. NHTSA’s latest statistics show there were 840 bicyclist traffic deaths in 2016, compared to 829 in 2015, an increase of 1.3 percent. The proportion of traffic fatalities that are nonoccupants (which includes pedestrians and bicyclists) has increased from 13 percent of traffic deaths in 2007 to 18 percent in 2016. This dynamic is likely a combi-nation of a few factors, including increased trips by foot and bike, improvements in vehicle safety leading to decreases or smaller increases in motor vehicle deaths and a resurgence of vehicle miles traveled by motorists.

The percentage of fatally injured pedestrians that had any amount of alcohol in their system stayed rela-tively static at 39 percent in 2016 as compared to 40 percent in 2015. 33 percent of pedestrians and 22 percent of bicyclists killed in 2016 (over age 16) had a BAC of .08 or higher.

State Legislation 2017 was a fairly active year for new laws regarding bicyclist and pedestrian safety. These included laws regarding: “Idaho Stops,” safe bicycle passing, the creation and expansion of trails and bicyclist safety task forces, pedestrian safety, vulnerable users and school safety.

Idaho Stop Law Probably the most newsworthy piece of legislation related to bicycling enacted in 2017 was Delaware’s adoption of a limited “Idaho Stop” law. Delaware became the second state to enable bicyclists to yield, not stop, at stop signs, when Governor John Carney signed House Bill 185 into law. Such a rolling stop is known as an “Idaho Stop,” as Idaho has allowed bicyclists to roll through stop signs since 1982 as long as they yield the right of way as necessary.

Notably, Idaho’s law was amended in 2005 to also allow bicyclists to fully stop, yield to any oncoming traf-fic and then proceed through a stoplight as well. However, Delaware’s new law only applies to stop signs and only on roads with two or fewer traffic lanes.

Bicyclist advocates typically, but not universally, support Idaho Stop laws as a way to legalize typical riding behavior and reduce the arduous task of stopping and then restarting and regaining momentum when riding. They also tout the 35-year track record in Idaho with no difference in overall bike crash trends. Bi-cycling injuries in Idaho actually declined 14.5 percent the year after the law was changed and there have been no negative safety impacts documented since. Many cyclists already utilize an Idaho Stop when cy-cling. A recent study from DePaul University observed riders in the Chicago area and found that only 1-in-25 cyclists came to a complete stop.

However, those opposed to Idaho Stops dispute the safety claims and claim an Idaho Stop leads to more unsafe situations and unfairly advantages bicyclists at the expense of other road users. In many instanc-es, law enforcement is opposed to Idaho Stops, but, notably, the Delaware State Police supported the bill, with some revisions and amendments.

Idaho Stops have been slow to gain traction, with only a few local governments in Colorado adopting sim-ilar ordinances. However, 2017 saw comparatively a lot of action on this front at statehouses, with Arkan-

41 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

 

 

sas, California, Colorado and Oklahoma all debating such measures. California’s bill, AB 1103, is still active, although it has since been amended to be a pilot program for three municipalities that opt-in. Colorado’s bill, SB 93, successfully passed the House and was stopped short of the full Senate by a 3-2 vote in the Senate Transportation committee.

Safe Bicycle Passing Illinois revised its safe bicycle passing law to clarify that a driver may pass a bicyclist in a no-passing zone, provided: the bicyclist is travelling at less than half the posted speed; the driver is able to pass without ex-ceeding the speed limit and there is sufficient distance to the left of the centerline for the motor vehicle to overtake and pass the bicyclist.

No states created new safe passing laws in 2017. Pennsylvania has a 4-foot passing law and South Dako-ta’s two-tiered passing law includes a 3-foot passing requirement on roads with posted speeds of 35 mph or less and a minimum of 6 feet separation for roads with speed limits greater than 35 mph. There are still 27 states with 3-foot passing laws, while North Carolina has a 2-foot passing requirement for motorists and also allows passing in a no-pass zone if a motorist leaves 4-foot clearance.

Trails and Bicyclist Safety Task Forces Four states—Indiana, Maryland, Montana and Washington—took steps to strengthen their trail systems and increase safety for bicyclists by establishing study committees or task forces in 2017.

Indiana established a bicycle trails task force to develop actionable concepts to connect existing bicy-cle trails throughout Indiana. The task force must then: estimate the costs; present at least six innovative ways to fund the needed bicycle trail connections and prepare a timeline for completion of the connec-tions for each funding mechanism. The task force also shall recommend changes to Indiana law to in-crease bicycle safety on trails and roadways. The task force must submit a report to the legislative council and governor by July 1, 2019.

2017 State Electric Bicycle Laws As electric bicycles (e-bikes) become more common in the U.S, state legislatures continue to enact legisla-tion that regulates e-bike equipment and their operations on trails and roadways. The states of Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois and Michigan all enacted rather comprehensive e-bike legislation in 2017, some of which tweaked existing e-bike law. These laws in part seek to differentiate between electric bicycles and motor-ized vehicles such as mopeds and scooters, set standards for e-bike top speeds and clear up where e-bikes can be operated and by whom. Meanwhile, Utah slightly amended its helmet requirements for e-bikes.

DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois and Michigan’s laws use virtually the same definition and classification struc-ture to define electric bicycles and their technical specifications. All of them defined an electric bicycle as a bicycle that has fully operable pedals and has an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts. Each state established a three-tiered electric bike classification system, joining California, Tennessee and Utah as the seven states with such a classification system. This system helps differentiate e-bikes with vary-ing speed and capabilities. Notably, Illinois’ law required Class 3 low-speed bicycles to be equipped with a speedometer.

Colorado’s new language is fairly representative of the approaches the four states took regarding their three-tiered classification structure:

Class 1 electrical assisted bicycle

Class 2 electrical assisted bicycle

Class 3 electrical assisted bicycle

A bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is ped-aling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches 20 mph.

A bicycle equipped with a motor that propels the bicycle with or without pedaling and ceases to provide power when the bicycle reaches 20 mph.

A bicycle that provides power only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to assist when the rider reaches 28 mph.

The 2017 laws were also fairly similar in the manner in which they granted authority to local municipali-ties and their jurisdictional regulatory agencies to permit or deny where electric bicycles can be operated. In general, states are moving more towards an opt-out model where class 1 and 2 e-bikes are allowed on paths and trails unless the local governing authority decides otherwise.

Arkansas and Colorado allow the operation of class 1 and 2 e-bikes on paths unless the local authority ex-pressly prohibits electric bicycles on these paths. However, both states deign that a class 3 e-bike may not be operated on a path unless it is adjacent to a highway or roadway, or the local authority must expressly authorize the operation of a class three e-bike on such a path.

Illinois’ legislation does not single out class 3 e-bikes as needing special opt-in approval from local govern-ments for path operations, it rather allows the operation of all classes of e-bikes on paths unless the local authorities prohibit their use or the use of a specific e-bike class.

Michigan’s law goes into further detail with regards to e-bikes’ operation on paths. A class 1 electric bicy-cle can be operated on a linear trail with an asphalt, limestone or similar surface, or a rail trail, unless the local authority prohibits class 1 electric bicycle on that trail.

An individual may operate a class 2 or class 3 electric bicycle on a linear trail that has an asphalt, crushed limestone, or similar surface, or a rail trail, but must first be granted permission via the local authority or

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 42

agency with jurisdiction over the trail. Similar front-end approval is needed from the local jurisdiction for an e-bike to operate on trails designated as non-motorized or containing natural surfaces. The new Mich-igan laws also disallow operation of an e-bike within Mackinac Island State Park, unless the proper permit is obtained or the Mackinac Island State Park Commission authorizes their operation.

EQUIPMENT AND LABELING REQUIREMENTS

Another commonality among the four states’ laws is their requirement for permanently affixed labels dis-playing the wattage, top-assisted speed and classifications of the electric bicycles. All four states also for-bid users from modifying their bikes without affixing a new label that displays the new specifications and classification tier of the electric bicycle.

HELMET AND AGE REQUIREMENTS

Among the new 2017 e-bike laws, there is a bit of variance in terms of helmet requirements while operat-ing an electric bicycle, as well as minimum ages to operate an e-bike. The age and helmet requirements of each bill are explicitly stated and applied to class 3 bicycles only.

The state of Arkansas now requires anyone under 21 operating a class 3 electric bicycle to wear a properly fitted helmet that meets or exceeds the safety standards for a standard bicycle helmet. Both Colorado and Michigan mandate helmet use for anyone under the age of 18 operating a class 3 e-bike. Illinois however, did not enact any helmet requirements.

Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois and Michigan did put in place age restrictions in order to operate a class 3 electric bicycle. Michigan has the youngest permitted age for class 3 electric bicycle operators at 14. Ar-kansas, Colorado and Illinois all set their limits for the operation of a class 3 electric bicycle at 16. The age and helmet requirements of each bill are explicitly stated and applied to class 3 bicycles only. Utah refined its previously enacted e-bikes law by raising from age 18 to 21 the age at which a person must wear a hel-met while operating a class 3 e-bike.

43 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Maryland established the Task Force to Study Bicycle Safety on Maryland Highways. The bill lays out the membership of the task force, which must include two members of the Maryland Senate and House re-spectively that are appointed by presiding leadership, as well as transportation, bicycling and law enforce-ment stakeholders. The task force must study and make recommendations to the General Assembly and the Governor. Study topics include: the appropriate operation of bicycles on highways and of motor ve-hicles in relation to bicycles on highways; past, current and future implementation of Complete Streets strategies; public education and outreach related to the operation of bicycles on highways in Mary-land; potential funding sources to support and encourage the safe operation of bicycles and the effects of bike lanes, bike paths and protected cycle tracks on street parking and pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow; amongst other topics.

Montana created an optional $5 fee on light vehicles to fund maintenance and repair of shared use paths. 20 percent of the total must be allocated to the Department of Transportation to be used for bicycle and pedestrian education. The remaining 80 percent is for maintenance and repair of shared-use paths. Addi-tionally, the bill stipulates the department must maintain an inventory of all shared-use paths located in the right-of-way of each state-maintained federal-aid highway in Montana, as well as maintain a plan for maintenance and repair of all the shared-use paths.

In Washington, the legislature tasked the previously established Cooper Jones Bicyclists Safety Advisory Council with reviewing best practices to reduce and eventually eliminate bicycle-related injuries and fa-talities and work towards Washington state’s adoption of Target Zero. By Dec. 31 of each year, the council must issue an annual report detailing any findings and recommendations to the governor and the trans-portation committees of the legislature.

Pedestrian Safety A few states enacted measures regarding pedestrian safety in 2017. In Idaho, the legislature added chil-dren pedestrian safety as one of the categories eligible for funding through the strategic initiatives pro-gram, which serves the purpose of funding transportation projects that are proposed by the departments six districts and local units of government.

California changed its law to allow a pedestrian to cross a signalized intersection if the “Don’t Walk” or “Wait” signal is flashing, as long as they complete their crossing before a steady “Don’t Walk” or “Wait” signal is displayed.

The New York Legislature directed New York City’s Department of Transportation to study and report on its current and planned efforts to educate pedestrians and drivers relating to being distracted while us-ing a mobile device. The report must contain recommendations on how to prevent motor vehicle crash-es that involve pedestrians using a mobile device and be submitted to the legislature, mayor of New York City and New York’s governor.

Illinois amended its Pedestrians with Disabilities Safety Act to clarify that walking, running, or bicycle paths are included in the type of infrastructure people with disabilities may be travelling upon.

Vulnerable users Delaware established the offense of operation of a vehicle causing serious physical injury to a vulnera-ble user. This offense applies if someone engages in careless or inattentive driving and seriously injures someone defined as a vulnerable user, which includes pedestrians, workers in a work zone, bicyclists and motorcyclists, among others. The offense results in a fine of $550, license suspension for up to one year, a requirement to complete a traffic safety course and a requirement for between 10 and 100 hours of com-munity service. The court may suspend the fine and license suspension and dismiss them if the other re-quirements are successfully completed.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 44

School Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety A few states took steps to study and address school pedestrian and bicyclist safety in 2017 with enacted legislation.

The Florida legislature directed the Florida Department of Transportation to evaluate the viability and cost of a uniform system of high-visibility markings and signage for designation of safe school crossing on cer-tain roads within a mile radius of schools, in order to designate safe school crossing locations. The DOT can consider new technology or innovations that enhance pedestri-an and crosswalk visibility and must have reported their findings and any safe school crossing legislative recommendations to the gover-nor, Senate president and speaker of the House by Jan. 1, 2018. A new Maine law clarifes The report recommended a “tiered” approach, given the large that a motor vehicle operator amount of school crossings (over 200,000) within one mile of a must obey a hand signalschool in the state. Tier 1 recommendations involve evaluating exist- or handheld trafc control ing crosswalks to ensure compliance with visibility standards for sig-nage and pavement markings, as many of the crosswalks in the state device of a school crossing suffer from wear diluting their visibility and signage is not always guard and can be charged standardized. Tier 2 recommendations focus on potentially devel- with a trafc infraction oping new statewide standards for roads that are not under Florida otherwise. However, a school DOT’s purview. Tier 3 recommendations involve studying and per-haps implementing new and innovative crosswalk features and coor- crossing guard cannot dinating with the statewide Traffic Engineering Research Laboratory. contradict or override a In Maine, the legislature added detail regarding school crossing lighted trafc control device guard requirements. A guard may direct traffic if they are 18 years or pedestrian control device. of age or older, are working under the control of a local law enforce-ment entity, have completed the required training, are wearing the appropriate uniform and are directing traffic at a marked crosswalk. The new law also clarifies that a motor vehicle operator must obey a hand signal or handheld traffic control device of a school crossing guard and can be charged with a traffic infraction otherwise. However, a school crossing guard cannot contradict or override a lighted traffic con-trol device or pedestrian control device.

Slow and Medium Speed Vehicles State Legislation In 2017, at least 23 states considered legislation related to slow- and medium-speed vehicles. Out of those 23 bills, 11 states enacted 14 pieces of legislation. Of these, nine bills authorized the use and regulation of low- and medium-speed vehicles on public roads.

Golf Carts Six states—Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia—passed bills that addressed the operation of golf carts. Many of these bills expanded where golf carts can be operated. Some created and amended regulations regarding licensing and registration.

In Mississippi, three bills were enacted that authorized the use of golf carts in certain cities on public roads. Several other bills in Mississippi were introduced that would have allowed the use of golf carts on public roads in other select cities, however those bills did not pass.

Indiana now requires any person operating a golf cart on public roads to have a driver’s license or be at least 16 years and 180 days old and have an identification card. In Maryland, legislation created an excep-tion from registration requirements for golf carts in a certain community. Mississippi passed legislation re-

45 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 46

quiring individuals operating a golf cart on public roads in the city of Pascagoula to have either a valid driv-er’s license or temporary driver’s permit. South Dakota’s legislation requires a golf cart to be insured and the person operating the golf cart be licensed and in possession of a permit from the jurisdictional author-ity. The legislation also requires golf carts to display a slow-moving vehicle emblem. Texas authorized the use of golf carts as package delivery vehicles and specified vehicle regulations and requirements such as a $25 plate fee.

Mopeds The federal definition of motor vehicles does includes mopeds, so states should be mindful of this fact when updating moped related laws.

Five states passed bills that address the licensing, safety and insurance regulations surrounding the oper-ation of mopeds. Delaware and Maine passed laws that require any person under the age of 18 operat-ing or riding as a passenger on a moped to wear a helmet. South Carolina passed legislation that requires anyone under the age of 21 to wear a helmet while riding on or operating a moped.

Nevada’s legislation requires mopeds to be operated on the far right of the road unless making a left-hand turn. New Hampshire requires individuals operating mopeds to have either a valid driver’s license, a mo-torcycle license, or a restricted motorcycle license.

South Carolina now specifies that mopeds can be operated on public highways if the operator is 15 years of age or older and has a moped operator’s license. Individuals under 15 who are operating a mo-ped alone may only do so during daylight hours. If that individual is operating a moped during nighttime hours, they must either be a passenger or within a safe viewing distance of a licensed operator who is at least 21 years old. Mopeds are limited to speeds of 35 mph unless on a public highway where the speed is limited to 55 mph. The law requires biennial registration for mopeds which includes a $10 registration fee and exempts mopeds from ignition interlock requirements.

Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) Replaces the National Auto-motive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES) NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) redesigned the nationally repre-sentative sample of police-reported traffic crashes, which estimates the number of police-re-ported injury and property–damage-only crashes in the United States. The new system, called CRSS, replaced NASS GES in 2016. However, the 2016 estimates are not currently available. NHTSA is currently processing the file to ensure the data is accurate and complete and is finalizing the new weighting and calibration procedures to produce national estimates. Once completed, NHTSA will release the data and publish the estimated number of police-reported injury and property-damage-only crashes that occurred during 2016.

47 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Appendix A. National Highway Trafc Safety Administration Regional Ofces

New England Region (Region 1) (Conn., Maine, Mass., N.H., R.I., Vt.) Regional Administrator, NHTSA Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway Code RTV-8E Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone: (617) 494-3427 Fax: (617) 494-3646 Region1@dot.gov

Eastern Region (Region 2) (N.Y., N.J., Pa., P.R., V.I.) Regional Administrator, NHTSA 245 Main St., Suite 210 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 682-6162 Fax: (914) 682-6239 Region2@dot.gov

Mid-Atlantic Region (Region 3) (Del., D.C., Ky., Md., N.C. Va., W.Va.) Regional Administrator, NHTSA 10 S. Howard St., Suite 6700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 962-0066 Fax: (410) 962-2770 Region3@dot.gov

Southeast Region (Region 4) (Ala., Fla., Ga., S.C., Tenn.) Regional Administrator, NHTSA Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St., S.W., Suite 17T30 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 562-3743 Fax: (404) 562-3763 Region4@dot.gov

Great Lakes Region (Region 5) (Ill., Ind., Mich., Minn., Ohio, Wis.) Regional Administrator, NHTSA 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 300B Matteson, IL 60443-3800 Phone (708) 503-8822 Fax (708) 503-8991 Region5@dot.gov

South Central Region (Region 6) (La., Miss., N.M., Okla., Texas, Indian Nations) Regional Administrator, NHTSA 819 Taylor St., Room 8A38 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 978-3653 Fax: (817) 978-8339 Region6@dot.gov

Central Region (Region 7) (Ark., Iowa, Kan., Mo., Neb.) Regional Administrator, NHTSA 901 Locust St., Room 466 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (816) 329-3902 Fax: (816) 329-3910 Region7@dot.gov

Rocky Mountain Region (Region 8) (Colo., Nev., N.D., S.D., Utah, Wyo.) Regional Administrator, NHTSA 12300 West Dakota Ave., Suite 140 Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: (720) 963-3100 Fax: (720) 963-3124 Region8@dot.gov

Western Region (Region 9) (Ariz., Calif., Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands) Regional Administrator, NHTSA John E. Moss Federal Building 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-400 San Francisco, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 498-5058 Fax: (916)498-5047 Region9@dot.gov

Northwest Region (Region 10) (Alaska, Idaho, Mont., Ore., Wash.) Regional Administrator, NHTSA 3140 Jackson Federal Building 915 Second Ave., Suite 3140 Seattle, WA 98174 Phone: (206) 220-7645 Fax: (206) 220-7651 Region10@dot.gov

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 48

Appendix B Safety Belt Laws 2017

State/ Primary Jurisdiction Enforcement Who Is Covered? In What Seats? Maximum Fine First Offense?

Alabama Yes Ages 15+ in front seat $25

Alaska Yes Ages 16+ in all seats $15

Arizona No Ages 8+ in front seat; ages 8 through 15 in all seats

$10

Arkansas Yes Ages 15+ in front seat $251 (plus court costs and city/county jail fines)

California Yes Ages 16+ in all seats $20 ($20 fine + $142 in penalties and assessments)

Colorado No (primary for

occupants under age 18)

Ages 16+ in front seat $71

Connecticut Yes Ages 8+ in front seat Ages 18 and younger: $92 ($50 fine + $7 fee + $35 surcharge); ages 18+: $120 ($75 fine + $10 fee + $35 surcharge)

Delaware Yes Ages 16+ in all seats $25

Florida Yes Ages 6+ in front seat; ages 6 through 17 in all seats

$30

Georgia Yes Ages 8 through 17 in all seats; ages 18+ in front seat

$153

Hawaii Yes Ages 8+ in all seats $112 (including administrative fees)

Idaho No (primary for

drivers under age 18)

Ages 7+ in all seats $10 (drivers under 18 pay $51.50, includ-ing court costs)

Illinois Yes Ages 16+ in all seats $25 (plus court fees) Indiana Yes Ages 16+ in all seats $25

Iowa Yes Ages 18+ in front seat $127.50 (including court costs)

Kansas

Yes (secondary for rear seat

occupants young-er than age 18)

Ages 14+ in all seats; 18+ in front seat

Ages 14-17: $60; Ages 18+: $30

Kentucky Yes Ages 7 and younger and more than 57” in all seats; ages 8+ in all seats

$25

Louisiana Yes Ages 13+ in all seats $25

Maine Yes Ages 18+ in all seats $50

Maryland Yes

(secondary for rear seats)

Ages 16+ in all seats $83 (fine plus court costs)

Massachusetts No Ages 13+ in all seats $254

Michigan Yes Ages 16+ in front seat $25

Minnesota Yes Ages 7 and younger and more than 57” in all seats; ages 8+ in all seats

$25 (plus approx. $75 court fee)

49 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

State/ Primary Jurisdiction Enforcement Who Is Covered? In What Seats? Maximum Fine First Offense?

Mississippi Yes Ages 7+ and 57” or taller or 65 lbs. or more in all seats

$25

Missouri

No (primary for children

ages 16 and younger)

Ages 16+ in front seat

Ages 8 through 15 in all seats: $50; ages 16 and younger in front seats: $10

Montana No Ages 6+ in all seats $20

Nebraska No Ages 18+ in front seat $25

Nevada No Ages 6+ in all seats $25

New Hampshire No law No law No law

New Jersey

Yes (secondary for rear seat occu-

pants)

Ages 7 and younger and more than 57”; ages 8+ in all seats

$46 (including court costs)

New Mexico Yes Ages 18+ in all seats $252

New York Yes Ages 16+ in front seat $505

North Carolina

Yes (secondary for rear seat occu-

pants)

Ages 16+ in all seats

$25 + $135.50 in court costs; $10 + no court costs for rear seats

North Dakota No Ages 7 and younger and less than 57” in all seats; Ages 18+ in front seat.

$20

Ohio No Ages 8 through 14 in all seats; ages 15+ in front seat

$30 driver; $20 passenger

Oklahoma Yes Ages 9+ in front seat $20

Oregon Yes Ages 16+ in all seats $130 ($115 effective 01/01/2018)

Pennsylvania No (primary

for ages 18 and younger)

Ages 8 through 17 in all seats; ages 18+ in front seat

$10

Rhode Island Yes Ages 18+ in all seats $40

South Carolina Yes6 Ages 6+ in all seats $25

South Dakota No Ages 18+ in front seat $25

Tennessee Yes Ages 16+ in front seat $25

Texas Yes Ages 7 and younger and more than 57”; ages 8+ in all seats

Ages 15 and older or passenger: $50; ages 16 and younger: $200 driver

Utah Yes Ages 7 and younger and less than 57’’ in all seats; Ages 8+ in all seats.

$457

Vermont No Ages 18+ in all seats $25

Virginia No Ages 18+ in front seat $25

Washington Yes Ages 16+ in all seats $124

West Virginia Yes Ages 8+ in front seat; ages 8 through 17 in all seats

$25

Wisconsin Yes Ages 8+ in all seats $10

Wyoming No Ages 9+ in all seats $258 driver; $10 passenger

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 50

State/ Primary Jurisdiction Enforcement Who Is Covered? In What Seats? Maximum Fine First Offense?

District of Columbia Yes Ages 16+ in all seats $502

Puerto Rico Yes Ages 9+ or children taller than 57” $50

U.S. Virgin Islands Yes All ages in front seat $25-$250

Notes: 1 Arkansas rewards belt use by reducing the fine for the primary violation by $10.2 This jurisdiction assesses points for violations. 3 In Georgia, the maximum fine is $25 if the child is between the ages of 6 and 18. 4 Drivers in Massachusetts can be fined $25 for violating the belt law themselves and $25 for each

unrestrained passenger age 12 to 16. 5 New York assesses points only when the violation involves a child under age 16. 6 Police are prohibited in South Carolina from enforcing safety belt laws at checkpoints not designed for that purpose. However, safety

belt violations may be issued at license and registration checkpoints to drivers cited for other offenses. 7 Utah will waive the fine for the first violation if the person submits proof of acquisition, rental, or purchase of a child restraint device. 8 Wyoming rewards belt use by reducing the fine for the primary violation by $10.

Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2016; Governors Highway Safety Association, 2017.

51 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Appendix C State Laws on Child Restraint Use 2016

Maximum State/ Fine Jurisdiction Must Be in Child Restraint Adult Safety Belt Permissible First Offense

Younger than age 1 or less than 20 pounds must be in a rear-facing infant seat; ages 1 through 4 or 20-40 pounds in a forward-facing child restraint; age 5 but not yet age 6 in a booster seat

$251

Children younger than age 1 or who weigh less than 20 pounds in a rear-facing infant seat; ages 1 through 3 and 20 pounds or more in a child restraint; ages 4 through 8 who are shorter than 57” and who weigh more than 20 pounds but less than 65 pounds in a booster seat or child safety seat.

$501

Ages 4 and younger; ages 5 through 7 who are 57” or shorter must use a booster seat

Ages 5 through 7 who are taller than 57”; up to age 16; law states no preference for rear seat

$50

Ages 5 and younger and less than 60 pounds Ages 6 through 14 or 60+ pounds; law states no preference for rear seat $100

Younger than age 2, less than 40 pounds, or shorter than 40” in a rear-facing infant seat; ages 7 and younger who are less than 57”2

$1001

Younger than age 1 and less than 20 pounds in a rear-facing infant seat; ages 1 through 3 and 20-40 pounds in a child safety seat; ages 4 through 7 in a forward-facing car seat or booster seat.

$81

Younger than age 2 and less than 30 pounds in rear-facing restraint; ages 2 through 4 or weighing less than 40 pounds in a rear- or forward-facing child restraint system; ages 5 through 7 or weighs between 40 and 60 pounds in a child restraint system

$923

Ages 7 and younger and less than 66 pounds4

Ages 8 through 15 or weighs at least 65 pounds; 4 children ages 11 and younger or 65” or less must be in rear seat if passenger airbag is active

$25

Ages 5 and younger Ages 6 through 17;5 law states no preference for rear seat $601

Ages 7 and younger or 57” or shorter Age 8 and above or taller than 57”; children age 7 and younger must be in rear seat if available6

$501

Ages 3 and younger in a child safety seat; ages 4 through 7 must be in a booster seat or child restraint

Ages 8 and above; ages 4 through 7 who are taller than 57”; ages 4 through 7 who are at least 40 pounds seated in a rear seat where, if there are no available lap/shoulder belts, they can be restrained by a lap belt

$1007

Alabama14

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas14

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Ages 6 through 14; law states no preference for rear seat

Ages 4 through 7 who are at least 57” and 65+ pounds; ages 8 through 15 who are shorter than 57” and weigh less than 65 pounds; law states no preference for rear seat

Ages 8 through 15 or at least 57”; ages 7 and younger who are less than 57” must be in rear seat

Ages 8 through 15; children under age 1 and less than 20 pounds must be in rear seat if available

Ages 8 and older and weighing at least 60 pounds; all rear-facing child restraint systems shall be in the back seat if the vehicle has a functional passenger side air bag.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 52

Maximum State/ Fine Jurisdiction Must Be in Child Restraint Adult Safety Belt Permissible First Offense

Idaho Ages 6 and younger Ages 7 and up; law states no preference for rear seat $79

Illinois Ages 7 and younger

Ages 8 through 15; children who weigh more than 40 pounds may wear only a lap belt when seated in rear where a shoulder belt is not available; law states no preference for rear seat

$75 ($200 for subsequent offenses)

Indiana Ages 7 and younger8 Ages 8 through 15; law states no preference for rear seat $251

Iowa Younger than age 1 and less than 20 pounds in a rear-facing child restraint; ages 1 through 5 in a child restraint or booster

Ages 6 through 17; law states no preference for rear seat $100

Kansas

All children ages 3 and younger must be in a child restraint; children ages 4 through 7 who weigh less than 80 pounds and children ages 4 through 7 who are less than 57” must be in a child restraint or booster seat

All children ages 8 through 13; children ages 4 through 7 who weigh more than 80 pounds; children ages 4 through 7 who are taller than 57”; law states no preference for rear seat

$60

Kentucky

Children 40” or less must be in a child re-straint; children ages 7 and younger who are between 40” and 57” must be in a booster seat

Taller than 57”; law states no preference for rear seat

$50 child restraint; $30 booster seat

Louisiana

Younger than age 1 or less than 20 pounds in a rear-facing child safety seat; ages 1 through 3 or 20-40 pounds in a forward-facing safety seat; ages 4 through 5 or 40-60 pounds in a child booster seat

Ages 6 through 12 or more than 60 pounds; younger than age 6 or less than 60 pounds must sit in the rear seat if the passenger side front airbag is active.

$100

Maine Less than 40 pounds in a child safety seat; 40-80 pounds and younger than age 8 in a child restraint or booster seat

Ages 8 through 17 or younger than age 18 and more than 57”; ages 11 and younger and less than 100 pounds must be in rear seat if available

$50 ($250 for subsequent offenses)

Maryland Ages 7 and younger and less than 57” Ages 8 through 15; children who are at least 57”; law states no preference for rear seat $50

Massachusetts Ages 7 and younger and less than 57” Ages 8 through 12; children who are at least 57”; law states no preference for rear seat $25

Michigan Ages 7 and younger and less than 57” Ages 8 through 15 or children who are at least 57”; ages 3 and younger must be in the rear seat if available

$10 if child is age 4 or younger; $25 if child is be-tween ages 4 through 8 and under 4’9”

Minnesota Ages 7 and younger and less than 57” Not permissible $50

Mississippi14

Ages 3 and younger must be in a child re-straint; ages 4 through 6 and either less than 57” or weighs less than 65 pounds must be in a booster seat

Ages 6 and older who weigh 65 pounds or more or are at least 57”; law states no pref-erence for rear seat

$25

53 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Maximum State/ Fine Jurisdiction Must Be in Child Restraint Adult Safety Belt Permissible First Offense

Missouri

Ages 3 and younger must be in child re-straint; all children who weigh less than 40 pounds must be in a child restraint; ages 4 through 7 who weigh at least 40 pounds but less than 80 pounds and who are shorter than 57” must be in either a child restraint or booster seat

All children who weigh 80 pounds or more or are taller than 57”; all children who weigh 80 pounds or more or who are taller than 57"; a child who would otherwise be required to be in a booster seat may ride in the back seat of a vehicle while wearing only a lap belt if the back seat of the vehicle is not equipped with a combination lap and shoulder belt for booster seat installation

$50; $10 for violations involving children taller than 57" or who weigh more than 80 pounds

Montana Ages 5 and younger and less than 60 pounds Not permissible; law states no preference for rear seat $100

Nebraska Ages 5 and younger Ages 6 through 17;9 law states no preference for rear seat $251

Nevada Ages 5 and younger and 60 pounds or less Not permissible; law states no preference for rear seat

$50010 ($100 minimum)

New Hampshire Ages 6 and younger and less than 57” Ages 7 through 17; ages 7 and younger who are at least 57”; law states no preference for rear seat

$50

New Jersey

Younger than age 2 and less than 30 pounds in a rear-facing child restraint; ages 3 and younger who are less than 40 pounds in a rear-facing child seat until the child outgrows the manufacturer’s maximum height or weight recommendations or in a forward-facing child safety seat; ages 7 and younger and less than 57”, seated in for-ward-facing child seat until child outgrows the manufacturer’s maximum height or weight recommendations or a booster seat

Not permissible; children ages 7 and younger who are less than 57” must be in the rear seat if available; no child shall be secured in a rear-facing child restraint in the front seat of any vehicle that is equipped with an active passenger-side airbag

$75

New Mexico

Younger than age 1 in a rear-facing infant seat, seated in the rear seat if available; chil-dren ages 1 through 4 or less than 40 pounds in a child safety seat; ages 5 through 6 or less than 60 pounds in booster seat

Ages 7 through 17 $25

New York

Ages 4 and younger and weighing under 40 pounds need to be in a child restraint; if a child 7 or younger weighs more than 40 pounds and is seated where there is no avail-able lap/shoulder belt, the child may wear a lap safety belt

Ages 8 through 15; law states no preference for rear seat $1001

North Carolina Ages 7 and younger and less than 80 pounds

Ages 8 through 15 and children 40-80 pounds in seats without shoulder belts; children ages 4 and younger who weigh less than 40 pounds must be in the rear seat unless the front passenger-side airbag is de-activated or the child safety seat is designed for use with airbags

$251 ($188 court fees)

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 54

Maximum State/ Fine Jurisdiction Must Be in Child Restraint Adult Safety Belt Permissible First Offense

Ages 7 and younger and less than 57” Ages 8 through 17; ages 7 and younger and at least 57” tall; law states no preference for rear seat

$251

$751

$50 (maxi-mum $207.90 with court fees)

$110

$75

$85; $40 for children be-tween ages 8 through 17

$150

Ages 4 and younger and less than 40 pounds Ages 5 through 17; all children who weigh more than 40 pounds regardless of age; law states no preference for rear seat

$25

$50

North Dakota

Ages 3 and younger or less than 40 pounds in child restraint; ages 4 through 7 who are Ages 8 through 14;11 law states no prefer-Ohio14

shorter than 57” must be in booster seat or ence for rear seat child restraint Children ages 3 and younger in a child restraint; ages 4 through 7 and less than 57” need to be in a child restraint or boost- Age 8 years and older; children who are

Oklahoma14 er seat;12 child restraint systems shall be taller than 57”; law states no preference for rear-facing until age 2 or until the child rear seat reaches the height or weight limit of the system. Children age 1 or younger must be in a rear-facing child safety seat; child who weighs less than 40 pounds must be in a Ages 8 and above children taller than 57"; Oregon child restraint; child who weighs more than law states no preference for rear seat 40 pounds and is 57” or shorter must be in booster seat Younger than 2 years in a rear-facing child restraint until child outgrows manufacturer’s top height or weight recommendations; Ages 8 through 17; law states no preference Pennsylvania children ages 2 through 3 years must be in for rear seat a forward-facing child safety seat; ages 4 through 7 must be in a booster seat Ages 7 and younger and less than 57” and Ages 8 through 17; ages 7 and younger who less than 80 pounds; children 1 and younger either weigh more than 80 pounds or who Rhode Island or less than 30 pounds must be in a rear-fac- are taller than 57”; children age 7 and young-ing child restraint. er must be in rear seat if available

Ages 1 and younger must be in a rear-fac-ing child passenger restraint system in rear passenger seat of vehicle. A child at least age 2, or a child under 2 who has outgrown his Ages 8 and older or 57” or taller; children rear-facing child passenger restraint system, South Carolina ages 4 and younger must be in rear seat if must be in a forward-facing child passen- available ger restraint system; ages 4 through 7 who outgrow forward-facing child restraint must be in a belt positioning booster using lap/ shoulder belts

South Dakota

Younger than age 1 or weighing 20 pounds Ages 9 through 15; children age 8 and or less must be in a rear-facing child seat; younger and less than 57” must be in a rear ages 1 through 3 who weigh more than 20 Tennessee seat if available; ages 9 through 12 or a child pounds must be restrained in a forward-fac- through age 12 and 57” or taller are encour-ing child seat; ages 4 through 8 and less than aged to be seated in rear seat, if available. 57" in a booster seat

55 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Maximum State/ Fine Jurisdiction Must Be in Child Restraint Adult Safety Belt Permissible First Offense

Ages 7 and younger and less than 57” Ages 8 through 16 or 57” or taller; law states no preference for rear seat

$25 minimum (maximum unlisted)

Ages 7 and younger and shorter than 57” Ages 8 and older; children 57” or taller; law states no preference for rear seat $45

$25

$50

$124

$20

$75

$50

$751

$100

$75-$500

Texas

Utah

Younger than age 1 or less than 20 pounds Ages 8 through 17; children age 1 and in a rear-facing child restraint seat; ages 1 younger or less than 20 pounds must be in Vermont through 7 and more than 20 pounds in child rear seat unless the front passenger-side restraint airbag is deactivated

Ages 8 through 17;13 children in a rear-facing child restraint must be in a rear seat if avail-

Virginia Ages 7 and younger

Ages 7 and younger and shorter than 57”

Ages 7 and younger and shorter than 57”

able; if not available, they may be placed in front seat only if front passenger airbag is deactivated

Ages 8 through 15; ages 7 and younger and 57” or taller; children who weigh more than

Washington 40 pounds in a seating position where only a lap belt is available; ages 12 and younger must be in rear seat if practical Ages 8 through 17; Ages 7 and younger and

West Virginia 57” or taller; law states no preference for rear seat

Children younger than age 1 and all children who weigh less than 20 pounds must be in a rear-facing child safety seat; children ages 1 through 3 or who weigh at least 20 pounds Ages 8 and older; children weighing more but less than 40 pounds must be in a rear- or than 80 pounds or are 57" or taller; ages Wisconsin forward-facing child safety seat; children 3 and younger must be in a rear seat, if ages 4 through 7, weigh at least 40 pounds available but less than 80 pounds, and who are 57" tall or less must be in a child restraint or booster seat

Ages 8 and younger

Ages 7 and younger

Ages 3 and younger must be in a child safety seat; children ages 4 through 8 or less than 57” must be in a booster seat

Not permissible; ages 8 and younger must be Wyoming in rear seat, if available

District of Ages 8 through 15; law states no preference Columbia for rear seat

Ages 9 and older or 57” or taller; children Puerto Rico younger than age 12 must be in a rear seat,

if possible. Children up to 1 year of age or at least 20 pounds must be in a rear-facing child safety seat in the rear of the vehicle; children 1 through 4 years and at least 40 pounds must Children ages 14 and older; children 13 years U.S. Virgin be in a child restraint system; children who and younger shall always ride in the rear seat Islands have outgrown their forward-facing child of vehicles that are equipped with air bagssafety seats or children who are under age 8, between 40 and 80 pounds, and less than 57” tall must sit in a booster seat.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 56

Notes: 1. This state assesses points for violations. 2. In California, children weighing more than 40 pounds may be belted without a booster seat if they are seated in the rear seat of a

vehicle not equipped with lap/shoulder belts. The California rear seat requirement does not apply if: there is no rear seat; the rear seats are side-facing jump seats; the rear seats are rear-facing seats; the child passenger restraint system cannot be installed properly in the rear seat; all rear seats are already occupied by children under age 12; or medical reasons necessitate that the child not ride in the rear seat. A child may not ride in the front seat of a motor vehicle with an active passenger airbag if the child is riding in a rear-facing child restraint system.

3. The fine in Connecticut is $15 if the child is age 4 to 16 and 40 pounds or more. Connecticut also requires a child restraint education program for first or second violations.

4. In Delaware, children younger than age 12 or 65” or less must be restrained in a rear seat if a vehicle has a passenger airbag, unless the airbag either has been deactivated or designed to accommodate smaller people. Exceptions: If there is no rear seat or rear seat is occupied by other children younger than age 12 or 65” or less.

5. In Florida, the child restraint device requirement does not apply to children ages 4 through 5, when a safety belt is used and the child is either being transported by an operator who is not a member of the child’s immediate family, in an emergency or has a documented medical condition that necessitates an exception.

6. In Georgia, children weighing more than 40 pounds can be restrained in the back seat of a vehicle by a lap belt if the vehicle is not equipped with lap and shoulder belts or when the lap and shoulder belts are being used by other children who weigh more than 40 pounds

7. Hawaii drivers are charged $50 for a mandatory child restraint education program and $10 for a surcharge that is deposited into a neurotrauma special fund.

8. In Indiana, children weighing more than 40 pounds can be restrained by a lap belt if the vehicle is not equipped with lap and shoulder belts or if all lap and shoulder belts other than those in the front seat are being used to restrain other children who are younger than age 16.

9. Nebraska’s law is secondary for those children who may be in safety belts and standard for those who must be in a child restraint device.

10. In Nevada, the minimum fine is $100. An alternative to the fine is at least 10 hours but not more than 50 hours of community service. 11. In Ohio, the law is secondary for children ages 4 through 14. 12. In Oklahoma, children weighing more than 40 pounds can be restrained in the back seat of a vehicle by a lap belt if the vehicle is

not equipped with lap and shoulder belts or when the lap and shoulder belts are being used by other children who weigh more than 40 pounds

13. In Virginia, children at least age 4 but younger than age 8 may be belted if any licensed physician determines that use of a child restraint system by a particular child would be impractical by reason of the child’s weight, physical fitness or other medical reason, provided that any person transporting a child so exempted shall carry on his person or in the vehicle a signed written statement of the physician identifying the child so exempted and stating the grounds for the determination.

14. In Arkansas, Alabama and Ohio, 15-year-olds riding in the rear seat; in Mississippi, children ages 7 and older riding in the rear seat; and in Oklahoma, children ages 13 through 15 riding in the rear seat are not covered by either adult safety belt laws or child safety seat laws.

Sources: Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, AAA and NCSL, 2017.

57 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Appendix D Restrictions on Riding in Cargo Areas of Pickup Trucks

State/ Jurisdiction Restrictions in Cargo Areas Gaps in Coverage

Alabama No state law Alaska No state law Arizona No state law

Arkansas Law1 Employees on duty; those riding within truck bodies in a space intended for merchan-dise

California Law If the person is restrained by a federally approved restraint system; farmer-owned vehicle used exclusively within farming land or one mile of highway between one part to another; parade if not more than 8 mph; emergency situations

Colorado Law Those sitting in the cargo area if it is fully or partially enclosed on all four sides

Connecticut Law Anyone age 16 and older; anyone age 15 and younger if belted; parades; farming operations; hayrides August through December

Delaware No state law

Florida Law

Anyone age 18 and older; anyone age 17 and younger in enclosed cargo area; anyone age 17 and younger on non-limited access roads unless local law exempts them from the prohibition on minors riding the cargo areas of pickup trucks and flatbeds; any-one age 17 and younger on non-limited-access roads in a seat fitted with a safety belt that has been added to the pickup or flatbed; employees on duty

Georgia Law Anyone age 18 and older; anyone age 17 and younger in pickup trucks with covered cargo areas; any pickup truck off the interstate

Hawaii Law

People 13 and older can ride in back of pickup trucks if no seats are available in the cab and the side racks and tailgate are securely closed; the passengers must be seat-ed on the floor and may not attempt to unlatch cargo; parades, employees on duty; life-threatening emergencies

Idaho No state law Illinois No state law Indiana No state law Iowa No state law

Kansas Law Anyone age 14 and older; parades; employment; does not apply to vehicles not being operated on the state highway system or within the corporate limits of a city

Kentucky No state law

Louisiana Law Anyone age 12 and older if the truck is being used on a non-interstate highway; pa-rades moving less than 15 mph; emergencies if the child is with an adult in the cargo area; emergencies on interstate highway

Maine Law Anyone age 19 and older; agricultural workers and hunters age 18 and younger; parades; those in original equipment manufacturer installed seats outside passenger compartment

Maryland Law

Anyone age 16 and older; anyone age 15 and younger if the vehicle is traveling 25 mph or less; employees being transported to work sites or those engaged in farming operations; exceptions do not eliminate requirements to use child restraints or belts; not applicable to pickup trucks with covered cargo areas

Massachusetts Law Anyone age 12 and older; anyone age 11 and younger if the vehicle is being driven less than five miles and less than 5 mph; parades; farming activities

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 58

State/ Jurisdiction Restrictions in Cargo Areas Gaps in Coverage

Michigan Law Age 18 and older; those ages 17 and younger if the vehicle is moving 15 mph or less; parades; military vehicles; emergency situations; farming; construction

Minnesota No state law Mississippi No state law

Missouri Law

Anyone age 18 and older; those ages 17 and younger if the vehicle is not being operated on a highway that is part of the state or federal highway system or within the corporate limits of any city; exceptions for employment; agricultural activities; pa-rades; where there is a device to keep the passenger from being thrown or falling out of the vehicle; special events; assisting people in a recreational activity; family-owned truck with insufficient room for all passengers; not applicable to pickup trucks with covered cargo areas

Montana No state law Nebraska Law Anyone age 18 or older; parades

Nevada Law Anyone age 18 or older; those younger than age 18 when the vehicle is used in farming or ranching or if vehicle is used in an authorized parade; vehicles operated on unpaved roads; those in riding areas enclosed by a camper shell

New Hampshire No state law New Jersey Law Employees engaged in their duties

New Mexico Law Anyone age 18 or older

New York Law

Not applicable to trips of five miles or less; not applicable to trips of more than five miles if one-third or fewer of the passengers are standing or if suitable seats are se-curely attached and there are side rails and a tailgate; not applicable to trips of more than five miles if there are fewer than five people ages 17 or younger in the cargo area or if at least one person age 18 or older is in the cargo area

North Carolina Law Anyone age 16 and older; those ages 15 and younger if a supervising adult is present in cargo area; when the child is belted; emergencies; parades; vehicle being used in agriculture; vehicles with permanent overhead structures

North Dakota No state law

Ohio Law

Anyone age 16 and older; those ages 15 and younger if the vehicle is driven less than 25 mph or if the person is belted and seated in an original equipment manufacturer seating position; emergencies; not applicable to pickup trucks with covered cargo areas

Oklahoma No state law

Oregon Law

Anyone age 18 or older; minors secured with a safety belt or harness; parades; minors seated on the floor of the open bed of a motor vehicle in which all available

passenger seats are occupied by minors, the tailgate is securely closed and the minor is being transported either in the course and scope of employment or between a

hunting camp and hunting site or between hunting sites during hunting season and the minor has a hunting license

Pennsylvania Law Anyone age 18 or older if the vehicle is traveling less than 35 mph; not applicable to occupants ages 17 and younger if the cargo area is enclosed; parades; hunting and farm operations

Rhode Island Law Anyone age 16 or older; those age 15 and younger who are secured in the cargo area

59 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

State/ Jurisdiction Restrictions in Cargo Areas Gaps in Coverage

Anyone age 15 or older; those ages 15 and younger when an adult is present; when the child is belted; parade; emergency situation; agricultural activities; hunting; vehi-cle has a secured metal tailgate and operated at less than 36 mph; vehicle operated in a county

Anyone age 12 or older; those ages 6 to 11 in a vehicle being operated off the inter-state or state highway system; parades if vehicle is going less than 20 mph; agricultur-al activities; on city or county roads unless prohibited by local ordinance or resolution

Anyone age 18 or older; vehicles that are the only vehicles owned by members of the household; vehicles in parades; hayrides, on beaches, or being used in an emergency; vehicles in farm operations used to transport people from field to field or on farm

Off-highway operation; employees performing their duties; those riding in a vehicle space that is intended for any load

Anyone age 16 or older; farmers when crossing a highway to go from field to field

Not applicable to enclosed areas; farm operations; parades; deer hunting; employ-ees; those riding in truck bodies in spaces intended for merchandise

Employees on duty; those riding within truck bodies in a space intended for materials

Law

No state law

Law

Law

Law

No state law Law

No state law No state law

Law1

No state law

Law1

31

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

District of Columbia

Total

Note: 1 This provision is designed to prohibit riding on hoods, fenders and other places not designed for passengers. The exemption for people

in the body of a truck applies to enclosed areas such as the cargo area of a straight truck or van.

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2016.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 60

Appendix E Licensing Procedures for Older Drivers

State/ Length of Jurisdiction Renewal Cycle Accelerated Renewal Other Provisions

Alabama Four years None None

Alaska Five years None Mail renewal not available to people age 69 and older; 69 and older need proof of adequate vision at every renewal

Arizona Until age 65 Five years for people age 65 and older

People age 70 and older cannot renew by mail1; mail renewal requires passage of vision exam within prior 3 months

Arkansas Eight years Four or eight years for people over 70; personal option

None

California Five years None

At age 70, mail renewal is prohibited; no more than two sequential mail renewals are permitted, regardless of age; 70 and over must have proof of adequate vision for every renewal

Colorado Five years None

For those 66 and over, can renew by mail every other renewal period. Must pass a vision exam within 6 months prior to renewal. Ages 66 and over cannot renew electronically.

Connecticut Four or six years 65 and over have a choice of a two or six year renewal2

None

Delaware Eight years None None

Florida Eight years Six years for people age 80 and older

Renewal applicants age 80 and older must pass a vision test administered at any driver's license office or, if applying by mail or electronically, must pass a vision test administered by a licensed physician or optometrist3

Georgia Eight years None In person vision screening required at every renewal for drivers age 64 and older; mail-in or online renewal prohibited for ages 64 and older

Hawaii Eight years Two years for people age 72 and older

Drivers are limited to two consecutive mail-in renewals, regardless of age. Must appear in person every 16 years.

Idaho Four or eight years for ages 21 through 62

Drivers age 63 and older will receive a four-year license

People age 70 and older are not permitted to renew online or by mail

Illinois Four years Two years for drivers ages 81 to 86; one year for drivers age 87 and older

Renewal applicants age 75 and older must take a road test; 75 and older must provide proof of adequate vision for every renewal; mail and electronic renewal are not available to ages 75 and older

Indiana Six years

Three years for drivers age 75 through 84; two years for drivers age 85 and older

Mail and electronic renewal are not available to people age 75 and older or to those whose prior renewal was by mail or electronic; 75 and older must provide proof of adequate vision for every renewal;

61 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

State/ Length of Jurisdiction Renewal Cycle Accelerated Renewal Other Provisions

Iowa Five to eight years (selected randomly)4

Age 67: five to seven years (selected randomly); Age 68: five to six years (selected randomly); Age 69: Five years; Age 70: Four years; Age 71: Two years; Age 72 and older: Two years

People age 70 and older may not renew online

Kansas Six years Four years for drivers age 65 and older None

Kentucky Eight years None None

Louisiana Six years None Mail renewal not available to people age 70 and older and to those whose prior renewal was by mail5; 70 and older must provide proof of adequate vision for every renewal

Maine Six years Four years for drivers age 65 and older

Vision test required at first renewal after driver’s 40th birthday and at every second renewal until age 62; thereafter, at every renewal; ages 62 and older prohibited from electronic or mail-in renewal

Maryland Eight years None Vision test required at age 40 and older at every renewal6

Massachusetts Five years None Renewal applicants who are age 75 and older must apply in person6 75 and older must provide proof of adequate vision for every renewal

Michigan Four years None None Minnesota Four years None None that are safety- related6

Mississippi Four or eight years None None

Missouri Six years Three years for drivers age 70 and older None

Montana Eight years Ages 68-74: valid until driver is 75; Age 75 and older: four years

None that are safety- related8

Nebraska Five years None Applicants age 72 and older may not renew electronically; 72 and older must provide proof of adequate vision for every renewal

Nevada

Four years (odd number of birth years) or eight years (even number of birth years); eight years for all licenses starting in 2018

Four years for drivers age 65 and older None that are safety- related6,8

New Hampshire Five years None Road test required for people age 75 and older; online renewal is available to ages 75 and older

New Jersey Four years 2 or 4 years for people 70 and older, personal option

None

New Mexico Four or eight years Four years for drivers ages 67 through 74; annually for drivers age 75 and older

Applicants age 75 and older may not renew by mail or electronically

New York Eight years None None

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 62

State/ Length of Jurisdiction Renewal Cycle Accelerated Renewal Other Provisions

North Carolina Eight years Five years for drivers age 66 and older None that are safety- related9

North Dakota Six years Four years for drivers age 78 and older 65 and over cannot renew online or through the mail.

Ohio Four years None None Oklahoma Four years None None that are safety- related10

Oregon Eight years None Vision screening is required every renewal for drivers age 50 and older

Pennsylvania Four years Two years or four years for people 65 and older, personal option

None

Rhode Island Five years Two years for drivers age 75 and older None

South Carolina Ten years Five years for drivers age 65 and older Mail-in and electronic renewal available

South Dakota Five years None People age 65 and older must provide proof of adequate vision at every renewal.

Tennessee Eight years No expiration for people age 65 and older None that are safety-related11

Texas Six years Two years for drivers age 85 and older

Mail or electronic renewal not available to people age 79 and older; 79 and older must provide proof of adequate vision for every renewal

Utah Five years None Vision test required for every renewal for people age 65 and older

Vermont Two or four years None None

Virginia Eight years Five years for drivers age 75 and older

Renewal applicants age 75 and older must apply in person and pass department vision requirements or present a vision statement, no older than 90 days, from an optometrist or ophthalmologist; no mail or online renewal permitted for those age 75 and older

Washington Six years None Mail or online renewal not permitted 70 and older West Virginia Eight years None None Wisconsin Eight years None None Wyoming Four years None None

District of Columbia

Eight years None

At age 70 or nearest renewal date thereafter, a vision test is required and a reaction test may be required; applicants must provide a statement from a practicing physician certifying the applicant to be physically and mentally competent to drive12; No mail or online renewal for those age 70 and older

Puerto Rico Six years None None U.S. Virgin Islands

Five years No information No information

63 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Notes: 1. In Arizona, the license is valid until age 65. Anyone age 65 and older who is renewing by mail must submit a vision test verification form,

provided by the department, or verification of an examination of the applicant’s eyesight. The vision test or examination must be conducted not more than three months before.

2. In Connecticut, people age 65 and older can choose a two-year or six-year renewal cycle. A personal appearance at renewal generally is required. Upon showing a hardship, people age 65 and older can renew by mail.

3. In Florida, only two successive renewals can be made electronically or by mail, regardless of age. 4. Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, and continuing through Dec. 31, 2018, Iowa will transition from a standard five-year license term to an eight-

year license term. During this time, Iowa driver’s licenses will be issued with a randomly assigned expiration date of between five and eight years.

5. In Louisiana, a person age 70 and older can renew by mail or online if he or she is medically diagnosed with a disability that precludes that driver from renewing in person and he or she submits a sworn affidavit by a physician certifying that the person possesses all cognitive functions reasonably necessary to be a prudent driver.

6. Some state licensing laws specifically prohibit licensing administrators from treating people differently solely by virtue of advanced age. Maryland law specifies that age alone is not grounds for reexamination of drivers; applicants for an initial license who are age 70 and older must provide proof of previous satisfactory operation of a vehicle or a physician’s certificate of fitness. Massachusetts law prohibits discrimination by reason of age with regard to licensing. Minnesota and Nevada law specify that age alone is not a justification for reexamination.

7. In Montana, a driver must renew in person after renewing once by mail or electronically, regardless of age. 8. In Nevada, applicants for mail renewal age 70 and older must include a medical report. 9. In North Carolina, people age 60 and older are not required to parallel park in the road test. 10. In Oklahoma, the license fee is reduced for drivers ages 62 to 64 and is waived for drivers age 65 and older. 11. In Tennessee, fees are reduced for drivers age 60 and older and licenses issued to people age 65 and older do not expire. 12. The District of Columbia specifically states that an applicant shall not be required to retake the written or road test based solely on

advanced age.

Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, AAA, and NCSL, 2017.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 64

Appendix F Teen Driving Restrictions

Minimum Learner Stage with a Age for a Minimum Amount of Intermediate Stage Intermediate Stage with Passenger Restrictions1

State/ Learner’s Supervised Driving with a Nighttime (family members excepted unless otherwise Jurisdiction Permit Required Driving Restriction1 noted)

152

14

15, six months

143,4

15, six months5

156

16

16

15

15

15, six months

14, six months

15

15

Midnight-6 a.m. (secondary)

1 a.m.-5 a.m.

Midnight-5 a.m. (secondary)

11 p.m. -4 a.m.

11 p.m. -5 a.m. (secondary)

Midnight-5 a.m. (secondary)

11 p.m. -5 a.m.

10 p.m. -6 a.m.

11 p.m. -6 a.m. (age 16); 1 a.m.-5 a.m. (age 17)

Midnight-5 a.m. (secondary)

11 p.m. -5 a.m.

Sunset to sunrise

Sun.-Thur.: 10 p.m. -6 a.m.; Fri-Sat: 11 p.m. -6 a.m. First six months: 10 p.m. -5 a.m.; thereafter, Sun.-Fri.: 11 p.m. -5 a.m., Sat.-Sun.: 1 a.m.-5 a.m.

No more than one passenger (secondary) until 50 hours (none with Alabama the driver is at least 17 and has been licensed for driver education) 6 months. 40 hours, 10 of which First six months or until age 18, whichever Alaska must be at night or in occurs first: no passengers younger than 21 inclement weather 30 hours, 10 of which First six months or until age 18, whichever

Arizona must be at night (none occurs first: no more than one passenger with driver education) younger than age 18 (secondary)

Until age 18: no more than one passenger Arkansas None younger than age 21

50 hours, 10 of which 12 months after initial license: no passengers California must be at night younger than age 20 (secondary) First six months: no passengers; second 50 hours, 10 of which Colorado six months: no more than one passenger must be at night (secondary) First six months: no passenger other than 40 hours (mandatory parents or driving instructor; second six months: Connecticut driver education for no passengers other than parents, driving those under age 18) instructor or members of immediate family

50 hours, 10 of which First six months (and until issuance of a class D Delaware must be at night operator’s license): no more than one passenger

50 hours, 10 of which Florida None must be at night

First six months: no passengers; second six 40 hours, six of which months: no more than one passenger younger Georgia must be at night than age 21; until age 18: no more than three

passengers (secondary) First six months (at least) and until age 17: no 50 hours, 10 of which Hawaii more than one passenger younger than age 18 must be at night (household members exempted) First six months or until age 17: licensees age 50 hours, 10 of which Idaho 16 and younger can have no more than one must be at night passenger younger than age 17

50 hours, 10 of which First 12 months (or until age 18): no more than Illinois must be at night one passenger younger than age 20

50 hours, 10 of which First six months or until age 21, whichever Indiana must be at night occurs first: no passengers

65 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Minimum Learner Stage with a Age for a Minimum Amount of Intermediate Stage Intermediate Stage with Passenger Restrictions1

State/ Learner’s Supervised Driving with a Nighttime (family members excepted unless otherwise Jurisdiction Permit Required Driving Restriction1 noted)

20 hours, two of which Iowa 12:30 a.m.-5 a.m.8

9 p.m. -5 a.m.

Midnight-6 a.m.

11 p.m. -5 a.m.

Midnight-5 a.m.

Midnight-5 a.m.

12:30 a.m.–5 a.m. (secondary enforcement between 12:30 a.m.–1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.–5:00 a.m.)

10:00 p.m. -5 a.m.

Midnight-5 a.m.

Sun.-Thur.: 10 p.m. -6 a.m., Fri.-Sat. 11:30 p.m. -6 a.m.

1 a.m.-5 a.m.

11 p.m. -5 a.m.

Midnight-6 a.m. (secondary)

10 p.m. -5 a.m. (secondary)

Parental discretion4

must be at night 25 hours in learner First six months or until age 17, whichever phase; 25 hours before Kansas occurs first: no more than one passenger age 16; 10 of the 50 younger than age 18 hours must be at night

First six months or until age 18, whichever 60 hours, 10 of which occurs first: no more than one passenger Kentucky must be at night younger than age 20 unless supervised by a

driving instructor (secondary) Until age 17: no more than one passenger

50 hours, 15 of which younger than age 21 between the hours of 6 Louisiana must be at night p.m. -5 a.m.; no other passenger restrictions from 5am – 6pm.

70 hours, 10 of which Maine First nine months: no passengers must be at night First five months or until age 18, whichever 60 hours, 10 of which Maryland occurs first: no passengers younger than age 18 must be at night (secondary)

First six months or until age 18, whichever comes first: no passengers younger than age 18 Massachusetts 40 hours12

(secondary enforcement between 12:30 a.m.– 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.–5:00 a.m.)

50 hours, 10 of which First six months and age 17 or until age 18: no Michigan must be at night more than one passenger younger than age 21

First six months: no more than one passenger 40 hours, 15 of which younger than age 20; second six months: no Minnesota must be at night13 more than three passengers younger than age

20

Mississippi None None

First six months: no more than one passenger 40 hours, 10 of which Missouri younger than age 19; thereafter: no more than must be at night three passengers younger than age 19

First six months: no more than one passenger 50 hours, 10 of which younger than age 18; second six months: no Montana must be at night more than three passengers younger than age

18 50 hours, 10 of which First six months or until age 18, whichever

Nebraska must be at night (none occurs first: no more than one passenger with driver education) younger than age 19 (secondary)

First six months or until age 18, whichever 50 hours, 10 of which Nevada comes first: no passengers younger than age 18 must be at night (secondary)

147

149

16

1510

1511

15, nine months

16

14, nine months

15

1514

15

14, six months

15

15, six months

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 66

Minimum Learner Stage with a Age for a Minimum Amount of Intermediate Stage Intermediate Stage with Passenger Restrictions1

State/ Learner’s Supervised Driving with a Nighttime (family members excepted unless otherwise Jurisdiction Permit Required Driving Restriction1 noted)

1 a.m.-4 a.m.

11 p.m. -5 a.m.

Midnight-5 a.m.

9 p.m. -5 a.m. (prohibited at all times in NYC and limited unsupervised driving in Nassau and Suffolk counties)

9 p.m. -5 a.m.

First six months or until age 18, whichever 40 hours, 10 of which New Hampshire comes first: no more than one passenger must be at night younger than age 25

First 12 months or until age 21, whichever New Jersey None comes first: no more than one passenger

(exception limited to the driver’s dependents) First 12 months or until age 18, whichever 50 hours, 10 of which New Mexico occurs first: no more than one passenger must be at night younger than age 21

Until age 17 with driver education or until age 50 hours, 15 of which New York 18: no more than one passenger younger than must be at night age 21

60 hours, 10 of which First six months or until age 18, whichever must be at night during occurs first: no more than one passenger the learner phase; 12 younger than age 21; if a family member North Carolina hours, six of which younger than age 21 is already a passenger, then must be at night, during no other passengers younger than age 21 who intermediate phase are not family members

Restricted license holder may only drive a car belonging to a

Under age 16: 50 hours; parent or guardian North Dakota None 16 and over: None and may not drive between the later of sunset or 9 p.m. p.m. and 5 a.m.

50 hours, 10 of which Ohio

First 12 months: Midnight – 6am; Second 12 months: 1am – 5am

10 p.m. -5 a.m.

Midnight-5 a.m.

11 p.m. -5 a.m.

1 a.m.-5 a.m.

First 12 months: no more than one passenger must be at night

First six months with driver education, first 12 50 hours, 10 of which Oklahoma months without, or until age 18: no more than must be at night one passenger 50 hours (100 hours First six months: no passengers younger than

Oregon without driver age 20; second six months: no more than three education) passengers younger than age 20

65 hours, 10 of which First six months: no more than one passenger must be at night and Pennsylvania younger than age 18; thereafter, no more than five of which must be in three passengers inclement weather First 12 months or until age 18, whichever 50 hours, 10 of which Rhode Island occurs first: no more than one passenger must be at night younger than age 2120

15, six months15

1616

1517

16

1518

14

15, six months

15, six months

15

16

1619

67 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Minimum Learner Stage with a Age for a Minimum Amount of Intermediate Stage Intermediate Stage with Passenger Restrictions1

State/ Learner’s Supervised Driving with a Nighttime (family members excepted unless otherwise Jurisdiction Permit Required Driving Restriction1 noted)

15 40 hours, 10 of which must be at night

6 p.m. -6 a.m. EST, 8 p.m. -6 a.m. EDT

14 None 10 p.m. -6 a.m.

15 50 hours, 10 of which must be at night 11 p.m. -6 a.m.

15 30 hours, 10 of which must be at night

Midnight-5 a.m. (secondary)

15 40 hours, 10 of which must be at night Midnight-5 a.m.

15 40 hours, 10 of which must be at night None

15, six months

45 hours, 15 of which must be at night

Midnight-4 a.m. (secondary)

15 50 hours, 10 of which must be at night

1 a.m.-5 a.m. (secondary)

15 50 hours, 10 of which must be at night (none with driver education)

10 p.m. -5 a.m.

15, six months23

30 hours, 10 of which must be at night Midnight-5 a.m.

15 50 hours, 10 of which must be at night 11 p.m. -5 a.m.

16 40 hours in learner's stage, 10 hours at night in intermediate stage

September–June: 11 p.m.-6 a.m. Sun.– Thur., 12:01 a.m.-6 a.m. Sat.–Sun.; July– August: 12:01 a.m.-6 a.m.

16

16 None None

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

District of Columbia

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands24

First 12 months and until age 17: no more than two passengers younger than age 21 (driving to and from school excepted) None First 12 months or until age 18, whichever occurs first: no more than one passenger Until age 18: no more than one passenger younger than age 21 (secondary) First six months or until age 18, whichever occurs first: no passengers (secondary) First three months: no passengers without exception; second three months: no passengers with family exception

First 12 months: no more than one passenger younger than age 21; thereafter: no more than three passengers younger than age 21 (secondary)21

First six months: no passengers younger than age 20; second six months: no more than three passengers younger than age 20 (secondary)22

First six months: no passengers younger than age 20; second six months: no more than one passenger younger than age 20

First nine months or until age 18, whichever occurs first: no more than one passenger First six months or until age 17, whichever occurs first: no more than one passenger younger than age 18

First six months or until age 21, whichever occurs first: no passengers; thereafter: no more than two passengers

None

Notes: 1. State laws that prohibit police from stopping young drivers solely for violating night driving or passenger restrictions are labeled

secondary. 2. In Alabama, the supervising driver must be a parent, guardian, grandparent or driving instructor. At age 16, permit holders may drive

with a licensed driver who is at least 21 years old. 3. In Arkansas, those age 14 can drive with an instruction permit after passing a written test. After passing a road test, they are eligible for

a learner’s license. Unsupervised driving is not permitted by holders of either the instruction permit or learner’s license. The combined

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 68

holding period for the permit and restricted license is six months. 4. In Arkansas, applicants for an intermediate license must be 16 and must be crash/violation-free for six months. Licensees younger than

18 are prohibited from transporting passengers who are unrestrained. 5. In California, students enrolled in driver education may drive while supervised by an instructor. License applicants who do not take

driver education must wait until age 18 for a license. They are not required to go through an intermediate license stage. 6. In Colorado, the minimum permit age varies. Fifteen year-olds who are enrolled in driver education may apply for an instruction permit.

Their supervising driver must be a parent, stepparent, grandparent, guardian, or driving instructor. At age 15 and 6 months, driver education is no longer required, but applicants for this permit must have completed a four-hour driver awareness program. At 16, young drivers may apply for a permit that allows driving while supervised by a licensed driver age 21 or older.

7. In Iowa, parents are permitted to waive at the time of licensure a discretionary six-month passenger limit of no more than one unrelated passenger younger than age 18.

8. In Iowa, driver education graduates who have held an instruction permit for at least 6 months and are at least 14 and 6 months may apply for a school license that permits unsupervised driving between 5 a.m. and 10 p.m. The school license limits drivers to direct routes to and from school for classes or school sponsored activities, other schools hosting activities, school bus stops and gas stations. Holders of a minor school license may not use electronic communication devices or electronic entertainment devices (permanently installed equipment exempted), carry more than one unrelated passenger, or drive to another school district without an extra-curricular sharing agreement.

9. In Kansas, drivers age 15 but not yet 16 may be granted a restricted license if they have completed driver training. Restricted license holders younger than 16 may not drive unless supervised other than to and from school or work via the most direct route and may not carry minor passengers other than siblings. To get a restricted license, applicants must have driven at least 25 of the 50 hours required for a full license and must have held an instruction permit for 12 months.

10. In Louisiana, driver education is required for a permit and an intermediate license if the applicant is younger than age 18. 11. In Maine, driver education is required for a permit and a license if the applicant is younger than 18. 12. In Massachusetts, the requirement for supervised driving is 30 hours for applicants who have successfully completed a driver skills

development program. in a closed, off-road course licensed by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. 13. In Minnesota, license applicants younger than age 18 must provide proof that a parent has taken a course for parents of teen drivers or

perform an additional 10 certified practice hours. 14. In Mississippi, license applicants 17 and older are exempt from the requirement to get an intermediate license. 15. In New Hampshire, learner’s permits are not issued. At age 15 and six months, a person can drive while supervised by a licensed driver

age 25 or older. 16. In New Jersey, the permit becomes an intermediate license after six months for drivers younger than 21 and after 3 months for drivers

21 and older. The graduated licensing law applies to adults, except that the night driving and passenger restrictions are waived for new drivers 21 and older. If the applicant has not completed driver education, the minimum permit age is 17 and the minimum intermediate license age is 17, 6 months. Learner’s permit holders may not drive between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. and may carry only one passenger in addition to the supervising driver or any parent, guardian or dependent.

17. In New Mexico, permit applicants younger than age 18 must be enrolled in driver education. 18. In North Carolina, driver education is required for permit applicants younger than age 18. 19. In Rhode Island, driver education is required of permit applicants younger than age 18 starting January 1, 2018. 20. In Rhode Island, drivers younger than age 18 can drive between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. when driving to a school sponsored athletic activity for which no transportation is provided by the school. 21. In Virginia, the holder of a learner’s permit cannot have more than one passenger in the vehicle that is under age 21. 22. In Washington, intermediate license holders with a crash or violation history are ineligible for an unrestricted license until age 18

23. In Wisconsin, enrollment in driver education is required for permit applicants younger than age 18. 24. The U.S. Virgin Islands has no graduated driver’s licensing system; learner’s permits can be granted at age 16.

Sources: Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and National Conference of State Legislatures 2017.

69 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Appendix G State Aggressive Driving Laws

Maximum State/ Imprisonment or Maximum Jurisdiction Jail Sanction Licensing Action

A person commits aggressive driving if both the following occur: 1) if, during a "course of conduct," he or she violates either the Basic Speed Rule or the "Excessive Speed" law plus two of the following minor driving offenses: a) failure to obey traffic control devices; b) overtaking and passing another vehicle on the right by

Arizona driving off the pavement or main traveled portion of the Six months1 30 days2

roadway; c) unsafe lane change; d) following a vehicle too closely; and e) failure to yield the right-of-way; and 2) his or her "driving is an immediate hazard to another person or vehicle." "Course of conduct" means "a series of acts committed during a single, continuous period of driving."

California does not have a per se aggressive driving law. However, in addition to the usual criminal sanctions, the law provides licensing sanctions against a person California Four years Six months who commits a criminal assault using a motor vehicle (commonly known as "road rage") against either another motor vehicle, an operator of a bicycle or a pedestrian. No person shall drive any vehicle in an aggressive manner. Aggressive driving is defined as continuous conduct that violates three or more of the following rules of the road: failing to obey a traffic-control device; overtaking on the right; failing to drive within a marked 30 days3 None4 30 days lane for traffic; following too closely; failing to yield the for subsequent Delaware right-of-way to approaching traffic when turning left; 10 days offenses within failing to yield to approaching traffic when entering or mandatory3 three years crossing a roadway; failing to signal when turning or stopping; failing to stop at stop signs or yield at yield signs; overtaking and passing a stopped school bus with flashing lights; failing to obey the basic speed rule; and failing to a obey a posted speed limit. Aggressive careless driving means committing two or more of the following acts simultaneously or in succession: 1) exceeding the posted speed, 2) unsafely

Florida or improperly changing lanes, 3) following another None None vehicle too closely, 4) failing to yield the right-of-way, 5) improperly passing and 6) violating traffic control and signal devices.5

Definition of Aggressive Driving Maximum Fine Sanction

$2,500

$10,000

$3003

$100 mandatory3

None

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 70

State/ Jurisdiction Definition of Aggressive Driving

Maximum Imprisonment or Jail Sanction

Maximum Fine Sanction

Maximum Licensing Action

Georgia

A person commits the offense of aggressive driving when he or she operates any motor vehicle with the intent to annoy, harass, molest, intimidate, injure or obstruct another person, while violating motor vehicle code sections, including overtaking and passing another vehicle; traffic lane violations; following too closely; turn signal, lane change, slowing or stopping violations; impeding traffic flows; or reckless driving. A person convicted of aggressive driving shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

12 months $5,000 None

Indiana

A person engages in aggressive driving if, during one episode of continuous driving of a vehicle, the person commits at least three of the following: 1) following a vehicle too closely, 2) unsafe operation of a vehicle, 3) overtaking another vehicle on the right by driving off the roadway, 4) unsafe stopping or slowing a vehicle, 5) unnecessary sounding of the horn, 6) failure to yield, 7) failure to obey a traffic control device, 8) driving at an unsafe speed and 9) repeatedly flashing the vehicle's headlights.

One year $5,000 None

Maryland

A person is guilty of aggressive driving if the person commits three or more of the following offenses at the same time or during a single and continuous period of driving in violation of: traffic lights with steady indication, overtaking and passing vehicles, passing on right, driving on laned roadways, following too closely, failure to yield right of way, and exceeding a maximum speed limit or posted maximum speed limit.

None None None6

Nevada

A person commits aggressive driving if, during a course of one mile, he or she, in any sequence, does all of the following: 1) violates either a) the basic speed rules, b) the speed limit in a school zone, c) the posted speed limit or d) the prohibition against driving >75 mph. 2) Commits two or more of the following offenses: a) failing to obey a traffic control device; b) overtaking and passing another vehicle on the right by driving off the paved portion of the highway; c) driving unsafely or improperly upon a highway that has marked lanes for traffic; d) following another vehicle too closely; or e) failing to yield the right of way. 3) Creates an immediate hazard, regardless of its duration, to another vehicle or person.

Six months3 $1,0003

30 days 2

One year on second offense

71 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

State/ Jurisdiction Definition of Aggressive Driving

Maximum Imprisonment or Jail Sanction

Maximum Fine Sanction

Maximum Licensing Action

New Jersey

New Jersey enforces against aggressive driving by charging under 39:4-97 (Careless Driving), 39:4-97.2 (Operating a vehicle in an Unsafe Manner) or any other statute at the discretion of the officer. Assault by auto or vessel is a crime of the third degree if the person purposely drives a vehicle in an aggressive manner directed at another vehicle and serious bodily injury results and is a crime of the fourth degree if the person purposely drives a vehicle in an aggressive manner directed at another vehicle and bodily injury results. For purposes of this paragraph, "driving a vehicle in an aggressive manner" shall include, but is not limited to, unexpectedly altering the speed of the vehicle, making improper or erratic traffic lane changes, disregarding traffic control devices, failing to yield the right of way or following another vehicle too closely.

None

$150.00

$50 minimum

$250 surcharge mandatory

None

North Carolina

Any person who operates a motor vehicle on a street, highway or public vehicular area is guilty of aggressive driving if the person: 1) violates speed laws or speeding in school zone laws, and 2) drives carelessly and heed-lessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others. The state must show that the person commit-ted two or more of the below specified offenses while in violation of the aforementioned section): 1) running through a red light, 2) running through a stop sign, 3) ille-gal passing, 4) failing to yield right-of-way and 5) follow-ing too closely. A person convicted of aggressive driving is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

45 days3 At the discretion of the court3 None

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania does not have an aggressive driving law per se. In 2006, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a resolution to encourage drivers to drive courte-ously and defensively, not aggressively. The House also resolved to support measures that would promote safe driving practices in the Commonwealth.

None None None

Rhode Island

"Aggressive Driving" is defined as operating a motor vehi-cle in violation of any speed law and a violation of two or more of the following traffic law provisions: 1) obedience to traffic control devices; 2) overtaking on the right; 3) driving within a traffic lane; 4) following too closely— interval between vehicles; 5) yielding right-of-way; 6) entering the roadway; 7) use of turn signals; 8) relating to school buses, special stops, stop signs and yield signs; and 9) use of emergency break-down lane for travel.

None $500 30 days7

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 72

Maximum State/ Imprisonment or Maximum Jurisdiction Jail Sanction Licensing Action

Utah does not have an aggressive driving law per se, but reckless driving is similar to aggressive driving offenses in other states. Reckless driving is defined as operating a vehicle either 1) "in willful or wanton disregard for the Utah Six months1 Three months2,3

safety of persons or property" or 2) "while committing three or more moving traffic violations under Title 41, Chapter 6, Traffic Rules and Regulations, in a series of acts within a single continuous period of driving."

The statute prohibits following too closely, crowding and harassment. “The driver of a vehicle shall not follow

Vermont another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and pru- None None dent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon, and the conditions of, the highway.”

A person is guilty of aggressive driving if the person i) violates one or more of the following: driving on right side of highways, failing to observe lanes marked for traffic, following too closely, not yielding or stopping before entering certain highways, evading traffic control Six months6

devices, passing when overtaking a vehicle, passing on Virginia Six months the right when overtaking a vehicle, not giving way to 10 days certain overtaking vehicles on divided highway, speeding mandatory or dangerously stopping on highways; and ii) that person is a hazard to another person or commits an offense in clause (i) with the intent to harass, intimidate, injure or obstruct another person.

Definition of Aggressive Driving Maximum Fine Sanction

$1,0001

None

$1,000

Notes: 1. This sanction applies to first and subsequent offenses. 2. Licensing action is in the form of a suspension. 3. This applies to the first offense. 4. Since offenders may be prosecuted for and convicted of the underlying offenses, they are subject to licensing action associated with

violating such offenses. 5. The law is a defining statute but does not permit enforcement. 6. Points are assessed against the driver for an offense. 7. The law provides that a person’s license may be subject to a minimum 30-day suspension. This sanction appears to apply only to first

offenders.

Sources: NHTSA, Governors Highway Safety Association, and NCSL, 2017

73 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Appendix H State Maximum Posted Speed Limit Laws

State/ Jurisdiction Rural Interstates Urban Interstates

Other Limited Access Roads Other Roads

Alabama 70 65 65 65 Alaska 65 55 65 55 Arizona 75 65 65 65 Arkansas 751 751 751 65 California 70; trucks: 55 65; trucks: 55 70; trucks: 55 65; trucks: 55

Colorado 75 65 65 65 Connecticut 65 55 65 55 Delaware 65 55 65 55 Florida 70 65 70 65 Georgia 702 70 65 65 Hawaii 603 603 553 453

Idaho 75; 80 on specified segments of road;4 trucks: 70

75; 80 on specified segments of road;4 trucks: 65

70 70

Illinois 705 55 65 55 Indiana 70; trucks: 65 55 60 55 Iowa 70 55 70 65 Kansas 75 75 75 65

Kentucky 65; 70 on specified segments of road6 65 65 55

Louisiana 75 70 70 65 Maine 75 75 75 60 Maryland 70 70 70 55 Massachusetts 65 65 65 55

Michigan 70 (65 trucks); 75 (65 trucks) on specified segments of road

70 70 55

Minnesota 70 65 65 60 Mississippi 70 70 70 65 Missouri 70 60 70 65 Montana 80; trucks: 65 65 day: 70; night: 65 day: 70; night: 65

Nebraska 75 65 65 60 Nevada 80 65 70 70

New Hampshire 65; 70 on specified segments of road7 65 55 55

New Jersey 65 55 65 55 New Mexico 75 75 65 55 New York 65 65 65 55 North Carolina 70 70 70 55 North Dakota 75 75 70 65

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 74

State/ Other Limited Jurisdiction Rural Interstates Urban Interstates Access Roads Other Roads

70 65 70

758 70 70

65; 70 on specified segments of road; trucks: 55 or 65 on specified segments of road

55 65

70 70 70

65 55 55 70 70 60 80 8010 70

70 70 70

75; 80 or 85 on specified segments11 75 75

75; 80 on specified segments12 65 75

65 55 50 70 70 65 70; 75 on specified segments of road13; trucks: 60

60 60

70 55 65 70 70 70

75; 80 on specified segments of road15

75; 80 on specified segments of road15 70

n/a 55 n/a

n/a n/a n/a

65 65 n/a

40 55 20

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island9

South Carolina

South Dakota Tennessee

Texas

Utah Vermont Virginia

Washington

West Virginia14

Wisconsin

Wyoming

District of Columbia

Guam16

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands

55 70

65

55 55 55 70

65

75

65 50 55

60

55 55

70

25

n/a

n/a

n/a

Key: n/a = not applicable

Notes: 1. In Arkansas, the speed limit may be raised on a controlled-access highway to 75 mph if based on traffic and engineering studies. 2. Georgia’s “Super Speeder Law” adds $200 in state fees for any driver convicted of speeding at more than 75 mph on any two-lane roads

or at more than 85 mph on multiple- lane roads anywhere in the state. 3. In Hawaii, the maximum speed limit is established by county ordinance or by the director of transportation. 4. In Idaho, the speed limit may be increased to 80 mph on specific segments of highway on the basis of an engineering and traffic

investigation. 5. The Illinois law allows Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Madison, McHenry, St. Clair and Will counties to opt out by adopting an ordinance

that sets a lower maximum speed limit, empowering counties to make adjustments based on local needs. These counties have a maximum large truck speed limit of 60 mph outside urban districts and 55 mph inside urban districts.

6. In Kentucky, the speed limit may be increased to 70 mph on specific segments of highway upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation.

7. New Hampshire HB 146 (2013) raised the speed limit from 65 mph to 70 mph on the portion of I-93 from mile marker 45 to the Vermont border.

75 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

8. In Oklahoma, the DOT may increase the speed limit beyond 75 mph on any highway or part of a highway based on an engineering and traffic investigation.

9. Rhode Island speed limits are not set by law, but by the state traffic commission. 10. In South Dakota, the Transportation Commission may establish a maximum speed limit of less than 80 mph on any highway or portion

of highway under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, and any portion of highway under the jurisdiction of a state or federal agency.

11. On sections of I-10 and I-20 in west Texas and sections of Highway 45 in Travis County, Texas, the speed limit for passenger cars and light trucks is 80 mph. Speed limits may be established not to exceed 85 mph if the highway is originally constructed and designed to accommodate the higher speed and it has been determined by an engineering study to be reasonable and safe. State Highway 130 (portions toll) has a posted limit of 85 mph.

12. In Utah, the speed limit may be increased beyond 75 mph on any freeway or limited access highway on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation. The highest posted limit in Utah is currently 80 mph.

13. In Washington, maximum speed limits on highways or portions of highways may be posted as high as 75 mph if based on a traffic and engineering study.

14. West Virginia speed limits, in general, are not set by law, but by the commissioner of the Division of Highways. 15. In Wyoming, the speed limit may be increased to 80 mph on specific segments of highway on the basis of an engineering and traffic

investigation. 16. Guam does not have any interstates. The maximum speed limits for cars and trucks are 35 mph in rural areas; 15 mph in residential

areas; and 15 mph or 25 mph in school zones.

Sources: IIHS, GHSA and NCSL 2017.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 76

Appendix I State Policies Regarding Use of Trafc Cameras

State/ Jurisdiction Statute Citation Policy

Alabama SB 411, SB 442, HB 511 (2011)

Authorizes the use of cameras to enforce red light violations and speed laws through both state law and city ordinance. Fines are approximately $110; no points assessed. Currently the cities of Center Point, Midfield, Opelika, Phenix City, Selma, and Tuscaloosa to use automated traffic light enforcement. Center Point and Midfield currently have cameras to enforce speed laws as well.

Alaska No State Law

Arizona §§28-1201, et seq. (2014) Authorizes use of cameras to enforce speed laws and red light violations. Requires signs where the enforcement is used. Maximum fine of $250; two (red light) and three (speed) points assessed.

Arkansas §27-52-110 (2014)

Use of photo radar by county or state government is prohibited except in school zones and at railroad crossings. Officer must be present and citation must be issued at time of the offense. Cameras are permitted to enforce speed limit violations.

California Vehicle Code §§210, 21455.5 and 21455.6, 40518-40521 (2014)

Establishes conditions for use of red light cameras and highway-rail crossing cameras by law enforcement agencies. Requires signs where the enforcement is used. Base fine of $100, with approximately $400 additional fees; one license point.

Colorado §42-4-110.5 (2014)

Authorizes use of cameras to enforce speed laws and traffic light violations. Speed radar limited to construction and school zones, residential areas or adjacent to a municipal park. Maximum fine of $75 for red light violation, $40 for speeding (fine doubles in a school zone); no points assessed.1 Conspicuous sign no less than 200 feet before the automated system must warn motorists of system.

Connecticut No State Law

Delaware Tit. 21 §4101(d) (2014) Authorizes a red light camera program throughout the state. Maximum fine of $110, no points assessed and offense cannot be used by insurers.

District of Columbia

DC Code §§50-2209.01, et seq.

Authorizes an automated traffic enforcement program in the District of Columbia for all moving infractions. For speed violations, $50-$300 maximum fine based on the miles per hour over the posted speed limit. Red light violations $150 maximum fine. No points assessed.

Florida §§316.003, 316.007, 316.0083 (2014)

Authorizes use of cameras for red light violations. Maximum fine of $158, no points assessed.

Georgia §40-6-20 (2014)

Authorizes use of photo monitoring devices to detect red light violations. Devices cannot be used to produce any photograph, microphotograph, electronic image or videotape showing the identity of any person in a motor vehicle. Maximum fine of $70, no points assessed. Not a moving violation; cannot be used by insurers.

Hawaii No State Law

Idaho No State Law

77 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

State/ Jurisdiction Statute Citation Policy

Illinois Ch. 625 §§7/10, 5/11-1201.1, 5/11-612 (2014)

Cameras used to enforce speed limits are permitted statewide in construction zones or Illinois Toll Authority roads. Certain counties with local ordinances can use cameras to enforce red light violations. Any county or municipality can use cameras to enforce rail crossing violations in cooperation with IL-DOT and IL-CC; ordinance required. Local authorities cannot use cameras for other speed offenses (the state can use only if an officer is present) statewide. County or municipality may use automated railroad grade crossing enforcement system at any railroad grade crossing equipped with a crossing gate designated by local authorities. Minimum fine of $250 for first violation at a rail crossing, minimum fine of $375 for a speed violation in a construction zone while workers are present.; $100 maximum fine or completion of a traffic education program, or both for red light offenders; not a moving violation or recorded offense.

Indiana No State Law

Iowa No State Law

Specified jurisdictions have authorized the use of cameras to enforce speed laws and red light violations via city ordinances. Fines for red light violations range from $65 to $100, depending on the jurisdiction. Fines for speed limit violations range from $5 to $500, depending on jurisdiction and speed above the limit.

Kansas No State Law

Kentucky No State Law

Louisiana LA. Stat. Ann. §§32:393(I), 32:43, 32:44 (2014)

Local municipal or parish authorities may not use automated speed enforcement on interstate highways except in DOT-approved construction zones when workers are present. Convictions resulting from camera enforcement cannot be reported for inclusion in driver record. Specified jurisdictions also have enforcement cameras for red light violations. Fines range from $100 to $125 depending on the jurisdiction. Shall have signs indicating that a red light or speed camera is present within 500 feet of each camera.

Maine Tit. 29-A §2117 (2014) Prohibits both speed and red light camera enforcement.

Maryland

Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-202.1

Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-809

Authorizes use of red light cameras statewide. Maximum civil penalty of $100, no points assessed, not a moving violation and may not be used by insurers. School zones and residential districts in Montgomery County, near institutes of higher education in Prince George’s County, statewide in school zones by local ordinance and work zones are authorized to use photo enforcement for speed; $40 maximum fine, no points assessed. Montgomery County and Prince George’s County can use automated enforcement at railroad crossings; $100 maximum fine, no points.

Massachusetts No State Law

Michigan No State Law

Minnesota No State Law

Mississippi HB 1568 (2009) Prohibits all localities from using automated enforcement.

Missouri No State Law

Individual jurisdictions are allowed to pass ordinances permitting red light and speed enforcement via cameras. For red light violations, the fine is generally $100 and does not assess any points to your license. For speed violations, the fine is $100 with some jurisdictions increasing the fine to $200 if the driver was traveling 20mph or more over the speed limit.

Montana §61-8-203 (2013) Prohibits all localities from using automated enforcement. Cameras at railroad grade crossings excepted.

Nebraska No State Law

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 78

State/ Jurisdiction Statute Citation Policy

Nevada §484a.600 (2014) Prohibits use of camera equipment unless it is held by an officer or installed in a law enforcement vehicle or facility.

New Hampshire §236:130 (2014) Automated enforcement is prohibited unless there is specific statutory authorization. It is authorized for toll enforcement.

New Jersey §39:4-103.1 (2014) Prohibits use of camera radar by law enforcement officers or agencies

New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-7-101

No state law authorizing photo radar use. NMDOT has banned red light cameras and mobile enforcement vans on state and federal roadways, but state law requires counties and municipalities using photo enforcement to post a warning sign and beacon.

New York N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law §§1111-a; 1111-D; & 1180-b (McKinney)

Authorizes red light enforcement in cities with populations of more than 1 million with a maximum of 150 intersections. Maximum fine of $50, no points assessed and may not be used by insurers. Authorizes speed cameras in school zones in cities with populations of more than 1 million. Maximum fine of $50, no points assessed. Counties of Nassau and Suffolk, cities of Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, by local ordinance, up to 50 intersections; Yonkers, by local ordinance, up to 25 intersections; Mt. Vernon, by local ordinance, up to 12 intersections.

North Carolina §160A-300.1 (2014) Authorizes certain cities to operate a red light camera program. Maximum civil penalty of $100, no points assessed.

North Dakota No State Law

Ohio2 §4511.093, et seq. (Page 2014) SB 342 (2014)

Authorizes local authorities to operate traffic cameras but requires law enforcement officers be present at the location of the camera in order to issue a ticket.

Oklahoma No State Law

Oregon Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§810.438, 810.434 (2017)

Authorizes use of photo radar in specific jurisdictions to detect speed violations; may not be used for more than four hours per day, per location. Driver must be traveling 11mph or more over the speed limit to receive a citation. Allows use of red light cameras statewide.

Pennsylvania Tit.75 §§3116, 3117 (2014) Authorizes use of red light cameras in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and municipalities where population exceeds 20,000; requires local ordinance. Maximum fine of $100; not on operating record.

Rhode Island §31-41.2-1, et seq. (2014) §31-51-2 (2014)

Authorizes statewide use of red light cameras. Maximum fine of $85, not a criminal or record offense, and not to be used by insurers until there is a final adjudication of the violation. Authorizes cameras for school bus safety enforcement.

South Carolina §56-5-70 (2014)

Photo enforcement prohibited with exceptions; citations for violating traffic laws relating to speed or disregarding traffic control devices can be used only when the state declares an emergency. Citations must be served in person within one hour of the violation.

South Dakota §§32-28-17, 32-28-21, 22 Red light cameras are prohibited, and the DMV does not provide to other states information used to collect fines from violations captured by red light and speed cameras

Tennessee §55-8-198

Photo enforcement authorized statewide for traffic violations. Maximum fine of $50, no points assessed. Appropriate signage must be located between 500 and 1,000 feet in advance of the intersection, informing drivers of the presence of surveillance cameras at the approaching intersection. Traffic surveillance cameras not allowed on interstate highways except in construction zones. Traffic enforcement cameras that monitor speed cannot be used on public roads or highways unless it is within a designated distance of a marked school zone or on any S-curve of a public road or highway.

79 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

State/ Jurisdiction Statute Citation Policy

Texas municipalities not allowed to use photo enforcement to enforce speed violations. Photo enforcement authorized statewide for red light violations; requires local ordinance. Maximum fine of $75, not a criminal or record offense.

Limits the use of cameras for speed enforcement to school zones, areas with speed limits of 30 mph or less, when a police officer is present, when signs are posted giving notice to motorists of camera use, and when the citation is accompanied by the photograph produced by the camera radar.

Authorizes counties, cities and towns to operate red light cameras at no more than one intersection for every 10,000 residents; requires local ordinance. Authorizes up to 10 camera sites in Washington, D.C., metro area. Requires that traffic signals where red light cameras are operated have a yellow light phase that is at least three seconds long. Maximum fine of $50; no points assessed and may not be used by insurers. Cities and counties statewide are authorized to enforce, through photos, red light violations at two-arterial intersections, rail crossings and school speed zones. Local ordinances are required. Maximum fine of $250; no record and no points assessed. Cameras enforcing speed limits are allowed in school zones and must be prohibited under a city ordinance. The fine cannot be more than the fine for a parking infraction within the jurisdiction. These violations are processed the same as a parking infraction. All photo enforcement is prohibited. Speed cameras are prohibited.

Transportation Code §707.001, et seq. (Vernon 2014)

§41-6a-608 (2014)

No State Law

§§46.2-833.1, 15.2-968.1 (2014)

§46.63.170 (2014)

§17C-6-7a (2014) §349.02 No State Law

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Notes: 1. Driver given only a warning for first photo radar offense if speed is within 10 mph of limit. 2. State courts in Missouri and Ohio found automated traffic enforcement to be unconstitutional.

Sources IIHS and NCSL, 2017.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 80

Appendix J Motorcycle Helmet Use Requirements

Specific Segment of Riders (Usually under

age 21 or age 18) Alaska1

Arizona

Arkansas Colorado

Connecticut Delaware2

Florida3

Hawaii Idaho

Indiana Kansas

Kentucky4

Maine5

Michigan6

Minnesota7

Montana New Mexico

North Dakota8

Ohio9

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania10

Rhode Island11

South Carolina

South Dakota

Texas12

Utah Wisconsin13

Wyoming

Guam

All Riders

Alabama

California

Georgia Louisiana

Maryland

Massachusetts

Mississippi Missouri Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina Oregon

Tennessee

Vermont Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

American Samoa District of Columbia

Northern Marianas Puerto Rico14

U.S.Virgin Islands

No Helmet Required

Illinois Iowa

New Hampshire

Notes: 1. Alaska’s motorcycle helmet use law covers passengers of all ages, operators younger than age 18,

and operators with instructional permits. 2. In Delaware, every motorcycle operator or rider age 19 and older must carry an approved helmet. 3. Florida law requires that all riders younger than age 21 wear helmets, without exception. Those age

81 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES

21 and older can ride without helmets only if they can show proof of coverage by a medical insurance policy.

4. Kentucky law requires that all riders younger than age 21 wear helmets, without exception. Those age 21 and older can ride without helmets only if they can show proof of coverage by a medical insurance policy. Motorcycle helmet laws in Kentucky also cover operators with instructional/ learner’s permits.

5. Motorcycle helmet laws in Maine cover operators with instructional/learner’s permits. Maine’s motorcycle helmet use law also covers passengers ages 17 and younger and passengers if their operators are required to wear a helmet.

6. Michigan law requires that all riders younger than age 21 years wear helmets, without exception. Those age 21 and older may ride without helmets only if they carry additional insurance and have passed a motorcycle safety course or have had their motorcycle endorsement for at least two years. Motorcycle passengers who want to exercise this option also must be age 21 or older and carry additional insurance.

7. Motorcycle helmet laws in Minnesota cover operators with instructional/learner’s permits. 8. North Dakota’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all passengers traveling with operators who are

covered by the law. 9. Ohio’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all operators during the first year of licensure and all

passengers of operators who are covered by the law. 10. Pennsylvania’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all operators during the first two years of licensure

unless the operator has completed the safety course approved by PennDOT or the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.

11. Rhode Island’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all passengers (regardless of age) and all operators during the first year of licensure (regardless of age).

12. Texas exempts riders age 21 or older if they can either show proof of successfully completing a motorcycle operator training and safety course or can show proof they have a medical insurance policy. A peace officer cannot stop or detain a person who is the operator of or a passenger on a motorcycle for the sole purpose of determining whether the person has successfully completed the motorcycle operator training and safety course or is covered by a health insurance plan.

13. Motorcycle helmet laws in Wisconsin cover operators with instructional/learner’s permits. 14. Puerto Rico strengthened its motorcycle law in 2007. The law requires riders to wear helmets,

boots, gloves and reflective gear while riding at night. The law also imposed new testing requirements.

Sources: GHSA, IIHS and NCSL, 2017.

NCSL Contact:

Douglas Shinkle Transportation Program Director

douglas.shinkle@ncsl.org

William T. Pound, Executive Director

7700 East First Place, Denver, Colorado 80230, 303-364-7700 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515, Washington, D.C. 20001, 202-624-5400

www.ncsl.org

© 2018 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-58024-951-5