Report Traffic Safety Trends | State Legislative Action 2021

Adult Occupant Protection

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) data shows that among passenger vehicle occupants killed in 2020 where it was known whether they were wearing a seat belt, 51%—10,893 people—were unrestrained. The agency estimates that 84% of passenger vehicle occupants who survived fatal crashes in 2020 were restrained, while 16% were unrestrained.

According to NHTSA's 2017 analysis of state restraint laws, seat belts in passenger vehicles annually saved an estimated 14,955 lives—of occupants age 5 and older—and prevented thousands of injuries the same year. An additional 2,549 lives could have been saved if all unrestrained passengers involved in fatal crashes had worn their seat belts.

Wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of fatal injury by nearly half for occupants of passenger cars and by more than half for occupants of light trucks and vans. The national seat belt use rate by adult front-seat passengers was 90.4% in 2021. But seat belt use rates vary widely between states, in 2021, they ranged from 72.3% in the U.S. Virgin Islands to 97.2% in California. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Tribal Road Safety Fact Sheets, low seat belt use is among the major risk factors for traffic fatalities in tribal communities. The average seat belt use rate across the 17 reservations studied was 76% in 2020.

Front-seat belt use also varies by age and gender. Occupants ages 16 to 24 continued to have the lowest rate among any age group at 88.2%, according to NHTSA’s 2021 data. The seat belt use rate for male occupants was 88.8% compared to 92.4% for female occupants.

While the number of occupants who buckle up in the back seat has increased in recent years, it continues to be significantly lower than front-seat belt users. Rear-seat belt use among occupants eight years and older was 77.9 % in 2021 compared to 90.4% for those in the front seat. Finally, a study suggests that rear-seat belt use is higher in private vehicles than in taxis, and results are mixed regarding ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft.

AAA’s 2020 Traffic Safety Culture Index shows that while drivers completely (77.4%) or somewhat (19.1%) disapproved of driving without wearing a seat belt, 12% reported having driven at least once without buckling up in the last month. Nearly 55% of drivers said that it was somewhat or very unlikely for a driver to be caught by police for not buckling up.

These studies provide a good picture of the state of seat belt use in the U.S. before and during the COVID-19 public health emergency. However, as mentioned by NHTSA, “there is evidence of an increase in ejection rates among people who were in crashes” during the first months of the pandemic, “suggesting a decrease in seat belt use rate of vehicle occupants.” Males, occupants 18 to 34 years old and people in rural areas saw the highest increases in ejection rates. Ejection rates remained elevated in 2020 compared to those in 2019, the most recent years for which data is available.

The effect of seat belt laws on rear-seat occupants is also noteworthy. In 2021, the latest year for which data is available, 77.7% of occupants in back seats used belts in states with seat belt laws for all seating positions, while 78.8% of occupants in rear seats used belts in states with front-seat-only belt laws.

CDC’s Restraint Use State Fact Sheets provide an overview of state-specific data and proven strategies to increase the use of seat belts. Strategies include enacting primary seat belt laws, establishing increased penalties for violations and short term, high-visibility enforcement programs.

State adult seat belt laws (as of August 2022) can be grouped into the following categories:

• Primary enforcement laws for all occupants: 20 states—Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.
• Primary front-seat belt law and secondary rear-seat belt law: Five states—Alabama, Kansas, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina.
• Secondary laws for all occupants: Six states—Idaho, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Vermont and Wyoming.
• Primary front-seat only belt laws: Nine states—Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia—and the Virgin Islands.
• Secondary front-seat-only belt laws: Nine states—Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Virginia.
• New Hampshire and American Samoa are the only state and territory without a seat belt law for adults.

State Legislation

During the 2021 legislative session, 24 states considered at least 48 bills related to seat belts. However, only Arkansas and Connecticut passed legislation concerning seat belt requirements.

Arkansas (SB 537) enacted legislation to provide that the penalty for a violation of the state’s primary front-seat-only belt law cannot exceed $45. The penalty includes local fines and an already established $25 maximum fine from the state.

Connecticut (HB 6484) amended its seat belt law to require all motor vehicle occupants, regardless of age, to wear a seat belt. Previously, only the driver, front seat passenger, back seat passengers under the age of 16 or passengers of drivers under age 18 were required to do so. A violation of the new seat belt use requirement by any back seat passenger 16 or older is a secondary offense. All other passengers who fail to wear a seat belt commit a primary offense as was previously enforced.

Child Passenger Safety

According to the latest NHSTA data, of the 38,824 fatalities in 2020, 1,093 were children 14 and younger. Children that died while an occupant of a vehicle accounted for 755 of those deaths, and in those cases, 286 were unrestrained, based on crashes where it is known whether the occupant was wearing a seat belt or car seat. On average in 2020, three children were killed, and an estimated 380 children were injured every day in traffic crashes in 2020.

NHTSA estimates that child safety seats restraints reduce fatal injury by 71% for infants under 1 year old and by 54% for toddlers 1 to 4 years old. Approximately 325 lives were saved in 2017 by restraint use among children younger than 5, including 312 lives saved by the use of child safety seats. NHTSA estimates that the lives of 11,606 children under age 5 were saved by child restraints (child safety seats or adult seat belts) in passenger vehicles from 1975 to 2017.

According to the latest data from NHTSA, the national restraint use rates for children up to 7 years old was 93.6% in 2020, a non-significant increase from 91.3 % in 2019. NHTSA also points out that restraint use for children driven by adults who buckle up (95.7%) continues to be much higher than for children driven by unbelted drivers (67.4%). 

State Legislation

Every state and the District of Columbia have enacted child restraint laws that require children of certain ages and sizes to ride in appropriate, federally approved child restraints. Although each state has a law, some laws only cover children up to a certain size or age, while others allow the use of adult safety belts to restrain children.

At least 19 states considered child passenger protection legislation in 2021, and two states—Nevada and New Hampshire—enacted bills.

Nevada (AB 118) became the 15th state to require a child who is less than two years old to be secured in a rear-facing child restraint system in the back seat of a car, in line with the AAP recommendations.   Nevada law previously required any child less than 6 years old or weighing 60 pounds or less to be secured in a child restraint system. The bill removed the weight requirement for children under six and added the requirement that a child must be less than 57 inches tall. Nevada also enacted AB 116 which makes the penalty for failing to properly restrain a child in a motor vehicle a misdemeanor offense.

New Hampshire (HB 251) established a committee to study the possibility of requiring children to be placed in rear facing restraints in motor vehicles, as recommended by the AAP. New Hampshire law currently requires all children under the age of 7 or less than 57 inches tall to be secured in a child restraint system. The committee’s members, state legislators, must review research such as the percentage of New Hampshire parents that currently use rear facing car seats, research on injuries and treatment of children in car crashes in New Hampshire and more. The committee must submit a preliminary report of its findings before Nov. 1, 2021, and a final report and any recommendations for proposed legislation by Nov. 1, 2022, to the chair of the senate transportation committee.

Alcohol and Other Drug-Impaired Driving

According to NHTSA, 11,654 people were killed in alcohol-impaired traffic crashes in 2020, a 14.3% increase from 2019. Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities made up 30% of all traffic fatalities. The total number includes 7,831 (67%) fatalities in crashes with at least one driver who had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level of .15 or higher. NHTSA also reports that the increase in numbers of alcohol-impaired drivers included drivers of all vehicle types except for van drivers, whose numbers decreased by 13% from 2019 to 2020. 

With the increase in alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2020, impaired driving remains a major traffic safety and public health issue for states. NHTSA’s data show that in 2020, an average of one alcohol-impaired-driving fatality occurred every 45 minutes. Drivers aged 21 to 24 and 25 to 34 had the highest percentage of alcohol-impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes—26%--compared to other age groups. The annual cost of alcohol-impaired crashes, including alcohol-impaired drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians is estimated at $44 billion. 

Additionally, state percentages of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities among total traffic fatalities ranged from a low of 21% in the District of Columbia, Mississippi, and Utah to a high of 45% in Montana in 2020, compared to the national average of 30%.

According to NHTSA, in 2019 American Indians and Alaska Natives had the highest percentage of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities among all racial and ethnic populations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs reports that 43.3% of traffic fatalities between 2009 and 2013 that occurred on Native American reservations involved alcohol.  

Driving under the influence of drugs and polysubstance-impaired driving—driving after using a mix of drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol--also contributes to the steadily increasing number of impaired driving crashes. CDC reports that 12.6 million Americans reported driving under the influence of marijuana or other illicit drugs in 2018. Additionally, NHTSA found that drug use among fatally injured drivers who were tested rose from 25% in 2007 to 42% in 2016, and marijuana presence doubled in this time frame. While the use of drugs does not necessarily indicate impairment, the agency’s research shows that drugs can impact cognitive and psychomotor tasks associated with driving.  

While these studies provide a good picture of impaired-driving in the United States in recent years, drivers showed a significantly higher overall drug prevalence during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Two studies released by NHTSA suggest that the pandemic exacerbated risky driving behavior, including alcohol, drug and polysubstance-impaired driving. 

NHTSA collected data in trauma centers to examine the prevalence of alcohol and other drugs in the blood of seriously or fatally injured drivers and other crash victims before (Sept. 10, 2019 - March 16, 2020) and during (March 17, 2020 – July 18, 2020) the COVID-19 public health emergency. While drug prevalence was high among seriously and fatally injured roadway users before, the results indicate it increased during the public health emergency, especially for alcohol, marijuana and opioids. Roughly 65% of drivers tested positive for at least one drug (including alcohol) and 25.3% for two or more compared to 50.8% and 17.6% before the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also found that 32.7% of drivers tested positive for marijuana in comparison with 28.3% who tested positive for alcohol. Opioid use almost doubled, increasing from 7.5% to 13.9%.

The second NHTSA study included updated data from October to December 2020 and revealed that increased rates of alcohol and other drug presence in drivers observed persisted during this period. 

To better understand public opinions and behaviors regarding traffic safety, AAA publishes an annual Traffic Safety Culture Index. The 2020 index reveals that 94% of drivers perceive driving after drinking as very dangerous or extremely dangerous. Among surveyed participants, 5.9% admitted to driving after consuming enough alcohol that they believed they might be over the legal limit, a 3.9% decrease from the previous year. Survey participants ages 25 to 39 made up the highest proportion—7.4%—of drivers of any age range who perceived that their alcohol level might have been close or possibly over the legal limit in the past 30 days. Over 50% of respondents support lowering the legal BAC limit from .08% to .05% 

AAA’s index reveals a significant disparity between perceptions of alcohol use and marijuana use before driving as only 69% of respondents consider driving shortly after using marijuana to be very or extremely dangerous. The index also found that 77% of survey participants support making it illegal to drive with a certain amount of marijuana in a person’s system; however, this is a significant decrease in support from 84% in 2019.  Most (87.0%) respondents believe driving after using potentially impairing prescription drugs is very or extremely dangerous.  

The federal government, states and traffic safety organizations are continually examining and implementing interventions and new technologies to combat alcohol-impaired driving. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse, or online database, gives employers, state driver’s licensing agencies and state law enforcement officers real-time information about commercial driver’s license (CDL) and learner’s permit holders’ drug and alcohol violations. Beginning Jan. 6, 2023, all employers will be required to query the database before permitting current and prospective employees to operate a commercial motor vehicle on the roads. Between January 2020, when reporting requirements went into effect, and December 2021, the clearinghouse identified 108,780 positive tests for substance abuse violations by commercial drivers.  

NHTSA released its latest version of  Countermeasures that Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs) in 2021. The guide includes summaries of the effectiveness, cost and implementation time for countermeasures that may address a variety of traffic safety issues such as impaired driving. The resource lists administrative license revocation or suspension, sobriety checkpoints and ignition interlock device installation as effective countermeasures to combat impaired driving, to name a few.

Maryland became the second state in 2019, after Virginia in 2018, to pilot the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) Program. This program, a public-private partnership research project between the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety and NHTSA, aims to develop a non-invasive, seamless technology that would use small programmable sensors built inside vehicle panels to measure the BAC in a driver’s breath. Drivers whose BAC is above the set limit would be unable to move the vehicle. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) released a study in 2020 suggesting that the technology has the potential to save more than 9,000 lives when added to all new vehicles.

According to AAA’s 2020 Traffic Safety Culture Index, 70% of respondents somewhat or strongly supported a law requiring all new cars to have built-in technology such as DADSS that would prevent a driver with an over-the-limit BAC from starting and driving the vehicle.  

The Utah legislature became the first and only state to lower its impaired driving per se BAC limit, in 2018, from the national standard of .08% to .05%.  NHTSA’s evaluation of Utah’s law reveals that Utah’s fatal crash rate (the number of crashes resulting in someone’s death) dropped by 19.8% and the fatality rate (the number of people killed in crashes) decreased by 18.3% between 2016, the last full year before voters approved to lower the BAC limit, and 2019. Comparatively, the rest of the United States showed a 5.6 % fatal crash rate reduction and 5.9% fatality rate reduction. Utah’s neighboring states—Arizona, Colorado and Nevada—did not show similar levels of improvement in fatal crash and fatality rates.

Despite a more stringent BAC standard, NHTSA reports that alcohol-impaired driving arrests did not increase markedly after the law went into effect, as some had feared. Additionally, NHTSA’s analysis reveals that in 2019, more than 22% of alcohol consumers indicated that they had changed their behaviors such as ensuring a sober ride was available once the law went into effect.

NCSL’s Drugged Driving/Marijuana-Impaired Driving webpage provides a detailed and up-to-date overview on state interventions to reduce and prevent all forms of impaired driving.

State Legislation

Lawmakers in 48 states considered over 450 bills related to alcohol and drug-impaired driving in 2021. Approximately 100 bills were enacted by 38 states. Laws addressed ignition interlock devices and restricted driving privileges, implied consent and testing, penalties, 24/7 sobriety and drug monitoring programs and treatment programs, sealing and expungement of records, among other topics. 

Ignition Interlock Devices and Restricted Driving Privileges 

Ignition Interlock Devices (IIDs) are connected to the starter or other on-board computer system in a motor vehicle to prevent the car from being operated if a set level of alcohol is detected on the driver’s breath. Most devices require random retesting while the car is running to ensure that the driver is not drinking once the car is started. Courts often require the use of IIDs for drivers convicted of a DUI. During sentencing, an offender whose driver’s license has been suspended or revoked can be granted limited driving privileges if an IID is installed in the vehicle(s) they use.  

NHTSA data shows that IIDs reduce recidivism among first-time and repeat offenders, including high-risk offenders. However, once IIDs were removed from a repeat or high-risk offender’s vehicle, the offender’s recidivism rates increased. Offenders with higher rates of failed BAC tests were also found to have higher rates of recidivism once their IID was removed. In contrast, a CDC study of a Florida policy mandating alcohol treatment for DUI offenders using interlocks did find decreased recidivism. Offenders who accumulated three interlock violations—defined as two occasions within four hours in which the device prevented the driver from starting the vehicle—were required to participate in alcohol use disorder treatment. Recidivism among such offenders was reduced by 32% after the device was removed, compared to the control group that did not receive treatment.

IIDs are a common impaired driving intervention considered by state legislatures over the years. Since 2011, all 50 states have passed legislation that allows or requires the use of IIDs for certain drunk driving offenses—from drivers who refuse to submit an impaired driving chemical test to first-time, repeat and/or high BAC offenders.  Thirty states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring all offenders, including first-time offenders, to install an IID.

An additional eight states—Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Wyoming—require high BAC offenders—trigger levels range between .1 and .17—and repeat offenders to install IIDs. Five states—Georgia, Ohio, Massachusetts, Maine and Missouri—require only repeat offenders to install the devices. The remaining seven states do not have any statewide requirements regarding IIDs, but judges have the discretion to order offenders to install one if they consider it necessary. In California, IIDs are required for all offenders in some counties.

Laws in some states provide for restricted driver’s licenses for DUI offenders in addition or alternative to an IID, or as a substitute to having the license suspended. People with a restricted license are limited on where and when they can drive. 

At least 10 states—Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and West Virginia—enacted legislation regarding ignition interlock devices and restricted, suspended or revoked driving privileges in 2021.  

Hawaii (SB 765) enacted legislation to clarify that DUI offenders must install an IID in vehicles registered under their name in addition to all vehicles they operate during the applicable period of license revocation. Additionally, first-time high BAC (.15 or above) offenders are subject to a driver’s license revocation period of two years, or 18 months if the offender installs an IID.  The bill increases the revocation period for offenders with one previous alcohol related offense from 18 months to two years and from two to four years for offenders with two or more offenses. Additionally, the new law increases the lookback period for offenders with one or more previous offenses from five to 10 years. 

Hawaii (SB 153) also established an impaired driving prevention council within the department of transportation to examine strategies to reduce impaired driving and the effectiveness of the state’s IID program. The council will include legislative, judicial and executive branch members along with traffic safety and public health officials from the public and private sector. The council must submit an annual report to the legislature on any findings and recommendations.  

Idaho (HB 241) clarified its process for issuing waivers for IID installments by allowing an offender to file a waiver petition within 30 days of the installation order if there is no civil or criminal case pending related to the order to install the IID. The law previously provided that a court could waive the IID requirement if it found that the person did not present a danger to the public or there were circumstances that demonstrated an IID installation was unnecessary.   

Indiana (HB 1084) enacted legislation to allow the court to issue an IID in certain DUI cases as an alternative to driver’s license suspension.

Iowa (HF 757) amended its impaired driving law to provide a temporary restricted license (TRL) to certain first time DUI offenders if they install an IID in all vehicles that they operate. Previous law specified first time offenders must install an IID in all motor vehicles they own to obtain a TRL. The bill also removes the state’s prohibition against issuing a TRL to an individual serving a driver’s license sanction for driving while their license was revoked or suspended.  

Maine (LD 1433) removed the prescribed period, which could be up to four years depending on the previous number of offenses, that a first-time or repeat DUI offender must install an IID to remain eligible for a restricted driver’s license. Rather, the new law states that an offender must maintain and operate an IID in their vehicle for the length of suspension time remaining. 

Minnesota (HF 63) passed legislation to issue individuals a restricted license if they comply with the terms of their license suspension and install an IID in their vehicle. Individuals who possess two DUIs on their record over 10 years or three within their lifetime, must install an IID for one year. Individuals who refuse a BAC test or test with an alcohol concentration that is twice the legal limit are required to install an IID for two years. The bill also requires offenders participating in the IID program to purchase new regular registration plates rather than the commonly required special registration plates for DUI offenders.  

Additionally, the legislative auditor must submit a final report to the legislature on the fiscal impact of the state’s IID program, an IID’s efficacy reducing recidivism and any impact on public safety by January 15, 2025.  

Nevada (AB 427) amended its IID law to require the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue an IID license rather than the previously issued restricted license for individuals who qualify for an IID. The law also establishes a revocation period based on an individual’s number of offenses for driving without a required IID and whether an individual has tampered with their device.  

Nevada (AB 400) also enacted legislation to specify that commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders 18 years or older who drive with a BAC of .04 or more but less than .08 or any detectable substance in their blood or urine such as marijuana are subject to a CDL or CDL permit suspension for one year. The new law also removes the two nanogram per se limit for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the component that gives cannabis its psychological effects, and the five nanogram limit for its metabolite for misdemeanor offenses. However, the law maintains that the per se limits for THC still apply for felony violations. Such offenses are determined by factors including the number of previous offenses or if an individual is willing to take court mandated treatment to lessen their sentence.

North Carolina (SB 183) eliminated the six-week waiting period for certain offenders to install an IID, allowing for limited driving privileges immediately following their final conviction. Offenders with limited driving privileges and an IID are permitted to drive at all hours of the day and install IIDs only in the vehicles they drive. However, individuals are subject to a standard BAC limit of .02% or more compared to the previous .04% and .01% assigned depending on offense. Additionally, the bill requires IID vendors to reduce costs associated with IID installation and maintenance for offenders experiencing financial hardship. The Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety must submit a study on expanding use of IIDs to the legislature prior to the 2022 legislative session.   

Rhode Island (HB 5094/SB314) amended its IID law to allow judges to mandate the use of an IID system, blood and/or urine testing or both when first-time DUI/driving under the influence of drug offenders (DUID) seek to obtain a conditional hardship license. Judges must mandate IID devices, chemical tests or both, for repeat and high BAC offenders (.15 or above). The new law seeks to give discretion to judges to choose the best prevention methods depending on whether offenders were intoxicated by alcohol only, drugs only or both.  

West Virginia (SB 345) renamed its ignition interlock and alcohol testing program, the “Motor Vehicle Alcohol and Drug Test Program.” The bill expands the program to include drug-impaired driving offenders and regular drug testing for such offenders. The commissioner of the DMV can defer the license revocation period for an individual convicted of a DUID offense if the individual is accepted into the program and installs an IID for a prescribed period. If an offender successfully completes the program, the Commissioner must waive the license revocation period assigned at conviction.

Implied Consent and Testing

All driver’s license applicants agree to comply with requests by law enforcement officers to take breath or blood samples to determine impairment when they sign their driver’s license application forms. A breath test can be administered roadside or at any location; blood and urine testing can only be performed at a medical or detention facility. These laws, called implied consent laws, are based on the premise that driving is a privilege and not a right. Every state has some sort of implied consent law, but the penalties vary for offenders who refuse to submit to a test. 

Alabama (SB 258) expanded its implied consent law to cover all impairing substances rather than just alcohol. Previously, the state’s implied consent law applied to drugs only in cases with serious injuries or death. The bill also adds the testing of saliva to the state’s implied consent law and removes urine testing. Alabama’s Chief Toxicologist, Curt Harper shared that this change was made because saliva is a more appropriate specimen to test to indicate recent, relevant drug use. 

Additionally, the bill adds paramedics and phlebotomists to the list of persons authorized to withdraw blood for an impaired driving test. Law enforcement officers who witness an offense can provide testimony on the driver’s level of impairment based solely off the results of a horizontal nystagmus test, which is a field sobriety test that tracks jerking or twitching of the eyes as a result of impairment.  

Arkansas (HB 1184) enacted legislation to provide that a warrant required for a blood draw to determine impairment can be obtained based on an individual’s consent to test or the already established requirement that a warrant can be granted based on probable cause that a person was operating a vehicle or boat while intoxicated.  

Indiana (SB 201) passed legislation to provide a defense for drivers who test positive for the presence of either marijuana or its metabolite but did not cause a traffic incident and were not intoxicated. Drivers who do not meet these requirements are guilty of a class C misdemeanor. Michigan (HB 4308/4309) passed legislation to modify a sunset provision that would have increased the 0.08% BAC limit to 0.10% on Oct. 21, 2021.  However, the bills were not scheduled to take effect until Nov. 21, 2021, which would have resulted in a temporary increase of the BAC between October and November 2021. To accelerate the effectiveness of the provisions in HB 4308 and 4309, the state enacted SB 616 and 617, which amend the Michigan Vehicle Code and Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain the state’s legal BAC limit at 0.08%. Proponents of SB 616 and 617 deemed enactment critical, as the federal government requires states to adopt and maintain a per se limit of .08 to receive certain federal highway program funding.    

Oklahoma (SB 367) added “Intermediate Emergency Medical Technicians, Advanced Emergency Medical Technicians, or paramedics” to the persons authorized to withdraw blood for an impaired driving test. Analysis of a person’s blood will only be considered valid if performed by an accredited laboratory. Breath tests must also be conducted with a device accredited by the U.S. Department of Transportation by an operator permitted to administer a breath test. In addition, the bill clarifies that “screening tests” are not a definitive tool to prove DUI, rather they are a tool to establish probable cause.  

Oregon (SB 201) amended its impaired driving law to include that an individual is guilty of a DUI if a blood or breath test shows that their BAC is .08% or more within two hours after driving a vehicle. This change accounts for the possibility that a driver’s BAC may continue to rise after their initial BAC test, implying that they may have consumed alcohol above the legal limit.  

Penalties

Six states—Alabama, Arkansas, Montana, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Utah—created new penalties or enhanced penalties for DUI or driving under the influence of drug offenses. 

Alabama (SB 195) extended the lookback period for chemical test refusal from five to ten years. The bill maintains the previously established suspension period of 90-day for a first refusal but applies the new 10-year lookback period; however, the bill establishes suspension periods for subsequent offenses. Second and third test refusals within the 10-year lookback period are subject to one and three-year driver’s license suspensions, respectively. Individuals with a fourth or subsequent refusal on their record qualify for a five-year suspension.  

Arkansas (HB 1062) extended the lookback period for DUI offenses from 5 to 10 years for second through fifth offenses. The bill increases the lookback period from 10 to 20 years for a sixth or subsequent offense.  

Montana (HB 115) increased penalties for fifth and subsequent DUI offenses. Individuals with a fifth DUI conviction face a fine between $5,000 and $10,000 and up to 10 years in prison, with the first five years exempt from suspension. Previously, a fifth offense could only result in a prison sentence of up to five years. Subsequent offenses result in five to 25 years in prison, a penalty between $5,000 and $10,000 and exclusion from deferred sentences or prison time suspension.  

New Hampshire (HB 179) established a penalty for repeat offenders who cause death or serious bodily injury. Offenders with one previous DUI conviction face 10 to 20 years in prison whereas offenders with two or more subsequent DUI convictions can be sentenced to 15 to 30 years in prison.   

South Dakota (HB 1061) created a class 2 misdemeanor offense of smoking or consuming marijuana while operating a vehicle. 

Utah (HB 20) enacted legislation to establish classifications for extreme DUIs which include high BAC (.16) offenses, offenders with a .05 BAC plus any measurable controlled substance or individuals who test positive for two or more substances that were not prescribed for medical reasons. First-time offenders face up to five days in jail or two days in addition to home confinement of at least 30 days plus substance use testing. Previously, high-risk offenders faced a jail sentence of at least two days or work in a compensatory service work program for at least two days, among other penalties still in place. The bill also increases the penalties for individuals with a prior DUI, or those meet the extreme DUI classification for a second offense, in the past 10 years from 10 to at least 20 days of jail time, or at least 10 days in jail plus 60 days of home confinement with electronic monitoring and drug testing. 

Additionally, the bill created penalties for a second DUI offense within 10 years that do not fall under the newly established classifications, which include a jail sentence of at least 10 days or a jail sentence of at least five days in addition to home confinement of at least 30 days with electronic monitoring that includes substance abuse testing and mandatory screening and assessment, among other penalties. Offenders who participate in the 24/7 sobriety program are eligible for a suspended jail sentence once they have served a minimum of five days in jail for a second offense or 10 days in jail for a third or subsequent offense. 

The new law also allows the court to suspend jail time for individuals convicted of a first-time offense under the new DUI classifications if they participate in the 24/7 sobriety program. Repeat offenders who participate in the program are eligible for a reduced jail sentence. The court can reinstate jail time and additional penalties if an offender does not successfully complete the program.   

Finally, the bill provides that individuals are subject to a separate DUI charge, rather than the previous penalty of a single class A misdemeanor, for each passenger under the age of 16 in the vehicle at the time of the offense.

24/7 Sobriety and Drug Monitoring Programs and Treatment Programs

DUI recidivism is a significant concern for lawmakers and enforcement officials. To address this issue, states have debated and enacted legislation requiring offenders to participate in sobriety monitoring programs and treatment programs. Judges have always had the option to use court-mandated treatment, which requires impaired driving offenders to participate in evaluation and treatment for their substance abuse issues. However, recent interest includes combining behavioral treatment with more punitive sanctions.  

Sobriety programs involving 24/7 monitoring emphasize sobriety and require certain DUI offenders to submit to a breath or urine test multiple times (usually twice) daily at a designated site. Many programs also allow the use of breathalyzers, transdermal alcohol monitoring devices (ankle bracelets) and drug monitoring patches to monitor an offender’s sobriety when certain factors such as distance from or lack of access to a testing site make primary testing methods unreasonable. If the offender fails or does not appear for a test, he or she will receive swift, certain and moderate sanctions, which can include bond revocation, parole or probation, and incarceration for 24 or 48 hours, in most cases. 24/7 sobriety monitoring programs do not require participants to enter treatment. 

The RAND Corporation published a paper in 2020 analyzing South Dakota’s 24/7 sobriety monitoring program’s causal effect on the probability of rearrest or probation revocation for repeat DUI offenders — offenders who have been charged with a second or third DUI violation. South Dakota was the first state to establish a statewide 24/7 sobriety monitoring program in 2007. The authors concluded that the probability of rearrest or probation revocation was 49% lower for program participants than for non-participants 12 months after their DUI arrest. The authors also found a “substantive decrease at 24 and 36 months.” 

Currently, 14 states—Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming—have 24/7 sobriety monitoring programs or pilot programs at the state or county level. 

Nebraska and Utah amended their 24/7 sobriety and drug monitoring program laws and three states— Arkansas, Delaware and Virginia — enacted legislation related to treatment programs for DUI offenders in 2021.  

Nebraska (LB 271) created the 24/7 Sobriety Program Act which coordinates efforts among state and local governments to create and implement 24/7 sobriety programs where participants are tested twice a day for evidence of drug or alcohol consumption. If an individual has had their license revoked and they have gone at least 30 days without drug or alcohol consumption, they may qualify for a 24/7 sobriety program permit, which would allow them to drive to school, work or a testing facility. Additionally, individuals can be placed in the program as a condition of bond or pretrial release. The bill sponsor shared that the intent of the bill is to find alternatives to incarceration for impaired driving offenses. 

Utah (HB 26) expanded its 24/7 sobriety monitoring program from a pilot program to a statewide program. The bill also provides that individuals who complete a court drug treatment program qualify for license reinstatement before completion of the suspension period if they have completed a court drug program. A person can apply for an ignition interlock restricted license instead of having their license suspended if a risk assessment identifies them as a low-risk offender.  

Arkansas (HB 1059) passed legislation to allow district courts to establish a DUI for boating while intoxicated court program for impaired driving or boating offenders. 

Delaware (HB 51) enacted legislation to clarify when certain offenders must complete an intensive inpatient or outpatient drug and alcohol treatment program. The bill requires offenders to participate in a program for at least three months within a certain point after sentencing. Participation in any treatment program must be approved by the court or Department of Corrections.  

Virginia (SB 1336) authorized courts to issue an offender a restricted driver’s license if the offender completes an alcohol safety action program that is certified by the Commission on the Virginia Alcohol Safety Program. An offender is prohibited from operating a vehicle without an ignition interlock device while holding the restricted license.  

Sealing and Expungement of Records

States allow individuals to have records of criminal cases sealed, meaning that such a record would be accessible only with a court order. It is also possible for people to have certain offenses removed from their criminal record entirely. This process is known as expungement. Four states—Arkansas, Michigan, North Dakota and Virginia —amended their expungement laws concerning DUI offenders. 

Arkansas (SB 685) added impaired driving or boating to the list of misdemeanors that offenders can petition for expungement once they have completed the applicable lookback period assigned at conviction. 

Michigan (HB 4219/4220) amended its expungement laws to allow first time DUI offenders to file an application with the court for “setting aside” their conviction if they did not cause the death of or serious bodily injury to another person.  Michigan (SB 400) also increased the waiting period before an offender can apply to set aside one DUI conviction from three to five years.   

North Dakota (HB 1336) passed legislation to retroactively apply its DUI expungement law. The state enacted legislation in 2019 to include certain DUI offenses if the requester has not committed a subsequent violation of the impaired driving laws or any other criminal offense within seven years of the first violation. However, the law only applied to DUI offenses that took place after the law went into effect. The new law permits one-time DUI offenders to petition for expungement if they received a conviction prior to the passage of the 2019 law.  

Virginia (VA HB 2113/SB 1339) enacted legislation to allow for automatic and petition-based record-sealing for certain convictions. However, the law explicitly states that DUIs do not qualify for expungement. 

Distracted Driving

NHTSA defines distracted driving as “any activity that diverts attention from driving,” including talking or texting on the phone, eating or drinking, or manipulating the stereo, entertainment or navigation system. Texting is especially concerning since it is a combination of visual, manual and cognitive distractions. Sending or receiving a text takes a driver’s eyes from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, the equivalent—at 55 mph—of driving the length of an entire football field. However, hand-held mobile device use, in general, is associated with an increased crash or near-crash risk.

Distracted driving can lead to deadly outcomes. According to NHTSA, 3,142 people died in distraction-related crashes—defined as crashes involving at least one driver who was distracted—in 2020. This number accounts for 8% of total fatalities and represents a slight decrease compared with 8.7% of fatalities in 2019. Additionally, 6.0% of all drivers involved in fatal crashes were reported as distracted at the time of impact in 2020. NHTSA’s Driver Electronic Use report reveals that despite the fatal risk posed by distracted driving, more than 350,000 U.S. drivers were distracted behind the wheel in 2020.    

Drivers younger than 34 continue to be overrepresented in distraction-related fatal crashes. Fifteen- to 20-year-old drivers have the largest proportion of distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes. Drivers aged 15 to 20 have the highest proportion of cellphone use as the cause of their distraction, followed by drivers 21 to 24.

It is important to note that NHTSA recognizes there are some limitations to the collection and reporting of data concerning driver distraction. Challenges include the difficulty in identifying distraction as a crash factor and the lack of uniformity among police crash reports. Many crashes involving distraction also involve other factors, including fatigue, alcohol and/or drug impairment, or running a red light or stop sign. In such cases, distraction is not always included in the crash report. Additionally, differences in crash reporting forms make it difficult to collect and compare data nationwide. Harmonization of reporting protocols and more data are needed to better understand the prevalence of driver distraction in vehicle crashes.

Novel approaches to distracted driving data collection, such as the use of telematics, suggest that, while mobile device use by drivers was already a concerning issue prior to 2020, phone distraction per mile driven became more frequent during the COVID-19 public health emergency. According to Cambridge Mobile Telematics, measures of cellphone motion—an indicator of smartphone distraction—increased roughly 15% between March and April 2020. Data gathered with technology that works in the background of a wide range of cellphone apps, including e-taxi software and navigation services used by civilians, is providing new insights. It appears that, since the beginning of 2020, drivers are using their cellphones more frequently but for shorter durations while driving. The findings revealed that almost 17% of all crashes involve phone use five seconds before impact.

AAA’s 2020 Traffic Safety Culture Index provides insight into Americans’ opinions about the use of personal electronic devices while driving. The study shows that approximately 95% of respondents view reading or typing on a hand-held mobile device while driving to be very or extremely dangerous. Nearly 80% consider talking on a hand-held mobile device as very or extremely dangerous. In contrast, only 20% of respondents consider using their phone while driving with the help of hands-free technology to be very or extremely dangerous.

A 2020 survey found that drivers feel more comfortable engaging in secondary tasks, including tuning the radio or dialing on a cellphone, when using Automated Driving Systems (ADS) that extend active safety driving systems, such as forward collision warning, automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning and blind-spots detections, by continually assisting drivers with the driving tasks. The report points out that “the more positive participants were about ADS features, the more they felt comfortable engaging in secondary tasks while the features were activated.”

Conversely, AAA found consumers can overestimate the capability of current active driving systems (ADA) systems, which require constant driver engagement to mitigate crash risk. A survey conducted by AAA in 2018 reveals that 40% of Americans expect ADA systems with names like Autopilot or Pilot Assist to have the ability to drive the car by itself, indicating a possible discrepancy between consumer understanding and reality.

Currently, 24 states prohibit all drivers from using hand-held cellphones while driving. An additional 23 states ban text messaging for all drivers. While no state bans all cellphone use for all drivers, 36 states and D.C. ban all cellphone use for novice and teen drivers. Except for emergencies, 18 states and D.C. also ban use of cellphones for school bus drivers.

NHTSA has not adopted an official position on the effectiveness of various distracted driving laws. Research on the effectiveness of cellphone and texting laws remains mixed, and evaluations of the efficacy of these laws are challenged by barriers to obtaining accurate distracted driving data. Most studies reveal hand-held bans have been somewhat effective in reducing hand-held phone use, but the evidence does not necessarily point to a reduction in crashes. However, recent studies analyzing the impact of distracted driving laws on insurance metrics suggest they may have previously undocumented safety and economic impacts.

The Behavioral Traffic Safety Cooperative Research Program released its first report on “Using Electronic Devices While Driving: Legislation and Enforcement Implications.” Researchers found that laws that are supported by enforcement and public education programs do impact overall traffic fatality rates. After reviewing distracted driving laws and enforcement and public education practices in all 50 U.S. states, D.C. and 10 Canadian provinces, they developed model legislation and best practices for policymakers and enforcement authorities. Best practices for distracted driving laws include clearly defining when and how a wireless device can and cannot be used and establishing penalties and fines in line with other traffic citations.

The National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) adopted the Distracted Driving Model Act in 2021 which provides recommendations for structuring a hands-free, primary offense law. NCOIL committee members, consisting of mostly state lawmakers, gathered perspectives from a diverse group of stakeholders before finalizing the model. California Assemblymember Ken Cooley (D) from California, a sponsor of the act, stated “During discussions in developing the model, we were able to take note of the valid concerns regarding the potential negative effect of primary enforcement of distracted driving laws on minorities, and the compromise made will permit valid enforcement and at the same time will ensure accountability.”

The Model Act requires a law enforcement officer to record the race and ethnicity of drivers who receive a citation for a violation of the act. Such information would be reported to the appropriate state agency which would annually report the data to the governor, President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Model Act also includes provisions such as limiting the use of a mounted or hands-free device to engage in texting, viewing videos or images, entering data and talking or broadcasting content while driving. Additionally, the Model Act suggests a system of fines ranging from $150 to $500 and two to six points on a driver’s license for violation of the Act.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) examined the effect of handheld bans adopted by California, Oregon and Washington in 2017 on rear-end crash rates. Rather than look at crashes attributed to distracted driving, which are often underreported, researchers analyzed rear-end crash rates as those types of crashes are commonly associated with distraction. Results reveal that monthly rear-end crash rates per 100,000 people dropped in Oregon and Washington after both states enacted bans that prohibit holding a phone while driving, including when a vehicle is stopped temporarily.  California, whose handheld ban does not account for temporary vehicle stops, did not experience significant changes in rear-end crash rates. Ian Reagan, a senior research scientist at IIHS stated that “The greater clarity of the Oregon and Washington laws, especially with regard to temporary stops, may partly explain their greater successes.” Researchers also note that more severe penalties in Oregon and Washington may have contributed to the reduction in crashes. 

The study suggests that using more straightforward language to ban handheld phone use while driving may increase driver compliance and make infractions easier to identify by law enforcement; however, more research is needed to determine the most effective combination of wording and penalties. 

According to the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, enforceability of distracted driving laws is key to providing the full possible benefit of the law; however, research and approaches to support these efforts are lacking. A 2017 NHTSA study on the enforceability of texting laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts concludes that texting laws can be enforced whether or not the state has a hand-held ban. Additionally, a 2014 NHTSA study conducted in California and Delaware points out that high-visibility enforcement over statewide or large multi-jurisdiction areas is feasible and may be effective in modifying behavior. CDC’s fact sheet on distracted driving presents promising actions that states can use to address the issue—strategies include high-visibility enforcement and requiring passenger limits for young drivers.

State Legislation

Legislatures in 35 states considered more than 114 bills related to driver distraction in 2021; however, only a handful were enacted. Three states—Georgia, Idaho and Utah—enacted provisions regarding handheld wireless device use in vehicles. Two states—Iowa and Virginia—enacted legislation centered on distracted driving awareness. Virginia also amended its distracted driving law related to provisional driver’s license holders.

Georgia (HB 165) allowed drivers to mount a cellphone or other electronic device to their windshield if it does not obstruct the driver’s view. Previously, motorists could only attach transparent materials like clear stickers to their windshields. 

Idaho (HB 5) amended its hand-free law to clarify that a driver may use the global positioning or navigation system feature of a mobile device while driving, but only in hands-free mode.

Utah (SB 101) provides the state’s definition of a “handheld wireless communication device” does not include a two-way radio, but rather already established devices such as cellphones and laptops. 

Iowa (HB 380) required driver education courses to include four hours of classroom instruction concerning distracted driving. Virginia (HB 1918) also mandated all driver education programs to include instruction on the dangers of distracted driving.

Additionally, Virginia (SB 1335/HB 1846) eliminated provisions prohibiting a holder of a learner’s permit or provisional driver’s license from operating a vehicle while using a wireless telecommunications device as these drivers already fall under another current law that creates a primary offense for such behavior.

Teen Drivers

With almost 12 million licensed young drivers on the road in 2020, state legislatures have consistently considered legislation intended to increase young drivers’ safety, improve driving behaviors and enhance their driving skills. 

Young drivers ages 15 to 20 have higher crash rates than older, more experienced drivers. The Federal Highway Administration notes young people aged 15 to 20 represented about 5% of the total driving population in 2020. According to NHTSA, fatalities amongst drivers ages 15 to 20 increased 17% between 2019 (1,616) and 2020 (1,885). 

NHTSA notes the percentage of young drivers ages 15 to 20 who were speeding at the time of fatal crashes in 2020 was higher than any age group except females ages 21 to 24.  Further, of the young drivers involved in fatal crashes where it was known whether or not restraints were used, 52% of those who died were not wearing seat belts, similar to the unrestrained rate for fatal crashes amongst all ages. Of drivers ages 15 to 20 who died in 2020 crashes, 29% had BACs of .01 or higher, and 24% had BACs of .08 or higher.

NHTSA data indicates driver fatalities in the 15- to 20-year-old age group increased from 4,782 in 2011 to a decade-high of 5,037 traffic deaths in 2020. The CDC cites motor vehicle crashes as the second leading cause of death for teens and notes almost 2,400 teenagers (13-19) lost their lives in 2019 and 258,000 were treated in emergency rooms for injuries from motor vehicle crashes. 

Research by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (2018) found that when a teen driver was accompanied by only teen passengers in a vehicle, the fatality rate for all people involved in a crash increased by 51%. However, when teen drivers were accompanied by older passengers, the overall fatality rate in crashes decreased by 8%.

State Legislation

At least 18 states—Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia—enacted legislation regarding teen drivers in 2021. The topics mostly addressed driver education, license examinations, graduated driver’s licensing and miscellaneous provisions. 

Driver Education

Arizona (HB 2522) allowed a person to meet the education requirement for a class G driver license if a person completed a driver education program offered by a certified defensive driving school and if a custodial parent or guardian certifies in writing that the applicant has completed at least 20 hours of supervised driving practice including six hours at night.

Georgia (HB 466) authorized driver education training courses to be offered by public or private schools, home education instructors and via in-person or remote platforms. Driver training schools were also permitted to conduct on-the-road testing if such schools have been licensed and conducted driver education training on a full-time basis for at least two years.

Montana (SB 300) authorized the superintendent of public instruction to approve private traffic education courses. School districts were empowered to provide traffic education classroom instruction via a distance learning format. Parents or guardians may provide the hands-on driving portion of a traffic education courses if the student has already completed classroom instruction. Finally, applicants aged 14 and a half or older who were unable to participate in a traffic education course because of COVID-19 must be allowed to test for and receive a learner’s permit upon showing proof of completion of an online traffic education course.

Virginia (HB 1901) removed the requirement that a driver training school providing the Virginia Driver’s Manual course online be a computer-based driver education provider. Finally, the commonwealth required (HB 1918) driver education programs to add instruction on the dangers of distracted driving and speeding.

License Examinations

Maine (HP 1049) eliminated a provision requiring a driving permit to be held for six months by applicants 15 years of age who successfully completed a driver education course and passed an examination to be issued a special restricted license based on educational or medical needs. 

Nevada (SB 17) clarified that an instruction permit may be renewed if the renewal applicant for a motor vehicle or motorcycle retakes and successfully passes all parts of the examination administered by the Department, other than the driving test. Another new law (SB 285) added content about the rules of the road for pedestrians and persons riding bicycles, electric bicycles and electric scooters to a school’s driver training course.

Oklahoma (HB 1715) repealed provisions requiring a minor to show they were enrolled in a public or private secondary school to obtain a permit or driver’s license, as well as repealing reading ability requirements. Another new Oklahoma law (HB 2465) authorized the state Department of Public Safety to enter into agreements with local school districts, the state Department of Career and Technology Education and institutions of higher education to act as approved written examination proctors for Class A, B, C or D driver license tests.

Texas (SB 289) allowed school districts to excuse a student who is at least 15 years of age from attending school to visit a driver’s license office. School districts may not excuse more than one day of school and must also verify the student’s visit to the driver’s license office.

Graduated Driver's Licensing

Every state has enacted some type of law intended to developing drivers’ skills and expertise. Commonly referred to as graduated driver licensing (GDL), the laws provide more time for teen drivers to learn the complex skills required to operate a vehicle. Although GDL laws vary from state to state, all GDL approaches consist of three stages identified by the type of license, provisions and restrictions. In each stage, the young driver gains experience and knowledge about safe driving, which allows them to advance to the next stage when they reach the appropriate age. According to NHTSA, the stages include:

Stage 1: Learner’s Permit

• Minimum age.
• Minimum duration.
• Required supervised driving hours.

Stage 2: Intermediate (Provisional) License

• Minimum age.
• Nighttime driving restrictions.
• Passenger restriction (except for family, unless noted).

Stage 3: Full Licensure

• Minimum age.

Arkansas (HB 1244) required applicants seeking a license or identification card without a photograph to be at least 15 years of age and provide a completed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 4029 or a signed affidavit attesting to the applicant’s sincerely held religious belief that prohibits the individual from having his or her photograph taken. The law specified that licenses issued without a photograph are not valid for federal identification purposes nor for voter identification purposes.

Tennessee (SB 784) required Class H hardship licenses issued to a minor holding a Class P license or instructional permit to expire on the date the Class P license or instructional permit expires. Presently, the state Department of Public Safety may issue a hardship license to minors who are ages 14 or older when good cause is shown to issue such a license.

Iowa (SF 231) restricted minors holding a special farming driver’s license from operating a motor vehicle with more than two axles as well as a motor vehicle towing another vehicle. Licensees residing or employed may operate a vehicle during the hours of 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. if they are assisting the person’s parents, guardians or employers with farm work, including traveling to or from the location of the farm work and the driving distance is no more than 50 miles. Further, the new law exempted the distance between the applicant’s residence and school of enrollment.

Mississippi (SB 2598) required drivers under age 18 to be supervised by a parent, guardian or a person aged 21 or older during the first six months as a regular license holder. The bill clarifies driver’s licenses may be issued to any person who is least 16 years of age and held a learner’s permit for at least one year without any moving violations. Applicants that were unable to apply for a timely learner’s permit application in 2020 due to COVID-19 shall have the period in which they were otherwise eligible but unable to apply credited toward the one-year requirement for holding a learner’s permit. License holders under 18 years of age were also allowed to drive unsupervised between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Saturday through Thursday and between 6 a.m. and 11:30 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. If travel is for educational or an extracurricular activity, then the driver is permitted to drive unsupervised any time directly to or from such activity.

North Carolina (SB 69) reduced from 12 months to six months the amount of time necessary to hold a Level 1 limited learner's permit in needed to apply for a Level 2 limited provisional license.

North Dakota (HB 1185) provided that any negligence of a minor when driving a motor vehicle on a highway may not be imputed to the individual who signed the application of the minor for an operator’s license nor the parents or legal guardian. The law also prohibited certain information, such as a minor’s name, driver identification number and telephone number from being included in a report unless the requester is party to the accident, a legal representative or an insurer.

Utah (HB 18) extended the term of a learner’s permit by six months to 18 months.

Miscellaneous

Colorado (HB 1084) authorized individuals in the custody of the state Department of Human Services to obtain a driver’s license or instruction permit. Montana (HB 462) specified that if a licensee is a ward of the state, the driver supervising must be a licensed driver 18 years of age or older.

Two states—Illinois and Indiana—also addressed driver’s licenses for truant youths. Illinois (HB 3099) eliminated a provision allowing a truant minor’s driving privilege to be suspended for a period as determined by a court but only until they attain 18 years of age. In Indiana, a new law (HB 1285) clarified the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) authority to suspend driving privileges or invalidate a learner’s permit of an individual who is at least 15 years of age and less than 18 years of age under certain circumstances including habitual truancy and school suspensions, expulsions and dropouts. The state BMV was also permitted to renew a learner’s permit rather than issuing a new learner’s permit and such renewal may be completed online. Additionally, third parties may conduct driver skills testing.

Older Drivers

According to the CDC, drivers over age 70 have higher traffic crash death rates per mile driven compared to drivers ages 35 to 54, in large part due to increased vulnerability to injury in a crash. The population of Americans over age 65 was 55.7 million people—17% of the total U.S. population—in 2020. Older drivers made up 21% of all licensed drivers, but only 13% of drivers involved in fatal traffic crashes in 2020.

NHTSA data from 2020 reports a 35% increase in the population of Americans over age 65 between 2011 and 2020 and a 38% increase in older licensed drivers during the same period. According to the American Geriatrics Society (AGS), the predicted number of Americans over age 65 will double by 2060, and the distances they travel are expected to continue increasing. 

According to NHTSA, 6,549 people 65 and older were killed and an estimated 233,235 injured in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2020. Older people made up 17% of all traffic fatalities and 10% of all people injured during the year. NHTSA data also indicates older driver fatalities increased by 24% (3,408 in 2011 to 4,233 in 2020) from 2011 to 2020.

State Legislation

Existing state legislation regarding older drivers mostly focuses on decreasing periods between license renewals and requiring more frequent vision tests for drivers over a certain age. Some states also bar older drivers from renewing their driver’s license by mail or online.

When addressing older driver traffic safety legislation, states have to balance safety with individual rights and freedoms. Setting aside vision requirements, determining when an older person is no longer able to drive safely depends on a variety of factors. In this regard, state legislation is purposefully broad and generally provides discretion to medical providers when making such a decision.

At least four states—Colorado, Illinois, Kansas and North Dakota—enacted legislation regarding older drivers in 2021.

Colorado (HB 1139) required persons under 80 years of age renewing a driver’s license online to attest they have had an eye examination within one year before the renewal. A person 80 years of age or older and renewing electronically must obtain a signed statement from an optometrist or ophthalmologist that they have had an eye examination within the preceding six months. Furthermore, the bill requires the Department of Transportation to submit an annual report to the legislature for the next three years containing data on the age and actions of at-fault drivers in car crashes which may have caused accidents.

Kansas (SB 127) increased the maximum age to renew a driver’s license online by 15 years to less than age 65. North Dakota (HB 1102) increased the age by five years to 70 years of age to allow an online renewal of a driver’s license.

Illinois (HB 2570) allowed drivers over age 55 to complete the National Safety Council’s Defensive Driving course or an online motor vehicle crash prevention course found by the Secretary of State to meet certain standards.  An online course must include at least eight hours of classroom instruction or an e-learning equivalent. Completing the course allows rates and premium charges for automobile liability insurance to be lowered.

Driver's Licensing

All 50 states and the District of Columbia licensed nearly 229 million drivers, representing roughly 70% of the U.S. population in 2021, according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). States have administered driver’s licensing systems since 1903 when Massachusetts and Missouri enacted the first laws governing driver’s licenses. Every state required drivers to be licensed by 1954 and mandated examinations testing both driving skills and traffic safety knowledge by 1959. 

State Legislation

The role of state licensing agencies has evolved from solely testing drivers and issuing licenses. The driver’s license now serves a purpose beyond traffic safety, as both government and private entities rely on it for personal identification. Thus, state legislatures and driver’s license agencies are concerned about the safety and security of using the license as an identifier.

In 2021, state legislatures debated approximately 530 bills regarding driver’s licenses, with at least 38 states enacting new laws. The most common subjects included commercial driver’s licenses (CDL) and CDL issuance periods, human trafficking felony convictions, driver’s licenses and instruction permits, digital driver’s licenses and medical designations on driver’s licenses.

The bills summarized in this section largely focus on notable changes concerning traffic safety.

Commercial Driver's Licenses

At least 12 states—Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Oklahoma and Wyoming—enacted CDL legislation in 2021. The topics ranged from CDL licensing requirements such as fees and skills testing to checks against federal databases.

Arizona (HB 2134) authorized a third-party driver’s license provider to carry out administrative and testing functions to issue or renew a CDL.

Arkansas (HB 1846) increased the CDL application fee from $40 to $50 and extended the license period from four to five years.

Iowa (HF 280) allowed CDLs to be renewed, including online, without a knowledge test within one year after the CDL’s expiration date. Applicants seeking to renew a CDL with a hazardous material endorsement must still pass a knowledge examination to obtain or retain the endorsement. Iowa also (HF 828) eliminated fees for CDL skills tests administered by third parties.

Kansas (SB 127) also allowed CDLs to be renewed online, except if the CDL has a hazardous materials endorsement.

Florida (SB 1134) added circumstances in which a CDL holder may be disqualified to include texting or using a handheld mobile telephone while driving.

Montana (HB 438) waived its CDL skills and knowledge tests if the applicant is a current or former military service member. Applicants seeking such waivers must provide evidence they were regularly employed within the last year in a military position requiring operation of a commercial motor vehicle, among other requirements.

Three states—Connecticut, Louisiana and Maryland—enacted legislation requiring checks against certain federal databases. Connecticut (SB 261) required the state DMV to check the federal Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse before validating a commercial driver’s license. Louisiana (HB 221) required a check with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Training Provider Registry before administering a skills test or issuing a CDL endorsement for drivers transporting passengers, driving a school bus or transporting hazardous materials. Maryland (HB 1074) required an employer of commercial motor vehicle drivers to provide a prospective employee driver with a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) number of any entity currently owned by the employer and the website address for the FMCSA’s Safety and Fitness Records or SAFER system.

CDL Issuance Periods

Four states—Arizona, Arkansas, Florida and Oklahoma—modified CDL issuance periods in 2021.

Arizona (HB 2173) extended its CDL renewal timeline from five to eight years. In Arkansas (HB 1846), the period for which a CDL is issued was raised from four to five years. The law also directed the Office of Driver Services to promulgate rules to extend or shorten the term of a CDL period to ensure approximately 20% of total valid CDLs are renewable each fiscal year.

Florida (SB 1134) provided the expiration date of a commercial driver license is at 12 a.m., eight years after the licensee’s last birthday.

Oklahoma (SB 1057) created a commercial and regular driver’s license that is valid for eight years. Driver’s license applicants are still able to apply for the previously offered four-year license.

Human Trafficking Felony Convictions

At least six states—Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, North Dakota and Virginia—enacted legislation addressing human trafficking in 2021. Every state but Kansas added human trafficking felonies to the list of offenses resulting in a lifetime disqualification for a CDL.

Connecticut (SB 261) added human trafficking felonies to the list of offenses resulting in a lifetime disqualification for a CDL. Florida (SB 1134) permanently revoked a CDL if the person was convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, any felony involving human trafficking under state or federal law via a commercial motor vehicle. Hawaii (SB 764) permanently disqualified any person from driving a commercial motor vehicle for life, without the possibility of reinstatement, if the person uses a commercial motor vehicle in the commission of any felony involving severe forms of trafficking in persons. North Dakota (SB 2109) permanently disqualified, without the possibility of reinstatement, individuals convicted of felony human trafficking while using a commercial motor vehicle. Virginia (HB 1868) permanently disqualified CDL holders convicted of a felony offense involving human trafficking while driving a commercial motor vehicle.

Kansas (HB 127) required any person seeking to renew a CDL to provide proof of completion of the Truckers Against Trafficking training.

Drivers Licenses and Instruction Permits

Lawmakers in 2021 enacted several new laws regarding non-commercial driver’s licenses and instruction permits.

Arkansas (HB 1244) authorized driver’s licenses or identification cards to be issued without a photograph if the licensee has a sincerely held religious belief that prohibits such individual from having their photograph taken. The applicant must be at least 15 years of age and a parent or guardian must attest to the sincerely held religious belief. Licenses which are issued without a photograph shall display, “Not valid for federal identification purposes or voter identification purposes.”

California (AB 174) required the state DMV to verify that an applicant's thumbprint or fingerprint is on file before issuing a driver's license or identification card. Additionally, the state (AB 1374) required the state DMV to enter a memorandum of understanding with the Donate Life California Organ and Tissue Donor Registry to provide for enrollment in organ or tissue donation. 

California (SB 287) provided that a class C driver’s license holder can operate a vehicle when towing a trailer or 5th-wheel travel trailer between 10,000 and 15,000 pounds if the towing is used for recreational purposes, transportation of property and a specified coupling is used to connect the trailer and vehicle. The new law also maintains previous requirements which provided that the towing cannot be for compensation or commercial purposes and that the license holder must have passed a specialized written examination. Moreover, it authorized the state DMV to issue a restricted class A driver's license for a vehicle towing a trailer of a gross vehicle weight exceeding 10,000 lbs. under certain circumstances, including that the trailer is used exclusively for recreation and the towing is not for compensation or commercial purposes.

Connecticut (SB 261) expanded the circumstances in which the state DMV can renew or issue a duplicate driver’s license or identification card without an applicant’s personal appearance. Provisions required the state DMV to already have the applicant’s photo or digital image that meets the standards and specifications the commissioner of DMV prescribes.

Delaware (HB 78) increased the number of years an identification card is valid from four to eight years. The fee was also raised from $20 to $40.

Idaho (HB 96) created a family law temporary restricted driver’s license. Under the new law, individuals who have lost their driver’s license because of non-payment of child support may petition the courts and show good cause to be granted a temporary restricted license to maintain or secure employment. Illinois (SB 676) authorized the Secretary of State to issue temporary driver’s licenses to applicants allowing them to drive during an investigation and determination of all facts relative to such applicant’s eligibility for such a license. The validity period for a temporary license may not exceed 90 days.

Illinois (SB 2662) required REAL ID identification cards issued to conditional permanent residents to be marked “Limited Term.” Indiana expanded its definition of “credential” for identity verification purposes to include documentation in a physical or digital form that is accessible on a mobile device.

Iowa (SF 231) allowed a person holding a special minor’s driver’s license who resides on a farm or is employed on a farm to operate a motor vehicle during the hours of 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. for the purpose of assisting the person’s parents, guardians, or employers with farm work. A license holder must operate the vehicle through the most direct and accessible route for no more than 50 miles. A licensee is also allowed to operate a motor vehicle to a service station along the associated routes.

Kentucky’s law (HB 277) specified that certain people holding a valid license from another state or territory shall not be required to obtain a Kentucky license. These new provisions apply to members of the U.S. Armed Forces, a member’s spouse or a member’s child or stepchild 16 years of age or older and who is also a dependent under a member’s guardianship. The commonwealth’s other new law (HB 439) required vision tests when renewing an operator’s license. Applicants may submit a form attesting they have submitted to a vision test less than 12 months from the application date if such form has been signed by an optometrist, osteopath, physician or advanced practice registered nurse.

Louisiana (HB 550) allowed holders of a valid driver’s license to apply for a duplicate via mail or electronic means. Applicants for a duplicate must provide statements that address any loss of consciousness other than normal sleep, proof of liability insurance and an affidavit that the applicant possesses all cognitive functions necessary to be a prudent driver if such person is 70 years of age or older. Additionally, Louisiana (HB 638) authorized the state Department of Public Safety, Office of Motor Vehicles, to have an online option for Class D (chauffeur) and Class E (personal vehicles under 10,000 lbs.) license holders to update their permanent address. The revised license must be mailed to the updated permanent address. 

Maryland (HB 730) extends the expiration date of an identification card for up to 90 days if an individual does not possess all the documents required at the time of renewal. The new law allowed a driver’s license to be renewed without requiring an individual to appear in person if the photograph for the individual was taken less than 16 years before the renewal. It also provided that a vision exam shall take place within two years of the application date for renewal. Previously, a vision exam was required within 12 months of an application date.

Michigan (SB 507) provided that certain licenses, including an operator or chauffeur’s license, a motorcycle temporary instruction permit or CDL, to name a few, that expire after March 31, 2021, but before Aug. 1, 2021, are valid until 120 days after they have expired. Further, Michigan (SB 508; SB 509) extended the same period to an enhanced driver’s license or identification cards.

Minnesota (HF 10) directed the commissioner of DMV to create a process for individuals to apply remotely for a driver’s license or identification card. The law defined “eligible individual” to include members of the U.S. Armed Forces, employees of a federal department or agency assigned to foreign service outside of the United States including their spouse, domestic partner or dependents under age 26. Applicants must have a photograph on file taken within the last five years or must submit a photograph meeting technical requirements including background color, lighting, visibility and electronic file size. An eyesight exam within the last two years is also required.

Nevada (AB 21) authorized a person to request that the state DMV display an alternate address on the person’s driver's license or identification card. Utah (HB 18) modified identifying information required on a driver’s license application to include sex instead of gender.

Washington (HB 1207) extended the issuance period of a driver’s license to eight years and also expanded online renewal of driver’s licenses. West Virginia (SB 343) authorized the state DMV to renew or reissue a driver’s license online upon request due to a change of address.

Medical Designations

Four states—Georgia, Michigan, Montana and Virginia—approved legislation regarding certain medical designations on driver’s licenses and vehicle registrations for individuals diagnosed with communication impediments such as autism spectrum disorder.

Georgia (HB 43) allowed applicants to indicate a physical, mental or neurological condition that impedes their ability to communicate. Applicants seeking this designation must provide a description of their condition or diagnosis which impedes their ability to communicate and indicate whether such condition exists for the applicant or an expected driver of the vehicle. The law required this information to be made available to a law enforcement officer making a vehicle tag inquiry.

Michigan (HB 4364) allowed a certification for a communication impediment designation on an application for vehicle registration or an operator's or chauffeur's license to be signed by an audiologist, a speech language pathologist or a psychologist. Applicants with a communication impediment designation must be maintained in a central file that is connected to the law enforcement information network.

Montana (SB 372) ordered administrative rules to be adopted by the state DMV for personal communication limitations and other medical information that would be helpful to a peace officer during a traffic stop. Virginia (HB 1960) allowed a vehicle owner to include a special communication needs indicator on their vehicle registration when their vehicle is regularly occupied by an individual who has a disability that can impair communication. Previously, this designation was only permitted to vehicle owners with such a disability.

Miscellaneous

Colorado (SB 40) allowed the state Department of Regulatory Agencies to use a driver’s history to make occupational or professional licensing decisions.

Mississippi (HB 551) provided for a six-month provisional driver’s license to persons released from the custody of the state Department of Corrections in the last 12 months.

Oregon (HB 3125) prohibited the state DOT from disclosing an individual’s emergency contact information that is obtained in connection with a motor vehicle record. Further, the state DOT shall conduct an outreach program to educate individuals about the opportunity to add emergency contact information to their motor vehicle record.

Speeding and Speed Limits

Total speeding-related fatalities decreased by 1% in 2019 (9,478) compared to the prior year (9,579 in 2018), according to NHTSA. NHTSA data also shows speed-related crashes accounted for 26% of all motor vehicles fatalities in 2019. NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if the driver was charged with a speeding-related offense or if a police officer indicated racing, driving too fast or exceeding the posted speed limit contributed to the crash.

A report by IIHS shows that younger drivers are more likely to be involved in speeding-related crashes compared to older age groups. According to NHTSA, in 2019, nearly one-third (31%) of male drivers in the 15- to 20-year-old age group involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time of the crash. NHTSA mentions this was the highest among all age groups. NHTSA data also suggests that the proportion of speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes in general decreases relative to the driver’s age. The lowest rates of speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes with were drivers 65 years of age or older. For males and females between the ages of 65 and 74, the fatal crash rate was 8% and 6%, respectively.

A significant surge in traffic fatalities has been recorded by NHTSA since the outbreak of COVID-19. Between January and September of 2021, NHTSA reports an estimated 31,720 fatalities occurred in motor vehicle crashes, a 12% increase over the same timeframe in 2020. In response to this trend, FHWA announced new proven safety countermeasures (PSCs) in October 2021 to reduce the number of traffic fatalities and serious injuries on the nation’s roadways. Regarding speeding during the pandemic, NHTSA cites a Cambridge Mobile Telematics study published in May 2021 which analyzed driver trip data. The study found that trips decreased by nearly half, the measure of speeding risk among drivers increased by 45% in the first few weeks of the pandemic, and speeding risk was still at 33% in November of 2020. Another study cited by NHTSA found 7.6% of U.S. respondents indicated they were more likely to excessively speed—going at least 20 mph above the posted speed limit - as compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic. The study concluded the pandemic may have led to certain drivers engaging in riskier driving behaviors.

These news PSCs included variable speed limits, speed safety cameras and appropriate speed limits for all road users. Regarding variable speed limits, FHWA emphasized the effectiveness of utilizing variable speeds on roads with a speed limit over 40 mph, implementing as part of an advisory system and deploying for entire roadway segments or individual lanes.

Speed safety cameras (SSCs) are another tool communities can use to reduce speeds. SSCs often supplement in-person traditional enforcement methods by using speed measurement devices to record vehicles going above a set speed limit. SSC’s can be deployed via three options including fixed units, point-to-point and mobile. FHWA outlines several considerations to help inform communities on which option is best suited for them. IIHS notes that speed cameras have been shown to reduce both crashes and crash injuries.

When setting appropriate speed limits, FHWA outlined several factors transportation agencies should potentially consider including pedestrian and bicyclist activity, crash history, roadway conditions, traffic volume, observed speeds and land use context. FHWA notes that according to research published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, “A driver traveling at 30 mph who hits a pedestrian has a 45%t chance of killing or seriously injuring them. At 20 mph, that percentage drops to 5%.”

AAA’s 2020 Traffic Safety Culture Index reported that 52.4% of surveyed drivers deemed speeding on freeways over 15 mph to be very or extremely dangerous and 63% deemed speeding over 10 mph on residential streets to be very or extremely dangerous. While respondents were also more likely to socially disapprove of speeding on freeways in 2020 compared to 2019 and 2018, there was little change in self-reported speeding on freeways. Just over 45% of drivers reported exceeding freeway speed limits by 15 mph and 35.3% reported exceeding residential speed limits by 10 mph within the past month.

A 2019 IIHS study explored the relationship that higher speed limits and raising maximum speed limits had on traffic fatalities between 1993 and 2017. The study found raising maximum speed limits by 5 mph had also increased fatality rates by 8.5% on interstate highways and 2.8% on other roads. Notably, IIHS concluded that nearly 37,000 traffic fatalities could have otherwise been avoided had the speed limits not been raised over the 25-year study period.

Since Congress repealed the 55-mph national maximum speed limit in 1995, every state has responded by setting their own speed limits. According to IIHS, 23 states set maximum speed limits at 70 mph, 11 states at 75 mph on certain highway segments and eight states at 65 mph. Hawaii’s maximum speed limit is 60 mph and the District of Columbia sets its at 55 mph. Another seven states set maximum speed limits at or above 80 mph. Texas has the fastest speed limit in the country at 85 mph along a 41-mile section of State Highway 130 between San Antonio and Austin. 

State Legislation

In 2021, at least 13 states—Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia—enacted new speeding and speed limit laws addressing construction zones, lower speed limits and overtaking and passing vehicles.

Construction Zones

Alabama (SB 4) modified its law regarding construction zone speed limits to detail the conditions in which a violation is committed by a driver. Under the new law, a driver commits a construction zone moving violation if all of the following conditions occur at the time of the violation: 1) the person is in a construction zone designated by state DOT or a locality, 2) construction or maintenance workers are present and performing construction or maintenance work and 3) work zone control devices, traffic controls or warning signs are present to notify motorists and pedestrians of construction or maintenance workers in the area. The penalty for violating the new law is the greater of $250 or the amount prescribed by law outside of a construction zone.

Florida (SB 1194) authorized construction equipment in work zones on roadways with a speed limit of at least 55 mph to display a combination of flashing green, amber and red lights when workers are present during periods of extremely low visibility. The penalties stipulated in the new law are $200 for a first offense and $500 for any subsequent offense.

Lowering Speed Limits

California (AB 43) established a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph on state highways in business and residential districts. The state DOT, Caltrans, is charged with lowering the speed limit and is also required to post signs giving drivers notice. Further, the new law provided Caltrans and localities with the option of declaring a speed limit of 20 mph or 25 mph on such highways. The bill additionally authorizes Caltrans and local authorities to declare a speed limit of 20 or 15 mph on state highways, previously 25 mph was the lowest allowed speed on such highways.

“In California and elsewhere, speed limits are generally set in accordance with engineering and traffic surveys, which measure prevailing vehicular speeds and establish the limit at or near the 85th percentile (i.e., the speed that 15% of motorists exceed),” according to the Assembly Floor Analysis. Caltrans may revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to require Caltrans or a local authority to round speed limits to the nearest five mph of the 85th percentile of the free-flowing traffic. However, in cases in which the speed limit needs to be rounded up to the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed, Caltrans or a local authority may decide to instead round down the speed limit to the lower 5 mph increment.

If a local authority completes an engineering and traffic survey and determines the speed limit is still more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may reduce the prima facie speed limit an additional five miles per hour for either of the following reasons:

• The portion of highway has been designated as a safety corridor; however, a local authority shall not deem more than one-fifth of their streets as safety corridors.
• The portion of highway is adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians.

The bill requires local authorities to consider the safety of vulnerable pedestrian groups, including children, seniors, persons with disabilities, users of personal assistive mobility devices, and homeless persons when adjusting default speed limits, based upon findings determined from an engineering and traffic survey.

A local authority may not lower a speed limit as allowed by this bill until June 30, 2024, or until the Judicial Council has developed an online tool for adjudicating infraction violations statewide. Warning citations must be issued for exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph or less for the first 30 days a lower speed limit is in effect.

Virginia (HB 1903) authorized localities to lower speed limits below 25 mph, but no less than 15 mph, on highways located in business or residential districts. Any reduced speed limits must be indicated on posted signs giving drivers notice.

Connecticut (HB 5429) also authorized localities to lower speed limits to 25 mph. The locality’s legislative body must approve any lower speed limits and speed limits below 25 mph are also permitted if it is a pedestrian safety zone or if an engineering study determines that a lower speed limit is reasonable. Signs must be posted if speed limits are reduced by more than 10 mph. Moreover, if speed limits are reduced by more than 10 mph on any roads within 1,000-feet and one-mile of an adjoining municipality written notice must be submitted to the adjoining municipality regarding the reduced speed limit.

Georgia’s law (HB 577) stated that the speed limit in any urban or residential district is 30 mph unless a different speed limit is posted by appropriate signage. Maryland (HB 562) authorized localities in Montgomery County to decrease the maximum speed limit to 15 mph after an engineering and traffic investigation. However, if a locality takes advantage of the new law, it is then prohibited from implementing any new speed monitoring systems on any portion of highway for which the speed limit was lowered.

Illinois (HB 343) adjusted the time in which a school day begins to 6:30 a.m. for the purpose of establishing special speed limits while passing schools. Previously, a school day began at 7 am. Signs must be posted warning drivers that a school zone is being approached and shall indicate the school zone and maximum speed limit in effect during school days when students are present. Alabama (HB 280) expanded reduced speed school zones to include every public or private school in the state. Previously, a reduced speed school zone was established only for schools in the county outside of the corporate limits of a municipality. The new law also required county commissions, localities and state DOT to place and monitor school zone signs according to which entity is responsible for the maintenance of the road.

Texas (HB 3282) authorized state DOT to temporarily lower speed limits on highways if the district engineer determines the speed limit is unreasonable or unsafe because of highway maintenance activities. Signs indicating a temporary speed limit must be posted and all other signs on the highway affected by the maintenance activity must be temporarily concealed.

Miscellaneous Speeding Laws

A new law in Kansas (SB 67) required drivers to yield or move over for utility and telecommunication vehicles.

Oklahoma (HB 2054) excluded drivers on county roads which are not interstates or turnpikes from the state’s left lane law prohibiting vehicles from operating in the left lane except when overtaking or passing another vehicle. Previously, this exclusion only encompassed left lanes within the jurisdiction of a locality or an interstate. In South Carolina, a new law (HB 3011) prohibited vehicles from being operated in the farthest left-hand lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle. This does not apply to law enforcement, public safety and highway construction or maintenance vehicles, as well as when operating in the right lane is impractical or when a vehicle is preparing to exit. Penalties for violating the new law cannot exceed $25 and cannot be included in an offender’s motor vehicle or criminal records. Violations will also not be reported to a driver’s insurance provider. Finally, state DOT must post signs directing slower traffic to move to the right at intervals of no more than 35 miles on interstates.

Arkansas (SB 307) enhanced its penalties for persons convicted of a fleeing offense if the vehicle they used was operated at speeds exceeding the posted speed limit. Upon conviction, such persons will now face a minimum of 30 days in jail.

Aggressive Drivers

Running red lights, speeding, weaving through traffic or tailgating are all dangerous behaviors that exhibit aggressive driving. NHTSA defines aggressive driving as operating a motor vehicle “in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger persons or property.” It notes there are diverse reasons for aggressive driving, including increased traffic congestion and commuting distances, stressed drivers and disregard for others and the law.

AAA’s 2020 Traffic Safety Culture Index reveals that nearly 90% of drivers surveyed perceive aggressive driving behaviors, such as switching lanes quickly or driving closely behind a vehicle, as extremely or very dangerous. About 33.7% of drivers ages 19-24 shared they have exhibited general aggressive driving behavior at least once in the past 30 days. In contrast, 10.7% of drivers ages 60-74 reported driving aggressively during the same time span.

State Legislation

Legislatures tackled aggressive driving in 2021 with a variety of approaches, including increasing penalties, with a particular focus on drag racing. Overall, seven states enacted bills related to aggressive driving.

Legislatures are devoting more attention to street racing, as incidences of street racing, such as the death of a 28-year-old woman in Arizona due to a street racer crashing into her car, surged during the COVID-19 pandemic across the United States. Four states—Arizona, Arkansas, California and Georgia--enacted street racing legislation in 2021, mostly creating or elevating penalties for drag racing related offenses.

Arizona (SB 1533) added a penalty of $1,000 for drag racing offenses. The funds generated will be used to prevent racing on streets and highways. The bill established a class 2 misdemeanor offense of aiding and abetting a reckless driver and a class 1 misdemeanor for subsequent offenses.  The new law authorizes a peace officer to impound or immobilize the vehicle of an individual who violated the reckless driving law if they believe letting the offender continue driving is a threat to others.

The Arkansas legislature (SB 247) increased the penalties for racing so that a first offense is a Class A misdemeanor, and a subsequent offense within five years of the first offense is a Class A misdemeanor with a driver’s license suspension of six months. The bill also establishes the new offense of class D felony racing as drag racing with 10 or more individuals engaging in similar behavior, or if the racing serves to impede or stop the flow of traffic.

California (AB 3) aligned the penalties for participating in “sideshows” with the penalties for street racing by allowing courts to suspend an individual’s driver’s license for a period of 90 days to six months. The law defines “sideshow” as an event when two or more people impede traffic on a highway for the purpose of conducting motor vehicle stunts and other activity at high speeds for spectators. Before issuing a driver’s license suspension, courts are required to consider accommodations for employment or personal hardship that may require a person to have a driver’s license. The law goes into effect on July 1, 2025.

Lawmakers in Georgia passed HB 534 which created a penalty for promoting or organizing illegal drag racing to a high and aggravated misdemeanor. The bill adds penalties for first, second and subsequent offenses of reckless stunt driving, such as license suspension for up to 12 months for a first offense. Penalties also include license revocation for third and subsequent offenses within five years. Vehicles of habitual offenders are subject to forfeiture. When a vehicle is subject to forfeiture due to a reckless driving conviction, and that vehicle is the only family vehicle, the vehicle’s title will be transferred to another family member so it can be used for employment or family transportation purposes.

The Texas legislature enacted SB 1495, which established new classifications for reckless driving exhibition offenses. These offenses are defined as situations when a driver, in the presence of at least two spectators, breaks the traction of the vehicle’s rear tires, spins the rear tires continuously by pressing the accelerator and steers to rotate the vehicle. A reckless driving exhibition offense is a Class B misdemeanor unless it is the offender’s second or subsequent offense, the offender is intoxicated or a person suffers bodily injury as a result of the offense, in which case it is a state jail felony. The bill also created a new Class B misdemeanor offense of interfering with a peace officer investigating highway racing or reckless driving. The Maryland legislature passed a similar bill (SB 17) establishing the misdemeanor offense of operating a motor vehicle in a criminally negligent manner, defined as operating a vehicle in a way that knowingly causes a substantial and unjustifiable risk to others. Penalties include imprisonment of no more than a year, a fine of no more than $5,000, or both.

Arizona passed SB 1832 which adjusted the penalties for aggressive driving offenses so that a convicted person may apply for a restricted license after a 45-day suspension period. Previously a person convicted of aggressive driving offenses had their licenses revoked for one year. The restricted license allows an individual to travel to essential places such as work, school, healthcare appointments or court-imposed appointments. The bill added three requirements for the traffic survival safety courses that offenders are required to take: that the courses consist of at least eight hours of instruction, include information about aggressive driving and be offered and completed in person unless the governor declares a state of emergency.

A bill passed by the Nevada legislature (AB 116) changed most traffic violations to civil infractions unless a penalty is specified by another statute, such as aggressive driving and similar offenses which are classified as misdemeanors. 

Automated Enforcement

Automated enforcement with red-light cameras and speed cameras allows state and local governments and law enforcement agencies to remotely capture images of drivers violating traffic laws. Red-light cameras link to traffic signals and monitor the green, yellow and red phases of traffic lights. After the light turns red, the camera takes a picture or a video of a moving vehicle before the vehicle enters the intersection and again when the vehicle is in the intersection. Both photos must show the signal in the red phase before issuing a citation. The date, time and location of the violation is also documented.

Speed cameras use radar or lidar presence detectors embedded in the road to measure a vehicle’s speed. If a vehicle is traveling faster than the posted speed limit, the camera will record its speed and license plate, along with the date, time and location. A citation will be mailed to the registered owner if the driver exceeded the speed limit, typically by more than 10 or 11 mph, according to IIHS.

More than two people are killed each day by drivers running red lights in the U.S., according to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. AAA’s report concluded that 28% of crash deaths were occurring at signalized intersections and caused by drivers running red lights. IIHS data shows red-light running resulted in 846 deaths in 2019, as well as an estimated 143,000 red light running related injuries. NHTSA reports 9,478 fatalities resulted from speed-related crashes in 2019.

Studies evaluating the effectiveness of automated enforcement generally show a positive effect on traffic safety. A 2016 IIHS report mentioned that removing red-light cameras from intersections costs lives. To reach this conclusion, researchers compared trends in annual fatal crashes in 14 cities which ended their camera programs with those in 29 cities in the same regions that continued their programs. They found that in the 14 cities where cameras were removed, fatal red-light-running crash rate increased by 30%, and the rate of all fatal crashes increased by 16% at all signalized intersections. The study estimated 63 deaths could have been prevented if the cities did not end their red-light camera programs.

IIHS conducted a 2016 study of speed cameras in Montgomery County, Maryland, and found that about 7½ years after the program began, the proportion of drivers traveling at least 10 mph over the speed limit had declined on streets with speed cameras. The cameras reduced the likelihood of fatal or severe injury crashes by 19%. The IIHS study concluded the likelihood of a driver exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph on roads with cameras decreased by 62% compared to similar roads without cameras.

While some municipalities continue to enhance automated enforcement programs, the recent trend has been toward fewer governments using red-light camera programs. According to IIHS, 338 communities operate red-light cameras as of January 2022, compared to 430 communities in 2016. However, speed cameras, which are less prevalent than red-light cameras, have seen an uptick in their use in recent years. As of January 2022, 171 communities (and 18 states and the District of Columbia) operate speed cameras, compared to 143 communities (and 14 states and the District of Columbia) in 2018. IIHS also notes at least 19 communities and counties activated speed camera programs in 2021.

Administering automated enforcement programs can be controversial. AAA’s Traffic Safety Culture Index showed fewer than half of respondents (44%) “somewhat” or “strongly supported” using cameras to automatically ticket drivers operating more than 10 mph over the speed limit on residential streets. One commonly cited reason for community opposition is that such programs are sometimes perceived as revenue-generating tools.

In response to a surge in traffic deaths occurring on the nation’s roads since COVID-19 began, AAA and IIHS, along with a group of traffic safety organizations, released an updated checklistthat communities seeking to use red-light and speed cameras can follow. The same traffic safety groups developed a checklist for red-light camera programs which strongly emphasizes transparency and implementation based on safety concerns. U.S. DOT also has established operational guidelines for both speed cameras and red-light cameras.

City and local governments in 22 states—Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington—and the District of Columbia currently operate red-light cameras. Notably, while Texas enacted a bill banning red-light cameras in 2019, some communities with existing contracts are allowed to continue operating cameras for the time being.

Communities in 18 states—Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington—and the District of Columbia currently operate speed cameras.

Some states explicitly allow red-light cameras and/or speed cameras under state law, but currently do not have any communities using automated enforcement technologies. For example, Arkansas allows speed cameras in school zones and at railroad crossings, but speed cameras are not currently in use. In Nevada, both red-light cameras and speed cameras are permitted statewide, but state law requires that automated enforcement equipment be held by law enforcement officials or installed in law enforcement vehicles. In Utah, communities are not using speed cameras, even though the state allows them in school zones and areas with speed limits of 30 mph or less. Finally, Iowa allows red-light and speed cameras if they are approved via local ordinance and New Mexico allows speed cameras to be approved via local ordinance.

Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia prohibit both red-light and speed cameras. Montana and South Dakota prohibit red-light cameras, and New Jersey and Wisconsin do not allow speed cameras. In other instances, jurisdictions have challenged the constitutionality of automated enforcement laws. For example, Missouri's Supreme Court issued two rulings in 2015 which found that red-light and speed cameras were unconstitutional. Currently, only the city of Hannibal, Mo., employs red-light cameras; speed cameras are no longer used anywhere in the state.

State Legislation

At least eight states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Oregon and Vermont—enacted automated enforcement legislation in 2021.

California (AB 917) authorized any public transit operator in the state to use automated enforcement to enforce parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes and at transit stops until Jan. 1, 2027. For the city and county of San Francisco, the law was indefinitely extended if parking penalties can be lowered for indigent individuals. California law defines “indigent” to include individuals receiving public assistance and applicants for court fee waivers. Only forward-facing cameras may be installed and the warning period for new systems was also increased from 30 days to 60 days. The new law required a public announcement about the enforcement program, along with information about payment options for indigent individuals at least 60 days prior to commencing.

Florida (SB 44) prohibited law enforcement agencies from operating unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, to issue traffic infractions from images or videos it captures or records.

Hawaii (HB 766) appropriated $2.8 million over the next three years for red-light cameras. The funds will be used to establish a statewide red-light imaging detector system pilot program. This legislation follows a 2020 law (HB 1676) that authorized a red-light camera demonstration program for at least two years in Honolulu beginning Jan. 1, 2021. The 2020 law allowed third-party contractors, set maximum fines for first and repeat violations, and prohibited violations from being used for insurance purposes or a driver’s official record. Fine revenues will be deposited into a special fund used to operate and maintain red-light cameras.

Maryland’s General Assembly approved four new laws regarding how automated enforcement systems are operated in the state. One (HB 967) authorized two speed-monitoring systems on Interstate Highway 83 in Baltimore. Drivers will receive warning notices for recorded violations during the first 90 days such a system is in operation. The second law (SB 888) authorized speed cameras in Anne Arundel County on Maryland Route 175. The new law required a real-time display of drivers’ traveling speeds to be installed, along with signage indicating a speed-monitoring system is currently in use. A third law (HB 619) permitted Prince George’s County to operate speed cameras in any residential district with a maximum posted speed limit of 35 mph. Finally, (HB 626) established a workgroup consisting of local officials and trucking industry representatives in Prince George’s County before implementing vehicle height monitoring systems. The new law is designed to help ensure high-clearance vehicles do not hit and damage bridges. Additionally, a local ordinance must be adopted and include which vehicles are exempted from enforcement of vehicle height restrictions by such monitoring systems.

New York’s (SB 415) authorized the village of Pelham Manor to adopt a local ordinance to install a red-light camera at no more than one intersection within its jurisdiction at any one time. A vehicle owner is liable for any violations and such violations will not be included in a driver’s record nor used for insurance purposes. The penalty for each violation shall not exceed $50. An additional penalty amounting to $25 may also be imposed for failing to respond to a notice of liability after 37 days. Finally, an annual report must be submitted to the governor and legislature which details where traffic cameras were used, along with crash data and the number of citations issued.

Oregon (HB 2530) permanently extended the city of Portland’s fixed photo radar program on high crash corridors. Portland currently operates fixed photo radar at four locations.

Motorcyclist Safety 

NHTSA reports the number of motorcyclists killed in traffic crashes each year has continued to decline since peaking at 5,337 in 2016. The number of motorcyclists killed in 2019 was 5,014, a slight decrease from 5,038 in 2018, according to NHTSA. Motorcycles only represent a fraction (3%) of all registered vehicles in the United States and account for an even smaller fraction (.6%) of the vehicle miles traveled in 2019. According to NHTSA, motorcyclists accounted for 14% (5,014) of all traffic fatalities in 2019. NHTSA data suggests this was significantly higher for motorcyclists compared to other motor vehicles at “16% for passenger cars, 13% for light trucks and 4% for large trucks.” The fatality rate per mile for motorcyclists was 29 times higher compared to passenger vehicles.  

Of two-vehicle fatal crashes involving a motorcycle and another moving vehicle, 41% (1,034) involved the other vehicle turning left while the motorcycle was heading straight, passing or overtaking other vehicles. Moreover, 22% (558) of crashes occurred when both vehicles were going straight. Among motorcycle operators 55 years of age and older, NHTSA recorded a 40% increase in fatalities from 1,000 to nearly 1,400 between 2010 and 2019. The average age of a motorcyclist killed, currently reported by NHTSA at 43, has remained mostly consistent over that same period. 

NHTSA data suggests this was significantly higher for motorcyclists compared to other motor vehicles at “16% for passenger cars, 13% for light trucks and 4% for large trucks.” Of two-vehicle fatal crashes involving a motorcycle and another moving vehicle, 41% (1,034) involved the other vehicle turning left while the motorcycle was heading straight, passing or overtaking other vehicles. Moreover, 22% (558) of crashes occurred when both vehicles were going straight.  

There were 1,383 motorcyclists killed in crashes who were alcohol-impaired (BAC equal or greater than .08) driving fatalities in 2019. Motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes also reported higher percentages of alcohol impairment at 29% compared to “20% for passenger car drivers, 19% for light-truck drivers and 2% for large truck drivers.” Further, NHTSA reports 42% (1,886) of motorcyclists killed in single-vehicle crashes were deemed alcohol-impaired. Motorcycle operators killed in crashes at night were also three times more likely to be alcohol-impaired compared to those killed during the day (44% and 15%, respectively). 

State Legislation 

At least 11 states—Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island and Tennessee—enacted new laws regarding motorcyclist safety in 2021. The topics addressed motorcycle licensing and education, motorcycle operation and autocycles.  

Motorcycle Licensing and Education 

Arizona (HB 2115) extended the deposit of $1 of each motorcycle registration fee to the Motorcycle Safety Fund (fund) by four years until July 1, 2025. The fund is used to implement and support voluntary motorcycle education, awareness and training programs. In Kentucky, a new law (SB 131) transferred the Motorcycle Safety Education Commission, as well as the Motorcycle Safety Education Program (Program), from the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet to the Transportation Cabinet. The program aims to help new motorcycle operators learn the needed skills to operate safely on the commonwealth’s roads, while also seeking to help veteran riders improve their skills.  

Kentucky’s other new law (HB 125) stated that applicants seeking a motorcycle operator’s license must successfully complete skills testing on a three-wheeled motorcycle or a two-wheeled motorcycle. If skills testing is completed on a three-wheeled motorcycle, the operator shall be issued a license restricted to the operation of three-wheeled motorcycles. However, if skills testing is done on a two-wheeled motorcycle, the operator is permitted to operate both two- and three-wheeled motorcycles. 

Maine (HB 1049) allowed a motorcycle learner’s permit to be issued by the secretary of state or by a provider of a motorcycle rider education course. The new law directed the secretary of state to adopt rules governing the issuance and renewal of instructor licenses. This includes requiring firms to undergo a background check from the State Bureau of Identification and paying a fee at the time of initial or renewal applications. The law also specified that a completion certificate may be used as a temporary motorcycle permit for 60 days from the course completion date. While operating a motorcycle, the individual is required to be in possession of their certificate, wear a helmet and cannot carry any passengers. Additionally, if “passed 3-wheel BRC” is stamped on the certificate, the individual is restricted to operating a three-wheel motorcycle.  

Montana (HB 383) specified that a motorcycle endorsement is not required to operate a three-wheeled motorcycle or autocycle. Nevada (SB 17) clarified that a motorcycle permit holder seeking to renew their permit must retake and successfully pass all parts of the examination administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles, other than the driving test. Additional provisions outlined an exception to the requirement to maintain an established place of business in the state if a driver training course is taught interactively via communications technology.  

Rhode Island (SB 442/HB 5380) included three-wheeled motorcycles under the licensing requirements of the state Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Additionally, the new law provided for a three-wheeled motorcycle driver education course that shall provide students with a minimum of 16.5 hours of combined classroom instruction and, on-the-range motorcycle training for a beginner rider course and a minimum of five hours for a licensed rider course. Students who successfully complete a course’s skills and written testing requirements are exempted from taking state DMV’s road test provided the student passes a written, vision and road sign examination at a state DMV facility. Finally, the administrator of state DMV is authorized to issue a learner’s permit for a three-wheeled motorcycle that entitles the holder to operate on public roads other than limited access highways.  

Motorcycle Operation 

Illinois (HB 656) required a motorcycle passenger to be capable of resting a foot on the footrest while the motorcycle is being operated.  

Indiana (HB 1285) modified its definition of “motorcycle” to mean a motor vehicle that meets all of the following: 1) has a seat or saddle; 2) is designated to travel on not more than three wheels; 3) complies with state and federal motor vehicle equipment requirements including mirrors, turn signals, speedometers, headlamps and brakes; 4) has a cylinder capacity not exceeding 50 cubic centimeters and 5) is registered as a motor driven cycle. 

Montana (SB 9) allowed operators of two-wheeled motorcycles to engage in “lane filtering” under certain circumstances. The law defined “lane filtering” to mean overtaking and passing another vehicle which is stopped or traveling at a speed not exceeding 10 mph in the same direction of travel and in the same lane. Specifically, an operator of a two-wheeled motorcycle may engage in lane filtering when all the following conditions are met: 1) the operator is on a road with lanes wide enough to pass safely; 2) the overtaking motorcycle is not operated at a speed in excess of 20 mph when overtaking the stopped or slow-moving vehicle and 3) conditions permit continued reasonable and prudent operation while lane filtering.  

New Hampshire (HB 461) permitted motorcycles to have a maximum of four auxiliary driving lamps mounted to the front of the motorcycle at a height of not more than 42 inches above the level surface upon which the motorcycle stands. Previously, motorcycles were restricted to a maximum of three auxiliary lamps. The new law also added a representative of the New Hampshire Motorcyclists' Rights Organization to the Traffic Safety Commission, which commission considers issues related to road and vehicle safety and consists of state safety agencies and traffic safety stakeholders. 

Autocycles 

Hawaii (SB 1291) added autocycles with handlebars under the definition of “motorcycle.” Additionally, the new law exempted motorcycles and motor scooters with a roll bar or roll cage from the safety helmet requirement. In Tennessee, a new law (HB 234) clarified that the existing requirement for motorcyclists to wear a helmet applies to drivers of autocycles which are not fully enclosed.  

Louisiana (HB 354) modified its definition of “autocycle” to include either a partially or completely enclosed seating area and changes the controlling design from a steering wheel to a steering mechanism. Moreover, an autocycle operator shall not be required to have a special endorsement and is only required to hold a valid driver’s license.  

School Bus Safety

Every school day, typically around 480,000 school buses in the country transport 26 million children to school, according to the American School Bus Council (council), and the council notes “Students are about 70 times more likely to get to school safely if they take the school bus instead of traveling by car.”  

School buses are statistically the safest way to transport school children, but crashes and death do still occur. 60 passengers and 53 drivers died while riding in school transportation vehicles between 2011 and 2020, according to NHTSA.

A total of 218 school-age children (18 and younger) died in school-transportation-related crashes during that period, either as occupants of school buses or other vehicles, or on foot or bike. Pedestrians were 1.6 times more likely to be killed in in school transportation-related crashes than occupants of school transportation vehicles between 2010 and 2019. A total of 1,125 people of all ages died in school-transportation-related crashes between 2011 and 2020.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) new Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) is now operational. This centralized database will be used by school districts and student transportation providers to report drug and alcohol program violations. School transportation providers will also be able to query whether school bus driver applicants have violations disqualifying them from driving. State driver licensing agencies will be required to use the clearinghouse beginning in 2023.

State Legislation

States continued to consider legislation to increase safety for school bus passengers while on the bus as well as boarding or disembarking. Legislation in 2021 mostly focused on illegally passing school buses and stop-arm cameras, school bus equipment and school bus drivers.

Illegally Passing School Buses and Stop-Arm Cameras

Instances of motorists illegally passing a stopped school bus may be higher than commonly believed. The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services’ (NASDPTS) 2019 stop-arm violation survey included participation from school bus drivers in 39 states and recorded over 95,000 drivers illegally passing a school bus in a single day. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this is the most recent survey conducted to gauge the extent of this dangerous driver behavior.  An annual survey conducted by the Kansas State Department of Education and NASDPTS recorded four schoolchildren deaths while a school bus was loading or unloading passengers during the 2020-21 school year.

NHTSA recently released a new guide with best practices to reduce illegal passing of school buses. The guide documents the problem, summarizes a model solution for stop-arm compliance and then shares examples of promising state and local programs. 

A recent study by NHTSA examined how three school districts implemented school bus stop-arm cameras to curb illegal passing of such buses. The report found “That the number of illegal passes reported was much higher when reported by stop-arm cameras as opposed to paper forms completed regularly by bus drivers; however, the number of violators reported by stop-arm cameras was fewer than the number of violators captured during district wide one day bus driver surveys.” Furthermore, school bus stop-arm cameras did not appear to reduce the number of violations, but they did seem to reduce repeat offenders.

In response to this traffic safety danger, 24 states—Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming—explicitly allow local governments or school districts to use cameras to capture images and issue tickets for drivers who illegally pass stopped school buses. Some, but not all states, require a law enforcement officer to review the video evidence before issuing a citation.

States continued to refine and strengthen their laws to address illegal school bus passing in 2021, with six states enacting such bills in 2021. 

Michigan became the 24th state (HB 4202/HB 4204) to allow school buses to be equipped with a stop-arm camera system and the recorded videos or photos collected to be used as evidence for illegally passing a stopped school bus. A school may either install and operate a stop-arm camera system themselves or enter into a contract with a private vendor to do so. If requested by an investigating law enforcement agency, a school district must share the recorded video or photograph for use as evidence in a proceeding involving a vehicle’s failing to stop for a school bus or passing a school bus displaying its flashing red lights.

Delaware refined its 2020 law authorizing the Red Clay School District to operate stop-arm cameras with 2021 legislation (HB 120) clarifying that violations captured by a stop-arm camera are civil, not criminal, violations.

The Minnesota legislature appropriated nearly $15 million in one-time grant funding via HF 10 to be used by schools and school bus companies to install and operate school bus stop-arm camera systems. 
While Minnesota law does not explicitly authorize stop-arm cameras, some districts across the state have utilized such cameras over the last decade. The commissioner of public safety must submit a report on school bus stop-signal arm camera systems by Dec. 15, 2023. The report must include an overview of the grant program and recipients; the number of violations captured by school bus stop-arm cameras, including a breakdown by school district; the number of citations issued and a summary of anticipated future costs and recommendations for future funding to run the school bus stop-signal arm camera systems.   

Montana added further detail (HB 267) to its laws governing passing of school buses. The bill clarified that a driver of a motor vehicle approaching the school bus from either direction must stop. The bill also adds language prohibiting a driver from overtaking a stopped school bus on the right side of the school bus; such a violation is a misdemeanor punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than $1,000, by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.

Additionally, the bill requires a school bus to be equipped with an extended stop arm that partially obstructs the roadway if the school bus is used for a route that includes a bus stop that requires a child to cross a roadway. A child may not cross a roadway to enter or exit from a school bus unless the roadway has been partially obstructed by the extended stop arm. Furthermore, the school district board of trustees must approve each school bus stop that requires a student to cross a roadway.

It is a misdemeanor violation with a fine of no more than $500 for a driver who makes contact with any portion of a stopped school bus, including an extended stop arm, or makes contact with a school child within 30 feet of a school bus. Lastly, a person who witnesses an illegal school bus passing may file a written or oral complaint with the county sheriff's office. At the sheriff's discretion, the report may be transferred to the highway patrol or city police department. The report must be investigated by a peace officer and the investigating officer must contact the reporting party within 30 days to provide an update on the status or outcome of the investigation.

The New York legislature established (SB 4661) a school bus motorist education fund, using fine revenue from illegally passing school bus violations. Half of fine revenue must be dispersed to the school bus driver safety training council to study proposals to reduce the number of motorists illegally passing school buses. The remaining 50% of fine revenue must be used by the governor's traffic safety committee, the departments of education and transportation, the division of state police and the state comprehensive school bus driver safety training council to develop and implement a public education program to educate motorists about the dangers of illegally passing a stopped school bus.  

New York also passed a new law (AB 6155) allowing school buses in the state to post signage on school buses warning motorists that a school bus photo violation monitoring systems is in use. 

In Oklahoma, school bus drivers previously had 24 hours to report an illegal passing violation to law enforcement, but new legislation (HB 1967) extended the amount of time school bus drivers have to report such violations to on or before the end of the next business day following the alleged offense.

School Bus Equipment

Three states addressed school bus equipment safety requirements with 2021 legislation.

Maryland authorized (HB 72/SB 448) county boards of education to provide school transportation using vehicles other than type 1 or type 2 school vehicles in certain specified circumstances. Minimum vehicle and driver safety standards must be established for such transportation. The bills also stipulated that every country board of education must submit a report with various info on school transportation vehicles by September of 2025.  

The Montana legislature authorized (HB 207) requiring additional red flashing lights to be mounted on the front and rear of school buses; however such lights must only activate while the school bus is stopped.

Nevada added further detail (AB 417) to the school bus inspection process, including making the inspection an annual, rather than semi-annual, requirement. The superintendent of schools now has 10, instead of 20, days to take appropriate action to have the defects or inspection issues corrected. Failure to do so can lead to the superintendent being charged with a misdemeanor, and upon conviction they may be removed from office. The department of public safety must reinspect any vehicle found to have defects or inspection issues, The department must annually submit a report to each school superintendent of schools with the number of vehicles inspected during the immediately preceding year, the number of defects or inspection issues found, and any actions required by the superintendent to ensure the safety of vehicles used in the transportation of pupils.

School Bus Drivers 

After a few years with several states passing bills concerning school bus drivers, 2021 was a quiet year for such activity, with only Arkansas and New Jersey enacting notable bills.

Arkansas disallowed (HB 1103) a person who has been convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in the past three years from driving a school bus.

New Jersey amended its law (AB 5817) to hold a board of education or school bus contractor responsible if they approve or assign an individual as a school bus driver or substitute, without first complying with the provisions concerning the training, certification, and criminal history record checks for school bus drivers. The bill increased the fines associated with such an action from not more than $5,000 for each offense to not more than $5,000 for the first offense, not more than $10,000 for the second offense, and not more than $15,000 for a third and each subsequent offense.

Bicyclist, Pedestrian and Electric Scooters

According to data from NHTSA, 6,516 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in 2020. This represents a 3.9% increase from 6,272 pedestrian fatalities in 2019, the highest number of pedestrian traffic deaths since 1990. Nearly a quarter of pedestrian fatalities involved hit-and-run drivers. Pedestrian injuries decreased, from 75,650 in 2019 to an estimated 54,769 in 2020. Pedestrian deaths accounted for 17% of all traffic deaths in 2020.

Statistics from NHTSA show there were 938 bicyclist deaths in 2020, an increase of 9% from 2019. Bicyclists made up 2.4% of all traffic fatalities in 2020. As with pedestrian fatalities, the number of bicyclist traffic deaths was the highest since 1990. Notably, 18% of fatal bicyclist crashes had a bicyclist that died with a BAC level of .08 or higher, while drivers involved in crashes involving a bicyclist fatality had a BAC of .08 or higher in 13% of crashes, and 3% of fatal bicyclist crashes involved both a bicyclist and a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.

Overall, according to NHTSA, pedestrians and bicyclists comprised almost 20% of all traffic fatalities in 2020, a significant jump from 16% of fatalities in 2011.

State Legislative Action 

States passed numerous bills in 2021 regarding bicyclist, pedestrian and scooter safety, including laws concerning safe passing, bicycle safety stops, bicycle operation, vulnerable road users, bicyclist and pedestrian infrastructure and electric bicycles and scooters.

Safely Passing Bicyclists and Other Vulnerable Road Users

Laws requiring motorists to leave adequate space when passing a bicyclist—and sometimes other vulnerable road users—have been around since the first such law was passed in Wisconsin in 1973. Now, 35 states and the District of Columbia have enacted passing laws that require the motorist to leave at least 3-feet or more when passing a bicyclist.

North Carolina has 2 feet passing requirement for motorists, and also allows passing in a no-pass zone if a motorist leaves 4 feet clearance. Three states have laws that go beyond a 3-feet passing law. New Jersey and Pennsylvania have 4-feet passing laws. South Dakota enacted a two-tiered passing law in 2015; with a 3-feet passing requirement on roads with posted speeds of 35 mph and a minimum of 6 feet separation for roads with speed limits greater than 35 mph. Additionally, six states, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, Oklahoma and Washington, require a motorist to completely change lanes when passing a bicyclist if there is more than one lane proceeding in the same direction. 

Some states have revised the language on their traffic signs to more clearly communicate the requirement to give bicyclists adequate space when passing. For example, the Colorado Department of Transportation has begun replacing “ Share the Road’ signs with more accurate language stating “State Law: Motorists Must Give Bicycles 3 Ft Clearance.”

Seven states—Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota and Virginia - enacted bills regarding safe passing of bicyclists in 2021. Florida and North Dakota became the latest states to create a new 3 feet or more passing requirement, while the other states refined their existing laws.

Florida (SB 950) added a 3 feet bicycle passing requirement; if a motorist cannot provide such space, the motorist must remain at a safe distance behind the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle until they can safely pass at a distance of not less than 3 feet. The bill also requires a motorist, when passing a bicyclist, to make a right turn only if the bicyclist is at least 20 feet from the intersection and of such a distance that the driver of a vehicle may safely turn. The bill requires the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to provide an annual awareness and safety campaign informing the public about the safety precautions to be taken when overtaking bicycles.

Georgia (HB 353) modified its bicycle passing law to require drivers to change lanes to pass if road and traffic conditions allow, or slow down by at least 10 mph from the posted speed limit or 25 mph, whichever is greater. Drivers which pass bicyclists are also required to ensure three feet of space between their vehicle and a bicyclist. A violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of no more than $250.

Nevada (SB 285) added language to its 3 feet passing requirement allowing a motorist to cross the center line of a roadway to safely pass at the prescribed safe distance, even in a no-passing zone, unless limited or prohibited by certain other restrictions or prohibitions on overtaking on the left side.

New Hampshire (HB 100) added users of motorized wheelchairs or a mobility scooter or device to the list of road users that a motorist must provide at least 3 feet to when passing. 

New Jersey (AB 5570) added a 4 feet passing requirement for a motorist passing a pedestrian, bicycle, low-speed electric bicycle or low-speed electric scooter. When possible, under existing safety and traffic conditions, a motorist shall make a lane change to safely pass. If not possible or unsafe to pass, the motorist must reduce the speed of the vehicle to 25 mph or a lower posted speed and be prepared to stop. The motorist may pass only if, after considering various factors, passing does not endanger the safety of the road user. A violation which results in bodily injury must be fined $500 and assessed two motor vehicle penalty points; if no bodily injury results, the violator must be fined $100, but with no associated penalty points.

North Dakota (HB 1290) created a 3 feet bicycle passing requirement.

Virginia (HB 2262) added language requiring a motorist to, if the lane of travel is not wide enough to allow the overtaking motor vehicle to pass in the manner required, change lanes to overtake the vulnerable road user.

Bicycle Safety Stops

Nine States—Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Washington—have similar laws that allow bicyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign in certain specified situations.  Colorado enacted a safety stop law in 2022.  The laws in Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho and Oklahoma allow bicyclists to treat a stoplight as a stop sign in some instances.

These laws are variously known as an “Idaho Stop” or “Safety Stop” or bicyclist “Stop-As-Yield” laws. A new Traffic Safety Fact sheet on such laws from NHTSA found that “these laws showed added safety benefits for bicyclists in states where they were evaluated, and may positively affect the environment, traffic, and transportation."

North Dakota, Utah and Virginia all enacted laws concerning safety stops in 2021.

North Dakota (HB 1252) authorized bicyclists to yield at a stop sign on roadways with two or fewer lanes, as long as they reduce speed and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection.  Utah passed legislation (HB 142) allowing bicyclists to proceed through intersections through stop signs if they slow to a reasonable speed, yield to the right-of-way of pedestrians and other traffic in the intersection and yield to oncoming traffic that poses a hazard in the intersection. Delaware (HB 121) made their safety stop permanent by removing the sunset provision included in the original law. 

Virginia (HB 2262) authorized the Department of State Police to convene a work group to review issues related to allowing bicycle operators to treat stop signs as yield signs. The work group consists of representatives from state and local law-enforcement agencies, traffic safety organizations and bicyclist organizations.  The department submitted a report to the legislature in December 2021. The report states that the “consensus of the workgroup is if Virginia seeks to achieve a similar result to that of Delaware, the proposal should be substantially similar to that of Delaware.”

Bicycle Operation

Four states—Arkansas, Florida, Nevada and Texas —enacted bills related to bicycle operation in 2021.

Arkansas (HB 1702) clarified that any person lawfully operating a bicycle on a crosswalk has the same rights and duties applicable to pedestrians. The bill also states that a person operating a bicycle on a crosswalk must yield to the right of way of pedestrians and give an audible signal before passing pedestrians.

Florida (HB 353) exempted bikes manufactured to be ridden without a seat from its requirement that bicyclists must ride on a regular seat.

Florida (SB 950) allowed two bicyclists to ride side by side if the bicycle lane is wide enough, and if it is too narrow, bicyclists may only ride side by side to avoid hazards or to overtake another person riding a bicycle. The bill also allows groups of bicyclists to proceed through stop sign intersections in groups of 10 or less after coming to a full stop.

Nevada (SB 285) changed the requirements for bicycles operating on the roadway so that bicycle operators do not have to ride as far to the right as possible when fixed or moving objects (like parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians or surface hazards) impede access to the right side of the roadway, or when a lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within a lane.

Texas (HB 3665) expanded the definition of bicycle to include devices with more than two wheels, including to accommodate modifications necessary for adaptive riding by persons with disabilities.

Vulnerable Road Users

Three states—Maine, Rhode Island and Texas—passed laws regarding crashes involving vulnerable road users in 2021. Maine (SB 208) required law enforcement to initiate an investigation if they believe a traffic infraction, civil violation or criminal violation was connected to a crash involving a vulnerable road user. Law enforcement must submit a final report, including relevant evidence, to the district attorney within 60 days after the crash.

Rhode Island (SB 318) defined a vulnerable road user and created penalties associated with unsafe passing of a vulnerable road user. When an operator causes bodily injury by unsafe passing of a vulnerable road user, they will be fined $200. For incidents of serious bodily injury to the road user, the offender will be fined $500, and their driver’s license will be suspended for three months. If an offender causes the death of a vulnerable road user due to unsafe passing, they will be fined $1,000 and their driver’s license will be suspended for one year.

Texas (SB 1055) created a criminal offense of operating a vehicle in the area of a crosswalk and causing bodily injury to a pedestrian or another vulnerable user, such as a person operating a bicycle, scooter, personal assistive mobility device or golf cart. The offense is a Class A misdemeanor, or a state jail felony if the pedestrian suffers serious bodily injury.

Bicyclist and Pedestrian Infrastructure

Eight states took legislative action to address bicyclist and pedestrian infrastructure in 2021. Most of the legislation focused on creating safe pathways, sidewalk and crosswalk infrastructure.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathways

Four states—Hawaii, Illinois, Maine and Nevada—passed bills requiring or establishing pedestrian or bicycle pathways in the state.

Hawaii (SB 1402) required the Department of Transportation to develop and implement a plan to establish a contiguous network of bicycle and pedestrian highways or pathways connecting communities throughout each island, with minimal intersections with other modes of transportation and protection from vehicle traffic by physical or natural barriers. The Department of Transportation must also establish a network of bicycle and pedestrian pathways connecting all public schools and libraries in a school complex area.

Illinois (HB 270) amended its bicycle and pedestrian planning law to require the state Department of Transportation to establish and solely fund bicycle and pedestrian ways in conjunction with construction, reconstruction or change of state transportation facilities in municipalities with populations over 1,000. Previously the law dictated such bicycle and pedestrian ways for “urban areas.”

Maine (SB 258) directed the Department of Transportation to establish a rail corridor use advisory council in order to discuss and provide advice regarding the future use of state-owned railroad as a trail, bikeway or rail line.

Nevada (SB 285) required any project implemented through the Complete Streets Program to integrate bicycle lanes and bicycle routes, facilities and signs into all plans, designs, construction and maintenance of roads. The Complete Streets Program aims to retrofit streets for accessibility for all users.

Pedestrian Sidewalk & Crosswalk Infrastructure

Hawaii, Idaho and Virginia all passed bills in 2021 concerning pedestrian sidewalk and crosswalk infrastructure.

The Hawaii Legislature required (HB 1081) the Department of Transportation and each county’s transportation department to maintain a priority list of sidewalk installation and pedestrian improvement projects and publish the list on their respective websites. When establishing the lists, the Department of Transportation must consider cost, impact on pedestrian safety, importance to a larger pedestrian network and importance for providing first and last mile connectivity to transit for each project.

Idaho (HB 131) allowed highway district governing boards to make sidewalks wider than the normal 8 feet if the board makes a written finding supporting the public necessity of expanding the width. Virginia (HB 1841) directed the Commissioner of Highways to convene a working group of stakeholders to determine whether there should be model policies for crosswalk design and installation and establish recommendations for such model policies. The policies should promote statewide uniformity, maximize pedestrian safety and consider the needs of people with disabilities.

Pedestrian Crossing Laws

Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois and Nevada passed laws regarding pedestrian crossing in 2021.

Arizona (HB 2395) prohibited vehicles stopping in a private driveway if any part of the vehicle blocks continuous pedestrian use of the sidewalk. This does not apply to vehicles temporarily loading or unloading.

Connecticut (HB 5429) requires motorists to grant the right-of-way to pedestrians crossing the road who raise their arm, hand or any other extension of their body such as a walking stick or bicycle to indicate their intent to cross.

Illinois directed the Department of Transportation (SB 1791) to conduct a traffic study following the occurrence of a crash involving a pedestrian fatality that occurs at the intersection of a state highway. The study must include consideration of alternative geometric design improvements, traffic controls devices and any other possible improvements. The study must be published on the Department website. 

The Nevada Legislature changed the penalty (AB 403) for pedestrians crossing the highway in a prohibited manner from a misdemeanor to a civil penalty with a maximum fine of $100.

Miscellaneous

California (AB 773) authorized localities to implement slow streets programs, which may include closures to vehicle or through vehicle traffic of local streets that connect to bicycle networks, destinations that are within walking distance or green space. The locality must meet certain conditions to implement a slow street, including a determination that a closure is necessary for the safety and protection of people using that portion of the street, conducting an outreach and engagement process and clearly designating the closure with specific signage.

The Connecticut legislature created the Vision Zero Council (HB 5429) to develop a state-wide policy and interagency approach to eliminate all transportation-related fatalities and severe injuries to pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, motorists and passengers.

Electric bikes

Iowa (HB 493), Missouri (SB 176), Nevada (SB 383), North Dakota (HB 1148) and Vermont (SB 66) all enacted bills in 2021 defining electric bikes (e-bikes). All five states used the following three-tiered e-bike classification system that has been championed by the e-bike industry and adopted by over 30 states thus far:

• Class 1: An electric bicycle equipped with a motor that assists only when the rider is pedaling and that ceases to assist when the electric bicycle reaches the speed of 20 mph. 
• Class 2: An electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the electric bicycle and that ceases to assist when the electric bicycle reaches the speed of 20 mph. 
• Class 3: An electric bicycle equipped with a motor that assists only when the rider is pedaling and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches the speed of 28 mph.

E-bike riders in all five states have the same rights and responsibilities as traditional bicyclists. The five state’s laws all required class 3 e-bikes to have a speedometer, a provision also adopted by Maine (SF 371) in 2021. Missouri, North Dakota, Vermont and Iowa also implemented age restrictions for e-bike operations. In Missouri and Iowa, an individual under age 16 is prohibited from operating a class 3 e-bike, and Vermont also prohibited class 3 e-bike operations for individuals under 16, but they may ride as a passenger on such bikes. North Dakota prohibited individuals under age 18 from operating a class 3 e-bike unless the user is wearing a safety helmet, making it the only state that included any sort of e-bike helmet requirement in 2021. Additionally, the bills all required motors on e-bikes to disengage when the rider stops pedaling or applies the brakes. All five states also mandated manufacturers of e-bikes to affix labeling to bikes that states the maximum assisted speed, classification and motor wattage. Lastly, Vermont added “a person operating a motor-assisted bicycle or an electric bicycle” to the definition of a “vulnerable user” in their state law.

All five states also included provisions regarding operation on paths and authority of local governments. In Missouri and Vermont, a local government may prohibit the operation of a class 3 electric bicycle on a bicycle or multi-use path, and following notice and a public hearing, may restrict class 1 and 2 operation as well. In Nevada, a local authority may prohibit operation of e-bikes or a class of e-bikes on bicycle or shared-use paths after a notice and a hearing. In North Dakota, an individual may operate an e-bike on any bicycle or multi-use path unless otherwise prohibited by a governmental entity. Iowa prohibited individuals from operating class 3 low-speed e-bikes over the posted or applicable speed limit on bicycle lanes and multi-use paths, and if there is not posted speed limit, 20 miles per hour.

California (SB 814) passed legislation adding e-bikes under the definitions of bicycles and pedicabs.

Oklahoma (SB 184) enacted a law allowing all three classes of e-bikes to ride on bicycle and multiuse paths—previously only classes 1 and 2 could ride on such paths. However, local governments continue to have authority to prohibit e-bike usage on paths if they so choose.

Washington (SB 5452) passed legislation requiring the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Fish and Wildlife to undergo public processes to collect information related to e-bike use on nonmotorized natural trails and closed roads open to bicycles to determine when such use should occur, and which classes of e-bikes should be included. The findings from both departments must be submitted to the legislature by Sept. 30, 2022. The bill also requires that until June 30, 2023, or until legislation is enacted regarding the use of e-bikes on nonmotorized surface trails and closed roads on lands managed by the Department of Natural Resources and by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, individuals who possess a placard for persons with disabilities must be allowed to operate class 1 and 2 electric assisted bicycles on those bicycle trails.

Electric Scooters

California and Hawaii enacted laws concerning electric scooter definitions and regulations in 2021. California (SB 814) expanded the definition of electric scooters to include any two-wheeled device that has handlebars and footrests in place of a floorboard. The bill also required scooter manufacturers to include a disclosure to buyers that their insurance may not provide coverage for accidents on the scooter and that the buyer may not alter the exhaust system of the scooter.

Hawaii (HB 72) defined scooters and established a regulatory framework for personally owned electric scooters. An “electric foot scooter” is defined as a device weighing less than 75 pounds with two or three wheels and handlebars, with either a floorboard that can be stood upon while riding or a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and stationary footrests. The scooter may be powered by an electric motor or human power and the maximum speed may not exceed 15 mph.

Counties are authorized to: regulate operations upon roadways, bikeways, bicycle paths, and sidewalks; storage and docking locations; restrictions on maximum speed; safety considerations and insurance requirements.

In terms of state safety requirements, the bill states that no one under the age of 15 may operate electric scooters, and anyone under 16 years old must wear a helmet while using an electric scooter. The maximum speed limit for operating a scooter is no more than 15 mph.

Additionally, the bill prohibits more than one person riding on a scooter. Scooters must meet the bicycle lighting and lamp requirements for operation from 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise. The bill also established a permanent $30 registration fee for scooters.