DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of the NHTSA Distracted Driving High-Visibility Enforcement Demonstration Projects in California and Delaware

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of the NHTSA Distracted Driving High-Visibility Enforcement Demonstration Projects in California and Delaware DOT HS 812 XXX November 2014 Evaluation of NHTSA Distracted Driving High-Visibility Enforcement Demonstration Projects In California and Delaware 10288-102714-v2 This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers’ names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Suggested APA Format Citation: Chaudhary, N. K., Connolly, J., Tison, J., Solomon, M., & Elliott, K. (2015, January). Evaluation of the NHTSA distracted driving high-visibility enforcement demonstration projects in California and Delaware. (Report No. DOT HS 812 108). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT HS 812 108 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Evaluation of the NHTSA Distracted Driving High-Visibility January 2015 Enforcement Demonstration Projects in California and Delaware 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Report No. Neil K. Chaudhary, Joyce Connolly, Julie Tison, Mark Solomon, Kim Elliott 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Preusser Research Group, Inc. 7100 Main Street 11. Contract or Grant No. Trumbull, CT 06611 DTNH22-06-D-XXXX 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Draft Report Office of Impaired Driving and Occupant Protection (NTI-112) 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. Washington, DC 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes The Contracting Officer's Technical Representative for this project was Amy Schick. 16. Abstract High-visibility enforcement (increased police presence supported by paid and earned media) was implemented in the Sacramento area of California and in Delaware in support of laws banning the use of handheld cell phones while driving. Three waves of enforcement were conducted from November 2012 to June 2013. Paid and earned media featured the tagline, Phone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other. The program evaluation included analyzing media and enforcement activity data, administering an awareness survey, conducting roadside observations of driver electronic device use, and analyzing crash data. Crash data analyses did not reveal any apparent effect on the incidence of distraction-related crashes in the same periods. This is likely due to the overall small percentage of crashes coded as distraction-related. Driver surveys showed an increase in awareness that cell phone laws were being enforced. Observed handheld driver cell phone use dropped by one-third from 4.1 percent to 2.7 percent in California (a 34% reduction); and from 4.5 percent to 3.0 percent in Delaware (a 33% reduction). It was concluded that high-visibility enforcement can be implemented over widespread, multijurisdictional areas and may reduce the number of people who use handheld cell phones while driving. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement High-Visibility Enforcement This document is available through the Distracted Driving National Technical Information Service California www.ntis.gov. Delaware 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 72 This page intentionally left blank TECHNICAL SUMMARY Background The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 10 percent of fatal crashes (3,328), 18 percent of injury crashes (421,000), and 16 percent of all motor vehicle crashes in 2012 were reported as distraction-affected crashes. According to the Governor’s Highway Safety Association (GHSA), as of January 2015 there were 14 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands that prohibit drivers of all ages from using handheld cell phones while driving. All of these laws allow primary enforcement. Forty-four States, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands ban text messaging for drivers of all ages; all but five have primary enforcement. Previous research indicates that high-visibility enforcement (HVE) programs targeted at handheld cell phone use can reduce observed usage rates. Specifically, distracted driving in Hartford, Connecticut, and Syracuse, New York, produced handheld phone use reductions of 57 percent (from 6.8% to 2.9%) and 32 percent (from to 3.7% to 2.5%), respectively over the course of the campaign. Drivers who were manipulating their phones (texting) while driving declined 72 percent in Hartford (from 3.9% to1.1%), and 32 percent in Syracuse (from 2.8% to 1.9%) (Chaudhary, Casanova-Powell, Cosgrove, Reagan, & Williams, 2012). After demonstrating the program at the community level, the next step was to determine if the program would be effective when implemented on a larger scale, covering larger geographic and demographic areas. To take this next step, three waves of distracted driving HVE following a similar methodology were conducted in the Sacramento Valley region of California and across the State of Delaware. Program Description Both demonstration areas have primary enforcement laws banning the use of handheld cell phones while driving and making it a violation to write, send, or read text-based communication on an electronic wireless device while driving. Three enforcement waves were conducted in each State: Wave 1 in November/December 2012, Wave 2 in February/March 2013, and Wave 3 in June 2013. California’s Office of Traffic Safety and Delaware’s Office of Highway Safety conducted the programs. The enforcement area in California covered nine counties in the Sacramento Valley region, encompassing almost four million residents (roughly 10% of California’s population) including El Dorado, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Solano, Sutter, Placer, Yuba, and Yolo counties. Enforcement was conducted statewide in Delaware, covering close to 900,000 residents. i Comparison (control) areas were selected for each enforcement program with selection based on reasonable demographic similarity (i.e., total population, population density and median income). Media market boundaries and potential for media isolation was also considered important to avoid program messages from reaching the comparison area. Portland, Oregon, was selected as the comparison area for Sacramento whereas Atlantic County, New Jersey, and New Haven County, Connecticut, were selected as Delaware’s control areas. Enforcement data (i.e., tickets issued, officer hours worked) were gathered in the intervention areas while observed cell phone use and program awareness data were collected for both the intervention and comparison areas. Enforcement Enforcement in California was conducted by 37 local police departments in the Sacramento area (93% of the 40 departments that were invited to participate) and by the California Highway Patrol. Over the course of the entire program, California allocated $472,973 to finance overtime roving patrols where officers actively sought out distracted drivers and reported 10,781 distracted driving citations were issued by California law enforcement officers. As part of the first HVE program in Delaware to reduce distracted driving, 98 percent of local police departments in the State of Delaware (41 out of 42) and the Delaware State Patrol participated in the enforcement campaign. Delaware allocated $352,387 to finance enforcement efforts and reported 6,291 distracted driving tickets were issued by Delaware officers. Media Paid media material was adapted from the earlier programs in New York and Connecticut and included use of the Phone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other slogan and logo. Substantial amounts of television, radio and online advertising were purchased. Well-publicized kick-off events were held in each State followed by extensive earned media efforts to ensure that local news outlets covered the story. (Earned media refers to publicity gained through promotional efforts other than paid advertising.) The target audiences were adults 18 to 49 years old for California and Delaware, with Hispanic people as part of the overall mix. Heightened enforcement took place in three distinct waves in the two intervention areas. ii Awareness Due to the particularities of each State awareness survey data were collected in slightly different ways in the two intervention areas. Awareness surveys in Delaware and its comparison areas were collected from motorists visiting Division of Motor Vehicle (DMV) offices. A different strategy was designed for California since a high percentage of DMV business is conducted online. Instead, survey respondents in California and its comparison site were collected from drivers at pre-selected gas stations. California Results The percentage of respondents in the Sacramento area who heard about enhanced police enforcement (i.e., media accounts or personal accounts of distracted driving police enforcement activities) increased significantly, from 56 percent at baseline to 73 percent at the end of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Investigation and Prosecution of Distracted Driving Cases
    Investigation and Prosecution of Distracted Driving Cases 12949-Covers_Final.indd 1 5/16/17 4:19 PM Disclaimer This publication was developed in part with funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation and is distributed by the NHTSA in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of NHTSA or DOT. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use there- of. If trade or manufacturers’ names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. This publication is intended to provide a general overview of the investigation and prose- cution of distracted driving cases. While some sections of this publication address issues that are inherently legal, this publication is not intended to provide legal advice. There- fore, it is important to seek out legal advice from a licensed attorney on specific issues or questions the reader may have. Suggested APA Format Citation: National Traffic Law Center. (2017, May). Investigation and prosecution of distracted driving cases (Report No. DOT HS 812 407). Washington, DC: National High- way Traffic Safety Administration. i Acknowledgments The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gratefully acknowledges the assis- tance and efforts of the individual traffic safety experts brought together as a team to draft this monograph for use by prosecutors and law enforcement. The team was com- prised of prosecutors and law enforcement professionals from around the country with significant backgrounds in distracted driving enforcement, prosecution, and program management.
    [Show full text]
  • Distracted Driving Promising Practices and Lessons Learned from the Field DISTRACTED DRIVING PROMISING PRACTICES and LESSONS LEARNED for the FIELD
    Distracted Driving Promising Practices and Lessons Learned from the Field DISTRACTED DRIVING PROMISING PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE FIELD This publication was sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The U.S. Department of Transportation desires widespread dissemination in the interests of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers’ names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the subject of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. DISTRACTED DRIVING PROMISING PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE FIELD TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . 1 Community Education and Enforcement Dalton, Georgia, Police Department . 4 Montgomery County, Maryland, Police Department . 6. Ohio State Highway Patrol . 7 . Oro Valley, Arizona, Police Department . 9. Officer Safety and Wellness New York State Police . 12 Training, Research, and Education for Driving Safety (TREDS) . 14 Distracted Driving Resource List IACP Resources . 16 . Police Chief Magazine . 16 . Federal Resources . 17. Advocacy Organization Resources . 17 Additional Resources . .18 . Resolutions Community Support for Traffic Safety . 19 Support for Continued Development of Technology to Reduce Distracted Driving . 20 . Urging Elected Officials to Work with Law Enforcement to Ensure that Proposed Legislation is Clear, Enforceable and Does Not Discourage and/or Impede Traffic Enforcement Efforts .
    [Show full text]
  • The Dangers of Distracted Driving
    The Dangers of Distracted Driving The popularity of wireless devices has had some unintended and sometimes deadly consequences. An alarming number of traffic accidents are linked to driving while distracted, including the use of cell phones while driving, resulting in injury and loss of life. The national statistics are sobering: • More than nine percent of fatal crashes in the United States in the past seven years involved a distracted driver, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. • More than 2,800 people were killed as a result of distracted driving in 2018, the latest year for data reported by the NHTSA. • An estimated 400,000 people were injured in crashes involving distracted drivers in in 2018. • A National Occupant Protection Use Survey reports that handheld cell phone use continues to be highest among 16-24-year-old drivers. How can you help? Give clear instructions: Give new drivers simple, clear instructions not to use their wireless devices while driving. Before new drivers get their licenses, discuss how taking their eyes off the road – even for a few seconds – could cause injury or even death. Lead by example: No one should text and drive. Be an example for others and if you need to text or talk on the phone, pull over to a safe place. Set rules for yourself and your household regarding distracted driving. Become informed and be active: Tell family, friends and organizations to which you belong about the importance of driving without distractions. Take information to your kids’ schools and ask that it be shared with students and parents.
    [Show full text]
  • Asleep at the Wheel
    ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL A NATIONAL COMPENDIUM OF EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE DROWSY DRIVING CONTENTS Background to the Issue ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 How We Got Here .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Research and Development ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Partnering With Public and Private Stakeholders ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Public Education and Awareness Needs ......................................................................................................................................................5 Vehicle Technology Needs ..............................................................................................................................................................................5 Organizations .............................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Research and Development .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Distracted Driving Behaviors and Beliefs Among Older Adults: a Longroad Analysis of the Training, Research, and Education for Driving Safety Study
    RESEARCH BRIEF Distracted Driving Behaviors and Beliefs among Older Adults: A LongROAD Analysis of the Training, Research, and Education for Driving Safety Study Distracted driving is an established cause of motor vehicle crashes, for all ages. Nearly 60% of crashes involving younger drivers are linked to distraction (AAAFTS, 2015). This research brief provides evidence from a recent survey that as more older adults embrace technology, distracted driving—in particular, using cell phones behind the wheel—is prevalent among them as well. According to a recent survey conducted by AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and the University of California San Diego, the majority of drivers aged 65 and older—nearly 60%—have used their cell phone in some capacity (i.e., texting, making calls, and answering calls) while driving. More than a quarter of these older drivers have engaged in distracting behaviors while driving with a minor in the car. Among those, 32% have talked on the phone—either with hands-free or hand-held devices—with younger children (under age 11) in the car, while 42% have done so when accompanied by older children (12- to 17 year-olds). While distracted driving encompasses a wide range of risky behaviors including but not limited to eating, talking with passengers, reaching for belongings, etc., this survey focused solely on cell phone use while operating a vehicle. The findings suggest the need for interventions to reduce distracted driving behaviors among older adults, especially given the rapidly growing older adult population, with their age-associated physiologic changes, such as slower reflexes, reduced contrast sensitivity, and other driving-impairing conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations
    DRIVER DISTRACTION IN COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS September 2009 FOREWORD The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration awarded a contract to investigate driver distraction in commercial motor vehicle drivers. The purpose of this study was to characterize driver inattention in safety-critical and baseline events and to determine the relative risk of driving while distracted. The purpose of this report was to document the method, results, and conclusions from this study. NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document. Technical Report Documentation Page—Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FMCSA-RRR-09-042 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date September 2009 DRIVER DISTRACTION IN COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Rebecca L. Olson, Richard J. Hanowski, Jeffrey S. Hickman, and Joseph Bocanegra 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Truck and Bus Safety Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 11. Contract or Grant No. 3500 Transportation Research Plaza (0536) DTMC75-07-D-00006 Blacksburg, VA 24061 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration July 2007–July 2009 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Speed Limit 52 Respondents Mentioned This Solution
    Question 1 Response: Lower Speed Limit 52 respondents mentioned this solution. 75.00% were for lowering the speed limit, and 25.00% were against this solution. For Against Slower speed limit in the area Speed limit does not matter if it's not enforced. Reduce speed limit to 20 and make the road ONE-WAY with Block it off to traffic were you cant go around the lake double yellow striping to indicate a single traffic lane. in cars, walkers and bikes only, dropping the speed Have law enforcement monitoring during peak hours and drop limit by 5 miles will do nothing but cost u money for the speed limit around the lake. the new signs or stickers. Make it a one way with parking on the lake side. 10 MPH That'll work. Distracted drivers are always looking for speed limit within lake zone. the speed limit signs Lower speed limit to 20 mph, and install stop signs at busiest So, the recent study showed the actual average speed intersections such as Palmetto, Success, Mass. etc, which is 18 MPH and that "distracted drivers" were should slow traffic even more. Lake Morton Dr should NOT be responsible for the recent string of incidents. So, used as a North/South thoroughfare. When/if South Fl Ave clearly this 20 MPH speed limit will "fix" the budget, I becomes two lane thru that area, it will only get worse. I live mean problems. SMH. Who makes these decisions? in S Lake Morton area, and use Lake Morton Dr, but willing to Really? So now, people will still average less than the put up with whatever changes necessary to improve the new speed limit and by some miracle the incidents will situation.
    [Show full text]
  • National Survey of Speeding and Unsafe Driving Attitudes
    National Survey of Speeding and Unsafe Driving Attitudes and Behaviors: 2002 VOLUME II – FINDINGS REPORT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Room 5119 Washington, D.C. 20590 Final Report – November 2003 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. DOT HS 809 688 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Volume II: Findings National Survey of Speeding and Unsafe Driving October, 2003 Attitudes and Behavior: 2002 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Dawn Royal 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) The Gallup Organization 901 F Street, NW – Suite 400 11. Contract or Grant No. Washington DC 20004 282-00-0017 202-715-3030 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Office of Research and Technology Washington, D.C. 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Paul J. Tremont, Ph.D. was Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative 16. Abstract This report represents findings from a survey on speeding and unsafe driving attitudes and behaviors. The data come from a pair of studies undertaken by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to better understand drivers’ behaviors and attitudes regarding speeding, unsafe driving, distracted and drowsy driving. This report, Volume II: Findings Speeding and Unsafe Driving presents the data on American driver’s reported behaviors and attitudes surrounding speeding and other unsafe and aggressive driving behaviors. Volume I: Findings National Survey of Distracted and Drowsy Driving reports respondent’s behaviors and attitudes on various topics related to distracted and drowsy driving, while Volume III: Methods Report describes the methods used to conduct the interviews and analyze the data, and also contains the questionnaires.
    [Show full text]
  • Distracted Driving: Strategies and State of the Practices
    Louisiana Transportation Research Center Technical Assistance Report 17-02TA-SA Distracted Driving: Strategies and State of the Practices by Elisabeta Mitran, Ph.D. Tess Ellender Dortha Cummins LTRC 4101 Gourrier Avenue | Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 (225) 767-9131 | (225) 767-9108 fax | www.ltrc.lsu.edu TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/LA.18/17-02TA-SA 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date February 2019 Distracted Driving: Strategies and State of the 6. Performing Organization Code Practices LTRC Project Number: 17-02TA-SA 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Elisabeta Mitran, Tess Ellender, and Dortha Cummins 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Louisiana Transportation Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No. 4101 Gourrier Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70808 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Louisiana Department of Transportation and Technical Assistance Report Development October 2017 - July 2018 P.O. Box 94245 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Conducted in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract This technical assistance report conducted an extensive literature review to obtain the state of knowledge on existing research on distracted driving in the US. The objective of this report was to review relevant studies on distracted driving including measurements, strategies, legislation, employer policies, and technologies used nationally to prevent distracted driving, to acquire the information needed to address distracted driving in Louisiana. Distracted driving has been measured in several type of studies, including crash data, observational, attitudinal, enforcement, naturalistic driving, and driving simulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Driving Distracted – KILLS
    Driving Distracted – KILLS What is Distracted Driving, “...any activity that could divert a person’s attention away from the primary task of driving. All distractions endanger driver, passenger, and bystander safety.” – Distraction.gov There are three main types of distractions you face as a driver: MANUAL: Taking your hands off the wheel. VISUAL: Taking your eyes off the road. CONGNITIVE: Taking your mind off the task of driving. Some common distractions are: Texting Using a cell phone In only one year (2012) – Eating and drinking 3,328 people were KILLED Talking to passengers on America’s roads in DISTRACTED DRIVING Grooming crashes Reading, including maps Using a navigation system Watching a video Any of the three can kill you, but when you couple them together your odds of death increase. Texting and Driving Involves all THREE! – Distractive Driving is the LEADING cause of DEATH for people between the ages of 16 to 20. PUT THE PHONE DOWN You can’t predict when or where you might have a traffic crash, but you can work on a strategy that helps you to avoid a potential crash. First, keep your eyes on the road when you drive. A cell phone, the radio, even a drink can take your eyes of the road for just a second. That’s enough time to cause a serious or even fatal crash. Second, keep distractions to a minimum. If you use GPS, set it before you leave your driveway. Need to make a call, just stop in a parking lot. Finally, remember to set a good example for your children.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Action Against CMV Driver Distraction
    CMV Driver Education Programs can Target the Driving Population in Training Schools Before They Hit the Road NETTTS has been in business for over 50 years, training men and women from across the New England states. NETTTS has 4 locations throughout New England, including: North Andover, MA Pawtucket, RI Bridgeport, CT Somers, CT Each year NETTTS’ locations train between 3 to 4 thousand Commercial Drivers. Many of these students take jobs with major trucking companies as well as smaller, localized companies. Many must go through a finishing program once they accept employment with their chosen company. NETTTS is a Nationally Accredited Institution and offers it’s students financial aid options to pay for their training if they qualify. Each location is also licensed by the state in which they do business. The CVTA is the largest trade association representing the interest of commercial truck driving schools and their students across North America. Its mission is to promote excellence in training, develop safety in the transportation industry, and enhance driver professionalism. It is comprised of 200 member schools operating in 43 states, 20 motor carrier members, and trains over 50,000 drivers each year. Driving distractions have been around as long as the act of driving. Distractions from the good old days are nothing compared to what’s capturing our attention today. We at NETTTS try to educate the future CMV Operator on how to limit distractions while operating commercial and personal motor vehicles so that it becomes second nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Distracted Driving 4511.991 [Effective 10/29/2018] "Distracted" Defined; Violations Committed While Distracted
    Outline Prepared by Judge Deborah Nicastro 10/18/2018 Distracted Driving 4511.991 [Effective 10/29/2018] "Distracted" defined; violations committed while distracted. 1. Definitions: a. “Distracted" means doing either of the following while operating a vehicle: i. Using a handheld electronic wireless communications device, as defined in section 4511.204 of the Revised Code, except when utilizing any of the following: 1. The device's speakerphone function; 2. A wireless technology standard for exchanging data over short distances; 3. A "voice-operated or hands-free" device that allows the person to use the electronic wireless communications device without the use of either hand except to activate, deactivate, or initiate a feature or function; 4. Any device that is physically or electronically integrated into the motor vehicle. ii. Engaging in any activity that is not necessary to the operation of a vehicle and impairs, or reasonably would be expected to impair, the ability of the operator to drive the vehicle safely. b. "Distracted" does not include operating a motor vehicle while wearing an earphone or earplug over or in both ears at the same time. A person who so wears earphones or earplugs may be charged with a violation of section 4511.84 of the Revised Code. c. “Distracted" does not include conducting any activity while operating a utility service vehicle or a vehicle for or on behalf of a utility, provided that the driver of the vehicle is acting in response to an emergency, power outage, or a circumstance affecting the health or safety of individuals. d. “Utility" means an entity specified in division (A), (C), (D), (E), or (G) of section 4905.03 of the Revised Code.
    [Show full text]