Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications (2021)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

J-1 Research Webinar for Practitioners A P P E N D I X J

J-2 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 1 • Introductions – presenter • Research managed under BTSCRP Examining the Implications of Legislation and Enforcement on Electronic Device Use While Driving: Webinar Research managed under the Behavioral Traffic Safety Cooperative Research Program (BTSCRP)

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-3 Slide 2 • The study methodology allowed for a review of U.S. and Canadian jurisdictions with varying electronic device use laws, enforcement strategies, public awareness strategies, and more. The findings presented here will reflect this variety and provide important information about the strength of the law in these jurisdictions. • This presentation includes: – A short presentation on the background of this research; – A description of the study methodology; – A review of key findings, including laws as they existed in January 2019, effective education and enforcement strategies being used, and successes and challenges experienced by the different jurisdictions; and – A review of key deliverables designed to share best practices with stakeholders in states and communities. • This webinar is an opportunity to answer any questions about the study and its findings. It also provides an opportunity for stakeholders to meet and establish relationships that will allow them to share the challenges they face and to brainstorm solutions. Agenda Background Methodology Findings • Review of Current Laws • Effective Education and Enforcement • Successes and Challenges Sharing Best Practices • Model Legislation • Presentation for Stakeholders • Presentation for Law Enforcement • Highlight Document for Legislators • Model Press Release 2

J-4 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 3 Background 3

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-5 Slide 4 • Distracted driving is a major traffic safety issue. In 2018 alone, 2,841 motor vehicle fatalities involved a distracted driver. • However, distracted driving is underreported and is likely a contributing factor in many more fatal crashes. • There are different types of distraction behind the wheel, including eating, grooming, and electronic device use. • Electronic device use can include dialing, texting, browsing the Internet, watching videos, inputting information into GPS, and talking. Studies show that engaging in these behaviors while driving is extremely risky. It takes about 5 seconds, on average, to read or send a text. A vehicle travelling at 55 miles per hour can travel the length of a football field in less than 5 seconds. • As a result, many states and local governments in the United States and internationally have passed laws restricting or banning the use of electronic devices while driving. Distracted Driving and Electronic Device Use Distracted driving is a diversion of the driver’s attention away from activities critical for safe driving toward a competing activity. In 2018, 2,841 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States involved a distracted driver. Distracted driving is underreported. Research shows that electronic device use is a common cause of distracted driving, with serious safety implications. Many state and local governments in the United States and internationally have passed laws restricting or banning the use of electronic devices to talk or text while driving. 4

J-6 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 5 • The study was conducted in two phases. • The first phase included – A review of existing legislation across all 50 states and 10 Canadian provinces, with a focus on the language, penalties, and sanctions used to address distracted driving related to elec- tronic device use. – An in-depth evaluation of the benefits and challenges of enacting, enforcing, and adjudicat- ing electronic device legislation for a sample of 20 jurisdictions. • The second phase involved development of deliverables to share best practices. These included model legislation and educational materials to help stakeholders—such as legislators, law enforcement, local government, and traffic safety officials—enact a law and educate key indi- viduals on the importance of the law. Study Plan Phase 1 • Examined existing electronic device use legislation, with a focus on the language, penalties, and sanctions. • Evaluated the benefits and challenges of enacting, enforcing, and adjudicating electronic device legislation. Phase 2 • Developed model legislation and supporting materials for stakeholders to enact and enforce the law and to educate key individuals on its importance. 1

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-7 Slide 6 • The methodology for this study focused on four main tasks: – Reviewing the existing laws in all jurisdictions (50 U.S. states and 10 Canadian provinces). – Ranking the existing laws according to the strength of the law. – Performing a cluster analysis and selecting a sample of 20 jurisdictions. – Conducting an in-depth review of these jurisdictions to better understand enactment and revision of their laws, as well as enforcement efforts and public outreach and education. • This methodology will now be reviewed in detail. Methodology 2

J-8 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 7 • The review of existing electronic device legislation took place in January 2019. • Prior to reviewing each law, several key components of the law were identified that the authors wanted to document, such as: – Affected roadways or specific locations where the law was in effect (e.g., school zones, work zones), – Exemptions to the law (e.g., ability to use navigation systems), and – Penalties and sanctions for offenses (including incremental fines and penalties). • A database was developed to compile information from the review. Review of Existing Legislation Conducted a literature and Internet scan of laws in the 50 U.S. states and 10 Canadian provinces. Identified key components of laws, including: • Primary or secondary violation • Devices, drivers, conditions, and behaviors covered • Ban of device use at all times or only when the vehicle is in motion • Exemptions to the law • Date the law went into effect • Penalties and sanctions • Connections to other laws • Ongoing efforts to update the law 1

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-9 Slide 8 • After dissecting each jurisdiction’s law, its strength was assessed. • When assigning points for law strength, the authors considered the following components in the classification scheme: – Violation type – Behaviors covered (an extra point was allowed for additional behaviors covered, such as reading or speaking) – Types of drivers covered (an extra point was allowed if the law covered all drivers and if one or more laws were more stringent for specific populations) – When law is enforceable – Penalty and fine range for first offense – Presence of an incremental penalty/fine system • Points were assigned to the various components of the law, from 0 to 3 points, with a poten- tial for extra points for some categories. This allowed for a score of 0 to 20 points for each jurisdiction. • The protocol was reviewed and approved by the BTSCRP Project Panel. Assessment of the Strength of the Law Developed classification scheme and point system to sort the jurisdictions, including: Assigned 0 to 3 points per component, for a score of 0 to 20 points for each jurisdiction. 2 • Violation Type • Behaviors Covered • Types of Drivers Covered • When Law Is Enforceable • Penalty/Fine Range • Incremental Penalty/Fine

J-10 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 9 • To group the jurisdictions for further study, the researchers conducted a cluster analysis of states and provinces with similarly structured legislation. The cluster analysis was based on the results of the assessment and ranking of the strength of the laws. It also took into consid- eration fatal injury data, licensed drivers, motor vehicle registrations, vehicle miles traveled, and population data. • The objective of the analysis was to obtain a sample of 20 out of 61 jurisdictions to be included in a more detailed review. • Before drawing the sample, it was decided to discard Montana because there was no dis- tracted driving law in place at the time. In addition, Alaska, Hawaii, Prince Edward Island, and the District of Columbia were discarded because each has unique features that would make it difficult to generalize any findings to other jurisdictions. Ontario and Maryland were selected with certainty because these jurisdictions had the strongest laws (highest law scores) in Canada and the United States. • The sample included a relatively diverse set of laws, as well as a range of population charac- teristics, so that the information gathered would ideally cover a range of laws, challenges, and populations. The sample represented jurisdictions with stronger laws somewhat more heavily, since the objective of the project was to develop model legislation as well as best practices for education and enforcement. • If asked: The researchers tested three methods for clustering jurisdictions and selected K–means. K-means does not place any assumptions on the distributions of the variables and is designed to find an overall optimal solution. The final K-means model resulted in five clusters. Further detail is provided in the final report. Cluster Analysis to Select Jurisdiction Sample 3 Cluster Cluster Description Sampled Jurisdictions 1 Canadian provinces Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario*, Quebec 2 U.S. states, stronger laws Connecticut, Maryland*, Maine, Oregon, West Virginia, Vermont 3 U.S. states, moderate/small populations, weaker laws Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee 4 U.S. states, large populations, weaker laws Pennsylvania, Virginia 5 U.S. states, weakest laws Nebraska • Selected 20 jurisdictions for detailed review • Included a diverse set of laws and jurisdiction characteristics * Selected with certainty

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-11 Slide 10 • The authors conducted an in-depth review for the 20 jurisdictions identified by the cluster analysis. • The authors first conducted an internet scan for the selected jurisdictions to identify addi- tional information about their distracted driving laws as well as any enforcement or outreach and education efforts. A database was developed to organize the information from the web scan, including information pertaining to the law’s background or history. This information included how the law was enacted; enforcement efforts such as high-visibility campaigns; public outreach and educational efforts; and any data pertaining to enforcement, outreach measurement, and the law’s impact on crash rates. The database also included contact infor- mation for state/provincial representatives identified during the search. • To supplement findings from the internet scan, telephone discussions were conducted with state/provincial representatives, including representatives from program offices, legislative offices, nonprofit agencies, research firms, and law enforcement agencies. Discussion guides were developed for the different types of stakeholders and provided to the project panel for review and approval. In-Depth Review of Selected Jurisdictions Internet scan: • Collected information about the law, enforcement, and education and outreach, including background for current legislation and steps taken to pass the law. Telephone discussions with key stakeholders: • Developed discussion guides. • Conducted discussions with state/provincial representatives, legislative offices, nonprofit agencies, research firms, and law enforcement agencies. 4

J-12 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 11 • The next few slides present several key findings from this phase of the study. Key Findings 5

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-13 Slide 12 • The quantitative findings are discussed first. Quantitative Findings Key components of the laws • Behaviors covered • Drivers covered • When law is enforceable • Exemptions to the law Strength of laws 6

J-14 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 13 • The researchers collected data for 61 jurisdictions in January of 2019. • Based on the language of the law, reading and texting were the behaviors most commonly pro- hibited, followed closely by handheld electronic device use. In the initial review of the legisla- tion, manipulating/dialing were covered by laws in two jurisdictions (Utah and Wisconsin). • Again, please note that the numbers on these slides reflect the restrictions covered under the law as they existed in January 2019. Since that time, some of the jurisdictions have succeeded in revising their laws. Behaviors Covered 7 Data collected in January 2019 Distracted driving law may cover more than one behavior; therefore, the total is more than 100% Behavior Number of Jurisdictions Percent Reading 38 62% Texting 31 51% Handheld 27 44% Speaking 2 3% Manipulation/ Dialing 2 3%

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-15 Slide 14 • Electronic device use laws varied with respect to the population of drivers covered. • In most jurisdictions (N = 58), the law covered all drivers. However, particular types of drivers were specifically identified in some jurisdictions, such as Arizona (where the law applied only to school bus drivers, teenagers, and GDL license drivers) and Missouri (where the law applied only to CDL drivers, teenagers, and GDL license drivers). Some jurisdictions had a law for the general population but additional laws for specific types of drivers. Drivers Covered 8 Data collected in January 2019 Driver Number of Jurisdictions Percent All Drivers 58 95% CDL Drivers 1 (law does not include all drivers) 2% School Bus Drivers 2 (for 1 jurisdiction the law does not include all drivers) 3% Under 18 and/or GDL Drivers 6 (for 2 jurisdictions the law does not include all drivers) 10%

J-16 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 15 With respect to when the law is enforceable: • Some laws specified that a driver is in violation only if the vehicle is in motion; if no other restrictions were specified, these were treated as “in motion only” laws. This designation was also used when the law permits device use when the vehicle is stopped at a traffic signal. • Other laws specified that electronic device use is a violation if the vehicle is being operated on a public roadway, whether in motion or stopped at a traffic signal. These were categorized as “at all times” laws. • The jurisdictions were fairly evenly split with regard to when the law is applicable, with 30 jurisdictions specifying that electronic device use is a violation if the vehicle is stationary or in motion (at all times) and 29 jurisdictions having laws that are in effect only when the vehicle is in motion (in motion only). One state, Arizona, does not specify when the law is enforceable. When the Law Is Enforceable 9 Law Enforceable Number of Jurisdictions Always 30 When vehicle was moving 29 Data collected in January 2019

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-17 Slide 16 • During the initial scan, the researchers also noted a number of exemptions to the law. Most jurisdictions provided multiple exemptions in their electronic device use laws. • The most common exemptions were when contacting emergency services (N = 48), use by emergency personnel (N = 41), and hands-free use (N = 34). Exemptions to the Law 10 Exemption Number of Jurisdictions Percent Contacting Emergency Services 48 79% For Emergency Personnel 41 67% For Hands-Free 34 56% For Navigation 27 44% Use of Single Touch Features 18 30% For Work Purposes 13 21% When Affixed to Vehicle Surface 9 15% Receiving Safety Messages 7 11% Other 5 8% Data collected in January 2019. Distracted driving law may cover more than one behavior; therefore, the total is more than 100%.

J-18 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 17 • After reviewing the laws in all 50 states and 10 provinces, the researchers assigned points for the strength of each law based on eight components: – Violation type – Behaviors covered (allowed an extra point for additional behaviors covered, such as reading or speaking) – Types of drivers covered (allowed an extra point if the law covered all drivers and there were one or more laws that were more stringent for specific populations) – When law is enforceable – Penalty range for first offense – Incremental penalty – Fine range for first offense – Incremental fine • Each jurisdiction had a potential score of 0 to 20 points. The total score ranged from a high of 17 points (for Ontario) to a low of 0 points (for Montana, which had no law). • The assessment of law strength was a key component considered during the cluster analysis (as discussed in the methodology) and for the selection of 20 jurisdictions for in-depth review. Assessing the Strength of the Law 11 Jurisdictions Total Points Ontario 17 Maryland 16 Alberta, British Columbia, Georgia, Manitoba, New York, Prince Edward Island 15 California, Colorado, New Brunswick, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Oregon, Quebec, Rhode Island, Saskatchewan, Vermont, West Virginia 14 Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada 13 Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Washington 12 District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota 11 Alaska, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Virginia 10 Iowa, Minnesota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee 9 Idaho, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wyoming 8 Missouri 7 Arizona 6 Montana 0

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-19 Slide 18 • This section reviews the qualitative findings on electronic device use legislation based on the initial scan and the in-depth review with the 20 selected jurisdictions following the cluster analysis and sample selection. Qualitative Findings Based on in-depth review with selected jurisdictions: • Process for enacting or revising an electronic device use law. • Language and interpretation of electronic device use laws. • Distracted driving penalties and fines. • Enforcement strategies. • Public awareness and information. • Data collection and evaluation. 12

J-20 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 19 • The process of enacting or revising an electronic device use law will be discussed first. • A number of jurisdictions indicated that including a variety of partners in the process was key to enacting or revising a more rigorous electronic device use law. – Important partners included state or provincial government agencies such as highway safety, law enforcement, the judiciary, and the DMV, as well as political leaders, including support from legislative staff and the state governor or provincial lieutenant governor. – Nongovernmental stakeholders—such as safety organizations and community leaders— can also help facilitate and garner support for a new law. Victim advocates may also serve as leading voices for stronger distracted driving laws, as has been the case in Maryland and Pennsylvania. – In several jurisdictions, the authors also heard about the importance of inviting opposing groups to coalition meetings to better understand their views and determine whether their concerns could be addressed or a compromise achieved. For example, in some states, con- cerns about racial profiling have been addressed through compromise, such as adding an amendment that mandates an annual review of citation demographics. • Another strategy for developing a stronger law is to initially prohibit texting and then develop a more rigorous law over time. – Representatives from several jurisdictions stated that “texting” laws are not only difficult to enforce but also contain antiquated language, since current users are also browsing, snap- chatting, creating videos, watching, and manipulating their devices in other ways. There- fore, it is important to really scrutinize the language used in the law. • Some jurisdictions adopted local ordinances in the hope of influencing the state government to enact or revise a law. For example, in Idaho, in an attempt to influence state legislation, Hailey, Idaho Falls, Ketchum, Pocatello, and Sandpoint enacted local ordinances banning handheld use of cell phones. Similar ordinances have been instituted in Montana (to encour- age the writing of a state law). Richmond, Virginia, passed a local hands-free ordinance in December 2019. Process of Enacting or Revising an Electronic Device Use Law – Strategies Used Jurisdictions used different strategies to enact or revise electronic device use laws: • Building a coalition or team of stakeholders. • Starting with a basic texting law and adding more rigorous clauses. • Adopting local ordinances. 13

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-21 Slide 20 With respect to challenges faced: • As of December 2019, only Connecticut, Oregon, Maine, and New Jersey were eligible for NHTSA 405E funding based on the language of their laws. Several states expressed interest in clarifying their language in order to qualify for 405E funding and for additional NHTSA support as they are developing the language of their laws. These states want funding to help increase public outreach and education efforts to facilitate public acceptance of the law. • Other jurisdictions mentioned resistance to revisions in the law. In Idaho, businesses and farmers opposed the addition of a hands-free ban to the existing distracted driving law because they saw it as challenging in their working environment. Passage of Virginia’s handheld ban keeps failing at the last minute due to the influence of only a few politicians. Process of Enacting or Revising an Electronic Device Use Law – Challenges Faced Challenges: • Efforts to match language needed to be eligible for NHTSA 405E funding. • Resistance to revisions in the law, specifically handheld bans. 14

J-22 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 21 With respect to the language used and how the law is interpreted: • Inclusive or wide-ranging language allows for broad interpretation of the electronic device use law. For example, in Alberta, the law prohibits handheld use of a device for all drivers, all roadways, in motion or stopped. In Ontario, the wording of the regulation in the Highway Traffic Safety Act refers to whenever the device is in the driver’s hand. In court, this law has been enforced even in cases where the electronic device is off but in the hand of the driver. • A number of jurisdictions have purposefully designed the language to reduce these types of limitations in the laws. – In Oregon, the term “mobile electronic device” was substituted for “mobile communication device” to broaden the definition of device use and remove many exceptions to the statute. – Similarly, in Maine, an update to legislation referred to a “handheld electronic device,” which includes cell phones as well as other types of devices. – Quebec avoided complexities that may arise from vague definitions of the term “use” by stating that “a driver who is holding a device is presumed to be using it.” – Jurisdiction representatives also stated that clear language is important for specifying the conditions under which electronic device use is allowed when the vehicle is not in motion, such as when contacting emergency personnel. Language and Interpretation of Distracted Driving Laws The content and wording of electronic device use legislation can affect the law’s acceptability and the ability to enforce it. The language of the law should be inclusive or wide-ranging – for example, “mobile electronic device” instead of “mobile communication device.” Exemptions can make the law challenging to enforce – for example, requiring the vehicle to be in motion. 15

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-23 Slide 22 The following were found when discussing penalties and fines with the selected jurisdictions: • In several jurisdictions, there was some concern about setting a fine too high because officers may be reluctant to issue the citation. – Some law enforcement personnel in Connecticut initially expressed concern over issuing substantial fines; however, due to the high level of public education and outreach, it became easier to issue citations over time because drivers could no longer say they were unaware of the law. • Although several jurisdictions instituted incremental fines and penalties, there was limited research to indicate whether these initiatives were effective with regard to electronic device use. For example: – In Manitoba, police can issue a roadside suspension of the driver’s license when a driver violates the law. There is a 3-day suspension for a first violation and a 7-day suspension for a second. – Incremental fines and penalties were introduced in Quebec in 2015, then updated in 2018, with fines increasing to a range of $300 to $600 (plus costs) and 5 demerit points. – The system has not always worked as intended in Maine, Maryland, and Connecticut when a driver was issued a second citation soon after the first and both were issued as a first citation. This is usually due to delays in processing citation paperwork; e-citations may be a solution. • As previously noted, there is a need for additional research to support the effectiveness of incremental fines and penalties specific to electronic device laws. This research might involve looking at other data, including the number of citations issued, data from observational studies on electronic device use, and crash data. Safety advocates in some jurisdictions specu- lated that incremental penalties are more effective than incremental fines because people are more willing to accept a one-time fee than the loss of their license. • Several jurisdictions had more punitive measures, such as jail time, in cases where a crash involving an electronic device resulted in injury or death. Distracted Driving Penalties and Fines Most jurisdictions assign fines and penalties for distracted driving that are similar to those for other traffic violations. Public information campaigns are important to increase public acceptance of enforcement and fines. Several jurisdictions have incremental fine or penalty structures, but no measures of effectiveness as yet. Many jurisdictions have more punitive measures for crashes that result in serious injuries or fatalities. 16

J-24 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 23 • Law enforcement personnel in the different jurisdictions often confirmed the importance of including law enforcement when developing a law. • Here are some of the enforcement strategies that were shared: – Focused Patrols. Connecticut set up focused patrol zones staffed by multiple officers, including a spotter, an officer to pull vehicles over, and others to write citations. – Elevated Vehicles. Jurisdictions such as Tennessee, Maine, Manitoba, and Quebec have used elevated vehicles such as pickup trucks, commercial trucks, utility vehicles, and buses to spot distracted drivers. In Tennessee, the use of elevated vehicles was entitled Operation Incognito. The Tennessee Highway Safety Office and Highway Patrol invited media and community partners to board a bus and assist as spotters, notifying police in patrol cars when they saw distracted drivers. – Video/Photography. Idaho drivers are videotaped to ensure that there is evidence of texting behavior. The use of video or photographs may serve as a strategy in cases where the language of the law is problematic for enforcement. – Roving Patrols. In Maine, state police used two-officer roving patrols in unmarked vans and SUVs, with one officer to drive and the other to survey nearby cars. – Covert Tactics. Vermont has used undercover flaggers in work zones, as well as a spotter on a hill who peers into vehicles using binoculars. In Montgomery and Frederick County, Maryland, law enforcement personnel have dressed as panhandlers, carrying a sign that says “Are you using your cell phone?” and radioing in to another officer who can pull over distracted drivers and issue a citation. In addition, work vehicles from the Pennsylvania Turnpike or PennDOT have been used to camouflage police and allow for observation of distracted driving violations. – Coordinated Campaigns. One unique campaign is a joint effort by the six New England states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. “Just Drive New England” is a coordinated education and enforcement campaign that takes place during April as part of Distracted Driving Month. Enforcement Strategies Include law enforcement when developing the law’s language and content. Enforce the law at higher rates during enhanced enforcement or high-visibility periods. Strategies: • Focused patrols • Elevated vehicles • Video/photography • Roving patrols • Covert tactics • Coordinated campaigns 17

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-25 Slide 24 • In many jurisdictions, a strong public awareness campaign has been deployed following the enactment or revision of the distracted driving law. Because of funding issues, in some areas, campaigns occur only during Distracted Driving Awareness Month. • Outreach efforts include social media advertisements, radio and TV commercials, public events, and programs in schools or with younger drivers. Because funding is limited, these events are often the result of partnerships. Public Awareness and Information Public Awareness Campaigns: Following enactment or revision of distracted driving laws. During Distracted Driving Awareness Month. Use social media, public events, and school programs with young drivers. Develop partnerships. 18

J-26 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 25 • The researchers also spoke to representatives about data collection efforts within their jurisdictions. • Crash data were not used as frequently because of issues with underreporting. However, juris- dictions were more frequently identifying the type of distraction on their crash forms. • Citation data were used by many jurisdictions to plan enforcement and outreach activities. • Several jurisdictions measured the public’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors to support highway safety activities, legislation, and enforcement. In many cases, the survey data point to a high level of awareness of the dangers of distracted driving. For example: – A December 2017 survey of Ontarians revealed that 90 percent felt it was dangerous to send or read a text message or use a handheld device while driving. Perceptions of these dangers had increased, from 85 percent, since 2015. – In Nebraska, 61 percent of respondents to the 2018 Annual Traffic Safety Study supported a law allowing a ticket solely for cell phone use while driving. Ninety-two percent of respon- dents supported a law allowing drivers to be stopped and ticketed solely for texting while driving. These findings may support transition to a primary law. – The Virginia Governor’s Office held a digital town hall (with 2,084 online participants) focused on distracted driving. Participant input indicated a negative perception of dis- tracted driving among commonwealth citizens. When participants were asked for three words to describe the act of driving distracted, the word “dangerous” was most frequently mentioned. In response to the question, “Who might be the most influential person in getting you to put away your phone before driving?,” the most common responses referred to family. • Observational surveys of electronic device use were also mentioned as an evaluation method. Not many of the jurisdictions collect this data. However, for U.S. states, this is something that could be added to state observational surveys of seat belt use. • Lack of evaluation data makes it more difficult to recommend certain practices—for example, regarding incremental fines/penalties or stronger penalties for injuries or death caused by a distracted driving event. Several jurisdictions stated that they are interested in conducting evaluation of the newer laws, but it will take time. Data Collection and Evaluation Some jurisdictions capture texting or electronic device use under distracted driving on crash forms. Citation data are used to plan enforcement and outreach activities. Public surveys assess awareness of the dangers of distracted driving and support for distracted driving laws. Some jurisdictions collect observational data on electronic device use. There is a need for further evaluation of the effects of the law. 19 #YourSayVA Digital Town Hall Distracted Driving

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-27 Slide 26 With respect to changes in perception: • In many jurisdictions, use of electronic devices has not necessarily dropped, but tolerance for distracted driving is low. To this point, harnessing the voice of voting citizens and local victim advocates might be an approach to influence lawmaker decisions. • However, there are still jurisdictions where revisions in the law, such as changing prohibited behaviors from texting to a handheld ban, are not widely accepted. • That being said, it may be challenging to find a one-size-fits-all approach. However, it is promising that many jurisdictions said their constituents were less tolerant of distracted driving. Effects of Safety and Political Culture Many jurisdictions point to change in perceptions of distracted driving. • Some have harnessed the voice of voting citizens and victim advocates to help revise laws. In some jurisdictions, the lack of safety culture may hinder the transition to a more rigorous law at this time. 20

J-28 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 27 • As anticipated, across the groupings in the cluster analysis, the authors identified similarities in distracted driving laws, enforcement strategies, public awareness and information cam- paigns, and safety and political culture. • Specifically, respondents from the weaker law groupings were more likely to note challenges to initiating more rigorous laws and conducting enforcement and public information cam- paigns. In contrast, stronger law jurisdictions were more likely to have succeeded in passing rigorous laws and updates to laws, improving the language of their laws to avoid weaknesses, and conducting increased law enforcement and public awareness efforts. The stronger law groupings often pointed to a stronger safety culture that promoted more effective actions to prevent distracted driving. Comparing Jurisdictions Within the Sampled Clusters Weaker law groupings were more likely to express challenges in initiating rigorous laws, conducting enforcement, and launching public information campaigns. Stronger law groupings were more likely to pass rigorous laws and updates, improve law language, conduct law enforcement, and launch public awareness campaigns. 21

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-29 Slide 28 • To summarize, here are some of the key findings identified in the review of the current legislation, enforcement, and education activities. • Language of the Model Law – It is imperative that proposed language be carefully scrutinized to limit exceptions or loopholes. Similarly, components of the law should be clearly defined. – Including law enforcement personnel during language development will be critical to help ensure that the model law is enforceable. – Because 405E funding is substantial, U.S. states are likely to be helped by model language that is in line with NHTSA requirements when they develop programs to support the law. Several states requested guidance and resources from NHTSA to help ensure that their laws were compliant. • Coalition Building – Working with different partners to design the distracted driving law is critical to maximize public acceptance. Coalition support is also important for ongoing effectiveness. • Education and Enforcement Efforts – Public information and education campaigns, accompanied by well-publicized and rig- orous law enforcement operations, have been shown to positively influence motorists’ behavior and remind the public of the consequences of disobeying the law. Note that for enforcement to be most effective, it must be sustainable, meaning that it must occur throughout the year in addition to high-visibility enforcement campaigns. • Data Collection and Evaluation – Jurisdictions vary greatly in the extent to which they collect and analyze data. Effective pro- grams track success, identify limitations, and use data to direct future activities. Continu- ous and periodic evaluation of distracted driving enforcement and education is essential to sustaining its success. Summary Findings An electronic device use law needs to be phrased in a manner that avoids exceptions or loopholes. Coalition building is critical for the success of all components of a distracted driving program. High-visibility enforcement and targeted public information, education, and outreach campaigns are important tools in an effective program. It is important for jurisdictions to employ a data-driven approach and evaluation. 22

J-30 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 29 • The second phase of the study involved the design of a series of materials identifying best practices that could be shared with various stakeholders. Sharing Best Practices 23

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-31 Slide 30 • These materials serve as different methods to communicate the information identified during Phase 1 to key audiences, including legislators, law enforcement personnel, policy makers, local government officials, researchers, and the general public. Some of these deliverables summarize main findings, and others are more instructional or a “how to.” • In addition to the information gathered in Phase 1, the researchers used a variety of resources, such as existing toolkits and research publications, to guide the development of deliverables. • The materials developed include this presentation, as well as: – Model legislation, – Customizable presentation for stakeholders regarding the development of legislation, – Presentation for law enforcement on outreach and enforcement strategies, – A highlight document for legislators on the importance of electronic device use legisla- tion, and – A model press release. Materials Developed 1. Webinar to inform practitioners of research results 2. Model legislation 3. Presentation for different stakeholders regarding the development of model legislation 4. Presentation for law enforcement regarding effective enforcement methods and strategies 5. Highlight document to help inform legislators on the development of electronic device use legislation 6. Model press release 24

J-32 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 31 • Designed for key stakeholders, including legislators and policy makers, highway safety administrators, law enforcement personnel, community stakeholders, and advocates. • In developing the model legislation, the authors have used examples from states, localities, and provinces that have proven to be well-written, easy to enforce, and apparently effective based on the research of enforcement activity and crash data. • When developing the wording for the model law, the authors considered guidelines for 405E funding. Model Legislation Audience: Key stakeholders involved in promoting legislation related to electronic device use while driving. Purpose: To provide guidance and language that can be used to enact or revise an electronic device use law. Structure: Description of key components of model legislation, along with model law language, including definitions of terminology, prohibitions, exemptions, and penalties. 25

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-33 Slide 32 • When developing legislation, it is important to clearly define the terminology used in the law. The example on the slide shows how to define the terminology in the legislation. [This slide is intended to be a reference for the wording used in the model law.] The legislation should clearly define the terminology used. This is an example of how to define terminology in your law. Example Model Law: Definitions of Terminology Used Section 1: The following provides definitions of the terminology used in Section 2, “Prohibitions,” and Section 3, “Exemptions.” • “Electronic Device” means any portable electronic device that is capable of wireless communication or electronic information or data retrieval and is not an in-vehicle system. This includes, but is not limited to, a cellphone, tablet, laptop, two-way messaging device, or electronic game. “Electronic Device” does not include in-vehicle systems, two-way radio, citizens band radio, or amateur radio equipment. • “Use” includes holding, viewing, or manipulating, including multiple swipes or presses of a handheld, mounted, or hands-free electronic device. • “Handheld” means holding or using a portion of the body to hold an electronic device. • “Operate a Motor Vehicle” means driving a motor vehicle on a public way with the motor running, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic light or a stop sign, or otherwise stationary. "Operate a Motor Vehicle" does not include operating a motor vehicle with or without the motor running when the operator has pulled the motor vehicle over to the side of, or off, a public way and has halted in a location where the motor vehicle can safely remain stationary. • “Text” means reading or manually composing electronic communications, including text messages, instant messages, and emails, using an electronic device. • “Hands-free” means the use of an electronic device to talk or listen without use of either the hand or any part of the body to prop the device, but instead by employing an internal feature (e.g. speakerphone) or an attachment to the device.MODEL LEGISLATION 26

J-34 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 33 • This slide shows how to describe the prohibited behaviors when developing electronic device use legislation. [This slide is intended to be a reference for the wording used in the model law.] The prohibited behaviors should be clearly stated. This is an example of how to identify prohibited behaviors in your law. Example Model Law: Prohibitions Section 2: The following prohibitions apply to using an electronic device while operating a motor vehicle, except as provided in Section 3, “Exemptions.” • A person may not operate a motor vehicle while using a handheld electronic device. • A person may not operate a motor vehicle while dialing numbers or inputting text or while engaging in multiple swipes or taps; this includes use when the device is hands-free. • A person may not stream, record, or broadcast video; this includes use when the device is hands-free. • A person may not use applications on the device that depict motion on the device’s screen, with the exception of a global positioning system (GPS) or navigational software; this includes use when the device is hands-free. • Drivers who are 16 or 17 years of age are restricted from using any type of electronic device while driving, even with hands-free accessories, with the exception of GPS or navigational software. MODEL LEGISLATION 27

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-35 Slide 34 • As indicated earlier, a strong law will have very few exemptions. These exemptions should be clearly stated. [This slide is intended to be a reference for the wording used in the model law.] Any exemptions to the law must be clearly stated. This is an example of possible exemptions to be included in your law. Example Model Law: Exemptions Section 3: The following exemptions apply to Section 2, “Prohibitions.” • A cellphone or mobile electronic device may be used, by a driver of any age, in an emergency situation, when contacting an emergency response operator, hospital, physician’s office, health clinic, ambulance company, or fire or police department. • The law does not apply to an individual driving or operating an emergency vehicle while the individual is acting within the scope of the individual’s employment. • GPS or navigational software use is allowed when the electronic device is being used hands-free; however, the destination must be input when the operator has pulled the motor vehicle over to the side of, or off, a public way and has halted in a location where the motor vehicle can safely remain stationary with the engine turned off. • Use of a citizens band radio or two-way radio by the operator of a moving commercial motor vehicle on a public road or highway is allowed. MODEL LEGISLATION 28

J-36 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 35 • Assignment of points or license suspension should be structured similarly to other traffic safety laws. [If the state has a points system] – A person who violates Section 2, “Prohibitions,” commits a traffic infraction for which ____ points will be issued. – A second offense under this section is subject to ____ points issued. – A third or subsequent offense under this section is subject to ____ points issued and/or temporary suspension of the person’s license for a period of ____ days. [If the state does not have a points system in place] – A person who has a third or subsequent violation of Section 2, “Prohibitions,” within a 3-year period will be issued a suspension of his or her license for a period of � 30 days, if the person has 3 adjudications. � 60 days, if the person has 4 adjudications. � 90 days, if the person has 5 or more adjudications. [This slide is intended to be a reference for the wording used in the model law.] Outline the penalties and fines. This is an example of how to outline penalties and fines in your law. Example Model Law: Penalties and Fines Section 4: The following penalties apply to a violation of Section 2, “Prohibitions.” Fines: • A person who violates Section 2, “Prohibitions,” commits a traffic infraction for which a fine of $____ will be issued. • A second or subsequent offense under this section is subject to a fine of $____. Points / License Suspension: • Depending on the system in the state • Incremental Penalty—additional points for second or third offense • License Suspension—for third offense within a 3-year period MODEL LEGISLATION 29

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-37 Slide 36 • The authors developed a presentation to provide customized information and guidance for different stakeholders responsible for drafting, enacting, implementing, and enforcing legisla- tion on electronic devices, as well as educating the public on the significant safety benefits of complying with the law. • The presentation focused on the process of developing a new law or modifying an existing law. In doing so, it highlighted successful strategies, protocols, and procedures from juris- dictions across North America to deter distracted driving specific to electronic device use. Presentation for Different Stakeholders 30 Audience: Key stakeholders involved in legislation development, enforcement, education, and evaluation related to an electronic device use law. Purpose: Provide information and guidance on developing a new law or modifying an existing law, and highlight successful strategies, protocols, and procedures from different jurisdictions. Structure: Presentation of information on implementation stages of effective legislation, with specific guidance for each of the key audiences.

J-38 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 37 • The presentation includes detailed and targeted modules for each type of stakeholder. The audiences include – Legislators and policy makers, – Highway safety administrators, – Law enforcement, – Community stakeholders and advocates, – Public health officers, and – Educators. • The images depicted on the slide are example slides from the presentations for different stake- holders in Appendix F. Presentation for Different Stakeholders 31PRESENTATION FOR STAKEHOLDERS

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-39 Slide 38 • The presentation highlights strategies, protocols, and procedures that have been employed by the states and provinces that have been successful in drafting and enacting legislation to deter distracted driving. • It also provides information on the different implementation stages of effective electronic device legislation, from inception through enactment, education about and enforcement of the law, and the evaluation of efforts. • The slide is an example slide from the presentations for different stakeholders in Appendix F. Presentation for Different Stakeholders 32PRESENTATION FOR STAKEHOLDERS

J-40 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 39 • The presentation functions as a slide deck that can be customized for the target audience. The introductory section is intended for all audiences and includes the background, key defini- tions, and an overview of the implementation stages of effective electronic device legislation. These slides are to be supplemented by the subsections that specifically address areas of inter- est to the key audiences. • Each section, tailored for an audience, begins with an opening slide describing that audience’s role in developing, implementing, enforcing, and sustaining electronic device use legislation. This is followed by a series of slides outlining key components that should be considered by each audience. The presentation includes the following content for specific audiences: – Legislators and Policy Makers – Your role, coalition building, components and language of a distracted driving law, and challenges in promoting legislation – Highway Safety Administrators – Your role, coalition building, components and language of a distracted driving law, challenges in promoting legislation, and designing public aware- ness campaigns – Law Enforcement – Your role, assisting with the development of the law, importance of high-visibility enforcement, effective enforcement strategies, and enforcement challenges – Community Stakeholders and Advocates – Your role, coalition building, components of a distracted driving law, and designing public awareness campaigns – Public Health Officers – Your role, data and evaluation, and goals of ongoing evaluation – Educators – Your role, key programs to target teenagers, encouraging youth to be influ- encers, and peer-to-peer education initiatives Presentation for Different Stakeholders Structure of the Presentation: Introductory section Sections tailored for each audience, highlighting their individual roles: • Coalition Building • Assisting with the Development of the Law • Components and Language of the Law • Challenges in Promoting Legislation • Designing Public Awareness Campaigns • The Importance of High Visibility Enforcement • Effective Enforcement Strategies • Enforcement Challenges • Data and Evaluation • Education Opportunities PRESENTATION FOR STAKEHOLDERS 33

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-41 Slide 40 • While the presentation for stakeholders did include a section for law enforcement, this presentation is more detailed and emphasizes the importance of educating the public and enforcement countermeasures to the success of an electronic device use law to reduce distracted driving. • This presentation is designed to provide law enforcement with essential information to support effective education and enforcement of an electronic device use law and is based on experiences of law enforcement agencies across North America. Presentation for Law Enforcement 1 Audience: Law enforcement across different types of jurisdictions. Purpose: To provide law enforcement with information to support effective education and enforcement of an electronic device use law. Structure: Presentation includes details on specific topics related to educating the public and enforcing an electronic device use law.

J-42 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 41 • Topics that influence enforcement practices were incorporated into the presentation. These include: – Identifying the problem; – Prioritizing distracted driving within the agency, which includes the importance of leader- ship and oversight of the program; – Training and educating enforcement personnel; – Enforcement strategies; – Outreach and education, including communicating the law to motorists; – Using data to target enforcement and education efforts; – Officer safety and the importance of reducing distractions while driving for work; and – Providing feedback to officers. Presentation for Law Enforcement Topics: • Identifying the Problem • Prioritizing Distracted Driving as a Safety Issue • Officer Training • Effective Enforcement Strategies • Public Information and Education • Data-Driven Approach • Officer Safety • Feedback and Motivation 2PRESENTATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-43 Slide 42 • The authors developed a comprehensive 2-page electronic document to help inform legis- lators on the importance of distracted driving legislation and the components of a strong law. To make this document an accessible decision-making aid, the research findings and suggestions are organized to clearly convey the most relevant and useful information. Highlight Document for Legislators 3 Audience: Designed for delivery to legislators and policy makers by highway safety administrators and community stakeholders and advocates. Purpose: To inform legislators on the importance of a stronger law to prevent electronic device use while driving. Structure: Two-page document that includes background and statistics, the benefits of a stronger law, and key components of a strong law.

J-44 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 43 • The document includes key messages that emerged as important components during Phase 1 of the project. Because the document is for a legislative audience with different levels of awareness about the dangers of distracted driving and motor vehicle safety, the use of tech- nical and statistical jargon was avoided and unfamiliar terms were explained. • The document presents key information using statistics, infographics, and concise bullet points. Highlight Document for Legislators Use of images and infographics to draw attention to key points DOCUMENT FOR LEGISLATORS 4

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-45 Slide 44 • The model press release is designed to communicate information on legislation to deter electronic device use while driving. It is a concise and targeted document that provides both general guidelines and examples of customizable text for use by different stakeholders, such as law enforcement personnel, community stakeholders, and highway safety agencies. • It was important that the text be customizable for different jurisdictions—for example, rural versus urban. Different messaging has different impacts. If the public cannot relate to it, they may say, “this pertains to someone else and not me.” Model Press Release 5 Audience: Key stakeholders involved in media and education on electronic device use while driving. Purpose: To provide instructions on how to communicate information on legislation to deter distracted driving via targeted media for the general public, partners, special populations, and stakeholders.

J-46 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 45 • This document is organized such that: – It first provides key components to be considered when developing outreach messages. – It next includes sample press releases or outreach messages organized according to the agency sharing the information and by possible topics. The sample text should be supple- mented by organization-specific information. – Finally, it provides hyperlinks to 2018 and 2019 press releases (on the topic of distracted driving) that the user can use as references. Model Press Release | Structure Key components of a well-designed outreach message, including: • Compelling headline • Clear call to action • Limits on length • Recommended media channels Sample text and talking points for different stakeholders Customizable content Examples of press releases and media pieces MODEL PRESS RELEASE 6

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-47 Slide 46 • As part of the final report, the authors highlighted potential future research needs and action items to further address distracted driving issues. The following are examples of possible action items and areas of research: – The need to collect and analyze data to better understand the effect of the law on crashes, injuries, and fatalities. This includes evaluating the effects of different components of the law, such as incremental fines and penalties. – Revising the model law to reflect technological developments. – Examining the effectiveness of using crash, citation, and observational data to identify target audiences for outreach and enforcement. – Developing and evaluating a toolkit aimed at enacting legislation and public outreach programs and instrumentation in a demonstration state. • In addition to research needs, it is important to share the project findings with stakeholders. This may include: – Conducting a workshop or webinar with the states to discuss project findings, – Obtaining stakeholder feedback on the model legislation and other project deliverables, and – Further developing approaches other than enacting laws, such as targeted public outreach and education efforts. Future Research Needs Further evaluation of the effects of electronic device use laws, including: • Effect on distracted driving crashes, injuries, and fatalities • Effects of different law components, including incremental fines and penalties Revising the model law to reflect emerging technology Evaluation of crash, citation, and observational data to identify target audiences (routine offenders) for outreach and enforcement efforts Further development of approaches other than legislation, such as targeted public outreach and education efforts 7

J-48 Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications Slide 47 • Westat will also present this topic at one of the upcoming GHSA meetings, such as the execu- tive board or annual meeting. The presentation will address the background of the project; methodology used to complete Phase 1 and Phase 2; how the data was collected, consolidated, and evaluated; key study findings; and conclusions. • The presentation will also include a discussion of lessons learned, which include strategies and techniques used at each stage of developing and enacting model legislation, as well as implications for future research needs. Since the main mission of the GHSA is to implement federal grant programs for addressing behavioral highway safety issues, the presentation will focus heavily on the educational programs and outreach efforts identified during Phase 1. The presentation will also discuss the importance of the wording of the law and how subtle changes can have a large impact on enforcement efforts, education, and public acceptance. What’s Next Presentation to GHSA Executive Board or Annual Meeting 8

Research Webinar for Practitioners J-49 Slide 48 • Thank you for your time. • Feel free to contact us with any follow-up questions. Thank You Feel free to contact us with any questions: Amy K. Benedick, PMP. | Senior Study Manager Westat, 1600 Research Blvd, Rockville, MD 20850 amybenedick@westat.com 9