MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS ARE INCREASINGLY USING electronic devices while driving for activities such as calling or sending text messages (SMS) from mobile phones, watching videos and searching the Internet. Automakers are also incorporating electronic devices into standard vehicle designs, including Internet and satellite connections on the dashboard. Because these devices are integrated into everyday life, motorists mistakenly think that they can be used safely while operating a motor vehicle. Despite their differences, each of the devices distracts the driver's attention (some more than others), posing a road safety hazard. In response, cities, states, and the federal government are adopting “distracted driving” laws and regulations. What evidence is there about the risks posed by distracted drivers and how to avoid them, and what are the respective responsibilities of government, industry and drivers? Risks Related to Distracted Driving The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that 5,870 people died (16% of all fatalities) and that approximately 515,000 people were injured in police-reported crashes involving driver distraction in 2009.1 The General Estimates System estimated that 21 percent of all reported injury crashes involved distracted driving. Using naturalistic driving data (with cameras monitoring driving behavior), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration found that texting while driving had the highest odds ratio of a serious vehicular crash compared to 16 other activities that distract driver attention from the motorway: 23.2 times higher. compared to drivers who do not text and who take their eyes off the road for 4.6 out of 6 seconds while texting. While calling a cell phone, drivers of light vehicles (cars, vans and pickup trucks) are 2.8 times more likely to compared to non-distracted drivers to have a crash or near-crash, and commercial truck drivers were 5.9 times more likely.3 This research supports previous findings that young texting drivers spend up to 400% longer time with their eyes off the road compared to drivers who do not text,4 they are 6 times more likely to have a collision and in simulated driving they have compromised lateral and frontal control of the vehicle. A meta-analysis of 125 studies confirmed that cell phone conversations while driving were associated with reduced reaction times and showed no difference in risk between hands-free and handheld phones.6 According to the Highway Loss Data Institute, the benefits resulting from the ban on the use of hand-held phones are counterbalanced by the increasing use of similarly distracting hands-free devices. The institute found no significant reductions in traffic fatalities in states that adopted cell phone bans compared to states that had not.7 Further research is therefore needed to determine whether reduced cell phone use actually reduces the rate of accidents or if distracted driving legislation simply fails to significantly reduce traffic accidents. reduce driver distraction. Distracted Driving Laws and Regulations Reducing distracted driving requires concerted action at every level of government. Historically, states and localities hold primary constitutional responsibility for highway safety. Since 2007, 34 states have adopted distracted driving laws, and more statesthey are evaluating its adoption. Many municipalities have also passed ordinances restricting the use of electronic devices while driving, ranging in size from small towns (e.g., Walton Hills, Ohio) to large cities (e.g., Chicago, Illinois, and the District of Columbia). The federal government plays an important role in highway safety because automobile traffic moves across state lines. For example, Congress conditions receipt of highway funds on states meeting the age of 21 to drink alcohol, while the NHTSA sets vehicle safety standards. While Congress has not yet enacted distracted driving legislation, receipt of highway funds could be contingent on states adopting distracted driving restrictions into laws currently under consideration. In January 2010, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued regulatory guidelines prohibiting text messaging by drivers of commercial motor vehicles.8 President Obama also issued an executive order in 2009 directing agencies federal officials to ban texting by federal employees while driving on official government business. Distracted driving law varies greatly. Wider laws prohibit the use of any portable electronic devices while driving. Most commonly, the legislation only prohibits the use of cell phones, sending or reading text messages, or sending emails while driving. Other regulations prohibit video images in the driver's field of vision. State and local laws, however, are often limited in scope. Many laws allow the use of hands-free devices; others apply only to underage or novice drivers; and some prohibit the use of electronic devices only while driving in school zones. State and local laws commonly exempt law enforcement or emergency response personnel and drivers who text them. Significantly, there are additional likely sources of driver distraction, such as eating, drinking, smoking, reading and grooming, which the existing law does not directly target. Application and health information. States with primary seat belt enforcement laws have lower fatality rates than those with secondary laws. The distinction is that primary enforcement allows police to issue fines when drivers or passengers do not use seatbelts, while secondary enforcement means that law enforcement can only issue a fine if the car is stopped for a another reason, for example reckless driving. Approximately 65% ​​of states that ban handheld phone use and 90% of states that ban texting while driving allow primary enforcement.10 Research shows that well-publicized bans on handheld phone use have significantly reduced use, but many drivers switch to hands-free devices, which are equally dangerous. Therefore, vigorous health education and enforcement campaigns are needed to support long-term behavior change. This is especially true for young drivers, who often continue to use cell phones despite legal prohibitions. Constitutionality. Driving is a privilege, not a right. As a result, distracted drivers have a limited expectation of privacy that yields to the government's obligation to improve road safety. Courts have consistently upheld mandates on drivers (e.g., seat belts and motorcycle helmets) and would surely find that the government's interests in protecting the public from distracted drivers