It seems that the NHTSA has decided that just because there's a cell phone in the vehicle, they can no longer attribute the accident to distracted driving. This is curious since that's exactly what they do for alcohol related accidents, there merely has to be alcohol present or suspected to be present. Why is it that data collection for one form of automobile accidents is different from another? Shouldn't it all be the same for reporting purposes? The answer is yes it should, but MADD has a strong hold on the NHTSA and would not be happy with a change to drunk driving data collection. They award officers every year that have the highest drunk driving offender arrest rate. This action encourages many officers to use creative writing techniques and stretch the "reasonable cause" tactic in order to meet a quota and win a prize.
In the research community the data collection methods used and statistical information produced by the NHTSA is laughed at, but unfortunately that is a very small portion of the population. The general public listens to their nonsense; believes that they are unbiased and actually know what they're doing. They do know what they're doing, they are biased and creating an unecessary panic in our society to get the desired reaction. Data and statistical information can be used in many ways, it can also be calculated in numerous ways to show whatever you want to show if you have no ethics which is exactly what has happened in the NHTSA. Just take a look at the first link provided below, if they wanted to portray accurate information, why would they collect statistical data in the manner that they did/do in the first place?
MADD and NHTSA Continue To Deceive The U.S. Public
MADD Flunks the Truth Test
With all of the drunk driving arrests, it is good to know that there is still reason in some areas of the country, St Tammany Parish in Louisiana is a leading example of how common sense works better than strict laws.

"...Strain said his deputies also are trained to use discretion in deciding which drivers are most dangerous to public safety. They weigh a variety of factors: the initial traffic violation, the driver's apparent level of impairment, the
driver's record and even the reason for drinking."We don't want to arrest every person who drives through our parish," Strain said. "We're there to get the guy who's truly impaired and not the husband and wife who have just celebrated their 20th anniversary over a bottle of wine."

Now is the time to write our representatives about where we want our country to go from here. With the shooting in CT they are focusing on more gun control legislation. Colorado legislators are taking up the driving laws in place and how to incorporate marijuana impairment. We must stand together and demand justice. Restore reason in our legislation and stop treading on constitutional rights, please write your
Pot smokers are finally feeling realizing the ridiculousness of the blood content (BC) laws. Washington smokers are scared about being criminalized for using a legal substance because of the arbitrary BC law that is in effect – 5 nanograms per milliliter of THC is legally under the influence and leads to a criminal conviction. Welcome to the alcohol world! They say it is wrong because the substance is legal and stays in the system long after use, affects people differently, and is a way for government to prohibit use – does any of this sound familiar? It is peculiar that these same people believe that marijuana should be treated differently because it is safer than alcohol. Wake up pot smokers, no one cares, alcohol has been legal for many years and the prohibitionist’s have a strong movement in place that has made it essentially illegal to use. Sure you can still purchase it from a store in most areas, but do not walk, drive, ride a bike, go boating or rafting, ride a horse or use any type of transportation under your control after consuming a beer or alcoholic beverage because that’s illegal. People that drink often or are addicts will always have a BAC level whether or not they are intoxicated at the time and they have built up a tolerance which makes them less impaired than someone that does not drink often. An additional concern among pot smokers is that the laws do not take into account the size, tolerance and metabolism of the individual. The misinformation, inflated numbers and negative propaganda has created the same problem for alcohol that marijuana has had to overcome. Whether you prefer to use pot or alcohol is a personal choice, the fact is that law enforcement should be held accountable for proving that there was a driving impairment that prompted them to pull over the vehicle. This is not the case in
  Colorado, you do not need to be driving or operating the transportation in question – only the ability to do so, and as Washington is finding your rights are stripped away in court once the BC level is broken. There is no defense if
  they have a breath or blood sample that is in excess of the limit which is .05 in Colorado. When it’s a secondary offense found after the vehicle is pulled over – a license plate light out, expired tags, and similar circumstances - it
  should not subject the victim/driver to arrest and additional charges of driving while impaired – because there’s no evidence of driving impairment. 
Americans for Fair Legislation will submit a letter to several legislators to present the facts and recommend a common sense approach to this problem. It will be posted on the web site, please help us make a change by writing to your representatives and requesting reasonable laws that focus on driving impairment. Links to find them are provided below, they will be reviewing these laws in January 2013.

Write your congress representative
Write your state legislator and governor
Over the summer a legislator in New Jersey was stopped and charged with a DUI. He promptly filed numerous complaints against the arresting officer with the court, 27 to be exact! The court dismissed 14 of the charges, but 13 criminal charges are pending against the officer. He has been suspended with pay until the matter is resolved. Aside from delaying the DWI charges against the Assemblyman, the charges will provide doubt for a jury of peers when his case is heard - if it goes to trial.

This happens more often than we know. Most officials that are stopped and charged with drunk driving refuse testing and begin discrediting the arresting officer. In this case he said that the officer lied in his written report, I would like to know what officer doesn't embellish the truth. They are trained to write reports that will make the charges stick and it often requires creative writing. Unfortunately, for the average citizen these tactics do not work because the judge would just throw out the charges and the court assumes guilt if testing is refused - though they are not supposed to and would never admit to it.