Along for the Ride Reducing Driver Distractions

Transcription

1 Executive Summary 1 Along for the Ride Reducing Driver Distractions Final Report of the Driver Focus and Technology Forum William T. Pound, Executive Director 1560 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado (303) N. Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 Washington, D.C (202) March 2002

2 2 Along for the Ride: Reducing Driver Distractions The is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the states, commonwealths and territories. NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system. NCSL has three objectives: To improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures. To promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures. To ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system. The Conference operates from offices in Denver, Colorado, and Washington, D.C. Printed on recycled paper 2002 by the. All rights reserved. ISBN

3 Executive Summary 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Anyone who has been on the road lately knows that what was once only fiction in our cars has become reality. Now, Batman and James Bond are not the only drivers to enjoy the benefits of in-vehicle technology. A variety of technological devices both carried into the vehicle and embedded in the vehicle allow drivers to communicate with the outside world, receive information and entertainment services, and perform many of the activities that used to be available only at home or in the office. New technology also promises to help drivers to become more aware of their driving circumstances and reduce emergency personnel response times to crashes or other roadside emergencies. Although new technology can provide drivers with many benefits, the downside is the concern about driver distraction. Many activities such as drinking coffee, reading a newspaper, shaving, dealing with loud children in the back seat or applying makeup can take a driver s attention from the road and increase the risk of a crash, but the use of wireless telephones and other wireless communications and information technology in motor vehicles has captured popular attention. During the last two years, the (NCSL) has responded to more than 1,000 requests for information about the regulation of wireless phones and other technology in motor vehicles from state and federal legislators, legislative staff, federal agencies, private companies, local communities, private individuals and the media. In addition, state legislators introduced hundreds of bills to address the use of communications technology in motor vehicles. To respond to this rising interest, NCSL initiated the Driver Focus and Technology Partnership Forum. The project brought together state legislators and staff, wireless service providers, auto manufacturers, other interested companies and industry, safety groups, federal agencies, academics and other stakeholders to discuss technology in motor vehicles. During an eight-month period, the Driver Focus and Technology Partnership Forum (the report also uses the term working group to refer to the forum) examined various topics and agreed on 14 principles. These principles are offered to state legislatures and others to assist in addressing legislation about technology in motor vehicles. 1. Federal law clearly governs equipment embedded in motor vehicles. 1 Driver behavior, however, is a state issue. States, rather than the federal government, should decide whether to regulate the use of wireless telephones and other communications, information and entertainment technology in motor vehicles. 1

4 42 Along for the Ride: Reducing Driver Distractions 2. States, rather than local jurisdictions, should decide whether to regulate the use of wireless telephones and other communications, information and entertainment technology in motor vehicles. 3. Drivers should not have access to traditional broadcast televisions or other embedded communications, entertainment or information devices that are not intended for driver use while operating motor vehicles. 4. No regulation should prevent a driver s use of hand-held and hands-free wireless telephones in emergency situations. Emergency situations are circumstances where the driver is using a mobile telephone or other telematic device for the sole purpose of communicating with an emergency response operator; a hospital, physician s office or health clinic; an ambulance company or corps; law enforcement personnel; or a fire department, district or company. Emergency situations also include communications by police officers or peace officers; members of a fire department, district or company; or operators of an authorized emergency vehicle in the performance of official duties. 5. Legislation, if contemplated, should consider and support automatic crash notification systems and other emergency response related technology. Any restrictions on wireless communication use should not impede emergency response technology. 6. States should include information about driver distractions including information about the responsible use of potentially distracting technology in driver education programs. 7. All drivers should receive driver distraction educational materials. 8. The federal government and state governments should work with industry and safety groups to develop appropriate driver education materials. 9. All states should collect data about the involvement of driver distractions including potentially distracting technology in motor vehicles on crash report forms. Motor vehicle administrators and other experts should determine the crash form content, with an emphasis on encouraging uniform data elements, collection methods and officer training. 10. Academic studies such as driving simulators, road tests and epidemiological research should supplement information obtained from crash report forms. 11. The federal government, states and industry should encourage additional research in several specific topic areas, including the effectiveness of hands-free devices, data collection processes and the effects of various entertainment and communications devices on different types of drivers. 12. Because teenage and novice drivers lack driving experience, they are more susceptible to the distractions caused by communications, entertainment and information technology in motor vehicles.

5 Executive Summary School districts should be encouraged to provide mobile telephones for school buses. However, states should consider prohibiting school bus drivers from using phones while driving the school bus except in emergency cases. 14. If states pass restrictions on the use of wireless phones and other communications, information and entertainment technology in motor vehicles, they should phase in enforcement to allow consumers enough time to adjust to restrictions. In addition to the areas of agreement, the Driver Focus and Technology Forum participants defined areas of disagreement. Generally, two conflicting positions emerged from working group discussions. One side argued for restrictions on the use of specific technologies, including wireless telephones in motor vehicles. According to this position, mobile telephones and other devices can be dangerous when used while driving. Many studies, some forum members contended, have demonstrated increased risks associated with driver use of cell phones and other technology. Although crash data are lacking, this view argues that lawmakers do not need conclusive information before they act to save lives. Driver education alone is not enough. According to some working group members, only the combination of education, legislation and enforcement of existing laws will obtain the desired behavior change. Moreover, they suggest that restrictive legislation acts as an educational tool that is more effective than driver education alone. The opposing position argued against the regulation of specific technology in motor vehicles. According to this viewpoint, the broader issue is driver distraction. For these members, driver education is critical. Drivers need to be taught when certain activities can safely be performed while driving a vehicle. According to this position, available crash data shows that wireless phones account for only a small percentage of crashes. Wireless telephones and other communications, entertainment and information devices provide valuable benefits to consumers and society. Lawmakers need better data before they act to restrict the use of any specific technology. According to this view, restrictive legislation will have marginal effects on crashes and could inadvertently reduce the safety and productivity benefits of technology in motor vehicles. From this perspective, existing careless and reckless driving laws, if more aggressively enforced, are adequate to deal with the problems caused by distracted drivers. The working group did not reach agreement on the issue of whether states should prohibit the use of hand-held wireless phones but allow the use of hands-free phones while operating a motor vehicle. Some felt it was a reasonable restriction that would enhance the safety of the driving public. Others argued that a specific restriction on wireless phones, including hand-held wireless phones, is not warranted. Some argued that hands-free requirements were a good first step to alert drivers to the potential dangers of cell phone use while driving. Several working group members contended that different hands-free systems provided different levels of safety. Others argued that hands-free requirements would not be effective because they fail to address the cognitive distraction that occurs while conversing on a phone regardless of whether it is hand-held or hands-free and that can negatively affect driving performance. Some argued that, unless paired with education, a hand-held ban might give the appearance that hands-free use is completely safe.

6 64 Along for the Ride: Reducing Driver Distractions Data collection also proved to be a controversial issue. Most working group members agreed that more information was needed about the effect of distractions in motor vehicles. However, forum participants disagreed about the appropriate methods for collecting data. Several legislators felt it was important to collect information about the specific issues they were concerned about such as the role of wireless phones in motor vehicle crashes on crash report forms. Other forum participants argued against singling out wireless phones on crash report forms, contending that states should improve their knowledge about all distractions in the vehicle. Many wireless phone carriers suggested that current crash data indicate a minimal risk from driver phone use. Other working group members argued that crash report forms often provide dubious results, since they rely on the driver s self report to the investigating police officer immediately after the crash. For this reason, some members suggested crash report forms should be supplemented by research and studies. All working group members agreed that consistency in crash data collection methods is desired, and current efforts to revise crash data forms should be considered by state lawmakers. Many agreed that states should examine the revision of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria when they are released. The regulation of wireless phones and other communications, information and entertainment technologies in motor vehicles is a contentious issue. Many stakeholders brought diverse opinions about the appropriateness of such restrictions to working group discussions. However, all the participants in NCSL s Driver Focus and Technology Project agreed that safety is a primary issue for drivers on the road. State lawmakers will want to consider the 14 areas of agreement reached by the working group with regard to communications, information and entertainment technology; emergency response and safety technology; driver education; data collection and studies; drivers using technology; and legislative issues.