[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≪=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.