[Senate Hearing 111-1234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1234
OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 14, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-440PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 14, 2010
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 4
Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico,
prepared statement............................................. 142
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware,
prepared statement............................................. 143
WITNESSES
Porcari, Hon. John D., Deputy Secretary of Transportation, U.S.
Department of Transportation................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 16
Steudle, Kirk T., Director, Michigan Department of
Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials........................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 34
Dean-Mooney, Laura, National President, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving........................................................ 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Gillan, Jackie, Vice President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety......................................................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 66
Hubsmith, Deb, Director, Safe Routes to School National
Partnership.................................................... 68
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 78
Cohen, Gregory M., President and CEO, American Highway Users
Alliance....................................................... 84
Prepared statement........................................... 86
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 114
Miller, Ted, Principal Research Scientist, Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation........................................ 119
Prepared statement........................................... 121
OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(Chairman of the full Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, and Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. The Committee will come to order.
I want to thank my colleagues and the witnesses for being
here today for this very important hearing on opportunities to
improve our transportation safety.
More people are killed and injured on America's roads than
on all other transportation modes combined, and motor vehicle
crashes are a leading cause of death for Americans aged 3 to
34. That is shocking. Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause
of death for Americans aged 3 to 34.
According to NHTSA an average of 102 people died each day
in motor vehicle crashes in 2008. That is one in every 14
minutes. For many years the number of fatalities on our
Nation's highways has been relatively constant at around 40,000
a year, although the last 2 years have seen a decline in the
number of fatalities, for which we are grateful.
Preliminary projections from NHTSA show that an estimated
33,000 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2009, which is a
9 percent decrease from 2008 when 37,000 people died on
America's roads. This improvement in the number of fatalities
represents some progress, but it still means that tens of
thousands of people continue to die on our roadways every year,
and we have to do more to make our highways safer.
In addition to the devastating personal impact every death
or serious injury has on the victim's families the large number
of deaths and injuries on our highways each year has
significant social and economic impacts. In 2000 NHTSA
estimated that motor vehicle crashes cost the United States
about $230 billion, taking into account the costs of medical,
emergency and police services, property damage, lost
productivity and quality of life.
And there are new threats to highway safety that need to be
addressed. For example NHTSA research shows that in 2008 alone
nearly 6,000 people were killed and more than half a million
people were injured nationwide in crashes involving a driver
distracted by a cell phone, a text message or other factors.
Under Secretary LaHood's leadership the Department of
Transportation has started a new initiative to combat
distracted driving, and I look forward to hearing more about
this initiative from Deputy Secretary Porcari today.
The next Surface Transportation Authorization, MAP-21,
which stands for Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century,
will give us the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to
safety and to develop safety programs that maximize the impact
of limited Federal resources.
For the last month, the so-called Big Four on this
Committee have been meeting to get ready for a markup of a
transportation bill, MAP-21.
Senator Inhofe. So-called.
Senator Boxer. Well, we call ourselves the Big Four, but I
am under 5 feet, so I always mention that.
I think what is good news is that we have seen tremendous
cooperation on the safety part of this bill. The staff reports
to me that there is a lot of agreement to move forward on the
safety section. So I am very, very happy about this.
Today's witnesses will discuss a variety of ways to improve
transportation safety, and we all look forward to hearing your
suggestions, and we look forward to working with you as we
develop the safety provisions of MAP-21.
And absolutely one of the Big Four is sitting here, Senator
Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
This is something that we have worked on for a long time. I
don't think there are two people more committed to coming up
with a transportation reauthorization bill than the two of us.
And this is about the safety, and we are making good progress
in reducing both the rate and overall number of fatalities. I
am sure that was covered in the Chairman's statement.
Despite what some may think the Committee doesn't have the
jurisdiction over the driver behavioral side. That said, it is
important for us to work with States to reduce drunk driving,
increase seat belt use, and generally encourage safe driving.
What I oppose is forcing a one size fits all Washington
solution to all the States. A perfect example of this is the
sanction approach favored by some on this Committee and some of
the witnesses who are here today that withholds highway funds
from States that do not enact specific laws. This goes all the
way back, Madam Chairman, to when I was first elected to the
State legislature back in the 1960s.
You will remember this. Lady Bird's Highway Beautification
Act of 1965. And I came up here to protest to this Committee.
What was the guy's name from West Virginia who was the
Chairman? Well, that was well before you, but anyway. The
reason I was protesting at that time was they were withholding
funds that would otherwise go to States. So I go way back 40,
45 years with this feeling.
SAFETEA created a new core safety program which I think is
the single most important thing achieved in the $286.4 billion
bill that we had from 2005. The next highway bill needs to
build on this success, and I think this will go a long way to
continue that. And the reason for the safety program is so
successful is that it has States look at data of where people
are dying, accidents are occurring, and come up with a plan to
address this.
So I really think that if there is any division up here in
terms of philosophical division, it is going to be the role of
the States. I feel very strongly that the closer you get to the
people, the more they are aware of what the problems are, and
the things that are problems in terms of safety in California
are not the same as they are in Oklahoma.
So I look forward to this hearing, and I appreciate your
list of witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
We are making very good progress in reducing both the rate
and overall number of fatalities on our Nation's roads--but it
is still not good enough.
In 2008 just over 37,000 people were killed on our
highways. I think everybody knows somebody who has been killed
or severely injured in an auto accident. This is clearly a
tragedy that touches every American.
The good news is that highway deaths have been going down
each year since 2005, when there were 43,500 fatalities. There
are a number of critical ways to save lives on our roads by
influencing driver behavior and increasing the safety of our
roads.
Despite what some may think this Committee does not have
jurisdiction over the driver behavior side. However, it is
important to work with States to reduce drunk driving, increase
seat belt use, and generally encourage safer driving. What I
oppose is forcing a one size fits all Washington solution on
all States. A perfect example of this is the sanction approach
(favored by some on this Committee and some of the witnesses
today) that withholds highway funds from States that do not
enact specific laws. I support rewarding States for results
(e.g. higher seat belt use, decreases in drunk driving) and
campaigns like Secretary LaHood's efforts against texting while
driving.
This Committee has jurisdiction over the physical condition
and design of our transportation infrastructure. It is
estimated that from one-third to over one-half of all
fatalities result from deficiencies in roadway conditions. We
need to make our roads and bridges safer. One of the witnesses
today, Dr. Miller, has conducted research that found roadway
condition to be a contributing factor in over half of all
deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes and 38 percent of
the non-fatal injuries. His research also determined that in
terms of crash outcome severity, road conditions are the single
most lethal contributing factor in roadway fatalities--greater
than speeding, alcohol, or not wearing seat belts.
SAFETEA created a new core safety program--which I think is
the single most important thing achieved in the $286.4 billion
bill. The next highway bill needs to build on this success. I
think this will go a long way to continue the historic declines
in highway deaths.
The reason the safety program is so successful is that it
requires States to examine data on where people are dying and
where accidents are occurring and to devise a plan to address
the greatest roadway safety problems in the State. It has
States determine the best solutions to address their most
unsafe conditions. It is critical that we continue to follow
this data driven, flexible approach.
One example of how we deviated from this approach is the
Safe Routes to School Program. This is not a safety program--it
is a healthy lifestyle program. Its real goal is to encourage
kids to walk and bike to school--a worthwhile goal, but let's
remember: this not a safety issue, and it shouldn't be paid for
by road users as our infrastructure is crumbling around us.
This program received over $600 million in the last bill and
was 14 percent of the size of the entire safety program in
2009.
Countless studies have proven the safest way for children
to get to school is in a yellow school bus. If the goal of this
program were truly to get our children to school more safely,
it would be to encourage them to take the school bus. I believe
we'd save more lives if the Safe Routes to School money was put
back into the safety program and children were encouraged to
ride school buses.
This next highway bill needs to focus on the core safety
program and build on its successes. I'd like to see a much
larger, more data driven safety program. I'd also like to
create a new safety performance measure that will highlight
successful outcomes and assess how States are doing when it
comes to saving lives.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Inhofe, and I do look
forward to continuing our work on this and other issues.
We are so happy to see Senator Lautenberg here. There are
leaders in the Senate on various issues, and if you had asked
any Senator, if you asked about safety on our Nation's
transportation freeways and our highways and our mass transit,
Frank Lautenberg's name would be at the top of the list.
I am so glad you are here, Senator. Please proceed.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank
you for getting on with the attempt to establish an opportunity
for a new highway bill. It is critical. One need only be on our
highways to see how critical it is.
Well, since I came to the Senate--and I thank you for your
comments, Madam Chairman--I have fought to make our roads
safer. In 1984 I authored the legislation that set the minimum
drinking age at 21. Before that, to drink legally you had to be
21 in some States and 18 in others. We had a situation in New
Jersey when our drinking age was 21 and our colleagues, our
friends across the river, it was 18. And as a consequence, we
developed a reputation for having a blood border because young
people would go to New York City and have a good time, and
often the results at the end of the evening were catastrophic.
So we changed the law, and the minimum drinking age became 21
across the Nation.
The Department of Transportation has determined that this
law is responsible for saving more than 24,000 lives since it
was written. It is a stadium full of young people. In 2000 we
built on that safety record by passing another law to set the
maximum level of alcohol in a driver's blood at .08, and that
law has helped further end drink driving, reducing drunk
driving fatalities, credited with saving approximately 500
lives every year.
So I am proud of these accomplishments, but make no
mistake, there is more work to do. And as we consider different
ways to protect drivers, passengers, pedestrians, we have to
remember one thing that has a proven record of reducing
fatality rates quickly and effectively, and that is shifting
the behavior, changing the behavior of drivers. In fact
according to DOT more than 90 percent of crashes on our roads
are caused by human factors alone, speeding, distracted
driving, and obviously drunk driving.
So that is why I introduced a common sense bill a few
months ago to stop the convicted drunk drivers from becoming
repeat offenders. This bill will make the highways safer by
requiring convicted drunk drivers to install ignition
interlocks on their cars.
These devices will not let a vehicle start if the driver
has any alcoholic content on their breath, and these systems
are proven to work. A study by the Center for Disease Control
found that re-arrests among convicted drunk drivers dropped by
73 percent when the ignition interlock was available in their
car.
It is also essential that we take the dangers posed by
massive trucks seriously. Large trucks account for just 3.5
percent of all the registered vehicles on our roads, and yet
they are involved in more than 11 percent of all motor vehicle
crash deaths. The fact is double and triple trailers don't
belong on our highways. Yet, a loophole in our law allows them
to endanger the public. We have to close the loophole, block
these long overweight trucks from using our national highway
system.
And finally we cannot ignore the risks posed to motorcycle
drivers on our roads. In 1995 the law that I wrote, the Federal
law that required these drivers to wear helmets, was repealed.
And the rate of deaths among motorcycle riders has skyrocketed
ever since. Head injury is the leading cause of death in
motorcycle crashes, and we have to do more to encourage
motorcycle drivers to wear helmets.
We have a lot of work ahead of us. I am looking forward,
Madam Chairman, to hearing from our witnesses on how we can
make our roads safer and working with your and our colleagues
on this Committee, we want to accomplish these goals.
And I thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
The Honorable John D. Porcari, Deputy Secretary of
Transportation, we welcome you
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. PORCARI, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Porcari. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member
Inhofe, members of the Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to
address the Department of Transportation's single highest
priority, which is safety and safety's role in the next
reauthorization for surface transportation.
Improving highway safety throughout the United States by
reducing road fatalities and injuries is one of our high
priority performance goals, and I am pleased to report that we
are making progress on that. In 2008 the number of fatalities
on our roadways fell to the lowest rate ever recorded. For 2009
we are on track to do even better as fatalities continue to
decline.
This is welcome news, and much of the credit goes to the
effective intermodal partnerships to improve highway safety
conducted by DOT's Federal Highway Administration, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and our State and local partners. We are
grateful for their continued leadership.
I would also like to thank Congress for more than doubling
the amount of Federal aid funds available for highway safety
under SAFETEA-LU. This additional funding has been tremendously
important in helping us to enhance Federal research on traffic
safety, implement valuable safety programs, and encourage
innovative, community-based approaches to road safety.
But there is still much work ahead of us. Too many
individuals continue to be killed and injured on our highways,
especially in drunk driving and distracted driving incidents.
Our Department has set a goal to reduce the rate of highway
fatalities from the current rate of approximately 1.25 per 100
million vehicle miles traveled to no more than 1.16 by the end
of 2011. To achieve that goal we will need a comprehensive
multi-agency, multi-disciplinary effort coupled with highly
effective reauthorizing legislation.
Reauthorization offers many critical opportunities to help
us refocus our transportation policies so we can continue on
the path toward making the Nation's transportation system safer
for everyone.
Let me share a preliminary overview of some of these
efforts. One, the DOT Safety Council, which I chair, brings DOT
senior leadership together from across the Department to
address high priority, cross-cutting safety topics. This has
proven to be a very effective vehicle for elevating our focus
on issues like distracted driving, operator fatigue, and safety
management systems.
The Safety Council's first action, by the way, was to
endorse Secretary LaHood's transit safety reform bill, and I
would note that this legislation must be enacted now. The
tragic Metrorail crash that occurred here in Washington last
June along with accidents and safety lapses on transit systems
from San Francisco to Chicago to Boston underscores the need
for new regulations that apply national, consistent safety
standards to all rail transit agencies. The Federal Transit
Administration currently lacks the authority needed to set
these standards, and we need to remedy the situation.
Two, we are implementing a DOT roadway safety plan that
will focus on coordinating our roadway safety activities from
both a strategic and performance perspective to ensure that we
achieve the desired outcomes. This effort requires sustained
cooperation and outreach among DOT's modal agencies.
Three, we are focused on changing drivers' behaviors
through our highly visible and successful distracted driving
campaign, which includes efforts to provide incentives to
States to promote laws curtailing unsafe cell phone use. We
must sustain the momentum we have developed through consumer
education, law enforcement, research, and other mechanisms.
Fourth, we are encompassing pedestrians and bicyclists in
our safety programs through our Livable Communities initiative,
which aims to make communities safer while also improving the
quality of life for families and businesses. This is a
transformational approach that improves access to a range of
safe, sustainable transportation options.
In addition to these priorities, we also have to improve
our analytical and data collection capabilities and continue to
refine our existing efforts to improve safety on rural and
tribal roads and beyond.
All these efforts help to ensure that DOT's safety agenda
preserves lives and delivers to the American people the safest,
most reliable roadways in the Nation.
Madam Chairman, that concludes my remarks, and I will be
pleased to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Porcari follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Mr. Porcari.
Do you feel you have enough safety data coming from the
State and local level? And is this something we need to address
in our bill, getting better data?
Mr. Porcari. It is an excellent question because although
the data collection has improved tremendously through SAFETEA-
LU and through some of the mechanisms established in SAFETEA-
LU, there are clearly gaps left. And if we are developing
performance measures for safety, they should have strong data
behind them.
Crash Data Improvement Program work that has a detailed
analysis of the data is important to make sure that--not just
on the national highway system, but on all of our roads,
including our rural roads, which are disproportionately
represented in accident data--that we have data to build a
strong program.
Again, I would emphasize that SAFETEA-LU is a very strong
start on this.
Senator Boxer. OK. Would you work with us? Because as we
try to improve the situation, especially since SAFETEA-LU was
done, we have more opportunities through computers. I mean,
they are improved all the time, communications. So clearly we
need to update that. Would you work with us on this issue?
Mr. Porcari. Yes, Madam Chair, we would look forward to
that.
Senator Boxer. I think it ought to be, supposing 1 day
Senator Inhofe wanted to know what is happening in his State,
there should be a click and find out kind of way to do it, it
seems to me. And I don't think it is an intrusion on the local
or State people. It is just important for us to know so that we
can help our States. It may say X number of accidents happened
at this crossing, and therefore as we do our bill, we want to
improve that crossing.
So will you work with us on that section?
Mr. Porcari. We will, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. We are going to ask you to work with us on
lots of different sections, but that is one we really care
about.
The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue
Study Commission, members of whom have testified before us,
recommended setting a goal of reducing fatalities by 50 percent
by 2025. In your opinion, is this an achievable goal? And if
so, what can we do to help achieve it?
Mr. Porcari. Madam Chair, it is a very ambitious goal. It
is a stretch goal. I believe it is important to have a stretch
goal for safety. As I previously mentioned our high priority
performance goals, which is one of the primary tools that the
Office of Management and Budget uses to evaluate departmental
performance, includes reducing the highway fatality rate.
We think that into the future as we continue to reduce the
fatality rate that a stronger, stretch goal makes sense.
Senator Boxer. OK. In your testimony, you call for the
development of a DOT roadway safety plan for reducing
fatalities and injuries. Can you describe what such a plan
would entail, and would it take congressional action?
Mr. Porcari. We are currently developing that. What we are
trying to do is make sure that we break down the modal barriers
between the individual modes on issues like highway safety. And
as we build our budget, for example, for fiscal year 2012, we
are looking at highway safety holistically. NHTSA, the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FHWA, and the Research and
Innovative Technology Administration, in particular, are
working across those modal lines and being modally neutral on
these programs so that we can deploy resources most
effectively.
We believe, at least at the present time, that we can do
that within our existing authority. We may need to make some
changes going forward, and we would look forward to working
with you to do that.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Porcari, let me just read from the Highway
Administration, ``Although 23 percent of the U.S. population
live in rural areas, in 2007 rural fatalities accounted for 57
percent of all traffic fatalities in 2007.'' So there is a
separate $90 million a year Rural Road Program that looks
solely at rural roads, but it is obviously completely
inadequate.
Now, your background was the State of Maryland, and you do,
obviously, you have rural areas there, as well as very large
metropolitan areas. It just seems to me coming from a rural
State that the focus is not really adequately distributed
between where the problems are. How do you want to address the
problem that is pointed out in not your statement, in the
statement of the Administration that a very large percentage of
those fatalities are from rural areas?
Mr. Porcari. Clearly, Senator, you have put your finger on
one of the real gaps in our safety efforts. The strategic
highway safety plans that individual States develop with our
partners, including Federal partners, should also be tailored
to local and individual needs. One of the areas that we all
need to focus more on is the rural roads. All four of the Es--
engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical
services--apply to that. There are some fundamental data
collection issues that I believe we need to work together on so
that we can positively impact that unacceptably high fatality
rate on rural roads.
The gaps in data typically are more at the local and rural
road portions of the system. Knowing where the high accident
locations are and where the efforts should be focused is an
important first step.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I would ask the question, since you
said they should be tailored. Who is in the best position to
tailor this? How do you see the States? Because one of the
debates we are going to have up here is the difference of
opinion as to the States' role. We go through this quite often.
Do you think or is it your opinion from the last thing you said
that some of the States and local communities or entities,
whatever they are, counties or otherwise, have the accurate
data to plug into this? What do you see as the States' role in
this?
Mr. Porcari. The States have an important role, first in
formulating the overall strategic highway safety plan because
it needs to be tailored to meet individual needs. The data
collection part of it cannot be done by States alone. The local
partners, in particular where we are talking about rural or
tribal roads, need to be part of it as well.
Clearly, one of the gaps that we have is that data
collection. And if you look at the individual States' strategic
highway safety plans, many of them specifically identify that
as a gap that they need to address.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I know AASHTO has come out in strong
support of each State settings its own goals and a larger
percentage of the influence in the new program that we hope
will be coming out be given to the States. So that is something
that I would like to have all of us keep in mind as we move
forward. And I think we are going to be facing the same thing
when we talk about an overall transportation reauthorization
bill in areas other than safety, too.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary and Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Porcari, for your testimony and your
good work on behalf of safety on our roads.
Despite the fact that large trucks take longer to stop,
have a higher rate of rollovers, pose tremendous wear and tear
on our crumbling transportation infrastructure, some are
proposing relaxing the ban on large trucks that weigh more than
80,000 pounds and are longer than 53 feet on our interstate
highway system.
What might be the impact of more large trucks on the
highways on fatalities?
Mr. Porcari. Senator, the current truck size and weight
requirements that the Federal Highway Administration
administers reflect that balance that we need between safety,
infrastructure preservation, and truck productivity that
Congress decided was appropriate. Safety should be the
overriding consideration as always in this.
We look forward to working with Congress to make sure that
an appropriate balance of those three factors is maintained.
The very real issues associated with weight and size of
vehicles are something that we are very focused on, and we want
to make sure we maintain that appropriate balance.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I would appreciate a very close
examination of that because the statistics tell us that there
is danger ahead if we increase the use of these larger trucks
on our highways.
A proven method to reduce drunk driving is through the use
of ignition interlock devices. Studies that I mentioned have
found that re-arrest rates decrease by 73 percent. Fatalities
drop by 30 percent for convicted drunk drivers with ignition
interlocks.
Therefore, do you think that higher employment of these
devices might be beneficial to reduce the fatalities that
result from drunk driving?
Mr. Porcari. Senator, we agree that ignition interlocks can
play a larger role than they do now in reducing drunk driving.
As you point out, it is clear from the data that they work and
that they are highly effective. There are 12 States at this
point that have enacted laws requiring ignition interlocks by
all drunk driving offenders, and we look forward to continuing
to research this issue as well, whether it is ignition
interlock or any other technological means that helps reduce
the rate of drunk driving.
Senator Lautenberg. Is it likely that the use of these
devices would assist in that endeavor?
Mr. Porcari. I think it is clear from the data, Senator,
that increased use of the devices has clearly resulted in a
safety benefit.
Senator Lautenberg. By the way, to my friend and colleague,
Senator Inhofe, Jennings Randolph.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Yes. I remember that well.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, I remember it myself.
I wrote the helmets required law for motorcyclists in 1991.
The law was repealed in 1995. Motorcycle fatalities skyrocketed
since that time. If we are to have real gains in motorcycle
safety, isn't it time to reinstate the law that requires
helmets to be worn by all motorcycle operators and passengers?
Mr. Porcari. Senator, at the risk of stating the obvious,
motorcycle helmet use is the single most effective way to
reduce motorcycle fatalities. We strongly support motorcycle
helmet laws because they do work. And our NHTSA data has shown
that using helmets is 37 percent effective in preventing fatal
injuries to riders and 41 percent effective for passengers.
Those are clearly big safety gains, and again it is the single
most effective thing that any motorcycle rider or passenger can
do.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Porcari.
And thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
And would you stand by, not here personally, but would you
be willing to answer some questions that we didn't get to ask
you, in writing?
Mr. Porcari. Madam Chair, I would be happy to.
Senator Boxer. Excellent.
Well, we thank you so much, and now we call up our second
panel: Mr. Steudle, Laura Dean-Mooney, Jackie Gillan, Deb
Hubsmith, Gregory Cohen, Ted Miller. And then as we go, I will
give your formal titles as I call on you, but we thank you all
for being here very, very much. We look forward to hearing from
you.
Mr. Steudle, we will start with you. You are the Director
of the Michigan Department of Transportation. So, welcome.
STATEMENT OF KIRK T. STEUDLE, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE
HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Mr. Steudle. Good morning, Chairwoman Boxer and Minority
Member Inhofe and Senator Lautenberg.
I am Kirk Steudle. I am the Director of the Michigan
Department of Transportation, and I am Chairman of AASHTO
Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety. I am also Chair
of the SHRP II Program, which is the second generation of the
Strategic Highway Research Program. And my verbal comments
today are just taken pieces of my written statement that has
been submitted for the record.
There is no more important topic than highway safety. As
has been noted in the first panel SAFETEA-LU made significant
strides in enhancing America's focus on safety. It increased
funding for safety, created a new and core safety program, and
required all States to develop a strategic highway safety plan.
In May 2007 the AASHTO Board of Directors adopted a
national goal of halving traffic deaths over two decades. That
would translate into saving 1,000 American lives per year over
the next 20-year period.
This year, Michigan will spend nearly $70 million on safety
on our roadways, targeting signal improvements, signing
improvements, pavement markings, modernizing signalized
intersections, cable barriers, rumble strips, intelligent
transportation systems, and safe routes to school. These kind
of consistent expenditures have helped us to reduce our highway
fatalities on Michigan roads to 871 in 2009, the lowest since
1924. Our seat belt usage is at 97.9 percent. That, along with
our long history of collaboration, has led to this two decade
decline in traffic fatalities.
Nationwide 33,963 Americans perished in traffic collisions
in 2009, a drop of 9 percent from 2008. While that is excellent
news, we need to continue our progress in reducing highway
fatalities. AASHTO stands ready to work with you toward this
effort.
To that end AASHTO recommends a series of bold
congressional actions. Let me stress the key eight
recommendations briefly.
No. 1, Congress should adopt a national goal of halving
traffic deaths over two decades. We would also like to see for
you to call for and fund a national summit on highway safety.
Second, Congress should increase the flexibility and level
of funding for all safety programs and then continue to fund
the High Risk Rural Roads Program and update the Safe Routes to
School Program to further focus on pedestrians.
Third, Congress should continue the requirement that States
develop and implement strategic highway safety plans and
require that they be updated at least once during the 6-year
reauthorization cycle. And further, Congress should establish
an aggressive State-determined fatality reduction goal to help
achieve the national goal.
Fourth, Congress should provide $20 million per year to
enhance NHTSA's State data system. This will enable further
development of the system to include traffic and roadway
characteristics as well as injury outcomes. Good data is the
foundation for determining how and where money and efforts need
to be spent.
Fifth, Congress should support a national effort led by
NHTSA to develop and recommend model laws and best practices to
the States to drive down traffic deaths, including rigorous
enforcement and adjudication of those laws.
Sixth, Congress should encourage more expeditious
deployment of technical safety improvements in vehicles through
Federal incentives and regulatory and research and development
incentives, much like the electronic stability control that is
being used in vehicles.
Seven, Congress should increase funding for safety research
development and technology, and expand the coordination among
research entities. Congress should increase funding for
intelligent transportation systems, the IntelliDrive Program,
Federal Highway, NHTSA and FMCSA's safety research, and also
the SHRP II Program.
And the last one, Congress should provide $5 million to
modernize the commercial driver's license information system
needed to fully implement one drive/one record. In addition $14
million is needed for the Department of Homeland Security for
the National Driver Registry.
In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, safety is not just a catch
phrase or a feel good word. The number of fatalities is not
just data or rate to compare over years. Safety on our
transportation systems means that we go home to our families
every night.
We can push last year's 34,000 deaths lower and lower in
future years with a focus and intensity to bring more people
home every night.
Let me assure you that AASHTO is a strong safety advocate,
and we are eager to be part of the solution, and we stand ready
to assist you in your legislative deliberations as you craft
the next reauthorization bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Steudle follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
We will move on to Laura Dean-Mooney, National President of
Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
STATEMENT OF LAURA DEAN-MOONEY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, MOTHERS
AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING
Ms. Dean-Mooney. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking
Member Inhofe, for the opportunity to testify before your
Committee. Your leadership and the leadership of this Committee
are to be commended as we work to eliminate drunk driving in
our Nation.
This year marks the 30th anniversary of Mothers Against
Drunk Driving. And since our founding in 1980 drunk driving
fatalities have dropped by over 40 percent. The public is now
well aware of the human consequences of drinking and driving
because MADD has shared stories like mine with the Nation.
I became involved with MADD after my husband, Mike Dean,
was killed on November 21, 1991, by a drunk driver. At 7:15
p.m. on a Thursday evening a drunk driver with a .34 blood
alcohol concentration, going the wrong way on a Texas highway,
met Mike's car head-on, killing him instantly and making me
both a grieving widow and a single mom, as well as making his
mom childless.
Much of the progress in the fight against drunk driving was
achieved by the mid-1990s. For the past 15 years we have been
able to maintain that progress, but until recently make no
further reductions in reducing fatalities from DWI crashes.
In 2008 11,773 real Americans were killed in DUI related
crashes, equaling 32 percent of all traffic fatalities. A
statistic collected by NHTSA from the States themselves paints
a startling portrait of what is happening on our roads. Madam
Chairman, Californians share the road with 310,971 motorists
with three or more DUI convictions and 44,210 with five or more
DUI convictions. Data from every State shows that we are still
not doing enough to stop drunk driving.
In 2006 MADD sought to reverse the deadly trends on our
roads by launching the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. The
Campaign consists of four parts: support for law enforcement,
including sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols;
requiring all convicted drunk drivers to use an ignition
interlock device; exploration of advanced vehicle technology
set at .08 which will prohibit the impaired driver from driving
their vehicle; and finally grassroots support for this
initiative.
The simple reason that drunk drivers continue to drink and
drive is because they can. The reality, too, is that unless you
live in an area with accessible mass transit options you need a
car to get to work and other destinations. This all adds up to
the fact that 75 percent of people with a suspended driver's
license continue to drive illegally.
The alcohol ignition interlock allows a DUI offender to
continue to drive wherever they need to go. He or she just
can't drive drunk and hurt your family or mine. As Senator
Lautenberg mentioned, the research on ignition interlocks is
crystal clear and irrefutable. The CDC in 15 published studies
proved that interlocks are effective in protecting the public.
Beyond the research we have fatality data for New Mexico
and Arizona showing an over 30 percent reduction in DUI
fatalities following the passage of all-offender interlock
laws. Today, thanks in part to MADD's Campaign, 10 States
require all DUI offenders to use an ignition interlock device.
Two States highly incentivize DUI offenders to use an
interlock, and California passed a major pilot program
requiring all convicted DUI offenders in four counties, with a
total population of 14 million people, to use an ignition
interlock. Every American should be protected under an all-
offender interlock law, which is why MADD is calling for
Federal highway fund sanctions on States which do not require
interlocks for all convicted offenders.
This is the same approach that Congress took toward the 21
minimum drinking age in the 2008 .08 per se BAC law.
MADD has worked hard at the State level to pass interlock
laws, but our efforts have stalled due to the special interest
of DUI defense attorneys and the alcohol industry putting the
lives of our families in danger. Quite frankly, we need this
Committee's help.
All across the country there are examples of industry
opposition. As just one example, a proposed interlock law that
passed the Maryland Senate but was held up in the House of
Delegates by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is a
well known DUI defense attorney, was just killed in Maryland--
the bill, that is. The Chairman refused to even hold a vote on
this life saving legislation even though it is likely that the
votes were there for passage. The resistance was so bad that
both the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun editorial boards
took issue with the Chairman.
We urge this Committee to include the same highway fund
sanctions that both Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica
have included in the Surface Transportation Act in the House.
Senators Lautenberg and Udall have introduced legislation which
mirrors the Oberstar-Mica language, pushing States to require
all drunk driving offenders to use an interlock for at least 6
months, potentially saving 4,000 lives.
I want to thank you, too, Chairman, for your referencing
advanced technology efforts as the Manhattan Project for drunk
driving in a hearing in this Committee in October 2007. The
Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS, is a
project to research the possibility of creating a passive and
unobtrusive technology which could measure the driver's BAC and
render the vehicle inoperable if the BAC is above .08 or
greater.
Senators Udall and Corker have introduced the ROADS SAFE
Act to provide $12 million per year for this project, and I
would ask you, Madam Chairman, and all members of this
Committee to please cosponsor this legislation.
To conclude, I thank you again, Madam Chairman and Ranking
Member Inhofe, for your leadership on this issue. Please
include ignition interlock sanctions in your bill, and please
support the ROADS SAFE Act. With the help of this Committee we
can make drunk driving the public health equivalent of polio.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dean-Mooney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, just for your courage and
turning your life into something so positive.
How old was your husband when he was killed?
Ms. Dean-Mooney. He was 32 years young. I did bring a
picture, and our daughter is in this picture with him. She was
8 months old at the time that her dad was killed.
Senator Boxer. Thank you for bringing that.
Jackie Gillan, Vice President, Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety.
STATEMENT OF JACKIE GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR
HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY
Ms. Gillan. Thank you, and good morning, Madam Chair. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning.
This year, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is
celebrating our 20th anniversary. As we have done in the past
two decades we want to ensure that the MAP -21 bill enacted by
the Senate this year has a strong safety component.
Although as a Nation we have made progress in driving down
the annual fatality rate there is still a major unfinished
highway safety agenda. Recent declines in highway deaths these
past 2 years are almost certainly related to the economic
downturn, high gas prices, and a decrease in discretionary
driving. A chart that I attached to my statement shows that
declines in highway deaths in the past 40 years have been
temporary and always coincide with economic recessions.
I do want to add that Advocates supports all of the goals
to cut highway deaths that are being proposed by witnesses,
``stretch'' or otherwise. And there are actions that this
Committee can take that will achieve those goals. And there are
tremendous opportunities for safety. We just need the political
will to do it.
Without adoption of safety provisions that I am going to
outline in my testimony, in the next 5 years we will likely see
another 180,000 people needlessly dying on our highways and
more than 10 million injuries at a staggering and numbing human
and economic cost. We can't let this happen, and we don't have
to let this happen.
One of the most significant obstacles in reducing highway
deaths and injuries is the lack of uniform traffic safety laws
among States. Attached to my statement are several maps showing
that too many States lack some of the most fundamental traffic
safety laws. This is where Federal leadership is absolutely
crucial. In the past 20 years when Congress reinforced the need
for States to pass lifesaving laws by invoking sanctions,
States acted. This was the case in the 21 drinking age, minimum
standards for licensing commercial drivers, a zero tolerance
law for underage drinking and driving, and the .08 BAC law.
I also want to draw your attention to the fact that every
single time Congress used a sanction every State adopted the
law. Not a single State lost a single dollar of Federal highway
funds, and the result was that thousands of lives have been
saved.
It is now time for Congress to use this approach to
encourage State action on several essential laws. First, every
State needs a strong and comprehensive teen driving law. Motor
vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for our teens
in every single State, and since 2003 more than 50,000 deaths
have occurred in crashes involving young drivers.
We have a patchwork quilt of teen driving laws across the
country that jeopardize the safety of our children. This is
another example of the so-called blood borders where teens in
some States are better protected than in others. Advocates
supports legislation that has been introduced in the House, the
Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection Act, or STANDUP
Act, which sets minimum standards for State teen driving laws.
And we look forward to a Senate companion bill as well. These
are NTSB recommendations, recommendations by the American
Academy of Pediatrics, and the result of extensive research and
studies.
Every State also needs a primary enforcement seat belt law.
Last year more than half of those that were killed in crashes
were unbelted. In SAFETEA-LU, Congress provided $500 million in
incentive grants to get the States to adopt primary laws. Only
8 acted, leaving 21 States today that still need that law.
We also need every State to have an ignition interlock law
to curb drunk driving, and Advocates strongly supports the
efforts of MADD to get a sanction in the bill to require that
every State has this important law, especially for first time
offenders to keep them from getting behind the wheel. This law
does not prevent people from driving. It just prevents them
from driving drunk.
We also need a ban on texting. Another source of
distraction is taking your hands off the wheel, your eyes off
the road, and your mind off the task of driving. We support
legislation introduced by Senator Schumer and by Senator
Rockefeller to address this issue.
Every State also needs an all rider motorcycle helmet law.
Deaths have been skyrocketing because of the fact that so few
States have all rider motorcycle helmet laws. In fact in
California when they reinstated their law in 1992 they had a 40
percent drop in Medicaid costs for injured motorcyclists. More
States introduced laws to repeal all rider motorcycle helmet
laws last year than to impose them.
And finally, we need to stop the increase in truck size and
weights. We have lost 50,000 people in large truck crashes in
the last 10 years. Oversized, overweight trucks are dangerous
and destructive. The public doesn't want them, and they have
good reason because so many people are killed by trucks, and it
is a very serious problem. In 1991 Congress passed a freeze on
large double and triple trailer trucks, and we think the same
thing needs to be done because trucking interests are lobbying
mightily to increase truck weights now, set up pilot programs,
and get special weight exemptions.
Let me just finish by saying that the transportation
solutions to promote mobility in our economy involve not only
financial investments, but we need safety investments as well.
Nearly all of the safety proposals that I have outlined in my
testimony today can be realized by expending minimal Federal
dollars while achieving maximum gains in saving lives. We can
do it. We should do it. We need to do it. And we look forward
to working with this Committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Our next speaker is Deb Hubsmith, Director of Safe Routes
to School National Partnership. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF DEB HUBSMITH, DIRECTOR, SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP
Ms. Hubsmith. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. I am
honored to have the opportunity to present today to discuss
improving transportation safety. I serve as Director of the
Safe Routes to School National Partnership, a network of nearly
500 organizations.
Currently, 12 percent of trips in the United States are
already made by walking and bicycling, and the use of these
modes of transportation is on the rise. For many Americans
walking and bicycling is a necessity as one-third of Americans
don't own cars. Americans want more transportation options. In
a recent poll conducted by Transportation for America a
majority of voters said that they would like to spend less time
in their cars, but 73 percent said that they had no other
choice but to drive.
Unfortunately a major factor limiting the number of people
who can walk and bicycle is safety, and Americans have good
reason to be concerned. According to the most recent data from
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration more than
5,000 pedestrians and bicyclists were killed on U.S. roads in
2008, and more than 120,000 were injured. This includes 650
children who were killed. This is the equivalent of a jumbo jet
going down roughly every month, yet it receives nothing like
the kind of attention that would surely follow such a disaster.
In fact on a per mile basis walking in unsafe conditions is 10
times as dangerous as driving.
Here is just one example of the type of tragedies that are
taking place all across America. In December 2009 three girls,
aged 12, 14 and 16, were killed trying to cross a street in
their neighborhood in Terrell, Texas. An editorial in the
Dallas Morning News cited extremely high speeds, a lack of
pedestrian infrastructure, and the design of roads that caters
solely to cars as major contributing factors in the girls'
deaths.
Pedestrian and bicycle safety issues are not limited to
urban and suburban areas. In fact while 23 percent of the
population lives in rural areas 28 percent of pedestrian
fatalities occur in rural areas.
The problem is rooted in how we allocate transportation
dollars. Nationwide just 1.2 percent of funds authorized under
the Federal transportation law, SAFETEA-LU, have been allocated
to walking and bicycling projects even though pedestrians and
bicyclists represent 13 percent of traffic deaths and 12
percent of total trips.
When we look at the allocation of Federal safety dollars
bicyclists and pedestrians fare even worse, with only 0.6
percent of Federal safety funds going to support these modes.
Even if someone chooses to drive for all or most of their
trips they eventually have to cross a street or walk down a
street, and they are exposed to traffic dangers, too. A lack of
pedestrian safety in America affects all of us.
Fortunately solutions exist, and there is great opportunity
to increase walking and bicycling where 40 percent of trips in
America are 2 miles or less in length. For example Safe Routes
to School efforts which are taking place in all 50 States have
been successful at improving safety. In Miami-Dade County,
Florida, all school children are taught pedestrian safety
through the WalkSafe Program. Since its launch in 2001 there
has been a 43 percent decrease in the total number of children
aged 0 to 14 hit by cars.
Infrastructure solutions can make a big difference, too.
For example the presence of sidewalks reduces in half the risk
that a pedestrian will be struck by a vehicle.
The Safe Routes to School National Partnership recommends
that the Committee include the following five recommendations
in your transportation bill. First, please support Senate Bill
1156, the bipartisan Safe Routes to School Program
Reauthorization Act. Please support increased funding for
transportation enhancements and funding for active
transportation networks. States should also be required to
allocate a greater share of their transportation dollars to
reduce disparities and inequities for all modes of
transportation.
Second, we recommend that the Committee include the
provisions in Senate Bill 584, the Complete Streets Act, in
your transportation bill. We support a ``fix it for all''
policy when repairing and retrofitting infrastructure so that
our roads serve motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and people
using public transit.
Third, we encourage the Committee to include mode specific
and geographic specific benchmarks for transportation safety in
the next bill.
Fourth, we encourage the Committee to include additional
funding for pedestrian and bicycle research and to require
State DOTs to collect data on bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Fifth, we encourage the Committee to require the USDOT to
codify best practices for bicycle and pedestrian design
innovations in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
In conclusion, an important indicator of a livable safe
community is whether our children can safely walk or bicycle to
schools. While it is currently unnecessarily dangerous for
pedestrians to walk health experts are making the case that it
could be just as deadly not to walk or bicycle. Active
transportation is critical to increasing levels of healthy
physical activity and reducing obesity and heart disease.
I look forward to working with the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee to develop a transportation agenda that
will create a safe and healthy America.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hubsmith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Our next speaker is Gregory Cohen, President and CEO,
American Highway Users Alliance. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. COHEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN
HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Most highway deaths are preventable. For example, today's
road safety devices can prevent almost any vehicle from running
off the road. These road departure crashes account for the
majority of fatal crashes nationwide. But when funding is not
available for needed safety improvements there are real human
victims. We believe that MAP-21 should include both a major
increase in highway funding levels as well as a well funded
improved safety core program within the highway title.
Highway deaths and injuries are a national epidemic that
requires Federal leadership to address. We recommend that
Congress approach highway safety by addressing the four Es, to
which we add an important I. The Es are engineering, education,
enforcement and EMS. The I stands for investment.
We can't forget the I because little national progress can
be realized with the four Es unless there is strong Federal
financial support.
Before SAFETEA-LU was enacted fatalities were slowly
rising, but since then they have dropped 22 percent. We believe
these results came at least in substantial part from
legislation authorized by this Committee. However, there is
still immense work that really needs to be done to move America
toward zero deaths.
Under SAFETEA-LU, Congress created the new safety core
program known as HSIP. We consider this to be the defining
achievement of that bill. HSIP required States to develop
strategic highway safety plans to direct investments, but it
has become obvious that HSIP can be improved. Congress can help
States become more proactive by clarifying that location
specific crash data can be used to support systemic safety
investments.
SAFETEA-LU also included dedicated funding for road safety
education pilot programs. The Roadway Safety Foundation, a
charitable educational organization that we chartered, is
implementing this program under an agreement with Federal
Highways. RSF pilot programs have focused on deploying
lifesaving, low cost cable median barriers, rumble strips, and
other ways to make roads safer for seniors as well.
Coming programs will include new awareness of State route
mapping, techniques to improve tribal road safety and winter
road safety. We strongly support reauthorizing the Road Safety
Educational Program and urge an increase in dedicated funding
for it.
Additional authorization recommendations from the Highway
Users, including safety priorities, have been attached to our
written testimony. Highlights include dedicating 10 percent of
all Federal aid highway funds for road safety projects,
providing FHWA safety programs with a special obligation, and
creating a more robust performance based HSIP Program that
helps States meet their proportional share of a national
fatality reduction target.
Highway Users has also reviewed several safety related
bills drafted or introduced by Members of the 111th Congress.
We ask that you advance them to enactment. The first is the
Surface Transportation Safety Act of 2009, S. 791, which would
improve work zone safety standards, stimulate product
innovation by allowing State DOTs to use the latest advanced
proprietary safety products, and speed adoption of new minimum
retro reflectivity levels for pavement markings, among other
features.
Next is the High Risk Rural Road Safety Act, draft
legislation that we, along with other members of the Rural
Infrastructure Safety Coalition, support. It would authorize $1
billion per year for the High Risk Rural Roads Program and also
help local governments address their safety problems. Although
23 percent live in rural areas, they account for 55 percent--
the majority--of traffic deaths.
And finally, the Older Driver and Pedestrian Safety and
Roadway Enhancement Act, H.R. 3355, which we, along with other
members of the Coalition for Older Roadway User Safety, CORUS,
support. It would fund a roadway safety program targeted to
older drivers and pedestrians. This bill will help States
prepare for the coming demographic shift by improving signs,
markings, intersections and crosswalks.
Last year the House draft authorization bill also included
a series of sanctions. The Highway Users generally supports
incentives and opposes sanctions. However, there is no doubt
that increasing seat belt use and reducing DUIs are essential
to saving lives. More than half of those killed in car crashes
are not wearing seat belts, and alcohol is a factor in one-
third of fatalities. We would like to work with the Committee
to help ensure that all States enact primary seat belt
enforcement and ignition interlock laws for repeat DUI
offenders. But we also want to ensure that funding for highway
safety projects is increased or held harmless under any
incentive or sanction plan.
In conclusion, this Committee has an extraordinary
opportunity to help save tens of thousands of lives by
expeditiously authorizing a well funded MAP-21 with a forward
thinking robust safety program. It is essential that the Nation
make the same kind of progress in improving the safety
environment of our roads and roadsides that we have made in
improving our vehicles. This will require determined effort.
In most cases we have better drivers and better vehicles,
but they are using the same old, inadequate roads, many with
hairpin turns, inadequate signs and markings, aging bridge
rails, narrow lanes, inadequate shoulders, and nonexistent
roadside protection. More investment is needed.
The American Highway Users Alliance greatly appreciates
being your partner in this effort.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I found your testimony very, very
compelling.
I also want to say everyone thus far, I just really want to
say thank you for it.
And yes, we are looking forward to hearing from Mr. Miller
as well, Principal Research Scientist, Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation.
STATEMENT OF TED MILLER, PRINCIPAL RESEARCH SCIENTIST, PACIFIC
INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
I am a Ph.D. economist with more than 25 years of
experience analyzing road crash costs. I work for the Pacific
Institute for Research and Evaluation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization focused on preventive health. Since 1977 our work
primarily has been funded by Federal contracts and grants.
Dr. William Haddon was the first Administrator of NHTSA.
One of his legacies was the concept that three factors--the
driver, the vehicle, the road--play critical roles in causing
crashes and determining crash outcomes. Each is important, and
most experts agree that safety programs should focus on a
combination of driver behavior, law enforcement, vehicle design
and roadway design and condition.
I recently studied crashes, injuries and deaths that
deficient road conditions cause. For example a sharp curve
might cause a crash, or an unforgiving pole at the side of the
road might turn that crash into a killer. Deficient road
conditions contribute to more than half of all roadway deaths.
They cause 10 crashes a minute or make them worse.
Crashes associated with road deficiencies cost $217 billion
annually. That is more than $1,000 per licensed driver. They
cost American businesses $22 billion; governments, $12 billion;
the health care systems, $20 billion.
The driving environment is very forgiving. Drivers often
make minor errors. They also speed. They get distracted. They
drive drowsy. They take one drink too many. When the roadway is
deficient those errors are more likely to cause a crash, and
crashes that occur are more likely to result in serious injury
or death.
Although behavioral factors are involved in most crashes
avoiding those crashes through driver improvement and
enforcement alone requires reaching millions of individuals and
getting them to sustain best safety practices. Drivers will
never be perfect, so driver interventions work best when we
also make the roadway environment more forgiving and
protective. It is a partnership.
Moreover, the costs of crashes involving deficient roadway
conditions dwarf the cost of crashes involving alcohol,
speeding or failure to wear a safety belt. Focusing as much on
improving road safety conditions as on reducing impaired
driving would save thousands of lives and billions of dollars
each year.
So the next surface transportation bill needs to marry a
sanction based stress on driver improvement with a powerful
push to improve the safety built into the road system. Safer
drivers and safer cars remain vitally important, but also it is
critical to make roads, bridges and shoulders safer. It has
been too long since we paid strong attention to that aspect of
driving safety.
The immediate solution for problem spots include using
brighter, more durable pavement markings, adding rumble strips
to shoulders, mounting more guard rails and safety barriers,
and installing traffic signals, enforcement cameras and better
signs with easier to read legends.
More significant road improvements include replacing non-
forgiving poles with breakaway poles, adding or widening
shoulders, improving roadway alignment, replacing or widening
narrow bridges, reducing pavement edges and abrupt drop offs,
and clearing more space on the roadside.
Our report On a Crash Course estimates crash costs per
vehicle mile traveled by State. The highest costs are in Hawaii
and the southeastern and south central United States followed
by the northwest interior. The lowest costs are in the upper
Midwest and along the Eastern Seaboard from Maryland north.
One reason for regional variations is the time period when
the roads were built. Southern roads that originated in horse
and buggy days were lined with trees for shade. Now those trees
are killers. Similarly buggies were slow and narrow, so bridges
built a century ago tend to be problematic. In contrast much of
the Midwest was paved in the motor era.
Before closing let me add a message to the drivers in this
room. The next time you drive to an event, if you get off the
interstate on an unfamiliar road, look around. You know how to
recognize a deficient road. Are the lanes narrow? Are there bad
curves and cluttered shoulders? If so, you need to become a
better driver. The road can't forgive or protect you.
Our roadways and bridges could be a lot safer. Focusing as
much on improving road safety conditions as we focus on
reducing impaired driving or belt non-use could save thousands
of additional lives and billions of dollars each year.
I have a few seconds left. I am going to add one other
comment, which is that the last I looked, the entire Federal
Highway Administration research budget for road safety was
earmarked. There was nothing for the Federal professionals to
decide what to research. We need to change that.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. The testimony was excellent.
There are so many questions I have, so I may ask you to
write back to me, if you would all be willing to do that.
But I want to start with you, Mr. Cohen, because you said--
I mean, you have an organization that we all respect, the
American Highway Users Alliance. And by the way a lot of you
helped us get that highway bill done through the end of the
year. You helped Senator Inhofe and myself, and I just want to
say thank you for that.
You said that your organization in general doesn't like
sanctions, that you prefer incentives to sanctions. And it is
something that I think several people in this Committee take
different sides on. But you mentioned two areas where you
sounded like you were willing to work with us to move forward
on sanctions as long as it didn't take away funds from other
things. And one of those was seat belts, mandatory seat belt
enforcement of those laws in the States. And the other one I
think you said was repeat drunk drivers, that you felt that
those were areas that stood out. And could you tell us why?
What is the connection? If you could put on the record so the
repeat drunk driver fatalities, what is that number? And also
the failure to enforce seat belt laws.
Mr. Cohen. Sure. Well, drunk drivers represent one-third of
fatal crashes. I have been unable to find how many repeat drunk
driver fatalities there were in 2009. However according to
NHTSA, about one-third of all DWI arrests are repeat offenders.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, maybe Laura Dean-Mooney might know
that, so we will get to you in a minute.
Mr. Cohen. And seat belts are not being worn by 55 percent
of the people who are killed. Eighty-five percent of people
wear seat belts now, but 55 percent of those killed don't.
Senator Boxer. Is that right?
Mr. Cohen. What I would like to offer, we have a long
tradition of opposing sanctions.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. You are right. I would like to work with the
Committee. We would like to offer perhaps a bridging proposal,
to make sure that under any kind of incentive plan or sanction
plan, whichever way the Committee chooses to go, that the State
safety money, particularly the safety core programs, receive
incentive funding or are just held harmless. And that was a
compromise that was reached on TEA-21 as well.
So we are wary of telling States which laws to pass, but
there is a way to get to a compromise.
Senator Boxer. On these two areas, you are willing to work
with us?
Mr. Cohen. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer. OK.
It just seems to me--Ms. Mooney lost her husband when he
was 32 years old. And what year was that?
Ms. Dean-Mooney. 1991.
Senator Boxer. She lost her life partner, and the child
lost a dad. So it seems to me, and the reason I feel we need to
move in all the States is, why should a person in one State
have a greater chance of losing her husband, I use that as an
example, than a person in another State, when we are one Nation
under God? So I am glad you are open to working with us.
Let me ask Ms. Mooney is she knows that figure; how many of
these are repeat drunk drivers?
Ms. Dean-Mooney. Well, the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety says only one-third are repeat offenders. We know from
the data that people generally drive up to 87 times before they
were ever caught and convicted the first time. In my particular
case the man that killed Mike had no prior convictions, but you
don't learn to drive at a .34 blood alcohol concentration the
first time out. He had done so hundreds of times before and had
simply never been caught.
Senator Boxer. So you don't have the number of how many of
these--one-third of the fatalities are related to drunk
driving, but we don't have the numbers, none of us do, on how
many of those were repeat offenders, in other words had been
caught before. You don't have that information.
Ms. Dean-Mooney. That is about one-third of the crashes.
Senator Boxer. A third of a third.
Ms. Dean-Mooney. Yes, one-third of 11,000 are caused by
repeat offenders. Two-thirds are caused by first time
offenders.
Senator Boxer. OK. I got you now. Thank you. Thank you.
I want to pursue with you, Ms. Mooney, the idea that you
came up with that you have talked about, your organization. And
I remember when your organization was born because it was born
in my State.
Ms. Dean-Mooney. Yes, it was.
Senator Boxer. And I well remember because it was a long
time ago. What year was it?
Ms. Dean-Mooney. It was 30 years ago this September.
Senator Boxer. As I remember, what was her name, the
founder?
Ms. Dean-Mooney. Candace Lightner.
Senator Boxer. I can never forget her because she was
extraordinary and came to me early on.
So if we are looking at technologies, we already have this
technology that would lock up the engine if the breathalyzer
test fails. Is that right?
Ms. Dean-Mooney. For convicted offenders, yes.
Senator Boxer. For convicted offenders. And could you
repeat again how many States have that law?
Ms. Dean-Mooney. Ten States mandate it. Two States highly
incentivize it. That is, they encourage you to get it if you
are caught driving after you are convicted, and you do not have
an ignition interlock, it is then a felony. And California, as
I said, has a pilot program, four counties covering 14 million
people. Hopefully, California will then turn that into an all-
offender law for the State.
Senator Boxer. Yes, yes. All right.
Where is Kirk? OK. SAFETEA-LU funded the Highway Safety
Improvement Program at $1 billion a year. How do you compare
the need today? Do you think that is about enough? Or do you
think we need to do better? What is your feeling?
Mr. Steudle. Well, first of all as a safety advocate I
would say that the best use of our funds is toward safety
improvements. So if there is more money in the overall pot and
more can go to safety, we certainly support that.
I think that the bigger context is the size of the whole
program. If it is smaller and smaller then as you start slicing
it all up it becomes more difficult because everything is all
pegged in little spots. If it is a larger program we think it
should expand with the size of all the rest of the core
programs as well.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
While you have the floor, let me ask you a question. I
think from your testimony you agree pretty much with AASHTO's
position, and I do, too, in terms of the States, giving the
States the leeway to set the exact performance standards. There
are some, Chairman Oberstar and others, who disagree with us in
this case. Could you describe why you think that approach is
better than the other approach?
Mr. Steudle. I think there are a couple of things. You talk
about performance management in general, and this really holds
true for whatever type of management measure you are trying to
put in place. You need to start with a high level goal. What
are you trying to accomplish? And then allow the States the
flexibility under that to develop those programs, to get to the
national goal. And this last piece about incentivize, I think
it is the old carrot and the stick issue. We feel that you can
get a lot further with carrots as opposed to sticks.
Now, one of the I think primary examples of how has worked
has been in the safety plans. It was mandated that everybody
have a highway safety plan. All 50 States went about developing
those in collaboration with all of the rest of their partners
in the States. And from a high level what we have seen is the
traffic fatalities are dropping.
Now, each State is different because the characteristics of
that State are different. If there are more rural accidents,
then that safety plan is geared toward rural. If there are more
pedestrian accidents, then the highway safety plan is geared
more toward pedestrian accident reduction. If there are more
motorcycles, then it is geared toward that.
So it is really State specific, but it is data driven. I
think that is the key piece is it has got to be based on the
data that you have.
Senator Inhofe. And you think that the data is probably
more accurate if you are taking the position of the States
having that influence.
Dr. Miller, I listened to the testimony, and certainly, Ms.
Mooney, yours is very persuasive. All of them are. Traffic
deaths are traffic deaths regardless of how they occur.
Dr. Miller, I wonder sometimes if the, I was just looking
at this chart here, which is yours. It was in your written
testimony. And it talks about the road related deaths as
opposed to DWI, speeding, seat belt use and all of that. Do you
think that the safety benefits of road improvements are
sometimes overlooked in development of these programs?
Mr. Miller. I think that we have not paid attention to them
in a long time. There is a lot of overlap here. I mean there
are crashes in here where belt non-use, speeding, alcohol and
road related conditions were all a factor in a single crash, so
they are in all the bars.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, yes.
Mr. Miller. But I think that we haven't paid enough
attention. And there are three real killers out there, which
are medium and large non-breakaway poles, large trees, and
bridges. Those three items are involved in 40 percent of the
deaths and serious injuries in road crashes in this country.
And non-breakaway polls are inexcusable at this point. We just
need to focus more attention on fixing them.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
And Mr. Steudle, there won't be time to give an in-depth
answer to this, but as we pursue, as move into hopefully sooner
rather than later, the development of the next highway bill, I
would like to have you right now give what specific
improvements you think you would recommend for the HSIP
Program. And then if you run out of time, do this for the
record, because I would like to have some specific
recommendations from you.
Mr. Steudle. Certainly. I think in recognition of your time
constraints as well, I think we outline a lot of that in the
written testimony that I didn't talk about in the oral one, so
I think I can provide all of that for you in a lot greater
detail, specifically which pieces you ought to do.
Senator Inhofe. All right. I think that is fair enough.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Before you start my time, I wanted to say something before
Senator Inhofe leaves. He said traffic deaths are traffic
deaths no matter how they occur. It is true at the end of the
day, but I think if you look at, for example, a runaway Toyota
vehicle, just to use an example, where a driver did everything
right and look what happened? We had a highway patrolman and
his family wiped out because of this, as opposed to a drunk
driver, where if you have the technology, you possibly could
have prevented it.
So I would just urge you to think about it because some of
them are more preventable than others. You are never going to
stop everything.
Senator Inhofe. No, I don't disagree with that, Madam
Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Yes, so I wanted to make that point.
Senator Inhofe. Good.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Before I call on Senator Udall, I am going to take my last
round of questions, and then, Senator, I will give you time for
your opening statement, plus questions, so you will get 10
minutes. You don't have to rush.
I want to talk to Deb Hubsmith a minute, and I just want to
thank you so much. I think you are making an excellent point,
which a lot of us haven't thought about, which is
transportation is how you get from one place to another. And a
lot more people are walking, for reasons you discuss. Maybe is
it on the advice of their physician to do it, or they feel
better about it, or they can't afford an automobile, or they
get on a bike for the same reason. It is a good news story, but
also does create these challenges for us in terms of how to
make sure that they are safe.
And now I have four grandkids; when I was a young mom and I
was always so nervous about my kids walking to school. They did
have terrible accidents in our community, and they built an
overpass because we lost a couple of kids. So clearly, there
are ways that we can make improvements.
What role do you think the Federal Government can or should
play to encourage safer streets? Because a lot of colleagues
will say, well, that is just beyond our jurisdiction. I assume
you feel the Federal Government should be more involved. What
is your rationale for that?
Ms. Hubsmith. Thank you very much. That is an excellent
question. As I mention in my testimony 13 percent of fatalities
in America are pedestrians and bicyclists. So the Federal
Government absolutely should have a role, and these modes of
transportation now represent 12 percent of trips, which
increased 25 percent over the last 7 years.
We believe that the Federal Government should increase
funding for programs. In your Committee Senate Bill 1156 would
increase funding for Safe Routes to School by threefold over
the fiscal year 2009 levels. Currently four times the amount of
money is requested in States than money that is available. And
so we are turning folks down from being able to improve
opportunities for safety to build bicycle and pedestrian
bridges and sidewalks and pathways and bike lanes.
We also recommend that the Committee include the provisions
from the Complete Streets bill, Senate Bill 584, in the
transportation bill, because it is actually more cost effective
to design our roads for the safety of all transportation users.
When new roads are being built or when roads are being
retrofitted, if we can add in the bike lanes, the sidewalks and
the crosswalks at the same time we are going to improve safety
for everyone. In fact, traffic crashes, 40 percent of them when
pedestrians were crossing the street happen when there was not
a designated crosswalk. So the more that we can create those
types of provisions from the start, that would be important.
Finally, in addition to those provisions and increased
money for transportation enhancements and active transportation
networks we feel that there should be mode specific and
geographic specific goals for the Highway Safety Program. Right
now there is a strategic highway safety plan, but we think that
they should say that in rural areas, you should have this goal;
in urban areas and suburban areas and for these specific modes
there should be specific goals. Right now that doesn't exist.
And so that is why bicyclists and pedestrians only get 0.6
percent of the funding.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you very much for that very
convincing statement.
Mr. Miller, I don't think you mentioned the word speed, did
you, when you spoke. Because as I look at things generally the
speed of the driver is a factor in a lot of these fatalities.
So I wanted to ask you, there is no question if you have a big
tree, and it is a hazard, and it is overgrown, and it is a
danger, and you can't see the road, that ought to be trimmed.
And clearly you are right that is obvious. But how much of a
role does speeding play in this?
Mr. Miller. Speeding is about 20 to 25 percent of all crash
costs. It is $97 billion a year. And frankly I think that the
thing that we need to remember also is to say, what is the
balance? How much safety goes in the overall bill? Is it better
to be stuck in traffic than dead?
Senator Boxer. Are you asking me?
Mr. Miller. No, I am telling you. I think it is better to
be stuck in traffic than dead, and I think that has to
influence the balance.
Senator Boxer. That is an obvious point, but--so you did
answer me: 25 percent of all crashes involve speeding.
Mr. Miller. Yes, of all crash costs, about 25 percent.
Senator Boxer. Of all crash costs. And in fatalities, do
you happen to know? You have all these things at the tip of
your tongue. You are just a terrific witness. Do you know off
the tip of your tongue how much speeding is involved in the
fatal crashes?
Mr. Miller. I could work that up, but I don't have it in my
head.
Senator Boxer. Would you do that for me and get that to me?
Well, OK.
Ms. Gillan. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Ms. Gillan. I just wanted to add that according to NHTSA
about 30 percent of all fatalities are the result of speeding.
Senator Boxer. Thirty percent, so you disagree with Mr.--
oh, 30 percent of all fatalities. You have the answer for me.
Ms. Gillan. That is right. And I can submit the NHTSA
document to the record for you.
Senator Boxer. Well, that would be very, very helpful
because we really didn't talk about it today, but it seems to
me that even if the road is in a horrible condition, which too
many of our roads are, and even if there are obstructions, the
faster you go, obviously, the more dangerous. And put drunk
driving in that; I don't even know what the overlap is with
speeding and drunk driving. You know, it is hard to separate.
Is that separated out from the drunk driving? Do you know?
Ms. Gillan. Well, sometimes speeding and drinking combined
are a factor.
Senator Boxer. I would think so. OK.
Ms. Gillan. So it is hard, but according to NHTSA, it is
about one-third of the fatalities.
Senator Boxer. Very good.
Ms. Gillan. And I also just wanted to point out one thing.
Senator Boxer. Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Gillan. To the pedestrian issue, is that we are
testifying today in support of putting a freeze, a time out on
truck size and weights.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Ms. Gillan. And we have over 80 groups that support that
bill that Senator Lautenberg has introduced and that you are a
cosponsor. We really appreciate that. But bigger trucks are
also a threat to pedestrians and bicyclists, and there have
been some horrific deaths and injuries because of the fact that
bigger trucks are more difficult to maneuver on roads, and they
don't see pedestrians. They don't see bicyclists.
And this is a real problem when we are putting together a
multi-modal transportation system that everybody can use. We
can't let large trucks dominate our transportation system.
Senator Boxer. Well, the larger the truck, obviously, it is
a threat to every car on the road as well, if there is an
impact.
Ms. Gillan. Right. Exactly. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much for that.
Senator Udall.
By the way, I just have to ask unanimous consent to insert
in the record testimony from the American Road and
Transportation Builders and the Associated General Contractors.
And without objection, we will do that.
The floor is yours, Senator Udall.
[The referenced testimonies follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
all your hard work on this issue.
Just to follow up on the question, I would ask that my
statement be put in the record. I will spend my time doing
questions.
Senator Boxer. Yes, please.
Senator Udall. On the large trucks, what is your
recommendation we do about the trucks in order to make it more
friendly for everybody else out there on the road?
Ms. Gillan. Well, one of the most successful truck safety
bills that was passed was in 1991. Senator Lautenberg was
behind that as sponsor as well as Senator Moynihan and Chairman
John Chafee. This was the issue of dealing with large double
and triple trailer trucks that were allowed in some States but
not in others, but they wanted to spread the use of those
trucks.
Congress in that legislation passed what we called the
``freeze'' where States that had allowed the triples could keep
them, but States that didn't have them could not have them.
That law worked tremendously, and this is what we are proposing
on truck size and weights now because we see States ratcheting
up the weights, and then the trucking industry is coming to
Congress saying, we can't have this patchwork quilt, and we
really need to increase truck weights to 97,000 and 100,000
pounds. The problem is trucks that large are incredibly
dangerous and destructive.
And so the legislation that Senator Lautenberg has
sponsored is what I call a time out. States can keep what they
have, but we are not going to ratchet it up any further, and we
are going to keep interstate truck weights at 80,000 pounds.
That not only will help safety but it also is going to help
preserve our infrastructure. The biggest cause of damage to
bridges are large overweight trucks.
And as we are looking at scarce resources and trying to
create a balanced freight network that relies on rail and other
modes we really need to look at whether, in fact, it is in our
best interests both from safety and investment to allow trucks
to get bigger.
That is why safety groups and truck drivers themselves, the
independent operators and the Teamsters, environmental groups
and bicycling groups are all supporting this legislation.
Senator Udall. Great. Well, thank you for that description.
I am a cosponsor of that legislation. I think it is needed, and
I hope that we can move on that at some point.
I wanted to focus a couple of my questions here on drunk
driving and requiring ignition interlocks. And probably other
panelist members, but I wanted to focus on Laura Dean-Mooney,
but others may have comments.
In 2004 New Mexico adopted the first ignition interlock for
all convicted drunk drivers. At the time of the adoption New
Mexico led the Nation in alcohol related fatalities, so we were
No. 1 in what is a horrible category to be No. 1 in. Ignition
interlocks were a key component of a broad strategy that also
included increased enforcement and an awareness campaign that
resulted in a 35 percent decrease in alcohol impaired traffic
fatalities.
And one of the things I wanted to show you is the dramatic
drop that occurred. You can see here on this chart how we have
gone down, and New Mexico is making progress in terms of drunk
drivers. But the dramatic drop from 2004 to 2008, where you
have the 219 here and the 143, a lot that, I think, can be
attributed to ignition interlocks. Currently, over 8,000 New
Mexicans have ignition interlocks, and New Mexico leads the
Nation in ignition interlocks per capita.
Based on the raw data, ignition interlocks prevented over
63,000 alcohol related automobile trips in the State. And
although the evidence is clear that ignition interlocks work,
not all States have adopted them for all convicted first time
offenders.
What do you think will be required for more broad adoption
by States of ignition interlocks as a tool to combat drunk
driving? And other panelists may want to weigh on that, too,
but let's start with you.
Ms. Dean-Mooney. Well, thank you, Senator Udall, certainly
for your support.
You hit the nail on the head, and the chart clearly
illustrates that interlocks do work. But what is needed is a
sanction because we have hit the wall in a number of States in
opposition, including, I mentioned in my testimony, the State
of Maryland where the Chairman of the Judiciary is a DUI
defense attorney. He would not even allow the bill to be heard.
He was asked by a MADD volunteer if he was taking that stance
based on being a DUI defense attorney or as Chairman. He
indicated that he was taking that stance as a DUI defense
attorney. Maryland is not the only State. We have run into this
in other States across the country.
So the sanction is needed to ultimately get the States to
adopt the all-offender ignition interlock legislation so that
other States can have similar successes as New Mexico clearly
has shown.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Deb Hubsmith, focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety, I
met with the New Mexico Bike Coalition during Bike Week. And
during their visit they expressed their interest in improving
the conditions for New Mexico bicyclists.
Unfortunately DOTs are constantly struggling to meet the
capacity and maintenance needs of the roadways and as you
mentioned in your testimony often don't provide adequate
attention to the needs of the users other than vehicles. Do you
have recommendations for low cost improvements that would be
easily implemented and improve the conditions for pedestrians
and bicyclists?
Ms. Hubsmith. Thank you very much for that question. I
would say that if the Federal Government adopts a Complete
Streets policy, which would be Senate Bill 584, that that would
go a long way toward improving conditions for bicyclists and
pedestrians because then every road as it is being maintained
would need to consider the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians,
transit users and motorists. And this has shown to be very cost
effective.
In addition to increasing the size of the different funding
sources that I mentioned with regards to Senator Boxer's
question I would also remark that things like lighting on
roadways, crosswalks, bike lanes, those are all very low cost
solutions that basically involve signage, lights or paint. And
very low cost solutions can lead to a high benefit in terms of
reducing injuries and fatalities.
Also speed limits are extremely important. A car traveling
at 40 miles per hour, if you are hit as a bicyclist or
pedestrian, you only have a 15 percent chance of surviving. If
it is only going 30 miles per hour, you have a 50 percent
chance of surviving. So if we can reduce speed limits that is
also going to improve safety.
Senator Udall. Focusing now a little bit on the bicycle
driver culture, in an effort to reduce our Senate office's
carbon footprint several of my staff bike to work. And they
often comment about the need for a culture change where drivers
are aware of bicyclists on the road and accept them as full
users. I have heard that this sort of culture change has
occurred in metro areas that have a larger proportion of
bicyclists and that their roads are safer for all users as a
result.
Do you have recommendations for infrastructure improvements
or awareness campaigns that would improve driver awareness of
bicycles on the road?
Ms. Hubsmith. Thank you, that is a very important question.
I would say that starting with school children is one way to
really create more of a cultural shift in the acceptance of
people walking and bicycling. Many people remember walking or
bicycling to school when they were young and feel that their
children or grandchildren should have the opportunity to do
that today. So expanding the Safe Routes to School Program,
like Senate bill 1156, which is bipartisan and has 22
cosponsors, will be a great way to try to begin to make it more
of a part of our culture.
The kinds of facilities that will really help to improve
safety of our roadways includes sidewalks, crosswalks, bike
lanes, pathways, and improvements to intersections because many
intersections are where things are most dangerous.
In rural areas, being able to have wider shoulders, being
able to have crosswalks, and also improving things like routes
to bus stops would make for better improvements.
And then finally when elected officials like you walk or
bike to school with kids or take place in events that show that
this is a legitimate form of transportation that is on the
increase, that improves public health and helps to improve
safety, that also helps to raise the priority.
And if we could work with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, if we could work with the movie industry
and all kinds of groups in order to elevate the status of
walking and bicycling and show how it is a healthy alternative
for America, that would make for big improvements.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Back to Laura, do you have any comments about the ROADS
SAFE, the DWI bill that I am the author of? Just briefly here.
We only have a few seconds.
Ms. Dean-Mooney. Yes, I do.
Senator Udall. OK, go ahead please.
Ms. Dean-Mooney. First, thank you again for your
sponsorship of that bill. We believe that ROADS SAFE is the
answer to ultimately eliminating drunk driving. The development
of technology is progressing rapidly, and we know that already
cars can park themselves. They can do a number of things,
including lane departure warnings.
So the idea that advanced technology in a car that would
set at .08. It wouldn't hassle a sober driver. It would be
unobtrusive to those of us who choose to drive sober, would be
the ultimate solution to eliminating drunk driving.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
And thank you for your courtesies, Madam Chair, appreciate
it.
Thank you to the panel, very good panel today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:]
Statement of Hon. Tom Udall,
U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico
Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on
transportation safety. It is a critical issue for us to address
as we work through the reauthorization process.
I would like to welcome MADD President Laura Dean-Mooney
and Jackie Gillan from the Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety. Jackie and I previously worked together to improve
transportation safety and prevent drunk driving when I was the
New Mexico Attorney General. I want to thank you, Jackie, for
your dedication to these important public safety issues.
Each day we use the transportation system to get to work,
school, shopping and play. Many of us drive. Others take the
bus. Some of us bike or walk to our destination. Whichever
method of transport you use, the unfortunate reality is that
our transportation system is often far from safe. While
fatalities have been declining each year, nearly 34,000 people
lost their lives on America's roads last year--victims of drunk
driving crashes or inattentive drivers or being hit by a
vehicle while on foot or riding a bike.
While these crashes might not all have been preventable,
many could have been less severe.
Since I was first elected Attorney General of New Mexico
almost 20 years ago and during my subsequent years in the House
and now the Senate I have made improving road safety a top
priority. One way I've done that is by focusing on the scourge
of drunk driving in New Mexico and across the country.
As is often the case a tragic drunk driving crash prompted
New Mexico to take action back in 1992. That was when a drunk
driver killed a mother and her three girls on Christmas Eve.
The drunk driver was speeding at 90 miles an hour, going the
wrong way down the highway. This crash helped changed attitudes
in my State--but it should not take a tragedy for us to do more
to prevent drunk driving.
In 2008 drunk driving killed nearly 12,000 Americans,
including 143 people in my home State of New Mexico. That is an
average of 32 people killed every day by drunk driving. This
unacceptable death toll is all the more shocking when you
consider that each one of those deaths was preventable.
The United States has already made significant progress in
combating drunk driving. Compared to 20 years ago our roads are
much safer today. Yet even as the overall number of people
killed on our roadways has declined, drunk driving still
accounts for one-third of all traffic fatalities.
It is even more worrisome that a drunk driver has just a 2
percent chance of being caught. In fact one study found that a
first time drunk driving offender has on average driven drunk
87 times before being arrested. That is why I introduced last
month, along with Senator Corker of Tennessee, the bipartisan
ROADS SAFE Act. This legislation is cosponsored by Senators
Klobuchar and Begich and would authorize increased funding to
explore new in-vehicle technologies to prevent drunk driving.
These new technologies would go beyond ignition interlocks,
which are only installed in a vehicle after a driver is
convicted of drunk driving, by preventing any vehicle from
being operated by a driver with a blood alcohol content in
excess of 0.08.
We can't develop this technology fast enough. Every day
dozens of people die needlessly on America's roads because of
drunk driving. If this technology were available today, it
would have prevented the recent deaths of five people in New
Mexico who died as the result of drunk drivers who avoided
detection by an interlock.
In addition to combating drunk driving it is critically
important that our communities provide individuals with safe
means of travel that do not include a vehicle. The average U.S.
trip is less than 2 miles. And yet only 12 percent of trips are
made by bike or foot. Unfortunately this may be due to the
increased risk of fatality when not in a vehicle. Studies have
shown that on a per mile basis walking is 10 times more
dangerous than driving. Just last month a bicyclist was killed
in Albuquerque when a driver lost control of her vehicle and
left the road, ultimately stopping on a separated multi-use
trail. This needs to change.
Madam Chairwoman, we've got a lot of work ahead of us.
Whether it's fighting drunk driving or improving the safety of
bikers and pedestrians or any of the other safety concerns
highlighted today, I'm confident that working together we will
develop solutions that improve the safety and account for the
needs of all who travel America's roads.
Senator Boxer. Well, Senator, I just want to thank you for
your leadership on these safety questions. We will have a bill
that has about 10 titles, one of which will be safety, and we
are going to work with you, Senator, on putting in a lot of
these legislative efforts of our colleagues into the MAP-21.
I just want to say this is really the last of our series of
hearings, right? And now what we are going to do is start
meeting with colleagues one on one, Senator Udall, to get this
bill together and to begin marking it up. So it has been
terrific.
And you were a wonderful panel, all of you. I mean, I
really, really thank you. You are knowledgeable, and you have
firm convictions on the subject and just have a lot of
credibility with me and I know with everyone who was here. And
we will be calling upon you as we put together the bill to see
whether or not, for example, Mr. Cohen, if you can support us
in our efforts by maybe moving past your usual stance on this,
and we got a signal that you might be willing to. So we take
that seriously.
So thank you to everybody, and we stand adjourned, and the
next time we take up the subject, it will be to actually take a
look at the bill.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. Thomas R. Carper,
U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware
Chairman Boxer, thank you for holding this hearing.
To begin, let me say that I strongly believe in the
importance of having clear, firm goals that will guide our
Nation's transportation policy. Improving safety ought to be
one of those goals.
We need increased motorist safety, and we also need
improved pedestrian and bike safety. In fact, for several years
now Senator Harkin and I have been working hard to pass
Complete Streets legislation to address this very issue.
Senator Harkin and I believe that roads and highways that
receive Federal funding should take into account the needs of
all road users--not just motorists.
We want to allow people to get out of their cars, trucks
and vans by providing them with increased mobility. We want
them to be able to ride their bikes to work or walk to school.
The way to do that is to build complete streets and make roads
safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
Unfortunately, in 2008, while bicycle trips made up less
than 1 percent of all trips American took, they accounted for a
little less than 2 percent of all traffic deaths. Pedestrians,
meanwhile, accounted for 9 percent of U.S. trips but 12 percent
of traffic fatalities.
This is not acceptable. And I'm glad we're here today to
talk about how to make our streets safe not just for motorists
but for bicyclists and pedestrians as well.
All told, Americans spend nearly 3 trillion hours on the
road per day. Clearly it is worth the investment to design
smart, multi-faceted transportation systems that will keep
Americans safe and keep them healthy at the same time.
Transportation safety is undeniably one of the most
critical issues this Committee will consider as we put together
a transportation bill. I look forward to working with Chairman
Boxer on this and many other issues as we move forward with
this task.
I'd like to conclude my remarks by thanking our witnesses
for joining us today.
I yield back the balance of my time and thank the Chair.