Strong States, Strong Nation
February 2015
Traffic Safety Trends
State Legislative Action 2014
By Anne Teigen, Douglas Shinkle and Amanda Essex
Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death
for Americans between the ages of 3 and 34. In 2013,
32,719 deaths and 2.3 million injuries occurred on the
nation’s roadways. The May 2014 report, The Economic and
Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2010 (Economic
Impact Report), details the substantial cost of motor vehicle
crashes that this country bears every year. In 2010, 32,999
people were killed, 3.9 million were injured and 24 million
vehicles were damaged in motor vehicle crashes. The economic costs totaled $277 billion, including lost productivity, medical costs, legal and court costs, emergency service
costs, insurance administration costs, congestion costs,
property damage and workplace losses. The $277 billion
price tag represents the equivalent of approximately $897
for each person living in the United States.
Figure 1. The Full Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes
Source: CDC, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting
System, 2012.
1 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Traffic safety is an important public health issue for many
people, including state legislators. In 2014, state policymakers debated more than 1,500 traffic safety proposals.
This report examines 2014 measures and research related
to occupant protection, distracted driving, driver licensing. teen driving, impaired driving, aggressive driving,
speed limits, motorcycle helmets, automated enforcement,
school bus safety, and pedestrian and bicycle safety. Tables
and charts detailing state traffic safety laws are included, as
are contacts and links for further information (Appendix
A contains National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] regional office contact information). All
bills discussed in this report can be found in the NCSLNHTSA Traffic Safety Legislative Tracking Database at
www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/state-traffic-safetylegislation-database.aspx.
Occupant Protection
Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for
Americans between the ages of 3 and 34. In 2013, 32,719
people died in crashes, and 49 percent of those killed were
not wearing a seat belt. Approximately 2.3 million people
were injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2013. In a newly
released report, The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2010, NHTSA reported the economic
costs of crashes in 2010 totaled $277 billion. This number
includes lost productivity, medical costs, legal and court
costs, emergency services costs, insurance administration
costs, congestions costs, property damage and work place
losses. Public revenues paid for roughly 9 percent of all
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
motor vehicle crash costs in 2010. The cost to taxpayers was $24 billion, the equivalent of more than $200
in added taxes for every household in the United States.
Research indicates that lap/shoulder seat belts, when used,
reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45 percent and the risk of moderate-to-critical
injury by 50 percent.
Seat Belts
NHTSA estimates that seat belts saved approximately
12,174 lives in 2012 and have prevented hundreds of
thousands of injuries. Getting people to buckle up isn’t
always easy, however, and seat belt use varies widely in the
states—from 68.7 percent in South Dakota to 98.2 percent
in Oregon in 2013.
Seat belt laws and enforcement can encourage drivers and
passengers to buckle up. Every state except New Hampshire has an adult safety belt law. Many cover only frontseat occupants, although laws in 28 states and the District
of Columbia cover those in both the front and rear seats.
The University of Iowa Public Policy Center recently
released a report that analyzed and estimated the benefit
of enhancing Iowa’s current law to require all passengers,
even those in the back seat, to use seat belts. The report
found that Iowans are highly compliant with the current
seat belt law for front-seat occupants, but of the more than
1,000 Iowans surveyed, only 36 percent said they always
use a seat belt when riding in the back seat. Four of five
respondents said they would use seat belts more often
when sitting in the rear seat if it were the law. The study
also estimated that rear-seat fatalities would decrease about
48 percent, from 13 fatalities annually to seven, if an allpassenger law was implemented in the state.
Another way to increase seat belt use is to enact and enforce
a primary belt law. Primary laws allow police officers to stop
motorists solely for violating the seat belt law. Thirty-three
states and the District of Columbia have primary enforcement seat belt laws. Sixteen states have secondary seat belt
laws that require police to stop the vehicle for other reasons
before they can cite the driver for failure to use a seat belt.
According to NHTSA, states with primary laws averaged
11 percent higher seat belt use than secondary law states in
2013. (Appendix B contains information on safety belt use
laws.)
2 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
One common concern about enacting a primary belt law
is the fear that such a law would be unequally enforced
in regard to minorities. NHTSA published a study of 13
states that had changed their seat belt laws from primary
to secondary since 2000. It found that, although minority
groups thought their chances of getting a seat belt ticket
were higher than whites, data revealed no differences in
ticketing by race. The number of citations for nonuse
of seat belts increased substantially in every state that
switched to a primary law, and increases occurred in all
groups. The percentage of citations received by each group
changed very little, however. The potential for harassment
is an ongoing concern, but it is not limited to primary
seat belt laws. Therefore, many state and local law enforcement leaders assure the public that seat belt use laws will be
enforced fairly in all segments of the population.
During the 2014 state legislative sessions, 21 states and
Puerto Rico considered bills related to seat belts. Seven
states—Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,
Ohio, Vermont and Virginia—considered, but did not
pass, primary seat belt laws in 2014. Utah, a state with a
secondary enforcement provision, attempted to strengthen
its law in 2014 by making not wearing a seatbelt a primary
offense on any road with a speed limit of more than 55
mph. The measure did not pass. In Mississippi, New York
and Oklahoma, bills were introduced, but did not pass,
that would require passengers in all seats to wear safety
belts. The Puerto Rican legislature considered a bill that
would increase the fine for not wearing a seatbelt from $50
to $250. The bill was pending at publication.
Child Passenger Protection
In 2013, 1,149 children younger than age 14 died and
172,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes. Child
deaths in motor vehicle crashes have declined since 1975,
but crashes still cause about one of every four unintentional injury deaths among children younger than age 13, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC). The most effective way to keep children safe in
cars is to ensure they are properly restrained in appropriate
child restraint systems in the back seat. NHTSA estimates
that child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
percent for infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars.
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
All states and the District of Columbia have child restraint
laws that require children of certain ages and sizes to ride
in appropriate child safety restraint systems. The age and
size requirements vary by state. Some laws cover children
only up to a certain age (usually age 4), while others allow
use of adult safety belts to restrain children. Child restraint
laws are primarily enforced for all children except in Nebraska and Ohio.
NHTSA recommends that, once children outgrow their
front-facing seats (usually around age 4 and 40 pounds),
they should ride in booster seats in the back seat until
the vehicle seat belts fit properly. According to the CDC,
booster seat use reduces the risk of serious injury by 45
percent for children ages 4 to 8 when compared with seat
belt use alone. In a proper seat belt fit, the lap belt lies
across the upper thighs and the shoulder belt fits across
the chest (usually at age 8 or when children are 4’9” tall).
South Dakota is the only state that does not have a booster
seat law.
Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for children
partly because some children ride unbuckled or improperly
secured. The 2013 National Survey of the Use of Booster
Seats (NSUBS) found that 33 percent of children ages 4
to 7 in the United States were not properly protected—24
percent were restrained by seat belts, and 9 percent were
unrestrained.
In 2014, 17 states debated child passenger protection
legislation. This year, Florida became the 49th state to
enact booster seat legislation. Before passage of House Bill
225, only children age 3 or younger were required to be
restrained in a federally approved child restraint device. The
new Florida law requires children to remain in some type
of “child restraint device” until they reach age 6. Depending on the child’s size, that can be a booster seat, which
helps seat belts fit properly, or a larger car seat with a fivepoint harness. Kentucky, Oklahoma and South Carolina
considered, but did not pass, legislation that would change
requirements for booster seats. Kentucky considered
increasing the age requirement from 7 to 9 years, and the
height requirements from 40 inches to 57 inches. Oklahoma’s provision would have required children at least age 6
but younger than age 13 and 58 inches tall to be protected
in a booster seat or seat belt. In addition to increased age
3 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
and height requirements, South Carolina’s bill would have
prohibited children under age 12 from sitting in the front
seat.
Children in Non-Traffic Motor Vehicle Crashes
According to a new report from NHTSA, during the fouryear period from 2008 to 2011, 1,043 children under age
14 were killed and about 30,000 were injured in “non-traffic” motor vehicle crashes. “Non-traffic” crashes are a class
of crashes that occur off the public traffic ways, defined
mainly as single-vehicle crashes on private roads, two-vehicle crashes in parking facilities, or collisions with pedestrians in driveways. The report found many of the victims
of these crashes were children age 4 and younger. In 2014,
Massachusetts and New York introduced legislation that
would prohibit leaving a child under age 8 unattended in a
motor vehicle.
Smoking in Cars with Children
In addition to keeping children properly restrained in vehicles, states also have been interested in keeping children
safe from harmful tobacco smoke. Statutes in five states—
Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Maine and Utah—prohibit adult drivers and passengers from smoking while in
a motor vehicle with a child. Utah’s 2013 law prohibits
drivers from smoking in a vehicle if they have a passenger
who is age 15 or younger. The infraction carries a $45 fine.
Impaired Driving
In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in alcohol-impaired
traffic crashes, accounting for 31 percent of all motor
vehicle fatalities. Impaired driving continues to be a serious
traffic safety and public health issue for states (Table 1).
According to the CDC, nearly 30 people die every day in
the United States due to motor vehicle crashes that involve
an alcohol-impaired driver. The annual cost of alcoholrelated crashes is more than $51 billon.
In 2014, lawmakers in 47 states introduced more than 400
bills related to impaired driving. The ultimate goal of these
laws is to reduce the incidence of impaired driving and
keep the roads as safe as possible. Lawmakers considered
legislation ranging from stricter penalties for high blood
alcohol content and repeat offenders, increased use of igni-
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
State/Jurisdiction
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
District of Columbia
United States
Puerto Rico
Table 1. Alcohol-Impaired Traffic Fatalities, 2013
Total Traffic
Alcohol-Impaired
Fatalities
Driving Fatalities (BAC ≥.08)
852
260
51
15
849
219
483
123
3,000
867
481
142
276
114
99
38
2,407
676
1,179
297
102
33
214
58
991
322
783
198
317
103
350
102
638
167
703
234
145
42
465
141
326
118
947
255
387
95
613
210
757
248
229
92
211
262
135
542
310
1,199
1,289
148
989
678
313
1,208
65
767
135
995
3,382
220
69
740
436
332
543
87
20
32,719
344
60
79
46
146
93
364
371
62
271
170
105
368
24
335
41
277
1,337
38
18
254
149
91
178
25
6
10,076
127
Percentage AlcoholImpaired
31%
30
26
25
29
30
41
39
28
25
33
27
32
25
32
29
26
33
29
30
36
27
25
34
33
40
28
30
34
27
30
30
29
42
27
25
33
30
38
44
31
28
40
17
27
34
34
27
33
29
31
31%
37
Source: NHTSA, 2014.
4 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
tion interlocks, comprehensive alcohol treatment programs
and treatment. Thirty-six states enacted laws related to
impaired driving during the 2014 legislative session.
High BAC
In 2013, 68 percent of drivers who had been drinking and
were involved in fatal crashes had a BAC of .15 or greater.
To address this problem, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted high BAC laws with enhanced sanctions for offenders with higher BACs. The sanctions, which
vary from state to state, include longer license suspension,
longer terms of imprisonment, additional fines, installation of ignition interlocks, vehicle sanctions or treatment
for abuse. The BAC levels at which these sanctions are
applied vary as well, ranging from .15 to .20 (Table 2).
NHTSA recommends that the enhanced penalties for firsttime high-BAC offenders should be comparable to those
for repeat offenders. This year, South Carolina enacted
“Emma’s Law,” which requires any offender with a BAC
of .15 or higher to install an ignition interlock device for
State/Jurisdiction
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
six months. Michigan doubled the maximum prison term
(now a maximum of 20 years) for offenders who had a
BAC of .17 or higher and an accident occurred that caused
serious bodily injury or death.
Two states—Hawaii and Utah—looked at breathalyzer
technology as a way to prevent drunk driving. Utah passed
a law in 2014 that makes it legally easier for bars to offer breathalyzers at their establishment. The law creates
standards and calibration requirements and would protect
bar owners from liability if a patron was later arrested for a
DUI. Hawaii introduced, but did not pass, a measure that
would have required the DOT to create and maintain a
smart phone application that can accurately estimate a user’s ability to operate a motor vehicle by testing for mental
and physical responsiveness and asking questions about the
types and number of alcoholic beverages consumed. The
app also would allow the user to be in contact with friends,
family members and taxicab companies for transportation
assistance.
Table 2. Jurisdictions with Increased Penalties for High Blood Alcohol Content
BAC
State/Jurisdiction
.15
Montana
.15
Nebraska
.15
Nevada
.15
New Hampshire
.16 and .20
New Jersey
.17
New Mexico
.16
New York
North Carolina
.16
North Dakota
.20
Ohio
.15
Oklahoma
.15
Oregon
.20
Pennsylvania
.16
Rhode Island
.15
South Carolina
.15
South Dakota
.15
Tennessee
.18
Texas
.15, .20
Utah
.15
Vermont
.15
Virginia
.20 (applies to ages 17
to 21)
Washington
.17
West Virginia
.20
Wisconsin
No increased penalties
Wyoming
.15
District of Columbia
BAC
.16
.15
.18
.16
.10
.16
.18
.15
.18
.17
.15
.15
.16
.10, .15
.15
.17
.20
.15
.16
.16
.15, .20
.15
.15
.17, .20, .25
.15
.20, .25
Source: NCSL, 2014.
5 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Ignition Interlock
Ignition interlock devices are installed in motor vehicles to
prevent the car from being started if alcohol is detected on
the driver’s breath. Most devices require frequent retesting while the car is running to ensure that the driver is not
drinking once the car is started. Many courts include the
use of ignition interlock devices when sentencing offenders
convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). During
sentencing, an offender whose driver’s license has been
suspended or revoked can be granted limited driving privileges if an ignition interlock device is installed.
In 2005, New Mexico became the first state to require
ignition interlock devices for all convicted drunk drivers,
including first-time offenders. As of December 2014, 18
additional states—Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon,
Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Washington—also require
ignition interlock devices for all convicted drunk driving offenders. California currently has a four-county pilot
program, including Los Angeles, that requires all convicted
drunk drivers to install ignition interlock devices. Colorado
and Illinois ignition interlock laws do not make installation of the devices mandatory for first-time offenders, but
they provide strong incentives for installation. Alabama,
Delaware Mississippi and New Hampshire passed these requirements in 2014. Hawaii and Iowa considered bills that
would require ignition interlocks for all offenders in 2014,
but the bills did not pass.
About 40 states considered some sort of ignition interlock
legislation in 2014, and many states amended provisions
in their laws. Maryland made numerous changes to its
ignition interlock law this year. First, the state now requires anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated while
transporting a person under age 16 to participate in the
Ignition Interlock System Program. Maryland also repealed
the provision that allowed the Division of Motor Vehicles
to exempt employer-owned vehicles from the interlock
requirement. Now, offenders in Maryland cannot drive an
employer-owned vehicle unless it is equipped with an ignition interlock.
This year, Mississippi formed an interlock device fund for
program administration and indigent offenders. The law
requires all offenders installing a device to pay a $50 fee.
After offenders have gone completed the program and apply for a full unrestricted license—$25 of the $100 reinstatement fee goes to the interlock fund.
Figure 2. Laws Requiring Cameras on Ignition Interlock Devices for Some Offenders
DC
No camera requirements
ID camera requirements
Requirements start 2015
Source: NCSL, 2015.
6 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
In 2014, New Hampshire passed a statutory requirement
of compliance-based removal. Under this requirement, an
offender must use the interlock device and not fail any of
the tests for a certain amount of time. The law requires an
offender to have a record of 120 days with no reported fails
on the interlock. Vermont has a similar law that will add
three additional months to an offender’s ignition interlock
requirement if the offender makes three attempts to start a
vehicle with a BAC of .04 or above.
Fourteen states—Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Washington—now require at least some offenders to install interlock devices that are equipped with a camera. The camera
captures an image to ensure the right person is actually
using the device to start the vehicle. Oregon’s requirement
goes into effect in June 2015.
Treatment Programs and 24/7 Sobriety
Monitoring Programs
One significant legislative trend related to impaired driving
is the interest in using treatment programs and sobriety
monitoring programs to help prevent DUI recidivism.
Court-mandated treatment, which requires impaired driving offenders to participate in an evaluation and treatment
for their substance abuse issues, has always been an option for judges when sentencing DUI offenders. Recently,
however, interest has increased in combining behavioral
treatment in with more punitive sanctions, resulting in a
more comprehensive approach to deal with impaired driving offenders. One such program is “24/7 Sobriety Monitoring.” In 2007, South Dakota became the first to pass a
statewide program of this kind. The program emphasizes
offender sobriety and requires repeat and high BAC DUI
offenders to submit to a breath or urine test twice a day
at a local sheriff’s office. Breathalyzers, ankle bracelets and
drug patches also may be used to monitor an offender’s
sobriety. If the offender fails or does not appear for a test,
the offender’s bond, parole or probation may be immediately revoked and, in most cases, the infraction will result
in immediate incarceration.
Other states have used South Dakota’s model, and Alaska,
Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Washington and Wyoming have enacted statewide legislation. Alaska, Idaho and
7 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Wyoming passed this legislation in 2014, and Massachusetts considered, but did not pass, a 24/7 program bill.
Repeat Offenders
According to the CDC, one-third of all driving while
intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI)
arrests each year involve repeat offenders. Idaho redefined
the term “repeat offender” to mean any person who has
been convicted of an impaired driving offense within a
five-year period and now requires those offenders to install
an ignition interlock for a period of one year. Maryland
increased the penalties for a third or subsequent violation
from a maximum of one-year imprisonment and/or a fine
of up to $500 to a maximum of three years’ imprisonment
and/or a fine of up to $3,000. New York considered, but
did not pass, a bill to increase penalties and fines for repeat
offenders.
Drugged Driving
In addition to alcohol-impaired driving, drugged driving is
implicated in an increasing number of crashes and fatalities. According to the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use
and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 10.3 million people
age 12 or older reported driving under the influence of
illicit drugs during the year prior to the survey. In a 2007
roadside survey, more than 16 percent of weekend, nighttime drivers tested positive for illegal, prescription or overthe-counter medications, and 11 percent tested positive for
illicit drugs. NHTSA reports that it is extremely difficult
to use crash data to quantify how widespread the drugged
driving problem because many states do not test for the
presence of drugs and it is not possible to differentiate
between the presence of drugs and whether a drug caused
impairment.
As many states are considering legalization of recreational
marijuana, they also are attempting to determine how to
prevent drugged driving. Colorado, Montana and Washington set a blood content threshold for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychotropic ingredient found in
marijuana. Anyone who drives a motor vehicle and has a
THC blood content of 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood
or more will be considered guilty of driving under the
influence. Nevada and Ohio statutes establish a threshold
of 2 nanograms of illegal substances per milliliter of blood,
and Pennsylvania administrative law establishes the threshold at 5 nanograms.
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
In all, 21 states—Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington
and Wisconsin—have some version of a “per se law.” In
these states, a driver cannot have any presence of a prohibited drug or substance in a his or her body while driving.
These laws vary, however. In Colorado and Washington,
the per se applies only to the presence of THC. In South
Dakota, the per se law applies to people under age 21 only,
and in Minnesota, the per se law does not include THC.
For more information about Drugged Driving Per Se Laws
see www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/persechart.
pdf.
Although Vermont did not enact a per se law in 2014, it
changed the definition of “under the influence of a drug”
to mean that a person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle
safely is diminished or impaired in the slightest degree.
Also this year, Michigan passed a set of drugged driving
laws. One new law allows for a roadside analysis that can
be used to detect controlled and intoxicating substances
in addition to alcohol. Senate Bill 863 gives court officials
authority to decide bail conditions for all driving impairments in the same manner, treating alcohol and drug
impaired driving the same. Colorado passed a measure in
2014 that would provide for advanced roadside impaired
driving enforcement training and drug recognition training
for some police officers.
Distracted Driving
The National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA)
defines distraction as a specific type of inattention from the
driving task to focus on some other activity. A “distractionaffected” crash is any crash in which a driver is identified
as distracted at the time of the crash. NHTSA reports
3,154 people were killed and an estimated 424,000 people
were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted
driving. Ten percent of fatal crashes and 18 percent of
injury crashes in 2013 were reported as distraction-affected
crashes.
However, the National Safety Council reports a serious
problem in calculating how many crashes are actually
8 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
caused by cell phone use. The National Safety Council
and Nationwide Insurance reported in a white paper that
researchers reviewed 180 fatal crashes between 2009 and
2011 where evidence indicated driver cell phone use. Of
these fatal crashes in 2011, only 52 percent were coded in
the national data as involving cell phone use. The paper
also noted disparities in state reporting of cell phonerelated fatal crashes. Tennessee reported 93 fatal crashes
that involved cell phone use in 2011, for example, but
New York, a state with a much larger population, reported
only one; Texas reported 40, but Louisiana reported none.
The paper suggests that cell phone-related fatal crashes are
vastly under-reported, and that more reliable data collection is necessary to obtain a more accurate picture of this
safety issue.
Research indicates that using a cell phone while driving
can be dangerous. In 2009, Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute (VTTI) research showed that drivers who text
messaged while driving had more than 20 times the risk
of a crash or near crash than a driver who was not using
a phone. The study also revealed that drivers who text
messaged while driving took their eyes off the road for 4.6
seconds over a 6-second interval. This equates to a driver
traveling the length of a football field at 55 mph without
looking at the road. In a more recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the (VTTI) it was
revealed that a driver’s near-crash/crash rate nearly tripled
when he or she was reaching for, answering or dialing a cell
phone.
State Legislation
The prevalence of cellular phones, new research and publicized crashes have started many debates related to the role
cell phones play in driver distraction. In 2014, legislators in
45 states considered more than 200 driver distraction bills.
No state completely bans all phones for all drivers. State
legislation usually addresses a range of issues, including particular wireless technologies and specific drivers.
Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii,
Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia—and the District of
Columbia prohibit driver use of hand-held phones. New
Hampshire enacted a hand-held ban in 2014; in July 2015,
when the law comes into effect, New Hampshire will be
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
the 13th state with such a ban. Utah strengthened its distracted driving law in 2014 to prohibit inputting any data
into a mobile phone, including texting, dialing a number,
picking a song for the stereo or accessing the Internet. The
law does not limit drivers from receiving data, such as talking on the phone if the call started prior to driving, reading
directions from a GPS device, or using hands-free capabilities.
Texting while driving also remains a common driver distraction measure debated in legislatures. As of December
2014, laws in 44 states—Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming—and the
District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico specifically
ban text messaging while driving for all drivers. Most of
these jurisdictions enforce texting laws with primary enforcement, but five states—Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio
and South Dakota—have secondary enforcement laws,
which allow police to issue a texting while driving citation
only if the motorist was first stopped for another infraction. Legislation in Florida, South Carolina and South
Dakota passed in 2014.
Penalties for violating texting bans vary among the states,
from a misdemeanor charge in Maryland that carries a
$175 fine, to a traffic infraction in South Carolina that
carries a $25 fine. Violators in some states such as Nebraska will have points assessed against their license and
pay a $200 fine, while North Carolina’s statute specifically
prohibits assessing points against a person’s license. At least
two states made changes in 2014 to the penalties for texting while driving. In 2014, New York increased penalties
for driving while texting. For drivers under age 21, a first
offense comes with a 120-day license or permit suspension
and a second offense results in a one-year suspension. For
drivers older than age 21, the law increases the maximum
fines for texting and talking while driving from $150 to
$200. For a second offense committed within 18 months
of the previous offense, fines increase from $200 to $250.
9 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Rhode Island increased its fine for a texting while driving
offense from $85 to $100 for the first offense and from
$100 to $150 for the second offense.
The New Face of Distracted Driving
With the development of new, head-mounted intelligent
devices, people now can purchase “wearable computers.”
The University of Central Florida, in partnership with the
Air Force Research Laboratory, released the first scientific
study to examine using wearable computers (specifically
Google Glass) and texting while driving. Researchers
compared the reactions of 40 twenty-something-year-old
drivers in a car simulator to a vehicle ahead of them that
slammed on the brakes. Researchers found subjects who
were exchanging messages using Google Glass or a smart
phone were equally slow to respond. The study revealed,
however, that drivers wearing the “wearable computer” recovered more quickly than those texting on a smart phone.
Legislation was introduced, but did not pass, in 2014 in
Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, West Virginia and Wyoming to prohibit use of such
“wearable computers” while driving.
Driver Licensing
The states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories license more than 211 million drivers who represent
roughly 88 percent of those eligible to drive. States have
administered their driver’s licensing systems since 1903,
when Massachusetts and Missouri enacted the first state
driver’s licensing laws. Since 1959, all states have required
an examination to test driving skills and traffic safety
knowledge before a license is issued. Testing drivers and
issuing licenses, however, no longer is the sole concern of
state licensing agencies. Because the driver’s license now
serves a role beyond traffic safety—where both government and private entities rely on it for personal identification—state legislatures and driver’s license agencies are
concerned about the safety and security of using the license
as an identifier. Each year, state legislatures debate hundreds of bills related to various aspects of driver’s licensing,
including REAL ID, unlicensed driving, immigrant driver’s
licenses, military designations and older drivers.
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
REAL ID
Overview
On Dec. 20, 2013, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that phased-in enforcement of the REAL ID Act
would begin on Jan. 20, 2014. The REAL ID Act aims to create national standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification
cards so they can be used to board commercial aircraft and access certain federal facilities.
In addition, on Dec. 29, 2014, DHS announced that states deemed in compliance with the REAL ID now have until Oct. 1, 2020,
to reenroll existing driver’s licenses and identification cards. The previous deadline was Dec. 1, 2014, for those born after 1964 and
Dec. 1, 2017, for those born before that date. DHS also clarified that nothing in this change affects licenses or card holders from
noncompliant states.
DHS plans to implement REAL ID enforcement in four phases; each phase consists of two distinct deadlines. The first deadline will
begin a three-month “warning” period during which noncompliant IDs still will be accepted. Following this three-month period,
full enforcement of the phase will begin, and IDs from noncompliant states no longer will be accepted for federal purposes as defined in the act.
Enforcement Schedule
•
•
•
•
Phase 1: Restricted areas for DHS Headquarters - Nebraska Ave. Complex
o Jan. 20, 2014 – Begin notification period (three-month period)
o April 21, 2014 – Full enforcement
Phase 2: Restricted areas for all federal facilities and nuclear power plants
o April 21, 2014 - Begin notification period (three-month period)
o July 21, 2014 - Full enforcement
Phase 3: Semi-restricted areas for the remaining federal facilities
o Oct. 20, 2014 - Begin notification period (three-month period)
o Jan. 19, 2015 - Full enforcement
Phase 4: Boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft
o A driver’s license or identification card from a noncompliant state may be used only in conjunction with an acceptable
second form of ID for boarding federally regulated commercial air craft.
o DHS will conduct an evaluation following implementation of the first three phases to assess the effects of enforcement and
the progress of states in meeting the standards of the act. Before a date for Phase 4 is set, DHS will conduct an evaluation
to inform a fair and achievable timeline. The date for implementing Phase 4 will be set after the evaluation is complete; this
phase will occur no sooner than 2016. DHS defines “restricted areas” as those that normally are accessible only to agency
personal, contractors and their guests. “Semi-restricted” areas are defined as those areas the public can enter but that are
subject to identification control.
State Progress
•
Compliant States/Territories: DHS provided a list of 21 states that meet the standards of the REAL ID Act of 2005 for driver’s
licenses and identification cards—Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. •
Extensions: DHS also announced that 23 states—Alaska, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia—four territories—Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands—and the District of Columbia—will receive a compliance extension based on their
movement toward full compliance. Licenses from these states will be accepted for federal purposes during the extension period,
and the extension may be renewed.
•
States/Territories not in Compliance: Eight states/territories—American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New
York, Oklahoma and Washington—currently are noncompliant. Federal officials in Minnesota, New York and Washington may
continue to accept enhanced driver’s licenses from these states.
For more information, see www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief.
10 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Military Designation on Driver’s Licenses
Active duty servicemen and servicewomen carry military
ID cards to prove their status, but veterans must carry the
comparatively large Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty—referred to as a DD214—to prove
their military experience. To make it easier and more convenient for veterans to verify service, 34 state legislatures
have passed measures to allow a military designation on
driver’s licenses. In Massachusetts, the Registry of Motor
Vehicles (without legislative action) began issuing licenses
this year that carry veteran designation. Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington
and West Virginia allow a military designation on driver’s
licenses.
law (23 CFR 192) requires states to suspend or revoke the
driver’s license of anyone convicted of a violation of the
Controlled Substance Act or any drug offense. States can
lose federal highway money if they are not in compliance.
However, states can “opt out” by submitting a certified
statement from the governor or a resolution passed by the
state legislature. In 2014, Delaware enacted Senate Joint
Resolution 9, declaring that the General Assembly opposed
the federal mandate and urging the governor to submit a
written certification to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to prevent withholding a percentage of federal transportation apportionments. The legislature also repealed
the provision requiring revocation of the driver’s license of
anyone convicted of a drug offense, regardless of whether
the offense is related to the operation of a motor vehicle in
Delaware Code. Florida and Pennsylvania considered, but
did not enact, legislation in 2014 relating to driver’s license
revocation for drug offenses.
Undocumented Immigrant Driver’s Licenses
License Suspension for Non-Driving Offenses
In recent years, state legislatures have considered repealing
laws that suspend driver’s licenses for a non-driving offense.
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
notes that suspending driving privileges for non-highway
safety-related reasons are not effective, can strain DMV
budgets and detract from public safety priorities. Federal
Many state legislatures and executive agencies have reviewed their driver’s license statutes and policies about
issuing them to unauthorized immigrants. Approximately
20 states considered legislation related to unauthorized immigrant driver’s licenses in the 2014 legislative session, but
none passed. Thirteen states now allow driver’s licenses or
permits to be issued to unauthorized immigrants.
Figure 3. Military Designation Allowed on Driver’s Licenses
DC
Military designation on driver’s licenses
Source: NCSL, 2015.
11 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Prior to 2013, laws in only three states—New Mexico,
Utah and Washington—allowed unauthorized immigrants
to obtain a driver’s license. These states will issue a license if
an applicant provides a foreign birth certificate or a foreign
passport, a Matricula Consular Card and evidence of current residency in the state. In Utah, the “Driving Privilege
Card,” specifically for unauthorized immigrants, was created to help ensure that drivers on Utah roads purchase auto
insurance. Utah’s Department of Public Safety reported
that 36,921 driver privilege cards were issued in 2012.
In 2013, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maine,
Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and Vermont enacted laws
that allow non-U.S. citizens to obtain permission to drive.
These state eligibility criteria and documentation requirements laws differ greatly. Illinois, for example, now issues
a “temporary visitors’ driver’s license,” valid for three years,
only to non-citizens who reside in the state, are not eligible
for a social security number, and are unable to present
documentation from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services that authorizes their presence in the country. The
law requires the applicant to provide documentation to
prove name, date of birth, Illinois residency and a written signature. Words on the face of the license state that it
cannot be accepted as proof of identity. In Colorado, the
phrase “not valid for federal identification, voting or public
benefit purposes” is clearly displayed on the license.
Georgia and Maine enacted more limited laws in 2013
related to immigrant driver’s licenses. The Georgia law allows a noncitizen who has filed a request for a visa extension with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to
be issued a temporary driving permit valid for 120 days.
The Maine law provides an exception to its legal presence
requirement if the person is renewing a driver’s license
that he or she has held continuously since 1989, or if the
person was born before Dec. 1, 1964.
In 2014, Oregon voters approved ballot Measure 88 and
suspended the law that provided driver’s licenses for unauthorized immigrants. The ballot measure was approved by
67 percent.
12 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Older Drivers
In 2012, 14 percent of the total U.S. resident population,
approximately 43.1 million people, was age 65 or older.
In 2013, 5,671 people age 65 and older were killed and
222,000 were injured in traffic crashes. Compared to 2012,
fatalities among people age 65 and older increased by 1
percent and injuries increased by 4 percent. Older drivers are considered safer drivers because they use seat belts,
rarely speed and are the least likely to drive while impaired.
The AAA notes, however, that age-related decline in vision,
hearing and cognitive functioning, along with physical
changes (such as arthritis or reduced muscle strength), may
affect older adults’ driving abilities. Medical conditions
such as heart disease, diabetes and other illnesses may make
it more difficult for older drivers to recover from crashrelated injuries.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a
status report in February 2014, stating that crash rates were
continuing to drop for older drivers. Between 1997 and
2012, fatal crash rates fell 42 percent per licensed driver for
older drivers and fatal crash involvement fell 39 percent.
The fatal crash rate for elderly drivers was nearly twice that
of drivers ages 35 to 54 and 70 to 74 at the beginning of
the study period in 1997, but decreased to 1.4 times the
rate by 2012. During the period of the study, the number
of licensed drivers age 70 and older increased 30 percent,
indicating that elderly drivers are keeping their licenses
longer than before.
In July 2014, The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety released a report on driver’s license renewal policies and fatal
crash involvement rates of older drivers. The study found
that requiring in-person license renewal was associated
with a 9 percent reduction in fatal crash involvement for
drivers age 55 and older. Other policies, including increasing the frequency of renewals, requiring a knowledge test
and on-road driving tests, were not found to significantly
lower the fatal crash involvement rate.
Another report released by the AAA Foundation in November 2014 found that most senior drivers support
stricter driver license renewal policies for seniors. More
than seven of 10 drivers over age 65 favored requiring
in-person license renewal for drivers over age 75. They also
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
supported requiring that seniors pass a medical test in order to renew their license. More than 90 percent of senior
drivers reported having no moving violations and not being involved in an accident in the last two years.
In 2014, 18 states and the District of Columbia debated
legislation about insuring and licensing senior drivers. Virginia enacted HB 771, which made a number of changes
that affect senior drivers. This legislation created a course in
mature driver crash prevention, lowered the age when drivers must physically appear at the DMV for license renewal
from 80 to 75, and requires that licenses for drivers age 75
and older be valid for no more than five years.
A number of states considered legislation requiring physical
or mental testing of senior drivers before license renewal.
New Hampshire passed a bill providing immunity from
liability for licensed health care providers who reasonably
and in good faith report an individual as medically unfit to
drive. Legislation introduced in Nebraska that ultimately
did not pass would have required cognitive tests for individuals age 80 or older before a driver’s license is issued.
Vermont introduced, but did not pass, legislation that
would require those age 75 or older seeking to obtain or
renew a license to appear in person at the DMV and pass a
vision test. The bill also would have required those age 80
or older to pass a road test.
In 2013 and 2014, New York introduced legislation that
would establish a statewide “Yellow Dot” program in its
Department of Transportation, but the measures have
not passed. States with a “Yellow Dot” program provide a
bright yellow circle decal to people, including seniors, who
sign up for the program. This decal, which is placed on the
back window of the car, tells first responders to look for a
“Yellow Dot” folder in the glove box that contains a photo
and detailed medical information, including prescriptions, drug allergies, surgeries, presence of pacemakers or
other information that could affect emergency treatment.
The nation’s first “Yellow Dot” program began in Connecticut in 2002, and 22 states currently have some form
of the program. Federal legislation was introduced in late
2013 that would create a national “Yellow Dot” program,
but the bill did not move out of committee. (Appendix E
contains information about state licensing procedures for
older drivers).
13 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Teen Drivers
Motor vehicle crashes, a leading cause of death for teen
drivers, killed more than 1,875 young drivers (ages 15 to
20) in 2012, a slight decrease from 2011. During the same
period, 184,000 teens were injured, a 2 percent increase
from 2011. A recent study from the Governor’s Highway
Safety Administration showed that more than half of
drivers ages 16 to 19 who were involved in fatal crashes
in 2012 failed to use a seatbelt. With 12.6 million young
drivers on the road today, teen driving remains a top traffic
safety issue.
According to a report released by the Children’s Hospital
of Philadelphia in 2013, among the more than 55,000 teen
drivers and their passengers seriously injured each year in
2009 and 2010, 30 percent suffered head injuries, including concussions, skull fractures and traumatic brain injuries
(TBI). Injury and fatality rates are high for teens because
they are more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as
speeding, driving under the influence (26 percent of drivers
between the ages of 15 and 20 who were killed in crashes
in 2011 had a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher), running red lights and not wearing safety belts, all of which
contribute to high fatality and injury rates.
To mitigate this public health issue, every state has enacted
some type of law to make it more difficult for teens to
obtain driver’s licenses. Commonly referred to as graduated
driver’s licensing (GDL), the laws provide a gradual process
for teen drivers to gain experience in a safe, educational
environment.
NHTSA defines a comprehensive GDL law as one that
includes five of seven of the following components:
• A minimum age of 15 years and six months for obtaining a learner’s permit;
• A waiting period of at least three months after obtaining a learner’s permit before applying for an intermediate license;
• A minimum of 30 hours of supervised driving;
• A minimum age of at least 16 and six months for
obtaining an intermediate state license;
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
• A minimum age of at least 17 for full licensing;
• Nighttime driving restrictions; and
• Passenger restrictions.
All states have at least one of the GDL components. (Appendix F contains information about teen driving restrictions.)
According to a study by the California Department of
Motor Vehicles and the University of North Carolina, fatal
crash rates for 16- and 17-year-olds were 21 percent lower
with permit holding periods of nine to 12 months, compared to no holding period. A limit of no more than one
passenger was associated with a 15 percent reduction in
fatal crash rates, compared with no passenger restriction.
In 2014, 33 states considered more than 100 bills related
to teen driving. New Hampshire now requires driver
education courses to consist of not less than 30 hours of
classroom instruction, not less than 10 hours of behindthe-wheel training, and not less than six hours of observation. West Virginia made various changes to its driver’s
education law in order to make driver’s education available
to all students of driving age. A recent study by the AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety reveals that drivers who do
not participate in driver’s education are involved in more
crashes and receive more traffic convictions compared to
teens who participate in driver’s education.
The California Legislature introduced a measure that
would extend the length of time for nighttime and passenger restrictions for novice drivers, but the bill did not pass.
State legislators in Indiana amended the state law related
teen alcohol use. The bill removed the requirement that a
minor’s driver’s license be suspended if the minor commits
the offense of “possession of alcohol” and the offense did
not involve a motor vehicle. If the minor was transporting
alcohol or using alcohol while driving, the young driver
(under age 18) would have a license suspension of at least
60 days.
In 2014, Rhode Island considered legislation to link the
opportunity for a young driver to obtain a driver’s license
14 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
to academic progress, and New York considered linking
youth driver’s licenses to school attendance. None of the
measures passed. In 29 states, some provision exists to
link driver’s licenses to school enrollment, attendance or
academic performance.
Teen Drivers and Distracted Driving
According to NHTSA, 71 percent of teens report they have
composed and sent a text message while driving, and 78
percent say they have read a text message while driving. Because young drivers are two to three times more likely than
older drivers to send a text or email while driving, many
states have passed legislation prohibiting teens from using
phones while driving. Laws in 38 states and the District
of Columbia prohibit the use of cell phones by younger
drivers, although many states provide for exceptions in
emergencies. Some states restrict drivers who hold only
an instructional or learner’s permit from using any type of
wireless communications device while operating a motor
vehicle. Arizona, Mississippi and New York introduced,
but did not pass, such provisions in 2014. Other states—
including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming—prohibit
anyone under age 18 from driving while using a cellular
phone.
The California Legislature passed a bill to require inclusion
of distracted driving issues, including cell phone use, in
driver’s education curriculum and the state driver’s license
exam. The bill also contained a provision that the DMV
would assess a point on a motor vehicle record for any
distracted driving related conviction. The governor vetoed
the bill. Tennessee introduced, but did not pass, a similar
bill that would have required all driver education courses to
include instruction on the dangers of texting while driving
and the penalties.
(See Cell Phone Use and Texting While Driving Laws for
more information on distracted driving restrictions for teen
drivers.)
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Speeding
Lowering Speed Limits
NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if the
driver was charged with a speeding-related offense or if
an officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash. In 2012, 10,219 lives were lost in
speeding-related crashes, making speeding a contributing
factor in 30 percent of all crashes. Speeding-related fatalities increased by 2 percent from 2011 to 2012. According
to the Economic Impact Report, crashes in which police
indicated that at least one driver was exceeding the legal
speed limit or driving too fast for conditions cost $59 billion in 2010.
States are acknowledging that speed kills, and are making legislative efforts to give municipalities the authority
to reduce speed limits in residential and busy business
settings where there are many pedestrians and other
vulnerable users. As NHTSA notes in a recent speeding
fact sheet, “Speeding is one of the most prevalent factors
contributing to traffic crashes.” In 2012, “Speeding was
a contributing factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes,
and 10,219 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes.”
A small difference in speed can mean the difference
between life and death for pedestrians, in particular. A
recent AAA study notes that the “average risk of death
for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23
mph, 25% at 32 mph and 50% at 42 mph.”
In NHTSA’s National Survey of Speeding Attitudes and Behavior, 91 percent of drivers surveyed agreed with the statement that “everyone should obey the speed limits because
it’s the law.” At the same time, however, one in five drivers
surveyed admitted, “I try to get where I am going as fast as
I can,” and 16 percent of drivers surveyed felt that “driving
over the speed limit is not dangerous for skilled drivers.”
In 2011, the Oregon legislature enacted legislation allowing speed limits of 20 mph, rather than 25 mph, in
residential areas only. Such roads must have an average
volume of fewer than 2,000 motor vehicles per day, with
more than 85 percent traveling less than 30 miles per
hour, and certain signage requirements must be met.
The Washington Legislature followed suit in 2013 with
a law allowing municipalities to establish a maximum
speed limit of 20 mph in a residence or business district.
Previously, municipalities were required to undertake
time-consuming and expensive studies to lower speed
limits. The new law however, stipulates that a reduced
speed need not be based on any traffic or engineering
study. The law also allows a municipality to reinstate the
former speed limit within a year of its change without a
traffic or engineering study.
In 1995, Congress repealed the maximum speed limit of
55 mph, which had been established in the early 1970s,
and the states have been given more power to set maximum speed limits. Since then, 38 states have set speed limits of 70 mph or higher on some portion of their roadway
systems.
In 2014, 37 states considered bills regarding speed limits. In Florida, the House and Senate passed a bill that
would allow the maximum speed limit on certain highways outside urban areas to be 70 mph and the maximum
speed limit on other highways to be 65 mph. Although the
Legislature passed the bill, it was vetoed by the governor.
In his veto message, the governor said, “Although the bill
does not mandate higher speed limits, allowing for the
possibility of faster driving on Florida’s roads and highways
could ultimately and unacceptably increase the risk of serious accidents for Florida citizens and visitors…” Maryland
legislators introduced, but did not pass, a bill that would
increase the speed limit from 65 mph to 70 mph on specified highways. (Appendix G contains more information
about speed limit laws.)
15 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Thus far, both Portland and Seattle have taken advantage
of the recent law changes to lower speed limits on their
neighborhood greenways, which are residential streets
that prioritize travel by bike and foot and often include
other traffic calming attributes. Portland and Seattle
are first and sixth, respectively, for the highest rates of
bicycle commuters in large American cities, and lowering
speed limits is part of a larger effort to create less intimidating, safer streets for bicyclists, pedestrians, school
children and other vulnerable users.
New York City, which has launched a high-profile Vision
Zero initiative to reduce traffic fatalities to zero in the
city, took advantage of 2014 state legislation to reduce
the citywide speed limit to 25 mph. While some streets
may have higher or lower speed limits, the de facto speed
limit is 25 mph when a specific speed limit is not posted.
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Figure 4. Speed Limits of 70 mph or Higher
DC
Speed limit of 70 mph or higher
Source: NCSL, 2015.
An Illinois speed limit bill also was passed by both chambers but was vetoed by the governor in 2014. The bill
would have raised the speed limit on all Illinois’ 286-mile
toll way network to 70 mph.
Three states—Idaho, Utah and Wyoming—passed laws
this year that make it possible to increase the speed limits
in specific circumstances. In Idaho, the speed limit can be
increased to 80 mph on interstate highways and to 65 mph
on state highways if the DOT completes an engineering
and traffic study and concludes the increase is in the public
interest. Before the speed limit can go into effect, the transportation board must concur with the DOT’s conclusions.
NHTSA notes that, in 2012, only 12 percent of speedingrelated fatalities occurred on interstate highways, which
means that many crashes occur on city streets and in
work zones. Minnesota passed a law that will fine motorists $300 for speeding in a work zone. South Carolina
considered creating an offense called “endangerment of a
highway worker.” The bill would criminalize exceeding
posted speed limits, failing to obey posted signs, or driving through or around a work zone in a lane not clearly
marked if a highway worker is nearby. The offense would
be a misdemeanor and would carry a fine of $500 to
$1,000 and a maximum of 30 days in jail. Penalties would
double if a highway worker were injured in the incident.
New York, Mississippi and West Virginia considered, but
16 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
did not pass, bills related to speeding in school zones. New
York’s bill would have established a statewide school zone
speed limit on any public highway that passes or abuts the
entrance or exit of a school.
Aggressive Driving
Aggressive driving behaviors include running stop signs
or red lights, speeding, illegal driving on the shoulder,
preventing others from passing, or any combination of
these activities. NHTSA, in cooperation with law enforcement agencies, defines aggressive driving as occurring when
“an individual commits a combination of moving traffic
offenses so as to endanger other persons or property.” A
study conducted by AAA found that potentially aggressive
actions—such as tailgating, erratic lane changing or illegal
passing—are a factor in up to 56 percent of fatal crashes.
According to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 7,036 aggressive-driving crashes occurred in the state
in 2013. There were 145 fatalities in crashes involving
aggressive-driving behaviors, which was a decrease from
previous years. However, aggressive driving is not limited
to the East Coast. The Idaho Transportation Department
reported that aggressive driving was a contributing factor
in 56 percent of all crashes in Idaho in 2013.
Several states have passed laws to penalize aggressive drivers. The laws typically establish an aggressive driving of© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
fense and outline fines and penalties. As of October 2014,
11 states—Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia—have aggressive driving laws. (Appendix H contains more information about state aggressive
driving laws.) California and Utah amended their reckless driving laws to make them similar to those enacted
in other states. Pennsylvania passed a resolution against
drugged driving. In 2014, Georgia considered amending
its aggressive driving law to allow judges to sentence offenders to anger management classes or counseling, but the
measure did not pass.
New York introduced, but did not pass, legislation that
would have made aggressive driving a Class E felony with a
minimum sentence of one year in jail.
Automated Enforcement
Deliberately running a red light is a common and serious
violation. According to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, in 2012 approximately 133,000 people were injured
and 683 were killed in crashes that involved a driver who
ran a red light. More than half of those killed were people
other than the red light running drivers—occupants of
other vehicles, passengers in the red light runners’ vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians.
Red light cameras and photo radar allow local law enforcement agencies to enforce traffic laws remotely. Both red
light cameras and photo radar detect vehicles that violate
traffic regulations. Red light cameras are linked to traffic
signals and monitor each phase of green, yellow and red.
When a motorist drives through the intersection after the
signal has turned red, sensors trigger the cameras to take
two photographs—one of the vehicle entering the intersection while the light is red, and one showing the vehicle
traveling through the intersection on a red light. Photo
radar functions are similar. The photo radar system usually is located in a mobile unit, such as a van. The system
is equipped with both a radar speed detector and a camera.
Once a speeding vehicle is detected, the camera is triggered. The photos, stamped with the date and time, are
used to identify the vehicle owner. Tickets then are generated and distributed.
17 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Results of studies on the effectiveness of automated enforcement vary. A study of Arlington, Va., by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety showed decreases in red light
running in intersections equipped with cameras. The decreases were particularly significant for the most dangerous
violations, those that occurred 1.5 seconds or longer after
the light turned red. In another Insurance Institute study
from 2011, researchers looked at cities with populations
of more than 200,000 people that used red light cameras
and those that did not. To see how the rate of fatal crashes
changed after introduction of red light cameras, they compared two periods of time, 2004-2008 and 1992-1996.
Researchers found that, in the 14 cities that had cameras
during 2004-2008, the combined per capita rate of fatal
red light running crashes fell by 35 percent, compared
to 1992-1996. The rate also fell in the 48 cities without
camera programs in either period, but only by 14 percent.
An article in Police Chief Magazine noted that the best way
to maintain transparency in a red light program is for the
programs to be evaluated periodically to recognize whether
their intended purpose still is being achieved.
The intent and lack of transparency of red light camera
programs have been under increased scrutiny this year.
AAA in New York reported that the five pilot municipalities that operate red light cameras in the state had not completed the state-mandated reports on the safety impact of
the cameras. This made it difficult to assess the programs’
safety benefits but easy to discern a revenue motive. AAA
strongly suggested to the Legislature that the pilot program
be extended in the municipalities, that state oversight
be extended and that the report requirements be strictly
enforced. Also this year, a Chicago Tribune investigation
revealed the city shortened the length of a yellow light by
one-tenth of a second and, with that change, an additional
77,000 tickets were issued from which the city received
$7.7 million in fines. The city has changed the yellow light
timing back to the original 3 seconds, but the tickets issued
will not be forgiven.
The Florida Court of Appeals ruled in 2014 that some
municipalities in the state operate their red light programs
unlawfully. The court found that when a private vendor in
Florida first determines whether a violation has occurred,
then sends the information to the municipality to issue a
citation, the state has unlawfully delegated police power to
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
the private contractor. The court’s jurisdiction was for only
a few counties in the state, but other Florida municipalities
now are questioning their programs’ validity.
Approximately 500 communities nationwide have red light
programs, and about 140 communities have speed camera
programs. In most cases, state legislatures have passed enabling statutes that allow city and local governments to use
the cameras and develop programs. City and local governments in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland,
Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington and the District of
Columbia use red light cameras.
Communities in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois,
Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, New
York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington and
the District of Columbia use speed cameras. Maryland,
Oregon and Washington use speed cameras in work zones.
Although Iowa and Ohio do not have specific statutes,
cameras are used in certain cities.
Some states prohibit automated enforcement use altogether. Arkansas, New Jersey and Wisconsin prohibit photo
radar enforcement. In Texas, municipalities are prohibited from using automated enforcement to enforce speed
limits. Statutes in Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada,
New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and West
Virginia prohibit red light camera use to issue citations
to motorists. South Dakota’s prohibition was enacted in
2014. (Appendix I contains more information about state
automated enforcement laws.)
In 2014, 25 states considered 91 bills related to red light
and speed cameras. Iowa and Massachusetts have no
automated enforcement laws, but both considered such
measures in 2014.
North Carolina enacted legislation this year to bring red
light photo enforcement to the town of Fayetteville. The
town suspended its automated enforcement program in
2006 after the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled it was
required under the state constitution to pay most of the
money collected in fines to the local schools rather than
paying the red light camera contractors to maintain the
18 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
program. Louisiana passed legislation this year allowing
automated speed enforcement. The law states that local
authorities may not use automated speed enforcement on
interstate highways, but permits it on highways in DOTapproved constructions zones when workers are present.
The law clarifies that any convictions resulting from photo
speed enforcement will not be included in violators’ driving records.
Maryland law now requires municipalities to post signage
warning motorists of mobile or stationary speed monitoring systems. After signage is posted, the city must wait at
least 15 days before issuing citations. The law also requires
any municipality that authorizes automated speed enforcement to designate an employee to investigate and respond
to questions and concerns about the program.
Many states with automated red light and speed enforcement considered bills to eliminate the programs. Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey,
Ohio, South Dakota, Virginia and Washington introduced
legislation in 2014 to prohibit red light and speed camera
use; none of the measures passed.
A few state legislatures this year addressed issues surrounding the yellow light interval and red light cameras. Virginia
enacted a law that requires all red light cameras to have
a yellow light signal length of at least 3 seconds. Legislation in Illinois and New Jersey legislation was pending at
publication.
Motorcycle Safety
States continue to grapple with how to ensure safety for
motorcyclists, particularly considering the dramatic increase in the number of registered motorcycles on American roadways, from 3.8 million in 1997 to 8.4 million in
2011. The most recent NHTSA statistics brought good
news for motorcyclist safety; the number of motorcyclist
deaths declined more than 6 percent, from 4,986 in 2012
to 4,668 in 2013. Motorcyclists also showed the biggest
dip in the number of alcohol-impaired drivers involved in
fatal crashes, dropping 8.3 percent from 2012 to 2013.
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
However, the number of motorcyclist deaths remains
dramatically higher than in the not-too-distant past; only
2,116 motorcyclist deaths occurred in 1997. This longterm increase, combined with the continuing decline in
passenger vehicle deaths, means that motorcyclist fatalities now account for a larger proportion of overall traffic
deaths, up from 9 percent in 2004 to 14 percent in 2013.
NHTSA’s Economic Impact Report notes that, “Motorcyclist injuries cause 5 percent of the economic costs and 8
percent of societal harm from traffic crashes.”
Legislatures continued to debate, but not enact, laws concerning motorcycle helmets in 2014. States did enact laws
in 2014 regarding proceeding through traffic signals that
do not detect a motorcycle’s presence, motorcycle licensing,
and autocycles.
Motorcycle Helmets
In 1975, motorcycle helmets were mandatory for all riders
in 47 states and the District of Columbia, in part because federal highway funding was tied to such state laws.
Congress removed that requirement in 1976, however, and
more recently, in 1995, repealed financial incentives that
were offered to states in the early ’90s.
Currently, 19 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the
Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands require all riders to wear helmets. Another 28
states require helmet use for certain groups, typically those
under age 21 or age 18. The laws in Florida, Kentucky,
Michigan and Texas carve out exceptions to helmet use
for motorcyclists over age 21 who carry a certain amount
of insurance or who pass a safety course or both, despite
evidence showing these exemptions have no safety benefit.
Three states—Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire—have no
helmet requirements. (Appendix J contains information on
motorcycle helmet laws.)
Safety advocates point to wide disparities between states
with and without universal helmet laws; a recent CDC
analysis notes that motorcyclist fatalities were 11 times
greater where riders were not wearing helmets in the states
that have no universal helmet law (1,704 unhelmeted
fatalities) as in states with universal helmet laws (150
unhelmeted fatalities) in 2013. This long-term trend has
challenged traffic safety practitioners and advocates. The
19 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
CDC study also notes that partial helmet laws decrease helmet use even among younger riders who still are required
to wear helmets. One problem with enforcement may be
the difficulty in determining the age of a potential violator.
A further problem is ascertaining whether motorcyclists are
wearing DOT-compliant helmets. According to one study,
9 percent of motorcyclists were wearing non-complaint
helmets in 2012.
Legislative debate over motorcycle helmet use continues
to occur in statehouses, although no changes were made
in 2014. Nine of the 19 states that still require all riders
to wear helmets—Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, Vermont and
Washington—considered legislation to weaken or repeal
the universal helmet law. The measures failed, with the
exception of pending bills in Massachusetts and New York.
Maryland, Missouri and Tennessee have debated bills in
the past two years that would not require those who carry a
certain amount of insurance and met certain other requirements to wear a helmet.
On the flip side, a few state legislatures considered bills
to strengthen their helmet requirements. Iowa, one of the
three states with no requirements, debated a universal requirement, but it failed. In Maine, where only those under
age 18 must wear a helmet, a universal helmet bill also
was debated but failed. In 2013, Rhode Island and South
Carolina also considered expanding helmet requirements to
all riders. Clearly, motorcycle helmet requirements on both
sides of the issue promise to be a topic of debate down the
legislative road.
Motorcycles Proceeding Through Traffic Signals
that Do Not Detect their Presence
Indiana and Washington joined the rank of legislatures
enacting laws to allow a motorcycle, and other vehicles, to
pass through a red light that does not detect their presence.
Fifteen states now have language to address such an exception.
Indiana’s new law applies to motorcycles, motorized
bicycles, scooters and bicycles; operators of these vehicles
may proceed, using due caution, through a steady red
signal after waiting at a complete stop for 120 seconds.
Washington’s law pertains only to motorcycles, which must
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
come to a full and complete stop at the intersection. If the
traffic control signal fails to operate after one cycle, the operator may, using proper care, proceed directly through the
intersection or proceed to turn left. It is nonetheless not a
defense to a violation of failure to obey a traffic control device when the signal did not use a vehicle detection device
or that any such device was not inoperative due to the size
of the motorcycle.
School Bus Safety
Motorcycle Licensing
An annual survey of school bus drivers organized by the
National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services is charged with collecting first-hand
information to help understand the prevalence of illegally
passing stopped school buses. The 2014 survey collected
results from more than 97,000 buses in 29 states; drivers
reported 75,966 vehicles illegally passed buses on a single
day. To provide more tools for schools that must deal with
such dangerous driving, in 2014, South Carolina and
Wyoming joined 11 other states—Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode
Island, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia—that have
enacted legislation regarding the use of cameras to capture
Although 2014 was a quiet year for new laws regarding motorcycle operation and licensing, two bills of note
became law. Wisconsin enacted a law that requires the state
DOT to waive the driving skills test for anyone applying
to operate a motorcycle who has successfully completed a
rider course approved by the Wisconsin DOT Motorcycle
Safety Program. The law also clarifies a person applying
to operate a motorcycle who has successfully completed a
DOT-approved rider course need not hold an instruction
permit. Michigan passed legislation specifying that an applicant would not be eligible for more than two motorcycle
temporary instruction permits in a 10-year period.
State legislatures continued to refine and strengthen safety
for school buses in 2014, particularly in regard to school
bus cameras and driver, vehicle and student loading and
unloading requirements.
Using Cameras to Catch Illegal Passing of
School Buses
Autocycles
A number of state legislatures have enacted laws during the past few legislative sessions to define an “autocycle” and related safety
and operation requirements. Basically, an autotcycle is a three-wheeled, motorcycle-like vehicle with a roll-bar or cage and other
safety features. Its definition in most states as a motorcycle makes it difficult to collect related data and determine their relative safety
in comparison to motorcycles and other vehicles. Colorado, Illinois and Virginia passed legislation in 2014 to define an autocycle
and set registration and operator requirements.
The Colorado legislature exempted autocycles from regulation as motorcycles and defined them as a three-wheeled vehicle that has
safety belts, air bag protection and a hardtop enclosure. The Department of Transportation must issue a registered autocycle license
plate that is the same size as a motorcycle license plate. Colorado does not require a separate endorsement to operate an autocycle.
Illinois defined autocycle as a “3-wheel motor vehicle that has a steering wheel and seating that does not require the operator to
straddle or sit aside it.” Autocycle registration fee is set at $68, and registrants must obtain and display license plates. Illinois does
not require a motorcycle license to operate an autocycle.
Virginia defined an autocycle as “a three-wheeled motor vehicle that has a steering wheel and seating that does not require the operator to straddle or sit astride and is manufactured to comply with federal safety requirements for motorcycles.” The autocycle registration fee is $18, and license plates must be displayed. Virginia also set detailed autocycle safety requirements. The new law requires
every person operating an autocycle to wear a face shield, safety glasses or goggles, or to equip the autocycle with safety glass or a
windshield. Operators and any passengers must wear protective helmets, although those riding in autocycles with non-removable
roofs, windshields and enclosed bodies need not wear helmets. An autocycle’s front seats must be equipped with adult safety lap belts
or a combination of approved lap belts and shoulder harnesses. The law also sets rear and front lighting requirements.
20 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
images of motorists who illegally pass stopped school buses
that are loading or unloading students.
Wyoming became the first state in the nation to require all
the school buses in the state (approximately 1,500) to be
equipped with an external video system to capture images
of motorists illegally passing stopped school buses. Not
only did Wyoming House Bill 5 require all school buses
to be equipped with cameras by the 2016-17 school year,
it appropriated $5 million to pay for installation costs.
School districts may apply to the state Department of Education for reimbursement.
South Carolina’s new law allows a school bus to be
equipped with a recording device that can capture a clear
view of vehicles passing, the date and time of the infraction, and an electronic symbol indicating activation of the
amber lights, flashing red lights, stop arms and brakes.
Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Tennessee also debated, but did not pass, bills in 2014 that would
allow the use of cameras to capture images of those illegally
passing school buses.
Drivers
Legislatures also increased safety requirements for those
occupying the school bus driver seat in 2014. Two states
banned the use of mobile telephones while driving a school
bus in 2014. Rhode Island now prohibits using a mobile
telephone while operating a commercial motor vehicle,
including a school bus. Nebraska also banned the use of a
handheld mobile phone while driving a school bus, except
in the case of an emergency. In addition, the Indiana legislature clarified that the school corporation must determine the process to choose a certified medical examiner to
conduct a physical examination of prospective school bus
drivers, and who must pay for the physical examination.
School Bus Vehicles and Equipment
States also took action to increase safety and oversight
of school buses during the 2014 legislative session. The
Louisiana Legislature clarified insurance standards for
privately owned school buses, requiring them to carry the
proper insurance; if they do not or are involved in an accident, they are subject to fines not less than $500 or more
than $1,000. A school bus driver who operates a private
school bus with the knowledge that it was not insured now
will have his or her commercial driver’s license privileges
21 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
disqualified for one year. Louisiana also enacted a law requiring any school bus used to transport students to be no
more than 25 years old. Further, any school bus used as an
activity or backup bus must be at 15 or fewer model years
old at the time it is acquired. If the bus is older than 15
model years, it cannot be used more than 60 consecutive
school days in a school year.
Tennessee also enacted requirements for older school buses,
including that any school bus being operated in a 16th
or 17th year of service must have less than 400,000 miles
of recorded travel; the bus owner has 90 calendar days to
replace the bus at that point. The bus still must meet all requirements for continued safe use and operation during the
90-day period, and the owner of the bus must notify the
Department of Safety in writing that the bus has reached
the 400,000-mile threshold.
Unloading
Legislatures also made changes to school bus loading
requirements, recognizing that this typically is one of the
more dangerous steps when transporting students. Louisiana law now prohibits school bus drivers from loading or
unloading students at school while the bus is in a traffic
lane. Students must be loaded and unloaded on the shoulder of the road, in a school parking lot or other off-road location, with exemptions for situations where a road shoulder is the only available choice. The new law also accounts
for the danger of crossing multi-lane roads. It prohibits
a bus driver from loading or unloading students either
at school or near their homes in a location that requires
students to cross lanes of traffic on a state highway or any
other type of street. The Nebraska Legislature clarified that
a school bus may not stop to load or unload pupils outside
of city or village limits or on any part of the state highway
system within city or village limits unless at least 400 feet
of clear vision exists in each direction of travel.
Virginia sought to improve visibility and awareness of
school bus stops by allowing local school boards to install
signs or other devices to indicate school bus stops, provided the installation is approved by the Department of
Transportation prior to installation. School boards are not
required to install signs at all school bus stops and are responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of signs
and devices.
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Increasing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists continued
to receive further attention from federal, state and local
governments and stakeholders in 2014.
Nationally, pedestrian deaths declined by 1.7 percent, from
4,818 in 2012 to 4,735 in 2013. This was the first decrease
since 2009; however, the number of fatalities was significantly lower in 2009, at 4,109. Injuries to pedestrians took
a notable dip however, down approximately 13 percent
from 76,000 injuries in 2012 to 66,000 in 2013. Bicyclist
deaths, on the other hand, increased for the third straight
year, to 743, the highest number of fatalities since the 772
that occurred in 2006. Injuries declined slightly, from
about 49,000 in 2012 to 48,000 in 2013.
As the number of bike and foot trips has risen over the
past decade, the fatality rates per trip tend to decrease. For
example, a recent study from Rutgers University found
that “Fatalities per 10,000 bike commuters in the USA fell
from 21 in 1980 to 9 in 2008, with an overall decrease of
57% since 1980.” However, the total proportion of overall
pedestrian and bicyclist traffic deaths continues to rise, as
motor vehicle deaths decline. NHTSA notes in its 2013
overview of motor vehicles crashes that, “the portion of
non-occupant fatalities has increased from 13 percent to 17
percent over the 10-year period” between 2004 and 2013.
Also, NHTSA’s Economic Impact Report estimates that
injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists account for 7 percent
of the economic costs and 10 percent of the societal harm
for traffic crashes.
Bike-share systems continue to proliferate in large and
small cities across the U.S. 68 American cities—with
22,000 bikes and 2,266 stations—now have a public bikesharing system that allows members and day-users to access
a bike for transportation or recreational purposes. Interestingly, a recent news report noted that no deaths have occurred among the 23 million bike-share rides in the United
States since 2007. Notably, Boston’s and Seattle’s bike-share
systems include helmet-dispensing machines; this is particularly important in Seattle’s King County, where county
law requires bike helmet use.
The federal government emphasized pedestrian safety in
particular in 2014. NHTSA’s “Everyone Is a Pedestrian”
campaign is a top priority for U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to ensure the safety of the traveling
public and, specifically, to help communities combat the
increase in bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities that has occurred over the past few years. This effort pools pedestrian
safety information, including information for parents
about teaching children about safe walking; reports on
Distracted Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Pedestrians distracted by their mobile devices while crossing a street have garnered significant media attention
in the past few years. Although the phenomenon is not well understood, a forthcoming NHTSA literature review will attempt to synthesize findings to date on the issue. The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) board of trustees, responding to concerns about distracted pedestrians crossing live rail tracks, enacted an ordinance in 2012
that authorizes fines for such behavior. While the focus is on teaching transit riders to be safe near commuter
and light-rail trains, UTA transit officers can issue fines of $50 for a first offense, $100 for repeat offenses. An
option on the first offense is to take a $25 rail safety course.
No legislatures to date have enacted legislation concerning distracted pedestrians or bicyclists. The New York
Legislature has introduced a number of bills during the past few years that would prohibit the use of a mobile telephone while operating a bicycle or crossing a crosswalk, but none have passed. One bill would have
included a $25 fine for using an electronic device while in a crosswalk, while another would have prohibited
using a mobile telephone while operating a bicycle, with a fine of up to $100. Oregon and Virginia are among
the states that have considered, but failed to enact, distracted pedestrian and bicyclist legislation in the past few
years.
22 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
effective pedestrian projects for state highway safety offices;
and guides for community pedestrian safety advocates. In
addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
provides resources and expertise to improve walking routes
and infrastructure, such as offering technical assistance to
cities and states that have the highest pedestrian fatalities
and tools such as Pedsafe, an online toolbox that communities can use to improve pedestrian safety.
Congress, responding to concerted requests from advocacy
groups clamoring for more resources and attention for
bicycle and pedestrian safety, enacted a new law directing
the FHWA “to establish separate, non-motorized safety
performance measures for the highway safety improvement
program, define performance measures for fatalities and serious injuries from pedestrian and bicycle crashes.” A final
rule must be published by the end of September 2015.
State legislatures enacted numerous bills concerning pedestrian and bicyclist safety in 2014, particularly with regard
to bicycle safety and vulnerable users laws.
Safe Bicycle Passing
Two more states joined the ranks of states with safe bicycle
passing laws in 2014. Virginia and West Virginia enacted
laws requiring motorists to allow at least 3 feet of clearance
when overtaking a bicyclist. Virginia’s new law states, “A
reasonable speed at least three feet to the left of the overtaken bicycle,” while West Virginia’s law reads, “The driver
of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle traveling in the same direction shall pass to the left of the bicycle at a distance of not
less than three feet at a careful and reduced speed, and may
not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely
clear of the overtaken bicycle.” Twenty-five states now have
safe bicycle passing laws, which seek to ensure bicyclists are
not overtaken too closely; this could lead to a rider being
hit by a car or making an overcorrection to avoid a collision.
Bicycle Planning and Infrastructure
The California Legislature passed two bills to improve
bicycle infrastructure and safety during the 2014 session.
Senate Bill 1183 authorizes a city, county or regional park
district to impose and collect a motor vehicle registration surcharge to be used for bicycle infrastructure. The
23 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
surcharge must be approved by two-thirds of voters in
the affected jurisdiction. Revenues must be used to make
improvements to paved and natural surface trails and
bikeways, including existing and new trails and bikeways
and other bicycle facilities, as well as for associated maintenance. The law also limits to 5 percent the amount of
revenue that can be spent on administrative expenses. The
other new law, Senate Bill 1193, expanded the definition of
“bikeways” to include “cycletracks” or “protected bikeways”
and gives localities more flexibility to experiment with different types of bike infrastructure. This bill was, in part, a
response to the growth of protected bikeways in the United
States that use curbs, posts or parked cars to separate bikes
from cars, thereby increasing safety and attracting more
safety-conscious riders. Protected bikeways have been
shown to increase ridership and reduce crash rates.
The Florida Legislature provided a significant investment
for bicyclists and pedestrians in the state, authorizing the
Department of Transportation to use $15 million in appropriated funds to establish a statewide system of interconnected multiuse trails. Priority will be given to trails that
support the transportation needs of bicyclists and pedestrians and complete gaps between existing trails, among other
priorities.
Louisiana codified its complete streets policy in statute,
passing a law that requires the Department of Transportation to consult with the complete streets advisory council
created by the law and establish goals, track those goals,
and report on them to the Legislature and the advisory
council. The department is to adopt performance measures
to evaluate the effectiveness of the complete streets law.
Safe Routes to School
In 2014, safe routes to school saw little action at the state
legislative. At the state department of transportation level,
however, states were busy determining to what extent to
fund and staff safe routes to school programs. States can
use federal transportation alternative program (TAP) funds,
but dedicated federal funding for safe routes to school no
longer is available. The Safe Routes to School National
Partnership has been tracking implementation and use of
TAP funds; among its findings were that only 13 states
were continuing safe routes to school as a stand-alone pro-
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
gram, and that 41 of the 50 states have retained their safe
routes to school staff coordinators.
One state took legislative action to strengthen its safe
routes to school program in 2014. Colorado enacted HB
1301, which provided $700,000 in state funds for the
state’s SRTS program, and added criteria that the program
consider when awarding SRTS grants to communities
that have schools where more than 50 percent of students
receive free and reduced lunches. The law also requires
that at least 20 percent, but no more than 30 percent, of
funds must be used for non-infrastructure programs. For
fiscal year 2014-15, however, all grant awards must be for
non-infrastructure programs.
Vulnerable Users
A few states made efforts to protect or raise awareness of
vulnerable users via legislation in 2014. Connecticut, for
example, passed legislation declaring that any motorist
who fails to drive with reasonable care and causes serious
injury or death to a vulnerable user must be fined not more
than $1,000. Connecticut defined a “vulnerable user” as
a pedestrian; a highway worker; a person riding or driving an animal; a person riding a bicycle; a person using a
skateboard, roller skates or in-line skates; a person operating or riding on an agricultural tractor; a person using a
wheelchair or motorized chair; and a blind person and such
person’s service animal.
Wisconsin enacted a bill requiring all driver education
courses to include at least 30 minutes of content on the
danger of motor vehicles to and how to interact with “vulnerable highway users,” which also is defined. The Michigan Legislature adopted a bill requiring driver’s education
curriculum to: “Include information concerning the laws
pertaining to bicycles and motorcycles, and to emphasize
awareness of their operation on the streets, roads, and
highways.”
24 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Slow and Medium-Speed Vehicles
In 2014, nine states passed 11 pieces of legislation related
to slow and medium-speed vehicles. Three pieces of legislation were related to regulation of golf carts. Arizona passed
a bill authorizing driving a golf cart on the shoulder of a
paved road in age-restricted communities. Georgia’s law exempts golf carts and other personal transportation vehicles
(PTVs) that travel no more than 20 mph from certain
requirements, including licensing, registration and titling.
The law also regulates the equipment required for personal
transportation vehicles, which are defined as motor vehicles
with at least four wheels and a maximum speed of less than
20 mph. The required equipment includes head and tail
lamps. The legislation allows local authorities to establish
PTV plans. Virginia’s legislation permits the town of Clifton to allow the use of golf carts on the town’s highways.
A number of states passed legislation on mopeds. California’s moped legislation redefined moped by increasing the
gross horsepower the motor can produce from less than
two to less than four. Delaware enacted legislation that
redefines the classification of mopeds to distinguish them
from motorcycles. The law specifies that moped operators
need not have a motorcycle endorsement on their license,
and that mopeds must be registered but are exempt from
safety inspection requirements. Indiana created classifications of “class A motor driven cycle” and “class B motor
driven cycle” for mopeds with different registration and
license requirements. Iowa increased the maximum speed
of a motorized bicycle from 30 mph to 39 mph. Louisiana
passed legislation permitting license tag agents to require
applicants for an “M” endorsement on a driver’s license,
necessary to operate a motorized bicycle, to take knowledge and skills tests. Maryland’s legislation clarified that a
moped is a bicycle for purposes of the Maryland Vehicle
Law, with certain exceptions. These exceptions include a
requirement that mopeds have a certificate of title and are
not allowed on sidewalks. North Carolina passed legislation requiring moped registration with the Department
of Motor Vehicles in the same manner as motorcycles and
requiring that a study be conducted to determine whether
additional changes are necessary to promote operational
safety for mopeds.
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Maryland modified the definition of low-speed vehicles
to include all those with a maximum speed of between 20
mph and 25 mph, regardless of how the vehicle is powered.
Pennsylvania enacted legislation requiring drivers of
neighborhood electric vehicles to carry at least $15,000 in
insurance coverage for injury to a person and $5,000 for
injury to property.
Tennessee enacted legislation creating a single definition for
medium-speed vehicles, replacing the three different definitions in statute. The law also permits medium-speed vehicles
without windshields to be registered as long as the driver
and any passengers wear helmets and eye protection when
the vehicle is being driven.
Links for Further Information
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
www.aaafoundation.org
Motorcycle Safety Foundation
www.msf-usa.org
American Institute for Public Safety
www.aipsnews.com
NCSL/NHTSA State Traffic Safety Legislation Database
www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/state-traffic-safetylegislation-database.aspx
American Motorcyclist Association
www.amadirectlink.com
Federal Highway Administration
www.fwha.dot.gov
Governors Highway Safety Association
www.ghsa.org
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
www.hwysafety.org
Motorcycle Riders Foundation
www.mrf.org
25 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA)
www.nhtsa.dot.gov
National Transportation Safety Board
www.ntsb.gov
Traffic Injury Research Foundation
www.trafficinjuryresearch.com
U.S Department of Transportation
www.dot.gov
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix A
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Offices
Region 1
(Conn., Maine, Mass., N.H., R.I., Vt.)
Regional Administrator, NHTSA
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Kendall Square, Code 8E
55 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: (617) 494-3427
Fax: (617) 494-3646
[email protected]
Region 2
(N.Y., N.J., Pa., P.R., V.I.)
Regional Administrator, NHTSA
245 Main Street, Suite 210
White Plains, NY 10601-2442
Phone: (914) 682-6162
Fax: (914) 682-6239
[email protected]
Region 3
(Del., D.C., Ky., Md., N.C. Va., W.Va.)
Regional Administrator, NHTSA
10 S. Howard St., Suite 6700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (410) 962-0090
Fax: (410) 962-2770
[email protected]
Region 6
(La.. Miss., N.M., Okla., Texas, Indian Nations)
Regional Administrator, NHTSA
819 Taylor St., Room 8A38
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Phone: (817) 978-3653
Fax: (817) 978-8339
Region6@ dot.gov
Region 7
(Ark., Iowa, Kan., Mo., Neb.)
Regional Administrator, NHTSA
901 Locust St., Room 466
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 329-3900
Fax: (816) 329-3910
[email protected]
Region 8
(Colo., Nev., N.D., S.D., Utah, Wyo.)
Regional Administrator, NHTSA
12300 West Dakota Ave., Suite 140
Lakewood, CO 80228
Phone: (720) 963-3100
Fax: (720) 963-3124
Region8@ dot.gov
Region 9
(Ala., Fla., Ga., S.C., Tenn.)
Regional Administrator, NHTSA
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth St., S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 562-3739
Fax: (404) 562-3763
[email protected]
(Ariz., Calif., Hawaii, American Samoa,
Guam, N. Mariana Islands)
Regional Administrator, NHTSA
John E. Moss Federal Building
650 Capitol Mall
Suite 8-600
Sacramento, CA 95814-4708
916-498-5063
Fax: (415) 744-2532
[email protected]
Region 5
Region 10
Region 4
(Ill., Ind., Mich., Minn., Ohio, Wis.)
Regional Administrator, NHTSA
4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 300B
Matteson, IL 60443-3800
Phone (708) 503-8822
Fax (708) 503-8991
[email protected]
27 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
(Alaska, Idaho, Mon., Ore., Wash.)
Regional Administrator, NHTSA
3140 Jackson Federal Building
915 Second Ave.
Seattle, WA 98174
Phone: (206) 220-7640
Fax: (206) 220-7651
[email protected]
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix B. State Safety Belt Use Laws
State/Jurisdiction
Primary
Enforcement
Who Is Covered?
In What Seats?
Maximum Fine
First Offense?
Damages Reduced for
Nonuse?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Yes
Yes
No
$25
$15
$10
No
Yes
Yes
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Yes
Yes
No (primary for occupants under age 18)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ages 15+ in front seat
Ages 16+ in all seats
Ages 8+ in front seat; ages 8 through
15 in all seats
Ages 15+ in front seat
Ages 16+ in all seats
Ages 18+ front seat
$251
$20
$71
No
Yes
Yes
$15
$25
$30
No
No
Yes
$15 2
No
$45
$10
No
No
$25 (plus court
fees)
$25
$25
$60;
No
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Yes
Hawaii
Idaho
Yes
No (primary for drivers
under age 18)
Yes
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Yes
Yes
Yes (secondary for rear
seat occupants younger
than age 18)
Yes
Louisiana
Yes
Maine
Maryland
Yes
Yes (secondary for rear
seats)
No
Yes
Yes
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Yes
No (primary for children
ages 8 through 15)
No
No
No
No law
Yes (secondary for rear
seat occupants)
Yes
Yes
Yes (secondary for rear
seat occupants)
No
No
Yes
Yes
28 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Ages 7+ in front seat
Ages 16+ in all seats
Ages 6+ in front seat; ages 6 through
17 in all seats
Ages 8 through 17 in all seats; ages
18+ in front seat
Ages 8+ in all seats
Ages 7+ in all seats
Ages 16+ in all seats
Ages 16+ in all seats
Ages 18+ in front seat
Ages 14 through 17 in all seats; ages
18+ in front seat
No
Yes
No
Ages 6 and younger and more than
50”in all seats; ages 7+ in all seats
Ages 13+ in all seats
$25
No
$25;
No
Ages 18+ in all seats
Ages 16+ in all seats
$45
$50
$50
No
No
Ages 13+ in all seats
Ages 16+ in front seat
Ages 7 and younger and more than
57” in all seats; ages 8+ in all seats
Ages 7+ in front seat
Ages 16+ in front seat
$253
$25
$25 (plus approx.
$75 court fee)
$25
$10
No
Yes
No
Ages 6+ in all seats
Ages 18+ in front seat
Ages 6+ in all seats
No law
Ages 7 and younger and more than
80 lbs; ages 8+ in all seats
Ages 18+ in all seats
Ages 16+ in front seat
Ages 16+ in all seats
$20
$25
$25
No law
$20
No
Yes
No
No
No
$254
$505
$25
No
Yes
No
Ages 18+ in front seat
Ages 8 through 14 in all seats; ages
15+ in front seat
Ages 13+ in front seat
Ages 16+ in all seats
$20
$30 driver/$20
passenger
$20
$110
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix B. State Safety Belt Use Laws
State/Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Primary
Enforcement
Who Is Covered?
In What Seats?
Maximum Fine
First Offense?
Damages Reduced for
Nonuse?
No (primary for ages 8
through 17)
Yes
Yes6
No
Yes
Yes
Ages 8 through 17 in all seats; ages
18+ in front seat
Ages 18+ in all seats
Ages 6+ in all seats
Ages 18+ in front seat
Ages 16+ in front seat
Ages 8+ or children taller than 57” in
all seats
$10
No
$40
$25
$20
$507
$50
No
No
No
No
No
No (primary for children
under age 19)
No (primary for children
under age 18)
No (primary for passengers under 18 in all seats)
Yes
Yes
Ages 16+ in all seats
$200 (driver)
$45
No
Ages 18+ in all seats
$25
No
Ages 18+ in front seat
$25
No
$124
$25
No
Yes
$10
$258 driver/ $10
passenger
$504
$50
$25-$250
Yes
No
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Yes
No
Ages 16+ in all seats
Ages 18+ in front seat; ages 8
through 17 in all seats
Ages 8+ in all seats
Ages 9+ in all seats
District of Columbia
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ages 16+ in all seats
Ages 9+ or children taller than 57”
All ages in front seat
No
No
No information
Notes
1. Arkansas rewards belt use by reducing the fine for the primary violation by $10.
2. In Georgia, the maximum fine is $25 if the child is between the ages of 6 and 18.
3. Drivers in Massachusetts can be fined $25 for violating the belt law themselves and $25 for each unrestrained passenger age 12 to
16.
4. This jurisdiction assesses points for violations.
5. New York assesses points only when the violation involves a child under age 16.
6. Police are prohibited in South Carolina from enforcing safety belt laws at checkpoints designed for that purpose. However, safety
belt violations may be issued at license and registration checkpoints to drivers cited for other offenses
7. Drivers age 18 and older in Tennessee who choose not to contest the citation pay a $10 fine by mail; the fine is $20 for drivers
who are ages 16 and 17.
8. Wyoming rewards belt use by reducing the fine for the primary violation by $10.
Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2014; Governor’s Highway Safety Association, 2014.
29 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix C. State Laws on Child Restraint Use
State/Jurisdiction
Alabama15
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas15
Must Be in Child Restraint
Younger than age 1 or less than 20 lbs.
must be in a rear-facing infant seat; ages
1 through 4 or 20-40 lbs. in a forwardfacing child safety seat; age 5 but not yet
age 6 in a booster seat
Children younger than age 1 or less than
20 lbs. in a rear-facing infant seat; ages
1 through 4 and more than 20 lbs. in a
child restraint; ages 4 through 15 who
are either shorter than 57” or who weigh
more than 20 lbs. but less than 65 lbs. in
a booster seat
Ages 4 and younger; ages 5 through 7
who are 57” or shorter
Ages 5 and younger and less than 60 lbs.
California
Ages 7 and younger who are less than
57”2
Colorado
Younger than age 1 and less than 20
lbs. in a rear-facing infant seat; ages 1
through 3 and 20-40 lbs. in a forwardfacing child safety seat; ages 4 through 7
in a booster seat
Younger than age 1 or less than 20 lbs.
in rear-facing restraint; ages 1 through 6
and less than 60 lbs. in a child restraint
system (booster seats can be used only
in a seating position that has a lap and
shoulder belt)
Ages 7 and younger and less than 66 lbs.4
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Adult Safety Belt Permissible
Ages 6 through 14; law states no preference for rear seat
Ages 4 through 7 who are at least 57”
or 65+ lbs.; ages 7 through 15 who are
shorter than 57” or weigh less than 65
lbs.; law states no preference for rear seat
$501
Ages 5 through 7 who are taller than 57”;
law states no preference for rear seat
Ages 6 through 14 or 60+ lbs.; law states
no preference for rear seat
Ages 8 through 15 or at least 57”; ages 7
and younger who are less than 57” must
be in rear seat
$50
$100
$1001
Ages 8 through 15; children age 1 and
younger and less than 20 lbs. must be in
rear seat if available
$81
Ages 7 through 15 and 60+ lbs.; law
states no preference for rear seat
$603
Ages 8 through 15 or 66+ lbs.; 4 children
ages 11 and younger and 65” or less must
be in rear seat if passenger airbag is active
Ages 5 and younger
Not permissible;5 law states no preference
for rear seat
Ages 7 and younger and 57” or less in
More than 57”; children age 7 and
rear sear if available
younger must be in rear seat if available 6
Ages 3 and younger in a child safety seat; Ages 4 through 7 who are taller than
ages 4 through 7 must be in a booster
4’9”; ages 4 through 7 who are at least 40
seat or child restraint
lbs. seated in a rear seat where, if there are
no available lap/shoulder belts, they can
be restrained by a lap belt; law states no
preference for rear seat
Ages 6 and younger
Not permissible; law states no preference
for rear seat
Ages 7 and younger
Ages 8 through 15; children who weigh
more than 40 lbs. seated in rear where
only a lap belt is available; law states no
preference for rear seat
Ages 8 through 15; law states no preferAges 7 and younger 8
ence for rear seat
Younger than age 1 and less than 20 lbs. Ages 6 through 17; law states no preferin a rear-facing seat; ages 1 through 5 in ence for rear seat
front-facing child restraint
30 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Maximum Fine
First Offense
$251
$25
$601
$501
$1007
$79
$75
$251
$25
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix C. State Laws on Child Restraint Use
State/Jurisdiction
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi15
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Must Be in Child Restraint
All children ages 3 and younger must
be in a child restraint; children ages 4
through 7 who weigh less than 80 lbs.
and children ages 4 through 7 who are
less than 57” tall must be in a child
restraint or booster seat
Children 40” or less must be in a child
restraint; ages 6 and younger who are between 40” and 50” must be in a booster
seat
Younger than age 1 or less than 20 lbs.
in a child safety seat; ages 1 through 3 or
20-39 lbs. in a forward-facing safety seat;
ages 4 through 5 or 40-60 lbs. in a child
booster seat
Less than 40 lbs. in a child safety seat;
40-80 lbs. and younger than age 8 in a
safety system that elevates the child so
that an adult seat belt fits properly; ages
11 and younger and less than 100 lbs.
must be in rear seat if available
Ages 7 and younger and less than 57”
Adult Safety Belt Permissible
All children ages 8 through 13; children
ages 4 through 7 who weigh more than
80 lbs.; children who are taller than 57”;
law states no preference for rear seat
Maximum Fine
First Offense
$60
Ages 6 and younger who are taller than
50”; law states no preference for rear seat
$50 child restraint; $30
booster seat
Ages 6 through 12 or more than 60 lbs.;
law states no preference for rear seat
$100
Ages 8 through 17 or younger than age
18 and more than 4’9”
$50
Ages 8 through 15; children who are at
$50
least 57”; law states no preference for rear
seat
Ages 7 and younger and less than 57”
Ages 8 through 12; children who are at
$25
least 57” tall; law states no preference for
rear seat
Ages 7 and younger and less than 57”
Ages 8 through 15 or children who are at $10 if child is age 3 or
least 57”; ages 3 and younger must be in younger; $25 if child is
the rear seat if available
between ages 4 through
8 and under 4’9”
Ages 7 and younger and less than 57”
Not permissible
$50
Ages 3 and younger must be in a child
Ages 7 and older who weigh more than
$25
restraint; ages 4 through 6 and either less 65 lbs. or are at least 57”; law states no
than 57” or less than 65 lbs. must be in a preference for rear seat
booster seat
Ages 3 and younger must be in child
All children ages 8 through 16; all chil$50; $10 for violations
restraint; all children who weigh less than dren ages 4 and older who weigh 80 lbs. involving children taller
40 lbs. must be in a child restraint; ages or more or who are taller than 4’9”; law than 4’9” or who weigh
4 through 7 who weigh at least 40 lbs.
states no preference for rear seat
more than 80 lbs.
but less than 80 lbs. and who are 4’9” or
shorter must be in either a child restraint
or booster seat; children ages 4 and older
who weigh at least 80 lbs. or who are at
least 4’9” tall must be in either a booster
seat or safety belt
Younger than age 5 and less than 60 lbs. Not permissible; law states no preference
$100
for rear seat
$251
Ages 5 and younger
Ages 6 through 17;9 law states no preference for rear seat
Ages 5 and younger and 60 lbs. or less
Not permissible; law states no preference
$50010
for rear seat
Ages 6 and younger and less than 57”
Ages 7 through 17; ages 6 and younger
$50
(effective 01/01/14)
who are at least 57” (effective 01/01/14);
law states no preference for rear seat
Ages 7 and younger and less than 80 lbs. Not permissible
$25 (plus court fees)
seated in rear seat if available
31 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix C. State Laws on Child Restraint Use
State/Jurisdiction
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio15
Oklahoma15
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Must Be in Child Restraint
Younger than age 1 in a rear-facing infant
seat, seated in the rear seat if available;
children ages 1 through 4 or less than 40
lbs. in a forward-facing child safety seat;
ages 5 through 6 or less than 60 lbs. in
booster seat
Ages 3 and younger unless a child weighs
more than 40 pounds and is seated where
there is no available lap/shoulder belt;
ages 4 through 7 unless a child is seated
where there is no available lap/shoulder
belt
Adult Safety Belt Permissible
Ages 7 through 17
Ages 8 through 15; children who weigh
40 lbs. or more; children ages 4 through
7 in a seating position where there is no
available lap/shoulder belt; law states no
preference for rear seat
Maximum Fine
First Offense
$25
$1001
Ages 7 and younger and less than 80
lbs.11
Ages 8 through 15 and children 40-80
$251 ($188 court fees)
lbs. in seats without shoulder belts; law
states no preference for rear seat
Ages 6 and younger and less than 57” or Ages 7 through 17; ages 6 and younger
$251
less than 80 lbs.
and at least 57” and at least 80 lbs.; ages 6
and younger and at least 40 lbs.; if there
is no available lap/shoulder belt, can be
restrained by lap belt only; law states no
preference for rear seat
Ages 3 and younger or less than 40 lbs. Ages 8 through 14;12 law states no prefer$751
in child restraint; ages 4 through 7 who ence for rear seat
weigh more than 40 lbs. and are shorter
than 57” must be in booster seat
Ages 5 and younger13
Ages 6 through 12; law states no prefer$50 (up to $207.90
ence for rear seat
with court fees)
Child younger than age 1 or 20 lbs. or
Ages 8-15, taller than 4’9”; law states no
$110
less must be in a rear-facing child safety preference for rear seat
seat; ages 7 or younger or 40 lbs. or less
must be in child safety seat; more than
40 lbs. but 4’9” or less must be in a
safety system that elevates the child so
that an adult seat belt fits properly
Ages 7 and younger
Not permissible; law states no preference
$75
for rear seat
Ages 7 and younger and less than 57”
Ages 8 through 17; ages 7 and younger
$85; $45 for children
and less than 80 lbs.; children ages 7 and who either weigh more than 80 lbs. or
between ages 8 through
younger must be in rear seat if available who are taller than 57”
17
Younger than age 1 or less than 20 lbs. in
a rear-facing infant seat; ages 1 through
5 and 20-39 lbs. in a forward-facing
child safety seat; ages 1 through 5 and
40-80 lbs. in a booster seat secured by
lap-shoulder belt; children ages 5 and
younger must be in rear seat if available
Ages 4 and younger and less than 40 lbs.
Ages 1 through 5 and more than 80 lbs.
or any child age 5 and younger if the
child’s knees bend over the seat edge
when sitting up straight with his/her back
firmly against the seat back
Ages 5 through 17; all children who
weigh more than 40 lbs; law states no
preference for rear seat
Younger than age 1 or less than 20 lbs. in Ages 9 through 15; ages 12 and younger
a rear-facing infant seat; ages 1 through and 49” or more
3 who weigh more than 20 lbs. in a forward-facing infant seat; ages 4 through
8 and less than 4’9” in a booster seat;
children age 8 and younger and less than
4’ 9” must be in a rear seat if available
Ages 7 and younger and less than 57”
Not permissible; law states no preference
for rear seat
32 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
$150
$25
$50
$25 minimum (maximum unlisted)
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix C. State Laws on Child Restraint Use
State/Jurisdiction
Utah
Must Be in Child Restraint
Ages 7 and younger and less than 57”
Adult Safety Belt Permissible
Ages 8 through 15; children taller than
57”; law states no preference for rear seat
Vermont
Younger than age 1 or less than 20 lbs. in Ages 8 through 17 and more than 20 lbs.;
a rear-facing infant seat; if not available, law states no preference for rear seat
they can be placed in front only if front
passenger airbag is deactivated; ages 1
through 7 and more than 20 lbs. in child
restraint
Virginia
Ages 7 and younger unless they have a
Ages 8 through 1714
medical exemption; children in rearfacing devices must be in rear seat if
available; if not available, they can be
placed in front only if passenger airbag is
deactivated
Washington
Ages 7 and younger and less than 4’9”;
Ages 8 through 15; ages 7 and younger
ages 12 and younger must be in rear seat and 4’9” or taller; children who weigh
if practical
more than 40 lbs. in a seating position
where only a lap belt is available
West Virginia
Ages 7 and younger and less than 4’9”
Ages 7 and younger and 4’9” or taller; law
states no preference for rear seat
Wisconsin
Children younger than age 1 and all
Ages 8 and younger and more than 80
children who weigh less than 20 lbs.
lbs. and 57” or taller
must be in a rear-facing infant seat;
ages 1 through 3 who weigh at least 20
lbs. but less than 40 lbs. must be in a
forward-facing child safety seat; children
ages 4 through 7 who weigh at least 40
lbs. but less than 80 lbs. and who are less
than 57” tall must be in a booster seat;
children ages 3 and younger must be in a
rear seat if available
Wyoming
Ages 8 and younger; must be in rear seat Not permissible
if available
District of Columbia Ages 7 and younger
Ages 8 through 15; law states no preference for rear seat
Puerto Rico
Ages 4 and younger must be in a child Ages 9 and older or 57” or taller
safety seat; children ages 4 through 8 or
less than 57” must be in a booster seat;
children younger than age 12 must be in
a rear seat
U.S. Virgin Islands
Ages 5 and younger
Children ages 3 through 5 may be
restrained by only a seatbelt if they are in
the rear seat
Maximum Fine
First Offense
$45
$25
$50
$124
$20
$75
$50
$751
$100
$25-$250
Notes
1.
This state assesses points for violations.
2. In California, children weighing more than 40 lbs. may be belted without a booster seat if they are seated in the rear seat of a
vehicle not equipped with lap/shoulder belts. The California rear seat requirement does not apply if: there is no rear seat; the rear seats
are side-facing jump seats; the rear seats are rear-facing seats; the child passenger restraint system cannot be installed properly in the
rear seat; all rear seats are already occupied by children under age 12; or medical reasons necessitate that the child not ride in the rear
seat. A child may not ride in the front seat of a motor vehicle with an active passenger airbag if the child is riding in a rear-facing child
restraint system.
3. The fine in Connecticut is $15 if the child is age 4 to 16 and 40 lbs. or more. Connecticut also requires a child restraint education
program for first or second violation.
33 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix C. State Laws on Child Restraint Use
4. In Delaware, children younger than age 12 or 65” or less must be restrained in a rear seat if a vehicle has a passenger airbag, unless
the airbag either has been deactivated or designed to accommodate smaller people. Exceptions: If there is no rear seat or rear seat is
occupied by other children younger than age 12 or 65” or less.
5. In Florida, the child restraint device requirement does not apply to children age 4 through 5, when a safety belt is used and the
child is either being transported by an operator who is not a member of the child’s immediate family, in an emergency or has a documented medical condition that necessitates an exception.
6. In Georgia, children weighing more than 40 lbs. can be restrained in the back seat of a vehicle by a lap belt if the vehicle is not
equipped with lap and shoulder belts or when the lap and shoulder belts are being used by other children who weigh more than 40 lbs.
7. Hawaii drivers are charged $50 for a mandatory child restraint education program and $10 for a surcharge that is deposited into a
neurotrauma special fund.
8. In Indiana, children weighing more than 40 lbs. can be restrained by a lap belt if the vehicle is not equipped with lap and shoulder belts or if all lap and shoulder belts other than those in the front seat are being used to restrain other children who are younger than
age 16.
9. Nebraska’s law is secondary for those children who may be in safety belts and standard for those who must be in a child restraint
device.
10. In Nevada, the minimum fine is $100. An alternative to the fine is at least 10 hours but not more than 50 hours of community
service.
11. In North Carolina, children younger than age 4 who weigh less than 40 lbs. must be restrained in a child safety seat in the rear
seat if the vehicle has a passenger airbag, unless the child restraint system is designed for use with airbags.
12. In Ohio, the law is secondary for children ages 4 through 14.
13. In Oklahoma, children weighing more than 40 lbs. can be restrained in the back seat of a vehicle by a lap belt if the vehicle is not
equipped with lap and shoulder belts or when the lap and shoulder belts are being used by other children who weigh more than 40 lbs.
14. In Virginia, children at least age 4 but younger than age 8 may be belted if any licensed physician determines that use of a child
restraint system by a particular child would be impractical by reason of the child’s weight, physical fitness or other medical reason,
provided that any person transporting a child so exempted shall carry on his person or in the vehicle a signed written statement of the
physician identifying the child so exempted and stating the grounds for the determination.
15. In Arkansas, Alabama and Ohio, 15-year-olds riding in the rear seat; in Mississippi, children ages 7 and older riding in the rear
seat; and in Oklahoma, children ages 13 through 15 riding in the rear seat are not covered by either adult safety belt laws or child safety
seat laws.
Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, AAA and NCSL, 2014.
34 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix D. Restrictions on Riding in Cargo Areas of Pickup Trucks
State/Jurisdiction
Restrictions in
Cargo Areas
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas



1
California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware
Florida


Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas





Kentucky
Louisiana


Maine

Maryland


Massachusetts
Michigan

35 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Gaps in Coverage
Employees on duty; people within bodies of trucks in a space intended
for merchandise
If the person is restrained by a federally approved restraint system;
farmer-owned vehicle used exclusively within farming land or mile of
highway between one part to another; parade if not more than 8 mph;
emergency situations
Those sitting in the cargo area if it is fully or partially enclosed on all
four sides
Anyone age 16 and older; anyone age 15 and younger if belted; parades;
farming operations; hayrides August through December
Anyone age 18 and older; anyone age 17 and younger in enclosed cargo
area; anyone age 17 and younger on non-limited access roads unless local
law exempts them from the prohibition on minors riding the cargo areas
of pickup trucks and flatbeds; anyone age 17 and younger on non-limited-access roads in a seat fitted with a safety belt that has been added to
the pickup or flatbed; employees on duty
Anyone age 18 and older; anyone age 17 and younger in pickup trucks
with covered cargo areas; any pickup truck off the interstate
People can ride in back of pickup trucks if no seats are available in the
cab and the side racks and tailgate are securely closed, the passengers
are seated on the floor and do not attempt to unlatch cargo; parades,
employees on duty and life-threatening emergencies are exempt
Anyone age 14 and older; parades; employment; does not apply to
vehicles not being operated on the state highway system or within the
corporate limits of a city
Anyone age 12 and older if the truck is being used on a non-interstate
highway; parades moving less than 15 mph; emergencies if the child is
with an adult in the cargo area; emergencies on interstate highway
Anyone age 19 and older; agricultural workers and hunters age 18 and
younger; parades; those in original equipment manufacturer-installed
seats outside passenger compartment
Anyone age 16 and older; anyone age 15 and younger if the vehicle is
traveling 25 mph or less; employees being transported to work sites
or those engaged in farming operations; exceptions do not eliminate
requirements to use child restraints or belts; not applicable to pickup
trucks with covered cargo areas
Anyone age 12 and older; anyone age 11 and younger if the vehicle is
being driven less than 5 miles and less than 5 mph; parades; farming
activities
Age 18 and older; those age 17 and younger if the vehicle is moving 15
mph or less; parades; military vehicles; emergency situations; farming;
construction
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix D. Restrictions on Riding in Cargo Areas of Pickup Trucks
State/Jurisdiction
Restrictions in
Cargo Areas
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri



Montana
Nebraska
Nevada



New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York




North Carolina

North Dakota
Ohio


Oklahoma
Oregon


Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota
Tennessee


36 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Gaps in Coverage
Anyone age 18 and older; those age 17 and younger if the vehicle is not
being operated on a highway that is part of the state or federal highway
system or within the corporate limits of any city; exceptions for employment, agricultural activities, parades, where there is a device to keep the
passenger from being thrown or falling out of the vehicle, special events,
assisting people in a recreational activity, family- owned truck with
insufficient room for all passengers; not applicable to pickup trucks with
covered cargo areas
Anyone age 18 or older; parades
Anyone age 18 or older; those younger than age 18 when the vehicle is
used in farming or ranching or if vehicle is used in an authorized parade;
vehicles operated on unpaved roads; those in riding areas enclosed by a
camper shell
Employees engaged in their duties
Anyone age 18 or older
Not applicable to trips of 5 miles or less; not applicable to trips of more
than 5 miles if one-third or fewer of the passengers are standing or if
suitable seats are securely attached and there are side rails and a tailgate;
not applicable to trips of more than 5 miles if there are fewer than five
people age 17 or younger in the cargo area or if at least one person age
18 or older is in the cargo area
Anyone age 16 and older; those age 15 and younger if a supervising
adult is present in cargo area; when the child is belted; emergencies;
parades; vehicle being used in agriculture; vehicles with permanent overhead structures
Anyone age 16 and older; those age 15 and younger if the vehicle is driven less than 25 mph or if the person is belted and seated in an original
equipment manufacturer seating position; emergencies; not applicable to
pickup trucks with covered cargo areas
Anyone age 18 or older; minors secured with a safety belt or harness;
parades; minors seated on the floor of the open bed of a motor vehicle
in which all available passenger seats are occupied by minors, the tailgate
is securely closed and the minor is being transported either in the course
and scope of employment or between a hunting camp and hunting site
or between hunting sites during hunting season and the minor has a
hunting license
Anyone age 18 or older if the vehicle is traveling less than 35 mph; not
applicable to occupants age 17 and younger if the cargo area is enclosed;
parades; hunting and farm operations
Anyone age 16 or older; those age 15 and younger who are secured in
the cargo area
Anyone age 15 or older; those age 15 and younger when an adult is present; when the child is belted; parade; emergency situation; agricultural
activities; hunting; vehicle has a secured metal tailgate and operated at
less than 36 mph; vehicle operated in a county
Anyone age 12 or older; those ages 6 to 11 in a vehicle being operated
off the interstate or state highway system; parades if vehicle is going less
than 20 mph; agricultural activities; or on city or county roads unless
prohibited by local ordinance or resolution
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix D. Restrictions on Riding in Cargo Areas of Pickup Trucks
State/Jurisdiction
Restrictions in
Cargo Areas
Gaps in Coverage
Texas

Utah
1
Vermont
Virginia
Anyone age 18 or older; vehicles that are the only vehicles owned by
members of the household; vehicles in parades; hayrides, on beaches or
being used in an emergency; vehicles in farm operations used to transport people from field to field or on farm
Off-highway operation; employees performing their duties; those riding
in a vehicle space that is intended for any load


Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin


1
Wyoming
District of Columbia

1
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Total


32
Anyone age 16 or older; farmers when crossing a highway when going
from field to field
Not applicable to enclosed areas; farm operations; parades; deer hunting;
employees; those riding in truck bodies in spaces intended for merchandise
Employees on duty; those riding within truck bodies in a space intended
for materials
No gaps in coverage
Key
 Law
 No state Law
Note
1. This provision is designed to prohibit riding on hoods, fenders and other places not designed for passengers. The exemption for
people in the body of a truck applies to enclosed areas such as the cargo area of a straight truck or van.
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2014.
37 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix E. Licensing Procedures for Older Drivers
State/Jurisdiction
Alabama
Alaska
Length of Renewal Cycle
Four years
Five years
Arizona
Until age 651
Arkansas
California
Four years
Five years
Colorado
Five years
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Six years
Eight years
Eight years
Georgia
Five or eight years
Hawaii
Eight years
Idaho
Four years
Illinois
Four years
Indiana
Six years
Iowa
Five through eight years4
Kansas
Six years
Kentucky
Louisiana
Four years
Six years (effective 07/01/2015)
Maine
Six years
Maryland
Eight years
38 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Accelerated Renewal
None
None
Other Provisions
None
Mail renewal not available to
people age 69 and older and to
people whose prior renewal was
by mail
Five years for people age 65 and People age 70 and older cannot
older
renew by mail1
None
None
None
At age 70, mail renewal is prohibited; no more than two sequential
mail renewals are permitted,
regardless of age
None
Mail or electronic renewal not
available to people age 66 and
older, unless optometrist certifies
eye exam passed within the last six
months; no mail renewal for those
whose prior renewal was by mail
or electronic
None that are safety-related2
None that are safety-related2
None
None
Six years for people age 80 and Renewal applicants age 80 and
older
older must pass a vision test
administered at any driver’s license
office or, if applying by mail or
electronically, must pass a vision
test administered by a licensed
physician or optometrist3
Five years for people age 59 and Vision test required at renewal for
older
drivers older than age 64
Two years for people age 72 and None
older
Drivers ages 21 to 62 have the None
choice of a four- or eight-year
license; drivers age 63 and older
will receive a four-year license
Two years for drivers ages 81 to Renewal applicants age 75 and
86; one year for drivers age 87 older must take a road test
and older
Three years for drivers age 75
Mail and electronic renewal are
through 84; two years for driv- not available to people age 70
ers age 85 and older
and older or to those whose prior
renewal was by mail or electronic
Two years for drivers age 70 and People age 70 and older may not
older
renew online
Four years for drivers age 65
None
and older
None
None
None
Mail renewal not available to
people age 70 and older and to
those whose prior renewal was by
mail
Four years for drivers age 65
Vision test required at first renewal
and older
after driver’s 40th birthday and at
every second renewal until age 62;
thereafter, at every renewal
None
Vision test required at age 40 and
older at every renewal5
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix E. Licensing Procedures for Older Drivers
State/Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Length of Renewal Cycle
Five years
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Four years
Four years
Four or eight years at driver’s option
Six years
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Accelerated Renewal
None
None
None
None
Three years for drivers age 70
and older
Eight years or on 75th birthday, which- Four years for drivers age 75
ever occurs first
and older
Five years
None
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Four years; completing phase-in of
eight years in 2018
Five years
Four years
Four or eight years at driver’s option.
New York
North Carolina
Eight years
Eight years
North Dakota
Six years
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Four years
Four years
Eight years
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Four years
Five years
South Carolina
10 years
South Dakota
Five years
Tennessee
Texas
Five years
Six years
Utah
Five years
Vermont
Virginia
Four years
Eight years
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Six years
Eight years
Eight years
Four years
39 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Four years for drivers age 65
and older
None
None
Four or eight years at driver’s
option for driver’s under age 67;
four years for drivers older than
age 67; annually for drivers age
75 and older
None
Five years for drivers age 66 and
older
Four years for drivers age 78
and older
None
None
None
Other Provisions
Renewal applicants who are age 75
and older must apply in person
None
None that are safety-related6
None
None
None that are safety-related6
Applicants age 72 and older may
not renew electronically
None that are safety-related7
None
None
None
None
None that are safety-related7
None
None
None that are safety-related8
Vision screening is required every
eight years for drivers age 50 and
older
None
None
Two years for drivers age 75 and None
older
Five years for drivers age 65 and Vision test required for people age
older
65 and older
None
People age 65 and older must submit a vision statement signed by
an optometrist or ophthalmologist
if applying online or by mail
None
None that are safety-related9
Two years for drivers age 85 and Mail or electronic renewal not
older
available to people age 79 and
older
None
Vision test required for people age
65 and older
None
None
Five years for drivers age 75 and Renewal applicants age75 and
older
older must apply in person and
pass department vision requirements or present a vision statement, no older than 90 days, from
an optometrist or ophthalmologist
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix E. Licensing Procedures for Older Drivers
State/Jurisdiction
District of Columbia
Length of Renewal Cycle
Eight years
Accelerated Renewal
None
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Six years
Five years
None
No information
Other Provisions
At age 70 or nearest renewal date
thereafter, a vision test is required
and a reaction test may be required; applicants must provide a
statement from a practicing physician certifying the applicant to be
physically and mentally competent
to drive10
None
No information
Notes
1. In Arizona, the license is valid until age 65. Anyone age 65 and older who is renewing by mail must submit a vision test verification form, provided by the department, or verification of an examination of the applicant’s eyesight. The vision test or examination
must be conducted not more than three months before.
2. In Connecticut, people age 65 and older can choose a two-year or six-year renewal cycle. A personal appearance at renewal generally is required. Upon showing a hardship, people age 65 and older can renew by mail.
3. In Florida, only two successive renewals can be made electronically or by mail, regardless of age.
4. Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, and continuing through Dec. 31, 2018, Iowa will transition from a standard five-year license term to an
eight-year license term. During this time, Iowa driver’s licenses will be issued with a randomly assigned expiration date of between five
and eight years.
5. Some state licensing laws specifically prohibit licensing administrators from treating people differently solely by virtue of advanced
age. Maryland law specifies that age alone is not grounds for reexamination of drivers; applicants for an initial license who are age 70
and older must provide proof of previous satisfactory operation of a vehicle or a physician’s certificate of fitness. Massachusetts law prohibits discrimination by reason of age with regard to licensing. Minnesota and Nevada law specify that age alone is not a justification
for reexamination. In Nevada, applicants for mail renewal age 70 and older must include a medical report.
6. Montana allows only two successive renewals to be made electronically or by mail, regardless of age.
7. In North Carolina, people age 60 and older are not required to parallel park in the road test.
8. In Oklahoma, the license fee is reduced for drivers ages 62-64 and is waived for drivers age 65 and older.
9. In Tennessee, fees are reduced for drivers age 60 and older, and licenses issued to people age 65 and older do not expire
10. The District of Columbia specifically states that an applicant shall not be required to retake the written or road test based solely
on advanced age.
Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, AAA and NCSL, 2014.
40 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix F. Teen Driving Restrictions
State/Jurisdiction
Alabama
Minimum Age for a
Learner’s Permit
15
Alaska
14
Arizona
15, six mo.
Learner Stage with a
Minimum Amount of
Supervised Driving
Required
Intermediate Stage
with a Nighttime
Driving Restriction
Intermediate Stage with
Passenger Restrictions
30 hrs. (none with driver
education)
Midnight-6 am
First six mo.: no more than
one passenger (secondary)
40 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night or in inclement
weather
30 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night (none with
driver education)
None
Midnight-5 am
11 pm-5 am (secondary)
Arkansas
142
California
15, six mo.3
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Colorado
15
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Connecticut
16
40 hrs. (mandatory driver
education for those under
age 18)
Delaware
16
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Florida
15
Georgia
15
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
40 hrs., six of which must
be at night
Hawaii
15, six mo.
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Idaho
14, six mo.
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Illinois
15 (with driver education
enrollment) or 17, three
mo.
15
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Indiana
41 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
(secondary1)
1 am-5 am
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
(secondary1)
11 pm-4 am
(family members
excepted unless
otherwise noted)
First six mo.: no passengers
younger than age 21
First six mo.: no more than
one passenger younger than
age 18 (secondary1)
Until age 18: no more than
one passenger younger than
age 21
First 12 mo.: no passengers
younger than age 20 (secondary)
Midnight-5 am
First six mo.: no
passengers;second six mo.:
(secondary)
no more than one passenger
(secondary)
11 pm-5 am
First six mo.: no passenger
other than parents or driving
instructor; second six mo:
no passengers other than
parents, driving instructor
or members of immediate
family
10 pm-6 am
First six mo. (and until issuance of a class D operator’s
license): no more than one
passenger
11 pm-6 am (age 16); 1
None
am-5 am (age 17)
Midnight-5 am (secFirst six mo.: no passengers;
ondary)
second six mo.: no more
than one passenger younger
than age 21; thereafter: no
more than three passengers
(secondary)
11 pm-5 am
First six mo. (at least): no
more than one passenger
younger than age 18 (household members excepted)
Sunset to sunrise
First six mo: licensees age
16 and younger can have
no more than one passenger
younger than age 17
Sun.-Thur.: 10 pm-6
First 12 mo. (or until age
am, Fri-Sat: 11 pm-6
18): no more than one pasam
senger younger than age 20
First 180 days: 10 pm-5 First six mo. (or until age
am, then Sun.-Fri.: 11
18): no passengers
pm-5 am, Sat.-Sun.: 1
am-5 am
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix F. Teen Driving Restrictions
State/Jurisdiction
Minimum Age for a
Learner’s Permit
Learner Stage with a
Minimum Amount of
Supervised Driving
Required
Intermediate Stage
with a Nighttime
Driving Restriction
Intermediate Stage with
Passenger Restrictions
20 hrs., two of which must
be at night
25 hrs. in learner phase; 25
hrs. before age 16; 10 of
the 50 hrs. must be at night
60 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
12:30 am-5 am
Parental discretion4
9 pm-5 am
First six mo. (or until age
17): no more than one passenger younger than age 18
First six mo.: no more than
one passenger younger than
age 20 unless supervised by
a driving instructor (secondary)
Until age 17: no more than
one passenger younger than
age 21 between the hours of
6 pm-5 am; no other passenger restrictions
First nine mo.: no passengers
Iowa
14
Kansas
14
Kentucky
16
Louisiana
155
50 hours, 15 of which must
be at night
11 pm-5 am
Maine
156
70 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
60 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Midnight-5 am
Maryland
Massachusetts
15, nine mo.
16
40 hrs.7
Michigan
14, nine mo.
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Minnesota
15
40 hrs., 15 of which must
be at night8
Mississippi
15
None
Missouri
15
40 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Montana
14, six mo.
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Nebraska
15
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night (none with
driver education)
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Nevada
15, six mo.
42 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Midnight-6 am
(family members
excepted unless
otherwise noted)
Midnight-5 am
First five mo.: no passengers
younger than age 18 (secondary)
12:30 am–5 am (secFirst six mo. (or until age
ondary between 12:30 18): no passengers younger
am–1:00 am and 4:00
than age 18 (secondary
am–5:00 am)
between 12:30 am–1:00 am
and 4:00 am–5:00 am)
10:00 pm-5 am
First six mo. and age 17 (or
until age 18): no more than
one passenger younger than
age 21
Midnight-5 am
First six mo.: no more than
one passenger younger than
age 20; second six mo.: no
more than three passengers
younger than age 20
Sun.-Thur.: 10 pm-6
None
am, Fri.-Sat. 11:30
pm-6 am
1 am-5 am
First six mo.: no more than
one passenger younger
than age 19; thereafter: no
more than three passengers
younger than age 19
11 pm-5 am
First six mo.: no more than
one passenger younger than
age 18; second six mo.: no
more than three passengers
younger than age 18
Midnight-6 am (secFirst six mo.: no more than
ondary)
one passenger younger than
age 19 (secondary)
10 pm-5 am (second- First six mo.: no passengers
ary)
younger than age 18 (secondary)
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix F. Teen Driving Restrictions
State/Jurisdiction
Learner Stage with a
Minimum Amount of
Supervised Driving
Required
Intermediate Stage
with a Nighttime
Driving Restriction
Intermediate Stage with
Passenger Restrictions
15, six mo.9
40 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
1 am-4 am
First six mo.: no more than
one passenger younger than
age 25
New Jersey
16
None
11 pm-5 am
New Mexico
1510
New York
16
North Carolina
1511
60 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night during the
learner phase; 12 hrs., six
of which must be at night
during intermediate phase
9 pm-5 am
North Dakota
14
50 hrs. if under age 16
Ohio
15, six mo.
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Oklahoma
15, six mo.
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Oregon
15
50 hrs. (100 hrs. without
driver education)
Pennsylvania
16
Rhode Island
1612
65 hours, 10 of which
must be at night and five of
which must be in inclement weather
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
South Carolina
15
New Hampshire
Minimum Age for a
Learner’s Permit
43 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
(family members
excepted unless
otherwise noted)
First 12 mo. (or until age
21): no more than one passenger (exception limited to
the driver’s dependents)
50 hrs., 10 of which must
Midnight-5 am
First 12 mo. (or until age
be at night
18): no more than one passenger younger than age 21
50 hrs., 15 of which must
9 pm-5 am
Until age 17 with driver
be at night
(prohibited at all times education or until age 18: no
in NYC and Nassau and more than one passenger
Suffolk counties with
younger than age 21
some exceptions)
40 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
First six mo. (or until age
18): no more than one passenger younger than age 21;
if a family member younger
than age 21 is already a
passenger, then no other passengers younger than age 21
who are not family members
Restricted license holder
None
may only drive a car
belonging to a parent or
guardian and may not
drive between the later
of sunset or 9 pm and
5 am
Midnight-6 am (age
Until age 17: no more than
16), 1 am-5 am (age 17) one passenger unless super(secondary)
vised
10 pm-5 am
First six mo. with driver education, first 12 mo. without
(or until age 18): no more
than one passenger
Midnight-5 am
First six mo.: no passengers
younger than age 20; second
six mo.: no more than three
passengers younger than age
20
11 pm-5 am
First six mo.: no more than
one passenger younger than
18; thereafter: no more than
three passengers
1 am-5 am
First 12 mo.: no more than
one passenger younger than
age 21
6 pm-6 am EST, 8
First 12 mo.: no more than
pm-6 am EDT
two passengers younger than
age 21 (driving to and from
school excepted)
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix F. Teen Driving Restrictions
State/Jurisdiction
Minimum Age for a
Learner’s Permit
Learner Stage with a
Minimum Amount of
Supervised Driving
Required
Intermediate Stage
with a Nighttime
Driving Restriction
10 pm-6 am
11 pm-6 am
South Dakota
Tennessee
14
15
None
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Texas
15
30 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Utah
15
40 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Vermont
15
40 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Virginia
15, six mo.
45 hrs., 15 of which must
be at night
Washington
15
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
West Virginia
15
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night (none with
driver education)
Wisconsin
15, six mo.13
30 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
Wyoming
15
50 hrs., 10 of which must
be at night
District of Columbia
16
40 hrs. in learner’s stage, 10
hrs. at night in intermediate stage
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands15
16
X14
None
Intermediate Stage with
Passenger Restrictions
(family members
excepted unless
otherwise noted)
None
First 12 mo. (or until age
18): no more than one passenger
Midnight-5 am
Until age 18: no more than
one passenger younger than
(secondary)
age 21 (secondary)
Midnight-5 am
First six mo. (or until age
18): no passengers (secondary)
None
First three mo.: no passengers
without exception; second
three mo.: no passengers with
family exception
Midnight-4 am (secFirst 12 mo.: no more than
ondary)
one passenger younger than
age 21; thereafter: no more
than three passengers younger than age 21 (secondary)
1 am-5 am (secondary) First six mo.: no passengers
younger than age 20; second
six mo.: no more than three
passengers younger than age
20 (secondary)
10 pm-5 am
First six mo.: no passengers
younger than age 20; second
six mo.: no more than one
passenger younger than age
20
Midnight-5 am
First nine mo. (or until age
18): no more than one passenger
11 pm-5 am
First six mo. (or until age
17): no more than one passenger younger than age 18
September-June: 11
First six mo.: no passengers;
p.m.-6 a.m. Sun.-Thur., thereafter: no more than two
12:01 a.m.-6 a.m.
passengers
Sat.-Sun.; July-August:
12:01 a.m.-6 a.m.
None
None
Notes
1. States that prohibit police from stopping young drivers solely for violating night driving or passenger restrictions are labeled secondary.
2. In Arkansas, those age 14 can drive with an instruction permit after passing a written test. After passing a road test, they are eligible
for a learner’s license. Unsupervised driving is not permitted by holders of either the instruction permit or learner’s license. The combined holding period for the permit and restricted license is six months.
3. In California, students enrolled in driver education may drive while supervised by an instructor. License applicants who do not take
driver education must wait until age 18 for a license. They are not required to go through an intermediate license stage.
44 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix F. Teen Driving Restrictions
4. In Iowa, parents are permitted to waive at the time of licensure a discretionary six-month passenger limit of no more than one
unrelated passenger younger than age18.
5. In Louisiana, driver education is required for a permit and an intermediate license if the applicant is younger than age 18.
6. In Maine, driver education is required for a permit and a license if the applicant is younger than age 18.
7. In Massachusetts, the requirement for supervised driving is 30 hours for applicants who have successfully completed a driver skills
development program in a closed, off-road course licensed by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.
8. In Minnesota, license applicants younger than age 18 must provide proof that a parent has taken a course for parents of teen drivers or perform an additional 10 certified practice hours.
9. In New Hampshire, learner’s permits are not issued. At age 15 and six months, a person can drive while supervised by a licensed
driver age 25 or older.
10. In New Mexico, permit applicants younger than age 18 must be enrolled in driver education.
11. In North Carolina, driver education is required for permit applicants younger than age 18.
12. In Rhode Island, driver education is required for permit applicants younger than age 18.
13. In Wisconsin, enrollment in driver education is required for permit applicants younger than age 18.
14. Requires supervision by a licensed driver in the car at all times.
15. The U.S. Virgin Islands has no graduated driver’s licensing system; learner’s permits can be granted at age 16.
Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and National Conference of State Legislatures 2014.
45 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix G. State Maximum Posted Speed Limit Laws
State/Jurisdiction
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island8
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Rural Interstates
Urban Interstates
70
65
75
70; trucks: 65
70; trucks: 55
75
65
65
70
702
603
75; 80 on specified
segments of road;4
trucks: 70
705
70; trucks: 65
70
75
65; 70 on specified
segments of road6
75
75
65
65
70; trucks: 60
70
70
70
75; trucks: 65
75
75
65; 70 on specified
segments of road7
65
75
65
70
75
70
75
65; trucks: 55
70
65
70
75
70
75; 80 or 85 on
specified segments of
road9
75; 80 on specified
segments of road10
65
70
65
55
65
65
65; trucks: 55
65
55
55
65
70
603
75; 80 on specified
segments of road;4
trucks: 65
55
55
55
75
65
46 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Other Limited Access Roads
65
65
65
651
70; trucks: 55
65
65
65
70
65
553
70
Other Roads
65
55
65
65
65; trucks: 55
65
55
55
65
65
453
70
65
60
70
75
65
55
55
65
65
55
70
75
65
65
65
65
70
60
65
65
65
65
70
75
65
65
70
65
70
70
day: 70; night: 65
65
70
55
65
60
55
55
55
55
65
65
day: 70; night: 65
60
70
55
55
75
65
70
75
65
70
55
70
55
70
75
70
75
65
65
65
70
70
70
70
55
70
55
60
70
70
75
55
55
55
55
65
55
70
55
55
55
55
70
65
75
65
75
65
55
70
50
65
50
55
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix G. State Maximum Posted Speed Limit Laws
State/Jurisdiction
Washington
West Virginia11
Wisconsin
Wyoming
District of Columbia
Guam13
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
Rural Interstates
Urban Interstates
70; trucks: 60
70
65
75; 80 on specified
segments of road12
n/a
n/a
65
40
60
55
65
75; 80 on specified
segments of road12
55
n/a
65
55
Other Limited Access Roads
60
65
65
65
Other Roads
n/a
n/a
n/a
20
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
55
55
65
Key
n/a = not applicable
Notes
1. In Arkansas, the speed limit may be raised to 65 mph on particular two-lane or four-lane highways if based on traffic and engineering
studies.
2. Georgia ”Super Speeder Law” adds $200 in state fees for any driver convicted of speeding at more than 75 mph on any two-lane
roads or at more than 85 mph on multiple- lane roads anywhere in the state.
3. In Hawaii, the maximum speed limit is established by county ordinance or by the director of transportation.
4. In Idaho, the speed limit may be increased to 80 mph on specific segments of highway on the basis of an engineering and traffic
investigation.
5. The Illinois law allows Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Madison, McHenry, St. Clair and Will counties to opt out by adopting an ordinance that sets a lower maximum speed limit, empowering counties to make adjustments based on their own local needs. These counties
have a maximum large truck speed limit of 60 mph outside urban districts and 55 mph inside urban districts.
6. In Kentucky, the speed limit may be increased to 70 mph on specific segments of highway upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation.
7. In 2013, New Hampshire House Bill 146 raised the speed limit from 65 mph to 70 mph on the portion of I-93 from mile marker 45
to the Vermont border.
8. Rhode Island speed limits are not set by law, but by state traffic commission.
9. On sections of I-10 and I-20 in rural west Texas, the speed limit for passenger cars and light trucks is 80 mph. Speed limits may be
established not to exceed 85 mph if the highway is designed to accommodate the higher speed and it has been determined by a traffic
and safety engineering study to be reasonable and safe. State Highway 130 (portions toll) has a posted limit of 85 mph, effective October
2012.
10. In Utah, the speed limit may be increased beyond 75 mph on any freeway or limited access highway on the basis of an engineering
and traffic investigation, effective May 12, 2014. The highest posted limit in Utah is currently 80 mph.
11. West Virginia speed limits, in general, are not set by law, but by the commissioner of the Division of Highways.
12. In Wyoming, the speed limit may be increased to 80 mph on specific segments of highway on the basis of an engineering and traffic
investigation.
13. Guam has no interstates. The maximum speed limits for cars and trucks are 35 mph in rural areas; 15 mph in residential areas; and
15 mph or 25 mph in school zones.
Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, AAA and NCSL, 2014.
47 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix H. State Aggressive Driving Laws
State/
Jurisdiction
Arizona
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Definition of
Aggressive Driving
Maximum
Imprisonment
or Jail Sanction
Six months1
Maximum Fine
Sanction
Maximum
Licensing
Action
30 days2
A person commits “Aggressive Driving” if both the follow$2,500
ing occur: 1) If, during a “course of conduct,” they violate
either the Basic Speed Rule or the “Excessive Speed” law
plus two of the following minor driving offenses: a) Failure
to obey traffic control devices; b) overtaking and passing
another vehicle on the right by driving off the pavement
or main traveled portion of the roadway; c) unsafe lane
change; d) following a vehicle too closely; and e) failure to
yield the right-of-way; and, 2) their “driving is an immediate hazard to another person or vehicle.” “Course of
conduct” means “a series of acts committed during a single,
continuous period of driving.”
California does not have a per se aggressive driving law.
Four years
$10,000
Six months
However, in addition to the usual criminal sanctions, the
law provides licensing sanctions against a person who commits a criminal assault using a motor vehicle (commonly
known as “road rage”) against either another motor vehicle,
an operator of a bicycle or a pedestrian.
$3003
None4
30 days3
No person shall drive any vehicle in an aggressive manner. Aggressive driving is defined as continuous conduct
that violates three or more of the following rules of the
road: failing to obey a traffic-control device; overtaking on
10 days mandatory3 $100 manda30 days for
the right; failing to drive within a marked lane for traffic;
tory3
subsequent
following too closely; failing to yield the right-of-way to
offenses within
approaching traffic when turning left; failing to yield to
three years
approaching traffic when entering or crossing a roadway;
failing to signal when turning or stopping; failing to stop at
stop signs or yield at yield signs; overtaking and passing a
stopped school bus with flashing lights; failing to obey the
basic speed rule; and failing to a obey a posted speed limit.
None
No information
None
Aggressive careless driving means committing two or more
of the following acts simultaneously or in succession:
1) exceeding the posted speed, 2) unsafely or improperly
changing lanes, 3) following another vehicle too closely,
4) failing to yield the right-of-way, 5) improperly passing,
and 6) violating traffic control and signal devices.5
12 months
$5,000
None
A person commits the offense of aggressive driving when
he or she operates any motor vehicle with the intent to annoy, harass, molest, intimidate, injure or obstruct another
person, while violating motor vehicle code sections, including overtaking and passing another vehicle; traffic lane
violations; following too closely; turn signal, lane change,
slowing or stopping violations; impeding traffic flows; or
reckless driving. A person convicted of aggressive driving
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated
nature.
A person engages in aggressive driving if, during one
One year
$5,000
None
episode of continuous driving of a vehicle, the person commits at least three of the following: 1) following a vehicle
too closely, 2) unsafe operation of a vehicle, 3) overtaking
another vehicle on the right by driving off the roadway, 4)
unsafe stopping or slowing a vehicle, 5) unnecessary sounding of the horn, 6) failure to yield, 7) failure to obey a
traffic control device, 8) driving at an unsafe speed, and 9)
repeatedly flashing the vehicle’s headlights.
A person who, with the intent to harass or intimidate a person in another vehicle, knowingly or intentionally engages
in aggressive driving, commits a Class A misdemeanor.
48 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix H. State Aggressive Driving Laws
State/
Jurisdiction
Maryland
Nevada
New Jersey
Definition of
Aggressive Driving
A person is guilty of aggressive driving if the person commits three or more of the following offenses at the same
time or during a single and continuous period of driving in
violation of: traffic lights with steady indication, overtaking and passing vehicles, passing on right, driving on
laned roadways, following too closely, failure to yield right
of way, and exceeding a maximum speed limit or posted
maximum speed limit.
A person commits “Aggressive Driving” if, during a course
of one mile, he or she, in any sequence, does all of the
following: 1) Violates either a) the basic speed rules, b) the
speed limit in a school zone, c) the posted speed limit or d)
the prohibition against driving >75 mph. 2) Commits two
or more of the following offenses: a) failing to obey a traffic
control device; b) overtaking and passing another vehicle
on the right by driving off the paved portion of the highway; c) driving unsafely or improperly upon a highway that
has marked lanes for traffic; d) following another vehicle
too closely; or e) failing to yield the right of way. 3) Creates
an immediate hazard, regardless of its duration, to another
vehicle or to another person.
New Jersey enforces against aggressive driving by charging
under 39:4-97 (Careless Driving), 39-4-97.2 (Operating
a vehicle in an Unsafe Manner) or any other statute at the
discretion of the officer.
Assault by auto or vessel is a crime of the third degree if the
person purposely drives a vehicle in an aggressive manner
directed at another vehicle and serious bodily injury results
and is a crime of the fourth degree if the person purposely
drives a vehicle in an aggressive manner directed at another
vehicle and bodily injury results. For purposes of this
paragraph, “driving a vehicle in an aggressive manner” shall
include, but is not limited to, unexpectedly altering the
speed of the vehicle, making improper or erratic traffic lane
changes, disregarding traffic control devices, failing to yield
the right of way, or following another vehicle too closely.
North Carolina Any person who operates a motor vehicle on a street,
highway or public vehicular area is guilty of aggressive
driving if the person: 1) violates speed laws or speeding in
school zone laws, and 2) drives carelessly and heedlessly in
willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others. The state must show that the person committed two
or more of the below specified offenses while in violation
of the aforementioned section): 1) running through a red
light, 2) running through a stop sign, 3) illegal passing, 4)
failing to yield right-of-way, and 5) following too closely. A
person convicted of aggressive driving is guilty of a Class 1
misdemeanor.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania does not have an aggressive driving law per se.
In 2006, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed
a resolution to encourage drivers to drive courteously and
defensively, not aggressively. The House also resolved to
support measures that would promote safe driving practices
in the Commonwealth.
49 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
Maximum
Imprisonment
or Jail Sanction
None
Maximum Fine
Sanction
None
Maximum
Licensing
Action
None6
Six months3
$1,0003
30 days2
One year on
second offense
N/A
N/A
N/A
45 days3
At the discretion
of the court3
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix H. State Aggressive Driving Laws
State/
Jurisdiction
Rhode Island
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Definition of
Aggressive Driving
“Aggressive Driving” is defined as operating a motor vehicle
in violation of any speed law and a violation of two or
more of the following traffic law provisions: 1) obedience
to traffic control devices; 2) overtaking on the right; 3)
driving within a traffic lane; 4) following too closely—interval between vehicles; 5) yielding right of way; 6) entering the roadway; 7) use of turn signals; 8) relating to school
buses, special stops, stop signs and yield signs; and 9) use of
emergency break-down lane for travel.
Reckless driving is defined as operating a vehicle either 1)
“in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or
property.” or 2) “while committing three or more moving
traffic violations under Title 41, Chapter 6, Traffic Rules
and Regulations, in a series of acts within a single continuous period of driving.”
The statute prohibits following too closely, crowding and
harassment. “The driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent,
having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the
traffic upon, and the conditions of, the highway.”
A person is guilty of aggressive driving if the person i)
violates one or more of the following: driving on right side
of highways, failing to observe lanes marked for traffic, following too closely, not yielding or stopping before entering
certain highways, evading traffic control devices, passing
when overtaking a vehicle, passing on the right when
overtaking a vehicle, not giving way to certain overtaking
vehicles on divided highway, speeding, or dangerously stopping on highways; and ii) that person is a hazard to another
person or commits an offense in clause (i) with the intent
to harass, intimidate, injure or obstruct another person.
Maximum
Imprisonment
or Jail Sanction
None
Maximum Fine
Sanction
Six months1
$1,0001
Three
months2,3
None
None
None
Six months
$1,000
None6
$500
Maximum
Licensing
Action
30 days7
Notes
1. This sanction applies to first and subsequent offenses.
2. Licensing action is in the form of a suspension.
3. This is applies to the first offense.
4. Since offenders may be prosecuted for and convicted of the underlying offenses, they are subject to licensing action associated
with violating such offenses.
5. The law is a defining statute but does not permit enforcement.
6. Points assessed against the driver for offense.
7. The law provides that a person’s license may be subject to a minimum 30-day suspension. This sanction appears to apply only to
first offenders.
Sources: NHTSA, Governor’s Highway Safety Association and NCSL, 2014.
50 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix I. State Policies Regarding Use of Traffic Cameras
State/
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Statute Citation
SB 59 (2009)
Policy
Authorizes the City of Montgomery, in Montgomery County, to use automated traffic
light enforcement in the City of Montgomery as a civil violation. Maximum fine of
$100 with a $10 court fee; no points assessed. Also authorizes the cities of Center
Point, Midfield and Opelika to use automated traffic light enforcement.
SB 411, SB 442, HB 511
(2011)
Arizona
§§28-1201, et seq.
Authorizes use of cameras to enforce speed laws and red light violations. Requires
(2014)
signs where the enforcement is used. Maximum fine of $165; two (red light) and three
(speed) points assessed.
Arkansas
§27-52-110 (2014)
Use of photo radar by county or state government is prohibited except in school zones
and at railroad crossings. Officer must be present and citation must be issued at time
of the offense.
California
Vehicle Code §§210,
Establishes conditions for use of red light cameras and highway-rail crossing cameras
21455.5 and 21455.6, by law enforcement agencies. Requires signs where the enforcement is used. Maximum
40518-40521 (West
fine of $100; one license point.
2014)
Colorado
§42-4-110.5 (2014)
Authorizes use of photo radar to catch red light runners and speeders. Speed radar
limited to construction and school zones, residential areas or adjacent to a municipal park. Maximum fine of $75 for red light violation, $80 for speeding; no points
assessed.1 Conspicuous sign no less than 200 feet before the automated system must
warn motorists of system.
Delaware
Tit. 21 §4101(d) (2014) Authorizes a red light camera program throughout the state. Maximum fine of $110,
no points assessed and offense cannot be used by insurers.
Florida
§§316.003. 316.007,
Authorizes use of cameras for red light violations. Maximum fine of $158, no points
316.0083 (2014)
assessed.
Georgia
§40-6-20 (2014)
Authorizes use of photo monitoring devices to detect red light violations. Devices
cannot be used to produce any photograph, microphotograph, electronic image or
videotape showing the identity of any person in a motor vehicle. Maximum fine of
$70, no points assessed. Not a moving violation; cannot be used by insurers.
Illinois
Ch. 625 §§7/10, 5/11- Use permitted statewide in construction zones or Illinois Toll Authority roads to
1201.1 through 1201.5, enforce speed laws. Certain counties with local ordinances can use it to enforce red
5/11-612 (2014)
light violations. Any county or municipality can use cameras to enforce rail crossing violations in cooperation with IL-DOT and IL-CC; ordinance required. Local
authorities cannot use cameras for other speed offenses (the state can use only if an
officer is present) statewide. County or municipality may use automated railroad grade
crossing enforcement system at any railroad grade crossing equipped with a crossing
gate designated by local authorities. Maximum fine of $250 or 25 hours of community service for rail crossing or construction or toll road speeding; $100 maximum
fine or completion of a traffic education program for red light offenders; not a moving
violation or recorded offense. Speeding in other areas, $50 if 6-10 mph over the limit;
$100 if more than 10 mph over the limit.
Louisiana
Rev. Stat. §§32:393(I), Local municipal or parish authorities may not use automated speed enforcement on
32:43 (West 2014)
interstate highways except in DOT-approved construction zones when workers are
present. Convictions resulting from camera enforcement cannot be reported for inclusion in driver record.
Maine
Tit. 29-A §2117 (2014) Prohibits both speed and red light camera enforcement.
Maryland
Transportation Code
Authorizes use of red light cameras statewide. Maximum civil penalty of $100, no
§21-202.1 (2014)
points assessed, not a moving violation and may not be used by insurers. School zones
and residential districts in Montgomery County, Prince George’s County school zones,
statewide in school zones by local ordinance and work zones are authorized to use
photo enforcement for speed; $40 maximum fine, no points assessed. Montgomery
County and Prince George’s County can use automated enforcement at railroad crossings; $100 maximum fine, no points.
Mississippi
HB 1568 (2009)
Prohibits all localities from using automated enforcement.
Montana
§61-8-203 (2013)
Prohibits all localities from using automated enforcement. Cameras at railroad grade
crossings excepted.
Nevada
§484a.600 (2014)
Prohibits use of camera equipment unless it is held by an officer or installed in a law
enforcement vehicle or facility. Maximum fine of $1,000 and up to four points.
New Hampshire §236:130 (2014)
Automated enforcement is prohibited unless there is specific statutory authorization. It
is authorized for toll enforcement.
51 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix I. State Policies Regarding Use of Traffic Cameras
State/
Jurisdiction
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio2
Statute Citation
§39:4-103.1 (2014)
SB 861 (2007)
Authorizes red light enforcement in cities with populations of more than 1 million
with a maximum of 150 intersections. Maximum fine of $50, no points assessed and
may not be used by insurers. Authorizes speed cameras in school zones in cities with
populations of more than 1 million. Maximum fine of $50, no points assessed. Counties of Nassau and Suffolk, cities of Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, by local ordinance, up to 50 intersections; Yonkers, by local ordinance, up to 25 intersections; Mt.
Vernon, by local ordinance, up to 12 intersections.
§160A-300.1 (2014)
Authorizes certain cities to operate a red light camera program. Maximum civil penalty of $100, no points assessed.
§4511.093, et seq. (Page Authorizes local authorities to operate traffic cameras but requires law enforcement
2014)
officers be present at the location of the camera in order to issue a ticket.
SB 342 (2014)
§§810.438, 810.434
(2013)
Pennsylvania
Tit.75 §§3116, 3117
(2014)
Rhode Island
§31-41.2-1, et seq.
(2014)
South Dakota
Prohibits use of camera radar by law enforcement officers or agencies
No state law authorizing photo radar use. NMDOT has banned red light cameras and
mobile enforcement vans on state and federal roadways, but state law requires counties
and municipalities using photo enforcement to post a warning sign and beacon.
§66-7-103.1 (2014)
Veh & Traf §§1111-a,
d, 1180-b (McKinney
2014)
Oregon
South Carolina
Policy
§31-51-2 (2014)
§56-5-70 (2014)
Tennessee
§§32-28-17, 32-28-21,
22
§55-8-198
Texas
Transportation Code
Utah
§707.001, et seq. (Vernon 2014)
§41-6a-608 (2014)
Virginia
§§46.2-833.1, 15.2968.1 (2014)
Washington
§46.63.170 (2014)
West Virginia
Wisconsin
§17C-6-7a (2014)
§349.02
Authorizes use of photo radar in specific jurisdictions to detect speed violations; may
not be used for more than four hours per day, per location. Allows use of red light
cameras statewide. Maximum fine $300.
Authorizes use of red light cameras in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and municipalities
where population exceeds 20,000; requires local ordinance. Maximum fine of $100;
not on operating record.
Authorizes statewide use of red light cameras. Maximum fine of $75, not a criminal
or record offense, and not to be used by insurers until there is a final adjudication of
the violation. Authorizes cameras for school bus safety enforcement. Maximum fine of
$500.
Photo enforcement prohibited with exceptions; citations for violating traffic laws
relating to speed or disregarding traffic control devices can be used only when the state
declares an emergency. Citations must be served in person within one hour of the
violation.
Red light cameras are prohibited, and the DMV does not provide to other states information used to collect fines from violations captured by red light and speed cameras.
Photo enforcement authorized statewide for traffic violations. Maximum fine of $50,
no points assessed. Appropriate signage must be located between 500 and 1,000
feet in advance of the intersection, informing drivers of the presence of surveillance
cameras at the approaching intersection. Traffic surveillance cameras not allowed on
interstate highways except in construction zones.
Texas municipalities not allowed to use photo enforcement to enforce speed violations. Photo enforcement authorized statewide for red light violations; requires local
ordinance. Maximum fine of $75, not a criminal or record offense.
Limits the use of camera enforcement to school zones, areas with speed limits of 30
mph or less, when a police officer is present, when signs are posted giving notice to
motorists of camera use, and when the citation is accompanied by the photograph
produced by the camera radar.
Authorizes counties, cities and towns to operate red light cameras at no more than one
intersection for every 10,000 residents; requires local ordinance. Authorizes up to 10
camera sites in Washington, D.C., metro area. Requires that traffic signals where red
light cameras are operated have a yellow light phase that is at least three seconds long.
Maximum fine of $50; no points assessed and may not be used by insurers.
Cities and counties statewide are authorized to enforce, through photos, red light
violations at two-arterial intersections, rail crossings and school speed zones. Local
ordinances are required. Maximum fine of $250; no record and no points assessed.
All photo enforcement is prohibited.
Speed cameras are prohibited.
52 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix I. State Policies Regarding Use of Traffic Cameras
State/
Jurisdiction
District
of Columbia
Statute Citation
DC Code §§502209.01, et seq.
Policy
Authorizes an automated traffic enforcement program in the District of Columbia for
all moving infractions. For speed violations, $50-$300 maximum fine based on the
miles per hour over the posted speed limit. Red light violations $150 maximum fine.
No points assessed.
Notes
1. Driver given only a warning for first photo radar offense if speed is within 10 mph of limit.
2. State courts in Missouri and Ohio found automated traffic enforcement to be unconstitutional.
Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and NCSL, 2014.
53 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix J. Motorcycle Helmet Use Requirements
All Riders
Alabama
California
Georgia
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
District of Columbia
Puerto Rico14
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Marianas
Virgin Islands
Specific Segment of Riders
(usually under age 21 or age 18)
Alaska1
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware2
Florida3
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky4
Maine5
Michigan6
Minnesota7
Montana
New Mexico
North Dakota8
Ohio9
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania10
Rhode Island11
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas12
Utah
Wisconsin13
Wyoming
No Helmet Required
Illinois
Iowa
New Hampshire
Notes
1. Alaska’s motorcycle helmet use law covers passengers of all ages, operators younger than age 18 and operators with instructional
permits.
2. In Delaware, every motorcycle operator or rider age 19 and older must carry an approved helmet.
3. Florida law requires that all riders younger than age 21 wear helmets, without exception. Those age 21 and older can ride without
helmets only if they can show proof that they are covered by a medical insurance policy.
4. Kentucky law requires that all riders younger than age 21 wear helmets, without exception. Those age 21 and older can ride without helmets only if they can show proof that they are covered by a medical insurance policy. Motorcycle helmet laws in Kentucky also
cover operators with instructional/learner’s permits.
5. Motorcycle helmet laws in Maine cover operators with instructional/learner’s permits. Maine’s motorcycle helmet use law also covers passengers ages 17 and younger and passengers if their operators are required to wear a helmet.
6. Michigan law requires that all riders younger than age 21 years wear helmets, without exception. Those age 21 and older may
ride without helmets only if they carry additional insurance and have passed a motorcycle safety course or have had their motorcycle
endorsement for at least two years. Motorcycle passengers who want to exercise this option also must be age 21 or older and carry additional insurance.
7. Motorcycle helmet laws in Minnesota cover operators with instructional/learner’s permits.
8. North Dakota’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all passengers traveling with operators who are covered by the law.
9. Ohio’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all operators during the first year of licensure and all passengers of operators who are
covered by the law.
54 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
Appendix J. Motorcycle Helmet Use Requirements
10. Pennsylvania’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all operators during the first two years of licensure unless the operator has completed the safety course approved by PennDOT or the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.
11. Rhode Island’s motorcycle helmet use law covers all passengers (regardless of age) and all operators during the first year of licensure (regardless of age).
12. Texas exempts riders age 21 or older if they can either show proof of successfully completing a motorcycle operator training and
safety course or can show proof they have a medical insurance policy. A peace officer cannot stop or detain a person who is the operator
of or a passenger on a motorcycle for the sole purpose of determining whether the person has successfully completed the motorcycle
operator training and safety course or is covered by a health insurance plan.
13. Motorcycle helmet laws in Wisconsin cover operators with instructional/learner’s permits.
14. Puerto Rico strengthened its motorcycle law in 2007. The law requires riders to wear helmets, boots, gloves and reflective gear
while riding at night. The law also imposed new testing requirements.
Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NCSL and the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety, 2014.
55 | Traffic Safety Trends: State Legislative Action 2014
© 2015 National Conference of State Legislatures
William T. Pound, Executive Director
7700 East First Place, Denver, Colorado 80230, 303-364-7700 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515, Washington, D.C. 20001, 202-624-5400
www.ncsl.org
©2015 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-1-58024-759-7