[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING ROADWAY SAFETY:
ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND
TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION'S
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
(110-153)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-655 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa York
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Louisiana
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
VACANCY
(ii)
?
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York DON YOUNG, Alaska
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts GARY G. MILLER, California
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Carolina
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Virginia
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
BOB FILNER, California TED POE, Texas
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Louisiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Vice Chair THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
VACANCY JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio)
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President, Advocates For Highway &
Auto Safety.................................................... 29
Ingrassia, Jill, Managing Director, Government Relations &
Traffic Safety Advocacy, AAA................................... 29
James, Patrick, American Center for Van and Tire Safety.......... 29
Letourneau, Hon. Robert, New Hampshire State Senator, Motorcycle
Foundation, Concord, New Hampshire............................. 29
Mooney, Laura Dean, President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving..... 29
Murphy, Christopher J., Director, California Office of Traffic
Safety and Chairman Governors Highway Safety Association....... 4
Ports, Jim, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration................................................. 4
Siggerud, Katherine A., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 45
Braley, Hon. Bruce L., of Iowa................................... 46
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 48
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 49
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Gillan, Jacqueline S............................................. 53
Ingrassia, Jill.................................................. 67
James, Patrick................................................... 73
Letourneau, Hon. Robert.......................................... 104
Mooney, Laura Dean............................................... 116
Murphy, Christopher J............................................ 129
Ports, Jr., James F.............................................. 137
Siggerud, Katherine.............................................. 143
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Mooney, Laura Dean, President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving:
``Health Effects of Alcohol on Children and Adolescents,''
Ronald M. Davis, M.D., President, American Medical
Association.................................................. 123
Remarks of Mark V. Rosenker, Chairman, National Transportation
Safety Board, for the ``Support 21'' press conference........ 127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.009
HEARING ON IMPROVING ROADWAY SAFETY: ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
NHTSA'S HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS
----------
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter
A. DeFazio [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mrs. Napolitano. [Presiding] Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. The hearing for the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit is coming
to order.
I personally want to thank Chairman DeFazio for allowing me
to chair until he is able to come back to this hearing.
And thank you, Mr. Duncan, for coming with us.
Today's hearing is regarding the effectiveness of the
National Highway Traffic Safeway Administration's Highway
Safety Programs. These programs improve roadway safety by
increasing occupant protection measures, including seat belt
usage; reducing drunk driving--and hopefully also drugged
driving--distracted driving, which would include cell phones;
and, of course reckless driving and speeding.
Major costs of highway accidents in my district are due to
reckless driving in and around highway and railroad grade
crossings, as well as speed. As freight and commuter railroad
services rapidly increase, it is imperative that we address
grade crossing safety and work with our railroads to improve
those particular areas at the grade crossings, whether through
grade separations or improved quad gates or any other area that
we can effectively put into use.
Communities must be assisted to implement effective
countermeasures--like I said, the quad gates, median barriers
approaching these crossings, and grade separation projects--
which we hope the railroads will continue to increase their
help in providing those. The effectiveness of railroad gates is
a major concern in my district and allows drivers to maneuver
around malfunctioning gates, especially if they are in a hurry
or during a rainstorm or they are keeping appointments, being
that 160 trains travel through my district every day over 54
grade crossings in a heavily populated area. Add to that other
issues, whether it is drunk driving, reckless speeding, any
other safety factor, this is going to be a real problem,
especially since the frequency of train traffic is expected to
increase, double by 2020.
There are concerns about the DUI, DWI--whatever you want to
name it--being used to implement certain things such as
immigration checkpoints; concern that the local governments are
using Federal and State grants intended for nighttime DUI or
DWI, checkpoints to implement these daytime immigration
checkpoints. And let me tell you, they are using it as an
income increase to their general budgets. Some of the ones that
I know--because I know several of them--are the tow truck
operators. Because when you implement a fee plus a daily
impound of $30 a day or $45--depends on who you talk to--for 30
days, that is a hefty amount of money. We must ensure that
these provisions that allow these checkpoints to happen or to
reduce the number of safety factors that affect our public's
safety.
I don't see any statistics from anybody telling us that
doing these other measures are decreasing the number of
accidents or fatalities. The checkpoints at some of our area's
adjoining counties have been including Immigration officers.
Well, then we should include parole officers to be able to
ensure that some of these folks that are possibly driving while
on parole or violation of parole, or whether they are drugged,
or whether they are otherwise impaired are taken off the
highways. Those are things that I have sort of looked at as I
was going through the testimony.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
disperses grants to our States and local governments to set up
these checkpoints and increase driving safety, not immigration
enforcement; and that is taking away from the amount of time
the funding to be able to effectively put these officers
somewhere where they can be more effective in providing that
safety to our public.
I welcome our witnesses today and look forward to hearing
the testimony and any recommendations for improving highway
safety. I have read most of the testimony with great pleasure
because California, as you well know, is a heavily trafficked
State and increasing by every year. We must also work with our
Federal counterparts to be able to ensure that we have every
tool available to decrease fatalities, and I agree, to zero.
With that, I turn to Mr. Duncan for a statement. Thank you,
sir.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
And I thank Chairman DeFazio for calling this hearing to assess
our traffic safety programs. I would also like to thank all of
our witnesses for being here. In particular, I would like to
thank one of my constituents, Patrick James, for traveling from
Knoxville, Tennessee to testify before us here today.
Mr. James lost his daughter, Alexis ``Lexie'' James, in a
15-passenger van accident last July. Since this tragedy, Mr.
James has worked tirelessly to raise public awareness and to
improve the safe operation of these vans. He is here today to
testify about those efforts. Actually, his work led the
Congress to pass at least a preliminary or beginning resolution
on this subject just a couple of months ago.
The safety of our Nation's highways is a major concern for
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. In 2006,
42,642 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes. That
translates to an average of 117 people per day, or 1 person
every 12 minutes. In fact, I remember a couple months after 9/
11 I was asked to be on the Oprah Winfrey Show because they had
an inspector general of the Department of Transportation at
that time that said our planes were becoming so dangerous we
were going to start averaging a crash a week soon, and that
woman was totally wrong; and they had me on there to talk about
how safe the aviation system was, and I said at that time,
unfortunately, we have more people killed in three or three and
a half months on our Nation's highways than killed in all U.S.
aviation accidents combined since the Wright Brothers' flight
in 1903. The disparity is almost unbelievable.
Behind the numbers, though, of these 42,000 plus people
being killed, behind those numbers are devastated families and
individuals. In addition to that, traffic crashes cost the
Nation an estimated $230 billion annual. While there has been
some progress in reducing these numbers--the 2006 number
decreased 2 percent from 2005--traffic fatalities and injuries
remain a major public health problem in this Country. In fact,
I think they are the leading cause of death for people from the
age of 2 to the age of 34, if I remember correctly.
As we move forward on reauthorizing the highway safety
programs, we will face the challenge of reducing or trying to
reduce these numbers further. This challenge is, in addition,
complicated by changes in the causes of fatal accidents, as
well changes in the demographics of the motoring public. For
example, we must be prepared for the graying of America. As our
population grows in size, the average age of our citizens is
also increasing. In 50 years, the percentage of the population
over 65 will almost double, from about 12 percent now to about
21 percent. This is something we are going to have to take into
consideration.
We need to have programs in place that will help meet the
challenges by keeping older drivers at the wheel safely.
Really, they are the among the safest drivers in this Country
today, but they also have a higher percentage of fatalities
because, when they are involved in a serious accident, there is
more likely to be a death involved.
Our witnesses will address the issues facing the highway
safety programs. I look forward to hearing their testimony and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much, Mr. Duncan.
With that, we will proceed with the testimony of our
witnesses, which include Mr. Jim Ports, Deputy Administrator of
the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration. Welcome,
sir.
Ms. Katherine Siggerud, Director of Physical Infrastructure
Issues at the Government Accountability Office. Welcome, ma'am.
And a very hearty welcome to one of my State's great
people, who is Christopher Murphy, Director of the California
Office of Traffic Safety and Chairman of the Governors Highway
Association.
Thank you all for being here, and we will proceed with Mr.
Ports. You may begin, sir.
TESTIMONY OF JIM PORTS, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; KATHERINE A. SIGGERUD, DIRECTOR,
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE; AND CHRISTOPHER J. MURPHY, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA OFFICE
OF TRAFFIC SAFETY AND CHAIRMAN GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Ports. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Duncan
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here
today to discuss motor vehicle safety issues. I want to express
my appreciation for this Committee's support for highway safety
programs. Your leadership and support have made significant
contributions to advancing the cause of highway safety and
improving the quality of life in communities across the Nation.
Transportation safety is a top priority for President Bush
and Secretary Peters. Our mission at NHTSA is very straight
forward: to save lives and prevent injuries. Motor vehicle
crashes continue to be the leading cause of death for Americans
in every age 2 through 34. In 2006, more than 42,600 people
lost their lives on U.S. roadways, and 2.6 million were injured
in vehicle crashes.
As Representative Duncan mentioned earlier, the associated
financial costs are staggering, at $230 billion each year. What
makes that situation even more distressing and frustrating is
that many of these deaths were preventable. Over 90 percent of
crashes are caused by human factors, such as speeding and
alcohol impairment. We must aggressively continue to work to
change driving behaviors. Advances in new technology, such as
electronic stability control, will also play a major important
role in reducing traffic fatalities in the future.
One of the areas where new advances in technology linked to
behavior programs shows strong promise is in reducing impaired
driving crashes. In 2006, alcohol-impaired driving crashes
accounted for more than 13,400 deaths, or 32 percent of all
traffic fatalities. Impaired drivers also take a terrible toll
on our most precious resource, our children. In 2006, 598
children under the age of 18 were killed in crashes involving
an alcohol-impaired driver.
Lack of seat belt use also continues to be a major factor
in motor vehicle crashes. Research has shown that seat belt use
is the most effective traffic safety countermeasure available
to prevent fatalities and injuries. Seat belts saved an
estimated 75,000 lives between 2002 and 2006. Higher belt use
rates translate directly into saved lives.
One of the most challenging areas we face today is
motorcycle safety. The number of fatalities continues to rise.
In 2006, 4810 motorcyclists were killed, an increase of 5
percent over the 2005 number, and a 127 percent increase since
1997. NHTSA supports comprehensive efforts to reduce
motorcycle-related crashes and injuries, including the use of
motorcycle helmets.
Just this morning, as a matter of fact, Secretary Peters
held an event at the Department of Transportation in
recognition of Ride to Work Day, highlighting motorcycle
safety. In November 2007, Secretary Peters announced a new
departmental action plan to reduce motorcycle fatalities. The
plan includes a comprehensive range of initiatives, including
rider education, tougher standards for helmet certification
labeling, law enforcement training, and road design that can
consider motorcycle handling dynamics.
The growing number of older drivers also requires
attention. As the Ranking Member just mentioned, in the United
States we are facing a surge in the population of those over
the age of 65. In 2006, there were 30.1 million older licensed
drivers, which was an 18 percent increase from 1996. NHTSA's
policy is to promote safe mobility for older riders, to help
seniors drive as long as they can do it safely, and to
encourage the development of transportation alternatives for
those who can no longer drive.
NHTSA developed an older driver strategic plan to better
target agency programs and resources to address this at-risk
growing population. Key areas of focus include skills screening
and assessments, licensing, counseling by medical providers,
public information and program promotion and other activities.
At the other end of the driving spectrum, NHTSA also has a
strategic approach to addressing teen drivers. In 2006, young
drivers between 15 and 20 years old accounted for 6.4 percent
of the total number of drivers, but accounted for nearly 13
percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes.
Through these behavioral and technology efforts, NHTSA
seeks to reduce the total motor vehicle crashes in this
Country. Many of these crashes and fatalities are preventable,
and through greater implementation of proven safety
countermeasures, we believe that thousands of additional lives
could be saved each year.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your consideration and this
Subcommittee's ongoing efforts to improve highway safety, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate
time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir, for your testimony, Mr.
Ports.
We will move on to Ms. Katherine Siggerud.
Ms. Siggerud. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Duncan, thank you
for inviting GAO to this important hearing on NHTSA's traffic
safety programs.
While there is progress to report over the past decade, as
the traffic fatality rate has decreased by about 14 percent,
safety remains one of the key challenges facing DOT and the
States. It is unfortunate that the number of traffic fatalities
has remained at about 43,000 annually.
We have recently published four reports on key NHTSA
programs and my statement today is based on that work. Today I
will cover, first, NHTSA's activities related to programs
authorized in SAFETEA-LU; second, these programs' effectiveness
in addressing traffic safety issues; third, observations from
our work on safety for older drivers; and, finally, issues to
consider in reauthorizing the programs next year.
NHTSA has made substantial progress in implementing traffic
safety grant programs and high-visibility programs. NHTSA
provided guidance and developed programs quickly to implement
SAFETEA-LU. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded over
$1 billion through its main formula grant and its incentive
grants meant to induce States to adopt Federal priorities such
as improved seat belt use. With regard to high-visibility
campaigns, by these I mean the Click It or Ticket and the
impaired driving program, known as Drunk Driving Over the
Limit, Under Arrest. NHTSA has both developed and distributed
advertisements and coordinated advertisement and enforcement
activities with all States.
In our April report, we raised concerns and recommendations
about NHTSA's evaluation of these campaigns. NHTSA is
considering changes as a result.
With regard to oversight, we recommended in 2003, and
SAFETEA-LU subsequently required, that NHTSA improve the
consistency of its oversight of grants to States. NHTSA has
done so by conducting management reviews every three years and
working with the State partners to develop a useful review
protocol. In our report issued Monday, we recommend several
improvements, including that NHTSA consider the results of
these reviews in identifying opportunities for technical
assistance and training.
With regard to these programs' effectiveness, it is
generally too early to know whether programs established or
changed since SAFETEA-LU are having an effect on crashes and
fatalities. States told us that the programs are helping to
improve traffic safety by addressing important issues such as
unbelted and alcohol-impaired driving. State officials further
said that incentives grants are good complements to the core
safety program.
But the incentive grants appear to have induced only
moderate changes in State programs during this authorization.
Overall, nine States have passed primary safety belt laws that
can reasonably be ascribed to SAFETEA-LU incentives. Thirteen
States have passed laws necessary to receive the Child Safety
Seat grants, and no States have passed laws to meet certain
criteria established for impaired driving grants.
Each safety incentive grant has a separation application
process, which is an administrative burden, especially for
States with small safety offices. Some States would also prefer
more flexibility in using the grants. This could become a key
issue in the future as emerging issues, such as older driver
safety, become more critical in States. We also noted that
NHTSA does not have sufficient performance measures to assess
the grant programs' effectiveness, but has begun the process of
developing these measures.
We issued a report last year looking at safety for older
drivers, including licensing procedures. More than half of the
States use licensing requirements for older drivers that are
more stringent than for younger drivers, but not enough is
known about whether these and other practices are actually
effective in identifying problems in improving safety. We noted
as a best practice States' use of coordinating groups to
develop cross-agency plans for managing older driver safety.
NHTSA and the States are sponsoring initiatives to develop such
plans and assist States in implementing more comprehensive
driver fitness assessments.
In conclusion, this Committee and the Congress have a
number of issues and opportunities to consider in the next
authorization. I have already mentioned challenges associated
with the incentive grants, including whether they, as designed,
will be able to induce the changes the State legislation and
the Congress would like to see. In addition, with the exception
of the data improvement grants, these programs also generally
do not relate State safety performance to the receipt or size
of grants, and Congress would need to consider whether to tie
funding more closely to performance. Congress will also hear
suggestions to allow for more flexibility in using grant funds
to address current and emerging safety issues. In our view,
increased flexibility should be combined with quality crash
data and accountability mechanisms to ensure that Federal
dollars are going to the highest priority safety problems.
Furthermore, the plateau of the number of annual traffic
fatalities nationwide and changes in causes of fatalities may
indicate that the current structure in traffic safety programs
needs some change. For example, from 1997 through 2006,
motorcycle fatalities increased by 127 percent, while child
passenger fatalities decreased by 31 percent. Finally, speed
remains an important factor and is not currently targeted by
any of the programs I have discussed today.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes--sorry, Madam Chair, this
concludes my statement, and I will answer any questions you may
have.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, ma'am.
Next we will have Mr. Christopher Murphy give us his
testimony. Thank you for being here, sir.
Mr. Murphy. Madam Chair Napolitano and Ranking Member
Duncan and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing
GHSA to be here today to talk about ways to improve highway
safety.
GHSA members administer one formula grant, seven incentive
grant programs, and two penalty transfer programs. All of these
programs have different requirements and different deadlines.
These programs have been authorized in a piecemeal basis over
the last several reauthorizations.
GHSA recommends that a national strategic highway safety
plan be developed. We also recommend that the national plan set
a goal of towards zero fatalities. Instead of supporting a
single highway safety grant program with performance tiers,
States would like a single application with a single deadline
and all the grant funds allocated October 1st. Congress should
streamline the application process to allow more rationality in
the State planning process. This change would mean that States
would spend less time submitting grant applications and more
time on program development and implementation.
We also support more performance-based grant programs. GHSA
is currently working with NHTSA to develop core performance
measures that all States will begin using in 2010.
Additionally, GHSA has also endorsed the idea of greater
flexibility between behavioral highway safety grant programs.
Currently, there is no flexibility. States want to be able to
shift a percentage of their incentive funding to the emphasis
areas where they have the greatest need.
GHSA supports making changes to the various incentive grant
programs. We support expanding the purpose and scope of the
2010 motorcycle safety program and combining the three occupant
protection programs into a more performance-based one. We also
strongly support the idea that the eligible activities under
the 410 2010 and the occupant protection program be expanded.
GHSA is supporting a new program to combat excessive speed.
The program would provide incentives to States that implement
speed enforcement and automated speed enforcement, speed paid
media and educational campaigns or speed management workshops.
GHSA also recommends that Congress fund a national campaign to
re-educate the public about the dangerous consequences of
speeding, a biennial national speed monitoring data collection
study to determine how fast the traveling public is actually
going, and research into emerging technologies for measuring
and controlling speed.
We also very strongly support substantially increased
funding for data improvements. The current $34.5 million
program is just not adequate. Performance-based programming is
heavily dependent upon good data, so it is imperative that
improvements be made in State data systems. We also support
increased funding for traffic safety research. States should
have the ability at the same time to pool their funds to fund
research that would supplement the Federal research. The NHTSA
behavioral research program and FHWA safety research program
should also be increased.
Training is also a big issue for GHSA. There is concern
that many directors of highway safety are retiring and there is
not adequate training for new directors, nor is there training
to attract young professionals into the field. Training is a
problem government-wide, but it is particularly acute in
highway safety. GHSA supports AASHTO's recommendation for the
development of a AASHTO-GHSA Highway Safety Center of
Excellence, funded at about $3 million annually. We also
support increased funding so that NHTSA can enhance its
training capabilities.
GHSA strongly supports the continuation of and improvement
of the strategic highway safety plan. As an association, we
continue to oppose new sanctions. States are already sanctioned
for failure to enact seven different highway safety laws. They
are making progress on high BAC, booster seat, and graduated
licensing laws. We would, however, vigorously oppose any effort
to roll back the national minimum drinking age sanction.
In summary, Madam Chair, the Association is not
recommending major changes to the current grant programs. GHSA
has recommended that the current grant planning and application
process be streamlined. The program should be more performance
based with greater flexibility between behavioral programs, and
that some programmatic changes should be made to the
incentives.
Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Murphy.
The information that you have given us is appreciated. Of some
interest was your statement in regard to reducing speed also
saves energy, lowering gas mileage to reduce the 33 percent
highway speeds, and the rule of thumb is this should be out to
the consumers right now since gas is so expensive, that for
each 5 miles per hour they drive above 60 is like paying an
additional 20 cents per gallon for gas. Is that including
today's gas prices?
Mr. Murphy. Those are the latest figures that we have.
Mrs. Napolitano. Okay. That is significant. In areas of
different questions that I had--and I have a lot of them, so I
will defer to some of the members in a minute--I still have
some issues with the COPS policing grant in California, whether
they are utilizing--and I don't know whether the States are the
same--some of their funding to be able to conduct daytime
immigration checkpoints, but checkpoints in general. And what
correlation have they found because most people are driving to
or from work, or they are delivering or they are going to
appointments, versus nighttime, after work, go have a couple of
drinks and then getting on the road, driving that might affect
the actual public safety.
Whether or not there is consideration in your governor's
focus of being able to identify what other safety issues can
come up at checkpoints that might then be more geared towards
whether it is teen driving, driving under the influence, or
even during the daytime, during school hours, in schools, when
kids are taking off and not going to school, being truant, and
already possibly being under drug influence. I was suggesting
that we change the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers to Mothers
Against Drunk and--well, Impaired Drivers, which would include
anything else, because those are serious problems our
communities are facing today.
Mr. Murphy. Madam Chair, in California, our policy, through
my office, is that we only fund checkpoints that start after
6:00 in the evening, so I can't really respond to checkpoints
that are done during the day, because they are not being done
with federal funding. So we know that checkpoints are the most
effective countermeasure out there for DUI. In California they
can only be conducted in areas on streets that have a high
incidence of DUI arrests and/or alcohol-involved crashes. So
our checkpoints generally run anywhere from 6:00 to 2:00 in the
morning or 8:00 to 2:00 in the morning. I am not really sure
about daytime checkpoints.
Mrs. Napolitano. Okay. And you are recommending Congress
implement a speed management program to provide incentives to
States to address speeding. Is there a technology that you know
of--I know one gentleman in the audience is from the auto
industry--that would equip a car with a sensor to be able to
detect alcohol impairment, something that the industry would
help address to be able to then negate an impaired driver from
getting behind the wheel?
Mr. Murphy. Madam Chair, I know a little bit about that,
but I really should defer to my colleagues at NHTSA, who could
probably better answer that question.
Mrs. Napolitano. Okay.
There are other questions, but I think what I will do is I
will yield to my Ranking Member, and I will continue the
questions. There are other members here.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, but I want
to go first on our side to Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. I want to thank the Ranking Member for yielding. I
have basically two questions for Mr. Ports.
Talk about buses that transport kids. Not the old-fashioned
yellow school buses, but these high-dollar big buses that we
think are safer than school buses when kids are transported
from, let's say, a town to another town for an athletic event.
We had two teenage girls in a State playoff killed in a bus
that turned over, and these massive windows shattered and they
were both killed. Correct me if I am wrong, these big buses are
really more dangerous in a crash that old-fashioned school
buses. What is being done, if anything, to rethink the way we
build these massive buses, especially those that transport kids
from event to event?
Mr. Ports. Thank you very much for that question, Mr.
Representative. What NHTSA has done is we have been very
aggressive in trying to look at that situation as it involves
motorcoach safety. One of the things we recently did was, in
December, for the first time in NHTSA history, we crashed a
motorcoach. We wanted to find out what the pulse of that
vehicle was so that we could then devise a sled device so we
could further research how we can make motorcoaches safer.
We equipped that motorcoach with several dummies to look at
how they would react to seat belts, how the seats would react,
different seats in a motorcoach would react, and we are taking
that information now and trying to come up with some policies.
To address fully your question about the windows, we are
also looking at the glazing issue of the motorcoaches.
So we are starting to address those and we hope to have
something completed by December.
Mr. Poe. Is the motorcoach industry actively trying to come
up with some solutions? Are they an obstacle, are they
cooperating, or what, in your opinion?
Mr. Ports. Well, they were actually in attendance at the
crash, so they are very interested in working with us on some
safety measures.
Mr. Poe. Another question has to deal with age of drivers.
If you could give me some statistics. Under 25-year-old drivers
account for approximately what percentage of the fatalities in
the United States? Just approximately.
Mr. Ports. I believe it is about 15 percent right now, but
let me get back to you on that question.
Mr. Poe. Well, is it true that younger drivers, percentage
wise, commit more fatalities as the driver than people that are
older? I don't want to talk about senior citizens. I think the
Ranking Member will get to the senior citizens in a minute. But
is that true or not?
Mr. Ports. It is. As a matter of fact, the percentages of
teen drivers, as I mentioned, they are about 6.4 percent of the
total driving population, but represent about 13 percent of the
fatalities. So they are definitely over-represented in the
fatality and crash injury of all drivers.
Mr. Poe. Talk about a little heresy here. What if we raised
the driving license age? Would that have any significant effect
on loss of teenagers that are getting killed?
Mr. Ports. To be honest with you, I am not sure of that
answer. I could have some of our folks at NHTSA look into that
for you.
Mr. Poe. I would like to know if that isn't a fact. It is
true, is it not, though, that teenage drivers account for a
disproportionate number of fatalities that are alcohol-related?
Is that correct?
Mr. Ports. That is correct. As a matter of fact, they
shouldn't be drinking to begin with.
Mr. Poe. That is right. Not until they are 21.
Mr. Ports. They are not 21, right.
Mr. Poe. All right, that is all my questions.
I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Arcuri.
Mr. Arcuri. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for being here. I have a couple of questions. The
difference in the number of deaths as it relates to the speed
limit, do any of you know the difference in terms of the
numbers when the speed limit was 55 miles an hour and what the
percentage are when it is 65 or 70 miles an hour, as it
increases?
Ms. Siggerud. Mr. Arcuri, I have to say the GAO actually
did a study on that way back in 1977, and there has been some
updated information. We have a new request from Senator Warner
to look specifically at this issue of the speed limit as it
relates to energy efficiency and safety. I would certainly be
glad to provide some information to you for the record on that.
Mr. Arcuri. Great. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Second question is we see a lot on the road of the doubling
of fines in work zones. Has that had any success in terms of
more compliance? Are people complying more with the speed
limits? How has that affected the number of fatalities in work
zones?
Mr. Ports. To be effective, any time you have an increase
in the fines, you also have to have enforcement. That is a
critical factor. We do know that proper enforcement in any
zone, whether it be a speed zone, a school zone, or any other
roadway, has a significant impact on the behavior of those
individuals.
Mr. Arcuri. I believe that there have been some significant
grants that have been given out to law enforcement to enforce
speed limits within the work zones in the past few years.
Mr. Ports. That is correct, sir. That is Federal Highways
that provides those grants, that is not NHTSA. But, again, we
would be more than happy to get with Federal Highways and get
that information for you with work zone safety.
Mr. Arcuri. Great. I appreciate that.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Go ahead to other members, I will go last.
Mrs. Napolitano. Okay, Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much
for the panel being here.
You know, despite great efforts in the State of New Jersey,
this year we had 280 deaths on the roads, in 2008. In my
district alone we had 70. I really believe it is vital that we
come up with whatever we can to reduce the fatalities. Some of
our current problems are educational, while others, such as
mandatory seat belts, are all mandatory.
In your review of traffic programs, how much more effective
is it in curbing the behavior of drivers when you fine the
drivers as compared to educational programs for the drivers?
Ms. Siggerud. There has been extensive research on this
very concept of is an educational campaign sufficient to change
behavior, or does taking enforcement action through fines or
other means, through core process, is that important to
reinforcing the behavior change, and it is very clear that
combining enforcement activities with an educational campaign
is the most effective way to get change in behavior by drivers
both at the time of the campaign and that lasts over time. The
educational component by itself has generally only a relatively
small effect.
Mr. Sires. So when they are fined and they are required to
go through an educational process, you find that that is the
most effective, or just----
Ms. Siggerud. Well, the research shows this really in two
ways. One is, of course, those that have gone through this
enforcement process may change their behavior. But, in general,
the visibility of enforcement together with education has the
potential to change many other drivers' behavior as well.
Mr. Sires. Another one of my pet peeves is this driving
with the cell phone in your ear. I know in New Jersey we banned
that, but you get on the Jersey Turnpike and everybody has it
without the piece in their ear. How effective are these laws
when it comes to something like cell phones in your studies?
Are they a deterrent or do we have to go back to a fine and
education? I am just trying to get a way of how we enforce
this, because most people just seem to ignore it. And I am not
an abuser; I have my little earpiece.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ports. Again, thank you for that question. What we have
found is that licensed sanctions and fines are probably the
best deterrent, as mentioned, but, also, again, it goes back to
enforcement. If there is a strong enforcement component, then
you would see changes in behavior. As a matter of fact, you
will be very happy--I am sue you are very happy to know that
southern New Jersey just joined the Smooth Operator program to
combat aggressive driving this year as a regional program, so
you are starting to see----
Mr. Sires. This is the southern part of New Jersey?
Mr. Ports. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sires. How do you divide south and north?
Mr. Ports. That is up to them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ports. They do that, not us.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the
witnesses. I apologize for being a little bit late, but let me
ask a question to Mr. Ports, if I could. And any of you all
might join in if you have something to add to it.
What role does increasing congestion play in the number of
accidents and related deaths? Are more congested cities or
highways more dangerous from a statistical point of view than
the ones that aren't?
Mr. Ports. Thank you very much for that question. What we
have found through our research--and we are rolling out a new
program for rural safety as we speak--is that most of the
fatalities occur on rural roads, and usually a divided highway
with traffic coming in each direction. Some of that is because
of the way the roads are structured; you have a lot of hills,
turns, curves, trees, utility poles very close to the roadways,
and, of course, cars are close to each other as they are
passing. And then, of course, you have aggressive drivers who
change lanes when they should or should not, at times.
So what we have found is that, as it gets congested, people
obviously slow down and you do have a lot of crashes, but there
are not as many fatalities.
Mr. Brown. Okay, let me ask you another question. Since
2000, injuries in motor vehicle crashes have dropped by about
500,000 per year; yet, fatalities have stayed level, at between
40,000 and 45,000 a year. How would you relate to that
statistic?
Mr. Ports. Thank you very much. That is one of the more
frustrating things to us, is the way the numbers are used. But
if you look at how we measure the statistic, what we do is we
take 100 million vehicle miles traveled and we look at the
fatality rate. The fatality rate has been decreasing
significantly. And, of course, we have dedicated employees
throughout NHTSA working on that every day; their mission is to
save lives and reduce injuries every day.
Although the numbers are staying the same, flat, as you had
mentioned, the overall number, there are a significant amount
of motorists out there registered and driving, as well as more
vehicle miles being traveled, so statistically we are reducing
that rate. But, more importantly, as I mentioned, our mission
is to reduce fatalities and injuries, and we don't look at just
the statistics or just the numbers; we look at each and every
one of these as a person and a family member and a community
member.
Mr. Brown. One final question. How does your administration
work with research and innovative technology administration and
its intelligent transportation system joint program office to
integrate safety priorities into design and development of
intelligent transportation systems?
Mr. Ports. We work very extensively with them and we also
have just rolled out the new NCAP, our new vehicle program,
which talks about technology. What we have found is that most
of the cars throughout the United States are getting four and
five stars, as you are probably aware, so we have rolled back
that a little bit and looked at technology and how we can
introduce technology side impacts and ESC, electronic stability
control, and all these future technologies so that we can give
the consumer a better idea of how technology can benefit them
and the safety of their families.
Mr. Brown. I know there are automobiles now that give you a
little alarm if you back up and you get too close, and I was
just wondering if that technology is being further advanced to
give early warnings for maybe crossing the center line or maybe
some other safety factors that might be included.
Mr. Ports. That is an excellent question, and, yes, we are
very interested in that technology. We are working with the
auto manufacturers on technology for lane departure, so if you
go on either side of the lane, it will warn you before you
leave the road, because that is what we are trying to prevent.
There are also technologies out there for automatic braking
that we are working with with large trucks, that will determine
if they are too close to a vehicle or if they are drowsy, for
example, and not paying attention, it will automatically stop
that vehicle. We are also looking at further technologies with
backing up and what we call vehicle-to-vehicle communication to
determine if a vehicle is in your blind spot.
So all these technologies, we are very excited about
technology at NHTSA and how it can help prevent injuries and
save lives.
Mr. Brown. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Last year, I wrote something in a newsletter I sent to my
constituents, and I said this: drunk driving standards were
toughened in most after the Congress passed laws to withhold
some Federal money if alcohol levels were not lowered. Now,
with our aging population, some want to make it tougher for
senior citizens to renew driver's licenses because there is a
myth about them being very unsafe drivers.
However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
recently found that drivers 75 and older are the safest drivers
of all. The next safest are those 65 to 74. And this is based
on the crash rate per 10,000 drivers. In this study, the lower
percentage was better, and the figure for those 75 and over was
2.5 percent, while the rate for those 16 to 20 was 13.3
percent.
Now, that was from a chart that was published in The
Washington Post. That is a dramatic difference. Now, that
applies just to accidents.
We have a chart that is on the screen now that shows
something a little bit similar, except this pertains only to
fatal crashes. It shows, once again, those over 65 have the
lowest percentages of fatal crashes. Now, it does show a
dramatic difference between male and female drivers. I read, a
couple years ago, that there is only one thing that 100 percent
of the people in this Country agree on, and that is that
everybody thinks they are a good driver.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. Now, that may be true, but what these two
different studies show is, number one, that the older drivers
are safer. Now, I do understand there is some statistic that I
am a little bit confused about, that when older people who are
riding as passengers are involved in these bad wrecks, they are
more likely to be killed than the younger people; and I guess
that is true. But they are safer drivers.
I will ask you, Mr. Ports, do you have any kind of program
aimed at pointing out to male drivers how bad they are in
comparison to women drivers? But more seriously, are you aiming
anything particularly at the high schools? Because there is a
private foundation that contacted me a few months ago, and they
sent this young man who was a star football player in
California who was seriously brain damaged in a bad wreck
because of alcohol, and they send him around all over the
Country; he has been on the Today Show. I don't remember his
name right at the moment, but they offered to do that in a high
school in my district and we went and we did that. I was there
and introduced the program and so forth. It had a real effect
on those young people.
Now, that was being done privately. What are you all doing?
Mr. Ports. I really appreciate that question.
By the way, Madam Chairwoman totally agrees with you, the
difference between male and female drivers. I saw her head
shaking vigorously and her smile was from ear to ear.
We are trying to address that, as a matter of fact. Many of
our programs now, the Click It or Ticket, the Over the Limit,
Under Arrest campaigns--which, by the way, thank you very much
for the $29 million per year to do those campaigns--we are
starting to target young people, for one, but males in
particular. We are trying to do that for the very reasons you
said. We recognize that about 64 percent of the teens who die
in fatalities die because they are not wearing their seat belt,
and that is a statistic that we need to change.
As a matter of fact, in our Click It or Ticket program that
I just did a whirlwind tour on the west side of the Country, we
brought out individuals like you just mentioned, two males
involved in a crash going about 60 miles an hour; one of them
hit a wall. He was almost totally decapitated and his passenger
was wearing a seat belt and walked away from the crash.
We need to educate teens, especially males, who think they
are invincible. I am sure you had teenagers too; you understand
how difficult it is to get them to clean their room, let alone
wear a seat belt in a vehicle. It is a very difficult
proposition to get them to understand they are not invincible.
We are doing our best to do that through creative campaigns. We
had someone on Click It or Ticket. You would notice it looked
like aliens were coming down. We are trying to focus on ways
that they might relate.
We are also doing some peer-to-peer reviews. We are working
with school-aged children, especially high school age, through
some of the programs and the NOYS organization to effectively
address the teen situation, but we do know this: it is speed,
it is not wearing a seat belt, and it is, as you mentioned,
drinking and driving. And, quite frankly, they are not supposed
to be drinking anyway because they are below the age of 21, so
we need to address that problem, and we are going to need
parental help in that area. We need parents to take
responsibility and work with their children, and we need to
have law enforcement out there doing their best, and they are
doing, by the way, a terrific job.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I can still remember--in fact, as I am
sitting here thinking about it, I can picture in my mind when I
was in high school, there was this terrible wreck, and just a
group of people on their own--it wasn't the government that did
it--they brought that crashed car that was just all smashed up
to our high school and set it out in front of the school for a
few days, and, boy, I tell you it made an impact. We need to be
doing things like that in all these high schools all over the
Country, and showing things on videos and all kinds of things.
Is NHTSA doing anything to ensure the safe operation of
these 15-passenger vans? We are going to hear some testimony
about that on the next panel.
Mr. Ports. Yes, sir, absolutely we are. We are working very
aggressively on the 15-passenger van situation. As you know,
Administrator Nicole Nason put out an announcement earlier in
the year. By the way, I want to thank you for your resolution--
I think it was 964--in April of this year to address that
problem.
There are a few things that we definitely know about the
15-passenger vehicles. One, we did put electronic stability
control, we mandated electronic stability control in all
vehicles starting in 2011, which we believe is probably the
next best safety device and countermeasure since the seat belt.
We expect that to help in these rollover situations and reduce
the risk of rollover. We also have been very aggressive in
talking about maintenance of tires and tire pressures. It also
saves energy, Madam Chairman. But it is very important to the
safety of your family and the vehicle and its performance.
We also recognize that one of the problems with the 15-
passenger vans is overloading. When you overload that vehicle--
and there are specifications in the door jams of every vehicle
with the weight the vehicle can handle. We need people to
understand the capacity of these vehicles.
Again, as I mentioned, we want to recognize your resolution
that you were proactive in passing, which really addresses the
inexperienced drivers. When you have all of these other factors
occurring and you put an inexperienced driver into the seat of
that 15-passenger van, in the driver's seat, I should say, that
is potential for a hazard.
Mr. Duncan. All right, thank you very much.
Ms. Siggerud, one thing I have become really concerned
about the last couple of years has been motorcycle wrecks and
deaths, because I started noticing on the second page of the
local section of the Knoxville News Sentinel, almost every day
they have a story about a motorcyclist being killed. Then, I
also have been reading that the numbers of people 40, 50, and
60 that are buying motorcycles is just exploding, going way,
way up.
In your study of all this--you even, I think, have noticed
the number of motorcycles registered is going way up and
predicted that it is going to go up even further--are there any
States out there that are doing dramatic or unusual or very
innovative programs about motorcycle safety?
Ms. Siggerud. Mr. Duncan, it is an excellent question. In
our work we did notice all the problems that you mentioned, and
it is, I think, most interesting to note that the fatality
numbers that we are seeing now are very much driven by the
motorcycle fatalities. If it weren't for the increase in
motorcycle fatalities over the last decade, we would see this
annual number actually make some progress and start to go down
over the past decade.
In our work on this issue, we did not study specifically
what activities States were undertaking and whether some of
them were particularly interesting or innovative. What we did
hear, though, in looking at the motorcycle incentive grants,
which we did earlier this year, that is one of the smaller
grants in the incentive grant program and it is also restricted
largely to education-related activities. So we raise as an
issue for authorization next year whether there perhaps are
some different approaches that could be used in that grant to
make it more effective.
Mr. Duncan. I just think, based on what I have been reading
and hearing, that maybe we ought to increase that grant program
more, maybe, than perhaps some others, because it looks to me
like there needs to be some special efforts directed in that
way also.
Mr. Murphy, according to your testimony, you say we can be
on a path towards cutting accident fatalities in half by 2030
by simply annually reducing losses by 1,000 per year. You note
that we came close to that in 2006. Do you know of anything
that we were doing differently then or better then, as opposed
to prior years, or do you have any key suggestions in regard to
all these things I have been asking these other witnesses?
Mr. Murphy. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
Duncan. A lot of this has to do with high-visibility
enforcement programs. More and more States are participating
and more local agencies are participating. I think with
motorcycle safety, one of the key things States need to do is
pass mandatory helmet laws for all riders. For seat belt
safety, States need to pass primary seat belt laws. These are
two critical lifesaving laws that we know will save lives.
I think it really comes down to the education, enforcement,
and engineering, but high-visibility enforcement, be it Click
It or Ticket, Drunk Driving Over the Limit, those programs have
been very successful.
Mr. Duncan. All right, thank you very much.
Mrs. Napolitano. Second round, Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. I just have a quick question. When I went to
high school, we had a very good driver's ed program, where they
actually took you on the road, they had the cars and everything
else. But we notice, due to the budget crunch, a lot of the
schools are going away from that. Have you noticed that as a
national trend in most of the States because of the problems
with the budgets on the board of educations, that they are
reducing their driver's ed program? Anyone.
Mr. Ports. I am not sure I can answer from a total national
standpoint, but we have seen that a lot of the States have
moved from the high schools into the privatization of those
schools for budgetary reasons, yes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you. Anybody else? No? Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, I will give her a chance to settle
down, then I will ask some questions. You are going to have
some questions, Ms. Richardson? I will let you mull it over.
One of the questions that I had mulling in my mind, and we
have discussed this, the Click It or Ticket, but how effective
is it in States without primary seat belt laws, or is it
effective? Anybody?
Ms. Siggerud. Well, the Click It or Ticket campaign in
general, you can see the before and after effect, where you see
an increase in seat belt use in the wake of these Click It or
Ticket campaigns in any State. But it is very clear that there
is a strong correlation between the overall, year-long use of
safety belts and whether there is a primary law in place; and,
of course, the use is much higher in States that have the
primary law.
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Mr. Ports. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for that
question, it is an excellent question.
We know that States with secondary laws average about 73
percent usage. Yet, States with primary seat belt laws average
about 87 percent. We also know, through our statistics and
data, that for every percent increase, it is about 280 lives
saved. That is a significant number. So the more that we can
induce primary seat belt laws, and the more education we can
have through the Click It or Ticket campaigns to increase
awareness and get people to use those seat belts would be very,
very beneficial.
Mrs. Napolitano. What is preventing, in your estimation,
the States from enacting primary laws for seat belt usage? Is
it willpower, is it political? Are you tying some of the grant
money to the ability to have a primary seat belt law?
Mr. Ports. Through SAFETEA-LU we do have a primary seat
belt incentive grant, and sometimes people say it may not be as
effective because there may only be eight States that want the
primary laws, but we look at it a little differently. Like I
said, we are very dedicated to saving each and every life, and
for every percentage point, as I just mentioned, 280 lives
saved. So we tend to measure that statistic a little
differently, that we are doing a good job and we are educating
the population.
When you see numbers as high as 87 percent, that is 87
percent of the people who are wearing their seat belts. That is
a significant amount of the population. There are some States
that are over 95 percent at this point, and that is a terrific
number. But a lot of that, as I mentioned, is enforcement. So
enforcement is a key component. I know that Chris Murphy, we
worked very closely with Chris on many issues. This was one of
the issues that I am sure he would agree with us, that
enforcement is a key component of this strategy.
Mr. Murphy. Madam Chair, if I might add, in California, we
actually wrote more seat belt citations when we were a
secondary State than when we became a primary State, and I
think that is kind of an interesting fact. Primary seat belt
use and the us of seat belts, there is nothing more important.
It takes two seconds to buckle up. A lot of States legislatures
feel that it is giving up freedom. They don't want someone
telling them what to do.
But, my God, primary seat belt laws will cure the disease
of unsafe highways. It is something that will save lives
overnight. In California, our seat belt use increased 10
percentage points when we passed our primary seat law in 1993.
It has been a phenomenal law. In California, our seat belt use
is 94.6 percent. We are the fourth highest in the Nation, and
our goal is to hit 96 percent next year, so we have a lot of
work to do. And the people that are not buckling up now are the
very, very hard to reach, especially when you get in the 90
percent range.
Mr. Oberstar. Madam Chair, would the Chair yield?
Mrs. Napolitano. Certainly.
Mr. Oberstar. In that context, what, then, has been the
effect of improved seat belt use? That is a phenomenal number,
I congratulate you on it, but what has been the effect in the
traveled way in accidents? Have there been lower fatality
numbers, lower injury numbers? That combined with air bags, can
you enlighten us on that?
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Congressman. One of the interesting
facts is that, in California, a very high number of fatal
vehicle occupants are killed restrained. We have the highest in
the Nation. So we know that seat belts are, as you know, 50
percent effective in preventing death, and we have seen in
California that our fatal occupant protection rate is the
absolute highest. In other States--Oregon, Washington, Hawaii--
they are at the top too.
So there is a definite correlation between seat belt use in
fatal vehicle occupants and our observational studies, which
tell us we are absolutely saving lives. In California, I
believe our fatalities this year should be down the biggest
number probably in seven or eight years. So we really believe
that more people would have died in California had we not had
primary seat belt use and if we would not have had such a high
seat belt use rate.
Mr. Oberstar. What is your relationship between--if I may,
Madam Chair----
Mrs. Napolitano. Certainly.
Mr. Oberstar.--between alcohol and accidents and fatalities
and then seat belt use? Which has the greater effect?
Mr. Murphy. Well, we know about 40 percent of all fatal
crashes are alcohol-involved. But if you look at a behavior
that is easiest to change, it is buckling up.
Mr. Oberstar. Buckling up a lot better than driver
education on alcohol use and driving?
Mr. Murphy. I don't know that I would necessarily say that,
but I think it is much easier to get someone to buckle up; they
do it 16 times, it becomes a habit. A lot of people that are
drinking now, the hard-core drinkers, there are other issues.
So the seat belt is such an easy, easy fix.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Continuing with my line of questioning, to Mr. Ports, the
GAO and the DOT Inspector General have raised questions with
the inconsistency and the oversight of the State Highway Safety
programs, and there have also been concerns over the
consistency of the performance measures the agency uses in
evaluating States' progress towards meeting its goals. There is
a lot of talk about increased accountability in moving towards
a more performance-based program. Consistent oversight and
evaluation standards would be critical to establishing the
accountability necessary to ensure States are meeting the
national safety goals. And while it appears that the
organization has made some progress over the last few years,
the concerns remain.
What are you doing to address these issues raised by both
GAO and the Inspector General?
Mr. Ports. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First of all, I
want to thank GAO for their help in this issue, and also the
IG's office that you just mentioned. Again, we are very
dedicated to saving lives and reducing injuries, and we look to
anyone that can help, and we appreciate all your help in
Congress, too.
In addressing this issue, we look at the management
reviews, and we do those every three years. If a State is not
making their performance criteria, then we work with them on an
action plan. We also have the special management reviews that
we are doing. And I believe the GAO's recommendation was to
look at performance measures.
I can assure you and the rest of the Committee that we did
just that. We looked at that issue from GAO and we are working
with GHSA, as well as the rest of the States. We have got about
a dozen to 14 performance measures for the first time, and I
believe Chris actually--we spoke a little bit about this
earlier. He was very excited because the States have not had
performance measures to look at before, and they too are
excited about this process of being able to measure the
performance of these grant programs.
Obviously, one of the difficult issues is the diversity of
the local jurisdictions and their ability. As we heard earlier,
they may not have the personnel or the ability, and the
diversity of the issues within that community. So we are trying
to work with all those to mesh those together to come up with
these performance measures moving forward. We are very excited
about that. We have looked forward to working with the States
and GHSA, and, of course, finalizing the report to GAO and the
IG and yourselves on the progress that we are going to be
making in the next few years.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for that answer. One of the
questions that I had in mind after reading some of the
testimony is that many States have national safety plans. You
do not. Can we expect one?
Mr. Ports. We work very closely with the States and make
sure that each and every State has a safety plan. That is
really what we are to do. We are the clearinghouse and we are
looking to work with the States because, quite frankly, the
States know their State better and their local jurisdictions
better than we do on the national level. So we look at it as a
cooperative partnership between the national priorities and the
State priorities. As I just mentioned with the performance
measures, they have different situations that they are in, and
we need to work very closely with them.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I know Canada has one. I am not
sure how effective their plan is, but I am assuming that they
are doing very well.
There are other questions, I think, Ms. Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.
A couple of questions. First of all, is there an overall
signage plan for the safety for what you do on the highways? Do
we have a signage plan?
Ms. Siggerud. Ms. Richardson, signage policy is really
handled by the Federal Highway Administration, and there is in
fact an entire manual----
Ms. Richardson. Would you pull the mic up a little bit to
you, please?
Ms. Siggerud. Absolutely. Sure.
So road signage and road marking is handled by the Federal
Highway Administration, together with AASHTO, the organization
of State DOTs, and there is an entire manual on what they call
traffic control devices, which includes both signage, road
markings, and traffic lights and that kind of thing.
Ms. Richardson. But from a safety perspective, do you have
a signage plan?
Mr. Ports. No, we don't have a specific signage plan.
However, what I can tell you, from a speed research
perspective, NHTSA's role, what we are doing is we are working
very closely with the States through the regional offices on
speed management workshops. What we have found is that people
in the communities, if they think a speed limit is arbitrarily
set, they don't abide by it. So through these speed management
workshops and the behavioral research that we have done, we
found that if you set the speed limits appropriately and then
create the enforcement behind that, that you have much better
speed control. So----
Ms. Richardson. Okay, excuse me. I don't know if you heard
what I said. I am talking about signage, not speed. Let me give
you a few specific examples. I come from the California area,
as the Chairwoman of this Committee is holding right now. I
have seen on various highways where you see the sign Click It
or whatever. You rarely see anything about driving in my blind
spot, some of the key things that are just repeated accidents
over and over again: driving in the blind spot, are your tires
properly inflated. A lot of these things, with proper reminders
of drivers, could reduce some of the incidences that we have.
So my question is do you have a signage program as a part
of your safety program that could maybe incorporate
periodically placing some signs that would be very good
reminders to drivers to increase safety, besides the once every
10 years when they take the driving test?
Mr. Ports. Okay, I maybe can more effectively address that
question.
The States are allowed to use some of their grant funds to
create signs if they decide that they would want to do it. For
example, the seat belts, seat belt enforcement. I know that
when I was in Washington State I saw quite a few signs that
address that. So it is really up to the local governments to
decide how they want to do that.
In my previous life as a State deputy secretary, we also
had to abide by the highway beautification laws from, I guess,
1968, that try to reduce the amount of signages. One of the
issues that we hear a lot in the communities is the
overabundance of signs. So I think it is up to the local
governments to decide how that issue would fare with their
constituents.
Ms. Richardson. Would you mind looking into some of the
major causes of incidents of accidents and maybe doing a double
check of that and seeing if there is something you may want to
recommend or at least have the States to consider?
The other thing is the use of electronic boards. We
recently, in California, had the whole thing of hands-free and
no longer being able to use your cell phone, and the electronic
boards that normally dictate the flow of traffic and what is
happening ahead was utilized to announce that today is July 1st
and this is now into effect.
So the other question I would have is to what degree are
you, from a safety perspective, utilizing those electronic
boards? Now, of course, you can't do them every day and every
month, but there might be some coordination that could exist
that, for key problems that you have; Click It, drunk driving,
whatever it might be beyond the 4th of July on the holiday we
should be talking about not doing drunk driving, it could be on
the weekends.
So I would just urge you to evaluate some of the consistent
problems that we are having and look at some of the existing
signage that you have and how we could better utilize that to
reach out to the drivers.
Mr. Ports. We actually work with the States on our Click It
or Ticket program and our Over the Limit, Under Arrest drunk
driving campaigns to do just that. But we would be more than
happy to look into that issue further and get back with you.
That is a terrific idea.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Then I have 14 seconds. I understand
my colleague asked a little bit about cell phones, and I was in
another Committee markup. Has there been any discussion about
out-ruling texting while people are driving nationwide? Has
there been a discussion? Have you thought of that?
Mr. Ports. NHTSA's position on any distraction is that we
don't think anybody should do anything that would distract them
from driving. However, we also need to keep in mind that we
only have jurisdiction over what is in the vehicle from the
manufacturer's standpoint. As far as a cell phone or texting
with a cell phone that you bring into the vehicle, we do not
have jurisdiction over that, so then it becomes a local
jurisdiction decision.
Ms. Richardson. Are GPS systems under that same?
Mr. Ports. If the GPS system is part of the vehicle, from
the manufacturer, we can address it. If it is brought in from
your local store, then we cannot; we do not have jurisdiction
over that.
Ms. Richardson. Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for giving me the extra 50
seconds.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Chairman Oberstar, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you.
I appreciate the testimony of this panel and the documents
you have submitted are very well done, thoughtfully considered.
Mr. Ports, I have a very particular interest in the
national driver register. Actually, the idea of the national
driver register was launched by our former colleague,
Congressman John Rhodes, of Arizona, later the minority leader
in the House. After he left Congress, I picked up on that
initiative through a very personal involvement. A family across
the circle from where we lived was devastated; their daughter,
who had been a babysitter for our children, was killed when a
truck crashed into their car pulled well off the traveled way
up at Fall River, Massachusetts.
The truck driver, as it turned out, had a driver license
revoked in one State, suspended in another, and was still able
to get a driver license from a third State, driving and
careless and reckless, and one life was lost. All the family
had broken bones. As I visited them in the hospital, they said
all we want, we can't bring Cami back, we just want to do
something so that people like this can't get on the road again.
I looked up the national driver register and talked with
then retired Congressman Rhodes, and in 1982 I was able to get
language in the surface transportation bill to update the NDR,
to have a pointer system operated by the State Association
Motor Vehicle administrators. At that time drivers were being
caught with multiple licenses, but there was a three-to four-
week delay because all the information was mailed in from the
respective State motor vehicle administrative offices.
With the pointer system and computers even in their,
compared to today, infancy, we expected that there would be a
substantial increase, and there was. But I am troubled by the
IG report of significant delays in reporting from the various
States into the NDR and then information back out to catch
these bad drivers, for want of a better word, those who have
manifestly demonstrated they shouldn't have another license. If
they had it revoked or suspended or they have serious
violations in one State, to try to get a license in another
State, we shouldn't let those people out on the roadway when we
have a mechanism by which to stop it. What attention have you
paid to the NDR, to the report of the IG, and what plans do you
have to take action?
Mr. Ports. First of all, I appreciate that question. You
are very knowledgeable, obviously, of this issue. Not only has
NHTSA paid attention to this issue, I personally have paid
significant amount of attention to this issue.
Mr. Oberstar. Good.
Mr. Ports. I have been working very closely with members of
AMFA when they brought some situations to us earlier in the
year; I have been working with our folks in NDR. You had
mentioned the CDL situation, where people were able to get
different licenses in different States, and you are right,
Congress passed a law and we prohibit that now. The issue that
the IG brought up to us is that the States were not providing
the information according to law and/or regulation within a 30-
day time period.
We were glad the IG brought that to our attention, because
it helped us recognize that there is a lot of turnover in the
States through the MVA or DMV directors or administrators,
whoever the top person is in that State. They did not even
realize that they had that requirement. So we worked very
vigorously; we got the information, mailed out the letters
right away. Administrator Nason did that, mailed them out to
every State, making sure that they were aware of the
requirements to report within 30 days.
We are also working through that process with the
judiciary, because part of the problem is, in the judicial
process, they were not getting the information to the MVAs or
the DMVs. So through this process of the IG making us aware of
this situation, we were able to also work with the judiciary,
thinking forward on other ways that may improve our successes.
Again, I mentioned, we were working with AMFA. We have a
great relationship; we constantly talk. I am also going to be
speaking at their national convention. So we are all over this
issue personally and through NHTSA.
Mr. Oberstar. I am glad to hear of personal interest, that
you are on top, that you are making those inquiries, you are
talking to the association and on the NDR, but I would like
some statistics updated on how many drivers are being caught
applying for multiple licenses. How many have been intercepted,
prevented? What is the effect of the computer-updated NDR? What
additional steps should we take or are necessary to be taken?
You have mentioned one, educate the State motor vehicle
administrators on what their responsibilities are and on taking
prompt and vigorous action. You mentioned earlier one important
action we can take that immediately saves lives is seat belts.
Another is keeping the bad drivers off the road.
In this Committee room 20 years ago, I held hearings on the
future of transportation in the post-interstate era. Among the
demographic information submitted at the hearing was the
projection that--this was 1987--that by the end of the decade
of the 1990s, half of all drivers would be 50 years of age and
older. That set off two tracks in my mind: one, more leisure
time for driving, more opportunity to see the historical,
cultural, archeological treasures of America, and I developed
the National Scenic Byways from that; the second was a need for
better signage, more visible signage, better retro-reflective
material, better pavement marking material.
And those projections proved right, we are now well over
half of all drivers 50 years of age and older. People living
longer, driving longer. Older people are involved in fewer
accidents, but they have a higher fatality rate because of
fragility of bones as you age. What steps are you doing, taking
to deal with the older driver phenomenon?
The Federal Highway Administration Byway, by the way, has
been absolutely hopeless in their responsibility to promulgate
a higher standard of retro-reflectivity, of pavement marking,
shoulder striping, center striping, both yellow and white; and
there is material out there that could be vastly better,
especially on asphalt pavement in rain, and they have been
hopelessly behind the curve on this. Now, NHTSA should be
prodding them, pushing them, as a sister agency or brother
agency--whatever you want to call it--in the department.
Mr. Ports. To answer the first part of your question, we
would be more than happy to get all that statistical data for
you from the NDR system.
Mr. Oberstar. Have you seen the two volume work of the
University of Minnesota Center of Transportation studies on the
older driver? I suggest you get a copy of the two volume work
and read through it, it is a very, very useful document.
Mr. Ports. Well, to address the older driver part of our
question, we are conducting research and looking at assessments
as screening tools to predict how older drivers might likely
survive or be involved in a crash. We are also looking at the
long-term post-crash medical outcomes of those drivers. We are
gathering the information. GAO asked us to be a clearinghouse,
and that is exactly what we are going to do.
We are looking at fitness screening for other drivers by
licensing agencies, family physicians, friends, and we are
looking at all these other factors to determine how we can
better address the vehicle side for older drivers to help them
survive a crash or reduce injuries. So we are looking at those
technologies also.
Mr. Oberstar. Are you doing that under the special
designation we included in the current law? The very first word
of that acronym, SAFETEA-LU, is safe; safe, affordable, etc.
There is $1,700,000 for research into traffic safety measures
specifically directed at the older driver.
Mr. Ports. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Oberstar. Is the work you are referring to done under
that or under other provisions?
Mr. Ports. Most of the work we are doing is done under
that. We also have demonstration projects in Missouri, New
Jersey, and Virginia that I am sure you are aware of to
establish older driver coalitions and enhanced driver referral
programs. So all of these things that we have going on at NHTSA
are trying to address the older driver situation, both from the
vehicle side, the safety side, and behavioral side.
Ms. Siggerud. Chairman Oberstar, if I may.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes.
Ms. Siggerud. You may be aware the GAO issued a report on
this topic last year.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes.
Ms. Siggerud. And I can cover perhaps a little bit on the
FHWA side.
Mr. Oberstar. You are next on my list.
Ms. Siggerud. Okay. So setting aside the retro-reflectivity
issue, there is a manual of suggestions for improved signage
and other improvements that would help older drivers in terms
of navigating the roadway, navigating intersections, that type
of thing. We did a survey and found that about half the States
had adopted at least some of those recommended activities.
What was interesting from that is that we saw much wider
benefits than just for older drivers, however. Any improvements
to street signs, any improvements to being able to navigate an
intersection safely helps the entire population, not just the
population that was targeted, the older drivers.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Murphy, do you have any comments about
retro-reflectivity marking material for pavement and signage?
What is California doing about that? Goodness knows you have
the biggest number of drivers and most miles driven and most
vehicle miles traveled in California.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, that is not an
area that I am familiar with. Our Department of Transportation,
Caltrans, is very active in that area. We do have an older
driver task force that is looking at that.
Mr. Oberstar. Pavement markings and retro-reflectivity of
signage is not under traffic safety in California?
Mr. Murphy. It is under CalTrans.
Mr. Oberstar. I will have to talk to Will about that, then,
Will Kempton.
All right, there are lots of other questions I have, and I
see Mr. Boozman has arrived.
I just want to ask about motorcycle helmet law. It is a
dangerous area to walk into. Motorcyclists treasure their
ability to get on the cycle and ride, as one of my friends
said, and let the wind blow through my hair. Well, if I had
hair, I might feel good about that myself. Hair is greatly
overrated.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Oberstar. But your head is the first thing that hits
the pavement in a crash, it is the heaviest single part of the
body. I am reminded of a story in the State of Wisconsin that
legislature enacted a motorcycle helmet law, and not long
afterward the motorcyclists got up a petition, angry about the
requirement to wear a helmet, submitted the petition to the
legislature; they repealed the law the next session. In the
aftermath of the repeal, there was a motorcycle accident; a
cyclist went right into a truck, head-first, and killed. He was
the first one to have signed that petition. It is a tragic
story.
What are you doing, if anything, about motorcycle helmets,
at least in education, if not requirement?
Mr. Ports. Thank you for that question. It is a very
important topic, especially to Secretary Peters.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes.
Mr. Ports. As you know, she is an avid rider. Matter of
fact, she spoke today at Ride to Work Day, and spoke
specifically about her crash and how her helmet is in her
office as a reminder of how it potentially saved her life when
she crashed.
Mr. Oberstar. A helmet saved mine on a bicycle.
Mr. Ports. There you go. So she is all over this issue.
Safety is second to none with her and Administrator Nason. As a
matter of fact, what we asked Congress to do this year is to
allow the States to use their 2010 monies from SAFETEA-LU, to
allow the States to use that money for educating riders on
helmet safety. That is one of the proposals.
Some of the other proposals that Secretary Peters has
initiated is the labeling of the helmet. She wants to change
the way that we label them, so that you can't tamper with them,
but so that you can't have these helmets that would disguise
the DOT label as a safety label. So we are looking at
increasing labeling effectiveness. We are looking at education
measures.
We also recognize that because of the heavy increase, 127
percent since 1997, that there are a lot of other factors.
Alcohol is a factor. We are looking at peer-to-peer counseling
with riders to try and take away the keys, much like we did in
other campaigns. We are also looking at the rider's age, the
endorsement training programs through the States, as well as
working with the motorcycle community. We work very closely
with the motorcycle community. We have got Packy back here, who
is a good friend of mine from Maryland, and others that we work
with in that community to help educate rider training, and they
do a fabulous job with rider training and equipment.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank my colleagues for their
patience.
Mrs. Napolitano. You are very welcome, and very good
questions, Mr. Chairman. You had a little story about the
motorcycle issue. I was in California when it was enacted, I
was in the State legislature, and my niece, a motorcycle
enthusiast, wrote a letter to me really calling me you know
what because I had dared to prohibit her ability to ride
without a helmet. About four months later she was involved in a
traffic accident and the doctors told her had she not been
wearing the helmet, she would have been dead. She is still
walking with crutches, and this is about six years since that
accident. So I understand.
We went to the emergency hospitals and asked the EMTs and
the doctors in charge about the fatalities, and 99 percent of
them that replied indicated that if some of those who were
involved in motorcycle accidents had been wearing a helmet,
they could have possibly survived. So that was a big motivator
for us, because a lot of those folks did not have insurance and
the taxpayer ends up paying for a lot of those services. And
while it is something that is a freedom--my husband keeps
saying if my hair flew, I would like to have a convertible--he
has no hair--so it is a great saying, but truly I think it does
save lives.
With that, I would like to turn it over to Mr. Duncan for
his final question.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I know we need to get very quickly to the
next panel. But because Mr. Poe earlier today got into the
issue about the safety, or lack thereof, of these larger buses,
I did want to state for the record that we do have a bill that
I think we are going to mark up fairly soon that directs NHTSA
to look at occupant protection systems and window glazing and
roof strength issues and things like that, and issue a rule on
these issues. They basically are consistent with NTSB
recommendations on motorcoach safety.
But one last brief question I have. I pointed out earlier
the dramatic difference between male and female accident and
fatality rates, but, Ms. Siggerud, do you know if anybody has
studied that? Do men drive more than women, on average?
Ms. Siggerud. Well, that is certainly true, men do drive
more than women, yes.
Mr. Duncan. How much?
Ms. Siggerud. I don't have those statistics at my
fingertips, I am sorry.
Mr. Duncan. Is it dramatic, is it a great deal of
difference?
Ms. Siggerud. I am sure that is something we could probably
look up and get back to you. I wouldn't want to opine on that
unless I had a stronger sense of the statistics.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Okay, thank you very much.
Mrs. Napolitano. Boys are more daredevils and they love
speed.
With that, I think----
Mr. Oberstar. If there are no other questions----
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. Just one final observation for our panel.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yield to Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. That is, in May, I traveled to Europe to
address the 27 transport ministers of the European Union, at
their annual conference. In preparation for that session, which
was very interesting and informative gathering--I talked to
them about transportation in the U.S. and our plans for
investment in the future, but one of their keen interests is
safety.
Now, the European Union has roughly 500 million people,
about the same land area in its expansion as the United States.
Five years ago they had 53,000 fatalities on their highways;
last year they had 43,000 fatalities. They have made a dramatic
drop in fatalities with enforcement, education, and better
signage and dealing with alcohol and driving, and as in the
case of Portugal, it is a crime in Portugal to use a cell phone
while driving. They have cracked down on cell phone use, among
other distractions.
We will send you information on this, we have a compendium
of information that I think you at NHTSA should have, if you
haven't paid attention to it, that GAO should do, and to look
carefully at the European practices. We ought to do at least as
well. If we could have a 10,000 reduction in fatalities in the
United States over the course of the next six-year bill, I
would be thrilled, and families would be happy and there would
be less grieving in this Country. We have got to do better and
I tell you we are going to do better in the next transportation
bill.
You can comment if you wish.
Mr. Ports. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to let you
know, we are members of the Economic Commission for Europe and
very involved with the WP.1 and WP.29 Committees. We share
information with them constantly. A terrific example of that is
ESC, electronic stability control. They invented the technology
in Europe; we mandated it on our vehicles first. I personally
spoke over in Europe to talk about the effects of ESC and how
successful we were in mandating that terrific technology. Since
that time, they are now mandating it. They just had a
convention in Geneva where they took up a GTR, and they are now
mandating that technology and following our lead, if you will.
So we work very closely with them in sharing information
and we look forward to working with them in the future to
reducing fatalities and injuries, as you mentioned.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you.
Any other comments?
[No response.]
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
With that, we would like to thank the witnesses and dismiss
them. We are very grateful for your testimony, especially the
GAO's report, which I found very enlightening. Thank you very
much to all three of you. With that, you are dismissed.
We would like to call the second panel, Mr. Patrick James
from the American Center for Van and Tire Safety, from
Knoxville, Tennessee; Ms. Laura Dean Mooney, President, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, from Washington, D.C.; Ms. Jill
Ingrassia, Managing Director, Government Relations & Traffic
Safety Advocacy, AAA, in Washington, D.C.; Ms. Jacqueline S.
Gillan, Vice President, Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety,
Washington, D.C.; and the Honorable Bob Letourneau, New
Hampshire State Senator, Motorcycle Riders Foundation, in
Concord, New Hampshire.
Welcome. Let's see, we will start off Mr. James, Ms.
Mooney, Ms. Ingrassia, Ms. Gillan, and Mr. Letourneau.
I believe Mr. Duncan has a couple of comments as an
introductory to make to Mr. James.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. In
my opening statement, I already mentioned Patrick James and the
very tragic situation involving his daughter, Lexie, and he
will tell a little bit more about that. But I do want to
welcome him. As I say, I have a little over 700,000 bosses, and
Mr. James is one of my bosses, and we have been working with
him both through my office and the Committee staff here, and I
appreciate that very much. I am very impressed by the efforts
that he has been making in regard to trying to make our
highways a little safer. I want to welcome him to the
Committee.
Unfortunately, I do have a meeting that I have to be at at
noon, so I will have to leave in just a few minutes, but at
least I will be here for Mr. James' testimony, and I want to
welcome him here once again.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
With that, we will start with the testimony of Mr. James.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICK JAMES, AMERICAN CENTER FOR VAN AND TIRE
SAFETY; LAURA DEAN MOONEY, PRESIDENT, MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK
DRIVING; JILL INGRASSIA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS & TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVOCACY, AAA; JACQUELINE S. GILLAN,
VICE PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY & AUTO SAFETY; AND THE
HONORABLE BOB LETOURNEAU, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE SENATOR,
MOTORCYCLE FOUNDATION, CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. James. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Duncan, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here
today to speak to you. My name is Patrick James, and I am here
with my wife Kelli and son Austin to talk with you about the
deadly combination of 15-passenger vans, aged tires, and
vehicles that are rollover-prone and lack occupant protection.
I am testifying before you one year to the day I last
talked to my daughter.
Mrs. Napolitano. She is a beautiful young lady, sir.
Mr. James. She was excited about going to play with her old
softball team in a tournament in Savannah, Georgia the
following day. Twenty-four hours later, my family and friends'
lives were changed forever. At 12:30, July 17th, 2007, we
started receiving phone calls from friends, informing us that
Alexis had been in an accident. The van's left rear tire had
ample tread and looked like new, but it was 13 years old; and
when it failed on the highway in South Carolina, the van rolled
over and my daughter was ejected, even though she was wearing
her seat belt.
I was pulling into the airport parking lot when I received
a phone call from the ER doctor. He informed me my daughter
Alexis, Lexie, James had died from heart failure. I remember
sitting in my car, looking into the lobby of the airport,
watching my son and wife, and knowing what I had to do, go tell
her mom and brother that Alexis had passed away.
I never gave a second thought to the vehicle Lexie would be
taking to their tournament. But I have spent the last 12 months
learning everything I could about 15-passenger vans and tire
safety, and what I found out stunned me.
These vehicles, which were first introduced in the 1970s
and have a long history of single-vehicle rollovers accidents
and lack general lack of crashworthiness. They are more prone
to roll over than other vehicles and have higher rollover
fatality rates than other vehicles. The odds of a rollover for
a 15-passenger van increase more than 400 percent when the van
is fully loaded. From 1997 to 2006, 15-passenger van crashes
caused 1,090 occupant fatalities, and 534 of these people died
in preventable crashes.
I have also learned that tires degrade over time and heat
exposure, regardless of whether they have been used or have
adequate tread. As early as 1990, some manufacturers began
warning consumers about the use of older tires more than six
years old. Last August, NHTSA submitted a report to Congress on
tire aging that affirmed this warning. The agency cited
statistics from a large insurance company showing that 27
percent of policyholders were from warm weather States--Texas,
California, Louisiana, Florida, and Arizona. But 77 percent of
the tire claims came from those States and 84 percent of those
claims were for tires over six years old. According to a survey
by Rubber Manufacturers Association, 16.4 percent of tires in
service are six years old or older.
Most tires will wear out before they ``age out.'' But there
are many circumstances in which older tires end up on vehicles
like the one my daughter was in. The most common is the full-
size spare that is put into service after many years in the
trunk or under the car. Many 15-passenger vans are owned by
community groups that don't use them on a daily or even a
weekly basis. If the mileage is low, the possibility exists
that the tire could exceed their safe, useful life. Our small
scale study that I did with my father-in-law showed that 23
percent of 15-passenger vans surveyed have tires that are 10 or
more years old.
I didn't know any of that before July 17th, 2007, but I
have dedicated the last year to informing as many people as I
can. In January, my family founded the American Center for Van
and Tire Safety to warn the public about these significant
dangers.
Perhaps the biggest lesson I have learned is that 15-
passenger van rollover crashes are the most extreme and
horrifying example of what is missing in our current rollover
occupant protection regulations and that tire age is something
most people, including tire service professionals, are not
aware of.
In any crash, it isn't just one thing that saves the driver
or the passenger from injury or death. It isn't one thing that
keeps the crash from happening in the first place. It is a lot
of elements working together. As I sit before you today, on
July 16th, 2008, knowing everything I know, there are still
many pieces missing in our Federal safety regulation to prevent
and reduce the harm from rollover crashes.
We have taken a few steps forward. Many Federal safety
standards for passenger vehicles and light trucks have been
expanded to include new 15-passenger vans. The SAFETEA-LU bill
of 2005 requires NHTSA to issue a report on tire aging. The
agency has begun to upgrade the roof crush standard and, last
month, it issued a consumer advisory that included some
information about aged tires.
But the roof crush standard has stalled. The final tire
aging report with rulemaking recommendations remains in the
agency's hands. It is still near impossible for the average
person, or even a service technician, to read a tire date code
or learn about the consumer advisory.
Our goal now is to push for improvements to 15-passenger
vans, to eliminate aged tires from our fleet, and keep these
issues in front of the public.
But my family and our organization cannot do it alone. So I
would like to close my testimony with a little bit of
automotive history and a challenge.
Forty-three years ago, almost to this day, there was
another congressional hearing on the effectiveness of NHTSA's
programs. The hearings continued over a week in mid-July. The
witnesses included executives from all major American auto
manufacturers.
The centerpiece of Ford Motor Company's testimony was a
short movie demonstrating the crashworthiness of a 1961 Comet.
Picture, if you will, a grainy black and white film of a
white sedan heading for a ramp. The ramp tips and the passenger
side wheels and the Comet rolls over twice. The cameras inside
of the car show the seat-belted dummies in the front bounced by
the crash force, but otherwise unharmed. When the Comet comes
to rest upright, the roof is intact and dummies are still in
their seats.
I am not sure how many automakers today would show such a
thing to Congress. I do, though, know in 1965 manufacturers
were on the path to building vehicles that offered significant
occupant protection in rollovers. But in the absence of
regulatory standards, we have strayed far from the path. We
have spent decades building vehicles that are more prone to
rollovers instead of less, with weaker roofs instead of
stronger, and restraint systems that do not work in the moment
when our lives depend on it.
Lexie died before she grew up and made her own way in the
world, but that does not mean she cannot leave a lasting
legacy. With your help, it can be done and that will spare
others the pain of knowing that a loved one died in a crash
that they could have survived.
Despite the improvements to 15-passenger van design
required by SAFETEA-LU, as of July 2006, there were still more
than half a million 15-passenger vans on our roads. These vans
are not equipped with the latest safety features. In fact, they
are based on 30-year-old technology and they are used by
schools, daycare centers, churches, and our elderly, our
athletes and our choirs. It is not enough to launch another
education and awareness campaign. These messages work their way
slowly to the public's consciousness. Consider that NHTSA has
already issued three consumer advisories warning the public
about the dangers of 15-passenger vans, when Alexis died in
one.
My challenge to the industry is this: help send these older
vans and very dangerous vehicles to the scrap yard. Fifteen-
passenger vans are the only vehicles in our fleet that cannot
be used safely as intended. The irony would be merely absurd if
the consequences of it weren't so tragic. Automakers should
work to offer financial incentives to the community groups that
need their vans, but lack the resources to replace them with
safer transportation.
As for the regulators, NHTSA and their overseers, the
honorable members of Congress, we ask you to conduct a national
survey on aged tires in 15-passenger vans and warn consumers
about this fatal combination. Ultimately, we would like to see
expiration dates clearly printed on the outside sidewalls of
every passenger vehicle or the use of current technologies like
radio frequency identification to ensure a quick and easy read
of a tire's age.
I urge you to get to work on a standard for a dynamic
rollover occupant protection test. NHTSA is absolutely right to
approach each rollover-related rulemaking as a part of a
system. But the system is still missing a critical element: How
will the driver and the passenger actually fare in a rollover?
We need a standard that requires instrumented dummies to
measure what happens to people in rollovers, not just metal and
glass.
What good is it to test one side of the roof with a metal
plate if the front seat passenger's head is going to be crushed
in a crash along with the B-pillar? We need to know that the
seat belts and whatever anchors them in a vehicle are going to
withstand with impacts of a rollover, so that the 10-year-old
girl in that seat belt is going to withstand it too. If we
don't seek the answers to these question, then what exactly are
we accomplishing?
Manufacturers have resisted a dynamic rollover testing
standard for decades. It can't be done, they say. And NHTSA has
retreated. But if Ford can showcase its rollover testing to
Congress in 1965, if GM can parade the $10 million rollover
testing center two years ago for the television cameras, then
it can be done. And instead of fighting a standard, it should
be supporting it and offering the agency the benefits of their
years of such testing.
I know that protecting people in rollover crashes is a
complex challenge, but Americans are actually good at solving
complex problems. Sometimes I think we forget that. We are up
to the challenge. It is time to do the right thing for Alexis,
for all of us.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. James, thank you for your very
touching testimony. We totally agree that there needs to be
some additional focus on tire safety, and maybe that is one of
the things the NHTSA could add to their checkpoints and check
tire wear, especially on vans carrying youngsters, and maybe
address it in that way. Thank you, sir.
We move on to Ms. Laura Dean Mooney, President of Mothers
Against Drunk Driving. Welcome.
Ms. Mooney. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Duncan, and members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
on the important topic of improving highway safety.
Madam Chairman, I am pleased to report that progress has
been made to reduce drunk driving, with a 44 percent reduction
in alcohol-related fatalities since 1980 when MADD was founded.
This reduction would not be possible without the hard work of
law enforcement, prosecutors, NHTSA, State highway safety
offices, and others. MADD thanks them as well as you and the
members of this Committee for your leadership on this issue.
This truly has been a team effort.
For more than 16 years, I have worked as a volunteer to try
and advance MADD's mission at the local, State, and national
levels.
I became involved with MADD after my husband, Mike Dean,
shown in this picture, aged 32, was killed in Texas by a drunk
driver, leaving me to raise our eight-month-old daughter alone.
Mike was killed on November 21st, 1991, when a drunk driver,
going the wrong way on a Texas highway, met Mike's car head-on,
killing him instantly.
The offender, who also died at the crash scene, had a BAC
of .34 and was driving with an almost empty bottle of Jim Beam
whiskey in the vehicle.
The crash happened exactly one week before Thanksgiving.
Madam Chairman, as you know, this must not be tolerated. In
2006, there were 13,470 fatalities involving a drunk driver or
a motorcycle operator with at least a .08 BAC, and nearly half
a million injuries due to alcohol-related traffic crashes. This
costs the United States an estimated $114.3 billion annually.
The sad news is that while your efforts, along with those of
MADD and other groups, have made drunk driving socially
unacceptable, it is still tolerated.
Statistics collected by NHTSA should frighten all of us.
Californians share the road with 310,971 drivers with three or
more DUI convictions, and 44,210 drivers with five or more DUI
convictions. Arkansas is home to the single worst drunk driving
offender in the Nation, with one individual accounting for 40
DUIs.
In response to the ongoing tragedy of drunk driving, MADD
launched the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving on November
20th, 2006 The Campaign consists of four parts: support for
high-visibility intensive law enforcement; full implementation
of current alcohol ignition interlock technologies for all
first-time convicted drunk drivers; exploration of advanced
vehicle technologies through the establishment of a Cooperative
Research Agreement between NHTSA and leading automakers that is
assessing the feasibility of a range of in-vehicle technologies
intended to prevent drunk driving; mobilization of grassroots
support led by MADD and its more than 400 affiliates and our
partners to make the elimination of drunk driving a reality.
Mr. Chairman, the time for widespread adoption by States of
ignition interlock laws for all convicted drunk drivers has
come. Anyone who violates the public trust 27 years after
everyone knows the consequences has earned the right for an
alcohol ignition interlock device to be installed on their car.
Multiple studies on interlocks for both first-time and repeat
offenders show a decrease in repeat offences up to 65 percent
while the ignition interlock is on the car.
The more exciting results, however, are that alcohol-
involved crashes are down 30 percent, injuries are down 32
percent, and fatalities are down 22 percent as a result of New
Mexico's first offender program. Currently, only eight States
have ignition interlocks for all first-time convicted drunk
drivers. MADD uses the phrase ``first time convicted'' because
the most conservative studies say that impaired drivers have
actually driven drunk an average of 87 times before they are
ever caught.
MADD also respectfully asks Congress to consider supporting
increased funding for the 402 program and law enforcement in
the next traffic safety reauthorization bill. We also believe
increased Federal funding is needed to help with the
Cooperative Research Agreement between the automotive industry
and the Federal Government to support those new technologies
that may eventually prevent a vehicle from being started by a
drunk driver. MADD does not support any mandates of this new
technology, and we believe it is best pursued on a voluntary,
market-driven basis over the next decade.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, we wish to bring another
important issue to the Committee's attention. There are some
who continue to advocate lowering the drinking age back to 18.
Data is unequivocal that the earlier youth drink, the more
likely they are to become alcohol-dependent later in life and
then drive drunk. Because of the 21 minimum drinking age,
25,000 families somewhere will never know the tragedy of the
call that comes at 2:00 a.m. or, in my case, 7:15 p.m. that
says their husband, son, daughter, or loved one is not coming
home. I know this tragedy firsthand and I will work with MADD
to continue the fight so that others will not experience my
tragedy.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you and would like to thank
the members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify.
MADD looks forward to working with you and this Committee as
you look to improve highway safety on our Nation's roadways.
Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. [Presiding] Ms. Jill Ingrassia, Managing
Director, Government Relations & Traffic Safety Advocacy, of
the AAA, Washington, D.C. Ms. Ingrassia.
Ms. Ingrassia. Chairman DeFazio and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to share
AAA's perspective on roadway safety.
As you may know, AAA is a federation of independent motor
clubs in the United States and Canada, serving over 51 million
members. Our members are prime users of the Nation's
transportation system; they are commuters, leisure travelers,
pedestrians, and users of mass transit. So transportation plays
a vital role in their lives.
In the time I have today, I would like to reinforce three
messages from the more detailed testimony that I submitted for
the record. First is the importance of developing a new vision
and purpose for the overall transportation program and engaging
the public in the lead-up to this next bill; second is the
challenge of changing behavior and creating a traffic safety
culture; and, finally, I will mention a couple of key
recommendations for improvement.
As you prepare for the upcoming reauthorization of SAFETEA-
LU, in addition to the challenges of actually writing a new
bill, an added challenge will be getting the public's buy-in
regarding the importance of transportation and what needs to be
done. We have found in recent surveys that the public knows we
need transportation improvements, but they don't believe
current resources are being invested effectively and they are
skeptical about paying more.
If we fail to understand the amount of mistrust the public
has in our ability to deliver recognizable transportation
improvements and be good stewards of the motorists' dollar, we
will fail in reducing fatalities, fail in cutting commute
times, and fail to grow our economy in ways that will keep us
globally competitive. We simply won't have the public support
and the resulting political will we need to get the job done.
Turning to safety, behavior change is arguably the greatest
challenge we face in reducing the over 42,000 deaths and over 2
million injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes each
year. These figures should ring alarm bells nationwide for an
urgent call to action. Yet, our society seems to have come to
accept this sort of death toll with motor vehicle crashes. This
has to change.
An important step is changing the way we view traffic
crashes. They should be recognized as a public health threat
and treated as such. That means rethinking how we communicate
traffic safety, as well as increasing our focus on
collaboration between government agencies, transportation and
health professionals, communicators, law enforcement, and
criminal justice professionals to name a few.
A common theme in all of the traffic safety challenges
outlined in my testimony is the need to communicate differently
and develop new ways to affect behavior change. On many issues
we have made progress on the traditional four Es: engineering,
education, enforcement, and emergency services. We believe it
is time to add four Cs: communication, coordination,
collaboration, and culture. I mention culture because it seems
the public is not getting the message about the impact of motor
vehicle crashes. They are not changing behavior or demanding
urgent action from elected officials.
To that end, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has
initiated a long-term research project to assess and hopefully,
eventually, transform the traffic safety culture in this
Country. To give you a sense of the challenge, our recent AAA
Foundation survey of public attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs
on traffic safety found that, to a large degree, Americans
practice a ``do as I say, not as I do'' approach. They
certainly agree that engaging in distracted behavior while
driving is dangerous; yet, they admit to doing it, and they
firmly believe the driver of the other vehicle is the real
source of the problem.
Speeding, aggressive, impaired, and distracted driving,
seat belt use and pedestrian/cyclist safety are just some of
the issues that can benefit from an improved traffic safety
culture. My written testimony includes perspectives on some of
these issues, along with a focus on teen drivers, child
passenger safety, and senior mobility.
I would like to finish by just briefly highlighting a
couple of our recommendations for your consideration as you
evaluate existing programs and look for new opportunities to
improve transportation safety.
The first is data. We need to increase focus on results and
metrics in order to properly evaluate current safety programs
so that we invest in projects and programs that are truly
having an impact. Data systems must be improved and money
should be provided for necessary upgrades. Developing a common
definition for serious injuries should also be a priority.
Collecting data on deaths and serious injuries would provide a
more robust metric and afford greater statistical validity of
any analyses done.
The second is accountability. In order to move to a
performance-driven outcome-based system, new performance
metrics are needed. As you have already heard, NHTSA and GHSA
are working to develop comprehensive performance metrics for
safety programs, and we support this effort. Uniform
performance standards will reveal to each State what its own
data collection needs are and will help each State evaluate its
current safety programs.
With respect to strategic highway safety plans, AAA
encourages Congress to strengthen the requirement for States to
develop collaborative strategic highway safety plans that are
based on data. There should be oversight and evaluation to
ensure the programs are actually accomplishing the defined
goals, as well as requirements to update them. It is important
that NHTSA and State highway safety offices be actively engaged
in the development and evaluation of these plans.
In conclusion, AAA recognizes that the challenges before
you are not easy. Making significant strides in safety will
likely involve more than incremental improvements and providing
a bit more money to carry on business as usual. We look forward
to working with you on the important task of improving
transportation safety in the next reauthorization bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Ms. Jacqueline S. Gillan, Vice President, Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety. Ms. Gillan.
Ms. Gillan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Jacqueline Gillan and I am Vice President of Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, and I appreciate the opportunity to
testify this morning on such an important topic.
During the SAFETEA-LU authorization time frame, it is
expected that more than 200,000 people will die on our highways
and nearly 13 million more will be injured. This will occur
despite the largest surface transportation investment in our
Nation's history.
The number of highway deaths and injuries have essentially
flat-lined. In recent years, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration has been unable to meet a number of its
announced safety performance goals for reducing deaths and
injuries. Instead of changing their plans and programs to meet
the challenge, the agency simply moves the goalpost.
As this Subcommittee begins deliberations on the next
reauthorization bill, let me briefly recommend some of the key
areas where real safety gains can be achieved.
First, there is an urgent need for a primary enforcement
seat belt law in every State. Today, only 26 States and D.C.
have this law. Primary enforcement seat belt laws save lives
and result in higher usage rates. SAFETEA-LU provided more than
$500 million in incentive grant money to encourage States to
pass primary enforcement seat belt laws. In 2006, three States
acted. In 2007, only Maine passed a law. And in 2008, we do not
expect a single State to adopt a primary enforcement seat belt
law. At this glacial pace, it could be 2032 or later before
every State has this essential law.
In the area of impaired driving, we are not making
sufficient progress. Many States still don't have some of the
most fundamental and basic impaired driving laws. Additionally,
we need to expand the use of technology to prevent impaired
driving. Advocates strongly supports and is working with MADD
to promote adoption of mandatory interlock laws for first-time
offenders in every State.
One of the major factors contributing to overall highway
fatalities is the dramatic increase in motorcycle deaths in the
last 10 years. Since 1997, motorcycle deaths have more than
doubled. Helmet use is the most effective measure to protect
motorcyclists in a crash from death and disabling brain injury.
However, while motorcycle deaths are climbing, lifesaving all-
rider helmet laws are under attack in State legislatures. In
fact, more State legislatures considered repealing their laws
than enacting them.
The increase in teen drivers on our roads is also a safety
problem with a sensible solution. In 2006, about 8,000 deaths
involved young drivers. Graduated driver licensing or GDL
programs introduce teens to driving by phasing in driving
privileges over time and in less risky situations. While many
States have a few of the essential components of an optimal GDL
law, only Delaware has all five recommended by Advocates. As a
result, there is a patchwork quilt of teen driving laws across
the Nation similar to the blood borders that existed in the
1970s and 1980s when States had different minimum drinking ages
for alcohol.
Congress solved that problem with enactment of the 21
drinking age sponsored by the late Chairman of this Committee,
Representative Jim Howard. This law gave States three years to
adopt a uniform drinking law or be penalized Federal aid
highway funds. As a result, every State complied. No State lost
a single dollar of highway funds, and over 25,000 lives have
been saved; a remarkable achievement. It is now time for
Congress to step in to protect every teen in every State
through the uniform adoption of optimal GDL laws.
There is also a pressing need to address the rapidly
increasing population of older drivers. NHTSA estimates that by
the year 2030 there will be 71 million drivers over 65 years
old. Not enough attention is being given to adopting
countermeasures in our highway and vehicle safety designs for
older drivers in anticipation of this.
Now let me briefly turn to the issue of speed. In 2006,
speed was a factor in about a third of all traffic fatalities.
Congress may have repealed the national maximum speed limit in
1995, but it did not repeal the law of physics. It is important
to note a 1984 study where the National Academy of Sciences
documented that the speed limit lowered both the lives lost and
also conserved fuel. Conditions may once again be ripe for
Congress to consider a new version of the national speed limit
law. One bill has already been introduced in the House and
Advocates supports the reconsideration of a national speed
limit as a policy option in order to save lives and protect our
Nation.
In conclusion, many of the safety priorities outlined in
Advocates' testimony today can be realized by expending minimal
Federal dollars while achieving maximum gains in saving lives
and preventing deadly injuries. There are really no acceptable
excuses for delaying any longer the adoption of proven safety
measures that will significantly reduce our Nation's death and
injury toll, and we look forward to working with you during the
consideration of reauthorization.
Again, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
The Honorable Bob Letourneau, State Senator, New Hampshire.
Mr. Letourneau.
Mr. Letourneau. Good afternoon, Chairman DeFazio and Mr.
Boozman, members of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting me here today to testify on behalf of
American Motorcyclists.
For the record, my name is Senator Bob Letourneau, and I am
here representing Motorcycle Riders Foundation, which is a
coalition of States riders motorcycle rights organization and
individual members representing about 275,000 motorcyclists. I
also serve as the Chairman of the New Hampshire Senate
Transportation Committee and a am a member of the State
Motorcycle Advisory Committee. In addition to that, I am a
member of the Governors Motorcycle Safety Task Force of the New
Hampshire Highway Safety Agency, and I have been a motorcycle
rider for 41 years.
I want to thank Chairman DeFazio for his wisdom to hold
this motorcycle safety hearing on National Ride to Work Day.
With reference to the 2010 funds, I appreciate the
opportunity to provide your Subcommittee with some thoughts
that the MRF has on highway safety programs administered by
NHTSA. We hope that the next reauthorization not only keeps
Federal section 2010 funds as a priority and expand this
program exponentially.
Consider this: Under the current SAFETEA-LU law, the
Federal Government spends about $1.00 per motorcyclist per
year. Then ask yourself, do you think that is enough? I want to
give you some personal perspective as my experience as a member
of the Motorcycle Safety Task Force of New Hampshire, whose
responsibility it is to use these funds, is very positive.
We have been able to purchase new training bikes for our
fleet, opening up new training possibilities for riders. We
were able to purchase 220 new helmets to replace the current
helmets, most of which were 18 years old. Additionally, we were
able to provide the MSF Intersections training video to all our
driver training schools, providing valuable education to our
new drivers about the issues that motorcyclists face on the
road daily. This was possible because of 2010 grants; your tax
dollars truly at work.
In reference to accident prevention, past legislation that
this Committee has crafted included language that specifically
directs NHTSA to focus on accident prevention over occupation
protection when addressing motorcycle safety. Accident
prevention saves societal costs, reduces injuries, and reduces
property damage. We ask that you continue to promote outcome-
based accident prevention solutions.
Again, from my personal perspective, on July 5th, 2008,
putting my money where my mouth is, I took and passed the
advanced Skilled Rider Course because I know it saves lives,
and, yes, I did learn that I have rider skills that I was not
using properly. However, more importantly, when people ask me
if I have taken the course, I can answer yes, and it works.
HOV lanes. When considering future highway design, it is
important to include motorcyclists on HOV lane access, as this
Committee has done in the past. For that, 6 million American
motorcyclists thank Congress.
Motorcycle Advisory Council. Also included in SAFETEA-LU
was language that created an advisory council to provide the
wisdom to the Secretary of Transportation on motorcycles and
the design of the highway infrastructure. I am pleased to tell
you the initial two-year charter passed by Congress has been so
successful that the Secretary recently decided to extend the
Council for another two years.
Another personal note. In light of increased motorcycle
fatal accidents during the 2005 riding season, Representative
Packard, who was the Chair at the time of the House
Transportation Committee, and myself, as Chairman of the Senate
Transportation Committee, requested that the Governors Highway
Safety agency form a task force to come up with solutions to
this increasing problem. You will see from the document that I
have provided the Committee that in light of augmented
motorcycle registrations, we were able to find ways to decrease
the fatality problem through awareness, improved rider
education programs, and new legislation, which both
Representative Packard and myself introduced and passed.
Green vehicles. We ask Congress to promote motorcycling as
a means of reducing energy consumption and reducing traffic
congestion.
International efforts. Last month, the MRF participated in
a meeting held by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development and its 30 member countries in conjunction with the
International Transit Forum and Joint Transportation Research
Centre in Lillehammer, Norway to develop a global list of the
top 20 motorcycle safety priorities. You have our list of that,
and priorities one, three, and four all stress proper riding
training. Priorities six and seven emphasize awareness
programs. Two areas that the American motorcycle rights
community has been promoting for decades.
And last but not least, rising fatalities. According to the
June 2008 survey of State motorcycle safety programs by the
Governors Highway Safety Association, motorcycle registrations
have more than doubled since 1997 and new motorcycle sales have
quadrupled since then. Surely, when the population is
increased, one must expect the crash numbers to climb as well.
It is simple statistics.
The same report stated that this explosion of motorcycle
sales from 356,000 in 1997 to 1.1 million today is crippling
the rider education programs across the Country. Twenty-nine
States and D.C. have capacity problems and often have wait
times for training for more than 12 weeks. This is another
reason why Congress needs to invest more money in motorcycle
rider education through Section 2010 grants.
One last personal observation, in New Hampshire, during our
first 15 years of our motorcycle education program, we trained
over 23,000 riders. Only one of those 23,000 riders was
involved in a fatality. Education is the key to successfully
reducing motorcycle fatalities, and our experience is proof
positive.
On behalf of the MRF and the American motorcyclists, I
thank you for this opportunity to present our concerns and
views to you in considering safety issues in the development of
the National Transportation System, and I welcome any questions
from the Committee.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
I will turn first to Mr. Boozman who wants to recognize a
couple of witnesses and has a quick question. We are going to
try and move quickly through questions because we won't have
time to come back.
Go ahead.
Mr. Boozman. In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, we
would like to submit some questions potentially, but I want to
thank Mr. James and Ms. Mooney for coming and giving your
testimony. It is very difficult, and yet it really is very
helpful to hear personal stories.
My wife was in an accident a month or so ago, and my
daughter. It was a very complicated intersection. She broke
several ribs, had a collapsed lung and stuff, but it was really
the Lord taking care of her in the sense that she could have
been injured much, much worse.
So this is something that we are all very, very aware of,
and we really do appreciate your advocacy, and it really does
make a big difference. Thank you to all the panelists. We
appreciate your being here.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you and I likewise met with Mr. James
last fall in my office and Ms. Mooney. Sometimes maybe in our
lives the only we can make sense out of horrible tragedies is
to try and prevent that from happening to other people, and we
appreciate what you are doing there.
A couple of quick questions, Mr. James. How would you
envision a national system for endorsement on driving 15-
passenger vans? Have you kind of thought how we would establish
the standards?
I mean, generally, we have left that issue to the States to
some extent, although are some Federal standards about
commercial truck drivers, for instance.
Mr. James. Very similar, like motorcycles, there, you have
to have an endorsement to drive a motorcycle. If we do this, it
will be the awareness that there is 500,000 of these vans
without even the latest technology on the road, that everybody
agrees that have rollover, very high rollover risk.
We have been using the motorcycle endorsement as our
example that we would like to see.
Mr. DeFazio. So, essentially, we would just set a national
objective, perhaps provide some small amount of funds in the
next authorization to the States and say, you have to develop a
system to certify the people. We wouldn't try and have it as a
Federal standard or license but just leave that up to the
States to determine what additional training or testing would
be necessary.
Mr. James. Correct.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Mooney, I have a question. I don't understand about the
$60 to $80 a month to monitor the interlock. Why does it cost
that?
Ms. Mooney. Well, the offender has to pay all the costs,
the initial cost to acquire the interlock device, about $150 to
$200. Sixty dollars a month is to maintain the device. They
actually have to drive back to the facility where it was
installed and have it calibrated and dump the data that it has
collected. So that is where the cost comes in.
Mr. DeFazio. Isn't technology moving? I mean where we have
technology, we can monitor prisoners remotely with ankle
bracelets. It just seems to me like a high recurring cost. I
mean is there a technology breakthrough coming where we can
remotely monitor these devices and not have to bring them in?
Do they have problems with failure or why do they have to
be recalibrated so frequently, monthly, it seems?
Ms. Mooney. Well, I guess we would have to have an ignition
interlock provider that knows the technology a little more
exactly than I do.
But our feeling is $60 to $80 is not very much really, a
month, when you think about that is the cost of one drink a
day.
Mr. DeFazio. No. I understand that, but it just kind of
stuck out to me. I am thinking put the devices in and make it
so they can't circumvent them, but I was just wondering about
the recurring cost with it. In many cases, it is probably going
to be borne by taxpayers since a lot of the people may not have
the wherewithal to pay that.
Ms. Mooney. I was just reminded it also prevents the
tampering too if they go in and see that it is actually still
installed in the car, and they are able to check it for various
things. That is my understanding, limited understanding of
that.
I think an interlock provider would be able. I would be
happy to get that information and get that to you.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes. No. I mean I think the devices are an
excellent way to prevent reoccurrence.
Now why so few States have adopted it for first time
offenders? Why? What is the resistance you are sensing or
hearing?
Ms. Mooney. Perhaps it is mostly education, educating State
legislators about exactly what an interlock device is and what
the purpose of it is. Even law enforcement officers, judges
don't know very much about them from my personal experience in
visiting with those types of folks.
Once they see it, they usually get it. They usually
understand this is something that is really effective. It is
going to allow the offender to keep going to their job and
drive their kids to school. They simply can't drive drunk.
Primarily education and having them understand what it
does.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Anybody else want to comment on
interlocks?
All right. I will see if other members have questions
because we don't have much time. I don't know who was here
first.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really do
appreciate the witnesses coming and giving their testimony.
I was just going to ask one question, maybe make a comment
to the Senator, Mr. Letourneau.
I know that in South Carolina, we just passed a bill where
when you come to a traffic light on a motorcycle and it doesn't
trip the mechanism. So the State Legislature actually now
allowed the motorcycle to proceed across the red light if there
is nobody coming. I just wondered if that has been an
initiative for you all.
Mr. Letourneau. I did see that legislation, and there is an
issue with some traffic lights. I know as a rider I have run
into that problem myself. I am just a little leery of going
through any red lights. On a motorcycle, you don't have much
protection.
Mr. Brown. Well, you certainly drive at your own risk, and
yet you can tell whether the traffic is coming or going or not.
I know that we had a lot of folks that were just waiting at the
traffic light for a car to come up, so they could trigger it to
get access to the change of the light.
But I didn't know, since you rode motorcycles, whether that
would be of any interest to you or not.
Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we have votes on
the floor, and I will yield back.
Mr. Letourneau. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have some written questions I am going to have you
answer, hopefully. But, Mr. James and Ms. Dean Mooney, thank
you for especially your testimony.
My grandfather was killed by a drunk driver when he was
working with the Texas Highway Department, laying asphalt on
now Interstate 35. Then my eight year old, when Kim was eight,
was hit by a drunk driver riding her bicycle home from school
and never rode a bicycle again, even to this day.
Specifically, Ms. Dean Mooney, I want to thank you and MADD
for what you have done. There are thousands of people today who
are alive because of MADD, thousands. You have done a wonderful
job in the last 20 years. We cannot forget that.
I want to question you about interlock devices. I used them
as a judge. It is the law in States, but judges don't follow
the law. They don't enforce the law and require interlock
devices, and so I have two questions for you. You can submit an
answer in writing.
Do you think that if we required that first time offenders
have an interlock device, of drinking and driving, and some
stipend to States that enforced that, if that would help?
Second, what do you think about repeat offenders, the judge
ordering the confiscation of the license and registration of
the vehicle, the license plate and the registration of the
vehicle for a period of time, if that would help in solving
this problem or not?
So those are my questions. I would like some written
answers.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. I would also be interested in the
answers to those questions because I think particularly on the
first one, maybe the Feds need to provide a little more
direction on the first time offenders particularly States. I
think you suggested 0.08.
Ms. Mooney. Thank you, Judge Poe. We will make sure we get
those to the Committee.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, there are some votes coming up, but if you
have a couple of questions that would be great.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, thank you.
I thank this panel very much for your testimony. I had to
be out of the room while you were delivering, but I did read
through your submissions prior to the hearing.
I want to join with Mr. Poe in complimenting MADD for their
service to the public. He put it very well. People are alive
today because of the work of MADD, and we need to pursue those
goals, those initiatives that MADD and all the other members of
this panel have advocated and raise our standard and save more
lives.
I said it, Mr. Chairman, before the previous panel, while
you were at the aviation issue, that the European community has
reduced fatalities from 53,000 a year to 43,000 in 5 years. We
ought to be able to do as well in the United States through a
combination of initiatives that the European community has
undertaken.
Certainly with half of our fatalities associated with
alcohol, we ought to attack behavior.
We have done a good job, I believe, in this Country of
changing the traveled way, removing tank traps such as those
huge concrete posts for lights, highway lighting systems. You
would drive into it, and the driver and passenger are killed.
We now have breakaway light poles.
The Jersey barriers, instead of running into a concrete
wall or running through something and going into the opposite
traveled way and killing more people, we have the Jersey
barrier.
We have the bridge piers that are angled away from the
traveled road surface itself so that people aren't driving into
those.
The guard rails that are now angled into the ground, before
that work was done, our Committee found that drivers crashed
into the end of the guard rail which would slide over the hood
of the car and decapitate driver and passenger.
But we haven't done as well--we haven't done as well--on
the behavioral side, on the passenger side, which is why I
questioned the previous panel on national driver register. We
need to get bad drivers off the highways. We need to keep
people who are impaired, not handicapped but impaired by
alcohol or drugs, off the traveled roadway.
I know you addressed this previously, Ms. Ingrassia, Ms.
Gillan. We had quite a debate in the previous transportation
bill as well as in TEA-21 over whether incentives for States to
comply with 0.08 or penalties for noncompliance were better.
What is your experience?
We wound up with incentives. You get a bonus to the State
if they establish that and for seatbelt compliance.
Ms. Gillan. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that
sanctions work and that incentive grants without sanctions are
not as effective.
In my testimony, I talked about the primary seatbelt
incentive grant program. Only three States passed a primary
enforcement seatbelt law in 2006. Maine did it last year. There
will be no State this year that will pass a primary enforcement
safety belt bill.
When we look at the 21 drinking age, when we had blood
borders and the former Chairman Jim Howard passed that
legislation, all States within 3 years had a 21 drinking age,
no State lost a single dollar, and 25,000 lives have been
saved.
It worked on 0.08. It worked on zero tolerance BAC laws for
youth, and that is the approach we should consider in the next
bill when we look at the lack of some of the most fundamental
safety laws in the States such as primary enforcement,
motorcycle helmets, teen driving laws.
Advocates is not ashamed to say that the research shows
that sanctions work and that that is an approach this Committee
has to look at if we ever want to make a significant drop in
the number of deaths and injuries on our highways.
Mr. Oberstar. That was my view in the previous Congress. I
see time has expired on the vote on the House floor.
I have to run. I know other members have their questions.
Mr. James, I know you have had a very personal, searing
experience, and I sympathize with you, offer my heartfelt
prayers and solidarity with you in your experience.
I am so appreciative of all the work that MADD has done,
that the Advocates have done.
You heard our hearing previously on big trucks and small
cars. We are going to do a much bigger job, a much better job,
a much more intensive focus on highway safety in the next
transportation bill. I assure you that.
Thank you very much for your participation.
Mr. DeFazio. The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3655.142