House Study Committee on Distracted Driving
Report of the Committee
December 31 2017
Georgia General Assembly House Budget and Research Office
This report is submitted pursuant to the following resolution
HR 282
which created the House Study Committee on Distracted Driving to which members were appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives
Representative John Carson Chairman
Representative Eddie Lumsden
Representative Shaw Blackmon
Representative Brian Prince
Representative Heath Clark Representative Doreen Carter Representative Rich Golick
Representative Darlene Taylor
Representative Robert Trammell Representative Bill Hitchens 2
Georgia House of Representatives House Study Committee on Distracted Driving
Members of the Committee
Representative John Carson Chairman Representative Shaw Blackmon Representative Heath Clark Representative Doreen Carter Representative Rich Golick Representative Bill Hitchens Representative Eddie Lumsden Representative Brian Prince Representative Darlene Taylor Representative Robert Trammell
Staff Craig Foster Policy Analyst House Budget and Research Office Jenna Dolde Office of Legislative Counsel
3
Table of Contents
Key Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Background of Distracted Driving ................................................................................................................. 6
Overview of Issue...................................................................................................................................... 6 National Statistics ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Current State of Traffic Crashes.................................................................................................................... 8 Total Crashes and Crash Rate per million Vehicle Miles Traveled ("VMT")........................................... 8 Fatalities in Georgia Crashes per 100 million VMT ................................................................................ 8 Rural vs. Urban Crash Severity.................................................................................................................. 9 Impact of Increased Traffic Crashes............................................................................................................ 10 Auto Insurance........................................................................................................................................10 Healthcare............................................................................................................................................... 12 Traffic Delays / Transportation ............................................................................................................... 12 Enforcement of Distracted Driving Offenses .............................................................................................. 13 Types of Driving Distractions .................................................................................................................. 13 Georgia s 2010 Texting Law .................................................................................................................... 13 Difficulty of Enforcing Georgia s Existing Texting Law ............................................................................ 14 Inconsistency with DUI Laws...................................................................................................................14 Effectiveness of Hands-Free Laws............................................................................................................... 15 States with Hands-Free Laws .................................................................................................................. 15 Discussion of States Hands-Free Laws ................................................................................................... 15 Study Committee Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 17 Other Potential Solutions and Why Not Proposed ..................................................................................... 19 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 20 Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 21
4
Key Findings
The following are the committee s key findings from studying the issue of distracted driving in Georgia Georgia s traffic crashes are becoming more frequent and more severe. Traffic crashes are up 36% from 2014 to 2016 and resulting fatalities are up 34% over the same period. This increase occurs mainly in three types of crashes (1) rear-end collisions (2) single car crashes and (3) crashes by 15-25-year-old drivers. Public safety personnel state this is a clear indication of driver inattention. In addition the increase in fatalities is also notable in these groups (1) pedestrians (2) motorcyclists and (3) bicyclists. Public safety personnel across our state have made it clear that our laws against texting and driving are unenforceable because law officers cannot determine whether a driver is texting or simply dialing a telephone number. Our texting laws are ineffective. For example there were more Georgia traffic fatalities per VMT in 2016 than before the 2010 texting law. Georgia leads the entire nation in auto insurance premium rate increases (12.2% average increase in 2016 vs. 5.6% nationwide). This issue is placing enormous demands on our public health infrastructure since many times the affected individuals impacted by these crashes are underinsured or have no insurance. A driver in rural Georgia is twice as likely to be in a fatal distracted driving accident as an urban area driver (due to speeds undivided highways and greater distance to emergency / trauma care centers). Of the 15 states plus the District of Columbia ("D.C.") that have enacted "hands-free" laws 13 of these states saw an average 16% decrease in traffic fatalities within two years after passing and enforcing their new laws.
5
Background of Distracted Driving
Overview of Issue Since reaching its lowest point in 2014 there has been a significant increase in traffic fatalities in Georgia. According to crash data from the Georgia Department of Transportation ("GDOT") there were 1 170 traffic fatalities in Georgia in 2014 1 432 in 2015 and 1 561 in 2016. This represents a 33% increase in deaths from 2014 to 2016 the highest level since 2007. According to the National Safety Council fatal crashes in Georgia from 2014 to 2015 increased at three times the national average. With an improved economy and lower gasoline prices both the number of vehicles on the road and the number of miles driven per vehicle have increased in the past two to three years. The Federal Highway Administration estimates the number of miles driven in 2015 increased by 3.5% nationally (the largest annual increase since 2000). According to the Georgia Department of Driver s Services ("DDS") the number of licensed drivers in Georgia increased from 6 650 037 in 2014 to 6 975 900 in 2016. More drivers driving more miles will result in more accidents. More interestingly GDOT through accident reports collected by the Department of Public Safety ("DPS") reports that 51% of fatal accidents each year are single vehicle accidents. In 2015 60% of fatalities were from a driver failing to maintain his or her lane and 74% were attributed to driver behaviors such as impaired driving driving too fast for conditions and distracted driving. It is these behaviors that can be studied and addressed to possibly make a positive impact. Since Georgia began increasing penalties for impaired driving (DUI) and passed a primary enforced seat belt law the number of deaths attributed to these behaviors steadily declined. However the more recent and notable change in driver behavior has been the common use of mobile technology. In a 2015 survey by AT&T 70% of respondents admitted to using their smartphones while driving. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute in their 2015 studies estimated that 7% of drivers are talking on their cell phones at any given moment. These groups further estimated that 2.2% of all drivers and 4.9% of drivers aged 16-24 were observed manipulating a handheld device. Technology use is a significant and growing portion our daily lives and these studies are showing its misuse is increasing the number of deaths in our roadways. Georgia has adopted several laws to address distracted driving and specifically technology use while driving. That said it is likely that for several reasons the current statutes may not be enough to address this growing threat. It is for this reason the House Study Committee on Distracted Driving was created and this was the focus of its study.
6
National Statistics The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") estimated that in 2015 3 477 people were killed and 391 000 were injured in car crashes due to distracted driving (NHTSA Distracted Driving Overview). In the same year the Centers for Disease Control estimated that 16% of all crashes with injuries and 10% of fatal crashes were due to distracted driving (CDC Distracted Driving Overview). As this relates to mobile technology specifically "Unlike distractions such as eating selecting pre-set radio stations etc. electronic devices are more interactive and require greater time commitment and continual attention response and manipulation to obtain a desired result."1 In the same study it was stated that sending and receiving a text message takes the driver s eyes off the road on average of 4.6 seconds. That is the equivalent to driving blindfolded the distance of a football field at 55 miles per hour. Dr. Jonathan Rupp the Co-Director of the Injury Prevention Research Center at Emory University testified before the committee and cited a study done by NHTSA that found a driver is twice as likely to be in a crash while driving distracted. The crash likelihood varied based on the type of distraction. For example a driver is 12 times more likely to have a crash while dialing a phone as opposed to twice as likely when simply talking on one. As dangerous as distracted driving is in general it is especially so for young drivers. Automobile crashes remain the number one killer of teenagers and young adults. According to data presented by DPS between January 1 2013 and June 30 2017 there were 780 062 crashes 430 662 injuries and 2 748 fatalities for drivers aged 15 to 25. In 2017 alone 5 683 of those crashes are attributed to distracted driving. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found in its 2015 study that 58% of teen crashes were due to driver distraction. In several surveys of teen drivers as many as 41% percent reported reading social media while driving 30% reported posting on social media and 58% reported texting and driving. Drivers 19 to 24 years of age outpaced other driver s frequencies at 66.1% for reading and 59.3% for sending communications. Distracted driving is a national issue and one that must be addressed for the safety of all citizens.
1 Chase C. U.S. State and Federal Laws Targeting Distracted Driving Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine Vol 58 pg. 84 (2014).
7
Current State of Traffic Crashes
Total Crashes and Crash Rate per million Vehicle Miles Traveled ("VMT")
Traffic crashes in Georgia are increasing significantly in number
36% increase from 2014 to 2016.
Source Georgia Governor s Office of Highway Safety Note 2016 data for crashes per million VMT is not yet available
Public safety officials including Georgia State Patrol and local law enforcement across Georgia cited the following main types of crashes causing these increases (1) Rear-End crashes (2) Single-Car crashes and (3) Crashes by 15-25-year-old drivers. See Appendix "Leading Increases in Traffic Crashes by Type."
Fatalities in Georgia Crashes per 100 million VMT
Fatalities from these traffic crashes are likewise increasing
34% increase from 2014 to 2016.
Source Governor s Office of Highway Safety Georgia State Patrol Note 2016 data for fatalities per 100 mil VMT is not yet available
Public officials also noted the main categories of fatalities with significant percentage increases were (1) bicyclists (2) pedestrians (3) motorcyclists and (4) passenger car occupants. See Appendix "Leading Increases in Traffic Fatalities by Type."
8
Rural vs. Urban Crash Severity Through our study of crash data our study committee also noted crashes in rural Georgia are twice as likely to be fatal than in urban areas.
Source Georgia Governor s Office of Highway Safety
This discrepancy is primarily due to Higher rates of speed being traveled More undivided highways thereby increasing the likelihood of a head-on collision and Further distance to a hospital / trauma care center.
As a result we believe distracted driving is a significant public safety issue for our state s rural areas.
9
Impact of Increased Traffic Crashes
In addition to the obvious tragedy of higher losses of life caused by distracted driving there are numerous other areas that are adversely impacting Georgians. Auto Insurance These increases in traffic crashes have also caused our state s premium rates to increase each of the past five years. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Georgia had the highest average increase in auto insurance premiums in 2016 leading the nation at 12.2%.
Source S&P Global Market Intelligence
Despite these increases in premiums insurance companies have experienced increased underwriting losses due to the higher claims. The following is a graph of the insurance industry s direct premiums earned which is a comparison of premiums earned over each calendar year vs. insurance claims for the same year. Note how auto insurance companies have incurred losses since 2011 with the largest percentage loss in 2015.
10
Source NAIC Note 2016 data not yet available from NAIC
Dr. Robert Hartwig Professor at the University of South Carolina and Co-Director for its Center for Risk and Uncertainty Management shared the following data points
The frequency of collision claims in Georgia increased 6.9% in 2016 (7th highest nationally). The national average was 5.1%
Bodily injury claims through June 2017 were up 4.7% in frequency and 7.4% in severity Property damage claims through June 2017 were up 8.6% in frequency and 1.9% in severity Georgia s collision loss ratio was up 23.6% from 2010 to 2015 and for the first time in recent
history was above the national average. This trend continued into 2016.
11
Healthcare Given that few drivers readily admit to distracted driving as the cause of an accident it s rather difficult to assess the exact impact of this public safety issue on our state s healthcare system. However our study committee listened to presentations from Medical Association of Georgia WellStar Health System trauma surgeons and the Georgia Department of Public Health ("DPH"). We believe this issue is causing a strain on our state s healthcare network especially upon trauma care and emergency rooms. According to DPH Georgia s motor vehicle crashes in 2015 (measuring only Georgia residents) resulted in
5 860 hospitalizations resulting in $698 million of charges and 103 926 emergency room visits resulting in $416 million of charges. Of these hospitalizations approximately 55% are paid by private insurance or uninsured patients with the remaining 45% paid through public programs. WellStar Health System presented that distracted driving is "seriously overcrowding" its emergency departments and intensive care units. This is also leading to increased patient wait times for ER admittance and treatment. WellStar further stated this issue is causing its trauma care nurses to have behaviors consistent with compassion fatigue and burnout.
Traffic Delays / Transportation The issue of distracted driving is also causing traffic delays and stress to our highway infrastructure. For example when a driver is distracted at a traffic light and does not proceed upon a green light traffic sensors at the intersection do not detect movement. When this occurs the traffic light changes more quickly to red than if sensors are detecting moving vehicles passing through the intersection. In addition driver inattention is also causing an increase in construction zones. GDOT reports that road construction fatalities increased 74% from 2014 to 2016. See Appendix "Transportation Work Zones Crashes and Fatalities."
12
Enforcement of Distracted Driving Offenses
Types of Driving Distractions
NHTSA defines distracted driving as "...any activity that diverts attention from driving including talking or texting on your phone eating and drinking talking to people in your vehicle fiddling with the stereo entertainment or navigation system--anything that takes your attention away from the task of safe driving." NHTSA further notes that sending or reading a text or any other visual interaction with an electronic device takes your eyes off the road for approximately five seconds.
There are three recognized types of distractions while driving
Visual Taking your eyes off the road. Examples include texting Internet browsing or otherwise glancing at objects inside or outside the vehicle but unrelated to the road.
Manual Taking your hands off the steering wheel. Examples include holding a mobile phone eating drinking smoking etc.
Cognitive Taking your mind off the road. Examples include talking to another passenger a crying infant thinking about other activities / responsibilities etc.
Each form of distraction is dangerous on its own and most instances of distracted driving involve two or more of these types of distractions.
Georgia s 2010 Texting Law
Like many other states Georgia enacted a "no-texting" law. However several issues have evolved since passage of this law
Difficulty in enforcement - (see below)
Confusion on the law Many drivers refer to this statute as the "no-texting" law even though the statute also prohibits Internet data. O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2 states "(b) No person who is 18 years of age or older or who has a Class C license shall operate a motor vehicle on any public road or highway of this state while using a wireless telecommunications device to write send or read any text based communication including but not limited to a text message instant message e-mail or Internet data." As a result drivers accessing Internet sites and related data (i.e. Google social media sites etc.) believe they are abiding by their understanding of the law since they are not "texting".
Multiple statutes The Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia and municipal court judges cite confusion as well. A distracted driving violation depending on its nature and circumstances could potentially be prosecuted under one two or all three of Georgia s statutes covering this issue. This uncertainty can many times cause a judge to dismiss charges because of ambiguity in the law.
Changing technology Since 2010 texting volume has decreased slightly but overall wireless Internet data has increased dramatically. See next page for a graph on the increase in Internet data traffic on mobile devices.
13
2016 mobile data use is 35 times the volume of 2010 traffic.
Source Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Difficulty of Enforcing Georgia s Existing Texting Law This law went into effect in 2010 but state and local law enforcement have had numerous issues enforcing this law including
Inability to determine driver s actions Law enforcement has made it clear to our committee that determining what exactly a driver is doing on his or her phone is very difficult. Traffic officers cannot determine whether someone is dialing a phone number or texting / Internet browsing.
Risks to law enforcement To successfully enforce this law a law enforcement officer must look through to the driver s window (which are many times tinted) to his or her phone and determine which mobile phone functions or applications the driver is using. In addition if the law enforcement officer is working alone he or she must usually do this while safely operating his or her own vehicle.
Privacy concerns Based on recent judicial decisions we believe there are significant 4th Amendment privacy issues / concerns with accessing a driver s mobile phone data and usage.
Inconsistency with DUI Laws In addition we also noted that our state s penalties for texting and driving are far less severe than for Driving Under the Influence. Currently the penalty in Georgia for texting and driving is $150 and a 1point penalty against a license for each occurrence. See Appendix for brief discussion of Georgia s DUI penalties.
14
Effectiveness of Hands-Free Laws
States with Hands-Free Laws The following is a map of the U.S. states that have a hands-free law as of December 2017
Source Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Discussion of States Hands-Free Laws To determine the effectiveness of a hands-free law our committee reviewed NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) data of fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled ("VMT"). As of September 2017 a total of 15 states and D.C. have hands-free laws governing mobile phone use while driving. Of note New Mexico does not have a statewide ban but rather a Local Option by Jurisdiction law against handheld cell phone use. The following page is a chart of the fatality percentage increase / decrease for the 15 states and D.C. that have hands-free laws.
15
Reduction in Fatalities per 100 MVMT
State
Approximate year of law s
passage
Fatality increase/(decrease) %
From year before
passage to 2 years
Total since
after
before law
California
2008
Connecticut
2005
Delaware
2010
D.C.
2004
Hawaii
2013
Illinois
2014
Maryland
2010
Nevada
2011
New Hampshire
2015
New Jersey
2007
New Mexico
2014
New York
2001
Oregon
2017
Vermont
2014
Washington
2007
West Virginia
2013
-31.1% -1.1% -3.1% -45.5% -26.6% 4.4% -13.1% -6.9% n/a -21.6% -12.1% -1.8% n/a -19.6% -22.3% -23.3%
-22.1% -9.7% -0.8% -65.2% -26.6% 4.4% -10.1% -0.9% n/a -26.5% -12.1% -22.1% n/a -19.6% -15.2% -23.3%
Average
-16.0%
-17.8%
Highlighted results indicate a more than 20% statistical decrease in fatalities over the period.
Source NHTSA
Observations from this data 12 of the 15 states experienced a decreased in fatalities within two years after their hands-free law passed while two other states (New Hampshire and Oregon) did not have sufficient data and Six of these states saw a greater than 20% decrease in fatalities.
As noted above traffic fatalities have noticeably been reduced in the years after passage and enforcement of hands-free laws.
16
Study Committee Recommendations
Based on our committee s meetings statistics and data provided and testimony from involved parties our Study Committee recommends the State of Georgia implement the following recommendations
Recommended Change
Discussion
Why Recommended
Enact a "Hands-Free" law in the state of Georgia.
Prevents Georgia drivers from having physical contact with their mobile phones or other telecommunications equipment including all mobile phones tablets iPads etc. Also need to create restrictions on use of smart watches.
As of December 2017 15 other U.S. states have a "Hands-Free" law in effect.
The main benefit of this option is enforceability. Law enforcement officials from across the state have made it clear that the current law is unenforceable as public safety officers cannot determine whether someone is texting or merely dialing a telephone number. In addition this solution is simple and has been effective in other states.
Also based on input from public safety officials and other states updated laws we also recommend allowing Georgia drivers to touch or "swipe" their mobile phone once for dialing / receiving a call and once more for ending a call. Public safety officials have informed us that this is still easily enforceable.
Increase the fine along a staggered scale from $150 up to $1 000 for serious repeat offenders.
The current fine for a distracted driving citation is $150.
In addition we want to enable local courts to scale the fine to the seriousness of the offense (i.e. while both actions are hazardous to public safety holding a phone while stationary or moving slowly could be argued to be less serious than accessing social media and other similar Internet data applications while driving at much higher speeds).
When compared to Georgia s statutory fines for driving under the influence as well as other states fines for texting and driving this figure is rather low.
17
Study Committee Recommendations (continued)
Recommended Change
Discussion
Why Recommended
Increase the penalty along a staggered scale to 2 points and up to 4 points for serious repeat offenders.
The current license penalty for a distracted driving citation is only one point.
In addition we want to enable local courts to scale the penalty to the seriousness of the offense (see above).
When compared to Georgia s statutory penalties for driving under the influence as well as other states fines for texting and driving this figure is rather low particularly given that 15 points are accumulated before suspending a Georgia driver s license.
Collapse the three state statutes concerning distracted driving into one clear statute.
Because a citation could possibly fall one two or all three this causes confusion with regards to which statute(s) in OCGA 40-6-241 govern an offense and a lack of consistency with regards to fines / penalties.
We believe collapsing these laws will provide more clarity to both law enforcement and the courts going forward.
Promote continued education and culture change.
We recommend continued and expanded distracted driving and related seminars (i.e. Life Changing Experiences Teen Victim Impact Program crash survivors as speakers etc.) to educate Georgia s drivers particularly young adults.
We recognize that this culture change will take time to develop.
However given the long-term benefits of safety and saved lives we believe such an initiative is very worthwhile.
Overall we would like to see distracted driving become as culturally unacceptable as drunk driving.
18
Other Potential Solutions and Why Not Proposed
Option
Description
Why Not Recommended
Require technological applications / solutions on smartphones and other devices.
There are numerous smartphone applications that could potentially reduce distractions while driving. As of 2017 these include LifeSaver AT&T s DriveMode TrueMotion Family Mojo etc.
Each of these applications has various benefits including the ability to block text messages / calls and track vehicle speed and locations etc.
We appreciate these technological advances but the overall issue of distracted driving is human behavior not technology. This applies to any distraction not just mobile phones.
Since a driver s actions / behavior would be required to download install and activate an application (and not disable it) our study committee does not believe this would be an effective alternative.
Completely ban the usage of mobile devices by drivers.
This proposal has previously been made by the National Safety Council and other public safety advocacy groups.
Though likely effective we believe this solution is not realistic or viable. In addition it is the study committee s understanding that the National Safety Council is no longer actively advocating this solution.
It is also worth noting that not a single U.S. state completely bans the use of a mobile phone by a driver.
Maintain "status quo."
Do not address this issue legislatively administratively or otherwise.
Given our state s increases in vehicle crashes fatalities and auto insurance premiums this would not be the best solution for the safety and well-being of Georgia drivers.
19
Acknowledgements
The committee would like to thank the individuals groups and agencies for their invaluable cooperation and information used to conduct this study. Paper copies of all materials provided the committee for their consideration have been kept and filed by Craig Foster of the House Budget and Research Office 404-656-7881 Craig.Foster house.ga.gov.
20
Appendices
21
Study Committee Meeting Agendas
House Distracted Driving Study Committee
August 28th 2017 9 30am
Coverdell Legislative Office Building Room 606
9 30 10 45
10 45 11 15 11 30 1 00 1 00 2 30 2 30 - 2 40 2 40 -3 00
Dr. Robert Hartwig PhD Clinical Associate Professor Finance Department Co-Director Center for Risk and Uncertainty Management University of South Carolina Columbia South Carolina
Col. Mark McDonough Georgia State Patrol Harris Blackwood Governor s Office of Highway Safety
Working Lunch Reality Rides simulator sponsored by AllState Lunch provided by AllState at simulator exhibit
Mr. Joel Feldman Esq. Founder of EndDD (End Distracted Driving) Philadelphia Pennsylvania
Ms. Jennifer Smith StopDistractions.org Chicago Illinois
Closing comments
House Distracted Driving Study Committee
September 25th 2017 9 30am Central Georgia Technical College 80 Cohen Walker Drive Warner Robins GA 31088
9 30 10 00 10 00 10 30 10 30 11 00 11 00 11 30 11 30 11 45 11 45 1 00 1 00 2 00 2 00 3 00
3 00
Harris Blackwood Governor s Office of Highway Safety
Capt. Derick Durden Office of Planning & Research Georgia State Patrol
Commissioner Spencer Moore Georgia Department of Driver Services
Robert Dallas Former Director Governor s Office of Highway Safety
Karla Riker Director Corporate Citizenship & Sustainability AT&T
Working Lunch AT&T It Can Wait texting simulator
Local law enforcement including Houston County Sheriff s office Byron Police Department
Victims Families including Natalie Bacho Neal Ardman Brian Ortiz-Moreno Jennifer Smith StopDistractions.org
Closing comments
24
House Distracted Driving Study Committee
October 10th 2017 9 30am Savannah International Trade & Convention Center
1 International Dr Savannah GA 31421
9 30 10 00 10 00 10 15 10 15 10 30
10 30 11 00 11 00 11 45
11 45 1 00 1 00 2 00 2 00 3 00 3 00
Andrew Heath State Traffic Engineer Georgia Department of Transportation
Ann Purcell Board Member Georgia Department of Transportation
Bart Gobeil Senior Director of Economic Development & Governmental Affairs Georgia Ports Authority
Dr. David Kidd PhD Senior Research Scientist Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Transportation Industry representatives (invited) Ed Crowell Georgia Motor Trucking Association Dave Moellering Georgia Highway Contractors Association John Bennett/Caila Brown Savannah Bicycle Coalition
Lunch
Local law enforcement
Victims Families
Closing comments
25
House Distracted Driving Study Committee
October 30th 2017 9 00am Greater North Fulton Chamber of Commerce
11605 Haynes Bridge Rd Suite 100 Alpharetta GA 30009
9 00 9 45
9 45 10 30 10 30 10 45
10 45 11 00 11 00 11 15 Services 11 15 11 45 11 45 1 00
1 00 1 15 1 15 1 30 1 30 2 30 2 30 3 30 3 30
Dr. Charles I. Wilmer M.D. F.A.C.C. Piedmont Heart Institute Chair Medical Association of ATL Dr. John Harvey MD Trauma Surgeon David Waldrep CAE Executive Director Medical Association of ATL
David Bayne Director of Government Relations DPH Lisa Dawson Injury Prevention Program Director DPH
Freda Lyon DNP RN NE-BC System V.P. Emergency Services WellStar Health System
Dennis Ashley M.D. F.A.C.S. F.C.C.M. Chairman Georgia Trauma Care Network Commission
Kimberly Littleton Executive Director GA Association of Emergency Medical
Mr. Bob Cheeley Esq. Cheeley Law Group
(Attorney for families of 3 of the 5 GA Southern nursing students in the May 2015 crash)
Working Lunch Dr. Jonathan Rupp Ph.D. Associate Professor Emory Department of Emergency Medicine Kenneth Bain Program Director of Community Education Life Changing Experiences
Stephanie Woodard Solicitor General of Hall County (Representing Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia)
Honorable Gary E. Jackson Chief Deputy Judge Municipal Court of Atlanta
Local law enforcement
Victims Families
Closing comments
26
Georgia s Current Distraction Driving Laws
O.C.G.A. 40-6-241 (2010)
Driver to exercise due care proper use of radios and mobile telephones allowed
A driver shall exercise due care in operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state and shall not engage in any actions which shall distract such driver from the safe operation of such vehicle provided that except as prohibited by Code Sections 40-6-241.1 and 40-6-241.2 the proper use of a radio citizens band radio mobile telephone or amateur or ham radio shall not be a violation of this Code section.
O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.1 (2010)
Definitions prohibition on certain persons operating motor vehicle while engaging in wireless communications exceptions penalties
(a) As used in the Code section the term
(1) "Engage in a wireless communication" means talking writing sending or reading a textbased communication or listening on a wireless telecommunications device.
(2) "Wireless telecommunications device" means a cellular telephone a text-messaging device a personal digital assistant a stand-alone computer or any other substantially similar wireless device that is used to initiate or receive a wireless communication with another person. It does not include citizens band radios citizens band radio hybrids commercial two-way radio communication devices subscription-based emergency communications in-vehicle security navigation and remote diagnostics systems or amateur or ham radio devices.
(b) Except in a driver emergency and as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section no person who has an instruction permit or a Class D license and is under 18 years of age shall operate a motor vehicle on any public road or highway of this state while engaging in a wireless communication using a wireless telecommunications device.
(c) The provisions of this Code section shall not apply to a person who has an instruction permit or a Class D license and is under 18 years of age who engages in a wireless communication using a wireless telecommunications device to do any of the following
(1) Report a traffic accident medical emergency or serious road hazard
(2) Report a situation in which the person believes his or her personal safety is in jeopardy
(3) Report or avert the perpetration or potential perpetration of a criminal act against the driver or another person or
(4) Engage in a wireless communication while the motor vehicle is lawfully parked.
(d)
(1) Any conviction for a violation of the provisions of this Code section shall be punishable by a fine of $150.00. The provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 17 and any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding the costs of such prosecution shall not be taxed nor shall any
additional penalty fee or surcharge to a fine for such offense be assessed against a person for conviction thereof. The court imposing such fine shall forward a record of the disposition of the case of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle while using a wireless telecommunications device to the Department of Driver Services.
(2) If the operator of the moving motor vehicle is involved in an accident at the time of a violation of this Code section then the fine shall be equal to double the amount of the fine imposed in paragraph (1) of this subsection. The law enforcement officer investigating the accident shall indicate on the written accident form whether such operator was engaging in a wireless communication at the time of the accident.
(e) Each violation of this Code section shall constitute a separate offense.
O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2 (2010)
Writing sending or reading text based communication while operating motor vehicle prohibited exceptions penalties for violation
(a) As used in the Code section the term "wireless telecommunications device" means a cellular telephone a text messaging device a personal digital assistant a stand-alone computer or any other substantially similar wireless device that is used to initiate or receive a wireless communication with another person. It does not include citizens band radios citizens band radio hybrids commercial twoway radio communication devices subscription based emergency communications in-vehicle security navigation devices and remote diagnostics systems or amateur or ham radio devices.
(b) No person who is 18 years of age or older or who has a Class C license shall operate a motor vehicle on any public road or highway of this state while using a wireless telecommunications device to write send or read any text based communication including but not limited to a text message instant message e-mail or Internet data.
(c) The provisions of this Code section shall not apply to
(1) A person reporting a traffic accident medical emergency fire serious road hazard or a situation in which the person reasonably believes a person s health or safety is in immediate jeopardy
(2) A person reporting the perpetration or potential perpetration of a crime
(3) A public utility employee or contractor acting within the scope of his or her employment when responding to a public utility emergency
(4) A law enforcement officer firefighter emergency medical services personnel ambulance driver or other similarly employed public safety first responder during the performance of his or her official duties or
(5) A person engaging in wireless communication while in a motor vehicle which is lawfully parked.
(d) Any conviction for a violation of the provisions of this Code section shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $150.00. The provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 17 and any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding the costs of such prosecution shall not be taxed nor shall any additional
29
penalty fee or surcharge to a fine for such offense be assessed against a person for conviction thereof. The court imposing such fine shall forward a record of the disposition to the Department of Driver Services. Any violation of this Code section shall constitute a separate offense.
30
Leading Increases in Traffic Crashes by Type
Rear-End Crashes
Source Georgia Department of Public Safety
Single Car Crashes
Source Georgia Department of Public Safety
15-25-Year-Old Driver Crashes
Source Georgia Department of Public Safety
33
Leading Increases in Traffic Fatalities by Type
Passenger Car Occupants
31% increase from 2014 to 2016.
Source National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Motorcyclists
25% increase from 2014 to 2016.
Source National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Bicyclists
52% increase from 2014 to 2016.
Source National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pedestrians
42% increase from 2014 to 2016.
Source National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 36
Current Crash Incident Report
(Template Used by Georgia State Patrol)
37
Revised Crash Incident Report
(New Template to be Used by Georgia State Patrol Note New Boxes for Distracted Driving Reporting)
40
Agency Case Number
Estimated Crash
Date
Time
Agency NCIC Number
GEORGIA MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH REPORT
Dispatch
Arrival
Date
Time
Date
Time
County
Total Number of Vehicles Injuries Fatalities
Page ___ of ___ Date Rec. by GDOT
Inside City Of
Road of Occurrence _________________________________________________
Not At Its Intersection But _________
Miles Feet
North South
East West
At Its Intersection With ________________________________________________
Of ____________________________________________________________
Latitude (Y) ____________________________________
(Format)
00.00000
Unit
Driver Ped
LAST NAME
FIRST
Bike
Address
Susp At Fault
City
State
Zip
Longitude (X) ____________________________________
(Format)
-00.00000
MIDDLE
Unit
Driver LAST NAME
Ped
Bike
Address
Susp At Fault
DOB
City
State
FIRST Zip
Driver s License No.
Class
State
Country
Driver s License No.
Class
State
Corrected Report Sup To Original Hit and Run
MIDDLE
DOB Country
Insurance Co.
Policy No.
Telephone No.
Insurance Co.
Policy No.
Telephone No.
Year VIN
Make
Model Vehicle Color
Year VIN
Make
Model Vehicle Color
Tag
State
County
Year
Tag
State
County
Year
Trailer Tag
State
County
Year
Trailer Tag
State
County
Year
Same as Driver Address City
Owner s Last Name State
First Zip
Middle
Same as Driver Address City
Owner s Last Name State
First Zip
Middle
Removed By
Alco Test
Type
Results
Drug Test
Type
Request List
Results
Removed By
Alco Test
Type
Results
Drug Test Type
Request List
Results
First Harmful Event
Most Harmful Event
Operator/Ped Cond
Operator Contributing Factors
_____
_____
_____
_____
Vehicle Contributing Factors
Roadway Contributing Factors
First Harmful Event
Most Harmful Event
Operator/Ped Cond
Operator Contributing Factors
_____
_____
_____
_____
Vehicle Contributing Factors
Roadway Contributing Factors
Direction of Travel Vehicle Class Number of Occupants
Vehicle Maneuver Vehicle Type Area of Initial Contact
Non-Motor Maneuver Vision Obscured Damage to Veh
Direction of Travel Vehicle Class Number of Occupants
Vehicle Maneuver Vehicle Type Area of Initial Contact
Non-Motor Maneuver Vision Obscured Damage to Veh
Traffic-Way Flow Number of Lanes
Road Comp Posted Speed
Road Character Work Zone
Traffic-Way Flow Number of Lanes
Road Comp Posted Speed
Road Character Work Zone
Traffic Control Citation Information Citation _________________________ Citation _________________________ Citation _________________________
Carrier Name
Device Inoperative Yes No
Traffic Control
O.C.G.A. _________________________
Citation Information Citation _________________________
O.C.G.A. _________________________ Citation _________________________
O.C.G.A. _________________________ Citation _________________________
COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES ONLY Carrier Name
Device Inoperative Yes No
O.C.G.A. _________________________ O.C.G.A. _________________________ O.C.G.A. _________________________
Address
City
State
Zip
Address
City
State
Zip
U.S. D.O.T.
No. of Axles
G.V.W.R.
U.S. D.O.T.
No. of Axles
G.V.W.R.
Cargo Body Type C.D.L.
Vehicle Config. Yes No
Interstate Intrastate
C.D.L. Suspended
Fed. Reportable
Yes
No
Yes No
Cargo Body Type C.D.L.
Vehicle Config. Yes No
Interstate Intrastate
C.D.L. Suspended
Fed. Reportable
Yes
No
Yes No
Vehicle Placarded
Yes No
Hazardous Materials
Yes No Vehicle Placarded
Yes No Hazardous Materials
Yes No
Haz Mat Released
Yes No
Haz Mat Released
Yes No
If YES Name or four Digit Number from Diamond or Box ____________
If YES Name or four Digit Number from Diamond or Box ____________
One Digit Number from Bottom of Diamond ____________
One Digit Number from Bottom of Diamond ____________
Ran Off Road Down Hill Runaway Cargo Loss or Shift Separation of Units
Ran Off Road Down Hill Runaway Cargo Loss or Shift Separation of Units
GDOT-523 (07/17)
Manner of Collision
Location at Area of Impact
COLLISION FIELDS Weather
NARRATIVE
Surface Condition
Page ___ of ___ Light Condition
DIAGRAM
INDICATE NORTH
Damage Other Than Vehicle Name (Last First)
Address
PROPERTY DAMAGE INFORMATION Owner
WITNESS INFORMATION City
State
Zip Code
Telephone Number
Name (Last First)
Age
Sex
1
Injured Taken To
Name (Last First)
Age
Sex
2
Injured Taken To
Name (Last First)
3 Age
Sex
Injured Taken To
Name (Last First)
4 Age
Sex
Injured Taken To
Unit By
Unit By
Unit By
Unit By
Photos Taken Report By
Yes By No
Agency
Position
OCCUPANT INFORMATION
Address
Safety Eq
Ejected
EMS Notified Time (Fatality Only)
Extricated
Air Bag
EMS Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Injury
Taken for Treatment
Hospital Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Position
Safety Eq
Address Ejected
EMS Notified Time (Fatality Only)
Extricated
Air Bag
EMS Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Injury
Taken for Treatment
Hospital Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Position
Safety Eq
Address Ejected
EMS Notified Time (Fatality Only)
Extricated
Air Bag
EMS Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Injury
Taken for Treatment
Hospital Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Position
Safety Eq
Address Ejected
EMS Notified Time (Fatality Only)
Extricated
Air Bag
EMS Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Injury
Taken for Treatment
Hospital Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
ADMINISTRATIVE
Officer Note If collision resulted in a fatality please send prompt notification to the GDOT Crash Reporting Unit via either email at GeorgiaFARS dot.ga.gov or Fax at (404) 635-2963.
Report Date Checked By
Date Checked
GDOT-523 (07/17) MAIL TO Georgia Department of Transportation CRASH REPORTING UNIT 935 East Confederate Ave. Atlanta GA 30316-2590
Agency Case Number
SUPPLEMENT GEORGIA MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH REPORT
Estimated Crash Date
NARRATIVE CONTINUED
Officer Name
Page ___ of ___
Unit ____ Citation _________________________
ADDITIONAL CITATION INFORMATION Unit ____
O.C.G.A. _________________________ Citation _________________________
O.C.G.A. _________________________
Citation _________________________
O.C.G.A. _________________________ Citation _________________________ O.C.G.A. _________________________
Citation _________________________
O.C.G.A. _________________________ Citation _________________________ O.C.G.A. _________________________
Citation _________________________
O.C.G.A. _________________________ Citation _________________________ O.C.G.A. _________________________
Citation _________________________
O.C.G.A. _________________________ Citation _________________________ O.C.G.A. _________________________
Citation _________________________
O.C.G.A. _________________________ Citation _________________________ O.C.G.A. _________________________
Citation _________________________ Name (Last First)
O.C.G.A. _________________________ Citation _________________________
ADDITIONAL OCCUPANT INFORMATION
Address
O.C.G.A. _________________________
Age
Sex
Unit
Position
Safety Eq
Ejected
Extricated
Air Bag
Injury
Taken for
Treatment
Injured Taken To
By
EMS Notified Time (Fatality Only)
EMS Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Hospital Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Name (Last First)
Age
Sex
Injured Taken To
Unit By
Position
Safety Eq
Address Ejected
EMS Notified Time (Fatality Only)
Extricated
Air Bag
EMS Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Injury
Taken for Treatment
Hospital Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Name (Last First)
Age
Sex
Injured Taken To
Unit By
Position
Safety Eq
Address Ejected
EMS Notified Time (Fatality Only)
Extricated
Air Bag
EMS Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Injury
Taken for Treatment
Hospital Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Name (Last First)
Age
Sex
Injured Taken To
Unit By
Position
Safety Eq
Address Ejected
EMS Notified Time (Fatality Only)
Extricated
Air Bag
EMS Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Injury
Taken for Treatment
Hospital Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Name (Last First)
Age
Sex
Injured Taken To
Unit By
Position
Safety Eq
Address Ejected
EMS Notified Time (Fatality Only)
Extricated
Air Bag
EMS Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
Injury
Taken for Treatment
Hospital Arrival Time (Fatality Only)
GDOT-523 SUPP (07/17)
ADDITIONAL or FULL PAGE DIAGRAM
Page ___ of ___
GDOT-523 SUPP (07/17)
ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUG TEST GIVEN 1-Yes 2-No 3-Refused
1-Blood 2-Breath 3-Urine 4-Other
TEST TYPE
FIRST / MOST HARMFUL EVENT Non Collision
1-Overturn 2-Fire/Explosion 3-Immersion 4-Jackknife 5-Other Non-Collision 35-Cargo/Equipment Loss or Shift
Collision With Object Not Fixed 6-Pedestrian 7-Pedalcycle 8-Railway Train/Street Car 9-Animal 10-Parked Motor Vehicle 11-Motor Vehicle in Motion 13-Other Object (Not Fixed) 14-Deer 36-Work Zone/Maintenance Equipment
Collision With Fixed Object 15-Impact Attenuate 16-Bridge Pier/Abutment 17-Bridge Parapet End 18-Bridge Rail 19-Guardrail Face 20-Guardrail End 21-Median Barrier 22-Highway Traffic Sign Post 23-Overhead Sign Support 24-Luminaire Light Support 25-Utility Pole 26-Other Post 27-Culvert 28-Curb 29-Ditch 30-Embankment 31-Fence 32-Mailbox 33-Tree 34-Other-Fixed Object 37-Bridge Overhead Structure 38-Cable Barrier
OPERATOR/PEDESTRIAN CONDITION 1-Not Drinking 2-Unknown 4-U.I. Alcohol 5-U.I. Drugs 6-U.I. Alcohol & Drugs 7-Physical Impairment 8-Suspected Fatigued or Asleep 9-Emotional (depressed angry disturbed etc.) 10-Suspected U.I. (Alcohol and/or Drugs)
GDOT-523 Overlay (07/17)
GEORGIA MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH REPORT
OVERLAY
OPERATOR CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 1-No Contributing Factors 2-Under the Influence (U.I.) 3-Following Too Close 4-Failed to Yield 5-Exceeding Speed Limit 6-Disregard Stop Sign/Signal 7-Wrong Side of Road 9-Improper Passing 10-Driver Lost Control 11-Changed Lanes Improperly 12-Reaction to Object or Animal 13-Improper Turn 14-Parked Improperly 17-Misjudged Clearance 18-Improper Backing 19-No Signal/Improper Signal 20-Driver Condition 22-Too Fast for Conditions 23-Improper Passing of School Bus 24-Disregard Police - Traffic Control 26-Other 28-Inattentive or Other Distraction (Distracted) 29-Texting (Distracted) 30-Talking on Hands-Free Device (Distracted) 31-Talking on Hand-Held Device (Distracted) 32-Other Activity-Mobile Device (Distracted) 33-Occupant Distraction (Distracted) 34-Other Interior Distraction (Distracted) 35-Other Exterior Distraction (Distracted) 36-Disregard Other Traffic Control 37-Reckless Driving 38-Aggressive Driving 39-Racing 40-Disregard Police - Evasion 41-Not Visible (Object Person or Vehicle) 42-Vision Obscured
VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 1-No Contributing Factors 2-Tire Failure 3-Brake Failure 4-Improper or Inoperative Lights/Signals 5-Steering Failure 6-Slick Tires 7-Other 8-Mirrors 9-Power Train 10-Suspension 11-Truck Coupling/Trailer Hitch/Safety Chains 12-Windows/Windshield 13-Wipers
ROADWAY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 1-No Contributing Factors 2-Shoulder (none low soft high) 3-Ruts Holes Bumps 4-Loose Material On Surface 5-Water Standing 6-Work Zone (construction/maintenance/utility) 7-Running Water 8-Other 9-Backup Due to Prior Crash/Secondary Crash 10-Traffic Congestion 11-Road Surface Condition (wet icy snow slush etc.) 12-Obstruction in Roadway 13-Visual Obstruction(s) - Other Along Roadway 14-Visual Obstruction(s) - Vegetation Along Roadway 15-Incident Response Scene
1-North 2-South 3-East 4-West
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
VEHICLE MANEUVER 1-Turning Left 2-Turning Right 3-Making U-Turn 4-Stopped 5-Straight 6-Changing Lanes 7-Backing 8-Parked 9-Passing 10-Negotiating a Curve 11-Entering/Leaving Parking 12-Entering/Leaving Driveway 13-PIT 14-Other
NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER 1-Crossing Not at Crosswalk 2-Crossing at Crosswalk 3-Moving With Traffic on Roadway 4-Moving Against Traffic on Roadway 5-Pushing or Working on Vehicle 6-Other Working in Roadway 7-Playing in Roadway 8-Standing in Roadway 9-Off Roadway 10-Other 11-Darting Into Traffic 12-Entering/Exiting Bus 13-Entering/Exiting Parked or Standing Vehicle
VEHICLE CLASS 1-Privately Owned 2-Police 3-Fire 4-School 5-Other Govt. Owned 6-Military 7-Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) 8-Other 9-Non-Transport Emergency Services Vehicle/HERO 10-Passenger Service Vehicle (Taxi)
VEHICLE TYPE 1-Passenger Car 2-Pickup Truck 3-Truck Tractor (Bobtail) 4-Tractor/Trailer 5-Tractor W/Twin Trailers 6-Logging Truck 7-Logging Tractor/Trailer 8-Single Unit Truck 9-Panel Truck 10-Van 11-Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) 12-Vehicle With Trailer 13-Bus 14-Truck Towing House Trailer 15-Ambulance 16-Motorized Recreational Vehicle 17-Motorcycle 18-Moded Scooter or Minibike 19-Pedalcycle or Bicycle 20-Farm or Construction Equip. 21-All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) 22-Other 23-Golf Cart or Go Cart
VISION OBSCURED BY 1-Not Obscured 2-Headlights 3-Sunlight/Glare 4-Parked/Stopped Vehicle 5-Trees Bushes 6-Rain Snow Ice on Windshield 7-Other
AREA OF INITIAL CONTACT 00-Overturned 13-Top 14-Undercarriage 15-Non-Contact Vehicle 16-Not Applicable - Pedestrian
DAMAGE TO VEHICLE 1-No Damage 2-Minor Damage 3-Functional Damage 4-Disabling Damage
TRAFFIC-WAY FLOW 1-Two-way Traffic-way With No Physical Separation 2-Two-way Traffic-way With a Physical Separation 3-Two-way Traffic-way With a Physical Barrier 4-One-way Traffic-way 5-Continous Turning Lane
1-Concrete 2-Black Top 3-Tar and Gravel 4-Dirt 5-Gravel 6-Other
ROAD COMPOSITION
ROAD CHARACTER 1-Straight and Level 2-Straight on Grade 3-Straight on Hillcrest 4-Curve and Level 5-Curve on Grade 6-Curve on Hillcrest
0-None 1-Construction 2-Maintenance 3-Utility 4-Unknown Type
WORK ZONE
TRAFFIC CONTROL 0-Gate 1-No Control Present 2-Traffic Signal 3-RR Signal/Sign 4-Warning Sign 5-Stop Sign 6-No Passing Zone 7-Lanes 8-Other 9-Flashing Lights 10-Yield Sign
CARGO BODY TYPE 1-Van (Encl. Box) 2-Auto Carrier or Tow Truck 3-Bus 4-Dump 5-Garbage/Refuse 6-Flatbed 7-Cargo Tanker 8-Concrete Mixer 9-Other 10-Hopper 11-Intermodal Container Chassis 12-Pole-Trailer
GDOT-523 Overlay (07/17)
VEHICLE CONFIGURATION 1-Bus (Seating for More Than 15 Passengers) 2-Single Unit Truck 2 Axles 3-Single Unit Truck 3 or More Axles 4-Truck Trailer 5-Truck Tractor (Bobtail) 6-Tractor With Twin Trailers 7-Unknown Heavy Truck (Cannot Classify) 8-Bus/Large Van (seats for 9-15 occupants including driver) 9-Vehicle 10 000 Pounds or Less Placarded for Hazardous Materials
PAGE 2 ATTRIBUTES (SHADED) MANNER OF COLLISION
1-Angle 2-Head On 3-Rear End 4-Sideswipe - Same Direction 5-Sideswipe - Opposite Direction 6-Not a Collision With a Motor Vehicle
LOCATION AT AREA OF IMPACT 1-On Roadway - Non-Intersection 2-On Shoulder 3-Off Roadway 4-Median 5-Entrance/Exit Ramp 6-Gore 7-On Roadway - Roadway Intersection 8-On Roadway - Roundabout 9-On Roadway - Driveway Intersection 10-On Roadway - Railroad Crossing 11-On Roadway - Managed Lane (HOV HOT Reversible) 12-On Roadway - Collector Distributor (CD) 13-On Roadway - Bicycle Lane 14-On Roadway - In Crosswalk 15-Off Roadway - Sidewalk 16-Private Property
WEATHER 1-Clear 2-Cloudy 3-Rain 4-Snow 5-Sleet 6-Fog 7-Other 8-Severe Thunderstorm or Tornadic
SURFACE CONDITION 1-Dry 2-Wet 3-Snow 4-Ice/Frost 5-Other 6-Mud 7-Sand 8-Slush 9-Oil 10-Water (standing or moving)
LIGHT CONDITION 1-Daylight 2-Dusk 3-Dawn 4-Dark - Lighted 5-Dark - Not Lighted
AGE 00-Up to One Year 01 to 97-Actual Age 98-Ninety-eight years old or Older 99-Unknown
M-Male
SEX F-Female
SEATING POSITION 1-Front Seat - Left Side (Operator) 2-Front Seat - Middle 3-Front Seat - Right Side 4-Rear Seat - Left Side 5-Rear Seat - Middle 6-Rear Seat - Right Side 7-Other Seat - Interior 8-Riding on Vehicle Exterior 9-Non-Motorist - Outside of a Vehicle
SAFETY EQUIPMENT 0-None Used 1-Shoulder Belt Only Used 2-Lap Belt Only Used 3-Lap and Shoulder Belt Used 4-Child Restraint System (Properly Used) 5-Child Restraint System (Improperly Used) 6-Motorcycle Helmet 7-Bicycle Helmet 8-Unknown 9-Booster Seat (Properly Used) 10-Booster Seat (Improperly Used) 11-Non-Motorist Lighting 12-Reflective Clothing/Backpack/Equipment
1-Not Ejected 2-Trapped 3-Totally Ejected 4-Partially Ejected 5-Not Applicable
EJECTION
1-Yes 2-No
EXTRICATION (Equipment Used)
AIR BAG FUNCTION 0-No Air Bag in this Seat 1-Deployed Air Bag 2-Non-Deployed Air Bag 3-Deployed Side 4-Deployed other Directions 5-Deployed Multiple Directions 6-Non-Deployed Front 7-Non-Deployed Side 8-Non-Deployed Other Direction 9-Non-Deployed Multiple Directions 10-Deployed Curtain
INJURY 0-No Apparent Injury (O) 1-Fatal Injury (K) 2-Suspected Serious Injury (A) 3-Suspected Minor or Visible Injury (B) 4-Possible Injury or Complaint (C)
1-Yes 2-No
TAKEN FOR TREATMENT
Maps of Distracted Driving Laws by State (as of December 2017)
42
No Texting
Source Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Young Driver All Cellphone Ban
Source Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Current Penalties for DUI Offenses
44
The following is a summary of post-conviction DUI non-license related penalties.
OCGA 40-6-391
Classification 1st or 2nd misdemeanor 3rd high and aggravated misdemeanor 4th or more felony
1st DUI in 10 years $300-$1 000 fine 24 hours to 1 year of jail time 20-40 hours community service Completion of DUI Risk Reduction Course 30-hour course $235 plus fees for materials Clinical Assessment / Evaluation ($100) 1 year of probation (minus any jail time served)
2nd DUI in 10 years $600-$1 000 fine 72 hours to 1 year of jail time 30 days or more of community service Completion of DUI Risk Reduction Course- 30-hour course $235 plus fees for materials Clinical Assessment / Evaluation ($100) 1 year of probation (minus any jail time served)
3rd DUI in 10 years $1 000-$5 000 fine 15 days to 1 year of jail time 30 days or more of community service Completion of DUI Risk Reduction Course 30-hour course $235 plus fees for materials Clinical Assessment / Evaluation ($100) 1 year of probation (minus any jail time served)
4th or more DUI in 10 years $1 000-$5 000 fine 90 days to 5 years of jail time 60 days or more of community service (unless person served 3 or more years in jail then no community service required) Completion of DUI Risk Reduction Course 30-hour course $235 plus fees for materials Clinical Assessment / Evaluation ($100)
5 years of probation (minus any jail time served) If 2nd or more DUI in 5-year period- notice published in legal organ of conviction along with photo of offender. The following is a summary of post-conviction DUI license related penalties (look back period for licensing is only 5 years as opposed to 10).
OCGA 40-5-63
1st DUI in 5 years 12 months suspension but early reinstatement after 120 days if o Completion of DUI Risk Reduction Course 30-hour course $235 plus fees for materials o Fee to DDS of $210 or $200 (if a mail in request for reinstatement)
2nd DUI in 5 years 3-year suspension but early reinstatement after 18 months if o Completion of DUI Risk Reduction Course 30-hour course $235 plus fees for materials o Fee to DDS of $210 or $200 (if a mail in request for reinstatement) o Installation of Interlock Device for 1 year
3rd DUI in 5 years Considered a Habitual Violator 5-year suspension o Completion of DUI Risk Reduction Course 30- hour course $235 plus fees for materials o Fee to DDS of $410 or $400 (if a mail in request for reinstatement) o Completion of an investigation of driver s character habits and driving ability
46
Statistical Reductions in Fatalities among Hands-Free States
(All 15 States)
Effectiveness of Other States Hands-Free Laws Reduction in Fatalities per 100 mil VMT
Fatality increase/(decrease) %
Year before Year of law s Years since Hands-Free enactment
From year before passage
Total since
law s passage passage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
to 2 years after - (2)
before law
California Year
Connecticut Year
Delaware Year
District of Columbia Year
Hawaii Year
Illinois Year
Maryland Year
Nevada Year
New Hampshire Year
New Jersey Year
New Mexico - (3) Year
New York Year
Oregon Year
Vermont Year
Washington Year
West Virginia Year
1.22 2007
1.05 0.95 0.84 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.93 0.95
2008
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
0.93 2004
0.88 0.98 0.92 0.95 0.71 1.02 0.71 0.84 0.92 0.80 0.84
2005
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1.28 2009
1.13 1.10 1.24 1.06 1.29 1.27
2010
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1.87 2003
1.15 1.29 1.02 1.22 0.94 0.80 0.67 0.76 0.42 0.57 0.65 0.65
2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1.24 2012
1.01 0.93 0.91
2013
2014 2015
0.91 2013
0.94 0.88 0.95
2014
2015 2016
0.99 2009
0.88 0.86
0.9 0.82 0.78 0.89
2010
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1.16 2010
1.02 1.08 1.08 1.15 1.25
2011
2012 2013 2014 2015
Insufficient data Law enacted in 2015
1.02 2006
0.95 0.80 0.80 0.76 0.86 0.79 0.73 0.74 0.75
2007
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1.24 2013
1.52 1.09
2014
2015
1.13 2000
1.20 1.15 1.11 1.08 1.03 1.03 0.97 0.92 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.81 0.88
2001
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Insufficient data Significantly upgraded law went into effect October 1 2017
0.97 2013
0.62 0.78
2014
2015
1.12 2006
1.00 0.94 0.87 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.76 0.80 0.95
2007
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1.76 2012
1.73 1.42 1.35
2013
2014 2015
-31.1% -1.1% -3.1% -45.5% -26.6% 4.4% -13.1% -6.9% n/a -21.6% -12.1% -1.8% n/a -19.6% -22.3% -23.3%
-22.1% -9.7% -0.8% -65.2% -26.6% 4.4% -10.1% -0.9% n/a -26.5% -12.1% -22.1% n/a -19.6% -15.2% -23.3%
Average decreases For states with sufficient data
-16.0%
-17.8%
Note (1) - Year of enactment refers to approximate year of law s passage. Note (2) - Data for New Mexico and Vermont only available for 1 year after law s enactment. Note (3) - New Mexico has a Local Option by Jurisdiction statute but not technically a state-wide ban on hand-held cell phone usage.
Statistical Reductions in Fatalities among Hands-Free States
(Graphs of Example States vs. Georgia)
Statistical Reductions in Fatalities among Hands-Free States
The following graphs further illustrate the effectiveness of hands-free laws on reducing fatalities. In addition these states were selected because (1) their laws similarity to the study committee s recommendation and (2) they have fewer exceptions / exemptions.
New York was one of the first states to implement a hands-free law.
22.1% decrease in fatalities per 100 mil VMT since law in effect.
Also a 22.1% decrease in fatalities per 100 mil VMT since law in effect.
Statistical Reductions in Fatalities among Hands-Free States (continued)
26.5% decrease in fatalities per 100 mil VMT since law in effect.
10.1% decrease in fatalities per 100 mil VMT since law in effect.
51
Statistical Reductions in Fatalities among Hands-Free States (continued)
23.3% decrease in fatalities per 100 mil VMT since law in effect.
Conversely Georgia has seen an increase in fatalities since our texting law was passed.
8% INCREASE in fatalities per 100 mil VMT since 2010.
52
Transportation Work Zone Crashes and Fatalities
Transportation Work Zones Crashes and Fatalities
The following graph illustrates the number of work zone crashes serious injuries and worker fatalities as reported by the road construction firms to the Georgia Department of Transportation.
74% INCREASE in fatalities from 2014 to 2016.
Source Georgia Department of Transportation Note 2017 figures are YTD through October 10 2017
Recent GDOT Fatality Report
57