GHSA has long believed that there are a variety of distractions that either cause a driver to crash or contribute to the crash and the Association's policy reflects this fact. Dr. Stutts' research validates what state highway safety offices have long known: distractions such as talking with other passengers, looking at objects outside the vehicle, adjusting the radio and eating, are just as likely if not more likely to distract the driver as a cell phone.

Part of the challenge of reducing distracted driving is determining the scope of the problem. We need a better idea of the number of crashes in which driver distraction is a cause or contributing factor. Effective highway safety policy must be based on sound research and data, and when it comes to distracted driving, we simply don't have enough information. Only a handful of states currently include distracted driving as a data element on crash forms that are completed by police after a traffic accident. To help remedy this, GHSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration recently updated the voluntary guideline that states use to collect crash information. The new guideline includes a recommendation that states track whether or not driver distraction contributed to a crash. It also suggests that states track whether the driver was distracted by an electronic communication device such as a cell phone, a distraction inside the vehicle like a radio or an object outside the vehicle such as another vehicle. More information about this new guideline is available on the GHSA website at www.ghsa.org.

So what do we do about driver distraction? While states can help determine the scope of the problem, GHSA urges the federal government to fund more research to help us better understand driver distraction and effective countermeasures. Dr. Stutts research is incredibly valuable and GHSA wants to ensure that funding is available to conduct additional studies. The federal government should also fund a comprehensive media campaign to educate the public about the dangers of distracted driving and the way for drivers to best manage distractions. Educational campaigns helped to greatly reduce drunk driving and helped increase seat belt usage. The same positive effect can be achieved with this issue.

States can also promote distracted driver education. GHSA supports the model drivers' manual language developed by AAA and urges states to include it or something similar in drivers' manuals.

I want to take a minute and share GHSA's views on distracted driver legislation. Given that ALL distractions present a danger to drivers, GHSA discourages states from enacting bans that only address talking on a cell phone while driving or only ban hand-held cell phones. Let me be clear. Talking on a cell phone either with or without hands-free equipment distracts a driver and increases the likelihood of a crash. Driving is a very complex task that requires the driver to make multiple decisions in a very short time span. Drivers need to focus 100 percent of their attention on the road. However, GHSA is concerned that simply banning drivers from talking on a cell phone while driving sends a bad and potentially dangerous message. State legislatures should refrain from banning cell phone use without addressing other distracting behavior. We are particularly concerned about legislation that would ban only handheld cell phones because it would give drivers a false sense of safety. Even with hands-free equipment, a driver still can be distracted by the conversation. Hence, a ban on hand-held cell phone use would still enable a person to drive distracted. Consistent with recent recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board, GHSA does support a ban on cell phone use for novice drivers - primarily young drivers receiving their first licenses.

To conclude, while more research and data collection are occurring, the best course of action is to conduct educational campaigns to alert drivers to the dangers of distracted driving. Once we have additional information about distracted driving, states can then evaluate the merit of any legislative action.