Agenda 10/14/2014 Item # 11B • 10/14/2014 11 .B.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to consider options available for treatment of commercial sign holders and to
continue the long-standing prohibition against unpermitted commercial use of the public rights-of-
way.
OBJECTIVE: To provide the Board of County Commissioners (Board) with options in
response to the public petition of September 9, 2014, relating to treatment of commercial sign
holders in the public right-of-way, and to recommend that the Board continue the long-standing
prohibition against unpermitted commercial use of the public rights-of-way.
CONSIDERATIONS: On September 9, 2014, under Item 6.A, Petitioner Homer Helter
appeared before the Board to express concerns relating to the prohibition on commercial use of
the public right-of-way ("PROW"). In particular, Mr. Helter's concerns related to commercial
sign holders in the public rights-of-way (a copy of the minutes from the September 9th Board
meeting item, is included as an attachment). Following Mr. Helter's petition, the Board voted to
direct the County Attorney's Office to work with the Code Enforcement Department and bring
back recommendations relating to sign holding in the public right-of-way.
Consistent with this direction, the following options are presented for Board consideration:
I. CURRENTLY AVAILABLE OPTIONS (no further Board action required):
A. Formal enforcement (no sign holders in PROW): The prohibition against
commercial use of the right-of-way has been in place since 1987. Enforcement of this
longstanding prohibition is immediately available to the Board, and unless the Board
directs otherwise, enforcement is the presumptive course of action.
B. Temporary use for special event (no sign holders in PROW): Business owners
wishing to increase exposure to arterial roadway traffic may, under appropriate
circumstances, obtain temporary use authorization for special events. Temporary use
approval would allow the placement of directional ground signs in the PROW, in
conjunction with the special event. Both TUP authorization and a directional sign permit
are required in order to place these signs in the PROW. The temporary use and related
directional sign in the PROW are generally limited to 28 days per calendar year (an
additional 28 days may be granted via Board approval).
II. OPTIONS REQUIRING FURTHER BOARD ACTION:
A. Stand-alone annual (or one time) permit (for business to use a sign holder). The
Board could allow a business to obtain a permit to use a sign holder. As explained in
more detail below, appropriate regulations to ensure protection of public safety and
aesthetics should be in place prior to permitting this activity.
Packet Page -344-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
B. "Directional" sign holder permit (in conjunction with a special event): In lieu of
smaller directional ground signs relating to a special event, the Board could allow a
business to obtain a permit for a human commercial sign holder. Limits as to maximum
number, size, location, appearance, time/days, etc., that apply to ground signs, could
apply to held signs. Additional consideration could be given to the manner of display
(for example, no "spinning" commercial signs at oncoming traffic).
C. Allow sign holders / remove prohibition: The Board has the option of removing
the longstanding prohibition against commercial use of the right-of-way, and allowing
commercial sign holders from any business, to freely operate without any standards or
restrictions.
D. Allow sign holders / update the prohibition: For example, a limited exception in
the roadside stands ordinance could be drafted to allow commercial sign holders.
According to the Tax Collector's Office, there are over 20,000 currently active business tax
receipts in Collier County. Allowing any and all businesses to engage in commercial use of the
PROW (whether via permit or otherwise) could lead to proliferation of handheld commercial
signs, and a concomitant detriment to public (and sign holder) safety, and community aesthetics.
It is not presently possible to gauge how many businesses would employ commercial sign
holders if that activity were allowed, nor how that number might evolve in the years ahead, in the
event that the prohibition is lifted.
Bicycle, pedestrian, and motorist safety is staff's highest priority. The Governors Highway
Safety Association (GHSA) has identified visual distractions as one of the top four items
distracting drivers. The GHSA recognizes "signs & displays" external to the vehicle as a key
factor to distracted driving (http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/pdf/sfdistll.pdf). Active sign
holders in the PROW increase the potential for distractions by moving signs and being much
closer to the driver, bicyclist, or pedestrian.
In addition, arterial roadway frontage and exposure is a function of "location" and generally,
greater arterial exposure is reflected in property values (and commercial rental rates). While
allowing less-exposed businesses to gain arterial exposure via commercial use of the PROW is
beneficial to businesses that might be at a "secondary" location, it is detrimental to those
property owners and tenants who have paid a premium for their arterial exposure.
Given the volume of businesses that could take advantage of the opportunity to engage in
commercial use of the PROW, appropriate regulations would have to be developed and vetted
prior to allowing the activity if the Board chooses to allow active sign holders in the PROW.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated
with this Executive Summary.
Packet Page -345-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The issue presented here is limited to the regulation of
commercial speech, which is afforded somewhat less Constitutional protection than political
speech (though Courts have blurred these lines over time). The issue is further limited to
whether a local government can regulate hand-held commercial signs in the public right-of-way.
Under current case law, it is my opinion that a local government can enact an ordinance based on
the substantial government interests of aesthetics and traffic safety, and ban all hand-held
commercial signs in the public right-of-way. The ordinance must be content-neutral. It cannot
pick and choose between the types of commercial speech or the speakers. The Board may allow
hand-held commercial signs in the right-of-way; the Board may ban hand-held commercial signs
in the right-of-way. An ordinance, however, that bans all hand-held commercial signs, except
those that promote certain businesses or are held by certain groups, is constitutionally suspect.
An ordinance that attempts a middle ground approach (such as permitting) is difficult to
construct so as to survive a challenge; the argument would be that if the reason for the partial
prohibition is safety, why is local government compromising public safety? In short, it is my
opinion that an all or nothing approach to hand-held commercial signs in the public right-of-way
is the most defensible approach. -JAK
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board continues the long-standing ban on unpermitted
commercial use of the public right-of-way.
Prepared by: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Jeff Wright, Code Enforcement Director
Attachments: 1) BCC minutes from the 9/9 meeting
2) Distracted driving presentation
Packet Page -346-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.11.B.
Item Summary: Recommendation to consider options available for treatment of
commercial sign holders and to continue the long-standing prohibition against unpermitted
commercial use of the public rights-of-way. (Jeff Wright, Code Enforcement Director)
Meeting Date: 10/14/2014
Prepared By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services
10/7/2014 4:51:09 PM
Submitted by
Title: Director-Code Enforcement, Code Enforcement
Name: WrightJeff
10/7/2014 4:51:11 PM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services
Date: 10/7/2014 5:03:22 PM
Name: WrightJeff
Title: Director-Code Enforcement.Code Enforcement
Date: 10/7/2014 5:04:20 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title:Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning
Date: 10/7/2014 5:08:03 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 10/8/2014 8:40:48 AM
Packet Page -347-
10/14/2014 11.B.
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management&Budget
Date: 10/8/2014 11:02:59 AM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 10/8/2014 2:38:39 PM
Packet Page -348-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
September 9, 2014
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that time on that particular item
that we can hear public comments on that particular item.
Now, as far as these two issues, we've been hearing it over a d
over and over. It's been discussed at every meeting. It's not that -- d
Mr. Klatzkow said we're going to be discussing it at the next 'b ...
So it's not an issue -- you just don't like what the Board is d ' I get
that.
So we're going to move on to, what is it, 6.A? 4ir
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Did you want to take a break?
ARY
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're all donei*X public comments.
MR. OCHS: No, with your court rep• ,er, sir. Should we --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're gilt take a 10-minute
break. Thank you.
' )/4)0'
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING• rybody take their seat please.
We're going to go to 6.A. Zio)
Item #6A /
PUBLIC PE IO REQUEST FROM HOMER HELTER
REQUESTIN HAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMIS fir• . RS ALLOW SMALL BUSINESSES TO UTILIZE
SIG el IL 2 ERS - MOTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
T , b ' K WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT AND BRING BACK
f` MENDATION OR OPTIONS REGARDING SIGN
HO ' DING IN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT A FUTURE
BOARD MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Item 6.A is a public petition
Page 153
Packet Page -349-
10/14/2014 11.B.
September 9, 2014
request from Homer Helter, requesting that the Board of County
Commissioners allow small businesses to utilize sign holders.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Helier, I want to interrupt you. I
still want you to give your public petition, but first of all I'd like to give
direction to the County Attorney to work with Code Enforcement t
look at our ordinance and make recommendations to the Boar. 6
Commissioners on sign holding on public right-of-way at a u -
meeting.
Okay, is there a second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seconded by . a sioner Fiala.
Go ahead.
MR. HELTER: Okay. Good afterno Vii. Commissioners. I'm
Homer Helter. And good afternoon,,„L 5 fird afternoon.
I got to tell you, my store's at irley Street. The reason I'm
telling you that, I want everybod i _ ` re to come and visit my store.
What we have there is a s • • ►:ary location. And you'll find out a
lot of people that have si 6 t . rs either have a secondary location
which means they're not o' on Pine Ridge Road or 41 or something
like that. Or they're in strip center and they're buried in a strip center
like Barry Nicho ' store is on the corner.
What w-,,, ve a big metal building, it's 12,000 square foot. If it
was out on 41 ° ,j ewhere or Pine Ridge Road, I wouldn't need a sign
holder. It' • store, you could see it. But I don't. I'm on a
seco. 4 a 1. ation. And here's what we do. The building itself is a big
'o =w • ,auilding. It will never ever be on the cover of Gulfshore Life
• a ''ine. But once you get them in the store, once you come in the
stor- we have 50 antique dealers and then we have the big military
store in the back. And we have a really unsophisticated marketing
program. Probably in season we get all the tourists, there's people in
there that can speak three or four languages at any time. We get to --
Pare 154
Packet Page -350-
10/14/2014 11.B.
September 9, 2014
we have the friendliest store I think anywhere. And we dwell on
customer service. And we ask people, hey, how did you hear about
us? And a lot of them will say your sign holder. That's why I have a
sign holder. I wouldn't spend the money, I wouldn't do it if it was 't
paying off. So that's why I do that.
So we did it for years. And all of a sudden one day some• •t'f)
said you can't have a sign holder no more. And I didn't liste a hat.
But anyway, a few days after that somehow I asked Jeff y qih, t for a
copy of the rules. What can you do? How can I be a lder?
What's the rules that lets me have a sign holder?
Well, he sent me this thing, 76-42-21. An o a• it and you
don't even know what it means. So I said to hi t is is no good, I
need a sheet of paper that tells me what I c; do. Well, he come up to
the store. Anyway, we became -- I've (y • 01 you, Jeff I think is a
fair guy and he has commonsense. As.,
So we sit down and we worke te. my store a couple times. I've
been down to the Code Enfor%lett building. And we worked a thing
out where probably on o of paper you can do three things.
What the sign holder -- an not going to go into detail, but I'm
going to tell you shoul0 sign holder have an orange vest on or a
safety vest? Ye I think so.
Number o, t , sign itself. There's no really any regulations on
the sign.
And t' = The location where the sign can be held.
t • I. sked Jeff why we have all this trouble right now And I
g t_ ,4 the commissioners was worried about the people, the
p- xa ians having a right-of-way on the sidewalks.
1
Well, most of the time on the sidewalks the sign holder's not on
there much. They're either in the grass or in the dirt because it's hard
on their feet, legs and back to have a sign and be on that hard concrete
all the time.
Paap 1 SS
Packet Page -351-
10/14/2014 11.B.
September 9, 2014
But I asked Jeff, I said, well, let me ask you something. Do you
really -- and I'm just speaking for Pine Ridge Road now. Do you think
you have more people walking down Pine Ridge Road or bicycles
going 15 miles an hour? I said, let me ask you, is bicycles legal o the
sidewalk? He said he didn't know. �
So he went back and he checked it. And you know what? '
are. Bicycles are allowed on the sidewalks. The only cave ey
have to give the pedestrians the right-of-way.
So I believe if a bicycle is allowed on the sidewa irel Y a
person holding a sign could be on there.
The other thing we talked about was sign-;.be . Every time I
redo my sign, and it's a couple times a year, I th 'm going to have a
better sign this time and it still isn't up to sr46. f to me. Maybe if we
went to a color scheme, maybe if every ;. et s red, white and blue,
something like that, maybe they w‘ 1S,‘ more inviting. I don't know.
But I can tell you that a sign hiltb r to me is important. We've
had this discussion with Jeff a got some ideas. And I think you
should hear them. And -# /rked on them together.
And I got to tell you, e folks back here, from Barry, Barry and I
are buddies but he don't)ike my take of making a deal. And I'll tell
you the reason w he don't, or one of the reasons. I hate to spend
money. But S f the ode Enforcement, the county to have some
control, I thi very business should have a permit, a yearly permit to
have a sig `�" er. Maybe it cost a couple hundred bucks, I don't
kno is ' t an idea. That way whenever a person wants to have a
M
si , . '' r and they fill the form out, they give the 200 bucks or
w i+ - er it is, they get one sheet of paper and this is what you can do.
mo
It m kes sense. It doesn't have to go into a big bunch of foo-foo. You
can read it and do it.
Now, it's all up to you what you want to do. I'd rather try to come
up with something and try to make it work than have a war that's
A• (tP I Scc
Packet Page -352-
10/14/2014 11.B.
September 9, 2014
coming down the road. I don't want to have no wars to have a sign
holder out there. Let's just try to make a deal. Remember that boy --
I've been here since 8:30 this morning. I need a nap.
Remember that boy singing this morning what he said about the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't say that. You were goin o
take me out dancing tonight. Actually maybe you do need a nap.
HELTER: Okay,H y, oka .y
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that we would pirspi to take
her when you leave this room.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: He's mart 14: „
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's oka
MR. HELTER: Anyway do I have any ti 1 ft.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. f
MR. HELTER: Could I let the ik A. 1, er -- now, he doesn't
believe in me either what I just sai . . But could I give the rest of
my time to him?
CHAIRMAN HENNING
MR. HELTER: Ok JO you guys allowed to ask me a
question or not?
CHAIRMAN HEFT G: Yeah, is there any questions for Mr.
Helter?
Go ahea•,, o . issioner Fiala.
COMMI •NER FIALA: Just a fast comment.
You !' °^+ • , one of the things that I think would really be
bene . 1 t •usinesses, and this might not apply to you but maybe to
an address on them. Ever to find a
,• � rs, they don't have a ad ss try
b s and you know where you want to go except you're looking for
the •'ddress and they have no addresses to be found. That's aggravating.
MR. HELTER: Oh, I have an address hanging that says free
donuts.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, then
Pcr . 1C7
Packet Page -353-
10/14/2014 11.B.
September 9, 2014
Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Homer, if I understand, what
you would like is for this Board to approve bringing this issue forward
on a future agenda --
MR. HELTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to discuss this and -- +
MR. HELTER: Exactly. �,
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- see if we could im. 3ome
reasonable regulation to allow for these type of signs 9,. . • :, eld, while
at the same time making sure it's done in a safe an 1 way.
MR. HELTER: And Code Enforcement 1 it know -- or
county, you would know who had sign -- what s esses had sign
orders, you'd still have control.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ana. s tig understand there might
be some on the Board who feel tha ► .uld not allow that for a
number of different reasons.
MR. HELTER: Well, yo . ;.ing to have a fight.
COMMISSIONER ' I understand. But I'm just saying --
MR. HELTER: Aria ` ss, let me tell you, I really try and not to
do one. And I know these folks back here and the ones who are back
there really don' ree with everything. But if it comes down to it, I'll
be in their fo _. ` e. at's it
COMMIti; •NER HILLER: And still take me dancing?
MR. ► , �. ER: Oh, absolutely.
. •1 ISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so I'd like to make a motion.
IRMAN HENNING: A different topic. I already made --
t .44 ,
- already a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who made a motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I did.
P,(T,,s 147Q
Packet Page -354-
10/14/2014 11.B.
September 9, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did you say?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I said direct the County Attorney to
work with Code Enforcement to bring this item back and make
recommendations to the Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Then I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, you can't. 414
( t:b
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wh Y?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why can I not sec t - ?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's already secon.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who seco -• . 7 o did?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner i. a.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did ye4 ere was I?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thi§ i on why our meetings
are so long, okay.
.Y
MR. HELTER: Well I feel a V. - better. You know, I thought I
had a disadvantage, because I' here since 8:30 this morning and
there's been great speake with great suits, they've got slide
presentations, they've got -e-ring binders full of notes. I don't even
have any notes, and evething I got on I bought at Beall's at half price.
And then you g seem mad to me.
COMM it; O R NANCE: Thanks for hanging in there,
Homer. I sups the discussion of the agenda item. I think there's
p g
compellin_ -.ons why we can do something thoughtful. I don't think
it's a s: de n is or a blight on our community. If it was any of those
t 1 he recession, we would have had 20,000 sign holders out
t It d we really didn't so --
MR. HELTER: Thank you. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thanks for your thoughts. We look
forward to talking with you. Sorry you had to wait so long.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you call the question, please.
PaaP 1 S4
Packet Page -355-
10/14/2014 11.B.
September 9, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, are you there
with us?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, all in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye. A '‘Cbb'
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. froC)'SY
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion caefir,es unanimously.
• AcS4),,
Item #10D
'' ,,\
RECOMMENDATION TO N ' ' ' THE PAVILION AT THE
ROVER RUN DOG PA ! ATED WITHIN VETERANS
COMMUNITY PARK, I liv EMORY OF STEPHEN A. DUZICK —
APPROVED 4
MR. OC , . Chairman, that takes you to Item 10.D, which
was set to be h•' • immediately after the public petition. That is a
recommen:P to name the Pavilion at the Rover Run Dog Park
locat�. it ' Veterans Community Park in memory of Steven A.
D l '∎ d Commissioner Hiller brought this item forward.
hairman Henning left the Boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And you all remember
Steven Duzick. He was a sign holder and he was unfortunately hit by a
drunk driver and died.
And I read the article in the Naples Daily News that addressed --
PacsP I Al
Packet Page -356-
10/14/2014 11.B.
A
OHS
_ , ii.:...„,,.,,71.7.,.,:i.;i :,,....,.• wii.,::„._:::,::;,;:ii... .„-i;-..:J
4 ''' s Highway Safety Association®
1. -' 7,r-
, - -
. . . ... . ,
---
- -
,..........- . „...... ,
.._
_.. ,.._ .
-.. 14141,,-
...
...
,..- 4
if
---- t.
,..„,
. .
1 ,:‘,,l•rr'•''.'•. --lie: . o-- -
- ' -
-, 17 - - - • '•-,
-,7!.,.....,„,,,. . v.-.., ...---,• 4.4,
... ...,. -.--,••
,
., .
.:
.... _ . ..- ... ,
4,......;„ ,..,.
,
...,.. _ .
4*
. ,
, .,....
.. ...
'7::-.`7-1- '-':-,., .-,,,,t, :-.,•,-..,,,-,,•', .,3," ,;.--- '-'7' -...-. '. .,,,„ ""f'' .,,,,., '..,;.,,,,,,
."'"-•
. •••::.
•
4
V„r‘o.i,.i-.C
. -:. -
4I
.. . ,
',..t'
"4*.'...:..i'd..,
, .
‘ 7itc;:''-Y . • ;ler' '
' I'-:'':(*VW-
'livettl. .
.:.
...
...
..,..
. ,
' ti.,4z-4.,..,.. .,. ,. , •..,,t:,, : ,
. ,.
;t. - - •-••!- -'
•-"-- .- -'"',',:rit
,-- -•
....„ , •::,,,•,
----
,
...„,\ ..„. . .. ...
. ,
,:. ...
t.
.:'
VIN
1e
-1-. ':''''' '.,'''.2.'::. .,-Ati61:L;:i'''''''', , ,, - ,, .... 4 ■
d:., i ' ,•',-, ,,
, ,
'. "' . . ,
. .
. ,. ....„, ..„, _
r ...,.....,
-..,,,,,,,. •- , ,..„. ,,,,,
.,....,...,.,
.:..-..--.=.
.-.. '-7,•.•,-- ,
, e
.'. ----',,10-,.!.... N, '
,, r-
', ...,.
i - .,,,, -,..,
?, -
, .
'',-,-; . - -,'-'1 ---,, - -
. . .,,
n rf
r-,- . .•.., rt. l':...i.: f.Z.v,..5;ii F. .,,,,,..F.r., i151. '.....,:,.., t.::::.=. ,14.,..„4
r--,,,,,,,, E-:. _ f.s7. —Fa---,-,..„ :..-:".-.z.z......i-sg'• -1,-'1'$;=--- .1-. ,,,,::; [4.- '1;:i- i-.-:.• v,, VI .:,..L. '..,..= kili -,---1-4,
r''='----1.':':- r i.,...------,-,E,,,c.„,,,LTE.,-- : ,.4.. ,,,,-; k' •-";•:-.0".-',...k,,,tstt- 'g!,,,,,..,1,1--..,: .„2,, ,,,,,,,,.- ---- - - z„L„,,,,,,,,,,
'..t.,•,- k.--,i, ",-.".;:' .--.'-',Vil. r-Z.7... -:,t Cf::21i r''' '' ''':".:: ''''`f,&' ''''''"- '''''m
DO
r'I' -}
WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS ;-, ,‘ ,7, WHAT STATES CAN
This report was,*.madeposs17ible byrra grant from
Packet Page -357-
GIs.
� , ' y" � .At:
10/14/2014•
11 .B.[ ; � ''''',a^: , a F x" ,� :, Acknowledgments n�. ee li l L s ';' TI k ry . .:% ,� .:,..51.•••,.1., L r:tw.•:,L
w-q�y
N.
• fy;;
/'f 'i.y\�.1A4.
.
q
t� y
Tuft .
•
L:r• :1
rI .:; ...1: ....7'IC:::.J�";r:::+ , f a' r r L;,,, ■ ;L• rq
a' % .1,.I,•t.:1.;;c.r r[a4�ir'FL4..rl ! r.t 2tf! r :rF
;,.:Art147....-1:Ii.:-':.••:- •it „,,4,42 :.. ' ,.; '-'::''1:''. :t;.'"'.71ii ., 7,:....:.:'r..i , , ''. .7....i. ..- '.::'?..'.;;:•••',:;;.:;,.P, •••:.,..k:;`,..V. . ....
',..',1#1,•,::, , t .,- - ,:. +fit.,� •' ,,y.
+x „
;..i �s. LL elf° �...',..t ,:'�'[r
' .r..v y'-# � "�s�',iY fir':+riY��.�hs -•:, .r '.-Z y..1.;$•.- �`, Wit`!'%v
y • ...
s:
hi
t.
.,J y.: "'
r Z t. -:rr !k ' o vR
f . r _
Pkc., � 1. ..,v,—. . ., .c.���• t I:
`k ::in;
r C£l1UL�7( C�6T rf
r r q 4 ,..„Jonathan Adkins X �'>�
4, .,3 7r1 I 3` k I h•I of � � "�dy„ R` { Y 1-•'•,.''
r fY prTOJ111i71f- -tititl Diret:tY,k;r z �, , °� , 1L Q r
•C L',1 t
.: �,'e'T, � ' 3�ItJ��Z� •„,-,-..r r y �ti, t ��4��lCslL� � F �t� �� i,S fry '-�4 I,� q1 '' , y 4�,• -
A; ..r , , 1 s?K-5{,IY�Lr a � ,�. (u i - ,� 7 :P ;'-''',,•,-,.A:�°�.. �{L +r rt•, cki iarper.� ..:�,, t 4ti 1. :•
ot..c•Fai rt i utllL, r ff,Trs , ,
C `'C.rvi2r,pu t'-'ter n = ,
g
Croa+r,e I I n ' Fr, . i !r,.
L
•
•
r
WY,:,i GP,P,,,k s■,,,.,.,Q and What States Can Do
Packet Page -358-
10/14/2014 11.B.
Table of Contents
pg 2 Acronyms
3 Executive summary
7 1 // introduction
9 2 // What Es distracted driving?
13 3 // How often are drivers distracted?
19 4 /1/ How does distraction affect
driver performance?
23 5 // How does distraction
affect crash risk?
29 67/ Axe there effective countermeasures
for distracted drivEng?
37 7 /1/ Conclusions and
recommendafiorts
40 Refeterices
\A/F, ±PPQPr.^1, and What States Can Do
Packet Page -359-
: . 0
10
yW • 10/14/2014 11.B.
r�,r`t Acronyms 1 'r. jA
t w, ,:' •:r�,q �i 'y,i.r...i"'r°nn��:'dia i i� .a5i1.5j' : 1gt:.'k4q*. r i•::; iy:.i. n'... t'• �.�w ,_'^..4:`_;,r;r: .j:
"5,. 1; 'i ''c':e.-r',iu r i9MM g e t .V frt :�,3x �'t ,r '' 4..•`;"„ ".��...:- � 7`� i3�,; ��}:$., `��:�� � (,L''ny:�"i.i. 'v"'rG!'�;. t"°Wd... 'r �_ 'l�".�r'«.� �i r''`�rx � rJ ,;'�:;'
r _:;`.;2.rrxy';s���.s�' �'1A•�-erg..:, .° :.-.�. „ji$•�f!;�:�:.:x��y}�.egq�t.0w8.�.���'�,.�� _ 'is.: .--. efir.
Vii;'. "•i_.' ••! .u Y• : :••r .:
.- :- ..x'x 5• r;•21,:.:5 : . ..4n[! .r ,.'.
.,� v,:'�..' .:'i"rt n..'i::fit':.' M1-'�• ;. '$p..: 's"' '"':•
3 ' -,����."„e `� -' .o'irf: e:,'''1,:5 ':�' Y.tilr;A::..rsirw T.'Je e - yr,::'.1::�•o'i-,Cr}=”. •!i..,'' rt?'QVt _.K.': i=i
..ray.:^ i*O ,.4141-::.::'.':N-;; :'., k.. S p:!7 r..5' L3: :4_,.•; _ 'i••', .,]
�.:�, ate; i.•1,. -•..::�i`'•$:: .:.waiLF �FS'.: .:.Y. �' i s••' _ 'Y.': ,sr::. - �y-"•'�- . .•
e•1'.. ''''.y`f.: .-'•A•'.{'ry,•.t .3' i.' .ti'J:s.•,{' .,7�.;�� r - ••. :;.j'ii .4i;i • . r
r•f '4'.r i k:':4�i.r �, {fk M1t:-'.47'•'17";!'car y.•
sFiY.'."v_�i:e�'l�Y..l'.r.:ii_R'e"FC•oi.ei;i_a••�$%,• _,. ._'.:r.,• :,;,...;:.....;.;..•..:.:41:.;:;:... 3
. .2
....may..
a:Ry
k fit s t.s' , k,�,i :lirL {. L. :t` � i
e: .{?t; ':x "=r. ., rc' a't*. k r .r .r
� v::, r�b' :Y!
N
I
i.
''e�'' "4'�
i. r
O
I. , .J:..1..:.. :..... 5 :
, Sr
.. ,.. .,� .:.. ...... %;.4.. ... 1..� :. a,r,
z •
.yam .;+ '.'.,:._ ..,...• .'..:.,.:':e. ,Ir'•G -a .7•:rl:' er•
. • • .
l�t i . .• kice S a,, �Z _ k;'3x .7n ? '3zy. . ,:•
F
i _
•
:What.RocAUrrh.Ckn,,,,,Ici What States Can Do
Packet Page -360-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
Executive summary
This report reviews and summarizes distracted driving research available as
of January 2011 to inform states and other organizations as they consider
distracted driving countermeasures. It concentrates on distractions produced
by cell phones,text messaging,and other electronic devices brought into
the vehicle.It also considers other distractions that drivers choose to engage
in,such as eating and drinking, personal grooming, reading,and talking to
passengers. It addresses distractions associated with vehicle features only
briefly.They have been studied extensively by automobile manufacturers, but
states have little role in addressing them.
What is distracted driving?There are four types of driver distraction:
c Visual—looking at something other than the road
Distraction = c Auditory hearing something not related to driving
occurs when u?' c Manual—manipulating something other than the wheel
a driver ` c Cognitive—thinking abut something other than driving
voluntarily
diverts Most distractions involve more than one of these types,with both a sensory
attention to —eyes,ears,or touch—and a mental component. For this report,distraction
something occurs when a driver voluntarily diverts attention to something not related to
not related .1 driving that uses the driver's eyes,ears,or hands.
to driving
that uses the ;! How often are drivers distracted? Driver distraction is common in
driver's ° everyday driving and in crashes.
eyes, ears, "r c Drivers on the road: Most drivers in surveys reported that they
or hands. : sometimes engaged in distracting activities.A study that observed
100 drivers continually for a full year found that drivers were
distracted between one-quarter and one-half of the time.
o Cell phone use: In recent surveys,about two-thirds of all
drivers reported using a cell phone while driving:about one-
third used a cell phone routinely. In observational studies
during daylight hours in 2009, between 7%and 10%of all
drivers were using a cell phone.
o Texting: In recent surveys,about one-eighth of all drivers
reported texting while driving. In observational studies
during daylight hours in 2009,fewer than 1°/o of all drivers
were observed to be texting.
whet Ro,,a r,+ nd What States Can Dc
Packet Page -361-
10/14/2014 11.B.
Executive summary
e Drivers in crashes:At least one driver was reported to have been
distracted in 15%to 30%of crashes.The proportion of distracted
drivers may be greater because investigating officers may not detect
or record all distractions. In many crashes it is not known whether the
distractions caused or contributed to the crash.
How does distraction affect driver performance?Experimental studies
show conclusively that distractions of all types affect performance on tasks
related to driving. But experimental studies cannot predict what effect various
distractions have on crash risk.
How does distraction affect crash risk?The limited research suggests that:
e Cell phone use increases crash risk to some extent but there is no
consensus on the size of the increase.
e There is no conclusive evidence on whether hands-free cell phone
use is less risky than hand-held use.
• Texting probably increases crash risk more than cell phone use.
aF The effects of other distractions on crash risk cannot be estimated
with any confidence.
Are there effective countermeasures for distracted driving?There are
no roadway countermeasures directed specifically at distracted drivers.
Many effective roadway design and operation practices to improve safety
overall,such as edgeline and centerline rumble strips, can warn distracted
drivers or can mitigate the consequences if they leave their travel lane.
Vehicle countermeasures to manage driver workload,warn drivers of risky
situations,or monitor driver performance have the potential to improve safety
for all drivers,not just drivers who may become distracted.Some systems
are beginning to be implemented in new vehicles and others are still in
development.Their ultimate impact on distracted driving cannot be predicted.
Countermeasures directed to the driver offer an opportunity to reduce
distracted driving incidence and crashes in the next few years.They have
concentrated on cell phones and texting through laws,communications
campaigns,and company policies and programs.Systems to block or limit a
Laws banning driver's cell phone calls are developing rapidly but have not yet been evaluated.
hand-held cell '-
phone use .' In summary,the limited research on these countermeasures concludes that
reduced use v. Laws banning hand-held cell phone use reduced use by about
by about half half when they were first implemented. Hand-held cell phone use
when they Vi increased subsequently but the laws appear to have had some long-
were first term effect.
implemented. c- A high-visibility cell phone and texting law enforcement campaign
reduced cell phone use immediately after the campaign. Longer-
term effects are not yet known.
There is no evidence that cell phone or texting bans have reduced
crashes.
\A/11,i Rr-,Par^h nrnnoc and What States Can Do
Packet Page -362-
10/14/2014 11.B.
Executive summary
e Distracted driving communications campaigns and company policies
and programs are widely used but have not been evaluated.
What can states do to reduce distracted driving?States should
consider the following activities to address distracted driving.While each
has been implemented in some states,there is no solid evidence that any is
effective in reducing crashes,injuries,or fatalities.
• Enact cell phone and texting bans for novice drivers. Novices are the
highest-risk drivers.A cell phone ban supports other novice driver
restrictions included in state graduated licensing programs and helps
parents manage their teenage drivers.As of June 2011,30 states
and the District of Columbia prohibited the use of all cell phones by
novice drivers and 41 states and the District of Columbia prohibited
texting by novice drivers. But there is no evidence that novice driver
cell phone or texting bans are effective.
Enforce • Enact texting bans.Texting is more obviously distracting and counter
existing cell to good driving practice than cell phone use.As of June 2011,34
phone and states and the District of Columbia had enacted texting bans for all
texting laws ... drivers.But texting bans are difficult to enforce.
But enforcing • Enforce existing cell phone and texting laws. Enforcement will
cell phone or increase any law's effect,while failing to enforce a law sends a
message that the law is not important But enforcing cell phone or
texting laws �`° 9 P 9 P
will divert texting laws will divert resources from other traffic law enforcement
resources activities.
from other ` • Implement distracted driving communication programs.Cell phone
traffic law and texting laws should be publicized broadly to increase their
enforcement effects.Other communication and education activities can address
activities. the broader issues of avoiding distractions while driving.Thirty-
seven states and the District of Columbia conducted a recent
distracted driving communications campaign. But distracted driving
communication programs will divert resources from other traffic
safety communications activities.
• Help employers develop and implement distracted driving policies and
programs.Many companies have established and implemented cell
phone policies for their employees.Company policies can be a powerful
influence on employees'driving.But they have not been evaluated.
States can and should take four steps that will help reduce distracted driving
immediately and in the future.
O Continue to implement effective low-cost roadway distracted driving
countermeasures such as edgeline and centerline rumble strips.
t- Record distracted driving in crash reports to the extent possible,to
assist in evaluating distracted driving laws and programs.
Monitor the impact of existing hand-held cell phone bans prior to
enacting new laws. States that have not already passed handheld
bans should wait until more definitive research and data are available
on these laws'effectiveness.
Evaluate other distracted driving laws and programs. Evaluation will
vnih.f RPCParr'h.¢h�,�=end What States Can Do
Packet Page -363-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
Executive summary
provide the information states need on which countermeasures are
effective and which are not
What should others do to reduce distracted driving?
• Employers:Consider distracted driving policies and programs for
their employees.Evaluate the effects of their distracted driving
policies and programs on employee knowledge,behavior,crashes,
and economic costs(injuries,lost time,etc.).
r Automobile industry:Continue to develop,test,and implement
measures to manage driver workload and to warn drivers of risky
situations.
• Federal government: Help states evaluate the effects of distracted
driving programs.Continue tracking driver cell phone use and
texting in the National Occupant Protection Use Survey(NOPUS).
Work with states to improve data collection on driver distractions
involved in crashes.Continue to develop and conduct national
communications campaigns on distracted driving.
vnihat Pocoamh shrank and What States Can Do
Packet Page -364-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
1 // introduction
Distracted driving is receiving unprecedented attention. U.S.Secretary of
Transportation Ray LaHood has made it a top traffic safety priority.The
Department of Transportation held distracted driving summits in 2009 and
2010 and has developed a distracted driving website(distraction.gov).The
National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 43 states considered
273 distracted driving bills in 2010,mostly dealing with cell phones and
texting (www.ncsl.org/?TABID=13599).The Governors Highway Safety
The premier Association (GHSA)surveyed the states and found that 37 states and the
traffic safety 7 District of Columbia conducted a distracted driving communications campaign
research recently(GHSA,2010).
journal,
9 produced driving also has roduced a mountain of research.A search of
Analysis 1 r eight major research databases conducted for this report produced over
Prevention, 350 scientific papers published between 2000 and 2010 on some aspect
reported in of distracted driving.The premier traffic safety research journal,Accident
January 2011 Analysis & Prevention, reported in January 2011 that the top four articles
that the top downloaded recently from its website all address cell phone use.
four articles t'
downloaded This report reviews and summarizes distracted driving research available as
recently from of January 2011. It recommends how this research can inform states and
its website all " other organizations as they consider distracted driving countermeasures. It
address cell concentrates on the distractions that have received the most attention:driver
phone use. use of cell phones,text messaging,and other electronic devices brought into
the vehicle. It also considers other distractions that drivers choose to engage
in,such as eating and drinking, personal grooming,reading,and talking to
passengers. It addresses distractions associated with vehicle features only
briefly.They have been studied extensively by automobile manufacturers, but
states have little role in addressing them. Finally,it reviews the little that is
known about distractions produced by external signs and displays.
References are provided to important recent research and to summaries of
research on individual topics. For a comprehensive review of distracted driving,
especially as it relates to vehicle features, readers should consult the book
Driver Distraction,edited by Regan, Lee,and Young.(2009).Distracted
Driving: So What's the Big Picture?(Robertson,201 1)provides a current
overview of distracted driving causes and mitigation strategies.
VA!ha',RACOamh Shnsnrc and What States Can Do -
Packet Page -365-
. Y `ter �.;r"
10/14/2014 11 .B.
�- ,
*�G l F� �£
‘:.10, ,..N7,
•
‘..
9
' m-� v ray ,�
•
::: " i o {
;qs , :t t y` M1
i 4.. Ni'l
0,0::':
,,—,,
'' ' . '' ,-4..1 .4;.i..':::...tt.. ...-',"4" 4.J.,
„.tt'-'-',,,,,,..,.;
',.,
4,..........
r
— ., , '."...;.....-...,...-:;;.1..:II. "
It
St
f
g
Y,-,;i
.v
,'`-s w ,4,- Rte�•
''-- -- ''''.''- -' .,5,,,,,,,.„,:,:ir,,i....,,....
,,
,, ,,,:,,
1 ., „.„,..,3c....4.?„...*....,s, ,,
..„...... ,
,,
-ft—...„. ,.., .
... . .. , ,
-,,,, •,,-,---, Itk---
.-‘7-'-'- '� �.' •Packet Pa•e -366- 1h
10/14/2014 11.B.
2 1/ What Es distracted driving?
Distracted driving definitions.Distracted driving immediately brings to
mind cell phones and texting,and perhaps use of other electronic devices.
But there are many more driving distractions:activities like eating,changing
a CD,or talking to other passengers;billboards or other objects outside the
car; even planning the day's work,rehashing an emotional moment from the
previous night,or just daydreaming.It is useful to begin by defining what
distracted driving means.
While several definitions have been proposed,a good definition is surprisingly
elusive.All start by adapting a dictionary definition of distraction to driving:
"Distraction occurs when a driver's attention is diverted away
from driving by some other activity."
This is too general and imprecise to be observed or measured, much less to
be useful in suggesting effective countermeasures.To produce a working
definition for state use and for this report,consider first what activities may
distract drivers—distraction types—and where these activities originate—
distraction sources.
Distraction types.There are four types of driver distraction:
e Visual— looking at something other than the road
• Auditory— hearing something not related to driving
• Manual— manipulating something other than the wheel
• Cognitive—thinking abut something other than driving
Most distractions involve more than one of these types. In particular, most
distractions involve some thought—cognitive distraction —and many also
involve some sensory distraction. Making a call on a hand-held phone involves
all four types: holding the phone, looking at and touching the phone to dial,
then listening to and thinking about the conversation.
Distraction sources. Driver distractions come from four general sources:
s Associated with the vehicle— controls,displays, driver aids such as
GPS systems
\n/hat What States Can Do
Packet Page -367-
10/14/2014 11.B.
2 // What is distracted driving?
• Brought into the vehicle — cell phones, computers,food,
passengers, animals
* External to the vehicle—signs and displays,other roadside features
or scenery
• Internal to the driver's mind—daydreaming,"lost in thought"
Distractions are almost too numerous to count,much less measure,or
examine their effects on crashes,or consider countermeasures.Some are
` necessary for good driving,such as regular glances at the rear-view mirror.
"Distraction Some cannot be controlled or have little or no effect on crash risk. In many
is an I. situations,drivers have considerable spare capacity in each dimension:
inevitable ,, drivers do not continually need to keep their eyes on the road,their hands
consequence on the wheel,and their attention firmly fixed on driving.As Regan,Young et
of being al.observe(2009a,p.6),"Distraction is an inevitable consequence of being
human human ... driver distraction cannot be eliminated?'The challenge is to identify
... driver and eliminate those distractions that increase crash risk substantially
distraction ij
cannot be { Distracted driving characteristics. Many distractions are very temporary,
eliminated." - lasting less than a second or two:a quick glance at the roadside,an
adjustment to the temperature controls.Other distractions can last for some
time but can be interrupted at any moment:a conversation with a passenger
can be halted in mid-sentence if a risky situation arises that requires the
driver's concentration. Still others can persist for long periods:a driver
conducting an emotionally-charged cell phone conversation may be oblivious
to sudden changes in conditions on the road.
This transitory nature distinguishes distracted driving from other major driver
behaviors that affect traffic safety.Alcohol impairment and fatigue persist for
hours.Seat belts typically are used for all or none of a trip. Even speeding
Distracted • usually lasts for minutes, if not longer. But distractions can come and go in
seconds or less. Distracted driving is not a"yes or no"characteristic of an
driving ... is
difficult to entire trip but something that occurs many times during a trip,often in very
observe at short intervals,
the time it
occurs and
Distracted driving also differs because it is difficult to observe at the time
often almost it occurs and often almost impossible to reconstruct accurately after the
impossible to
fact.After a crash,other important driver behaviors can be determined or
reconstruct
• estimated from hard evidence: alcohol impairment by chemical testing;fatigue
accurately by observation and interview information;speeding by crash reconstruction'
after the fact. i even belt use by injury and belt wear patterns. But most distractions must be
reports estimated from orts from the driver or others.
subjective P
Distracted driving reporting.Another way to help understand distracted
driving is to examine how it is recorded. NHTSA's FARS,GES, and NMVCCS
crash data systems can document an extensive list of visual, auditory, manual,
and cognitive activities that may distract drivers, including using cell phones
or other electronic devices,adjusting vehicle controls or radios, eating
or drinking,applying cosmetics. picking up an object,distracted by other
vniha+Paa arrh and What States Can Do
Packet Page -368-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
2 // What Es distracted driving?
occupants or animals in the vehicle,distracted by something outside the
vehicle,or"lost in thought"or"daydreaming" (NHTSA,2010a, p.4-5;Ascone
et al.,2009,Appendices A-C).
Distracted driving definition for this report.This report is addressed to
State Highway Safety Offices and Departments of Transportation and Public
Safety. It addresses distractions that are likely to affect crash risk and for
which states can consider countermeasures.This helps narrow the scope.The
report excludes,or mentions only in passing:
• Involuntary distractions from any source,such as animals or children
in the vehicle or loud noises outside the vehicle.Countermeasures
addressing these distractions are unlikely except in special
circumstances,such as passenger restrictions for beginning drivers.
e Cognitive distractions such as daydreaming that are not produced
by some external task.These distractions cannot be observed
or measured and the only countermeasure is the standard and
frequently ineffectual admonition to"pay attention while driving.'
This produces a working definition for this report:
"Distraction occurs when a driver voluntarily diverts attention
away from driving to something not related to driving that uses
the driver's eyes, ears, or hands."
This report concentrates on distractions produced by driver use of cell
phones,text messaging,and other electronic devices brought into the vehicle.
�Nhat RA�Aar h Shnnic and What Slates Can Do
Packet Page -369-
m:
10/14/2014 1 1.B.
,,:
t
qq i'a'S n,- i.
.w: ff�P "' ft $
#, .*s J '^+,,may, `y('
d._
14,k,..,..,' v� t i
.4y
, J
if
y # r
b
,. '.:-:-.,:;,,,i,,,‘n , :' . ,,,-,,,,,,',.`r.'--.-4 . 4.,',‘ f;y4lre ..',` .'
o l
V. F {A
r
,, / .,, , ,. =
W
IL,
�` - r1
31 +`\ Packet Page -370-
'...,.,,,:„,:-. 1 .
‘,.,„
10/14/2014 11 .B.
3 // How often are drivers distracted?
Three methods are used to estimate how frequently drivers are distracted:
surveys,observations,and crash reports. Each has strengths and weaknesses;
none provides a complete record of driver distraction.
• Surreys: Driver self-report surveys can estimate all the things
drivers are conscious of doing,especially things that cannot be
observed easily. But surveys depend on accurate recall and honest
reporting.Surveys also can measure driver attitudes regarding the
risks of various distractions and the acceptability of countermeasures
such as cell phone laws.Well-designed,representative,and unbiased
surveys of at least 1,000 drivers provide accurate information on
non-controversial activities if drivers give honest answers.Surveys
can estimate how often drivers do something only in broad subjective
categories such as "never,""sometimes,"or"frequently."
e Observations:
o Direct observations from outside a vehicle can record
only obvious distracting activities such as hand-held cell
phone use or personal grooming,usually only in daylight
hours at urban locations where vehicles are stopped or
travelling slowly.Well-trained observers can record hand-
held cell phone use in moderate traffic;observers using
special equipment can record use at night.Observations
are more difficult for vehicles with heavily-tinted windows.
Observations at nationally-representative sites estimate the
frequency of these distractions reasonably accurately.
o Naturalistic studies put the observer inside the vehicle by
means of a video camera that continually records driver
actions.These studies can detect and measure when
a driver's eyes are not on the road and when his or her
hands are not on the wheel. Naturalistic studies are very
expensive and consequently very small,and participants are
volunteers.The only general-population naturalistic study to
date followed 100 vehicles of volunteer drivers in northern
Virginia for one year between January 2003 and July 2004
(V I I I, 2010; Dingus et al., 2006).Three specialized studies
followed 40 teenage drivers and 203 commercial drivers,
What RACOamh Shrnnre arid what States Can Do
Packet Page -371-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
3 1/ Kow eaten are drivers distracted?
respectively(Lee et al.,2011;Olson et at,2009).A two-
year naturalistic study of 1,950 drivers in six areas of the
country began in 2010;the first data will be available in
2011 (www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2
SH RP2/Pages/The_SH RP_2_Naturalistic_Driving%20
Study_472.aspx).
e Crashes:Crash reports may record driver distractions that the
investigating officer believes caused or contributed to the crash
(NHTSA,2010a).Crash reports probably under-estimate distractions
for two reasons.First,distraction is difficult to detect:drivers may
not admit to being distracted before a crash and there may be no
physical evidence of a distraction after the fact.Second,some state
crash report forms do not specifically ask about driver distraction.
In-depth crash investigations such as NMVCCS likely reduce but will
not eliminate this under-reporting (Ascone et al.,2009).
Surveys.The most recent overall estimates of a wide variety of distracting
Most drivers activities come from a 2002 NHTSA nationally-representative survey of 4,010
engaged ai drivers.(Results from a fall 2010 NHTSA survey were not available in spring
in some 2011.) Most drivers engaged in some distracting activities on at least some
distracting driving trips(Royal,2003,p. 1):
activities on to 81%talked to other passengers;
at least some a 66%changed radio stations or looked for CDs or tapes;
driving trips p(; e 49%ate or drank something;
24%dealt with children riding in the rear seat.
Other distracting activities were less frequent:
e 12%read a map or directions;
• 8%engaged in personal grooming;
• 4%read printed material.
In 2002,only 25%of the drivers reported making cell phone calls and 26%
answered calls.As the data presented below show,self-reported cell phone
use has increased substantially since 2002.While no recent survey data are
available on other distracting activities,they likely have not decreased in the
past decade.
The more common the distracting activity,the less dangerous drivers believed
it to be.The proportion of drivers who believed that activities made driving
"much more dangerous"was:
• 4% -talking to other passengers;
18%-changing a radio station or looking for CDs or tapes;
17%-eating or drinking;
c 40%-dealing with children in the rear seat;
r. 55% - reading a map or directions;
c 61%-personal grooming;
80%- reading printed material.
Abut half the drivers surveyed in 2002 felt that making cell phone calls(48%)
or taking calls (44%) made driving much more dangerous.
. \n/ha-` nd What States Can Do
Packet Page -372-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
3 // How often are drivers distracted?
Three recent nationally-representative telephone surveys addressed the
use of cell phones,texting, and other electronic devices while driving.
AAAFTS (2010)surveyed 2,000 U.S. residents 16 years of age and older.
IIHS(Braitman and McCartt,2010; Farmer et al.,2010)surveyed 1,219
drivers ages 18 and older.TIRF(Vanlaar et al., 2007) surveyed 1,201
Canadian drivers.
The three surveys provide consistent estimates of drivers'self-reported cell
phone use.
• 69%in the last 30 days;34%"fairly often or regularly"(AAAFTS)
• 65%sometimes;40%"at least a few times per week"(IIHS)
• 37%"in the last 7 days"(TIRE)
Across the three surveys,about two-thirds of all drivers reported they
CTIA reported used cell phones while driving and about one-third used them regularly,
that in substantially higher rates than were reported in the 2002 NHTSA survey.
June 2010 The IIHS survey found similar reported cell phone use rates for drivers aged
there were between 18 and 60.The TIRF survey found higher reported use rates for
292.8 million drivers aged 16 to 34.
operational
cell phones CTIA reported that in June 2010 there were 292.8 million operational cell
(or wireless phones(or wireless connections) in the United States(CTIA, 2010,#24),
connections) more than one for each person in the United States aged 5 and older(the
in the United Census Bureau estimates a total population of 308.7 million in 2010,with
States, more 93.1%aged 5 and older-www.census.gov).Almost every driver now has a
than one for cell phone available.
each erson -
in tie United `t. Drivers reported texting while driving less frequently than cell phone use.
States aced 24%in the last 30 days;7%"fairly often or regularly"(AAAFTS)
and above. 13%sometimes;6%"at least a few times per week"(IIHS)
"' The"last 30 days"and `'sometimes"texting rates are similar to the cell phone
use rates reported in NHTSA's 2002 survey.
Younger drivers reported texting while driving more frequently than older
drivers. In the IIHS survey, 13%of drivers age 18-24 texted while driving
daily compared to 2%of drivers aged 30-59.A survey of 1,947 teen drivers
in North Carolina high schools found that 30%texted during their last driving
trip(O'Brien et al.,2010).A survey of 348 drivers aged 18-30 in Kansas
found that only 2%said they never texted under any circumstances while
driving (Atchley et al.,2010).Overall,CTIA reported that 4.9 billion text
messages were sent every day in the year June 2009—June 2010(CTIA,
2010,#27),or about 17 text messages daily for each cell phone connection.
The AAAh IS survey measured public support for laws restricting cell phone
use or texting.
c. 46%supported a total cell phone ban,hand-held and hands-free;
69%supported a hand-held cell phone ban;
c 80%supported a texting ban.
z ,_ _,__ , \A/P,at RPCParrh hrnnic and What States Can Do -
Packet Page -373-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
3 // How often are drivers distracted?
The 46%of respondents to the AAFTS survey who supported a total cell
phone ban can be compared to the 31%who reported they did not use a
In 2009, cell phone while driving in the past 30 days:at least 15%of the respondents
5%Of all supported a ban on their own actions.
sampled • Direct Observations.NHTSA observes cell phone use and texting each year
drivers were
observed • as part of NOPUS,the National Occupant Protection Use Survey(NHTSA,
2010b).The survey is conducted between 7 a.m.and 6 p.m.and observes
to be using about 50,000 vehicles stopped at a representative sample of about 1,500
hand-held cell
phones and intersections across the country.In 2009,5%of all sampled drivers were
p
hone were observed to be using hand-held cell phones and 0.6%were observed to be
n texting or otherwise manipulating hand-held devices. Both rates were higher
observed to in 2008,by a statistically significant amount:6%for hand-held phone use
be texting and 1.0%for texting.A 2006 observation survey of nighttime cell phone use
or otherwise in Indiana, using night vision equipment,found use rates"similar to previous
manipulating
hand-held daytime studies"—6%overall(Vivoda et al,2008).Although hands-free cell
phone use cannot be observed accurately, NHTSA estimated that about 9%
devices.
of all drivers were using either a hand-held or hands-free phone in a typical
daylight moment in 2009.
These observations are similar to the self-reported cell phone use in the IIHS
survey,in which drivers estimated using cell phones about 7%of the time
while driving in 2009 (Farmer et al.,2010).
Naturalistic studies.The VTTI 100-car study found that drivers engaged
in some form of secondary task 54%of the time while driving (Klauer et al.,
2006,p.x). It also found that drivers reduced secondary tasks in more risky
driving situations,such as near intersections or in heavy traffic. Drivers were
engaged in a secondary task 23%of the time in situations similar(at the
same time of day,driving in a similar location)to those that produced a crash
or near-crash (a situation that requires rapid evasive maneuver by the driver's
vehicle,or any other vehicle, pedestrian,cyclist,or animal,to avoid a crash)
(Klauer et al.,2010, p.vi).
The two commercial vehicle driver naturalistic studies together found that
drivers were involved in a distracting task not related to driving 56%of the
time while driving (Olson et al., 2009, p.xix,Table 2).
Crashes. NHTSA estimates that 16%of fatal crashes and 20%of injury
crashes in 2009 involved at least one distracted driver(NHTSA, 2010a).
Similarly,the more detailed investigations in NMVCCS found that in those
crashes where the critical reason for the crash was attributed to a driver,
18/c involved distraction (Ascone et al.,2009).Another study found that
29%of the passenger vehicle drivers in NMVCCS crashes and 20%of the
large truck drivers in LTCCS crashes were distracted or inattentive(Craft and
Preslopsky, 2010).
wn�t Po rrh What States Can Do
Packet Page -374-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
3 // Kow often are drivers distracted?
The 100-car study observed that in almost 80%of all crashes and 65%
The 100- of near-crashes the driver was looking away from the forward roadway just
car study before the incident(Dingus et al.,2006,p.xxiii)and that secondary task
observed that distraction contributed to 22%of the crashes and near-crashes(Klauer et
in almost 80% al.,2006,p.x;Ascone et al.,2009).The 100-car study had few crashes— 15
of all crashes police-reported and 67 unreported—and most were very minor;there were
and 65% of 761 near-crashes(VTTI,2010).The two commercial vehicle driver naturalistic
near-crashes studies found that 71%of drivers in the studies'21 crashes and 46%of
the driver drivers in the 197 near-crashes were involved in a distracting non-driving task
was looking (Olson et al.,2009, p.xix,Table 2).
away from
the forward Taken together,these crash data studies conclude that drivers were distracted
roadway just ' in 15%to 30%of crashes at all levels, minor to fatal,though the distraction
before the may not have caused or contributed to the crash.
incident.
Summary and discussion//
Frequency of driver distraction. Driver distraction is common in everyday
driving and in crashes.
• Drivers on the road: Most drivers in surveys reported that they
sometimes engaged in distracting activities.The 100-car study's
observations found that drivers engaged in a secondary task
between one-quarter and one-half of the time while driving.
o Cell phone use: In recent surveys,about two-thirds of all
drivers reported using a cell phone while driving;about one-
third used a cell phone routinely.In observational studies
during daylight hours in 2009,between 7%and 10%of all
drivers were using a cell phone.
o Texting: In recent surveys,about one-eighth of all drivers
At least one reported texting while driving.Younger drivers reported
driver was texting more frequently than older drivers. In observational
reported to studies during daylight hours in 2009,fewer than 1%of all
have been drivers were observed to be texting,
distracted in c- Drivers to crashes:At least one driver was reported to have
150/0 to 30% been distracted in 15%to 30%of crashes at all levels, minor to
of crashes 1, fatal.The proportion of distracted drivers may be greater because
at all levels, investigating officers may not detect or record all distractions.In
minor to fatal. r many crashes it is not known whether the distractions caused or
I. contributed to the crash.
._ e, ,, . VAih,t Pr,crarrh Shr,,,Q and What States Can Do
Packet Page -375-
. 10/14/2014 11.B.
; �
Y,:
Mai. -_ _ ..
1
h
ate' -. R, + �r
'1°,1 1, J�
_�
wr _
-$:::„.„.,,,
i
,, , r A r, „,
,.
'N#, '
..„. ,
, , . ,
_ ,
,. , , ..
,,,..,p:#:„...„„,,,,,,i4f,,,,,ctt. _ .„ .
,..., .. .
, , „, ,,
,, ,
.„.
..
, ,...„ „„ . . . „
. .
,,
. , .,
r'' , - . . . c
F, __,,„„, , ,
,,, ,
, ..
. . „
.,„1.„
,, • ,
„ ... .,._, .
„„
.,...
- -::„;,-,. , ee , ,':' ' ,,.; ,' ,-..',,,,..'-` .,''.''.:::. ''i-,..,.-4:-
r "
■
ii
6
{ e
itN , __ .,...,. t "... N
xr =
,,, Y; F•
--- Packet Page -376- , y
10/14/2014 11.B.
4 // How does distraction
affect driver performance?
Measuring distraction with experiments. Distraction effects are studied
in experimental settings. Experiments may be conducted in the laboratory,
either in completely artificial situations or on driving simulators ranging
from low-tech computer screens to high-tech full-vehicle mockups that
imitate vehicle responses. Experiments also are conducted in cars on a
test track or on the road.The tradeoff is between realism and control.
Laboratory experiments are controlled,so they can compare distracted
and undistracted drivers in identical situations, but they cannot study real-
The ' world driving behavior.On-road studies may be quite realistic but cannot
fundamental i control for events outside the vehicle.
challenge
with all " Experiments measure quite accurately how distractions of various types affect
experimental `, reaction time and other driver performance features, but they do not measure
studies is that directly how distractions affect crash risk.
participating
drivers know The fundamental challenge with all experimental studies is that participating
that they drivers know that they are in an experiment.They may not drive or react in
are in an . the same way that they would naturally on the road.As McCartt et al.(2006,
experiment. a: p.97)observed in their review of experimental studies on cell phone effects,
They may not x The implications for real-world driving are unclear because experimental
drive or react studies do not take into account how and when drivers use phones in their
in the same own vehicles and may not accurately reflect the effects of phone use on real-
way that ; world driving performance." Ranney(2008,p. 6)generalized the conclusion
they would to all distraction types:"It is virtually impossible to use experimental results to
naturally on p predict real-world risks associated with different secondary tasks"
the road. ;
Results from experimental studies. Distraction from cell phones has been
studied most extensively.Caird et at(2008)combined information from
33 high-quality studies in a meta-analysis.They concluded that cell phone
conversations increase reaction time significantly and that hand-held and
hands-free conversations have similar effects. Horrey and Wickens(2006)
reached similar conclusions from their meta-analysis of 23 studies, as did
McCartt et al.(2006) in their less formal review of 54 experimental studies
vAIhat RPCParrh Shrnnic.nd What States Can Do
Packet Page -377-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
4 // How does distraction affect driver performance?
and Drews and Strayer(2009) in their overall review of the literature. Dula
et al.(2010)found that emotional calls had larger effects than mundane
calls.Chan and Atchley(2010)concluded that cell phones decreased
performance even under monotonous driving conditions. Bellinger et al.
(2009)found that cell phone conversations slowed response time while
listening to music did not.
Drivers in some experimental studies attempted to compensate for cell phone
distractions by slowing down or increasing their headway from the vehicle
they were following (McCartt et al.,2006)while in others they did not(Caird
et al.,2008). Horrey et al.(2008)found that drivers in experimental settings
were not aware of how much the phone conversation affected their driving.
Text messaging has been studied less frequently than cell phone use,
probably because text messaging has become common only recently. Four
experimental studies found that text messaging increases the time that a
driver's eyes are not on the road and also affects speed and lane-position
variability(Crisler et al., 2008; Hosking et al. 2007; Hosking et al., 2009;and
Owens et al.,2011). Hosking et al.(2007)also concluded that some drivers
attempted to compensate by increasing their following distance while text
messaging but they did not reduce their speed.
States have little role in improving or regulating distractions from features
built into the vehicle to assist the driver,such as controls,displays,and
navigation systems,so research on distractions from these sources was not
reviewed in detail. Bayly et al.(2009)and Ranney(2008)summarize the
available research. Navigation systems have been studied most extensively,
with the conclusion that well-designed systems are less distracting than
using paper maps.
Many other things inside a vehicle can distract,as noted in Chapter 2.They
have not been studied extensively. Bayly et al.(2009)summarize several
studies of the effects of radios,CD and MP3 players,iPods, DVDs,video
systems, email,eating and drinking,smoking, reading and writing,and
grooming.All these activities affected performance on driving-related tasks in
some studies.
While the potential distracting effects of these activities are largely self-
evident,there is little that states can or should do about them. Many,such as
changing a radio station,eating,or drinking,are fairly common. But if done
carefully,their distracting effects are minimal;states are not likely to prohibit
listening to the radio or drinking coffee while driving. Both existing traffic
laws and common sense already attempt to control truly blatant distracting
activities such as watching a television program while driving.
A few studies have evaluated the distracting effects of fixed or variable
message signs and billboards. Horberry and Edquist's summary(2009)
concluded that,while billboards and signs can distract some drivers in some
�Nhat Rac arch Ch��c and What States Can Do
Packet Page -378-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
4 // How does distraction affect driver performance?
circumstances,there is not enough research evidence to form any guidelines
or standards"about how much distraction from outside the vehicle is safe."
Smiley et al.(2005)reached similar conclusions from their comprehensive
assessment of the impact of signs in Toronto.They also concluded that,for
the signs studied,the overall impacts on traffic safety are likely to be small.
Three recent simulator studies show that billboards and signs can distract
drivers in some circumstances (Bendak and Al-Saleh,2010;Edquist et al.,
2011;and Young et al.,2009).
Cognitive distractions by themselves—thinking about something other
than driving,without any manual or visual distraction—can affect driving
performance.Two recent studies reinforce the conclusion that distractions
Experimental
studies show affect the mind,not just the eyes,ears,or hands(Harbluk et al.,2007; Liang
and Lee,2010).
conclusively that
distractions of
all types affect Summary and discussion//
performance on Distraction effects on driver performance. Experimental studies show
driving-related
conclusively that distractions of all types affect performance on driving-
tasks. But these
related tasks. But these experimental results cannot predict what effect
experimental n various distractions have on crash risk,for two reasons. First, drivers even
results cannot in the best experiments may not perform in the same way that they would
predict what in real-world driving. Second,there is no way to predict how a change in
effect various some driver performance measure, such as reaction time, affects crash risk.
distractions The experimental studies suggest that distractions may increase crash risk,
have on but studies of real-world driving and crashes are the only way to discover if
crash risk. they really do.
et.
and What States Can Do
Packet Page -379-
▪▪ -
4� �.. 10/14/2014 11.B.
r'''' ; . ..„. --*
:� mil' , -� i�'4"Y FT•
° --
a
m
_s-
1.-i-:7;:;,,,,,,leg:.-:i'-'1". "---; ;,:',,,,,, , , „:0- t _ ‘,„:4 -
y
ra ''�88, „i
r,m'Cr .S'. re4w
s4'
4 ,
,..... •
*
4,'
s. 4
.�� .fit
4 .,
i,
e
i
Packet Pace -380-
; `
10/14/2014 11 .B.
5 // How does distraction affect crash risk?
To determine how distractions affect crash risk,crash data analyses must
study a population of drivers and estimate crash rates while distracted and
while not distracted.As discussed in Chapter 3,it is difficult to get accurate
data on how frequently drivers on the road or in crashes are distracted in
various ways.
Naturalistic studies can provide accurate data on distractions on the road and
in crashes.The naturalistic studies conducted to date are small because they
are expensive.The 100-car study contains about 2 million vehicle miles of
driving but only 15 police-reported and 67 unreported crashes,most of which
were very minor(VTTI,2010).The two commercial vehicle driver naturalistic
studies had only 21 crashes(Olson et al.,2009). Naturalistic studies also use
volunteer drivers,who may not accurately represent all drivers.
Crash data studies.The best crash data studies directly compare crash
rates of drivers who are distracted in some way with crash rates of similar
drivers in similar conditions who are not distracted.Cell phone use and texting
are the only distractions that have been studied using crash data in this way.
The role of other distractions as contributing or causal factors sometimes can
be recorded or estimated after the fact,but without data on how frequently
these distractions occur in crash-free driving it is not possible to say whether
they affect crash risk.
Cell phones should be easy to study because cell phone companies record
each call down to the second, so that it should be possible to determine
quite accurately when a driver is and is not using a phone. Unfortunately,
cell phone records have not been available for research purposes in the
United States (McCartt et al.,2006).Two studies, in Toronto, Canada
(Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997) and in Perth, Australia (McEvoy et al.,
2005), were able to review cell phone records directly linked to drivers
involved in crashes. Both studies compared a driver's cell phone use in
the 10 minutes before a crash with the same driver's cell phone use while
driving at the same time of day during the week before the crash (a case-
crossover design).They used the 10 minute interval because the time
when a crash occurred may not be recorded as precisely as the times
vniha+Ppcoar,-h chn,nic and What Stales Can Do
Packet Page -381-
10/14/2014 11.B.
5 // How does distraction affect crash risk?
when cell phone calls were made. Both studies found that crash risk was
Both studies about four times greater when using a cell phone. Hands-free phones did
found that 1, not appear to be any safer than hand-held phones.
crash risk
was about In the only other study to use phone records directly linked to driving,
four times Young and Schreiner(2009) studied vehicles with OnStar equipment that
greater when included a hands-free phone. OnStar call centers record and store all
using a cell }' hands-free calls and all airbag deployments.Airbag deployments per driver-
phone. Fes` minute were lower during hands-free call periods than during call-free
periods.Young and Schreiner concluded that"for personal conversations
using a hands-free embedded device the risk of an airbag crash is
somewhere in a range from a moderately lower risk to a risk near that of
driving without a recent personal conversation. ... These results are not
consistent with the large increase in crash risk reported in epidemiological
studies using the case-crossover method [referring to the Redelmeier and
McEvoy studies summarized above]".
A review of the Young and Schreiner study(Braver et al.,2009) noted
several flaws that call these conclusions into question:driving with and
without calls may have occurred under different conditions with differing
crash risks;driver use of cell phones other than OnStar was not known;and
driving time during no-call periods was only estimated from fleet-level data
and not measured directly.
Two other studies (Violanti & Marshall, 1996; Laberge-Nadeau et al.,2003)
combined cell phone records,crash records,and survey responses from
drivers in New York and Quebec,respectively.They did not have data to link
cell phone use directly to crashes but instead compared overall crash rates of
cell phone users and non-users. Both studies concluded that crash risks were
higher for cell phone users than for non-users.
These crash data studies point out how difficult it is to reach definitive
conclusions about the effect of cell phone use on crash risk.Braver et al.
raise the key point regarding the Young and Schreiner study:driving with
and without calls may occur under conditions with different crash risks.The
Redelmeier and McEvoy studies present a similar issue.A crash-involved
driver may have faced different crash risks while driving at the same time of
day the week before the crash.
Naturalistic studies.The only evidence on the general-population crash
risk produced by secondary task distractions other than cell phones and
texting comes from two analyses of the 100-car study data(Klauer et al.,
2006; Klauer et al., 2010). Both studies classified secondary tasks as simple
(requiring at most one glance away from the forward roadway and/or at most
one button press),moderate (at most two glances and/or two button presses,
including talking on or listening to a cell phone), or complex(multiple glances
and/or button presses, including dialing a cell phone).The two studies used
different control groups with which to compare drivers involved in crashes
\A/hat RocAamH Shnwc and What States Can Do
Packet Page -382-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
5 // How does distraction affect crash rise`
and near-crashes.The 2006 study used randomly chosen drivers and driving
situations in a case-control study design.The 2010 study used the same
drivers involved in crashes or near-crashes in previous driving at the same
time of day in a similar location in a case-crossover design. Both studies
found that complex secondary tasks increased the risk of crashes and near-
crashes substantially:twice as high in the case-crossover study(odds ratio
2.1)and three times as high in the case-control(3.1). Moderate secondary
tasks also increased risk:odds ratios of 1.3 and 2.1, respectively.Simple
secondary tasks did not affect risk:odds ratios of 0.8 and 1.2,neither of
which was significantly different from 1 (Klauer et al.,2010,p.iv).
Analyses of the two commercial vehicle naturalistic studies used the same
classification of secondary tasks into simple,moderate,and complex. Using
a case-control study design,they found that complex secondary tasks in-
creased the risk of safety-critical events substantially,with odds ratios rang-
ing from 4.0 for reading a book or newspaper to 23.2 for texting (the effects
on crashes were not analyzed because there were only 21 in the combined
data). Some moderate tasks increased risk,for example using or reaching
for a 2-way radio(odds ratio 6.7)and personal grooming (4.5)while others
did not,for example talking on a CB radio(0.6)and looking at something
outside the vehicle(0.5). Dialing a cell phone increased risk(odds ratio 5.9)
while talking on or listening to a hand-held cell phone had no effect(1.0)
and talking or listening to a hands-free phone reduced risk(0.4)(Olson et
al.,2009, p.xxi,Table 3).
Elvik(201 1)conducted a meta-analysis of 12 crash data and naturalistic
studies of cell phone effects on crash risk. He concluded that studies that
do not have precise information on cell phone use at the time of a crash
"are almost worthless as far as estimating the risk associated with using
mobile phones"and even the best studies may not control adequately for
other factors that may influence the results.From the best studies—those
discussed above— he concluded that crash risk is about three times greater
when using a cell phone.
Aggregate data studies.Several recent studies take a broad look at cell
phone or text messaging influences on crashes overall,using aggregate data
rather than cell phone and crash data from individual drivers.The challenge of
these studies is to isolate the effects of cell phones or texting from the many
other factors that affect crashes and crash rates.
Farmer et al. (2010) combined the fourfold increase in crash risk while
using a cell phone from the McEvoy et al. and Redelmeier and Tibshirani
studies with the 7%cell phone use rate while driving obtained in a
telephone survey to conclude that cell phone use caused 1.3 million
crashes in 2008, or about 22% of all crashes, 19%of all fatal crashes,
and 23% of all injury crashes.The National Safety Council (NSC)(2010a,
2010b) used similar methods to produce a similar estimate: 25% of all
crashes are caused by cell phones.
vnih,+Rocaar�h sh�����and What States Can Do
Packet Page -383-
10/14/2014 11.B.
5 // How does distraction affect crash risk?
Flanagan and Sayer(2010)critiqued the National Safety Council's study.
They noted that NHTSA(2010a)estimates that 18-22%of all crashes are
associated with (but not necessarily caused by)all forms of distraction while
NSC estimates that 25%are caused by cell phone use alone. Using different
values than NSC for the risk of cell phone use,the frequency of use while
driving,the presence of multiple causes for many crashes,and the extent
to which drivers reduce their cell phone use in more risky driving situations,
Flanagan and Sayer concluded that cell phones may be associated with 3%
to 4%of crashes.
Wilson and Stimpson (2010)compared trends in distracted driving fatalities
recorded in FARS with trends in cell phone subscriptions and text message
volume.They observed that distracted driving fatalities and text messaging
both increased substantially from 2005 to 2008.Their multivariate regression
analysis estimated that increased texting since 2001 produced over 16,000
additional traffic fatalities.
Fowles et al.(2010)studied the effects of cell phones on fatality rates from
a"classical econometric"and quite technical point of view.They considered
the effects of broad social and economic variables such as beer consumption,
proportion of young males,seat belt laws,and the number of cell phone
subscribers on annual fatality rates from 1980 to 2004.They concluded that
fatality rates increased as cell phones first began to be used,then decreased
as cell phone use rose,and finally increased again more recently.They
attributed the positive effect of cell phones in the middle period to their use
to call for emergency assistance at a crash. Now that cell phones are almost
universal,their negative effects in distracting drivers overcome these positive
effects."The bottom line is that cell phones now have an adverse effect on
motor vehicle fatality rates"
Collision insurance claim study.As part of a study of the effect of cell
phone laws on insurance claim frequencies, HLDI(2009)tracked collision
claim frequencies for several states in the period 2000-2009 (different years
for different states). During this period of rapid growth in cell phone use in
the general population and by drivers, collision claim rates either were flat or
decreased slightly, both in states with and without cell phone laws.Collision
claims differ from crashes:some crashes may not produce a collision claim
because the damage was slight or because a vehicle was not insured,and
minor events that produce collision claims may not be reported to the police
as crashes. So collision claim rates may differ from crash rates.
Drivers f t� � c //
frequently are r Distraction effects on crash risk. What does this all mean?A few things
distracted, " are certain,while others are more a matter of opinion.
perhaps as
as half L What's certain:
the time while � Distractions affect driving performance.
driving. E Drivers frequently are distracted, perhaps as much as half the time
while driving.
.-, \n/hat -,nd What States Can Do
Packet Page -384-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
5 // Hew does distraction affect crash risk?
• Drivers adapt to some extent:they pay more attention to driving
and reduce their distracting activities(such as using cell phones)
in more risky driving situations.The 1O0-car data provides some
documentation:secondary task frequency was 54%in random
Distractions are ' situations but 23%in situations similar to those that produced a
estimated to be crash or near-crash.
associated with • Distractions are estimated to be associated with 15%to 25%of
15%to 25% crashes at all levels from minor property damage to fatal injury.The
of crashes true role of distractions in crashes may be greater because some
distractions may not be reported accurately.
• Distractions cause some unknown number of individual crashes:
many officers who regularly write crash reports can cite specific
examples.
What's far from certain is how much various distractions affect crash risk.
While the crash risk varies for different driving situations,the first question to
ask is how a specific distraction affects overall crash risk.
The cell phone studies provide the best evidence.The studies estimate that
cell phone use increases crash risk by:
e About 4 times, in the two classic studies that used cell phone
records (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997; McEvoy et al.,2005);
et About 3 times, in a meta-analysis of all crash data and naturalistic
studies (Elvik,2011);
e 2 to 3 times,for crashes and near-crashes in the 100-car study,
using random controls(Klauer et al., 2006);
• 1.3 to 2.1 times,for crashes and near-crashes in the 100-car study,
using drivers in similar situations as controls (Klauer et al.,2010);
• Not enough to be detected,for collision claims (HLDI, 2009).
The truth probably lies somewhere in this range.Cell phone use cannot
increase crash risk by a factor of four in all situations: if it did,then cell phones
would have caused about one-quarter of all crashes(Farmer at al.,2010;
NSC, 2010a and 2010b),while all forms of distraction are estimated to be
involved in 15%to 25%of crashes. But cell phone use—certainly hand-held,
and perhaps also hands-free—does increase crash risk in some situations
for some drivers.The only definite conclusion is that hand-held cell phone use
increases crash risk to some extent.
There is no conclusive evidence on whether hands-free cell phone use
is less risky than hand-held use.The 100-car study analyses found that
complex tasks such as dialing a cell phone were more risky than simpler
tasks such as talking on a phone(Klauer et al., 2006 and 2010).Analyses
of the two commercial vehicle naturalistic studies found that dialing a cell
phone increased the risk of safety-critical events,talking on or listening to a
hand-held cell phone had no effect,and using a hands-free phone reduced
the risk(Olson et al.,2009). Dialing a cell phone requires only a few seconds
and involves both eyes and hands while a cell phone conversation may last
\n/h,+�A Pa h ch and What States Can Do ..
Packet Page -385-
10/14/2014 11.B.
5 // How' does distraction affect crash risk?
for many minutes and either involves one hand or is hands-free.The 100-car
Texting results imply that dialing a cell phone increases crash risk more for a short
probably time while a cell phone conversation increases crash risk less for a longer
increases time.The commercial vehicle studies suggest that cell phone effects on
crash risk crash risk are produced by looking at or holding the phone,not by talking or
more than listening.But the crash studies found no difference between crash risks for
cell phone hand-held and hands-free phones(Redelmeier and Tibshirani, McEvoy).
use because
texting = Texting probably increases crash risk more than cell phone use because
requires texting requires both visual and manual distraction for a longer period of
both visual time than dialing a cell phone.The only data on the risk of texting come from
and manual analyses of the two commercial vehicle naturalistic studies.They found that
distraction texting increased the risk of safety-critical events substantially,with an odds
for a longer -# ratio of 23.2 (Olson et al.,2009; no texting was observed in 100-car study
period of time because data were collected in 2003 and 2004,before texting became
than dialing a `& common).These results are based on a small sample of 31 safety-critical
cell phone. events involving texting by commercial vehicle drivers,so the results may not
be accurate and may not apply to passenger vehicle drivers.
No other distraction has even this much evidence for its effect on crash risk.
Wha+ What States Can Do
Packet Page -386-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
6 // Are there effective countermeasures
for distracted driving?
Distracted driving countermeasures attempt to do one of three things:
a Eliminate the distraction,for example by prohibiting or preventing cell
phone use or convincing drivers not to use cell phones;
Reduce the driver's attention needed for a distracting task,for
example by requiring or convincing drivers to use hands-free instead
of hand-held cell phones;
a Warn distracted drivers of an impending risky situation,for example by a
lane departure warning in the vehicle or a rumble strip in the roadway.
Distracted driving countermeasures can address the driving environment(the
roadway and other things outside the vehicle),the vehicle,the driver,or some
combination of these.
Roadway environment countermeasures. Many things outside the
vehicle— people, animals,scenery,buildings, objects,signs,other road
users,and the like— can attract a driver's eyes and attention. Regulations
or standards for road signs and commercial signs provide a potential
opportunity to eliminate or reduce distraction. But,as discussed in Chapter 4,
there is not enough research evidence on how much distraction from a sign
is safe. Distracted driving considerations do not suggest any changes to the
guidelines or standards for road and commercial roadside signage in place in
Some types most jurisdictions.
of rumble
strips are an Several roadway countermeasures are directed at drivers who are fatigued,
effective and impaired,or inattentive in addition to those who are distracted. For example,
widely-used E some types of rumble strips are an effective and widely-used strategy to warn
strategy to drivers as they are leaving their travel lane. Persaud et al.(2004)studied
warn drivers centerline rumble strips on rural two-lane roads in seven states and concluded
as they are that they reduced all injury crashes by 14%and frontal and sideswipe
leaving their crashes by 25%. In a British Columbia study,Sayed et al.(2010)found that
travel lane. roads with both edgeline and centerline rumble strips reduced off-road and
head-on crashes a combined 21%. For other effective roadway strategies,
such as shoulder width and design,see the AASHTO guides#4,for head-on
collisions,and #6,for run-off-road collisions (NCHRP,2003a and 2003b).
\A/h,± nd What States Can Do
Packet Page -387-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
6// Are there effective countermeasures easures for distracted driving?
Vehicle countermeasures. Measures to reduce the distracting effects
that the vehicle imposes on driving,for example by managing the way
vehicle-based information is presented to the driver,or to warn the driver of
risky situations through forward collision or lane departure alerts,have been
studied extensively.This report does not review these measures because
states have little role in improving or regulating them.See Donmetz et al.
(2009), Engstrom and Victor(2009), Regan,Victor et al.(2009),Smith et al.
(2009),and Zhang et al.(2009)for summaries.
Driver countermeasures. States can attempt to reduce driver distraction
by laws prohibiting certain distracting activities,with appropriate publicity
and enforcement, or by communications persuading drivers to reduce or
eliminate these activities. Both strategies have been debated and used
extensively in recent years, especially for the distractions produced by cell
phone use and texting.
General distracted driving laws.All states have provisions in their traffic
r1 laws requiring drivers to be competent and in control of their vehicles.These
As of - may be applicable to distracted driving:for example,some blatant forms of
June 2011,
,iii.9 states and distraction may be considered reckless driving. Many states also prohibit
the District specific distracting activities such as watching television while driving,which
of Columbia ' was illegal in 38 states as of 2005 (Kelderman,2005).At least four states
prohibited —Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire,and Oklahoma—and the District
talking on as of Columbia now have laws specifically directed at distracted driving (AAA,
hand-held cell `ii 2010). For example, Maine's 2009 law(Sec. 1.29-A MRSA§21 17) prohibits
phone while "operation of a motor vehicle while distracted"which in turn is defined as an
.: activity that is not necessary to the operation of the vehicle and that actually
driving, 30 ` impairs,or would reasonably be expected to impair,the ability of the person
states and
the District - to safety operate the vehicle.None of these distracted driving laws has been
of Columbia evaluated (Regan,Young et al., 2009b).
;z
prohibited the
use of all cell • Cell phone and texting laws.As of June 2011,9 states and the District of
phones by Columbia prohibited talking on a hand-held cell phone while driving,30 states
novice drivers, °= and the District of Columbia prohibited the use of all cell phones by novice
34 states and %a drivers(states use different definitions of novice driver),34 states and the
the District ."= District of Columbia prohibited texting while driving,and 7 additional states
of Columbia =' prohibited texting by novice drivers (GHSA,2011 a).
,.
prohibited
texting while McCartt et al.(2010)summarized several studies of the immediate and long-
'' term effects of hand-held cell phone laws on cell phone use in New York,the
driving, and =
10/14/2014 11 .B.
6 //Are there effective countermeasures for distracted driving?
hands-free cell phones so could not measure combined hand-held and
hands-free cell phone use.
Foss et al.(2009)studied the effects of North Carolina's 2006 law banning
all cell phone use by drivers younger than 18.Cell phone use by teenage
drivers at high schools did not change from one to two months before the
law to five months after the law.Two-thirds of teenagers interviewed post-law
were aware of the law but fewer than one-quarter believed that the law was
being enforced.About half of those who had driven on the day before the
interview used their.cell phones while driving.
Braitman and McCartt(2010)included questions on cell phone laws in their
telephone survey of driver cell phone use.By comparing responses from
states with and without laws,they concluded that"laws banning hand-held
phone use seem to discourage some drivers from talking on any type of
phone and motivate some drivers to talk hands-free. Laws banning texting
while driving have little effect on the reported frequency of texting while
driving in any age group."
Three studies have attempted to estimate the effects of hand-held cell phone
laws on crashes.As discussed in Chapter 5, HLDI (2009) used data from
insurance collision claims.They examined whether collision claims dropped
when states implemented cell phone laws compared to claims in adjoining
states without cell phone laws. HLDI found that cell phone laws had no effect
on collision claims:claim rates either were flat or decreased slightly, both in
states with and without cell phone laws.
Nikolaev at al.(2010) used county-level fatal and injury crash rates per
licensed driver from 1997 to 2007 to study the effects of New York's 2001
hand-held cell phone law.After the law, injury crash rates were lower in all 62
New York counties and significantly lower in 46;fatal crash rates were lower
in 46 counties and significantly lower in 10.The analysis did not control for
other influences on crash rates over this time period,and both fatal and injury
crash rates were decreasing in the pre-law period.
Kolko(2009)studied cell phone law effects using FARS data from 1997
to 2005.Cell phone laws during this period were in effect for more than 4
years in New York, 18 months in New Jersey and the District of Columbia,
and 2 months in Connecticut.This limited experience suggested that the laws
reduced traffic fatalities, but only in bad weather or wet road conditions,and
the laws had no statistically significant effect on overall traffic fatalities.
In the only study of texting bans, HLDI (2010)studied their effect on collision
claims using the same methods as their 2009 study of cell phone laws.They
concluded that texting bans did not reduce collision claims. In fact there
appears to have been a small increase in claims in the states enacting texting
bans compared to neighboring states. HLDI suggested two possible reasons
for the increase.Texters may realize that texting bans are difficult to enforce,
\A/1, RACOamh and What States Can Do
Packet Page -389-
10/14/2014 11.B.
6/1 Are there effective countermeasures for distracted drivin °
so they may have little incentive to reduce texting for fear of being detected
and fined.Alternatively,texters may have responded to the ban by hiding their
phones from view,potentially increasing their distracting effects by requiring
longer glances away from the road.
After the texting ban become effective in one of the states studied by HLDI,
crashes decreased at the same time that collision claims increased(Marti,201 1).
Distracted driving law enforcement.Only one study has evaluated the
effect of law enforcement directed specifically at distracted driving laws.
Hartford,Connecticut,and Syracuse, New York, participated in a NHTSA
demonstration program of cell phone and texting law enforcement Three
waves of high-visibility enforcement and publicity activities were conducted
in 2010 and a fourth was conducted in spring 2011. Immediately after the
second wave,observed cell phone use dropped 56%in Hartford and 38%in
Syracuse;observed texting while driving dropped 68%in Hartford and 42%
in Syracuse(Cosgrove et al.,2010).Experience with similar short-term high-
visibility enforcement campaigns directed at impaired driving and seat belt
use suggests that the effects often diminish over time unless the campaign is
repeated periodically. Results from the full study are scheduled to be released
in July 2011.
All 27 Cell phone laws and enforcement in other countries.Janitzek et al.
European ,� (2010)report on laws,enforcement,and behavior regarding cell phones and
other portable electronic devices in Europe.All 27 European Union member
Union member states except Sweden ban hand-held cell phone use,as do Iceland and
states except $ p p
Switzerland. Enforcement strategies and levels vary.About half the European
Sweden ban , countries target cell phones in special enforcement activities such as one-day
hand-held cell s campaigns or special motorbike enforcement units.The number of citations
phone use issued for cell phone law violations varies considerably, but in some countries
ET
they outnumbered in recent years some other traditional offences such as
non use of seat belts or impaired driving"(ibid,p.62).
Drivers in Italy, Poland,Spain,Sweden,and the United Kingdom were
surveyed on their use of cell phones and other electronic devices while
driving.About 25%to 45%of the drivers in the first four countries reported
they used a hand-held or hands-free phone at least"sometimes"and about
10%used one "often"— use rates generally lower than those reported in
the United States (Chapter 3). Seventy percent of United Kingdom drivers
reported never using their phones while driving,and of those who do,40%
said they always used a hands-free phone(ibid, p.81).
Australia and seven Canadian provinces also ban hand-held cell phone use
and Japan bans all cell phone use while driving (ibid, Sec.4.3). Harbluk et al.
(2010)document Canadian distracted driving laws as of spring 2010.WHO
(201 1) provides a broad overview of how various countries are addressing
cell phone use when driving.
w vnihat RG,Aarrh,,,h.,,,,and What States Can Do
Packet Page -390-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
6 /1 Are there effective countermeasures for distracted driving?
Technology. Several manufacturers provide systems that attempt to block
Several or filter a driver's cell phone while the vehicle is in motion.Some consist of
manufacturers software applications("apps")loaded onto the cell phone.They are triggered
provide when the phone's motion exceeds some threshold,so they work only on
systems that GPS-equipped"smartphones"Other systems are integrated into the vehicle
attempt to and affect all cell phones in the vehicle through a small transmitter.
block or filter
a driver's cell =c Different systems have different features to block or allow calls. Blocked
phone while incoming calls can be stored as voice or text messages;auto-reply responses
the vehicle is can be sent All systems allow emergency calls to 911.Some allow calls to a
in motion. few other numbers set in advance.Some block all incoming calls,texts,and
emails.Some allow calls when the vehicle is briefly stopped at a red light;
others block calls for several minutes after stopping.Some allow geographic
areas to be specified within which all calls are blocked.Some allow the user
to allow or block calls from specified phone numbers.Each system has a
different strategy for addressing the"passenger problem"—whether and how
to allow calls by someone in motion who is not a driver,such as a passenger
in a car or a rider on a bus or train.
This technology is developing very rapidly.Pogue(2010)provides a recent
overview.The University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute
(UMTRI) is conducting a study in 2011 to evaluate these systems(GHSA,
2011b).
Distracted driving communications and education. Most states conduct
distracted driving education and communication activities (GHSA,2010).
For beginning drivers:Twenty-three states have created special
materials on distraction for teen drivers. Information on distracted
driving is a required component of driver education in 18 states and
the District of Columbia.There are distracted driving questions on
the driver's license test in 17 states and the District of Columbia.
Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have distinct sections
on distracted driving in their driver license manuals.
For others:Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia
conducted a recent public communication or education campaign
on distracted driving. Eight states provided training or technical
assistance to the judiciary on distracted driving,
None of these communication and education activities has been evaluated
to see whether they increased drivers'knowledge,changed their behavior,or
reduced crashes.
U.S.Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has made distracted driving a
top safety priority.The Department of Transportation has produced a variety
of communication and education materials(see distraction.gov). Many other
persons and organizations have publicized distracted driving or conducted
specifically targeted campaigns, including Oprah Winfrey's No Phone Zone
(www.oprah.com/packages/no-phone-zone.html), FocusDriven and the
National Safety Council's On the Road, Off the Phone(www.focusdriven.org),
\A/hat RPCOarrh shrnn,c and What States Can Do
Packet Page -391-
10/14/2014 11.B.
6//Are there effective countermeasures a easy res for distracted dri ireg?
and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons'Decide to Drive(www.
decidetodrive.org).Some physicians are including distracted driving in their
Many
}' discussions with patients(Ship,2010).While these activities undoubtedly
companies have reached many drivers,their effects on driver knowledge,driver behavior,
around the
world have or crashes have not been evaluated.
established and t
implemented Company policies and programs. Many companies around the world
have established and implemented policies for their employees regarding
policies
for their cell phone use and other distractions(Regan,Young et al.,2009b).Speak-
ers at the 2010 Department of Transportation Distracted Driving Summit
employees
provided examples(distraction.gov).The Network of Employers for Traffic
regarding cell
-: Safety(NETS) reports that,of the 4,690 public and private organizations that
phone use. downloaded the 2010 NETS Drive Safety at Work Week campaign materials,
3,067 have a cell phone policy in place,with 1,152 banning the use of all cell
phones and another 1,915 prohibiting hand-held cell phones.Another 1,062
organizations plan to implement a policy in 2011 (trafficsafety.org).
Thirty-five states have worked with other state agencies and private
employers to address distracted driving.Sixteen states and the District of
Columbia have partnered with other state agencies or private companies
to develop distracted driving policies(GHSA,2010).Company policies can
be a powerful influence on their employees'driving because companies
can monitor their drivers' behavior and enforce their policies. However,no
information on the effects of these policies is available.
Summary a d EscasC saa //
Distracted driving countermeasures.There are no roadway countermea-
sures directed specifically at distracted drivers. Many effective roadway design
and operation practices that improve traffic safety in general,such as edgeline
and centerline rumble strips,can warn distracted drivers or can mitigate the
consequences if they leave their travel lane.
Vehicle countermeasures to manage driver workload,warn drivers of risky
situations,or monitor driver performance have the potential to improve safety
for all drivers,not just drivers who may become distracted.These are key
focus areas of research by vehicle manufacturers and NHTSA(distraction.
gov).While some systems are beginning to be implemented in new vehicles,
others are still in development.Their ultimate impact on distracted driving
cannot be predicted.
Countermeasures directed to the driver offer an opportunity to reduce
distracted driving incidence and crashes in the next few years.They have
concentrated on cell phones and texting through laws,communications
campaigns, and company policies and programs.Technological systems to
block or limit a driver's cell phone calls are developing rapidly but have not yet
been evaluated.
\A/n nd What States Can no
Packet Page -392-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
6 // Are there effective countermeasures for distracted driving?
The limited research suggests that hand-held cell phone laws covering all
drivers reduced cell phone use by about half when they were implemented,
even though they were not vigorously enforced.Cell phone use then
increased subsequently,but the laws appear to have had some long-term
There is no effect.The one study of high-visibility and heavily-publicized cell phone law
evidence that enforcement suggests that it can reduce cell phone use at least temporarily.
cell phone or
texting laws There is no evidence that cell phone or texting laws have reduced crashes.
have reduced Two studies found no effects of these laws on collision insurance claims.The
crashes. only study of a complete cell phone and texting ban for beginning drivers,who
use text messages and cell phones more frequently than older drivers,found
no effect on their texting.
Publicity and campaigns directed at cell phone use and texting while driving
undoubtedly have reached many drivers but their effects have not been
evaluated. Many companies have cell phone use policies and programs but
these also have not been evaluated.
- vA/ha+RPCPamh and What States Can Do _
Packet Page -393-
pp
*„ li
--:,-.-•-_,,f:,,:--:,.
;. 0*-r----7-.--._1_'-4--_ 7 2
6'',t
1
4 11 B.
.__,,... _ ...., .,„,,,....... : ....
,_-„-,:i.:,.,, - -',.,,,,f,?:c....„ ,-„,,,-;.--,--;•.„-;;,--:„.,,,„i„ ,,.
,..„...,",.....„...4,.,„: ,
. •,,„qi,,,,,,.„-„,,,.„.,,,.,...T,.„
4
..„..
";.- gs-::' '','"--'--'''• ---'------"-- ael- ''- -'-_. -24"---
,,--
_____
4r:.---4-f,--
,
, __
-__.
.:2-14_,,,,_,,,„, „_
444.:Ai-7.?.'",:--
, .
.. ,
to
*
- -•:4-,!,4,---&44-0,--„ -'-o--t-_',..--,4,44,Z
, -
,,. ..
L-
„,....,..4......„It,
• ..„*.:4„,,:,,,,,,.,.t.,:cttre..,-,4,,,,,--„,z---,,l'.,,,,y,,,,',45.4..1.:=, ...;-, J.,,,,.:„.1,,,.,,,a,-,1,44-.,,,,,,, ...„_„,,,,,----
-f:-'''.”7:•:4:*4t,:t7:4, '„:'?,i,,ttg.;'-';''” ___----__ ,-
:ik.:.,,-,
... . . •,,, #. 1‘.., ..
. ,
- ■ --,.
- . ,....
„ 44
„44-
'
„!' 11::,--,.'il-',..-- ,,- .,. 7-,, , , ,.4 it.zr-1-4= ...-Vii:-.•.•-1,,,,--.
.,.
. ;,„..
`” P
41-6.,v
,... ,,,.
■.„.,,
- —---1 —-
..:',:.',;.4,- .',.':;,..:4:,-„; t— 4 ,4, ,44.,--_„, ....,,itl:' ..,,•-•,,, ' '--,:-.1-,.:_44,i.t.
- ,4
44.
4,.
-'--1.- '-'-t---- " • ."-:--,`-':-.5-ti":„.4--r,4'4 ,,.-, - - ,,-
r'•rt.e
,x),
'P'„.'".g4';-.',.---1.„'--0:,,-41,-.,',:01%.--'e-'-.,'.'.,,/'-..-..,,„,„'...;,.A-,-2-:,.r,,,,.,"'.i.-.-1'7,7..7;,w,,'_,1,.',0,",4,,;,.-,,-c{--”`':1::'':_-'-,„•,--.,.,*4,-,3!,i...,--.f-4v'.,''5'',,,!.'.','-...",„.'kn"..,,-,-,„-,--:„,:-,--.:-.<-i_,,....4.,e,,,,4w„,.„""'&,',z-''-'-'',4:„.--_,--"...--,:,---,-.,-•-.r•r=.7',1;,.,-1-i,t„'-...,4....---4':-f1
- - ; ;. : .•- .&,. ,,,,.,•,
..c.: ') '--',,.,■,
,
- - ,
”- p a c k et Pare
„,-...._-,-,. •
:7----7.:.;',:,-'-'-'t,;---,1,:,-.:.,---,-.-".""':,,,,,,-,.?:•-!---‘' . .- ,..„,-„'ii-,;/:- :- , —
'.-:;.-re-04-::,- ;-:- •:-;-4'-::,-P.:- '-
'.,:,.*:4;',-,..:4..--;;;:-=.;23:-...'” •=4-.-,-,..-tk-'' '
10/14/2014 11 .B.
7 // Conclusions and recommendations
endations
Distracted driving research thoroughly documents the frequency of
distractions on the road and the effects of distraction in experimental settings.
But there is little evidence on the two most important issues:the effect of
distractions on crash risk(Chapter 5)and the effects of countermeasures
on reducing distracted driving (Chapter 6). Research on cell phone use and
texting,the distractions that have received the most attention,concludes that:
• Cell phone use increases crash risk to some extent but there is no
consensus on the size of the increase.
• There is no conclusive evidence on whether hands-free cell phone
use is less risky than hand-held use.
• The influence of texting on crash risk in passenger vehicles has not
been studied.
e Laws banning hand-held cell phone use reduced use by about
half when they were first implemented. Hand-held cell phone use
increased subsequently but the laws appear to have had some long-
term effect.
c: A high-visibility cell phone and texting law enforcement campaign
reduced cell phone use immediately after the campaign. Longer-
term effects are not yet known.
c There is no evidence that cell p h one or texting bans have reduced
crashes.
c Distracted driving communications campaigns and company policies
and programs have not been evaluated.
Distraction while driving cannot be eliminated; rather,it's part of who we are,
as humans and as drivers.The actions outlined below may help manage it.
States should consider the following activities to address distracted driving.
While each has been implemented in some states,there is no solid evidence
that any is effective in reducing crashes, injuries, or fatalities.
o Pro: Novices are the highest-risk drivers.Their attention
should be focused on driving, not on cell phone
conversations or other distractions.A ban reinforces this
What RPcRar-n What States Can Do 4
Packet Page -395-
10/14/2014 11.B.
7 // Conclusions and recommendations
message and supports other novice driver restrictions
included in state graduated licensing programs and helps
parents manage their teenage drivers.As of June 2011,30
states and the District of Columbia prohibited the use of all
cell phones by novice drivers and 41 states and the District
of Columbia prohibited texting by novice drivers(states use
different definitions of novice driver).
o Con:There is no evidence that novice driver cell phone or
texting bans are effective.
* Enact texting bans.
o Pro:Texting is more obviously distracting and counter to
good driving practice than cell phone use.As of June 2011,
34 states and the District of Columbia had enacted texting
bans for all drivers.
o Con:Texting laws are difficult to enforce.
• Enact hand-held sett :hone taws.
o Pro: Hand-held cell phone use increases crash risk,
probably more than hands-free. Laws reduce but will not
eliminate hand-held cell phone use. Laws send a message
that hand-held cell phone use while driving is unacceptable.
o Con: Hand-held cell phone laws often are ignored. Hand-
held cell phone laws send a message that hands-free cell
phone use while driving is safe,which it may not be.
• Lbr once har a r.ei i c ,aL ae arid'texting caps.
o Pro: Enforcement will increase any law's effect.
Enforcement can be targeted to specific high-risk locations
or can be conducted in short high-visibility campaigns
similar to those that have increased belt use and reduced
impaired driving. Failing to enforce a law sends a message
that the law is not important.
o Con: Enforcing cell phone or texting laws will divert
resources from other traffic law enforcement activities.
Q-= tm'n v ersi. c st..'a::„teci drkvirlq :ornrricantartio°r pFroaara€rc..
o Pro:Cell phone and texting laws should be publicized
broadly to increase their effects.Other communication
and education activities can address the broader issues
of avoiding distractions while driving.Thirty-seven states
and the District of Columbia conducted a recent distracted
driving communications campaign.
o Con: Distracted driving communication programs have not
been evaluated.They will divert resources from other traffic
safety communications activities.
end What States Can Do
Packet Page -396-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
7 // Conclusions and recommendations
• help employers devei€ap and implement distracted driving
policies and programs.
o Pro: Many companies have established and implemented
cell phone policies for their employees.Company policies
can be a powerful influence on employees'driving.
o Con: Employer distracted driving programs have not been
evaluated.
States can and should take three steps that will help reduce distracted driving
immediately and in the future.
• Continue to implement effective low-cost roadway distracted driving
countermeasures such as edgeline and centerline rumble strips.
• Record distracted driving in crash reports to the extent possible,to
assist in evaluating distracted driving laws and programs.The 4th
Edition Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria(MMUCC)guidelines
for state crash data systems,to be published in 2012,will address
distracted driver coding (www.mmucc.us).
• Evaluate distracted driving laws and programs.Evaluation will provide
the information states need on which countermeasures are effective
and which are not
Distracted driving is an important priority for employers,the automobile
industry, and the federal government as well as for states. Key activities
for each include:
Emp4oyers,
• Consider distracted driving policies and programs for their employees.
4 Evaluate the effects of their distracted driving policies and programs
on employee knowledge,behavior,crashes,and economic costs
(injuries, lost time,etc.).
Automobile industry.
=.
• Continue to develop,test,and implement measures to manage
driver workload and to warn drivers of risky situations.These
activities ultimately should lead to vehicles that work with drivers to
prevent crashes.
e . ee rs3. zh....
• Help states evaluate the effects of distracted driving programs,
especially cell phone and texting laws,enforcement campaigns,and
communications.
• Continue tracking driver cell phone use and texting in NOPUS.
• Work with states to improve data collection on driver distractions
involved in crashes. In particular, use the 4"' Edition of MMUCC to
improve how distraction is coded in crash reports.
Continue to develop and conduct national communications
campaigns on distracted driving.
vniha+P, rr h nd What States Can Do
Packet Page -397-
10/14/2014 11.B.
References
AAAFTS(2010).2010 Traffic Safety Culture Index.Washington, DC:AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Ascone,D.,Lindsey,T.,&Varghese,C.(2009).An Examination of Driver
Distraction as Recorded in NHTSA Databases. DOT HS 811 216.
Washington, DC:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Atchley, P.,Atwood,S.,& Boulton,A.(2011).The choice to text and drive in
younger drivers: Behavior may shape attitude.Accident Analysis & Prevention
43(1), 134-142.
Bayly, M.,Young,K.L.,& Regan, M.A. (2009).Sources of distraction inside
the vehicle and their effects on driving performance. In Driver Distraction:
Theory, Effects, and Mitigation, M.A. Regan,J.D. Lee,& K.L.Young eds.,
Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.
Bellinger, D.B.,Budde,B.M., Machida, M., Richardson,G.B., & Berg,W.P.
(2009).The effect of cellular telephone conversation and music listening on
response time in braking.Transportation Research Part F:Traffic Psychology
and Behaviour 12(6), 441-451.
Bendak, S. &Al-Saleh, K. (2010).The role of roadside advertising signs
in distracting drivers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 40(3),
233-236.
Braitman, K.A. and McCartt,A.T. (2010). National reported patterns of
driver cell phone use i n the United States.Traffic Injury Prevention 1 1 (6),
p. 543-548.
Braver, E. R., Lund,A. K.,& McCartt,A.T.(2009). Hands-free Embedded
Cell Phones and Airbag-deployment Crash Rates.Arlington,VA: Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety.
Caird,J.K.,Wiliness,C.R.,Steel, P.,&Scialfa,C.(2008).A meta-analysis of the
effects of cell phones on driver performance.Accident Analysis & Prevention
40(4), 1282-1293.
Chan M,Atchley P. (2010). Effects of cell phone conversations on driver
performance while driving under highway monotony. In Proceedings of
the Fifth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver
Assessment,Training and Vehicle Design, 140-146. Iowa City, IA:
University of Iowa.
Cosgrove, L, Chaudhary, N., & Roberts, S.(2010).High Visibility
Enforcement Demonstration Programs in Connecticut and New York
Reduce Hand-Held Phone Use. DOT HS 811 376.Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
vnIn + and What States Can Do
Packet Page -398-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
References
Craft, R.H. &Preslopsky, B.(2010).Driver Distraction and Inattention in the
United States Large Truck and National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation
Studies.Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Crisler,M.C.,Brooks,J.0.,Ogle,J.H.,Guirl,C. D.,Aliuri,R,& Dixon,K. K.
(2008). Effect of wireless communication and entertainment devices on
simulated driving performance.Transportation Research Record 2069,48-54.
CTIA(2010).50 Wireless Quick Facts.Washington, DC:CTIA The Wireless
Association.www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfm/AI D/10377,updated
October 2010.
Dingus,T.A., Klauer,S.G., Neale,V.L., Peterson,A.,Lee,S.A.,et al.(2006). The
100-car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II- Results of the 100-Car
Field Experiment. DOT HS 810 593.Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
Donmetz, B., Boyle, L.,& Lee,J.D.(2009) Designing feedback to mitigate
distraction. In Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation, M.A.
Regan,J.D. Lee,& K.L.Young eds., Boca Raton,FL:CRC Press.
Drews, F.A.& Strayer, D.L.(2009).Cellular phones and driver distraction. In
Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation, M.A. Regan,J.D. Lee,&
K.L.Young eds., Boca Raton,FL:CRC Press.
Dula,C.S., Martin, B.A., Fox, R.T.& Leonard, R.L.(2010). Differing types of
cellular phone conversations and dangerous driving.Accident Analysis &
Prevention 43 (1), 187-193.
Edquist J, Horberry T,Hosking S,Johnston I.(2011). Effects of advertising
billboards during simulated driving.Applied Ergonomics 42(4),619-626.
Elvik, R.(2011).The effects on accident risk of using mobile phones:
problems of meta-analysis when studies are few and bad.Transportation
Research Board 2011 Annual Meeting,paper 11-0134.amonline.trb.org.
Engstrom,J. &Victor,T.W.(2009). Real-time distraction countermeasures. In
Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation, M.A. Regan,J.D.Lee,&
K.L.Young eds., Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.
Farmer, C.M., Braitman, K.A.,& Lund,A.K.(2010).Cell phone use while driving
and attributable crash risk.Traffic Injury Prevention 11(5),466-470.
Flannagan,C.and Sayer,J. (2010).An Assessment of Research on
Cell Phone Risk while Driving. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute.
- \A/hat RP,Parah C;hnw,,and Wnat States Can Do
Packet Page -399-
10/14/2014 11.B.
References
Foss, R.D.,Goodwin,A.H., McCartt,A.T.,& Hellinga, L.A.(2009).Short-
term effects of a teenage driver cell phone restriction.Accident Analysis&
Prevention 41(3),419-424.
Fowles, R., Loeb, P. D.,&Clarke,W.A.(2010).The cell phone effect on
motor vehicle fatality rates:A Bayesian and classical econometric evaluation.
Transportation Research: Part E,46(6), 1 140-1 147.
GHSA(2010). Curbing Distracted Driving:2010 Survey of State Safety
Programs.Washington, DC:Governors Highway Safety Association.
GHSA(2011a). Cell Phone and Texting Laws, May 2011. Washington,
DC:Governors Highway Safety Association.www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/
laws/cellphone_laws.html.
GHSA(2011b). UMTRI study to compare technology to block cell phone use
while driving.GHSA Washington Update 9(1), 4.
Harbluk,J. L., Noy,Y.I.,Trbovich, P. L.,& Eizenman, M.(2007).An on-road
assessment of cognitive distraction: Impacts on drivers'visual behavior and
braking performance.Accident Analysis & Prevention 39(2),372-379.
Harbluk,J.L., Provost, M., Boase,P. & Burns, P.C.(2010).Canadian Legislative
Approaches to Discourage Distracted Driving. Proceedings of the 20th
Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference,Ontario,June 6-9,2010.
HLDI (2009).Hand-held Cel/phone Laws and Collision Claim
Frequencies. Highway Loss Data Institute Bulletin Vol.26, No. 17.Arlington,
VA: Highway Loss Data Institute.
HLDI(2010). Texting Laws and Collision Claim Frequencies. Highway
Loss Data Institute Bulletin Vol.27, No. 11.Arlington,VA: Highway Loss Data
Institute.
Horberry,T.& Edquist,J.(2009). Distractions outside the vehicle. In Driver
Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation, M.A. Regan,J.D. Lee,& K.L.
Young eds., Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Horrey,W.J., Lesch, M. F,&Garabet,A.(2008).Assessing the awareness of
performance decrements in distracted drivers,Accident Analysis & Prevention
40(2),675-682.
Horrey,W.J.,&Wickens,C. D.(2006). Examining the impact of cell phone
conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Human Factors
48(1), 196-205.
VAI,ar PPCPamh Chrnn,c and What States Can Do
Packet Page -400-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
References
Hosking,S.,Young,K.& Regan,M.(2007).The effects of text messaging
on young novice driver performance. In: I.J.Faulks,M. Regan,M.Stevenson,
J.Brown,A.Porter&J.D.Irwin(Eds.).Distracted driving. Sydney, NSW:
Australasian College of Road Safety.Pages 155-187.
Hosking,S.G.,Young,K. L,& Regan,M.A.(2009).The effects of text
messaging on young drivers.Human Factors 51(4), 582-592.
Janitzek,T.,Jamson,S.,Carsten,0.,&Eksler,V.(2010).Study on the
Regulatory Situation in the Member States Regarding Brought-in (i.e.
Nomadic) Devices and their Use in Vehicles. Brussels: European Union.
Kelderman,E.(2005).State Laws Vary on Driving Distractions. Stateline.
org.Washington, DC:The Pew Center on the States. www.stateline.org/live/
ViewPage.action?siteNodeld=136&languageld=l&contentld=20069.
Klauer,S.G.,Dingus,T.A., Neale,V.L.,Sudweeks,J.D.,& Ramsey, D.J.(2006).
The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-crash/Crash Risk:An Analysis
Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data. DOT HS 810 594.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Klauer,S.G.,Guo, F.,Sudweeks,J.& Dingus,T.A.(2010).An Analysis of
Driver Inattention Using a Case-Crossover Approach on 100-Car Data:
Final Report. DOT HS 811 334.Washington,DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
Kolko,J.D.(2009).The effects of mobile phones and hands-free laws
on traffic fatalities.The B.E.Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 9(1),
Article 10.
Laberge-Nadeau,C., Maag, U., Bellavance, S.Lapierre,S.D.,Desjandins,
D., Messier,S.,&Saidi,A.(2003).Wireless telephones and the risk of road
crashes.Accident Analysis & Prevention 35(5),649-660.
Lee,S.E.,Simons-Morton, B.G., Klauer, S.G.,Ouimet, M.C.,& Dingus,T.A.
(2011). Naturalistic assessment of novice teenage crash experience.
Accident Analysis & Prevention 43(4), 1472-1479.
Liang,Y., & Lee,J.D.(2010).Combining cognitive and visual distraction: Less
than the sum of its parts.Accident Analysis & Prevention 42(3),881-890.
Marti,C.(201 1). Personal communication.
McCartt,A.T., Hellinga, L.A.,& Bratiman, K.A.(2006). Cell phones and driving:
Review of research.Traffic Injury Prevention 7(2),89-106.
\A/"± and What States Can Do
Packet Page -401-
10/14/2014 11.B.
References
McCartt,A.T.,Hellinga, L.A.,Strouse, L.M.,& Farmer,C.M.(2010). Long-term
effects of handheld cell phone laws on driver handheld cell phone use.Traffic
Injury Prevention 11(2), 133-141.
McEvoy,S.P.,Stevenson, M R., McCartt,A.T.,Woodward,M., Haworth,C.,
Palamara,P.,et al.(2005). Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes
resulting in hospital attendance:A case-crossover study. British Medical
Journal 331(7514),428-430.
NCHRP(2003a). Report 500,Vol.4:A Guide for Addressing Head-On
Collisions.Washington, DC:Transportation Research Board.
NCHRP(2003b. Report 500,Vol. 6:A Guide for Addressing Run-Off-
Road Collisions. Washington, DC:Transportation Research Board.
NSC(2010a).NSC Estimates 1.6 Million Crashes Caused by Cell
Phone Use and Texting. Press release 1/12/2010.Itaska,IL: National
Safety Council.
NSC (2010b).Attributable Risk Estimate Model. Itaska, IL: National Safety
Council.www.nsc.org/news_resources/Resources/Documents/Risk%20
Estimate%20Model%20%28Full%29Study%29.pdf.
NHTSA(2010a). Distracted Driving 2009. DOT HS 811 379.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
NHTSA.(2010b).Driver Electronic Device Use in 2009. DOT HS 811
372.Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Nikolaev,A.G., Robbins, M.J.,&Jacobson,S.H.(2010). Evaluating the
impact of legislation prohibiting hand-held cell phone use while driving.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy& Practice 44(3), 182-193.
O'Brien, M.P.,Goodwin,A.H.,& Foss, R.D.(2010).Talking and texting among
teenage drivers:a glass half empty or half full?Traffic Injury Prevention 11(6),
549-554.
Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman,J.S.&Bocanegra J.(2009). Driver
Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations. FMCSA-RRR-09-042.
Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Owens,J.M., McLaughlin,S.B., &Sudweeks,J.(2011). Driver performance
while text messaging using handheld and in-vehicle systems.Accident
Analysis & Prevention 43(3),939-947.
Persaud, B.N., Retting, R..A., & Lyon,C.A.(2004).Crash reduction following
installation of centerline rumble strips on rural two-lane roads.Accident
analysis & Prevention 36(6), 1073-1079.
vA/f,at PPCParr h and What States Can Do
Packet Page -402-
10/14/2014 11 .B.
References
Pogue,D.(2010). Your Phone Is Locked. Just Drive. New York
Times,April 29,2010.www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/technology/
personaltech/29pogue.html.
Ranney,T.A.(2008).Driver Distraction:A Review of the Current State-of-
Knowledge. DOT HS 810 787.Washington,DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
Redelmeier, D.A.,&Tibshirani,R.J.(1997).Association between cellular-
telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of
Medicine 336(7),453-458.
Regan, M.A.,Lee,J.D.,&Young, K.L.eds.(2009). Driver Distraction: Theory,
Effects, and Mitigation. Boca Raton,FL:CRC Press.
Regan, M.A.,Victor,T.W., Lee,J.D.,&Young, K.L.(2009).Driver distraction
injury prevention countermeasures— Part 3:vehicle,technology,and road
design. In Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation, M.A. Regan,
J.D. Lee, &K.L.Young eds., Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.
Regan, M.A.,Young, K.L.,&Lee,J.D.(2009a), Introduction. In Driver
Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation, M.A.Regan,J.D. Lee,& K.L.
Young eds., Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.
Regan, M.A.,Young, K.L.,&Lee,J.D.(2009b). Driver distraction injury
prevention countermeasures— Part 1: Data collection, legislation and
enforcement,vehicle fleet management,and driver licensing. In Driver
Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation, M.A. Regan,J.D. Lee,& K.L.
Young eds., Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.
Robertson,R.(2011).Distracted Driving: So What's the Big Picture?
Ottawa,ON:Traffic Safety Research Foundation.
Royal, D.(2003).National Survey of Distracted and Drowsy Driving
Attitudes and Behavior:2002; Volume I: Findings. DOT HS 809 566.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Sayed,T.,deLeur, P.,& Pump,J.(2010). Impact of rumble strips on collision
reduction on highways in British Columbia,Canada.Transportation Research
Record 2148,9-15.
Ship,A.(2010).The Most Primary of Care —Talking about Driving and
Distraction. New England Journal of Medicine 362,2145-2147.
Smiley,A., Persaud, B., Behar,G., Mollett,C., Lyon,C.,Smahel,T.,et al.(2005).
Traffic safety evaluation of video advertising signs.Transportation Research
Record 1937 105-112.
and What States Can Do
Packet Page -403-
10/14/2014 11.B.
References
Smith,M.R.H.,Witt,G.J., Bakowski,D.L,Leblanc, D.,&Lee,J.D.(2009).
Adapting collision warnings to real-time estimates of driver distraction.
In Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation, MA,Regan,J.D.Lee,
& K.L.Young eds.,Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.
Vanlaar,W., Mayhew, D.,Simpson, H.,&Robertson,R.(2007). The Road
Safety Monitor 2006: Distracted Driving. Ottawa,ON:Traffic Injury
Research Foundation.
Violanti,J.M.&Marshall,J.R.(1996).Cellular phones and traffic accidents:
An epidemiological approach.Accident Analysis &Prevention 28(2,265-270.
Vivoda,J. M., Eby,D.W.,St Louis, R.,M.,& Kostyniuk, L. P.(2008).Cellular
phone use while driving at night.Traffic Injury Prevention 9(1),37-41,
VIII (2010). 100-Car Naturalistic Study Fact Sheet. Blacksburg,VA:
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute.www.vtti.vtedu/PDF/
100-Car_Fact-Sheet.pdf.
WHO(2011). Mobile Phone Use:A Growing Problem of Driver
Distraction. Geneva,Switzerland:World Health Organization.
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/
en/index.html.
Wilson, F.A.,&Stimpson,J. P.(2010).Trends in fatalities from distracted
driving in the United States, 1999 to 2008.American Journal of Public
Health 100(11), 2213-2219.
Young, M.S., Mahfoud,J. M.,Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P. M.,Jenkins, D.P.,
&Walker,G. H.(2009).Conflicts of interest:The implications of roadside
advertising for driver attention.Transportation Research Part F:Traffic
Psychology and Behavior 12(5),381-388.
Young, R.A.,&Schreiner,C.(2009), Real-world personal conversations
using a hands-free embedded wireless device while driving:Effect on
airbag-deployment crash rates. Risk Analysis 29(2), 187-204.
Zhang, H.,Smith, M.R.H.,& Witt,G.J.(2009). Driving task demand-based
distraction mitigation. In Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation,
M.A. Regan,J.D. Lee,& K.L.Young eds., Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.
- \.n/hat What States Can Do
Packet Page -404-
..} 10/14/201411 .B. ;
gr..•..,Mariar„;;;;;,-0,:•.,,A....... ;- .4,1-r7......1:„..m . ,.,x,,,,,,,„ _ : ._ _ _,...._,
-,„ ,� i• -^ V a• . ' F: „'• ,-� :,_}(A 7 t � 2 : t
(k .t.a.' ii �'Yan•. � -wF y ,f M �ti . � A-1—' -��
ft
y..rr,s ;,4�: . yrwxY` v;.-10...i.'..:=,_ �"TM;�.q:xy7.. °: .;d :• , � ..y; :t ':' n w'F ,•� r Jr �'`aT .`ial?.h.:,:.::3. r- ' `r ,K _ ;
10/14/2014 11.B.
(&]StateFartn
State Farm insures more cars and homes than any other insurer in the U.S.,is the leading
insurer of watercraft and is also a leading insurer in Canada.0ur 17,800 agents and more than
68,000 employees serve 81 million policies and accounts—more than 79 million auto,fire,
life and health policies in the United States and Canada,and nearly 2 million bank accounts.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is the parent of the State Farm family of
companies.State Farm is ranked No.34 on the Fortune 500 list of largest companies.
For more information,please visit www.statefarm.come or in Canada www.statefarm.ce.
t yy _ �fi .` �
xd, '� ,'! ��"' - -� • 1#1‘,%,
rte"
4.
Gc-verrt rrs Highway Safety :sseciatiort'
The Governors Highway Safety Association(GHSA)is a nonprofit association representing
the highway safety offices of states,territories,the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
GHSA provides leadership and representation for the states and territories to improve traffic
safety,influence national policy and enhance program management.Its members are appointed
by their Governors to administer federal and state highway safety funds and implement state
highway safety plans. For more information,please visit www.ghsa.org'.
444 N.Capitol Street,NW
Suite 722
Washington,DC 20001-1 53 4
TEL 202.789.0942
www.ghsa.org
Packet Page -406-