[Senate Hearing 108-954]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-954
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION AND ITS PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 22, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-471 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Carolina, Ranking
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine Virginia
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada RON WYDEN, Oregon
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Robert W. Chamberlin, Republican Chief Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPETITION, FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon, Chairman
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota,
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas Ranking
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 22, 2003..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 22
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 3
Statement of Senator Smith....................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Witnesses
Berman, Richard, Legislative Counsel, American Beverage Licensees
and the American Beverage Institute............................ 74
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President, Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety.................................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Guerrero, Peter, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S.
General Accounting Office...................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hamilton, Wendy J., President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving..... 84
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Runge, M.D., Hon. Jeffrey, Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Strassberger, Robert, Vice President, Vehicle Safety, Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers; on behalf of Josephine Cooper,
President and Chief Executive Officer.......................... 65
Prepared statement of Josephine Cooper....................... 67
Swanson, Kathryn, Director, Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety
and Chair, Governors Highway Association on behalf of the
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA).................... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Appendix
Comments of Consumers Union...................................... 97
Response to written questions submitted to:
Richard Berman............................................... 123
Josephine S. Cooper.......................................... 121
Jacqueline S. Gillian........................................ 108
Peter Guerrero............................................... 105
Wendy Hamilton............................................... 128
Jeffrey Runge................................................ 99
Kathryn Swanson.............................................. 116
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION AND ITS PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce, and
Infrastructure,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H.
Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We
will call to order this Subcommittee hearing of the Commerce
Committee. Today our topic will be considering the
Administration's recently released proposal to reauthorize the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA, and
the safety and motor vehicle programs it administers.
NHTSA plays a vital role in helping reduce traffic deaths,
injuries and economic losses resulting from vehicle crashes.
This reauthorization will afford the Committee an opportunity
to evaluate the Administration's priorities and develop a sound
reauthorization proposal for the next 6 years. According to
NHTSA, 95 percent of all transportation-related deaths and 99
percent of all transportation-related injuries are the result
of motor vehicle crashes. It is estimated that in 2002, 42,850
people were killed in vehicle crashes and roughly 3 million
people were injured.
In 2000, the economic costs of these vehicle crashes were
over $230.6 billion. This is a staggering amount and yet, one
cannot compare the enormous personal loss of that amount to the
pain and suffering experienced by those people involved in the
accidents.
We must carefully evaluate the Administration's
reauthorization proposal known as, this year, SAFETEA and work
to ensure that the Senate develops a sound and balanced
proposal. In particular, I'm going to work to ensure that we do
not pass legislation that would create an imbalance whereby
states that have taken aggressive action in the areas of seat
belts and impaired driving would subsequently be penalized for
the sake of providing more funding assistance to those states
that have not taken similar actions. We need to build upon the
success of existing programs, and while it's important to
assist those states with the greatest safety problems, we
should also continue to support all states in their efforts to
further their highway safety.
I am deeply concerned about the rise in traffic-related
fatalities last year and the number of potential deaths that
could have been prevented if the occupants were wearing seat
belts. Of the 42,850 people killed last year on our highways,
59 percent of them were not wearing seat belts.
I'm proud of my state, the state of Oregon, for having
already passed a primary seat belt law in 1990, and it is now
one of the Nation's leaders in seat belt usage at approximately
90 percent. It's estimated that if the United States as a whole
could increase its seat belt usage from its current 75 percent
to 90 percent, over 4,000 lives would be saved each year.
Later this year, I'm going to introduce legislation that
would implement a Federal primary seat belt law and encourage
drivers to ``Click It or Ticket.'' This legislation will
prevent thousands of traffic-related deaths and injuries each
year. I would be interested in the comments that any of our
witnesses today might have about a Federal primary seat belt
law.
The Commerce Committee intends to move quickly in the
coming weeks to develop and report legislation to authorize
NHTSA and other safety programs under its jurisdiction. I look
forward to working closely with the other Members to develop a
reauthorization proposal that will promote and strengthen
highway safety initiatives. In that effort we will be very
interested in hearing the views of all of our witnesses, and we
are privileged to be joined by my colleague Senator Lautenberg.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon H. Smith, U.S. Senator from Oregon
Good afternoon. Today, the Subcommittee meets to consider the
Administration's recently released proposal to reauthorize the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the safety and motor
vehicle programs it administers. NHTSA plays a vital role in helping to
reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor
vehicle crashes. This reauthorization process will afford the Committee
an opportunity to evaluate the Administration's priorities and develop
a sound reauthorization proposal for the next six years.
According to NHTSA, 95 percent of all transportation related
deaths, and 99 percent of all transportation related injuries, are the
result of motor vehicle crashes. In 2002, 42,850 people were killed in
vehicle crashes and approximately 3 million people suffered injuries.
In 2000, the economic costs related to vehicle crashes was over $230.6
billion. This is a staggering amount, yet one that cannot compare to
the enormous personal and psychological suffering experienced by
persons involved.
We must carefully evaluate the Administration's reauthorization
proposal, known as ``SAFETEA,'' and work to ensure that the Senate
develops a sound and balanced proposal. Our evaluation should carefully
consider how any proposed restructuring of the existing NHTSA grant
programs would affect the states' ability to promote highway safety. In
particular, I will work to ensure that we do not pass legislation that
would create an imbalance whereby states that have taken aggressive
action in the area of seatbelts and impaired driving would subsequently
be penalized for the sake of providing more funding assistance to those
states that have not taken similar actions. We need to build upon the
success of existing programs, and while it is important to assist those
states with the greatest safety problems, we also should continue to
support all states in their efforts to promote highway safety.
Finally, I want to briefly discuss the Committee's continued
concerns about vehicle rollover and compatibility. These are also
issues that Administrator Runge has indicated are of great concern to
the Administration. Yet, I understand that the SAFETEA proposal
contains no new rulemaking initiatives in this area. I want to learn
what specifically NHTSA is doing to address these problems.
The Commerce Committee intends to will move quickly in the coming
weeks to develop and report legislation to authorize NHTSA and other
safety programs under its jurisdiction. I look forward to working
closely with the other members to develop a reauthorization proposal
that will promote and strengthen highway safety initiatives. In that
effort, we will be very interested in hearing the views of today's
witnesses.
Senator Smith. Senator Lautenberg, do you have an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I will try not
to be too long. I'm glad to see our witnesses here, people with
knowledge and interests, and I have long been interested in
making our roads and highways safer. During my previous three
terms, that was before I became a freshman, I wrote the bills
now law to, one, increase the drinking age from 18 to 21; to
establish .08 as the blood alcohol standard for drunk driving;
and, three, to ban triple trailer trucks from most of our
roads. These laws have made our roads and highways safer and my
hope is that they've saved a few lives as well.
Last year, almost 43,000 people died in traffic accidents,
and it's not SARS or a military conflict, but this is an
epidemic that we have a cure for and a war we know how to
fight. We need to ask ourselves if we're doing enough to
prevent innocent lives from being lost on our highways.
The Administration's safety proposal has just $50 million
out of more than $38 billion for Fiscal Year 2004, and it has
$50 million dedicated to impaired driving control programs. Now
that's less than current funding, and I'm sure we will hear
about how under the Administration's proposal states will be
able to flex their funding to spend it on whatever they choose,
be it roadway improvements or behavioral safety programs.
But a recent GAO study found that when given the choice,
states prefer to spend money on infrastructure improvements
rather than behavioral safety programs like those designed to
increase seat belt use and to reduce drunk driving. The highway
construction lobby is much more powerful in State capitals than
safety advocates. The Federal Government needs to take a strong
leadership role on highway safety issues. If we leave it up to
the states on these issues, then here's the result.
Thirty-two states still don't have a primary enforcement
seat belt law. Eleven states still have not adopted the .08
percent blood alcohol content standard. Twenty-four states
still don't have an open container law. Twenty-seven states
still don't have a repeat offender law. This tells me that the
states need stronger encouragement to address these important
safety issues. We've already tried threatening withholding
highway construction funds but if we give them a loophole to
get the funds back within 4 years, maybe it still isn't enough
encouragement.
This week Senator DeWine and I introduced legislation aimed
at increasing enforcement of drunk driving strategies that work
to reduce drunk driving and legislation targeting higher risk
drivers, that is, repeat offenders and drivers with blood
alcohol levels of .15 percent or higher.
Policies like state adoption of an .08 BAC standard, blood
alcohol standard, and open container laws are designed to pick
the low-hanging fruit when it comes to reducing drunk driving,
but now it's time to take the next step in getting drunk
drivers off our roads. I look forward to working with my
colleagues here on the Commerce Committee to get such
provisions incorporated into our segment of the reauthorization
bill that makes its way to the Senate floor. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today on these important issues and
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make the
statement.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
We are privileged to have as our first panel the Honorable
Jeffrey Runge, and he is the Administrator of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and Mr. Peter Guerrero,
Director of Physical Infrastructure Team, General Accounting
Office. Doctor.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY RUNGE, M.D., ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Runge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My written statement is
submitted for the record, and I would like to just highlight
it, if I may.
We appreciate the opportunity on behalf of NHTSA and the
DOT to come today to discuss our proposal to reauthorize
highway safety programs via SAFETEA. You, Mr. Chairman, said
very well why it is that we are here, and that is the 42,850
people who died last year, and over 41,000 who died in every
subsequent year before that, which is really the equivalent of
losing a city the size of Chapel Hill or Rockville, Maryland
every year, being wiped off the face of the Earth. And yet
because these fatalities are spread out, we don't have nearly
the degree of anger, of the need for urgency that we certainly
should.
We did see some improvement the last 2 years in the number
of injuries, which we believe is due to more people buckling up
and driving safer vehicles. But in spite of that, motor vehicle
crashes remain the leading cause of death in our country for
every age group from age 2 to age 33 and as you mentioned, the
economic cost is crippling. You said $230 billion per year,
which adds up to $820 for every man, woman and child living in
our country. This includes $33 billion in medical expenses, and
$81 billion in lost productivity. Those two numbers could be
reduced dramatically by increasing safety belt usage. The
average cost for a critically injured survivor is $1.1 million
over the lifetime.
So for these reasons, President Bush and Secretary Mineta
have made reducing highway deaths the number one priority of
the Department of Transportation, and formulating our
reauthorization proposal, indeed, named SAFETEA. The Secretary
has given the FMCSA and the Federal Highway Administration a
single goal, to reduce motor vehicle fatality rate by a third
over the next 5 years.
We know what works. There are highly effective and simple
remedies to combat highway death and injury. Wearing safety
belts is number one. Everybody can cut their risk of death in
half if they would simply do so. So to encourage more people to
buckle up, we propose a new program that will provide $100
million each year to reward states for enacting primary safety
belt laws, and to provide an incentive to other states to
follow their lead.
Alternatively, states that opt not to enact a primary
safety belt law but that achieve a safety belts usage rate of
90 percent would also qualify for those additional grant funds.
We also propose to streamline our Section 402 safety
programs. Two important elements are the safety belt use grant,
which complements the primary law enactment grant. So it would
reward states for improving their safety belt use rates, i.e.,
an enforcement grant program. And second, a general performance
grant which rewards states that show demonstrable improvement
in the following areas of overall motor vehicle fatalities,
alcohol-related fatalities, and motorcycle, bicycle and
pedestrian crash fatalities, which should address your issue of
states that are doing well receiving additional funding.
Our proposal will also offer states more flexibility in how
they spend their Federal highway safety dollars and yet, they
will be held accountable for achieving measurable safety-
related goals.
SAFETEA addresses discouragement of impaired driving by
targeting our resources where they are most needed. In 2002, we
estimate 17,970 people died in alcohol-related crashes, which
is over 40 percent of total fatalities for the year, and
indeed, an increase of 3 percent over 2001. The progress that
we have made in the last decade to deter impaired driving has
been stalled, and clearly more needs to be done.
The key component of the revised 402 program focuses on a
small number of states with a particularly severe impaired
driving problem, by creating a $50-million-a-year impaired
driving discretionary grant program per year that will support
states with high fatality numbers and rates to assist them in
developing a strategic plan for reducing impaired driving
fatalities, as well as supporting improvements in the
prosecution and adjudication of DWI cases. We believe that this
consolidated grant program and supporting activities, together
with continued use of nationwide high visibility enforcement
campaigns will restart the downward trend in alcohol fatalities
that we have seen since 1988.
In addition, through the comprehensive safety planning
process states may elect to use a significant amount of the
consolidated Section 402 money for impaired driving programs.
Aside from the consolidation of these programs, SAFETEA also
includes other provisions such as funds to update a national
comprehensive motor vehicle crash causation survey that will
enable us to learn more about the factors that happen before
the crash on the Nation's roads, a new incentive program to
encourage states to improve their traffic records data so they
can apply those resources where they are most needed, and a new
State formula grant program to support E-911 and the
coordination of emergency medical systems.
Finally, SAFETEA would reauthorize a national driver
register. The NDR facilitates the exchange of driver licensing
information on problem drivers among the states and various
Federal agencies to aid in identifying those problem drivers
and in making decisions concerning driver's licensing, driver
employment, and transportation safety.
Mr. Chairman, our portion of the SAFETEA builds upon the
principles, values and achievements of ISTEA and TEA-21, yet
recognizes that there are new challenges. We urge Congress to
authorize the highway safety programs before they expire on
September 30, and we look forward to working with you and the
Committee on this task. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Runge follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeffrey Runge, M.D., Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Chairman Smith, Senator Dorgan, Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Administration's proposal to reauthorize our highway safety programs in
the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act of 2003'' or ``SAFETEA.''
Through your leadership, and in conjunction with our state, local
and private sector partners, NHTSA has worked to realize the goals of
TEA-21. We are grateful to this Subcommittee for its continuing
leadership by scheduling this hearing. My staff and I look forward to
working with you and the rest of Congress in shaping the proposals that
will reauthorize TEA-21. Working together, we will assure the
successful reauthorization of this legislation and address the highway
safety challenges facing the Nation.
Motor vehicle crashes are responsible for 95 percent of all
transportation-related deaths and 99 percent of all transportation-
related injuries. They are the leading cause of death for Americans
ages 1 to 34. NHTSA's portion of SAFETEA focuses exclusively on highway
safety. Although we are seeing improvements in vehicle crash worthiness
and crash avoidance technologies, the rate and numbers of fatalities
and injuries on our highways are staggering. In 2002, an estimated
42,850 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes, up slightly from
42,116 in 2001.
Traffic injuries in police-reported crashes decreased by 4 percent
in 2002. While this is encouraging, we still are faced with the
overwhelming fact that nearly 3 million people were injured in these
crashes in 2002.
The economic costs associated with these crashes are unacceptable
as well. In fact, they constitute a grave public health problem and
serious fiscal burden for our Nation. The total annual economic cost to
our economy of all motor vehicle crashes is an astonishing $230.6
billion in 2000 dollars, or 2.3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic
product. This translates into an average of $820 for every person
living in the United States. Included in this figure is $81 billion in
lost productivity, $32.6 billion in medical expenses, and $59 billion
in property damage. The average cost for a critically injured survivor
is estimated at $1.1 million over a lifetime. As astounding as this
figure is, it does not even begin to reflect the physical and
psychological suffering of the victims and their families.
The fatality rate for 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
remained unchanged at 1.51, according to these estimates. Secretary
Mineta has given us the goal of reducing the fatality rate to no more
than 1.0 fatality for every 100 VMT by 2008. This is not just a NHTSA
goal; it is a goal of the entire Department of Transportation.
For these reasons, President Bush and Secretary Mineta have made
reducing highway fatalities the number one priority for the Department
and for the reauthorization of TEA-21.
Traffic safety constitutes a major public health problem, but
unlike a number of the complex issues facing Washington today, we have
some highly effective and simple remedies to combat highway death and
injury.
Wearing safety belts is the number one offensive and defensive step
all individuals can take to save their lives. Buckling belts is not a
complex vaccine, doesn't have unwanted side effects and doesn't cost
any money. It is simple, it works and it's lifesaving.
Safety belt use cuts the risk of death in a severe crash in half.
Most passenger vehicle occupants killed in motor vehicle crashes
continue to be totally unrestrained. If safety belt use were to
increase from the national average of 75 percent to 90 percent--an
achievable goal--nearly 4,000 lives would be saved each year. For every
1 percentage point increase in safety belt use--that is 2.8 million
more people ``buckling up''--we would save hundreds of lives, suffer
significantly fewer injuries, and reduce economic costs by hundreds of
millions of dollars a year.
In addition to the economic obligation, more importantly, we have a
moral obligation to immediately address the problem of highway safety.
The Bush Administration remains committed to reducing highway
fatalities, and our bill offers proposals to increase safety belt use
and to take those and other actions that can make the achievement of
this goal possible.
Thanks in large part to the hard work of many of you and your
predecessors, SAFETEA builds on the tremendous successes of the
previous two pieces of surface transportation legislation. Both the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), a
bill with which the Secretary is proud to have played a role, and TEA-
21, provided an excellent framework to tackle the surface
transportation challenges that lie ahead.
ISTEA set forth a new vision for the implementation of the Nation's
surface transportation programs. Among other things, ISTEA gave state
and local officials unprecedented flexibility to advance their own
goals for transportation capital investment. Instead of directing
outcomes from Washington, D.C., the Department shifted more of its
focus to giving state and local partners the necessary tools to solve
their unique problems while still pursuing important national goals.
SAFETEA not only maintains this fundamental ISTEA principle, it goes
further by giving states and localities even more discretion in key
program areas. To meet the significant highway safety challenges the
states face, we have designed SAFETEA's highway safety title to create
a safer, simpler and smarter program.
President Bush and this Administration are committed to fostering
the safest, most secure national transportation system possible, even
as we seek to enhance mobility, reduce congestion, and expand our
economy. These are not incompatible goals. Indeed, it is essential that
the Nation's transportation system be both safe and secure while making
our economy both more efficient and productive.
While formulating the Department's reauthorization proposal, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NHTSA came together on a
different approach to addressing the Nation's substantial highway
safety problems. Under that approach, states would receive more
resources to address their own, unique transportation safety issues;
would be strongly encouraged to increase their overall safety belt
usage rates; and would be rewarded for performance with increased funds
and greater flexibility to spend those funds on either infrastructure
safety or behavioral safety programs. The following are the major
programmatic elements of the Administration's highway safety
reauthorization proposal.
SAFETEA establishes a new core highway safety infrastructure
program, in place of the existing Surface Transportation Program safety
set-aside. This new program, called the Highway Safety Improvement
Program, will more than double funding over comparable TEA-21 levels.
This new program would provide $7.5 billion for safety projects over
the 6-year authorization period. In addition to increased funding,
states would be encouraged and assisted in their efforts to formulate
comprehensive highway safety plans.
To streamline NHTSA's grant programs and make them more
performance-based, we have proposed a major consolidation of NHTSA's
Section 402 safety programs. While the basic formula grant program for
Section 402 would provide $1.05 billion over the 6-year authorization
period, two important elements of this revised Section 402 are a
General Performance Grant and a Safety Belt Performance Grant. The
Safety Belt Performance Grant provides up to $100 million each year to
reward states for passing primary safety belt laws--meaning drivers and
passengers can be cited for failure to wear a safety belt--or achieving
90 percent safety belt usage rates in their states. A state that enacts
new primary belt laws will receive a grant equal to five times the
amount of its current formula grant for highway safety. This
significant incentive is intended to prompt state action needed to save
lives. In 2002, states with primary safety belt laws averaged 80
percent use, 11 percentage points higher than those with secondary
laws--laws preventing police from issuing a citation unless another
traffic law was broken. states achieve high levels of belt use through
primary safety belt laws, public education using paid and earned media,
and high visibility law enforcement programs, such as the Click it or
Ticket campaign.
Any state that receives a Safety Belt Performance Grant for the
enactment of a primary safety belt law is permitted to use up to 100
percent of those funds for infrastructure investments eligible under
the Highway Safety Improvement Program in accordance with the state's
comprehensive plan. Also, states can receive additional grants by
improving their safety belt use rates. This incentive would provide
$182 million over the 6-year authorization period. Any state that
receives a grant for improved safety belt usage rates or a General
Performance Grant for the achievement of other key safety performance
measures is permitted to use up to 50 percent of those funds for
activities eligible under the new Highway Safety Improvement Program.
Overall, this groundbreaking proposal offers states more
flexibility than they have ever had before in how they spend their
Federal-aid safety dollars. It reduces state administrative burdens by
consolidating multiple categorical grant programs into one. It would
reward them for accomplishing easily measurable goals and encourage
them to take the most effective steps to save lives. It is exactly the
kind of proposal that is needed to more effectively address the tragic
problem of highway fatalities.
The $340 million, six-year General Performance Grant component of
our revised Section 402 program not only eases the administrative
burdens of the states but also rewards states with increased Federal
funds for measurable improvements in their safety performance for
reducing (i) overall motor vehicle fatalities, (ii) alcohol-related
fatalities, and (iii) motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian crash
fatalities.
SAFETEA is designed to help the states deter impaired driving.
Encouraging people to wear their safety belts will help reduce the
number of deaths and injuries attributed to impaired driving, but
reducing the actual number of impaired drivers is a complex issue
requiring interconnected strategies and programs. In 2002, an estimated
17,970 people died in alcohol-related crashes (42 percent of the total
fatalities for the year), a 25 percent reduction from the 23,833
alcohol-related fatalities in 1988, but an increase of 3 percent over
2001. Intoxication rates have decreased for drivers of all age groups
involved in fatal crashes over the past decade, with drivers 25 to 34
years old experiencing the greatest decrease, followed by drivers 16 to
20 years old. Our 2002 estimates indicate that impaired-related
fatalities rose for the third straight year.
Additionally, the President's National Drug Control Strategy
recognizes drug-impaired driving as both a problem and, in its
reduction, an opportunity. As a problem, we believe that drug-impaired
driving, either alone or in combination with alcohol, accounts for 10-
20 percent of crash-involved drivers. Detecting drug-impaired driving
gives police officers, prosecutors and judges the opportunity to
appropriately sanction offenders and refer them to treatment as
appropriate, which is an important objective of the President. NHTSA
contributes to this Presidential objective principally through the drug
evaluation and classification (DEC) program, which was recognized in
the President's National Drug Control Strategy for the first time in
2003. By giving traffic officers and prosecutors the tools to better
identify drug use in vehicle drivers, the DEC program meets two
important objectives of the administration: reducing traffic fatalities
and injuries and reducing drug use. This reauthorization bill allows
our agency to continue working towards these objectives by supporting
this important program and reducing the incidence of both alcohol and
drug-impaired driving.
Another component of our revised Section 402 program will focus
significant resources on a small number of states with particularly
severe impaired driving problems by creating a new $50 million a year
impaired driving discretionary grant program. The grant program will
include support for up to 10 states with especially high alcohol
fatality numbers or rates to conduct detailed reviews of their impaired
driving systems by a team of outside experts and assist them in
developing a strategic plan for improving programs, processes, and
reducing impaired driving-related fatalities and injuries. Additional
support will also be provided for training, technical assistance in the
prosecution and adjudication of DWI cases, and to help licensing and
criminal justice authorities close legal loopholes.
NHTSA believes that this targeted state grant program and
supporting activities, together with continued nationwide use of high-
visibility enforcement and paid and earned media campaigns, will lead
to a resumption of the downward trend in alcohol-related fatalities
that the Nation experienced over the past decade. Also, through the
comprehensive safety planning process, all states may elect to use a
significant amount of their FHWA Highway Safety Infrastructure funding,
in addition to their consolidated Section 402 funds, for impaired
driving.
In addition to the consolidation of our Section 402 programs,
SAFETEA's highway safety title includes a key provision to provide a
comprehensive national motor vehicle crash causation survey that will
enable us to determine the factors responsible for the most frequent
causes of crashes on the Nation's roads. This comprehensive survey
would be funded at $10 million a year out of the funds authorized for
our highway safety research and development program. The last update of
crash causation data was generated comprehensively in the 1970s.
Vehicle design, traffic patterns, numbers and types of vehicles in use,
on-board technologies and lifestyles have changed dramatically in the
last 30 years. Old assumptions about the causes of crashes may no
longer be valid. Since NHTSA depends on causation data to form the
basis for its priorities, we must ensure that this data is current and
accurate. Updating our crash causation data will allow us to target our
efforts for the next decade on the factors that are the most frequent
causes of crashes on American roads.
NHTSA has in place an infrastructure of investigation teams that
will enable us to perform the crash causation study efficiently and
accurately. These teams are currently performing a similar study for
large, commercial truck crashes and are adept at gathering evidence
from the scene, the hospital, and from victim and witness interviews.
Their findings will guide the agency's programs in crash avoidance,
including vehicle technologies as well as human factors.
SAFETEA also creates a new $300 million incentive grant program
that builds upon a TEA-21 program to encourage states to improve their
traffic records data. Deficiencies in such data negatively impact
national databases including the Fatality Analysis Reporting System,
General Estimates System, National Driver Register (NDR), Highway
Safety Information System, and Commercial Driver License Information
System as well as state data used to identify local safety problems.
Improvements are needed for police reports, emergency medical services
(EMS), driver licensing, vehicle registration, and citation/court data
provide essential information. Accurate state traffic safety data are
critical to identifying local safety issues, applying focused safety
countermeasures, and evaluating the effectiveness of countermeasures.
SAFETEA also establishes a new $60 million state formula grant
program to support EMS systems development, 911 systems nationwide, and
a Federal Interagency Committee on EMS to strengthen intergovernmental
coordination of EMS. The states would administer the grant program
through their state EMS offices and coordinate it with their highway
safety offices.
For the past 20 years, Federal support for EMS has been both scarce
and uncoordinated. As a result, the capacity of this critical public
service has seen little growth and support for EMS has been spread
among a number of agencies throughout the Federal government, including
NHTSA. Most of the support offered by these agencies has focused only
on specific system functions, rather than on overall system capacity,
and has been inconsistent and ineffectively coordinated.
In 2001, the General Accounting Office cited in its report,
``Emergency Medical Response: Reported Needs Are Wide-Ranging, With
Lack of Data A Growing Concern,'' the need to increase coordination
among Federal agencies as they address the needs of regional, state, or
local EMS systems. According to GAO, these needs, including personnel,
training, equipment, and more emergency personnel in the field, vary
between urban and rural communities.
The Administration believes that Federal support for EMS and 9-1-1
systems should be enhanced and coordinated. The enactment of this
section would result in comprehensive system support for EMS, 9-1-1
systems, and improved emergency response capacity nationwide.
SAFETEA also would provide $559.5 million for NHTSA's highway
safety research and development program. This program supports state
highway safety behavioral programs and activities by developing and
demonstrating innovative safety countermeasures, and by collecting and
disseminating essential data on highway safety. The results of our
Section 403 research provide the scientific basis for highway safety
programs that states and local communities can tailor to their own
needs, ensuring that precious tax dollars are spent only on programs
that are effective. The states are encouraged to use the successful
programs for their ongoing safety programs and activities.
Highway safety behavioral research focuses on human factors that
influence driver and pedestrian behavior and on environmental
conditions affecting safety. The program addresses a wide range of
safety problems through various programs, initiatives, and
demonstrations, such as: impaired driving programs, including the drug
evaluation and classification program, safety belt and child safety
seat programs and related enforcement mobilizations, pedestrian,
bicycle, and motorcycle safety initiatives and related law enforcement
strategies, enforcement and justice services, speed management,
aggressive driving countermeasures, EMS, fatigue and inattention
countermeasures, and data collection and analysis efforts. All of these
efforts have produced a variety of scientifically sound data and
results.
SAFETEA provides specific set-asides out of Section 403 funds for
the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, discussed earlier,
and for EMS and international highway safety activities.
Finally, SAFETEA would provide $23.6 million for the NDR. The NDR
facilitates the exchange of driver licensing information on problem
drivers among the states and various Federal agencies to aid in making
decisions concerning driver licensing, driver improvement, and driver
employment and transportation safety.
Mr. Chairman, NHTSA's portion of SAFETEA builds upon the
principles, values, and achievements of ISTEA and TEA-21, yet
recognizes that there are new challenges to address. We urge Congress
to reauthorize the highway safety programs before they expire on
September 30, 2003. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Smith. Thank you. Mr. Guerrero.
STATEMENT OF PETER GUERRERO, DIRECTOR,
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES,
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Guerrero. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Lautenberg, I am going to again, as Dr. Runge did, summarize my
statement that has been submitted for the record.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here to testify today on
NHTSA's efforts to reduce traffic fatalities and discuss
SAFETEA. Highway safety, as you heard from Dr. Runge, is a
major concern. One person dies every 12 minutes on our highways
and as Dr. Runge said, it is the leading cause of death for
every age from 4 to 33 years. It not only involves a tragic
loss of life, but it's a cost to us in economic terms that is
substantial, as you noted, Mr. Chairman.
In 1998 under ISTEA, under TEA-21, the Congress funded a
series of highway safety programs to encourage, among other
things, the use of seat belts and to reduce drunk driving. The
states implement these programs by establishing goals and NHTSA
reviews the State goals and provides oversight to the State
programs to ensure that they make progress.
My testimony today will discuss three matters: the factors
that contribute to accidents on our highways; the funding of
these safety programs; and NHTSA's oversight of those programs.
In summary, we found three things. First, many factors
combine to produce circumstances that lead to motor vehicle
crashes. There's usually not one cause. There are three factors
generically: human factors, roadway factors and vehicle
factors, and human factors by far are the largest component and
contributing factor to highway accidents.
Second, we spent about $2 billion in State grants over the
last 5 years under TEA-21 to improve highway safety. Overall
funding for NHTSA behavioral programs nearly doubled from
Fiscal Years 1998 to 2002, as shown by this chart. In addition,
the chart also shows that almost $400 million in incentive
funds and penalty transfers were used for highway safety
construction purposes.
Our third finding is that NHTSA oversight of State programs
can be enhanced. We found that two important oversight tools
available to NHTSA called management reviews and improvement
plans are not being used as effectively as they could be to
ensure that states are both operating within grant guidelines
and achieving safety goals.
Now I would like to provide some perspective on the
progress that has been made in improving highway safety and in
reducing traffic fatalities.
If you go back to the mid-1970s, it's clear that we have
made considerable progress and this chart shows that. From 1975
to 2002, annual fatalities decreased by about 4 percent.
However, after reaching a low in 1992, highway fatalities have
been edging up ever since. During the same period, fatalities
adjusted for the increased number of miles traveled, or the
fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles, dropped from 3.35
in 1975 to 1.51 in 2002, or about 55 percent. However, we have
not seen significant declines in this rate over the last couple
of years.
Alcohol-related crashes present even a more challenging
picture. They account for a large portion of traffic
fatalities. Between 1982, when NHTSA first began tracking
alcohol-related fatalities, and this past year, 2002, about
430,000 people died in alcohol-related crashes. Today, it
contributes to 40 percent of all highway fatalities. As the
chart shows, we have not made much progress in reducing the
alcohol-related fatality rate since the late 1990s.
The progress we have made over the past quarter-century is
attributable to many actions. For example, during this period,
seat belt use rates grew from 14 percent to over 75 percent
today. In addition, NHTSA told us that increased enforcement
and public awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving
have reduced the incidents of casual drinkers becoming traffic
fatalities. However, both NHTSA and the states acknowledge that
making further progress would be more challenging.
Now I would like to discuss the various factors that
contribute to motor vehicle crashes. As I mentioned earlier,
it's usually a multiple combination of factors that produce the
motor vehicle crash, it is rarely a single cause, and human
factors are generally seen as the most significant. Alcohol
consumption and speeding are the two major human behavioral
factors contributing to vehicle crashes today.
It is illegal in every state and the District of Columbia
to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence or impaired
by alcohol or drugs. In addition, all states but Massachusetts
have blood alcohol laws that make it illegal to drive with a
specified level of alcohol in the blood. As of January 2003, 17
states have set the blood alcohol level at a standard of 0.1
percent alcohol and the remaining states have set a more
stringent standard of .08 percent alcohol concentration in the
blood.
I would like to note that continued progress toward the
adoption of the .08 standard is important since blood alcohol
concentrations of .08 or greater were reported in about 87
percent of the alcohol-related fatalities last year.
The roadway environment, those factors external to the
driver and the vehicle that increase the risk of a crash, is
generally considered the second most prevalent factor
contributing to crashes.
And finally, data and study generally show, and experts
believe that vehicle factors, the third cause of accidents,
contribute less often than do human or roadway. However, recent
changes in the composition of the Nation's vehicle fleet to
more light trucks and SUVs have focused attention to the
dangers posed by these vehicles to their own occupants and
those of other vehicles.
For example, rollover crashes are especially serious
because they are more likely to result in fatalities. Passenger
cars were the vehicle type least likely to roll over in a
crash, where SUVs were over three times more likely to roll
over. And the fatalities that occur in SUV rollovers is twice
as high as the proportion of passenger cars.
Mr. Chairman, seeing that my time has expired, I would like
to just note that we did recommend to NHTSA certain things that
they could do to enhance their oversight of State programs. We
believe it's important for them to use two tools at their
disposal. One is called a management review, the other is
called a State improvement plan. We noted in our work that
since 1998, only 7 improvement plans have been developed, and
we found that highway safety performance in a number of states
was worse than that in other states that had plans, yet those
states that had poorer performance did not have plans for
improvement. In particular, one state that did not have an
improvement plan had experienced an alcohol-related increase of
over 40 percent, putting it at double the Nation's average.
We recommended that NHTSA provide more specific guidance to
its regional offices as to when to use these plans to ensure
greater consistency in its oversight, and NHTSA is taking
action to implement our recommendations. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guerrero follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Guerrero, Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office
Highway Safety: Factors Contributing to Traffic Crashes and NHTSA's
Efforts to Address Them
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the National
HighwayTraffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) efforts to reduce
traffic fatalities. Highway safety is a major concern for the country,
given that over 1.2 million people have died on our roadways over the
last 25 years. Since 1982, about 40 percent of traffic deaths were from
alcohol-related crashes, and traffic crashes are the leading cause of
death for people ages 4 through 33. In addition to the tragic loss of
life, the economic cost of fatalities and injuries from crashes totaled
almost $231 billion in 2000 alone, according to NHTSA.
In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21) funded a series of highway safety programs, administered by NHTSA,
that increased funding to the states to encourage, among other things,
the use of seat belts and child passenger seats and to prevent drinking
and driving. The states implement these programs by establishing
highway safety goals and initiating projects to help reach those goals.
NHTSA reviews state goals and provides oversight of state highway
safety programs.
My testimony today will discuss (1) the factors that contribute
totraffic crashes, (2) the funds provided to the states for highway
safety programs, and (3) NHTSA's guidance provided to states and
oversight of the states' programs. My statement is primarily based on
two GAO reports on these topics. The first report, issued in March
2003, dealt with the factors that contribute to traffic crashes. \1\ To
complete that effort, we analyzed three Department of Transportation
databases that contained data through 2001; interviewed experts from
academia, insurance organizations, and advocacy groups as well as
department officials; and reviewed studies on various aspects of motor
vehicle crashes. In addition, NHTSA recently released 2002 traffic
fatality data, which we used to update some of the information
contained in the April 2003 report for this testimony. The second
report, which we are releasing today, provides information on TEA-21
funds for state highway safety programs, how the states have used those
funds, and NHTSA's oversight of the state programs. \2\ To conduct this
effort, we visited six states and the NHTSA regional offices
responsible for them to determine how these states were using the funds
and to review NHTSA's oversight of the states' programs. We also
interviewed representatives of the Governors Highway Safety Association
and other highway safety organizations to obtain their perspectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Safety: Research
Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle
Crashes, GAO-03-436 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2003).
\2\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Safety: Better Guidance
Could Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety Programs, GAO-03-474
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary:
Many factors combine to produce circumstances that may lead
to a motor vehicle crash--there is rarely a single cause of
such an event. Experts and studies have identified three
categories of factors that contribute to crashes--human
factors, roadway environment factors, and vehicle factors.
Human factors involve the actions taken by or the condition of
the driver of the automobile, including speeding, being
affected by alcohol or drugs, violating traffic laws,
inattention, decision errors, and age. Roadway environment
factors include the design of the roadway, roadside hazards,
and roadway conditions. Vehicle factors include any failures
that may exist in the automobile or design of the vehicle.
Human factors are generally seen as the most prevalent
contributing factor of crashes, followed by roadway environment
and vehicle factors.
About $2 billion has been provided to states over the last 5
yearsfor highway safety programs under TEA-21. About $729
million went tothe core highway safety program, Section 402, to
carry out trafficsafety programs designed to influence drivers'
behavior in such areasas seat belt use, drinking and driving,
and speeding. About $936million went to seven incentive
programs also designed to encouragestate efforts to improve
seat-belt use, reduce drinking and driving,and contribute to
improvement of state highway safety data. Inaddition, about
$361 million was transferred from state highwayconstruction to
state highway safety programs under provisions thatpenalized
states that had not complied with Federal requirements
forpassing repeat offender or open container laws to reduce
drinking and driving.
To oversee state highway safety programs, NHTSA focuses on
providingadvice, training, and technical assistance to the
states, which are responsible for setting and achieving highway
safety goals. NHTSA can also use management reviews and
improvement plans as tools to help ensure that the states are
operating within guidelines and achieving the desired results.
However, we found that NHTSA's regional offices have made
inconsistent use of management reviews and improvement plans
because NHTSA's guidance to the regional offices does not
specify when to use them. As a result, some states do not have
improvement plans,even though their alcohol-related fatality
rates have increased or their seat-belt usage rates have
declined. GAO recommended that NHTSA provide guidance to its
regional offices on when it is appropriate to use these
oversight tools. NHTSA is taking steps to improve this
guidance.
Background
Since 1975, progress has been made in reducing the number of
fatalities on our Nation's roads, but in recent years improvement has
slowed and some downward trends have been reversed. As figure 1 shows,
from 1975 through 2002, annual fatalities decreased from 44,525 to
42,850, or by about 4 percent. Annual fatalities reached a low of
39,250 in 1992 and have been edging up since then. During the same
period, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT),
a common method of measurement, dropped from 3.35 in 1975 to 1.51 in
2002, or by about 55 percent. Since 1992, the decline in the fatality
rate has slowed.
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
Alcohol-related crashes account for a large portion of traffic
fatalities.\3\ Between 1982, when NHTSA began tracking alcohol-related
fatalities, and 2002, about 430,000 people died in alcohol-related
crashes. In 1982, NHTSA reported 26,173 alcohol-related deaths,
representing 59.6 percent of all traffic fatalities. Alcohol-related
fatalities declined to 39.7 percent of all traffic fatalities in 1999,
but rose to 17,970--41.9 percent of fatalities--in 2002. (See fig. 2.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Alcohol-related fatalities represent crash victims killed with
blood alcohol concentrations at any level above .01. At this
concentration, a person's blood contains 1 one-hundredth of 1 percent
alcohol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data.
As figure 3 shows, alcohol-related fatality rates declined steadily
(except in 1986) from 1982 through 1997. However, there has been almost
no further decline in rates since 1997, when the rate was 0.65
fatalities per 100 million VMT. In 2002, the rate was 0.64 fatalities
per 100 million VMT.
Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data.
The overall decline in fatalities over the past quarter century is
attributable to many actions. For example, during this period, a number
of countermeasures were developed and installed in new vehicles. Seat
belts and air bags are credited with saving thousands of lives--seat-
belt use rates have grown from about 14 percent in 1983 to over 75
percent nationwide today. In addition, Federal and state programs have
resulted in improvement in some areas. For example, increased
enforcement and greater public awareness of the dangers of drinking and
driving have, according to NHTSA officials, reduced the incidence
ofcasual drinkers becoming traffic fatalities. Having made improvements
in reducing causal drinking and driving, NHTSA and the states are now
faced with more challenging problems such as alcohol dependency, which
has hindered progress in reducing alcohol-related fatalities.
A Variety of Factors Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes:
Multiple factors typically combine to produce circumstances that
lead to a motor vehicle crash--there is rarely a single cause for such
an event. For example, it would be challenging to identify a single
cause of a crash that occurred on a narrow, curvy, icy road when an
inexperienced driver, who had been drinking, adjusted the radio or
talked on a cell phone.
In examining the causes of motor vehicle crashes, a number of
expertsand studies identified three categories of factors that
contribute to crashes: human factors, roadway environment factors, and
vehicle factors. Human factors involve the actions taken by or the
condition of the driver of the automobile, including speeding, being
affected by alcohol or drugs, violating traffic laws, inattention,
decision errors, and age. Roadway environment factors include the
design of the roadway, roadside hazards, and roadway conditions.
Vehicle factors include any failures that may exist in the automobile
or design of the vehicle.Human factors are generally seen as the most
prevalent contributing factor of crashes, followed by roadway
environment and vehicle factors.
Two examples of human factors that have a significant impact on
traffic crashes are speeding and alcohol. Speeding--driving either
faster than the posted speed limit or faster than conditions would
safely dictate--contributes to traffic crashes. Speeding reduces a
driver's ability to steer safely around curves or objects in the
roadway, extends the distance necessary to stop a vehicle, and
increases the distance a vehicle travels when a driver reacts to a
dangerous situation. According to our analysis of NHTSA's databases,
from 1997 through 2001, speeding was identified as a contributing
factor in about 30 percent of all fatal crashes, and almost 64,000
lives were lost in speeding-related crashes. From 1997 through 2001, 36
percent of male drivers and 24 percent of female drivers 16 to 20 years
old who were involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time of the
crash. The percentage of speeding-related fatal crashes decreases as
driver's age.\4\ (See fig. 4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ It should be noted that in addition to the factors discussed,
other elements, such as nonuse of seat belts or other occupant-
protection measures, might have affected the number of fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
Alcohol consumption is a significant human factor that contributes
to many motor vehicle crashes. It is illegal in every state and the
District of Columbia to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence
of, impaired by, or with a specific level of alcohol or drugs in the
blood. Only Massachusetts lacks a law that defines the specific
concentration of blood alcohol at which it becomes illegal to drive.\5\
As of January 2003, 17 states had set the standard at 0.10 percent
blood alcohol concentration (BAC) (the level at which a person's blood
contains 1/10th of 1 percent alcohol) and the remaining states had set
the standard at 0.08 percent BAC.\6\ NHTSA recently reported that in
2002, 42 percent of all fatal crashes were alcohol-related, and nearly
18,000 people died in alcohol-related crashes. BACs of 0.08 or greater
were reported for about 87 percent of the alcohol-related fatalities in
2002. For each age category, moremale than female drivers were involved
in fatal alcohol-related crashes (see fig. 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ BAC of 0.08 percent in Massachusetts is evidence of alcohol
impairment, but it is not illegal per se.
\6\ Louisiana, New York, and Tennessee have 0.08 percent blood BAC
laws that will be effective during the latter half of 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
There is also a strong relationship between a driver's age and the
likelihood of being involved in a crash. While age, in itself, would
not be the cause of the crash, some of the characteristics displayed at
various ages can lead to a higher probability of being involved in
traffic crashes. Younger drivers' crash rates are disproportionately
higher mainly because of a risky driving style combined with driving
inexperience. Older drivers also pose greater risks; fatal crash rates
are higher for the elderly than for all but the youngest drivers.
The roadway environment--factors that are external to the driver
and the vehicle that increase the risk of a crash--is generally
considered the second most prevalent contributing factor of crashes.
Roadway environment factors that contribute to, or are associated with,
crashes include the design of the roadway, including features such as
medians, narrow lanes, a lack of shoulders, curves, access points, or
intersections; roadside hazards or features adjacent to the road that
vehicles can crash into such as, poles, trees, or embankments;
androadway conditions (for example, rain, ice, snow, or fog). However,
the contribution of these factors to crashes is difficult to quantify.
NHTSA's crash databases contain limited data on roadway design features
at the crash location or immediately preceding the crash location. In
addition, the significance of adverse weather, including both slippery
roads and reductions in driver visibility, is not fully understood
because there are no measurements (for example, VMTs under adverse
weather conditions) available to compare crash rates under various
conditions.
Vehicle factors can also contribute to crashes through vehicle-
related failures and vehicle design characteristics (attributes that
may increase the likelihood of being involved in certain types of
crashes). While such recent events as the number of crashes involving
tire separations have highlighted the importance of vehicle factors,
data and studies generally show, and experts believe, that vehicle
factors contribute less often to crashes than do human or roadway
environment factors. For example, our analysis of NHTSA's data found
that of the 32 million crashes from 1997 through 2001, there were about
778,000 crashes (about 2 percent) in which police determined that a
specific vehicle-related failure might have contributed to the crash.
In addition, vehicle design has been shown to affect handling in
particular types of maneuvers. For example, high-performance sports
cars have very different handling characteristics from those of sport
utility vehicles (SUVs). Recent changes in the composition of
thenation's vehicle fleet, in part attributable to the purchase of many
SUVs, have resulted in an overall shift toward vehicles with a higher
center of gravity (more top-heavy), which can roll over more easily
than some other vehicles. Rollover crashes are particularly serious
because they are more likely to result in fatalities. Our analysis of
NHTSA's 2001 data shows that passenger cars were the vehicle type least
likely to roll over in a crash; passenger cars rolled over in about 2
percent of all crashes and rolled over nearly 16 percent of the time in
fatal crashes. In comparison, our analysis shows that SUVs were over
three times more likely to roll over in a crash than were passenger
cars; that is, they rolled over in almost 6 percent of all crashes. In
addition, the proportion of SUVs that rolled over in fatal crashes was
over twice as high as the proportion of passenger cars. NHTSA recently
reported that in 2002, fatalities in rollover crashes involving SUVs
and pickup trucks accounted for 53 percent of the increase in traffic
deaths.
Funding for State Highway Safety Programs Has Grown
About $2 billion was provided to the states for highway safety
programs for the first 5 years under TEA-21, from Fiscal Years 1998
through 2002. TEA-21 funded state programs three ways as follows:
The core Section 402 State and Community Safety Grants
Program provided $729 million for behavioral highway safety
programs.
Seven incentive programs provided $936 million. States could
use funds from two of the incentive programs for behavioral
highway safety programs or highway construction. As a result,
states allocated about $789 million of the incentive funds to
behavioral programs and $147 million to highway construction.
Two penalty transfer programs provided $361 million in
Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002. These programs transferred funds
from highway construction to highway safety programs to
penalize states for not complying with Federal requirements for
passing laws prohibiting open alcoholic beverage containers in
cars and establishing specific penalties for people convicted
of repeat drinking and driving offenses.\7\ States could use
both penalty transfers for either alcohol-related behavioral
safety programs or highway safety construction projects. As a
result, states allocated about $113 million of the transfer
funds to behavioral programs and $248 million (about 66
percent) to highway construction programs to eliminate road
safety hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ TEA-21, as amended through the TEA-21 Restoration Act,
established these two penalty provisions.
Funding for states' behavioral safety programs nearly doubled from
Fiscal Year 1998 through Fiscal Year 2001. (See fig. 6.)
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
Funding for the core Section 402 State and Community Grants Program
has been fairly level, in constant dollars, since 1991. Four major
program categories account for most of the states' use of the $729
million in Section 402 State and Community Grants funds provided
between 1998 and 2002: police traffic services, impaired driving, seat
belts, and community safety programs. Combined, these four categories
account for about 72 percent of the grant funds. Figure 7 shows how the
states used their Section 402 State and Community Grants funds during
the first 5 years covered by TEA-21.
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
Note: ``Other'' includes roadway safety, pedestrian safety,
emergency medical services, speed control, driver education, motorcycle
safety, school bus safety, and paid advertising to support Section 402
programs.
The seven incentive programs under TEA-21 also provide funds to
encourage greater seat belt use, implement programs or requirements to
reduce drinking and driving, and contribute to the improvement of state
highway safety data. The funding available for these programs grew from
$83.5 million in 1998 to $257.2 million in 2002. While most of these
funds were used for funding additional behavioral safety programs, the
act provided that two programs, the 0.08 percent Blood Alcohol
Concentration Incentive (Section 163) and the Seat-belt Use Incentive
(Section 157) programs, could be used for any highway purpose--
highwayconstruction, construction that remedied safety concerns, or
behavioral safety programs. Appendix I contains additional information
on the seven incentive programs.
Under the penalty transfer programs, the states that did not adopt
either the open container or the repeat offender requirements were
required to transfer a specified percentage of their Federal highway
construction funds to their Section 402 State and Community Grants
Program.\8\ During Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002, the first 2 years that
funds have been transferred, 34 states were subject to one or both of
the penalty provisions, and about $361 million was transferred from
these states' Federal Aid Highway Program funding. (See fig. 8.) States
can keep transferred funds in their Section 402 State and Community
Grants program when they are to be used to support behavioral programs
designed to reduce drunk driving or the states can allocate any portion
of the transferred funds to highway safety construction projects to
eliminate road safety hazards. States varied greatly in their decisions
on how to use these funds, from allocating 100 percent of the funds to
highway safety construction projects to allocating 100 percent of the
funds to highway safety behavioral projects. Overall, the states
allocated about 69 percent to highway safety construction projects
under the Hazard Elimination Program, and 31 percent went to highway
safety behavioral projects. Twenty-eight of the 34 states with
transferred funds allocated a majority to highway safety construction
activities under the Hazard Elimination Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For the first 2 years, the transfer penalty was 1.5 percent of
the funds apportioned to the state's National Highway System, Surface
Transportation Program, and Interstate Maintenance funding, for each
penalty. This amount rose to 3 percent for each penalty in October
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
Note: Alaska (both transfers), District of Columbia (no transfers),
Hawaii (no transfers), and Puerto Rico (both transfers) are not shown.
NHTSA Has Not Made Consistent Use of Oversight Tools
NHTSA's 10 regional offices focus on providing advice, training,
and technical assistance to the states, which are responsible for
setting and achieving their highway safety goals. In addition, among
other things, NHTSA uses management reviews and improvement plans as
oversight tools to help it ensure that states' programs are operating
within guidelines and are achieving desired results.
NHTSA regions can conduct management reviews to help improve and
enhance the financial and operational management of the state programs.
In conducting these reviews, a team of NHTSA regional staff visit the
state and examine such items as its organization and staffing, program
management, financial management, and selected programs like impaired
driving, occupant protection, public information and education, and
outreach. The team's report comments on the state activities and may
make recommendations for improvement. For example, in some
managementreviews we examined, NHTSA regions found instances of
inadequate monitoring of subgrantees, a lack of coordination in state
alcohol program planning, costs incurred after a grant was over, and
improper cash advances by a state to subgrantees. However, NHTSA has no
written guidance on when to perform management reviews. We found that
the management reviews were not being conducted consistently. For
example, in the six NHTSA regions we visited, we found goals of
conducting state management reviews every 2 years, on no set schedule,
or only when requested by a state.
Improvement plans are another tool for providing states oversight
and guidance. According to program regulations, if a NHTSA regional
office finds that a state is not making progress toward meeting its
highway safety goals, NHTSA and the state are to develop an improvement
plan to address the shortcomings. For example, NHTSA, working with one
state, developed an improvement plan that identified specific actions
that NHTSA and the state would accomplish to improve alcohol-related
highway safety. The plan included such actions as implementing a
judicial education program, requiring all police officers working on
impaireddriving enforcement to be adequately trained in field sobriety
testing, and developing a statewide system for tracking driving-while-
intoxicated violations.
NHTSA regional offices have made limited and inconsistent use of
improvement plans. Since 1998, only seven improvement plans have been
developed. In addition, we found that the highway safety performance of
a number of states that were not operating under improvement plans was
worse than the performance of other states that were operating under
such plans. For example, we compared the performance of the three
states that had developed improvement plans for alcohol-related
problems with the performance of all other states. We found that for
seven states, the rate of alcohol-related fatalities increased from
1997 through 2001 and their alcohol-related fatality rates exceeded the
national rate in 2001. Only one of these 7 states was on an improvement
plan. Furthermore, for one state that was not on an improvement plan,
the alcohol-related fatality rate grew by over 40 percent from 1997
through 2001 and for 2001 was about double the national average. The
limited and inconsistent use of improvement plans is due to a lack of
specificity in the criteria for requiring such plans.
To ensure more consistent use of management reviews and improvement
plans, we recommended in our report that NHTSA provide more specific
guidance to the regional offices on when it is appropriate to use these
oversight tools. In commenting on a draft of the report, NHTSA
officials said they agreed with the recommendations and had begun
taking action to develop criteria and guidance to field offices on the
use of management reviews and improvement plans.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or members of the Committee
may have.
Appendix I: Highway Safety Incentive Grant Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incentive
category Title of incentive: Description of incentive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat belt/ Section 157 Safety Creates incentive grants to
occupant Incentive Grants for states to improve seat belt
protection the Use of Seat Belts use rates. A state may use
incentives; these funds for any highway
safety or construction
program. The act authorized
$500 million over 5 years.
-------------------------------------------------------
Section 157 Safety Provides that unallocated
Innovative Grants for Section 157 incentive funds
Increasing Seat-Belt be allocated to states to
Use Rates carry out innovative projects
to improve seat belt use.
-------------------------------------------------------
Section 405 Occupant Creates an incentive grant
Protection Incentive program to increase seat belt
Grant; Description of and child safety seat use. A
incentive state may use these funds
only to implement occupant
protection programs. The act
authorized $68 million over 5
years.
-------------------------------------------------------
Section 2003(b) Child Creates a program designed to
Passenger Protection prevent deaths and injuries
Education Grants to children, educate the
public on child restraints,
and train safety personnel on
child restraint use. The act
authorized $15 million over 2
years for Section 2003(b).
However, the Congress
appropriated funds to support
the program for 2 additional
years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol Section 163 Safety Provides grants to states that
incentives Incentives to Prevent have enacted and are
the Operation of enforcing laws stating that a
Motor Vehicles by person with a blood alcohol
Intoxicated Persons concentration of 0.08 or
higher while operating a
motor vehicle has committed a
per se driving-while-
intoxicated offense. A state
may use these funds for any
highway safety or
construction program. The act
provides $500 million over 6
years for the program.
-------------------------------------------------------
Section 410 Alcohol Revises an existing incentive
Impaired Driving program and provides grants
Countermeasures to states that adopt or
demonstrate specified
programs, or to states that
meet performance criteria
showing reductions in
fatalities involving alcohol-
impaired drivers. The act
provides $219.5 million over
6 years, which is to be used
for alcohol-impaired driving
programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data incentives Section 411 State Description of incentive:
Highway Safety Data Provides incentive grants to
Improvements states to improve the
timeliness, accuracy,
completeness, uniformity, and
accessibility of highway
safety data. The act provides
$32 million over 4 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much. We're pleased to be
joined by the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. Senator
Dorgan, if you have an opening statement, we will then go to
questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Senator Smith, thank you very much. I'm
sorry that I was not here at the beginning, I have had a chance
to read the testimony. Dr. Runge, good to see you again. Mr.
Guerrero, thank you for your testimony.
This is a really important issue. As we begin the
reauthorization of the Federal Highway Program, the issue of
highway safety programs I think is really critically important
to do and to do right, and I'm very concerned about a number of
issues. I will ask questions about them especially, but I know
that the chart shows and Mr. Guerrero's testimony suggests that
we now see a beginning of the movement back up in highway
deaths, especially due to drunk driving and alcohol-related
deaths.
And I'm concerned, for example, that the proposal that we
have from the Administration would completely eliminate the
open container and the repeat offender incentive programs. I
have felt very strongly for a long while and I have tried very
hard to get through the Senate, or through the Congress I
should say, a prohibition on open containers in automobiles.
And I finally got it through after I guess I worked 6, 8, 10
years on it, I finally got it through, but it's pretty weak-
teethed. I mean, it doesn't have sanctions that are dramatic.
So we still have something like 13 states that don't
prohibit open containers in automobiles and we still have some
circumstances in this country where I understand it is legal to
put your key in the ignition and one hand on the steering wheel
and another around the neck of a bottle of Jim Beam, and drive
off and drink, and you're perfectly legal. There ought not be
anywhere in America where that exists, nowhere. There ought not
be an intersection in this entire country where it ought to be
legal to drink and drive.
And so, we have a lot yet to do and I am especially
concerned about open containers, I'm concerned about repeat
offenders. There was a story in my state recently about a
fellow that has been, I think he has now 12 or 14 drunk driving
convictions, same person. The .08, we have I think a dozen or
so states that are not yet in compliance with that, so we have
a lot to do. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here and
to be able to ask a few questions.
Let me yield to you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask some
questions following you and Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Smith. The Senator makes some very good points that
are concerns of mine as well.
Dr. Runge, with SAFETEA, you addressed it briefly, but I
wonder if you could expand on it, about rewarding a state with
one times the portion of their respective Section 402 funds if
it adopts a primary seat belt enforcement law before the end of
this year. I guess my concern is, representing a state that has
done this long ago and has been very successful, we are
obviously concerned that we would be penalized apparently in
the formulation that you're coming up with, and I wonder if you
could speak to that. How is it fair for states who have worked
hard to, on this issue, to lose funding when we're trying to
get other states up? Why are we talking away from those who are
trying to maintain their good performance?
Dr. Runge. I appreciate the question, Mr. Chairman. We
thought long and hard about this at DOT when formulating this
plan, and what we knew that we needed first and foremost was an
effective incentive program to coax states to do the right
thing, to pass a primary safety belt law, and that there should
be enough reward for them that they would actually pay
attention to it. In the past there have been incentives that
have been very moderate at best in their effectiveness in
getting states to pay attention, and that has resulted in
sanctions. The .08 is a classic example.
What the Administration chooses to do now is to put some
real money behind this attempt to get states to do it. And
given a fixed pool of resources, we also did not want to
penalize those states who had already done the right thing, so
we struck a balance. And that is to get states to pay
attention, we believe that five times their 402 formula amount
would get them to pay attention. Florida, $37 million, for
instance. You know, real money. Arizona, I think $10 or $12
million. However, there is not unlimited resources and the
resource pool dictated that we find something to do for the
states that have already done it, so a one-time shot of 402
into their coffers we thought would be a handsome reward.
I stirred over this and had to go back to the parable of
the talents. And you know, life is not completely fair, but
workers in the vineyard who have done the right thing do get
paid.
Senator Smith. Well, I mentioned in my opening statement
one of the advantages, and I suppose there are some
disadvantages of requiring all states to enact primary seat
belt laws, and I referenced the ``Click It or Ticket'' program.
Do you have a comment about that?
Dr. Runge. There is no reason why every state in the
country should not have a primary safety belt law. I would also
add to my prior statement that states who have one, California,
Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, are already above 90
percent. Ninety percent is not a drain, but they got there
because they had a primary safety belt law and they had
effective high visibility enforcement. The portion of the
population that does not currently buckle would, and in fact
does, because of either the desire to obey the law or the
wanting to avoid a ticket.
Congress has been very good about giving us the opportunity
to have high visibility enforcement campaigns such that we had
one state, my state in 1993 that did it, and in 2001, 8 states
in the Southeast, last year 39 states, this year 43--I'm sorry,
last year 29 states, this year 43 states. And Congress gave us
the money to run a national ad.
So I hope that you will see these ads. You may not because
they're not really aimed at your demographic, Senator, they are
for young men 15 to 34 primarily, but you may see our ads. And
we do believe that that will be effective in getting people to
avoid the ticket. So, we are actually very proud of this. We
are happy that we were able to raise belt use 4 percentage
points over the last 2 years, which equals 500 lives a year,
and over 8,000 serious injuries that have been avoided.
Senator Smith. NHTSA state safety officials are prohibited
from lobbying State legislators on highway legislation. Do you
believe this impacts your ability to pass these laws?
Dr. Runge. Well, first and foremost, State laws are up to
the State legislatures, but I do believe that State
legislatures should have the benefit of the latest data, they
should understand what the consequences of passing or not
passing laws are. And the prohibition on our participating in
that process has a very chilling effect on our outreach into
the states, so it has affected our ability to do so.
Florida, for instance, their bill died last night. That
means that 200 people will die this year that would not die
otherwise. Very sad. But we had to remain silent as soon as
that bill had a number and was introduced, and I do believe
that had an effect.
Senator Smith. Senator Dorgan noted the slight increase in
fatalities this year. To what do you attribute that primarily?
Dr. Runge. Well, first of all, the vehicle miles traveled
went up about 2 percent, and our fatality rate was exactly what
it was last year, 1.51 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.
So the actual numbers increase is due to increased exposure.
Senator Smith. OK.
Dr. Runge. But the reason that we are not making progress,
I really do believe is our failure to get more states to enact
primary safety belt laws and take a serious--to get serious
about impaired driving. It's just not happening.
Senator Smith. My first round is over. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr.
Runge, is it a soft G or a hard G?
Dr. Runge. It's a hard G, thanks.
Senator Lautenberg. Runge, thank you. That's why I never
heard of anybody using the runge of a ladder, right?
Senator Dorgan. That's right.
Dr. Runge. You will now, though, I'm sure.
Senator Lautenberg. The question about whether or not
sanctions are, or incentives are used is one that has
interested me, and I have perhaps been the grinch, but
sanctions work, incentives often don't. And I don't know
whether it's just a coincidence of things, but I was making
notes while the discussion was going on with my colleagues,
that the 14 states--only 14 states--I find shocking, have open
container laws. And I know how hard Senator Dorgan worked on
that, and I think that's an incentive program, is it not?
Dr. Runge. It's now a--there's a penalty. We currently have
a penalty. And by the way, Senator Dorgan, that does not go
away with the enactment of SAFETEA.
Senator Lautenberg. Has that been primarily an incentive
law in the past?
Dr. Runge. I can comment specifically about your question
when talking about .08.
Senator Lautenberg. No, I'm talking now about the open
containers. It's 14 states, right?
Dr. Runge. I can't tell you the detail.
Senator Lautenberg. OK. Seat belts. Are seat belts
primarily incentive or do they carry sanctions?
Dr. Runge. There is currently no incentive or sanction
right now. It's just cajoling, begging and pleading.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, when 60 percent of the fatal
accidents include people who were not wearing seat belts, that
tells you that there is something lacking in terms of an
incentive. And that too is an outrage because it is not only
the person who dies, but rather the families or the other
people who may be injured in an accident of that type.
Now, I was the author of the 21 drinking age bill, and I
think one of the reasons in addition to population increases
that we are seeing an increase in alcohol-related injuries and
death is law enforcement. I was at a function that happened to
be a rodeo out in one of the western states, and I noticed a
lot of very young people drinking beer.
And there was a police officer standing there, and I said,
``Officer, do you know what the age for legal drinking is?''
And he said, ``Yes, it's 21.'' So I said, ``Do these kids look
like they're 21?'' And he said, ``Sir, I do traffic, that's my
job. This isn't traffic.''
And when you see now this horrible incident in a high
school where the girls assaulted one another in high school,
and the parents were accused of supplying the beer, I think--
and by the way, with 21 came penalties and every state, every
state, and the most reluctant was D.C. and another state where
there is a lot of beer manufactured, but they all came along.
I'm distressed now that we don't have the .08 compliance to
the extent that we'd like. We have 38 states that have
complied. One of the 12 that haven't is New Jersey, and there
are campaigns against these. Mr. Chairman, I was asked not to
go to a fairly responsible restaurant that I used to go to
frequently, because the owner said I was driving the
restaurants out of business. That was 1981 when the 21 drinking
bill was signed into law.
I think the difference between whether sanctions are put
into place, and I frankly, Mr. Chairman--Dr. Runge, would--did
you say soft or hard?
Dr. Runge. Hard.
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Runge, if it's important enough, if
it saves lives, then I think penalties are appropriate. And I
know there are lots of people who don't like them, but the
question is whether you like the result, not whether you like
the technique. And if you like the result, then you have to do
it.
Mr. Guerrero. Senator Lautenberg, if I could very briefly
just identify in our report, the GAO report, when you're
talking about results, the two penalty provisions we're talking
about here for open containers and for repeat offenders, before
they were applied, only 3 states were complying with both
requirements and now 25 states are, so I think you see an
indication of results.
Senator Lautenberg. I appreciate that, thank you very much.
So that begins to tell us something, Mr. Chairman.
Last, Senator DeWine and I, Dr. Runge, are authoring
legislation that provides funding for a nationwide campaign to
``Click It or Ticket'' for highway safety. How do you feel
about the effectiveness of such campaigns, does NHTSA have
tools to carry out nationwide campaigns on drunk driving?
Dr. Runge. Yes, sir, we are currently doing that. We have
the largest ``Click It or Ticket'' campaign ever going on right
now as we speak. It's going on in 43 states. Actually it's
going on nationwide; 43 states have chosen to spend some of
their own money to augment the national money. Of states that
used the ``Click It or Ticket'' model last year in our program,
they realized a 9 percentage point increase in belt usage,
versus states that did not use an enforcement message that had
basically zero improvement.
So we have the data, I will be happy to give you the
report. It's written up. Congress also gave us $1 million to
evaluate it, which we did, and we'll send that over to you.
There is no question that it's effective for this portion of
the population.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, can I have one more
question and then I promise not to ever ask--well, not ever,
but I would ask you this about .08. This .08 blood alcohol
content, that begins a state of impairment for lots of drivers,
and we have terrible stories about accidents, one not far from
here in Maryland that I talked about a couple of years ago, a
mother standing waiting for the school bus in the morning
holding her child's hand, but couldn't pull the child out of
the way when a woman drunk at 8 o'clock in the morning came
across the sidewalk and struck her child, and killed her in
front of her eyes, and .08 was the blood alcohol content.
Do you think that there is sufficient evidence for us to
move ahead aggressively with the .08? States are now beginning,
including my own, and in 2004 they are going to hit the first
of the penalties, and I think that we will see an awakening,
but do you agree with us about the need to get that reduction
in blood alcohol?
Dr. Runge. Yes, sir, .08 is an effective tool. If I could
just expand a little bit about that for a minute, you know,
impairment in driving begins after the first drink. There is a
continuum that occurs, particularly exacerbated by over-the-
counter medications and drowsiness and other things. But after
one or two drinks, you may be too impaired to drive; .08 is per
se impairment, of course, which means by law you are impaired
whether you can do cartwheels or walk on your hands or
whatever. And clearly in our simulator test, we know that at
.08, virtually all drivers show a large decrement in their
ability to handle a vehicle.
So, I never want to make the case that being at .07 is OK.
You may get away with it, you may not be impaired, you may get
from the pub to your house like you have done 200 times before,
and do just fine. But at .08 you are per se impaired. So .08
has, because of the states that are now passing these laws, we
will have a better opportunity to evaluate its effectiveness in
the coming years.
Prior to TEA-21, I think there were only 10 or 11 states
that had .08. During the incentive phase, there were 3 more
states that passed .08 laws. And as soon as the penalty phase
kicked in, now we have 39. So I would hope that states given
proper incentives would do the right thing. There is no
question that sanctions work. It's a question about at what
cost.
Senator Lautenberg. Sanctions and incentives. Thanks very
much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. You bet. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Let me go back to this open container issue and say to my
colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, the TEA-21
provision transferred 3 percent of the states' construction
money into their safety money account if they didn't enact the
open container law. The states were allowed to use this safety
money for construction to eliminate highway safety hazards and
frankly, that's where most of that money has gone. So it's a
penalty but it's not a penalty that shakes someone in their
boots here. I mean, you know, they understand that they are not
going to lose the money, and the circumstances are such that we
have made some progress here, but we are not requiring states
to pass an open container prohibition and we ought to require
that.
You can debate various pieces of public policy and make a
pretty good case on the other side or on both sides, but on
open container, I don't know how you make a case on the other
side of that one. Start with the issue of the driver drinking.
Can anybody make the case that it ought to be legal for a
driver to drink while they drive? The answer is hell no. I
mean, there isn't any sense at all that would persuade you
that's the thing to do. And I don't think there is any case
that can be made that in a vehicle moving on America's roadways
and highways that anyone ought to feel that there ought to be
an open container of alcohol in the vehicle.
So, I mean this is one that we really ought to do and
really ought to require. Is it a mandate to require it? Sure,
it's a mandate, but it's just a mandate that has some common
sense attached to it.
So let me ask a couple of questions, if I might. My
understanding is that the SAFETEA program freezes safety grants
and maybe Dr. Runge, you can help me go through this, at $447
million in Fiscal Year 2004, the same level as Fiscal Year
2003, but there would be flexibility for the states to use this
money in a manner that could move it both toward safety and
away from safety, as I understand it. Is that how you
understand the proposals this year?
Dr. Runge. If I could take a second to walk you through our
rationale here?
Senator Dorgan. Yes.
Dr. Runge. First of all, the rationale is to take 7 grant
programs and consolidate them into basically 3. The
consolidated 402 program would have level 402 funding across
the two authorizations, but on top of that, there would be two
additional pieces of the 402 program, one for safety belt
usage, which has this incentive to pass a primary belt law and
additional funding to enforce it. And then a third piece, which
is this impaired driving initiative that I'm sure we will talk
some more about, which is to get money into the states where it
is most needed, states that have extraordinarily high fatality
rates for alcohol and high alcohol-rated fatality numbers,
because they are just not making any progress and they need
basic judicial reform and law enforcement support and so forth.
So, first of all, it is level funding across the formula,
but the funds that were over in the Federal Highway
Administration that were eligible for hazard elimination and
other things, are now going to be brought over into the NHTSA
side and used for performance incentive grants.
Now, the second most important piece of this is that every
state is required to submit a comprehensive highway safety plan
that is based on their particular State data, so the problems
of Utah may be very different from the problems in
Massachusetts and by regulation, we will specify that all
players have to be at the table when this highway plan is
created, and it must be data-based. So we also have a grant
program going out to states of $50 million a year to help
improve their State traffic records and their data. So that if
a state has a very low alcohol fatality rate, like Utah at .29
fatalities, they may put less of their resources into alcohol
programs than say South Carolina, which has an alcohol fatality
rate of 1.27. And we know the fatality rates, we don't need
additional data to figure that out, but the states do need
additional data to pinpoint their problems infrastructure as
well as behavioral. So the highway safety plan, therefore, will
determine how those funds are flexed.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just ask about that, because you
used the word flexed and you started with the word flexibility.
The report that was done by Mr. Guerrero describes on page 18
exactly what's happened with flexibility. Overall, the states
allocated nearly 70 percent to highway safety construction
project, and 31 percent went to the highway safety behavioral
programs, that is, the programs dealing with drunk driving and
other issues, when they had the choice. Give them the choice, I
guarantee you what the choice is going to be.
The choice is going to be to build, and they love to build,
I understand that, they're builders. What is the Department of
Transportation? They don't put their key in the lock in the
morning to be something other than builders. They're building
and maintaining highways, roads and bridges. So give them a
choice, give them flexibility, it turns out as it did on page
18. Is there a reason that you should tell us to expect
something other than that, especially given the fact that Mr.
Guerrero has told us what the choices are among the states?
Dr. Runge. Well, I would hope that our knowledge of history
would allow it not to repeat itself. The A in SAFETEA is
accountability and we are putting a lot of effort into this
comprehensive highway safety plan. And I need to remind the
Committee that money that was not eligible for behavioral
programs such as belts and alcohol under TEA-21 will be
eligible for behavioral programs under SAFETEA if it's passed.
Senator Dorgan. I understand, but isn't this a triumph of
hope over experience? I mean, I understand you hope, but we
understand the experience, so we're about the business of
legislating and not hoping, so if we legislate based on what we
know, and what we know is page 18 of this report that says give
them the flexibility and you're going to move money away from
the critical programs that Senator Lautenberg, I, Senator Smith
and others really believe that we ought to address.
With your flexibility and with your consolidation, we are
eliminating the incentives of the states to enact these laws
that we have just been talking about. We're eliminating the
specific incentives because we're saying generically, use your
judgment in the states to decide how you want to use this
money. Page 18 says what they're going to do is run off and
start building with it. So tell me the basis for your hope, Dr.
Runge.
Dr. Runge. Well, during TEA-21, 4 states had a repeat
offender law and it went to 33. Open container, 15 states went
to 36, .08 went from 10 to 39. They were held accountable for
their decisions. Now those programs are not going away, .08
sanctions, repeat offender, open container, they are not going
away as a result of SAFETEA. What I hope we can get Congress'
backing on is the accountability. The GAO report basically is
flexibility without accountability. The Secretary is absolutely
intent on safety being the product of this legislation. I have
every confidence in the world that our holding the states
accountable for their highway safety plan so they can address
their highway safety problems is going to be the underpinning
of this.
Senator Dorgan. It's interesting. I have heard this
discussion in two of my other appropriations subcommittees by
other parts of the Administration. They want flexibility and
they want to consolidate, and what that has meant in every
circumstance is less oversight for specific goals that we have
here in Congress. I don't frankly support, Dr. Runge, the
consolidation. What I support is deciding as a Congress what
we're willing to spend money on, and making states accountable
with respect to those, yes, mandates, I'm not a bit bashful
about using the term mandate when we're talking about demanding
that we save lives and get drunks off the roads in this
country.
And all of you know--I mean, these safety issues, I
especially--there are--let me just say this. There are issues
other than drunk driving. Because of my family experience, I am
passionate about doing something about drunk driving. I am one
of those people that got a call at 10 at night, and every half-
hour somebody else does and one of their loved ones was
murdered by someone that got behind the wheel of a vehicle
drunk. This is not some mysterious illness for which we don't
know a cure. We know what causes it and we know what cures it.
And I'm not comfortable just saying well, let's consolidate all
this and just hope.
We have made some progress, Dr. Runge, no question about
that. Let me just say that part of that progress is
legislative, part of it is citizen progress, Mothers Against
Drunk Driving to name one, and others. But we are not nearly
done, we're just not nearly done. Perhaps during this hearing,
about 4 phone calls will go out to Americans telling them that
their loved one has been killed by a drunk driver. So we have a
lot to do, and I am not comfortable leaving it up to the
judgment of someone else about whether they want to build some
projects or whether they want to try to alter the behavior of
those who are repeat drunk driving offenders or alter the
behavior of those who want to operate vehicles with alcohol in
the vehicle.
So, we'll work through this. I just want to say, I'm a
little disappointed by the consolidation and flexibility, I
don't support that, and we need to work through it here in the
Congress. You and I have had a chance to visit briefly, and I
think that you have the capability to do some awfully good work
down there. I think Mr. Guerrero has done some good work for us
to give us a road map here on where we want to go with respect
to accountability. Thank you very much for your testimony, both
of you.
Dr. Runge. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
I'm informed we will have a vote coming soon, so we will
dismiss our first panel, bring our second panel up. We have 5
witnesses and we ask that their presentations be as succinct as
they can be so we can get them in before this hearing of
necessity must conclude.
Our first witness is Ms. Jackie Gillan, Vice President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; Ms. Kathryn Swanson,
Chairman, Governors Highway Safety Association and Director of
the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety; Ms. Josephine Cooper,
President and CEO of the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers
is not feeling well today, so is being represented by Mr.
Robert Strassberger, who is the Vice President for Vehicle
Safety and Harmonization for the Alliance and will testify in
her place. We also have Ms. Wendy Hamilton, President, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving; and Mr. Rick Berman, Legislative
Counsel, American Beverage Licensees and American Beverage
Institute.
We will start with Ms. Gillan.
STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES
FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY
Ms. Gillan. Thank you very much, Senator, good afternoon.
Despite the grim news on highway fatalities in 2002, the good
news is that effective proven strategies and solutions are
already on the shelf and waiting to be used in highway and auto
safety.
This year the Senate Commerce Committee has the unique
opportunity in the reauthorization of NHTSA's motor vehicle and
traffic safety programs to establish a safety agenda that will
bring down highway deaths and injuries for the next 6 years.
This afternoon I would like to outline a plan of action that
involves a two-prong strategy involving better vehicle design
and improved driver behavior.
Our legislative proposals fall into three categories: the
need to provide sufficient funding resources for NHTSA; the
need to establish a safety regulatory agenda with deadlines for
agency action; and the need to encourage uniform adoption and
enforcement of lifesaving traffic laws. One of the most
critical weapons in the battle to reduce highway deaths and
injuries is adequate financial resources. As you correctly
stated, nearly 95 percent of all transportation-related
fatalities are the result of motor vehicle crashes, but NHTSA's
budget is less than 1 percent of the entire DOT budget.
Twice in the past 3 years this Committee has had to pass
legislation increasing NHTSA's authorization levels to correct
funding shortfalls. We ask the Committee to significantly
increase funding for the agency program in the authorization
bill. This investment will definitely pay off.
Last February the Committee held ground-breaking hearings
on the safety of sport utility vehicles to look at issues
related to the safety of SUV occupants and the safety of
occupants of passenger vehicles involved in a crash with an
SUV. Advocates urges this Committee to establish a motor
vehicle safety regulatory agenda with deadlines for NHTSA
action similar to what you did in the Tread Act for Tire
Safety.
The NHTSA authorization bill needs to address the issue of
rollovers. While rollover crashes only represent 3 percent of
all collisions, they account for nearly a third of all occupant
fatalities. Advocates recommends that NHTSA be directed to
issue a rule on rollover stability standards to prevent deaths
and injuries, as well as a crash worthiness standard to protect
the occupants of rollover crashes.
Also, vehicle aggressivity and incompatibility are
needlessly contributing to motor vehicle deaths and injuries.
Light trucks and vans, including SUVs, can cause great harm to
smaller passenger vehicles in a crash, particularly a side
impact crash. Legislation should direct NHTSA to improve the
compatibility between larger and smaller passenger vehicles,
reduce the aggressivity of larger vehicles, and enhance the
front and side impact protection of small and mid-size
passenger vehicles.
Last year more than 16 million new cars were sold. Yet,
consumer information on the safety of cars is fragmented and
incomplete. A Lou Harris public opinion poll showed that 84
percent of the public supports having a safety rating on a
window sticker of new cars at the point of sale. In 1996, the
National Academy of Sciences made a similar recommendation and
now it's time for NHTSA to move forward on this recommendation.
Let me briefly now turn to improvements that have already
been discussed this morning and the need to make improvements
in the area of traffic safety programs. Attached to my
testimony are maps and charts showing the status of traffic
safety laws in states across the country. Unfortunately, most
states lack some of these basic laws. This is in contrast to
aviation safety, where every person flying on every airplane in
every state is subject to the same uniform laws and
regulations. This uniformity has been a foundation for
achieving an exemplary safety record for aviation travel
throughout the United States and should be pursued in the area
of highway safety, where thousands are killed and millions more
are injured every year.
At present only 18 states and the District of Columbia have
a primary enforcement safety belt law. Adoption of these laws
absolutely requires and results in higher use rates. Advocates
supports the financial incentive that the administration
proposes but we would also like to see a sanction imposed for
states that fail to act.
Similarly, the DOT proposal to encourage State adoption of
primary safety belt laws is very weak and will result in
nothing more than accounting gimmicks as the states who are
penalized for not having a primary safety belt law or a 90
percent use rate will be able to move funds from the highway
safety improvement program and construction program into their
402 traffic safety program. Then there is an escape hatch where
they can move those traffic safety funds back into the
construction program. And this is a measure and countermeasure
that is not going to result in all 50 states having a primary
safety belt law.
While Advocates certainly supports the idea of State flex,
sometimes you just have to flex your muscle to get the states
to act, and that's what Congress has done for the 21 drinking
age, the teen drinking laws and the .08 BAC law.
I would just like to mention briefly two issues related to
child safety which we would like the Committee to address in
their NHTSA authorization bill. Last year this Committee took
the lead in moving legislation to improve booster seat safety.
Unfortunately, a provision concerning incentive grant programs
to states to enact booster seat laws was dropped. We would like
to encourage the Committee to revisit that issue and to include
a targeted incentive grant program to encourage State booster
seat laws, as well as a requirement for built-in child
restraints to increase their use.
I also would like to submit testimony from one of my safety
partners, Kids in Cars. They have been concerned about the
serious safety issue involving children who are left unattended
in vehicles or killed by vehicles backing up. They have
collected data showing that deaths and injuries occur to
hundreds of children every year because of this, and it's not
an issue that's on NHTSA's radar screen and we certainly think
it's one they should deal with.
The recommendations which we include in our more detailed
testimony which has been submitted is an action plan that
Advocates supports because it will result in common sense cost
effective laws and will result in saving lives and dollars.
Advocates' vision for the future is to be invited back by
this Committee to testify in 2009, I hope I'm not the witness,
but if I am, I would like to report that the United States has
experienced the lowest traffic fatalities in a decade, that
fatal rollover crashes are going down, and that the war on
drunk driving is being won and motor vehicle crashes are no
longer the leading cause of death and injury for Americans
young and old.
And yes, we do have the solutions, and it's really a matter
of the political will to put those solutions in place. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jacqueline S. Gillan, Vice President, Advocates
For Highway And Auto Safety
Good afternoon. My name is Jacqueline Gillan and I am Vice
President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), a
coalition of consumer, health, safety, law enforcement and insurance
companies and organizations working together to support the adoption of
laws and programs to reduce deaths and injuries on our highways.
Advocates is unique. We focus our efforts on all areas affecting
highway and auto safety--the roadway, the vehicle and the driver.
Founded in 1989, Advocates has a long history of working closely with
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in the
development of Federal legislative policies to advance safety. I am
pleased to testify this morning on the importance of reauthorizing the
motor vehicle safety programs and the traffic safety programs of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Every day millions of American families leave their homes to travel
by car to work, school, medical appointments, soccer practice, shopping
malls and cultural activities. Although our Nation's highway system has
created mobility opportunities that are the envy of the world, it has
also resulted in a morbidity and mortality toll that is not. The U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) recently released the preliminary
traffic fatalities for the year 2002 and the news was grim.
Overall, there were 42,850 deaths last year compared to 42,116 in
2001, an increase of 734 deaths. This is the highest number of motor
vehicle fatalities in over a decade. The data show that motor vehicle
fatalities rose in nearly every category of crashes. Alcohol-related
fatalities dramatically increased by 522 deaths to a total of 17,970
fatalities; a record 10,626 deaths occurred in rollover crashes, nearly
a 5 percent increase from last year; more teen drivers were killed for
a total of 8,996 deaths; deaths for children 8 to 15 years old
increased significantly to 1,604 lives lost; for the fifth consecutive
year motorcycle deaths climbed to 3,276; and lastly, a majority of
those killed in motor vehicle crashes were not wearing a seatbelt. In
addition to the emotional toll, these deaths are associated with a
large financial toll to society. According to DOT, the cost of motor
vehicle crashes exceeds $230 billion annually.
Although the number of deaths slightly decreased in certain areas,
such as pedestrians, bicyclists, crashes involving large trucks, and
children under seven years of age, these marginal improvements barely
offset what would have been a significantly larger increase in total
traffic fatalities in 2002. The highway safety community takes no
solace in these victories when the predominant trend has been a general
increase in total highway deaths, reversal of improvements in alcohol-
related fatalities, and unabated growth in the number of deaths in
rollover crashes.
The six-year surface transportation reauthorization legislation
submitted by DOT recommends more than $247 billion in spending. Without
a major reversal in the growing number of highway fatalities and
injuries in the next six years, almost 250,000 people will die and 18
million more will be injured at a societal cost of more than $1.38
trillion. The number of deaths is roughly equivalent to half the
population of Portland, Oregon. The number of individuals injured in
motor vehicle crashes is equal to the combined population of the states
of North Dakota, Kansas, Montana, New Jersey and Washington. A mere 20
percent reduction in fatalities and injuries over the next six years
would more than pay for the entire cost of the Administration's
legislation.
This afternoon I will discuss the urgent need for the 108th
Congress to enact a NHTSA reauthorization bill of the agency's motor
vehicle and traffic safety programs that reverses this deadly trend and
seriously addresses the unnecessary and preventable carnage on our
highways. The good news is that effective, proven solutions and
strategies already are on the shelf and ready to be used. Many states
and communities already are employing these ideas and programs and
realizing important reductions in highway deaths and injuries.
Furthermore, technological solutions to improve the crashworthiness of
motor vehicles are available and in use for some makes and models.
The map and charts attached to my testimony show a patchwork quilt
of state laws. As a result, in 2003 most American families are not
protected by laws that will ensure their safety when traveling on our
Nation's roads and highways. This is in contrast to aviation safety
where every person, flying on every airplane, in every state is subject
to the same uniform safety laws and regulations. This uniformity has
been the foundation for achieving an exemplary safety record of
aviation travel throughout the United States. Unfortunately, this is
not the case for motor vehicle travel where nearly every state lacks
some basic traffic safety law and thousands of Americans are killed and
millions more injured every year.
While we are well on our way to having a uniform .08 percent BAC
(blood alcohol concentration) per se law in every state, most states
still lack basic highway safety laws.
32 states do not have a primary enforcement safety belt law.
11 states need to pass a .08 percent BAC per se law.
17 states do not have an adequate repeat offender law for
impaired driving.
14 states do not prohibit open alcohol containers while
driving.
17 states have serious gaps in their child restraint laws.
33 states do not require children ages 4 to 8 years old to
use a booster seat.
30 states do not require all motorcycle riders to wear a
helmet.
Most states do not protect new teen drivers with an optimal
graduated driver license law.
Furthermore, some of the most important regulatory actions
undertaken by NHTSA in the past thirteen years have been the result of
congressional direction, primarily at the initiation of the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. The most recent example
was enactment of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability,
and Documentation (TREAD) Act (P.L. 106-414, Nov. 1, 2000) which
directed the agency to undertake numerous rulemakings on a variety of
issues related to tire and child passenger safety and provided the
resources to do the job. This is a model Advocates strongly supports
for enactment of the NHTSA reauthorization legislation in the 108th
Congress.
In summary, Advocates urges the Senate Subcommittee on Competition,
Foreign Commerce and Infrastructure to enact NHTSA reauthorization
legislation that:
Provides sufficient funding resources for the agency to
fulfill its mission,
Establishes a safety regulatory agenda with deadlines for
agency action, and
Results in state adoption and enforcement of uniform
lifesaving traffic safety laws.
NHTSA's Motor Vehicle Safety and Traffic Safety Programs Suffer From
Insufficient Funds and This Is Jeopardizing Efforts to Bring
Down Deaths and Injuries
One of the most critical weapons in the battle to reduce deaths and
injuries is adequate financial resources to support programs and
initiatives to advance safety. At present, nearly 95 percent of all
transportation-related fatalities are the result of motor vehicle
crashes but NHTSA's budget is less than one percent of the entire DOT
budget. Motor vehicle safety regulatory actions languish, state
enforcement of impaired driving laws is inadequate, and NHTSA data
collection is hampered because of insufficient resources to address
these problems. Since the last NHTSA motor vehicle program
reauthorization legislation was enacted, this Committee has needed to
act twice in the past three years to correct severe funding shortfalls.
When serious problems resulting in deaths and injuries were identified
in some passenger vehicle airbags, NHTSA was compelled to issue an
advanced airbag rule to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 208 to require new tests and advanced technology.
Additional funds were needed by the agency to complete the necessary
research and data analysis. Furthermore, during congressional hearings
and media attention on the deadly rollover occurrence of Ford Explorers
equipped with Firestone tires, it was revealed that neither the Federal
tire standard nor the roof crush standard had been updated since the
early 1970s. Also, warning signs of the potential problem were missed
because of inadequate data collection and analysis. Again, legislation
was enacted providing additional funds to address the problem. In both
cases, insufficient program funding and staff resources contributed to
the agency's missteps in identifying and acting upon the problems.
The current authorization funding level for NHTSA's motor vehicle
safety and consumer information programs is only $107.9 million, less
than the economic cost of 110 highway deaths, which represents a single
day of fatalities on our highways. Since 1980, the agency has been
playing a game of catch-up. Today, funding levels for motor vehicle
safety and traffic safety programs are not much higher than 1980
funding levels in current dollars.
For over twenty years, NHTSA has been underfunded and its mission
compromised because of a lack of adequate resources to combat the
rising tide of increased highway deaths and injuries. The legislative
proposal released last week by DOT will continue to deny NHTSA the
resources required to issue overdue motor vehicle safety regulations,
upgrade vehicle safety standards that date back to the early 1970s,
improve consumer information, attack impaired driving, enforce existing
traffic safety laws, compel states to enact primary safety belt laws,
and ultimately, lower the toll of highway deaths and injuries.
Recommended Actions
Increase funding authorization for NHTSA's motor vehicle safety and
consumer information programs.
Increase traffic safety grant funding with a stronger emphasis on
enforcement of laws to combat drunk driving and encourage seat belt
use.
NHTSA Should Issue Rollover Prevention and Crashworthiness Standards to
Stop the Growing Number of Annual Highway Fatalties and
Injuries Due to Vehicle Rollovers
Last February, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee held groundbreaking hearings on the safety of sport utility
vehicles (SUVs). The purpose of the hearing was to examine issues
related to both the safety of SUV occupants as well as the safety of
occupants of passenger vehicles involved in a crash with an SUV.
Rollover crashes result in a tragedy of massive proportions, with
more than 10,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of crippling injuries
to Americans each year. Rollover crashes represent only 3 percent of
all collisions but account for 32 percent of all occupant fatalities.
In the last few years, light truck and van sales have amounted to
slightly more than 50 percent of the new passenger vehicle market. This
surprising market share for new SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans has been
propelled mainly by the explosive growth in the purchase of new SUVs.
Although cars still predominate in the passenger vehicle fleet--nearly
two-thirds of registered vehicles--this proportion consists of an older
car fleet that is increasingly being replaced by new light truck
purchases, particularly of SUVs. The soaring popularity of SUVs since
the start of the 1990s has resulted in more than doubling their numbers
on the road during this period, accompanied by a doubling of fatal
rollover crashes.
The preliminary results of NHTSA's annual Fatal Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) for 2002 show yet another increase in deaths and injuries
due to rollover crashes--from 10,130 in 2001 to 10,626 last year--with
almost half of them due to an increase in rollover fatal crashes by
SUVs and pickup trucks. In fact, our Nation suffered an astounding 10
percent increase in SUV rollover deaths alone in just one year. When
you add pickup trucks into the equation, seventy-eight (78) percent of
the increase in passenger vehicle rollover deaths from 2001 to 2002 was
due just to the increased fatal rollover crashes of SUVs and pickup
trucks.
Six of every 10 deaths in SUVs last year occurred in rollover
crashes. No other passenger vehicle has the majority of its deaths take
place in rollovers. By contrast, the great majority of deaths in
passenger cars--more than 75 percent--occur in other crash modes. It is
very clear that we are needlessly taking lives in the U.S. because of
the tendency of SUVs to roll over in both single-and multi-vehicle
crashes.
At a press event in 1994, DOT announced several safety initiatives
to address rollover crashes in lieu of issuing a rollover stability
standard. Nearly ten years later, DOT has made little any progress in
completing any of the major actions. NHTSA knows what needs to be done
to protect our citizens from the lethal outcomes of rollover crashes.
The agency failed to act when the need became clear years ago to stop
the annual rise in deaths and injuries from rollovers. As the
proportion of new vehicle sales strongly shifted each year towards
light trucks and vans and away from passenger cars, NHTSA had an
opportunity to act decisively to establish a vehicle stability standard
to reduce the tendency of most SUVs and pickups to roll over, but the
agency squandered that opportunity. It also had an opportunity at that
time to fulfill its promises of improving occupant safety when,
predictably, vehicles roll over. That could have been accomplished by
improving the resistance of roofs to being smashed and mangled in
rollovers, requiring upper and lower interior air bags instead of just
padding to protect occupants, changing the design of door locks and
latches to prevent ejection, installing anti-ejection window glazing,
and increasing the effectiveness of seat belts in rollovers by properly
restraining passengers with such well-known safety features as belt
pretensioners.
Yet, here we are almost 10 years after NHTSA terminated rulemaking
to set a vehicle stability standard with the American public placed at
increased risk of death and injury every year because of the growing
numbers and percentage of SUVs and pickups in the traffic stream.
Instead, NHTSA has promised a consumer information regulation to reveal
the on-road rollover tendencies of SUVs and pickups. However, that
promise is highly qualified. Although the agency issued a rollover
rating system based on static stability factor (SSF) and is developing
a rating system based on a dynamic test procedure, the agency has
warned that it will be years before enough vehicles are tested and
enough data from the field are collected to be able to determine if the
rollover ratings from dynamic testing are accurate indications of
rollover tendencies. So, while NHTSA collects several years of data to
determine whether its testing regime is even tenable, the American
consumer will continue to buy vehicles that place individuals and
families at increased risk of death and debilitating injuries.
Recommended Actions
Require NHTSA to issue a final rule on a rollover stability
standard to prevent deaths and injuries.
Require NHTSA to issue a final rule on a rollover crashworthiness
standard that includes improvements in roof strength, advanced upper
interior head impact protection, ejection prevention measures that
includes a combination of side air bags for upper and lower impact
protection and window glazing, and integrated seating systems using
pretensioners and load limiters in safety belts.
Improve the Safety of 15-Passenger Vans
Perhaps one of the clearest indications that NHTSA needs to control
basic vehicle designs that consistently produce high rates of rollover
crashes are the horrific rollover crashes during the past few years
among 15-passenger vans. A study released by NHTSA in late 2002 showed
how, in 7 states, 15-passenger vans as a class, regardless of the
number of passengers on board, are substantially less safe than all
vans taken together. The data from FARS for the year 2000 showed that
17.6 percent of van crashes involved rollovers, not significantly
greater than passenger cars at 15.3 percent. However, single vehicle
rollover crashes of 15-passenger vans happen more frequently than with
any other van when there are 5 occupants or more being transported.
When these big vans have 5 to 9 passengers aboard, almost 21 percent of
their single-vehicle crashes are rollovers. When the passenger load is
between 10 and the maximum seating capacity of 15 occupants, single-
vehicle rollovers are 29 percent of all van crashes. Even more
dramatic, when 15-passenger vans are overloaded, i.e., more than 15
passengers on board, 70 percent of the single-vehicle crashes for these
extra-heavy vans were rollovers. These findings are similar to those of
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), released in October
2002, that found 15-passenger vans with 10 to 15 passengers onboard had
a rollover rate about three times greater than that of vans seating 5
or fewer passengers. In addition, NTSB found that 15-passenger vans
carrying 10 to 15 passengers rolled over in 96 of the 113 single-
vehicle crashes investigated, or in 85 percent of those crashes.
Unfortunately, NHTSA has only issued advisories about more careful
operation of these vans and the use of better-trained drivers, and has
even stated that there is nothing inherently defective about their
design. These disclaimers about the intrinsically poor stability and
safety of 15-passenger vans are unsettling when they are viewed in
relation to two safety recommendations issued by the NTSB on November
1, 2002 to NHTSA and to two vehicle manufacturers, Ford Motor Company
and General Motors Corporation. The NTSB recommendations asked NHTSA to
include 15-passenger vans in the agency's rollover testing program and
to cooperate with vehicle manufacturers to explore and test
technologies, including electronic stability systems, that will help
drivers maintain stable control over these vehicles.
S. 717, the Passenger Van Safety Act of 2003, sponsored by Sen.
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) seizes the initiative to improve the safety of 15-
passenger vans by putting NTSB's recommendations into action. Advocates
also supports fundamental changes in 15-passenger van design that will
make them safer vehicles beyond the addition of stability-enhancing
technologies and rollover test results showing their tendency to roll
over. Unfortunately, 15-passenger vans, as well as larger passenger
vehicles, especially medium and large SUVs and vans, along with small
buses, are often exempted from key NHTSA safety regulations for
crashworthiness. For example, because of the distance of seating
positions in 15-passenger vans from side doors and the fact that the
vans weigh more than 6,000 pounds, the lower interior side impact
protection standard, FMVSS No. 214, does not apply to these big vans.
This major safety standard also does not apply to any vehicles
exceeding 6,000 pounds, or even to certain vehicles under this weight
limit, such as walk-in vans, motor homes, ambulances, and vehicles with
removable doors. Bigger passenger vehicles, then, as well as certain
kinds of smaller passenger vehicles, are exempt from the minimal
protection required by FMVSS No. 214.
Similarly, the current roof crush standard--a standard that is weak
and ineffective in preventing both general roof collapse and local
intrusion in rollover crashes--exempts all passenger vehicles above
6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating. This means that 15-passenger
vans, other large vans, small buses, and well-known makes and models of
SUVs and pickup trucks, do not have to meet even the inadequate test
compliance requirements of FMVSS No. 216. Neither of the exemptions for
larger, heavier passenger vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds
gross vehicle weight rating is based on any compelling data that these
vehicles are somehow safe for their occupants without adherence to even
these two weak standards. In fact, some of the vehicles with the worst
rollover crash rates and roof failures are among the vehicles exempted
from these two major standards. To complicate the issue further, NHTSA
requires all passenger vehicles less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight rating to comply with the head injury protection requirements
for upper interior impacts, including side impacts, but does not
require similar compliance for vehicles between 6,000 and 10,000 pounds
gross vehicle weight rating for lower interior torso protection under
Standard No. 214.
Recommended Actions
Congress should enact S. 717 as well as direct NHTSA to conduct
rulemaking and issue final regulations to extend the protection of all
of the occupant protection standards, even those which need to be
strengthened, to all passenger vehicles regardless of weight or size.
Vehicle Aggressivity and Incompatibility Are Needlessly Contributing to
Motor Vehicle Deaths and Injuries
The unparalleled growth in the sale and use of SUVs and other light
trucks for personal transportation over the last 15 years has produced
another major impediment to safety on our roads and highways. Large
SUVs, pickup trucks, and full-size vans are disproportionately
responsible for increasing the number of deaths and injuries when they
collide with smaller passenger vehicles, including impacts even with
small SUVs and mini-vans. This is known in vehicle safety engineering
as ``crash incompatibility''. This means that when there are two
unequal collision partners, as the engineers refer to the vehicles that
strike each other, the bigger, heavier, taller vehicle almost always
inflicts more severe damage on the smaller, lighter, shorter vehicle.
According to NHTSA, the number of passenger car occupants dying in
two-vehicle crashes with light trucks or vans increased in 2002
compared to 2001, while the number of fatalities in the light trucks or
vans actually decreased. These mismatch crashes are especially lethal
when two factors are present: first, the heavier, bigger vehicle is the
``bullet'' or striking vehicle and the lighter, smaller vehicle is the
``target'' or struck vehicle, and, second, the bigger vehicle hits the
smaller vehicle in the side. In these circumstances the consequences
are fairly predictable. The bigger, heavier, higher vehicle rides over
the lower door sills of the side of the small vehicle in a side impact,
or rides above its low crash management features in a frontal
collision. As a result, the smaller vehicle's occupant compartment
suffers enormous deformation and intrusion from the impact with the
bigger vehicle.
Recent studies by both American and Australian researchers have
underscored the incredibly high level of harm that large light trucks
and vans (LTVs), especially SUVs, inflicted on smaller passenger
vehicles, particularly small cars, because of the large differences in
weight, size, height, and stiffness. According to NHTSA, for cars
struck in the near side by pickup trucks, there are 26 fatalities among
passenger car drivers for each fatality among pickup truck drivers. For
SUVs the ratio is 16 to 1.
To date, NHTSA has done essentially nothing to reduce this
tremendous ``harm difference'' between the biggest, heaviest members of
the passenger vehicle fleet and the smaller vehicles. The agency needs
to reduce the aggressivity of larger vehicles and simultaneously to
improve the protection of occupants in the smaller, struck vehicles by
undertaking research and regulatory actions on an accelerated calendar.
Although NHTSA indicates this is a safety priority area, the agency's
FY '04 budget unfortunately does not include any request for increased
funding for this initiative.
Advocates and others in the highway safety community are concerned
that rhetoric does not match reality and the problem will continue to
grow as LTVs become a larger percentage of the vehicle fleet. There are
several actions the agency should be taking in order to address this
growing problem. For example, in the area of research, NHTSA's National
Center for Statistics and Analysis currently collects detailed crash
information for a sample of moderate to high severity crashes. However,
the data points collected do not adequately document and illuminate the
most critical aspects of passenger vehicle to passenger vehicle
crashes, especially those involving mismatched pairs. Similar change
should apply to all agency data collection from real world crashes.
Data collection would be further enriched if the number of cases
investigated were increased to improve the ability of the agency to
generalize about the reasons for vehicle responses and occupant
injuries in crashes involving incompatible passenger vehicles.
NHTSA also can improve the compatibility between larger and smaller
makes and models of the passenger fleet by reducing the aggressivity of
larger vehicles, especially light trucks and vans. Lowering the front
end height difference of larger, heavier vehicles to match the front
ends and sides of smaller vehicles will prevent larger vehicles from
riding over the front ends and side door sills of smaller passenger
vehicles. Furthermore, simultaneously reducing the crash stiffness of
larger pickup trucks, SUVs, and big vans would ensure that crash forces
are more evenly distributed between larger and smaller vehicles in both
front and side in multi-vehicle collisions, which would improve safety.
Side impacts in passenger cars alone resulted in about 5,400 deaths
in each of the last few years, more than 30 percent of passenger car
multiple-vehicle collision fatalities. Currently, the motor vehicle
safety standards for upper interior side impact (FMVSS No. 201) and
lower side impact (FMVSS No. 214) are too weak and need to be upgraded.
When NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 214 back in the early 1990s, it should be
noted that the majority of the passenger vehicle fleet already met its
compliance requirements, even without any additional countermeasures.
The standard was indexed to meet the existing protective capabilities
of the vehicle fleet. Additional protection could be achieved by
enhancing the side impact protection of occupants by requiring dynamic
impact safety systems, such as air bags, for both upper and lower
portions of the vehicle interior.
Lastly, consumers lack essential, basic information about how cars
perform in side impact crashes. The NHTSA New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP) conducts side impact crash tests on new cars but the tests use a
barrier similar to a mid-size car to crash into small passenger
vehicles. As a result, the test scores are misleading because they fail
to inform consumers about how a vehicle performs in the real world.
With the changing mix in the vehicle population and growing number of
LTVs, especially SUVs, if you drive a car it is growing ever more
likely you will be hit in the side by a vehicle larger than your own.
Recommended Actions
Require NHTSA to improve vehicle compatibility between larger and
smaller makes and models of the passenger vehicle fleet by reducing the
aggressivity of larger vehicles, especially light trucks and vans.
Enhance the front and side impact protection of occupants of small
and mid-sized passenger vehicles.
Increase and improve data collection on the most critical aspects
of passenger vehicle to passenger vehicle crashes, especially those
involving mismatched collision partners.
Provide consumers with better information about how passenger cars
perform in side impact crashes with vehicles that are not similar in
size.
Consumer Information On Safety Is Fragmented and Incomplete
Last year, more than 16.8 million new cars were sold in the United
States. However, consumers entering dealer showrooms were hampered in
making educated purchasing decision because of a lack of comprehensive,
comparative information on the safety performance of different makes
and models of automobiles. Consumer information on the comparative
safety of vehicles and vehicle equipment remains woefully inadequate.
Even though buying a car is the second most expensive consumer
purchase, next to the purchase of a home, the majority of consumers end
up at the mercy of the sales pitch and without recourse to objective
information. While energy conservation information is required on home
appliances and other household items and even on passenger vehicles,
critical safety information is not required on vehicles at the point of
sale. The fact is that consumers get more information about the health
and safety value of a $3 box of cereal than they do about vehicles that
cost $30,000 and more in the dealer showroom.
Providing vehicle buyers with important safety information at the
point of sale is not a new idea. In 1994, the Secretary of
Transportation suggested just such a label but it was never
implemented. In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report
that called for providing consumers with more and easier to use safety
information, including a vehicle safety label with a summary safety
rating. (Shopping for Safety, Transportation Research Board Special
Report No. 248, National Academy of Sciences (1996).) Throughout the
1990s, in surveys conducted for Advocates by pollster Lou Harris, the
public repeatedly expressed a strong desire for objective safety
information. In a 2001 public opinion poll, 84 percent of the public
supported placing a government safety rating on a window sticker on
every new vehicle at the point of sale.
There is no doubt that consumers continue to clamor for helpful
information about vehicle safety. A safety label on the vehicle will
ensure that every purchaser will at least be aware of the same basic,
objective safety information for every vehicle they are interested in
buying. Additionally, NHTSA should release to the public all types of
vehicle safety information including early warning information that
Congress requires the agency to collect under the TREAD Act. In this
way, consumers will be knowledgeable about the real world performance
of vehicles they purchase and drive.
Recommended Action
Congress should instruct NHTSA to require that all new vehicles
display a safety label at the point of sale that informs prospective
purchasers about the safety of the vehicle with respect to major
vehicle safety standards as well as specific safety features and
equipment, both mandated and optional, that are in the vehicle.
Leave No State Behind: Congress Should Encourage Uniform State
Adoption of Life-Saving Highway Safety Laws and Provide States
With Sufficient Funds to Enforce These Laws
Improving highway safety requires a two-pronged strategy involving
better vehicle design and changing driver behavior. Successful changes
in driver behavior have been accomplished only through the enactment of
laws, enforcement of those laws and education about the laws.
Unfortunately, too few states have adopted some of the most effective
traffic safety laws that contribute to saving lives and preventing
injuries on our roads and highways. The recently released 2002 traffic
fatality statistics underscore the need to make an investment in safety
and ensure the effectiveness of programs if we are to reverse the
rising tide of highway fatalities and injuries.
Historically, funding for highway and traffic safety needs through
the Section 402 program and other incentive grant initiatives has
provided needed resources to states to advance safety. The level of
funding and how those funds are used will be critical elements in
determining the course of highway safety in the next six years.
Advocates is disappointed in DOT's proposal submitted to Congress
last week outlining the Administration's plans for funding state
traffic safety activities as well as other measures to address growing
highway fatalities.
The funding level for DOT's Section 402 traffic safety program is
inadequate to meet the challenges we face. When one adds up all of the
various categories the Administration's proposal provides for
traditional highway safety programs, it equals about $539 million. This
represents only a marginal funding increase of $20 million for FY 2004
over the FY 2003 total of $519 million. It amounts to less than a 4
percent increase in funding. Furthermore, the Administration's proposal
includes a vigorous new program for data collection and analysis. While
we support the need for such a program, if you subtract the proposed
$50 million dollars for the state information systems grant program,
the remaining authorization for highway safety grants in FY 2004 is
actually $30 million less than was authorized under the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century for FY 2003.
These programs, however, are only effective if they promote
specific safety goals and improvements. Despite the marginal increase
in funding proposed by the Administration over the coming six years,
the traffic death toll will not decline until nearly all occupants
buckle up and impaired driving is abated. The Administration's proposal
includes a meager $50 million for state impaired driving programs. This
amount does not even equal the financial cost of 50 drunk driving
deaths--the number that occurs daily on our highways--out of a national
total in 2002 of 17,970 alcohol-related deaths.
Safety, medical, health, and law enforcement groups and DOT all
agree that seat belt use is critical to safety in most crash modes.
Last year, statistics show that the majority of fatally injured victims
were not wearing their seat belts. It is incumbent on safety advocates,
the Administration, and Congress, to ensure that everyone gets the
message, ``buckle up for safety.'' We can do this by requiring all
states to adopt and enforce primary enforcement seat belt use laws.
Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have seat belt laws on
the books. Of these, only 18 states and the District have primary
enforcement seat belt use laws. Switching from a seat belt use law that
permits only secondary enforcement, when another infraction has been
committed, to a primary enforcement law entails no additional costs or
burdens and is not an unfunded (or unfounded) mandate to the states. We
have tried incentive grants for years, and we know that redirection
programs usually result in nothing more than a funding shell game. For
these reasons, Advocates supports a mandatory sanction of Federal-aid
highway funds to promote seat belt use and safety. Such sanctions have
been effective when used judiciously and to promote important safety
goals, such as state adoption of the minimum drinking age law, the zero
alcohol tolerance law, and .08 percent BAC laws.
We realize that the Administration includes a primary enforcement
seat belt law funding redirection provision in the proposed new Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). That proposal will not be effective
in moving states to adopt primary enforcement laws for a number of
reasons. First, the redirection of funds does not occur if a state
either adopts a primary enforcement seat belt law or achieves a seat
belt use rate of 90 percent or more. By permitting the 90 percent belt
use alternative, the proposal gives reluctant states the hope that both
redirection of funds and primary enforcement can be avoided. Even
though no state has ever achieved 90 percent belt use without primary
enforcement, this option may well lead states to delay or never adopt a
primary enforcement seat belt law. Second, the redirection affects only
10 percent of the total $1 billion Highway Safety Improvement Program.
For many states, their share will probably not be sufficient penalty to
entice them to adopt primary enforcement. Third, the redirection would
require that the redirected 10 percent of the state's Highway Safety
Improvement Program funds be expended on Section 402 programs. This may
pose problems for the appropriate expenditure of safety funds when
large amounts of funding are funneled into the program at the last
minute, without proper planning and preparation. Moreover, funds
redirected from the Highway Safety Improvement Program might be in
addition to funds required to be transferred to the state's Section 402
program if the state has not complied with the requirements of Section
154 (Open container requirements) and Section 164 (Minimum penalties
for repeat offenders).
The final problem with the proposed redirection is the funding
shell game. Under the Administration's proposal, while 10 percent of
the Highway Safety Improvement Program may be redirected to the Section
402 program, half or more of the funds received by a state under the
newly proposed Performance Grants could be transferred out of the
Section 402 program and back into the Highway Safety Improvement
Program. Thus, the proposed redirection ends up as a meaningless paper
chase and accounting gimmick that will not serve the goals of improving
safety and increasing the number of people who buckle up.
In addition, for some years now, the Section 402 program has been
flying under the radar of good principles of accountability and
responsibility. Although we support increasing funds available to
states for safety, we are concerned that the funds already in the
Section 402 program are not being spent in the most effective manner.
Over the years, the program has devolved into a self-reporting system
in which states set their own goals and determine whether those goals
have been met. In essence, states make up their own test, grade their
own papers, and write their own report cards.
According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) report issued in
April, 2003 (GAO-03-474) in response to a request by Sen. Byron L.
Dorgan (D-ND), NHTSA has the ability to conduct management reviews to
help improve the financial and operational management of state
programs. However, GAO found that there are no written guidelines on
when to perform management reviews and those reviews are not being
performed consistently. For example, the GAO found that in the six
NHTSA regions visited, there were goals of conducting management
reviews every two years but there was no set schedule and they were
conducted only when requested by a state.
Furthermore, when a state program is struggling, NHTSA has the
ability to work with a state to develop improvement plans. Again, GAO
found that NHTSA has made limited use of improvement plans to help
states address highway safety program deficiencies. If Federal dollars
for traffic safety programs are increased but there is no increase in
accountability and oversight, the American public will be victimized
twice--taxpayer dollars will be wasted and highway safety will be
jeopardized.
Recommended Actions
Enact the DOT proposed incentive grant program encouraging adoption
of primary enforcement safety belt laws but include a sanction after a
reasonable time frame to ensure every state passes this lifesaving law
by the end of the authorization period.
Prohibit states that are subject to redirecting funds from the
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) into the Section 402 program
from shifting Section 402 funds back into the HSIP.
Significantly increase funding for impaired driving programs that
have a proven track record.
Ensure accountability by requiring the expenditure of Section 402
traffic safety funds on programs that are successful and increase NHTSA
oversight of state program plans.
Enhance The Safety of Children In and Around Cars
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and injury to
children. In 2002, 2,584 children under the age of 16 were killed in
motor vehicle crashes and nearly 300,000 were injured. This means that
every single day in the United States, seven children under the age of
16 are killed and 850 are injured in car crashes. While the recently
released preliminary FARS data indicates that last year fatalities for
children age 7 and younger declined, it was not good news for older
children. Fatalities for motor vehicle occupants ages 8 to 15 increased
by almost 9 percent.
While some progress has been made in protecting our youth, clearly
more needs to be done. The decline in death and injury for children
ages 4 through 7 is likely related to efforts throughout the country to
enact booster seat laws. The movement started in the state of
Washington because a mother, Autumn Skeen, lost her 4 year old son,
Anton, in a car crash. Anton's parents believe his death would have
been prevented if he had been riding in a booster seat and not just an
adult seat belt. Three years after the Washington State Legislature
became the first state to act, 16 states and the District of Columbia
have booster seat laws that require children between the ages of 4 and
7 or 8 to use booster seats once they have outgrown toddler child
restraints.
The need to protect children who have graduated from infant and
toddler safety seats has been documented by research conducted by The
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia in partnership with State Farm
Insurance Companies. This research has found that half of children
between the ages of 3 and 8 are improperly restrained in adult seat
belts. This inappropriate restraint results in a three and one-half-
fold increase in the risk of significant injury and a four-fold
increase in the risk of a serious head injury for those in this age
group who are restrained by adult seat belts.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has been
a leader in moving forward a legislative agenda to enhance the safety
of child passengers. In the 106th Congress, legislation that originated
with the Senate Commerce Committee requiring NHTSA to provide consumer
information about the performance of child safety seats, was included
in the final version of the TREAD Act. In the last Congress, this
Committee again took the lead to push for legislation, named ``Anton's
Law'', requiring NHTSA to issue a Federal safety standard for booster
seats and requiring automakers to install, at long last, a shoulder/lap
belt in all rear seating positions.
The next step that needs to be taken to protect this age group is
to encourage state adoption of booster seat laws. Advocates urges the
Committee to take up and modify a proposal that was dropped from last
year's congressional enactment of ``Anton's Law.'' This provision was a
small grant program to foster state adoption of booster seat laws.
Advocates supports a simple but direct incentive grant program that
provides financial rewards to states that adopt booster seat laws and
allows them to use the grants for enforcement of the new law, education
about the new law, and provision of age-appropriate child restraints to
families in need.
Another serious safety risk that we urge the Committee to address
in the NHTSA reauthorization legislation involves children who are left
unattended in vehicles or standing behind vehicles that are placed in
reverse, resulting in unnecessary deaths and injuries each year. Non-
profit organizations, such as Kids `N Cars, have documented in private
research, the deaths of hundreds of children who were left in cars when
outside temperatures soared, who were inadvertently killed when a car
or truck backed over them, or who were killed or injured by power
windows and sunroof systems that were not child-proof. It is time that
NHTSA lead the effort to collect data on child fatalities and injuries
that occur in or immediately outside the car, but not on public
roadways. Also, NHTSA needs to analyze the data and take subsequent
action to remedy safety inadequacies as they affect children.
Recommended Actions
Include in the NHTSA authorization legislation an incentive grant
program to encourage states to adopt booster seat laws. Permit funds to
be used for enforcement, education and distribution of child restraints
to families in need.
Direct NHTSA to collect and publish data on child fatalities and
injuries in parked or inoperable vehicles that result from
strangulation and injuries involving automatic windows, and those from
backing up collisions.
Require NHTSA to ensure automatic window systems will not kill or
injure children.
Require NHTSA to enhance driver rear visibility to prevent backing
up crashes into children and adults.
Conclusion
The recommendations for action that Advocates supports are common
sense, cost effective and will achieve savings in lives and dollars.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has been a
leader in advancing legislative solutions to improve safety in all
modes of transportation. Motor vehicle crashes are equivalent to a
major airline crash every other day of the year. This public health
epidemic does not have to continue unabated. Enactment of proposals to
move the agency forward in addressing the unfinished regulatory agenda
and providing states with direction and resources will reverse the
deadly trend facing us in the coming years. Advocates' vision for the
future is testifying before this subcommittee in 2006 to report that
the U.S. experienced the lowest traffic fatalities in a decade, the war
on drunk driving was being won, fatal rollover crashes were decreasing
and motor vehicle crashes were no longer the leading cause of death and
injury for Americans, young and old. We appreciate the invitation to
testify today and look forward to working with this committee to craft
a bill that will save lives and prevent needless deaths and injuries.
______
GDL Key For State Law Chart
Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) Systems--Optimal graduated driver
licensing systems consist of a learner's stage, an intermediate stage
and an unrestricted driving stage. Within each of these stages, there
are provisions that are optimal to providing safe circumstances under
which to develop driving skills. The four provisions which are
referenced on the law chart are listed below, numbered 1-4. Each
state's law is intricate and this chart should serve only as a guide.
To fully understand a state's law, one should review it.
A. Learner's Stage
1. Six Month Holding Period: A novice driver must be supervised by
an adult licensed driver at all times. If the learner
remains conviction free for six months, he or she
progresses to the intermediate stage. In an optimal
provision, there is not a reduction in this amount of time
if the driver takes a driver's education course.
2. 30-50 Hours of Supervised Driving: A novice driver must receive
30-50 hours of behind-the-wheel training with an adult
licensed driver. In an optimal provision, there is not a
reduction in this amount of time if the driver takes a
driver's education course.
B. Intermediate Stage: While optimally this stage should continue
until age 18, states have been given credit in this chart for
having the following two restrictions for any period of time,
i.e., 6 months.
3. Nighttime Restriction: Because a majority of the crashes
involving teens occur before midnight, the optimal period
for supervised nighttime driving is from 9 or 10 p.m. to 5
a.m. Unsupervised driving during this period is prohibited.
4. Passenger Restriction: Limits the number of teenage passengers
that ride with a teen driver driving without adult
supervision. The optimal limit is no more than one teenage
passenger. Sometimes family members are excepted.
.08 BAC Per Se Laws in the States
On October 23, 2000, President Clinton signed a federal .08 BAC per
se law which required each state to enact .08 BAC per se legislation by
October of 2003. States that do not pass it before October 1, 2003 will
have 2% of certain highway construction funds withheld in 2004. The
penalty increases by 2% each year after that, up to 8% in 2007 and
every year thereafter. States that enact a .08 BAC per se law by
October 1, 2006 will have any withheld funds returned.
In the 17 years between the date of enactment of the first .08 BAC
per se law and the day President Clinton signed the federal sanction,
19 states and the District of Columbia enacted .08 BAC per se laws. In
just the two and a half years since the federal law was passed, 20
additional states have enacted .08 BAC per se laws.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passed .08 BAC Per Se Passed .08 BAC Per Se Have Not Yet Passed
Law Prior to October Law After October 2000 .08 BAC Per Se Law
2000 (19 + DC) (20) (11)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Alaska Colorado
California Arizona Delaware
District of Columbia Arkansas Massachusetts
Florida Connecticut Michigan
Hawaii Georgia Minnesota
Idaho Indiana Nevada
Illinois Iowa New Jersey
Kansas Louisiana Pennsylvania
Kentucky Maryland South Carolina
Maine Mississippi West Virginia
New Hampshire Missouri Wisconsin
New Mexico Montana
North Carolina Nebraska
Oregon New York
Rhode Island North Dakota
Texas Ohio
Utah Oklahoma
Vermont South Dakota
Virginia Tennessee
Washington Wyoming
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeat Offender and Open Container Laws in the States
On May 22, 1998, President Clinton signed the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21. This federal law included a
redirection of highway construction funds for those states that did not
have repeat offender and open container laws on the books by October 1,
2000. In 2000 and 2001, states that had not enacted these laws had 1.5%
of certain federal-aid highway funds transferred to the state's Section
402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program or to hazard
elimination. In 2002 and in each year thereafter, 3% of those funds
will be redirected.
Prior to the passage of TEA-21, all 50 states and the District of
Columbia had some form of a repeat offender law and nearly all of them
had open container/anti-consumption laws. However, most of these laws
were weak and did not comply with the requirements in TEA-21. The
states listed on the following pages as having had repeat offender or
open container laws before May of 1998 are the only ones whose
preexisting laws complied with TEA-21.
It has been 5 years since TEA-21 was enacted, and there is still a
long way to go. One-third of the nation's states (17) have yet to pass
TEA-21 complaint repeat offender laws and nearly as many (14) still
have not passed TEA-21 compliant open container laws.
TEA-21 Compliant Repeat Offender Law: Any individual convicted of a
second or subsequent offense for driving while intoxicated must have
their license suspended for a minimum of 1 year, be subject to having
their motor vehicles impounded or equipped with ignition interlock,
receive alcohol abuse treatment as appropriate, and:
(i) for 2nd offense, not less than 30 days community service or 5
days of imprisonment; and
(ii) for 3rd and subsequent offense, not less than 60 days community
service or 10 days of imprisonment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have Not Yet Passed
Passed Repeat Offender Passed Repeat Offender TEA-21 Compliant
Prior to May 1998 (4 + After May 1998 (29) Repeat Offender Law
DC) (17)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia Alabama Alaska
Maine Arizona California
Michigan Arkansas Connecticut
New Hampshire Colorado Louisiana
Washington Delaware Massachusetts
Florida Minnesota
Georgia New Mexico
Hawaii New York
Idaho Ohio
Illinois Oregon
Indiana Rhode Island
Iowa South Carolina
Kansas South Dakota
Kentucky Tennessee
Maryland Vermont
Mississippi West Virginia
Missouri Wyoming
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEA-21 Compliant Open Container Law: The possession of any open
alcoholic beverage container, or the consumption of any alcoholic
beverage, in the passenger area of any motor vehicle (including
possession or consumption by the driver of the vehicle) must be
prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passed Open Container Have Not Yet Passed
Prior to May 1998 (13 + Passed Open Container TEA-21 Compliant Open
DC) After May 1998 (23) Container Law (14)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Alabama Alaska
District of Columbia Arizona Arkansas
Illinois Florida Colorado
Kansas Georgia Connecticut
Michigan Hawaii Delaware
Nevada Idaho Indiana
New Hampshire Iowa Louisiana
North Dakota Kentucky Mississippi
Ohio Maine Missouri
Oklahoma Maryland Montana
Oregon Massachusetts Tennessee
Utah Minnesota Virginia
Washington Nebraska West Virginia
Wisconsin New Jersey Wyoming
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Smith. Thank you. Excellent testimony. And just as
a courtesy to everyone else we want to hear from, whatever you
can do to consolidate, we'd appreciate it, because I want to
give everybody a chance to have their say before this vote is
called.
Ms. Swanson.
STATEMENT OF KATHRYN SWANSON, DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA OFFICE OF
TRAFFIC SAFETY AND CHAIR, GOVERNORS
HIGHWAY ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY
ASSOCIATION (GHSA)
Ms. Swanson. Thank you. My name is Kathy Swanson. I'm the
Director of Traffic Safety in Minnesota's Department of Public
Safety, and I am also currently serving as Chair of the
Governors Highway Safety Association, and that's the role in
which I'm speaking today.
States have made significant advances in modifying safe
behavior practices of drivers and road users. The fatality rate
is the lowest on record and the national safety belt use rate
is the highest on record. Pedestrian fatalities are down, child
restraint usage is up, and fatalities involving young children
are down. These advances were made possible in large part due
to programs and resources provided under the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21.
Yet, there is considerably more to do. We have reached the
easily influenced and changed their behavior so that they no
longer pose as significant of a threat on the Nation's
highways. As Senator Lautenberg said earlier, we have picked
the low-hanging fruit, now it's time to break out the tall
ladders.
Now we have to reach those populations that are resistant
to the traditional safety messages and programs. To make
inroads for these populations, significant efforts must be
undertaken to reduce motor vehicle related crashes, deaths and
injuries from the unacceptable levels where they are today. The
states need appropriate Federal tools and additional Federal
resources in order to make further progress in the war on
unsafe highways.
First and foremost, states need stable and reliable sources
of funding in order to address the behavioral aspects of
highway safety. With assured funding, states can plan their
highway safety programs over a longer period of time,
facilitate their work with and get commitments from grantees,
and plan and implement improvements to highway safety
information systems. The budgetary firewalls that were
introduced under TEA-21 have provided that stability, and GHSA
strongly supports their continuation in the reauthorization.
Second, states also need to retain the right to determine
how Federal funds are spent within their states without Federal
approval of each and every aspect of the State plans and
programs. With this flexibility which states have had since
1994, it has enabled states to focus on states' data-driven
problem identification and performance-based strategies and has
allowed the states and the Federal Government to work together
in a more cooperative basis. GHSA believes that the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration already has sufficient
authority to oversee State programs and to encourage
enhancement in those programs. We're working with NHTSA to
ensure that the oversight authority is applied in a more
consistent basis throughout the country. We would vigorously
oppose any effort to revert to the project-by-project approval
for authority over State plans that NHTSA had prior to 1994.
Third, states need fewer Federal programs to administer.
TEA-21 authorized 8 grant programs and 2 penalty programs, all
of which had to be administered by the State highway safety
offices. There are different program purposes, scopes and
deadlines. The proliferation of Federal grant programs, not the
proliferation of Federal grant money but a number of programs,
made it difficult to approach safety in a comprehensive and
coordinated manner, and has resulted in fragmentation and
duplication of efforts. GHSA recommends consolidation of all of
the grant programs into a single behavioral highway safety
program with an occupant protection incentive tier and an
impaired driving incentive tier. These incentives would be
similar to the existing incentive programs but would address
some of the weaknesses in those programs. Incentives would be
given to states that enact specific legislation, improve their
performance, or maintain a superior level of performance.
GHSA's specific recommendations for the consolidated behavioral
grant program were submitted for the record.
Fourth, states need to have adequate resources to be able
to address safety problems. Current resources will enable
states to maintain the programs that have been implemented
under TEA-21, but GHSA recommends that at a minimum, the single
Federal behavioral safety grant be funded at $500 million, $50
million above the Fiscal Year 2003 levels. With additional
funding, states could support significantly greater levels of
enforcement of the highway safety laws, enforcement that is
needed in order to reach the hard-to-influence populations.
With additional funding, states could also undertake a whole
range of programs to address specific target and high-risk
populations and emerging highway safety issues.
The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, or AASHTO, has supported the
enactment of an additional $1 billion a year for safety in the
next reauthorization. These funds would not be used to create
new programs but to enhance the funding of existing safety
construction programs and the consolidated behavioral safety
program. GHSA endorses this proposal. If Congress identifies
ways to provide increased funding in the next reauthorization,
then $1 billion a year of the new funding should be set aside
for safety programs.
Fifth, states need timely, accurate and accessible data
with which to make safety-related decisions. States use data to
identify significant safety problems, select appropriate safety
countermeasures and evaluate the effectiveness of the programs.
Nearly all states have strategic plans for improving their
highway safety information systems, but we lack the resources
to be able to make those improvements. Consequently, a new data
incentive grant program is needed.
Finally, states need much more research on driver and road
user behavior. Relatively little is known about the relative
effectiveness of many safety laws in most highway safety
programs. Further, there has been no recent research on crash
causation. As a result, states implement programs without
knowing if they are addressing the root cause or whether the
implemented programs will work.
Our additional recommendations on Federal lobbying
restrictions, new sanctions, paid advertising and technical
corrections to the penalty programs are contained in the more
detailed statement that we submitted for the record. Thank you
for the opportunity for being able to address the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Swanson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathryn Swanson, Director, Minnesota Office of
Traffic Safety and Chair, Governors Highway Association on behalf of
the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA)
Introduction
Good afternoon. My name is Kathryn Swanson, and I am the Director
of the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety and the Chair of the
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). GHSA is the national,
nonprofit association that represents state and territorial highway
safety offices (SHSO). Its members are appointed by their governors to
design, implement and evaluate programs that affect the behavior of
motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists. As
part of their responsibilities, GHSA members administer Federal highway
safety grant programs and penalty transfer programs. I appreciate the
opportunity to share the Association's thoughts with you on the
reauthorization of these Federal highway safety programs.
More than 42,000 people were killed and three million injured in
motor vehicle-related crashes in 2002. Forty-two percent of those
crashes were ones in which alcohol was involved. Nearly 5,000
pedestrians, more than 3,000 motorcyclists were killed and nearly 8,000
young drivers were killed in motor vehicle-related crashes. GHSA is
very concerned, as are others in the highway safety community, that
these numbers are beginning to move upward after several years of
holding steady. With the present trend, no change in the risk of a
fatal crash on a per population basis and no assumptions about future
demographic changes, the absolute number of fatalities can
conservatively be expected to increase to 63,513 by 2050--an increase
of 48 percent over current levels or approximately 350 additional
fatalities every year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: analysis prepared for the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 2002.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was
designed to reduce these fatalities and injuries by addressing all
aspects of highway safety--the roadway, the vehicle and the driver. My
remarks will be limited to the areas that are the responsibility of
GHSA members--the SHSOs--and will focus on the programs that address
the behavior of the driver and other road users.
As enacted in TEA-21, the 402 program--the basic Federal highway
safety grant program through which every state receives funding--and
the 410 alcohol incentive grant program were reauthorized. TEA-21 also
authorized four new occupant protection incentive grants (the 405, 157
basic, 157 innovative, and 2003(b) programs); a second impaired driving
incentive grant program (the 163 program); a data improvement program
(the 411 program); and two penalty transfer programs, the 154 open
container and the 164 repeat offender programs). The SHSO's are
responsible for administering all of these programs.
Funding under the 402, 405, 410, and 2003(b) programs can only be
used to address a variety of behavioral highway safety-related
problems. The 411 funds can only be used to plan for the improvement of
highway safety information systems. A state that is eligible for the
157 basic and 163 grants may use the funds for any purpose under Title
23 of the U.S. Code. 157 innovative funds can only be used for purposes
specified by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
in its annual announcement of the availability of grant funds. States
that are not in compliance with the open container or repeat offender
requirements may use the funds for impaired driving-related purposes or
for activities under the Hazard Elimination Program.
Two years ago, GHSA embarked on an effort to evaluate the Federal
behavioral highway safety grant programs authorized under TEA-21. The
results of that review were published last year in a report entitled
Taking the Temperature of TEA-21: An Evaluation and Prescription for
Safety which is available on GHSA's website,
www.statehighwaysafety.org. Our recommendations for the next
reauthorization are based largely on the findings in our report. I
would like to review several of them.
Safeguard Funding
Prior to TEA-21, highway safety grant programs were authorized at
one level and almost always funded at a reduced level. SHSO's never
knew from year to year how much Federal money would be appropriated, so
it was difficult to plan, particularly for long-term multi-year
projects, which are often necessary to see sustained behavioral
changes.
TEA-21 changed that by creating budget firewalls around highway
safety programs so that the funding could only be used for highway
safety purposes. This has proved to be of tremendous benefit to the
SHSO's, who are responsible for administering Federal grant funds. The
firewalls have meant that there is a far greater degree of certainty in
the state planning process than ever existed in the past. States know
from year to year what to expect in terms of grant funding and they can
better estimate the level of funding for which their states may be
eligible. GHSA strongly supports the continuation of the budget
firewalls for Federal highway safety grant programs and believes that
it should be the top priority for reauthorization.
States also want to retain the lead in determining how the Federal
grant funds should be spent in their states. Prior to 1994, states
submitted annual Highway Safety Plans to NHTSA's regional offices. The
regional offices reviewed and approved every single planned project.
The plans were approved but often with a four- or five-page list of
conditions and comments that the states had to meet if they wanted
Federal grant funding. SHSO's felt suffocated by the degree of Federal
oversight over, and micro-management of, very small Federal highway
safety grant programs.
In 1994, NHTSA piloted a change in the 402 program--the federal
highway safety grant program that provides behavioral highway safety
funding to every state. The new approach changed the program from one
based on specific procedures into a more performance-based program. The
performance-based approach was formally adopted by NHTSA in 1998.
States are required to submit a Performance Plan in which they identify
performance goals and objectives based on data-driven problem
identification. The states then program their Federal grant funding for
projects that address the identified major safety problems in their
states, typically impaired driving, adult occupant protection and child
passenger safety. The projects are organized into an annual Highway
Safety Plan that is reviewed but not approved by NHTSA. Most states
also submit their plans for incentive grant funds as part of the annual
Highway Safety Plan. Although TEA-21 added a number of new grant
programs, Federal oversight over those programs remained the same as
under the 402 program.
The flexibility in the 402 program has allowed states to program
their funds in the areas where they are most needed and has given the
states the ability to control their own programs. States and NHTSA
regional offices work more in partnership with each other rather than
under the paternalistic relationship that existed prior to 1994.
Some of our close partners in the highway safety community have
called for a return to the federal-state relationship that existed
prior to 1994 in which NHTSA had approval authority over every aspect
of state plans. GHSA would vigorously oppose such an approach. One
safety group has suggested that under a new 402 program, if states do
not meet certain performance standards within a specified time frame,
then they would not be eligible for subsequent 402 funding unless they
submitted to a NHTSA assessment to determine program weaknesses and
identify program changes that will achieve desired results. Two groups
also want the states to implement more uniform programs with similar
safety messages from state to state.
GHSA strongly and completely opposes these approaches. Each state's
needs, resources and priorities are different, and states should have
the ability to use Federal highway safety grant funds in a manner that
best fits those needs, resources and priorities. SHSO's have had 37
years' experience implementing the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and have
the skills and knowledge to undertake successful highway safety
programs without heavy-handed Federal oversight and micro-management.
Furthermore, NHTSA has sufficient existing oversight authority to
compel states to improve their programs. NHTSA can conduct management
reviews, require states to develop and implement improvement plans if
they don't show progress after three years, and designate a state a
high risk state if the state is not administering its Federal highway
safety grant funds appropriately. No additional oversight authority is
needed. Rather, NHTSA needs to use this oversight authority in a
consistent manner, as is recommended by the General Accounting Office.
GHSA and NHTSA are actively taking steps to improve the planning
and management of state highway safety programs. GHSA, using its own
resources, is developing a planning workbook and a template for state
annual reports. Next year, we plan to develop a template for the annual
state Highway Safety Plan which must accompany application for Federal
grant funds. We are also working with NHTSA to identify and seek state
agreement on 12-15 performance measures which all states would use in
setting goals and measuring performance. We have worked with NHTSA to
develop the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) which is a
guideline on what traffic crash data elements all states should
collect.
GHSA is also working with NHTSA to develop explicit criteria under
which a state program review would be triggered. These program reviews
would occur if a state did not perform well or had difficulty reaching
its goals. NHTSA and the state would then analyze the data and
cooperatively develop a program enhancement plan.
GHSA firmly believes that NHTSA has sufficient oversight authority
already and that the program review criteria will strengthen that
authority. Further, we believe that the initiatives mentioned
previously will enhance state planning efforts and move states toward a
more data-driven, research-and performance-based approach to solving
highway safety problems.
Create One Large Highway Safety Program
As noted previously, TEA-21 created eight separate incentive grant
programs and two penalty programs, all of which are managed by SHSO's.
Each of these programs has distinct eligibility criteria, separate
applications and individual deadlines. This has meant that SHSO's have
had to meet almost a deadline a month in order to apply for Federal
funds. Even keeping track of the different programs, eligibility
criteria and deadlines has been a chore for both NHTSA and the states.
The net result of this proliferation of grant programs is that
SHSO's are spending a large percentage of time trying to manage all the
grant programs and meet varying programmatic deadlines instead of
analyzing state data, implementing safety programs, forming new state
and local highway safety partnerships, and evaluating program impact.
State staff are stretched to the limit, and states are facing a high
degree of staff burnout.
Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the explosion of
programs has caused the Federal approach to highway safety to be
duplicative and very fragmented. There are four occupant protection
programs and two impaired driving programs, each with a different
purpose, scope and eligibility criteria. This has made it difficult for
states to address the behavioral aspects of highway safety in a
coordinated and comprehensive manner. Clearly, consolidation of grant
programs is needed.
GHSA recommends that all of the incentive grant programs [402, 405,
410, 411, 163, 157 basic, 157 innovative, and 2003(b)] should be
consolidated into one large highway safety grant program authorization.
A portion of the funding should be for 402 grants for which every state
is eligible. The remaining funding would be divided into an occupant
protection tier and an impaired driving incentive tier--the two current
national priority areas in highway safety.
Under the occupant protection incentive tier, states would receive
funding if they enacted a primary belt law or increased their safety
belt use rate. The program would be based, in large part, on the very
successful 157 basic grant program. A portion of the funding in this
tier would be set aside for states that did not meet either criteria.
These funds would be used to help low-performing states implement
innovative occupant protection programs that would boost their safety
belt use rates. Unlike the current 157 innovative program, funds would
be apportioned according to the 402 formula which would obviate the
ability of NHTSA to place additional conditions on the innovative
program funds.
Under the impaired driving incentive tier, states would have to
meet a number of specific criteria, including a performance-based
criteria, just as they do under the current 410 program. (The 410
program, authorized in 1991, has been one of the main sources of
funding for state impaired driving programs and has contributed to low
impaired driving rates.)
Under the impaired driving tier, the emphasis would be on programs
that have been proven to be effective (such as graduated licensing and
sobriety checkpoints or saturation patrols), on strengthening the
judicial system's response to impaired driving, and on establishing
systems that would allow a state to attack impaired driving in a
comprehensive manner supported by good data. The program would be
structured in a manner similar.
The specific elements of both the occupant protection incentive
tier and the impaired driving incentive tier are described in the
attached GHSA safety grant program details.
The benefit of this approach is that there would be only one
application deadline and one Highway Safety Plan. The management of the
consolidated grant program would be far less burdensome for the states
as well as for NHTSA. States would be able to address highway safety
problems in a more coordinated, less fragmented manner, and would be
able to better address the unique circumstances that exist in each
state in reaching the identified goals.
Furthermore, the creation of incentive tiers would overcome some of
the problems in the current incentive programs. The occupant protection
and impaired driving incentive funds would be tied more closely to
performance. Resources would be available to help low-performing safety
belt use states. High-performing states would be rewarded for
maintaining their superior performance. All states would be rewarded
for enacting critical highway safety legislation such as primary safety
belt laws or graduated licensing laws.
Continue Adequate Funding
TEA-21 authorized significantly more Federal highway safety grant
funding than the states received previously. With this funding, states
have been able to implement many highway safety programs that have
resulted in behavioral changes, contributing to the lowest fatality
rate on record--1.5 fatalities per 100,000 million miles of travel--as
well as the highest national safety belt usage rate of 75 percent.
Among other things, the additional funding has enabled states to
greatly enhance their enforcement of safety belt laws; train more than
35,000 safety professionals in NHTSA's standardized child passenger
safety curriculum; purchase radio and television time for safety
messages; undertake underage drinking initiatives; and support programs
addressing the needs of underserved and diverse populations.
With increased funding, states could put more resources into
enforcement of traffic safety laws, particularly safety belt, speed and
impaired driving laws. Better enforcement would help deter violations
of traffic laws. Funds could be used to enhance staffing levels and to
purchase new enforcement technology. Better enforcement would help
convince populations that are resistant to traditional safety
messages--such as the 25 percent of unbuckled drivers--of the need for
compliance.
With increased funding, states could also address a series of
highway safety problems that are not being adequately addressed to
date. The funds could be used to target the hard-to-reach populations
(such as minority and rural communities) and at-risk populations (such
as young males) that are less influenced by traditional highway safety
programs and messages. With expanded funding, states could work to
reduce pedestrian and bicycle fatalities that currently comprise one
out of seven fatalities and motorcycle fatalities that have increased
substantially five years in a row. Additional funds could be used to
address the problems of older, aggressive and distracted drivers--all
significant and growing highway safety issues. With increased funding,
states could improve their emergency medical services (EMS) and
incorporate new technologies into those services, thereby helping to
reduce mortality and injury severity, particularly in rural areas.
States could support more community-level highway safety programs.
Additional funding could also be used to help incorporate safety into
state and metropolitan planning and ensure that all aspects of safety--
roadway, behavioral and motor carrier--are coordinated at the state
level through performance-based statewide safety plans.
GHSA recommends that, at a minimum, $500 million should be
authorized for the consolidated highway safety grant program--about $50
million above FY 2003 levels. Of that amount, $200 million should be
authorized for the 402 program, $175 million should be authorized for
the occupant protection incentive tier and $125 million should be
authorized for the impaired driving incentive tier. Without adequate
funding, it is clear that the increases in fatalities seen in 2001 and
2002 will continue.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) has recently issued reauthorization policy calling
for the increase of Federal safety funding--both behavioral and
construction--by $1 billion per year. No new safety programs would be
funded with the money; rather, the funds would be used to increase
funding for existing safety infrastructure programs and for the
proposed consolidated behavioral safety program. GHSA endorses this
proposal and believes that it would provide the needed funding to
conduct the safety activities outlined above.
If Congress determines a way to increase funding in the next
reauthorization either through elimination of the gasohol subsidies,
indexing the gas tax or other approaches, then a portion of that
increase should be authorized for safety programs.
Support a Safety Data Grant Program
TEA-21 authorized a very small data improvement incentive grant
program--the 411 program. The purpose of the grant program is to
provide states with funding to improve their highway safety information
systems (HSIS). Those systems are comprised of crash, hospital, driver
licensing, citation, roadway and EMS databases. The 411 program
provided funds for states to perform an assessment of their HSIS, form
a traffic records coordinating committee with the state agency owners
and managers of databases that comprise the state's HSIS, and develop a
strategic plan for improving the state's HSIS. In FY 2002, 44 states,
Puerto Rico, the Indian Nation and the four territories received 411
funding. No FY 2003 funding was authorized for this program under TEA-
21.
The objective of the 411 program is a very limited one and, given
that, it has accomplished its objectives very well. However, if the
states are to implement the improvements identified in their traffic
records assessments and strategic plans, then a large infusion of funds
is needed. Hence, there is a need to create a new data incentive grant
program that would fund hardware and software improvements, training,
and implementation of new data collection, management and analysis
technology.
From GHSA's perspective, improvements in highway safety-related
data are critical. States use crash and other data to identify new and
emerging highway safety problems, quantify the seriousness of existing
highway safety problems, select appropriate countermeasures to address
identified problems, monitor progress and evaluate the success of these
countermeasures. If Congress wants to determine how states are
performing, and to enact new programs based on performance, then
improvements in state data capabilities are absolutely essential.
It is estimated that only 10 percent of law enforcement agencies
have laptop computers from which crash data can be entered from the
field. Until state crash data is entered electronically and there is
linkage capability with the other safety-related databases in a state's
HSIS, states will be forced to rely on inaccurate, untimely and
inaccessible paper data systems with which to make important safety
decisions.
Pennsylvania recently upgraded its crash data system at a cost of
$6 million. If every state followed suit, it would cost an estimated
$300 million. Hence, GHSA recommends that the data grant program should
be authorized at $50 million a year over six years. Details of the
grant program are discussed in the attached report.
Enhance Federal Highway Safety Research
Research has been a part of the Federal highway safety program
since its inception in 1966. Section 403 of the Highway Safety Act of
1966 authorized the use of Federal funds to ``engage in research on all
phases of highway safety and traffic conditions.'' Section 403 also
authorized cooperative agreements for the purpose of ``encouraging
innovative solutions to highway safety problems.''
TEA-21 authorized $72 million for each of six years for the Section
403 research and development program. Of that amount, only $7 million
was earmarked for driver and behavioral research in FY 2002. As a
result of this low level of funding, many research needs are completely
or partially unmet. States are compelled to implement programs for
which there is not a strong research justification.
Currently, for example, there is a significant body of research on
graduated licensing laws, per se impaired driving laws, repeat offender
sanctions, primary safety belt laws, the impact of repealing motorcycle
helmet laws, Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEP's) and
enforcement of safety belt laws. NHTSA is just completing a series of
studies on distracted driving.
However, there is a significant gap in the current state of
knowledge about most safety issues and the effectiveness of most safety
countermeasures. Among other things, there is no current research on
crash causation. The last crash causation study was conducted more than
thirty years ago. There is little research on effective pedestrian,
drowsy driving, or aggressive driving countermeasures, behavioral
programs for older drivers, and community traffic safety programs.
There is little research on effective ways to reach the minority
community with highway safety programs. There is no research to
determine why motorcycle fatalities have increased so dramatically in
the last five years and whether motorcycle licensing and education have
any impact on safety. There is no research on the effectiveness of
countermeasures recommended in the Federal Highway Administration's
Older Driver Design Handbook. There has been little research on the
best way to improve the content of driver education programs for young
and novice drivers. Very little research has been conducted on programs
that reach the young adult drinking driver--those aged 21-34. There is
little research on the impact of various safety messages and on the
efficacy of enforcement programs other than STEP's. There is virtually
no research on the interactive effects of combined roadway and
behavioral improvements. In effect, there is considerably more research
to be conducted.
The issue of open container legislation is illustrative of the need
for further research. TEA-21 mandated that states enact open container
legislation by October 1, 2000 (FY 2001) or have a portion of their
highway construction funding transferred to the 402 program. However,
no research had been conducted to determine whether open container
legislation has any impact on impaired driving. In fact, NHTSA has only
recently completed such research and has not broadly disseminated the
results. Consequently, SHSOs have had to go before their state
legislatures without research to support open container laws.
Additionally, there is no formal process by which highway safety
research priorities are set. NHTSA researches issues that are of
interest to the agency or are consistent with their national goals and
program needs. State research needs are sometimes secondary, and states
do not have a formal mechanism with which to provide input into the
research agenda setting process. There is nothing comparable to the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program for safety in which
states, through the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, play a very strong role in determining
research priorities.
GHSA recommends the Federal driver and behavioral research program
be expanded to $20--$25 million a year and that an ongoing safety
program should be authorized and modeled after the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program. GHSA also recommends that the Future
Strategic Highway Research Program (FSHRP) should focus, in part, on
safety, including the behavioral aspects of highway safety. The safety
funding under FSHRP should be used to undertake a comprehensive
research program on crash causation and some of the funding should be
used to evaluate the effectiveness of highway safety countermeasures.
Alter Lobbying Restrictions
In response to concerns raised by the motorcycle user community,
Congress enacted new lobbying prohibitions in TEA-21 and in subsequent
appropriations legislation. TEA-21 prohibits the use of Federal funds
for ``any activity specifically designed to urge a State or local
legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific pending
State or local legislation.'' Section 326 of the FY 2000 DOT
Appropriations Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for any activity
``intended to influence in any manner a Member . . . of a State
legislature to favor or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation or
appropriation by . . . a State legislature . . . after the introduction
of any bill or resolution in a State legislature proposing such
legislation or appropriation.''
NHTSA has interpreted these statutory provisions to mean that
recipients of Federal funds, including SHSO's and their grantees,
cannot lobby on state legislation once the bill or resolution has been
introduced in the legislative body. This means that SHSO's cannot
advocate for safety legislation introduced by their governor or a state
legislator. It also means that SHSO's cannot, after a bill or
resolution is introduced, use Federal funds to support state coalitions
that have been formed to favor specific safety legislation. NHTSA
policy also encourages SHSO staff to testify before a state or local
legislative body only if there is a written invitation to do so.
These provisions have had a chilling effect on the advocacy
activities of SHSO's. States no longer believe they can show support
for any safety legislation, even if their own governors introduce it.
Further, the provisions appear to be counterproductive. The 163, 405
and 410 incentive programs, the 154 and 164 penalty programs, and the
.08 Blood-Alcohol Concentration (BAC) sanctions enacted after TEA-21
are all based on passage of state safety legislation. If states are
going to qualify for the incentives and come into compliance with the
penalties and sanctions, then they need the ability to affect state
legislation.
GHSA recommends, at a minimum, that Congress should alter the
lobbying restrictions to allow SHSO's and their grantees to lobby state
legislatures on behalf of positions approved by governors and their
administrations.
Continue Paid Advertising
Prior to TEA-21, NHTSA policy prohibited the use of Federal highway
safety funding for paid advertising. SHSO's were compelled to use
public service announcements (PSA's) in order to implement their safety
messages. While PSA's are less costly than paid media, they have
limited impact because they are generally aired during off-peak times.
TEA-21 changed that by allowing the use of 402 funding for paid
advertising for FY 1999 and 2000. (157 and 163 funds that were used for
402 purposes could also be spent on paid advertising.) Congress
extended the permission to FY 2001, 2002, and 2003 as well.
The result has been that larger audiences view safety messages
during prime time. Although there are scant evaluative data on paid
advertising, there is ample anecdotal information that the state safety
paid advertising is paying off. Further, there is supporting evaluation
data from the FY 2001 safety belt enforcement effort in NHTSA Region IV
(the southeastern region) and the FY 2002 safety belt enforcement
demonstration program with thirteen states in which paid advertising
was used. The combination of paid advertising and high visibility
enforcement in that region resulted in significant increases in safety
belt use under both of those efforts.
GHSA strongly supports paid advertising and recommends that its use
continue to be allowed in the next reauthorization.
Avoid New Sanctions and Penalties
TEA-21 authorized two new penalty provisions (the 154 open
container penalty and the 164 repeat offender penalty) but no new
sanctions. Following TEA-21, Congress authorized a new sanction for
states that fail to enact .08 BAC legislation.
There are currently 18 penalties and sanctions with which states
must comply. Of those, seven are safety-related (minimum drinking age,
drug offenders, use of safety belts, zero tolerance, open containers,
repeat offenders and .08 BAC). Three of the seven have been enacted in
the last six years.
GHSA and other state associations generally oppose sanctions and
penalties for a number of reasons. Sanctions are not universally
effective. Impaired driving-related sanctions appear to have strong
public support and appear to work reasonably well. Other sanctions and
penalties, such as those for the National Maximum Speed Limit and the
mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation enjoyed little public support,
were abysmal failures and were subsequently repealed.
Sanctions are often counterproductive. With fewer highway funds,
the conditions of highways deteriorate and become less safe.
Withholding funds only exacerbates the safety problem. Sanctions
penalize the state broadly without specifically targeting the entity
that perpetrated the safety problem. Since there is no clear
relationship between the safety problem and the policy solutions
(withholding of construction funds), states are not motivated to act.
TEA-21 encourages state agencies to work together to solve safety
problems, but sanctions and penalties pull those agencies apart. The
mandatory motorcycle penalties divided SHSO's from state Departments of
Transportation (DOT's), causing them to oppose each other instead of
working together toward enactment of motorcycle helmet laws. Opposition
to the penalties by state DOT's contributed to their repeal. Similar
friction has been felt by many SHSO's with respect to the open
container and repeat offender penalties. SHSO's have been blamed for
the TEA-21 penalties even though they were not responsible for their
enactment. New penalties and sanctions make it harder for the SHSO's to
work with state legislatures, even under the limited conditions allowed
by TEA-21.
Frequent sanctioning by Congress makes states very resentful and
less motivated to enact the requisite legislation. Some states will
wait until the last minute and then enact legislation that is minimally
acceptable in order to avoid the sanction, as has been the case with
about a dozen states and the .08 sanction.
As former President Dwight Eisenhower said, ``You do not lead by
hitting people over the head--that's assault, not leadership.'' For the
reasons outlined previously, GHSA recommends that no new sanctions or
penalties be enacted.
Make Technical Changes to Current Penalties
TEA-21 requires states to enact, by October 1, 2000, repeat
offender legislation or face the transfer of certain Federal highway
funding into the 402 program. For second or subsequent alcohol-related
offenses, state law must require that: (1) the offender's license be
suspended for not less than one year; (2) the offender's vehicle be
subject to impoundment or immobilization or the installation of an
ignition interlock; (3) the offender receives an assessment of the
degree of alcohol abuse and treatment as appropriate; and (4) in the
case of a second offense, the offender must receive not less than five
days in jail or 30 days of community service and in the case of a third
or subsequent offense, not less than 10 days in jail and 60 days of
community service.
As of October 1, 2002, 32 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico were in
compliance with the repeat offender provisions. A number of states
represented on this Committee--Alaska, California, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, and West
Virginia--were among the states in non-compliance at that time. A
number of technical problems with the repeat offender provisions
contributed to the relatively low level of compliance.
One major problem concerns the license suspension provisions. NHTSA
has interpreted the Section 164 language to mean that the mandatory
minimum one-year license suspension must be a hard suspension with no
hardship waiver or restricted license. Law enforcement officials are
often reluctant to charge a repeat offender under those circumstances
because they view the penalty as too harsh. Judges are also reluctant
to give an offender a hard suspension because it would deprive a person
of his/her livelihood for an entire year. Rural and indigent offenders
would be especially impacted because they may be unable to arrange for
alternate transportation, particularly transportation to treatment
facilities. Offenders would have fewer resources to pay for interlock
devices, impounded vehicles or treatment. State legislatures are often
reluctant to enact the one-year hard suspension because it encourages
repeat offenders to avoid the sanction by driving without a license. In
fact, the driving-while-suspended problem is a growing one and is of
increasing concern to both NHTSA and GHSA and its state members.
A related problem is that NHTSA regulations do not permit the
installation of interlock devices until after the hard suspension
period. Current research shows that ignition interlock devices are very
successful in reducing recidivism when used in combination with
restricted licenses, supervised probation and treatment. By delaying
the use of interlocks, the NHTSA regulations do not allow the offender
to drive to work or treatment, thereby increasing the risk of
recidivism. The regulations are inconsistent with NHTSA's own research
and show a misunderstanding of the purpose of the ignition interlock
devices.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the NHTSA regulations do not
place a time limitation on vehicle impoundment and immobilization. An
offender's vehicle can be impounded or immobilized only for a few hours
and then returned to the offender. As a result, the impoundment/
immobilization sanction can be expected to have little impact on repeat
offenders.
Another problem with the regulations is that the impoundment/
immobilization/interlock sanction must apply to every vehicle owned by
the offender. Hence, if an offender owns five vehicles, the sanction
must apply to every vehicle. State legislatures are often reluctant to
enact laws that would penalize car collectors and owners of fleets of
vehicles. More importantly, the language encourages offenders to change
the title of their vehicles to another family member in order to avoid
the sanction.
GHSA recommends that the one-year suspension be changed to a
limited hard suspension (e.g., 60 or 90 days) with a restricted license
and imposition of an ignition interlock device during a subsequent
restriction period. Further, there should be a time limit (e.g., 10-30
days) on the impoundment/immobilization sanction. The language
requiring the sanctions to be applied to an offender's vehicles should
be changed to the vehicle used by the offender.
The transfer provisions for both the open container and repeat
offender penalties are also problematic. Non-compliant states have a
portion of their Surface Transportation Program, National Highway
System and Interstate Maintenance funds transferred into the 402
program. They can then use the transferred funds for impaired driving
countermeasures or activities eligible under the Hazard Elimination
Program (HEP).
Many states have lessened the impact of the penalty by using the
transferred funds to supplement current HEP funding. Instead of
budgeting for new HEP funding, the transferred funds are used. In
effect, some state DOTs have played an elaborate shell game with the
transferred funds. As a result, the penalty transfers have not
motivated states to enact the requisite legislation.
The administration of the transfers has also been very difficult.
Since all of the transferred funds must be transferred into the state's
402 account, the SHSO is responsible for administering them, even if
all the funds are ultimately used for HEP purposes. In other words,
there is no mechanism to retransfer funds used for HEP purposes into
the state's HEP account. As a result, the small, overworked SHSO is
financially responsible for overseeing the expenditure of HEP funds
over which they have no programmatic control.
GHSA recommends that, if the transfer penalties are continued, the
transferred funds only be used for impaired driving countermeasures.
This would eliminate the administrative difficulties and would create a
stronger ``incentive'' for states to enact the requisite legislation.
Comments on the DOT Reauthorization Proposal
Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA), the Department of Transportation has
proposed a three-part consolidated behavioral highway safety grant
program. The proposed program includes basic formula funds, performance
incentive funds, and a strategic impaired driving program. The
performance incentive funds will be further divided into three types of
incentives. In addition, DOT has proposed a separate data grant program
and a very small EMS grant program. In FY 2004, total funding would be
at the same level as FY 2003 NHTSA grant funding.
GHSA is pleased about some aspects of the funding request but very
disappointed about several others.
The Association is pleased that DOT supported the idea of grant
consolidation. A single grant program with one application and one
deadline should be much easier to administer. GHSA is also pleased that
the Administration is proposing performance incentive grants and
increased funding for states that enact primary safety belt laws. The
Association also supports performance-based incentives, particularly
for states that enact primary belt laws, and has incorporated that
concept into its own proposal. Clearly NHTSA heard and positively
responded to the states' concerns in these areas.
GHSA strongly supports the proposed DOT data incentive grant
program. The program funding level, the eligibility criteria, and the
proposed use of grant funds are identical to those recommended by the
Association.
GHSA supports the Section 151 (Title I) requirement that states
coordinate their highway safety construction, behavioral and motor
carrier grant programs and develop comprehensive, strategic highway
safety goals. Future improvements in highway safety are not as likely
unless states coordinate the disparate aspects of their highway safety
programs.
GHSA supports the proposed funding for the crash causation study.
As noted above, it has been about thirty years since such a study was
conducted. If states are to improve driver and road user behavior, it
is essential to know why crashes were caused. GHSA recommends, however,
that the difference between the NHTSA crash causation study and the
proposed FSHRP crash causation study need to be clarified and the
studies coordinated.
GHSA also supports the proposed increased funding for the Section
403 program. However, it appears that most of the increase will be used
for the crash causation study. Additional research resources must be
directed to the NHTSA 403 program so that evaluation studies can be
conducted on the effectiveness of a variety of safety countermeasures.
GHSA is extremely disappointed in the overall funding level for the
behavioral safety grant programs. If safety is such a high priority for
DOT, why wasn't behavioral safety grant funding increased more? How are
the states to have an impact on the increasing number of fatalities and
injuries without adequate funding? Why was the funding increase limited
to the safety construction program? It appears that, once again, DOT's
commitment to safety does not match its willingness to fund behavioral
safety programs adequately. It will be no surprise if future years show
further increases in motor vehicle-related fatalities and injuries.
GHSA finds the level of funding for the impaired driving program
totally unacceptable. $50 million is considerably less than has been
spent on impaired driving under TEA-21 and far less than is needed to
adequately address this growing problem. Further, we believe that the
program is too narrowly focused on a few states where an intervention
would have the biggest impact. Impaired driving is a problem in every
state, yet the proposal would provide no funds for the remaining,
``non-strategic'' states.
It is apparent that the proposed impaired driving program will be
implemented in the same manner as the 157 innovative program. Under
that program, NHTSA set very restrictive conditions on the grants and
completely micro-managed the way eligible states expend funds. States
have found the program very onerous and do not wish to repeat the
experience under the proposed impaired driving program. In our view,
the proposed strategic impaired driving initiative is more appropriate
as a Section 403 demonstration program than as a state incentive grant
program. We urge Congress to reject this proposal in the next
reauthorization.
The Administration is proposing funding for three types of
incentives--for enacting primary belt laws, for improving safety belt
use rates and for improving performance. Each of these incentives will
have their own eligibility criteria and their own earmarked funding. We
are concerned that the performance incentive program may be just as
complex as the myriad of programs that are currently authorized under
TEA-21. As noted previously, GHSA urges that the goal in the next
reauthorization should be simplicity and consolidation.
In the proposed primary belt law incentive grants, GHSA is very
troubled by the distinction between states that enacted their primary
belt laws during TEA-21 and those that enact them under SAFETEA. The
former states are eligible for 1/2 of their FY 2003 402 apportionments
over a two-year period. The latter are eligible for 5 times their FY
2003 402 apportionments. GHSA believes that it can be very difficult
for states to adopt primary belt laws, no matter when they enacted such
laws, and that to make such a distinction is patently unfair. States
that have primary belt laws should be rewarded for their superior
performance and states wishing to enact such laws should be strongly
encouraged to do so.
There are also some technical difficulties with the proposal. For
one, if every eligible state enacted a primary belt law, there wouldn't
be enough funding to give them the amount for which they would be
eligible. If two or three large states enacted a primary belt law in
one year, there wouldn't be enough funding in that year for any other
states. States would have to wait one or more subsequent years, which
may serve as a disincentive to states considering primary belt law
passage.
SAFETEA also proposes that the performance incentive funds can be
flexed into the safety construction program and vice versa. While GHSA
members like funding flexibility, we have some major reservations about
the proposed flexibility provisions. GHSA believes that the flexibility
provisions may result in fewer--potentially far fewer--funds for
behavioral safety grant programs.
States can flex all $100 million of their primary safety belt law
incentive funds into the new Section 150 Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP). The intent of this flexibility is to encourage state
Departments of Transportation to become involved in the passage of
primary belt laws. While we support the involvement of state DOTs in
the legislation, GHSA also believes that the language strongly
encourages state DOTs to move funds into the HSIP in a kind of quid pro
quo even though funding for safety construction is proposed to increase
54 percent over FY 2003 levels. According to the recent Government
Accounting Office report, sixty-nine percent of the 34 states that were
penalized in 2001 and 2002 used the money for HEP safety construction
purposes and only thirty-one percent used the money for alcohol-related
programs.
At the same time, GHSA believes that the flexibility provisions
work against the passage of primary belt laws. DOT has proposed that,
by FY 2005, states must enact primary belt laws or have 10 percent of
their Section 150 funds transferred into the consolidated 402 program.
However, states can flex 50 percent of their safety belt use rate
incentives and 50 percent of their general performance incentive funds
into the Section 150 program. As a result, the $100 million loss of
safety construction funds can be partially offset by flexing $37.5
million of safety incentive funds into the HSIP. Hence, a state that
fails to enact primary belt law legislation could have the impact
mitigated to some extent by the flexibility provisions.
State DOTs can also flex 50 percent of the HSIP funds into the
consolidated safety program. However, there is always a need for safety
improvements to roadways, particularly for low cost improvements like
rumble strips, traffic control devices, lighting and pavement markings.
We see little possibility that the behavioral safety grant programs
would be the beneficiaries of the flexibility provisions. SHSO
experience with the open container and repeat offender penalties have
shown that flexibility provisions often pit one state agency against
another. The agency with the most political clout usually determines
how the penalty funds will be used. Hence, GHSA believes that the
flexibility provisions will result in less funding for behavioral
safety programs, not more. Consequently, we urge Congress to reject the
proposed flexibility language and simply allow each safety program to
be used for the purposes authorized.
This concludes GHSA's prepared statement on the reauthorization of
safety programs. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views and
recommendations on programs of utmost importance to its members. We
look forward to working with the members and staff of the Committee as
they draft reauthorization language in the coming months. Thank you
again.
______
GHSA also submitted ``Federal Behavioral Highway Safety Grant
Program Details, April 2003.'' This document can be found at http://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committeecong.action;jsessionid=15yvRplJ1LTTzVzL8GxgW5D2yGP3BPNz
QycBFJv818fP2sl5xRJ9!-1031405584!1936429658?collection=CHRG&committee=
commerce&chamber=senate&congressminus=112&ycord=0.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Swanson.
Mr. Strassberger.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT STRASSBERGER, VICE PRESIDENT,
VEHICLE SAFETY, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURERS; ON BEHALF OF JOSEPHINE COOPER, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Mr. Strassberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Robert Strassberger, and I am Vice President of Vehicle Safety
of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Preliminary data for 2002 show that 42,850 people lost
their lives last year on U.S. highways, and almost 3 million
were injured. Tragically, 59 percent of vehicle occupants
killed were not restrained by safety belts or child safety
seats. Alcohol-related fatalities also increased for the third
consecutive year and account for 42 percent of all fatalities.
The number of overall fatalities is no longer declining. This
is unacceptable. As a nation we simply must do better.
The single most effective way to reduce traffic fatalities
and serious injuries immediately is to increase the use of
safety belts and child safety seats. Primary enforcement of
safety belt use laws results in higher safety belt usage.
States with primary enforcement laws have an average of 80
percent belt usage compared to just 69 percent in states with
secondary enforcement laws.
The Administration has requested funding for incentives for
states passing primary enforcement laws. Congress should
approve this proposal.
Impaired driving is also a problem and one that is getting
worse. While there was progress in the last two decades,
impaired driving is once again on the rise. The
administration's recommendation of $50 million is far less than
the current funding levels and is not adequate. Congress should
provide more.
The Alliance believes that if we are to continue to make
progress in reducing traffic fatalities and injuries, it is
critical that future public policy decisions be data-driven,
supported by scientifically evidence, and demonstrate the
potential for effective safety benefits without adverse side
effects.
NHTSA's two primary crash database programs, NASS and FARS,
provide crucial information to safety planners and vehicle
design engineers. The Alliance strongly supports upgrading
crash data systems and urges Congress to provide appropriate
levels of funding. In addition to adequate funding for NASS and
FARS, the Alliance believes it is important for NHTSA to have
the resources necessary to conduct a comprehensive study of
crash causation, similar to the multiyear Indiana Tri-Level
Study that was completed 25 years ago. The Alliance strongly
supports NHTSA's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request for $10
million for this purpose.
Advancing motor vehicle safety remains a significant public
health challenge and the Alliance is pursuing a number of
safety initiatives. The Alliance and the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety are developing recommendations that auto
companies could implement voluntarily both in the short-term
and the long-term to enhance vehicle-to-vehicle crash
compatibility. These steps will improve compatibility in both
front and side crashes in which a light truck is the striking
vehicle. We anticipate delivering to NHTSA final short-term
recommendations by late summer or early fall.
Another Alliance initiative is aimed at reducing the
frequency and consequences of rollover. The Alliance agrees
that rollovers represent a significant safety challenge that
warrants action. The Alliance efforts include developing a
vehicle handling test procedure that will assess the
performance of electronic stability control systems and other
advanced handling systems. We are also examining roof strength
in rollover crashes and we expect to make recommendations in
the near future. We are also working to develop test procedures
intended to reduce occupant ejections in rollovers.
These efforts to develop voluntary standards for crash
compatibility and rollover, when combined with an industry
commitment to design vehicles in accordance with them is
following a model for responsible industry action that has
proven to be an effective way to bring significant safety
improvements into the fleet faster than has been historically
possible through regulation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Josephine Cooper, President,
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Thank You Mr. Chairman. My name is Josephine Cooper and I am
President of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. I am pleased to
be afforded the opportunity to offer the views of the Alliance at this
important hearing. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance)
is a trade association of 10 car and light truck manufacturers who
account for more than 90 percent of U.S. vehicle sales. Alliance member
companies, include BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company,
General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Toyota and
Volkswagen, employing more than 620,000 Americans at 250 facilities in
35 states.
Significant Progress Has Been Made To Reduce Fatalities and Injuries
From Motor Vehicle Crashes, But Challenges Remain
Over the past 20 years significant progress has been made in
reducing the traffic fatality rate. In 1981, the number of fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles traveled stood at 3.17. By 2001, this
rate had been driven down by 52 percent to 1.51 fatalities per 100
million vehicle miles traveled. Indeed, when compared to 1991, in 2001
the fatality rate had dropped by 21 percent, indicating that real
progress has been made. The level of competitiveness among automakers,
which key industry observers have described as ``brutal,'' has helped
to accelerate the introduction of safety features ahead of regulation
further aiding in the progress made. See Attachment 1. According to the
J. D. Power and Associates 2002 U.S. Automotive Emerging Technologies
study, 9 of the top 10 features most desired by consumers in their next
new vehicle are designed to enhance vehicle or occupant safety.
Despite the progress made, however, preliminary data show that
42,850 people lost their lives on U.S. highways in 2002 and almost 3
million were injured. Tragically, 59 percent of vehicle occupants
killed in crashes were not restrained by safety belts or child safety
seats. Alcohol-related fatalities increased for the third consecutive
year and accounted for 42 percent of all fatalities. The fatality rate
may no longer be declining. This is unacceptable. As a nation, we
simply must do better.
The Alliance and our members are constantly striving to enhance
motor vehicle safety. And, we continue to make progress. Each new model
year brings safety improvements in vehicles of all sizes and types.
But, as the General Accounting Office recently reaffirmed, vehicle
factors contribute less often to crashes than do human or roadway
environment factors.\1\ We will never fully realize the potential
benefits of vehicle safety technologies until we get vehicle occupants
properly restrained and impaired drivers off the road. That is why
reauthorization and adequate funding of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) highway safety programs is so
important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Highway Safety--Research Continues on a Variety of Factors
That Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes.'' United States General
Accounting Office, GAO-03-436, March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Safety Belt Usage and Preventing Impaired Driving Are Needed
Today To Prevent Needless Fatalities and Injuries
The single most effective way to reduce traffic fatalities and
serious injuries in the short term is to increase the use of occupant
restraint systems, safety belts and child safety seats. If the United
States could increase its safety belt usage rate from the current 75
percent to 92 percent (the same usage rate as in Canada) it is
estimated that another 4,500 lives would be saved and countless
injuries would be avoided. Members of the Alliance have a long and
proud record in supporting increased safety belt usage beginning in the
mid 1980s with funding for Traffic Safety Now, a safety belt advocacy
group lobbying state governments for the passage of mandatory safety
belt use laws to participation in and funding of the Airbag & Seat Belt
Safety Campaign (Campaign). The Campaign is housed in the National
Safety Council and principally funded by the voluntary contributions of
motor vehicle manufacturers. The effectiveness of the Campaign is
reflected in the increase in belt use from 61 percent, when the
Campaign was formed in 1996, to today, with belt use now at 75 percent.
This 14 percentage point increase in belt use is largely due to
high visibility enforcement Mobilizations coordinated by the Campaign
in cooperation with NHTSA, state highway safety offices and law
enforcement agencies in all fifty states. We are currently in the midst
of the largest Mobilization ever with more than 12,500 law enforcement
agencies providing stepped up enforcement and close to $25 million in
paid advertising to augment the enforcement effort. Funding for the
enforcement ads, both national and state, comes from funds earmarked by
Congress for this purpose. High visibility enforcement of safety belt
laws has been extensively tested in more than twenty states. It has
consistently achieved dramatic increases in safety belt use. Although
the Administration has not requested funds for the paid advertising
that has proven to be a vital component of this effective program, we
believe that it is important for Congress to continue to provide this
funding.
Primary enforcement safety belt use laws are significantly
correlated with higher safety belt usage levels. States with primary
enforcement laws have an average of 80 percent belt usage, compared to
69 percent in states having secondary enforcement laws. Currently, only
19 jurisdictions have primary safety belt laws. While the Campaign,
through its lobbying efforts, has contributed to getting primary
enforcement legislation enacted in several states, progress has been
difficult to achieve. The Administration has requested significant
funding for incentives to states passing primary enforcement laws. We
believe this proposal has merit and should be approved by Congress.
Impaired driving is also a significant highway safety problem and
one that is getting worse. While substantial progress in reducing
impaired driving was made in the last two decades, impaired driving is
once again on the rise. Repeat offenders are disproportionately
involved in fatal crashes. Congress should provide funding beyond the
level proposed by the Administration to enable states to address this
deadly problem. The Administration recommendation of $50 million is far
less than current funding levels and is inadequate.
In addition to the priority areas of increasing safety belt use and
reducing impaired driving, Congress needs to provide adequate funding
for the Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Program. The
Administration's proposal wisely consolidates several smaller programs
into Section 402, but Congress should consider providing additional
resources.
Comprehensive and Current Data Is Necessary To Make Insightful and
Sound Public Policy Decisions
NHTSA's two key traffic crash database programs, the National
Automotive Sampling System (NASS) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) provide crucial information to safety planners and
vehicle design engineers. The NASS program, in particular, has been
chronically under-funded. On October 17, 2002, the Alliance and various
other safety groups sent a letter to NHTSA Administrator Dr. Jeffrey
Runge outlining the importance of sound crash and injury data. The
Alliance emphasized the need for additional funds for NASS in order to
effectively evaluate the effectiveness of both behavioral and vehicular
safety measures. See Attachment 2.
The Administration has proposed substantial funding to upgrade
state traffic records systems. Improved state record systems can help
improve the quality of FARS data and assist states in establishing
safety program priorities. The Alliance strongly supports upgrading
state and Federal crash data systems and urges Congress to provide
appropriate levels of funding for them. The Alliance believes this
funding is critical because future NHTSA rulemakings should be data-
driven, supported by scientifically sound evidence, and demonstrate the
potential for effective safety benefits without undesired side effects.
The Alliance also sponsors a significant amount of safety research
that is shared with the safety community. The Alliance is sponsoring a
program to collect-real world crash data on the performance of
depowered and advanced air bags at three sites around the U.S. (Dade
County, Florida, Dallas County, Texas, and Chilton, Coosa, St. Clair,
Talledega, and Shelby Counties in Alabama). This program adds valuable
information about air bag performance to the extensive crash data
already being collected by NHTSA through NASS. The Alliance is
committed to funding this program that will run through 2005. The
current Alliance commitment for the advanced air bag research is $4.5
million over 4 years. The Alliance project will observe all the NASS
data collection protocols so that the Alliance funded cases can be
compared with, and evaluated consistently with, other cases in the NASS
dataset.
In addition to adequate funding for NASS, the Alliance believes it
important for NHTSA to have the resources necessary to conduct a
comprehensive study of crash causation similar to the multi-year
``Indiana Tri-Level Study'' that was completed 25 years ago.
Researchers at Indiana University Bloomington's Institute for Research
in Public Safety conducted the Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic
Accidents from 1972 through 1977. According to NHTSA officials, the
Indiana Tri-Level study has been the only study in the last 30 years to
collect in-depth, on-scene crash causation data. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration relies on it today because other NHTSA
data is collected from police crash reports or collected days or weeks
after the crash, making it difficult to obtain causation data.
Significant advancements in vehicle safety technology and design have
occurred since then, making this study rather obsolete as a baseline on
which to base substantial regulatory decisions. For example, the Tri-
Level study, studied crashes in which nearly all tires were bias-ply,
rather than the radial tires that are prevalent today. Yet NHTSA cited
data from this study in support of a portion of its decision on tire
pressure monitoring system that will be used in conjunction with radial
tires. See Attachment 3. In addition, traffic patterns, numbers and
types of vehicles in use, on-board technologies and lifestyles have
changed dramatically in the last 30 years.
Therefore, the Alliance strongly supports the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's FY 2004 budget request for $10 million
so that NHTSA can effectively update their crash causation data. An
updated study would help guide and enlighten public policy aimed at
reducing the frequency of traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
This is a crucial step toward improving the quality of data available
to inform sound regulatory decision-making at NHTSA.
Alliance Members Are Aggressively Pursuing Safety Advancements,
Collectively and Individually
Advancing motor vehicle safety remains a significant public health
challenge--one that automakers are addressing daily, both individually
and collectively. The Alliance is pursuing a number of initiatives to
enhance safety. We have redoubled and unified our activities to
collectively address light truck-to-car collision compatibility and
vehicle rollover. On February 11-12, 2003, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety sponsored
an international meeting on enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle crash
compatibility. On February 13, 2003, the Alliance and IIHS sent NHTSA
Administrator Runge a letter summarizing the results of this meeting,
and indicating the industry planned to develop recommendations that
auto companies could take to enhance crash compatibility. These steps
will enhance crash compatibility in both front-to-front and front-to-
side crashes in which a light truck is the striking vehicle.
The industry promptly formed two technical working groups of
experts: one on front-to-side crashes and one on front-to-front
crashes. These groups have been working continuously since their
establishment to develop recommendations for appropriate short and
longer term actions. On March 10, 2003, the Alliance and IIHS sent
Administrator Runge a letter indicating that we anticipate delivering
to NHTSA final short-term recommendations by late Summer or early Fall.
While our work is still in progress, we remain on track to meet this
commitment.
For the North American market, front-to-side crashes where the
striking vehicle is a light truck or SUV, represent a significant
compatibility challenge. We are placing a high priority on enhancing
the protection of occupants inside vehicles struck in the side. Our
immediate efforts are focused on developing recommendations that will
lead to enhanced head protection of occupants in struck vehicles. We
expect our efforts to lead to measures that auto manufacturers can
incorporate in their vehicles. Concurrently, evaluation criteria will
be established to drive improvements in car side structures to reduce
side impact intrusion and provide for additional absorption of crash
energy.
With regard to front-to-front crashes, we anticipate reaching
agreement on specific recommendations to enhance alignment of front-end
energy absorbing structures of vehicles. Manufacturers have been
working to improve this architectural feature by modifying truck
frames. The voluntary standard will govern structural alignment for the
entire light-duty vehicle fleet and provide for an industry wide
solution. In addition, through research to be undertaken, we expect to
develop sophisticated test procedures for assessing the forces, and the
distribution of these forces, which light trucks may impose on cars in
frontal crashes. These procedures should lead to more comprehensive
approaches to measuring and controlling these forces. We also expect to
develop state-of-the-art test procedures for measuring and controlling
the frontal stiffness characteristics of passenger cars and light
trucks.
These efforts to develop voluntary standards for crash
compatibility and rollover, when combined with an industry commitment
to design vehicles in accordance with them, is following a model for
responsible industry action that has proven to be a very effective way
to bring significant safety improvements into the fleet faster than has
been historically possible through regulation. The voluntary standards
process also has the flexibility to produce rapid modifications should
the need arise.
The best way to illustrate the benefits for such an approach is to
examine the recent development of the Recommended Procedures for
Evaluating Occupant Injury Risk From Deploying Side Airbags finalized
in August 2000. In response to concerns about potential injury risk to
out-of-position (OOP) women and children from deploying side airbags,
the Alliance, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
(AIAM), the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), and the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) used a joint working
group to develop test procedures with injury criteria and limits to
ensure that the risk of injury to OOP occupants from deploying side
airbags would be very limited.
After a little over a year of intensive effort, the working group
developed a draft set of procedures. This draft was presented in a
public meeting on June 22, 2000. Comments were collected and the
finalized procedures were presented to NHTSA on August 8, 2000. Now,
just 2 model years later, 60 percent of Alliance member company side
airbags have been designed in accordance with the August 8, 2000
Recommended Procedures. More importantly, the field performance of side
air bags remains positive.
These Procedures and public commitment were also used by Transport
Canada as the basis for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
automobile manufacturers and the Canadian government.
Another Alliance initiative is assessing opportunities which may
further reduce the frequency and consequences of rollover. The Alliance
agrees that rollovers represent a significant safety challenge that
warrants attention and action. In releasing the preliminary statistics
for 2002, NHTSA stated that, ``Fatalities in rollover crashes involving
sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks accounted for 53 percent of
the increase in traffic deaths.'' NHTSA did not state, however, that an
increase in passenger car rollover fatalities accounted for 25 percent
of the increase in traffic fatalities. Indeed, rollover fatalities
occurring with passenger cars, SUVs, and pickups all contributed
roughly equally to the increase observed. In fact, the increase in
number of passenger car rollover fatalities was nearly 8 times higher
than might otherwise had been forecasted from the growth in the number
of registered passenger cars in 2002, over 2001.
Consequently, Alliance efforts to reduce the frequency and
consequences of rollover involves passenger cars as well as SUVs, vans,
and pickup trucks. Our efforts include developing a handling test
procedure or recommended practice that will focus on an assessment of
the performance of electronic stability control systems and other
advanced handling enhancement devices. A typical rollover is one in
which the driver becomes inattentive or distracted, loses control of
the vehicle, and then strikes something that trips the vehicle causing
it to roll. Electronic stability control systems are designed to help
drivers to keep out of trouble in the first place. However, should a
rollover occur, the Alliance is assessing opportunities to enhance
rollover occupant protection. We are assessing the current state of
knowledge on roof/pillar deformation during rollover crashes, and will
make recommendations as to whether new performance criteria and/or test
procedures would further reduce the risk of injury in vehicle rollover
crashes. We are also working to determine the feasibility of developing
test procedures to assess the performance of countermeasures designed
to further reduce the risk of occupant ejection in rollover crashes.
The Potential Benefits of Vehicle Safety Technologies Cannot Be Fully
Realized Until Vehicle Occupants Are Properly Restrained and
Impaired Drivers Are Off The Road
Motor vehicle safety is a shared responsibility among government,
consumers and vehicle manufacturers. Auto manufacturers are more
committed than ever to developing advanced safety technologies to
reduce fatalities and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes.
But as a nation, we will never fully realize the potential benefits of
vehicle safety technologies until we get vehicle occupants properly
restrained and impaired drivers off the road. In this regard, Congress
has a unique role to play by:
Enacting incentives for states that pass primary enforcement
safety belt laws and ensuring high visibility enforcement of
these laws by providing adequate funding for paid advertising
and Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Programs;
Providing funding beyond the level proposed to address the
deadly problem of impaired driving; and
Authorizing adequate funding for a modern, comprehensive
study of crash causation and to update state and Federal crash
data systems.
Attachment 1
``Voluntarily Installed Safety Devices''
A partial list of voluntarily installed advanced safety devices (w/
o or prior to regulation)
Crash Avoidance Advances
Tire/suspension optimization
Automatic brake assist
Electronic stability controls to help drivers maintain vehicle
control in emergency maneuvers
Anti-lock brakes
Traction control
Obstacle warning indicators
Active body control
Intelligent cruise control
Convenience controls on steering wheel to minimize driver
distraction
Automatic obstacle detection for sliding doors on minivans
Head-up displays
Child-proof door locks
Automatic speed-sensitive door locks
Vision
Automatic dimming inside mirrors to reduce headlamp glare
Heated exterior mirrors for quick deicing
Rear defrost systems
Headlamp wiper/washers
Automatic-on headlamps
Automatic-on headlamps when wipers are used
Infinitely variable wiper (only 2 req'd by regulation)
Night vision enhancements
Advance lighting systems
Right side mirrors
Crashworthiness Advances
Side air bags for chest protection
Side air bags for head protection that reduce ejection
Rollover triggered side/curtain air bags
Advanced air bags (e.g., dual stage inflators) several years in
advance of regulatory requirements
Safety belt pre-tensioners
Rear center seat lap/shoulder belts
Load-limiting safety belts to reduce chest injuries
Safety belt pre-tensioners Improved belt warning indicators
Rear seat head restraints Integrated child seats
Anti-whiplash seats
Breakaway mirrors for pedestrian protection
Post Crash
Automatic notification to emergency providers during air bag
deployment
Attachment 2
October 17, 2002
Hon. Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D.,
Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, DC.
RE: National Automotive Sampling System: Increased Funding
Dear Dr. Runge:
Sound crash and injury data are critical components needed for
advanced vehicle safety design and for both initiating and evaluating
countermeasures for improving highway safety. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting
System provides comprehensive data on people dying in motor vehicle
crashes throughout the United States. These data have enjoyed
widespread use in the evaluation of many motor vehicle safety
countermeasures and their effectiveness in reducing motor vehicle
death. NHTSA's National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data
System (NASS/CDS) is an essential resource that provides the agency,
researchers, vehicle manufacturers--indeed the entire safety
community--with a detailed crash and injury causation database suitable
for identifying traffic safety issues, establishing priorities,
assisting in the design of future countermeasures and for evaluating
existing countermeasures.
The NASS/CDS provides in-depth crash investigations of a
representative sample of police-reported tow-away crashes throughout
the United States, so data can be weighted to provide a nationwide
estimate of crashes of all severities according to the severity of
injuries. Furthermore, researchers can examine the detailed crash
investigations in depth to learn about crash characteristics and injury
causation focusing on subsets of the data. For example, such
investigations have proven to be of critical importance in the
understanding of airbag performance--the conditions under which airbags
save lives, but also when they contribute to occupant injury.
The application of sound science to improve traffic safety requires
that real world data or field data be used wherever possible. The
continuation of vehicle and highway safety improvements requires a
solid factual basis. However, the essence of such investigations is
timeliness. As the recent experience with frontal airbags has taught
us, we need to understand as soon as possible how new vehicle
technologies, such as airbags, are performing in the real world. And
with new technologies being introduced at such a fast pace, it is now
more important than ever to understand how these technologies are
performing in the real world.
The agency's NASS/CDS database is one of the most comprehensive
databases in the world to look in depth at the causes of motor vehicle
injury. However, we are concerned that the budget for NASS has not kept
pace with either the agency's informational needs or inflation. The
NASS program has been constrained by either flat or reduced funding at
a time when technological developments (e.g., advanced frontal and side
air bags, telematics) and occupant behavior (from increased seat belt
use to booster seat installations) are changing. We believe it is
important to ensure that NHTSA continues to have the ability to
evaluate actual field performance on a national basis.
Therefore, NASS must have the resources necessary to collect high-
quality, real-world data by conducting investigations at the full
complement of sites that will provide statistically valid, nationally
representative data on a timely basis. The NASS reorganization of the
mid 1980s called for 36 Primary Sampling Units. Currently, NASS has the
resources to conduct investigations at only 24 sites. The effectiveness
of NASS has also been subject to inflationary increases in operating
costs of about 3-5 percent per year, which have been offset by reducing
field staff. This has resulted in fewer cases reported from the 24
sites.
From the original projections of 7000 cases annually, NASS has been
reduced to providing only about 4500 cases annually across the spectrum
of crash types and severities. The result is that there are often too
few cases of serious injury to make an informed decision about the
sources and mechanisms of injury in motor vehicle crashes (for example,
in side impacts, or in crashes involving children) without having to
include data from many years of data collection. This blunts our
ability to look at current issues in real time. We believe NASS should
be funded at a level that will restore NASS to its design scope to
ensure critical ``real-world'' data can be collected at a sufficient
number of sites to produce the statistically valid, nationally
representative sample originally intended. Initially, the NASS design
called for 50 active sites.
Thus, we believe it is critical that the proposed NHTSA Fiscal Year
2004 budget include a request to fully fund NASS, so that our ability
to evaluate the effectiveness of both behavioral and vehicular safety
measures is enhanced. We stand ready to support you in this most
important endeavor.
Sincerely,
Josephine S. Cooper
President and CEO
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
Timothy C. MacCarthy
President and CEO
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
Heather Paul
Executive Director
National Safe Kids
Charles A. Hurley
Transportation Safety Group
National Safety Council
Phil Haseltine
President
Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety
Yvonne McBride
President Governors
Highway Safety Association
Susan G. Pikrallidas
Vice President of Public Affairs
AAA
Susan Ferguson
Senior Vice President, Research
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
______
Attachment 3
Executive Office of the President
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, DC, June 28, 2002
Hon. Jeftrey W. Runge. M.D.,
Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Dr. Runge:
I am writing to thank you and your staff for making significant
improvements in the Economic Assessment of the recently adopted final
rule requiring tire pressure monitoring systems for new motor vehicles.
I would also like to suggest some longer-term research directions that
may strengthen the scientific basis of future vehicle safety
rulemakings.
First, OIRA appreciates the significant improvements NHTSA made in
the regulatory analysis. Those improvements include (1) an explicit
cost-effectiveness analysis of a 1-tire standard, including a
comparison of costs and safety impacts compared to a 4-tire standard,
(2) a significant discussion of the ABS safety issue, including a
careful summary of the real-world crash data concerning the safety
impacts of ABS, and (3) a qualitative discussion of some of the
technical uncertainties in the agency's estimates of the safety
benefits that could be expected from various tire-pressure monitoring
systems.
Recognizing the limitations in current knowledge, we are eager to
work with NHTSA between now and March of 2005, when more information
will be available and a final decision will be made on this matter for
model years 2007 and later. We are pleased that NHTSA agrees upon the
need to analyze all options and information about the safety impacts of
ABS, regardless of whether such information is judged to be relevant to
this rulemaking or a separate rulemaking. We believe that further
improvements in NHTSA's economic assessment of the tire-pressure
monitoring issue will result from the collection and development of
additional information between now and March of 2005. OIRA wants to
work closely with NHTSA to develop analysis sufficient to inform and
support NHTSA's ultimate decision in this important rulemaking.
Second, in the course of reviewing this particular rule, OIRA
encountered a research gap that, if filled, would provide a stronger
technical foundation for future vehicle- and tire-related rulemakings
at NHTSA. The 1977 ``Indiana Tri-Level Study'' was a seminal effort to
quantify the relative frequency of different causes of crashes.
However, much has changed in the past 25 years. For example, minivans
and SUVs were virtually nonexistent in the mid-70s, as were front-wheel
drive vehicles and radial tires. These changes raise questions about
the continuing validity of the Indiana Tri-Level Study's findings about
the relative frequency of different causes of crashes. However, there
has been no subsequent comprehensive study of crash causation.
We know that NHTSA is now responsible for conducting a crash
causation study tor large trucks and that you are exploring the
possibility of building on that work to do a broader crash causation
study. Such a study would allow us in the government to better
understand the safety payoffs and costs associated with initiatives in
the area of crash avoidance, such as enhanced tires, braking, and
handling performance. It would also give us a stronger basis for
setting priorities in this area. My staff and I would like to meet with
you and your staff to discuss the potential value and costs of a
comprehensive crash causation study.
We thank you again for being responsive to OIRA's concerns and we
look forward to discussions with you regarding both research gaps and
the analysis necessary to support future rulemakings.
Sincerely,
John D. Graham, Ph.D.,
Administrator,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
Mr. Berman.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD BERMAN, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, AMERICAN
BEVERAGE LICENSEES AND THE AMERICAN
BEVERAGE INSTITUTE
Mr. Berman. Yes, sir, thank you, Senator. Like the speakers
before me, sir, we believe the Nation must improve the way we
fund and enforce traffic safety programs, including how we
address drunk driving problems. The retailers that I represent,
as well as the producer industries, are committed to
responsible beverage service. We have collectively spent
hundreds of millions of dollars to educate the public and train
our employees on the responsible use of adult beverages, and we
are much more than commentators. We have been on the front
lines in stopping product abuse and underage purchases.
Our first issue today starts with the question of the
relationship between the states and the Federal Government when
it comes to funding effective traffic safety programs. It's our
belief that State governments should not be subjected to
financial blackmail because they do not endorse the Federal
recommendations on how to combat drunk driving.
This is not an industry position exclusively but one that
was taken by numerous traffic safety groups during the last two
debates over highway funding, including the National Governors
Association, the Council of State Governments, the League of
Cities, the National Association of Counties, AAA, the National
Association of Governors Highway Safety Representatives, and
many others. It is a position shared by President Bush and
Secretary Mineta, who said before another Senate Committee this
week that their current proposal is designed to ``enhance the
capacity and flexibility of states to use Federal grants and
their own funds to improve highway safety.''
In this reauthorization we should end the pattern of
mandating traffic safety programs that are driven by political
agendas and return to a fully incentive-based program.
Our industry is further concerned about how we will find
effective solutions to the problem of drunk driving in the face
of continually shifting semantics. In many ways how we,
including the Government, the media, special interests and
others talk about this issue prevents us from reaching
consensus.
Consider that the term ``alcohol-related accidents'' has
been translated by interest groups to mean drunk driving. That
is not the case, as many alcohol-related incidents are in no
way alcohol-caused. And due to NHTSA's system of imputation,
many accidents that don't even show the presence of alcohol are
still labeled alcohol-related. Further, all the crashes are
lumped into one group, implying that we have a much greater
problem than we really do. That is not to minimize the drunk
driving problems, but it is to get the focus of the solution
where it belongs, on repeat offenders and product abusers. This
point was driven home in a recent Los Angeles Times story that
we've attached to our testimony.
One year ago a representative of the National Sleep
Foundation testified there are many highway deaths miscounted
as alcohol-related that are in fact caused by drowsy drivers.
Our question is, why has NHTSA failed to promote purchase
restrictions on overpowered cars by individuals with long lists
of speeding violations, or have done something about the drowsy
driver situation.
New potential impairments abound. We hear about cell
phones, onboard electronics in cars, older drivers whose
hearing, reaction times and vision are all impaired. And yet,
most of the impairment conversation that takes place in this
town is continually over whether or not someone has had an
adult beverage. Traffic safety funding should cover all safety
programs to reduce highway deaths, not just those focused on
alcohol-related problems.
We have agreed with MADD in the past that high BAC drivers
and repeat offenders are problems that need to be addressed.
Too much attention and time has been spent on fighting for .08
BAC laws in this town that have minimal value, and I urge you
to refer to the two charts that I have also attached to my
testimony that compares what has happened in the .08 states and
the various states that have been spoken about here today that
have so far refused to adopt that language.
Before we launch into another round of legislative
initiatives, we should cautiously review how we spend taxpayer
dollars. There are ideas proposed, including increased use of
random roadblocks that should be contemplated after a serious
review of their effectiveness, a cost-benefit analysis, and a
look at the reported abuses and intrusions on privacy that may
be posed by increased use of enforcement measures that are not
preceded by probable cause.
I will allow the rest of my statement to be admitted into
the record, sir, but I would like to just read, when it comes
to roadblocks, one quote that I found this afternoon just
before coming up here. It is by the Chief Justice of the Oregon
Supreme Court, it would be no surprise that I looked for that
one.
And in terms of roadblocks the Chief Justice has said,
objecting to this use of random roadblocks: What has occurred
is quite simply the seizure of a car and its driver without any
probable cause in the hope that sometime during the ensuing
detention, evidence of a crime will be discovered.
This is probably the biggest problem that we're going to be
facing in the debates coming up, this increased rhetoric about
let's get random roadblocks out there and start arresting
people, start frightening people, start taking away people's
individual privacy. And I hope in the deliberations that ensue
after these hearings, that this becomes a focus of people who
are seeking to protect privacy, not to see that it's given up.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Berman, Legislative Counsel, American
Beverage Licensees and the American Beverage Institute
Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
this committee on this issue of funding the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. I am honored to represent the community of adult
beverage retailers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Beverage Licensees (an association of taverns, package
stores and restaurants) and the American Beverage Institute (an
association of national chain and single unit restaurants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the speakers before me, I believe the Nation should improve
the way we fund and enforce traffic safety programs including how we
address drunk driving problems. Retailers--as well as the producer
industries--are committed to responsible beverage service. We have
collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars to educate the
public and train our employees on the responsible use of adult
beverages. We are much more than commentators, we have been on the
front lines in stopping product abuse and underage purchases. We want
to offer our perspective on the effective and efficient ways to fund
drunk driving countermeasures.
Our first issue starts with a question of the relationship between
states and the Federal government when it comes to funding effective
traffic safety programs. The Federal government is becoming more
aggressive about using ``mandates'' or ``blackmail'' to force states,
governors, legislators and highway safety officials to accept
Washington's view of what works. In ever more instances, states are
being penalized even when they have above-average safety records,
because they do not adopt federally approved laws. With few exceptions
(e.g., the minimum drinking age, requiring helmet use for motorcycle
riders and a mandated national speed limit, which was rescinded),
highway safety countermeasures were funded on incentives.
State governments should not be subjected to financial blackmail
because they do not endorse the Federal recommendations on how to
combat drunk driving. This is not an industry position, but one that
was taken by numerous traffic safety groups \2\ during the last two
debates over highway funding. It is a position shared by President Bush
and Secretary Mineta, who said before another Senate committee this
week that their current proposal is designed to ``enhance the capacity
and flexibility of states to use Federal grants and their own funds to
improve highway safety.'' \3\ In this reauthorization, we should end
the pattern of mandating traffic safety programs driven by political
agendas and return to a fully incentive-based program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These traffic safety groups include the National Governors'
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council
of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties, the American Automobile Association, the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the
American Traffic Safety Services Association, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Association of
Governors' Highway Safety Representatives.
\3\ Statement of Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation,
before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on
the Environment and Public Works, United States Senate,
``Reauthorization of Surface Transportation Programs,'' 20 May 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our industry is further concerned about how we will find effective
solutions to the problem of drunk driving in the face of continually
shifting semantics. In many ways, how we (the government, the media,
special interests and others) talk about this issue prevents us from
reaching consensus. Consider that the term ``alcohol-related''
accidents has been translated by interest groups to mean ``drunk
driving.'' That is not the case, as many alcohol-related incidents are
in no way ``alcohol-caused.'' And, due to NHTSA's system of imputation,
many accidents that don't even show the presence of alcohol are still
labeled alcohol-related. Further all crashes are lumped into one group,
implying that we have a much greater problem that we really do. That is
not to minimize the drunk driving problems, but it is to get the focus
of the solution where it belongs, on repeat offenders and product
abusers. This point was driven home in a recent LA Times story that
broke down the 17,448 deaths in 2001 to ``5,000 sober victims killed by
legally drunk drivers.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``A breakdown of the 17,448 deaths includes:
About 2,500 to 3,500 crash deaths in which no driver was
legally drunk but alcohol was detected.
1,770 deaths involved drunk pedestrians killed when they
walked in front of sober drivers.
About 8,000 deaths involved only a single car and in most
of those cases the only death was the drunk driver.
That leaves about 5,000 sober victims killed by legally
drunk drivers.''
Vartabedian, Ralph, ``A Spirited Debate over DUI Laws,'' Los
Angeles Times, 30 December 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One year ago, a representative of the National Sleep Foundation
testified \5\ there are many highway deaths miscounted as alcohol-
related that are in fact caused by drowsy drivers. And why has NHTSA
failed to promote purchase restrictions on overpowered cars by
individuals with long lists of speeding violations. New potential
``impairments'' abound--from cell-phones to on-board electronics.
Traffic safety funding should cover all safety programs to reduce
highway deaths, not just those focused on alcohol-related problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Testimony before the Subcommittee on Highways and
Infrastructure, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
``Various Approaches to Traffic Safety,'' 27 June 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we use the broadest definition of the drunk driving problem
and treat alcohol as the only significant impairment on our Nation's
highways, no one should be surprised that we have a penalty system that
is also disproportional. Most states punish a .08 percent BAC drinker
with the same set of penalties as an extreme .28 percent BAC drinker.
The situation is analogous to punishing an individual driving five
miles over the speed limit with the same penalty as someone going 50
miles over the posted restrictions. Hard-core drunk drivers are not
responsive to public appeals. Programs designed specifically to address
their drinking patterns should be where we focus the most time, the
most research, resources and political capital instead of developing
programs suited to targeting casual social drinkers who are not a part
of the problem.
We have agreed with MADD in the past that these high BAC drivers
and repeat offenders are problems that need to be addressed. Too much
attention and time has been spent on fighting for .08 percent BAC laws
that have minimal value,\6\ I testified before the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice and proposed the same
concept of tailoring the level of punishment to the level of the crime:
``. . . a prosecution strategy with a graduated series of penalties in
the form of fines, license revocation and imprisonment. The magnitude
of the penalty would reflect the degree of infractions, where 0.20
drivers even on their first offense suffer a more exacting penalty than
the marginal offender, with a graduated increase according to BAC
levels and multiplicity of offenses.'' \7\ And developing a high-BAC/
repeat offender initiative program would be the best way to achieve
improvements in these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Chart 1.
\7\ It is notable that a state implementing such a graduated
penalties system today would--even if the program was proven effective
in reducing drunk driving deaths--still be sanctioned under TEA-21. In
fact, many states (like Minnesota and Wisconsin) have implemented a
strong graduated penalty program (only starting at a higher BAC) but
will still be sanctioned for not adopting .08 percent BAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we advocate aggressively implementing more effective
programs, we want to focus on the word ``effective.'' Before we launch
into another round of legislative initiatives, we should cautiously
review how we spend taxpayer dollars. There are ideas proposed,
including the increased use of random roadblocks, that should be
contemplated after a serious review of their effectiveness, a cost-
benefit analysis, and a look at the reported abuses and intrusions on
privacy that may be posed by increased use of enforcement measures not
preceded by probable cause.
If we agree on the problem--high-BAC drivers that MADD says causes
most of the alcohol-related traffic fatalities--then the solution must
target these product abusers. A system of increased use and funding of
random roadblocks surely does not. Roadblocks are the backbone of a
``PR''-heavy traffic safety program, one that seeks to convince the
public that it is illegal or immoral to drink any adult beverage and
then drive. We've all heard the slogans: ``Don't drink and drive.''
``You drink. You drive. You lose.'' ``Impairment begins with the first
drink.'' These slogans do not reflect the law, nor do they reflect
reality. Roadblocks take that message one step further by targeting and
punishing casual drinkers who are not a part of the problem and who are
already behaving responsibly.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Chart 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, roadblocks are neither effective, nor do they have
the level of support from law enforcement officials that you would
expect from a truly effective safety program. A National Academy of
Sciences study, conducted by economists from Harvard University and the
University of Chicago, suggested that, ``policies focused on stopping
erratic drivers might be more successful.'' \9\ Even research by NHTSA,
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the FBI point to
saturation patrols to catch more drunk drivers. Because police
discretion works, we hear from policemen that, ``[roadblocks are] not a
valid use of police time. We are involved in enforcement and education,
but we do not have to include mass inconvenience and mass fear.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Levitt, Steven D., and Porter, Jack, ``How dangerous are
drinking drivers?'' The Journal of Political Economy, Chicago, December
2001.
\10\ Wayne, NJ, Police Chief Robert H. Pringle, quoted in the
Bergen Record, ``Value of DWI Checks Doubted,'' 30 December 1985. See
also the attached opinion editorial by former Indiana state trooper
Stan Worthington, who manned some of that state's first-ever roadblocks
20 years ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The adult beverage retailing community joins with the safety
community in thanking you for your attention to these important issues
and the dedication of important new funds to making our roads safer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share our perspectives
on safety issues with you today.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Source: Unpublished ABI analysis of U.S. Department of
Transportation Fatality Analysis Reporting System data on BAG levels
and fatalities in accidents where a driver was actually tested. Imputed
fatalities were not included in this analysis. Nineteen States were
considered 0.08 states for the analysis including the District of
Columbia. These 19 states all had 0.08 laws in effect prior to the 2001
year that was used for this analysis.
Attachment 3
Senator Smith. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Hamilton.
STATEMENT OF WENDY J. HAMILTON, PRESIDENT,
MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING
Ms. Hamilton. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm
Wendy Hamilton, national President of Mothers Against Drunk
Driving. It is indeed an honor to be here today to testify on
DOT's SAFETEA proposal, and MADD's priorities for the
reauthorization of TEA-21. We look forward to working with this
Committee to develop transportation policies that save lives
and prevent injuries on our Nation's highways.
For the third consecutive year, alcohol-related traffic
deaths have increased. Early statistics show that last year
nearly 18,000 people were killed, and hundreds of thousands
more were injured in these crashes. Alcohol-involved crashes
accounted for an overwhelming 46 percent of all fatal injury
costs. Unfortunately, the data speaks for itself.
The Nation, including its political leaders, has become
complacent in this effort. Lack of funding for effective
behavioral traffic safety programs and minimal resources for
law enforcement officers to enforce existing laws are a major
part of the problem. Last week MADD released its new Federal
plan for the reauthorization of TEA-21. On that day we heard
from members of the Senate who expressed their firm commitment
to move the Nation in the right direction. MADD sincerely
thanks Senator Dorgan, Senator Lautenberg, Senator DeWine and
Senator Murray for their participation in this event and their
leadership to reduce traffic death and injury.
Today MADD is asking Congress and the Administration to
adopt MADD's research plan. I would like to submit this plan
for the record.
Senator Smith. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Ms. Hamilton. MADD's plan establishes a national traffic
safety fund of $1 billion annually. Under this fund, MADD
recommends dedicated increased funding for highly visible law
enforcement activities. The Click It or Ticket national law
enforcement mobilization campaign has been very successful at
increasing seat belt usage. We know that sobriety check points
are one of the most effective tools the Nation has to stop
impaired driving, and that they are especially effective when
coupled with media campaigns that raise the visibility of these
efforts.
Thanks to the Senate, funds were dedicated in Fiscal Year
2003 to conduct these mobilizations. Why then has NHTSA not
requested any funding to continue this lifesaving effort? I
would like to thank Senator Lautenberg and Senator DeWine for
introducing legislation today that would provide substantial
funding for enforcement efforts to stop drunk driving and
increase seat belt use. If enacted, this bill will save lives.
MADD also recommends dedicating increased behavioral
funding for State efforts to improve traffic safety. While
NHTSA's funding request appears to have increased dollars for
behavioral safety, this is not the case. Only a percentage of
this funding will be spent on behavioral safety, since states
are able to use much of this funding for roadway construction
safety projects. Though NHTSA continuously states that reducing
alcohol-related traffic fatalities is a top priority, the
Fiscal Year 2004 budget request simply does not support these
claims.
MADD was shocked to learn that impaired driving programs
merit less than one page of DOT's 378-page SAFETEA proposal.
SAFETEA actually decreases funding for alcohol-impaired driving
by 67 percent. The only funding specifically allocated for
impaired driving is $50 million. The overwhelming majority of
safety funding in the SAFETEA proposal is budgeted in the new
highway safety improvement program, which is really dedicated
to roadway construction safety projects. This specific
construction safety program receives a 117 percent increase.
While construction safety is important, DOT itself along with
the GAO recognizes that human behavior, not roadway
environment, is overwhelmingly seen as the most prevalent
contributing factor to crashes.
To compare, DOT's recreational trails program, funded at
$60 million in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget, receives 20 percent
more funding than the impaired driving grants program. It
appears from a budget standpoint that keeping recreational
trails safe for a small population of users is even more
important to DOT than keeping all highway users safe from
impaired drivers. Again, why?
MADD's plan calls for greater accountability controls to
ensure that Federal funds are being used in a strategic and
coordinated manner. Recently the GAO at the request of Senator
Dorgan released a report detailing the management and use of
Federal highway safety funds. GAO concluded, and I quote,
``NHTSA's oversight of highway safety programs is less
effective than it could be, both in ensuring the efficient and
proper use of Federal funds and in helping the states achieve
their highway safety goals.'' GAO's report shows that in the
face of rising traffic deaths, more Federal oversight and
guidance is needed for the expenditure of Federal safety
dollars to ensure that these funds are spent on effective
behavioral programs. This is fiscal responsibility. MADD urges
Congress to strongly encourage states to enact proven traffic
safety laws such as a national traffic primary seat belt
standard, and high risk driver standards.
MADD knows that the best defense against a drunk driver is
a seat belt. As NHTSA proposes, states should be given
financial incentives to enact primary belt laws. However,
states that do not enact this lifesaving measure after 3 years
should lose Federal highway construction funds.
MADD also calls for the enactment of a national standard to
combat higher risk drivers. While higher risk drivers are a
small portion of the population, they pose a significant threat
to motorists. And again, we want to thank Senator Lautenberg
and Senator DeWine for introducing legislation today that
targets this dangerous population. If enacted, this bill would
close loopholes to ensure that repeat and high BAC offenders do
not slip through the cracks.
This bill is one that has significant meaning for me and my
family. On September 19, 1984, a high BAC driver caused the
head-on collision that killed my 32-year-old sister, Becky and
my 22-month-old nephew, Timmy. That crash occurred at 1:50 p.m.
on a beautiful sunny Wednesday afternoon. Three hours after the
crash, the offender tested at a .16 blood alcohol. The police
pulled 4 empty bottles of Jim Beam from his vehicle.
Ms. Gillan mentioned in 2009, she hopes the war against
drunk driving is being won. MADD is here to say we hope that
this war has been won and with the goals that we have asked
for, we know that we can. Our Nation lacks a clear,
consolidated, coordinated solution to reduce impaired driving
fatalities. Maintaining the status quo or worse, decreasing
resources dedicated to fighting drunk driving, will not reverse
this deadly trend. The reauthorization of TEA-21 provides the
best chance to provide adequate funding, behavioral safety
funding to ensure these funds are being used effectively and to
enact laws that will save lives. I urge Congress to adopt
MADD's proposal and to create safer roads for all Americans.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamilton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wendy J. Hamilton, National President,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Good Morning. My name is Wendy Hamilton and I am the National
President of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I am honored to be here
today to testify on the reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) and its safety programs. We look forward
to working with the Committee to develop transportation policies that
provide appropriate funding and employ effective, aggressive
countermeasures to prevent injuries and save lives on our Nation's
roads.
Administration Outlines Highway Safety As A Public Health Crisis;
However, Funding Requests Do Not Adequately Address Problem
According to DOT, motor vehicle crashes are responsible for 95
percent of transportation sector deaths and 99 percent of all
transportation-related injuries within the United States as well as the
leading cause of death for people ages 4 through 33. In 2002, an
estimated 42,850 people died on the Nation's highways, up from 42,116
in 2001.
This alarming amount of injury and death on our Nation's roadways
creates a tremendous drain on the Nation's economy. Economic losses due
to motor vehicle crashes cost the Nation approximately $230.6 billion
each year, an average of $820 for every person living in the United
States.
DOT's announcement of preliminary 2002 fatality estimates calls for
``better state laws that address the causes of the problem and stricter
enforcement.'' But DOT's FY04 request and its reauthorization proposal
cut funding for behavioral safety initiatives, even while DOT's own
research demonstrates that human behavior is overwhelmingly the leading
factor in death and injury on our Nation's roads.
Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities On The Rise For Third Consecutive
Year
For the third consecutive year, alcohol-related traffic deaths have
increased. Preliminary statistics show that nearly 18,000 people were
killed and hundreds of thousands more were injured in these crashes
just last year. That's 49 deaths and hundreds of injuries day in and
day out. Alcohol-involved crashes accounted for 21 percent of nonfatal
injury crash costs, and an overwhelming 46 percent of all fatal injury
crash costs. In order to reverse this trend, the Nation cannot maintain
the status quo and expect a different result.
Last week at a national news conference, MADD commemorated the 15-
year anniversary of the worst drunk driving crash in U.S. history--the
Kentucky Bus Crash. On May 14, 1988, 27 people--24 children and 3
adults--were killed and 30 others were injured coming home from a
church outing. They were victims of a repeat drunk driving offender,
behind the wheel of his pickup driving on the wrong side of the road.
He had a blood alcohol concentration of .24--three times the illegal
limit today in Kentucky and the majority of all other states and DC.
The Kentucky Bus Crash was heard around the world because 27
perished and 30 others were injured in an instant. But tragically, one
by one, over the past 15 years, the equivalent to 10,400 Kentucky Bus
Crashes have occurred in our country as nearly 281,000 Americans have
been killed and millions of others have been injured in alcohol-related
traffic crashes since that tragic day.
Unfortunately, the data speaks for itself: the nation--including
its political leaders--has become complacent in this effort. Drunk
drivers continue to slip through cracks in the system. Weak laws, lack
of funding for effective traffic safety programs and minimal resources
for law enforcement officers to enforce existing laws are all part of
the problem. There is no coordinated effort at the national, state and
local level to combat this public health problem. Additionally, drunk
driving is still often treated as a minor traffic offense rather than
what it really is--the most frequently committed violent crime in our
country.
MADD's Safety Plan: Putting Research Into Practice
Last week MADD released its new Federal plan for the
reauthorization of Federal traffic safety programs. In conjunction with
MADD's announcement, we heard from Members of the Senate who expressed
firm commitment to move the Nation in the right direction. MADD
sincerely thanks Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Mike DeWine, Senator
Byron Dorgan and Senator Patty Murray for their participation in this
event and for their leadership to reduce traffic death and injury.
Today, MADD is asking Congress and the Administration to ensure
that highway safety is a cornerstone of the reauthorized Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). And they can do so by
embracing MADD's research-based reauthorization plan. MADD's plan
would:
Establish a National Traffic Safety Fund (NTSF)--$1 billion
annually--to provide a major infusion of dedicated Federal
funds to support state and national traffic safety programs,
enforcement and data improvements;
Under the NTSF:
dedicate increased funding for states and local
communities to expand highly visible law enforcement
activities to reduce impaired driving and increase seat
belt use, including national enforcement mobilizations
supported by paid media;
dedicate significantly increased funding for state
efforts to improve traffic safety by implementing data-
driven programs;
Create stricter accountability controls to ensure that
Federal funds are being used in a strategic and coordinated
effort at both the state and Federal level;
Encourage states to enact priority traffic safety laws, such
as primary seat belt enforcement, higher-risk driver and open
container standards.
I want to briefly talk in more detail about MADD's reauthorization
priorities.
Funding is key to the success of national, state and local traffic
safety programs to reduce drunk driving. But in the year 2001, while
traffic crashes cost taxpayers $230 billion, the Federal government
spent only $522 million on highway safety and only one-quarter of that
was used to fight impaired driving. Compared to the financial and human
costs of drunk driving, our Nation's spending is woefully inadequate to
address the magnitude of this problem.
Establishing a National Traffic Safety Fund would give those on the
front lines an increased, ongoing and reliable funding stream for
national, state and local highway safety programs. MADD recommends an
annual $1 billion dedicated fund for traffic safety programs. We know
that for every dollar spent on effective highway safety programs about
$30 is saved by society in the reduced costs of crashes. This would be
a wise investment.
States must have additional resources if they are expected to reach
their highway safety goals. Section 402, State and Community Highway
Safety grants, provides funding to states to support highway safety
programs designed to reduce traffic crashes and resulting deaths,
injuries, and property damage. TEA-21 authorized $163 million in FY03
for Section 402 grants. MADD recommends a substantial increase in
Section 402 funding to help states reach their highway safety goals. Of
the $1 billion annually, MADD recommends $425 million for the
reauthorized Section 402.
Although alcohol is a factor in 42 percent of all traffic deaths,
only 26 percent of all highway safety funding available to the states
through TEA-21 is spent on alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures.
Too often highway safety funding made available to the states is used
for other programs that may not save as many lives or prevent as many
injuries as priority traffic safety programs. It is critical that these
funds are spent on data-driven programs that include comprehensive
impaired driving and seat belt initiatives. The National Traffic Safety
Fund would also be used to expand states' well-publicized law
enforcement activities to curb drunk driving and increase seat belt
use. These law enforcement resources would support training, over-time,
technology and paid advertising throughout the year. Additionally,
funds would be available for three highly visible national impaired
driving and seat belt law enforcement mobilizations.
These law enforcement activities should utilize, when possible,
frequent and highly visible sobriety checkpoints. These are among the
most effective tools used by law enforcement to deter impaired driving.
We know through research and real world experience that sobriety
checkpoints save lives. The CDC found that sobriety checkpoints can
reduce impaired driving crashes by 18 to 24 percent. These checkpoints
are especially effective when coupled with media campaigns that raise
the visibility and awareness of drunk driving enforcement efforts in
the community with the bottom line goal of deterring impaired driving
before it happens.
Without significant increases in the level of funding for these
critical safety programs, the current deadly trend will continue to
worsen.
But it is just as important to know where the money is going and
how it is being spent. That is why MADD is asking Congress to hold
states and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
accountable for the expenditure of Federal highway safety funds. Our
goal is not to make their jobs more difficult. It is to recognize that
political pressures and ``flavor of the month'' traffic safety issues
can influence how dollars are spent. If DOT's primary goal is to
reverse the current trend, it is time to create a more consistent
process that ensures the efficient and proper use of Federal funds to
help the Nation achieve its highway safety goals.
MADD also urges Congress to strongly encourage states to enact
proven traffic safety laws, such as a national primary seat belt
enforcement standard. According to NHTSA, for every percentage point
increase in seat belt usage, 280 lives can be saved. MADD knows that
the best defense against a drunk driver is a seat belt. The fact is, of
those killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes, 76 percent were not
wearing their seat belt. Had they been, a significant portion of them
would be alive today.
Drunk drivers typically do not buckle up, nor do they make sure
their passengers are properly restrained. The sad fact is that two-
thirds of children killed in alcohol-related crashes are passengers
driven by an impaired driver. We also know that seat belt use for
children generally decreases the more impaired a driver becomes. MADD
calls for the establishment of a national primary seat belt standard.
States would be eligible for ``jumbo'' financial incentives for three
years. States that have not enacted this lifesaving measure after three
years would lose Federal highway construction funds.
MADD also calls for the enactment of a national standard to combat
``higher-risk drivers.'' ``Higher-risk drivers'' are defined as repeat
offenders, those with BACs of .15 or higher, or persons caught driving
on a suspended license when the suspension is a result of a prior DUI
offense.
This priority is one that has personal meaning for me. On September
19, 1984, a high BAC driver caused the head-on collision that killed my
32-year-old sister Becky and my 22-month old nephew Timmy. Three hours
after the crash, the offender tested at a .16 BAC. Police pulled four
empty bottles of alcohol from his vehicle.
While higher-risk drivers are a small portion of the population,
they pose a significant threat to innocent motorists. On a typical
weekend night, only one percent of drivers have a BAC of .15 or higher,
but high BAC drivers were involved in over one-half of all alcohol-
related traffic deaths in 2000. And, about one-third of all drivers
arrested or convicted of DUI are repeat offenders. Clearly, we need
leadership from Congress and the Administration to encourage states to
act now to get this most dangerous segment of the driving public off of
our roads.
MADD is backing research-based solutions to address the higher-risk
driver through what we call: Restrictions, Restitutions and Recovery.
Restrictions include mandatory sentencing, strict licensing and vehicle
sanctions such as immobilization and ignition interlock devices.
Restitution includes payment to victims and to the community by
offenders. Recovery focuses on efforts to address the offender's
substance abuse and addiction. States that do not enact comprehensive
higher-risk driver legislation would lose Federal highway construction
funds.
Lastly, MADD calls on Congress to enact a national ban on open
containers in the passenger compartment of motor vehicles. Open
container laws separate the consumption of alcohol from the operation
of a vehicle. A common-sense measure, banning open containers in the
passenger compartment of a vehicle will decrease the likelihood that
drinking and driving will occur. One NHTSA study found that states with
open container laws have lower rates of alcohol-related fatalities,
while another study conducted by the Stanford University Institute for
Economic Policy Research found that, controlling for other variables,
open container laws had a significant effect on reducing fatal crash
rates (by over five percent).
The Kentucky Bus Crash reminds us that for every loss and for every
tragic death and injury there is untold suffering and emotion. That
said, MADD is committed to advocating research-based and proven-
effective countermeasures to prevent others from having to experience
what the families of these victims have suffered.
It's not about feel good. It's about doing what is right, and doing
what will most effectively save lives. That is what drives our agenda,
and that is what is behind our proposals for the reauthorization of
TEA-21.
NHTSA's FY 2004 Budget Provides Inadequate Resources and Little
Guidance To Reach Highway Safety Goals
In the FY04 Budget in Brief, NHTSA states that it is ``committed to
pursuing an aggressive safety agenda'' and that ``[b]ehavioral safety
initiatives will be directed to increasing safety belt use and
deterring impaired driving, which are central to achieving the
Department's traffic fatality goal.'' While NHTSA's funding request
appears to have increased monies for behavioral funding, this is not
the case. In fact, the FY04 request is less than the FY03 request. This
is because the FY04 request includes $222 million of TEA-21 resources
for the Sections 157 and 163 grant programs formerly appropriated in
the Federal Highway Administration budget. NHTSA has always
administered these funds and is now requesting receipt of this funding
directly. This apparent increase is really no increase at all, just a
shifting of grant funds.
The current FY04 request for behavioral funding is $516,309,000,
but once Sections 157 and 163 monies are subtracted the amount is
lowered to $294,309,000. The FY04 request is actually $234,000 less
than the FY03 request.
Additionally, only a percentage of this funding will be spent on
behavioral safety since states are able to use this funding for roadway
safety/highway construction projects.
One of NHTSA's primary FY04 goals is to reduce the rate of alcohol-
related highway fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
to 0.53. In its Budget in Brief, NHTSA states the following:
The 2003 target of .53 per 100 million VMT, if met, will result
in a reduction of alcohol-related fatalities to 15,600. . .It
will be a challenge to meet this target by the end of 2003. The
agency is implementing new programs in 2003 that should begin
to see positive results by the end of the year. Even though
NHTSA should begin to see results in 2003, the agency still may
not be able to achieve the target without the states and
communities enacting and, more importantly, enforcing strong
alcohol laws and reforming their individual impaired driving
control systems.
However, it is not clear from the FY04 budget what these new
programs are and where the money is coming from to continue them.
NHTSA's FY04 budget request clearly does not reflect the severity of
the impaired driving problem. While NHTSA's FY04 budget states that
``Protecting vehicle occupants and deterring impaired drivers are among
the major ways we are able to reduce death and injury,'' the level of
funding for impaired driving countermeasures is utterly insufficient.
For example, the Impaired Driving Division budget request is
significantly lower than FY02 enacted levels ($10,926,000 FY04 request
compared with $13,497,000 FY02 enacted). NHTSA states that ``Aggressive
actions are needed to expand focus on several key high-risk
populations, including underage drinkers, 21-34 year olds, and repeat
offenders,'' but seeks fewer resources to reach these goals.
Under ``Anticipated FY 2003 Accomplishments'' NHTSA recognizes that
``Two nationwide law enforcement mobilizations (July and December) will
be conducted,'' bolstered by a national media public service
advertising campaign. The ``Click It or Ticket'' national law
enforcement mobilization campaign has been highly successful at
increasing seat belt usage. Thanks to the Senate, funds were dedicated
in the FY03 budget to conduct similar national mobilizations to reduce
alcohol-impaired driving deaths and injuries. However, NHTSA does not
request any funding to continue this effort.
Additionally, NHTSA's State & Community Highway Safety Program
drastically reduces funds available to states for impaired driving
initiatives. NHTSA's FY04 request provides a $50 million impaired
driving grant program to only a subset of states to demonstrate the
effectiveness of a comprehensive approach to reducing impaired driving
and for identifying causes of weakness in a state's impaired driving
control system. This funding level is $100 million less than funds
available to states in FY03 for impaired driving improvements.
While NHTSA continuously states that reducing alcohol-related
traffic fatalities is a top priority, the FY04 budget request does not
support these assertions.
Administration's ``SAFETEA'' Proposal Cuts Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Funding and Incentives, Lacks Behavioral Safety Funding
MADD was dismayed to learn that impaired driving control programs
merit less than one page out of the 378 page U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) surface transportation proposal. DOT's proposal,
``SAFETEA,'' falls woefully short of real ``safety'' for America's
roadways and includes an inadequate response to this urgent national
problem.
``SAFETEA'' decreases funding for alcohol-impaired programs by 67
percent. The proposal recommends an impaired driving program of only
$50 million, far less than current funding levels and clearly not
enough to reverse this deadly trend. In FY03, TEA-21 authorized $150
million for alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures and also contained
requirements for states to enact repeat offender and open container
laws. If states failed to pass these alcohol-impaired driving laws then
a percentage of their Federal construction funds were transferred. Not
only does ``SAFETEA'' cut impaired driving funding to $50 million, it
also does not include any incentives to states to enact alcohol-
impaired driving laws.
In comparison, ``SAFETEA'' provides the Recreational Trails Program
(RTP)--$60 million in FY04--with 20 percent more funding than the
Impaired Driving Grants Program. The RTP program provides funds to
develop and maintain recreational trails for motorized and non-
motorized recreational trail users. It appears, at least from a budget
standpoint, that keeping recreational trails safe for a small
population of users is even more important to DOT than keeping all
highway users safe from impaired drivers.
The overwhelming majority of ``safety'' funding in the ``SAFETEA''
proposal is budgeted in the new ``Highway Safety Improvement Program''
(HSIP), which is really a highway construction project program. In 2004
alone, $1 billion is allocated to the HSIP program. These funds are to
be used for ``safety improvement projects,'' defined below.
A safety improvement project corrects or improves a hazardous
roadway condition, or proactively addresses highway safety
problems that may include: intersection improvements;
installation of rumble strips and other warning devices;
elimination of roadside obstacles; railway-highway grade
crossing safety; pedestrian or bicycle safety; traffic calming;
improving highway signage and pavement marking; installing
traffic control devices at high crash locations or priority
control systems for emergency vehicles at signalized
intersections, safety conscious planning and improving crash
data collection and analysis, etc.
While these are all important activities, DOT itself recognizes
that human behavior, not roadway environment, is overwhelmingly seen as
the most prevalent factor in contributing to crashes. The General
Accounting Office (GAO) released a report in March 2003 that reconfirms
this premise after surveying data, experts and studies focusing on
factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes. Given that behavioral
factors account for the majority of traffic crashes, it is difficult to
understand the vastly disproportionate funding levels for behavioral
versus roadway construction safety programs and why DOT allows a
significant portion of the behavioral funds to be used to augment even
more roadway construction spending.
While NHTSA continuously states that reducing alcohol-related
traffic fatalities is a top priority, the Administration's ``SAFETEA''
proposal does not support these claims.
Increased Resources Are Required To Significantly Reduce Highway Deaths
and Injuries
Research demonstrates that certain programs and initiatives will
significantly reduce traffic deaths and injuries. In order to implement
these programs and initiatives, increased resources are needed. The
reauthorization of Federal highway safety programs provides the vehicle
to obtain more resources to combat this public health problem. MADD
urges Congress to consider the merits of each traffic safety program
based upon their ability to reduce or prevent alcohol-related traffic
fatalities. MADD's goal is to ensure that Federal traffic safety
dollars are spent on effective programs and that states pass basic laws
to combat alcohol-impaired driving.
NHTSA's traffic safety budget is wholly inadequate. Faced with the
highest number of highway fatalities since 1990, and a cost to
America's economy of over $230.6 billion annually, the agency's budget
request should reflect the growing need for more resources rather than
maintain the status quo. Currently, the Federal government's funding
for traffic safety programs does not reflect the importance of this
public health crisis. The reauthorization of TEA-21 offers Congress the
opportunity to review and reallocate funds to traffic safety.
GAO Report Highlights Deficiencies In Oversight Of Highway Safety
Initiatives
Recently the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report
detailing the management and use of Federal highway safety programs and
funding. GAO concluded the following:
. . . NHTSA's oversight of highway safety programs is less
effective than it could be, both in ensuring the efficient and
proper use of Federal funds and in helping the states achieve
their highway safety goals.
GAO's report shows that Federal oversight of state spending on
highway safety programs has been inadequate in the face of rising
traffic deaths and that NHTSA has not been consistently monitoring how
funds are being used. GAO also found that NHTSA has no consistent
policy for conducting state reviews or improvement plans. As a result,
some regional offices conduct reviews as infrequently as every two
years, while others conduct them only when a state requests one. This
clearly enables some states to slip through the cracks. For example,
the report found that the rate of alcohol-related traffic deaths rose
in 14 states between 1997 and 2001; in seven of those states, the rate
was higher than the national average, but only one of the seven states
had a NHTSA improvement plan. The GAO also found that seat belt use was
declining in some states that didn't have NHTSA improvement plans.
The GAO report also reveals how states use some of their highway
``safety'' funding. States that did not meet either the open container
or the repeat offender requirements in TEA-21 has a percentage of funds
transferred from their Federal highway construction program to their
Section 402 highway safety grants program. However, states were also
able to allocate transferred funds to highway construction projects
under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Hazard Elimination
Program (HEP). An overwhelming 69 percent of the transferred funds were
used by states for construction anyway projects anyway, the GAO
reported.
The GAO report demonstrates that more Federal oversight and
guidance is needed for the expenditure of Federal highway safety funds
to ensure that these funds are spent on effective behavioral programs.
Clearly there are legitimate areas of public health and safety in which
the Federal government should be involved in setting standards. Similar
to airline safety, highway safety warrants Federal government
involvement. In this country we have a national highway system.
Families should be protected from the consequences of impaired driving
whether they are driving through Alabama, Washington or North Dakota.
Impaired drivers do not recognize state boundaries. Drunk driving is a
national problem and it demands a national solution.
Call To Action: Nation's Leaders Must Provide A Roadmap
However, our Nation lacks a clear, coordinated national and state
solution to reduce impaired-driving deaths and injuries. Congress now
has the opportunity to dedicate proper funding to address this public
health epidemic, and to ensure proper use of these funds. While
continued research efforts are critical in order to identify new and
improved methods to deter drunk driving, there are many proven,
research-based strategies that are not being used to reverse the
current deadly trend. These strategies can and must be employed to make
progress in the effort.
MADD urges Congress to provide adequate funding to NHTSA, and to
require NHTSA to develop a roadmap for itself and the states to
significantly reduce alcohol-related deaths and injuries. The nation is
waiting for short-term, immediate strategies such as high-visibility
enforcement efforts and sobriety checkpoints to turn this trend around,
as well as long-term strategies that will ensure our safety on
America's roadways for years to come. Our nation can no longer afford
the current state of inaction on this issue.
Today, we are at a historic crossroads as Congress takes up the
multi-billion dollar reauthorization of TEA-21 that will shape
transportation policy for the rest of this decade and beyond.
Maintaining the status quo, or worse, decreasing resources dedicated to
fighting drunk driving will not reverse this deadly trend. This is our
best chance to ensure adequate highway safety funding, to ensure that
these funds are being used effectively, and to enact laws that will
keep drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel. I urge Congress to
adopt MADD's proposal and create safer roads for all Americans. Thank
you.
Senator Smith. Thank you. And a genuine appreciation to
each of you for your preparation and participation in this
hearing. In the interest of the vote that's about to begin, I
will leave the record open so that others of my colleagues may
have questions and I do as well, that we will submit to you in
writing so that they can be included in the record as well.
Thank you all, and we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Comments of Consumers Union on Reauthorization of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (Nhtsa) Before the Senate Transportation
and Commerce Committee
1. Increase NHTSA's Motor Safety and Consumer Information Programs
Budget
In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people died on the Nation's highways
and over 3 million more were injured in motor vehicle crashes at a cost
of $230.6 billion per year. This is the highest number of highway
fatalities since 1990. Further, rollover crashes involving SUVs and
pickup trucks accounted for 53 percent of the increase in traffic
deaths over the past year. Although nearly 95 percent of all
transportation-related fatalities occur as a result of highway crashes
and this number appears to be growing, NHTSA's total budget for motor
vehicle and traffic safety programs is disproportionately small,
representing less than 1 percent of the U.S. Department of
Transportation's annual budget--too small to adequately cover their
large mandate. We share the concerns of Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety and others that the authorization funding level for NHTSA's
motor vehicle safety and consumer information programs, only $107.9
million currently, needs to be increased dramatically to meet the
agency's growing obligations, which include more extensive crash and
rollover testing through the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). These
programs contribute dramatically to giving consumers better choices.
That information and those choices have a significant impact on how the
vehicles are designed and what safety features they provide.
2. Reduce Rollover Risks:
Rollover crashes represent 3 percent of all collisions but account
for 32 percent of occupant fatalities. Hence, while the auto industry
argues frequently that rollover crashes are relatively rare events,
what they fail to note is that rollover crashes are far more deadly
than other types of crashes.
CU urges Congress to insure that NHTSA moves quickly to
finalize its proposal for dynamic testing for rollover in the
very near future. This mandate resulted from the requirement in
the TREAD Act of 2000 that NHTSA develop a dynamic rollover
test within a two-year period. We are well past that period,
and while CU recognizes that NHTSA has had many new
responsibilities and obligations to fulfill since the enactment
of TREAD Act, the problem of rollover prevention has never been
more pressing: fatalities in rollover crashes involving SUVs
and pickup trucks accounted for 53 percent of the increase in
traffic deaths over the past year, directly correlated with the
change of the fleet to include a far higher percentage of SUVs
and pickup trucks than a decade ago, vehicles that are more
prone to roll over than the passenger car.
We eagerly anticipate NHTSA's program to test SUVs and other
vehicles and rate their rollover resistance through the New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP) program. We believe the rating system will
have a strong impact on SUV design, as the NCAP program has had on
vehicle crashworthiness, with consumers enjoying steady improvements in
the crash protection provided by the vehicles since the NCAP program's
inception. This is not government regulations, but rather a highly
effective information program.
As noted above, Congress should provide additional resources to
NHTSA to conduct the testing needed to keep the NCAP program active and
ongoing. Without resources, the rollover testing program will languish
as a weak ineffective tool.
In addition to the rollover resistance testing that is in the works
for light trucks, we also:
recommend that Congress support legislation offered by
Senator Snowe that would require that 15-passenger vans be made
part of the testing program and that the agency consider rating
the stability of these vans, as well;
recommend that collision avoidance or electronic stability
control (ESC) technology be made standard equipment on all
SUVs, which have a greater tendency to roll over. In the next 3
years, NHTSA should test light trucks with and without ESC
systems and provide guidance as to which systems are most
effective.
ESC has performed well overall in CU's emergency handling tests and
appears to be very effective in helping drivers to maintain
vehicle control in panic or emergency maneuvers and helps
prevent the vehicle getting into a situation where it can roll
over. Their widespread use is virtually certain to result in
fewer rollover-related deaths and injuries.
We believe it is possible that adding ESC systems and dual
rear wheels to 15-passenger vans would improve their stability,
as well, and recommend the agency consider requiring ESC and
dual rear wheels on these vans as standard equipment at a date
certain in the future.
Dynamic interior head air bag protection systems have also
been shown to reduce occupant ejection and prevent injuries
during a crash. These air bag systems give occupants more side
protection in a rollover and also prevent unbelted occupants
from being ejected. Congress should direct NHTSA to study the
effectiveness of head air bags in NHTSA's compatibility crash
testing. Congress might also consider directing NHTSA to
require, phased in over the next five years, these systems be
standard on all vehicles, especially small and medium size
cars.
NHTSA is currently reviewing comments for an updated
standard on vehicle roof crush. This committee should urge the
agency to speed it's work on that critical area--many belted
drivers in SUV rollovers have been killed or gravely injured as
a result of injuries to the spine from inadequately designed
roofs.
3. Recommendations for reducing the risks from vehicle incompatibility
Congress should direct NHTSA to develop crash tests to
assess crash incompatibility between sedans and light trucks,
and make results available to consumers. NHTSA should begin to
set standards to reduce vehicle incompatibility to better
protect smaller vehicle occupants, and to reduce the effects of
SUV and pickup truck aggressivity.
Congress should direct NHTSA to evaluate the injury
reduction and lives saved from requiring new passenger cars to
be equipped with side and head air bags as standard equipment
to protect passengers in a crash with a larger, higher and more
aggressively designed vehicle. The Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers are
already recommending these air bags but we are concerned that
we will not see them as standard equipment in vehicles but
instead they will be ``optional'' equipment, resulting in their
availability to more affluent car buyers getting the protection
they need in a collision with an SUV or pickup.
4. Recommendations for getting NHTSA to evaluate technologies and
evaluate their ability to prevent backover injuries and deaths
and other injuries and deaths to children in and around cars
Though it has the authority to do so, NHTSA inexplicably has never
kept statistics on noncrash, nontraffic incidents, especially in
driveways of homes or other private property. Safety advocates have met
with NHTSA officials for over five years to call this matter to the
agency's attention, but little has changed. As a result, the apparent
growth in the number of incidents in which small children have been
backed over and killed, usually by a parent in their own driveways, has
not been effectively documented by NHTSA. The California nonprofit
safety group, KIDS 'N CARS, does, however, collect these data and in
2002, KIDS 'N CARS documented just over one child a week being backed
over and killed in the US. KIDS 'N CARS has documented 294 incidents in
the U.S. in the past ten years where young children were injured or
killed by vehicles backing up. A death occurred in 179 of the 294
document cases. The majority of victims were one year olds and over 57
percent of those incidents involved a larger size vehicle like an SUV
or pickup truck. CU believes that technology holds the solution to
preventing these terrible tragedies and that NHTSA could put in place
the necessary regulatory steps to help prevent these tragedies, but
history also suggests that unless Congress directs NHTSA to take on
this problem, not only of backing over incidents but other dangers to
children in and around cars, the agency will simply not make this
children's safety issue a priority. Therefore, CU recommends that
Congress take the following steps:
Require NHTSA to begin keeping track of data regarding
injury and death to children in and around motor vehicles.
Require NHTSA to test backup warning devices, set
performance standards for these devices, and make them standard
equipment on SUVs and pickup trucks in the next 2 years.
Require NHTSA to finalize a rule on power windows and
sunroofs to insure all such devices have auto reverse and push
down/pick up window switches. (Only the big three auto makers
still make windows without auto reverse feature) Last year,
four children were strangled in power windows and countless
others suffered injuries to head, neck, and fingers
Require NHTSA to study and evaluate technology developed by
General Motors, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
and other aftermarket technologies that warn parents when a
child has been left inside a vehicle, often by a conscientious
parent who has changed his or her routine.
Enhanced Consumer Information
Consumers Union knows from publishing comparative information
regularly to our readers that consumers are hungry for such information
and use it to guide their purchasing decisions. CU therefore agrees
with Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and other safety advocates
that comparative ratings of vehicle crashworthiness would assist
consumers in making safer purchase decisions. We therefore support
legislative efforts to require NHTSA to develop a crashworthiness
safety label for all new motor vehicles similar to the EPA energy
efficiency rating and prominently display that information to the
buying public for all new passenger vehicles.
May 21, 2003
Respectfully submitted,
Consumers Union
R. David Pittle,
Senior Vice President, Technical Policy.
Sally Greenberg,
Senior Product Safety Counsel.
David Champion,
Director, Auto Test.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted to Jeffrey Runge
Question 1. SAFETEA would reward a State with one times the portion
of their respective section 402 funds if it adopted primary seatbelt
enforcement laws before the end of 2002. However, for states that adopt
primary seatbelt laws after December 31, 2002, the reward is equal to 5
times that amount. It seems that we would be penalizing states for
early action. How did NHTSA arrive at this 500 percent difference--Is
it an arbitrary number?
Question 1a. Do you believe it is fair that a State which has
already adopted a primary seatbelt law should not be rewarded the same
amount, or an amount closer to that which would be received by states
that have not yet acted on their own in enacting primary seatbelt laws?
Answer. The proposal to award states grants equaling 5 times their
Section 402 allocations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 for enacting primary
safety belt laws subsequent to December 31, 2002, reflects the fact
that 32 states still do not have primary laws. Those states, in which
slightly less than half of Americans reside, did not respond to the
less direct inducements of TEA-21 to pass primary legislation. Indeed,
since enactment of TEA-21, only four states (Alabama, Michigan, New
Jersey and Washington) passed primary laws that apply to all passenger
motor vehicles. The Agency believes that a onetime grant equal to 5
times the Section 402 allocation for FY 2003 will be a powerful
motivator that ultimately will extend primary law coverage to all or
nearly all Americans.
As for the states that have had primary laws since December 31,
2002 or earlier, the Agency believes that the proposed one-time grant
equal to one times their Section 402 allocation for FY 2003 is an
appropriate reward for their early, exemplary work, since they have
already received significant awards under TEA-21. During the span of
the TEA-21 authorization, the 18 states, Puerto Rico and the District
of Columbia (DC) with primary laws received substantial grants under
the Section 157 Incentive program, due to the higher safety belt use
rates associated with primary laws. Those states, with slightly more
than half the Nation's population, shared approximately $182 million of
the $221 million in 157 Incentive funds distributed from FY 1999
through FY 2003, or about 82 percent of the total. In addition, the 18
states, Puerto Rico, DC and the four territories would share nearly $80
million in one-time Primary Safety Belt Law grants under the SAFETEA
proposal. Thus, a total of about $262 million either already has been,
or would be, awarded to the 24 jurisdictions with primary laws in
effect prior to December 31, 2002.
Question 2. NHTSA has pointed to the absence of seatbelt use as a
significant factor, which contributes to occupant fatalities and
injuries during motor vehicle crashes. In your opinion, what are the
advantages and disadvantages of requiring all states to enact primary
safety belt laws?
Answer. Passing primary safety belt laws in every State would save
hundreds of lives and prevent tens of thousands of injuries each year.
Safety belts are the single most effective safety device in vehicles
today. In 2001, safety belts prevented 13,274 fatalities and more than
500,000 injuries. The economic and societal costs associated with motor
vehicle crashes also are greatly reduced with the enactment of primary
safety belt laws.
Primary laws are proven to increase safety belt use. In 2002, the
average belt use rate among primary law states was 11 percentage points
higher than in states with secondary laws. This is critical because for
every percentage point increase in National safety belt use,
approximately 250 lives are saved, 7,000 injuries are prevented and
more than $700,000 is saved in injury related costs.
Primary laws are effective because they are more enforceable than
secondary laws, and the general public is more likely to buckle up when
there is the possibility of receiving a citation for not doing so.
Support for primary safety belt laws can be found throughout
communities and across the Nation. However, when objections do arise
they tend to focus on concerns related to differential enforcement and
individual rights. Differential enforcement is the term used for
alleged malpractice by law enforcement officers, singling out vehicles
driven by a citizen based purely on race or ethnicity. In-depth studies
of primary enforcement laws conducted in various communities found no
evidence to show any shift in enforcement patterns that could be
interpreted as harassment or differential enforcement. With regard to
individual rights, the discussion needs to be balanced with the issue
of personal responsibility. Most people are willing to accept the
degree of control imposed by traffic laws because they recognize the
potential societal impact of noncompliance and their own responsibility
to protect themselves and others from serious harm.
The advantages of primary safety belt laws far outweigh any
objections that have arisen. The Department of Transportation
recognizes this and recently proposed under the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA) of 2003, a
safety belt performance program that will promote the enactment of
primary safety belt use laws in all states and the increase of safety
belt use rates across the country.
Question 3. Regarding the SAFETEA discretionary program of $50
million to combat impaired driving, how many states does NHTSA believe
would qualify for this funding?
Question 3a. Why shouldn't we instead work to improve the Section
410 program by revising the current criteria, which now helps about 35
states, rather than implementing your proposed discretionary program,
which may not help as many?
Question 3b. Under the proposed new discretionary program, how does
NHTSA intend to join in partnership with the states and help them
improve their alcohol countermeasure programs without becoming too
involved managing the State programs?
Answer. The impaired driving grant program under SAFETEA would
focus significant resources on up to ten states with particularly high
numbers or rates of alcohol-related fatalities. States differ widely
with regard to the severity of the impaired driving problem. In 2001,
State alcohol-related fatality numbers ranged from 35 to 1,789, while
rates varied from .29 to 1.38 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.
The Department believes that the greatest potential impact on the
National impaired driving problem can be realized by working intensely
with those states that are contributing the greatest share of
fatalities.
The Section 410 program does not provide for the type of focused,
data-driven impaired driving effort needed to resume a downward trend
in impaired driving fatalities. SAFETEA's new impaired discretionary
grant program will allow NHTSA to focus resources directly on states
with particularly severe impaired driving problems. By identifying the
root causes of individual states' impaired driving weaknesses, based on
sound problem identification, states can take the critical steps needed
to deal with this serious highway safety hazard. This proposal builds
on the performance-based approach adopted by the agency for the Section
402 program. That approach calls for directing scarce resources at the
most significant problem areas. Resources targeted on the most pressing
alcohol problem areas have an increased likelihood of leading to
reductions in alcohol-related fatalities and injuries.
NHTSA will work closely with the states in the new grant program,
providing technical and programmatic assistance to assess their
impaired driving problem, identify appropriate countermeasures, and
develop strategies for implementation. NHTSA intends to provide
services such as coordinating visitations by teams of National experts
to conduct in-depth problem and program assessments. NHTSA will also
work with these states to develop plans for implementing programs,
based on these assessments. However, implementation of these plans will
be the states' responsibility.
Question 4. The Administration is not proposing any rulemakings
related to vehicle performance and safety. How do you defend this lack
of administrative action given the critical safety issues involving
vehicle rollover and compatibility?
Answer. NHTSA did not propose any mandated rulemaking actions in
SAFETEA because we are proactively addressing the critical safety
problems of rollover and compatibility, and other important safety
issues. Given that SAFETEA [already] addresses a broad range of highway
infrastructure and driver behavior programs, NHTSA believes that issues
related to potential changes to its vehicle programs should be
addressed in a separate vehicle reauthorization bill rather than
SAFETEA.
There is no lack of administrative action in addressing the
critical safety areas facing the Nation. NHTSA is undertaking
rulemaking actions on a broad spectrum of vehicle safety issues. In the
areas of vehicle rollover and compatibility, which were the focus of
your question, the agency published on June 13, 2003 the reports by its
Integrated Project Teams on Rollover and Compatibility. Those reports
identify the current actions and new strategies that NHTSA is
undertaking in rulemaking and consumer information, further defined in
the milestones below:
Rollover
Final rule on new light vehicle tire standard--2003
Part 2 of the final rule for light vehicle tire pressure
monitoring systems (TPMS)--2005
Final rule including dynamic rollover in Rollover NCAP--2003
Proposed upgrade of door lock and latch systems--2004
Proposed upgrade of roof crush standard--2004
Compatibility
Proposals to reduce glare from light truck headlamps--2004
Proposal to upgrade side impact protection--2003/2004
Request for comments on new offset frontal crash test
requirement--2003
Question 5. As you know, this Committee is very concerned about SUV
rollover and vehicle compatibility issues. Can we have your commitment
that you will provide this committee with a rulemaking agenda that
outlines exactly which rulemakings are going to be issued, when the
notices of proposed rulemaking are going to come out, and specific
dates and timetables for action so we will have an appropriate
regulatory strategy to deal with these issues?
Answer. NHTSA is undertaking rulemaking actions on a broad spectrum
of vehicle safety issues. Many of them will culminate in published
notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and final rules in the near term
(2003-4). In other areas, there are active research programs underway
that will produce the information to publish notices or final rules in
the 2005-6 time frame. Rollover and compatibility are two of NHTSA's
top priorities, and we are committed to solving these critical
problems. On June 13, 2003, the agency's Rollover and Compatibility
Integrated Project Teams reports were published in the Federal
Register. These reports outline in general what the agency is currently
doing and new strategies to address these problems. The answers below
address your question concerning specific planned research and
rulemaking actions.
Rollover
Rollover crashes are extremely dangerous events. Eight percent of
light vehicles (passenger cars, pickups, vans, and sport utility
vehicles (SUVs)) in crashes roll over, yet 21 percent of seriously
injured occupants and 31 percent of occupant fatalities occur in
rollovers. In 2001, 10,138 people were killed as occupants of light
vehicles in rollover crashes. Of those, 8,407 were killed in single-
vehicle rollover crashes. Nearly 30,000 people are seriously injured in
rollover crashes each year. Seventy-eight percent of the people who
died in single-vehicle rollover crashes were not wearing their vehicle
safety belt, and 64 percent were partially or completely ejected from
the vehicle (including 53 percent who were completely ejected). NHTSA
is committed to reducing the number of rollover crashes and reducing
the deaths and injuries when those crashes do occur. In addition to
actions targeted at the belt-wearing behavior of vehicle occupants,
specific rulemaking and consumer information milestones to address
light vehicle rollover (from the list above) are:
Final rule on new light vehicle tire standard, FMVSS No.139
by the end of this month (June 2003)
Part 2 of the final rule for light vehicle tire pressure
monitoring systems (TPMS) in 2005
Final Rule, Dynamic Rollover Rating Program for NCAP in 2003
Research in 2003-4 to evaluate the effectiveness of
electronic stability control in preventing single vehicle
crashes, with a rulemaking decision in 2005
NPRM to upgrade door systems, FMVSS No. 206 in 2004
NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 216 roof crush test procedure in
2004, with final action in 2005
Compatibility
The number of fatalities from collisions between a car and an LTV
demonstrates a strong upward trend starting in 1983 and tracks the
trends in LTV sales and registrations. This increase in LTV sales also
has important implications for vehicle crashworthiness, glare
initiatives, and roadside hardware. The Compatibility IPT report
demonstrates that in frontal crashes involving a car and a LTV, there
are almost 1,000 more fatalities in the cars than in the LTVs. In the
case of cars struck in the side by LTVs, there are almost 2,000 more
fatalities in the struck cars than the striking LTVs. For driver
fatalities, the fatality risk in a car-LTV frontal crash is four times
higher for the car driver than the LTV driver and the results are even
more dramatic for side impact crashes. The driver in a car struck in
the side by another car has an eight times greater fatality risk than
the driver in the striking car compared to a twenty-nine times greater
risk when the striking vehicle is an LTV. Specific rulemaking and
consumer information milestones to address incompatibility are:
NPRM on headlighting glare reduction related to headlamp
mounting height in 2004, with final rule in 2005-6.
Final regulatory action for offset frontal crash test
requirements in 2004 (following a Request for Comments in 2003)
NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 214 side impact protection in
2003, with final rule in 2004-5.
The final decision on a summary safety score for consumer
information in 2005.
Question 6. Dr. Runge, you have expressed concern with the safety
issues related to vehicle compatibility and rollover and indicated that
NHTSA would monitor this effort closely and undertake its own research
and analysis of these safety problems. What is NHTSA's budget request
for research and analysis?
Question 6a. Are these resources sufficient for NHTSA to provide
effective oversight over an issue that is highly complicated and
involves potentially hundreds of vehicle designs.
Answer. Yes, the Agency believes the requested funds are
sufficient. The budget request for vehicle compatibility research is
$1.45 million. However, this sum will be augmented with another $800
thousand using the requested research funding of the closely associated
efforts for frontal and side crash protection. The crash testing
planned under these research efforts will be carefully coordinated so
as to provide valuable data for the compatibility research program.
Additionally, the Agency participates in the International Harmonized
Research Activities' Vehicle Compatibility Working Group. The research
among the participating members from European and Asia-Pacific
countries and Canada is closely coordinated with the ongoing research
in various jurisdictions.
The budget request for rollover is $2.61 million. The Agency
previously has funded $4.5 million over a three-year period for the
development of a dynamic rollover propensity test procedure. This
effort has been completed. A large part of the requested funding will
be used to conduct NCAP tests utilizing the dynamic rollover propensity
test procedure already developed as well as to conduct tests to measure
static stability factors. Among the planned research activities is the
evaluation of the benefits of dynamic stability control systems and
other related technologies. Finally, research will continue for
preventing ejection from rollover crashes.
The Agency will continue to leverage the research funding by
maintaining close coordination with others. The Agency is also
exploring the feasibility of initiating cooperative research programs
with universities and other interested parties.
Question 7. It is my understanding that NHTSA is investigating a
significant overhaul of the current CAFE system, perhaps to a highly
complex weight or attribute-based system. Can you comment on that?
Question 7a. What is the process NHTSA is undertaking to gather the
detailed data needed to investigate these difficult questions?
Question 7b. What is the expected time line for NHTSA to perform an
independent analysis of the CAFE system? Would additional funding be
necessary?
Answer. In February 2002, Secretary Mineta sent a letter to
Congress expressing the Department's intent to examine reforms to the
CAFE system and requesting additional statutory authority to implement
reforms. It is the Administration's intent to identify and implement
reforms to the CAFE system that will facilitate improvements in fuel
economy without compromising motor vehicle safety or jobs. Accordingly,
NHTSA is presently investigating a number of potential reforms to the
CAFE system, including attribute-based standards. Attribute-based
standards, particularly weight-based standards, was among the reforms
recommended in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) CAFE report.
Later this year, NHTSA will issue a Request for Comments on
alternative approaches for reforming the structure of CAFE within the
agency's current statutory authority. This document will solicit data
from manufacturers as well as comments from the public. The agency is
currently coordinating data collection activities with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and various
experts in the field who have been exploring CAFE reforms. As
recommended in the NAS report, NHTSA is also updating its 1997 study of
the relationship between vehicle size and safety. The new study, which
is nearing completion, will provide information useful in determining
how the CAFE system should be restructured.
The agency's analysis of CAFE reform alternatives will be conducted
during FYs 2003 and 2004. Accordingly, a significant portion of our FY
2003 and 2004 budget is devoted to reform efforts. This includes an
additional $250,000 in FY 2004 that was initially allocated to
performing an environmental impact statement, which is now not
necessary.
Question 8. Prior to 1998, NHTSA took a more directive approach
with its involvement with the states. Since that time, NHTSA has moved
to a ``Performance-Based'' approach that relies on states setting goals
and working toward those goals. Dr. Runge, how effective do you believe
the new performance management approach has been? Do you have concerns
that the change in less micro-management has not had a more positive
impact on state performance?
Answer. NHTSA has traditionally pursued a partnership approach in
working with the states on implementing and evaluating highway safety
programs. The move to performance-based highway safety programs in 1998
represented the natural evolution of a mature program with a long
history of problem identification and well established, long-standing
priority program emphasis areas. NHTSA has continued to provide program
and project monitoring, but reflecting congressional guidance and the
natural evolution of the program, has taken a less federally directive
approach in providing oversight of State program activities. Recently,
in conjunction with the Governor's Highway Safety Association, the
agency initiated development of specific criteria that would lead to
provision of additional oversight by NHTSA through management reviews
and improvement plans. This effort reflects the findings of a recent
GAO Report (GAO-03-474, May 2003), which determined there was uneven
program oversight of State highway safety programs by NHTSA field
offices. On balance, the move to a performance-based program has
resulted in program improvements. Working with our state partners, the
agency is seeking to resolve program management issues of concern to
both parties.
Question 9. NHTSA and State safety officials are prohibited from
lobbying State legislators on pending highway safety legislation. Do
you believe that this has had an adverse impact on the passage of new
highway safety laws?
Answer. The prohibition on lobbying has not itself had an adverse
affect on enactment of State highway safety laws but had a chilling
effect on the ability of the agency and our State partners to provide
technical assistance, including advantages and disadvantages, of
specific highway safety legislative proposals pending in State
legislatures. As organizations charged with responsibility for reducing
traffic crash related fatalities and injuries nationally and in the
states, NHTSA and our State Highway Safety Office colleagues often have
technical knowledge and expertise to offer on highway safety
legislation. Once a specific bill is introduced, the restrictions on
lobbying can hinder the ability of our agencies to offer detailed,
specific recommendations regarding safety impacts.
Question 10. Although considerable progress has been made over the
last decades in reducing highway fatalities, why do you believe the
number of fatalities has recently increased?
Answer. The number of traffic-related fatalities has increased
somewhat, based on the latest estimates. In 2002, an estimated 6
million crashes were reported to law enforcement agencies, with nearly
43,000 people killed, and 2.9 million people injured.
Recently, during the past 6 years, the total fatality count is up
about 2 percent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42,013 41,501 41,717 41,945 42,116 42,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic volume has increased about 10 percent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.56 T miles 2.63 T miles 2.69 T miles 2.75 T miles 2.78 T miles 2.83 T miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T=Trillion
Motorcycle rider deaths have increased 50 percent (about 1,000
deaths) during this time period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,116 2,294 2,483 2,897 3,181 3,276
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupant deaths in rollover crashes of passenger vehicles continue
to increase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9,527 9,773 10,140 9,959 10,130 10,626
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the number of persons killed in alcohol-related crashes
has increased about 1,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16,711 16,673 16,572 17,380 17,448 17,970
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not all bad news, pedestrian death have fallen recently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,321 5,228 4,939 4,763 4,882 4,776
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupant deaths of children age 0 through 3 have also fallen about
100 recently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
466 447 458 451 409 380
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large truck-related fatalities have fallen recently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,398 5,395 5,380 5,282 5,082 4,902
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Source: NHTSA, NCSA
2002 data are from the 2002 Early Estimate file.
Question 11. Can you please comment on the efficacy of TEA-21 on
the traffic fatality rates of Native Americans living on reservation
and trust land? What measures are included in SAFETEA to address the
ever-increasing problem of alcohol-related traffic crashes and traffic
fatalities in Indian country?
Answer. Under TEA-21, NHTSA worked with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and tribal representatives to improve the accuracy,
completeness and timeliness of reporting of crashes and fatalities on
reservation and trust land. Absent a significantly improved crash data
system, it is not possible to determine traffic fatality rates of
Native Americans living on reservation and trust land. According to
CDC's Injury Mortality Reports, annual per capita motor vehicle
fatality rates for Native Americans has been between 30 and 32 deaths
per 100,000 population. The overall national rate for all races is
approximately 15 per 100,000. Largely due to funds provided under
Section 411 of TEA-21, BIA, with NHTSA's assistance, developed a
strategic plan for improving tribal crash data systems. With the
significantly greater funds that would be available under the proposed
Section 412 of SAFETEA, the Agency anticipates that BIA and the tribes
would be able to make substantial progress in implementing the
strategic plan.
With regard to the specific issue of reducing alcohol-related
crashes and fatalities, under provisions of SAFETEA, the BIA will
continue to receive an annual formula grant apportionment of not less
than \3\/4 of 1 percent of the program's total apportionment. TEA-21
increased Section 402's highway safety funding formula for the Tribes
to \3\/4 of 1 percent from \1\/2 of 1 percent of the total
apportionment for the section. Any or all of this basic formula
apportionment could be used for increasing safety belt use and
prevention of impaired driving. Over SAFETEA's 6-year authorization
period, $7.875 million will be available to the BIA in basic formula
grants alone. Additionally, data improvements may facilitate the BIA's
participation in SAFETEA's performance-based incentive grant programs
and provide additional funding that may be used to address impaired
driving.
Question 12. A recent GAO report concludes that behavioral factors
are the leading cause of most traffic fatalities. Outline for us how
SAFETEA builds upon the success of existing programs rather than simply
restructuring them? What requests does NHTSA make in SAFETEA to bolster
existing behavioral programs?
Answer. SAFETEA builds upon and expands the performance-based
management of highway safety programs that has been universally adopted
by the states since 1998. Under TEA-21, the Section 402 formula program
has been performance based, but incentive grant funds were awarded
primarily based on State implementation of specified laws or programs;
only a few select criteria in the Section 410 Alcohol Incentive Grant
Program and Section 157 Safety Belt Use Incentive Grant program were
performance-based. SAFETEA is the logical extension of the Section 402
performance-based formula program. Under SAFETEA's consolidated Section
402 program, the majority of incentive funds will be awarded based on
State performance.
SAFETEA would also builds upon the proven effectiveness of highly
visible enforcement of strong safety belt laws, by providing $100
million each year to encourage and reward states that enact primary
safety belt laws, and by providing performance incentive grants,
starting at $25 million and growing to $34 million, to states that
achieve high levels of belt use.
SAFETEA would continue and expand NHTSA's renewed emphasis on
impaired driving, by allocating $50 million per year to bolster the
impaired driving countermeasures in states that have high rates or high
totals of alcohol-related fatalities.
SAFETEA would accelerate the process of improving State crash data
systems to ensure better problem identification, performance
measurement and program management. Under TEA-21, the Section 411
grants produced strategic plans for traffic records improvements in
nearly all states. Under the proposed Section 412 of SAFETEA, States
would receive the resources they need to carry out those strategic
plans.
The Agency also believes that SAFETEA would build upon and improve
the intermodal flexibility that was established under TEA-21,
permitting states to apply their resources to both behavioral programs
and infrastructure enhancements, as their needs dictate.
______
Response To Written Questions Submitted To Peter Guerrero
Question 1. Your statement mentions three factors that contribute
to traffic crashes: human, environment, and vehicular. Vehicles are the
least of the three causes, yet we've heard a lot recently about SUV
safety. In proportion to all traffic safety problems, how much of a
concern are SUVs?
Answer. Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) safety is a concern primarily
because they are more likely to rollover in a crash when compared to
passenger cars, vans, and pickup trucks. Rollover crashes are
particularly serious because they are more likely to result in
fatalities than other types of crashes. We found, for example, that
SUVs were over three times more likely to roll over in a crash than
passenger cars. Our analysis of NHTSA crash data also found that SUVs
rolled over in fatal crashes 35 percent of the time compared with 16
percent of the time in passenger cars. In 2002, SUV rollovers resulted
in 2,353 occupant fatalities, by NHTSA's estimate, or about 5.5 percent
of all fatalities. In addition, NHTSA recently concluded that, despite
declines in passenger car occupant fatalities, the increasing influence
of light truck and SUV fatal crashes in general, and rollover crashes
in particular, was instrumental in the lack of progress in reducing
traffic fatalities in 2002.
In 2003, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group
that represents the three main major U.S. automobile manufacturers and
a number of foreign manufacturers, published analyses examining
occupant fatality rates between vehicle types. It found that in 2001,
SUVs had a slightly higher overall occupant fatality rate than had
passenger cars--16.25 and 15.70 per 100,000 registered vehicles,
respectively. The Alliance also points out that 72 percent of people
killed in SUV rollover crashes were not wearing safety belts and that
35 percent of SUV single-vehicle rollover fatalities were alcohol-
related.
Question 2. GAO's recent report entitled, ``Better Guidance Could
Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety Programs,'' as mentioned in
your testimony, raised issues regarding NHTSA's oversight of state
highway safety programs. How would you suggest NHTSA improve in this
area?
Answer. We found that NHTSA is making inconsistent and limited use
of the oversight tools that it has to ensure states programs are
operating within guidelines and are achieving desired results. For
example, NHTSA regions can conduct management reviews to help improve
and enhance the financial and operational management of state programs.
In conducting these reviews, a team of NHTSA regional staff visits a
state and examines such items as its operations and staffing, program
management, financial management, and selected programs like impaired
driving, occupant protection, public information and education, and
outreach. However, we found that there was no written guidance on when
to perform management reviews. As a result, management reviews were not
being conducted consistently--some regions had goals of doing them
every 2 years while others conducted them only when requested by a
state.
Similarly, we found that the NHTSA regional offices are making
limited and inconsistent use of improvement plans. According to
regulations, if a NHTSA regional office finds that a state is not
making progress towards its highway safety goals, NHTSA and the state
are to develop an improvement plan to address the shortcomings. The
regulations call for the plan to detail strategies, program activities,
and funding targets to meet the defined goals. However, NHTSA regional
offices have made limited use of improvement plans to help address the
states' highway safety performance. Since 1998, only 7 improvement
plans have been developed in 3 of NHTSA's 10 regional offices. In
addition, we found that the regional offices have made inconsistent use
improvement plans. For example, we found that highway safety
performance of a number of states that were not operating under
improvement plans was worse than the performance of other states that
were under such plans. For example, we found that the rate of alcohol-
related fatalities increased from 1997 through 2001 in 14 states and
that for half of these states the alcohol-related fatality rate also
exceeded the national rate. Only one of these seven states was on an
improvement plan to reduce alcohol-related fatalities. We found that
the limited and inconsistent use of improvement plans is due to a lack
of specificity in criteria for requiring such plans. NHTSA guidance
says simply that these plans should be developed when a state is not
making progress towards its highway safety goals.
We made recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation to
improve the use of management reviews and improvement plans by
providing more specific guidance to the regional offices on when it is
appropriate to use them. The guidance for using the improvement plans
should include a consistent means of measuring progress toward meeting
established highway safety goals. In responding to our report, NHTSA
officials said they have begun taking action to develop criteria and
guidance on when field offices should use these management tools.
Question 3. Do you think that a consolidated grant application
process for the states would have a noticeable impact on their ability
to obtain increased funding? What is the best way to consolidate the
grant program? Should we follow the GHSA proposal, or that outlined in
SAFETEA? Do you have any recommendations to improve SAFETEA and improve
traffic safety that have not been mentioned, or that stand out in your
mind as superior to the others?
Answer. A consolidated grant process would help ease the
administrative burden on the states, and states with very small highway
safety offices and limited resources would benefit. A consolidated
program also would allow states to devote more resources to project
oversight and evaluation, which would also be a benefit.
The SAFETEA and GHSA proposals for reauthorization have some
significant differences that could affect the decision to select one
over the other. The SAFETEA proposal provides for partial consolidation
of the grant programs, but allows states considerable flexibility in
how the funds could be used, including transferring NHTSA program funds
to highway safety construction. The GHSA proposal contains a greater
degree of consolidation, but does not provide for the transfer of NHTSA
funds to construction programs. Thus, the SAFETEA proposal gives the
states more flexibility in how the funds may be used, but the GHSA
proposal goes farther in simplifying the administration of the program
by the states. Finally, the SAFETEA proposal includes a new safety belt
sanction, while GHSA is opposed to any new sanctions.
As we pointed out in our report, when 34 states were given the
option of using highway safety funds for either road construction or
behavioral programs (programs to reduce drunk driving), more than two-
thirds of funds were spent on construction. The Administration's
SAFETEA proposal, while promoting greater flexibility for states to
decide how to spend Federal funds, could have the unintended effect of
depleting behavioral programs of funds needed to make continued
progress in reducing traffic fatalities.
Motorcycle safety is one area that SAFETEA mentions but GHSA's
proposal does not directly address. Motorcycle deaths have increased
each year since reaching an historic low in 1997. In 2002, 3,276
motorcyclists were killed, an increase of over 54 percent between 1997
and 2002. Without the increase in motorcycle fatalities, overall
highway fatalities would have experienced a decrease of about 2.6
percent. NHTSA has outlined an approach to motorcycle safety in three
areas: crash prevention, injury mitigation, and emergency response.
Crash prevention goals are focused on factors that contribute to
crashes--operator fitness, experience, and training, and licensing.
Injury mitigation research would stress the use of protective gear,
including helmets. Emergency response emphasizes the importance of
first response medical care. SAFETEA would support NHTSA's initiatives
in these areas through general performance grants. These grants would
provide incentive funds to states based on performance in three
categories: (1) motor vehicle crash fatalities, (2) alcohol-related
crash fatalities, and (3) motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian crash
fatalities.
Question 4. Can you please comment on the efficacy of TEA-21 on the
traffic fatality rates of Native Americans living on reservation and
trust land?
Answer. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Indian Highway
Safety Program plan for Fiscal Year 2003, the rate of highway-related
injuries and fatalities on American Indian Reservations is
significantly higher than State and National rates. While our recent
reports did not address the issue of Native American traffic fatalities
and NHTSA's fatality and accident databases do not capture this type of
information, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported on deaths
of American Indians in unintentional motor vehicle crashes. As shown in
figure 1, motor vehicle deaths for American Indians are higher than the
rate for the U.S. population as a whole. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Motor Vehicle Fatalities per 100,000 People
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
As we reported, about $2 billion has been provided over the last 5
years for highway safety programs under TEA-21. During this period, the
Indian Highway Safety Program received less than half a percent of this
total, or $5.8 million. NHTSA provided $1.07 million for the BIA's
Indian Highway Safety Program in 1998; and by 2002, funding for this
program rose to $1.32 million. Over 94 percent of these funds came as
annual Section 402 State and Community Formula Grant Program funding.
The program's remaining funds came from two of TEA-21's seven incentive
grants: Section 2003(b) Child Passenger Protection Education Grants--
beginning in 2000, and Section 411 State Highway Safety Data
Improvement grants--mostly in 2002. (See fig. 2.)
Figure 2: NHTSA Funding for BIA's Indian Highway Safety Program, Fiscal
Years 1998 through 2002
Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted to Jacqueline S. Gillian
Question 1. In your testimony, you indicate that there was an
increase in motor vehicle fatalities in nearly every category of
crashes. Does this mean the number of overall motor vehicle fatalities
has increased, or the fatalities per vehicle miles traveled have
increased?
Answer. The 2002 Early Assessment figures released by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) National Center for
Statistics and Analysis in April 2003 shows the following:
The number of persons killed in motor vehicle traffic
crashes increased to 42,850, the highest level since 1990. The
increase was 1.7 percent over the number killed in 2001. Within
this general finding were the following specific changes from
2001 by category:
Alcohol-related deaths increased.
Passenger vehicle occupant deaths in rollovers increased.
This is especially dramatic for sport utility vehicles (SUVs)--
nearly 10 percent more people died in SUV rollovers in 2002 as
compared with the previous year.
The number of intersection and intersection-related deaths
increased.
Passenger vehicle occupant deaths in two-vehicle crashes
involving a pickup truck, van, or SUV increased.
Motorcyclist deaths increased.
Pedestrian deaths decreased.
Large truck crash-involved deaths decreased. However, more
large truck occupants died in these crashes in 2002 than in
2001, particularly in multi-vehicle collisions.
Deaths of children 0-7 years of age decreased while deaths
of children 8-15 years increased.
Deaths of young drivers 16-20 years of age increased.
The overall fatal crash rate using 100 million vehicle-
miles-traveled (VMT) as the exposure denominator remained the
same as 2001 at 1.51 deaths per 100 million VMT. NHTSA has not
yet disaggregated VMT or other exposure measures by type of
crash or by age of persons involved in crashes; only the
overall, national fatal crash rate is available.
The answer to the question then is an emphatic yes. The overall
number of motor vehicle fatalities has increased and has done so each
year since 1998. In fact, highway fatalities in 2002 were the highest
in more than a decade. Because each year there is an increase in VMT,
the fatality rate has not increased but it has also not decreased. In
fact, the fatality rate has become stagnant, with only marginal
improvement since 1991. If this situation applied to air travel, that
is, if there were more deaths and crashes each year because more planes
were flying more miles, there would be a hue and cry from the American
public and Congress regardless of any change in the fatality rate.
Question 1a. Given that every year there are more cars on the road,
and that terrorism fears have caused more motorists to drive rather
than fly, is it safe to assume that fatalities will always rise each
year if all things remain constant?
Answer. Carefully selected vehicle safety design and performance
regulation, coupled with better highway design and human factors
management, such as requiring safety belt use, countering driver
fatigue and alcohol/substance abuse, and reducing in-vehicle driver
distraction can easily result in increased vehicle-miles-traveled by
more vehicles each year, but a lower crash death rate with fewer
fatalities. Unfortunately, however, all things do not remain constant.
The continuing displacement of passenger cars in the passenger vehicle
fleet by SUVs, a consistent trend over more than a decade, has resulted
in a distinct and deadly change in crash types to more motor vehicle
deaths resulting from (a) the increased numbers and frequency of
rollover crashes by these unstable, rollover-prone vehicles and (b)
increased number and frequency of deaths from side impact crashes due
especially to larger, heavier SUVs striking the sides of smaller,
lighter cars. If the safety design and performance of light trucks and
vans (LTVs), particularly SUVs, were properly controlled by careful
safety regulation, both the number of deaths and the rate of deaths
could decline each year.
Question 1b. Which of your recommendations would have the most
significant impact on reducing traffic fatalities if enacted by
Congress?
Answer. There are several recommendations that will have a
significant impact on traffic fatality reduction when enacted.
Primary (or standard) enforcement of state seat belt laws
will increase seat belt use rates substantially, a critical
factor for reducing fatalities and serious injuries since
unbelted occupants comprise more than half of all traffic
fatalities. Experience in state after state has shown that
adoption of primary enforcement alone increases seat belt use
rates by 10 to 15 percent. Unfortunately, in most states, the
life-saving potential of primary enforcement of seat belt laws,
and Federal incentive grants, have not motivated state
legislatures to upgrade secondary enforcement laws to primary
enforcement. Currently, 18 states and the District of Columbia
have primary enforcement, while 31 states have only secondary
enforcement and one state has no law requiring occupants to use
seat belts at all. It is estimated that if all states adopted
primary enforcement, that is, enforced the state seat belt law
just like any other traffic infraction, thousands of additional
lives could be saved each year.
Rollover crashes have become a more important factor in
highway fatalities over the years. In the 1980s, less than
5,000 deaths a year involved rollover crashes, in 2002 more
than 10,000 traffic deaths involved vehicle rollover. A large
part of the increase in the rollover problem stems from the
design of LTVs, especially SUVs, that are built with a high
center of gravity, narrow track-width, and are unstable
particularly when fully loaded. Danger from rollover, and the
number of fatalities, will continue to grow as a problem as
LTVs, and particularly SUVs, increase as a proportion of the
overall vehicle fleet. A rollover stability standard could
potentially prevent the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands,
of people each year.
Vehicle aggressivity, or the lack of compatibility among
different vehicle designs when they crash is a result of the
mismatch in size, weight, height and other design features of
LTVs and passenger cars. As the number and percentage of larger
LTVs and SUVs in the vehicle fleet increase annually, so do the
number of crashes in which a larger, heavier, higher LTV
collides with a smaller, lighter, lower passenger car. In these
crashes, the occupants of the car are far more likely to be
killed than the occupant of the LTV. This mismatch already
presents a substantial danger to passenger car occupants which
will continue to increase as LTVs become a larger percentage of
the vehicle fleet and are involved in more multi-vehicle
crashes.
Drunk driving related fatalities have recently been on the
increase, and in 2002 alcohol or drugs were a factor in 42
percent of occupant fatalities. Thus, despite historic
improvements in the alcohol-related fatality statistics,
further improvements in drunk and drugged driving behavior
remain a critical area in which a significant impact in
fatality reduction can be obtained.
Question 2. In recent years, progress in reducing highway
fatalities has slowed despite a large investment of resources in
highway safety. What do you see as the best strategies to reduce
traffic deaths and injuries?
Answer. A substantial increase in Federal investment in funding
motor vehicle and traffic safety programs is necessary. NHTSA's budget
and program resources have increased little in actual purchasing power
over the years, despite the fact that the number of registered
vehicles, annual vehicle miles of travel, and complexity of the traffic
safety and the highway environment have increased dramatically. The
best approach is a systems engineering model that takes into account
all aspects that contribute to traffic crashes and fatalities including
the vehicle, the occupant, and the roadway (and environment), and the
development of countermeasures to address the problems that contribute
significantly to crashes and fatalities through prevention and crash
avoidance (pre-crash), occupant protection (during the crash), and
emergency response/medical treatment (post-crash).
Question 2a. Should the focus be on the behavioral aspects or on
vehicle preference and safety?
Answer. Both. Traffic safety is a complex, multi-faceted issue that
has no single solution. Moreover, driver (and occupant) behavior cannot
be neatly separated from vehicle preference and safety. Obviously,
improvements in behavior such as seat belt use can provide dramatic
safety benefits to which the success of anti-drunk driving campaigns
involving passage of strong laws and increased enforcement in the 1980s
and 1990s can attest. However, behavior modification on a broad scale
is expensive, resource intense, difficult to sustain for prolonged time
periods, and they do not guarantee permanent improvements in behavior
or safety. The recent increase in drunk-driving related fatalities may
be a reflection of this. Behavior modification must be continually
maintained and reinforced, and additional efforts must be made to reach
each new generation of young drivers. At the same time, success in
improving one or even a few types of behavior does not guarantee
improvement in other driving-related behaviors that may be just as
dangerous. Thus, targeted efforts at changing behavior have been
successful and should be continued, especially to require seat belt use
through adoption of primary enforcement laws and to combat drunk
driving, but behavior modification is only a partial solution.
Designing vehicles with greater built-in safety, for both crash
avoidance and occupant protection, can ensure traffic safety
improvement regardless of individual behavior and the degree of success
experienced through behavior modification efforts. Design and equipment
improvements that build-in greater stability to reduce the incidence of
rollovers, for example, or that make different types of vehicles less
aggressive in multi-vehicle crashes, improve safety when crashes occur.
This is necessary because improved behavior alone, even if largely
successful, will not eliminate all crashes, and because crashes result
from other factors such as road conditions, vehicle equipment defects,
etc., not just driver behavior. This approach of trying to build-in
crashworthiness, is taken from the model used in the health care field,
where efforts to change at-risk behavior are not relied on exclusively
when immunization to prevent disease is available.
Question 3. Is the amount of money spent on highway safety directly
related to lives saved, if used correctly? In other words, does an
increase in highway safety funding equate directly to lives saved?
Answer. Yes, if used correctly, there is a direct relationship
between safety funding levels and lives saved. The relationship between
funding levels and safety is the same for motor vehicles as for airline
safety--greater investment in safety will result in fewer deaths.
Current NHTSA funding levels, however, are not much higher than they
were in 1980. See NHTSA historic budget chart [to be forwarded by fax].
Even though 95 percent of transportation fatalities, and 99 percent of
transportation injuries occur on our Nation's roads, NHTSA receives
less than one percent of the Department of Transportation (DOT) budget.
Question 3a. To what extent should we worry about a diminishing
return when funding these safety programs?
Answer. Because funding for motor vehicle safety programs is low,
compared to the overall U.S. DOT budget and expenditures on air
transportation safety, there is no legitimate reason for concern that
we are nearing the point of diminishing returns when it comes to
funding motor vehicle safety programs. The issue is not that we are
reaching the point of diminishing returns on safety expenditures but
that factors that play a role in crashes, including increases in
traffic volume, size, weight, and speed, as well as diverse designs and
behavioral issues, have overwhelmed the ability of NHTSA, law
enforcement, and the safety community to respond appropriately due to
budget limitations. In addition, major improvements in safety can still
be achieved by reducing vehicle rollover, increasing the crash
compatibility among the types of vehicles in the passenger fleet,
developing feasible crash avoidance and warning technologies,
increasing the national seat belt use rate, and reducing the incidence
of drunk/drugged driving.
Question 4. What would be the cost passed on to consumers should
your proposals for roof crush, safety labeling, and vehicle
compatibility be adopted by Congress?
Answer. There is no fixed dollar figure for the vehicle safety
proposals included in the testimony because each depends on the manner
in which it is implemented by manufacturers and NHTSA. However, the
costs are expected to be relatively small in comparison to the safety
benefits for several reasons. First, a number of improvements are ready
for use or have been introduced in more expensive vehicle lines. Mass
production of these safety features for installation as standard
equipment, rather than as options, would significantly lower the cost
of production. Second, manufacturers are already conducting research
and development on a host of different design issues and are already
introducing certain changes to address vehicle compatibility issues.
Thus, the costs associated with a number of changes, as well as the
research and development costs for other improvements, have already
been factored into the price of at least some vehicles by the
manufacturers themselves. Third, any required changes could be
introduced and implemented as manufacturers alter and redesign vehicle
platforms, which lowers the burdens to manufacturers and the costs to
consumers. Fourth, according to the industry, costs for many safety
improvements, from seat belts, to air bags, to traction control systems
were expected to be cost prohibitive but have proven to be cost-
effective and reasonable when mass produced. Moreover, surveys
consistently indicate that consumers are willing to pay for safety
improvements. Lastly, in addition to the toll in deaths and injuries,
motor vehicle crashes and mortality are already a huge economic burden
to consumers. According to NHTSA, in 2000 the total cost of motor
vehicle crashes in the U.S. was $230.6 billion.
Question 4a. Do you propose incentives that would make it easier
for automobile manufacturers to incorporate your proposed safety
improvements to their vehicle production?
Answer. No specific additional industry incentives are necessary.
First, safety is a public health issue and the responsibility of
manufacturers. In order to achieve widespread safety benefits for the
public at large, improvements should be built in to all vehicles not
just in expensive models at the high-end of the market. Second, in many
cases, the design knowledge and technology for improving safety is
already developed, available, and on-the-shelf, so extensive research
and development costs are not necessary. Finally, ``safety sells,'' and
manufacturers have been able to market higher-priced vehicle models on
the basis of safety. In recent years, the average price of vehicles has
increased for a number of reasons, and a larger proportion of the
vehicle market now consists of high-priced LTVs and SUVs, and yet sales
and profitability continue to increase. It appears that manufacturers
have been able to pass on the costs of safety improvements to customers
and do not need added incentives to improve safety.
Question 5. What can be done to improve safety belt usage by states
such as Virginia where the votes defeat proposals to adopt primary
safety belt laws?
Answer. Safety belt use rates in states such as Virginia would
improve dramatically if the reauthorization of TEA-21 included a
sanction for states that did not pass a primary enforcement safety belt
law within a reasonable amount of time. Currently, only 18 states and
the District of Columbia have primary enforcement laws. Most of these
laws were passed in the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s. In the past
three years, only two states (Washington and New Jersey) have enacted
primary enforcement laws. The lesson from the enactment of a national
.08 percent blood alcohol content (BAC) law in 2000 is instructive in
this context: sanctions work. In the three years since .08 BAC was
signed the number of states with a .08 BAC law jumped from 18 to 38 and
the District of Columbia. That's an increase of 117 percent. There is
every reason to believe that the pattern of state enactment of primary
enforcement seat belt laws will follow that of .08 BAC laws.
Question 5a. Are incentives the only way to improve safety belt
usage, or can public advertising campaigns make a difference?
Answer. As noted above, sanctions are crucial to the passage of
primary enforcement safety belt laws, which are critical to increasing
safety belt use rates. Incentives, therefore, are not an effective way
to improve safety belt use rates. Public advertising campaigns can make
a difference, but only in tandem with passage and strong enforcement of
primary seat belt laws. People are more likely to change their behavior
in response to a public advertising campaign that is coupled with
strong enforcement of a safety belt law than in response to a public
service announcement alone. Secondary enforcement laws tie the hands of
police because they can only be enforced if another traffic violation
has occurred.
Question 6. Does your organization believe that rear-view monitors
to aid drivers when reversing larger vehicles should be standard
equipment in vehicles, or merely a safety option available to
consumers?
Answer. Advocates generally regards rear visibility in the current
vehicle fleet, both for passenger vehicles and for medium/heavy
vehicles, to be poor and inadequate. Neither manufacturers nor NHTSA
use safety performance principles to optimize rear visibility,
especially for the rear view of the area immediately behind a vehicle
when backing so that every driver can easily determine whether there is
a child or other person in danger of being injured or killed in a
backing incident. Backing incidents that take the lives of young
children and elderly persons are more common than one might think
because they are often not reported in state and national databases.
Advocates believes that a combination of advanced mirror designs,
especially of aspheric mirrors, coupled with rear view imaging or
detection technologies, should be required by NHTSA through the
adoption of a performance standard that will facilitate the detection
of persons immediately behind the rear ends of larger vehicles. We
believe that these combined improvements in rear detection and
visualization technologies should be required for vehicles both with
and without rear windows because current vehicles even with rear
windows do not permit a driver to see or to detect the presence of
small children immediately behind a vehicle. Moreover, these
improvements in visualization and detection to the rear of a motor
vehicle for improving safety when backing can simultaneously be
engineered to enhance both the side and rear fields of view of motor
vehicles in forward motion, thereby improving the detection of nearby
vehicles in the traffic stream.
In general, safety equipment that is proven to help avoid crashes,
save lives, and reduce injuries should become standard equipment on all
new vehicle models. Safety equipment will maximize life saving benefits
only if it is installed throughout the vehicle fleet and in general use
on all vehicles. Moreover, safety systems and equipment should not just
be available to people with the means to afford high-end vehicle models
and safer optional equipment.
Question 7. Considerable progress has been made over the last
decades in reducing highway fatalities, but this progress has been
slowed in the last few years. In fact, the number of fatalities has
increased recently. What are the reasons for this spike?
Answer. The recent increase in traffic fatalities to 42,850 (2002
early assessment data), now at the highest total since 1990, is also
reflected in the stagnant fatality rate that has remained at nearly the
same level for a decade. Only marginal improvements in the overall
traffic fatality rate have been achieved in that time period. (The
fatality rate dropped to 1.7 per 100 million VMT in 1992, then to 1.6
in 1996, and to 1.5 in 1999, where it remains.) There are three reasons
for this. First, funding levels for NHTSA's regulatory and traffic
safety programs have increased only incrementally over the past decade.
Safety programs have not been able to keep pace with the myriad of
complex safety problems facing the nation, the change in the types of
vehicle in the fleet, as well as annual increases in motor vehicle
registration and vehicle miles traveled. Second, despite improvements
that are saving hundreds of lives each year, including improved child
safety requirements, increased seat belt use rates, and more widespread
availability of air bags, other negative safety trends have emerged to
offset the lives being saved. For example, rollover deaths have
increased dramatically through the 1990s as the percentage of LTVs, and
especially SUVs, have increased in the vehicle fleet. Likewise, deaths
in multi-vehicle crashes in which LTVs are the striking vehicle have
also increased with the greater percentage of LTVs in the vehicle
fleet. Third, too many states lack some of the most important life-
saving laws to address impaired driving, to protect teen drivers, to
require seat belt and motorcycle helmet use, and to require that
children be restrained in age appropriate restraints.
Question 8. The lack of progress in reducing highway fatalities is
especially frustrating in light of the billions of dollars that have
been spent on highway safety and infrastructure improvements under TEA-
21. As we move forward and reauthorize these programs, where should we
make future safety investments to ensure sustained progress?
Answer. Safety related investment in behavioral, regulatory and
highway infrastructure programs should be continued, however,
investment should be increased in program areas that work and yield
results, while programs that are ineffective or counterproductive
should be dropped. First, on the behavioral side, we know that targeted
programs that reinforce state laws with clear public safety messages
and strong enforcement are successful. The ``Click It or Ticket'' seat
belt enforcement projects are an example of behavioral efforts that are
effective because they support existing requirements in state law.
Similar efforts to reduce drunk driving can also be effective. However,
without stronger Federal oversight and accountability of state
expenditures of Section 402 funding (see below, last response in
Question #5), there can be no assurance that state expenditure of
Federal funding is being used effectively.
Second, greater safety benefits can be achieved through regulatory
efforts to limit occupant fatalities and injuries through careful
selection of the next generation of crash avoidance and occupant
protection countermeasures. Just as airbags are now saving hundreds of
lives each year, NHTSA can improve safety by issuing regulations to
require vehicle stability to prevent rollover, to reduce the design
incompatibility of different types of vehicles, to provide better side
impact protection, and to install effective crash prevention warning
systems. In addition, NHTSA should develop regulations to control the
dissemination and use of vehicle telematics that can distract drivers
from the driving task, another emerging safety concern.
The third area for future safety investment is better highway
design and engineering requirements. It is easy to forget that drivers
and vehicles operate within the limits of the designs of the highways
we all use. Those highways can be designed better or worse, and many
thousands of miles of these roads have obsolete, substandard designs
that are long overdue for upgrading. Many highway crashes are directly
linked to drivers having little margin for error because narrow lanes
and shoulders, steep drop-offs at the roadside, limited sight distance,
low pavement skid resistance, and lethal fixed object hazards are often
sited directly adjacent to high-speed traffic. Both multi-and single-
vehicle crashes frequently occur or are substantially more severe
because ``forgiving'' design features were not built into the road to
accommodate driver mistakes without loss of life and infliction of
serious physical injuries. Although large sums of Federal funds are
spent annually on highway construction and rehabilitation, at present,
with the exception of the Interstate system and limited mileage on the
National Highway System, there are no required highway design standards
to govern the construction and rehabilitation of the vast majority of
Federal-aid, state and local highways.
Question 9. The Administration's SAFETEA proposal would consolidate
some programs and give states greater flexibility on spending decisions
by allowing the movement of funds between parts of the Section 402
programs and highway safety construction programs. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of this approach?
Answer. In general, including the Section 402 program in the
flexible spending options is disadvantageous because it undermines
traditional highway safety efforts. Funding flexibility, for the most
part, is a pretext to permit highway safety funds to be diverted to
construction programs. Although Advocates supports greater Federal
oversight and state accountability for Section 402 expenditures (see
below, last response in Question #5), we are not in favor of raiding
funds from effective highway safety and enforcement programs in order
to provide additional funds for highway construction, rehabilitation,
and maintenance. Reauthorization legislation should dedicate sufficient
funding for highway safety construction improvements and hazard
elimination so that the diversion of other highway safety funding is
not needed. Permitting Section 402 funds to be used for other purposes
may also lead to inconsistent funding of state 402 programs, and
uncertain financing of those programs from year to year. It may also
increase internal conflict within state DOTs over Section 402 funding.
Furthermore, in the name of funding flexibility, the Section 402
program has been used as a trap door in order to offset funding
penalties imposed on states that have not adopted critical safety laws
such as open container and repeat offender statutes. (See below,
response to Question #4). States that are penalized by having a
percentage of their construction funds diverted to the Section 402
program are also permitted, in turn, to use all or a portion of those
same funds for projects eligible under the hazard elimination program
(Section 152). Thus, states are able to budget less for the hazard
elimination program, and more for other construction programs that they
expect will have a percentage of funds redirected to the Section 402
program because of the penalty. This type of circular system of funding
flexibility undermines the purpose and intent behind penalizing states
for the failure to adopt safety laws, makes the adoption of safety laws
such as the open container and repeat offender laws far more difficult,
and uses the 402 program as a revolving door to evade the authorized
sanctions. A similar funding shell game has been proposed as part of
the SAFETEA highway safety improvement program penalty to promote state
adoption of primary seat belt laws. (See below, response to Question #5
regarding proposed HSIP). Indeed, the SAFETEA funding flexibility
proposal would substitute the highway safety improvement program, in
place of the hazard elimination program, as the ultimate potential
recipient of the construction funds that are required to be diverted to
the Section 402 program by states that have not adopted open container
and repeat offender laws.
While there may be a limited advantage in allowing portions of
incentive grants to be used for highway construction, rather than for
the Section 402 program, the effectiveness of such a financial lure as
part of an incentive grant program is yet to be proven. Theoretically,
this type of funding flexibility could be an inducement to states to
adopt safety laws if the incentive grant funds are available for safety
and non-safety construction programs. The grant funds would not need to
pass through the Section 402 program, however, but could be dedicated
for construction program use outright. The major example of such a
program was the safety belt incentive grant program, which permitted
the use of the grants for construction programs, but did not increase
the number of states with primary seat belt laws nor appreciably
increase seat belt use rates in most states.
Question 10. As Congress seeks to encourage the states to reduce
their traffic-related fatalities through various programs, it can
choose to provide incentive grants or it can choose to penalize states
for not adopting highway safety laws. Which approach is more effective?
Answer. It is beyond doubt that Federal-aid highway program
penalties are far more effective than incentive grants in getting
states to adopt highway safety laws. While a minority of states respond
positively to the offer of incentive grants, such grant programs have
never been able to achieve uniform adoption of safety laws by all 50
states. Penalties, on the other hand, that withhold funds outright or
that divert highway construction funds to non-construction safety
programs, have been successful in getting states to adopt a number of
important safety laws including the minimum drinking age law, .08 BAC
law, and zero tolerance for youthful drivers. Similar diversion of
funds to the Section 402 program were enacted as part of the open
container law and increased penalties for repeat drunk driving offender
law provision in TEA-21. These provisions, however, include a trap door
that permits funds to be funneled back to the hazard elimination
program. This budgetary version of musical chairs undermines the
effectiveness of the penalties in the open container and repeat
offender provisions.
Question 11. What are the major items in SAFETEA that you like
about the proposal and what, in your view, should be reconsidered? Are
there aspects of highway safety that the proposal does not address?
Answer. There are several proposals in the SAFETEA bill that should
be reconsidered.
National Blue Ribbon Commission On Highway Safety: While not
making sufficient financial and resource commitments in the
bill to support current safety efforts, the legislation would
establish a commission to study overall highway safety issues
with a 30 year time horizon and with no requirement to file an
initial report until 2006, or a final report until 2009. The
creation of a commission to look at long-term issues appears to
divert attention from an emphasis on achieving near-term DOT
safety goals. The effort and funding ($7 million) would be
better spent assisting DOT to develop actions to reduce
fatalities and crashes in order to achieve existing DOT safety
performance goals included in the DOT Performance Plan--FY
2004. For highway safety these goals include: reducing the
overall traffic fatality rate to 1.0 per 100 million vehicle
miles of travel (VMT) in 2008 (the rate is currently 1.5);
reducing large truck related fatalities to 1.65 per 100 million
VMT in 2008 (the rate is currently 2.4); reducing the alcohol-
related fatality rate to 0.53 in 2004 (the rate was 0.64 in
2002 based on the early assessment data); and to achieve a
national 79 percent safety belt use rate in 2004 (the rate was
75 percent based on 2002 data). This safety goal that has been
revised downward from previous benchmarks set by NHTSA in 1997,
establishing national goals for seat belt use rates of 85
percent by 2000, and 90 percent by 2005. (Presidential
Initiative for Increasing Sear Belt Use Nationwide, U.S. DOT).
In addition, in 1999 the DOT Secretary announced the safety
goal of reducing the number of deaths in large truck related
crashes by 50 percent in 10 years (in 2008). Creating a
commission to explore long-term issues diverts attention,
focus, and resources from immediate safety needs.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding
flexibility: This program has two important flaws. First, it
weakens the safety focus of the hazard elimination program by
broadening the scope of projects permitted in this program to
include projects such as traffic calming, and contains vague
wording that may not limit projects to serious safety problems
and hazard elimination. Second, although states that do not
adopt a primary (enforcement) safety belt law will have 10
percent of their HSIP funds obligated to Section 402 highway
safety programs. This is not wise because the redirection of
funds penalizes a dedicated safety program, the HSIP, by
redirecting funds to another safety program, Section 402. Funds
dedicated to safety improvements and safety programs should not
be targeted. In addition, the funding trap door in the proposed
Section 402 safety performance grants allows states to divert
50 percent of that grant money to be diverted from the Section
402 program for use on HSIP projects. Thus, the HSIP funds lost
to Section 402 program projects can be replaced by the
expenditure of other Section 402 funds, received from the
proposed performance grants, which can be spent on HSIP
projects.
Primary Safety Belt Use Law Performance Grant Program:
Sanctions are far more effective in achieving nationally
uniform safety policy countermeasures than incentive grants.
While Advocates does not oppose the effort to encourage states
to voluntarily adopt primary seat belt laws through incentive
grants, the program should impose a sanction in the final 3
years to require state adoption of primary enforcement seat
belt laws or face the loss/redirection of Federal construction
funds. The HSIP 10 percent redirection will not be sufficient
to convince reluctant states to adopt primary enforcement laws
both because the loss of a portion of HSIP funding alone, as
opposed to other construction program funds, is not a strong
financial incentive, and because the redirection of HSIP funds
can be offset by the use of half of the proposed performance
grant funds. Finally, the penalty for failure to adopt a safety
requirement should not be the loss or redirection of dedicated
safety funds, the larger highway construction funding program
should be the target.
Insufficient funding for anti-drunk driving initiatives: The
SAFETEA proposal significantly reduces the funding for anti-
drunk and drugged driving efforts from previous levels.
Although behavior modification efforts are difficult to
sustain, passage of strong impaired driving laws coupled with
anti-drunk driving campaigns have been particularly successful
in lowering the incidence of dunk driving and related crashes
and fatalities. The reduced funding also comes at a time when
drunk driving related crash fatalities are increasing and the
response should be to renew anti-drunk driving initiatives and
to increase funding for countermeasures.
NHTSA Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Study: Advocates objects
to the proposed investigation of the causes of passenger
vehicle crashes that NHTSA plans to conduct because the agency
has stated that it would use the same research design currently
being used in the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS).
That study has been heavily criticized as defective by both the
Transportation Research Board committee empanelled to oversee
the study, and highway safety organizations such as Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety, Public Citizen, CRASH, P.A.T.T.,
and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The passenger
vehicle crash causation study would essentially use the same
flawed research design that is planned for review by the
National Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia.
Congress was so concerned with the validity of the research
methods for the LTCCS that it directed the U.S. DOT, in the
Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations legislation, to have the CDC
review the FMCSA-NHTSA research approach and report its
findings. The basic flaw in both studies is the lack of any
experimental research design using a comparison group to test
hypotheses about the causes of motor vehicle crashes. Instead,
FMCSA and NHTSA are attempting to provide explanations of the
``causes'' of crashes solely through the detailed description
of how each crash supposedly occurred based largely on the
characterization of events supplied by individuals who were at
the scene of the crash when it occurred. This approach of
simply analyzing a set of crash cases is considered by the
National Institutes of Health as the poorest level of research
and scientific evidence.
Areas which the administration proposal fails to address include:
Child passenger performance grants: The SAFETEA proposal
does not include a performance grant program to encourage state
adoption of booster seat laws for children up to 8 years old.
Section 402 funding accountability: Although Section 402 is
reauthorized, there is no provision to address criticism that
the program lacks supervision and accountability. According to
a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report (Better
Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety
Programs, GAO-03-474, April 2003), NHTSA does not uniformly use
management reviews to monitor state implementation of highway
safety programs, or require program improvement plans to
correct deficiencies under Section 402. As a result, there is
no consistent process to monitor and review whether states are
achieving the goals they set for themselves, nor a
comprehensive method to ensure the correction of ineffective
state programs. As a result, there is no assurance that Section
402 funds are being expended on effective safety programs or
achieving the intended results.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted to Kathryn Swanson
Question 1. Ms. Swanson, the Administration's proposal provides
increased flexibility for the states to move funds between certain
Section 402 programs and highway safety construction. What do you think
the impact of that might be?
Answer. The Administration allows all of the primary seat belt
incentive funding, half of the performance incentive funding, and half
of the seat belt use rate incentive funding to be flexed into the new
core safety construction program. The flexing of primary seat belt
incentive funding could only occur after the state enacts a primary
belt law. The intent is to encourage state departments of
transportation (DOT's) to be involved in state efforts to enact state
primary belt laws.
While we support the intent of the primary belt primary seat belt
flexibility provisions, it is very likely that the state highway safety
offices (SHSO's) will do all the work to enact the law and then see
little of the incentive funding once the primary bill is approved. That
has been the experience of several states that have worked to enact .08
BAC laws. (Under TEA-21, states receive Section 163 funds if they enact
.08 BAC laws. Eligible states can use the incentive funds for any
purpose under Title 23, including highway construction.)
With tight state budgets and limits on the overall growth of the
federal-aid highway program, state departments of transportation are
looking at every possible avenue for new construction funding. Even
though the flexible funding amounts in all three incentive grant
programs would be small, they may still be attractive enough to the
DOT's to warrant the transfer from the non-construction programs into
the construction program.
Question 2. Will it pit the interests of highway safety
representatives against those of state engineers and highway
administrators?
Answer. It certainly could. As noted in our testimony, the
flexibility provisions sound persuasive on paper but would work with
difficulty in reality. Nearly half of the SHSO's are located in a state
DOT. Hence, if the head of the DOT decides to use the incentive funds
for safety construction purposes, the director of the SHSO has no
recourse except to agree with the request of his/her boss. More than
twenty of the remaining SHSO's are located in departments of public
safety. In those cases, the SHSO and the DOT could be pitted against
each other in deciding how the flex funds should be used.
DOT's and SHSO's do not have equal influence and cannot negotiate
as equals. DOTs are far bigger agencies with much bigger staffs and
budgets. As a result, in many instances, the decisions about
flexibility would be one-sided. Further, based upon our experiences
with the Section 163 program and the two penalty transfer programs
authorized under TEA-21, we know that joint decisions about the use of
safety funding can be very difficult. For all of these reasons, GHSA is
very apprehensive about the flexibility provisions.
We believe that the safety interests of the state DOTs and the
SHSOs are similar but the methods of solving safety problems are
different. We also realize that highway safety issues can't be solved
by one agency alone. Every agency with a safety-related responsibility
has to work together and jointly develop a strategic safety plan in
which high priority problems are identified and existing funding is
targeted to those problems. As part of that planning process, each
agency needs to bring its Federal safety resources to the table and
apply those resources to safety problems in a smart and effective way.
GHSA believes that this strategic approach to safety will be more
beneficial than the flexible funding concept. Hence, we support the
strategic planning part of the flexible funding proposal but not the
flexibility itself.
In GHSA's proposal, an occupant protection incentive tier and an
impaired driving incentive tier would be authorized. Eligible states
would be required to use the occupant protection incentive funds for
occupant protection purposes only. Similar restrictions would be placed
on the impaired driving incentive funds.
Question 3. Ms. Swanson, you heard GAO's testimony, in which Mr.
Guerrero discussed improvements that NHTSA can make in oversight of
state programs. What has been your experiences with NHTSA field offices
and the job they are doing in helping the states improve highway
safety?
Answer. The state experience with NHTSA field staff has been mixed.
In some regions, the staff work closely with the SHSO's to interpret
Federal guidance, review annual Highway Safety Plans, work with the
media, etc. In those regions, the Regional Administrator (RA) works to
facilitate and encourage state safety efforts. In other regions, the
working relationship is more adversarial and the RA is more directive
in his/her approach with the states. A lot depends upon the personality
of the Regional Administrator. The technical capabilities of the
regional staff also vary considerably. In some regions, the states have
as much or more experience and technical capability than some of the
regional staff.
The states have been concerned for many years about the
inconsistencies in the way NHTSA regional offices are administered.
That is why we concur with GAO that NHTSA's oversight should be applied
on a more consistent basis and that explicit criteria should be
developed for that oversight. NHTSA is developing performance critiera
for that purpose. If a state fails to perform after a three-year
period, than a program review would be triggered. GHSA supports this
approach and is helping NHTSA identify the trigger performance
criteria.
Question 4. Considerable progress has been made over the last
decades in reducing highway fatalities but this progress has slowed in
the last few years. In fact, the numbers of fatalities has increased
recently. What are the reasons for this spike?
Answer. There is no spike in fatalities. Fatalities have held
steady for several years and are now beginning to inch upward. While
there is cause for alarm about this recent trend, it's also important
not to overstate the problem and keep everything in perspective.
It is difficult to say with any certainty what the reasons are for
the increase. However, there are several theories about it. For one,
the population (particularly the young and the old), vehicle miles of
travel, licensed drivers and registered vehicles have all continued to
increase. In the face of these increases, Federal and state programs
have been able to prevent the number of fatalities from growing much
larger but have not been able to make fatalities decline significantly.
Federal funds have enabled states to reach those populations that
are susceptible to behavioral change but not the hard-to-influence
populations such as rural young, male drivers. In effect, Federal
funding has enabled states to attack the relatively easy targets--the
low hanging fruit. It is likely to cost considerably more to convince
the last 25 percent of the population to buckle up than it has to
convince the first 75 percent. If Congress wants the states to be
successful, it will have to make the financial commitment commensurate
with the size and scope of the remaining problem.
Another possible reason is that the public has lost interest in
some of the key safety issues and may assume that the highway safety
battle has been won. This seems to be particularly the case with
impaired driving. The media appears reluctant to cover impaired driving
because there is nothing new to report from their perspective. Further,
most of the impaired driving problems are caused by a small number of
repeat offenders and the general public has a difficult time relating
to that group.
Yet another potential cause of the problem may be attributable to
other safety issues such as speed, aggressive driving, fatigue, and
distracted driving. Ever since Congress eliminated the National Maximum
Speed Limit, many (though not all) states experienced increases in
speed-related fatalities. The public's attitude toward speed has
consistently eroded over the years, and . drivers appear to consider
posted speed limits as guidelines rather than legal limits. Coupled
with this is the fact that Americans are working more hours, have more
competing demands on their free time, and live further outside central
cities. It is probable that these trends have led to a increase in
aggressive and fatigued driving. Further, as cell phones and telematics
appear in vehicles, drivers are more and more distracted. All of these
may have been contributors to the increase in fatalities.
Yet another contributing factor may be the reduced focus of
enforcement personnel on traffic safety. Since September 11, many law
enforcement personnel have been detailed to security activities and are
not expected to resume their normal enforcement responsibilities any
time soon. At the same time, state highway patrols across the country
are facing an unprecedented number of retirements as baby boom
enforcement personnel reach retirement age. State budget cuts have also
caused reductions in state and local law enforcement agencies, and the
traffic enforcement divisions are typically the first to be cut. The
remaining traffic enforcement personnel are being asked to do more and
more, resulting in staff burnout. In many states, enforcement agencies
aren't interested in traffic grants because they simply do not have the
personnel to undertake grant activities. Hence, at a time when more
emphasis has been placed on traffic enforcement and when the benefits
of enforcement have been well documented, it has become more and more
difficult to undertake enforcement efforts.
Question 5. The lack of progress in reducing highway fatalities is
especially frustrating in light of the billions of dollars that have
been spent on highway safety and infrastructure improvements under TEA-
21. As we move forward and reauthorize these programs, where should we
make future safety investmens to ensure sustained progress?
Answer. First, states have made considerable progress under TEA-21
and it's important not to lose sight of that. Under TEA-21, the
fatality rate is the lowest on record, the safety belt use rate is the
highest, the number of children in restraints is the highest, and
impaired driving fatalities are well below levels of a decade ago. Yet
there is much more to be done.
Second, in our view, the Federal highway safety program needs to
provide states with funding to address a range of behavioral issues
while at the same time focusing on top priorities. As NHTSA has
indicated repeatedly, the easiest, most effective way to protect people
in a crash is to ensure that they buckle up. Hence, funds should focus
on improving safety belt use and ensuring that children are in child
restraints. Additionally, the focus should be on impaired drivers since
impaired driving causes such a large percentage of all crashes.
GHSA's proposal would divide the consolidated safety grant program
into thirds: approximately one-third for 402 grants which could be used
to address any number of behavioral safety concerns, one-third to
improve occupant protection and one-third to reduce impaired driving.
Question 6. The Administration's proposal would consolidate some
programs and give states greater flexibility on spending decisions by
allowing the movement of funds between the Section 402 programs and
highway safety construction programs. What are the advantages and
disadvantages of this approach.
Answer. As noted in our testimony, GHSA strongly supports program
consolidation. There are currently eight different grant programs and
two penalty programs that must be administered by small highway safety
offices. Each of these programs has different purposes, applications,
and deadlines and the requirements of some programs (e.g., the Section
157 innovative grant program) change from one year to the next. Some
grants are given out at the beginning of the fiscal year, others during
the year, and three are not awarded until the very end of the year. At
the beginning of a fiscal year, a state may be implementing grants in
that fiscal year, evaluating grants from the previous fiscal year, and
planning to expend carryover funds from grants that were awarded late
in the fiscal year. Needless to say, administration of these myriad
grants has been confusing and very difficult. A single grant program
with incentive tiers would be far easier to administer. There would be
one application deadline and one grant that could be awarded at the
beginning of the Federal fiscal year.
There are no disadvantages to program consolidation from our
perspective. Some concerns have been expressed by others about losing
the focus on impaired driving and occupant protection if there is
program consolidation. In GHSA's proposal, there are separate incentive
tiers for both, so the focus on high priority issues would continue
within the context of a consolidated program.
With respect to funding flexibility, the main advantage is that
states would be required to complete a statewide strategic highway
safety plan before they could flex funds between categories. That would
compel state agencies with safety responsibilities to work together--a
goal that GHSA strongly supports.
The disadvantages of flexible funding were detailed in our previous
responses. GHSA does not support the proposed flexible funding. We do,
however, support the concept of strategic statewide safety planning
efforts. We recommend that that strategic safety plan concept be
retained but separated from the flexible funding concept.
Question 7. As Congress seeks to encourage states to reduce their
traffic-related fatalities through various programs, it can choose to
provide incentive grants or it can choose to penalize states for not
adopting highway safety laws. Which approach is more effective?
Answer. Both approaches can encourage states to enact critical
safety legislation. Both have their advantages and disadvantages but,
on balance, states support incentives over sanctions and penalties.
Incentives can successfully encourage states to enact specific
legislation (such as graduated licensing laws) or take other desired
actions (such as improving BAC testing). Just this year, for example,
Illinois enacted a primary safety belt law in part because it believed
that it would receive five times its FY 2003 402 apportionment, as
proposed by the SAFETEA proposal. The 410 program also successfully
encouraged states to improve their impaired driving programs while
providing eligible states with the resources they needed to make
further improvements.
Some incentive programs are less than successful because they are
so small that they pale in comparison with what a state receives in
highway construction funding. Hence, they are not large enough to
convince a state legislature or other state agency to act
appropriately. Some incentive programs are weakly constructed so that
they reward poor behavior rather than encourage improved behavior.
Others exacerbate the differences between ``have'' and ``have not''
states. A good incentive program has to be large, with a portion
earmarked for states that are having difficulty and the remainder to
reward states that improve performance or maintain a superior level of
performance.
The advantage of sanctions is that they force all the states to
enact specific legislation by a set time period. However, despite the
rhetoric, sanctions and penalties are not uniformly effective. They can
be effective where there is public support, as is the case with
sanctions that focus on impaired driving or those that aim to protect
young persons.
If there isn't public support, as was the case with the sanctions
for motorcycle helmets and the National Maximum Speed Limit, the
sanctions are completely ineffective. The lack of public support
ultimately caused the repeal of both sanctions. Sanctions have also
caused tremendous resentment on the part of state legislatures. They
feel that sanctions are political coercion and pass only the bare bones
legislation necessary to avoid the sanction. Then they fail to provide
funding to ensure that the required laws are aggressively enforced. In
the end, little has been accomplished.
Congress has increasingly relied on sanctions to force states to
enact specific legislation. There are eighteen sanctions, seven of
which are safety-related. Three of the seven penalties/sanctions have
been enacted either in TEA-21 or thereafter. No other area of
transportation is affected by sanctions and penalties like safety. The
message that Congress is sending is that it wishes to address safety
problems primarily by punishing states and forcing them to act in a
top-down approach and a uniform, one-size-fits-all manner. Further,
disputes over new sanctions tend to shift the focus of discussion from
the merits of safety programs to the battle over safety sanctions. This
is extremely discouraging and ultimately self-defeating.
Penalties have also caused problems. They pit the SHSO against the
state DOT whose funds are being transferred into the behavioral highway
safety program. SHSO's do not find this a helpful approach.
GHSA accepts existing penalties and sanctions but does not support
the enactment of new ones. We have recommended some technical changes
to the repeat offender penalties so that they are more effective.
Question 8. What are the major items in SAFETEA that you like about
the proposal and what, in your view, should be reconsidered? Are there
aspects that the proposal does not address?
Answer. Under SAFETEA, the Department of Transportation has
proposed a three-part consolidated behavioral highway safety grant
program. The proposed program includes basic formula funds, performance
incentive funds, and a strategic impaired driving program. The
performance incentive funds will be further divided into three types of
incentives. In addition, DOT has proposed a separate data grant program
and a very small EMS grant program.
As noted in our testimony, GHSA is pleased about some aspects of
the funding request but very disappointed about several others.
The Association is pleased that DOT supported the idea of grant
consolidation. As noted previously, a single grant program with one
application and one deadline should be much easier to administer. GHSA
is also pleased that the Administration is proposing performance
incentive grants and increased funding for states that enact primary
safety belt laws. The Association also supports performance-based
incentives, particularly for states that enact primary belt laws or
improve their safety belt use rates above the national average and has
incorporated those concept into its own proposal.
GHSA strongly supports the proposed DOT data incentive grant
program. The program funding level, the eligibility criteria, and the
proposed use of grant funds are identical to those recommended by the
Association.
As noted previously, GHSA supports the requirement that states
coordinate their highway safety construction, behavioral and motor
carrier grant programs and develop comprehensive, strategic highway
safety goals. Future improvements in highway safety are not as likely
unless states coordinate the disparate aspects of their highway safety
programs. We believe that these requirements should be maintained but
unlinked with the flexible funding proposal.
GHSA supports the proposed funding for the crash causation study.
As noted in our testimony, it has been about thirty years since such a
study was conducted. If states are to improve driver and road user
behavior, it is essential to know why crashes were caused. GHSA
recommends, however, that the difference between the NHTSA crash
causation study and the proposed FSHRP crash causation study need to be
clarified and the studies coordinated.
GHSA also supports the proposed increased funding for the Section
403 program. However, it appears that most of the increase will be used
for the crash causation study. Additional research resources must be
directed to the NHTSA 403 program so that evaluation studies can be
conducted on the effectiveness of various safety countermeasures.
GHSA is extremely disappointed in the overall funding level for the
behavioral safety grant programs. Behavioral funding is level funded in
FY 2004 and then it rises very gradually over the remaining five years
of the reauthorization period. Total funding in FY 2009 is only 10
percent higher than in FY 2004. It will be extremely difficult for
states to make further improvements in the behavior of drivers and
other road users without sufficient funding. As noted previously, it
will be costly to convince the hard-to-influence populations to change
their driving behavior. Further, additional funds are needed to address
emerging safety issues (such as aggressive, fatigued, and distracted
driving, older drivers) and provide programs for minorities and ethnic
populations, etc.
GHSA finds the impaired driving program totally unacceptable and
urges that Congress reject the proposal. $50 million is considerably
less than has been spent on impaired driving under TEA-21 and far less
than is needed to adequately address this growing problem. Further, the
program is too narrowly focused on a few states where an intervention
could, if it worked perfectly, eliminate a lot of fatalities. In a
sense, it rewards states that have performed poorly by giving them
additional funding to the exclusion of all other states. Impaired
driving is a problem in every state, yet the proposal would provide no
funds for the remaining, ``non-strategic'' states.
GHSA particularly dislikes the fact that the proposed impaired
driving program will be implemented in the same manner as the 157
innovative program. Under that program, NHTSA set very restrictive
conditions on the grants and completely micro-managed the way eligible
states expend funds. States have found the program very onerous and do
not wish to repeat the experience under the proposed impaired driving
program. GHSA believes that the proposed strategic impaired driving
initiative is more appropriate as a Section 403 demonstration program
than as a state incentive grant program.
The Administration is proposing funding for three types of
incentives--for enacting primary belt laws, for improving safety belt
use rates and for improving performance. Each of these incentives will
have their own eligibility criteria and their own earmarked funding. We
are concerned that the performance incentive program may be just as
complex as the myriad of programs that are currently authorized under
TEA-21. As noted in our testimony, GHSA urges that the goal in the next
reauthorization should be simplicity and consolidation. In our
proposal, we have combined the incentive for seat belt use rates with
the one for enacting a primary safety belt law.
In the proposed primary belt law incentive grants, GHSA is very
troubled by the distinction between states that enacted their primary
belt laws during TEA-21 and those that will enact them under SAFETEA.
The former states are eligible for only \1/2\ of their FY 2003 402
apportionments over a two-year period. The latter are eligible for 5
times their FY 2003 402 apportionments.
GHSA believes that it is very difficult for states to adopt primary
belt laws, no matter when they enact such laws, and that to make such a
distinction is unfair and serves to pit one set of states against
another. The Administration assumes that states with existing primary
laws can tap into the flexible safety funds. However, any state with a
primary belt law can flex the funds, assuming that the flex provisions
are, in fact, authorized. There would be no advantage for those states
with existing primary laws.
States that have primary belt laws should be rewarded for their
superior performance and states wishing to enact such laws should be
strongly encouraged to do so. If Congress were to treat all states with
primary laws equally, it would have to either authorize a $825 million
program (five times the FY 2003 402 level) or reduce the incentive to
all primary belt law states to 3.5 times their FY 2003 apportionment.
As noted previously, GHSA strongly opposes the flexible funding
proposal and urges that it be rejected.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted to Josephine S. Cooper
Question 1. There has been much made in the press about the safety
of SUVs and the safety data speaks volumes in this serious issue. What
more should NHTSA and the manufacturers do to reduce rollover deaths?
Answer. The Alliance agrees that rollovers represent a significant
safety challenge for all passenger vehicles and warrant action. Twice
as many rollover fatalities occur to occupants in passenger cars as
compared to SUVs. The Alliance is working to reduce the frequency and
consequences of rollover of all passenger vehicle types by:
Developing a vehicle handling test procedure that will
assess the performance of electronic stability control systems
and other advanced handling systems.
Developing test procedures to assess the performance of
occupant restraint technologies intended to reduce occupant
excursion and mitigate occupant ejections in rollovers.
Examining roof strength in rollover crashes.
These efforts are expected to result in recommended practices or
design guidelines.
Nearly three-quarters of the rollover fatalities occurring annually
involve occupants who were not wearing their safety belts. Wearing a
safety belt will reduce the risk of fatal injury in a rollover by 80
percent. Adoption of primary enforcement safety belt use laws by states
and the stepped up enforcement of these and all traffic safety laws
would help to immediately abate these fatalities.
An Alliance analysis of U.S. government statistics concludes that
today's SUVs are as safe as cars. In the most common of crashes (front,
side and rear crashes), SUVs have a safety record that surpasses that
of cars. An analysis of U.S. government data performed by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) looked at SUVs that were three-
years-old or newer. The conclusions of the IIHS study--which are
indicative of future trends--demonstrate that the safety performance of
SUVs surpasses that of cars.
Question 2. Given that thousands of fatalities are a result of the
failure of vehicle roofs to protect passengers during rollover, do you
believe automobile manufacturers have taken adequate remedial action in
incorporating roof crush improvements or can more be done?
Answer. Alliance members are continuously working to advance the
safety performance of their cars and trucks in all crash modes
including rollovers. Alliance members passenger-carrying cars and
trucks typically exceed the Federal safety standard for roof crush
resistance. Standard 216 establishes the strength requirements for the
passenger compartment roof. The standard requires that the amount of
roof crush not exceed 127 millimeters (5 inches) when a force equal to
1.5 times the vehicle's unloaded weight is applied to the forward edge
of a vehicle's roof. Typically, 127 millimeters of deformation is not
seen until the force applied is between 2 and 3 times a vehicle's
unloaded weight.
Of the roughly 26,000 occupants that NHTSA estimates are seriously
or fatally injured annually in light vehicle rollover crashes, 14
percent were using their safety belt and involved in a crash where roof
intrusion was present. Despite the extensive research to date, there
remains an uncertain relationship between roof crush resistance and
real-world crash outcomes. As NHTSA has observed, ``vehicles that
perform well in roof crush tests do not appear to better protect
occupants from severe roof intrusion in real-world crashes.'' See 66
Fed. Reg. 53383, October 21, 2001. This conundrum should he resolved
before any meaningful approach to increase roof crush resistance could
he developed. Whatever metric is developed to assess roof strength, it
must he shown that performance on this metric is related to real-world
crash outcomes.
The Alliance understands that NHTSA will propose an upgrade to its
roof strength standard later this year and we will work with NHTSA to
reduce injuries that result from occupant contact with the roof
Question 3. Considerable progress has been made over the last
decades in reducing highway fatalities, but this progress has slowed in
the last few years. In fact, the number of fatalities has increased
recently. What are the reasons for this spike?
Answer. There are two principle reasons: non-users of safety belts
and drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs. Through the efforts of the
Airbag & Seat Belt Safety Campaign, which is funded principally by
Alliance members, safety belt usage has increased to 75 percent,
compared to 61 percent when the Campaign started in 1996--however 59
percent of those killed in 2002 were not wearing their safety belts.
Alcohol-related fatalities also increased in 2002 for the third
consecutive year and accounted for 42 percent of all fatalities.
Other factors include: motorcycle fatalities increased for the
fifth straight year; fatal crashes involving young drivers 16 to 20
years old increased slightly; and occupant fatalities for children 8 to
15 years old increased by nearly 9 percent. Adoption of primary
enforcement safety belt use laws by states and the stepped up
enforcement of these and all traffic safety laws would help to abate
these fatalities.
Suggestions that the number of highway fatalities is increasing
because of an epidemic of fatal rollovers involving SUVs are not
supported by the data. During the period 1995--2002, the number of
light vehicle occupant fatalities occurring annually has hovered around
32,000. However, there has been a slight shift in the distribution of
fatalities attributable to rollover and non-rollover crashes from 30:70
to 33:67. Likewise, as expected, the distribution of fatalities by body
type has also shifted as the on-road light vehicle fleet mix has
changed. However, this distribution tracks the fleet mix. In other
words, in 2002 SUVs comprised roughly 12 percent of the on-road fleet
and 12 percent of the light vehicle occupant fatalities that occurred
in 2002 involved SUV occupants. Normalizing the data for exposure by
calculating a fatality rate on either a per 100,000 registered vehicle
basis or on a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) basis, one finds that the
fatalities rates for all crash types and all vehicle body types have
fallen over this period. The SUV rollover fatality rate has declined 15
percent over this period (compared to 11 percent for passenger cars).
However, the number of registered SUVs during this period has grown by
130 percent, compared to only 5.2 percent for passenger cars,
representing a significant increase in exposure. None of this data
would suggest that we are seeing the start of an epidemic of rollover
crash fatalities.
Question 4. The lack of progress in reducing highway fatalities is
especially frustrating in light of the billions of dollars that have
been spent on highway safety and infrastructure improvements under TEA-
21. As we move forward and reauthorize these programs, where should we
make future safety investments to ensure sustained progress?
Answer. Principally on increasing safety belt usage and reducing
impaired driving. We will never fully realize the potential benefits of
vehicle safety technologies until vehicle occupants are properly
restrained and impaired drivers are off the road. The Alliance believes
we will have an immediate safety benefit if we are able to increase
national safety belt usage to the levels observed in Canada (92
percent) and some states, e.g., California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii.
Increasing safety belt usage to 92 percent from its current 75 percent
usage level would save 4,500 lives annually and countless injuries
would be avoided. In addition to the incentive grants proposed in
SAFETEA and the Federal highway fund sanctions recommended below, the
Alliance supports S. 1139 introduced by Senators DeWine and Lautenberg.
This bill would fund at least three high-visibility traffic safety law
enforcement campaigns annually for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009. The
campaigns would focus on increasing safety belt usage and reducing
impaired driving.
Question 5. The Administration's SAFETEA proposal would consolidate
some programs and give states greater flexibility on spending decisions
by allowing the movement of funds between parts of the Section 402
programs and highway safety construction programs. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of this approach?
Answer. The advantage to this approach would he lower
administrative costs and a more streamlined application process for
states. The disadvantage would he a diversion of funds towards highway
safety constructions programs. Section 402 funds should be separate
and, in fact, Congress should consider creating a separate Highway
Safety Trust Fund to ensure that these programs are properly funded in
the future.
Question 6. As Congress seeks to encourage the states to reduce
their traffic-related fatalities through various programs, it can
choose to provide incentive grants or it can choose to penalize states
for not adopting highway safety laws. Which approach is more effective?
Answer. Actually a combined approach. In addition to the incentive
grants proposed in SAFETEA, Federal highway fund sanctions should also
be included which would he imposed if acceptable belt use levels have
not been reached after a defined period of time--perhaps 3 years.
Question 7. What are the major items in SAFETEA that you like about
the proposal and what, in your view, should be reconsidered? Are there
aspects of highway safety that the proposal does not address?
Answer. The Alliance supports the following proposals contained in
SAFETEA:
Sec. 2001 Highway Safety Program which provides incentives
for states that pass primary enforcement safety belt laws, high
visibility enforcement of these laws, and an impaired driving
grant program. Consideration should be given to (I) coupling
the incentive grants with Federal highway fund sanctions should
acceptable belt use levels not be achieved after a defined
period of time, and (2) providing funding beyond the level
proposed to address the deadly problem of impaired driving.
Sec. 2002 Highway Safety Research and Development--in
particular the crash causation survey and international
cooperation.
Sec. 2004 State Traffic Safety Information System
Improvement. The Alliance supports the provision to upgrade
state traffic record systems.
Items to be reconsidered:
There is a need for greater state accountability for
expenditure of 402 funds. NHTSA should he required to approve
annual state highway safety plans before funding is
distributed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted to Richard Berman
Question 1. If roadblocks and public awareness campaigns that
highlight the harmful consequences of driving drunk are not, in your
opinion, effective measures to combat repeat and ``hard-core'' drunk
drivers, then what are effective measures?
Answer. The most effective measures are those which address the
problem. The drunk driving problem has transformed, but the solutions
have not. In the early 1980s, the problem stemmed from both hard-core
drunk drivers and from a general societal disregard for the dangers of
drunk drinking. In this context, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
served an important role by alerting the general public to the dangers
of drunk driving and helping to change a culture. Today, as former MADD
President Katherine Prescott stated, the drunk driving problem is
``down to a hard core of alcoholics who do not respond to public
appeal.'' However, MADD has not changed its tactics to target the
current perpetrators. Instead, they have proposed ever-more-draconian
measures aimed at the social drinker, coupled with PR campaigns on
drinking and drugs.
But alcohol abusers do not respond to public service announcements
or admonitions not to drive drunk. As The New York Times identified as
early as 1997, ``the people heeding the message are not the ones who
drink the most,'' and it may be time for ``states and judges to try new
strategies.''
High-BAC drinkers and repeat offenders are the core of the drunk
driving problem in this country. The medical evidence suggests that
high-BAC repeat offenders are probably compulsive violators of the law,
given their alcohol addiction. MADD is a public relations operation; it
simply is not equipped to deal with a drunk driving problem that is now
about a health issue: alcohol abuse.
Given the fact that these drivers cannot be persuaded by public
opinion campaigns, the sole option left is to apprehend, punish, and,
more importantly, treat them. The issue then becomes one of formulating
the most efficient mechanism to catch these drivers without imposing
undue burdens upon the law-abiding public. Roadblocks--by far the most
frequently proposed ``solution'' to this dilemma--demonstrably achieve
neither of these objectives.
In a 1995 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
report, the authors note that ``for chronic drunk drivers, [sobriety]
checkpoints may not be very effective since these drivers are more
likely to avoid them in the first place, and have learned to alter
their driving behavior to avoid detection.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stuster, J.W. and Blowers, P.A. ``Experimental Evaluation of
Sobriety Checkpoint Programs,'' National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadblocks are thus exposing the whole population to a public
relations scare campaign to get people ``to drink less,'' as MADD
acknowledged on their website and not a concerted campaign to reduce
drunk driving deaths and injuries. As Dr. Jeffrey Michael, Director of
Impaired Driving & Occupant Protection Division of NHTSA, stated, with
roadblocks ``you aren't trying to arrest a lot of people, you're trying
to persuade the community that they are facing a higher probability of
arrest.''
Roadblock statistics from May 2003 clearly demonstrate their
inefficiency:
A Memorial Day roadblock campaign in Chico, CA stopped 799
drivers, and failed to net one DUI. Arrest percentage: 0
percent
A roadblock conducted by the Nevada Highway Patrol on May 23
stopped 1,150 drivers and resulted in one DUI. Arrest
percentage: .09 percent
More than 4,000 cars passed through a May 30 roadblock in
Moreno Valley, CA, and resulted in four arrests for driving
under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Arrest percentage: .1
percent
All of these fall well below the current .5 percent standard of
``efficiency'' established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1990
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz case.
Furthermore, roadblocks rely upon being widely announced prior to
their operation for their PR value. So again, people who are serious
drinkers can find a way to avoid them.
However, there are other, more efficient law enforcement tools for
catching drunk drivers. Foremost among them are saturation patrols. A
report in the FBI's January 2003 Law Enforcement Bulletin states, ``It
is proven that saturation efforts will bring more DUI arrests than
sobriety checkpoints.'' Moreover, ``Saturation patrols may afford a
more effective means of detecting repeat offenders, who are likely to
avoid detection at sobriety checkpoints.''
With extensive evidence proving that saturation patrols are
offender specific and the most effective at catching high-BAC and
repeat offenders--the acknowledged root of the problem--there is no
logical reason not to implement them nationally.
Once the driver has been stopped, mandated alcohol screening for
high-BAC and repeat offenders is necessary to make sure that they are
properly identified.
Question 2. What would be the most useful action Congress could
take in its reauthorization measure to promote an effective mechanism
to reduce drunk driving?
Answer. The most useful action is a fresh focus on the problem--
which refers back to the answer to the first question. The problem is
not people who drink responsibly at a restaurant or a friend's house
before driving home. Twenty years' worth of NHTSA data show the same
virtually nonexistent level of involvement in alcohol-related
fatalities for drivers with BAC's of .04 percent, .05 percent, .06
percent, .07 percent--up to .09 percent. Moreover, the data show that
year after year the involvement rate of drivers with BACs of .01
percent--which even the most ardent anti-alcohol activist would agree
was not alcohol-caused--is identical to that of drivers with BACs of up
to .09 percent.
In fact, laws to arrest drivers at .08 percent BAC have reached so
far into this cohort of responsible adults that we are punishing people
with severe sanctions for behavior that is statistically less likely to
cause accidents than cell phone use. A 1997 study published in The New
England Journal of Medicine found that cell phone use impaired a driver
as much as a .10 percent BAC.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Redelmeier DA, Tibshirani RJ. Association between cellular-
telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. N Engl J Med
1997;336:453-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While no one is arguing that .01 percent and .09 percent are
identical BAC thresholds, the alcohol-related fatality rate is
identical because responsible adults self-regulate. Nobody knows their
exact BAC when they leave a restaurant or tavern, but responsible
adults do know when they are able to drive safely and when they aren't.
(See Chart 1) So if the accidents spike up at the right-hand side of
the chart, we have to ask ourselves, ``What is the common
characteristic among those fatalities?'' Clearly, the commonality is
excessive drinking--and excessive drinking is a significant indicator
of a medical problem.
While drunk driving was originally a traffic safety issue because
of the broad population of people involved, it is now a health issue
predicated upon a medical addiction. The problem has changed, but we
have not changed our focus or how we appropriate money for the issue
itself. In fact, more money should be spent through the National
Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) instead of through
NHTSA on this particular problem.
Question 3. Considerable progress has been made over the last
decades in reducing highway fatalities, but this progress has slowed in
the last few years. In fact, the number of fatalities has increased
recently. What are the reasons for this spike?
Answer. Firstly, this is not a spike. As Dr. Jeffrey Michael of
NHTSA recently stated, ``it's more meaningful to look at the death
rates. And when you do . . . the rate of fatalities is apparently
stable'' due to the increased number of miles driven. In fact, he
continued, the slight increase in the number of alcohol-related
fatalities is ``all coming out of the high-BAC data source. In fact,
it's high BAC despite the reduction of low BACs.''
In the May 22 hearing, NHTSA Administrator Dr. Jeffrey Runge also
testified that yes, the accidents had picked up some, but on a miles-
driven basis they had not gone up. The general trend is down and has
been down for some time. Obviously, if you increase the number of miles
on the road, you have many more opportunities for accidents of all
kinds.
To understand the traffic safety trends, one must also look at
demographics. The lower number of drunk driving deaths, for instance,
has moved in a very close relationship to the decreasing numbers of
younger drivers in the population (see Chart 2). A glance at the chart
will show you that an increase in younger drivers coincides with the
current slight rise in accidents. Youths have always been
disproportionately predisposed to various kinds of dangerous behavior.
With cars a ubiquitous part of our society, we should not be surprised
that alcohol-related fatalities have begun to increase. Over the next
15 years, this percentage of young people will continue to escalate,
raising the number of people who will engage in risky behavior of all
kinds, despite what the law says.
In fact, we predicted the slight uptick in numbers based on
demographics during June 27, 2002 testimony before the U.S. House
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Question 4. The lack of progress in reducing highway fatalities is
especially frustrating in light of the billions of dollars that have
been spent on highway safety and infrastructure improvements under TEA-
21. As we move forward and reauthorize these programs, where should we
make further safety investments to ensure sustained progress?
Answer. There is a question of the relationship between states and
the Federal Government when it comes to funding effective programs. The
Federal Government is becoming more aggressive about using ``financial
encouragement'' or ``blackmail'' to force states, governors,
legislators and highway safety officials to accept Washington's view of
what works. In ever more instances, states are being penalized when
they have above-average safety records, but do not adopt federally
approved laws. With few exceptions (e.g., the minimum drinking age,
requiring helmet use for motorcycle drivers/riders and a mandated
national speed limit, which were rescinded), highway safety
countermeasures were funded on incentives. More recently, three
sanction programs have been implemented to require even the most
successful state safety programs to adopt laws the Federal Government
believe to be effective.
State governments and traffic safety experts should not be
subjected to financial blackmail because they do not believe in one-
size-fits-all solutions to drunk driving. This is not an industry
position, but one that was taken by numerous traffic safety groups \3\
during the last two debates over highway funding. There is no logic in
believing that national special interest groups and Washington insiders
know more about what programs a state should enact to ensure effective
traffic safety than officials in that state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These traffic safety groups include the National Governors'
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council
of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties, the American Automobile Association, the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the
American Traffic Safety Services Association, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Association of
Governors' Highway Safety Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Road improvements, surface improvements, lighting, etc. are
considered to be significantly causal factors in highway deaths.
According to the Department of Transportation, 30 percent of deaths on
American highways are caused by road conditions.\4\ And the states and
localities are in a much better position to determine whether and where
those investments ought to be made than the Federal Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Transportation. ``Highway Statistics,''
Federal Highway Administration, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Block grants to states to address these problems may not be the
most targeted way to get results, but they are surely better than a
Washington, DC-based perspective of what it takes to get the job done
in 50 different states with thousands of jurisdictions.
However, we ought to accept the fact that we will reach a point of
diminishing marginal returns. When you couple 2.83 trillion miles
driven in the U.S. every year to myriad human error possibilities, we
will reach the point where all of the low-lying fruit has been plucked.
Just like a host of other crimes, despite all the laws and the long-
standing commitment of law enforcement to stop these, we do get to the
point where we reach the irreducible minimum. As long as we're in a
free society, we're going to have to accept a certain number of people
refusing to stay inside the law. Until we decide to change our focus,
until we address the more resistant high-BAC and repeat offenders, we
will be at the irreducible minimum.
Question 5. The Administration's SAFETEA proposal would consolidate
some programs and give states greater flexibility on spending decisions
by allowing the movement of funds between parts of the Section 402
programs and highway safety construction programs. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of this approach?
Answer. There are no disadvantages if you trust state governments
to be just as concerned for their own citizens' safety as their elected
representatives at the Federal level. Our belief is that the states are
the great laboratories for experimentation for many issues, including
traffic safety. And highways and traffic are about as logical an arena
for state government to bring their expertise to bear as any. For
instance, there is no way for the Federal Government to know where all
of the dangerous intersections are around the country--but local
officials do. If the goal is to create effective programs that deal
with existing problems, then tailored solutions are necessary. And
there are simply too many variables and too much information to make
Federal control viable in such a situation.
Question 6. As Congress seeks to encourage the states to reduce
their traffic-related fatalities through various programs, it can
choose to provide incentive grants or it can choose to penalize states
for not adopting highway safety laws. Which approach is more effective?
Answer. It's got more to do with the amount of money involved than
whether it is a carrot or a stick. The first issue is the philosophy--
and the philosophy is, ``Does Washington know better than the states
about protecting its citizens on the highways, or are the states more
sensitive to what the needs are?'' If significant incentives are in
place, it's up to the states to determine whether they want to apply
for that grant and spend the money in that area. In fact, on
incentives, the Federal Government should consider matching grants on a
one to one dollar basis or a two to one basis.
Penalties to take away money appear to suggest that there is a
difference of opinion between the states and some politically-motivated
interest groups who cannot convince the traffic authorities at the
local level that their idea works, and so they've taken the philosophy
of bludgeoning people into their point of view. This approach seems, by
its very nature, to suggest that it is not a great idea. Such coercion
certainly does not lend itself to intergovernmental cooperation.
Moreover, you have to ask, ``If you gave someone money to protect
the citizenry, and they didn't accept it, is there something wrong with
the idea in the first place?''
Question 7. What are the major items in SAFETEA that you like about
the proposal and what, in your view, should be reconsidered? Are there
aspects of highway safety that this proposal does not address?
Answer. We support the SAFETEA plan of combining all highway safety
programs into one more efficient grant system (instead of the many
different grant programs currently being funded). We further support
the grant system's focus on more incentives to states. We also support
eliminating existing mandates, and giving states access to this larger
pool of money if they adopted a certain number of recommended--and
proven effective--programs. This contrasts the current system of
punitive mandates that take money away from states that choose not to
enact ``federally approved'' (and often unproven) programs. We also
think SAFETEA would benefit from more options on the list of anti-drunk
driving measures that would be eligible for funding. A longer list of
programs offers state governments more opportunities to develop
aggressive and innovative prevention ideas. Programs on the list of
incentives could include: administrative license revocation, high-BAC
tiered penalties, repeat offender programs, graduated penalties, record
keeping/information tracking, programs to reduce suspended license
driving, treatment programs, ID checks for underage drinkers, specific
repeat-offender programs, and .08 percent BAC. Some of these programs
or laws are already funded as incentives or mandates.
Alcohol-related fatalities are only one part of the larger traffic
safety dilemma, and SAFETEA should devote some attention to other
driving problems as well. We, like many other groups, promote
increasing seatbelt incentives as a way to reduce fatalities and
injuries of all kinds. But funding should be provided for other safety
counter-measures related to drowsy or fatigued driving, elderly
drivers, cell-phone use and other electronic distractions, aggressive
driving, and other emerging problems, with the hopes of reducing even
more fatalities.
Note: Population statistics are compiled using Census Bureau
estimates from 1990 for the years 1990 to 2000 (see U.S. Census Bureau,
Population Estimates Program, Resident Population Estimates of the
United States by Age and Sex: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999, with
Short-Term Projection to November 1, 2000, available from http://
eire.census.gov/popest/archives/national/nation2/intfile2-1.txt,
accessed 26 June 2002.). and population projections based on the 1990
census for the years 2001-2005 (see U.S. Census Bureau, Population
Projections Program, Projections of the Total Resident Population by 5-
Year Age Groups, and Sex with Special Age Categories: Middle Series,
2001 to 2005, available from http://eire.census.gov/popest/archives/
national/nation2/intfile2-1.txt, accessed 26 June 2002.). Traffic
fatality statistics are compiled from Table 13 and Table 18 from
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts
2000, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001.
Source: Unpublished ABI analysis of U.S. Department of
Transportation Fatality Analysis Reporting System data on BAC levels
and fatalities in accidents where a driver was actually tested. Imputed
fatalities were not included in this analysis. Nineteen states were
considered 0.08 states for the analysis including the District of
Columbia. These 19 states all had 0.08 laws in effect prior to the 2001
year that was used for this analysis.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted to Wendy Hamilton
Question 1. What do NHTSA and the states need to do to make the
most improvements in the critical area of alcohol impaired driving?
What have been the most, and least, effective programs in reducing
drunk driving?
Answer. MADD supports the deployment of science-based, data driven
impaired driving countermeasures that have been proven to successfully
deter alcohol impaired driving. While there is no single cure to reduce
the carnage caused by alcohol impaired driving, research shows that
certain initiatives and laws work. These measures include: high
visibility law enforcement mobilizations, sobriety checkpoints and
saturation patrols, administrative license revocation (ALR), laws to
address higher-risk offenders (high BAC and repeat offenders), .08
blood alcohol concentration (BAC)/illegal per se, and a primary seat
belt standard. These measures are the basic building blocks of a
comprehensive battle plan against drunk driving, and if implemented
will save lives and prevent injuries.
The single most effective effort to deter and apprehend drunk
drivers is the dedicated use of high visibility law enforcement
mobilization campaigns. These campaigns combine targeted law
enforcement (sobriety checkpoints, saturation patrols, and/or seat belt
enforcement) with the purchase of advertising in broadcast or print
media. These efforts have the greatest ability to effectively reduce
alcohol impaired driving and to increase seat belt usage.
The least effective traffic safety efforts result from failing to
target limited resources to the highest needs. NHTSA and the states,
when creating highway safety plans, must establish a strong correlation
between problem identification, strategy, program/countermeasure
selection and funding. Priority programming of Federal funds must,
first and foremost, be based on data driven alcohol impaired driving
countermeasures and seat belt initiatives. More than 40 percent of all
traffic crashes are alcohol-related, and yet the Nation's traffic
safety funding in not being targeted to reduce impaired driving in an
effective, strategic way.
Question 2. MADD proposes several recommendations to curb alcohol
related traffic fatalities. Which one of these recommendations would
have the greatest impact if implemented?
Answer. MADD believes that high visibility national law enforcement
mobilization campaigns will have the greatest short-term and long-term
impact if implemented. These campaigns are most successful when law
enforcement agencies from multiple jurisdictions designate several
concentrated periods throughout the year to conduct intensive
enforcement of seat belt an/or impaired driving safety laws on a
national, statewide and local basis.
If enacted, S. 1139, sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) and
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), will save lives. This bill provides
funding for paid advertising at the national and state level and
resources to law enforcement agencies across the country for training,
technology and staff time to ensure optimal deployment and
effectiveness. MADD strongly encourages the Committee to include S.
1139 as part of the reauthorized TEA-21.
Question 3. You suggest that for every dollar spent on effective
highway safety programs about $30 are saved by society. Is there a
diminishing return in some states while others reap more benefits?
Answer. Although MADD believes that behavioral traffic safety
programs are woefully under funded, money alone does not equate to the
success or failure of highway safety programs. The key is to target
funding for programs linked to problem identification based on data.
Focusing on ``what works'' and requiring a greater level of
accountability on the national, state and local levels provides the
best opportunity to reduce deaths and injuries and economic costs.
According to a recent NHTSA report, the economic impact of motor
vehicle crashes on the Nation's roadways has reached $230.6 billion a
year or an average of $820 for every person living in the United
States. Overall, nearly 75 percent of the costs of roadway crashes are
paid by those not directly involved, primarily through insurance
premiums, taxes, and travel delay. Reducing the frequency and severity
of motor vehicle traffic crashes is not simply a matter of public
safety; it is also a matter of economic necessity.
In order to ensure that Section 402--and all--highway safety funds
are spent effectively, states should have to submit a highway safety
plan that reflects the data in their particular state (ie, what causes
highway death and injury in a particular state and what are the most
effective solutions). Regional NHTSA offices should work in conjunction
with the states to identify problem areas, and assist in identifying
appropriate, proven countermeasures.
Question 4. Please respond to the ABI's comments regarding the
definition of impaired driving as it relates to the collection of
traffic fatality data. More specifically, there are different ways a
driver can be impaired. What percentage of impaired driving is alcohol-
related?
Answer. In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people died on the Nation's
highways, up from 42,116 in 2001. Nearly 18,000 people, or 42 percent
of all traffic fatalities, were killed in alcohol-related traffic
crashes. MADD believes that each of the lives lost in alcohol-related
crashes (as well as the hundreds of thousands of injuries) is 100
percent preventable.
NHTSA defines a fatal crash as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved
if either a driver or a non-motorist (usually a pedestrian) had a
measurable or estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams
per deciliter (g/dl) or above. NHTSA also defines a nonfatal crash as
alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if police indicate on the police
accident report that there is evidence of alcohol present. MADD is
extremely concerned that currently only 60 percent of drivers involved
in fatal crashes are tested to determine if alcohol was involved.
MADD is the largest victims' assistance organization in the Nation.
MADD serves victims who have lost family members in alcohol-related
crashes, regardless of the BAC levels involved, and regardless of who
was killed in the crash (ie, the drunk driver or an innocent motorist).
The alcohol beverage industry points out in their testimony the
following (using the year 2000 as an example):
A breakdown of the 17,448 deaths includes:
About 2,500 to 3,500 crash deaths in which no driver was
legally drunk but alcohol was detected.
1,770 deaths involved drunk pedestrians killed when they
walked in front of sober drivers.
About 8,000 deaths involved only a single car and in most of
those cases the only death was the drunk driver.
That leaves about 5,000 sober victims killed by legally
drunk drivers.
MADD's analysis of these numbers shows that the alcohol beverage
industry is attempting to manipulate the data:
``Legally drunk'' in many states at the time the 2000 data
was collected meant a BAC of .10 or higher. In 2000 the .08
national standard was signed into law. In 2000 there were 18
states that had an illegal per see .08 law, and today there are
40 and counting.
While a concern, the number of pedestrian crashes in which
the pedestrian was drunk makes up a very small portion of the
overall alcohol-related number. Because pedestrian crashes are
included in the overall alcohol-related number, MADD and other
safety groups are careful to cite the overall number as
``alcohol-related,'' and not ``drunk driving'' or ``impaired
driving'' deaths.
Families grieve for the loss of their loved one regardless
of whether the person killed was the drunk driver or an
innocent motorist. This alcohol industry comment is extremely
offensive.
It is most difficult for many families and loved ones to
make sense of the tragedy of losing a sober victim killed in an
alcohol-related crash. These stories most often make headlines
because of the random nature and timing of death.
Highway fatalities in America will not be reduced, as the alcohol
beverage industry contends, by lowering the legal drinking age, raising
the amount of alcohol that a person may consume before driving, or by
eliminating sobriety checkpoints. As their testimony attests, the
industry's latest effort is to discredit the manner in which NHTSA
defines and tabulates ``alcohol-related'' crashes. Research from DOT
and the Department of Health shows that the risk of being involved in a
crash increases significantly starting at low BAC levels. Not
surprisingly, the risk of being involved in a traffic crash rises
rapidly with the amount of alcohol consumed.
Question 5. Considerable progress has been made over the past
decades in reducing highway fatalities, but this progress has slowed in
the last few years. In fact, the number of fatalities has increased
recently. What are the reasons for this spike?
Answer. Between 1980--the year MADD was founded--and 1994, alcohol-
related traffic deaths dropped by a dramatic 43 percent. However, for
the third consecutive year, alcohol-related traffic deaths have
increased. Preliminary statistics show that nearly 18,000 people were
killed and hundreds of thousands more were injured in these crashes
just last year. According to DOT, in 2000 alcohol-involved crashes
accounted for 21 percent of nonfatal injury crash costs, and an
overwhelming 46 percent of all fatal injury crash costs. In order to
reverse this trend, the Nation cannot maintain the status quo and
expect a different result. The main reason for the increase is that the
Nation has become complacent about alcohol-impaired driving--many think
that the war has been won.
The nation's effort to stop alcohol-impaired driving must be
reenergized. We must deter people from drinking and driving to begin
with, (via enforcement efforts and priority traffic safety laws) and
for those who continue to drink and drive, the judicial system must
work better to ensure that offenders do not continuously fall through
the cracks (see S. 1141--targeting high BAC and repeat offenders).
In response to the spike in alcohol-related traffic deaths, MADD
convened a National Impaired Driving Summit to bring together leading
experts to identify the most effective countermeasures to significantly
cut alcohol-related traffic deaths and injuries. The Summit
recommendations are an attempt to counter the causes of the stagnation
and recent increases. The recommendations are:
Resuscitate the Nation's efforts to prevent impaired driving
by re-igniting public passion and calling on the citizens and
the Nation's leaders to ``Get MADD All Over Again.''
Increase DWI/DUI enforcement, especially the use of
frequent, highly publicized sobriety checkpoints, which have
been proven one of the most effective weapons in the war on
drunk driving.
Enact primary enforcement seat belt laws in all states
because seat belts are the best defense against impaired
drivers. MADD recommends the Federal government give states a
brief incentive period, followed by withholding Federal highway
funds from states that do not enact primary belt laws.
Enact tougher, more comprehensive sanctions geared toward
higher-risk drivers--repeat offenders, drivers with high blood-
alcohol levels, and DWI offenders driving with suspended
licenses.
Develop a dedicated National Traffic Safety Fund to support
ongoing and new priority traffic safety programs.
Reduce underage drinking--the No. 1 youth drug problem--
through improving minimum drinking age laws, adopting tougher
alcohol advertising standards and increasing enforcement and
awareness of laws such as ``zero tolerance drinking-driving''
and sales to minors.
Increase beer excise taxes to equal the current excise tax
on distilled spirits. Higher beer taxes are associated with
lower rates of traffic fatalities and youth alcohol
consumption.
Reinvigorate court-monitoring programs to identify
shortcomings in the judicial system and produce higher
conviction rates and stiffer sentences for offenders.
Question 6. The lack of progress in reducing highway fatalities is
especially frustrating in light of the billions of dollars that have
been spent on highway safety and infrastructure improvements under TEA-
21. As we move forward and reauthorize these programs, where should we
make future safety improvements to ensure sustained programs?
Answer. Funding is an important factor in the success of national,
state and local traffic safety programs to reduce drunk driving. In
2001, while the economic cost of traffic crashes was $230 billion, the
Federal government spent only $522 million on highway safety and only
one-quarter of that was used to fight impaired driving. Compared to the
financial and human costs of drunk driving, our Nation's spending is
woefully inadequate to address the magnitude of this problem.
What MADD found, under TEA-21, was that much of the funding labeled
as ``safety'' was diverted to construction ``safety'' programs.
Although alcohol is a factor in 42 percent of all traffic deaths, only
26 percent of all highway safety funding available to the states
through TEA-21 was spent on alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures.
In addition, funding dedicated to address behavioral traffic safety
programs was often spent on programs that failed to reflect the true
nature of a state's highway safety concerns.
It is just as important to know where the money is going and how it
is being spent. That is why MADD is asking Congress to hold states and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration accountable for the
expenditure of Federal highway safety funds. Our goal is not to make
their jobs more difficult. It is to recognize that political pressures
and ``flavor of the month'' traffic safety issues can influence how
dollars are spent. If DOT's primary goal is to reverse the current
trend, it is time to create a more consistent process that ensures the
efficient and proper use of Federal funds to help the Nation achieve
its highway safety goals.
For these reasons, MADD's reauthorization proposal calls for
increased funding for proven, science based countermeasures and greater
accountability for the expenditure of Federal highway safety funds to
achieve sustained progress in reducing traffic deaths and injuries.
Question 7. The Administration's SAFETEA proposal would consolidate
some programs and give states greater flexibility on spending decisions
by allowing the movement of funds between parts of Section 402 programs
and highway construction programs. What are the advantages and
disadvantages to this approach?
Answer. States overwhelmingly choose to shift behavioral traffic
safety funding to construction when given ``flexibility.'' According to
the General Accounting Office, states shifted 69 percent of the open
container and repeat offender transfer funds (FY01-02) to roadway
construction under FHWA's Hazard Elimination Program. The overwhelming
majority of ``safety'' funding in the ``SAFETEA'' proposal is budgeted
in the new ``Highway Safety Improvement Program'' (HSIP), which is
really a highway construction safety program. In 2004 alone, $1 billion
is allocated to the HSIP program. These funds are to be used for
``safety improvement projects,'' defined below.
A safety improvement project corrects or improves a hazardous
roadway condition, or proactively addresses highway safety
problems that may include: intersection improvements;
installation of rumble strips and other warning devices;
elimination of roadside obstacles; railway-highway grade
crossing safety; pedestrian or bicycle safety; traffic calming;
improving highway signage and pavement marking; installing
traffic control devices at high crash locations or priority
control systems for emergency vehicles at signalized
intersections, safety conscious planning and improving crash
data collection and analysis, etc.
MADD sees no advantage to allowing states to be able to shift
behavior funds to construction. On the contrary, the failure to
allocate funds to address proven impaired driving countermeasures, such
as law enforcement mobilizations, is likely an important factor in
recent increases in alcohol-related traffic deaths. Given that human
factors account for the majority of traffic crashes, it is difficult to
understand the vastly disproportionate funding levels for behavioral
versus roadway construction safety programs and why DOT allows a
significant portion of the behavioral funds to be used to augment even
more roadway construction spending.
Question 8. As Congress seeks to encourage states to reduce their
traffic-related fatalities through various programs, it can choose to
provide incentive grants or it can choose to penalize states for not
adopting highway safety laws. Which approach is more effective?
Answer. Penalizing states is clearly the more effective approach to
encourage states to adopt proven highway safety laws. While incentive
programs have had some success, it is clear that--particularly with
alcohol-related traffic laws--penalties have shown greater results than
incentives. DOT estimates that the 21 Minimum Drinking Age (MDA) law
has saved thousands of lives since the national standard was put in
place in 1984. A national zero tolerance standard for youth, adopted by
Congress is 1995, was also successful in getting states to enact better
laws for underage drivers. Clearly the national .08 BAC standard,
enacted in 2000, has been much more effective than the TEA-21 incentive
program. Under the incentive program, only two states passed .08 BAC
laws. Since the national .08 standard was enacted, 22 states have
passed this important law.
Question 9. What are the major items in SAFETEA that you like about
the proposal and what, in your view, should be reconsidered? Are there
aspects of highway safety that the proposal does not address?
Answer. SAFETEA provides major increases in construction safety
while flat-funding or even cutting behavioral safety programs. This is
puzzling since GAO just recently reiterated what the traffic safety
community has known for years--that human behavior (not roadway
environment) is the leading factor in crash causation.
Although alcohol-related traffic deaths have increased for the past
three years, SAFETEA significantly decreases funding for alcohol-
impaired programs. SAFETEA proposes a specific impaired driving program
of only $50 million, far less than current funding levels. In FY03,
TEA-21 authorized $150 million for alcohol-impaired driving
countermeasures and contained requirements for states to enact repeat
offender and open container laws. Not only does SAFETEA cut specific
impaired driving funding to $50 million, it fails to include incentives
to states to enact effective alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures.
While the Administration claims that reducing alcohol-related
traffic fatalities is a top priority, the SAFETEA proposal fails to
include funding for proven countermeasures. Although law enforcement
efforts, such as paid media blitzes coupled with enforcement efforts
like sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols, have been proven to
be extremely effective, SAFETEA does not incorporate these obvious
solutions.
MADD believes that progress will occur when adequate funding is
provided for traffic safety programs and when a commitment is made to
put proven impaired driving countermeasures, such as law enforcement
mobilizations, into place. There must be improved accountability on the
national, regional and state levels to ensure that Federal funds are
being used in a strategic and coordinated effort. The reauthorization
provides Congress with the opportunity to encourage states to enact
priority traffic safety laws--such as primary seat belt enforcement,
higher-risk driver and open container standards--as well as to ensure
that effective behavioral traffic safety programs are being carried
out.