[Senate Hearing 116-590]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-590
SAFETY ON OUR ROADS: OVERVIEW OF TRAFFIC SAFETY AND NHTSA GRANT
PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 30, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-682 WASHINGTON : 2023
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROY BLUNT, Missouri Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
John Keast, Staff Director
Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
Steven Wall, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska, Chairman TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois, Ranking
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
ROY BLUNT, Missouri RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia GARY PETERS, Michigan
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RICK SCOTT, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 30, 2020.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Duckworth................................... 2
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 39
Statement of Senator Capito...................................... 45
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 47
Statement of Senator Scott....................................... 48
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 49
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 52
Witnesses
Chris Peterson, Captain, Lincoln (NE) Police Department.......... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
John Saunders, Region Three Representative, Governors Highway
Safety Association; and Director of Highway Safety, Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Jane Terry, Vice President, Government Affairs, National Safety
Council........................................................ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to John Saunders by:
Hon. Rick Scott.............................................. 55
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 55
Response to written questions submitted to Jane Terry by:
Hon. Todd Young.............................................. 57
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 57
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 58
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 60
SAFETY ON OUR ROADS:
OVERVIEW OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
AND NHTSA GRANT PROGRAMS
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Deb Fischer,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Fischer [presiding], Wicker, Gardner,
Capito, Young, Scott, Duckworth, Blumenthal, Udall, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. The hearing will come to order. I am
pleased to convene today's hearing as Chairman of the Senate's
Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety. This hearing will
give the Subcommittee the opportunity to learn about the
general trends in traffic safety and to examine the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Highway Safety Grant
programs.
The witnesses testifying today will provide their
perspectives on the effectiveness of these safety programs as
this committee considers safety priorities for surface
transportation reauthorization. I am particularly grateful to
have Captain Chris Peterson of the Lincoln Nebraska Police
Department testifying remotely.
Captain Peterson is a 29 year veteran of the LPD and is
currently assigned as Commander of the Lincoln Lancaster County
Narcotics Task Force. His assignments include patrol and
traffic enforcement and he also focuses on drug enforcement.
Captain Peterson, I appreciate your willingness to testify
today and I look forward to hearing about your on-the-ground
experience with traffic safety. In 2018, there were 36,560
traffic fatalities on United States roads. While that number
represents a 2.4 percent decline in overall fatalities from the
previous year, each one of those fatalities represents a family
member, a friend, and a loved one.
Even more tragic is the fact that according to the United
States Department of Transportation, a major factor in 94
percent of the fatal motor vehicle crashes is human error. The
daily choices that each of us makes has an impact on all of us.
That is why we are here today, to hear about ways that we can
improve road safety and prevent these tragedies from happening.
For example, driving distracted by looking at your phone,
eating, drinking, or engaging in other activities that take a
driver's attention away from the road contributed to over 2,800
traffic fatalities in 2018 according to NHTSA.
Or consider impaired driving which includes the use of
alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs that inhibit a person's
ability to react to road conditions. According to the CDC, 28
percent of traffic fatalities in 2016 involved alcohol
impairment, while drugs, other than alcohol, were a factor in
16 percent of motor vehicle crashes. Though traffic safety and
enforcement is primarily a state and a local issue, the Federal
Government does have a role to play. NHTSA section 402 and 405
grant programs support states in their efforts to reduce
traffic fatalities.
The 402 highway safety grants provides states with formal
grants for a range of traffic safety programs, including those
to reduce spending, prevent impaired driving and other
important efforts. The 405 National Priority Safety program is
a combination of seven incentive grants designed to encourage
states to take specific traffic safety actions such as adopting
laws that prohibit texting while driving and requiring
graduated driver licenses for teens. The goals of these grants
are laudable, to reduce traffic fatalities and improve driver
safety.
However, Congress should consider how effective these
grants are if in certain cases no states qualify to receive and
utilize the funding, as happened this year with graduated
driver licensing incentive grants. Finally, we all know and
have experienced the impacts the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
our lives. Not only has the virus been fatal for many of our
fellow Americans, but it has impacted many parts of our daily
routines including our driving behavior. While the number of
miles driven has declined, reports indicate that the rate of
fatalities and aggressive driving have gone up.
I hope today's witnesses can help us better understand the
trends we are seeing in traffic safety, current efforts to make
our roads safer, and the effectiveness of Federal programs such
as NHTSA's 402 and 405 programs, and COVID-19's impact on our
traffic safety. Today we will hear from Captain Chris Peterson
of the LPD; John Saunders, Director of the Virginia Department
of Motor Vehicles Highway Safety Office; and Jane Terry, Vice
President of Government Affairs at the National Safety Council.
I look forward to your testimony. And with that, I would
now invite my colleague and Ranking Member, Senator Tammy
Duckworth, for her opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Duckworth. Chairwoman Fischer, thank you for
holding today's hearing. Before diving into key traffic safety
issues, I do want to acknowledge the context in which this
hearing is taking place which is during the first phase of a
deadly pandemic that has already killed more than 125,000
Americans over the past few months. I mention this staggering
death toll because today's hearing offers an important platform
to address a very troubling pattern. I have noticed a
concerning tendency among some to lessen the trauma, the scale
and the severity of our Nation's collective loss of life.
We are told in patronizing tones to dismiss the concerns
over the mounting death toll of Americans because, well,
thousands of Americans die on the roads every year. Such a call
to inaction breezes past through reality that thousands of
Americans have lost a grandparent who will never watch their
grandchild grow up, lost a parent who will never witness
another soccer game, birthday party or graduation, and perhaps
most tragically of all, lost children whose lives ended far too
soon. This bizarre analogy offers no sympathy to the harsh
reality that many of the 125,000 dead Americans perished alone,
frightened, and isolated from loved ones.
Even the President of the United States engaged in this
ridiculous rhetoric, or an attempting to justify his
Administration's initial failure to respond to the pandemic,
stating in late March of this year, you look at automobile
accidents, which are far greater than any numbers we are
talking about. That doesn't mean we are going to tell everybody
no more driving of cars. So we have to do things to get our
country open. Now as we approach July, I don't need to tell
anyone in this room how wrong President Trump turned out to be.
We didn't lose 125,000 Americans in car crashes over a period
of 4 months or the year before or the year before that, not
even close.
Yet, setting aside the President's utter failure to
effectively respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, I do want to take
a moment as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Transportation and Safety to state with clarity to those
seeking comfort in the high numbers of Americans who are killed
on the roads every year--it is 30,000 to 40,000 traffic
fatalities and that is also outrageous. Safety is not a zero-
sum game. You can support wearing a mask when out in public and
support wearing a seatbelt while driving your car.
We should not be comforted by the fact that over 36,000
Americans lost their lives on our roadways last year. We should
be angry because so many of those deaths were preventable. Over
75 percent of all traffic fatalities last year involved a
driver who was impaired or distracted, was speeding, or was not
wearing their seatbelt. No one, not policymakers, not
regulators, and not industry should accept the status quo, not
when we could enact policies today that would save lives
tomorrow. We will have more time to get into specifics during
the questions round.
However, there is one issue I do want to raise up front
because it is an area where there is a tremendous opportunity
to drastically improve safety and save thousands of lives. We
need to transform advanced driver assistant systems or ADAS
technologies from luxury options in new model cars into the
standard seatbelt, airbag, and anti-lock brakes of the 21st
century.
Consumers are not provided the option of purchasing a car
without seatbelts or airbags or anti-lock brakes because we
know they save lives. We should be at the same point with ADAS
technologies like automatic emergency braking, forward
collision warning, and blind spot detection among others. We
know these technologies save lives, then they should be
standard on every single vehicle. Industry should voluntarily
stop marketing ADAS technologies as fancy proprietary luxuries
for wealthy car consumers.
We should be working toward the status quo ADAS features
that save lives are no longer exclusive to a specific brand or
model. As the witnesses will testify this afternoon, we have
enough traffic safety challenges when it comes to the basic
blocking and tackling of making our roads safer, from reducing
drunk and distracted driving to increasing seatbelt use. Why
would we make our job more difficult by denying every driver of
21st century safety features that is a standard on every car,
would save thousands of lives a year? With that, I yield back.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Next, I
would like to introduce the panel members and ask them to give
their opening statements. We will begin with Captain Chris
Peterson, who is a 29 year veteran with the Lincoln Nebraska
Police Department. I am so pleased, Captain Peterson, that you
could join us remotely today and I look forward to your opening
statement, sir.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS PETERSON, CAPTAIN,
LINCOLN (NE) POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Peterson. Good afternoon, Senator Fischer, Senator
Duckworth, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Chris
Peterson. Thank you for holding this hearing and for the
invitation to testify before you today. It is an honor to
participate in these proceedings. I am a 29 year veteran of the
Lincoln Nebraska Police Department currently assigned as
Commander of the local Narcotics Task Force. Lincoln Nebraska
is the capital city with a population of approximately 285,000.
We are the second largest city in Nebraska and the
Lancaster County seat. The total County population is
approximately 320,000. We enjoy a busy and thriving environment
as the capital city, the center of Government for the State of
Nebraska in Lincoln, Lancaster County, as well as home to the
University of Nebraska Lincoln Campus. As such, we experience
growing pains much like many modest sized Midwest cities in
terms of traffic related concerns such as accidents, DWI
enforcement, and other traffic violations, distracted driving,
and of course, funding for traffic enforcement projects, and
street maintenance or construction.
Our traffic accident trend is mostly flat in all areas with
some small fluctuations from year to year over the past five to
seven years. Overall, traffic citations are also mostly
trending downward as well. We are experiencing a definite
downward trend in DWI arrests over the past several years.
However, distracted driving continues to be an emerging threat
to the motoring public, but it is a challenge to both describe
and measure. There does appear to be an upward trend in
accidents of all types associated with distracted drivers
including property damage, injury accidents, as well as
fatality accidents. In terms of funding, the Lincoln Police
Department has regularly benefited from National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration section 402 and 405 grants over
the past several years dating back to at least 2013.
Since then, the Lincoln Police Department has received more
than $183,000 in section 402 grant funding and more than
$92,000 in 405 grant funding. A typical use of section 402
funding by the Lincoln Police Department would be our ``Click
It or Ticket'' campaign. This is a multi-agency project
partnering with the Nebraska State Patrol, the Lancaster County
Sheriff's Office on local streets and highways focusing on
seatbelt, child restraint, and non-moving traffic violations
such as operator and motor vehicle licensing.
A typical use of 405 funding by the Lincoln Police
Department are our DWI campaigns that focus on the month of
December and other high-risk drinking timeframes and major
holidays. We partner with Mothers Against Drunk Drivers to
educate the public and raise awareness for the project and the
impact on the community. The process by which we request both
402 and 405 funding is through the Nebraska Department of
Transportation Highway Safety Office. Grant funding is awarded
through this State agency.
After successfully completing application for funding,
which requires a meaningful and measurable project to be
presented and evaluated. As a department, we generally do not
encounter many obstacles to funding in this process. There have
been some challenges at the State level in successfully
obtaining 405 funding due to Nebraska not having a primary
seatbelt law.
As such, we benefit greatly from your consideration and
funding for traffic safety measures in the State of Nebraska
and in particular in the City of Lincoln. Thank you again for
the opportunity and honor to testify before you today.
Lincoln Police Department will continue to leverage
sections 402 and 405 grant funding in our efforts to enhance
the safety of the motoring public in our community. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Peterson, Captain,
Lincoln (NE) Police Department
Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Duckworth, and members of the
subcommittee:
Good afternoon. My name is Chris Peterson. I am a Lincoln Police
Captain and currently the local drug task force commander. Thank you
for holding this hearing and for the invitation to testify before you
today. The Lincoln Police Department appreciates the Committee's
interest in and support of improving traffic safety in our country and
specifically Lincoln, Nebraska.
Lincoln, NE is a medium sized metropolitan City of approximately
285,000. We are a busy government city as the state capital and county
seat. We also enjoy a strong young adult and student presence in our
community as home to the University of Nebraska and several other local
colleges. Lincoln is home to 2,890 lane miles and anticipates much
future development including a much needed south beltway to impact
traffic flow and semi-truck travel diversion around the city. We are
experiencing growing pains much like other Midwest cities especially in
terms of repair/preservation, rehabilitation/reconstruction, and new
development and construction of streets. The safety of the motoring
public during these growing pains in terms of school zone projects, DWI
campaigns, red light violation efforts, etc. all impact our overall
accident rates which are directly influenced by NHTSA's 402 and 405
grant funding.
General traffic safety data (notable trends) for the annual periods
of 2015 through 2019 include:
Accidents
The trend in traffic accidents across the city has remained almost
flat with slight deviations. Accidents that involve property damage
have trended upward in recent years. There has also been an upward
trend in accidents that result in injuries, though these declined
significantly in 2019. The decline in injury accidents appears to be
attributed to improved street/roadway construction such as those at
roundabouts and also to companion enforcement projects such as those
listed above.
Traffic Accidents (all types): trend is almost flat with
deviations from +6.5 percent to -5.9 percent
Property Damage Accidents: general trend is upward from 0.3
percent to 7.6 percent
Injury Accidents: small trend up with strong decline (-9.5
percent) in 2019
Fatality Accidents: range from 6-17 and can deviate greatly
depending on factors such as multiple car fatalities and upward
trends in motorcycle accidents
DWI Arrests
There has been a consistent downward trend in DWI arrests ranging
between decreases of11.9 percent to 30.3 percent.'' This downward trend
can be explained by an increase in ride sharing services such as Uber
and Lyft, a more competitive taxi cab business, extension of local bar
closing hours (smooths out the rush of intoxicated persons on the
street), continued educational efforts, and historical enforcement
efforts. Greater ride sharing and taxi cab capacity has generally
improved
the options for patrons especially of our downtown areas who no
longer need to concern themselves with parking or unavailability of
transportation. Tavern owners suggested the amendments to bar closing
hours which were initially opposed by law enforcement for a variety of
reasons. However, over time the extension of hours along with greater
transportation options appears to have reduced the number of persons
leaving drinking establishments at the same time by spreading their
departure over several hours.
Traffic Violations
Official citations for traffic violations of all types have trended
mostly downward. Traffic signal or red light violations in particular
have trended down dramatically in all areas. The overall downward trend
may be attributed to factors concerning police staffing and calls for
service. There have been efforts to build round about style
intersections at some high risk locations. We have no other obvious
explanation for the downward trend at this time.
Truck Involved Violations/Traffic Volume
Anecdotally and as suggested by South Beltway studies, truck
traffic, and related violations, and accidents (of all types) appear to
be trending upward as is damage to city streets and local highways
based upon heavy truck traffic. The Lincoln Police Department does not
possess the statistics that correspond with these suggestions.
Distracted Driving
An emerging threat to the motoring public continues to be the
proliferation of personal electronic devices such as the cellular
telephone. Texting and or talking while driving is on the increase and
has been described locally as much a threat to others as driving under
the influence. Nebraska Statutes describe the offense of texting or
talking on a wireless communication device while driving as well as the
penalties. It is a secondary action or offense. As such the citation
numbers are not consistent but we are able to point to distracted
driving as a significant contributor to overall accidents. The Lincoln
Police Department issued an average of 24 citations for Use of a
Handheld Communication/Mobile Device from April 2010 to April of 2020;
ranging from a low of 8 this past year to a high of 48 citations in
2013. There does appear to be a downward trend in the number of these
types of citations that is consistent with the overall number of
official number of citations mentioned above. This is also a fair
reflection of the offense being secondary and not a primary offense.
Our department experience with NHTSA 402 and 405 grant funding
dates back many years. We possess financial documents describing our
use from the 2013-2014 budget years through the Fiscal Year ending 8/
31/2019. Use of 402 funding has steadily increased from $6,674 in 2013
to more than $44,661 in 2019. NHTSA funds have been used by the Lincoln
Police Department for a variety of enforcement activities and training
including spring school zone enforcement, motorcycle enforcement, speed
enforcement, Click It or Ticket projects, You Drink, You Drive, You
Lose projects and general traffic/impaired overtime projects. Training
related topics include underage drinking enforcement, compliance
checks, and general traffic control and enforcement related training.
NHTSA 405 funding for Lincoln Police Department traffic enforcement
and training has also trended upward over the past several years from
$7,862 in 2014 to more than $31,724 in 2019.NHTSA funding supported
speed enforcement projects, Click It or Ticket and Child Safety Seat
enforcement, compliance checks, MIP/DUI enforcement, underage drinking
enforcement, and related training such as drug recognition expert
training at the International Association of Chiefs of Police. More
recently NHTSA 405 funding (sections D & E) have been used by our
agency to support efforts to curb distracted driving enforcement by
paying for overtime during these projects.
Since the 2013/2014 Fiscal Year through Fiscal Year 2019, the
Lincoln Police Department has benefited from more than $183,735 in
NHTSA 402 grant funding and more than $92,526 in NHTSA 405 funding. The
benefit to the motoring public in and around Lincoln and the associated
quality of life in our community is significantly and positively
influenced by our combined efforts.
Projects and campaigns that are supported, in particular, include
seasonal school zone details; national Click It or Ticket campaigns;
state highway traffic safety enforcement details (O Street or NE Hwy 34
specifically); St. Patrick's Day details; national You Drink, You
Drive, You Lose campaigns; December/Holiday DWI projects; Husker Game
Day projects including MIP's/Party details; and national drug
recognition expert conferences.
The Husker Game Day project is an alcohol violation project
conducted on home football game days. The project consists of teams of
officers conducting traffic details in the congested residential areas
north of the university; plain clothes officers conducting compliance
checks and patrolling for parties; and uniformed officers responding to
party complaints and conducting tavern checks. The focus of the detail
is enforcement of alcohol law violations especially underage and
excessive drinking.
The Click it or Ticket campaign is funded by NHTSA 402 grant money.
This project is generally one that is combined with other agencies
including the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office and the Nebraska State
Patrol. Safety check points are organized and operated under strict
guidelines for set periods of time and at pre-announced locations. In
addition to inspecting vehicles and drivers licenses, law enforcement
is actively enforcing seat belt and child restraint laws and educating
the motoring public about safe driving habits.
The You Drink, You Drive, You Lose DWI campaign is an annual
project. For many years the Lincoln Police Department has identified
the month of December as a time to focus on DWI enforcement. The
project is funded with NHTSA 405 grant money. The funding is used to
staff additional officers in an overtime capacity to proactively
identify and arrest drunk and/or drugged drivers. Organizers partner
with MADD to educate the public and raise awareness for the project and
the impact on the community. At the end of the month the successes in
education and enforcement are celebrated and shared with the media. The
impact of the DWI enforcement upon accident is difficult to measure but
believed to be beneficial.
The process by which we request funds is through the Nebraska
Department of Transportation-Highway Safety Office. Grant funding is
awarded through this state agency after successfully completing
application for the funding which requires a meaningful and measurable
project to be presented and then evaluated. We have experienced no
significant challenges to obtaining or using these funding
opportunities at our department. In conversations I've had with the
Nebraska Highway Safety Administrator I learned that the State of
Nebraska does experience some NHTSA 405 challenges due to not having a
primary seat belt law and a graduated driver's license process for
juveniles that allows a 14 year old to obtain a permit to drive. For
these reasons, the Administrator suggested greater use of NHTSA 402
funding instead.
We believe that general traffic safety in and around Lincoln and
Lancaster County can be maintained and/or improved by continued funding
of NHTSA 402 and 405 grants; continued educational platforms and
partnerships about distracted and impaired driving, and advancing the
planning and construction of the Lincoln South Beltway. ``The purpose
of the Lincoln South Beltway is to improve east-west connectivity for
regional and interstate travel through Nebraska and to reduce conflicts
between local and through traffic, including heavy truck traffic, in
Lincoln. The project is needed to address increased travel demand on
Lincoln's transportation network, conflicts between local and regional
trips along Nebraska Highway through Lincoln, and challenges associated
with heavy truck traffic through Lincoln.'' While this is a challenging
and expensive project the value, effectiveness and safety for the
future motoring public is significant.
Thank you again for the opportunity and honor to testify before you
today. The Lincoln Police Department will continue to leverage 402/405
funding in our efforts to enhance the safety of the motoring public in
our community.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Captain. Next, I would like to
introduce John Saunders who is Director of the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles Highway Safety Office, and he is
here today representing the Governors Highway Safety
Association. Thank you so much for coming. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SAUNDERS, REGION THREE
REPRESENTATIVE, GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY
ASSOCIATION; AND DIRECTOR, HIGHWAY SAFETY,
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. Saunders. Thank you, Chairman Fischer, members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for, again, having us here today. I am
proud to come representing the Governors Highway Safety
Association. My name is John Saunders and I serve as Director
of Highway Safety for Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
Virginia Highway Safety Office. I also serve as the Region
Three Representative on the Executive Board of Governors
Highway Safety Association. Thank you for holding today's
hearing on highway safety.
GHSA is a non-profit association that represents State and
territorial highway safety agencies. Let me first say that in
the last 3 months, the COVID-19 outbreak has had a multi-
faceted impact on highway safety community as it has on most
other aspects of the day-to-day life. Shutdowns, quarantine,
social distancing, and subsequent economic impact have
suppressed the volume of road traffic. Several states are also
reporting varying increases in speeding and many incidents of
very dangerous speeding. This summer, states are beginning to
restart the number of activities that were initially canceled
or postponed. They have also pivoted to directly address the
surge of speeding.
Many State and local personnel continue to telework and
face other challenges. GHSA greatly appreciates the regulatory
flexibility that Congress granted the states in the CARES Act.
But because we expect the pandemic to continue, we urge
Congress to extend NHTSA's waiver authority for the states that
continue to need extra flexibility. GHSA wants to also address
the recent life brought to instances of excessive force, police
misconduct, and individual and systemic racism in policing. As
we know these are not new challenges, but a conversation about
the intersection with traffic safety and traffic enforcement is
long overdue.
Today, I want to affirm that GHSA continues to condemn
racism, discrimination, and misconduct in the criminal justice
system. We support the collection and use of data on
inappropriate disparities in policing driven by race and other
factors. At the same time, we also support the proven role of
traffic enforcement as an effective countermeasure in the life-
saving work being done faithfully by the vast majority of
traffic enforcement officers. This has been a matter of
considerable attention for GHSA's Board and GHSA intends to
both help reform problematic practices and to help rebuild
trust in traffic enforcement. As we look forward to
transportation reauthorization, GHSA comes before Congress
today with the two broad recommendations.
First, Congress needs to do more to remove the constraints,
the unnecessary structural barriers, and the administrative
burdens that limit the effective implementation of safety
programs. GHSA recommends greater investment and focus on the
first half of the NHTSA grant funding, section 402. Every state
needs are unique and states are best equipped to address them
under this program. GHSA recommends that Congress eliminate the
second half, the section 405 programs and invest it all into
section 402. Section 405 has many serious flaws. The first flaw
is that as these programs are subdivided further and further,
states receive less money and face more complicated application
and program rules.
Second, section 405 programs delve too deeply into the
details of State policy. Incentive grants are good at getting
states to make big, straightforward changes, but have not been
successful in states to create specific complex legislative
programs. Congress needs to make grant eligibility more
achievable. Many states are not eligible for the funding even
though they have qualifying laws, just because complex State
laws don't meet the exact Federal standards. We have seen this
with distracted driving grants and no state has ever qualified
for the teen driver safety grant.
Third, even if states are awarded funds, the program's
rules often prevent states from using funds even on the issues
they are meant to address. For instance, the states have been
denied the use of traffic records grant funds for important
traffic record projects and likewise for the bicycle and
pedestrian safety grant. The House re-authorization bill
includes a number of helpful reforms but there are still steps
that need to be taken.
I include detailed GHSA recommendations in my full written
testimony. GHSA's second broad recommendation is that Congress
should increase highway safety spending Governmentwide across
the modes. First, because no individual approach will solve
this public health crisis alone.
Second, because the current level of investment will not
move us anywhere near zero. We need to take control of the
future of highway safety. About 100 people are killed in
traffic crashes every day, and all of these crashes are
completely preventable.
We strongly encourage Congress to act with urgency to
increase its investments and to take steps to empower states
and communities to get us more firmly on the road to zero
fatalities. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saunders follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Saunders, Region Three Representative,
Governors Highway Safety Association; and Director of Highway
Safety, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
I. Introduction
Good morning. My name is John Saunders and I am Director of Highway
Safety for the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. I also serve as
the Region Three Representative on the Executive Board of the Governors
Highway Safety Association. GHSA is a nonprofit association that
represents State and territorial highway safety agencies. Its State
Highway Safety Office members create and deploy Statewide behavioral
safety plans and administer Federal behavioral highway safety grant
programs.
The State Highway Safety Offices are focused on the behavioral
aspects of highway safety, including but not limited to impaired
driving; inadequate adult and child occupant protection; speeding and
aggressive driving; distracted and drowsy driving; younger and older
driver safety; motorcycle safety; the safety of bicyclists, pedestrians
and non-motorized road users; the safety of new vehicle technologies;
traffic enforcement; traffic records; emergency medical services;
driver education; and highway safety workforce development.
Our members are thus involved principally in implementing programs
that leverage traffic enforcement, community engagement, public
education, highway crash surveillance and other countermeasures to
prevent crashes, deaths and injuries on our roads.
For the past five years, during the FAST Act authorization period,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
distributed over 500 million dollars annually to the States, which also
leverages funding from State governments and partners, to implement
these programs.
I am pleased to provide the subcommittee an update from the
perspective of the States on the status of highway safety in the United
States, a review of key challenges, and recommendations in Appendix A
below for the U.S. Senate to consider as it prepares the upcoming
Federal transportation reauthorization.
II. COVID-19 Impacts on the Highway Safety Offices
As on the Federal level, the COVID-19 outbreak created significant
disruption in State and local government activities. Many State highway
safety office staff continue to work remotely and are limiting
activities that might put themselves or others at risk.
Some law enforcement partners had immediately cancelled grant-
funded enforcement campaigns and other activities, though we are
resuming programs as soon as we are able. Regarding national
enforcement campaigns required by statute, NHTSA has delayed the
schedule of several of these events until the fall.
GHSA greatly appreciates the administrative flexibility granted to
the States under the CARES Act. Instead of having to focus on meeting
administrative requirements that were impossible to meet, States have
instead been able to focus on implementing safety programs and pivoting
to address the safety priorities that have emerged in the wake of the
pandemic.
The effects of the pandemic will be long-lasting. The inability to
conduct many activities during this Fiscal Year may have impacts on
State eligibility for next year's grants. Looking forward, we urge U.S.
Congress to extend NHTSA's authority to grant waivers to the States
that need them.
III. Highway Safety in the United States
As you know, traffic-related fatalities and injuries continue to be
a major public health crisis in the United States. NHTSA reports that
36,560 people were killed and many more were injured in the United
States in 2018.\1\ This represents a decline of 2.4 percent from 2017,
a third year of declines following significant increases. NHTSA also
projects a slight decline of about 1.2 percent for 2019.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812826
\2\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-estimates-traffic-
fatalities-2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is progress but no cause for celebration. Still about 100
family members, friends and coworkers are killed every day on our
roadways. This is equivalent to three fully loaded 737 airline jets
crashing every week where every single passenger and crew member
perished. All of these highway crashes are completely preventable and
the only acceptable number of fatal crashes should be zero.
According to a 2008 NHTSA study, the critical reasons for the
overwhelming majority of crashes is unsafe driver behavior.\3\ An
aggregation and comparison of NHTSA data about various crash types
suggests a national ranking of behavioral highway safety threats (see
Figure 1 on pg. 4). Note that there is significant overlap and some
crash types are likely underreported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812506
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though overall fatalities have decreased in the long run, the top
three crash contributors--impaired driving, lack of restraint use and
speeding--have persistently each accounted for nearly a third of all
crash fatalities.
Congress should be aware that many factors outside of the control
of highway safety programs have a significant and complex influence on
highway safety metrics. For instance, changes in the economy and fuel
prices impact how much consumers drive, and thus changes driver
exposure to highway safety risks. Increases and decreases in overall
fatalities notably correlate to national economic conditions.
The makeup of vehicle types on the road seems to have an influence
on crashes. For instance, U.S. vehicle sales have shifted away from
passenger cars to light trucks and SUVs that can cause more severe
impacts than cars in crashes involving non-motorized road users and
other cars.
Even the weather influences highway safety. Good weather brings
more vulnerable users--pedestrians, motorcyclists and bicyclists--onto
roadways and increases their exposure to risk. The States with the
highest rates of pedestrian fatalities are concentrated in the south
where better weather makes non-motorized travel more appealing.
Though we cannot yet offer data, the shutdowns, quarantines, social
distancing, and the subsequent economic impact resulting from the
COVID-19 outbreak have almost certainly impacted road traffic, crashes,
deaths and injuries. Notably, many areas of the country are reporting
that open roads are encouraging an increase in excessive speeding,
which can result in more catastrophic injuries.
Our current levels of national investment are insufficient to
overcome the influence of these external factors. We need to take
control of the future of highway safety and make progress despite
broader circumstances that encourage highway safety risks.
IV. Impaired Driving Remains the Leading Highway Safety Threat
Alcohol-impaired driving arguably remains our number one highway
safety challenge. According to NHTSA, an average of one alcohol-
impaired-driving fatality occurred every 50 minutes in 2018. Alcohol
impairment is notably over-represented in crashes involving young
adults, motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians and speeding.
Last December, GHSA released a report, High Risk Impaired Driving:
Combating a Critical Threat, \4\ in which we explored a more holistic
approach to managing impaired driving offenders that focuses on the
individual and the need to treat underlying problems prompting impaired
driving behaviors. Screening, assessment and treatment are especially
critical to classify, adjudicate, penalize and reform all impaired
driving offenders according to their risk of recidivism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/
GHSA_HRIDReport_Final_Dec17Update
.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHSA is likewise concerned about the increasing prevalence of drug-
impaired driving, even as alcohol-impaired driving is still a major
traffic safety problem. Though we know the data is incomplete, there is
reason to believe that drugged driving is increasing. Further, States
are finding that impaired driving cases increasingly involve alcohol
and drugs used in combination, further suggesting a need to think about
impaired driving holistically.
Many States are legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational
purposes. Marijuana legalization presents concerns about the potential
impact that increased access will have on the users of the roads and
States should be thinking about how they can prepare.
Congress should be aware that drug impaired driving does not just
involve illicit drugs but rather also can involve impairing
prescription and over-the-counter drugs.
Unfortunately, science does not support an illegal per se limit
(similar to the .08 or .05 blood alcohol concentration for alcohol) for
marijuana, or most other drugs, and no such breakthrough is likely
forthcoming.
Without the policy tool of a per se limit, States are implementing
programs that utilize the best strategies available, including:
Training police officers to better recognize drug
impairment;
Leveraging new roadside screening tools like oral fluid
testing and drug breathalyzers to establish probable cause;
Leveraging training and technology to expedite drug-impaired
driving cases so investigators can capture often short-lived
toxicological evidence;
Ensuring toxicology laboratories have the funding, staffing
and equipment to manage growing numbers of drug-impaired
driving cases;
Training prosecutors and judges to adjudicate cases
involving new kinds of investigations and evidence;
Treating offenders' underlying substance abuse issues, no
matter what the substance; and
Testing more offenders and fatally injured drivers for drugs
to better document the scope of the threat.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.ghsa.org/index.php/resources/DUID18
GHSA recommends steps in Appendix A on how the U.S. Senate can
better prepare States to address impaired driving.
V. Speeding Has Become a Forgotten Highway Safety Issue
Though about a quarter of all fatal crashes involve at least one
speeding driver, GHSA believes that speeding had become almost a
forgotten highway safety issue. Indisputably, higher speeds are tied to
an increased risk of crashes and increased crash severity. Further,
speeding vehicles present a unique threat to other more vulnerable road
users.
Unlike other leading highway safety issues for which we have
successfully shifted cultural attitudes, speeding remains widely
socially acceptable. Most drivers speed and despite ongoing speeding
enforcement efforts, most drivers still have low expectations of
receiving a citation or causing a crash. As mentioned, the pandemic
seems to have resulted in an increase in excessive speeding around the
country.
States are using various combinations of proven engineering,
enforcement and education countermeasures to address speeding. Because
the public is generally not behind us, even proven countermeasures face
political barriers and some States are even increasing speed limits and
banning scientifically-proven solutions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Speeding19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to rethink how we could best prevent speeding, GHSA is
partnering with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the
National Roadway Safety Foundation to sponsor a competitive grant
program for States to implement community-based speed management pilot
projects. In an effort to break down siloed approaches, we will be
funding pilot programs that specifically combine all of the different
countermeasures- engineering, enforcement, communications, policy, and
advocacy--in the same location at the same time. We will be formally
evaluating the program and hope to demonstrate an integrated model that
can be scaled up and replicated elsewhere.
Finally, in order to do more on speeding, the United States is in
dire need of national leadership acknowledging the extent of this
highway safety problem and committing to real solutions. GHSA welcomes
a conversation about what more Congress can to do to better address
dangerous speeding on our Nation's roads.
VI. Pedestrian Fatalities Are Increasing Dramatically
Another area of critical concern is the alarming surge in
pedestrian injuries and fatalities. For the past three years, GHSA has
aggregated preliminary pedestrian safety data from its State members
and considered historic data to predict anticipated pedestrian safety
trends prior to the availability of final national data for those
years.
According to GHSA's last analysis released this year, the number of
pedestrian fatalities increased by 53 percent (from 4,109 deaths in
2009 to 6,283 deaths in 2018) during the 10-year period from 2009 to
2018. Meanwhile, the combined number of all other traffic deaths
declined by two percent. Further NHTSA recently reported that
fatalities decreased from 2017 to 2018 in almost all segments of the
population except fatalities in crashes involving large trucks and
nonoccupant fatalities (pedestrians and bicyclists).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812826
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on preliminary State data, GHSA estimated that the nationwide
number of pedestrians killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2019 was
6,590, an increase of 5 percent from 2018. GHSA's predictions have been
nearly spot on with NHTSA's final figures and we expect the same for
2019.
Like speeding, States are using various combinations of
engineering, enforcement and education countermeasures to address
pedestrian safety, including targeted enforcement in conjunction with
public outreach and education. NHTSA and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) are partnering to bring special attention to the
pedestrian safety crisis. GHSA recommends steps in Appendix A for the
U.S. Senate to improve how the States can better protect non-motorized
road users.
VII. Equity in Traffic Enforcement
In the past quarter, we have seen much attention brought to
shocking instances of excessive force, police misconduct, and
individual and systematic racism in policing. Some of these incidences
have involved traffic stops and in general, much of the personal
interaction between law enforcement and the public occurs in the
context of traffic stops. As we know these are not new challenges, but
a conversation about the intersection with traffic safety and traffic
enforcement is long overdue.
This issue is a priority and has been a matter of considerable
attention by GHSA's Executive Board and we hope to determine the most
constructive way for GHSA and its members to eliminate injustice in
traffic enforcement.
GHSA condemns racism, discrimination and misconduct in the criminal
justice system in all forms and we support the right to peacefully
protest. GHSA also supports the collection of data on inappropriate
disparities in policing driven by race or other factors, and the use of
such data to implement highway safety programs.
However, GHSA also continues to support the proven role of traffic
enforcement and the wider criminal justice system to prevent crashes,
deaths and injuries, stop dangerous drivers and hold drivers
accountable for poor, often deadly, choices. High-visibility
enforcement, in particular, remains an approach upheld by research and
data. GHSA supports the vast majority of law enforcement officers that
faithfully implement highway safety programs.
For many communities across the U.S., traffic enforcement will
remain a major part of traffic safety out of choice or necessity.
However, we have seen across the spectrum of highway safety that one
size rarely fits all, and GHSA wants to be open to developing and
implement effective, alternative approaches, as well as investment in
countermeasures that prevent dangerous driving before it needs to be
targeted in traffic enforcement efforts.
Finally, no traffic safety program can survive without public
trust. GHSA strongly encourages law enforcement to adopt new approaches
to rebuild public trust in traffic enforcement and we hope to be a part
of that process.
VIII. Congress Should Increase Highway Safety Investment
The highway safety discourse in the United States has come to
revolve around working toward a goal of zero highway fatalities. GHSA
is a proud member of the Towards Zero Death initiative, a member of the
Road to Zero Coalition and a partner with the Vision Zero Network. Many
States have adopted a zero-focus for Statewide highway safety planning.
Unfortunately, the current level of national investment will not
move us close to zero. In fact, some States' data projects that
fatality rates will remain largely the same, or even increase when all
of the various factors are taken into account.
GHSA urges Congress to increase its investment in all Federal
highway safety programs, including programs implemented by NHTSA, FHWA,
the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA), the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other Federal agencies. No
individual approach will be sufficient to solve the highway safety
challenge. Rather, we need to simultaneously increase our investment in
engineering and infrastructure, education, enforcement, emergency
medicine and every viable countermeasure approach.
Some traffic safety stakeholders argue that we can solve all of our
problems by rebuilding the roads. While improved infrastructure can
address a few safety problems, it will not make drivers buckle their
seat belts or put their children in the right child restraint. It will
not prevent drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel, hold them
accountable, or help them overcome addictions. That is to say that
eliminating behavioral approaches altogether would be a major mistake.
Rather, we must implement all types of countermeasure strategies
simultaneously to bring down fatal crash rates.
Congress has taken bold action to address other public health
crises, even just earlier this year. Every transportation agency and
most transportation stakeholders have established safety as the leading
priority. We urge Congress to do the same now and fully commit to the
road to zero.
IX. Congress Should Significantly Reform NHTSA's Highway Traffic Safety
Grant Programs
As we prepare for the upcoming Federal transportation
reauthorization, GHSA urges Congress to take aggressive steps to remove
the constraints that limit the ability of States, cities, NHTSA and our
partners to implement effective programs.
The NHTSA Highway Traffic Safety Grant program is hamstrung with
extensive administrative burdens. These burdens are partially due to
NHTSA's oversight of the program but also rooted in how Congress has
specifically constructed the program that NHTSA is implementing.
Today, in order to participate in NHTSA's grant programs, States
are required to comply with an excessive number of separate program
rules and separate sets of qualifications. States face onerous,
duplicative record-keeping and reporting requirements. In particular,
the eligibility standards for many grants are so detailed that States
are often disqualified over technicalities. The level of detail about
State laws required to apply for these grants creates burdens for NHTSA
to determine eligibility. NHTSA has also limited transparency about the
specific reasons for grant award decisions. And when grants are
awarded, the program is crisscrossed with arbitrary Federal guardrails
on what kinds of programs and projects that States can or cannot
implement. Underpinning all of this is a dysfunctional grant program
structure, as explained below.
Section 402--State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program
Slightly less than half of NHTSA grant funding is allocated to
Section 402, the State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program.
Under Section 402, States are permitted to program their funding for a
wide range of highway safety purposes based on their data-driven
problem identification. States use data to determine their unique
highway safety needs and allocate resources accordingly.
GHSA urges Congress to generally increase its investment in Section
402 year-to-year, which would expand the flexibility of States to
target their highway safety problems. Notably, there is no priority
safety program to address speed--one of the top three factors in fatal
crashes. States rely on Section 402 to support speed management
programs.
Congress should further expand the purposes for which Section 402
funds are allowed to be used to meet emerging behavioral highway safety
concerns and opportunities, including public education on vehicle
recall awareness, unattended child passengers and heatstroke
prevention, and public education on understanding and safely using new
vehicle safety technology.
Congress also should eliminate the current requirement for States
to conduct biennial surveys of automated enforcement systems. This
requirement is forcing States to waste funding to assess activities in
which the State highway safety offices are not involved and to generate
reports that are being used for no purpose on the Federal or State
level.
The Moving Forward Act proposed in the U.S. House would set aside
$35 million per year from Section 402 for a new, competitive Traffic
Safety Enforcement Grant. GHSA generally opposes any set asides within
Section 402. Section 402 spending is intended to be driven by each
State's unique needs. GHSA is also concerned that the purpose of
establishing this program, and the reason to impose a separate
application, is not clear as currently all States are required to
develop and implement a traffic safety enforcement program targeting
proven countermeasures based on local needs and leveraging NHTSA's
Countermeasures That Work (some States consider it to be their number
one reference to select projects). If Congress is to pursue this idea,
it deserves reconsideration.
Section 405--National Priority Safety Program
The remaining half of funding is allocated under Section 405, the
National Priority Safety Program, which is comprised of seven separate
grant programs Congressionally designated priority issues, each with
disparate eligibility standards and allowable uses:
Section 405(b): Occupant Protection: 13 percent
Section 405(c): State Traffic Safety Information System
Improvements: 14.5 percent
Section 405(d): Impaired Driving Countermeasures: 52.5
percent, including 12 percent for ignition interlocks
incentives and 3 percent for 24-7 sobriety program incentives
Section 405(e): Distracted Driving: 8.5 percent
Section 405(f): Motorcyclist Safety: 1.5 percent
Section 405(g): State Graduated Driver Licensing Laws: 5
percent
Section 405(h): Nonmotorized Safety: 5 percent
While it may have once seemed helpful to dedicate funding to
various specific priorities areas, this bifurcation of programs
ultimately hurts more than it helps. As programs are subdivided further
and further, States receive less money and face more complicated
application and program rules. For each grant, States must provide
separate qualification information and provide detailed accounts of
State laws or programs.
Many of these programs are under-performing, with few States
awarded grants, even if they have a qualifying law. GHSA believes that
incentive grants and similar programs are really effective at
encouraging States to make major, straightforward changes, such as
adopting the national .08 BAC standard. This approach is often not as
effective at encouraging States to perfectly create complex programs or
adopt many small changes over time.
For instance, in FFY 2020, more than 30 States have all-offender
ignition interlock laws, yet only five States were awarded Section 405
(d) incentive funds for this purpose. Nearly every State has some sort
of distracted driving law, yet only seven States received Section 405
(e) grants. Notoriously, no State has ever qualified for Section 405
(g) grants, even though every State has had a graduated driver
licensing system since 2006.\8\ All of these are often lengthy, complex
State laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/highway-safety-grants-program/fy-2020-
grant-funding-table
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, even when grants are awarded, each grant also comes with
its own unique restrictions that needlessly complicate the highway
safety planning process as States must carefully consider how they can
and cannot use the funding. For instance, States have been denied the
use of Section 405 (c) traffic records grant funds for important
traffic records projects, and likewise for Section 405 (h) funds for
valuable bicycle and pedestrian projects.
The bottom line is that the Section 405 program suffers from many
flaws and it has not fulfilled its intended purpose.
The best way Congress can address this issue would be to move all
of the funding from the Section 405 programs and invest it into Section
402. This way, Congress can keep this funding dedicated toward highway
safety purposes. Section 402 provides States the most flexibility and
the ability to closely tailor their programs to the actual needs on the
ground, which does not always fit a nationwide model.
However, if Congress decides to continue to invest in Section 405,
GHSA strongly encourages Congress to significantly reform these
existing programs to dramatically increase State eligibility and
allowable uses and eliminate administrative burdens.
Section 405-402 Transfer: As many States are ineligible for
various Section 405 programs, the law currently directs NHTSA
to redistribute unallocated Section 405 funds to all States by
formula under Section 402. The Moving Forward Act, proposed in
the U.S. House, would revert to a similar system in place
before the FAST Act and grant NHTSA broad discretion to
allocate these funds under either Section 402 or 405.
Historically, this allowed NHTSA to allocate funds based on
objectives set by the Administration's political leadership
rather than data. GHSA urges NHTSA to maintain the current
system. If funds are not utilized due to the inherent
disfunction of Section 405, they should be redistributed to the
States to allocate according to data-driven State needs.
Maintenance of Effort: GHSA urges Congress to eliminate the
Section 405 Maintenance of Effort requirements. NHTSA is
preventing supplanting through other mechanisms and Maintenance
of Effort calculations are subjective and administratively
burdensome, especially for small States with fewer resources,
and also for NHTSA.
Section 405(d) Impaired Driving: GHSA urges Congress to
authorize the use of funds to cover law enforcement officers
replacing officers in grant-related training. Lack of manpower
is a significant barrier for small law enforcement agencies to
participate in police impaired driving training programs.
Further, GHSA urges Congress to take steps to reform the
ignition interlock incentive grant program to better reflect
the many different State approaches to this policy, as well as
make other changes to bolster State eligibility.
Currently, States may broadly use Section 405(d) funding on
drug-impaired driving countermeasures, which are often
integrated or complementary to alcohol-impaired driving
efforts. One specific policy that Congress can implement to
combat drug-impaired driving is to allow the Section 154 and
Section 164 Penalty Transfer Funds (requiring States to have
open container laws and specific laws for repeat impaired
driving offenders) to optionally be used for drug-impaired
driving initiatives in addition to alcohol-impaired driving
initiatives.
Section 405(e) Distracted Driving: Congress should reform this
program to increase State eligibility, to better reflect the
strong distracted driving laws that many States have adopted
and eliminate opportunities for States to be disqualified due
to technicalities.
Section 405(h) Nonmotorized Safety: Currently, these grant
funds may only be used for programs that are centered around
State bicycle and pedestrian safety laws. However, not every
State has complete bicycle and pedestrian safety laws and many
such safety practices (such as conspicuity) are not necessarily
enshrined in State law. Congress should expand this program to
allow these funds to be used for a more comprehensive range of
proven behavioral safety countermeasures.
The remaining Section 405 programs are so problematic or
underperforming that we urge Congress to either radically
reform them or eliminate them entirely and redistribute the
funding to Section 402:
Section 405(c) Traffic Safety Information
Systems: Congress should aggressively expand allowable
uses of the funds and remove burdensome and outdated
eligibility requirements. Specifically, Congress should
eliminate the completion of a mandatory NHTSA traffic
records assessment as a condition of eligibility or
increase the time between assessments.
Section 405(f) Motorcyclist Safety:
Congress should aggressively expand allowable uses of
the funds to include a wide range of safety programs
aimed at both motorcyclists and motorists.
Section 405(g) Graduated Driver Licensing
Laws: Since this program was created under MAP-21, no
State has ever been eligible. GHSA recommends that
Congress tier this program with staged eligibility
requirements.
Speed Management: If Congress maintains and restructures
Section 405, and possibly eliminates some programs, it may find
a portion of Section 405 funding freed up for other purposes.
GHSA urges Congress to consider authorizing these funds under
Section 402 or consider creating a new Section 405 program on
Speed Management. Many Section 405 programs focus on lesser
highway safety priorities, but as described above, speeding
remains a leading crash contributor and should rightly be
considered a national highway safety priority.
Under such a program, GHSA recommends that States be eligible
for funding by submitting a Statewide speed management plan.
Congress should authorize the use of this funding for
traditional speed management efforts and many of the activities
already carried out under Section 402: high-visibility
enforcement mobilizations, police training and equipment,
public education, improving data systems, speeding trends
research and State and local speed management programs.
NHTSA Transparency: Finally, Congress should require NHTSA to
specifically list all, not just some, of the reasons why States
are designated ineligible for grants, so that State
policymakers and the highway safety community know precisely
what needs to change on the State level to increase State
eligibility.
Section 404--National Enforcement Mobilizations
Currently, NHTSA is required to sponsor three national enforcement
mobilizations and States are required to participate in these
mobilizations as a condition of receiving Section 402 funding. The
Moving Forward Act would double the number of enforcement mobilizations
from three to six.
While enforcement is important, such an increase would result in an
excessive draw of funding and resources for many States. Doubling the
number of mobilizations would also challenge the ability of local law
enforcement agencies to participate, which is already a problem under
the current requirements. GHSA urges Congress to maintain the number of
required mobilizations at three or clarify that States are only
required to participate in at last three of the six every year.
GHSA's detailed reauthorization recommendations are included as
Appendix A below.
Finally, some policymakers have proposed imposing new sanctions on
the States to withhold transportation or even safety program funding to
encourage them to adopt certain policies. As noted above, the use of
sanctions and incentives have a mixed history with both successes and
failures. Federal-aid highway funding in particular, is often used for
safety purposes as well. GHSA strenuously opposes any efforts to move
funding away from highway safety, which is ultimately counterproductive
to our collective goal of eliminating roadway crashes, fatalities, and
injuries.
X. Other Highway Safety Priorities
Behavioral Traffic Safety Cooperative Research Project
The FAST Act continued Congressional support for the Behavioral
Traffic Safety Cooperative Research Project (BTSCRP), the only national
cooperative highway safety research program focused exclusively on
behavioral highway safety. This program is administered in a tripartite
partnership between GHSA, NHTSA and the Transportation Research Board.
GHSA urges Congress to extend this research program and increase the
investment in this program from $2.5 million to $3.5 million per year.
DADSS
GHSA is a strong supporter of the Driver Alcohol Detection System
for Safety (DADSS) research program and both GHSA and the Virginia DMV
participate on the stakeholder team of the Automotive Coalition for
Traffic Safety. We urge Congress to continue to fund this program aimed
at developing a passive drunk driving prevention system. In 2018,
Virginia was the first state to partner with DADSS to implement the
Driven to Protect (D2P)\9\ pilot program to collaborate on in-vehicle
on-road tests and to educate the public about this technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.dadss.org/driventoprotect/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automated Vehicle Technology
For the past three years, GHSA has partnered with other State
agency associations to speak with a unified State voice on Federal
legislation to create a national regulatory framework for automated
vehicle technology. Our chief concern has been to ensure that this
framework maintains the traditional State and Federal regulatory roles
governing motor vehicles and driving. Federal law should not
inappropriately preempt State and local highway safety laws. Also, GHSA
urges Congress to make a priority of preparing and empowering NHTSA to
play its part in this framework.
Outside of the Congressional discussion on automated vehicle
policy, GHSA's broader focus has been to prepare our members for what
to expect and how to anticipate future trends. Automated vehicle
technologies have the potential to offer significant safety benefits
and GHSA agrees that we should promote their use. However, the best
available evidence suggests that most of the United States will feature
a mix of vehicles across the spectrum of automation for the foreseeable
future, maybe forever.
Thus, new modes of automation will likely present novel behavioral
safety risks and changes for law enforcement and first responders that
we can begin to prepare for today. Further, if human behavior will
still play a prominent, long-term role in highway safety, then we need
to both continue to invest in programs to address all of today's
highway safety risks while pro-actively planning for an increasingly
automated future.
Last year, GHSA joined the Partners for Automated Vehicle Education
(PAVE) Campaign, a coalition of industry, nonprofit and academic
institutions that aim to inform and educate the public and policymakers
with fact-based information regarding automated vehicles and to dispel
misinformation.\10\ GHSA looks forward to ongoing partnerships within
the transportation community to help usher in a safer mobility age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://pavecampaign.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIX. Zero Is the Only Acceptable Number
GHSA wants to thank Congress for its focus on these important
issues. The carnage on our Nation's roads remains an ongoing public
health crisis. While we have made hard-won progress, a significant
amount of work remains to be done to both implement effective programs
and improve the administrative structures behind them. As Congress
plans its approach and investments to highway safety, GHSA urges the
legislature to keep a singular target in mind: zero.
This concludes GHSA's statement. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before the Senate Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety.
GHSA looks forward to working with the Committee on the upcoming
transportation reauthorization and ongoing efforts on highway safety.
______
Appendix A
NHTSA Highway Traffic Safety Grant Programs
2020 GHSA Recommendations
As of June 26, 2020
Section 402--NHTSA Highway Safety Programs
[Proposed in The Moving Forward Act] Eliminate the Biennial
Automated Enforcement Survey requirement, which is a not a
productive use of funding to assess activities in which the
State highway safety offices are not involved and generates
reports that are being used for no purpose. USC 23 Sec. 402
(c)(4)(C); Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 pg. 710
[Proposed in The Moving Forward Act] Traffic Safety
Enforcement Program. GHSA generally opposes any set asides
within Section 402, which should be driven by each State's
unique needs. GHSA is also concerned that the purpose of
establishing this program, and the reason to impose a separate
application, is not clear as currently all States are required
to develop and implement a traffic safety enforcement program
targeting proven countermeasures based on local needs and
leveraging NHTSA's Countermeasures That Work (some States
consider it to be their number one reference to select
projects). If Congress is to pursue this idea, it deserves
reconsideration to differentiate it from Section 402 and
provide more incentives for states to apply, such as
eliminating a Maintenance of Effort requirement and offering
100 percent Federal share. Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 Sec. 3003
[Proposed in The Moving Forward Act] Require NHTSA to
creates a public-facing website centralizing highway safety
program information and with a search feature for HSP content,
per the recommendation of GHSA and other safety stakeholders.
Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 pg. 711
Expand Section 402 allowable uses to include public
education on vehicle recall awareness, unattended child
passengers, and safe use of new vehicle technology. USC 23 Sec.
402(a)(2)(A)
Clarify that HSP performance reporting should be based on
information available to date, as States may not have complete
progress information when the HSP is submitted in July. USC 23
Sec. 402 (k)(4)(E)
Section 1906--Grant Program to Prohibit Racial Profiling
Reauthorize this program. Section 1906 of SAFETEA-LU USC 23
Sec. 402 Note
Rename to ``Grant Program to Ensure Equity in Traffic
Enforcement, to reflect the broader goals of the program.
Allow funds to be used for State-certified anti-bias
police training, so that States can take action beyond just
collecting and reporting data on racial profiling.
Allow states to qualify for more than just two
consecutive years.
Section 403--Highway Safety Research and Development
[Proposed in The Moving Forward Act] Reauthorize and
increase investment in the Behavioral Traffic Safety
Cooperative Research Project (BTSCRP) from $2.5 million to $3.5
million. USC 23 Sec. 403(f)(1); Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 Sec.
3004
Section 404--High-visibility enforcement program
[Proposed in the Moving Forward Act] GHSA opposes increasing
the number of national enforcement mobilizations from three to
six. This increase would result in an excessive draw of funding
and resources for many States and challenge the ability of
local law enforcement agencies to participate. If Congress
increases the number of mobilizations, in should clarify in USC
23 Sec. 402(b)(1)(F)(i) that States must only participate in at
least three of the six every year. Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 Sec.
3006
Section 405--National Priority Safety Programs
A. Eliminate Section 405 and shift the funding to Section 402.
B. If Section 405 cannot be eliminated, initiate reforms:
Invest more funding in Section 402 than Section 405 and
include greater year-to-year increases in Section 402, which
provides flexibility to allocate funds towards each's state
unique, data-driven safety needs.
[Proposed in the Moving Forward Act] Omit any changes to the
current Section 405-402 transfer. All unallocated Section 405
funds should be redistributed only under Section 402.
Eliminate Section 405 Maintenance of Effort requirements.
NHTSA is preventing supplanting through other mechanisms and
MOE calculations are subjective and administratively
burdensome, especially for small States with fewer funds to
expend. USC 23 Sec. 405(a)(9)
[Proposed in the Moving Forward Act] Require NHTSA to list
of all reasons for NHTSA grant ineligibility so States can
better improve policy. Section 4010 of FAST Act (Public Law
114-94); Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 Sec. 3009
Section 405(b) Occupant Protection:
[Proposed in the Moving Forward Act] Child passenger
safety in underserved communities. GHSA accepts the
proposed changes to Section 405 (b) negotiated with Safe
Kids Worldwide. Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 pg. 724
Section 405--National Priority Safety Programs (cont'd)
Section 405(c) Traffic Safety Information Systems:
Significantly reform this program to expand allowable
uses and remove administrative burdens, or, eliminate this
program and redistribute the funds in Section 402 or
Section 405.
Eliminate the burdensome, repetitive mandatory traffic
records assessment now that the States have conducted
multiple such assessments or change the length of time
between assessments to at least ten years. USC 23 Sec.
405(c)(3)
[Proposed in the Moving Forward Act] Expand allowable
use to include improving traffic safety data collection
processes, acquiring traffic records and data collection
equipment, data linkage and compatibility, traffic records
training, and traffic records research. USC 23 Sec.
405(c)(4); Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 pg. 725
As every State now has a Traffic Records Coordinating
Committee (TRCC) to steer State traffic records programs,
change the eligibility requirements to instruct States to
only ``certify'' the existence of a State TRCC and TRCC
coordinator. USC 23 Sec. 405(c)(3)
Section 405(d) Impaired Driving:
GHSA supports proposed language with
Responsibility.org, National Sheriff's Association and AAA
to clarify allowable use to address drug impaired driving
and authorize the use of funds to cover law enforcement
officers replacing another officer in grant-related
training. USC 23 Sec. 405(d)(4)(B)(iii)
Reform the Ignition Interlock (IID) grant program
exceptions to allow more States to qualify.
[Proposed in the inmoving Forward Act] GHSA accepts
proposed language from the Coalition of Ignition Interlock
Manufacturers to alter eligibility requirements. Rules Cmt.
Print 116-54 pg. 727
Allow States to qualify for 24/7 sobriety programs if
they have local but not Statewide 24/7 programs. USC 23
Sec. 405(d)(7)(A)
Section 405(e) Distracted Driving:
Reform this program to increase State eligibility and
get more resources out to the States for distracted driving
prevention programs.
[Proposed in the Moving Forward Act] GHSA supports
language proposed with the National Safety Council to
increase eligibility. Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 pg. 729
Section 405(f) Motorcyclist Safety:
Significantly reform this program to aggressively
expand allowable uses of funds (including law enforcement
programs and training, public education campaigns on
sharing the road, safe motorcycle operation, helmet use
programs, and traffic signage), or, eliminate this program
and redistribute the funds in Section 402 or Section 405.
USC 23 Sec. 405(f)
Section 405--National Priority Safety Programs (cont'd)
Section 405(g) Graduated Driver Licensing Laws:
Significantly reform this program to allow at least
some States to be eligible for funding, or, eliminate this
program and redistribute the funds in Section 402 or
Section 405.
[Proposed in the Moving Forward Act] GHSA supports the
changes proposed in the Moving Forward Act but recommends
that the Tier One intermediate nighttime restriction be set
at 10 p.m. Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 pg. 734
Section 405(h) Nonmotorized Safety:
Expand the program to allow use of funds for a wider
range of public education on safe mobility practices. USC
23 Sec. 405(h)(1) and (4)
Consider creating a new Section 405 program on Speed
Management: Speeding remains a leading crash contributor. If
new funding is available overall or as a result of eliminating
other Section 405 programs, consider creating a new program to
distribute funds by formula to States which develop Statewide
speed management plans. Funds should be allowed for high-
visibility enforcement mobilizations, police training and
equipment, public education, improving data systems, speeding
trends research, and State and local speed management programs.
USC 23 Sec. 405
Section 154/164--Open Container Requirements/Repeat Offenders
[Proposed in the Moving Forward Act] Allow Section 164
transfer funds to also be used for drug impaired driving
initiatives: USC Sec. 23 Sec. 164(b)(1); Rules Cmt. Print 116-
54 Sec. 3008
Section 148--Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
[Proposed in the Moving Forward Act] Restore the ability for
States to ``flex'' up to 10 percent of HSIP funds for non-
infrastructure purposes, so that State DOTs and highway safety
offices with limited resources can allocate funds where they
are most needed. USC 23 Sec. 148; Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 Sec.
1209
Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding
Clarify that this law applies to law enforcement checkpoints
and that it does not apply to observational motorcycle helmet
research surveys, which have been interpreted administratively
by NHTSA as included in a ban on use of Federal funding to
support them. Section 4007 of FAST Act (Public Law 114-94)
Chapter 4--Highway Safety
[Proposed in the Moving Forward Act] Replace the term
``accident'' with ``crash'', reflecting that all crashes have
culpability and are preventable. Rules Cmt. Print 116-54 pg.
744
Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir. Next we have Jane Terry
who is the Vice President of Government Affairs of the National
Safety Council. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JANE TERRY, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL
Ms. Terry. Chair Fischer, Chair Wicker, Ranking Member
Duckworth, and members of the Ssubcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to participate in this important hearing on roadway
safety and the Federal funds that keep each of us safe on the
roads. There is much happening in this country right now that
directly relates to the topics we are discussing today.
The coronavirus pandemic has led to a fraction of traffic
on our roadways, and while people may think reducing the number
of vehicles on the road improves safety, that has not been the
case. Last week, we released findings that for the second month
in a row, fatal crash rates are up by double digits even though
vehicle miles traveled are down. These year-over-year increases
showed that in March the fatal crash rate increased by 14
percent. And at the height of the quarantine in April, crash
rates increased by 36 percent. We know excessive speeding and
not wearing seatbelts, the choices that drivers make, are
factors in some of these crashes and this is exactly why this
hearing today is so important. Motor vehicle crashes are
completely preventable.
The solutions to the problems are simple and clearly known,
but we need the political and societal will to implement them.
Simply said, the policy decisions made by all of you have the
potential to save thousands of lives. For decades, NSC has
worked to educate the public on the importance of seatbelt use.
Today, 40 percent of people killed in crashes are not buckled
up. This is happening at a time when 90 percent of Americans
regularly buckle up, saving 15,000 lives annually.
However, fewer people wear seatbelts in states without
primary enforcement seatbelt laws. We also know that motor
vehicle crashes have been and remain the leading cause of
preventable death for teens in the United States. Graduated
driver licensing laws have greatly reduced these fatalities and
we need strong GDL laws. Nationally, we are moving the wrong
direction on speed. Rising speed limits over the past 25 years
have led to 36,000 more people dying in crashes. Speed is also
a leading factor in the dramatic increase in pedestrian and
cyclist fatality rates. As I said, we know what needs to be
done.
Leaders like Chair Wicker and Fischer and Senator Duckworth
on this Committee have introduced strong safety provisions to
support Move Over Laws, eliminate hot car deaths and alcohol
impaired driving, and improve data collection and safety for
pedestrians and cyclists.
NSC looks forward to working with you to support these
provisions being enacted into law. With 40,000 people dying on
our roads each year in entirely preventable events, there is
much more we can and must do.
Additionally, the country is having a necessary dialogue
about equity and race and roadway safety must be part of this
discussion. The law states we are equal but the data do not.
The National Safety Council supports efforts to confront
the realities of violence, systemic racism, and inequality in
all things and their impact on traffic safety laws and
enforcement. Thank you again for inviting me today and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Terry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane Terry, Vice President, Government Affairs,
National Safety Council
Chairman Wicker, Chairwoman Fischer, Ranking Member Cantwell,
Ranking Member Duckworth and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify today on behalf of the National Safety Council
(NSC) on improving the safety of our Nation's roadways. It is an honor
to be with you today.
NSC is America's leading nonprofit safety advocate--and has been
for over 100 years. As a mission-based organization, we work to
eliminate the leading causes of preventable death and injury, focusing
our efforts on the workplace, roadway and impairment. We create a
culture of safety to not only keep people safer at work, but also
beyond the workplace so they can live their fullest lives. Our more
than 15,000 member companies and Federal agencies represent employees
at nearly 50,000 U.S. worksites.
As I address you today, we are at the end of National Safety Month,
which occurs every June. NSC has led this observance for over 20 years,
always with the goal of providing employers with the materials and
resources they need to keep their workers safe. This year, NSC is
focusing on the greatest workplace safety threat facing employers and
workers right now--the coronavirus pandemic, including the effects it
is having on our roadways.
These are times like no other, and the pandemic has impacted our
transportation system. Even with fewer vehicles on the roadways, it is
less safe to drive. While the total number of miles travelled
decreased, the motor vehicle fatality rate increased by an alarming 14
percent in March and 36.6 percent in April year-over-year. These
numbers underscore how urgently we need today's hearing. We must change
the culture of safety on our roads. A state-by-state breakdown of these
fatalities for March and April is attached to this statement.
In addition, the country is having a necessary and overdue dialogue
about equity and race. Roadway safety is a component of this
discussion, too. Too often, past decisions made in the name of
transportation improvements have failed Black, Indigenous and people of
color. Research shows that people of color suffer higher rates of
pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries \1\ and drivers are less
likely to yield to Black people walking and biking \2\ and a ProPublica
investigation finds that frequently programs and policies to support
safety--such as those around jaywalking \3\--disproportionately burden
communities of color. In our discussion today on laws and enforcement,
we must take time to listen, learn and reflect on how we can all be
part of the solution to address disparities in transportation safety.
To this end, NSC, through the Road to Zero Coalition, will lead
discussions later this year to inform and improve our work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/
dangerous-by-design-2014/dangerous-by-design-2014.pdf
\2\ https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/
&httpsredir=1&article=1009&context=psy_fac
\3\ https://www.propublica.org/series/walking-while-black
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) states
36,560 people were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2018.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/traffic-deaths-2018
Included here are the number of people killed in motor vehicle
crashes in 2018 from the Chairs' and Ranking Members' states:\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/
StatesCrashesAndAllVictims.aspx
Mississippi 664
Washington 546
Nebraska 230
Illinois 1,031
These entirely preventable crashes have a tremendous human toll and
cost the American economy over $445.6 billion a year.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/
introduction/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the lives of your constituents. These mothers, fathers,
sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles contributed to the communities in
which they lived. Yet, our national outrage at these losses is
conspicuously absent, particularly when compared to deaths in other
forms of transportation, such as aviation.
The United States has consistently avoided the hard choices needed
to save lives on the roadways. The reauthorization of the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is an opportunity for us to
start making the right choices, and I appreciate the opportunity to
talk with you today about how to do more to save lives because all of
these deaths are preventable.
What disappoints many of us in the safety community is that the
main causes of motor vehicle fatalities--lack of seat belt use,
alcohol-impaired driving, and speed--have remained the same for
decades.
40 percent of occupants who die in motor vehicle crashes are
unbelted \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/occupant-protection/
seat-belts/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 percent of people who die in crashes are involved in
alcohol-impaired wrecks \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.responsibility.org/alcohol-statistics/drunk-
driving-statistics/drunk-driving-fatality-statistics/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 percent of the fatalities are speed-related \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812932
The solutions to these problems are simple and clearly known, but
we need the political and societal will to implement them.
NHTSA Safety Grants
NHTSA is the national leader on roadway behavior safety programs,
and one of the main tools the agency uses to work with states are the
safety grant programs. NHTSA also regularly publishes ``Countermeasures
that Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasures Guide for State Highway
Safety Offices.'' \10\ This document evaluates countermeasures for
effectiveness, and NSC believes that states should focus funding on 3-,
4-, and 5-star countermeasures to provide the biggest impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/
812478_countermeasures-that-work-a-highway-safety-countermeasures-
guide-.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States outline how they will use these funds through their annual
Highway Safety Plans (HSP), which are developed by the transportation
leaders in the states including the Departments of Transportation,
state highway safety offices, law enforcement, emergency medical
services (EMS), and others. It is key that each of these offices fully
participates in development of the HSP as each has a unique and shared
commitment to saving lives on the roadways, whether it is to prevent
the crash from occurring or to ensure an appropriate response.
Section 402 grants--named for the section of statute in which the
program is located--are apportioned to states by a population and road
miles based formula, and states have flexibility on how these funds are
used for behavior programs. The 405 grants--also named for the section
of statute in which the program is located--are dedicated to priority
programs listed below and have requirements that states must meet to
qualify for funding and incentives attached for meeting these
requirements. These programs focus on the biggest roadway killers, and
it is critical they remain in place to focus needed attention on these
issues and save lives that may be otherwise lost to these persistent
killers.
Priority grant programs include
405(b) Occupant protection grants (13 percent of funding)
405(c) Traffic Safety information systems (14.5 percent of
funding)
405(d) Impaired driving, including 24-7 and ignition interlock
programs (52.5 percent of funding)
405(e) Distracted driving (8.5 percent of funding)
405(f) Motorcycle safety (1.5 percent of funding)
405(g) Graduated driver licensing (5 percent of funding)
405(h) Nonmotorized safety (5 percent of funding)
The section 405 provisions may require state laws to be passed to
qualify for funding, and in these cases, NHTSA must make a
determination whether these laws met the goals as outlined. When NHTSA
has determined states do not qualify for funding, the decision process
and reasoning has not been clear. Without clear direction from NHTSA,
state legislators may not try to strengthen their laws again. NSC
supports the Committee requiring greater transparency of NHTSA on its
decisions when grant applications are rejected and availability of
NHTSA to provide technical assistance. NSC also supports authorizing
additional resources to support this assistance.
Data
In all funding decisions, good data are the key to determine where
and how to focus efforts. Our current data systems should be fully
evaluated for updating and reflecting today's circumstances. The
fatality analysis reporting system (FARS) is the national data
collection tool for fatal roadway crashes, and it needs updating. For a
more complete picture of fatal crashes, FARS should include events on
non-public roadways too, such as driveways and parking lots, and on a
monthly basis, NHTSA should also use the state data it receives to
release monthly preliminary fatality estimates. This data can provide
important insights to identify trends that can be addressed quicker
than waiting until there is a full evaluation of FARS data, which
usually occurs in October or November of the following year.
Traffic data improvements across states are imperative. The
longstanding reliance on local law enforcement officers is and
continues to be a strong foundation for understanding conditions that
contribute to crashes, such as roadway design, driver impairment and
weather, to name a few. In addition, the EMS data adds critical
understanding of deaths and serious injuries from motor vehicle-related
crashes. EMS includes ambulance services and other 911 medical response
organizations that provide assessment and medical care on scene, as
well as during transportation to the hospital. The EMS data is a
missing link to provide a more complete picture of the health outcomes
of crashes. Medical evaluation of the condition of the victim and
documented clinical measurements such as vital signs and other
indicators, like the Glasgow Coma Scale, can be used to calculate and
approximate injury severity. EMS personnel contribute this data to the
National EMS Information System (NEMSIS), which is a uniform standard
for data collection and electronic record submission about patient care
on scene and during transport to the hospital. States with fully
developed NEMSIS databases can upload records in near real-time,
linking crash and EMS records, and ultimately trauma registry data that
is also available to most state EMS offices. This data provides a
clearer picture of the health impacts and outcomes of crashes.
States regulate ambulance services, and for nearly 50 years, state
licensure has required all ambulance services that respond to 911 calls
to submit EMS response and patient care data to the state. As of last
week, over 36 million patient care reports had been voluntarily
submitted to NHTSA's NEMSIS database by state EMS offices for calendar
year 2019. NHTSA's Office of EMS has supported the creation and
management of this national repository for NEMSIS compliant records
since the late 1990s, but state EMS offices do not receive Federal
funds to aid in this data collection. NSC supports allowing full
integration of EMS offices in the HSP development and use of NHTSA
grant funds to bring all states' NEMSIS databases up-to-date.
NHTSA also operates the Crash Reporting Sampling System (CRSS),
which is a national sample of fatal and non-fatal crashes. Since the
sample design does not allow for state level estimates, users are
unable to evaluate non-fatal crash trends on a state-by-state basis.
Having more granularity by requiring more reporting of non-fatal crash
reports would allow for greater insight into roadway safety and help
identify dangerous roadways and other problems. As more states use
electronic reporting to share crash report data, NSC believes a more
robust CRSS is possible and more easily achievable.
Supporting states' purchasing of technology to allow near real-time
crash reporting improves safety and allows for a faster response by
planners, engineers and law enforcement. The Senate should support the
ability to use both 405 and 402 funding to purchase technology and
upgrade systems for faster reporting.
In 2017, NSC released the report, Undercounted is Underinvested:
How incomplete crash reports impact efforts to save lives.\11\ Our
review found that no state fully captures critical data needed to
address and understand the rise in roadway fatalities. Crash reports
from all 50 states \12\ lack fields or codes for law enforcement to
record the level of driver fatigue at the time of a crash, 26 state
reports lack fields to capture texting, 32 states lack fields to record
hands-free cell phone use and 32 lack fields to identify specific types
of drug use if drugs are detected, including marijuana. Excluding these
fields limits the ability to effectively understand and address these
problems. NSC encourages capturing more uniform and complete data on
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.nsc.org/Portals/0/Documents/
DistractedDrivingDocuments/Crash%20Report
/Undercounted-is-Underinvested.pdf
\12\ The National Safety Council reviewed one crash report from
each state. NSC was not able to obtain a current crash report from the
District of Columbia, so it is not included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Road to Zero
More states and localities have adopted ``zero'' language into the
goals on our roadways. This has been commonplace in other settings like
workplaces, where NSC has been involved since its beginning, and it has
had meaningful results. NSC is so committed to a zero goal on the
roadways that we lead the Road to Zero Coalition, a diverse group of
over 1500 members committed to eliminating roadway fatalities by 2050.
The coalition includes members from across the country representing
transportation organizations, businesses, academia, safety advocates
and others--the first time so many organizations have collaborated to
put forth a plan to address fatalities on our roads.
The centerpiece of our work together has been the creation of the
Road to Zero report, a comprehensive roadmap of the strategies
necessary to achieve our goal by 2050. The coalition report includes
three primary recommendations:
1. Double down on what works through proven, evidence-based
strategies
2. Accelerate advanced life-saving technology in vehicles and
infrastructure
3. Prioritize safety by adopting a safe systems approach and
creating a positive safety culture
Double Down
We know what works. Enacting evidence-based laws related to
seatbelts, alcohol impairment, speed and other killers shows we are
ready for change. Education about the laws, combined with enforcement,
delivers on the change. We urge legislators to look at these and the
many other laws that, if enacted, enforced and promoted, would reduce
fatalities. These improvements not only save lives, but also save
money. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides the
Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States
(MV PICCS)\13\ to help policymakers determine the lives saved and costs
of implementation of 14 different evidence-based motor vehicle laws.
While many of these laws require state action, Congress should support
incentives in the reauthorization bill to accelerate state adoption and
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seatbelts
Seat belts save lives and reduce serious injuries by half.\14\ In
2017, seat belts saved almost 15,000 lives.\15\ There is no question
that seat belts play an important role in keeping passengers safe.
Regardless of other causal factors, the lack of proper occupant
restraint continues to increase the severity and lethality of motor
vehicle crashes. While 89.6 percent of American drivers and vehicle
occupants used seat belts in 2018, more than 1 in 10 continued to put
their lives at unnecessary risk, with tragic consequences. Forty
percent of people killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2017 were
unbelted.\16\ Yet despite these data, only 34 states and the District
of Columbia have primary enforcement of their seatbelt laws--meaning
law enforcement may stop vehicles solely for belt law violations. Of
the other 16 states, 15 have secondary laws--requiring police to have
another reason for a traffic stop--and one, New Hampshire, has no belt
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812691
\15\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812691
\16\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/occupant-protection/
seat-belts/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary seatbelt laws are proven to increase the rate of belt use
and save lives. In 2019, 92 percent of passenger vehicle occupants were
belted in states with primary laws, while only 86.2 percent of
occupants were belted in states with secondary or no seatbelt laws.\17\
Public education and high-visibility enforcement campaigns such as
Click It or Ticket have increased public awareness of the dangers of
driving unrestrained, but will only be most effective when accompanied
by strong laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812662
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, NHTSA estimated that the use of seat belts in passenger
vehicles saved 14,955 lives, and if all drivers and passengers had worn
their seatbelts, an additional 2,549 lives would have been saved.\18\
In Nebraska and Illinois, an additional 23 and 50 lives respectively
could have been saved in 2017 with 100 percent seat belt use.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812454
\19\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One area of seatbelt oversight is on school buses. NSC supports
Senator Duckworth's bill, S. 2278, the School Bus Safety Act, to
require new buses to have three-point belts so that children are
appropriately protected each and every ride. Most school buses
operating today only include a seat belt for the driver--not for the
passengers. However, since 2002, lap and shoulder belts have been made
available on school buses, and some school systems do, in fact, use
passenger seat belts.\20\ Congress should act to require this important
protection on all school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ http://www.nasdpts.org/Documents/
NASDPTS%20POSITION%20PAPER%20PASSEN
GER%20LAP%20SHOULDER%20BELTS%20FINAL%20FEB%202014.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impairment
Another leading cause of roadway deaths is impairment. Every day,
almost 30 people die in alcohol-impaired crashes in the United States--
one every 50 minutes.\21\ Despite these data, our culture does not
prioritize safety, with more than 1 in 10 drivers admitting to driving
in the prior year when they thought they were close to or over the
legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit.\22\ NHTSA estimates 10,511
lives were lost in 2018 from drunk driving motor vehicle crashes.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
\22\ http://tirf.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/RSM-TIRF-USA-2018-
Alcohol-Impaired-Driving-in-the-United-States-3.pdf
\23\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812826
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The science on alcohol impairment is clear: drivers are four times
more likely to crash at .05 than if they had nothing to drink.\24\ Most
other industrialized countries have implemented a BAC of .05 or lower,
changes which have been followed by decreasing numbers of fatalities
from alcohol-impaired crashes. Lowering the BAC limit from .08 to .05
is proven to save lives on the roadways, and in the U.S. could save as
many as 1,500 lives if implemented nationally.\25\ Utah is the first
state in the U.S. to pass a law lowering the BAC to .05. NSC supports
other states attempting to implement such legislation, and hopes to see
Federal legislation introduced to support this as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Blomberg RD, Peck RC, Moskowitz H, Burns M, Fiorentino D: The
Long Beach/Fort Lauderdale relative risk study; J Safety Res 40:285;
2009.
\25\ Fell, J. C., and M. Scherer. 2017. Estimation of the potential
effectiveness of lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit
for driving from 0.08 to 0.05 grams per deciliter in the United States.
Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research. doi: 10.1111/
acer.13501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug impaired driving is also a problem. Too many of our fellow
Americans suffer from substance use disorders to legal and illegal
drugs. Drug overdoses, led by opioids, are the leading cause of
preventable death in the U.S.\26\ In 2018, nearly 140 million Americans
aged 12 or older consumed alcohol in the past month, with 16.6 million
being heavy users and 2.2 million being aged 12-17. In 2018, 1 in 5
people aged 12 or older used an illicit drug in the past year.
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, followed by
prescription pain relievers.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/
drugoverdoses/data-details/
\27\ https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/
NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the use of impairing substances and driving are mixed, too
many lives are lost and changed forever. Data show that over 10,000
people die in alcohol-impaired crashes each year.\28\ The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention reports that 12 million people aged 16
and older reported driving under the influence of marijuana in the past
year, and 2.3 million people aged 16 and older reported driving under
the influence of illicit drugs other than marijuana.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-
safety-issues/alcohol-impaired-driving/
\29\ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6850a1.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the last national roadside survey conducted in 2013-2014,
the percentages of weekend nighttime drivers who tested positive for
alcohol, marijuana and illicit drugs were 8.3 percent, 12.6 percent and
15.1 percent, respectively.\30\ These results are one of the most
comprehensive, national understandings of impaired driving that we
have. The national roadside survey has been a key tool to understanding
impaired driving on U.S. roads, and NSC encourages Congress to remove
barriers to conducting this survey because it is hard to stop deadly
behavior when you don't know what the behavior is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/behavioral-research/2013-14-national-
roadside-study-alcohol-and-drug-use-drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another key factor to establishing impaired driving data is to
create standards for testing. Beginning in 2007, the Alcohol Drugs and
Impairment Division of the National Safety Council has created and
maintained a series of recommendations for the appropriate scope and
level of sensitivity of testing for drugs in suspected drug impaired
driving and motor vehicle fatality investigations. The process has
involved surveying of 70-100 laboratories throughout the United States
performing this work to determine the most frequently encountered
drugs, positivity trends, and the emergence of new impairing drugs in
driving populations. The survey also attempted to capture information
about laboratory capacity and capability, and the available technology
for routine drug testing.
This data has been used to generate a consensus document \31\ based
on diverse input from large and small, academic, public and private,
and from multiple states, containing two tiers of drugs with identified
involvement in impaired driving arrests and traffic deaths. The first
tier includes the most common, most readily detectable drugs that
account for the greatest number of impaired driving cases, and within
the analytical capabilities of most laboratories. The second tier are
emerging drugs, less frequently implicated, or requiring special
testing equipment or technology, that should be considered in cases
where testing for tier 1 drugs is negative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ https://www.nsc.org/Portals/0/Documents/NewsDocuments/2019/
NSC-Model-Guidelines-for-Toxicological-Investigation-of-Drug-Impaired-
Driving.pdf?ver=2019-12-02-172252-037
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These recommendations have been adopted by more than 50 of the most
active laboratories in the country, and the toxicology community is
working towards fuller adoption for a more uniform and comprehensive
approach to testing to help ensure the availability of more reliable
data for the epidemiological data on the severity of the drug impaired
driving problem. The fourth iteration of these recommendations is being
prepared and will be published in 2020.
Given the wide use, adoption and support of these recommendations
among the toxicology community, NSC offers that these standards should
be incorporated into any legislation, with the goal of better drug
testing data collection, and we appreciate Chair Fischer's leadership
to include it in S. 2979. Additionally, NSC recommends that NHTSA use
this document to provide national guidance for impaired driver testing
to all toxicology labs in the U.S.
Drug recognition experts (DREs) are a key enforcement tool for many
localities. These are specially trained law enforcement officers who
can evaluate the signs of impairment from drugs. This is especially
important because some drug tests only detect presence of the drug and
not impairment. Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE)
officers, which is the first step in becoming a DRE, are also key
officers for law enforcement to have as part of their squads. The U.S.
needs more trained DREs. According to data from the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, DREs are outnumbered. In the Chair's
state of Nebraska, there are 109 DREs, and 1.4 million licensed
drivers. Illinois also has 109 DREs and 8.5 million licensed drivers
and a new marijuana decriminalization law.\32\ NSC supports the use of
NHTSA and other Federal funding to pay for DRE and ARIDE training to
stop drug-impaired driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ https://www.theiacp.org/states-and-countries-with-dres
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distraction
Distracted driving is a contributing factor in far too many
preventable motor vehicle crashes nationwide. Anything that requires
drivers to take their eyes off the road, hands off the wheel or mind
off the task of driving is inherently dangerous. Even attentive drivers
are at risk when operating around someone who is distracted. In the
five seconds it takes to send or read a text or e-mail message, a
vehicle traveling at 55 miles per hour will travel the length of a
football field.\33\ During that time, drivers can miss much of what is
in their driving field, including stop signs and pedestrians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/distracted-driving/distracted-driving-
kills
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe driving is a collective responsibility. Yet, many drivers
still do not understand or simply choose to ignore the risks of
distracted driving. An NSC survey found 47 percent of drivers
mistakenly believe they can safely text while driving, though many of
these same respondents did not want others to do so. Eighty percent of
respondents support laws that would ban the use of hand-held devices
while driving, and 65 percent would support a total ban on the use of
devices, including hands-free devices linked through dashboard
technology.
State legislatures around the country have recognized the dangers
of distracted driving for years. Currently, 48 states and the District
of Columbia ban text messaging for all drivers, 21 states and the
District of Columbia prohibit hand-held cell phones while driving, and
38 states and the District of Columbia ban any cell phone use by novice
or teen drivers.\34\ These laws are undoubtedly saving lives, but more
must be done. NSC encourages all states to adopt laws prohibiting any
cell phone and electronic device use while driving, and in order to
better understand the problem of distraction, for all states to have a
field on police reports to capture texting and cell phone use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/cellular-phone-
use-and-texting-while-driving-laws.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC and GHSA worked together to amend the FAST Act section 405
distraction provisions. NSC encourages the Senate to adopt this same
proposal in the Senate reauthorization bill.
Speed
The U.S. has a fatal problem with driving too fast. The Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) estimated that increasing speed
limits over the past 25 years have led to 37,000 deaths, and 26 percent
of all crash fatalities in 2018 occurred in speed-related crashes.\35\
For pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users, speed can be
especially deadly. As illustrated, at 20 miles per hour, 9 out of 10
pedestrians would survive being struck by a vehicle, but if you double
that speed, 9 out of 10 pedestrians would be killed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed
In 2017, 5,977 pedestrians were killed in the U.S.--that's one
death every 88 minutes.\36\ Pedestrians are 1.5 times more likely than
passenger vehicle occupants to be killed in a car crash, and these
numbers have increased dramatically in recent years. From 2009 to 2018,
the number of pedestrian fatalities increased by 53 percent.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/
index.html
\37\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/
pedestrians/data-details/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not only pedestrians and other vulnerable road users impacted
by excess speed, but also 8,884 motor vehicle drivers and occupants who
died in 2018 in speed-related crashes.\38\ One evidence-based proven
countermeasure for speed is automated enforcement. Automated
enforcement is proven to reduce speed and save lives, but
implementation must be done properly, with safety--not revenue--as the
primary objective. NSC, AAA, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
and IIHS created the attached checklist to provide guidance to
communities as they deploy automated enforcement. The guidance
encourages transparency and grace among enforcement actions given and
dedication of the funds to safety, trauma care or a similar purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ NSC analysis of NHTSA FARS data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal restrictions on automated enforcement should be eliminated.
Additionally, Federal funding should be allowed to support automated
enforcement. H.R. 2, the INVEST in America Act, allows the use of
Federal funds for automated enforcement in work zones, and NSC urges
the Senate to include similar provisions.
Graduated Driver Licensing
Motor vehicle fatalities are the number one cause of death for
teenagers in the U.S., and data published in the NSC annual Injury
Facts report shows that drivers 21 and younger have the highest fatal
crash rates of any age group.\39\ Tragically, 2,142 teens had their
lives cut short due to motor vehicle crashes in 2018.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/age-of-
driver/
\40\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/teen-
drivers/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Novice drivers, regardless of age, have one thing in common:
inexperience. We must do all we can to ensure the safest driving
environment for this vulnerable driving population. Without structured
introduction to the driving environment, more deaths and injuries can
occur.
Strong graduated driver licensing (GDL) programs are evidence based
programs that tier licensing to increase driving exposure. GDL is a
three-step process: (1) initial learner's permit phase; (2)
intermediate, or provisional, license phase; and (3) full licensure
phase. In an October 2016 report, the Governor's Highway Safety
Administration (GHSA) noted that although teen driver involvement in
fatal crashes has fallen significantly since 2005, decreases have not
been dramatic for drivers aged 18 to 20 years old. They conclude that
this is likely due to the overwhelming number of GDL programs that only
extend until age 18, and recommend that nationwide GDL requirements be
expanded to include all novice drivers under 21 years of age.\41\ NSC
supports increasing GDL requirements to age 21 because a new driver is
inexperienced, no matter what the age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ http://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2016-12/
FINAL_TeenReport16.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Vehicle Recalls
Right now, more than 53 million vehicles on America's roadways have
open safety recalls--that's more than one in five vehicles on the road.
In light of these record-high numbers, NSC launched the Check To
Protect initiative in 2017. This public awareness campaign encourages
vehicle owners to check their vehicles in order to protect the loved
ones who ride with them. Anyone can learn their recall status by
entering their VIN at CheckToProtect.org, which has drawn more than
800,000 users in the past 12 months. To further raise awareness, NSC
works with state DMVs, military bases, colleges and universities,
workplaces and others to promote Check To Protect and let people know
how easy and important it is to ensure their vehicle does not have an
unrepaired recall.
Tomorrow, Check To Protect will launch a new service that allows
anyone to take a picture of their license plate and text it to a five
digit number to learn their vehicle's recall information. This simple
tool has the power to save lives.
Move Over
Move Over laws exist in every state, but the awareness about and
compliance with them varies greatly. When you add distraction, it can
be a deadly mix. In fact, last year, NSC conducted a survey finding
that 71 percent of U.S. drivers admit to taking photos or videos when
they see an emergency vehicle on the side of the road responding to a
fire or a crash, or simply making a routine traffic stop. Sixty percent
post to social media, and 66 percent send an e-mail about the
situation--all while behind the wheel. Worse still, 16 percent--more
than 1 in 10--said they either have struck or nearly struck a first
responder or emergency vehicle stopped on or near the road. In spite of
all this, 89 percent of drivers say they believe distracted motorists
are a major source of risk to first responders. It is clear that we
need to do more nationally to ensure increased compliance with move
over laws. Already this year, 22 first responders have been struck and
killed by motorists in roadway collisions, and the number nearly
doubles if you include tow operators and mobile mechanics.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ https://www.google.com/maps/d/
viewer?mid=1A2WpcwDeQhUXwH_W4VW2F-pPbnMLB-GA&ll=35.01551109524687%2C-
113.42843004999999&z=3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC applauds the bipartisan leadership of this subcommittee for
initiating a GAO report on the effectiveness of move over laws. Senator
Duckworth's bill S. 2700, the Protecting Roadside First Responders Act,
would establish funding within the 405 programs for education about and
compliance with move over laws. NSC supports the establishment of this
program to save the lives of those people who are there to help us.
Child Passenger Safety (CPS)
Correct use of a child restraint system appropriate for a child's
age and size saves lives. NHTSA estimates that car seats reduce the
risk of fatal injury by 71 percent for infants and 54 percent for
toddlers.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812719
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC supports the expansion of programs that recruit and train CPS
Technicians and education on the importance of CPS for caregivers.
These technicians conduct critical work by providing one-on-one
instruction to parents to learn how to properly install their child's
car seat. NSC supported an amendment \44\ to H.R. 2 that expands NHTSA
funding to allow states to recruit and train Child Passenger Safety
Technicians and educate parents and care givers about proper use of CPS
in low-income and underserved populations, and we encourage the Senate
to consider similar language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See: https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
Titus%20041.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot Cars
It only takes 10 minutes for the temperature in a car to rise by 19
degrees. For children, in particular, this increase is enough to result
in death.\45\ Heatstroke is the leading cause of non-crash, vehicle-
related deaths in children under 15.\46\ The last two years--2018 and
2019--were particularly deadly for pediatric vehicular heatstroke
(PVH), with more than 50 children dying each year. All these deaths are
preventable. While deaths are down in 2020, likely due to a decline in
overall vehicle use, five children (as of June 25, 2020) have died as a
result of PVH. Three of these children gained access to unlocked
vehicles, reinforcing the need to educate all drivers to lock their
vehicles before walking away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/on-
the-go/Pages/Prevent-Child
-Deaths-in-Hot-Cars.aspx
\46\ https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/on-
the-go/Pages/Prevent-Child
-Deaths-in-Hot-Cars.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Wicker has been a committed leader on preventing these
tragedies. NSC supports his bill S. 1601, the HOT CARS Act that
requires in-vehicle technology solutions to end these preventable
deaths.
NSC also has made a free training module to help people understand
how heatstroke can happen. It's available in English and Spanish at
www.nsc.org/hotcars, and only takes about 15 minutes to complete.
Education is a key element of raising awareness for everyone, so that
these events do not become tragedies.
Advanced Technology
Technology is an important disrupter that will continue to
transform roadway safety well into the foreseeable future. To reach
zero deaths, we need to encourage the development of innovations that
address human and road design failures, and, once proven, establish
mandates for adoption of technologies that work. Further, this
regulatory certainty and defined standards should drive
interoperability and ensure meaningful outcomes. Additionally, data
collection on serious and fatal crashes should be required in order to
share consistent and verified information, and testing on public roads
should be reported to the jurisdictions in which the tests occur. This
level of transparency will help consumers better understand the
technology and how to operate in it, with it and around it.
As we sit here today, automakers, technology firms and others are
developing partially and fully automated vehicles. The potential safety
benefits of automated vehicles could be incredible. When ready, these
vehicles will not glance down at their phone, speed through a red light
or have an alcoholic beverage before getting behind the wheel--all
mistakes that we as human drivers continue to make over and over again,
with deadly consequences. To be clear, it will be decades before we
have meaningful fleet penetration on U.S. roadways of automated
vehicles (AVs). In the meantime, there are significant technologies
available in vehicles today, Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)
that can prevent or mitigate crashes. Consumer education about these
technologies is critical to ensure they are adopted and used
appropriately.
Several studies show the effectiveness of advanced features. In
2019, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss and Data
Institute released some of the following statistics:
Forward Collision Warning systems reduced front-to-rear crashes
with injuries by 20 percent
Forward collision warning systems with autobraking reduced
front-to-rear crashes with injuries by 56 percent
Blind spot detection reduced lane-change crashes with injuries
by 23 percent \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ https://www.iihs.org/media/259e5bbd-f859-42a7-bd54-
3888f7a2d3ef/e9boUQ/Topics/AD
VANCED%20DRIVER%20ASSISTANCE/IIHS-real-world-CA-benefits.pdf
One area where technology can make a difference to save lives is by
preventing impaired driving. NSC supports Senators Scott and Udall's S.
2604, the RIDE Act, to require the development of a standard for in-
vehicle technology to detect alcohol impairment. This is the type of
technology that can save thousands of lives if widely deployed. H.R. 2
provides one additional year of funding for such technology development
and then allows technology developers to take over to advance similar
technologies to meet the performance standard. NSC believes this is the
right approach to take to support a technology solution to a persistent
and deadly problem.
Consumer understanding of ADAS technology is key, and establishing
performance standards and common nomenclature for the automated vehicle
(AV) technology will also help encourage better understanding. In 2016,
NSC testified before a congressional committee on the need to
standardize ADAS nomenclature to eliminate consumer confusion. Our
conclusions were based on research conducted during the development of
a national consumer education campaign, MyCarDoesWhat.org in 2015. In
2019, AAA released a report about the lack of consistency in naming and
performance of these technologies. In it, they found adaptive cruise
control has 20 different names and lane keeping assistance has 19
unique names.\48\ The trend continued with other technologies. These
different names do not aid consumer understanding and acceptance. In
fact, AAA also found that over 70 percent of consumers are afraid of
fully automated vehicles.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/files/ADAS-Technology-
Names-Research-Report
.pdf
\49\ https://newsroom.aaa.com/2019/03/americans-fear-self-driving-
cars-survey/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, NSC, in collaboration with AAA, Consumer Reports, and
J.D. Power, released ``Clearing the Confusion: Recommended Common
Naming for Advanced Driver Assistance Technologies'' (attached).\50\
Our four organizations agreed on standardized naming that is simple,
specific, and based on system functionality in an effort to reduce
consumer confusion. Safety features may change over time as software
and hardware updates in turn modify the operational parameters for
vehicle systems. Providing education throughout the life of vehicles
can help consumers better understand how these features can advance
safety. Today, 93 percent of new vehicles offer at least one ADAS
feature, and the terminology often seems to prioritize marketing over
clarity.\51\ Earlier this year, DOT endorsed these recommendations, and
just last month the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) did as well.
We urge other safety organizations, automakers, journalists and
lawmakers to join us in adopting these terms.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ https://www.nsc.org/Portals/0/Documents/NewsDocuments/2019/
ADAS%20Common%20
Naming%20One-pager.pdf?ver=2019-11-20-094231-643
\51\ https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/files/ADAS-Technology-
Names-Research-Report
.pdf
\52\ https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-
transportation-secretary-elaine-l-chao-announces-new-initiatives-
improve-safety
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), a national ``star rating
system'' for vehicles, must be updated to reflect advances in safety
technology. NSC supports changes to NCAP, at a minimum, for crash
avoidance, crashworthiness and pedestrian detection.
Crash avoidance. NSC believes that NCAP must evolve to
reflect improvements in recent years to crash avoidance and
post-crash technologies. Safety technologies to provide
advanced warnings or intervene can potentially prevent a crash
due to human factors.
Crashworthiness. While car technology is making cars safer,
NCAP should modernize to reflect post-crash engineering
advancements in reducing fatalities and the severity of
injuries.
Pedestrian protection. In 2018, 7,680 pedestrians were
killed, and pedestrian fatalities are increasing while motor
vehicle crash fatalities are decreasing.\53\ Advances in
technology and vehicle design changes can save lives of these
vulnerable road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/
pedestrians/
It is important to note that ADAS features should not be limited to
passenger motor vehicles. NSC fully supports the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) long-standing recommendations that
advanced technology on commercial vehicles can prevent or mitigate
crashes. Large trucks account for 4 percent of all registered vehicles,
but are overrepresented in fatal crashes, involved in 9 percent of
these crashes. ADAS features on these vehicles will save lives, and the
Senate should require rulemaking to this end.
5.9 GHz Safety Spectrum
When it comes to technology, the U.S. prioritized safety years ago
by dedicating the 5.9 GHz spectrum band for intelligent transportation
systems. Commonly referred to as V2X technologies, these systems allow
vehicles to communicate with other vehicles, infrastructure, and
bicycle and pedestrian road users to avoid crashes and enhance safety.
NHTSA predicts that the safety applications enabled by V2X technologies
could eliminate or mitigate the severity of up to 80 percent of non-
impaired crashes.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ https://one.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Press-Releases/
ci.nhtsa_v2v_proposed_rule_12132016
.print
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, since 2013, the FCC has been threatening to
repurpose spectrum away from these cutting-edge transportation safety
technologies and has now released a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to reduce the spectrum that is available to V2X
technologies.\55\ The FCC proposal rule would reallocate the majority
of the 5.9 GHz band away from transportation safety. This would be a
grave mistake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ In the Matter of Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket
No. 19-138, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 19-129 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC believes that all of the 5.9 GHz safety spectrum should be
reserved for transportation safety purposes, which is why, on June 23,
we joined more than 40 other organizations on a letter \56\ to Chairman
Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell requesting the FCC reconsider the
approach in the NPRM that reallocates spectrum within the 5.9 GHz band
for unlicensed uses. Use of your authority at this critical juncture
could save thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of
dollars each year. We implore you to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ https://itsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/V2X-Stakeholder-
Letter-to-CST.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prioritize Safety
By prioritizing safety, we commit to changing our Nation's safety
culture. This means we have to accept that any life lost is one too
many. Once we accept that one death is too many, we will begin thinking
about how to take a ``safe systems'' approach to our roadways. Fully
adopted by other modes of transportation, this means building fail-safe
features that anticipate human error and developing infrastructure with
safety margins.
With the understanding that people will make mistakes, the built
environment or infrastructure can be more forgiving to eliminate
fatalities. Some of these changes may include engineering greater
safety into a design. For example, in the pictures below, a multi-lane
intersection with a red light in Scottsdale, Arizona was replaced with
a roundabout. With the intersection, there are 32 potential points of
failure, but with a roundabout, that is engineered down to only 8.\57\
Speeds are decreased, and if crashes do occur, they occur at angles
that are not as violent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/
roundabouts/presentations/safety_
/long.cfm
Successful infrastructure redesign can also look like the picture
below from New York City. The picture on the left shows two roads
merging together without an area for pedestrians, and the lane lines
are non-existent. However, the reworked merge incorporates clearly
marked lanes of travel, large sidewalks and areas of less exposure to
vehicles for pedestrians.
These infrastructure changes are just as important in rural areas.
Rumble strips on the center line or edge of roadways can prevent the
roadway departure crashes that account for 52 percent of fatalities in
the U.S.\58\ Cable median barriers can also provide a margin of safety
to redirect people in to their lane of travel, and high friction
surface treatments can decrease vehicle stopping distance on roadways.
These are all tools we have available today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure changes can be expensive, but they do not have to
be. Through the Road to Zero Coalition, NSC has awarded millions in
grants to groups across the country working in communities of all
sizes. In the first year of grants, the National Complete Streets
Coalition, worked with three communities: Lexington, KY, Orlando, FL,
and South Bend, IN. Each city was provided only $8,000 dollars from the
grant for temporary infrastructure changes, and each city had
measurable improvements to safety even with a small dollar investment.
Allowing for flexibility to implement local safety measures is key
to reflect the local priorities. NSC encourages this committee to
explore options for cities, counties, and metropolitan planning
organizations to prioritize safety for their citizens. This may allow
for lowering speed limits, instituting automated enforcement,
collecting data, accessing safety funds, and other items.
The biggest and hardest change is the shift to truly prioritize
safety by changing safety culture on the roads. We are complacent when
it comes to losing so many people each and every day on our roads. That
must change. We need strong and passionate leaders committed to doing
so. And I can think of none better than the members of this Committee
and Subcommittee using the reauthorization as the vehicle to accomplish
it. We have changed safety culture in workplaces, around child
passenger safety and in other areas. We can do it here too, with your
help. NSC looks forward to working with this Committee to fully develop
these provisions.
Conclusion
You have an opportunity in front of you to prioritize safety, and
the National Safety Council is committed to working with you to reach
zero fatalities on our roadways. I hope you will join me in saying
enough is enough and start down the Road to Zero. It is not impossible.
It just hasn't been done yet.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Ms. Terry. Next, I would ask
the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Wicker, if you
would have an opening statement for us?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Yes. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman, and
I want to thank Senators Fisher and Duckworth for their
leadership in holding this important hearing. I am a little
surprised and disappointed though that this hearing about
highway traffic safety would be used as an occasion for a
partisan speech criticizing the President of the United States
on his response to the COVID-19 crisis.
To me, that has little to do with the subject matter today.
I would observe in fairness that what we have experienced over
the last five to six months is a worldwide crisis that has
affected every continent and most countries, a pandemic the
likes of which we have never seen and as I recall, the
President of the United States was early to act in stopping
flights from the country of origin of this virus. And he did
that in the face of a good deal of criticism from a number of
angles. I recall daily briefings by the President of the United
States with some of the leading practitioners and scientists in
the country dealing with this and I recall President Trump
putting the entire weight of his administration behind an
effort to combat this.
And also, the Congress, this House working hand-in-hand
together on a bipartisan basis for phases 1, 2 and 3 of our
COVID-19 virus response. And phase 3, of course, being the
unprecedented CARES Act which has done so much to prevent
widespread economic depression in this country. So I didn't
intend to get involved in that but I just have to regret that
in so many occasions when we really should be sticking to the
subject, the Presidential election has encroached upon a
hearing dealing with other subject matter.
And there are indeed far too many Americans who die every
year on the roads.
My information is 2018 more than 36,000 people were killed
in motor vehicle crashes. This includes more than 600 in my
home state of Mississippi. That is too many and there are
things this Committee and this Senate are about which are
designed to address this. NHTSA has found that more than 90
percent of such fatalities are attributable to human error.
These figures demonstrate that the Federal Government and
states need to work together to reduce reckless and impaired
driving even as technology and automated systems make cars
safer.
Captain Peterson mentioned that in his capacity he has
noticed a drop off in DUIs, but that distracted driving is more
of a factor for his part. And I would observe that that
smartphone that almost all of us carry around can be just about
as addictive and lethal as alcohol addiction. I would hope that
we could also have some testimony in addition to about DUIs and
distracted driving, about combating drug impaired driving,
which is something we are not accustomed to testing for as we
have been over the decades with regard to alcohol impaired
driving.
The CARES Act did provide for flexibility to states on the
use of NHTSA grants and it is increasingly important that we
continue providing that flexibility for unique highway safety
challenges. Transportation safety issues have been and will
continue to be a focus of this committee. I have previously
introduced legislation to improve NHTSA highway safety programs
by increasing research to assist law enforcement in detecting
marijuana and opioid impaired driving.
With the upcoming expiration of the FAST Act, this
committee has an opportunity to review additional reforms in
highway safety and consider how the COVID-19 pandemic affects
our transportation needs in the future. I will attend a--just
in closing, I want to mention to members of the Committee that
I will attend an event tomorrow addressing, once again, the
issue of hot cars and hot car deaths. It is something that I
introduced legislation about some years and months ago.
There were 52 hot car deaths in 2019, a record 53 in 2018,
and of course, we have already started seeing that again this
year although the first day of summer is only a week behind us.
So I appreciate the automobile industry agreeing to adopt
voluntarily the guidelines which would have been imposed by my
legislation and perhaps our panel will want to discuss
heatstroke awareness and suggestions about how we can avoid
this avoidable tragedy for our children. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
begin the Committee's questioning by asking Captain Peterson in
Nebraska a question. Captain, in your testimony you talked
about the rising threat of distracted driving because of cell
phone and electronic device use.
Can you talk a little bit more about what you are seeing
with that issue in Lincoln, and are you noticing more
distracted driving violations and seeing accidents that are the
result of that distracted driving? And if so, what is causing
this increase that we are seeing?
Mr. Peterson. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. We believe that there
has been an increase. However, it is very difficult to record
distracted driving even at the scene of an accident simply
because if people are using a cell phone and it is questions
that we are asking to document on an accident report about what
they were distracted by, whether it is a cell phone or other
devices, the answer will not be 100 percent every time and some
would be reluctant to share that information with me or on a
state accident report that they complete and send themselves to
the state.
But we believe that there is an increase. We do believe
that, as Senator Wicker pointed out, that it has to do with the
personal electronic device or cellphone that most everyone has
on their person almost at all times and that we are simply
distracted with that additional communication and ability to
get information at the tips of your fingers. The citations that
we are able to write within the State of Nebraska and the City
of Lincoln is a secondary offense.
So I am not able to simply stop someone or one of our
officers isn't able to stop someone simply because they see a
device being used unless it is causing another related traffic
issue such as striking the curb or crossing the center line,
for example. So I believe that those numbers are increasing,
they are just very difficult to measure, Senator.
Senator Fischer. In my opening statement, I spoke about
traffic is down about 35 percent because of the pandemic is
being one factor in that. Also, Captain Peterson, during that
time between March and April of this year, the State patrol
reported 100 citation Statewide for speeding over 100 miles per
hour compared to 61 in the same time in 2019.
What have you noticed at the local level on that? Are you
seeing changes in traffic safety that are related to those
lower traffic volumes that may be caused by the pandemic, and
what do you see with that? Is it speeding? Is it other types of
safety concerns?
Mr. Peterson. Yes, we are, Senator. In fact, the Lincoln
traffic count is a directed measure that we were tracking
during the pandemic and we can count week by week and month to
month the traffic decrease averages per month. And we have
noticed decreases that range from 27--pardon me, the overall
average decrease is 37, nearly 38 percent, and our traffic
count has steadily decreased as the pandemic increased, excuse
me, and it does appear to be on the rise.
Some anecdotal information from officers working traffic on
the streets during these timeframes suggested that because
there were fewer motorists, it did not simply correlate with
the number of accidents or speed in general type violations.
They appear to have more open street way or roadway, and a
greater speed can be attained with less traffic on the streets.
So the accidents were a little bit more severe even if the
total numbers were down slightly and the speed was much
greater.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Saunders, you spoke in a
lot of detail about the 405 grants and the programs. And I
appreciate the depth that you went into some of the
improvements that are needed. I know Ms. Terry, you spoke about
that in your testimony as well. You wrote about that in your
testimony.
I am short on time, but I am going to take my prerogative
as Subcommittee Chairman here and ask you to begin, Ms. Terry,
if you could elaborate on some of the issues you have with
NHTSA being transparent on those grant decisions that they
make, whether they grant it or they don't grant it for the 405
program. And then Mr. Saunders, if you can give us a short
example since you went in such depth on the 405 program before,
and I appreciated all of your recommendations. So Ms. Terry, if
you would like to address that?
Ms. Terry. Yes, thank you, Senator. We do think that NHTSA
needs more transparency around the decisions that they make
because there is not enough information right now that is going
back to the states. States that are doing their best in trying
to enact some strong safety laws, and NHTSA should provide
information to help guide them on what changes they need to
make. Accompanying that, we would support also a greater
authorization for NHTSA to get the resources it needs to
provide that customer service.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. And, Mr. Saunders. You are
looking at all sorts of examples, I know.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Saunders. No, only a few comments.
Senator Fischer. Good.
Mr. Saunders. The 405 program, I think, once seemed very
helpful to dedicate funding to very specific priority areas.
This bifurcation of programs has ultimately hurt more than it
helps as its programs are subdivided further and further. There
is only one pie and the slices gets smaller and smaller so
states receive less money and face more complicated application
and program rules. For each grant, states must provide separate
qualification information and provide detailed accounts of
State laws and programs.
We are seeing states disqualified from grants on technical
reasons that have minimal impact on the effectiveness of State
laws. It results in states not being awarded funds and we want
to prevent that from happening in the future. I don't have any
specific cases I can talk to you about, but I think just the
overall in general, the purpose of these incentive grants
oftentimes take a long time to prompt a State to take action
towards achieving our highway safety goals.
So it might take years to change the State law. Meanwhile,
the funds are not being used by the states to address the
priorities which have been identified. So that seems to be what
we are seeing across many states.
Senator Fischer. Thank you very much. Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Ms. Terry, I appreciate the
National Safety Council support of my bill, the School Bus
Safety Act. Your support is consistent with your testimony that
based on NHTSA data, seatbelts save lives and reduce serious
injuries by half.
Seatbelts save lives should not be a controversial
statement yet when it comes to loading children on large school
buses, all of a sudden there seems to be a great influx of
confusion, cost-benefit analysis, and bizarre analogies that
propose we treat children like eggs in a carton, which I have
to say, if anyone ever dropped a carton of eggs and had to roll
over on impact, I am not certain that industry talking point is
as comforting as its authors intended.
So just to clarify for the record, Ms. Terry, does the
statement seatbelts save lives apply to a passenger in a car
and to a passenger in a big yellow bus?
Ms. Terry. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Five years ago, NHTSA's then
Administrator admitted that the agency has not always spoken
with a clear voice on the issue of seatbelts on school buses.
Ms. Terry, do you believe that former Administrator Rosekind's
critique of his agency was accurate? And if yes, could you
assess whether NHTSA has made progress on this front over the
past 5 years?
Ms. Terry. Yes, NHTSA was moving in the right direction,
under Administrator Rosekind, to really highlight the need for
belts on buses. I think since Administrator Rosekind has left,
that discussion has stopped.
There is the cost benefit analysis that NHTSA will point to
as why they do not want to require seatbelts on buses. But
luckily some cities and states are moving forward regardless of
that and purchasing buses with seatbelts because they do know
that at the end of the day the safest way for a person to ride
in any vehicle is belted.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Administrator Rosekind also
stated back in 2015 that in NHTSA's policies, that every child
on every school bus should have a three-point seatbelt. This
may be one of the rare instances when NHTSA proactively took
the lead on safety and even outpaced the National
Transportation Safety Board's recommendations.
Of course, we all know a first half lead can evaporate
before the final whistle blows, and today all the regular
players seem back in their comfortable positions with NTSB now
pushing for safety upgrades that my bill would require,
industry pushing back and focusing 100 percent of energy on why
it cannot be done, and NHTSA once again fading into the
background, a seemingly bystander in this very important
debate. NHTSA could change that by supporting my bill and once
again speaking with a clear voice on this issue. I would like
to also address this issue of racial profiling and traffic
stops.
Our Nation is in the middle of a long overdue conversation
on police reform. The horrific video of the Minneapolis Police
Officer using his knee in the back of George Floyd's neck to
hold him face down on concrete for 8 minutes and 46 seconds
until Mr. Floyd lost consciousness and was killed is absolutely
heartbreaking.
Of course, we know it was not an isolated incident of
police brutality and excessive use of force. In 2016, another
black American by the name of Philando Castillo was fatally
shot during a traffic stop. Does anyone on this panel know how
many times police had stopped Mr. Castillo while driving before
the fatal 2016 encounter? No one wants to take a guess?
[No response.]
Senator Duckworth. Well, based on court records the answer
is 46 times. Forty-six incidents of Mr. Castillo driving and
then being stopped by law enforcement. Finally, of these 46
traffic stops, does anyone want to guess how many stops were
for violations at a police officer could observe from outside
the car such as speeding or broken muffler?
[No response.]
Senator Duckworth. The answer is 6. Only 6 out of the 46
stops were for visible violations like speeding. Look, if we
are going to have an honest conversation, we need to
acknowledge that when Americans are on the road, black drivers
are effectively deprived equal protection under the law. Ms.
Terry, is there any credible evidence that racial profiling
makes our roads safer?
Ms. Terry. I have seen no data to support that racial
profiling makes our roads safer.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Captain Peterson, Mr.
Saunders, would either of you like to respond as well?
Mr. Saunders. I have seen no evidence to that fact, ma'am.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, ma'am. I don't see any evidence of that
either.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. So my question for the panel
is, how would you recommend Congress help improve transparency
and accountability to achieve a just enforcement of traffic
laws? You can submit that for the record later. Thank you.
Madam Chairwoman, I do have one final question. I think I might
run out of time for that. Thank you. Move over laws. Move over
laws are suppose to protect emergency responders, workers, and
others who are stopped on the side of the road by requiring
motorists to shift lanes or slow down.
However, states continue to report numerous incidents of
drivers failing to move over and crashing into emergency
responders and others. One of my priorities is working to
reduce and eliminate law enforcement fatalities from roadside
accidents. Last year, Chairwoman Fischer and I asked a
Government Accountability Office to review State level ``move
over'' laws.
Additionally, Senator Durbin and I introduced the
Protecting Roadside First Responders Act to promote the
development and use of safety technologies that reduce accident
risk for those who need to stop along busy highways. Captain
Peterson, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers
Memorial Fund, 122 law enforcement officers have been killed in
traffic related deaths along U.S. roadways over the past 10
years.
In Illinois, we faced such a tragedy in 2019 when two
officers were sadly killed after being struck by vehicles that
failed to move over as they conducted routine traffic stops.
Captain Peterson, do you think more can be done to help
increase awareness and compliance with move over laws,
including actions at the Federal level to help prevent these
tragedies? You are on mute, Captain. There you go.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I believe that the
education and awareness, while it may seem relatively simple,
does have some positive results. And while we have not had
similar law enforcement deaths in Lincoln, we certainly have
for maintenance and construction workers and is equally as
devastating. And while we have had local efforts at education
and awareness, I believe that at a State and a Federal level
that that will have a positive influence.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Would any of the other
witnesses want to add anything on how you think we might be
able to reduce the number of First Responders killed in
roadside accidents?
Ms. Terry. Yes. Senator Duckworth, thank you for your
leadership and Chair Fischer also on this issue. Technology is
also one of those things that can really help prevent crashes
involving roadside responders and workers, and technology that
can alert drivers if they are coming up to an emergency scene
or a roadside worker can save lives.
What we found, unfortunately, in the National Safety
Council is that oftentimes when people approach an emergency
situation on the side of the road, they pull out their camera
instead of paying more attention to what is actually happening
and avoiding it. They film it and then upload it online. So
there is a lot more that we can do and I think in-vehicle
technology can help us go a long way in that regard.
Mr. Saunders. Thank you, Senator. I would agree with that
also--but I think also we have to do what we can do to minimize
the time that our officers and our first responders are on the
side of the road, such as by introducing electronic citations
and similar tools that can really cut the amount of time,
especially for police officers, to be on the road to write a
citation.
Another issue is clearing traffic at emergency scenes in a
more efficient manner and also conducting traffic incident
management to better prepare first responders in how we can get
people and vehicles off of the roadsides as quickly and safely
as possible.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Next, I
believe we have Senator Capito online. Senator?
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Madam Chair, and thank you Ranking Member
Duckworth for having the hearing and thank all of you for
coming today. I am going to go right to drunk driving. Drunk
driving remains a major concern in the United States. In 2018,
nearly 20 percent of traffic fatalities were caused by alcohol
impaired driving.
Since 2008, ACTS and NHTSA, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, have been collaborating on research and
development on driver alcohol detection systems for safety
called DADSS program. Since its inception, DADSS has made
significant progress toward developing in-vehicle technologies
that could reduce or eliminate alcohol impaired crashes. I
believe this technology holds great promise. I have worked with
several of the other members of this committee on that and
could have a significant impact on the number of drunk driving
fatalities we experience each year.
My colleagues and I are having ongoing conversations about
this program. Mr. Saunders, as you noted, Virginia was the
first state to partner with DADSS in implementing the Driven to
Protect Pilot program. How has that pilot been implemented in
Virginia? And as the pilot program been successful in educating
the public about the benefits of this technology? What have you
discovered?
Mr. Saunders. Thank you, Senator, for the question. We have
been the leaders of supporting the DADSS program in partnership
with NHTSA and also with the State of Maryland who was also on
board with us in this program. We in Virginia have had a
wonderful experience. The DADSS program has been very
progressive. The mission of the Driver Acohol Detection System
for Safety, which is the DADSS program, is to develop--of
course as all of you know in the Subcommittee--a kind of
alcohol detection technology that can passively detect when the
driver is impaired with blood alcohol content (BAC) above that
legal limit of 0.08.
Since the DADSS program was founded, it has grown from its
oldest conceptual iteration on the dinner napkin into a viable
suite of alcohol detection technologies that has significant
potential for saving lives on and off the road. Among other
things, the program is developing two viable technology
approaches, a breath-based technology and a touch-based
technology, that are on track to becoming effective, consumer-
friendly safety options.
Also, they are inventing devices and developing procedures
to test these prototypes to ensure that they are providing
consistent accurate and precise BAC readings. We really cannot
have any room for false positives in this process. Building
partnerships with the OEMs and the Tier 1 automotive suppliers,
they have also ensured the technology can be manufactured at
the automotive production scale and at a cost to ensure that it
is a viable consumer safety option. The word is getting out as
we work to take vehicles equipped with this system out to the
public to let them touch it, see it, see how it works, and get
an understanding of what DADSS is all about.
So, I believe what we are doing in Virginia is to take the
first steps as this technology comes about. I was looking at
the program just as we are now looking forward to where are we
going. As we look to 2021, hopefully, we will be able to market
this to some fleets as accessories. We are currently working
with James River Transportation in Richmond area and we have
some of their--many of their vehicles equipped with this
technology as a pilot project.
In 2024, we hope to be see new vehicle safety options, and
hopefully by 2025, we will have this ready for it to be placed
in all new vehicles.
So we are on track in Virginia. It is a very progressive
program. With the COVID-19, we have slowed it down a little
bit. A lot of the outreach that we planned on doing, we have
had to reschedule, but as far as where we are going to, I think
we are on a clear path.
Senator Capito. Well, that sounds really, really good.
Encouraging. I would encourage you to speed up, because
obviously I think it will save lives in the end. And as I have
stated, the drunk driving statistics still remain high. I am
going to ask a really quick question, because I am curious.
Despite the decreased highway traffic due to stay at home
orders, and I know Senator Fischer asked a similar question,
preliminary estimates from the National Safety Council estimate
that the U.S. year over year has 14 percent jump in fatality
rates for miles driven in March, which is sort of remarkable
since we are all staying home. Ms. Terry, can you answer that
question? What are the causes for this?
Ms. Terry. Thank you for that question, Senator Capito. And
actually, West Virginia, in both March and April has had
increase in their fatality rates year over year from last year.
We don't quite know yet what the cause is. We don't have that
level of detail in the data. But anecdotally, we know that
speed is a problem.
And, some of the persistent issues that we are talking
about today, not wearing a seatbelt, being distracted, and
being impaired behind the wheel are also likely at fault. One
other thing that we have also probably all seen during the
pandemic is the increase in pedestrians and cyclists on the
roadways. We know that sometimes when vehicles and pedestrians
are in the same area, fatalities can result. Data on pedestrian
and cyclist fatalities is something to monitor as well.
Senator Capito. OK. Thank you. Good answer. Thank you all
so much. Appreciate it.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Capito. Next, we have
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you so much, Chairman Fischer and
Ranking Member Duckworth. You know, I have been in the fight in
drunk driving for a long time since the 1990s when I was
Attorney General in New Mexico and my state had one of the
highest DWI rates in the Nation. We have come a long way since
then. We are now on the verge of having technology to stop
drunk drivers from turning on the ignition in the first place,
on the verge of preventing thousands of deaths.
Mr. Saunders, in your testimony, you discussed DADSS and
your state's pilot program implementing alcohol detection
technology. DADSS was first created in 2008. I have been
working to make sure the program remains authorized and funded.
After 12 years, I am glad to see the technology in cars,
but I am concerned by ongoing challenges to implementing new
technologies and expanding a pilot. What will it take to get
drunk driving prevention technology into cars in every state?
Mr. Saunders. Again, Senator, thank you so much for your
question regarding DADSS. Again, I think we must take the
opportunity to be sure that we are doing all of the testing and
all of the work that we need to do to prepare this equipment to
ensure that we have a device that we feel is ``foolproof.''
Once we can get to that level, and, of course, that takes
funding for us to get to that level, I think to be able to sell
it and to be able to get it for our manufacturers. I think
there will be an outcry from the public to have such equipment
the same way that there is for the other types of safety
options that we are talking about in vehicles right now.
Especially for those parents who may have a teenager: they can
have a device like this in a vehicle that is an option that
they can use and have available.
So I just think that we have to continue to work our plan.
I think we have to continue to educate the public, to make them
aware of what we are doing, and to get them comfortable with
what we are doing with this technology. And also, I believe, if
we can do that, I believe that politically, the political
climate will also allow us to be able to move it to every
state.
Senator Udall. Right. Thank you for that answer. Now is the
time to finally make sure new vehicles are equipped with
technology to stop drunk driving before it starts. Requiring
drunk driving prevention systems is no different than requiring
airbags, technology that we have all come to accept, in fact,
demand that saves tens of thousands of lives. Tragic losses,
the 10,000 Americans killed every year from drunk driving can
be stopped. Senator Scott and I have proposed legislation to
reduce impaired driving for everyone, the RIDE Act, which could
save 10,000 lives a year by requiring technology in all
vehicles to prevent drunk driving, the leading cause of highway
deaths.
The rulemaking we are proposing in our bill would likely be
the most significant life saving measure ever implemented by
NHTSA. Ms. Terry, I want to thank you and the National Safety
Council for your support of the RIDE Act. In your testimony,
you mentioned similar legislation in the House. Is this the
right approach and should this committee consider and pass a
bill that requires car manufacturers develop and deploy a
technology standard to end drunk driving?
Ms. Terry. Senator, as you stated, NSC is supporting the
RIDE Act. We do believe that passive alcohol detection
technology that doesn't even allow a car to start, if somebody
is behind the wheel and they have had too much to drink, can
save lives and prevent some of the 10,000 deaths that we see
each and every year on our roads due to alcohol impaired
driving. Having a mandate for that to be installed in vehicles
is absolutely the right way to go to save lives.
Senator Udall. Thank you and thank you, Madam Chair, very
much. Appreciate the hearing.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Udall. Next, we have
Senator Scott.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SCOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Scott. Hi, I want to thank you. Thank you for the
opportunity. First up, I want to I want to compliment you,
Senator Udall and Senator Capito. And I know others before me
have put a lot of effort into stopping drunk driving, but I
know they have been--those two have actually been leaders in
trying to make sure that these are preventable deaths, that
that they don't happen.
I want to thank Senator Udall for cosponsoring the RIDE
Act. And it basically--it is finally going to get to the point
where we say you have to do this. And so what is--do you
think--do you all think it is realistic that we can implement
alcohol detection systems, passive alcohol detection systems
within the next 4 years on new passenger cars?
Mr. Saunders. Senator, thank you so much. We do. Again, and
I am looking at the--the current schedule in front of me right
now that would have us on a track to be able to do that. It
looks to me to be a new vehicle safety option in 2025.
So that would put us right at that four to five year point
to be able to have that technology where we believe it will be
at the level that we could have it in all new vehicles.
Senator Scott. But do you believe it is doable? Do you
believe that, just to make sure it is going to happen, that we
ought to have a very specific date that is mandated by law?
Mr. Saunders. I have a saying that I say we move at the
speed of success. I would go back to what I mentioned earlier.
It is very critical to ensure that there cannot be any false
positives. And I think that takes a lot of testing, whether it
be climatic testing, getting it in cars and all type of weather
situations, all kinds of climates that takes a little time and
tweaking.
I would not--I would have to maybe get back with you on a
final. I would think that we want to give that a lot of thought
before we would mandate a date, because in the end, we have
come so far, we have come so far that we would be right at the
precipice of being able to move forward in a successful manner
that I would not want to waste all of the work that we have
done to get us to that point.
So I will get with the Board of Governors Highway Safety
Association and we will give you a response back to that.
Senator Scott. So I think what you are saying is--I think,
you know, you are saying the right thing because you want to
have success and you want to do something that is going to
implement our ability to have success. But I think all of us
who, you know, think about our lives and the more we have
deadlines, we move faster and, you know, good things happen.
Right. So do you think it makes sense? And whether the
deadlines, 4 years, 5 years, 6 years or 7 years--I mean, do you
think there is a value of having a deadline saying we are going
to do it by this date?
Mr. Saunders. Senator, again, I sure agree with you. I
think when we have a deadline, it sure gives us a target goal
to be set. Here again, I do not want to go on record speaking
for the organization on a mandated date.
We could quite possibly be talking about an area where
DADSS could come back and give us a written estimated
completion date. Again, I have DADSS materials here in front of
me. We could surely get that back to the Committee for their
review. And maybe we could start from there.
Senator Scott. Do you think there is any limitations that
we can get something done in the next four or five years? Is
there any--do you see any hindrance that we will be able to get
this done? And do you think there is enough commitment by the
private sector to get this done?
Mr. Saunders. I do believe there is enough commitment by
the private sector and also by the individuals who are working
on this DADSS project. They are totally committed to it. They
have been moving forward at a wonderful speed and really not
that heavily funded. But they are getting it done. And I do
believe that we will meet that date of 2025, if not before.
Senator Scott. Alright. One more thing. I want to thank
each of you for what you are doing to try to keep people safe.
So thank you. Thank you very much. Again, I want to thank
Senator Udall and Senator Capito for all their commitment to
stop drunk driving.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Scott. Next, we have
Senator Peters.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Chairman Fischer and Ranking
Member Duckworth, for convening this meeting and to our
witnesses here today, thank you for your testimony. Mr.
Saunders, in your testimony, you make several recommendations
to Congress to expand the permissible uses by states for 402
highway safety grants. And I would like to follow up on one in
particular, if I may.
And that is the need for increased public education and
understanding and safety using some of the new safety
technologies that are being put onboard in automobiles. You
know, I think many folks assume that some of these safety
technologies can do more than they can and may not be as
focused as they should in driving, for example. So if you could
talk to me a little bit about some of the challenges that you
have observed in your work as drivers interact with what are
becoming increasingly automated systems within their
automobiles.
Mr. Saunders. Thank you, Senator. Senator Peters, I can say
from that standpoint that there is a real need for education of
the public on these devices and safety devices that we are
seeing in the vehicles. One of the things we see is that there
is a confusion sometimes by the lack of standardization of how
to identify products and what to calling them.
One manufacturer may call it one thing and then another
manufacturer will have another title for that. So this issue of
being able to educate the public on the technology and ensuring
that they understand the technology when they buy the vehicle--
I have one of those vehicles and I can tell you that there are
times that it beeps and I have no idea why it is beeping. So
there is a need for us to educate the public on that technology
at point of sale, I believe.
And by doing that, getting that consistency across, I
believe that it saves lives. Blind spot detection, the braking
systems, the new headlights that give you a much better view.
All of these things, the technologies that I think do save
lives and will continue to save lives. But there is a need, I
believe, for better education of the public regarding these
devices and how they work.
Senator Peters. Right. Well, I appreciate that. You are
right. Absolutely. These are transformative technologies that
will save thousands of lives. But folks have to know how to
interact with that technology in an appropriate way and we have
to work on that.
Ms. Terry, your testimony notes that the potential safety
benefits of autonomous vehicles could be incredible, which we
were just talking about now. And you seem to concur with that.
But as we sit here today, automakers, technology firms and
others are developing these partially and fully automated
systems, but not necessarily a full regulatory framework or
legislative framework.
So my question to you is, what recommendations do you have
for Congress in considering legislation to guide the safe
development of automated technologies?
Ms. Terry. Thank you for that question, Senator Peters.
There are some good provisions that were talked about in last
Congress, like the reporting requirements, the safety
evaluation reports, for example. Reporting to NHTSA on
information on testing that is being conducted and the types of
vehicles involved in testing. The consumer education point that
you brought up is very important for adoption and appropriate
use of the technologies as well.
Incorporating these provisions into some type of
legislation is important. Also, greater transparency with the
jurisdictions in which the vehicles are operating, the states
and cities and with the law enforcement, so that they know that
these types of vehicles and tests are occurring in thoir areas.
These are some very good provisions from bills that were
debated in both the Senate and the House last year. And I am
happy to talk with you more about some of those.
Senator Peters. Well, I am the author of one of those bills
so I look forward to continuing to work with you on some of
those ideas. So that relates to my last question here is, what
risk do you see in continuing to regulate autonomous vehicle
development through ad hoc and NHTSA waiver issuance? I believe
there is some risk there. What would be your assessment of
that?
Ms. Terry. I think the waiver process that NHTSA has allows
for greater public awareness and participation in that, and
that is a good thing. And I think the technology--a lot of this
technology is operating on the roads today and having,
increasing awareness of it, increasing public education about
it, making sure that you know how a vehicle may operate that is
operating around you is very important.
Having that awareness and reporting standards that some of
those waivers require is key to helping bring the rest of the
public along and helping hopefully prevent crashes that could
occur around some of these vehicles.
Senator Peters. Would you agree that we need a more
comprehensive framework to deal with this?
Ms. Terry. I think it probably would be a lot easier to
look at it more holistically.
Senator Peters. Right. Thank you so much.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Peters. We are waiting
for Senator Blumenthal to come back. So I am going to ask a
question until he gets here. I would like to ask Captain
Peterson, in your testimony, you mentioned different types of
infrastructure that may result in fewer injury accidents. For
example, the roundabouts that are in Lincoln, the Lincoln South
Beltway that could also improve traffic safety. And why do you
think that these improvements in road infrastructure could
contribute to improved traffic safety?
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Senator. The roundabouts in
particular we have experienced directly in Lincoln. There has
been a number of them each year over the past five to seven
years. And what we have found is that they reduce the
likelihood of right angle type accidents. While it may not
completely reduce or eliminate the accidents, it reduces the
severity. Still going to be some property damage accidents.
And in some of our more highly traveled intersections, the
speed has been reduced and the likelihood of a fatality is
less. So as we examine as a community the types of
intersections that would be helpful as we either establish a
new street or intersection or repair an older one, if the
possibility exists, it is given some serious consideration. And
then, of course, the South Beltway study has been taking place
for quite some time.
And as it relates to the Lincoln Police Department, the
amount of truck traffic through the city on Nebraska Highway 2
is, of course, something that causes wear and requires
maintenance on the city streets related to Highway 2. And then,
of course, with all of the intersections and traffic control
devices, there are related traffic accidents with that.
And we believe that based on the studies, the likelihood of
decreasing those numbers of accidents and the severity of the
accidents could be decreased if the traffic was allowed to
bypass the city center.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. And Ms. Terry, you also talked
about how infrastructure could improve safety. Do you have any
points on that that you would like to add?
Ms. Terry. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. In my full statement,
there are some great pictures that really show the change of
how clearly marking lanes, adding roundabouts, for example,
marking where pedestrians should be and cyclists should be, can
really help de-conflict problems where they could occur
otherwise.
Safe systems approach where you are looking at the entire
system, taking into account that we make mistakes as people,
and that just because we make a mistake in a vehicle or on a
bicycle or as a pedestrian shouldn't mean that the price for
those is death or serious injury. We must address how we change
our built infrastructure to allow that everybody who is using
it can be mobile safely.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Senator Duckworth, do you have
any further questions with the panelists?
[No response.]
Senator Fischer. I will ask one more while we continue to
wait for Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Terry, you spoke about de-
conflicting, and when we look at pedestrian fatalities here in
the United States, there are too many and they continue to
increase. What are some of the factors that contribute to these
higher rates, we are seeing in pedestrian fatalities? Are they,
as you just said, related to poor markings or are they related,
of course, to distracted driving? Maybe something else that
would play into that that we're not aware of. What would some
of that be?
Ms. Terry. Yes, ma'am, it is a variety of different issues,
and we can provide a more robust description of some data
points to you. But a lot of them occur at night. So conspicuity
and just being seen and having appropriate lighting where
pedestrians are going to be is definitely a safety concern.
Impairment for both drivers and pedestrians is a concern as
well. And having clear areas where cars and pedestrians can
each operate safely is of course a key factor.
Senator Fischer. And I have noticed here in Washington the
increase in pedestrian traffic, the increase in bikes. A lot of
times I notice bikes, they slow down a little bit at a red
light, and if nobody is coming, they go on through. How are we
going to make sure that we can all follow the rules of the road
and make sure that we have a safer atmosphere for all the users
on our roads?
Ms. Terry. There is definitely responsibility for cyclists,
pedestrians, and vehicle drivers, everybody to make sure that
they know what the rules of the road are and that they are
following them and stopping at red lights, for example, staying
in the crosswalk. Following those rules are important and key.
If you are driving a car and you see the crosswalk, you know,
it is a signal that there may be pedestrians present or it
could be cyclists who are present.
And you become more aware as a driver. Making sure that
people are using crosswalks and that they are there to use and
incoporated into city planning is really going to be key to
reducing some of these numbers of the fatalities.
Senator Fischer. Thank you very much. Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Madam Chair, and thank you for
having this hearing. Thanks to you and the Ranking Member. And
thanks to our witnesses, advocates of safety and health,
particularly for our children. As Chairman Wicker noted, over
the past two years, 2018, 2019, about 100, more than 100
children passed away in hot cars. A totally preventable form of
death. Tragic. As we all know, many of us from personal
experience, a number of those deaths have occurred in
Connecticut.
And I want to read a couple of lines from a letter that I
received on Monday, June 29, from 81 parents of children who
have passed away from vehicular heatstroke. It reads in part,
``unfortunately, educational efforts over the last 20 years
have not been effective. While public awareness of the issue is
at an all-time high, so is the number of children dying. The
last two years, 2018, 2019 were the worst years in history for
children dying in hot cars with over 100 little lives lost.
These children do not have to die. Families who do not have
to live with the unbearable pain that we feel every day.'' I
have helped to lead an effort to the Hot Cars Act. I think it
is past overdue and I would like to know from the panelists, do
you support the Hot Cars Act? Mr. Saunders?
Mr. Saunders. The Governors Highway Safety Association does
support the Act. This is just a tragic, tragic thing. When we
hear the stories, they touch you at a different level because
the victims are children. And we all know that even one
fatality is too many fatalities when we are talking about
highway safety, but when it is a child and it is so
unnecessary--it touches us at a much deeper level. So we
support that.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Ms. Terry?
Ms. Terry. We support the Hot Cars Act.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Mr. Peterson? I hope that
was a yes. I couldn't hear it.
Senator Fischer. You are on mute, sir. Captain Peterson, if
you would unmute please.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, sir, we support the Act.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. A number of my colleagues
have raised the issue of racial profiling and driving while
black. I want to call attention to a study that was done in
Connecticut on racial profiling. Over the past few weeks, I
have walked in more than 15 demonstrations around Connecticut
that have called attention to issues of discrimination and
inequity and racism.
I'm proud of the fact that a groundbreaking project in
Connecticut, Connecticut's Racial Profiling Prohibition
Project, has been made to establish a system for police
agencies to report their data electronically through criminal
justice information systems. It has led to an increase in
electronically recorded stops from 76 percent in 2013 to 95
percent last year. It has been led by students and faculty at
the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at Central
Connecticut State University. And this increase in reports is
profoundly important to know and identify disparities,
determine the causes, and take steps to eliminate these
disparities.
Connecticut is only one of six states that receives funding
from NHTSA, its section 1906 grant program. Why are so few
states receiving these funds and what can we do to increase
grant participation? Ms. Terry, maybe you can begin.
Ms. Terry. The National Safety Council actually shared the
Connecticut program with other states as a model because we
have seen that it has been successful in tracking this data. I
will defer to my colleague here from GHSA about the state
participation, but I think Connecticut is doing a great job.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Mr. Saunders, do you have a
comment on that?
Mr. Saunders. Senator, I would only comment that the key
issue with data collection is getting states to understand that
we have to have criteria. It has to be standardized data that
we are requesting from each of the states. And there must be
some level that we can get that standardizations--we have all
kinds of data.
However, we don't have access to data in many situations
and also once we get the data, being able to conduct the
analytics behind the data is another issue. So, I think we can
do that.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. And I agree that the
Connecticut Project is a model that other states could follow
and not only track data, but also help to address this
pernicious problem. Finally, let me just call attention to the
need for legislation, the Used Car Safety Recall Repair Act, to
ensure that consumers are not sold cars that are under recall.
Incredibly still many cars are sold even though they are
under recall. In one report, new vehicle sales for the weekend
ended May 28 were down 28 percent while used car sales were up
6 percent. So used cars are being sold in larger numbers. But
there is nothing to prevent them from being sold, even if they
have serious safety defects.
I hope that Congress will finally address this issue
through the measure that I have proposed, which would apply the
requirement for notification and information that presently
exists for new cars also to used cars. Thank you.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I want to
thank the witnesses for being here today and appreciate the
time that you have given us and the information you have given
us. The hearing record will remain open for two weeks, and
during this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions
for the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to
submit their written answers to the Committee as soon as
possible.
Again, thank you all. Thank you, Senators. And with that,
we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Rick Scott to
John Saunders
Question. How important is it to have a deadline for the DADSS
program?
Answer. No highway-safety program will succeed without public
trust. The history of highway safety features a number of
countermeasures that failed to win or maintain public trust, including
seat belt interlocks, and to a certain extent motorcycle helmets and
automated enforcement, though we continue to work to convince the
public to use and accept the latter two.
It is imperative to ensure that passive alcohol detection works
before offering it in vehicles. If not, public outcry may cause the
auto industry and policymakers to discard this technology. GHSA urges
Congress to continue to fund the DADSS research program and warns
against imposing an arbitrary deadline that would jeopardize the
lifesaving promise of this technology. GHSA also urges U.S. Congress to
focus more on what it can do today. Between now and any deadline years
in the future, about ten thousand Americans every year may continue to
be killed in impaired driving crashes. To most effectively combat
impaired driving, Congress should increase investment in today's proven
countermeasures and remove administrative constraints that limit the
implementation of highway safety programs.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
John Saunders
Question 1. Physical Infrastructure. What is the most significant
change we can make to our physical infrastructure to improve pedestrian
safety? And for cyclist safety?
Answer. GHSA is pleased to offer perspectives on these issues with
the caveat that GHSA's members implement behavioral highway safety
programs and therein lies our greatest expertise. However,
infrastructure safety initiatives offer valuable solutions to better
protect our most vulnerable road users.
In the past four years, GHSA has released numerous reports on the
safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and micromobility users that outline
state activities and best practices:
A Right to the Road: Understanding & Addressing Bicyclist
Safety, published August 24, 2017
Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2017 Preliminary
Data, published February 28, 2018
Speeding Away from Zero: Rethinking a Forgotten Traffic
Safety Challenge, published January 15, 2019
Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2018 Preliminary
Data, published February 28, 2019
Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2019 Preliminary
Data, published February 27, 2020
Understanding and Tackling Micromobility: Transportation's
New Disruptor, published August 27, 2020
Evidence suggests that providing infrastructure that separates non-
motorists from motorists is the most effective countermeasure. This
includes, but is not limited to, marked bike lanes, bicycle boulevards,
bike boxes, pedestrian beacons, pedestrian islands, innovative
crosswalk technologies, and the implementation of Complete Streets and
Vision Zero policies in communities where they will have the most
impact. Planners should target countermeasures at high-risk locations
and use road safety audits and other tools to help with this process.
Excessive speed is often an aggravating factor in either causing a
crash or making it worse for those unprotected within a motor vehicle.
Infrastructure improvements can be bolstered by countermeasures to
lower speed limits, both through statutory changes and road design.
Planners should consider that bicycle crashes tend to take place at
intersections but crashes involving pedestrians happen more frequently
in non-intersection locations. However, crashes for all non-motorized
road users are more likely to occur in the dark. Countermeasures to
improve lighting and conspicuity will do much to ensure all road users
see each other and take appropriate action to avoid a collision.
It is important to note that protecting non-motorized road users
requires a comprehensive approach that includes infrastructure,
education, enforcement, emergency medical services (EMS), and data/
research. Though the State Highway Safety Offices and their partners
typically are not involved in building infrastructure, they can help
bolster the positive impact of safety infrastructure by educating law
enforcement, other government officials and the public about how and
why it works. State Departments of Transportation and local road
agencies also lack resources or the rationale to implement
infrastructure changes quickly or universally. Infrastructure
improvements to protect pedestrians and bicyclists in particular are
often underfunded. Behavioral countermeasures play an important role
filling these gaps.
Question 2. Data. What improvements to the collection of data on
pedestrian and cyclist death and injury would you recommend?
Answer. We know that data about crashes involving non-motorized
road users is incomplete. National fatality data is drawn from NHTSA
databases that aggregate state-reported data on fatal crashes or
estimate non-fatal crash information from samples of police crash
reports. States are leveraging the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
(MMUCC) to create more uniformity in police crash reporting and NHTSA
has launched its next regular MMUCC update. On the state-level, MMUCC
compliance can be complex, expensive and time-consuming, especially as
State Highway Safety Offices expand partnerships with more data
custodians and much of the work of traffic records becomes electronic.
Because national data conforms to uniform definitions and
templates, states often have more detailed data about crashes within
their jurisdictions. States also have data earlier than NHTSA, as it
takes approximately two years to finalize national data for any given
calendar year. This is how and why GHSA has drawn upon state data to
publish a series of Pedestrian Safety Spotlights (see above) that have
close to accurate projections of total pedestrian fatalities six to
eight months before NHTSA.
While fatal crash counts, if not the full detail, are confidently
captured, not all non-fatal crashes are reported to the police. Thus,
states often rely on linkages between different data sets, such as EMS
and hospital data. These data are health-focused and thus do not
capture the same crash characteristics as police crash reports.
Hospital data may include incidents that do not occur on roads or
involve motor vehicles and can sometimes be shielded by health privacy
laws. Micromobility vehicles (e.g., electric scooters, electric bikes)
pose a particular data challenge as they face the unique barrier that
they are often legally classified differently in one jurisdiction to
another and unless they collide with a motor vehicle, data is unlikely
to be captured on a crash report. Currently, hospital emergency rooms
are the best source of micromobility-related injury and fatality data.
GHSA recommends the U.S. Senate adopt key provisions proposed in
the Moving Forward Act to strengthen state traffic records programs
funded by NHTSA under Title 23 Section 405 (c). For many years, states
have experienced constraints on how they may use these funds, but the
Moving Forward Act would ease state grant eligibility requirements and
aggressively expand allowable use. This includes the use of funds to
achieve greater linkage of data across different state data systems,
which is a key factor to better understanding non-motorized and non-
fatal crashes.
GHSA also recommends the U.S. Senate adopt reforms to the NHTSA
grant program under Section 405(h) for nonmotorized safety. This grant
is another for which states have experienced constraints on allowed
uses of funds. The Moving Forward Act would aggressively expand
allowable use to include data analysis and research concerning
pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Question 3. Targeted Investments. Currently, when states experience
an increase in the number of fatalities and injuries per capita on
rural roads or among older drivers, the state is required to invest
resources to improve safety standards (23 USC 148 (g)). Would you
support a similar requirement for pedestrians and cyclists?
Answer. This requirement pertains to the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) to fund infrastructure improvements. While some of
GHSA's members administer state HSIP initiatives by virtue of shared
positions, we would not consider our members to be the primary
constituency for this program and so cannot comment on the impact of
the existing requirements.
However, GHSA would respectfully urge Congress to leave resource
allocation to the states, who are best equipped to match resources to
local highway safety needs. The national earmarking of highway safety
funding has proven to be a substantial barrier to the proper allocation
of resources. A large proportion of NHTSA funding is tied up in the
competitive Section 405 National Priority Safety grant programs that
have an incomplete relation to actual state highway safety problems and
priorities. For example, there is no NHTSA National Priority grant
program for speed management, despite the fact that speeding is among
the three leading contributing factors in all fatal crashes and a
significant factor in crashes involving non-motorized road users. In
lieu of eliminating the NHTSA Section 405 grant programs entirely, GHSA
has urged Congress to make extensive reforms to increase grant
eligibility and expand allowable uses.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
Jane Terry
Question. Ms. Terry, illegal passing of stopped school buses is the
most pressing issue facing school bus transportation, and my Stop for
School Buses Act takes a reasonable, balanced, and data-driven approach
to solving this issue. Can you discuss the importance of limiting and
ultimately eliminating illegal passing of stopped school buses?
Follow-up. What are your thoughts on the Stop for School Buses Act,
and would you endorse this bipartisan bill?
Answer. Unfortunately, the school bus loading zone can be
dangerous. All 50 states have laws prohibiting drivers from passing a
stopped school bus, yet each day in the United States, it happens tens
of thousands of times with virtually no consequences. A 2019 study from
the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation
Services (NASDPTS) found that 95,319 vehicles passed their buses
illegally on a single day earlier that year.\1\ The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends a two-pronged approach
to combating this problem, focusing on both education/awareness and
enforcement.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.schoolbusfleet.com/10040488/national-stop-arm-
survey-counts-over-95k-illegal-passes-of-school-buses
\2\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/school-bus-safety/reducing-illegal-
passing-school-buses
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To eliminate the passing of stopped school buses the drivers must
be educated on local laws as well as proper stopping procedures,
passengers must be educated on how to enter and exit the bus safely,
and other motorists must be educated on the law as well as the danger
and consequences of not obeying the law. The National Safety Council
(NSC) agrees education is an important and useful tool, and it is most
effective when combined with laws and proper enforcement.
Increasing enforcement of illegal passing is also critical to
eliminating the passing of stopped school buses. The National Safety
Council (NSC) views technology as a tool to increase enforcement the
laws, change this illegal behavior and improve safety. Incorporating
technology on buses to record these violations and allow for the
prosecution of violators would deter others from taking the same
potentially deadly actions.
NSC supports S. 1254, the Stop for School Buses Act, and urges
Congress and U.S. Department of Transportation to require the
incorporation of these technologies in to school buses.
NSC also supports the collection of more and better data on the
effectiveness of various countermeasures. On July 17, 2020, NHTSA
published a notice in the Federal Register outlining its plan to
undertake two studies on driver awareness and knowledge of laws and
regulations governing passing of school buses (docket No. NHTSA-2020-
0018). NSC believes more research in this field is needed and
encourages Congress to study the results of these studies to guide
future legislative efforts.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Jane Terry
Distracted Driving. One recent study found that an average of nine
people die and more than 1,000 are injured every day in crashes
involving distracted driving. I introduced legislation that was
included in the previous FAST Act reauthorization to help more states
qualify for grants to prevent distracted driving. This year, only 4 out
of 17 state applicants qualified for these grants.
Question 1. As smartphone habits continue to cause distracted
driving nationwide, is NHTSA doing enough to help states qualify for
this funding?
Answer. NSC was pleased to work with you to craft the FAST Act
proposal, which allowed more states to qualify for the distracted
driving grants. As you know, this is a persistent roadway safety
problem that is undercounted.
In FY20, only six States and Territories--Arkansas, Connecticut,
Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island--that applied were awarded
405(e) grants, while 10 states and territories that applied--
California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Ohio,
Puerto Rico, Utah, and Washington--were not awarded. Remaining states
did not apply. When the FAST Act first passed, many more states applied
but were denied funding.
Reasons for the denials are not always clear. NSC believes more
information can and should be provided by NHTSA to states regarding its
decision-making. In many cases, applying states have leaders who want
to prevent distracted driving and will introduce legislation to this
end. However, if legislators are not provided with more specific
information on what is needed to qualify, opportunities for stronger
legislation may pass by. Greater transparency on NHTSA decisions and
availability of NHTSA technical assistance should be a goal. NSC
supports authorizing additional resources to support this assistance.
Uber and Lyft Recalls. Reports have found that one in six vehicles
used to transport Uber and Lyft passengers has at least one open
recall, and neither app alerts passengers in these situations. In
September, I led a letter to NHTSA with Senators Cantwell, Markey and
Blumenthal asking NHTSA to help ensure that drivers and passengers are
informed of this problem and improve the notice and recall process.
Question 2. Is NHTSA doing enough to address the problem of open
recalls of vehicles owned by drivers for ridesharing companies?
Answer. Right now, more than 53 million vehicles on America's
roadways have open safety recalls--that is more than one in five
vehicles on the road. In many cases, the vehicle owner does not know
about the recall. In light of these record-high numbers, NSC launched
the Check To Protect initiative in 2017 (www.checktoprotect.org). This
public awareness campaign encourages vehicle owners to check their
vehicles in order to protect the loved ones who ride in them. Anyone
can learn their recall status by entering their VIN at
CheckToProtect.org, which has drawn more than 800,000 users in the past
12 months.
Reviewing recall status should be part of a vehicle check for for-
hire vehicles, and we look forward to working with you on this
initiative.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Jane Terry
Pedestrian, Bicyclists, and Vulnerable Road Users. According to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there were
6,283 pedestrian fatalities and 857 bicyclist fatalities in 2018, the
most recent year for which final data is available. The Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) notes that pedestrian deaths have
increased 53 percent since reaching their low point in 2009 and account
for 17 percent of crash fatalities. In Massachusetts, pedestrian
fatalities accounted for 22 percent of all traffic fatalities in the
state in 2018 (78 pedestrians).
Taking action to protect vulnerable road users is urgently needed
in Massachusetts, as well as across our Nation. Research performed by
IIHS has shown that advanced vehicle safety technologies, also known as
advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), prevent and lessen the
severity of crashes and reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. In
fact, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has included
increasing implementation of collision avoidance technologies in its
Most Wanted Lists of Transportation Safety Improvements since 2016.
Question 1. How will requiring this technology now--especially
automatic emergency braking that detects bicyclists, pedestrians, and
other vulnerable roads users--improve traffic safety? What dangerous
driving behavioral issues might this technology help overcome on our
roads?
Answer. The national goal should be zero fatalities, no matter what
the mode of transportation. This is why, the National Safety Council
(NSC) led a letter to the Biden administration to set a goal of zero
fatalities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nsc.org/road/resources/road-to-zero/call-on-
president-biden-to-end-traffic-fata
lities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC is alarmed by rising fatalities of vulnerable road users, which
has been especially acute over the last few years. According to the
Governors Highway Safety Association, 6,590 pedestrians were killed in
2019 on the roadways, an increase of over 50 percent over the past ten
years.\2\ In 2018, 854 cyclists died in crashes, which is a 38 percent
increase since 2010.\3\ More must be done to protect these roadway
users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/
pedestrians20#: :text=More%20than%206%
2C500%20Pedestrians%20Killed,in%20more%20than%2030%20years
\3\ https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/
bicyclists
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved vehicle technology is one way we know these fatalities can
be reduced, and NSC fully supports the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) long-standing recommendations that advanced technology on
commercial and personal vehicles can prevent or mitigate crashes.
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) features on these vehicles,
such as pedestrian detection, adaptive headlights, automatic emergency
braking (AEB) and others, will save lives, and Congress should pass
legislation to require these technologies. As NHTSA has stated, ADAS
technology, if available fleet wide and fully adopted, could save
11,800 lives each year.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/
final_safe_fria_web_version_200
330.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEB, in particular, can help combat driver distraction or delayed
braking for other reasons. The promise of this technology led to NSC
support for the NHTSA-led voluntary agreement with most personal
vehicle manufacturers to install AEB technology on all new vehicles by
model year 2022. NSC believes this is a step in the right direction and
supports the advancement of a requirement for this technology as well.
Drunk Driving. Drunk driving is a persistent killer on our roads.
Each year, approximately 30 percent of all traffic fatalities
nationwide involve a drunk driver. In 2018, 33 percent of traffic
deaths in Massachusetts (120) involved a drunk driver. Advanced drunk
driving technology that could prevent a driver from operating a vehicle
if they are impaired is rapidly being developed, and has the potential
to save many lives.
Question 2. Please elaborate on why the National Safety Council
(NCS) supports this vital technology.
Answer. NSC knows vehicle technology is improving safety, and we
are very hopeful in-vehicle passive alcohol detection technology can
prevent alcohol-impaired crashes before they happen. We lost 10,511
lives to alcohol-impaired driving in 2018,\5\ a leading killer on our
roadways, and all these crashes are preventable. In the 116th Congress,
NSC supported several legislative efforts to require such technology in
motor vehicles--the RIDE Act (S.2604), the HALT Drunk Driving Act (H.R.
4354), and provisions in the Moving America Forward Act (H.R. 2)--
because data show vehicle safety requirements save lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812864#: :text=In%202018%
20there%20were%2010%2C511%20people%20killed%20in%20alcohol%2Dimpaired,th
e%20United
%20States%20in%202018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC is aware several technology developers have created solutions
to solve this persistent problem, and we are hopeful there will be a
variety of viable, in-vehicle passive alcohol detection technology
options and driver monitoring systems for the marketplace. A 2020 study
from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety \6\ showed wide
deployment of in-vehicle alcohol-detection systems could prevent more
than a quarter of U.S. road fatalities and save more than 9,000 lives a
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-
could-prevent-more-than-a-
fourth-of-u-s-road-
fatalities#: :text=Technology%20could%20offer%20the%20next%20big%20break
through.&text=Alcohol%2Ddetection%20systems%20that%20stop,Institute%20fo
r%20Highway%
20Safety%20shows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making meaningful impact to reduce alcohol-impaired driving will
take a host of changes. Other policies, such as requiring first-time
alcohol-impaired drivers to install ignition interlock devices and
lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to .05 can help save
lives too.
Question 3. I understand that NSC also supports other promising
drunk driving countermeasures, including lowering the limit of blood
alcohol content (BAC) for drivers to .05 percent. Why should lower BAC
limits be widely implemented?
Answer. Impairment is a leading cause of roadway deaths--every day,
almost 30 people die in alcohol-impaired crashes in the United
States.\7\ Despite these data, our culture does not prioritize safety,
with more than 1 in 10 drivers admitting to driving in the prior year
when they thought they were close to or over the legal blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) limit.\8\ NHTSA estimates 10,511 lives were lost in
2018 from drunk driving motor vehicle crashes.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
\8\ http://tirf.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/RSM-TIRF-USA-2018-
Alcohol-Impaired-Driving
-in-the-United-States-3.pdf
\9\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812826
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The science on alcohol impairment is clear: drivers are four times
more likely to crash at .05 than if they had nothing to drink.\10\ Most
other industrialized countries have implemented a BAC of .05 or lower,
changes which have resulted in decreased numbers of fatalities from
alcohol-impaired crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Blomberg RD, Peck RC, Moskowitz H, Burns M, Fiorentino D: The
Long Beach/Fort Lauderdale relative risk study; J Safety Res 40:285;
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowering the BAC limit from .08 to .05 is proven to save lives on
the roadways, and could save as many as 1,500 lives if implemented
nationally.\11\ Utah is the first state in the U.S. to pass a law
lowering the BAC to .05, and Congress should pass legislation
encouraging other states to do so. The National Transportation Safety
Board approved this recommendation in 2013, and NSC joins other safety
groups in supporting this life-saving proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Fell, J. C., and M. Scherer. 2017. Estimation of the potential
effectiveness of lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit
for driving from 0.08 to 0.05 grams per deciliter in the United States.
Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research. doi: 10.1111/
acer.13501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Jane Terry
Pedestrian, Bicyclists and Vulnerable Road Users. Research
performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has
shown that advanced vehicle safety technologies, also known as advanced
driver-assistance systems (ADAS), prevent and lessen the severity of
crashes and reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. In fact, the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has included increasing
implementation of collision avoidance technologies in its Most Wanted
Lists of Transportation Safety Improvements since 2016.
Question 1. How will requiring this technology, especially AEB that
detects bicyclists, pedestrians, and other vulnerable roads users,
improve traffic safety?
Answer. The national goal should be zero fatalities, no matter what
the mode of transportation. This is why the National Safety Council
(NSC) led a letter to the Biden administration to set a goal of zero
fatalities (https://www.nsc.org/road/resources/road-to-zero/call-on-
president-biden-to-end-traffic-fatalities).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.nsc.org/road/resources/road-to-zero/call-on-
president-biden-to-end-traffic-fata
lities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Safety Council (NSC) is alarmed by rising fatalities
of vulnerable road users, which has been especially acute over the last
few years. According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, 6,590
pedestrians were killed in 2019 on the roadways, an increase of over 50
percent over the past ten years.\13\ In 2018, 854 cyclists died in
crashes, which is a 38 percent increase since 2010.\14\ More must be
done to protect these roadway users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/
pedestrians20#: :text=More%20than%206%
2C500%20Pedestrians%20Killed,in%20more%20than%2030%20years
\14\ https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/
bicyclists
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved vehicle technology is one way we know these fatalities can
be reduced, and NSC fully supports the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) long-standing recommendations that advanced technology on
commercial and personal vehicles can prevent or mitigate crashes.
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) features on these vehicles,
such as pedestrian detection, adaptive headlights, automatic emergency
braking (AEB) and others, will save lives, and Congress should pass
legislation to require these technologies. As NHTSA has stated, ADAS
technology, if available fleet wide and fully adopted, could save
11,800 lives each year.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/
final_safe_fria_web_version_20
0330.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEB, in particular, can help combat driver distraction or delayed
braking for other reasons. The promise of this technology led to NSC
support for the NHTSA-led voluntary agreement with most personal
vehicle manufacturers to install AEB technology on all new vehicles by
model year 2022. NSC believes this is a step in the right direction and
supports the advancement of a requirement for this technology as well.
NCAP. The New Car Assessment Program, also known as NCAP or Stars
on Cars, was created in the U.S. over 40 years ago with the goal of
reducing road deaths and injuries by incentivizing auto manufacturers
to build safer vehicles and encouraging consumers to buy them. However,
some argue that NCAP is not equipped to address the acceleration of the
adoption of new safety technologies.
Question 2. What needs to be done ensure that the U.S. NCAP is once
again a leader to incentivize safer vehicles and why it is important to
do so?
Answer. NSC believes that NCAP must be updated to reflect advances
in safety technology. NSC supports changes to NCAP, at a minimum, for
crash avoidance, crashworthiness and pedestrian detection:
Crash avoidance. NSC believes the NCAP must evolve to
reflect improvements in recent years to crash avoidance and
post-crash technologies. Safety technologies to provide
advanced warnings or intervene can potentially prevent a crash
due to human factors.
Crashworthiness. While car technology is making cars safer,
NCAP should modernize to reflect post-crash engineering
advancements in reducing fatalities and the severity of
injuries.
Pedestrian protection. In 2019, 6,590 pedestrians \16\ were
killed, and pedestrian fatalities are increasing while motor
vehicle crash fatalities are decreasing.\17\ Advances in
technology and vehicle design changes can save lives of these
vulnerable road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/
pedestrians20#: :text=More%20than%206%
2C500%20Pedestrians%20Killed,in%20more%20than%2030%20years
\17\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/
pedestrians/
NSC also supports NCAP expanding its role in evaluating ADAS safety
as has been done in other countries. NCAP is a widely understood and
accepted framework to evaluate safety of vehicles by consumers. NCAP is
a primary way that manufacturers talk about safety benefits of their
vehicles and updating it as these new technologies come on board is
critical to maintaining its relevance.