(Bloomberg) – Jennifer Smith doesn't like the term"accident." It implies too much chance and too littleculpability.

A "crash" killed her mother in 2008, she insists, when her carwas broadsided by another vehicle while on her way to pick up catfood. The other driver, a 20-year-old college student, ran a redlight while talking on his mobile phone, a distraction that heimmediately admitted and cited as the catalyst of the fatalevent. 

"He was remorseful," Smith, now 43, said. "He never changed hisstory."

Yet in federal records, the death isn't attributed todistraction or mobile-phone use. It's just another line item on thegrim annual toll taken by the National HighwayTransportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) — one of 37,262that year. Three months later, Smith quit her job as a realtor andformed Stopdistractions.org, a nonprofit lobbying and supportgroup. Her intent was to make the tragic loss of her mother ananomaly.

Death-by-distraction

To that end, she has been wildly unsuccessful. Nine years later,the problem of death-by-distraction has gotten much worse.

Over the past two years, after decades of declining deaths onthe road, U.S. traffic fatalities surged by 14.4%. In 2016alone, more than 100 people died every day in or near vehicles inAmerica, the first time the country has passed that grim toll in adecade.

Regulators, meanwhile, still have no good idea why crash-relateddeaths are spiking: People are driving longerdistances but not tremendously so; total miles were upjust 2.2% last year. Collectively, we seemed to be speeding anddrinking a little more, but not much more than usual. Together,experts say these upticks don't explain the surge in roaddeaths.

Substantial incurease in smarphone use

There are however three big clues, and theydon't rest along the highway. One, as you may haveguessed, is the substantial increase insmartphone use by U.S. drivers as they drive. From 2014to 2016, the share of Americans who owned an iPhone,Android phone, or something comparable rose from75% to 81%.

Related: 5 reasons why auto accidents are on therise

The second is the changing way in which Americans usetheir phones while they drive. These days, we're pretty much donetalking. Texting, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are the order ofthe day — all activities that require far more attention thansimply holding a gadget to your ear or responding to adisembodied voice. By 2015, almost 70% of Americans were usingtheir phones to share photos and follow news events via socialmedia. In just two additional years, that figure has jumpedto 80%.

Bicyclist, motorcyclist & pedestrian fatalities up

Finally, the increase in fatalities has been largely amongbicyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians — all of whom are easierto miss from the driver's seat than, say, a 4,000-poundSUV — especially if you're glancing up from yourphone rather than concentrating on the road. Last year,5,987 pedestrians were killed by cars in the U.S., almost1,100 more than in 2014 — that's a 22% increase in just twoyears.  

Related: Washington state moves to outlaw distracteddriving

Safety regulators and law enforcement officials certainlyunderstand the danger of taking — or making — a phone call whileoperating a piece of heavy machinery. They still,however, have no idea just how dangerous it is, becausethe data just isn't easily obtained. And as mobile phone trafficcontinues to shift away from simple voice calls and textsto encrypted social networks, officials increasingly have less of aclue than ever before. 

Out of NHTSA's full 2015 dataset, only 448 deaths werelinked to mobile phones — that's just 1.4% of all trafficfatalities. By that measure, drunk driving is 23 times more deadlythan using a phone while driving, though studies have shown thatboth activities behind the wheel constitute (on average) a similarlevel of impairment. NHTSA has yet to fully crunch its 2016 data,but the agency said deaths tied to distraction actually declinedlast year.

In a recent study, the nonprofit National SafetyCouncil found only about half of fatal crashes tied toknown mobile phone use were coded as such in NHTSAdatabases. (Photo: Shutterstock)

Mobile phones 3X deadlier than NHTSA datasuggests? 

There are many reasons to believe mobile phones are far deadlierthan NHTSA spreadsheets suggest. Some of the biggest indicators arewithin the data itself. In more than half of 2015 fatal crashes,motorists were simply going straight down the road — no crossingtraffic, rainstorms, or blowouts.

Related: 5 driving risks you need to talk about with yourteens

Meanwhile, drivers involved in accidents increasingly mowed downthings smaller than a Honda Accord, such as pedestrians orcyclists, many of whom occupy the side of the road or thesidewalk next to it. Fatalities increased inordinately amongmotorcyclists (up 6.2% in 2016) and pedestrians (up 9%).

"Honestly, I think the real number of fatalities tied to cellphones is at least three times the federal figure," Jennifer Smithsaid. "We're all addicted and the scale of this is unheard of."

In a recent study, the nonprofit National Safety Council found only about halfof fatal crashes tied to known mobile phone use were coded as suchin NHTSA databases. In other words, according to the NSC, NHTSA'sfigures for distraction-related death are too low.

Perhaps more telling are the findings of Zendrive Inc., a SanFrancisco startup that analyzes smartphone data to help insurers ofcommercial fleets assess safety risks. In a study of 3 millionpeople, it found drivers using their mobile phone during88% of trips. The true number is probably evenhigher because Zendrive didn't capture instances whenphones were mounted in a fixed position — so-called hands freetechnology, which is also considered dangerous.

"It's definitely frightening," said Jonathan Matus, Zendrive'sco-founder and chief executive officer. "Pretty much everybody isusing their phone while driving."

'Technological nannies' that freeze smartphone activity

There are, by now, myriad technological nannies that freezesmartphone activity. Most notably, a recent version of Apple's iOSoperating system can be configured to keep a phone asleep when itsowner is driving and to send an automated text response to incomingmessages. However, the "Do Not Disturb" function can be overriddenby the person trying to get in touch. More critically, safetyadvocates note that such systems require an opt-in from the sameusers who have difficulty ignoring their phones in the firstplace.

Related: Distracted drivers fault family members more thanwork, friends

In NHTSA's defense, its tally of mobile phone-relateddeaths is only as good as the data it gets from individualstates, each of which has its own methods for diagnosing anddetailing the cause of a crash. Each state in turn relies on itsvarious municipalities to compile crash metrics — and they often dothings differently, too. 

The data from each state is compiled from accident reports filedby local police, most of which don't prompt officers to considermobile phone distraction as an underlying cause. Only 11 states usereporting forms that contain a field for police to tick-offmobile-phone distraction, while 27 have a space to note distractionin general as a potential cause of the accident.

The fine print seems to make a difference. Tennessee,for example, has one of the most thorough accident reportforms in the country, a document that asks police toevaluate both distractions in general and mobile phones inparticular. Of the 448 accidents involving a phone in 2015as reported by NHTSA, 84 occurred in Tennessee. Thatmeans, a state with 2% of the country's population accounted for19% of its phone-related driving deaths. As in polling, itreally depends on how you ask the question.

Currently, it's illegal for drivers to use ahandheld phone at all in 15 states, and texting while driving isspecifically barred in 47 states. But getting mobile phone recordsafter a crash typically involves a court order and, and even then,the records may not show much activity beyond a call ortext. (Photo: Shutterstock)

Crash investigators told to catch up with technology

Massachusetts State Police Sergeant Christopher Sanchez, anational expert on distracted driving, said many police departmentsstill focus on drinking or drug use when investigating a crash.Also, figuring out whether a mobile phone was in use at the time ofa crash is usually is getting trickier every day — proving that itprecipitated the event can be even harder to do.

Related: In-vehicle technology increases driver'sdistractions

Prosecutors have a similar bias. Currently, it'sillegal for drivers to use a handheld phone at all in 15 states,and texting while driving is specifically barred in 47 states. Butgetting mobile phone records after a crash typically involves acourt order and, and even then, the records may not show muchactivity beyond a call or text. If police provide solid evidence ofspeeding, drinking, drugs or some other violation, lawyers won'tbother pursuing distraction as a cause.

"Crash investigators are told to catch up with this technologyphenomenon — and it's hard," Sanchez said. "Every year new apps aredeveloped that make it even more difficult." Officers inArizona and Montana, meanwhile, don't have to bother,since they allow mobile phone use while you drive. And in Missouri,police only have to monitor drivers under age 21 who pick up theirphone while driving.

Like Smith, Emily Stein, 36, lost a parent to the streets. Eversince her father was killed by a distracted driver in 2011, shesometimes finds herself doing unscientific surveys. She'll sit infront of her home in the suburbs west of Boston and watch how manypassing drivers glance down at their phones.

"I tell my local police department: 'If you come here, sit on mystoop and hand out tickets. You'd generate a lot of revenue,'" shesaid.

Since forming the Safe RoadsAlliance five years ago, Stein talks to the police regularly."A lot of them say it surpasses drunk driving at this point," shesaid. Meanwhile, grieving families and safety advocatessuch as her are still struggling to pass legislationmandating hands-free-only use of phones while driving —Iowa and Texas just got around to banning textingbehind the wheel.

"The argument is always that it's big government," said JonathanAdkins, executive director of the Governors Highway SafetyAssociation. "The other issue is that … it's hard to ban somethingthat we all do, and we know that we want to do."

We don't have a breathalyzer for a phone

Safety advocates such as Smith say lawmakers,investigators and prosecutors won't prioritizethe danger of mobile phones in vehicles until they are seen as asizable problem — as big as drinking, say. Yet, it won't bemeasured as such until it's a priority for lawmakers, investigatorsand prosecutors.

"That's the catch-22 here," Smith said. "We all know what'sgoing on, but we don't have a breathalyzer for a phone."

Perhaps the lawmakers who vote against curbing phone use in carsshould watch the heart-wrenching 36-minute documentaryfilmmaker Werner Herzog made on the subject. Laudably, the piece,FromOne Second to the Next, was bankrolled by the country's majorcellular companies. "It's not just an accident," Herzog said of thefatalities. "It's a new form of culture coming at us, and it'scoming with great vehemence."

Adkins has watched smartphone culture overtake much of his workin 10 years at the helm of the GHSA, growing increasinglyfrustrated with the mounting death toll and what he calls clearunderreporting of mobile phone fatalities. But he doesn'tthink the numbers will come down until a backlash takeshold, one where it's viewed as shameful to drive while using aphone. Herzog's documentary, it appears, has had little effect inits four years on YouTube.com. At this point, Adkins is simplyholding out for gains in autonomous driving technology.

"I use the cocktail party example," he explained. "If you're ata cocktail party and say, 'I was so hammered the other day, and Igot behind the wheel,' people will be outraged. But if you say thesame thing about using a cell phone, it won't be a big deal. It isstill acceptable, and that's the problem."

Related: Drowsy-driving dangers