    [Senate Hearing 118-729]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-729

                      EXAMINING THE ROADWAY SAFETY CRISIS
                      AND HIGHLIGHTING COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

      SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, MARITIME, FREIGHT, AND PORTS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 21, 2024

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                           Transportation

        [GRAPHIC(s) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

                    Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             TED CRUZ, Texas, Ranking
    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
    EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
    JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  TED BUDD, North Carolina
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri
    JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          J. D. VANCE, Ohio
    RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                     Virginia
                                         CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
                       Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
                     Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
                         Jonathan Hale, General Counsel
                     Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
               Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                         Liam McKenna, General Counsel
                                     ------

      SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, MARITIME, FREIGHT, AND PORTS

    GARY PETERS, Michigan, Chair         TODD YOUNG, Indiana, Ranking
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia                 Virginia
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 TED BUDD, North Carolina
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on May 21, 2024.....................................     1
    Statement of Senator Peters......................................     1
        Letter dated May 20, 2024 to Hon. Gary Peters and Hon. Todd
          Young from familes regarding roadway safety................     1
        Letter dated May 21, 2024 to Hon. Gary Peters and Hon. Todd
          Young from Rana Abbas Taylor, Northville, MI...............    10
        Prepared statement from the International Brotherhood of
          Teamsters..................................................    77
        Letter dated May 21, 2024 to Hon. Gary Peters and Hon. Todd
          Young from John Samuelsen, International President,
          Transport Workers Union of America.........................    79
    Statement of Senator Young.......................................    23
    Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    24
    Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    82
    Statement of Senator Capito......................................    84
    Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    86
    Statement of Senator Markey......................................    92
    Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................    94

                                   Witnesses

    Samuel Krassenstein, Chief of Infrastructure, City of Detroit....    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
    Laura Chace, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation
      Society of America.............................................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Jacob Nelson, Director, Traffic Safety Advocacy and Research,
      American Automobile Association................................    49
        Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Laura Sandt, Ph.D., Co-Director, Research Strategy and
      Implementation, Highway Safety Research Center; Director,
      Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center; Director,
      Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety, Senior Research
      Associate, Highway Safety Research Center, The University of
      North Carolina at Chapel Hill..................................    55
        Prepared statement...........................................    56
    Jeff Farrah, Chief Executive Officer, Autonomous Vehicle Industry
      Association....................................................    62
        Prepared statement...........................................    64

                                    Appendix

    Letter dated May 20, 2024 to Hon. Gary Peters and Hon. Todd Young
      from Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
      Safety.........................................................    99
    Letter dated May 21, 2024 to Hon. Gary Peters and Hon. Todd Young
      from Garrick Francis, Vice President of Federal Affairs,
      Alliance for Automotive Innovation.............................   105
    Prepared statement from the American Motorcyclist Association....   106
    Letter dated May 21, 2024 to Hon. Maria Cantwell and Hon. Ted
      Cruz from Clarence E. Anthony, CEO and Executive Director,
      National League of Cities......................................   108
    Response to written questions submitted to Sam Krassenstein by:
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   110
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   111
    Response to written questions submitted to Laura Chace by:
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   112
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   114
        Hon. Ted Cruz................................................   117
    Response to written questions submitted to Jake Nelson by:
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   119
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   122
    1Response to written questions submitted to Laura Sandt by:
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   123
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   125
        Hon. Ted Budd................................................   126
    Response to written questions submitted to Jeff Farrah by:
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   126
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   130
        Hon. Ted Cruz................................................   130
        Hon. Ted Budd................................................   134

        EXAMINING THE ROADWAY SAFETY CRISIS AND HIGHLIGHTING COMMUNITY
                                   SOLUTIONS

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2024

                                   U.S. Senate,
     Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime,
                                    Freight, and Ports,
            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. Gary Peters,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Peters [presiding], Cantwell, Klobuchar,
    Markey, Warnock, Young, Cruz, Fischer, Moore Capito, Lujan.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

        Senator Peters. The Subcommittee will come to order.
        Today, the Subcommittee for Surface Transportation,
    Maritime, Freight, and Ports will examine the roadway safety
    crisis and the solutions that we must implement in response.
        I would certainly like to thank my Ranking Member, Senator
    Young, as well as Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Cruz, for
    their help in convening this, a very important hearing.
        Every day, unfortunately, more than 100 Americans lose
    their lives on our roads. If trends continue, we expect more
    than 40,000 fatalities this year and hundreds of thousands of
    serious injuries.
        That means thousands of families are going to be torn apart
    by preventable crashes. Those families deserve our recognition
    as we work to address this problem. And that's why I'd like to
    enter into the record statements made by victims' families who
    have written to this committee to urge further action on
    roadway safety.
        Without objection, those letters will be entered into the
    record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                                           May 20, 2024
    Hon. Gary Peters, Chair,
    Hon. Todd Young, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, Freight, and Ports,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chair Peters and Ranking Member Young:

        Our families have endured the loss of a loved one or sustained
    serious, lifelong injuries as a result of preventable motor traffic
    crashes and incidents. And, we are far from alone. More than 42,000
    people were killed, and nearly 2.4 million people were injured in
    traffic crashes in 2022, according to the National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration (NHTSA). While people are killed and families'
    lives are forever changed by the simple act of traveling on public
    roadways, solutions to stop this pain and suffering are known and
    available, yet remain under-used, delayed and sidelined. We must
    prioritize their implementation with urgency.
        A comprehensive approach is needed to protect all road users and
    prevent or mitigate the deadly outcomes due to crashes. The U.S.
    Department of Transportation (DOT) adopted a Safe System Approach (SSA)
    in 2022 to address the roadway crisis. By focusing on advancing
    policies that will engender safer people, safer roads, safer vehicles,
    safer speeds and post-crash care, meaningful improvements can be
    realized. The SSA has been implemented in other similar countries for
    decades, and significant reductions in traffic fatalities have been
    attained.
        The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58)
    directed robust funding for roadway safety infrastructure improvements
    consistent with the SSA and timely vehicle safety rulemakings and
    upgrades. Less than one month ago, the DOT released the final rule for
    automatic emergency braking (AEB) with pedestrian detection and
    response for passenger motor vehicles. This vital technology will
    prevent or mitigate crashes due to distraction, impairment, drowsy
    driving and speeding, and it is conservatively estimated to save at
    least 360 lives and prevent 24,000 injuries annually. Yet, improvements
    should be made to expand the utility of AEB systems including to detect
    and respond to bicyclists, motorcyclists and other vulnerable road
    users.
        This advancement must be followed by rulemakings to require AEB for
    heavy vehicles, advanced impaired driving technology, systems to detect
    and alert to unattended children in vehicles, technology to curb driver
    distraction and automation complacency, lane departure warning and lane
    keeping assist systems, adaptive driving beam headlamps, upgrade hoods
    and bumpers to better protect vulnerable road user safety, updates to
    the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) seat belts for limousine
    passengers, strengthen seatback safety standards and automatic shutoff
    and keyless ignition systems as also directed in the IIJA. The
    technology to solve these issues is available.
        Conversely, we are deeply concerned about the safety of automated
    driving system (ADS) technology operating on our roads. According to
    the NHTSA Standing General Order (SGO, 2021-01) data on crashes
    involving vehicles equipped with ADS which includes autonomous vehicles
    (AV), and Level 2 advanced driver assistance systems (L2 ADAS,
    partially automated driving systems), nearly 600 crashes involving ADS
    driven vehicles and more than 1,400 crashes involving L2 ADAS driven
    vehicles have been reported between July 2021 and April of this year.
    Absent comprehensive Federal safety regulations, everyone in or sharing
    the roads with vehicles equipped with ADS is at risk.
        We urge the Subcommittee to again prioritize roadway safety in the
    next transportation reauthorization, ensure robust funding for roadway
    safety upgrades, and direct new rulemakings for vehicle safety
    technologies. Whether you are a driver, a passenger, or outside a
    vehicle standing, walking, biking or rolling, everyone deserves safe
    travel on U.S. roadways.
                Sincerely,

    Cheryle Adams (Washington, DC), I was injured in a near-fatal crash in
    1993 when a car crashed into me while I was a pedestrian standing at a
    crosswalk in Washington, D.C. I continue to live with permanent
    scarring to my right leg as a reminder of this kind of traffic violence
    as well as daily chronic pain. DC Pedestrian Advisory Council

    Dillon Angulo (Miami, FL), Dillon and his girlfriend, Naibel Benavides,
    were standing beside his parked vehicle off a Florida roadside with
    when a Tesla Model S operating on Autopilot sped past a stop sign,
    through additional warning signs and eventually struck the vehicle.
    Naibel was killed and Dillon suffered a traumatic brain injury as a
    result of the collision.

    Sherri Arrington (Palmer, AK), my husband and I were traveling on I95
    north of Boston when a concrete screed came out of a commercial
    landscape truck. It pierced our windshield severing Tom's spinal cord,
    3 vertebrae and his mandible killing his instantly. Family Advocate
    Families for Safe Streets and Truck Safety Coalition

    Patty Avery (Evansville, IN), In January 2019, my daughter Bethany
    Schklar's car was hit as she turned left onto a busy road in
    Chattanooga, Tennessee, by a speeding driver who ran a red light.
    Bethany died four days later from her injuries. Families for Safe
    Streets, Executive Committee

    Patty Banks (Bay Village, OH), severely injured in a hit-and-run crash
    on May 15, 2019, in Avon Lake, Ohio. My carotid artery was severed, my
    pelvis fractured in two places, I had a brain hemorrhage, a clavicle
    fracture and a broken patella. The hit-and-run driver lied to the
    police when they found her and only received one year probation at
    sentencing. Advocate for Bike Cleveland and Families for Safe Streets

    Laura Beck (Midlothian, VA), mother of Anderson who died in a hot car
    and wife of Aaron, who took his own life after discovering he had
    inadvertently left their son in the car and went to work. Kids and Car
    Safety Family Advocate

    Lisa Berry (Huntsville, AL), mother and father of Lexi Berry who died
    at 2 years old in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Pam Biddle (Waverly Hall, GA), Pam's son, Aaron Lee, was in their car
    with his father, Brian, and Brian's partner, Stephanie Swaim, stopped
    in slowed traffic when a speeding semi failed to stop and rear-ended
    their vehicle pushing it under the semi in front of them. The vehicles
    burst into flames, killing Aaron, Brian and Stephanie. Board Member,
    Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH)

    Deona Bien (Tucson, AZ), mother of Aslyn Ryan who died in a hot car
    while running errands with sitter. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Stephen Bingham (San Rafael, CA), My daughter Sylvia Bingham was killed
    biking to work in Cleveland by a box truck's right hook into her path
    September 15, 2009. Had the truck had side guards, she would have been
    injured but not killed when the 25,000 lb. truck's wheels crushed her.
    Ride of Silence, Families for Safe Streets, Marin County Bicycle
    Coalition

    Sue Boe (Odessa, FL), grandmother of Kate who died in a hot car at 5-
    months-old. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Clay Blackburn (Shreveport, LA), parents of Addyson who died in a hot
    car at 6 months old, dad forgot her in the backseat while he was at
    work. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Delyla Blackburn (Shreveport, LA), parents of Addyson who died in a hot
    car at 6 months old, dad forgot her in the backseat while he was at
    work. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Brittany Borgess (Duboistown, PA), step-mother of Samaria who died in a
    hot car at 4-years-old. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Demetrius Branca (Tallahassee, FL), Demetrius's son Anthony, 19, was
    riding his motorcycle from community college classes to work on a
    Friday afternoon. He was using all the correct gear and driving safely.
    He slowed down to make a left turn and the driver of a large commercial
    van behind him did not see him because he was distracted. He did not
    slow down, swerve or hit the brakes; the van filled with thousands of
    pounds of equipment crushed Anthony. It took about half an hour for
    Anthony to succumb to his wounds. Founder of the Anthony Phoenix Branca
    Foundation

    Beth Brown (Chandler, AZ), mother of Amberlee who died in a hot car.
    Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Kyle Brown (Chandler, AZ), father of Amberlee who died in a hot car.
    Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Kelli Brown (Chandler, AZ), sister of Amberlee who died in a hot car.
    Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Emma Brown (Chandler, AZ), sister of Amberlee who died in a hot car.
    Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Lindee Brown (Chandler, AZ), sister of Amberlee who died in a hot car.
    Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Camille Brown (Chandler, AZ), sister of Amberlee who died in a hot car.
    Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Latanya Byrd (Philadelphia, PA), my niece, Samara Banks, and my three
    nephews were killed on Roosevelt Boulevard on July 16, 2013, by
    speeding drivers. Families for Safe Streets Greater Philadelphia, Co-
    Chair

    Tyler Cestia (New Iberia, LA), father of Thomas who died at 2-years-old
    in his father's GM truck that had a simple rear-seat reminder alert,
    not occupant detection. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Pamela Cestia (New Iberia, LA), mother of Thomas who died at 2-years-
    old in his father's GM truck that had a simple rear-seat reminder
    alert, not occupant detection. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Amy Cohen (Brooklyn, NY), my 12-year-old son was struck and killed in
    front of our home by a driver going too fast operating a commercial
    van. Families for Safe Streets, Co-Founder

    Dr. Norman Collins, Sr. (Raleigh, NC), grandfather of Norman Collins II
    (``Bishop'') who died at 3 months-12 days old after being accidentally
    left in a hot car in a church parking lot. Kids and Car Safety Family
    Advocate

    Melody Costello (Medina, OH), mother of 9 month old who died in a hot
    car on July 29, 2002. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Todd Costello (Medina, OH), father of 9 month old who died in a hot car
    on July 29, 2002. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Emily Costello (Medina, OH), sister of 9 month old who died in a hot
    car on July 29, 2002. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Kacey Costello (Medina, OH), sister of 9 month old who died in a hot
    car on July 29, 2002. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Chanda Crutcher (Decatur, AL), mother of Kingston who survived in a hot
    car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Joan Dean (New York, NY), my Grandson, Sammy Cohen Eckstein, was killed
    by a reckless driver. Founding Member, Families for Safe Streets

    Amish Desai (Chicago, IL) and Karishma Desai (Philadelphia, PA), our
    beloved Mom, Renuka ``Renu'' Desai, was struck and killed by a
    negligent driver on January 5, 2023. She was taking her daily walk, her
    respite while caring for our dying Father, on a clearly designated
    pedestrian crosswalk that was supposed to protect her. She was taken
    from us by an act of traffic violence.

    Dr. Andrew Dill (Evansville, IN), father of Oliver Dill who died at 3
    years old in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Jamie Dill (Evansville, IN), mother of Oliver Dill who died at 3 years
    old in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Michael Doyle (Alexandria, VA), a driver of an SUV turned left without
    looking into the turn and crashed into me as I was more than halfway
    through the crosswalk. The crash fractured my forehead, broke other
    bones and damaged nerves in my leg, but the most serious consequence of
    the crash was the subdermal hematomas in my brain. If AEB technology
    had been installed on the SUV that crashed into me, my injuries could
    have been avoided or at least minimized. Founded the Northern Virginia
    Families for Safe Streets with its three chapters in Alexandria (AFSS),
    Arlington (Arl FSS) and Fairfax (Ffx FSS)

    Amie Duemer (Lubbock, TX), mother of Josef who died in a hot car at 12
    months old in 2005. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Jodie Edwards (Liberty Township, OH), mother of Jenna who died in a hot
    car at 11-months-old. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Cindi Enamorado (Los Angeles, CA), brother Raymond Stephen Olivares was
    killed and his girlfriend Maria Rivas Cruz injured while walking by a
    fleeing driver. SoCal Families for Safe Streets--Co Chair

    Nicole Engler (Oregon), daughter Remi lost due to hot car tragedy at 21
    months. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Peter Engler (Oregon), daughter Remi lost due to hot car tragedy at 21
    months. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Lindsay Caron Epstein (West Palm Beach, FL though I was hit while
    cycling in San Diego, CA), I was cycling in a suburban neighborhood, a
    few blocks from the ocean. This street had two lanes in each direction,
    with parking along the curb, speed limit was 45 mph, and no bike lane.
    A driver hit me from behind and took off. It was a hit-and-run. My
    skull split open I was in the hospital for 5 months and acquired
    permanent disabilities. Adapt2Play, founder

    Meagan Everett (Shreveport, LA), mother of Josiah Gene Everett who died
    in a hot car at 1 year old. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Laura Fredricks (Becket, MA), Our daughter, Emily Claire Fredricks, was
    24 years old when she was killed by the driver of a private sanitation
    truck while cycling to her job as a french pastry chef in Philadelphia
    on November 28, 2017. The driver did not use his turn signal, did not
    yield to Emily as indicated by signage, was fumbling with paperwork and
    had ear buds in. There was dash cam video and street video. He was not
    held accountable for killing Emily. Families for Safe Streets Greater
    Philadelphia, Co-Chair

    Jena Frost (Lyman, ME), Jena's son, Wyatt, was 5 years old when he was
    killed by a box truck unequipped with automatic emergency braking
    (AEB). Board Member, Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.)

    James Gersing (Miami, FL), grandfather of Sammy Joseph Schnall, 1, who
    died in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Vanessa Goolsby (Miami, FL), mother of Micayla who died in a hot car in
    2016. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Michael Goolsby (Miami, FL), father of Micayla who died in a hot car in
    2016. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Richie Gray (Hartsville, SC), parent of Sophia Jane Goyeneche-Gray who
    died in a hot car at 13 months old in 2014. Kids and Car Safety Family
    Advocate

    Seth Grimes (Washington, DC), Hit while in a bike lane by the driver of
    a large pickup truck who said he didn't see me. He was cited for
    failure to yield. Washington Area Bicyclist Association

    Doug Grote (Moore, SC), father of Kristen who died in a hot car at 3
    years old. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Diana Grote (Moore, SC), mother of Kristen who died in a hot car at 3
    years old. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Anna Guardipee (Salem, VA), Anna and her best friend Jenny were
    returning to Virginia from North Carolina for Anna's granddaughter's
    baptism. They were stopped in traffic on I-77 when a distracted semi-
    driver failed to notice the stopped traffic and slammed into the back
    of their car, pushing them into the semi they were stopped behind.
    Jenny and Anna were airlifted to the hospital. Jenny fought hard but
    never regained consciousness. Anna survived and is paralyzed from the
    waist down. Board Member, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways
    (CRASH)

    Steven Hardy-Braz (Farmville, NC), While cycling, I was struck from
    behind by a driver operating a car travelling at an estimated 60-65
    mph. This driver was operating her car with a revoked drivers license,
    no insurance, expired license tags, and more.

    Carol Harrison (Purcellville, VA), mother of Chase who died in a hot
    car at 21-months-old. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Miles Harrison (Purcellville, VA), father of Chase who died in a hot
    car at 21-months-old. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Jessica Hart (Washington, DC), my 5-year-old daughter Allison (Allie)
    Hart was killed on September 13, 2021, when she was struck and killed
    while riding her bike in a crosswalk. The crosswalk was at a four-way
    stop and in a school zone. The driver did not make a complete stop and
    failed to look for anyone on the sidewalk. Advocate for Families for
    Safe Streets

    Jay Hightman (Charlottesville, VA), It will be five years, on June
    24th, 2024, that my 20-year-old daughter Robyn Avril Hightman lost
    their life doing bicycle messenger work in New York City, when a for-
    hire driver blocked the bicycle lane and the speeding distracted driver
    of a box truck knocked them to the ground and then crushed them into
    the road. Measures such as automatic emergency braking and side
    underride guards on combination truck trailers as well as single-unit
    trucks, such as the one responsible for my daughter's death, should be
    required on these types vehicles. In addition to this, infrastructure
    design changes need to be made which prioritizes the safety for all
    road users, but especially the most vulnerable such as bicyclist,
    pedestrians and the disabled. The Robyn Hightman Foundation, President,
    Families for Safe Streets

    Erin Holley (Charleston SC), mother of Finn who survived being left in
    a hot car at five weeks old in 2017. Kids and Car Safety Family
    Advocate

    Jane Horal (Brighton, MI), my husband Daniel Horal was bicycling in
    Island Lake Recreational Park and was hit by a distracted driver on his
    phone April 24, 2019. Dan died two days later from his severe injuries.
    Chief Officer, GoLivCo-Horal Family Foundation

    Latanya Hull (Los Angeles, CA), my son was killed by hit and run
    driver. Advocate for SoCal Families for Safe Streets

    Daphne & Steve Izer (Lisbon, ME), Daphne and Steve's son, Jeff, and
    three of his friends were killed in 1993 when a semi-truck driver fell
    asleep at the wheel and ran over their parked car. Founders, Parents
    Against Tired Truckers

    Lee Jackson (Arlington, TX), Lee survived a crash with a commercial
    motor vehicle (CMV). Board Member, Citizens for Reliable and Safe
    Highways (CRASH)

    Amanda Jaczkowski (Detroit, MI), Essentially, I was riding in a bike
    lane through an intersection and was right hooked by a large gravel
    hauler (under the wheels). Even after 7 years and about 30 surgeries,
    I'm permanently disabled. It has made the career trajectory I was on
    impossible, not to mention the rest of the opportunities an active,
    high achieving individual who was disabled at 25 miss out on for the
    rest of my life.

    Erin Johnson (Rockwall, NC), mother of Bridget Leigh who died in a hot
    car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Scott Jones (Gilbert, AZ), father of Charlotte who died at 3 years old
    in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Angela Jones (Gilbert, AZ), mother of Charlotte who died at 3 years old
    in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Steve Kiefer (Naples, FL), lost his son Mitchel Kiefer in a distracted
    driving crash in Michigan. Chairman of the Kiefer Foundation

    Christy King (Williamsburg, VA), lost her son Christopher King due to a
    crash caused by a reckless, impaired and distracted driver. Founder,
    Christopher King Foundation

    Dawn King (Davisburg, MI), Dawn's father, Bill Badger, was killed in
    2004 while slowed in traffic when he was hit from behind by a truck
    driver who had fallen asleep at the wheel. Board Member and Vice
    President, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways & Truck Safety
    Coalition

    Judith Kottick (Jersey City, NJ), my 23 year old daughter, Ella Bandes,
    was tragically killed by a reckless MTA bus driver in 2013 at the
    Myrtle Wyckoff intersection on the border of Brooklyn and Queens.
    Families for Safe Streets NY, Founding Member

    Gina LaBlanc (San Jose, CA), my son Kyle was a pedestrian hit and
    killed by a tow truck driver. Kyle stepped into the bike lane to avoid
    a puddle and was hit by the tow truck driver driving 45 mph in the bike
    lane to get onto the freeway. Advocate for San Francisco Bay Area
    Families for Safe Streets

    Matilde Larson (Stamford, CT), my 24-year-old daughter Nina Larson was
    struck and killed by a driver in a crosswalk, in broad daylight in
    Washington, DC on November 13, 2021. The driver who killed her remained
    on the scene but has never been charged. Families for Safe Streets--DC
    Chapter/Steering Committee Member

    Todd and Rosa Linder (Garden City, KS), lost their 16-year-old
    daughter, Cassandra Kay Linder, on March 13 2023, due to a distracted/
    fatigued commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver. We believe had the
    truck been equipped with a driver facing camera, the driver would have
    been more alert and cautious about how he drove the vehicle.

    Nora Lopez (San Leandro, CA), lost her son Dominic Lopez-Toney, a
    medical student, when he was hit by a semi-truck that attempted an
    illegal U-turn and struck him. The crash occurred in broad daylight.
    Truck Safety Coalition Victim Volunteer

    John Alexander Lowell (San Francisco, CA), In San Francisco on March
    23, 2001, a speeding north bound van on Mission Street hit me as was
    jogging within the crosswalk to cross Mission Street. The driver had
    run through the red light. I sustained many injuries, including TBI.
    Advocate for San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of Families for Safe
    Streets

    Jeri Lynch (Sherman Oaks, CA), son Conor was killed by distracted hit
    and run driver speeding on October 19, 2010, in Sherman Oaks, while
    crossing the street for cross-country training with Notre Dame high
    school. He was 16 years old. Founder, The Conor Lynch Foundation

    Alan Lyon (Dolgeville, NY), father of Sophia Lea Marie who died in a
    hot car at 15 months old. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Carla Lyon (Dolgeville, NY), mother of Sophia Lea Marie who died in a
    hot car at 15 months old. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Carol MacDonald (Staunton VA), grandmother of Robbie MacDonald who died
    at 3 years old in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Marta Magellan (Miami, FL), grandmother of Sammy Joseph Schnall, 1, who
    died in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Vibha Marks (Dallas, Texas), mother of Victoria Marks who died at 1
    year old in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Joe Martinez (Fresno, CA), in 2013, Paul Martinez, age 21; my only son
    was struck and killed by a speeding driver in Fresno. Advocate for
    Families for Safe Streets

    Ken Mercurio (Middletown, OH), Car passing me did not provide
    sufficient clearance, and hit my left handlebar. It sent me into the
    pavement, breaking my pelvis and hip socket, requiring two surgeries.
    Ohio Bicycle Federation

    Stephanie Mitchell (St. Louis, MO), mother of Tate Mitchell who died 3
    days after his first birthday when left unknowingly by his mother in a
    hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Rachel Morris (Locust Grove, GA), mother of Savannah Morris who had a
    near miss in 2018 after being forgotten in a vehicle at a park. Kids
    and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Janice Mott (Ocean City, NJ), my only daughter was killed when riding a
    bike to work on the upper East side in NYC. There are no crosstown bike
    paths to allow cyclists to get to the west side to get to the n/s bike
    lanes into mid Manhattan. Advocate for Families for Safe Streets

    Jessie Muckley (Medina, OH), loved one of 9 month old who died in a hot
    car on July 29, 2002. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Trisha Nicolas (Bellwood, NE), mother of Weston Nicolas who died at 23
    months old in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Chris Nicolas (Bellwood, NE), father of Weston Nicolas who died at 23
    months old in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Julie Nicholson (Walnut Creek, CA), I was hit by a speeding driver who
    also ran a red light in San Francisco in 2020. Advocate for San
    Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets

    Louise Olin (Woodland Hills, CA), My husband, Milt Olin, was riding his
    bike safely and legally in a bike lane on Mulholland Hwy when he was
    stuck from behind and killed by LA County Sheriff. The evidence showed
    that the sheriff had received or sent over 100 text messages from the
    time he began work until the time of the crash. Milt Olin Foundation/
    President & CEO

    Gabriela O'Shea (New Paltz, NY), I am the lucky survivor of a hit and
    run car crash on a route called a bicycle route even though it has a
    crumbling non-existent shoulder. But my great aunt, Maria Jesus, did
    not survive the crash that took her life as she was on a walk with her
    daughter. 1 person killed is too many. The infrastructure and
    information already exists for safe streets. Do it, you must do it in
    the best possible way. Advocate Families for Safe Streets

    Nick Parent (Salt Lake City, UT), younger brother injured by a motorist
    failing to yield, and cutting him off. Families for Safe Streets,
    Regional Liaison

    Dawn and Wes Peabody (Phoenix, AZ), parents of Maya Moo who died in a
    hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Stephanie Pinon (Albuquerque, NM), mother of Jahzel Pinon, 2, who died
    in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Israel Pinon (Albuquerque, NM), father of Jahzel Pinon, 2, who died in
    a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Judith Proctor (Southport, CT), our beloved son Charle was killed by a
    driver while riding his bike to get Thai takeout during covid, May 5,
    2020. Advocate for Families for Safe Streets & Watch for Me CT

    Raymond Pryer Sr. (Houston, TX), Proud father of Raymond Darnell Pryer
    Jr. whom was left in a daycare bus on July 19, 2018, for 4 hours the
    temperature reached a 118 degrees he died of a Heatstroke which is
    preventable. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Nereda Jones Pugh (Philadelphia, PA), my son, Nyier, was 28 when he was
    killed in a hit and run in Philadelphia, while riding his bike. He was
    struck by a tow truck driver on July 22, 2022, 2 blocks from our home.
    Advocate for Families for Safe Streets Greater Philadelphia

    Dikeisha Whitlock-Pryer (Houston, TX), Proud mother of Raymond Darnell
    Pryer Jr. whom was left in a daycare bus on July 19, 2018, for 4 hours
    the temperature reached a 118 degrees he died of a Heatstroke which is
    preventable. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Rosemary Quinn (Kingston, NY), lost partner John Host Lynch who was
    struck by a car while riding his bicycle in Kingston. Safe Pass Ulster
    Founder--Families For Safe Streets

    John Ramsey (Medina, OH), grandfather of 9 month who died in a hot car
    on July 29, 2002. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Carol Ramsey (Medina, OH), grandmother of 9 month who died in a hot car
    on July 29, 2002. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    JoAnne Ramsey (Medina, OH), loved one of 9 month old who died in a hot
    car on July 29, 2002. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Sarah Risser (Portland, OR), I was driving with my son Henry Zietlow in
    rural WI when a negligent driver who was towing illegally crossed the
    center line and hit our car head on. Henry was behind the wheel,
    suffered severe head trauma, and died at the scene. I survived with
    injuries. Families for Safe Streets, BikeLoudPDX

    Marissa Rodriguez (New City, NY), mother of Luna and Phoenix, 1 year
    old twins who passed due to being left in a hot car. Kids and Car
    Safety Family Advocate

    Juan Rodriguez (New City, NY), father of Luna and Phoenix, 1 year old
    twins who passed due to being left in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety
    Family Advocate

    Amber Rollins (Olathe, KS), mother who had a near miss with her 3-
    month-old. Director and Family Advocate Kids and Car Safety

    Stephanie Salvilla, (Orlando, FL), Mother of Gannon Werking who died
    July 23, 2009 at 5 months old in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family
    Advocate

    Lindsey Rogers-Seitz (Morrisville, NC), mother of Benjamin who died in
    a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Fletcher Ross (Hickory, NC), father of Andrew who survived being left
    in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Paul Selden (Portage, MI), I was side-swiped by a drunk driver who
    veered into the striped/marked shoulder of the road I was bicycling
    within. My bike was damaged but fortunately I was not injured. If the
    driver had been one more inch to the right I would have been hit more
    seriously, thrown over a guard rail, pitched into a heavily wooded
    ravine and seriously injured. I believe improved driver assistance
    technology could have avoided the crash entirely. Bike Friendly
    Kalamazoo

    Michel Shane (Malibu, CA), my life was forever altered on April 3,
    2010, when my youngest daughter, Emily Rose Shane, was tragically
    killed by an enraged driver on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. This
    senseless act of violence stole her life and changed our family's
    trajectory. Advocate with Families for Safe Streets

    David Shephard (Linden, NJ), my finance was killed by a hit and run
    driver in the Bronx NYC. Advocate for Transportation Alternatives/
    Families for Safe Streets

    Leanna Simmons (Florence, AL), mother of Cooper Harris who died at 22
    months old in a hot car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Loren Sidnt (Mexico Beach, FL), mother of Joziah who died in a hot car.
    Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Patricia Small (Fischer, TX), on November 25, 2007, my daughter Megan
    Small (21) was killed by a distracted driver (texting) while returning
    to Baylor University from Houston, Texas.

    Jacob Smith (Denver, CO), involved a head-on collision in 2014 due to
    an impaired driver; suffered from TBI, facial reconstruction and a
    life-long disability. Executive Director, National Organizations for
    Youth Safety (NOYS)

    Jennifer Smith (Woodbridge, IL), I lost my mother in a distracted
    driving crash in Oklahoma. CEO/President of Stopdistractions.org

    Latasha (Tasha) Hairston Springs (Winston Salem, NC), I was texting and
    driving in NC and collided with the overpass and a separate vehicle
    carrying two passengers inside. I was seriously injured and the other
    victims were treated and released with minor injuries. Mindfully Aware
    Driving Solutions MAD Solutions CEO/Founder & African American Women
    Trucking Association AAWTA Outreach and Advocacy Director

    Marietta Squire (Upper Marlboro, MD), My daughter Kayla Williams-
    Rawlinson was killed in a car crash by a driver driving 80 mph in a 30
    mph school zone. The driver has history of DUIs, driving recklessly,
    and driving on a suspended license. At the time of the crash his
    license had been revoked since 2020! Advocate for Families for Safe
    Streets

    Mike Stanley (currently Alpharetta GA. death occurred in Evans, GA),
    father of Sydney Stanley who died at 6 years of age in a hot car. Kids
    and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Jenny Stanley (currently Alpharetta GA. death occurred in Evans, GA),
    mother of Sydney Stanley who died at 6 years of age in a hot car. Kids
    and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Emily Stein (Medford, MA), my father, Howard Stein, was killed in
    Acton, MA in 2011 because of a distracted driver who was programming
    her GPS while driving. My dad was 61 and about to become a grandfather.
    Safe Roads Alliance, Executive Director

    Russell Swift (Port St. Lucie, FL), Russ' son, Jasen, was killed
    instantly, as was a fellow Marine, while they drove in the dark to work
    in 1993, by a seventeen-year-old truck driver on an invalid learner's
    permit whose truck was stuck across two lanes after trying a U-turn,
    causing the car to drive into and under the side of the trailer,
    causing a fatal underride crash. Vice President, Truck Safety Coalition
    and Chair, Parents Against Tired Truckers

    Michele Terry (Grandview, TX), mother of Mika who died in a hot car at
    only 6-months-old. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Jennifer M. Tierney (Kernersville, NC), Jennifer's father, James
    Mooney, was killed on a dark, rural road in 1983 when he crashed into a
    truck with no visible lights blocking the roadway. Chair, Citizens for
    Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH) and Truck Safety Coalition Board
    Member Barbara Toth (Las Cruces, NM), Her husband was hit as a cyclist
    in New Mexico.

    Tami Friedrich Trakh (Corona, CA), Tami's sister, Kris, brother-in-law,
    Alan, and two of their children, Brandie and Anthony, were killed in
    1989 when a tanker truck overturned in front of them and exploded.
    President, Truck Safety Coalition

    Samantha Trumbull (Washington, DC), permanently disabled by a crash in
    2012. Advocate for DC Families for Safe Streets

    Beatriz Viera (Somerset, NJ), mother of Adriana who died in a hot car.
    Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Tim Vogel (Downingtown, PA), His father was hit in 2007 by an impaired
    and distracted driver.

    Melissa Wandall (Bradenton, Florida), Husband Mark was killed and
    brother Phil suffered permanent, debilitating injuries when a speeding
    driver ran a red light and crashed into their car. Melissa was nine
    months pregnant at the time. President, National Coalition Safer Roads

    Roger Weimer (Medina, OH), relative of 9 month who died in a hot car on
    July 29, 2002. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Haley & Rich Wesley (Angwin, CA), parents of Maddison who died in a hot
    car. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Kristin Whitaker (Tampa, FL), mother of Lawson Whitaker who died at 2
    years after he was undetected in the family vehicle during routine drop
    off at daycare. Kids and Car Safety Family Advocate

    Kristina Wilcoxson (Midwest City, OK), mother of James Swindle who had
    a ``near miss'' in 2008

    Nancy Cavanaugh-Wilson (LaMesa, CA), My husband, Kevin Wilson, was
    killed by a hit and run drunk driver on January 20, 2020. A protected
    bike land may have saved his life. There's a forever hole in my heart.
    Advocate for Families for Safe Streets

    Connie and Keith Worl (Anaconda, MT), our daughter Chloe Worl, age 25,
    was killed instantly in 2021 in Dillon, Montana when a lady crossed the
    center line and hit Chloe's truck head on. The lady was on Snap Chat
    and was texting. She was so distracted that she ignored the rumble
    strips in the road and drove in Chloe's lane for the length of a
    football field. She never hit the brakes.

    Ken Yamamoto (Santa Barbara, CA), a van broadsided me while biking
    through a T-intersection, threw me off my bike, I rolled a couple of
    times, sustained knees and shoulders tendon and ligament damage. Santa
    Barbara Move (formerly bicycle coalition)

    cc: The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Chair
    The Honorable Roger Wicker, Ranking Member
    Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation
                                     ______

                                          MADD--No More Victims
                                                           May 21, 2024
    Hon. Gary Peters, Chairman,
    Hon. Todd Young, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, Freight and Ports,
    Committee on Science, Commerce and Transportation,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Peters and Ranking Member Young:

        Thank you for convening today's hearing ``Examining the Roadway
    Safety Crisis and Highlighting Community Solutions.'' As someone who
    has experienced unimaginable loss due to the preventable crime of drunk
    driving, I commend the bipartisan leadership, led by Chair Peters, and
    Senators Ben Ray Lujan, Shelley Moore Capito and Rick Scott, that
    resulted in the passage of the Honoring Abbas Family Legacy to
    Terminate (HALT) Drunk Driving Act, named in honor of my family. In
    2019, a wrong-way drunk driver killed my sister and only sibling Rima
    (38), my brother-in-law Issam (42), my nephew Ali (13), and my two
    nieces Isabella (12) and Giselle (7) as they drove home to Michigan
    from a family vacation in Florida. In an instant, I lost my entire
    world.
        The HALT Act, included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL),
    requires a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) for
    passive, advanced impaired driving prevention technology in all new
    vehicles. When fully implemented, the Insurance Institute for Highway
    Safety estimates that the law will save more than 10,000 lives every
    year. Let me repeat, more than 10,000 lives will be saved each and
    every year.
        Since 2019, the U.S. has experienced a 33 percent increase in
    alcohol-related crash deaths, and a rising number of drivers in fatal
    and serious-injury crashes are testing positive for other drugs. The
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated 13,524
    people died in alcohol-related crashes in 2022. Additionally, drunk
    driving costs the U.S. economy $58 billion a year.
        In January 2024 NHTSA released an Advance Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking (ANPRM) to begin implementation of the HALT Act. Comments to
    the docket show that there is significant support from auto suppliers
    and original equipment manufacturers for implementation of advanced
    impaired driving prevention technology. General Motors CEO Mary Barra
    publicly shared her support in December 2023, stating that the
    technology exists and will be ``good for everyone.'' The BIL was signed
    into law two and a half years ago, and we are now just 6 months away
    from the Congressionally-mandated due date for the issuance of a HALT
    Act final rule--November 15, 2024. Victims and survivors urge the
    Committee to strongly encourage NHTSA to issue a Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking by November 15, 2024. We must not lose momentum--we must act
    now. I am attaching Mothers Against Drunk Driving's comments to NHTSA's
    ANPRM docket for submission to the hearing record.
        Drunk driving crashes occur every day, in Michigan, Indiana, and
    all across the country. Recent headlines in my home state of Michigan
    serve as stark reminders of the urgent need for HALT Act
    implementation: ``Two Young Siblings Killed, Several People Hurt When
    Suspected Drunk Driver Crashes into Michigan Birthday Party;''
    ``Pregnant Mom of 4 Charged in Drunk Driving Hit-And-Run That Killed 2,
    Hurt 13.'' In Indiana we see similar recent headlines: ``Indianapolis-
    Area Trooper Hit by Alleged Drunk Driver;'' and ``Two Killed on I-69
    After Suspected Drunk Driver Crashes into Oncoming Traffic.'' These
    crashes are happening every day, in every single state, and they are
    100 percent preventable.
        The HALT Act will someday be known as one of the most successful
    public health policy initiatives in our Nation's history. On behalf of
    hundreds of thousands of victims and survivors across the country,
    thank you for this Committee's continued oversight to ensure full
    implementation of the HALT Act. The landmark law provides hope to those
    of us who continue to live without our loved ones. Victims and
    survivors see a future of no more drunk driving and we are forever
    grateful to the bipartisan coalition for setting us on a path to No
    More Victims.
                Thank you,
                                             Rana Abbas Taylor,
                                                            Northville, MI.
                                     ______

                      Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
        Submission to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
                          Docket No. NHTSA-2-2022-0079
       Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology Advance Notice of
                              Proposed Rulemaking
                                 March 5, 2024
        Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) appreciates the opportunity to
    submit comments to the Rulemaking Docket (NHTSA-2022-0079) in response
    to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Advanced
    Impaired Driving Prevention Technology. MADD is the Nation's voice of
    victims and survivors affected by a drunk or drug-impaired driving
    crash, providing services to those in need, helping individuals,
    families and loved ones through the court process and the healing
    process, and empowering victims and survivors to create change to
    prevent others from going through the same preventable trauma. MADD
    sees a future free of drunk and drugged driving with no more victims.
    Eliminating drunk and drugged driving is no longer a ``moonshot''
    goal--it is a reality that is well within reach today.
        Technology to stop impaired driving is available now, and a
    bipartisan law will ensure that a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standard (FMVSS) is established for impaired driving prevention
    technology as mandated by Congress in the Infrastructure Investment and
    Jobs Act (IIJA). The Honoring Abbas Family Legacy to Terminate (HALT)
    Drunk Driving Act requires that all new vehicles come equipped with
    smart technology to prevent impaired driving. The HALT Act is named in
    honor of a Michigan family of five--Rima and Issam Abbas, and their
    three children Ali, 13; Isabella, 12; and Giselle, 7--killed by a
    wrong-way drunk driver while on their way home from a family vacation.
    Thousands of other victims and survivors have shared their stories of
    grief and pain to ensure enactment of the HALT Act, working with a
    bipartisan group of Members of Congress to end this public health
    crisis once and for all.
        The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that 10,158
    lives will be saved every year when drunk driving prevention
    technology, as required by the HALT Act, is fully implemented. This
    estimate is based on preventing impaired drivers at .08 BAC or above
    from illegally operating their motor vehicles. As acknowledged in the
    ANPRM, ``NHTSA believes that Congress did not intend to limit NHTSA's
    efforts under [the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law] BIL to alcohol
    impairment.'' Including other forms of impaired driving technology
    capability as part of this rulemaking, as Congress intended, translates
    to even more tangible public health and safety benefits on our Nation's
    roadways.

    The Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention Technology rulemaking, when
    fully implemented, will be celebrated as one of the most significant
    public health initiatives in U.S. history in terms of lives saved and
    injuries prevented.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and
    Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) ``Ten Greatest Public Health
    Achievements--United States,'' May, 2011. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
    preview/mmwrhtml/mm6019a5.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nation Experiences Historic Increases in Traffic Fatalities and
            Injuries: Impaired Driving Crisis Worsens
        In 2021, 42,939 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes--up 10
    percent over 2020 fatalities and the largest spike in the history of
    NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System that dates back to 1975. An
    estimated 2.5 million people were injured in traffic crashes, a 9.4
    percent increase over 2020. Alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities jumped
    to more than 13,000 deaths for the first time since 2007, marking the
    second year in a row of alarming increases in these preventable
    tragedies.\2\ NHTSA reports:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Traffic
    Safety Facts 2021 Data,; October 2023. https://
    crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813515

       In 2021 there were 13,384 fatalities in motor vehicle
            traffic crashes in which at least one driver was alcohol-
            impaired. This represented 31 percent of all traffic fatalities
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            in the United States for the year.

       Fatalities in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes increased by
            14.2 percent (11,718 to 13,384 fatalities) from 2020 to 2021.

       One alcohol-impaired-driving fatality occurred every 39
            minutes in 2021, on average.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Traffic Safety Facts: 2021 Data, Alcohol-Impaired Driving,
    NHTSA, June 2023. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
    ViewPublication/813450

        Alcohol-impaired driving, distracted driving and speeding all
    contributed to a 16-year high in traffic deaths, with reported historic
    increases in all three categories.\4\ Alcohol-impaired driving
    fatalities increased--for the second year in a row--by 14 percent,
    distracted driving fatalities increased by 12 percent, and speeding-
    related fatalities increased by 7.9 percent. Additionally, the number
    of pedestrians killed went up 13 percent, bicycle fatalities increased
    2 percent, and the number of unbelted passengers killed rose 8.1
    percent. Of the 13,384 people who died in alcohol-impaired-driving
    crashes in 2021, more than 1,600 fatalities were nonoccupants (12
    percent), comprised of pedestrians and cyclists.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Associated Press, ``Distraction, speeding and alcohol
    contribute to a 16-year high in traffic deaths,'' April 3, 2023.
    https://www.npr.org/2023/04/03/1167786510/distraction-speeding-and
    -alcohol-contribute-to-a-16-year-high-in-traffic-deaths
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Two years in a row of historic traffic fatality increases, after a
    decade of stagnation, highlight the urgent need for NHTSA to promulgate
    a safety standard that would require lifesaving Advanced Impaired
    Driving Prevention Technology in all new motor vehicles. As NHTSA
    states in the ANPRM, the lifesaving potential of this rulemaking impels
    the agency to move forward. There is only one other countermeasure that
    compares in terms of annual lives saved: the seat belt. Currently, seat
    belts are the best defense motorists have against a drunk driver.
    Technology Exists to Prevent Drunk and Impaired Driving
        The technology to save lives and prevent injuries due to drunk and
    impaired driving is here. Thanks to bipartisan leadership from Members
    of Congress directly impacted by drunk driving, and in response to
    victim and survivor constituents impacted by drunk and drug-impaired
    driving, collaborative government and auto industry research has been
    ongoing for 15 years. Simultaneously, auto suppliers and original
    equipment manufacturers have continued to develop additional technology
    solutions to impaired driving.
        ``The Federal government and the automotive industry have jointly
    backed a research partnership into alcohol detection technology since
    2008, exploring systems that use breath or touch sensors to determine
    the level of alcohol in a driver's blood. Robert Strassburger, chief
    executive of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, said the
    group has tested an initial version of its technology and aims to have
    a device that would comply with the law by the end of 2025.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Duncan, Ian. ``Car Safety Agency Takes Step Toward Requiring
    Anti-Drunk Driving Tech'' December 12, 2023. https://
    www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/12/12/nhtsa-drunk
    -driving-technology-mandate/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In December 2023, one day after the U.S. DOT announced this ANPRM
    and in response to a question on the announcement posed by DC Economic
    Club chair, David Rubenstein, General Motors CEO Mary Barra stated:
    ``We've been working with regulators on that . . . We have technology
    to do that . . . I think that's technology that's coming that I think
    is going to be good for everyone.'' \6\ The automotive industry is
    ready for this rulemaking. NHTSA must meet this moment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Laforest, Audrey. ``General Motors CEO: Anti-Drunken Driving
    Tech Is Coming'' Automotive News, December 13, 2023. https://
    www.autonews.com/executives/gm-ceo-mary-barra-says-anti-drunken-
    driving-tech-good-everyone

    After 15 years of research and testing, it is time for NHTSA to create
    an FMVSS, provide a DADSS reference design package to auto suppliers
    and original equipment manufacturers, and propel this lifesaving
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    technology, or equivalent technologies, into all vehicles.

        In January 2024 at the Consumer Electronics Show, multiple Tier 1
    and Tier 2 auto suppliers and original equipment manufacturers
    showcased new technologies designed to prevent impaired driving. In
    addition to multiple examples of driver monitoring systems focused on
    driver distraction and fatigue, several companies demonstrated drunk
    and impaired driving prevention technologies, including breath-based
    technologies used in combination with driver monitoring systems.
        MADD has included with this docket submission a list of
    technologies that exist or are in development from auto suppliers and
    original equipment manufacturers. This extensive list, in addition to
    the DADSS Federal research program that has been active for 15 years,
    provides justification for NHTSA to meet its legal obligation to
    implement the bipartisan Congressional mandate that all new vehicles
    are equipped with drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.
        Auto industry engineers have been developing technology to prevent
    impaired driving for decades, and what was once viewed as exploratory
    research to determine the feasibility of impaired driving prevention
    technology is viewed today as achievable and inevitable.
        Advanced impaired driving prevention technology is the only
    solution to ending the scourge of drunk and impaired driving crashes on
    our roadways. The bipartisan mandate from Congress is clear: NHTSA must
    expeditiously write a final rule, without further delay, that will put
    an end to drunk and impaired driving.
    Do Not Let Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good: Pathways Forward Exist to
            End Illegal Impaired Driving, and Prevent Driver Distraction
            and
            Fatigue
        While impaired driving prevention technologies exist today, there
    are still detractors who continue to raise rare, potential problems
    which serve to delay implementation of this lifesaving, preventative
    technology. For every potential roadblock to implementing the HALT Act,
    reasonable solutions exist.
        After 15 years of raising and debating the same potential
    roadblocks, policy questions and ``what if'' scenarios, industry,
    government, victims and survivors, public health and traffic safety
    advocates, privacy experts, and other stakeholders must now come
    together to find common ground and real solutions forward. Every day we
    delay, more are needlessly killed and seriously injured.
        The Technical Working Group on Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention
    Technology (TWG) points out in its recently released docket submission:
    ``The ANPRM discusses two important rulemaking approaches that can help
    us get where we need to be. One of these is that technology does not
    need to be fully developed and ready for deployment at the time a
    standard is promulgated. Safety standards can incentivize and lead
    technology development and encourage investments for public benefit . .
    . [T]he other approach described in the ANPRM is the potential of a
    phased approach to implementing the impairment prevention requirement.
    A phased or incremental approach could be an essential tool for
    achieving near-term benefit along with commitment to longer term
    progress.''
        NHTSA can write a final rule that allows for an iterative
    rulemaking process to implement impaired driving prevention technology,
    requiring technology that is available now in the early phase of the
    final rule, and creating a roadmap outlining an additional phase to
    prevent all types of impaired driving. As our Nation continues to see
    historic increases in roadway fatalities, NHTSA must take deliberate
    action to end this public health crisis, starting with what works now,
    charting a course for innovation and progress toward the achievable
    goal of no more victims.
        The deadline for the final rule for implementing advanced impaired
    driving prevention technology is November 2024. MADD urges NHTSA to
    issue a final rule that includes a rulemaking roadmap that can detect
    and prevent ALL dangerous impairments--drunk, drugged, distracted, and
    drowsy driving--and mitigate serious risk on our roadways.
        Vehicles can and must be able to respond to numerous driver
    impairments, including pre-start and during the driving process. NHTSA
    must issue a Final Rule that builds toward comprehensive function.
    Defining Impaired Driving and the Scope of the Impaired Driving Problem
        Euro NCAP describes driver impairment as a disconnection from the
    driving task or not in a physical state that is sufficient for safe
    driving (see box below). Recent research has gone ``one step further,
    complementing this idea of disconnection with the presence of
    dangerous/reckless driving.'' \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Lie, Anders et al; ``Vision Zero and Impaired Driving: Near and
    Longer-Term Opportunities for Preventing Death and Injuries,'' January
    2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
    S0001457523003913#f0005

        It is well established that various substances can dangerously
    impair driving, resulting in significant crash risk for the driver,
    vehicle occupants, surrounding motorists and passengers, pedestrians
    and bicyclists. Alcohol reduces coordination, concentration, ability to
    track moving objects, and negatively impacts steering and the ability
    to maintain lane position. Alcohol can also cause drowsiness. Cannabis
    affects psychomotor skills and cognitive functions critical to driving
    including drowsiness, time and distance perception, reaction time, lane
    tracking, and coordination. Opioids can cause drowsiness and impair
    cognitive function. Cocaine and methamphetamine can cause drivers to
    become more aggressive and reckless, resulting in increased risk-
    taking. Poly-substance use is when a driver is impaired from using two
    or more drugs, including alcohol, at the same time. Poly-substance use
    is a growing concern, particularly with the advent of cannabis
    legalization. Research shows that two or more drugs combined can
    amplify the impairing effects of each drug in a person's system.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Drug-Impaired
    Driving Overview, June 2021. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drug-
    impaired-driving
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alcohol-Impaired Driving and BAC Levels: The Legal Limit
        Research has demonstrated repeatedly that a driver's crash risk
    increases exponentially as BAC levels rise, as NHTSA indicates in the
    ANPRM, Table 1--Effects of Alcohol on Driving. MADD's message to the
    motoring public is clear and simple: if you drink, don't drive. Alcohol
    consumption and driving a motor vehicle should be two separate
    activities. In the 1990s MADD victims and survivors successfully
    advocated for the national .08 BAC per se standard, which became law in
    October 2000. All states and the District of Columbia, except Utah (.05
    BAC) now have a .08 BAC legal limit.
        As NHTSA states in the ANPRM, impairment begins before .08 BAC. In
    2020, there were 2,041 people killed in alcohol-related crashes where a
    driver had a BAC level of .01 to .07 BAC. The agency also acknowledges
    that ``In the United States, in general, a BAC of .08 and higher in
    drivers is defined as legally impaired and is a condition for arrest.''
    NHTSA continues ``However, alcohol-impairment of various driving-
    related skills can occur at lower concentrations, and alcohol-impaired
    drivers can pose serious injury risks to themselves and others with any
    amount of alcohol in their bodies.''
        MADD represents victims and survivors impacted by drivers with a
    BAC between .01 and .07 BAC, just as we represent victims and survivors
    impacted by drivers with a BAC at or above .08 BAC. During negotiations
    on the HALT Act, MADD was asked to support the inclusion of .08 BAC in
    the law. While MADD represents victims and survivors where an
    offender's BAC was below .08 BAC, we also understand the need to base
    alcohol detection technology on a legal threshold, clearly delineating
    when a driver is illegally impaired and therefore not able to safely
    operate a vehicle as defined by law.
        MADD would like to specifically address an agency comment in the
    ANPRM that is concerning and in direct opposition to previous
    statements made by the U.S. Department of Transportation and NHTSA
    under numerous Administrations. The ANPRM states that ``BAC levels
    provide an imperfect measurement of probable impairment.''
        In a legislative history of .08 BAC per se laws, NHTSA states the
    following:

        ``. . . the President called for the promotion of a national limit,
    under which it would be illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a blood
    alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher . . . The Federal agency
    charged with implementing the President's directive is the National
    Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of
    Transportation. Long before the President issued his directive in 1998,
    NHTSA had sponsored several studies on the effectiveness of .08 per se
    laws. In a 1992 Report to Congress, the agency recommended that all
    states should enact .08 per se laws for drivers 21 years of age or
    older. In 1997, NHTSA established an action plan to reduce alcohol-
    related driving fatalities on U.S. highways to 11,000 by the year 2005.
    NHTSA's plan, titled Partners in Progress: An Impaired Driving Guide
    for Action, recommended that all states pass a wide range of measures
    to combat DWI, including the enactment of illegal per se laws, and
    illegal limits of .08 BAC.'' \9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ ``Legislative History of .08 BAC Per Se Laws'' DOT HS 809 286,
    July 2001. https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-
    laws/08history/

        NHTSA's report goes on to include reasons that built the case for a
    national .08 BAC per se legal limit, including: 1) Virtually all
    drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC; 2) The risk of being
    involved in a crash increased substantially at .08 BAC; 3) Lowering the
    per se limit is a proven effective countermeasure that will reduce
    alcohol-related fatalities; 4) A BAC of .08 is a reasonable level at
    which to set the illegal limit; 5) The public supports BAC levels below
    .10; 6) Most other industrialized nations have set BAC limits at .08 or
    lower and have had these laws in place for many years.
    Cannabis and Other Drugs (Besides Alcohol)
        After alcohol, cannabis is the drug most often found in the blood
    of drivers involved in motor vehicle crashes.\10\ Cannabis use can
    affect psychomotor skills and cognitive function critical to safe
    driving, including drowsiness, time and distance perception, reaction
    time, divided attention, lane tracking and coordination. Other drugs
    are shown to pose significant risks to safely operating a motor
    vehicle.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Drugged Driving
    Facts, December 2019. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/
    drugged-driving#ref
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
    during 2018, approximately 12 million (4.7 percent) U.S. residents aged
    16 years and older reported driving under the influence of cannabis,
    and 2.3 million (0.9 percent) reported driving under the influence of
    illicit drugs other than marijuana during the previous 12 months.\11\
    Driving under the influence was most prevalent among males and among
    persons aged 16-34 years. Research has determined that co-use of
    alcohol with other drugs increases driver impairment and crash risk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and
    Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) December 20, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/
    mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6850a1.htm?s
    _cid=mm6850a1_w
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), in 2021,
    13.5 million people aged 16 and over drove under the influence of
    alcohol in the past year and 11.7 million drove under the influence of
    selected illicit drugs, including marijuana.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ NIDA, Drugged Driving Drug Facts https://nida.nih.gov/
    publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving#ref
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is challenging to measure how many crashes are due to drugs
    other than alcohol for several reasons. NIDA summarizes these
    challenges as follows:

      1.  A good roadside test for drug levels in the body does not exist
            yet;

      2.  Some drugs can stay in a person's system for days or weeks after
            use, making it difficult to determine when the drug was used,
            and therefore how and if it impaired driving;

      3.  Law enforcement does not usually test for drugs if drivers have
            an illegal BAC level because there is already enough evidence
            for a DUI charge;

      4.  Many drivers who cause crashes are found to have both alcohol and
            another drug in their system, or a combination of two or more
            drugs, making it challenging to know which substance had the
            greater effect.

        More research is needed on crash causation linked to drugs other
    than alcohol, as well as poly-substance use, and solutions to the
    challenges identified above are urgently needed. MADD acknowledges that
    due to the above challenges, NHTSA has stated in the ANPRM that
    ``Drugged driving, though important to prevent, is not included in the
    scope of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking.'' The agency
    shares much of the same information provided by NIDA above and adds
    ``Today's knowledge about the effects of any drug other than alcohol on
    driving performance remains insufficient to draw connections between
    their use, driving performance, and crash risk.''

    However, current vehicle-based safety technologies could be deployed to
    prevent significant risks posed by drug-impaired driving, and drug-
    impaired driving prevention technologies are currently in development
    and on the horizon. MADD urges NHTSA to include safety technologies in
    its final rule that consider some of the most common and dangerous
    characteristics of drug-impaired driving to mitigate significant crash
    risk. Technology can identify certain drug-impaired driving traits,
    regardless of the impairing substance. Vehicle-safety technologies can
    respond, particularly in the most egregious scenarios where the
    motoring public is put at significant risk.

        When operating a motor vehicle, regardless of the impairing
    substance, impairment is impairment. Researchers and auto industry
    engineers continue to identify common characteristics of substance-
    impaired drivers and are getting closer every day to identifying real
    solutions, regardless of the drug. As part of an iterative rulemaking
    process, NHTSA's roadmap to eliminate substance-impaired driving could
    include the identification of common signs of dangerous drug-impaired
    driving with various driver inputs, and appropriate vehicle responses
    when illegal impairment is detected.
        Measuring a driver's BAC level is one data point, albeit a
    critically important one. Alcohol remains the number one impairing
    substance on our Nation's roads, and as BAC levels rise research shows
    increased and deadly impairing effects. But what about a driver with a
    .04 BAC who has just gotten high in the bar parking lot before heading
    home? That driver will show significant signs of impairment well above
    the BAC data point alone and may in fact be operating a vehicle in an
    equivalent manner to drivers with a significantly higher BAC (swerving
    in and out of his or her lane, exhibiting slowed reaction times to
    environmental factors, driving the wrong way down a highway, etc.).
        MADD has participated in meetings with several government agencies
    for several decades to discuss the issue of drug-impaired driving
    beyond alcohol. As research continues to attempt to identify per se
    impairment levels, roadside testing, impairment versus presence, and
    accurate data collection on this critical issue, MADD urges NHTSA to
    create a roadmap to eliminate drug-impaired driving where advanced
    driver assistance technologies can be activated to reduce crash risk
    and severity, regardless of the impairing substance.
    HALT Act: Bi-Partisan Law Ushers in New Era of Vehicle Safety
        The HALT Act was signed into law on November 15, 2021. The
    historic, bipartisan mandate, led by Senators Ben Ray Lujan, Rick
    Scott, Gary Peters, and Shelley Moore Capito in the Senate, and
    Representatives Debbie Dingell, Jan Schakowsky, David McKinley, and
    Kathleen Rice in the House of Representatives, requires NHTSA to create
    a FMVSS for advanced impaired driving prevention technology. The HALT
    Act was included in the Infrastructure and Investment and Jobs Act
    (IIJA) following 15 years of conceptualization, research, federal
    funding, dedicated victim and survivor leadership and advocacy,
    publicly stated auto industry commitment, alcohol industry and
    insurance industry support, and various public health and traffic
    safety stakeholder involvement.
        MADD first began collaborative discussions on advanced technology
    solutions with the auto industry and other stakeholders starting in
    2006, when we convened the International DUI Technology Symposium: A
    Nation Without Drunk Driving (the Symposium). The Symposium explored
    the role of technology as the ultimate solution to the persistent
    public health crisis of alcohol-impaired driving. More than 100
    representatives participated, including leadership from DOT and NHTSA,
    technology experts, researchers, automobile manufacturers, insurers,
    law enforcement, courts, Federal and state legislators--all with the
    goal of creating a future of no more victims.
        Later that same year, in November 2006, MADD, U.S. DOT Secretary
    Mary Peters, NHTSA Administrator Nicole Nason, the Insurance Institute
    for Highway Safety, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the
    Governors Highway Safety Association, the International Association of
    Chiefs of Police, the Century Council, and the Distilled Spirits
    Council of the Unites States announced the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk
    Driving. A main pillar of the announcement included the exploration and
    commitment to developing advanced, in-vehicle technologies to eliminate
    drunk driving.

    MADD has included with this docket submission a timeline of events and
    milestones, spanning two decades, that led up to the enactment of the
    HALT Act and the release of the Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention
    Technology ANPRM, officially beginning the rulemaking process to
    implement this historic law and ushering in a new era in vehicle safety
    and traffic safety.

        It is worth noting again that the Insurance Institute for Highway
    Safety (IIHS) estimates that 10,158 lives will be saved every year when
    the technology required by the HALT Act is fully implemented.\13\
    IIHS's estimate focuses solely on alcohol-impaired driving fatalities.
    Incorporating drug-impaired driving prevention technology beyond
    alcohol, driver distraction and fatigue would increase the life-saving
    potential of this historic motor vehicle safety standard. As NHTSA
    states in the ANPRM, ``The enormous safety potential of addressing the
    three states of impaired driving considered here impels NHTSA's
    activities relating to driver impairment.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ IIHS ``Potential lives saved by in-vehicle alcohol detection
    systems'' January 2021. https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/
    2209
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Drunk driving prevention technology has been conceptualized and
    developed in some form by auto suppliers and original equipment
    manufacturers for decades, with the first known onboard experimental
    alcohol and drug impairment detection device developed and evaluated by
    General Motors engineers in the 1970s.\14\ \15\ There are countless
    other examples of industry public announcements, diagrams and patents,
    demonstrating thoughtful approaches to solving the impaired driving
    crisis on our roads.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ The New York Times--G.M. Testing a Car to Bar Drunken Driver,
    December 22, 1972. https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/22/archives/gm-
    testing-a-car-to-bar-drunken-driver.html
        \15\ Hemmings--A GM onboard experimental alcohol and drug
    impairment detection device of the 1970s, January 16, 2019. https://
    www.hemmings.com/stories/2019/01/16/a-gm-onboard-experimental-alcohol-
    and-drug-impairment-detection-device-of-the-1970s

    MADD has also included with this docket submission a summary of
    impaired driving technology, focused mainly on substance-impaired
    driving. There are many other examples of technologies designed to
    prevent distracted driving and fatigued driving, and many other vehicle
    safety systems that, once impairment is detected, can take specific
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    action to prevent crashes, fatalities and injuries.

        After years of patience and persistence, voices of victims and
    survivors sharing their stories of loss and life-altering injuries
    galvanized Federal action in a bipartisan victory for all road users.
    There must be no further delay: the time to end drunk and impaired
    driving is now.
    Consumer Acceptance
        On March 14, 2019, before the House Energy and Commerce
    Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce at a hearing titled
    ``Enhancing Vehicle Technology to Prevent Drunk Driving'' Congresswoman
    Debbie Dingell, still reeling from the recent Abbas family crash, and
    having attended the family's funeral along with 7,000 others in
    mourning, stated:

        ``[The Abbas family] deaths, and the thousands just like them each
    year, are avoidable and preventable. The technology exists to save
    lives. A little girl at the funeral came up to me--she was a
    classmate--and said `There is technology. Why are you not using it? Why
    won't Congress act? My friend should be here today.' That statement is
    my heart. So, my question to each Member, witness, and all the public
    watching today is simple: why aren't we using it? We need to explore
    every possible solution. . .and get the DADSS technology in cars as
    fast as we can.''

        Representative Dingell, in response to hearing industry
    representatives continuously use the 1970s seat belt interlock as a
    potential reason to delay implementation of the DADSS technology to
    prevent drivers from operating motor vehicles at .08 BAC or above, also
    stated:

        ``. . . we still to this day hear about that campaign to require
    seat belts being buckled. And it is used as an excuse for everything.
    And we have got to stop using it. It is now 2019, not the 1970s. And
    people are dying and the technology exists.''

        The 1970s example Representative Dingell refers to is cited by
    NHTSA and the auto industry time and time again as a reason for concern
    and delay. We must move past this example, and recognize that this
    occurred nearly 50 years ago, that seat belt use at the time was at
    best in the low teens, and victims and survivors had not yet organized
    to galvanize change.
        A consumer education campaign is an essential part of this
    rulemaking and should be developed and implemented as soon as possible.
        A report by researchers with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
    Public Health, published in the Journal of the American Medical
    Association (JAMA) Network Open on April 20, 2023, found that nearly
    two-thirds of respondents, or 64.9 percent, either agreed or strongly
    agreed that vehicle impairment prevention technology should be
    available on all new vehicles. Nearly the same percentage of
    respondents (63.4 percent) said they support the mandate for the
    technology that is included in the Infrastructure Law.
    NHTSA's Authority to Implement Advanced Impaired Driving Prevention
            Technology
        Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directs
    the Secretary of Transportation, through NHTSA, to establish a Federal
    motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that requires all new motor
    vehicles to be equipped with ``advanced drunk and impaired driving
    prevention technology.'' This section, known as the HALT Act, requires
    NHTSA to complete its rulemaking within three years of enactment,
    subject to conditional extensions, and further provides industry with
    two to three additional years to comply with the new FMVSS.
        Key to the implementation of the HALT Act is the law's definition
    of ``advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.''
    Specifically, the term is defined under statute as a ``system'' that
    can ``passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle
    to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent
    or limit motor vehicle operation if impairment is detected.'' The law
    further states that technology must, ``passively and accurately detect
    whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle
    is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described
    in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and prevent or limit
    motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the
    legal limit is detected; or is a combination of systems.''
        The law is very clear: NHTSA has an obligation to fulfill the
    mandate required by Congress to promulgate an FMVSS that requires a
    passive monitoring system that (a) detects and prevents or limits
    impaired driving, (b) detects and prevents or limits the operation of a
    vehicle when a driver has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above the
    Federal threshold of 0.08 percent, or (c) is a combination of both (a)
    and (b).
        Furthermore, the HALT Act directs NHTSA to promulgate the new FMVSS
    in accordance with its usual authority under the Motor Vehicle Safety
    Act (specifically 49 USC Sec. 30111), which requires NHTSA to consider
    whether the proposed standard is ``reasonable, practicable and
    appropriate'' for new motor vehicles (as contemplated under HALT).
    NHTSA is further directed to ``consider the extent to which the
    standard will carry out section 30101 of this title,'' which states the
    fundamental purpose of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, i.e., to ``reduce
    traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic
    accidents.'' It is our contention that NHTSA can provide an FMVSS that
    is reasonable, practicable and appropriate, and results in far fewer
    drunk and impaired driving deaths and injuries resulting from
    preventable motor vehicle crashes.
    Substance-Impaired Driving Prevention: Stopping the Crime Before It
            Happens and Rolling Tests
        MADD contends NHTSA's rulemaking must achieve two objectives:
    First, incorporating available technologies into vehicles that can
    passively detect the equivalent of a .08 blood alcohol content (BAC)
    and prevent the movement of a vehicle if the driver is above the
    threshold for impaired driving. When a vehicle detects a driver is
    impaired with a BAC of .08 or above, or equivalent, the driver must be
    unable to drive the vehicle.
        Second, NHTSA must determine as part of its final rule what action
    or actions the vehicle must take if impairment is detected while the
    car is in motion. Many of the victims and survivors MADD represents
    share stories of what was found in their offenders' vehicles, including
    open, half-full alcohol containers, empty alcohol containers on the car
    floorboards and/or drug paraphernalia they were using as they drove the
    vehicle. When a vehicle detects driver impairment while the vehicle is
    in motion, the vehicle can and must take action to prevent death and
    injury on our roadways. Actions to mitigate significant fatality and
    serious injury risk can include a ``limp home mode,'' which could
    include limiting vehicle speed, lane keeping assist, and/or identifying
    a safe location and pulling the vehicle over. These solutions are well
    within reach and must be included in a final rule.
        Congress specifically provided NHTSA with the option to combine
    multiple systems that detect and prevent various scenarios of impaired
    driving, which can also provide a system of redundancies. NHTSA could
    require cars to be equipped with technologies that detect and prevent
    BOTH drunk driving (through, for instance, a BAC detection system) AND
    impaired driving (through, for example, a driver monitoring system.)
    Given that NHTSA's specific statutory authority under HALT is coupled
    with NHTSA's general mandate to ``reduce traffic accidents and deaths
    and injuries resulting from traffic accidents,'' MADD urges the agency
    to be aggressive and ambitious in fulfilling its statutory obligations.
    The bipartisan HALT Act directs NHTSA to change the behavior of
    millions of drivers who choose to get behind the wheel drunk or
    impaired. HALT Act's directed and mandatory rulemaking complements
    NHTSA's general statutory mission and presents the agency with a
    historic opportunity to save thousands of lives every year, and prevent
    hundreds of thousands of injuries, changing transportation and traffic
    safety as we know it.
    Data and Privacy Protections
        The benefits of the HALT Act are not at odds with driver and
    passenger privacy. NHTSA can promulgate an effective FMVSS that meets
    the requirements of the HALT Act, while concurrently protecting
    consumer data from unauthorized or improper collection and/or use. In
    fact, as noted by NHTSA in its AMPRM, because the agency must factor in
    consumer acceptance (as part of its statutory mandate to consider the
    practicability of the FMVSS), it is imperative that NHTSA establishes
    privacy protections as part of the rulemaking process. ``Privacy by
    design'' is a long, well-established best practice that infuses data
    protection into the design and execution of any technology or protocol.
    NHTSA should aggressively incorporate this principle throughout its
    regulatory deliberations.
        While NHTSA does not have extensive regulatory or policy experience
    protecting consumer privacy, other agencies do. Most notably, the
    Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the Nation's premier consumer
    protection agency with a long-established and well-regarded history of
    enforcement and regulatory actions protecting consumer privacy. MADD
    recommends that NHTSA consult with the FTC and other well-regarded and
    relevant government entities when deliberating on privacy and data
    protections in its rulemaking process. Also, see answers to questions
    below regarding privacy.
    Conclusion
        For 15 years, the auto industry and the Department of
    Transportation through the bipartisan DADSS program have researched and
    prepared for advanced impaired driving prevention technology in
    vehicles. Simultaneously, auto suppliers and original equipment
    manufacturers have been developing additional technologies to address
    impaired driving. NHTSA has the authority and is obligated to meet the
    rulemaking timeline outlined in the bipartisan Congressional mandate
    for advanced impaired driving prevention technology as a standard
    safety feature in all new vehicles and provide a final rule by November
    2024. This law has encouraged continued innovation, which will allow
    NHTSA to write a flexible rule to accommodate various kinds of life-
    saving technologies. MADD victims and survivors will continue to work
    with the Administration and bipartisan leaders in Congress to ensure
    HALT Act implementation. We look forward to a day when drunk and
    impaired driving is a thing of the past. A world with no more victims
    is here.
                           Answers to ANPRM Questions
    Question 8.1.
        MADD believes that there are numerous technology-neutral practices
    that can effectively protect driver and passenger data.
        First, whatever system is in place, that system should only collect
    and use data that is absolutely essential for the purpose of
    effectuating the purpose of the HALT Act, i.e., to detect drunk and/or
    impaired driving and prevent or limit the operation of the vehicle upon
    detection. The collection and use of consumer data for any other
    purpose should be strictly prohibited. This concept, known as ``data
    minimization'', is another well-established concept in privacy public
    policy circles. For example, consumer data should not be used for
    marketing or advertising purposes; nor should it be used by law
    enforcement. On this latter point, the purpose of the HALT Act is NOT
    to aid in the prosecution of a drunk or impaired driver, but to prevent
    the operation of a vehicle by a drunk or impaired driver. The law is
    meant to save lives, not be punitive.
        Second, any and all data that a motor vehicle system collects and
    uses should be anonymized or de-identified in order to protect the
    identity of the driver or vehicle. Such de-identification protocols
    should also prevent the re-identification of such data so that it
    cannot be linkable to an individual or vehicle.
        Third, any data collection that occurs to detect and prevent
    impaired driving should be strictly confined to the vehicle; data
    should not be transmitted outside the vehicle to, for example, a remote
    server. In fact, all data transfers to third parties, no matter the
    means or vector, should be strictly prohibited. Prohibiting and
    preventing the migration of driver data to outside sources minimizes
    the risk of improper use of driver data for purposes other than the
    mandates of the HALT Act.
        Lastly, MADD would like to emphasize that such privacy protective
    practices are technology neutral. That is, they can apply to any
    technology or system that an eventual FMVSS establishes to fulfill the
    HALT Act's legal mandate. Given this, NHTSA should not rule out any
    technology or system because it is deemed to be more privacy invasive
    than others. Whether a car is equipped with a driver monitoring system
    or a BAC detection system, the best practices outlined above can
    readily and effectively apply to all of them. In short, NHTSA should
    take nothing off the table.
    Question 8.2
        MADD rejects the premise of Questions 8.2. If NHTSA promulgates a
    rule that embraces privacy-by-design and requires certain best
    practices while prohibiting other improper practices, there shouldn't
    be any ``potential for different privacy impacts associated with
    different types of systems and information used in those systems.'' As
    noted earlier, these practices are tech-neutral. For instance,
    requiring the de-identification of all driver data eliminates any
    privacy distinction between, say, a driver monitoring system and a BAC
    detection system. If all of the data is de-identified and, further,
    cannot be reconstituted to identify an individual, it doesn't matter
    whether that data pertains to facial features or blood alcohol levels.
        Furthermore and related, MADD rejects the premise of the ANPRM's
    example question, ``how should accuracy be weighed against privacy?''
    If a final rule incorporates well-established, tech-neutral privacy
    practices and prohibitions (as outlined in our answer to Question 8.1),
    accuracy and privacy should not be at odds. As stated earlier, MADD
    does not believe that public safety and privacy are a zero-sum game.
    Question 8.3
        We are not clear to what NHTSA is referring when it references
    ``performance-based security controls''. However, MADD does not believe
    that NHTSA should rely on ``any industry or voluntary standards'' in
    its deliberations. In fact, state governments have passed their own
    privacy and security laws--and Congress is currently deliberating on a
    comprehensive Federal law--precisely because the private sector has
    done such a poor job of adhering to meaningful voluntary privacy
    standards on its own. In fact, the automobile industry has been
    specifically cited as a particularly egregious stakeholder group in
    terms of their data privacy practices.\16\ Like other sectors of the
    economy, the automobile industry has embraced ``Big Data'' and
    collects, uses, and monetizes vast amounts of consumer data, often
    without consumer knowledge or consent. Other industry stakeholders,
    such as insurance companies and rental car companies, similarly have
    commercial interests in vehicle-generated data.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Mozilla--It's Official: Cars Are the Worst Product Category We
    Have Ever Reviewed for Privacy, September 2023. https://
    foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-official-
    cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-privacy/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Consequently, MADD believes that NHTSA should largely rely on its
    relevant partners in the Federal government, most notably the FTC, as
    well as stakeholders with well-established public interest credentials,
    such as privacy advocacy groups. Industry input can prove vital in
    understanding the technical nature of data collection and use, but how
    that data can be collected and used outside of the narrow confines of
    HALT's public safety mandate should be largely insulated from
    commercial, for-profit interests and motivations.
    Question 8.4
        MADD does not believe that technological systems required under a
    HALT-promulgated FMVSS pose any significant or ``additional security
    vulnerabilities'' than systems that are currently embedded in modern
    motor vehicles. Today's automobiles are largely rolling computers that
    are already collecting vast amounts of consumer data. They already have
    connectivity to sources outside of the vehicle--including to the open
    Internet--that already pose significant security risks and compromise
    consumer privacy. As noted in Question 8.3, the automobile industry has
    been specifically cited as a particularly poor steward of consumer
    data. Modern vehicles feature connectivity through smartphones, which
    in turn, feature connectivity to specific mobile applications and
    platforms. This connectivity and functionality pose far greater dangers
    to vehicle security and/or driver privacy than any system that would be
    contemplated under this ANPRM. In fact, if NHTSA establishes regulatory
    guardrails on how those systems may collect and use data (as MADD
    urges), then these systems will be far more privacy protective and
    secure than the myriad of largely unregulated technologies that
    currently reside in motor vehicles.
    Question 8.5
        If NHTSA promulgates a rule that incorporates strong, privacy-by-
    design principles in its FMVSS, MADD believes NHTSA's primary task in
    education and outreach should be to reassure the public that these
    life-saving technologies pose no danger to their privacy or security.
    Unfortunately, too much misinformation about the HALT Act has already
    been spread--including misinformation peddled by Members of Congress
    who are hostile to the law--and NHTSA should aggressively work to
    debunk these harmful myths. As noted earlier, modern day motor vehicles
    are already computers on wheels that collect vast amounts of consumer
    data. To single out the HALT Act and impaired driving technology as
    somehow being a unique threat to consumer privacy is either naively
    ignorant at best or disingenuous at worst. NHTSA and media outlets must
    push back against this false narrative.
        Again, public safety and privacy are not at odds. NHTSA can craft a
    rule that effectively detects and prevents impaired driving while
    concomitantly protecting driver and passenger privacy. In so doing,
    NHTSA must also play the vital role of informing the public of this
    basic, complementary duality, while vehemently rejecting the false
    dichotomy that consumers must somehow sacrifice their personal privacy
    in order to save lives on our roads. This is simply not true, and NHTSA
    must unequivocally and aggressively debunk these harmful myths.

        Senator Peters. I also dedicate today's discussion to them.
    As these families know all too well, the safety situation on
    our roads constitutes a national crisis. In 2021, the National
    Highway Safety Traffic Administration estimated that the U.S.
    had the highest number of fatalities since 2005.
        Unfortunately, the trend has not significantly improved
    over the past two years. According to NHTSA's most recent
    estimates, roadway deaths remain elevated, with only a three
    percent reduction in 2023.
        These numbers do not reflect the harm done to our drivers
    and passengers, but also vulnerable pedestrians, bicyclists,
    and motorcyclists who continue to be disproportionately harmed
    on our roads. Also overrepresented in these tragedies are
    Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans, as well as Americans
    living in rural areas.
        We need a strong and comprehensive response, and today
    we'll discuss a holistic, Safe Systems approach to addressing
    the roadway safety crisis, and how we can implement that
    approach all across our country.
        The Safe Systems approach ensures that all aspects of our
    roadways account for inevitable human error. It emphasized
    building multiple layers of protection so that even when
    mistakes are made, death and injury are unlikely.
        This framework focuses on five key categories: safer people
    and behaviors, safer vehicles, safer speeds, safer roads, and
    improving the post-crash care.
        I believe emerging technologies are going to play an
    important role in this endeavor. New interventions from digital
    infrastructure that improves crash response, to predictive road
    maintenance and active traffic management, are absolutely
    essential to achieving Safe System goals.
        That also includes the safe and accountable development,
    testing, and deployment of autonomous vehicles, which can help
    us reduce serious injuries and death on our roadways.
        I expect our witnesses today to discuss the principles and
    data behind the Safe Systems approach, as well as how we can
    better support communities implementing these solutions on the
    ground.
        We have already made important progress. Congress took one
    key step toward supporting roadway safety with the passage of
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021. The law provides $5
    billion in Safe Streets for All grants for local, regional, and
    tribal communities to prevent roadway deaths and injuries using
    a Safe Systems approach, and requires them to measure their
    success along the way.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is also the first piece
    of legislation to establish requirements for complete street
    standards. These ensure that our roadways can safely
    accommodate all traffic; that includes vulnerable road users
    like pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and people with
    disabilities, as well as the elderly.
        And finally, with the help of Michigander Rana Abbas
    Taylor, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included the Honoring
    the Abbas Family Legacy to Terminate Drunk Driving Act, a
    requirement for the inclusion of impaired driving prevention
    technology in our vehicles.
        Today, we will learn more about the challenges and the
    opportunities these provisions are posing for communities on
    the ground. But the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was just the
    beginning. There is still so much more that we can and we must
    do in order to address this crisis.
        Our witnesses will also help us examine what solutions need
    to come next. I would like to thank each of you for being here
    today, and for the expertise that you're going to share with
    this committee, and for all you do each and every day to make
    our streets and our highways safer
        I would now invite Ranking Member Young for any opening
    remarks that you have.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

        Senator Young. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    thank all of our witnesses for joining us today to discuss a
    topic of paramount importance, roadway safety in the United
    States.
        Today, I want to highlight our Nation's alarming roadway
    fatality and crash statistics, discuss the significance of
    innovation in enhancing roadway safety, and call attention to
    the important role that tried-and-true infrastructure
    investments play in keeping our roads safe.
        Every year, thousands of lives are tragically cut short due
    to vehicle crashes. In 2023 alone, nearly 41,000 people lost
    their lives on American roads. This statistic is not just a
    number, it represents parents, children, friends, and
    colleagues whose absence leaves a void in their families and
    communities.
        Additionally, millions of crashes occur annually, leading
    to severe injuries and substantial economic losses.
        These staggering figures underscore the urgent need for
    innovative solutions to make our roads safer. If we all come
    together on a bipartisan basis to prioritize human lives over
    political and parochial interests, we can significantly
    leverage technology to create safer roadways for everyone.
        One of the most promising areas of technological innovation
    lies in the development of autonomous vehicles, which have the
    potential to revolutionize roadway safety. Unlike human
    drivers, autonomous vehicles do not get distracted, tired, or
    impaired. They can react to hazards more quickly and make
    split-second decisions based on vast amounts of data that no
    human could process.
        Widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles could reduce
    traffic fatalities by up to 90 percent, potentially saving tens
    of thousands of lives each year in the United States. This
    technology isn't just futuristic, it's a tangible solution that
    can transform how we think about road safety and massively
    reduce the number of deaths on our roads every year.
        However, the benefits of innovation extend beyond
    autonomous vehicles. Smart infrastructure is another critical
    component of a safer transportation ecosystem. Intelligent
    traffic signals, for example, can adjust in real time to
    traffic conditions, reducing congestion and minimizing the
    likelihood of accidents.
        Connected vehicle technology allows cars to communicate
    with each other and with infrastructure, providing drivers with
    real-time information about road conditions, hazards, and
    traffic patterns. This interconnected network can significantly
    enhance situational awareness and reduce the risk of
    collisions.
        Furthermore, public education and awareness campaigns are
    essential to ensuring that drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and
    other road users can understand and embrace these new
    technologies. Public acceptance and trust are crucial for the
    successful integration of innovative solutions into our daily
    lives.
        Public awareness and education efforts are also vital to
    addressing certain longstanding roadway safety issues in a
    cost-effective way, not the least of which is one that any
    parent should be extremely concerned about, and that is school
    bus safety, specifically related to illegal school bus
    passings. School bus safety should be at the top of our list
    when it comes to roadway safety; and unfortunately, it hasn't
    received the attention it deserves.
        Estimates show that more than 43 million violations occur
    during every 180-day school year. My Stop for School Buses Act,
    which Chairman Peters co-led with me, was signed into law in
    2021 and directed the Department of Transportation to review
    illegal passing laws and potential technological solutions,
    along with developing a public safety messaging campaign.
        But with all of these things said, public safety campaigns
    and technological innovation on their own are not enough. We
    must also focus on improving our roadway infrastructure to
    improve safety. This includes maintaining road quality and
    focusing Federal funding to--focused Federal funding to
    leverage state, local, and private funding for infrastructure
    projects that will vastly improve roadway safety.
        Indiana is home to over 97,000 miles of public roadways,
    and as the Crossroads of America, Hoosiers rely heavily on
    transportation infrastructure. In Evansville, Indiana, I've
    been working hard for years to secure Federal funding for the
    I-69 Ohio River Crossing project to fill a crucial gap in the
    Nation's transportation infrastructure, as it links I-69
    between Indiana and Kentucky over the Ohio River.
        This type of project, which will mitigate traffic
    congestion, improve overall roadway safety, and significantly
    leverage non-Federal dollars, is where Federal infrastructure
    dollars should be focused.
        While these statistics on roadway fatalities and crashes
    are alarming, they also serve a powerful motivator for change.
    By embracing technological innovation and investing in our
    infrastructure, we have the opportunity to significantly
    improve roadway safety in the United States. Autonomous
    vehicles, smart infrastructure, and hard infrastructure
    investments hold immense potential to save lives and prevent
    injuries.
        So let us commit to supporting an all-of-the-above approach
    to advancing roadway safety innovations, working together to
    create safer roads for everyone.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member Young.
        We're also joined by the Ranking Member of the Full
    Committee; Senator Cruz, you're recognized for any opening
    remarks.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Last year, 40,990 people died on roads in the United
    States. I expect that we will hear that number multiple times
    today, and that's because it's a tragic number, especially for
    all of those who lost loved ones.
        There are many reasons that go into this, one of which is
    lack of adequate infrastructure, lack of sufficient freeways,
    lack of sufficient space--that creates more traffic.
        Unfortunately, the Biden administration has consistently
    failed to prioritize new freeways; has consistently failed to
    prioritize infrastructure; and instead, the Biden
    administration has allowed itself to be distracted by political
    pet projects, things like bike lanes, and things like the
    allegation that there are racist roads we need to be worried
    about, instead of focusing on the important task of building
    more damn roads.
        On this committee, I'm proud to have led the way on
    multiple pieces of bipartisan legislation that have been signed
    into law to expand our critical infrastructure.
        I-14, a new interstate that will run from the Permian Basin
    in Texas east all the way to the Atlantic Ocean, that
    legislation I introduced with Raphael Warnock, a Democrat who
    serves on this committee, and Cruz-Warnock passed unanimously
    and was signed into law. That interstate is critically needed
    throughout west Texas, east Texas, and each of the states that
    I-14 will run through, all the way to the Atlantic Ocean.
        Likewise, I was the lead author of legislation designating
    I-27 the Ports to Plains Corridor. That bill was introduced
    with Ben Ray Lujan, another Democrat, another member of this
    committee. I-27 will run from Laredo, Texas, up north through
    west Texas, up through the panhandle of Texas, up into New
    Mexico, ultimately all the way up to Canada. It will be a major
    artery for north-south trade and commerce, just like I-14 will
    be a major artery for east-west trade and commerce.
        Likewise, I was the lead author of legislation to build and
    expand four new bridges from south Texas to Mexico across the
    Rio Grande River. Those bridges were being delayed by
    bureaucratic roadblocks put up by the Biden administration.
    Repeatedly I went to the Secretary of Transportation, to the
    Secretary of State, asked them to stop those bureaucratic
    roadblocks. They refused to do so. Every one of those projects
    was delayed three, four, 5 years, until I authored legislation
    streamlining the permitting of that legislation--of those
    bridges. That legislation was signed into law in December of
    last year, and the result will produce tens of thousands of
    high-paying jobs in Texas and billions of dollars of additional
    trade and commerce between Texas and Mexico.
        Infrastructure is one critical way to protect safety.
    Another way is public safety. And sadly, we have seen Democrats
    spend much of the past few years disparaging law enforcement.
        And we're learning that less enforcement of traffic safety
    potentially leads to more traffic crashes. That makes sense. If
    you think the police are not going to enforce laws, then people
    are going to be more likely to break the laws.
        In his written testimony for today's hearing, Mr. Nelson
    notes that ``Rising traffic fatalities are correlated with
    drops in the enforcement of lifesaving traffic safety laws,''
    and that parts of the country have seen a decrease in citations
    by as much as 50 percent for dangerous activities like speeding
    or impaired driving.
        An article from October 2023 titled, quote, ``The Decline
    in Police Traffic Stops Is Killing People'' points out that
    cities like Seattle, New York City, and St. Louis saw traffic
    stops decline and saw a significant increase in traffic
    fatalities. Previous research has also drawn a link between
    declines in traffic enforcement and accidents.
        Another notable issue is drugged driving. A 2022 research
    paper found that from 2009 to 2019, legalization of
    recreational marijuana was, quote, ``associated with a 6.5
    percent increase in injury crash rates, and a 2.3 percent
    increase in fatal crash rates.''
        And yet, the Biden administration, rather than working to
    keep our families safe on the roadways, has instead decreed
    that it will reclassify marijuana from a Schedule 1 substance
    to Schedule 3. The American Trucking Association quickly
    followed this news with a letter highlighting that rescheduling
    marijuana without an explicit allowance for a test for its use
    would create confusion and result in, quote, ``serious safety
    impacts to safety sensitive industries.''
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on each of
    these topics.
        Senator Peters. Our first witness is Sam Krassenstein. Sam
    Krassenstein serves as the Chief of Infrastructure for the City
    of Detroit under Mayor Mike Duggan. He is responsible for
    leading the city's infrastructure and transportation
    priorities, collaborating with state and Federal partners,
    executing major projects, and overseeing grant funding. He has
    an MBA and a master's in urban planning from the University of
    Michigan.
        Welcome, Mr. Krassenstein. Please proceed with your opening
    comments.

    STATEMENT OF SAMUEL KRASSENSTEIN, CHIEF OF INFRASTRUCTURE, CITY
                               OF DETROIT

        Mr. Krassenstein. Good afternoon. Chair Cantwell, Chairman
    Peters, Ranking Member Young, and Ranking Member Cruz, and
    members of the Senate Subcommittee, I am humbled at the
    opportunity to appear today at this important hearing to
    represent the City of Detroit and the state of Michigan as a
    transportation official, proud Detroit resident, motorcyclist,
    husband, and father.
        I'm here because Detroit has the unenviable position of
    having the second-highest traffic fatality rate and the third-
    highest rate for pedestrians in the country. Last year alone,
    we lost 132 lives to traffic violence amidst the 40,990 people
    killed nationwide.
        Our street network was built for a city of nearly 2 million
    people, almost three times our current population. Like many
    urban areas nationwide, overbuilt streets creates the perfect
    scenario for speeding, dangerous driving, and treacherous
    conditions for our most vulnerable residents trying to catch
    the bus or cross the street on foot.
        With the passage of the IIJA, we had an opportunity to make
    real change on these overbuilt streets with new programs like
    Safe Streets for All. We've been extremely fortunate to receive
    two grants through SS4A totaling $49.6 million across 2022 and
    2023.
        The first grant allows us to make systematic infrastructure
    improvements across 30 miles of city jurisdiction roads on our
    high-injury network: basically, the roads with the highest rate
    of crashes resulting in injuries.
        The second grant focuses on high-crash intersections near
    transit stops, where data shows most of our pedestrians are
    getting hit. Many of these intersections are either partially
    or fully under county or state jurisdiction, and required close
    collaboration with our partners to even be able to apply.
        Last week, in partnership with Michigan DOT, we submitted
    another SS4A request, this time for a pilot for safety
    countermeasures on our most dangerous roadway, Gratiot Avenue.
    Gratiot, at least the part within Detroit, is one of the most
    dangerous roadways in the state for drivers and pedestrians
    alike.
        Gratiot is the perfect example of the road safety
    challenges that City of Detroit and other cities across the
    country face. It's a nine-lane surface arterial street that
    cuts through the heart of Detroit's east side, not far from
    where I live. The road design has been virtually unchanged
    since 1956, when streetcars stopped running in the city.
        While the posted speed is 30 miles an hour, the actual
    speeds are likely closer to 60. I say ``likely,'' because we're
    discouraged from completing a speed study, as state law would
    require the speed limit to then be updated to the 85th
    percentile of prevailing speeds, which is not exactly in the
    name of safety.
        Since 2017, this eight-mile stretch of road has had 159
    pedestrian and/or cyclist involved crashes, 45 fatalities, and
    nearly 1,200 injury crashes. These aren't the result of drunk
    drivers or people texting, but rather the result of a road that
    no longer meets the needs of the population that it claims to
    serve.
        While Gratiot is also one of the busiest bus transit
    corridors in the state, there are multiple sections of the road
    that don't have as much as a marked crosswalk for at least half
    a mile--which may not seem like a lot, but when someone gets
    off the bus after a long day at work and needs to get to their
    house in the neighborhood on the other side of the street,
    we're asking them to walk more than a mile to avoid crossing
    100 feet at an unprotected location.
        A hundred feet is wider than some sections of 395.
    Unsurprisingly, people don't do this, and take their lives into
    their hands on a daily basis. The data on Gratiot reflects
    this, with 33 pedestrian fatalities or serious injuries
    occurring at these unsignalized and unmarked crossings.
        In spite of all this, there's little that the city can do
    without our state DOT, since it's their road. For years, we've
    been working with our state DOT to figure out a plan for roads
    like Gratiot, only to be given outdated vehicle-centric design
    criteria, maintenance obligations that would be placed on the
    city, and lack of funding as obstacles preventing us from
    addressing the sobering number of crashes, injuries, and
    fatalities.
        While the SS4A program has created an opportunity for
    cities to seek funding to address safety challenges on larger-
    tier corridors like Gratiot, its success is dependent on not
    just having the funding available, but also having the
    continued cooperation of state DOTs and county road agencies
    that historically have done little to prioritize safety or
    funding in urban areas, and have little incentive from the
    Federal Government to do so.
        However, there's more that you can do to change this. The
    IIJA and the updates to the MUTCD, or the ``Manual on Uniform
    Traffic Control Devices''--basically the Bible for traffic
    design, if you're unfamiliar with the acronym--are a welcome
    start, and the pending Complete Streets, and Building Safer
    Streets legislation, have the potential to provide tremendous
    value to local governments, making it easier to add safety
    elements to projects.
        As I close today, I request you to consider how many lives
    can be saved by funding programs like Safe Streets for All. As
    we all seek to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on our
    roadways, it's critical to have dedicated safety funding that
    does not have to compete with maintaining roads and bridges.
        We've gotten used to not treating streets as public spaces,
    but only as ways to move traffic. If 40,990 people were killed
    annually in any other setting, there would rightfully be public
    outrage and a demand for immediate change. We have normalized
    the traffic violence that we see in our streets as accidents
    that just happen, rather than crashes that can be avoided.
        As stewards of this space, we have a responsibility at all
    levels to change that and make these spaces safer for the
    people that use them. I appreciate the work of this
    Subcommittee and the Committee as a whole on this important
    subject.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on
    behalf of the City of Detroit and local governments across the
    country. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Krassenstein follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Samuel Krassenstein, Chief of Infrastructure,
                                City of Detroit
    Introduction
        Good afternoon, Chair Cantwell, Chairman Peters, Ranking Member
    Young, Ranking Member Cruz, and members of the Subcommittee. I am
    humbled at the opportunity to appear today at this important hearing to
    represent the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan.
        My name is Sam Krassenstein, and I serve as Detroit Mayor Mike
    Duggan's Chief of Infrastructure. I am honored to testify on behalf of
    the City of Detroit as both a transportation official and proud
    resident. I want to focus my testimony on the nationwide transportation
    safety crisis on local roadways, the importance of continued Federal
    funding to address these issues, and how community solutions are
    improving safety and quality of life for vulnerable road users.
        Each and every traffic death and serious injury represents a
    preventable tragedy with far-ranging impacts on individuals, families,
    and communities. Those who lose their lives in traffic crashes are our
    loved ones, our children, parents, siblings, neighbors, or co-workers.
    I am a city resident of Detroit and a father of a young child with
    another on the way. I want my children to enjoy the experience of
    childhood and to have a sense of safety for our family when walking
    through our neighborhood streets. I have both a personal and
    professional commitment to ensuring the future of Detroit includes safe
    streets for all users, especially the most vulnerable.
    Safety Crisis
        Traffic deaths rose 9 percent between 2020 and 2022 nationwide,
    constituting a public health crisis on our roadways, according to the
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As you're
    aware, in 2023, an estimated 40,990 people died in roadway crashes in
    the United States\1\ including 132 just within the City of Detroit
    limits along with another 600 who sustained serious injuries.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NHTSA
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am here today because Detroit has the second-highest traffic
    crash fatality rate per capita among large cities in the United States
    and the third-highest pedestrian fatality rate.\2\ We lose 108 people
    annually by traffic crashes within the City of Detroit--or about one
    person every three days. Our fatal crash rate has continued to rise
    steadily and rapidly over the past few years, out of pace with the
    Nation and other large cities at nearly 4x the national average.\3\
    Fatal traffic crashes resulting in death or serious injury have
    increased nearly every year since 2014, resulting in a 53 percent net
    increase through 2021.\4\ This safety crisis compounds other
    disparities experienced by Detroit's low-income residents and
    communities of color every day.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Michigan State Police through the Michigan Traffic Crash Facts
    (MTCF) portal
        \3\ MTCF portal
        \4\ MTCF portal
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We have gotten used to not treating streets as public spaces but
    only as ways to move traffic. If 40,990 people were killed annually in
    any other setting like in our public buildings or parks, there would
    rightfully be public outrage and a demand for immediate change. We've
    normalized and contextualized the traffic violence we see on our
    streets as accidents that just happen rather than as crashes that can
    be avoided. As stewards of this space, we have a responsibility to
    change that and make these spaces safer for the people that use them.
        Detroit's street network was built for a City of nearly two million
    people, almost three times the current population. Like many urban
    areas nationwide, overbuilt streets create the perfect scenario for
    speeding, dangerous driving behavior, and treacherous conditions for
    our most vulnerable residents trying to catch the bus or cross a street
    on foot. Meeting the needs and activity levels of the city as it is
    today while realizing the vision for safer Detroit streets in the
    future requires a comprehensive overhaul of our roadways. Wide roads
    with few cars have led to excessive speeding and high pedestrian and
    bicycle fatality rates. From 2017 to 2021, Detroit had 608 motor-
    vehicle-involved roadway fatalities.\5\ As we look to improve roadway
    safety, targeted, data-driven changes to roadway design can
    substantially improve safer roads for all users.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

                                   Crashes Involving Vulnerable Users, City of Detroit
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          User                           2017         2018         2019         2020         2021
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pedestrian                                               448          520          524          399          369
    Work Zone                                                265          379          304          427          533
    Elderly                                                2,905        2,957        2,986        2,333        2,712
    Motorcycle                                               215          209          233          312          297
    Bicycle                                                  174          183          149          129          118
    Young                                                  2,570        2,575        2,519        2,780        2,897
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL                                                  6,577        6,823        6,715        6,380        6,926
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: SEMCOG

                     Crashes Involving Vulnerable Users, Fatal and Serious Injuries, City of Detroit
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Type                          2017       2018       2019       2020       2021      TOTAL
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fatal                                                  95        101        103        173        136        608
    Serious-A                                             486        480        491        552        565       2574
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: SEMCOG

      Crashes Involving Vulnerable Users, Fatalities and Serious Injuries,
                                 City of Detroit
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        User      Type    2017     2018     2019     2020     2021    TOTAL
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pedestrian   Serio       78       81       94       77       65      395
                  us-A
    Pedestrian   Fatal       27       36       28       40       43      174
    Work Zone    Serio        6        2        4        7       13       32
                  us-A
    Work Zone    Fatal        2        2        2        -        1        7
    Elderly      Serio       37       43       49       33       44      206
                  us-A
    Elderly      Fatal       13       12        8        4        4       41
    Motorcycle   Serio       34       42       38       64       61      239
                  us-A
    Motorcycle   Fatal       12        6       19       30       19       86
    Bike         Serio       24       10       17       18       14       83
                  us-A
    Bike         Fatal        -        2        2        8        1       13
    Young        Serio       49       58       44       69       78      298
    (15-20)       us-A
    Young        Fatal       10       12       12       15       16       65
    (15-20)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: SEMCOG

    Detroit's Safety Initiatives
        It needs to prioritize the needs of all, emphasize sustainability,
    minimize negative environmental impacts, and provide an efficient use
    of resources while maximizing the economic benefits of the
    transportation investment. In this mindset, Detroit is working on a
    multifaceted approach to solving safety problem.
        In 2017, we looked at a dozen neighborhoods around Detroit to focus
    on rebuilding our commercial corridors. A key part of our economic
    development strategy was investing in Streetscape projects to serve as
    a backbone for placemaking. These streetscape projects were all built
    on complete streets principles with a very simple objective, make the
    streets safer for the people that use them to create a corridor where
    neighborhood businesses can thrive. We developed a Complete Streets
    team to ensure Detroit's design and safety standards follow an approach
    that enables safe access by considering how our streets build community
    and benefit people of all ages and abilities. Detroit invested $80M in
    bond funding and made improvements that ranged from improving lighting
    quality, fixing broken sidewalks, and doing road diets to slow traffic
    down and make places that people want to be. Safer streets support
    local businesses and commercial corridors. On every corridor where
    we've made these investments and safety improvements, small businesses
    are opening and the neighborhoods surrounding them are thriving. While
    bond funding has been helpful to fund capital projects that bring
    tangible and direct benefits to residents including increasing road
    safety, it's not a sustainable funding solution for the safety crisis
    we're facing day in and day out.
        As the Streetscape program got under way, we also started working
    on our Streets for People Master Transportation Plan to build a road
    map for road safety in Detroit. During this planning effort, traffic
    safety was the #1 issue that Detroiters raised by a wide margin.
    Detroit's Streets for People Master Transportation Plan, Street Design
    Guidelines, and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan are a family of
    documents that outline citywide approaches that will be implemented by
    multiple departments over the coming years with Equity, Dignity, and
    Transparency as its guiding star and through line.
        One of the things to come out of the Streets for People plan was
    the creation of Detroit's High Injury Network (HIN) to give us a clear
    priority of where to direct our investments toward the most dangerous
    streets and work with partners to increase safety on streets the City
    does not own. In Detroit, 80 percent of all crashes occur on 3 percent
    of streets, and 34 percent of those crashes resulted in death or
    serious injury from 2017 to 2020.\6\ The streets that make up the HIN
    tend to be wide, with high speeds, lots of traffic, and few
    opportunities for people to cross the street safely. These also tend to
    be streets not under our jurisdiction but that belong to Wayne County
    or Michigan DOT.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ MTCF portal
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It's a simple idea that our streets are here to serve the
    Detroiters who use them. The Streets for People plan recognizes that
    streets are some of our most valuable public spaces that serve multiple
    purposes. Like any public space, our streets should be beautiful,
    economically vibrant, comfortable, and safe for all community members
    regardless of age, ability, or how they choose to get around. Detroit
    is committed to streets that get you where you need to go safely and
    give you places where you enjoy spending your time. Overall, Detroit's
    vision is that everything we do on streets, from roadway design to the
    use of the curb, ties back to safety.
    Federal Funding
        As a priority community within the Federal DOT Thriving Communities
    Network, Federal funding is critical to meeting Detroiters' safety
    needs. The Streets for People Plan and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
    allow us to identify our funding needs, and the Detroit HIN helps us
    prioritize requests. The bi-partisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act (IIJA) has provided stable, long-term policy and funding
    opportunities critical for communities to meet their safety goals.
    However, we have a long way to go, and continued prioritization of this
    funding for local roads is critical.
        The United States Department of Transportation's (USDOT) programs,
    such as Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)--focused on preventing
    roadway deaths and serious injuries--and the Active Transportation
    Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP)--focused on providing safe
    and connected active transportation facilities--are providing
    significant value at local levels. SS4A has provided the City of
    Detroit with the promise of some relief from this complex safety issue.
    Being exclusively designed to help local communities, the available
    funds will have a significant impact in making roadway safety a
    priority. Awarded communities comprise about 70 percent of the Nation's
    population.\7\ The Planning and Demonstration funding pushes
    communities to prioritize safety by outlining and piloting approaches,
    and the Implementation funding provides physical safety countermeasures
    visible on the roads today, addressing the preventable death crisis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ USDOT
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Detroit's Streets for People Plan was already in the works when the
    first SS4A Notice of Funding Opportunity was issued back in 2022. This
    prompted the development of our Comprehensive Safety Action Plan to
    allow the City to seize the opportunities that SS4A provided to address
    the safety crisis. We have been fortunate to receive two Implementation
    grants through the SS4A program totaling $49.6 million across the 2022
    and 2023 fiscal year cycles.

      1.  The first will allow for infrastructure improvements to city-
            jurisdiction streets on the High Injury Network with the
            highest crash rates. This will help reduce severe crashes by
            implementing evidence-based safety countermeasures,
            systematically upgrading areas with high numbers of vulnerable
            roadway users, deploying emerging safety technologies to
            supplement engineering countermeasures, and executing a robust
            engagement and evaluation framework.

      2.  The second focuses on high-crash intersections near transit
            stops, where data shows that a majority of pedestrian crashes
            took place within proximity to these stops. Specifically, we
            targeted intersections with a transit usage that five (5) or
            more pedestrian involved crashes or five (5) or more fatal or
            serious injury crashes. Many of these intersections are
            partially or fully under County or State jurisdiction and
            required close collaboration with our partners to be able to
            seek funding. Implementation of this project will substantially
            reduce the risk of countless vulnerable roadway users being
            killed or injured in Detroit and help realize the region's
            vision for improved transit by dramatically increasing safety
            and quality of the bus stops, improving ADA compliance,
            modeling a culture of safety through training for bus operators
            and staff that encourages safe operations around people walking
            and biking, and plan for future improvements to promote safe
            connections between modes.

        We can all agree that everyone should be able to get to work,
    school, healthcare, wherever they need to go safely. This funding is
    essential for the City of Detroit to continue this work as the national
    leader in addressing traffic violence, make progress on moving towards
    a Vision Zero future, and create safer and more welcoming streets for
    our residents.
    Collaboration
        It is important to recognize that cities also have state-and
    county-owned roadways running through them. In addition to 2,588 city
    miles, Detroit has 325 state miles and 122 county miles on its road
    network, which makes up 52 percent of Detroit's High Injury Network,\8\
    where high numbers of traffic deaths and serious injuries are
    occurring. Therefore, safety measures need to be collaborative to be
    successful.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Detroit Streets For People Plan
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Last week, in partnership with Michigan Department of
    Transportation we submitted another SS4A funding request, this time for
    a Demonstration pilot--for safety countermeasures on the city's most
    dangerous roadway, Gratiot Avenue, which is state-owned and not covered
    by previous funding awards. Gratiot is one of the most dangerous
    roadways in Michigan for drivers and pedestrians alike, with its entire
    length on the City's High Injury Network. Gratiot is the longest
    contiguous segment of the HIN, representing the greatest opportunity to
    reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes in Detroit. The
    corridor accounts for the largest proportion of crashes on the HIN,
    with 147 out of 857.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ SEMCOG Analysis
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Gratiot is the perfect example of the road safety challenges that
    the City of Detroit and other cities across the country face. Gratiot
    is a 9-lane surface arterial street that cuts through the heart of
    Detroit's east side. The road design has been virtually unchanged since
    1956 when streetcars stopped running in Detroit. While the posted speed
    is 30mph, the actual speeds average closer to 60mph (though we are
    prevented and discouraged from completing a speed study as State law
    would require the speed limit to be updated to the 85 percent
    percentile of prevailing speeds). Since 2017, this 8-mile stretch of
    road has had 159 pedestrian or bicycle involved crashes, 45 fatal
    injuries, and nearly 1200 injury crashes. These largely aren't the
    result of drunk drivers or people texting, but rather they are the
    result of a road that doesn't meet the needs of the population it
    serves. While Gratiot is one of the busiest bus transit corridors in
    the State, there are multiple sections of the road that don't have as
    much as a marked crossing for at least half a mile which means that
    when someone gets off the bus from work and needs to get to their house
    on the other side of the street, we're asking them to walk more than 1
    mile to get to the other side to avoid trying to cross 100' at an
    unprotected location. Unsurprisingly, people don't do this and
    regularly take their lives into their hands on a daily basis. The data
    on Gratiot reflects this with 33 pedestrian fatalities or serious
    injuries occurring at unsignalized or marked crossings since 2017. In
    spite of all this, there is little the City can do without our State
    DOT since it's their road.
        While the SS4A program has allowed us to strengthen our partnership
    and collaboration with our local partners and other stakeholders around
    the shared safety crisis in our community, we need to be doing more to
    incentivize safety measures by road owners. For years, we have been
    working with our State DOT to figure out a plan for roads like Gratiot
    only to be given outdated design criteria and funding excuses for
    addressing a sobering number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
    While the SS4A program has created an opportunity for cities to seek
    funding to address the safety challenges on corridors like Gratiot, its
    success towards addressing our most dangerous streets are solely
    dependent on not just having the funding available, but also having the
    continued cooperation of State DOTs and County road agencies that
    historically have done little to prioritize safety or funding within
    urban areas and have little incentive from the Federal government to do
    so. Even if funding materializes for Gratiot, we expect an uphill
    battle on finding consensus on exact safety countermeasures and the
    need to deviate from outdated design standards not in line with today's
    best practices.
    SS4A Reauthorization
        As I've highlighted, the IIJA provides increased funding and
    flexibility, allowing cities to expand their efforts to identify and
    implement improvements to our surface transportation infrastructure,
    which counteracts the daily tragedies occurring on our roads.
        The investments in infrastructure safety activities and programs,
    such as the Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program, continue to
    provide funding opportunities for local and state governments to
    collaborate in addressing this road safety crisis throughout the
    planning, design, operation, and maintenance of all public roads.
        The IIJA has helped DOTs and communities address our aging
    transportation infrastructure in an expansive way. The bill's
    prioritization of funding to various programs has allowed the bill to
    provide the resources needed to address critical infrastructure needs
    at the local level. I ask that you continue programs that allow us to
    address safety issues on local streets and roads for all users. It is
    crucial as we address the pressing safety crisis on our roadways with
    the attention it desperately needs.
        As we continue to look at the opportunities to create safer roads,
    this program should continue to be a bi-partisan priority. For future
    authorizations, I recommend Congress apply more of the funding
    allocation to the Implementation Grant or allow Planning and
    Demonstration Grant funding to be used for Implementation Projects to
    provide a greater impact in the communities now that action plans are
    in place at regional and local levels. I also recommend that incentives
    such as waived match requirements in disadvantaged communities be added
    to encourage cross-agency collaboration for addressing dangerous
    streets under State or County jurisdiction.
    Vision Zero and Safe System Approach
        The transportation industry has evolved in recent years, and new
    and updated standards on road safety, such as Vision Zero, Safety
    System Approach, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
    Streets and Highways (MUTCD), 11th edition, have been widely supported.
    1. Vision Zero\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Vision Zero Network
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I mentioned Detroit's vision zero goal earlier. This global safety
    strategy has gained momentum to eliminate all traffic fatalities and
    severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility
    for all. People sometimes make mistakes, so the road system and related
    policies must be designed to ensure those inevitable mistakes do not
    result in severe injuries or fatalities. System designers and
    policymakers can participate by improving the roadway environment and
    policies, such as speed management, to lessen the severity of crashes.
    The strategy acknowledges that many factors contribute to safe
    mobility--including roadway design, speeds, behaviors, technology, and
    policies--and sets clear actions to achieve the shared goal of zero
    fatalities and severe injuries.

    2. Safe System Approach\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ USDOT
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thanks to your leadership, the IIJA calls out the principles of the
    Safe System Approach: that no death or serious injury is acceptable;
    people make mistakes and are vulnerable; we all share responsibility in
    preventing serious crashes; we need to be proactive in our efforts, and
    we need to have redundant safety strategies in place. Improving roadway
    safety requires a Safe System Approach combined with advancements in
    technology. No one solution will solve this problem. The transportation
    community has embraced the Safe System Approach as an effective way to
    address and mitigate the risks inherent in our enormous and complex
    transportation system. It works by building and reinforcing multiple
    layers of protection to both prevent crashes from happening in the
    first place and minimize the harm caused to those involved when crashes
    do occur. It is a holistic and comprehensive approach that provides a
    guiding framework to make places safer for people. (What Is a Safe
    System Approach? | U.S. Department of Transportation) This supports a
    combination of roadway safety countermeasures focusing on human
    mistakes and vulnerability to design a system with many redundancies to
    protect everyone.

    Federal Policy
        This year, states are beginning to adopt the 11th edition of the
    Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
    Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), the first major update since
    2009. The MUTCD serves as the governing document for accepted safety
    design principles and standards that Departments of Transportation and
    agencies follow for all traffic control devices installed on any
    street, highway, bikeway, or private road open to public travel and
    must be adopted within two years.
        The updates address the evolving challenges of modern traffic and
    provide guidelines for meeting the safety infrastructure needs of
    pedestrians and bicyclists. The manual ensures a standardized approach
    to traffic control nationwide and underscores the urgency of
    implementing the latest and best practices in safety measures on our
    roads. Thank you for mandating that the manual be updated every four
    years in the IIJA to keep pace with innovation and current practices.
        However, there is more that the Federal government and Congress can
    be doing to support road safety around the country. Both the pending
    Complete Streets and Building Safer Streets Acts have the potential to
    provide tremendous merit and value to local governments. The Building
    Safer Streets Act would help to speed up delivery of common-sense
    safety countermeasures by giving local governments more flexibility on
    working around outdated and restrictive design standards. The Complete
    Streets Act
        would ensure that projects using Federal money be required to
    incorporate best practice complete streets design standards into
    construction projects. Even on our own Federally funded road projects,
    we are disincentivized from adding safety improvements beyond pavement
    markings at the perceived risk of being held up in State and FHWA
    reviews. Requirements for engineered drawings on basic project
    elements, such as ADA ramps and sidewalk replacements, put an onerous
    burden on municipalities and threaten the obligation date requirements
    each funding cycle.
        Local agencies shouldn't be put in a position where safety is
    second to budget and schedule or have to ask other road jurisdiction
    owners to prioritize safety in their communities and welcome support
    from the Federal government to figure out ways to incentivize change.
    ITS
        As I've mentioned, Detroit takes a multifaceted approach to safety.
    This approach is centered around creating safer roads from the way we
    design and maintain them, but it also includes Intelligent Traffic
    System (ITS) modernizations. ITS improvements benefit Detroiters
    through increased safety, mobility, and connectivity. In 2017, FHWA
    granted the city an Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management
    Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) grant that kickstarted efforts to
    continue advancing ITS as another mechanism to save lives. The City of
    Detroit's Traffic Management Center (TMC) provides for the remote
    monitoring of these traffic signalized intersections using a central
    platform, Econolite Centracs Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS).
    This intuitive GUI-based enterprise-class traffic software solution
    provides powerful and flexible ITS management, traffic control, and
    data sharing in one ATMS platform. In addition to real-time monitoring,
    the City utilizes its ATMS remote capable systems to deploy optimal
    signal timing plans in response to planned or unplanned events. The
    recent 2024 NFL Draft;, in which we set a record of attendance with
    over 775,000 fans converging in the downtown environment throughout the
    three-day event, was closely monitored using the ATMS system.
        In 2023, the City of Detroit won a $2 million ``Strengthening
    Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation'' (SMART) USDOT grant to
    improve traffic safety and equity in the city for the Detroit
    ``Mobility Optimization through Data for Equity and Safety'' (Detroit
    MODES). The Detroit MODES initiative will use existing smart
    intersection technology to collect contextual and environmental data on
    crashes from a variety of sources, use advanced analytics to identify
    dangerous areas and measure the effectiveness of construction and City
    interventions, and summarize findings on a cloud-based platform with
    high-level summaries and focus zones. This type of technology allows us
    to identify dangerous intersections with near misses sooner so we can
    intervene before a crash or fatality takes place. We are actively
    exploring other technologies with an overarching goal of developing ITS
    technologies that are sustainable and compatible with the City's
    current infrastructure.
    Conclusion
        As I close today, I request that you consider how many lives
    funding programs like Safe Streets for All can save by making it easier
    for local governments to plan, pilot, and implement common sense safety
    countermeasures and proven safety design standards. As we all seek to
    reduce fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways, it is critical
    to have dedicated safety funding that does not have to compete with
    maintaining roads and bridges. I understand that we are more than
    halfway through the IIJA, and discussions on the next iteration of the
    bill will begin shortly. As you engage in these crucial discussions
    around funding authorizations and allocations, please consider what
    those funds can do for our communities by creating safer streets and
    saving lives. Unsafe roadways affect users but disproportionately
    impact the most vulnerable. Let's seize the opportunity to pave the way
    towards a future where our streets are not just conduits of
    transportation, but pathways to safety for all.
        I appreciate the work of this subcommittee and committee as a
    whole. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on behalf
    of the City of Detroit and local governments across the Country, I am
    happy to answer any questions.

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Krassenstein.
        Our second witness is Laura Chace, and she's President and
    CEO of The Intelligent Transportation Society of America.
        She also currently serves as an advisor on the United
    States Department of Transportation's Transforming
    Transportation Advisory Committee to help the department
    navigate how to incorporate advanced technology, safety, and
    responsibility into our transportation system.
        Ms. Chace, thank you for being here today. You may proceed
    with your opening remarks.

       STATEMENT OF LAURA CHACE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTELLIGENT
                   TRANSPORTATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA

        Ms. Chace. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Peters, Ranking
    Member Young, Full Committee Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking
    Member Cruz, and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to speak on this important topic of roadway safety.
        In addition to the roles that Chairman Peters just
    mentioned, I'm also a mother of three children, including two
    teenage drivers. So the topic of transportation safety is near
    to my heart.
        In every facet of my life, I see opportunities to make
    transportation safer so kids going to school, parents returning
    home, and a routine trip to the grocery store doesn't end in
    tragedy.
        ITS America is a nonprofit association, which for over 30
    years has been at the forefront of bringing together
    government, industry, and research to advance our vision of a
    better future transformed by technology and innovation, one
    that is safer, greener, and smarter for all.
        The status quo approach to addressing transportation safety
    is insufficient. Doing the same thing we have always done will
    yield only incremental results. It is clear we need a mindset
    shift to address the more than 40,000 transportation fatalities
    each year. We need to embrace a comprehensive, all above--all-
    of-the-above approach to improving safety on our roadways,
    which includes fully leveraging technology solutions that are
    available today.
        These solutions, including digital infrastructure,
    artificial intelligence, V2X communications, and automation,
    are not just nice to have, they are essential to improving
    safety and achieving our goals of Vision Zero.
        The U.S. spends billions of dollars every year on
    transportation and infrastructure, yet we don't see meaningful
    progress on lowering traffic fatalities. Of the $673 billion in
    spending in the IIJA, only $800 million was dedicated
    specifically for technology deployment, totaling around one-
    tenth of one percent of total infrastructure funding, even
    though technology investments can often provide more cost-
    effective solutions. Clearly, the amount of funding currently
    directed toward transportation technology is inadequate.
        The U.S. also needs to adopt a proactive approach to
    improving safety, rather than the often standard approach of
    reacting to tragic events that could have been prevented. To be
    proactive, we must move from focusing solely on physical assets
    such as roads, bridges, guardrails, and speed bumps, to
    harnessing the power of innovation, data, and technology to
    improve safety. Fully deploying a layered approach of both
    physical and digital infrastructure assets is the way we will
    achieve Vision Zero.
        Technology provides the opportunity to proactively address
    safety in myriad ways: at intersections, on highways, in
    congested urban environments, and in rural areas. Digital
    infrastructure and artificial intelligence can recognize and
    predict dangerous conditions that were previously unidentified,
    helping road users and transportation agencies address these
    situations ahead of time.
        V2X communications provides drivers and other road users
    with more information about hazardous conditions around them,
    or impending collisions--and key, things beyond their line of
    sight, so that it gives them more time to react and make better
    decisions that improve safety.
        Automation is another proactive solution to enhance safety.
    ADAS technologies are already responding to driver action or
    inaction to correct vehicle positioning, brake for pedestrians,
    and more.
        Technology can also make static infrastructure dynamic,
    such as changing speed limits in the event of congestion or
    adverse weather, or extending traffic signals in real time when
    a pedestrian is in a crosswalk and needs more time.
        Technology can take us from a reactive system to a
    proactive system that addresses issues before they result in a
    death. The good news is we can do more today to integrate
    technology into our programs to ensure that these tools being
    developed right here in the U.S. are also deployed here at home
    to improve safety.
        This includes finalizing USDOT's national V2X deployment
    plan to help advance this lifesaving technology at speed and
    scale. It also includes prioritizing technology into the Safe
    Systems approach, Complete Streets, the New Car Assessment
    program, and other USDOT policies and guidance; and
    prioritizing technology deployment under other discretionary
    grants, such as Safe Streets and Roads for All and RAISE.
        Congress also has an opportunity to reimagine the future of
    transportation technology when it reauthorizes surface
    transportation programs in 2026. This includes incorporating
    technology at every step in the process, from planning to
    construction to operations; and rethinking how we approach
    technology, from policy to funding to procurement.
        Deployers need substantial and certain funding for
    technology that's incorporated at the beginning of a project's
    life cycle. We must also update our policies and best practices
    for procuring new kinds of technology and software.
        American innovation continues to lead the world. We have
    the opportunity to harness this innovation in the communities
    where we live, work, and play to realize better safety outcomes
    for all. As a mother, I long for the day when I don't have to
    say to my children, ``Call me when you get there safely.'' We
    can make that day a reality faster by leveraging technology in
    a more holistic way.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear today, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Chace follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Laura Chace, President and CEO, Intelligent
                       Transportation Society of America
        Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Young, full committee Chairwoman
    Cantwell, Ranking Member Cruz, and members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for the opportunity to speak today on the important topic of
    roadway safety.
        My name is Laura Chace, and I serve as the President and CEO of the
    Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America). In
    addition to that role, I currently serve as an advisor on the United
    States Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Transforming
    Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) to help the Department
    navigate how to incorporate advanced technology safely and responsibly
    into our transportation system. Importantly for this conversation, I am
    also a mother of three children, including two teenage drivers, so the
    topic of transportation safety is something I think about every day and
    is near to my heart. In every facet of my life--as the leader of a
    transportation technology organization, as a mother, and as a user of
    the transportation system--I see opportunities to make transportation
    safer so that kids get to school safely, parents get home safely, and a
    trip to the grocery store or to visit relatives doesn't end in tragedy.
        ITS America is the Nation's leading advocate for the technological
    modernization of our transportation system by focusing on advancing
    research and deployment of intelligent transportation technology. ITS
    America was founded in 1991 as an advisory council to USDOT on
    technology innovation and emerging transportation technologies. ITS
    America is the only organization in the country that represents all
    sectors--public, private, research and academia,--to advance
    transportation technology in support of societal goals. Our vision is
    one of a better future transformed by transportation technology and
    innovation. One that is Safer, Greener, and Smarter for all. Our
    membership includes state and city departments of transportation,
    transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, automotive
    manufacturers, technology companies, engineering firms, automotive
    suppliers, and research and academic universities.
        Our work accelerates the deployment of technology that saves lives,
    promotes sustainability, and advances more efficient and equitable
    transportation of people and goods. ITS America's work focuses on
    connected and automated technologies, smart and digital infrastructure,
    artificial intelligence, technologies that improve sustainability and
    resiliency, and other technologies that support on demand mobility,
    integrated multimodal transportation, public transportation, and
    freight.
    I. The Status Quo Approach to Safety is Not Working
        It is well known that far too many people are injured or die on our
    Nation's roads each year. In 2023, the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) estimated that there were 40,990 deaths on
    American roads.\1\ This number continues to outpace pre-pandemic road
    deaths and we must take significant action to make our roadways safer.
    Vulnerable road users (VRUs), such as pedestrians and bicyclists, are
    particularly at risk of injury and death in traffic collisions. NHTSA
    estimated that in 2022, 8,952 vulnerable road users were killed in
    crashes, an increase from the previous year.\2\ Pedestrians and
    bicyclists are also increasingly vulnerable to serious injury on our
    roadways.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration https://
    www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2022-traffic-deaths-2023-early-estimates
        \2\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration https://
    crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813560
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, roadway fatalities disproportionately impact people of
    color. According to research from the Governors Highway Safety
    Association (GHSA), African Americans were killed in traffic crashes at
    a rate almost 25 percent higher than Caucasian pedestrians in recent
    years, and African American pedestrians were killed at a rate twice as
    high.\3\ These numbers demonstrate the scale of the problem, but we
    know that this is not just a number. Each of these fatalities causes a
    tragic impact on the lives of the family members and friends who knew
    the victims. Even in my own neighborhood in Bethesda, Maryland, two
    teenage cyclists and an elementary school aged child waiting at a bus
    stop have been killed in the past few years. This does not even count
    the near misses and injuries that we do not see, and I am sure my
    fellow witnesses and members of this subcommittee have their own
    personal story when it comes to tragedies on our roads.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Governors Highway Safety Association. ghsa.org/sites/default/
    files/2021-06/An Analysis of Traffic Fatalities by Race and
    Ethnicity.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is appropriate that these tragedies have garnered attention and
    generated a response, and we are grateful for this Subcommittee's
    attention to the issue. But I am tired of seeing the same outcomes:
    even with reductions in roadway fatalities in the past few years, the
    numbers are still too high. Furthermore, these numbers do not capture
    the millions of Americans that are injured on our roads every year, nor
    the estimated $800 billion in financial costs that such crashes cost
    our country annually. These numbers demonstrate the scale of the
    problem and the need for a multi-pronged solution.
        The status quo approach to addressing transportation safety is
    insufficient, and innovative solutions are required. In any other
    industry, we would not accept the sheer number of injuries and deaths
    that we see in the transportation sector, particularly caused by
    vehicle crashes. These road fatality rates are far from inevitable--we
    only have to look at our Canadian and European partners to see
    countries with road fatalities decreasing across the board. From 2010
    to 2020, deaths on American roads rose 19 percent per capita, and
    Canada's rate fell at twice the pace.\4\ In 2021, France's number of
    deaths per capita from vehicle crashes was three times lower than the
    U.S.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Why Canada Isn't Having a Traffic Safety Crisis, Bloomberg.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-01/why-canada-isn-t-
    having-a-traffic-safety-crisis
        \5\ https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is clear that the U.S. needs a mindset shift on how we address
    transportation fatalities, and we need to embrace a comprehensive, all-
    of-the-above approach to improving safety on our roadways.
        Technology is a key tool to solving our traffic safety problems,
    and it is more apparent than ever that we need to prioritize
    investments in technology solutions, such as Vehicle-to-Everything
    (V2X) communications, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence
    (AI), and automation that will improve safety outcomes for all road
    users. The U.S. spends billions of dollars every year on transportation
    and infrastructure, yet we do not see real progress on meaningfully
    lowering traffic fatalities. While the Infrastructure Investment and
    Jobs Act (IIJA) included $673 billion in spending for transportation
    and infrastructure, only $800 million was dedicated specifically for
    technology ($500 million for SMART and $300 million for ATTAIN),
    totaling around one-tenth of one percent of total infrastructure
    funding. Clearly, the amount of funding currently directed towards
    transportation technology is inadequate relative to the outsized impact
    such funding can create.
    II. We Need a Proactive Approach to Safety, Not a Reactive Approach
        The U.S. needs a proactive approach to improving safety for all
    road users, rather than reacting to tragic events that could have been
    prevented. Too often, the standard approach has relied on making safety
    improvements after a traffic death has occurred. We have the tools
    today to be more proactive in how we address safety. We do not have to
    wait for a death to occur to implement needed safety improvements
    across our transportation system.
        Historically, our transportation system has focused on physical
    assets, such as roads, bridges, guardrails, and speed bumps. However,
    in this modern era, we should also be harnessing the power of
    innovation, data, and technology to address the safety crisis. Roadway
    safety requires a layered approach of both physical and digital
    infrastructure assets, and fully deploying both is the only way we will
    be able to achieve Vision Zero.
        Technology provides the opportunity to proactively address safety
    challenges in myriad ways. Technology can recognize and predict
    dangerous conditions that were previously unidentified, helping road
    users and transportation agencies understand and address dangerous
    situations ahead of time. These tools also provide drivers with more
    information about the hazardous conditions around them on the roadway,
    allowing more time to react and make better decisions that improve
    safety. We can have a dynamic infrastructure with technology, such as
    changing speed limits in the event of congestion and adverse weather or
    extending traffic signals when a pedestrian is in a crosswalk.
    Technology can take us from a reactive system whose tools are largely
    focused on reacting to fatalities to a proactive system that addresses
    issues before they result in a death or serious injury.
        Today, many technologies are being deployed, and even more are
    emerging, that will reduce crashes and fatalities. This testimony
    focuses on four key technologies that will make our transportation
    system safer for the traveling public: digital infrastructure,
    artificial intelligence, V2X technologies, and automation.
        Only recently have we seen more emphasis at the Federal level on
    integrating technology into the Nation's transportation system. Recent
    investments in safety-critical technology for our roads through grant
    funding and formula program eligibility, as well as efforts such as
    USDOT's draft National V2X Deployment Plan, are significant and welcome
    steps toward beginning to scale transportation technology on our
    roads.\6\ It is imperative that Congress, USDOT, and other agencies
    proactively support continued investments in safety-critical technology
    and develop strategies to advance national deployment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.its.dot.gov/research_areas/emerging_tech/pdf/
    Accelerate_V2X_Deployment.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Digital Infrastructure and Artificial Intelligence
        Our transportation system is evolving, it is no longer just
    concrete, asphalt, and steel. Today, our transportation system includes
    sensors, software, data, and algorithms. In this new era of
    infrastructure, we will link the physical transportation system with a
    digital layer, allowing us to gather, transmit, store, analyze,
    communicate, and share information in real time, and to use that
    information to increase safety, reduce congestion, reduce emissions,
    and enhance mobility for every transportation user.
        Digital infrastructure helps us gather information about our
    transportation system and infrastructure, providing agencies with
    crucial tools to make planning decisions, enact safety countermeasures,
    and monitor the status of their system. Artificial intelligence allows
    us to maximize the use of this information, processing and analyzing
    data at a speed that would be impossible without this technology,
    providing predictions and actionable insights from the data.
        Below, we identify several solutions that are available today that
    capitalize on the opportunities that digital infrastructure and/or
    artificial intelligence can provide. Many of these technologies are
    already deployed in communities across the country, beginning to
    provide safety and other benefits to our transportation system.
    Intersection Safety and AI
        Each year, crashes at intersections are responsible for roughly
    one-quarter of all traffic fatalities and one-half of all injuries.\7\
    Fortunately, there are several technologies that can be deployed now to
    increase safety at these intersections. A combination of radar, lidar,
    cameras, along with edge computing, including mobile edge computing
    (MEC) with AI capabilities, and connectivity can provide broad
    opportunities for transportation systems while greatly improving safety
    for all road users, but particularly VRUs. As USDOT recognized in its
    Intersection Safety Challenge, by leveraging these solutions, we can
    both improve VRU safety in intersections specifically, as well as take
    the next step in improving the functionality and safety of the Nation's
    transportation system across the board.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Federal Highway Administration https://highways.dot.gov/safety/
    intersection-safety/about
        \8\ Additional context on how ITS America recommends approaching
    intersection safety technologies can be found in our response to FHWA's
    Inter Request for Information. Available at: https://itsa.org/wp-
    content/uploads/2022/11/VRU-Intersection-Safety-RFI-ITSA-Comments.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rather than reacting to crashes, changing signals or intersection
    design proactively based on near miss data can improve safety outcomes
    before another injury or fatality takes place. In one example, ITS
    America member Rekor helped the Regional Transportation Commission of
    Southern Nevada (RTCSV) identify near miss hotspots by showing the
    agency data that they did not know existed about wrong way driving and
    dangerous pedestrian crossings. This allowed the agency to make
    improvements to physical infrastructure to immediately enhance safety.
    Additionally, Rekor's AI tools detect crashes well in advance of the
    traditional method of receiving a 9-1-1 call, automatically alerting
    first responders. This has allowed EMS crash response to respond to
    incidents by an average of 9 to 10 minutes faster. As recognized in
    USDOT's National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS), the timing of the
    arrival of ambulances and emergency responders is a major factor in
    whether an injured person survives a crash. Responding to and clearing
    incidents faster has also reduced secondary crashes, which make up 20
    percent of overall crashes.
        In Florida, Osceola County is diagnosing safety issues and
    implementing mitigation measures through an AI platform from the
    company Derq. By analyzing video data from traffic cameras installed at
    intersections, the county can identify near-misses and other dangerous
    pre-crash scenarios. These predictive analytics platforms provide
    insights that help agencies address safety proactively and inform
    future infrastructure planning.
        Technology can simplify and optimize the process of retiming
    intersections to better manage existing traffic patterns and
    congestion, significantly reducing the burden this costly and time-
    consuming process places on public agencies across the country. There
    are over 350,000 traffic signals in the U.S., and data shows that it
    takes 70 manual hours to retime one intersection.\9\ There are tools
    today, such as those from Flow Labs, that can optimize traffic signal
    timing almost instantaneously generating optimized timing plans with a
    click of a button and integrating directly with traffic signal
    controllers for updates. Traffic signal timing that is responsive to
    real-time conditions can improve safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Flow Labs https://www.flowlabs.ai/solutions/traffic-signal-
    operations
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While these solutions may not be visible to the public, like
    restriping or resurfacing a road, they are transformative, cost-
    effective tools that improve safety in communities by providing
    valuable insights to local transportation authorities on how to best
    manage their system and target investments where they are needed most.
    Broader deployment of these technologies would lead to measurable and
    meaningful safety outcomes.
    Protecting Vulnerable Road Users
        Pedestrians are increasingly vulnerable to injuries and fatalities,
    in both rural and urban environments alike, with fatalities rising at a
    rate of 14 percent since 2019.\10\ Common sense solutions, like
    pedestrian detection technology, can help stop the trend of rising
    pedestrian deaths in its tracks. In 2024, our infrastructure should be
    smart enough to detect when a person is still in the crosswalk and
    requires more time to finish crossing a street, allowing the
    infrastructure to automatically extend the light so that a person can
    safely complete the crossing. For example, lidar can detect slow-moving
    or static objects on the roadway like humans or those with increased
    needs, particularly at night when most pedestrian fatalities occur, and
    provide the opportunity to extend crossing time. The technology also
    does not collect biometric data, meaning cities get rich traffic data
    without compromising privacy. Using fixed lidar technology, adaptive
    signals, and AI algorithms, cities like Bellevue, Washington have
    demonstrated success when deploying pedestrian detection technology
    with the help of private sector companies like AWS and Ouster.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Governors Highway Safety Association https://www.ghsa.org/
    resources/news-releases/pedestrians-preliminary24
        \11\ City of Bellevue, WA Passive Pedestrian Detection Real-Time
    Safety Application Phase Extension Pilot.pdf (bellevuewa.gov)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, data from thermal cameras, high-definition cameras,
    and wireless micro-radar sensors determine the presence of pedestrians
    and bicyclists and can be used to extend green phases for safe
    crossing. The insights derived from processing this data through AI
    algorithms can help cities across the country identify problem areas,
    select appropriate safety countermeasures, and invest in improvements.
    Rural Community Safety
        Rural communities face a disproportionately higher burden of
    traffic fatalities. According to NHTSA, the fatality rate per 100
    million vehicle miles traveled was 1.5 times higher in rural areas than
    in urban areas in 2021.\12\ In rural regions, the absence of essential
    infrastructure such as broadband Internet and fiber optics impedes the
    deployment of advanced data collection systems. Moreover, these regions
    often lack the technical personnel and technologies required for
    effective data management, visualization, and analysis. The
    infrastructure disparity becomes even more stark when considering
    Native American populations. Native American/Alaskan Native persons
    have the highest annualized, age-adjusted traffic-related pedestrian
    death rates of all races/ethnicities.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration https://
    crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813488.pdf
        \13\ Governors Highway Safety Association An Analysis of Traffic
    Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity_0.pdf (ghsa.org)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Yakama Nation in the state of Washington has installed AI-
    powered roadside units at an intersection where the highway meets a
    local road, as part of a pilot project to improve traffic safety on
    U.S. Highway 97. These devices are equipped with multi-sensing (i.e.,
    camera, environment sensors, etc.), computing, and communication
    capabilities, making them ideal for monitoring traffic, detecting
    dangerous events, and providing real-time warning messages to road
    users. These devices can operate without relying on extensive
    infrastructure support, such as a broadband connection. Small
    infrastructure upgrades such as this can have tremendous impacts on
    rural communities with vulnerable populations who often do not have
    access to broadband connections.
    Supporting Dynamic Infrastructure
        Variable speed limits (VSL) are another digital tool that can be
    used to manage speed dynamically on highways in urban and rural areas
    alike, adjusting to real-time conditions and stabilizing traffic flow
    especially when crashes, work zones, or poor weather conditions are
    present. Virginia DOT has deployed VSL on northbound I-95 in
    Spotsylvania, pairing LED signs displaying variable speed limits
    between 40 mph and 70 mph with dynamic message boards. Data from June
    2022 to February 2023 showed reduced crash rates for all types of
    crashes compared with the same period a year earlier, including a 22
    percent reduction in fatal and injury crash rates and a 9 percent
    reduction in rear-end crash rates.\14\ Widespread deployment of VSL or
    similar digital tools can improve safety by adjusting speed limits to
    real-time conditions, reducing rear-end and secondary crashes, and
    inducing better driver behavior.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ National Operations Center of Excellence https://
    transportationops.org/case-studies/interstate-95-variable-speed-limit-
    system
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Predictive Maintenance
        Using AI, transportation agencies can predict maintenance needs
    proactively for infrastructure assets and fleets.
        AI tools can help agencies identify structural issues in bridges
    and roads early on and monitor for further wear-and-tear. Traditional
    methods involve manual inspection, which can be costly and time
    consuming for public agencies. New innovations use computer vision AI,
    virtual reality tools, and drones to collect images and video of roads
    and bridges. While the cameras continually monitor the site, software
    processes and analyzes the collected data, providing engineers with a
    safety assessment that includes information about structural changes
    and weaknesses, as well as immediate damage.
        With machine learning capabilities, we can now identify and predict
    vehicle and fleet maintenance with precision, improving not only
    vehicle performance but also maintenance operations and costs. New York
    City's MTA is using AI technology to predict bus breakdowns and
    maintenance needs, which has increased maintenance productivity and
    lowered material costs.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ NYC Transit Presentation to MTA Finance Committee
    new.mta.info/document/115371
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Maintenance through software-enabled assets is a key area where
    USDOT should focus, bringing more cutting-edge AI tools to monitor our
    transportation system's physical assets and improve safety outcomes.
    V2X Technologies
        V2X technologies enable vehicles and infrastructure to exchange
    messages wirelessly and very quickly with other vehicles, roadside
    infrastructure, and vulnerable road users--like bicyclists and
    pedestrians. Sharing key information between the various parties in the
    transportation network allows responses that can improve safety,
    prevent crashes, optimize system performance, and reduce congestion.
    Specifically, NHTSA has estimated that these technologies have the
    potential to eliminate or mitigate up to 80 percent of non-impaired
    crashes.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ NHTSA NPRM on V2V Communications, 2016
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has long recognized
    the impact these technologies could have if deployed in vehicles at
    scale, having first identified the potential of V2X to save lives in
    1995.\17\ NTSB first recommended in 2013 that NHTSA require V2X in new
    vehicles after identifying additional fatal crashes that could have
    been prevented by these technologies and has continued to call for the
    technology's inclusion in new vehicles.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Multiple Vehicle Collision With Fire During Fog Near Milepost
    118 on Interstate 40, Menifee, Arkansas, January 9, 1995, and Special
    Investigation of Collision Warning Technology, https://www.ntsb.gov/
    investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR9503.pdf
        \18\ NTSB Safety Recommendation H-13-031 https://data.ntsb.gov/
    carol-main-public/sr-details/H-13-031
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State DOTs understand the safety benefits of V2X, and many are
    deploying this technology in their transportation networks. Georgia DOT
    has deployed the largest network of V2X technologies, covering 1,200
    signalized intersections. Georgia is now deploying fiber, V2X roadside
    units, cameras, and traffic sensors across their interstate system.
        Many V2X applications are enabled by cellular vehicle-to-everything
    (C-V2X) devices, a communications method which utilizes dedicated
    spectrum to reliably deliver instant alerts to drivers from other
    vehicles, infrastructure, and other road users. These messages contain
    key information about the location, direction, and speed of vehicles
    and other travelers, traffic conditions--including the state of traffic
    signals--and prevailing roadway conditions--such as weather, pavement
    conditions, work zones, and other disruptions.
        Additionally, contemporary solutions already in deployment across
    the country are demonstrating how communities can effectively deploy
    certain V2X use cases through diverse means beyond dedicated spectrum,
    such as cloud-based V2X solutions over cellular networks and localized
    mobile edge computing.
        These methods are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, serve as
    complementary avenues for transportation ecosystem stakeholders to
    extend the reach, reliability, and resilience of V2X applications.
    Preventing Vehicle Crashes
        Once deployed in vehicles at scale, V2X technologies will provide
    numerous safety benefits with the potential to eliminate or mitigate
    most crashes.
        While on-board sensors have improved the safety capabilities of
    vehicles, V2X addresses a key limitation in those capabilities--they
    are limited to line of sight. V2X technology can play a greater role by
    providing drivers and other road users with critical information and
    improved awareness about roadway, traffic, and weather conditions
    before a user encounters them through the deployment of connected
    vehicles and infrastructure. The information exchange enabled by V2X
    communications can warn drivers about sudden breaking, wrong way
    drivers, and other dangerous roadway scenarios, allowing them to take
    action to avoid vehicle pileups and other associated crash risks.
    Protecting Vulnerable Road Users
        V2X technologies alert drivers about road conditions, road users,
    or pre-crash scenarios in real-time, these technologies are
    particularly poised to reduce the likelihood of pedestrian and cyclist
    crashes. By alerting drivers to the presence of pedestrians and
    cyclists outside of their line of sight but inside their intended
    travel path, drivers can take action to avoid a potential collision.
    Similarly, V2X alerts can warn cyclists about the presence of oncoming
    vehicles, providing critical safety warnings to help cyclists take
    action to avoid collisions. Because of these opportunities to improve
    cyclist safety, ITS America is proud to be a member of the Cyclist
    Safety Coalition, joining with numerous private sector and
    transportation safety organizations (including the League of American
    Bicyclists, People for Bikes, and GHSA) to rapidly deploy V2X solutions
    in order to mitigate the nearly 1,000 fatalities and 130,000 injuries
    suffered by cyclists on American roads each year.\19\ The ITS sector
    has moved quickly to develop and deploy V2X applications specific to
    this use case, with Spoke, Audi, Commsignia, and Qualcomm partnering to
    provide V2X devices directly intended for cyclist use, establishing an
    additional digital layer of safety support for cyclists in a V2X-
    enabled environment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Center for Disease Control, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and
    Motorcycle Safety. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-
    safety/about/bicycle-safety.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Protecting Emergency Responders
        HAAS Alert's collision prevention service Safety Cloud enhances
    emergency alerting on the road by alerting nearby motorists inside
    their vehicle that an emergency vehicle is nearby. When activated,
    Safety Cloud delivers real-time digital alerts over cellular networks
    to nearby approaching motorists. These alerts, called R2V (Responder-
    to-Vehicle) alerts, are received through navigation apps and connected
    car systems already in use by hundreds of millions of drivers,
    including Waze. In addition to alerting drivers, Safety Cloud could
    also alert other responders about potential crash scenarios. When
    Safety Cloud detects a likely or imminent intersection collision
    between two equipped emergency vehicles, the system provides the
    vehicle operator with early warning of the potential conflict so that
    they can reduce speed and prevent a collision.
    School Bus Safety
        C-V2X technologies are being deployed in school buses to provide
    critical alerts to both oncoming vehicles and bus drivers, adding a
    digital layer of safety to keep students safe getting to and from
    school. In the 2018-2019 school year, one study found that these
    illegal passings took place roughly 17 million times in the United
    States, and that six students were killed by illegally passing drivers
    over a six-day period in October 2018 alone.\20\ With these
    technologies, the driver of an oncoming vehicle receives a direct
    message alert in the dashboard of their vehicle, providing an early
    notification that they are approaching a stopped school bus with its
    stop arm extended, even when the bus is not visible to the other
    driver. Additionally, the school bus driver receives an alert of the
    approaching vehicle during a school bus stop and a warning if a vehicle
    is potentially approaching too quickly to stop in time. This provides
    the school bus driver with critical information to make informed
    decisions to keep students safe. The bus driver can delay opening the
    door if the vehicle cannot stop or alert children outside the bus to
    remain on the curb and avoid the oncoming vehicle.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Annual NASDPTS Survey Highlights Danger of Passing School
    Buses. Available at: https://nasdpts.org/resources/Documents/
    2019%20NASDPTS%20Illegal%20Passing%20Results
    %20Press%20Release-7-24-19.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mitigating Hazardous Weather
        When weather adversely affects road conditions, connected vehicle
    technologies and supporting digital infrastructure can create a safer
    environment for drivers of all types of vehicles, large and small, by
    timely alerting drivers about upcoming hazards.
        These weather alerts are already being utilized on I-80, a major
    freight transport corridor that runs 402 miles along southern Wyoming.
    This rural section of I-80 is known for severe weather conditions,
    including ice, snowpack, reduced visibility from blowing snow, and
    severe winds, along with steep grades up to 7 percent. These
    conditions, coupled with the high percentage of truck traffic, are the
    reason for many primary and secondary crashes with fatalities and
    serious injuries on I-80, as well as frequent road closures that cause
    safety and economic challenges for the state. Wyoming has introduced
    connected vehicle alerting for drivers, including the introduction of a
    centralized data exchange with roadside unit and onboard unit
    deployments. A Wyoming DOT report indicates that since the introduction
    of the project, the project has increased speed limit compliance on I-
    80, especially during severe weather conditions, and reduced the
    average crashes per year by up to 42 percent for all vehicles and up to
    28 percent for trucks.
    Other Transportation Benefits
        Beyond safety, this technology also has the potential to lower
    transportation-related emissions, reduce congestion, and improve
    efficiency for all travelers. Transportation agencies are already
    deploying V2X solutions to enable automatic traffic signal
    prioritization, reducing emergency response times, increasing transit
    reliability, and increasing efficiency for freight.
    Automation
        Automation is another proactive solution in our technology toolkit
    for enhancing safety. Both Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)
    and Highly Automated Vehicles (HAV) have the potential to significantly
    reduce crashes on our roadways. ITS America supports policies and
    regulatory frameworks that facilitate the safe testing, deployment, and
    integration of these technologies into the transportation system while
    simultaneously developing strategies to support our existing and future
    workforce.
        While not the only factor in many fatal traffic crashes, the
    actions that people take directly influence safety outcomes on our
    roadways. ADAS technologies are already responding to driver action or
    inaction to correct vehicle positioning, brake for pedestrians, and
    more. Over the years, automakers have made significant investments in
    ADAS, and these tools are probably what people are most familiar with
    in their vehicle today. ADAS includes Lane Assist, Automatic Emergency
    Braking, Adaptive Cruise Control, Blind Spot Monitoring, Collision
    Avoidance alerts, and more. These features rely on a combination of
    sensors, like cameras, radars, lidar, ultrasonics, and onboard
    computers to perceive the surrounding environment, process data, and
    make informed decisions in real-time. These solutions can be
    particularly impactful for drivers on rural roads. For example, in
    Iowa, about 49 percent of all crash-related fatalities over the last
    five years involved lane departure, and ADAS can help mitigate these
    crashes.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Iowa Department of Transportation
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The continued development of HAVs and automated driving system
    (ADS) technologies provides an opportunity to remove driver behavior
    from the equation in some or all situations, and in particular to
    mitigate or eliminate crashes caused by distracted driving (3,308
    fatalities in 2022), impaired driving (13,524 fatalities annually), and
    fatigue (thousands of crashes each year).\22\ Automated technologies do
    not get distracted, drunk, or tired, offering the potential to prevent
    thousands of fatalities each year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ADAS falls into automation Levels 0-2 where drivers maintain
    responsibility for the vehicle, ranging from the driver always
    maintaining control to the vehicle taking control of speed and lanes in
    certain conditions, with drivers ready to take control quickly at any
    moment. The term ADS refers to Levels 3-5 of autonomy, with Levels 4
    and 5 operating without the need for a human driver present. These AVs
    are meant to operate without human input, designed to strictly obey
    traffic laws, follow speed limits, and come to complete stops at red
    lights or stop signs. Public education regarding the capabilities,
    limitations, appropriate uses, and differences in driver
    responsibilities surrounding ADAS and ADS will enhance the safety
    benefit of those technologies while preventing misuse.
        Autonomy has great potential for the freight industry as well, and
    further deployment of automated trucks is expected to lower the rate of
    crashes and injuries on our highways involving heavy-duty trucks. In
    2021, there were close to 5,800 fatalities from large truck crashes in
    the U.S., a number that can be lowered through AV freight
    technologies.\23\ Automated trucking can help alleviate distracted or
    drowsy driving, especially when considering the long hours drivers
    spend on the road. Additionally, automated freight technologies extend
    beyond the driver's seat, including applications that can assist with
    freight logistics, cargo safety, and predictive maintenance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration https://
    www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-truck-and-bus-crash-
    facts-2021
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    III. Integrating Technology: A Modern Approach to Infrastructure
        IIJA was an historic investment in our Nation's infrastructure,
    providing much needed funding to upgrade infrastructure to improve
    safety, decrease congestion, improve physical bridge and road
    conditions, promote climate resiliency, and increase connectivity
    between communities. However, there is still much more to be done to
    bring U.S. infrastructure into the 21st century and modernize it in a
    way that improves safety outcomes for all transportation modes and
    users.
        Historically, our transportation policy and programs have focused
    on building or maintaining physical infrastructure such as roads,
    bridges, railways, and transit systems. Now, we have the opportunity to
    add a digital layer to the physical infrastructure, which will allow us
    to realize transformative safety benefits, maximize the benefits and
    usability of our existing infrastructure, reduce the cost of
    maintaining that infrastructure, and show us how and where new or
    modified physical infrastructure will have the most impact. While some
    work has been done to encourage the development and deployment of
    transportation technology, more must be done now and in the future to
    harness the power to innovation and technology to achieve our shared
    transportation priorities, increasing safety and addressing the
    fatality crisis, enhancing resiliency, increasing efficiency while
    reducing environmental impact, making limited investment dollars go
    farther, and expanding mobility, access, and opportunity.
        IIJA was a visionary national commitment to ensuring that the
    United States remains the international leader in the research and
    development of transportation technologies--this commitment is
    evidenced through programs like ARPA-I, investment in our University
    Transportation Centers, and continued support for research into
    innovative transportation technology solutions. Still, while IIJA
    contains some deployment opportunities, namely through the SMART grant
    program, we must ensure that the attention that we pay to development
    of these solutions is matched in our resolve to deploy these
    technologies. Without dedicated support for ITS technology deployment,
    we risk a situation where the United States develops innovative
    transportation tools, only to see our global competitors out-produce
    and out-deploy those same tools. Chief among those competitors is
    China, who has already demonstrated a strong resolve to focus
    significant national funding on re-envisioning their transportation
    network from the top-down with technology improvements. It is critical
    that we continue to robustly invest in ITS solutions to ensure that
    these innovative safety and mobility products and solutions are
    deployed right here at home to improve safety for all road users in the
    United States.
        The good news is that there are steps that can be taken today,
    under existing programs, to advance technology in a more strategic and
    comprehensive way, allowing all communities to take advantage of IIJA
    funding to deploy technology on their systems. This includes work that
    is ongoing at USDOT to create a National V2X Deployment Plan; updates
    to the National Roadway Safety Strategy, the New Car Assessment Program
    (NCAP), and Complete Streets; opportunities for NHTSA to advance ADAS
    and ADS in a safe manner; and prioritizing technology deployment under
    other discretionary grant programs such as Safe Streets and Roads for
    All (SS4A) and the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with
    Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) programs.
        Congress also has an opportunity to reimagine the future of
    transportation technology when it reauthorizes surface transportation
    programs in 2026. This provides the opportunity to incorporate
    technology at every step in the infrastructure program process, from
    planning to construction to operations, but requires us to rethink how
    we approach technology in our transportation system from policy to
    funding to procurement.
    Integrating Technology into Existing Transportation Programs
        Historically, our transportation system has favored developing
    physical infrastructure, and our existing transportation programs
    reflect this focus. IIJA made considerable progress in recognizing the
    potential impact of technology and innovation, establishing the new
    Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) grant
    program, expanding eligibility for technology projects across several
    discretionary and formula programs, and infusing much-needed funding
    support for transportation agencies during COVID-related budget
    constraints. However, more can be done to advance technology under the
    existing programs governed by IIJA.
    V2X Technologies
        As discussed above, V2X technologies will have a significant impact
    on the safety of our transportation system. While many of our members
    are at the forefront of deploying these tools in communities across the
    country, continued Federal leadership is necessary to guide and support
    V2X deployment efforts at a national scale. We commend the Federal
    Highway Administration and the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO) for its
    work on a draft National V2X Deployment Plan and we encourage USDOT to
    issue a final plan, which will provide crucial guidance to V2X
    stakeholders in the public and private sectors. We also encourage USDOT
    to advance awards under the V2X Accelerator Grant Program, which will
    show the benefits of V2X and help deploy this lifesaving technology at
    speed and at scale.
        However, more work is needed to advance V2X and provide the
    regulatory certainty necessary to spur public and private sector
    investment. The transportation community continues to wait for the
    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to issue a Second Report and
    Order governing the rules for V2X technologies in the 5.9 GHz band. It
    is critical that the FCC issue this Second Report and Order before the
    end of this year to provide regulatory certainty to OEMs and IOOs
    looking to deploy V2X devices, and that the FCC take the steps that
    USDOT has been clearly articulating in order to protect these safety
    messages from harmful interference from unlicensed devices and limit
    the use of adjacent spectrum in the U-NII-4 and U-NII-5 bands until the
    potential impacts of such use are fully understood. We would encourage
    the FCC, NTIA, and other Federal policymakers to ensure that V2X
    technologies are provided the regulatory certainty and unencumbered
    spectrum necessary to realize the full promise that these technologies
    can deliver--foremost among them being a significant reduction of
    fatalities on American roads.
        Another area where regulatory action is needed to support V2X
    deployment relates to NCAP. As the motor vehicle safety regulator,
    NHTSA is uniquely positioned to provide leadership in the deployment of
    these technologies in vehicles, and the inclusion of recognition within
    NCAP for V2X would be a clear way in which NHTSA could signal support
    to automakers for the inclusion of V2X in new vehicle models. The
    necessity of V2X inclusion in NCAP is already accepted in Euro NCAP,
    which ``recognizes the safety potential of V2V and V2X technologies,
    for car occupants, vulnerable road users and powered two wheelers.''
    \24\ They stated that to ``support the availability of technology on
    the vehicle side, new incentives will be introduced in the rating
    scheme for V2X technology that support and enhance important safety
    functions.'' \25\ China is also set to incorporate V2X into its own
    CNCAP, and global automakers have already begun incorporating V2X into
    their vehicles sold in the Chinese market. The data on these
    technologies is clear enough for global regulators, and the benefits
    associated with V2X deployment are not new to NHTSA. It is time that
    NHTSA fully signal their support for V2X deployment by including these
    technologies in NCAP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Euro NCAP 2025 Roadmap. Available at: https://
    cdn.euroncap.com/media/30700/euron
    cap-roadmap-2025-v4.pdf
        \25\ Euro NCAP 2025 Roadmap.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We commend Chair Peters, Ranking Member Young, and members of the
    Senate Commerce Committee who have advocated for the advancement of V2X
    and encourage this Committee to urge USDOT and the FCC to provide the
    Federal leadership needed to make national scale deployment of V2X a
    reality.
    Discretionary Grant Programs
        USDOT grants provided under the SMART and ATTAIN grant programs are
    a major tool to spur technology deployment by piloting new
    technologies, helping others learn lessons and best practices, and
    developing key insights for new research and policy. ITS America
    proudly supports these discretionary grant programs and many of our
    members have obtained funding through these programs to deploy
    transportation technology such cloud-based V2X technology, open data
    standards for rural transit needs, wrong way driving countermeasures,
    and audio warnings at intersections for pedestrians.
        However, there are several other discretionary grant programs in
    which technology is an eligible activity, but USDOT could do more to
    inform the public sector about the opportunity to use technology under
    these programs and prioritize the selection of projects which have
    considered or incorporated technology.
        For example, Congress provided $5 billion over five years for the
    SS4A grant program, which seeks to fund projects to prevent roadway
    deaths and serious injuries. While IIJA directed that Comprehensive
    Safety Action Plans (Vision Zero Plans) under the program may include
    ``a data-driven approach . . . such as those involving. . . new vehicle
    or other transportation-related technologies'' and that USDOT should
    consider the extent to which an applicant ``seeks to adopt innovative
    technologies or strategies to promote safety'',\26\ ITS America had to
    encourage USDOT to be explicit in its Notices of Funding Opportunity
    about the opportunities to incorporate technology into these projects
    and more could be done to prioritize the selection of projects that
    incorporate technology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117-58
    Sec. 24112 135 Stat 429 (2021)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Similarly, technology is eligible under the RAISE program and
    Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-
    Saving Transportation (PROTECT) grant programs, in which USDOT could
    prioritize the selection of projects which incorporate technology.
    USDOT Policies and Guidance
        ITS America is grateful for USDOT's leadership in incorporating
    references to technology in the updated NRSS, but more can be done to
    prioritize the inclusion of technology into the Safe Systems Approach,
    Complete Streets, and other USDOT policies and guidance. USDOT can also
    support technology deployment by the continued development of best
    practices and technical assistance to aid states and local governments
    in understanding how best to deploy technology.
        In the NRSS, USDOT adopted a Safe System Approach as the guiding
    paradigm to address roadway safety, acknowledging both human mistakes
    and human vulnerability, while designing a redundant system to protect
    everyone. Specifically, the NRSS identifies a Safe System Approach that
    incorporates six principles: (1) death and serious injuries are
    unacceptable. (2) humans make mistakes, (3) humans are vulnerable, (4)
    responsibility is shared, (5) safety is proactive, and (6) redundancy
    is crucial. Some of these principles state obvious facts that we can
    all agree on, including crashes involving deaths and serious injuries
    should be eliminated, that a transportation system should be designed
    to accommodate human vulnerabilities, and that all stakeholders share
    in the responsibility of advancing safety.
        To address the other three principles--humans make mistakes, safety
    is proactive, and redundancy is crucial--transportation technology must
    be incorporated. Technology provides the opportunity to prevent or
    mitigate human mistakes by providing more complete information to
    drivers or taking corrective action when crashes are imminent.
    Technology is proactive and can be used to identify and address safety
    concerns before they arise, such as with digital twinning technologies
    and the use of artificial intelligence. Finally, technology can fill
    the critical need of redundancy as a fallback protection should
    education, roadway design, traffic regulation, and enforcement fail.
    Transportation technology is the digital layer of protection that
    provides first level and redundant safety benefits by preventing and
    mitigating crashes, fatalities, and injuries, all while making our
    transportation system more equitable and sustainable.
        USDOT identified five complementary objectives within its NRSS: (1)
    Safer People, (2) Safer Roads, (3) Safer Vehicles, (4) Safer Speeds,
    and (5) Post-Crash Care. Transportation technology can contribute to
    enhancing safety within each of these five objectives. ITS America
    developed a resource identifying this in our National Roadway Safety
    Strategy--ITS America Response.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ National Roadway Safety Strategy, ITS America Response.
    Available at: https://itsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ITS-America-
    National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy-Response-5-19-22.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Complete Streets is an approach that requires streets to be
    planned, designed, operated and maintained to enable safe, convenient
    and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities
    regardless of their mode of transportation. Given the importance and
    applicability to road user safety, technology must be included and
    prioritized in Complete Streets projects. In 2024, it is time we
    modernize the Complete Streets concept to include technology as an
    integral part of the safety layer. Specifically, ITS America recommends
    the inclusion of five distinct technology elements into how Complete
    Streets is currently defined: (1) integration of smart/digital
    infrastructure, (2) access to charging stations and electric vehicle
    (EV) infrastructure, (3) data-driven decision-making, (4) consideration
    of shared mobility options, and (5) emphasizing multimodal
    connectivity.\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ ITS America: Incorporating Technology into Complete Streets.
    Available at: https://itsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ITSA-
    Complete-Streets-with-Tech.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Technology plays a crucial role in achieving the vision of Complete
    Streets and should be specifically called out under eligible
    activities, particularly to improve the safety of bicyclists and
    pedestrians. Smart traffic management systems, for instance, utilize
    real-time data and sensors to monitor traffic flow and adjust signal
    timings accordingly. This reduces congestion, enhances traffic
    efficiency, and improves safety by minimizing interactions between
    vehicles and vulnerable road users. Moreover, digital tools and mapping
    applications allow for the integration of accurate and up-to-date
    information on pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, enabling users to
    plan their routes with confidence. Furthermore, connected vehicles
    (CVs) and V2X technologies hold immense potential to create safer and
    more efficient Complete Streets. With their ability to communicate with
    each other and with infrastructure, CVs can enhance safety and reduce
    congestion.
        The concept of Complete Streets is centered on prioritizing the
    safety and accessibility of all road users. Technology plays a pivotal
    role in realizing this vision by integrating real-time data, digital
    tools, and emerging technologies, ultimately creating a transportation
    system that is more efficient, equitable, and sustains the wellbeing of
    all community members. ITS America encourages USDOT to expand their
    efforts to assist state and local transportation agencies in
    identifying ways to incorporate these technology solutions as part of
    their Complete Streets efforts, including by building off ITS JPO's
    Smart Community Resource Center (SCRC).
        The SCRC serves as a compilation of resources that can be used by
    practitioners to advance ITS and smart community transportation
    projects. The ITS JPO developed the SCRC to provide states, tribal
    governments, and localities with resources to help develop smart
    community transportation projects and programs nationwide. The website
    provides information and tools about smart communities and ITS
    technologies, deployment support, and links to USDOT funding
    opportunities that support the development of smart communities
    nationwide. This resource is an excellent blueprint for providing much-
    needed technical resources for states and localities looking to deploy
    technologies.
    Reimagine the Future of Transportation Technology
        To fully access these benefits and realize a safer, greener, and
    smarter transportation system, Federal transportation policy needs to
    be updated and modernized to include transportation technology at every
    step of the process, from planning to construction to operations.
    Technology cannot be a ``nice to have'' and must be holistically
    incorporated into transportation budgets and operations.
        This requires a fundamental shift in our approach to how we plan,
    fund, and procure infrastructure and technology. From the policymaker
    to traffic engineer to the traveling public, this calls for a different
    mindset on how we approach infrastructure and prioritize safety.
    Policy and Planning
        It is critical that decisionmakers at the Federal, state, regional,
    and local levels include digital infrastructure and broader technology
    solutions in planning and agency-wide initiatives. This means policy
    which incorporates technology throughout Federal surface transportation
    programs under Title 23 and Title 49, prioritizing the inclusion of
    technology in USDOT initiatives, expanding eligibility for technology
    deployments through existing funding programs, incorporating technology
    into planning and asset management processes, strengthening the
    research and development of digital technologies, and advancing
    technology workforce development programs. These changes will allow
    investment in digital infrastructure and technology to be appropriately
    considered alongside physical infrastructure.
    Funding
        Funding stability and certainty are critical to deploying
    technology on our roads. Transportation technologies of today were not
    even contemplated when much of our country's infrastructure was
    constructed, and the Nation's economy and the mobility needs of our
    country have changed considerably in recent decades and will continue
    to change rapidly in the coming years. ITS deployers at the state and
    local level need substantial and certain funding for technology, and
    that funding needs to be incorporated at the beginning of a project's
    lifecycle, not as an afterthought.
        ITS America encourages Congress to reevaluate how technology is
    funded under Federal transportation programs, which is currently
    designed for physical infrastructure and does not adequately consider
    the procurement, maintenance, and operations needs of a technology-
    inclusive infrastructure system.
        Current technology funding primarily comes from limited
    discretionary grant programs, which are insufficient to achieve the
    scale of deployment needed to make a measurable impact on the country's
    transportation system. Technology deployments under these programs are
    often limited in size, scope, and location, and if we are to truly reap
    the safety benefits of transportation technology, we must move beyond
    pilots and demonstrations.
        We need to move beyond focusing on technology only through
    discretionary grant programs, ensuring that all transportation and
    infrastructure projects consider and incorporate technology when
    appropriate.
    Procurement
        Procuring technology and software as infrastructure assets has been
    a challenge to public agencies, and it is critical that the
    transportation industry develops updated policies and best practices
    for procuring new kinds of digital infrastructure. Data streams,
    software licenses, and even cloud storage services are key to a
    transportation system today but were not core parts of our
    infrastructure procurement thirty years ago. These solutions are
    distinctly unique from physical assets--they are not one-time purchases
    and may require annual fees or licenses, require ongoing maintenance to
    ensure cybersecurity and data integrity, and can improve performance
    over time unlike a static physical asset.
        The current transportation technology procurement process can be
    lengthy and onerous, especially for localities that may lack the
    resources and expertise, slowing down projects and threatening the
    efficiency of investment in technology solutions for safety. State and
    local transportation agencies would benefit from additional Federal
    guidance on standards, definitions, and best practices around
    transportation technology procurement.
        ITS America encourages Congress to develop robust technology
    procurement policy, which will aim to reduce the challenges currently
    associated with transportation technology procurement. When considering
    amendments to our current procurement process, we would recommend that
    Congress prioritize enhancing coordination between Federal, state, and
    local transportation policymakers, as well as improving procurement
    flexibility within Federal grant opportunities.
    IV. Conclusion
        American innovation continues to lead the world. We have the
    opportunity to harness American innovation and ingenuity in the
    communities where we live, work, and play to realize better safety
    outcomes for all who use our transportation system. As a mother, I long
    for the day when I don't have to say to my children ``call me when you
    get there safely''. While it will take time, we can make that day a
    reality by leveraging technology in a more holistic way as we plan,
    build, and operate infrastructure.
        We can be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to safety,
    creating a layered approach that marries physical and digital
    infrastructure to protect all users and meet the needs of future
    mobility while delivering better safety outcomes. This means
    reimagining Federal transportation policy to include transportation
    technology at every step of the process, ensuring that transportation
    technology operations and maintenance challenges are adequately
    addressed, and updating procurement methods to meet 21st century
    technology.
        ITS America is grateful for this Subcommittee's desire to talk
    about safety solutions, and we look forward to working with
    policymakers to ensure a policy and regulatory environment that allows
    for scaled deployment of these safety-enhancing technologies.

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Ms. Chace.
        Our third witness is Jake Nelson, who serves as the Traffic
    Safety Advocacy and Research Director at the American
    Automobile Association, probably better known as AAA.
        Mr. Nelson is an epidemiologist who applies research and
    the sciences of public health to AAA's public policy
    development, governmental advocacy, and consumer education
    activities. Mr. Nelson holds an undergraduate degree from the
    University of Michigan, graduate degrees in public health and
    public policy from George Washington University and the
    University of Chicago.
        Mr. Nelson, welcome to the Committee. You may proceed with
    your opening remarks.

                  STATEMENT OF JACOB NELSON, DIRECTOR,

                 TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVOCACY AND RESEARCH,

                    AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Chairman Peters and Ranking Member
    Young, for the opportunity to testify today.
        In the time I have today, I want to focus on a few key
    points from the more detailed testimony submitted for the
    record: why the spike in highway deaths, and what we can do
    about it.
        Here's what AAA research has uncovered about what's
    happening on our roadways and to whom. Since the pandemic,
    speeding, drunk driving, and non-use of safety belts account
    for most of the increase in traffic deaths. The post-COVID
    spike in fatalities has predominantly hit disadvantaged
    populations, particularly people with no education beyond high
    school and Black and Hispanic populations.
        Urban traffic deaths have increased by 66 percent since
    2013, which has major implications for pedestrians and
    cyclists, who are more concentrated in urban areas. Since 2013,
    pedestrian deaths have increased 81 percent in urban areas and
    dropped 10 percent in rural areas.
        This shift in traffic mortality has happened mostly on
    urban and suburban arterial roads. These are typically multi-
    lane, medium to high speed, and high-volume roads, originally
    designed to quickly move vehicles in and out of cities. And
    today, their use has changed. People live, work, and shop all
    along these roads.
        A note on enforcement. As you heard from Senator Cruz,
    traffic deaths have spiked in the U.S. at the same time that
    citations for dangerous behaviors like speeding and drunk
    driving have dropped by as much as 50 percent in some parts of
    the Nation. We know labor shortages across the profession and
    negative perceptions of law enforcement are factors here. And
    research is crystal clear that when perceived risk of
    apprehension for breaking laws drops, we see risk-taking
    behaviors go up.
        AAA survey research found that most drivers reduced their
    driving during the pandemic, but a small proportion increased
    their driving and appeared to be riskier than average, even
    after accounting for their age, their gender, and how much they
    drive. Nationally, drivers admit to engaging more regularly in
    behaviors like speeding, red light running, and driving within
    an hour of using cannabis. Most alarming was a 24 percent
    increase in self-reported drunk driving.
        The bottom line is that highly visible enforcement of
    traffic laws tied to things like speeding and impaired driving
    saves lives. Period. If we enhance the trust between police and
    the communities they serve and protect, we stand a much better
    chance of police confidently enforcing lifesaving laws with
    strong community support.
        What got us to this point will not move us closer to zero
    deaths. My written testimony identifies five key
    recommendations to help move the needle, and I encourage the
    Committee's consideration of all five. I'm going to focus on
    three.
        First, support for law enforcement. Congress can increase
    funding for states through Section 1906 Racial Profiling
    Prohibition Grant program and establish a U.S. center of
    excellence for equitable traffic enforcement.
        AAA believes a key limiting factor to state-level demand
    for existing funding is the lack of guidance and technical
    support available to them to properly standardize, analyze, and
    interpret traffic stop data, and also to effectively
    collaborate with law enforcement agencies to address inequities
    illuminated by these data without impeding non-driving related
    crime. We all benefit from making traffic enforcement more
    equitable, using police resources more efficiently, and
    maximizing road safety.
        Number two, require better coordination between state and
    local governments when determining changes to maximum posted
    speed limits on higher-speed state-owned roadways.
        AAA research shows that speeding-related crashes jump on
    surrounding roadways when speed limits are raised on nearby
    highways or highway segments. Stronger coordination would allow
    local road authorities to prepare for this spillover effect,
    and protect pedestrians and bicyclists who are more
    concentrated near arterials and local roads.
        Number three, stronger congressional oversight over HALT
    Act implementation. NHTSA will fail to issue a final rule by
    the congressionally mandated deadline, but Congress can ensure
    that NHTSA issues an NPRM by that same deadline, November 15th
    of this year. Once this tech penetrates the U.S. passenger
    vehicle fleet, it will save an estimated 10,000 lives annually,
    making it the single most effective safety countermeasure since
    the safety belt.
        AAA recognizes the challenges before you are not easy, but
    it's time to lean in on what's working and pursue opportunities
    to maximize the potential public good. That's how the U.S. can
    sprint instead of crawl toward saving lives on our Nation's
    roadways.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Jacob Nelson, Director, Traffic Safety Advocacy
                 and Research, American Automobile Association
        Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Young, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for inviting AAA to be here today to share our
    perspective on roadway safety.
        As you may know, AAA is a federation of motor clubs in North
    America serving over 64 million members. Our members are users of the
    Nation's surface transportation system. They are drivers, passengers,
    pedestrians, cyclists, and public transportation users. Transportation
    plays a vital role in their lives and, of course, underpins the
    economic well-being of this Nation.
        AAA's interest in transportation safety and personal mobility began
    more than 120 years ago. We remain committed to these goals today as
    the United States faces record-breaking traffic deaths despite advances
    in vehicle safety technology, infrastructure safety investments, and
    lifesaving traffic laws.
        As a public health practitioner and epidemiologist, I consider
    traffic injuries and deaths an overlooked public health threat to
    Americans, an entirely preventable threat. In my testimony today, I
    would like to spend a little time highlighting some of the reasons the
    U.S. traffic safety experience is poor as compared to other developed
    nations around the world, and then offer some recommendations for how
    we can maximize the safety impact of the historic investments Congress
    recently made in the Nation's transportation system.
    Factors Contributing to Increased Highway Fatalities
        As the United States continues to recover from the COVID-19
    pandemic, traffic fatalities remain unacceptably high. Risky driving
    behaviors play a critical role in traffic crashes and contribute to an
    unsafe transportation environment for Americans traveling both inside
    and outside vehicles.
        AAA has worked to understand what drove traffic deaths to a 16-year
    high in the years immediately following the COVID-19 pandemic. We
    believe that unpacking this issue is an important first step in saving
    lives on our roadways. Over the last few years, researchers at the AAA
    Foundation for Traffic Safety have used data from a variety of sources
    to help illuminate what is happening on U.S. roads. Let me walk you
    through some of what we uncovered.
        Behavioral Risk Factors in Fatal Crashes. The most recent data
    available through the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) managed
    by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), told us
    that behavioral factors such as speeding, alcohol impairment, and non-
    use of seatbelts account for a considerable proportion of the increased
    fatalities.\1\ Notably, the post-COVID-19 spike in vehicle occupant
    fatalities was almost entirely among people not wearing seatbelts.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2024, April).
    Overview of motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2022 (Traffic Safety Facts
    Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 813 560). National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration.
        \2\ Tefft, B.C. & Wang, M. (2022). Traffic Safety Impact of the
    COVID-19 Pandemic: Fatal Crashes Relative to Pre-Pandemic Trends,
    United States, May-December 2020 (Research Brief). Washington, D.C.:
    AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Other important factors worth noting include the rural-to-urban
    shift relative to where most traffic deaths occur. Historically, we saw
    more fatalities on rural roads, with higher speeds, run-off road
    crashes, head-on collisions and delayed access to medical care for the
    injured as contributing factors. According to NHTSA, more people have
    been killed annually on urban roadways as compared to rural roadways
    since 2016. Between 2013 and 2022, urban traffic deaths increased by 66
    percent and rural traffic deaths decreased by 2.6 percent. Urban and
    rural roadways saw small decreases in traffic deaths between 2021 and
    2022.
        Though this shift began well before the pandemic, it has major
    implications for vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists
    who are more concentrated in urban areas and thus have greater exposure
    to motor vehicles. For example, pedestrian deaths increased by 81
    percent since 2013 in urban areas but dropped in rural areas by 10
    percent during the same period.
        The rural-to-urban shift has impacted traffic death rates mostly on
    urban and suburban arterial roads, which are typically multi-lane,
    medium-high speed, high-volume roads originally designed to move
    vehicles in and out of cities quickly. Development along these roads
    has changed the way they are predominantly used. They were built for
    ``through traffic'', but now people live, work, and shop along them
    creating more potential for crashes.
        Pedestrians and cyclists are not the only vulnerable road users to
    note. In 2021, motorcyclists represented 14 percent of traffic
    fatalities despite comprising only 3.5 percent of registered vehicles,
    highlighting their vulnerability. They are nearly 24 times more likely
    to die in crashes per vehicle miles traveled compared to occupants of
    passenger vehicles, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration.
        The post-COVID spike in fatalities has been disproportionately
    among disadvantaged populations, particularly among low socioeconomic
    status (i.e., no college degree) populations.\3\ Additionally, AAA's
    analysis of CDC data shows that the excess mortality since the pandemic
    was disproportionately among the Black and Hispanic populations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Brian C Tefft, Rebecca Steinbach, COVID-19 Pandemic Exacerbated
    Socioeconomic Disparities in Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities, American
    Journal of Epidemiology, 2024
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The high degree of risk faced by vulnerable users of the Nation's
    roadways makes much more sense when we look at what kinds of risky
    behaviors drivers admit to engaging in while behind the wheel.
        Self-Reported Risk-Taking Behaviors Among Motorists. The AAA
    Foundation for Traffic Safety is committed to deepening its
    understanding of America's behavior behind the wheel and conducts the
    Traffic Safety Culture Index survey annually. As the impacts of traffic
    safety on public health have worsened, responses from this annual
    survey offer important insights into understanding public perceptions
    of, attitudes toward, and engagement in unsafe driving behaviors. They
    are aspects that should be considered when developing countermeasures.
        To understand the rise in dangerous driving behaviors, the AAA
    Foundation for Traffic Safety combined data from its Traffic Safety
    Culture Index with data from its American Driving Survey, which records
    the daily driving patterns of the U.S. population. Our researchers
    explored whether the pandemic changed the composition of drivers on the
    road. They found that while most drivers (60 percent) reduced their
    driving during the pandemic, a small proportion (4 percent) increased
    their driving. Making matters worse, those who increased their driving
    appeared to be riskier than average, even after accounting for their
    age, gender, and how much they drove.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Tefft, B. C., Villavicencio, L., Benson, A., Arnold, L. S.,
    Kim, W., Anorve, V., Horrey, W. J. (2022). Self-Reported Risky Driving
    in Relation to Amount of Driving During the COVID-19 Pandemic (Research
    Brief). Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Digging deeper, our researchers found that unsafe driving
    behaviors, including speeding (+12 percent), red-light running (+10
    percent), drowsy driving (+8 percent), and driving impaired on cannabis
    (+14 percent), rose from 2020 to 2021. The most alarming increase was
    among drivers admitting to getting behind the wheel after drinking
    enough that they felt they were over the legal limit--an increase of
    nearly 24 percent.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2023). 2022 Traffic Safety
    Culture Index (Technical Report). Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for
    Traffic Safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Using self-reported data on specific motorist behaviors, AAA
    researchers were able to group drivers according to which risky
    behavior they predominantly engage in. The most common dangerous
    behaviors were speeding (23 percent), distracted driving (15 percent),
    and aggressive driving (17 percent). Upon further examination,
    researchers found that many risky drivers in this study were classified
    into profiles that involved speeding behavior. The major implication
    here is that increased enforcement of speed limit laws will deter other
    risky driving behaviors like impaired driving and red-light running.
    This law enforcement measure can be expected to have the greatest
    impact on safety through general deterrence and apprehension of drivers
    who break traffic laws proven to save lives.
        Challenges in Traffic Enforcement. Rising traffic fatalities are
    correlated with drops in the enforcement of lifesaving traffic safety
    laws. Citations for dangerous behaviors like speeding and driving under
    the influence have decreased by as much as 50 percent in some parts of
    the country.
        A 2019 survey of law enforcement agencies by the International
    Association of Chiefs of Police\6\ found national labor shortages
    across the profession. The survey cited challenges related to increased
    retirements and resignations and decreased recruitment tied to negative
    perceptions of law enforcement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ International Association for Chiefs of Police. (2019). The
    State of Recruitment: A Crisis for Law Enforcement. Alexandria, V.A.:
    International Association for Chiefs of Police.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the last two years, AAA has worked to understand potential
    approaches to achieve the dual goals of improved traffic safety and
    more equitable traffic enforcement. During this time, we have discussed
    research-based recommendations with over 25 national and state-level
    organizations and government agencies. Research literature has not yet
    uncovered a single policy, training program, or other intervention that
    serves as a panacea for addressing racial disparities in traffic
    enforcement. However, there are promising approaches that evidence has
    shown to help mitigate these disparities and improve traffic safety
    outcomes. Examples include, but are not limited to:

       Continuous collection and proper use of traffic stop data.
            At least 23 states plus D.C. mandate the collection of traffic
            stop data (albeit non-standardized) to detect racial profiling.
            Most states and law enforcement agencies lack the expertise to
            properly analyze it, leverage it for intervention purposes, or
            use it for evaluation of implemented countermeasures, but
            several states including Connecticut\7\ and California have
            good practices and support programs in place.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Connecticut Racial Profiling Prohibition Project. (https://
    www.ctrp3.org/)

       Re-prioritization of traffic stops. Evidence shows that
            reducing traffic stops for vehicle equipment or administrative
            violations and prioritizing safety-oriented moving violations
            like speeding, impaired, distracted, and aggressive driving can
            mitigate racial disparities in traffic enforcement, without
            increases in non-traffic crimes, and may bring reductions in
            traffic crashes, injuries, and deaths.\8\ A recent analysis of
            Federal crash data conducted by the Center for Policing Equity
            showed that of the 272,921 vehicles involved in fatal crashes
            nationally between 2017 and 2021, only 638 (0.2 percent)
            involved vehicle maintenance or equipment issues (e.g.,
            defective lighting, wipers, defective mirrors or windshields)
            as contributing factors to the crashes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Fliss MD, Baumgartner F, Delamater P, Marshall S, Poole C,
    Robinson W. Re-prioritizing traffic stops to reduce motor vehicle crash
    outcomes and racial disparities. Inj Epidemiol. 2020 Jan 20;7(1):3.

        In short, traffic enforcement is one of several important
    strategies for preventing traffic deaths. To achieve the dual goals of
    safety and equity we need to explore pathways to enhancing trust
    between police and the communities they serve and protect. Through
    efforts like these, we will gain community support for the kind of
    traffic enforcement that targets risky driving behaviors like speeding
    and impaired driving.
    AAA Recommendations for Change
        AAA acknowledges the need for fresh approaches to move toward zero
    traffic fatalities. Continuing with past approaches will not yield
    different outcomes. AAA proposes the following recommendations for your
    consideration as you assess current programs and explore novel avenues
    to enhance transportation safety.
        Through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Congress made
    funding available to states via the Section 1906 Racial Profiling
    Prohibition Grant program. This grant program has offered significant
    support to several state efforts to start or enhance their police stop
    data programs. AAA believes a key limiting factor to greater demand
    among states to tap into 1906 funding is the lack of guidance and
    technical support available to them to understand how to properly
    standardize and analyze these data to draw accurate conclusions from
    them. Equally as important is guidance for states relative to effective
    collaboration with law enforcement agencies to address inequities
    illuminated by these stop data.

      1.  Recommendation--Increase funding for states via the Section 1906
            Racial Profiling Prohibition Grant program and establish a U.S.
            Center of Excellence for Equitable Traffic Enforcement to help
            states effectively navigate this important issue and help
            police confidently enforce traffic laws that save lives with
            community understanding and support. Most police departments do
            collect some form of stop data but do not analyze or use it. We
            all benefit from making traffic enforcement more equitable and
            efficient to maximize road safety.

        AAA is a strong supporter of adopting the Safe System Approach
    (SSA) to roadway safety. The SSA uses effective countermeasures to
    create multiple layers of protection for transportation network users.
    It has been leveraged by other developed nations to achieve huge gains
    in transportation safety driving down traffic deaths--47 percent
    (Australia) and 80 percent (Spain).
        As you know, the U.S. Department of Transportation has already
    committed to adopting this approach, and the Federal Highway
    Administration has already issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    (NPRM) to better integrate the SSA into state highway safety planning
    processes. This is significant progress.

      2.  Recommendation--Roadway engineers, but especially behavioral
            highway safety practitioners and policymakers would benefit
            from more guidance and technical assistance relative to the
            proper adoption of SSA principles to maximize measurable safety
            gains. The AAA Foundation is currently developing such
            guidance, but widespread adoption of this or similar guidance
            is critical.

        Through grant programs like Safe Streets and Roads for All,
    Congress directed $5 billion to local communities, especially
    historically underinvested locations where such investment can help
    close significant disparities in traffic safety outcomes. Critical to
    the success of this kind of community-level investment is garnering the
    support of residents. An unintended consequence of modernizing roadway
    infrastructure in a historically underinvested community is fear of
    displacement, or worse, this fear being fully realized. The IIJA
    already requires States to pursue meaningful public participation and
    engagement, particularly in communities most significantly impacted by
    traffic crashes resulting in injuries and fatalities. 23 U.S.C.
    402(b)(1)(B). The Safe Streets and Roads for All grant program would
    benefit from a similar requirement.

      3.  Recommendation While the Safe Streets and Roads for All grant
            program encourages an analysis of community input, AAA believes
            that State and local transportation leaders would benefit from
            more guidance and technical assistance relative to the
            appropriate outreach, education, solicitation of input, and
            adoption of local preferences for infrastructure investments
            made where they live. To ensure that community residents are
            the same people who benefit from this historic Congressional
            investment in roadway safety, careful attention must be paid to
            garnering local support for the infrastructure-based solutions
            to the safety challenges that exist locally. This front-end
            work will help drive greater demand for current and future
            investments made possible by Congress.

        The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety recently published new
    research documenting the ``spillover effect'' whereby traffic crash
    experiences on surrounding roadways can be exacerbated unintentionally
    when speed limits are raised on nearby highways or highway segments.\9\
    To minimize unintended safety consequences, it is important for
    transportation departments, at all levels, to coordinate and work
    closely together when considering posted speed limit adjustments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Romo, A., McDonough, J., Wei, A. & Yang, C.Y.D. (2024).
    Uncovering the Spillover Effect from Posted Speed Limit Changes: A Tool
    to Examine Potential Safety Concerns (Technical Report). Washington,
    D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

      4.  Recommendation--Require state/local coordination when determining
            changes to maximum posted speed limits on higher speed state-
            owned highways. Since vulnerable populations like pedestrians
            and bicyclists are more concentrated near arterials and local
            roads, close coordination between state and local road
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            authorities is needed to account for the ``spillover effect.''

        According to an analysis conducted by the Insurance Institute for
    Highway Safety, Alcohol-detection systems that stop people from driving
    with BAC levels of 0.08 or higher would save about 10,000 lives
    annually, once penetration of the technology in the U.S. passenger
    vehicle fleet is complete. By integrating the HALT Act into the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Congress took the first step
    toward saving more lives in the U.S. since the implementation of the
    safety belt. Unfortunately, the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) is expected to miss the Congressionally mandated
    deadline for issuance of a final rule by November 15, 2024.

      5.  Recommendation--Ensure strong Congressional oversight of HALT Act
            implementation. Though NHTSA is likely unable to reasonably
            issue a final rule by the required deadline, Congress can
            ensure that NHTSA issues an NPRM by that same deadline,
            November 15, 2024.
    Conclusion
        AAA recognizes that the challenges before you are not easy. But,
    what Congress has made possible through the Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act and the Safe Streets and Roads for All grant program has
    the potential for a significant boon for safety. The task moving
    forward ought to be leaning in on what is working well and actively
    pursuing the opportunities available to maximize the potential public
    good.
        Through this work, we can maximize safety for the communities that
    bear a disproportionate burden of traffic injury and death on our
    roadways. Targeting disparities in transportation safety is how the
    U.S. can sprint instead of crawl toward saving as many lives as
    possible on our Nation's roadways.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look forward
    to answering any questions you may have.

        Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Nelson.
        Our fourth witness is Dr. Laura Sandt. Dr. Sandt is the Co-
    Director of the University of North Carolina Highway Safety
    Research Center. She also serves as Co-Director for the
    Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, as well as Director
    of the Collaborative Science Center for Road Safety, whose
    mission is to advance transportation safety through a
    multidisciplinary, systems-based approach.
        Dr. Sandt has a Ph.D. in epidemiology from UNC Chapel Hill
    Gillings School of Global Public Health with a concentration in
    injury prevention. She also holds a master's in regional
    planning from UNC Chapel Hill with a concentration in
    transportation and land use.
        Dr. Sandt, thank you for being here today. You may proceed
    with your opening remarks.

             STATEMENT OF LAURA SANDT, Ph.D., CO-DIRECTOR,

             RESEARCH STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION, HIGHWAY

            SAFETY RESEARCH CENTER; DIRECTOR, PEDESTRIAN AND

                 BICYCLE INFORMATION CENTER; DIRECTOR,

             COLLABORATIVE SCIENCES CENTER FOR ROAD SAFETY,

           SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH

                CENTER, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

                             AT CHAPEL HILL

        Dr. Sandt. Thank you Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Young,
    and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to speak today.
        My name is Laura Sandt, and I'm co-director of the Highway
    Safety Research Center at the University of North Carolina at
    Chapel Hill. As an epidemiologist with a background in
    transportation planning, my guiding light is to improve the
    wellbeing of our communities through the prevention of roadway
    injuries and fatalities.
        It is tragic to see that the roadway fatality rate in the
    U.S. has been steadily increasing since 2010, moving in the
    opposite direction of other high-income nations. Traffic
    injuries now require millions of emergency department visits
    each year and create significant burdens for families,
    healthcare providers, employers, and the broader community. Our
    economy and our public health depend on our people and families
    arriving safely at their jobs, in schools, and returning safely
    to their homes and communities each day.
        Roadway crashes are preventable, and we have many available
    tools and practices that can be applied to improve safety. The
    Safe System approach is one such practice. It focuses on five
    key objectives: safer people, safer roads, safer vehicles,
    safer speeds, and post-crash care. Key to its effectiveness is
    that the Safe System approach places a clear focus on the
    primary mechanism of injury in roadway crashes, kinetic energy
    above human tolerance levels.
        ``Kinetic energy'' can seem like an abstract term, but
    everyone knows what excess kinetic energy looks like on our
    roads. We know it when we see pictures of vehicles torn in half
    from a T-bone crash. We know it when we see pedestrians
    literally knocked out of their shoes and thrown hundreds of
    feet from the site of impact.
        And we know a lot about how speed is playing a role in our
    road safety crisis. We know that the faster we drive, the more
    prone we become to making errors, and the more time and
    distance we need to respond to a hazard and avoid a crash. Most
    importantly, we know that higher speeds, in concert with larger
    vehicles, are a key factor behind the spike in fatalities that
    we are seeing among pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and
    construction workers, whose bodies are simply not designed to
    withstand impact speeds above 20 miles per hour.
        Fortunately, research indicates that even relatively small
    changes in speed can improve safety for all road users
    significantly. Just a 5 percent reduction in average speed can
    cut the number of fatal crashes by 30 percent, making a
    significant step toward our goal of zero.
        We have many well established treatments that can be
    applied to help naturally cue drivers to adopt context-
    appropriate speeds. Many states and local agencies have created
    ambitious speed management plans; and while progress is being
    made, there remains a critical need to build local capacity and
    political will to enhance cross-sector coordination, streamline
    delivery of speed management tools, and ensure that safe and
    appropriate speeds are inherently baked into our roadway
    design, operation, and maintenance practices.
        Opportunities also exist for vehicle designs and
    technologies to help us reduce the kinetic energy in our
    system. Features like intelligent speed adaptation are now
    becoming standard practices in other countries. We need to be
    ready and willing to apply global innovations to also save
    lives in the U.S.
        As we improve our safety plans and infrastructure, and test
    out new technologies, we must further invest in modernizing our
    safety data systems. We can't manage what we don't measure, and
    we need data to be timely, accurate, consistent, accessible,
    and complete. We must enhance our data requirements and
    standards, put in place sustained funding and dedicated
    coordinating units, and establish clear performance metrics
    related to speed management to show accountability in our
    implementation of Safe System efforts.
        As we adopt new technologies, we need better data related
    to usage, compliance, and failures to help us understand and
    improve their safety performance and public acceptance. We need
    a safer system in the U.S., one in which people can make
    mistakes and be human and still make it home on our roads. A
    focus on addressing kinetic energy as the root cause of roadway
    fatalities offers tremendous promise for creating a
    transportation system that is safe for people of all ages and
    abilities.
        University researchers are well positioned to support this
    work in collaboration with the many partners dedicated to
    community safety and wellbeing.
        Thank you for your time and leadership, and I welcome the
    discussion on these critical issues.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Sandt follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Laura Sandt, Ph.D., Co-Director, Research
    Strategy and Implementation, Highway Safety Research Center; Director,
      Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center; Director, Collaborative
      Sciences Center for Road Safety, Senior Research Associate, Highway
    Safety Research Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    Biography
        Dr. Laura Sandt was appointed co-director of the University of
    North Carolina (UNC) Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC), focused on
    research strategy and implementation, in November 2023. She has been
    with HSRC since 2004 and is active in a variety of research areas,
    including the development and evaluation of community-involved health
    and injury prevention programs and studies focusing on pedestrian and
    bicycle safety, mobility, and access.
        Dr. Sandt serves as co-director for the Pedestrian and Bicycle
    Information Center, a Federal clearinghouse that provides leadership
    and technical guidance to communities across the U.S. She also serves
    as director for the Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety, a
    National University Transportation Center funded in 2016 by the U.S.
    Department of Transportation (USDOT). In this role, she has oversight
    responsibilities for the Center, whose mission is to advance
    transportation safety through a multidisciplinary, systems-based
    approach.
        She has been involved in the development of several seminal Federal
    Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) resources, including the Pedestrian Road Safety
    Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists, the guide How to Develop a
    Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, Countermeasures that Work: 7th Edition,
    and a toolkit for community members, A Resident's Guide for Creating
    Safer Communities for Walking and Biking. She has also led projects
    working directly with states and local communities to develop,
    implement, and evaluate programs aimed at improving pedestrian and
    bicycle safety and access to affordable travel options and health
    opportunities. Most recently, she participated in FHWA's Office of
    International Programs study team examining Safe System innovations to
    improve pedestrian safety on urban arterial roads.
        Dr. Sandt has led or supported numerous projects related to
    transportation safety data improvement and systemic safety analysis.
    She served as Principal Investigator on NCHRP projects 17-73 (Report
    893), and BTSCRP project 10 (Research Report 9), and has conducted
    several studies utilizing both healthcare and police data records to
    examine the quality and potential applica9on of various data sources.
        Dr. Sandt has a Ph.D. in epidemiology from the UNC-Chapel Hill
    Gillings School of Global Public Health, with a concentration in injury
    prevention. She also holds a Masters in Regional Planning (M.R.P.) from
    UNC-Chapel Hill with a concentration in transportation and land use.
    Her undergraduate degree is from Texas A&M University. Dr. Sandt is an
    active member of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
    Professionals, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the Road to
    Zero Coalition, and the Transportation Research Board, serving as
    former Chair of the Pedestrians Committee (ACH10), and co-chair of the
    Subcommittee on Automated Vehicles, Pedestrian, and Bicycle
    Interaction.
                                     ______

        Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Young, and distinguished members of
    the Committee:

        Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the critical issues
    surrounding our roadway safety crisis. My name is Laura Sandt, and I am
    a Senior Research Associate and Co-Director of the Highway Safety
    Research Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The
    UNC Highway Safety Research Center was established in 1965 at the
    directive of the then Governor of North Carolina to provide policy
    makers with research needed to improve road safety--a very big concern
    in the 1960s. You may not be familiar with my Center in name, but I am
    confident that you are familiar with the impactful work of my HSRC
    colleagues, which has informed the creation of nationally adopted
    safety efforts such as Graduated Driver Licensing systems for novice
    drivers that have helped countless teens become safer drivers, and
    public engagement programs like Click It or Ticket that have helped to
    drive seat belt use to record high levels.
        My work at UNC over the last 20 years has been to further advance
    this mission of saving lives on our roadways. My work is focused on
    better understanding the patterns and causes of roadway injuries and
    estimating the effectiveness of various approaches designed to prevent
    severe and fatal injuries. Further, as an epidemiologist and
    transportation planning and safety researcher, my guiding light is to
    improve the quality of life and wellbeing of our communities. I am just
    one out of a large community of safety researchers, so I will focus my
    comments today on topics related to my own research priorities rather
    than try and address the full set of existing and emerging road safety
    issues. My focus will be on:

       The Growing Crisis of Roadway Fatalities

       The Value of the Safe System Approach

       Policy Opportunities to Further Strengthen Injury Prevention
            Efforts
    The Growing Crisis of Roadway Fatalities
        The roadway fatality rate in the U.S. has been steadily increasing
    since 2010. In sharp contrast, over the same time period we have seen
    the fatality rate per capita consistently declining in countries
    adopting rigorous road safety programs, such as the Safe System
    Approach. For example, the U.S. fatality rate is three to five times
    that of the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Australia, and
    New Zealand.\1\,\2\ According to the National Safety
    Council,\3\ the ``U.S. ranks 41st in worst traffic fatality rate among
    49 high-income nations.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety. 2023. ``Vision
    for a Safer Road System.'' Chapel Hill, NC: CSCRS. https://
    www.roadsafety.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CSCRS_
    6YR.pdf.
        \2\ Chiarenza, J., Borah, A., Geschwindt, M., Ireland, L., Kim,
    Y.J., Levine, N., and Tran, H. 2023. ``Global Benchmarking Program:
    Improving Pedestrian Safety on Urban Arterials.'' FHWA-PL-23-006.
    Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. https://international
    .fhwa.dot.gov/programs/mrp/docs/FHWA-PL-23-006.pdf.
        \3\ National Safety Council. 2021. ``Zero Traffic Deaths: A Roadmap
    to Get There.'' ArcGIS StoryMaps. March 31, 2021. https://
    storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b30d2c5754a3474bbecf7d46b
    6586469.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The consequences of this epidemic are dire. Traffic deaths are a
    leading cause of death in the U.S., and the top cause of death among
    youth. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,\4\
    each year there are over 2.1 million emergency department visits for
    injuries, and more than 41,000 people killed, from motor vehicle
    crashes. Notably, vehicle-related fatalities and injuries significantly
    impact the hardworking people building our infrastructure. There were
    891 people killed and 37,701 people injured in work zone crashes in
    2022, representing a 52 percent increase in work zone fatalities since
    2010.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2024. ``About
    Transportation Safety.'' CDC: Transportation Safety. https://
    www.cdc.gov/transportation-safety/about/index.html.
        \5\ National Safety Council. 2024. ``Motor Vehicle Safety Issues:
    Work Zones.'' NSC: Injury Facts. 2024. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/
    motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-safety-issues/work-zones/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is not just the loss of life that is concerning, but treating
    and recovering from injuries creates significant burdens for families,
    health care providers, employers, and the broader community. For crash
    survivors, transportation injuries have been associated with longer-
    term health concerns including arthritis, chronic pain, depression,
    anxiety, and the rise in opioid use. Our economy and our public health
    depend on people and families arriving safely at their jobs and schools
    and returning safely to their homes and communities each day.
        As a nation, we are aging. More Americans are experiencing
    physical, medical, or mental conditions that limit their ability to
    drive, or make them uncomfortable driving in all conditions, such as at
    night. Having choices for safe and affordable forms of transportation
    is critical for community members to access employment, healthcare,
    education, and other opportunities. Given this need, the 58 percent
    increase in pedestrian deaths we have seen over the last decade has
    been particularly alarming.\6\ There is much work to be done to provide
    safe transportation options for all road users, of all ages and
    abilities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Governors Highway Safety Association. 2024. ``U.S. Pedestrian
    Deaths Fall Slightly in First Half of 2023, but Remain Above Pre-
    Pandemic Levels.'' GHSA. https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/
    pedestrians-preliminary24.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the roadway safety and public health research community that I
    represent, we feel that it is important to acknowledge that this is a
    public health crisis affecting community members' lives, mobility, and
    access to the places they need to travel to safely. We also want to
    acknowledge that roadway crashes are preventable, and we have many
    available tools and practices that can be applied to reduce the rate of
    severe and fatal injuries and the trends we're seeing.
    The Value of the Safe System Approach
        The USDOT, in its National Roadway Safety Strategy, promotes the
    Safe System Approach, which focuses on five key objectives: safer
    people, safer roads, safer vehicles, safer speeds, and post-crash care.
    The Safe System Approach is an evidence-based strategy that
    specifically acknowledges the primary mechanism of injury in roadway
    related crashes: kinetic energy above human tolerance levels.\7\
    Fundamentally, the Safe System Approach is a public health approach,
    focusing on population-level ways to prevent and manage exposure to
    injury risks.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Ederer, D.J., Panik, R.T., Botchwey, N., and Watkins, K. 2023.
    ``The Safe Systems Pyramid: A New Framework for Traffic Safety.''
    Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 21 (September):
    100905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100905.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In contrast to commonly used traffic safety frameworks, the Safe
    System Approach places a strong emphasis on the importance of managing
    speeds across the network to increase the chances of survival of all
    types of crashes. This is a shin from many past safety initiatives,
    which have largely focused on the issue of individual driver speeding
    (i.e., driving too fast for conditions or exceeding the posted speed
    limit), rather than the injury mechanism of kinetic energy transfer
    that is driven by the mass and velocity of the parties involved in a
    crash.
        A large body of evidence has documented vehicle speed, and not
    necessarily speeding, as a root cause of traffic-related injuries and
    deaths. This is because speed affects:

      1)  the driver's ability to detect potential hazards on the road and
            avoid making driving errors;

      2)  road user reaction time and stopping distance needed to avoid a
            crash;

      3)  the performance of vehicle crash avoidance systems and safety
            equipment; and

      4)  the severity of injuries resulting from a crash and likelihood of
            survival.\8\,\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ World Health Organization. 2017. ``Managing speed.'' No. WHO/
    NMH/NVI/17.7. World Health Organization. file:///C:/Users/lssandt/
    Downloads/WHO-NMH-NVI-17.7-eng.pdf.
        \9\ National Association of City Transportation Officials. 2020.
    ``City Limits: Setting Safe Limits on Urban Streets.'' NACTO. https://
    nacto.org/safespeeds/.

        Traveling at higher speeds has been associated with driver errors
    and poor judgment. For example, research has found that high-speed
    operations led to stop sign and traffic signal violations amongst
    motorcycle riders.\10\ My own research has shown that drivers on higher
    speed roads are less likely to comply with laws requiring them to yield
    to pedestrians at crosswalks, compared to drivers on lower speed
    roads.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Lee, C., Karimi, B., Jang, S., Salow, V. 2018. ``Understanding
    emerging motorcyclist segments in crashes using Florida crash data and
    statewide survey.'' Transportation Research Record 2672(34), 106-121.
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118798177.
        \11\ Sandt, L.S., Marshall, S.W., Rodriguez, D.A., Evenson, K.R.,
    Ennett, S.T., and Robinson, W.R. 2016. ``Effect of a Community-Based
    Pedestrian Injury Prevention Program on Driver Yielding Behavior at
    Marked Crosswalks.'' Accident Analysis and Prevention 93 (August): 169-
    78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.05.004.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Many of our current safety interventions, equipment, and vehicle
    technologies are insufficient in mitigating injuries when speeds (and
    kinetic energy transfer) are high. For example, ``Shibata 1994 found
    that when motorcyclists crashed at lower speeds, helmets significantly
    decreased the risk of death, but at speeds greater than 50 kilometers
    per hour (kph), there was no significant benefit from wearing a
    helmet.'' \12\ Similarly, a study of automatic emergency braking (AEB)
    systems with pedestrian detection found that while AEB was associated
    with a 32 to 34 percent reduction in the odds of a pedestrian crash on
    roads with speed limits below 35 miles per hour (mph), there was no
    reduction in the pedestrian crash odds on roads where the speed limit
    was 50 mph or higher.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Liu, B., Ivers, R., Norton, R., Blows, S., and Lo, S.K. 2004.
    ``Helmets for Preventing Injury in Motorcycle Riders.'' Cochrane
    Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 2: CD004333. https://doi.org/
    10.1002/14651858.CD004333.pub2.
        \13\ Cicchino, J.B. May 2022. ``Effects of automatic emergency
    braking systems on pedestrian crash risk.'' Accident Analysis &
    Prevention (AAP). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106686.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        High vehicle operating speed is a particular concern for people
    outside of the vehicle, including adults and children walking or using
    assistive devices, bicyclists and motorcyclists, and workers in
    construction zones. For example, research has shown that most
    pedestrians can survive a crash at an impact speed of 19 mph, but
    survivability plummets as speeds increase beyond
    that.\14\,\15\ As our population ages, our tolerance for
    kinetic energy also decreases. One study found that older people (age
    70+) are roughly five times more likely to die when struck by an impact
    speed of 20 mph than are 20-year-olds.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Johansson, R. 2009. ``Vision Zero--Implementing a policy for
    traffic safety,'' Safety Science, 47: 826-831. https://doi.org/10.1016/
    j.ssci.2008.10.023.
        \15\ Dumbaugh, E., Merlin, L.A., Signor, K., Kumfer, W.,
    LaJeunesse, S., and Carter, D.L. 2019. ``Implementing Safe Systems in
    the United States: Guiding Principles and Lessons from International
    Practice.'' Final report CSCRS-R3. Chapel Hill, NC: Collaborative
    Sciences Center for Road Safety. https://www.roadsafety.unc.edu/wp-
    content/uploads/2019/07/CSCRS_R3_Final-Report.pdf.
        \16\ Tefft, B.C. 2013. ``Impact Speed and a Pedestrian's Risk of
    Severe Injury or Death.'' Accident Analysis and Prevention 50
    (January): 871-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.07.022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fortunately, research indicates that even relatively small changes
    in speed can significantly improve safety for all road users.\17\ The
    World Health Organization estimates that just a 5 percent reduction in
    average speed can cut the number of fatal crashes by 30 percent, making
    a significant step toward our goal of zero roadway deaths.\8\ The Safe
    System Approach therefore holds great promise in reducing exposure to
    injury risks by managing vehicle operating speeds so that impact forces
    experienced in the event of a crash are within physical tolerance
    levels\18\ and the likelihood of severe and fatal injuries is
    minimized.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Kumfer, W., Martin, L., Turner, S., and Broshears, L. 2023.
    ``Safe System Approach for Speed Management.'' FHWA SA 23 002.
    Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. https://
    highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/
    Safe_System_Approach_for_Speed_Management.pdf.
        \18\ Doecke, S.D., Kloeden, C.N., Dutschke, J.K., and Baldock, M.R.
    2018. ``Safe Speed Limits for a Safe System: The Relationship between
    Speed Limit and Fatal Crash Rate for Different Crash Types.'' Traffic
    Injury Prevention 19 (4): 404-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2017
    .1422601.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Policy Opportunities to Further Strengthen Injury Prevention Efforts
        Due to the role of speed in traffic-related injuries and deaths,
    the USDOT's Na5onal Road Safety Strategy has placed a strong emphasis
    on speed management and adoption of the Safe System Approach.
    Specifically, it calls out the need for a ``multi-faceted approach that
    leverages road design and other infrastructure interventions, speed
    limit setting, education, and enforcement.'' \19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ U.S. Department of Transportation. 2022. ``National Roadway
    Safety Strategy.'' Washington, DC: USDOT. https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-
    Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Speed management requires a broad spectrum of agencies working in
    coordination across jurisdictional levels. In a 2017 study, the
    National Traffic Safety Board (NTSB) stated that ``Current federal-aid
    programs do not ensure that states fund speed management activities at
    a level commensurate with the national impact of speeding on fatalities
    and injuries.'' \20\ The discretionary grants under the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the formula programs offer
    opportunities to further invest in speed management efforts that could
    significantly reduce fatal and severe crashes. Importantly, there is a
    need to enhance cross-sector coordination, address jurisdictional
    barriers to speed management, and incentivize implementation of speed
    management tools.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ National Transportation Safety Board. 2017. ``Safety Study:
    Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles.''
    Public Information Meeting. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/
    2017-DCA15SS002-BMG-Abstract.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Update Speed Limit Setting Processes and Speed Targets
        In contrast to other countries adopting a Safe System Approach,
    there is no national maximum speed limit law in the U.S., with states
    instead having speed-limit setting authority. In most states, maximum
    operating speed limits have increased since 1995, and roadway design
    guidance has been modified over time to accommodate higher speed
    traffic, to disastrous effect on roadway safety.
        Many state strategic highway safety plans include ambitious goals
    to reduce speed-related fatalities and lay out numerous strategies and
    supporting actions, including evaluating speed limits, identifying
    needed low speed zones, and developing a statewide speed management
    plan. While progress is being made, few of these plans have been
    funded, staffed, and implemented to the level necessary to address the
    magnitude of the issue. Cities, towns, and rural villages are also
    increasingly seeking ways to manage speeds but may be limited in their
    power to effect change, particularly in cases where state-owned roads
    run through local communities.
        States need Federal leadership and support to help overhaul speed
    limit setting practices. Many states have legislation mandating certain
    speed percentiles be used as a criterion for setting speed limits.
    Others have entrenched practices relying on driver operating speeds at
    free-flow conditions to inform speed limit setting. Still others have
    requirements for engineering studies to be performed prior to changing
    speed limits, but no capacity at the state or local levels to perform
    such studies. These challenges impede both state and local efforts to
    create speed limits and set target speeds designed for human tolerance
    levels.
        There are several recently developed resources, guidance documents,
    and training resources available for context-sensitive speed limit
    setting aligned with the Safe System Approach. These tools describe the
    importance of developing target speeds (i.e., the maximum speed
    considered safe and appropriate for a specific roadway condition) for
    different contexts, and ways to align the posted speed and operating
    speed with those targets. Critically, there is a need to support local
    efforts to build the capacity and resources available to identify speed
    management needs and effectively coordinate efforts with regional and
    state authorities.
    Accelerate Delivery of Self-Enforcing Roads and Speed-Managing
            Infrastructure
        Posted speed limits send an important message to drivers about what
    speed is appropriate and safe. Beyond speed limit signs, there are many
    well-established safety treatments that can create ``self-enforcing''
    roads that naturally cue drivers to adopt context-appropriate speeds.
    For example:

       Roundabouts to manage speeds at intersections

       Gateway treatments at speed transition zones

       Vertical and horizontal deflections

       Treatments designed to separate vulnerable road users from
            higher speed traffic (such as raised medians, separated bike
            lanes, separated paths, etc.)

        In addition to documented safety benefits, many of these roadway
    treatments can also address goals related to improving mobility,
    accessibility, stormwater management, and other human and environmental
    health interests. As the usage of these treatments gains popularity in
    the U.S., we are seeing more public acceptance and demand for this
    infrastructure. To further accelerate adoption of lifesaving
    infrastructure, there is a need to streamline delivery of these
    projects on existing roads, and to develop processes to ensure that
    future roadway design, operation, and maintenance practices incorporate
    these safety features where needed.
    Adopt Lifesaving Vehicle Technologies to Curb Kinetic Energy Transfer
        In the U.S., vehicles are getting larger, heavier, and capable of
    reaching higher operating speeds more quickly. The increasing weight
    and height of vehicles has been linked to the increasing rate of
    pedestrian fatalities that we have seen in the past decade.\21\ The
    weight and acceleration capacity of motorcycles has also been linked to
    an increase in roadway fatalities.\22\,\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Hu, W., Monfort, S.S., Cicchino, J.B. 2023. ``The association
    between passenger-vehicle front-end profiles and pedestrian injury
    severity in motor vehicle crashes.'' Insurance Institute for Highway
    Safety. https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2294.
        \22\ Teoh, E.R., Campbell, M., 2010. ``Role of motorcycle type in
    fatal motorcycle crashes.'' Journal of Safety Research 41(6), 507-512.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2010.10.005.
        \23\ Jou, R.C., Yeh, T.H., Chen, R.S., 2012. ``Risk factors in
    motorcyclist fatalities in Taiwan.'' Traffic Injury Prevention 13(2),
    155-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2011.641166.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Opportunities exist for vehicle designs and technologies, as well
    as vehicle fleet management practices, to reduce kinetic energy, manage
    speeds, and provide feedback on speed to the driver that can reduce the
    risks of severe and fatal injuries.
        Features like Intelligent Speed Assistance and Intelligent Speed
    Adaptation (ISA) are designed to help drivers stay within the speed
    limit.\24\ ISA is now required on new vehicles in other countries, such
    as in countries within the European Union and in the United Kingdom,
    and is increasingly being incorporated into Safe System initiatives in
    other localities, such as New South Wales in Australia. Many Vision
    Zero cities are adopting fleet management practices that leverage
    opportunities to incorporate lifesaving technologies. For example, New
    York City has seen success in its fleet safety pilot program, reporting
    a 99 percent compliance rate with the speed parameters set.\25\ States,
    too, are finding value in fleet vehicle technologies aimed at improving
    driver safety and traffic safety culture.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ European Commission. 2018. ``Speed and Speed Management.''
    European Commission, Directorate General for Transport. https://road-
    safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/ersosynthesis2018-
    speedspeedmanagement-summary.pdf.
        \25\ Automotive Fleet. 2022. ``NYC Fleet Presents Preliminary Data
    on Speed Limiter Pilot.'' https://www.automotive-fleet.com/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Enhance Safety Data and Safety Performance Metrics
        We can't manage what we don't measure. Practioners, the private
    sector, and safety researchers alike rely on data to investigate
    crashes, identify system failures, develop goals and plan for safety,
    evaluate the effectiveness of safety measures, and communicate risks to
    the public. These data need to be timely, accurate, consistent,
    accessible, and complete. Unfortunately, our current transportation and
    health data systems are often siloed, under-funded, and in desperate
    need of modernization to help them meet these goals. The distributed
    system of data ownership and funding for data improvements across
    transportation agencies, divisions of motor vehicles, healthcare
    providers, and Federal entities means that data improvement efforts are
    often piecemeal, disconnected, inconsistent, and slow.
        Several studies have documented data improvements that could
    greatly enhance our collective capacity to improve safety planning,
    deployment of projects and programs, and research and evaluation. For
    example, we need:

       Enhanced requirements, definitions, and standards for non-
            fatal injury reporting and geocoding (i.e., spatially
            referencing), including roadway and trail-related injuries
            involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and micromobility users that
            may or may not involve motor vehicles.

       More routine collection of National Household Travel Survey
            data, including more state-level sampling to support more
            localized and granular analysis.

       Comprehensive training for all primary collectors of injury
            data, including state and local enforcement agencies and
            university/campus police, to include training on coding
            incidents involving emerging vehicle technologies and devices.

       Technical resources and model practices detailing how to
            obtain, document, process, securely store, and link or
            integrate data sources needed for safety assessment while
            protecting data privacy.

       Sustained, long-term funding and dedicated coordinating
            units for safety data collection, management, and usage across
            multiple data sources, as well as support to create data
            dashboards and accountability tools.

        As more communities create Safe Streets for All and Vision Zero
    plans and embrace Safe System approaches to reduce roadway injuries,
    there is an urgent need to enhance our safety data and performance
    measurement efforts and integrate them with these activities. We
    currently lack standards and routine collection and reporting tools
    related to crash impact speed, facility or system design and operating
    speed, and indicators of how often and where repeat speeding offenders
    are traveling. As we increasingly look to in-vehicle safety
    technologies, we will need more data related to system usage,
    compliance, and failures to help us understand and improve their
    performance and public acceptance.
        Many Safe System adopting countries have made great strides in
    developing data standards and safety performance measures related to
    speed and other safety outcomes. They are taking steps to
    systematically track safety metrics, such as the propor9on of speed-
    compliant vehicles, roads/intersections in the network where the design
    speed matches the target speed, the proportion of roads in the network
    where the posted speed matches the human tolerance, and the proportion
    of the network that has been modified to align with safe and
    appropriate speeds. These data practices are easily replicable in the
    U.S. and could significantly advance our ability to set benchmarks
    related to speed management, show accountability in the implementation
    of Safe System efforts, and identify successful practices that result
    in safer speeds and reduced risks.
        University-based researchers are well positioned to offer support
    in this work. Universities often have the skills, infrastructure, and
    capacity that private firms and state and local agencies lack to serve
    as independent data stewards, to securely protect sensitive data, to
    develop tools and repositories for data management, and to support
    efforts that make data products available and accessible for research
    and planning.
        Similarly, public health agencies are key partners that could be
    further engaged in this work. The field of public health holds great
    expertise in developing near real-time injury surveillance systems,
    engaging with communities on safety and health issues, and developing
    sound injury prevention programs.
        Engaging universities with cross-sector partners and bringing
    public health agencies to the table to enhance our safety data and
    performance measures can serve to bridge research and education with
    the ongoing safety work within our communities.
        In closing, I thank you again for your time and your consideration
    of our road safety challenges and the opportunities we have for
    strengthening our injury prevention efforts together, and I welcome
    your questions and thoughts on these issues.

        Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Dr. Sandt.
        Our fifth witness is Jeff Farrah, Chief Executive Officer
    of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association. The association
    represents more than 20 of the leading companies developing
    autonomous vehicle technologies.
        Mr. Farrah, good to have you at the Committee here. You may
    proceed with your opening remarks.

     STATEMENT OF JEFF FARRAH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AUTONOMOUS
                      VEHICLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Farrah. Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Young, members
    of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to testify today,
    particularly as a former staffer for the Senate Commerce
    Committee.
        My written testimony provides detail on the unacceptable
    number of fatalities and injuries on U.S. roads. I want to
    spend my time this afternoon talking about solutions, and
    specifically how autonomous technology can help address our
    Nation's roadway safety crisis.
        What was once an aspiration for our country is now a
    reality. Today, autonomous vehicles are here, and AVIA reported
    last month that our members have driven nearly 70 million
    autonomous miles on U.S. public roads. That is equivalent to
    293 round trips to the moon.
        Autonomous vehicles can play an important role in
    addressing roadway safety. Our country has hit a wall in
    reducing roadway deaths, and it is a wall built on human
    behavior like speeding and impaired or distracted driving.
    These human errors are the overwhelming cause of the more than
    40,000 deaths on our roads; but fortunately, AVs do not engage
    in any of these behaviors.
        It is essential to define what we are referring to when we
    say ``autonomous vehicles.'' These are not vehicles using
    driver assist features that we increasingly see rolled out on
    our roads. With driver assist technology, the human driver must
    constantly be engaged to take over at a moment's notice.
        With truly autonomous vehicles, the human has no
    responsibility for the driving task. Autonomous driving is a
    marriage between hardware and software, and deliver
    sensitivities, capabilities, and reaction times well beyond
    that of a human driver. The sensors on an AV give the vehicle a
    360-degree view to detect, track, and react to objects and
    people, even when hidden from human perception due to other
    vehicles, buildings, and obstructions.
        Particularly relevant to this hearing is how AVs are
    specifically developed to detect vulnerable road users, such as
    motorcycles, pedestrians, cyclists, and construction workers,
    and then safely respond to their unique behavior. We have all
    been in situations where a pedestrian steps off a curb and was
    not visible due to a parked car, or a motorcycle was lane-
    splitting and approached from behind and was undetected until a
    split second before the motorcycle went by.
        Now imagine a world where vehicles do not have human
    limitations, because they can see through objects and a few
    hundred meters in every direction, including beyond the
    vehicle's headlights. This is the promise of autonomous
    vehicles to America's vulnerable road users.
        The AV industry recognizes this is a new technology to most
    Americans, and we are strongly committed to building public
    trust in AVs. We believe that public trust in AVs is essential
    to their acceptance, and that public trust must be earned and
    maintained by the industry.
        To achieve that objective, last month, AVIA announced its
    TRUST Principles. Through this initiative, AVIA is articulating
    the importance of transparent interactions with government
    officials and the public, deep engagement with law enforcement
    and first responders, and upholding the highest cybersecurity
    and privacy standards.
        Autonomous vehicles are very much an American success
    story, and our country can and must lead on this area globally.
    But we need the support of policymakers. I want to turn to a
    couple of policy recommendations that will help industry
    address the roadway safety crisis.
        Federal leadership on AVs is imperative. Competitor
    countries are moving forward with policy frameworks, and states
    are increasingly taking the lead on AV policy. Twenty-five U.S.
    states now have AV deployment statutes and are welcoming the
    technology.
        I encourage Federal action in a couple of areas.
        First, Congress should act on Federal legislation like the
    AV START Act from Senators Peters and Thune. Our industry is
    incredibly grateful to both senators for their longstanding
    leadership on AV policy and their recognition that the
    technology will help make our roads safer.
        Our organization was especially excited to see AV
    specifically called out by the bipartisan Senate AI working
    group that is led by Senators Schumer, Rounds, Heinrich, and
    Young. The working group encouraged committee action on a
    Federal framework for the testing and deployment of AVs across
    all modes of transportation, and noted that this is
    particularly important as strategic competitors, like the
    Chinese Communist Party, are acting.
        Second, the AV industry has appreciated strong interest
    from the Department of Transportation on how AVs can increase
    safety on American roads. But we need action from DOT in key
    areas.
        For example, NHTSA should issue a proposed rule on its AV
    STEP program, which was first announced in July 2023. AVs
    present an opportunity to reimagine how vehicles are designed,
    and promote safety and accessibility. According to NHTSA, AV
    STEP will encourage deployment of next-generation vehicles, and
    open up a wealth of data to help make progress toward
    establishing an effective governance structure for autonomous
    technology.
        Another example where DOT should take immediate action is
    by FMCSA granting the still-pending industry exemption request
    that will allow AV trucks to use alternative warning devices to
    signal when a vehicle is stopped on the roadside.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
    look forward to any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Farrah follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Jeff Farrah, Chief Executive Officer,
                    Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association
    I. Introduction
        Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Young, members of the Subcommittee,
    it is my honor to testify before the Subcommittee on this incredibly
    important topic. The autonomous vehicle industry appreciates the strong
    engagement of members of this Subcommittee on autonomous vehicle
    (``AV'') policy and shares your dedication to improving safety on U.S.
    roads.
        The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (``AVIA'') is the
    unified voice of the AV industry, and we represent the world's leading
    technology, ridesharing, automotive, trucking, and transportation
    companies.\1\ Our mission is to bring the tremendous safety, mobility,
    transportation, and economic benefits of AVs--otherwise known as SAE
    International Levels 4- and 5-capable vehicles--to consumers and
    businesses in a safe, responsible, and expeditious manner and ensure
    the U.S. is the global leader on AVs.\2\ Vehicles operated by AVIA
    members have driven nearly 70 million autonomous miles on U.S. public
    roads, a distance roughly equivalent to 293 round trips to the Moon or
    driving across Route 66 over 29,000 times.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ AVIA members include more than 20 leading companies developing
    autonomous vehicle technologies. See Our Mission and Members,
    Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, https://theavindustry.org/ (last
    visited May 17, 2024).
        \2\ SAE International's J3016 standard, which has been adopted
    industry wide, establishes a taxonomy for vehicle automation
    technologies that includes six levels of driving automation, rising
    from ``No Driving Automation'' (Level 0) to ``Full Driving Automation''
    (Level 5). Level 2 systems (often called advanced driver assistance
    systems or ``ADAS'') are available on vehicles today and are capable of
    ``partial driving automation,'' require human supervision at all times.
    Level 3 vehicles have ``conditional driving automation,'' where the
    vehicle requires human interaction only in specific situations. Level 4
    vehicles are defined as having ``High Driving Automation.'' Only Level
    3, 4, and 5 vehicles are equipped with automated driving systems
    (``ADS''). See SAE Int'l, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to
    Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, J2016_202104
    (2021).
        \3\ Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association Releases First-Ever
    ``State of AV'' Report, Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n (Apr. 10,
    2024), https://theavindustry.org/newsroom/press-releases/first-ever-
    state-of-av-report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For decades, AVs have been a technological aspiration for our
    country's most brilliant innovators. Today, AVs are a reality and are
    increasingly being deployed on America's roads and highways, using
    advanced technology to perform all aspects of the driving task. In
    states as diverse as Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan,
    and Texas, AVs provide valuable transportation services, transporting
    both passengers as part of autonomous ride-hailing fleets and goods as
    part of trucking fleets and middle-and last-mile delivery operations.
    The U.S. Department of Defense has also embraced autonomous technology,
    including technology developed by AVIA member company Kodiak, to keep
    America's soldiers safer.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See Accelerating Autonomous Vehicle Technology for the DoD,
    Def. Innovation Unit (Apr. 3, 2024), https://www.diu.mil/latest/
    accelerating-autonomous-vehicle-technology-for-the-dod. AVIA member
    Kodiak Robotics is currently working with the U.S. Army's Army Robotic
    Combat Vehicles program. See U.S. Army Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV
    Program), Kodiak Robotics (Nov. 9, 2023), https://kodiak.ai/news/us-
    army-robotic-combat-vehicle-program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In recent years, the United States has faced unacceptably high
    levels of roadway crashes and fatalities. We cannot accept these
    fatalities as the cost of mobility in our country. AVs are poised to
    significantly improve roadway safety, as they do not speed, they do not
    text, and they do not drive while impaired by alcohol, drugs, or
    fatigue. Tragically, human drivers do all those things, leading to an
    epidemic of deaths on America's roads, with over 40,000 traffic
    fatalities recorded each year since 2021, according to National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration's (``NHTSA'') estimates.\5\ In the first
    half of 2023, the Governors Highway Safety Association estimates 3,373
    pedestrians were killed on U.S. roads, a 14 percent increase over
    2019.\6\ When compared to peer countries, road deaths in the U.S.
    remain much higher, and have risen over the past decade.\7\ By removing
    human error as a cause of roadway incidents, AVs can help reduce
    roadway deaths, saving the lives of countless Americans.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp., DOT
    HS 813 561, Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2023,
    https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813561.
        \6\ Governors Highway Safety Ass'n, Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities
    by State January-June 2023 Preliminary Data, 3 (2023), https://
    www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians24.
        \7\ Road accidents, OECD Data, https://data.oecd.org/transport/
    road-accidents.htm (last visited May 17, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When discussing AVs and roadway safety, it is critical to
    distinguish autonomous vehicles from vehicles from other types of
    technology. ``Driver-assistance technology''--which can be found in
    tens of millions of cars and trucks on our roads today--is important
    and helpful, but it is not autonomous driving. Rather, the term
    ``autonomous vehicle,'' or ``AV,'' indicates that the vehicle is
    capable of driving on its own, without relying on or having any
    expectation that a human will be supervising the vehicle's actions.
    With an AV, the vehicle performs all aspects of the driving task on a
    sustained basis. This is the technology that is being developed and
    deployed by AVIA's members, and it will transform the way people and
    goods move in the world.
        Today, the United States is the global leader in the AV industry,
    with a robust ecosystem of American companies developing all aspects
    and applications of the technology. However, China and other global
    competitors are pressing forward with the advancement of AVs, with
    Chinese AV companies beginning wider deployments in major cities.\8\
    Continued American leadership will depend on the continued support for
    the AV industry by stakeholders across government, including this
    Subcommittee.\9\ The AV industry remains dedicated to improving the
    safety of our roads, and looks forward to continued cooperation with
    our partners in government as we work to do so.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ See Edward White, China challenges the west for driverless car
    supremacy, Fin. Times (Jan. 30, 2024), https://www.ft.com/content/
    3a649978-69df-46eb-94c8-eee23a69e6bb. China's progress on AVs is
    visible. In March 2024, Chinese technology giant Baidu launched China's
    first 24/7 AV ride-hailing service in Wuhan. Press Release, Baidu,
    Inc., Baidu Launches China's First 24/7 Robotaxi Service (Mar. 8,
    2024), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/baidu-launches-chinas-
    first-247-robotaxi-service-302084097.html.
        \9\ See Explainer: U.S. Must Maintain Global Leadership on AVs,
    Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, https://theavindustry.org/resources/
    testimony/explainer (last visited May 17, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    II. The State of Roadway Safety
        The United States continues to face epidemic levels of fatalities
    on our Nation's roads. In 2023, 40,990 people were killed across the
    country in motor vehicle traffic incidents.\10\ 2023 was the third year
    in a row to see traffic deaths rise above 40,000,\11\ a number of
    fatalities that previously had not occurred since 2007.\12\ Pedestrian
    deaths have also risen; 2022 was the deadliest year for American
    pedestrians since 1981, with 7,508 people killed.\13\ That trend
    continued into 2023, with an estimated 3,373 pedestrians killed in the
    first half of the year, a 14 percent increase over 2019.\14\ The
    increase in roadway fatalities is consistent across vehicle types. In
    2022, 5,887 people died in crashes involving large trucks, a 1.8
    percent increase in fatalities from 2021.\15\ This increase is part of
    a decade-long 49 percent increase in such crashes.\16\ Further, 2022
    saw large trucks involved in over 120,200 crashes that resulted in an
    injury, an 18 percent increase since 2016.\17\ The toll of motor
    vehicle crashes is not measured in fatalities and injuries alone.
    According to the National Safety Council, ``the total motor vehicle
    injury costs'' in 2022 were estimated at $481.2 billion.'' \18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., supra note 5.
        \11\ Id.
        \12\ Fatality Facts 2021: Yearly Snapshot, Ins. Inst. for Highway
    Safety (May 2023), https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/
    detail/yearly-snapshot.
        \13\ Governors Highway Traffic Safety Ass'n, Pedestrian Traffic
    Fatalities By State 2022 Preliminary Data (Jan.-Dec.) (2023), https://
    www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2023-06
    /GHSA%20-
    %20Pedestrian%20Traffic%20Fatalities%20by%20State%2C%202022%20Preliminar
    y
    %20Data%20%28January-December%29.pdf.
        \14\ Governors Highway Safety Ass'n, supra note 6, at 3.
        \15\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
    DOT HS 813 448, Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and
    Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2022, 1 (2023), https://
    crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813448.
        \16\ Nat'l Safety Council, Large Trucks, NSC Injury Facts, https://
    injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/large-trucks/ (last
    visited May 15, 2024).
        \17\ Id.
        \18\ Nat'l Safety Council, Motor Vehicles: Introduction, NSC Injury
    Facts, https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/introduction/
    (last visited May 15, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Research continues to confirm that human behavior is overwhelmingly
    the most common factor in fatal accidents on our roads. A recent study
    by the NHTSA found that over 55 percent of all people injured or killed
    in a roadway incident tested positive for one or more drugs (including
    alcohol).\19\ Drivers are also frequently distracted by electronics; at
    any given time, almost 3 percent of all drivers are looking at or using
    their handheld device.\20\ Studies have also found that drivers
    manipulating cell phones are two to six times more at risk for a
    crash.\21\ Several categories of behavior-related fatalities have
    increased in the past few years, including police-reported alcohol-
    involved crashes and deaths of unrestrained passengers.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
    DOT HS 813 399, Alcohol and Drug Prevalence Among Seriously or Fatally
    Injured Road Users, 2 (2022), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/65623/
    dot_65623_DS1.pdf.
        \20\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
    DOT HS 813 184c, Driver Electronic Device Use in 2020, 1 (2021),
    https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813184.pdf.
        \21\ Distracted driving, Ins. Inst. for Highway Safety, https://
    www.iihs.org/topics/distracted-driving (last visited May 17, 2024).
        \22\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
    DOT HS 813 298, Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and
    Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2021, 1 (2022), https://
    www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-estimate-2021-traffic-fatalities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Roadway safety is an issue that impacts each community differently.
    Roadway crashes, and the resulting injuries and deaths, are not evenly
    distributed across socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic groups. An analysis
    published by the Governors Highway Safety Association highlights the
    disproportionate number of traffic fatalities experienced by Black,
    Indigenous, and People of Color (``BIPOC'').\23\ In particular, per
    capita rates of traffic fatalities among American Indian/Alaskan
    Natives and Black populations were all higher than the national
    average,\24\ and pedestrian death rates per capita were higher than the
    national average for American Indian/Alaska Natives, Black, and
    Hispanic individuals.\25\ Estimates published by NHTSA indicate that
    these discrepancies have become exacerbated in recent years, with
    traffic fatalities of Black people up 23 percent in 2020 compared to
    2019, while American Indian deaths rose 11 percent.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Governors Highway Safety Ass'n, An Analysis of Traffic
    Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity 18 (2021), https://www.ghsa.org/sites/
    default/files/2021-06/An%20Analysis%20of
    %20Traffic%20Fatalities%20by%20Race%20and%20Ethnicity.pdf.
        \24\ Id. at 8.
        \25\ Id. at 13.
        \26\ Id. at 18; Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of
    Transp., DOT HS 813 118, Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic
    Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2020 8 (2021),
    https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813
    118.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Census tracts have recorded pedestrian fatality rates within low-
    income metropolitan areas approximately twice that of more affluent
    neighborhoods.\27\ These patterns are echoed in a City of Chicago
    report revealing that Black residents and those living in communities
    with high levels of economic hardship were more at risk of dying in a
    traffic crash compared to white residents and those living in
    communities with low and medium levels of economic hardship,
    respectively.\28\ By reducing crashes across the board, AVs can reduce
    these inequities and improve the quality of life for all communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Governing, America's Poor Neighborhoods Plagued by Pedestrian
    Deaths 1 (2014), http://media.navigatored.com/documents/
    Governing_Pedestrian_Fatalities_Report.pdf.
        \28\ Vision Zero Chicago, Action Plan 2017-2019 17, https://
    visionzerochicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/17_0612-VZ-Action-
    Plan_FOR-WEB.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        America's roads remain a dangerous place for drivers, passengers,
    and other road users, in large part due to the deficiencies of human
    drivers. However, the United States does not need to accept this status
    quo. By removing human error from the equation, AVs offer a vital tool
    for improving roadway safety.
    III. AV Technology as a Vital Tool for Improving Roadway Safety
        Improving road safety is the primary goal of the AV industry.
    Automated driving systems (``ADS'') are the heart and brain of an AV
    and are equipped with suites of sensor systems (including lidar, radar,
    and cameras) with sensitivities, capabilities, and reaction times well
    beyond those of a human driver. These sensors grant an ADS a 360-degree
    field of vision which can detect, track, and react to objects and
    people even when hidden from human perception due to vehicles,
    buildings, and other obstructions. For example, AVs are developed to
    specifically detect vulnerable road users--such as motorcycles,
    pedestrians, and cyclists-and then predict and safely respond to their
    unique behavior (e.g., motorcycle lane splitting). Included below are
    examples of what an AV ``sees'' when it encounters a vulnerable road
    user:

        An Aurora autonomous truck safely and accurately detects an
    emergency vehicle, slows down and changes lanes.\29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Aurora (@aurora_inno), X (Jan. 18, 2024, 5:01 PM), https://
    twitter.com/aurora_inno/status/1748103257128374548.

        A Waymo vehicle recognizes and adheres to a police officer
    directing traffic at a Los Angeles intersection.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ Dmitri Dolgov (@dmitri_dolgov), X (Jan. 18, 2024, 7:04 PM),
    https://twitter.com/dmitri
    _dolgov/status/1748134215265456444.

        A Kodiak autonomous truck recognizes a pedestrian on a highway from
    over 130m away at night, shifting to another lane to give the
    pedestrian extra space.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Kodiak (@KodiakRobotics), X (Mar. 21, 2024), https://
    twitter.com/KodiakRobotics/status/1770870645116833872.

        AVIA members are committed to building the safest vehicles
    possible. To that end, AVIA recently debuted a set of TRUST Principles
    to guide our work with government, communities, and the public at
    large.\32\ Among these principles is support for the establishment of
    safety-first culture and governance for AV developers.\33\ By building
    safety-first cultures, AV developers further enhance the safety
    benefits of the vehicles they are designing. The AV industry believes
    that public trust in AVs goes hand-in-hand with their deployment and
    that we must earn and maintain that trust.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ See Trust Principles, Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, https:/
    /theavindustry.org/trust-principles (last visited May 17, 2024).
        \33\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today, human error, including speeding, unfamiliarity with the
    roadway, and fatigue, is a major contributor to roadway incidents. AVs
    are designed to remove that error from the equation, as they do not
    drive distracted or tired. AVs have built a significant safety record
    through more than a decade of development, testing, and deployment, and
    ADS-equipped vehicles have now driven millions of miles autonomously,
    with vehicles operated by AVIA members driving nearly 70 million
    autonomous miles on public roads in the U.S. alone.\34\ Reinsurer Swiss
    Re recently published an analysis of 3.8 million autonomous miles
    driven by passenger AVs operated by AVIA member Waymo. The analysis
    found that when compared to baseline human drivers, Waymo AVs reduced
    bodily injury claims by 100 percent, and reduced property damage claims
    by 76 percent.\35\ These results led Swiss Re to conclude that Waymo's
    AVs are ``significantly safer towards other road users than human
    drivers are.'' \36\ Waymo's own review of over 7 million rider-only
    autonomous miles found that the company's AVs demonstrated a 85 percent
    reduction in crashes involving any injury, and a 57 percent reduction
    in police-reported crashes, when compared to human drivers.\37\ A
    recent Chamber of Progress study looking at California alone found that
    replacing even 1.3 percent of drivers with an AV could have prevented
    411 fatalities between 2020 and 2022, while replacing 13 percent of
    drivers could have prevented 1,342 lives in that same three year
    period.\38\ Another study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
    found that the full scale deployment of occupantless AVs for delivery
    services could reduce roadway deaths by 58.2 percent.\39\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, supra note 3.
        \35\ Luigi Di Lillo et al., Comparative Safety Performance of
    Autonomous- and Human Drivers: A Real-World Case Study of the Waymo One
    Service (2023), https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2309/2309.01206.pdf.
        \36\ Id.
        \37\ Waymo Significantly Outperforms Comparable Human Benchmarks
    Over 7 Million Miles of Rider-Only Driving, Waymo (Dec. 20, 2023),
    https://waymo.com/blog/2023/12/waymo-significantly-outperforms-
    comparable-human-benchmarks-over-7-million/.
        \38\ Kaitlyn Harger, Analysis: AVs in California Could Have Saved
    Up to 1,300 Lives, Prevented Up to 5,000 Major Injuries Over Past Three
    Years (2024), https://progresschamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/
    AV-Safety-Research-California-Traffic-Fatality-Analysis-03-24.pdf.
        \39\ Christina Witcher et al., Estimating Crash Consequences for
    Occupantless Automated Vehicles (Feb. 2021), https://
    vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/a28aa
    936-8f89-4302-8859-ee54d34358e2/content.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Looking deeper into the AV industry, autonomous trucks have already
    demonstrated a remarkable safety record, without a single fatality in
    more than seven years of operations and millions of miles driven on
    public roads. This safety record is supported by data collected by
    NHTSA. For almost three years, NHTSA has required AV companies to
    report every incident--no matter how minor or who is at fault--that
    occurs while an ADS is engaged as part of Standing General Order 2021-
    01 (``SGO'').\40\ During this period, only one reported incident
    involving an autonomous truck resulted in injuries, and the cause of
    that incident was a human-driven vehicle that collided with an
    autonomous truck. Autonomous trucks will help address the spate of
    fatalities caused by truck crashes. Reacting to newly released crash
    data from NHTSA, the Institute of Safer Trucking and Road Safe America
    said:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ See Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Second Amended
    Standing General Order 2021-01 (2023). https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/
    nhtsa.gov/files/2023-04/Second-Amended-SGO-2021-01_2023-04-05_2.pdf.

            This data highlights a critical problem within the United
            States: a 76 percent increase in truck crash fatalities since
            2009, with the total reaching a devastating 5,936 lives lost in
            2022 alone . . . All of this occurred against a 15 percent
            increase in truck vehicle miles traveled, which means that
            trucking continues to get more dangerous in the United
            States.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ Institute for Safer Trucking and Road Safe America Call for
    Collaboration in Response to New Data Showing Truck Crash Fatalities
    Continue to Rise in 2022, Inst. for Safer Trucking, https://
    www.safertrucking.org/news-blog/ist-statement-on-2022-fars-data-release
    (last visited May 17, 2024).

        As the autonomous trucking industry continues to grow, so will the
    roadway safety improvements the technology provides.
        AV safety is also subject to detailed requirements and multiple
    layers of regulatory oversight at the Federal level. Both passenger AVs
    and autonomous trucks are regulated by NHTSA, which administers broadly
    applicable motor vehicle safety standards and collects incident data
    from AV companies under the SGO. NHTSA also has authority to recall
    vehicles that present an unreasonable risk to safety, removing such
    vehicles from the road when necessary. This structure ensures room for
    innovation in motor vehicle technologies while retaining rigorous
    oversight over manufacturers.
        Autonomous trucks are also subject to an additional legal framework
    established by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
    (``FMCSA''), a regulatory structure for which there is no parallel for
    passenger vehicles. FMCSA administers standards for commercial motor
    vehicles (``CMV'') related to safety, inspections, hazardous materials,
    drivers, and enforcement. With respect to interaction with weigh
    stations and the commercial vehicle inspection system, AVIA members
    have worked closely with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
    (``CVSA''), motor carriers, and law enforcement to develop a robust
    inspection process applicable to autonomous trucks, which CVSA calls
    the Enhanced CMV Inspection Program for autonomous trucks.\42\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ See Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, CVSA Announces New
    Enhanced CMV Inspection Program for Autonomous Truck Motor Carriers
    (Oct. 4, 2022), https://www.cvsa.org/news/new-enhanced-cmv-inspection-
    program/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AVs are poised to improve roadway safety and help combat the glut
    of roadway deaths facing the United States today. By removing human
    error, AVs avoid the risks that come from driver distraction, fatigue,
    and incapacitation. Through ongoing AV deployments, AVIA members are
    refining their technologies and generating valuable data supporting the
    safety benefits of AVs. The wider deployment of AVs will bring these
    benefits to communities across the country and help bring an end to
    thousands of unnecessary and tragic roadway deaths.
    IV. Additional Benefits of American AV Leadership
        In addition to increasing safety, the continued expansion of AV
    deployments will also bring economic, supply chain, and social benefits
    to American communities. By 2050, the value of public and consumer
    benefits of AV deployment, including reduced congestion, avoided
    accidents, and saved time, could add up to $796 billion annually.\43\
    The wider deployment of AVs can create over three million new jobs by
    2035, while driving down the cost of consumer goods, reducing delivery
    costs, and raising annual earnings for all U.S. workers by between $203
    and $267 per worker per year.\44\ By 2026, AVs could represent not only
    a potential $1 trillion market,\45\ but also a key solution to supply
    chain troubles, all while decreasing transportation costs, creating
    jobs, and improving safety. For millions of elderly Americans and
    individuals with travel-limiting disabilities, AVs can provide greater
    independence compared to mass transit or paratransit systems, opening
    the door for new employment opportunities, improved access to medical
    care, and better connection to their communities. AVs are poised to
    bring economic benefits at both societal and individual levels, and
    they can help grow the U.S. economy and support the economic
    competitiveness of American businesses across many industries, in turn
    supporting the continued growth of the U.S. economy.\46\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ Securing America's Future Energy, America's Workforce and the
    Self-Driving Future 9 (2018), https://avworkforce.secureenergy.org/wp-
    content/uploads/2018/06/SAFE_AV
    _Policy_Brief.pdf.
        \44\ Id.
        \45\ TEConomy Partners, Forefront: Securing Pittsburgh's Break-out
    Position in Autonomous Mobile Systems ES-1-2 (2021), https://ridc.org/
    wp-content/uploads/2021/10/PGH-Autonomy-Report-Executive-Summary.pdf.
        \46\ Jack Caporal, William O'Neil, and Sean Arrieta-Kenna, Bridging
    the Divide: Autonomous Vehicles and the Automobile Industry, CSIS (Apr.
    14, 2021), https://www.csis.org/analysis/bridging-divide-autonomous-
    vehicles-and-automobile-industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A. Connecting People and Protecting Communities
        By increasing transportation access and improving safety, AVs can
    serve American communities of all kinds. Today, millions of Americans
    have their ability to travel limited by mobility challenges or
    disabilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation (``USDOT'') has
    estimated that 25.5 million Americans face travel-limiting
    disabilities,\47\ and roughly 560,000 people with disabilities never
    leave their homes due to transportation difficulties.\48\ Over 7.6
    million Americans live with significant vision impairment,\49\
    conditions which can leave them unable to operate a vehicle. This lack
    of mobility contributes to a lack of economic opportunity, and only
    22.5 percent of people with disabilities are employed, compared to 65.8
    percent of people without a disability.\50\ A study by the National
    Disability Institute found that the wider deployment of AVs could lead
    to an increase in 4.4 million jobs for people with disabilities, which
    could create a 3.8 percent increase in U.S. GDP (nearly $867
    billion).\51\ Whether personally owned, serving as on-demand taxis, or
    as part of local paratransit services, AVs can provide disabled
    Americans with greater autonomy, letting them dictate how, where, and
    when they move through the world.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \47\ ADA at DOT: Accessibility Initiatives, U.S. Dep't of Transp.
    (Feb. 10, 2023) https://www.transportation.gov/accessibility.
        \48\ Bureau of Transp. Stat., Transportation Difficulties Keep Over
    Half a Million Disabled at Home (2012), https://www.bts.gov/archive/
    publications/special_reports_and_issue
    _briefs/issue_briefs/number_03/entire.
        \49\ Blindness Statistics, Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind, https://
    nfb.org/resources/ blindness-statistics (last visited May 17, 2024).
        \50\ Economic News Release, U.S. Bureau of Labor Stat., Persons
    with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics Summary (Feb. 22, 2024),
    https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm.
        \51\ Dominic Modicamore, et al, National Disability Institute,
    Economic Impacts of Removing Transportation Barriers to Employment for
    Individuals with Disabilities Through Autonomous Vehicle Adoption (Dec.
    30, 2022), https://www.nationaldisability
    institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ndi-
    economicimpactsofremovingtransportationbar
    riers.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AVs can also provide vital connections to areas with high demand
    but low supply of transportation, otherwise known as ``transit
    deserts.'' Access to transportation and average length of commute are
    connected to upward mobility,\52\ and studies have found links between
    public transit access, income, and unemployment.\53\ A 2011 study
    showed that an average person can access only about 30 percent of all
    jobs and 25 percent of low-and middle-skilled jobs in a given
    metropolitan area via public transit within 90 minutes.\54\ AVs have
    the potential to reduce or eliminate gaps in transportation access by
    improving integration with mass transit, whether by providing both
    first mile and last mile connections to transit, servicing direct trips
    to workplaces and other endpoints, or by broadly increasing supply that
    helps free up other conventional and AV transportation options to build
    those linkages. Projections indicate that the transportation
    connections facilitated by the adoption of AVs would increase access to
    jobs within a metropolitan area by 45 percent by 2040.\55\ Access to
    food is another area of inequality that AVs can help alleviate. Transit
    deserts often overlap with food deserts, which are defined as areas
    with high poverty (20 percent or greater) and low access to food (at
    least 33 percent of people living more than one mile from a grocery
    store or supermarket).\56\ A 2017 report by the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's Economic Research Service (``ERS'') estimates that 54
    million individuals, or 17.1 percent of the total U.S. population, had
    limited access to a supermarket or grocery store between 0.5 and 10
    miles from their home.\57\ Further, a 2009 ERS report found that, at
    the time, 2.3 million people lived more than one mile from a
    supermarket and did not have access to a vehicle.\58\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \52\ Mikayla Bouchard, Transportation Emerges as Crucial to
    Escaping Poverty, N.Y. Times (May 7, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/
    2015/05/07/upshot/transportation-emerges-as-crucial-to-escaping-
    poverty.html.
        \53\ Gillian D. White, Stranded: How America's Failing Public
    Transportation Increases Inequality, The Atlantic (May 16, 2015),
    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/stranded-how-
    americas-failing-public-transportation-increases-inequality/393419/.
        \54\ Adie Tomer Et Al., Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in
    Metropolitan America, Brookings (May 11, 2011), https://
    www.brookings.edu/research/missed-opportunity-transit-and-jobs-in-
    metropolitan-america/.
        \55\ Richard Ezike et. al., union of Concerned Scientists, Where
    Are Self-Driving Cars Taking Us?, 6 (2019), https://ucsusa.org/sites/
    default/files/attach/2019/02/Where-Are-Self-Driving-Cars-Taking-Us-
    web.pdf.
        \56\ Michele Ver Ploeg, Et. Al., Mapping Food Deserts in the United
    States, U.S. Dep't of Agric.: Econ. Rsch Serv., (Dec. 1, 2011), https:/
    /www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011/december/data-feature-mapping-food-
    deserts-in-the-us/.
        \57\ Economic Research Service, EIB-165, U.S. Dep't of Agric. Low-
    Income and Low-Supermarket-Access Census Tracts, 2010-2015 12 (2017),
    https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82101/eib-
    165.pdf?v=3395.3.
        \58\ Economic Research Service, Access to Affordable and Nutritious
    Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences
    iii (2009) https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42711/
    12716_ap036_1_.pdf?v=8423.6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AVs can prove particularly useful for improving access to food,
    both by transporting people to previously inaccessible or difficult to
    access supermarkets and grocery stores, and by bringing food directly
    to their doors. With greater widespread deployment, AVs could improve
    access to fresh food for 14 million low-income households, roughly 70
    percent of the total low-income population, living in food deserts.\59\
    The addition of safe and affordable options in the transportation
    ecosystem will expand the capacity to execute on these trips.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \59\ Sola Lawal, Serving America's Food Deserts, Medium (July 15,
    2020), https://medium.com/nuro/serving-americas-food-deserts-
    a7442e922053.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    B. Moving Goods and Growing the American Economy
        The integration of AVs into America's commercial fleets will help
    optimize the transportation of freight nationwide, bringing goods
    directly to consumers faster and strengthening at-risk supply chains.
    At present, the United States is not hauling all the freight it could,
    holding back our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers.
    Autonomous trucking offers a means to address supply chain
    inefficiencies by filling workforce gaps, enhancing fleet flexibility,
    and reducing travel times.
        The growth in autonomous trucking is poised to run in parallel with
    an ever-growing market for freight trucking, with the Bureau of
    Transportation Statistics estimating that freight activity in the
    United States alone will grow fifty percent from 2020 to 2050, reaching
    a projected value of $36.2 trillion.\60\ With trucking representing
    roughly 72 percent of all freight transportation tonnage,\61\ the
    number of trucks on the road, autonomous and human driven, will need to
    grow as well. As demand for freight hauling continues to grow, AVs can
    help shippers keep up with that demand, supplementing and augmenting
    human driven fleets. With AVs hauling more long-haul freight, more
    opportunities will be created for truck drivers in their communities.
    This will also allow companies to strategically place their drivers
    where they are needed most and ensure America's truck drivers can
    remain in and near their communities and sleep in their own beds.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \60\ Freight Activity in the U.S. Expected to Grow Fifty Percent by
    2050, Bureau of Transp. Stat. (Nov. 22, 2021), https://www.bts.gov/
    newsroom/freight-activity-us-expected-grow-fifty-per
    cent-
    2050#::text=New%20long%2Dterm%20projections%20released,trillion%20
    (in%202017%20
    dollars).
        \61\ ATA Truck Tonnage Index Increased 2.4 percent in May, Am.
    Trucking Ass'n (July 20, 2023), https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/
    ata-truck-tonnage-index-increased-24-may.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For consumers, AVs are positioned to reduce general transportation
    costs and the cost of goods, and ensure goods are made more readily
    available and closer to home. Sixty-five percent of U.S. consumable
    goods are brought to market by trucks, and the implementation of
    autonomy in the trucking sector stands to decrease operating costs by
    about 45 percent--resulting in savings between $85 billion and $125
    billion, which can be passed on to consumers and transportation
    workers.\62\ In California alone, the knock on effects of the
    introduction of autonomous trucking could increase that state's real
    GDP and welfare by at least $6 billion a year.\63\ Finally, through the
    introduction of shared AV fleets, transportation costs--which amount to
    the second-largest expense for most households--could be reduced by as
    much as $5,600 per year.\64\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ Aisha Chottani, Greg Hastings, John Murnane, and Florian
    Neuhaus, Distraction or Disruption? Autonomous Trucks Gain Ground in
    U.S. Logistics, McKinsey & Co., (Dec. 10, 2018), https://
    www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-infrastructure/our-
    insights/distraction-or-disruption-autonomous-trucks-gain-ground-in-us-
    logistics.
        \63\ Autonomous Long-Haul Trucking Stands to Grow the Golden
    State's Economy While Creating Jobs and Raising Wages Without Mass
    Driver Layoffs, Silicon Valley Leadership Group (Apr. 13, 2022),
    https://www.svlg.org/study-shows-autonomous-trucking-will-grow-
    californias-economy/.
        \64\ Securing America's Future Energy, Fostering Economic
    Opportunity Through Autonomous Vehicle Technology (July 2020), https://
    safe2020.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fostering-
    Economic-Opportunity-through-Autonomous-Vehicle-Technology.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    C. Providing New Jobs
        American workers also stand to benefit from the greater adoption of
    AV technologies. A USDOT-funded study found that autonomous trucking
    will increase U.S. employment by up to 35,000 jobs per year on
    average.\65\ AVs will coexist with America's truck drivers, and the
    goal of the industry is to create more opportunities for all in our
    country. A growing AV industry will continue to create new job
    opportunities for workers with a range of educational backgrounds and
    experiences, including local drivers, technicians, operations center
    workers, and more. Indeed, a USDOT study has found that most autonomous
    trucking adoption scenarios would not lead to layoffs for existing
    truckers.\66\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \65\ Robert Waschik et al., John A. Volpe Nat'l Transp. Sys. Ctr.,
    FHWA-JPO-21-847, Macroeconomic Impacts of Automated Driving Systems in
    Long-Haul Trucking, 1 (2021), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54596.
        \66\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The AV industry has already created new jobs and brought new
    investment, tax revenue, resources, and human capital to states across
    the country, including Arkansas, California, Alabama, Arizona,
    Arkansas, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
    Florida, Washington, Colorado, and Texas. In communities throughout
    those states, the AV industry is providing opportunities for workers
    with a wide array of expertise and educational backgrounds, including
    many jobs that do not require a college degree. These jobs include auto
    technicians, fleet managers, safety operations specialists, sensor
    calibrators, transportation planners, and many others to serve the
    growing needs of AV fleets and AV manufacturers. As the industry
    continues to expand, delivery workers and grocery store employees will
    be involved in selecting, packing, and delivering goods to consumers,
    among other jobs and roles. The wider deployment of AVs can create over
    three million new jobs by 2035, all while expanding access to
    affordable delivery services, according to a study conducted by
    Steer.\67\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \67\ Steer, Economic Impacts of Autonomous Delivery Services in the
    U.S., XI (2020), https://www.steergroup.com/sites/default/files/2020-
    09/200910_%20Nuro_Final _Report_Public.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The AV industry is also investing in partnerships to create the
    jobs of tomorrow. These investments not only move AV technology
    forward, but also prepare the American workforce to compete globally.
    For example, AVIA member Aurora has partnered with Pittsburgh Technical
    College to create and launch a new associate degree program that trains
    autonomous service engineer technicians.\68\ Similarly, AVIA member
    Nuro has developed programs with De Anza Community College in
    California and San Jacinto Community College in Texas that offer a new
    career pathway to prepare the next generation of autonomous fleet
    technicians.\69\ These initiatives include a free tuition option,
    access to paid internships and part time work, and preference for full
    time jobs with and benefits upon graduation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \68\ Pittsburgh Technical College Launches Robotics and Autonomous
    Engineering Technology Program, Pittsburgh Technical College (Aug. 29,
    2022), https://www.pghtech.org/news-and-publications/PTC_Robotics.
        \69\ Autonomous and Electric Vehicle Technician Pathway, De Anza
    College, https://www.deanza.edu/ autotech/av (last visited May 9,
    2024); Press Release, San Jacinto College and Nuro, San Jacinto College
    and Nuro Announce First AV Technician Certificate Program in Texas
    (Feb. 24, 2023), https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/156026/San-
    Jacinto-College-and-Nuro-Announce-First-AV-Technician-Certificate-
    Program-in-Texas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    D. Environmental Benefits of Autonomous Vehicles
        The wider deployment of AVs stands to bring important environmental
    benefits as well, including by reducing emissions through greater fuel
    efficiency and reduced congestion, among other improvements. Many AV
    developers rely on battery electric vehicles (``EVs'') or gasoline-
    electric hybrids for their AV fleets, and further adoption of EVs is
    increasing. A study by Steer found that autonomous, electric local
    delivery vehicles could avoid more than 400 million tons of
    CO2 from 2025-2035.\70\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \70\ STEER, supra note 67, at XV.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Autonomous trucking specifically is poised to provide immense
    environmental benefits. 29 percent of U.S. total greenhouse gas
    emissions are attributed to transportation, with medium-and heavy-duty
    trucks accounting for 23 percent of all transportation-related
    emissions.\71\ In states such as California, that figure is even
    higher, with transportation representing approximately 50 percent of
    all greenhouse gas emissions.\72\ ADS-equipped heavy trucks can reduce
    fuel consumption by at least 10 percent as a result of more efficient
    driving, resulting in a significant reduction of CO2
    emissions.\73\ Additionally, AVIA member Aurora recently released a
    white paper demonstrating that autonomous trucking has the potential
    for a 13-32 percent net energy efficiency improvement per loaded miles
    relative to human-driven trucks.\74\ These benefits emanate from
    limiting peak speeds, reducing ``dead-head'' miles, increasing vehicle
    utilization and off-peak driving, reducing idling, and programmed eco-
    driving behavior.\75\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \71\ Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Env't
    Prot. Agency (Oct. 31, 2023), https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-
    facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
        \72\ Transforming Transportation, CA Energy Comm'n, https://
    www.energy.ca.gov/about/core-responsibility-fact-sheets/transforming-
    transportation (last visited May 17, 2024).
        \73\ Ryan Gehm, Self-driving trucks cut fuel consumption by 10
    percent, SAE Int'l (Dec. 19, 2019), https://www.sae.org/news/2019/12/
    tusimple-autonomous-trucks-cut-fuel.
        \74\ Dr. Garrett Bray, Aurora, The Sustainability Opportunity of
    Autonomous Trucking 3 (2024), https://downloads.ctfassets.net/
    8byw6jksp7h2/4W2yp42p921nrZXjWGKQRt/278c2eaa0f474a3a
    e6d75802d0d92a63/
    The_Sustainability_Opportunity_of_Autonomous_Trucking.pdf; See also
    Research & Discoveries (R&D): Autonomous Trucks Can Reduce Emissions,
    Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, https://theavindustry.org/resources/
    blog/research-discoveries-rd-autonomous-trucks-can-reduce-emissions
    (last visited May 17, 2024).
        \75\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, AVs can serve an important role in achieving
    environmental goals that advance public health.\76\ Emissions from
    motorized vehicles are a major source of air pollution, which is a
    leading risk factor for mortality and morbidity.\77\ Although the
    American Lung Association has found that 39 percent of Americans are
    living in places with unhealthy air, the effects of poor air quality
    are disproportionately experienced by BIPOC.\78\ Specifically, the
    American Lung Association's most recent ``State of the Air'' report
    demonstrates that BIPOC were 61 percent more likely to live in a county
    with unhealthy air than white peers.\79\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \76\ See David Rojas-Rueda, et al., Autonomous Vehicles and Public
    Health, 41 Ann. Rev. of Pub. Health 329 (2020), https://
    www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094035.
        \77\ Id. at 333 (citing Health Effects Inst., State of Global Air
    2018 1 (2018), https://www.stateofglobalair.org/sites/default/files/
    soga-2018-report.pdf).
        \78\ State of the Air: Key Findings, Am. Lung Ass'n, https://
    www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings (last visited May 17, 2024).
        \79\ Press Release, Am. Lung Ass'n, More Than 4 in 10 Americans
    Breath Unhealthy Air, People of Color 3 Times as Likely to Live in Most
    Polluted Places (Apr. 21, 2021), https://www.lung.org/media/press-
    releases/sota-2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The wider deployment of AVs will bring myriad benefits to
    communities and individuals across the country. From connecting
    underserved communities and people with disabilities to new
    opportunities for employment and independence, to important reductions
    in transportation sector emissions, to boosting the economy by lowering
    transportation costs, AVs can help address a diverse set of problems.
    To ensure these benefits are received, what is needed now more than
    ever is a supportive Federal policy framework that unlocks further
    pathways to widespread AV deployments nationwide.
    V. Policy Recommendations for Promoting AV Deployments
        Preserving American leadership in the AV industry is key to
    ensuring that the safety and benefits of AV deployment reach drivers,
    companies, and consumers in communities across the country. Despite
    holding the lead in AV development at the moment, the United States is
    at risk of falling behind the rest of the world on AV public policy,
    which would deny Americans the technology's lifesaving mobility and
    efficiency benefits and harm the United States' global economic
    competitiveness. The American AV industry is at an inflection point, as
    the technology is now being commercialized and the benefits of AVs are
    beginning to accrue. Now is the time for policymakers to establish a
    national AV policy framework that prioritizes American leadership and
    has Congress, the USDOT, and the private sector acting in partnership.
    While Federal efforts to establish such a framework have stalled in the
    last several years, a majority of states have recognized the benefits
    of AVs by expressly approving AV operations on their roads.
        Make no mistake: the United States can continue to lead the way on
    AVs if policymakers support the safe commercialization of AVs and do so
    with urgency. The United States must commit itself to AV leadership to
    ensure that the safety, economic, mobility, and efficiency benefits of
    AVs can be realized not only in the states where AVs are already on the
    road, but nationwide. Key steps to create an AV Federal policy
    framework include:

       Congressional action on Federal legislation, like the AV
            START Act previously introduced by Sens. Peters and Thune.\80\
            Such a bill should encompass all vehicle types and include
            statutory and regulatory changes to support the wider
            deployment of AVs across the U.S. AVIA's own Federal policy
            framework, published last year, details a number of components
            such a law should include.\81\ AVIA was pleased to see the
            Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group--led by Senators Schumer,
            Rounds, Heinrich, and Young-encourage continued ``work on
            developing a Federal framework for testing and deployment of
            autonomous vehicles across all modes of transportation to
            remain at the forefront of this critical space. This effort is
            particularly critical as our strategic competitors, like the
            Chinese Communist Party (CCP), continue to race ahead and
            attempt to share the vision of this technology.'' \82\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \80\ See American Vision for Safer Transportation through
    Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies Act, S. 1885, 115th Cong.
    (2017), https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1885.
        \81\ Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, Federal Policy Framework for
    Our AV Future (March 2023), https://theavindustry.org/resources/AVIA-
    Federal-Policy-Framework-for-Our-AV-Future.pdf.
        \82\ Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group, Driving U.S. Innovation in
    Artificial Intelligence 12-13 (May 2024), https://www.politico.com/f/
    ?id=0000018f-79a9-d62d-ab9f-f9af975
    d0000.

       FMCSA granting the still-pending industry exemption request
            that will allow ADS-equipped vehicles to use alternative
            warning devices to signal when an ADS-equipped CMV is stopped
            on the roadside.\83\ This common-sense and data-backed
            application, filed in January 2023, has been pending for 16
            months when we have seen several equipment and lighting-related
            petitions over the past several years be acted on, on average,
            within 8 months.\84\ FMCSA should act expeditiously to ensure
            autonomous trucking companies can help ease supply chain
            challenges and support America's economy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \83\ See Aurora & Waymo, FMCSA-2023-0071-0011, Joint Waymo-Aurora
    Application for Exemption (Jan. 10, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/
    document/FMCSA-2023-0071-0011.
        \84\ FMCSA's own regulations state that the agency will attempt to
    issue a final decision on any exemption application within 180 days of
    receipt. 49 C.F.R. Sec. 381.320.

       Move forward with a proposed rule on AV STEP. First
            announced in July 2023, under AV STEP NHTSA ``would consider
            applications for deploying noncompliant ADS vehicles subject to
            review processes, terms and conditions that the agency would
            require to ensure public safety and transparency.'' \85\
            According to then Acting Administrator Ann Carlson, ``By
            allowing the deployment of exempt ADS vehicles under conditions
            that include requirements to demonstrate safety and provide
            information about vehicle operation and deployment, we believe
            AV STEP would open up a wealth of data [and] hasten NHTSA's
            progress toward establishing an effective governance structure
            for ADS performance.'' \86\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \85\ Ann Carlson, Acting Adm'r, Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety
    Admin., Keynote Address at the Automated Road Transportation Symposium
    (ARTS2023) (July 12, 2023), https://www
    .nhtsa.gov/speeches-presentations/automated-road-transportation-
    symposium-arts23-keynote-address.
        \86\ Id.

       FMCSA completing the rulemaking process on the ``Safe
            Integration of Automated Driving Systems (ADS)-Equipped
            Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).'' \87\ This includes enacting
            regulations that codify FMCSA's interpretation that the Federal
            Motor Carrier Safety Regulations do not require a human driver
            to operate or be present in a commercial motor vehicle operated
            by a SAE Level 4 or Level 5 ADS.\88\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \87\ Safe Integration of Automated Driving Systems (ADS)-Equipped
    Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs), 88 Fed. Reg. 6691 (Feb. 1, 2023).
        \88\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Preparing for the Future of
    Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0) 9 (Oct. 2018), https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/
    automated-vehicles/320711/preparing-future-transportation-automated-
    vehicle-30.pdf; Safe Integration of Automated Driving Systems-Equipped
    Commercial Motor Vehicles, 84 Fed. Reg. 24449, 24453 (May 28, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VI. Conclusion
        The further deployment of AV technologies will vastly increase
    safety on our roadways and generate economic benefits across the
    country. However, to ensure those benefits are realized here in the
    United States, we must preserve American leadership in the AV industry.
    I thank the Subcommittee for its leadership on these important issues.
    AVIA looks forward to serving as a resource for technical and policy
    questions on this subject, and to working with you to make safe
    autonomous vehicles a reality for Americans nationwide.

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Farrah.
        Mr. Krassenstein, I want to thank you again for being here,
    and also thank you for all the great work that you're doing in
    the City of Detroit.
        But as you mentioned in your opening comments,
    unfortunately, Detroit has historically struggled with high
    numbers of roadway injuries and deaths, especially among the
    Black community.
        So my question for you, sir, is can you speak to the
    importance of Safe Streets for All funding in the City of
    Detroit in terms of enabling various safety interventions that
    would otherwise not simply be possible?
        And two, can you speak to how Detroit is addressing some of
    the socioeconomic and racial disparities in roadway safety
    using this grant program?
        Mr. Krassenstein. Thank you for that question, Chairman. So
    for the first part of the question on the importance of the
    Safe Streets for All program, the program is vitally important
    for cities like Detroit, where within the city limits we have
    3,100 linear miles of road, some of which are under our
    jurisdiction.
        But many of our larger roads, our most dangerous roads, are
    not. The Safe Streets for All program gives us a dedicated
    funding stream that we don't need to worry about making the
    hard choices between state of good repair and saving lives on
    safety projects. This gives us the opportunity to have
    dedicated funding to just focus on safety on streets that have
    been overbuilt in Detroit, and like, frankly, have had way too
    many crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
        To the second part of your question, Chairman, on how we're
    addressing socioeconomic factors into this, that's frequent in
    all the work that we do on everything from which roads that we
    pave to where we do safety projects and handle interventions.
    We're proud to be taking a very equity-based approach across
    both our public works teams and our planning and development
    teams, and how we engage neighborhood groups looking at
    commercial corridors and looking at the data as well. So we do
    try to take a very balanced approach with where we make those
    types of investments throughout the city.
        Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
        Ms. Chace, in addition to serving as Chair of the
    Subcommittee, I'm also the Founder and Chair of the Senate
    Motorcycle Caucus. I'm an avid motorcyclist myself and I share
    that with a number of my colleagues here.
        May is also Motorcycle Safety Month, where we raise
    awareness of motorcycle fatalities. Motorcyclists unfortunately
    perish on our roads at a rate 22 times the rate of motor
    vehicle occupants.
        So my question for you is, what sort of technology
    interventions are most likely to benefit motorcyclists as well
    as other vulnerable road users, and how can we get those up and
    running as quickly as possible?
        Ms. Chace. Thank you for the question, Chairman. Probably
    the most effective safety technology would be Vehicle-to-
    Everything technologies, V2X technologies, for motorcyclists.
    These technologies, as you know, provide situational awareness
    to both drivers of cars, motorcyclists, and other road users to
    alert them--the drivers or the users of the vehicles--of
    impending collisions or hazards that go beyond their line of
    sight, so that the drivers can make better decisions, avoid a
    crash, and improve safety on the roads.
        And this is really critical when you're talking about
    motorcyclists or other road users who do not have the
    protection of a vehicle. So I would say Vehicle-to-Everything
    technologies would be the top technology solution.
        There are also technology solutions being developed by BMW
    and Bosch, who are very active in the motorcycle safety space
    with what we call networked V2X and digital alerting. So
    alerting of maybe other key information about the roadway
    conditions or weather, things that wouldn't essentially be a
    safety of life issue, but could be really critical information
    to a motorcyclist or a cyclist. And so those solutions are
    being developed by those companies.
        And in addition, the American Motorcyclists Association was
    a part, and has been a part, of a larger V2X coalition for many
    years now, supporting scaled deployment of these technologies
    so that we can in fact protect not only drivers, but also
    motorcyclists, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users
    using our system.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Mr. Farrah, as you know, I strongly believe and support
    AVs, and I believe that they can play a major role in achieving
    our goals of preventing roadway fatalities. And I appreciate
    you mentioning the bill that I'm working on with Senator Thune.
    But in order for that to be the case, self-driving vehicles and
    their developers need to gain and keep public trust, as you
    mentioned, and the acceptance and ensure that there's also a
    transition for affected workers with this new technology.
        The Committee is in receipt of some letters from unions
    representing workers who work in and around vehicles that share
    their priorities and concerns with self-driving cars. And
    without objection, I will be entering those into the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Prepared Statement of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
        Dear Chair Peters and Ranking Member Young,

        On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the International
    Brotherhood of Teamsters, we write today regarding the Subcommittee's
    hearing entitled ``Examining the Roadway Safety Crisis and Highlighting
    Community Solutions''. The Teamsters are the largest union representing
    members whose workplace is our Nation's roadways, including both the
    commercial truck and bus drivers who operate on them, as well as
    construction and state Department of Transportation employees who
    build, maintain, and inspect them. Ultimately, safety on our roadways
    impacts all our members as they and their families travel within their
    communities, expecting to arrive at their destinations safely.
        According to the most recent data from the National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration, the agency estimates that 40,990 people died in
    motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2023, a slight decrease from 2022,
    even as Americans drove more miles overall last year.\1\ However, this
    figure has still substantially increased over the last decade,
    including both in terms of total fatalities, and on a per vehicle miles
    travelled basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Early Estimate
    of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We appreciate the Subcommittee's focus on reducing these tragedies,
    for drivers of any vehicle type, roadway workers, bicyclists, and
    pedestrians. The Teamsters have always been, and remain, committed to
    working with Congress to improve safe driving conditions and ensure
    that we are using all available resources at a Federal and local level
    to reduce motor vehicle accidents and fatalities.
        One of the most powerful tools Congress has at its disposal is the
    power of the purse. Just last month, the Department of Transportation
    announced 99 awards totaling nearly $64 million for Safe Streets and
    Roads for All (SS4A) Planning and Demonstration Grants--following the
    announcement last December of 385 awards under the program delivering
    $813 million to local communities to improve roadway safety.\2\ These
    awards, along with billions of dollars made available through the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for the purposes of repairing,
    expanding, and maintaining roads, highways and bridges will undoubtedly
    continue to have positive impacts on motor vehicle accident and
    fatality rates. With the expiration of the current surface
    transportation authorization in September 2026, Congress will have the
    ability to examine lessons learned from these investments and build on
    them in the next authorization.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ U.S. Department of Transportation. (2024). SS4A-FY24 Planning
    and Demo Awards by State: Round 1. Retrieved from https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-05/
    SS4A-FY24_Planning-and-Demo-Awards-by-State_Round-1.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the Teamsters are prepared to discuss specific safety
    proposals at length, including as they relate to key issues impacting
    our members including CDL licensure, drug and alcohol testing,
    equipment standards, and fatigued driving and hours of service, it is
    equally essential that Congress does not take actions which will
    unnecessarily lead to more fatalities and accidents. In particular, we
    object in the strongest possible terms to efforts to increase maximum
    truck weight limits for the sole purpose of moving cargo more
    expeditiously including the MOVE Act (HR 7496), the SHIP IT Act (HR
    471) or the proposed 91,000 LB pilot program for commercial trucks (HR
    3372). None of these bills have made progress in the Senate, and we
    thank the Committee for ensuring this remains the case. The enactment
    of any of these bills undoubtedly runs contrary to the interests of
    today's hearing.
        Finally, it is increasingly apparent that autonomous vehicle
    proponents continue to point to the deployment of driverless vehicles
    of all stripes as a panacea for the future of roadway safety. We urge
    this subcommittee to adopt a more cautious approach. First, we must be
    unambiguous that the current state of affairs of regulation of
    autonomous vehicles is deeply deficient. Today, if the developer of an
    autonomous vehicle seeks to deploy a driverless 80,000 LB truck in
    fully commercialized revenue service, they must only comply with
    existing regulations, including Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
    (FMVSS) which have little to no bearing on AV technology, and report
    crashes to NHTSA via Standing General Order 2021-01.
        Given that Congress and regulators have spent decades expressing
    substantial oversight over drivers and their vehicles, it is deeply
    concerning that the approach to AVs to date has been to allow them to
    operate in a de facto unregulated environment. The Federal government
    has largely left states and municipalities to figure out how to deal
    with testing and deployment on their own, creating a 50 plus
    jurisdiction Wild West.
        To make matters worse, some of the essential regulatory duties
    involved in this conversation, including vehicle manufacturing
    standards, are inherently Federal powers. The absence of Federal
    activity thereby guarantees that no oversight of any kind is being
    performed over components over autonomous operations, and that our
    roadways will continue to serve as the test track for AV corporations
    and their backers.
        We are encouraged that there may be some momentum towards ending
    this status quo, including the impending completion of FMCSA's Safe
    Integration of Automated Driving Systems (ADS)-Equipped Commercial
    Motor Vehicles (CMVs) rulemaking. We note the Department of
    Transportation comments contained within its 2024 Progress Report on
    the National Roadway Safety Strategy, in which it states that:
        ``As the technologies continue to develop and mature, the
    Department is committed to conducting the research, analysis, outreach,
    and oversight needed to fulfill its overall mission, especially our
    role in furthering the safety of the transportation system. It is of
    the utmost importance that new technologies are introduced safely into
    the transportation system and, as the technology matures, actively
    increase the overall safety of the system as they are deployed. The
    Department will be deliberate in moving forward with its regulatory
    actions, understanding the risks of both over-and under-regulation, and
    maintaining a balanced approach that focuses on improving safety''.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ U.S. Department of Transportation. (2024). 2024 NRSS Progress
    Report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is our hope that FMCSA's final rule, and other regulatory
    actions by DOT's modal agencies will adhere to this pledge to
    prioritize safety, and DOT's responsibilities when it comes to
    overseeing adoption of new technology.
        However, adequately addressing the totality of the issues and
    impacts posed by autonomous vehicles will require a Congressional
    approach, and we encourage legislators to consider the principles
    outline in the Teamsters Autonomous Vehicle Federal Policy Principles,
    the first of its kind document published by our union.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://teamster.org/2023/09/teamsters-autonomous-vehicle-
    federal-policy-principles/#::text
    =A520human%20operator%20must%20remain,to%20non%2Dautonomous520CDL%20driv
    ers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We also urge members to use caution when considering claims made by
    the autonomous vehicle industry given that these claims are verifiable
    by no one but themselves, and on occasion do not hold up to greater
    scrutiny. For example, it is a common refrain that a certain number of
    miles travelled, supposedly without incident, is inherently a guarantee
    that the technology is safe and ready for prime time. Today's witness,
    the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (AVIA) has previously
    stated that its members have driven more than 44 million miles on
    public roads to date, which is ``equivalent to 184 trips to the moon--
    or 1,767 trips around the world''.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://theavindustry.org/resources/blog/data-44million-miles
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By AVIA's own admission, this includes miles travelled by vehicles
    of all types, including vehicles with human safety operators present as
    opposed to a truly driverless vehicle. It is perhaps more important to
    contextualize this number--in 2023, the American public drove
    approximately 3.19 trillion miles, and has driven over a trillion miles
    every year since 1971.\6\ Performing an infinitesimally small amount of
    driving, and claiming to do so safely by only their own internal
    metrics should not be interpreted by Congress and regulators that
    autonomous vehicles are ready today, or in the near future, to be our
    salvation to roadway deaths and injuries.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Federal Highway Administration monthly Traffic Volume Trends
    report
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Addressing these tragedies as well as new technologies which seek
    to address them, autonomous vehicles, or otherwise, will require well-
    considered and thoughtful legislative and regulatory efforts. We thank
    Chair Peters and Ranking Member Young for having this important
    conversation on roadway safety today, and the Teamsters look forward to
    continuing to be a partner going forward.
                                     ______

                             Transport Workers Union of America
                                                           May 21, 2024

    Hon. Gary Peters, Chair,
    Hon. Todd Young, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, Freight, and Ports,
    U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Washington, DC.

    RE: Hearing on Examining the Roadway Safety Crisis and Highlighting
                Community Solutions

    Dear Chair Peters and Ranking Member Young,

        On behalf of more than 155,000 members of the Transport Workers
    Union of America (TWU), I am writing to offer the following statement
    for the record as part of your hearing on Examining the Roadway Safety
    Crisis and Highlighting Community Solutions. This topic deeply effects
    every TWU member across the country--including bikeshare workers who
    maintain systems built for vulnerable road users and transit operators
    who maneuver through our communities. We appreciate your work to
    address not just the safety of individuals within a car, but that of
    the workers, riders, bikers, commuters, and others along who share our
    roads.
        TWU workers operate, service, and maintain transportation systems
    across the country benefitting from the Safe Streets and Roads for All
    grant program. These communities are redesigning busy intersections to
    prioritize transit vehicles; building bikeshare infrastructure to
    prevent roadway accidents; adding physical protections for pedestrians
    to reduce bus knockdowns; and reconfiguring sidewalks to better
    separate vulnerable road users from motor vehicles. Our members are the
    essential layer of safety tying together the mechanical, behavioral,
    and physical preventions necessary to reduce road deaths.
        Technology is an essential part of this work. The TWU is proud to
    vociferously advocate for new equipment, software, and practices that
    raise the level of safety on our roads. Our locals regularly use their
    own voice through the collective bargaining process to force our
    employers to purchase and implement advanced driver assistance systems
    and other technology to increase safety on our properties. Automatic
    emergency breaking, rear view cameras, and many other advanced features
    would not exist in our transit systems today absent the work of the
    TWU. These proven safety features come with immediate increased costs
    in procurement, maintenance, and training that cash-strapped transit
    agencies do not prioritize unless forced to by frontline workers and
    their riders.
        While we work hard to implement functional, market-ready technology
    with proven safety benefits, we are often forced to fight back against
    bad, but richly funded, new technologies. Expensive marketing campaigns
    from the companies who profit off these technologies ignore existing
    dangers and over-sell future potential in an effort to rush
    deployment--a process that makes the travelling public effectively
    guinea pigs for the technology and undermines the safety of our
    streets. Most recently, autonomous vehicle companies have been the main
    perpratators of these high-gloss, low-substance campaigns.
        As of today, autonomous vehicles are a public safety menace on our
    roads. The autonomous vehicle industry has presented no real solutions,
    just unproven talking points that serve to bolster the bottom line of
    billion-dollar tech companies who want zero accountability when their
    robotaxis hit and injure people. Their safety record for vulnerable
    road users is especially terrible--a pedestrian dragged under a car,
    hitting a pet, and the death of a cyclist. Communities in San Francisco
    and Los Angeles have come together in massive demonstrations to reduce
    the number of AVs on their streets. Many other communities have
    actively opposed their introduction. A Federal framework to regulate
    these vehicles is urgently needed to ensure that these vehicles are
    meeting the same standards we place on comparable vehicles.
        This is especially true for commercial vehicles. Buses, trucks, and
    other commercial motor vehicles are operated by licensed professionals
    and have a SIGNFICANTLY better safety record than personal car
    operators. We have often seen AV companies reference a false narrative
    of human-caused accidents--an incredibly misleading and disingenuous
    argument--but they simultaneously ignore the reality that commercial
    motor vehicles go farther between accidents, cause fewer deaths, and
    generally have better safety outcomes when accidents do occur. An AV
    company seeking to perform the job of a commercial bus operator or
    truck driver should be held to the same standard our members are held
    to before their technology is widely deployed.
        We appreciate your commitment to ensuring the safety of our roads.
    Protecting the traveling public outside of cars is an essential topic
    to address--but the AV industry has zero goods to back up their claims
    that driverless cars will lead to safer streets. The TWU strongly
    believes that a Federal framework that would hold AV manufacturers
    accountable to their marketing claims, collect the data necessary to
    enable regulators to make informed safety decisions, recognize that
    commercial vehicles must be held to their own standard, and prioritize
    workers' involvement in the deployment of these vehicles is urgently
    needed.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The TWU has endorsed the Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety's
    AV Tenets
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Sincerely,
                                                John Samuelsen,
                                               International President.

        Senator Peters. But Mr. Farrah, how are you and your
    members working with transportation workers, affected
    communities, and the public to build trust and transparency?
    And what do you think the best approach is to dealing with this
    challenge as this industry continues to develop? And
    unfortunately, incidents will inevitably occur, and something
    you need to be thinking about.
        Mr. Farrah. Senator, thank you very much for the question.
    I appreciate, again, your leadership.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, a recent industry
    initiative of AVIA was the release of our TRUST Principles. And
    one of the things that really comes through in that document is
    that we are articulating our very strong belief that we need to
    have an incredible amount of local engagement.
        This means prior to companies going into cities, speaking
    with local leaders, with law enforcement, with public--first
    responders. With leaders, whether in labor and other walks of
    life, it's very important that we be meeting people where they
    are, explaining what our intentions are, how it is that we can
    increase safety, how it is that we can help with supply chain
    challenges, how we can assist, especially city leaders, with
    accessibility opportunities and whatnot.
        And so this very, very localized operation is something
    that we're very proud of, and it's something that the industry
    has devoted a significant amount of resources toward.
        Senator Peters. Well, thank you.
        We're in the process of voting right now, so I am going to
    go vote real quickly. I'm going to hand the Chair over to--or
    the gavel to the Ranking Member, and I'll go vote and be back
    to relieve you.
        Senator Young. Great. Works for me. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Farrah, thank you for that reply. And thank you also
    for mentioning the AI roadmap that Senators Rounds, myself,
    Heinrich, and Schumer released last week.
        In that bipartisan roadmap, we encourage committees to
    continue their work on developing a Federal framework for
    testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles. And we highlight
    that it's particularly critical as our strategic competitors,
    most notably the Chinese Communist Party, continue to race
    ahead and attempt to shape the vision of this technology.
        Just yesterday, in fact, the U.K., their AV Act became law.
    And they'll have driverless cars on their roads within two
    years, says current reporting.
        So Mr. Farrah, where does the U.S. stand in the global AV
    competition to your mind? And what are other countries doing
    differently in support of innovation and deployment?
        Mr. Farrah. Senator, thank you very much for the question.
        The way I think about this is that over the course of the
    last dozen or so years, you've had an incredible American
    success story in terms of bringing autonomous driving to where
    it is.
        But the reality is that this has gone noticed by many other
    countries around the world that also want to have safer roads.
    They want to have more accessibility, they want to have supply
    chain benefits, and so they are racing to keep up, and
    certainly China is one of those countries.
        And while our country--right now we are firmly in the lead.
    We have the best companies in the world, we have the deepest
    capital markets, we're ahead in technological innovation.
        We are struggling when it comes to public policy. We need
    to have a Federal framework put in place that supports the
    development of autonomous vehicles. We need to have action on
    legislation such as AV START. We need to have action on rules
    at the Department of Transportation.
        The Federal Government is behind where a lot of the states
    are, where they have really taken a lot of action in recent
    years.
        Senator Young. Well, it's incumbent upon us to listen to
    these entreaties, and to act after duly studying the facts and
    consulting with all stakeholders. And we have been involved in
    such consultation and preparing for action for some period of
    time. So it does seem like if the U.K. is prepared to go ahead,
    it seems like we ought to be, especially seeing as we're
    leading in innovating in many of these technology areas. Is
    that consistent with your assessment of where the technology
    is?
        Mr. Farrah. Senator, yes, we absolutely have the best
    companies in the world here, but we need to make sure we have a
    policy framework that can support those companies going
    forward.
        Senator Young. Mr. Farrah, to move on to another important
    topic that many of you touched on in your opening remarks, and
    I'll get to many of you.
        Nearly 41,000 people died on our roads last year. It's just
    a massive, massive number. And I was trying to contextualize
    this number, because I believe this goes underreported, at
    least as compared to a lot of other sort of disasters that
    afflict families and communities.
        The CDC reports that every year, the number of U.S. murders
    involving a firearm. It's half that number. It's half that
    number. So I actually think it was completely accurate when
    Secretary Buttigieg recently said, ``Human drivers aren't just
    problematic. They're murderous.'' Again, he was talking about
    the opportunity cost for not adopting the latest technologies.
    ``They're murderous,'' and ``we have been bathed in this level
    of carnage all our lives.'' He put it more pointedly, more
    graphically than I think I would.
        But nonetheless, can you tell us, Mr. Farrah, how AVs will
    help decrease the number of fatalities, and share any
    projections on how significantly it will decrease by your
    estimates?
        Mr. Farrah. Senator, I appreciate the question. I think the
    reality is that we've been desensitized to this as a country,
    and it's not acceptable. It's going to take committee hearings
    like this. It's going to take action at a Federal and a state
    level to be able to address this.
        For our part in the industry of the development of
    autonomous vehicles, we believe, is going to be one of the
    suite of solutions that is out there. The reality is that human
    behavior is what's driving a lot of the deaths and other types
    of crashes that we are seeing. And autonomous vehicles don't
    suffer from a lot of those human frailties. They don't text
    while drive, they don't drive impaired, they don't drive
    distracted. And we don't have to accept any longer all of these
    types of human conditions that are there.
        And so we will continue to see autonomous vehicles roll out
    deliberately in American communities. That is great news. And
    our expectation is that correspondingly, we'll see a reduction
    in crashes. And that's something, again, we need Federal
    partners on.
        Senator Young. Yes, we certainly have--we've got to lay a
    predicate of trust in order to enable that to happen. I
    absolutely understand that.
        I'm going to recognize Senator Klobuchar, and we'll get
    back to our other witnesses.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank
    you.
        It is wonderful to be here with all of you. And I think--
    you know, I've cared a lot about this issue for quite a while,
    starting out with when I was a prosecutor on DWIs and we had to
    change our law in Minnesota for repeat felons driving with
    repeat DWIs. We actually had a guy that had, I think, 17 DWIs,
    and he told the officer he moved to Minnesota, because we
    didn't have enhanced penalties when Colorado did. That was good
    evidence for me.
        But then when I got here, I started doing a lot of work on
    distracted driving. And our transportation system in Minnesota
    is consistently one of the best in the country, I think number
    four for transportation infrastructure. Yet we still have so
    many fatalities due to driving.
        And Mr. Chace, in your testimony, you note how in 2021--Ms.
    Chace--how in 2021, rural communities had a fatality rate 1.5
    times higher than the urban rate. Can you speak to how
    infrastructure investments in rural areas like broadband can
    improve safety in our transportation system?
        Ms. Chace. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        Yes, rural communities do face the brunt of traffic
    fatalities. We have seen there are significant positive impacts
    from technologies like ADAS systems, in particular Lane Keep,
    which--in Iowa, lane departure is one of the leading causes of
    crashes in rural areas. So these advanced driver assist
    systems, Level 2, partial automation, to assist drivers staying
    in their lane, not crossing the median strip, is actually a
    critical safety intervention.
        In addition, in the physical world, you know, many of the
    rural states do put rumble strips, right? to help drivers
    understand, right? with a haptic response when they might be
    drifting from the lane.
        And then with regard to broadband, communications really is
    the backbone of transportation in the 21st century. It will
    continue to become even more important as we move forward and
    incorporate more advanced technologies into our system. And
    really at its base level, what it allows us to do is to
    transmit and share critical information in various different
    ways to road users.
        And that is key. And we need to be investing in that
    backbone of broadband and the communications infrastructure as
    part of our transportation programs and funding.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you.
        Mr. Farrah, what I was referencing before on distracted
    driving, it takes just 5 seconds to drive across an entire
    football field. I say with my friend here, Senator Young, he
    and I are both--we once competed on a Vikings Indianapolis
    game. I remember.
        I think the Vikings had the biggest--the biggest comeback
    in the history of the NFL, but it happened. OK, so, but almost
    as good as the Timberwolves against Colorado this week.
        But the football field. So to get more serious here. Five
    seconds to drive across a football field at 55 miles per hour.
    Five seconds. In 2022, when you think about people who are
    looking at their phone, looking away; in 2022, over 3,300
    people died in accidents involving distracted drivers.
        Nineteen-year-old Shreya Dixit from Eden Prairie,
    Minnesota, tragically died in 2007--her dad is a huge advocate,
    as you know, on this stuff--when the driver of the car she was
    riding in reached to grab something in a back seat.
        And this happens over and over and again. And your
    testimony notes how almost 3 percent of all drivers are looking
    at or using their handheld device. In your view, how important
    can new technologies be for combating distracted driving?
        Mr. Farrah. Senator, thank you very much for sharing the
    information you just did. It's obviously tragic, and it's
    something that's happening nationwide, and it's happening every
    single day. I think distracted driving is a huge national
    problem.
        This is something that our expectation is with autonomous
    vehicles that we can very much help to address that, because
    the reality is that the autonomous driving system does not get
    distracted. And you don't have to have this situation now,
    where for many people, the temptation is too great to look at
    their phone at that traffic light, or to look at it when
    they're going it at a certain speed, and then we all know what
    ends up happening.
        And so this is something where we're trying to
    fundamentally remove that human error, that distraction, that
    is persistent across our country. We're trying to remove that
    from the equation and allow technology to help to drive down
    those deaths.
        Senator Klobuchar. While at the same time enforcing the
    laws we have on the books, I will add; because not everyone's
    going to be doing that. And so it's just, it is really a
    balance. And it--to me that you've got to do both things. We've
    tried to put a lot of incentives in place for getting laws
    passed to help on distracted driving. And going way back to
    Secretary LaHood, actually. So thank you very much for your
    work.
        And with that, I will turn it back to you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Young. Well, thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
        I'll recognize Senator Capito now.

                STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator.
        And I thank you all for being here. And I didn't get to
    hear all the testimony, but I did get to hear quite a bit. I
    had some other questions.
        But here's the one thing that I haven't heard. I haven't
    heard one person mention the increased weight of an electric
    vehicle. The President has said that by 2030 we are going to
    have--50 percent of our cars are going to be electric vehicles.
        So I just did some brief stuff on my phone here. A GMC
    Hummer EV weighs 9,000 pounds. The battery itself weighs 2,900
    pounds. A gas GMC Sierra, which is, I guess, comparable to a
    Hummer, if anything's comparable to a Hummer, weighs 6,000
    pounds.
        There's a study out there that says baseline fatality
    possibility increases 47 percent for every 1,000 pounds added
    to a car. So we can't regulate--or we can't legislate if we
    reach these goals, which are doubtful, but going in that
    direction.
        If we're looking at heavier vehicles, I mean, this has been
    brought to my attention by our own West Virginia DOT. Can the
    guardrails withstand the impacts? Dr. Sandt said that when you
    talked about fatalities, it's mass versus velocity. People
    aren't slowing down. And if you've been in an electric car,
    those things get up and go pretty daggone fast.
        What are we going to do about this? And does anybody have
    suggestions?
        And I'll just start with Ms. Chace.
        Ms. Chace. Thank you for the question, Senator. I do think
    it is a question that we have to address collectively as we
    move forward.
        At ITS America, our north star is safety. And while we
    appreciate the significant climate impacts of transportation,
    and we understand that we need to move to a more sustainable
    transportation system, we need to be prioritizing safety.
        As I mentioned in my opening remarks and my written
    testimony, we believe we need to move to a more proactive
    approach. And to me, part of that means preventing crashes
    before they even happen, as opposed to mitigating the impact.
    Obviously, we need to do both. But if we take an approach that
    is proactive to prevent the crash from happening, that is where
    ITS America believes we can leverage our technology tools in
    the best possible way.
        Senator Capito. Mr. Nelson?
        Mr. Nelson. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        At AAA we support consumer choice and what kind of vehicle
    people choose to drive----
        Senator Capito. I'm not really debating EVs versus gas.
        Mr. Nelson. Understood.
        Senator Capito. I'm saying----
        Mr. Nelson. Yup.
        Senator Capito.--these are heavier vehicles that are going
    to result in more fatalities. And we're talking about safety.
        Mr. Nelson. Understood. But you're speaking our language,
    because we've been giving a lot of thought to the potential
    safety implications of a proliferating passenger vehicle fleet
    involving EVs. And you highlighted issues about stopping
    distance, how quickly these vehicles can reach higher speeds,
    potential degradation of the built infrastructure. Just think
    of a parking garage full of EVs.
        Senator Capito. Right. Well, one, yes, the collapse in New
    York City. Yes.
        Mr. Nelson. Right. And then just size and weight issues. An
    ICE vehicle----
        Senator Capito. So but I'm not hearing any solutions here
    to how we're going to----
        Mr. Nelson. Well, I don't think we have solutions yet,
    because we don't have a high penetration of EVs in the U.S.
    fleet. But certainly, we should be approaching this as a first-
    do-no-harm kind of a policy move. And we haven't seen at AAA
    much effort into thinking through how to proactively address
    these implications on our infrastructure, but also on safety.
    We've seen no action.
        Senator Capito. Right. I mean, I just think it would be
    smart to be talking about this right now in terms of these
    types of vehicles, because if any of the goals are actually
    met, this is going to be a large part of our fleet.
        Doctor, do you have a comment?
        Dr. Sandt. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Capito. Mm-hmm.
        Dr. Sandt. Yes. As I've spoken about in my earlier remarks,
    kinetic energy is a product of mass times velocity squared.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Dr. Sandt. And so the mass is a critical factor, but also
    the speed at which these vehicles can travel. And so a lot of
    the tools we have in our existing tool belt are really to
    address the speed side of the equation.
        Senator Capito. OK.
        Dr. Sandt. We have, with all of our infrastructure
    investment, opportunities for a lot of the built environment to
    address speed management, to create safe and appropriate speeds
    for different vehicle types in different contexts.
        We also have some technologies on the vehicular side as
    well, related to intelligent speed assistance and intelligent
    speed supportive devices.
        Senator Capito. So I'm not being confrontational here. I'm
    just clarifying on myself. So that means you would have
    Governors in your specific vehicle that wouldn't let you go a
    certain mileage--or a certain speed? I mean, I know there's a--
    there have been bills out there that say trucks shouldn't go
    more than what the actual--the semis shouldn't go more than 70
    miles per hour if that's the posted speed limit. Is that what
    you're talking about there, when you talk about technology?
        Dr. Sandt. There are technologies that exist on large truck
    fleets, yes----
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Dr. Sandt. But also what we're seeing in other countries is
    intelligent speed adaptation systems. So they can provide----
        Senator Capito. Well, what does that mean?
        Dr. Sandt. They can provide warnings to drivers----
        Senator Capito. OK.
        Dr. Sandt. When they're over the speed, or they can
    actually address the pressure that needs to be applied to
    accelerate a vehicle, to give sort of a physical feedback to
    the driver, so that they don't continue to accelerate over the
    rate of the posted speed.
        Senator Capito. So they're doing that now in Europe?
        Dr. Sandt. They are.
        Senator Capito. OK.
        And Mr. AV over there--I mean, West Virginia has a great AV
    law that we passed, but I wonder what you see the future--and I
    might be out of time, so--I actually am. Thank you.
        Because we have a vote. I better go.
        Mr. Farrah. Thank you.
        Senator Peters. Thank you. Senator Fischer, recognized for
    your questions.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Peters.
        Senator Capito, I have an answer to your question.
        Senator Capito. Well, good.
        Senator Fischer. You were asking, has there been any
    testing that's gone on about accidents and the safety there.
    Well, last year, the University of Nebraska conducted a first-
    of-its-kind crash assessment. They crashed an all-electric
    pickup truck against a standard highway guardrail to
    investigate the efficacy of current safety measures in light of
    the increased presence of heavier EVs.
        During the test, this EV plowed through the guardrail and
    traveled into the opposite lane of traffic. In January, a group
    of engineers warned that increasing EVs' weights, combined with
    reduced structural design requirements, will result in reduced
    infrastructure safety, especially for parking structures.
        So testing has been done. I assume there'll be more done in
    the future.
        You brought up also with trucks and the weight of trucks.
    Their batteries, obviously, are much, much heavier than 3,000
    or 4,000 pounds. So yes, there are a lot of research needs to
    be done there. Right.
        Let's see. Ms. Chace, a recent NHTSA report found that 20
    percent of the U.S. population lived in rural communities. And
    Senator Klobuchar addressed this about rural areas account for
    about 40 percent of all traffic fatalities. Nebraska, I am
    sorry to say, holds the second-highest ratio of rural to urban
    fatality rates in this country.
        You mentioned that rural areas have rumble bars. We do--you
    know, on our highways in Nebraska, have a number of those on
    every highway. It helps.
        You mentioned technology; you mentioned some infrastructure
    changes. But in the near term, do you have any ideas on
    upgrades that we could see for infrastructure that maybe could
    have some big safety gains there? I mean, it's very, very
    concerning when we see that continued growth in the percentage.
        Ms. Chace. Thank you for the question.
        Senator, I do think that rural areas, we know that they can
    benefit from Vehicle-to-Everything technologies. And this is
    technology that an agency, a state DOT, or other public agency,
    can deploy today. And there are grants available today through
    the Infrastructure Law to access these funds.
        But they can deploy these roadside units to be able to
    communicate with fleets and then other drivers, if they're
    deployed in the vehicles. They can provide curve speed warning
    alerts, right? if a vehicle is going too fast into a curve.
        Weather warning alerts. We've seen great success in Wyoming
    using primarily weather warning alerts, because it's--the
    freight corridor there has such spot weather impacts----
        Senator Fischer. Wind.
        Ms. Chace. Mm-hmm. And wind, and a risk of semis tipping
    over. So those--and actually they have a lot of data that shows
    that there has been significant reduction in crashes.
        So I think that's an important technology to be deploying
    and investing in today, understanding that some of the safety
    benefits will come immediately, and more will come in the long
    term, as this technology gets deployed more ubiquitously and
    scaled throughout the transportation system.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Mr. Nelson, I was interested to see that in your testimony
    you said that rising traffic fatalities correlate with drops in
    the enforcement of life-saving traffic safety laws. And you
    noted that citations for DUIs and other types of dangerous
    driving have decreased by as much as 50 percent in some
    regions.
        I noticed that you attributed much of this to the staffing
    challenges that law enforcement agencies are facing right now.
    And I have a bill that I hope the President will be signing. It
    recently passed the Senate and the House, and it addresses that
    staffing concern. It also contains a new GAO study to assess
    the law enforcement staffing crises at departments nationwide.
    And this includes the impacts this issue is having on public
    safety.
        Do you believe that traffic fatalities should be among the
    public safety impacts that my bill--hopefully soon, law--that
    study should evaluate? Is that something that once we get this
    signed, we can recommend that that be included?
        Mr. Nelson. Absolutely. Because I think we need to
    underscore the importance, the important role that law
    enforcement plays in enforcing proven life-saving laws.
    Research is crystal clear that when risk of perceived
    apprehension goes down, that risk-taking behaviors go up. And
    the International Association of Chiefs of Police did a survey
    of law enforcement agencies nationwide, confirming the concerns
    with staffing shortages, and tied it to negative perceptions of
    law enforcement profession overall throughout the United
    States.
        And so as I noted in my testimony, one of the ways that we
    can help address that is to offer more support to law
    enforcement through accessing better data, stop data, to
    increase transparency and to communicate to the communities
    that they serve and protect.
        Senator Fischer. Could I have my staff reach out to you for
    information on that, and some more ideas that we could
    hopefully help guide where the Committee will be looking, that
    study will be going then?
        Mr. Nelson. Senator, we would love that.
        Senator Fischer. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Nelson. Thank you.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Fischer. Well, we'll
    start a second round. I know there are a couple other members
    on their way here, but Senator Young will need to vote, so he
    needs to ask questions now. I'll defer to Senator Young and to
    your questions.
        Senator Young. Well, thanks for our amazing witnesses. I've
    already learned a lot today.
        You know, one of the things I'm struck by, Mr. Farrah, when
    we talk about autonomous vehicles is just not only the ability
    to save lives year-on-year, but it's also the amazing impact
    that they could have on changing the quality of life on
    countless individuals who today rely on friends, family, and
    others to drive them around their communities.
        Mr. Farrah, how will the development of AVs and their
    deployment impact the disabled, the blind, the elderly, and
    others that are unable to drive?
        Mr. Farrah. Senator, thank you so much for the question.
    This is something that's very near and dear to my heart, and we
    work very closely with a number of organizations that are in
    the spaces that you mentioned, because they're so interested in
    how AVs are going to be transformative for their communities.
        You mentioned the elderly. My grandmother's 94 years old.
    She hasn't driven in more than 10 years. She's completely
    reliant on, fortunately, the fact that she has sons and
    daughters that live locally, that can take her to places and do
    those things.
        Many people are not fortunate to have those situations.
    They have lost the liberation that comes with being able to
    drive. This is something where you can redeliver this to people
    that have had that be a fact of life.
        You also talked about the visually impaired. I think it's
    very important to note that you have massive amounts of
    underemployment and unemployment in the blind community,
    because they're not able to get to as many occupations as many
    other Americans are able to do. And so you look at
    organizations like the National Federation of the Blind that
    looks with great excitement toward autonomous vehicles, because
    this is an opportunity to be able to move around more freely,
    to be able to have, again, that independence that so many
    people take for granted.
        Senator Young. Thank you.
        Ms. Chace, I'm going to turn to you, in recognition of the
    fact that neither Congress nor the Executive Branch have
    provided regulatory standards for safely deploying autonomous
    vehicles. And I'd like to get your perspective on what impact
    the lack of a clear Federal standard has on state and local
    governments?
        Ms. Chace. Thank you for the question.
        So our state and local public agency members have expressed
    continued frustration with inaction, from NHTSA in particular,
    because what it's done is it's transferred the risk and
    responsibility for assessing the safety systems of these
    autonomous vehicles to the state and the localities. And that
    is decidedly a Federal role.
        And so there's great desire from the community, both public
    and private sector, for NHTSA to move forward with their AV
    safety framework, AV STEP, that was mentioned earlier.
        Senator Young. Thank you. I'm going to turn for my final
    question to Dr. Sandt, and it pertains to a type of
    infrastructure that's been around for generations.
        My dear mother lives in the town that is now known as the
    roundabout capital of the world, Carmel, Indiana. The City of
    Carmel, Indiana has installed roughly 150 roundabouts over the
    last 30 years. And while the city's population has quadrupled
    during that time--it's actually grown a lot more than that, but
    we're playing it safe. The conversion to roundabouts has
    resulted in a 47 percent reduction in injury crashes overall,
    and a 90 percent reduction in traffic fatalities.
        Additionally, the annual average amount of time saved in
    2020 was 5 days, or 120 hours per motorist, as roundabouts
    provide for increased flow without stopping.
        Dr. Sandt, can you talk about the safety benefits of
    roundabouts that not only improve roadway safety, but increase
    efficiency in our transportation network?
        Dr. Sandt. Thank you, Senator Young. Yes, it's fantastic to
    hear the success stories that you've had in Carmel, Indiana.
        I think roundabouts are one of a suite of success stories
    that we can claim with our speed management tools. With
    roundabouts, we see the research pointing to up to an 88
    percent reduction in severe and fatal injury crashes.
        And the key to roundabouts is that they really do reduce
    conflict points at those intersections, where injuries can be
    most severe. They reduce the approach speed so that we're
    managing that kinetic energy in our system. And as you said,
    they do reduce delay at intersections, and so they can have
    benefits beyond safety.
        But what's really fantastic about the roundabouts that
    we're seeing in the United States is that they have versatility
    of design in different contexts. So we've seen successes, for
    example, in school zones in Wisconsin; in Kansas DOT, they
    worked with their freight community to make roundabouts work
    for the trucking industry.
        And they really are a tool for safety and mobility.
        So thank you for sharing your story.
        Senator Young. Well, thank you very much, Doctor, for
    speaking to that question.
        And I'll tell the Chairman, because I know he's captivated
    by my inquiries related to roundabouts, that you can access a
    30-minute tutorial on roundabouts. If you go to the
    ``Freakonomics'' episode in which former Carmel Mayor Jim
    Brainard talks at great length about the safety benefits, about
    the fuel benefits, they are cheaper to maintain. So we're
    preaching the gospel in Carmel, Indiana. Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Peters. Well, very good. It sounds like must-see
    TV, so I will be sure to tune in.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Peters. Mr. Krassenstein and Mr. Nelson, I've got a
    question for both of you. If each of you could speak to
    potential improvements that you think we can make to the Safe
    Streets for All grant program to improve our community's
    ability to make the most of them? They've been out, but love to
    have your input as to how we can make them better. We'll start
    with you, Mr. Nelson.
        Mr. Nelson. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        One of the benefits of the SS4A grant program is that it
    targets communities. And one of the benefits of that is that if
    we're really serious about driving the number of highway
    fatalities in the Nation closer to zero, we need to follow the
    fatality data. And it's going to tell a story pretty quickly
    that it's predominantly in lower-income, underserved
    communities. One of the benefits of bringing these kinds of
    funds to the local community is addressing the very population
    that is bearing the predominant brunt of the highway safety
    problem.
        One of the ways that we can improve the SS4A grant is by
    improving the requirements on states and localities to engage
    in public engagement and participation. And so this is more
    than just a listening session of local residents. It's more
    about making sure that they understand what the safety
    experience is in their community, that they understand what the
    various infrastructure countermeasure solutions are available
    to them, and the considerations relative to each.
        And that their input about which of those countermeasures
    they would welcome most into the community I think should be
    adopted and implemented into sort of the outcome of that
    project. It's how we are going to build demand and support for
    these kinds of investments from the people who live in those
    communities, and we can foster more investment like this in the
    future.
        Senator Peters. Very good.
        Mr. Krassenstein.
        Mr. Krassenstein. Thank you for the question, Chairman.
        Well, to start, we are extremely supportive of the Safe
    Streets for All program, and I think that the current design
    for benefiting local governments is extremely important. So off
    the bat we're very happy that the program exists.
        In terms of changes we would propose to make to the Safe
    Streets for All program going forward, a couple things come to
    mind. I think one of the big opportunities is how do we
    incentivize collaboration between cities and other road
    jurisdiction owners that may not be eligible to apply.
        So in my testimony, I talked a lot about the value of state
    DOTs and the larger roads that they own. Right now, state DOTs
    are not eligible to be able to participate in the Safe Streets
    for All program, and I think that's a good thing.
        But I think where we need to get really creative is, well,
    our state DoTs also own the most dangerous streets.
        So knowing that they're not eligible to apply, and that
    there's still a match requirement where it's difficult for
    cities to justify spending its own dollars on someone else's
    roadway, I think we need to be really creative on how we
    address those larger arterial roads that right now fall outside
    of the purview of Safe Streets for All, unless you're applying
    on behalf of another jurisdiction.
        The second area that I would look at is whether or not that
    there is--I would look carefully at the balance between
    implementation funding, and the planning and demonstration
    project funding. I think both are incredibly valuable.
        But as more and more communities go forward and have safety
    action plans, I think it will be very important to have
    flexibility in how those planning and demonstration dollars can
    be spent to allow new safety countermeasures to be tried out,
    to be piloted, before doing a full-scale project.
        So I think between two of those, I think there's
    opportunity to do a little fine tweaking to an otherwise
    overall great program.
        Senator Peters. Right. Thank you.
        Dr. Sandt, you are an epidemiologist by training; and in
    your testimony, you discussed taking a public health approach
    to roadway safety in order to improve outcomes. So if you could
    please describe exactly what you mean by a ``public health
    approach,'' and specifically when it comes to how we improve
    both data collection as well as education related to roadway
    safety?
        Dr. Sandt. Yes, thank you for that question.
        In public health, I think the approach is very compatible
    with what we've been talking about with the Safe System
    approach. It means that we take a holistic and proactive
    approach to prevent and reduce the likelihood of risk of injury
    or any other negative health outcome.
        And another important parallel is that in public health, we
    follow what's known as the socioecological framework for much
    of our intervention development. And what that means is that we
    recognize that individual behaviors stem, and often are
    influenced by, a broader social environment and a broader
    environmental physical environment.
        And so we can change human health and human behavior by
    recognizing the systems in which the people are operating, and
    looking at those social and physical environments. And so by
    the Safe System approach, taking that holistic view, it's very
    much aligned with the approach that public health practitioners
    use for other health issues.
        With respect to your question around data, we see that the
    public health community offers tremendous resources and
    knowledge around how we can improve our injury data systems.
    There are a lot of complementary data sources from our health
    data sets, including our trauma registries, our emergency
    department data, our EMS data, that can really supplement the
    data that we collect from our law enforcement officers.
        We also see really great examples of timeliness in data
    collection within the public health community, and
    opportunities to link that data and really understand the
    nature of our risks.
        And with respect to the question about communications,
    public health does a fantastic job in many ways of engaging the
    community and having really strong messaging around health
    communications and health behaviors. And so that's a really
    great opportunity to coordinate and build partnerships with the
    transportation community as well.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Senator Markey, you're recognized for your questions.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        We've heard a lot today about how technology can
    potentially make cars safer. But we don't just need safe cars,
    we need safe streets not only for drivers, but for our
    pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit riders.
        These road users are particularly vulnerable. Just look at
    the numbers. In 1994, 21 percent of people killed in motor
    vehicle accidents were outside the vehicle. Twenty-one percent.
    In 2022, that number rose to 36 percent of those killed were
    outside the vehicle.
        Pedestrian death tolls tell a similar story. In 2011, 4,400
    pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles. In 2022, that number
    was 7,500 people.
        And that's why I introduced my Complete Streets Act. The
    bill mandates that all new construction along dangerous roads
    must include Complete Streets elements, like bicycle and
    pedestrian paths.
        Mr. Krassenstein, Detroit works hard to include Complete
    Street design elements in its road structure. Do you agree that
    we must prioritize Complete Streets at the Federal level in
    order to make our roads safer?
        Mr. Krassenstein. Thank you, Senator, for your question,
    for your support on road safety, and Complete Streets.
        Absolutely. I think that for any street design, having a
    context-appropriate Complete Street is critically important.
    That doesn't necessarily mean that the right solution is to put
    bike lanes on every single street, but to have the types of
    solutions that are appropriate for the road.
        So that could be looking at things to slow down traffic to
    allow pedestrians to cross safer. It could be using bike lanes
    in order to do traffic calming measures. Or it could just be
    like having painted crosswalks so that pedestrians can safely
    cross the street. I think there are a variety of types of
    countermeasures that can be used.
        But anything we can do to support the Complete Streets and
    safer streets-type actions on any new street, especially
    streets that receive Federal funding, I think is extremely
    valuable.
        Senator Markey. Excellent.
        Now I would like to pivot to another important topic,
    autonomous vehicle safety. Automakers are increasingly
    including new software in vehicles that can assist drivers with
    accelerating, braking, and turning. Yet these driver assistance
    features are only designed for use under certain road
    conditions, and with an alert driver behind the wheel.
        These features are especially dangerous when automakers
    give them misleading names that lull drivers into a false sense
    of security.
        The worst offender is, of course, Tesla, which has created
    an Autopilot mode that at best should be called semi-pilot. Mr.
    Farrah, in your view, do Tesla drivers generally understand
    that Autopilot mode can only be operated on certain roads, and
    requires active driver engagement? Or do they get misled into
    thinking they can just push the button and they can go to
    sleep?
        Mr. Farrah. Senator, thank you very much for the question.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, as well as my
    written statement, I think that it's imperative that we
    distinguish between driver-assist vehicles versus actual
    autonomous vehicles that are operating at Level 4. In the
    latter, the human, insofar as there's a human in the vehicle,
    has no responsibility for the dynamic driving task.
        When you do have a driver-assist feature, it is absolutely
    imperative that the driver understands what their obligations
    are. They need to be prepared to be able to take over at a
    moment's notice. Many people have had confusion that has led to
    a number of situations, and I certainly appreciate the spirit
    of what you're getting at.
        Senator Markey. Well, thank you. So that's why I've urged
    both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the
    Federal Trade Commission to investigate Tesla's misleading
    Autopilot system, and have directly demanded Tesla to stop
    using this dangerous branding.
        And I'd also like to discuss a critical safety issue with
    driver assistance features like Tesla's Autopilot and full
    autonomous vehicles. These systems can only be safely operated
    under certain conditions and in certain locations, such as
    highways in sunny weather.
        In the autonomous vehicle industry, these conditions are
    known as the Operational Design Domain, which identifies where
    and under what conditions a driving assistance feature like
    Tesla's Autopilot or a true autonomous vehicle can safely
    operate.
        By contrast, these automated features, or autonomous
    vehicles, are specifically not designed to be operated in other
    road conditions, such as dangerous winding roads with cross
    traffic.
        So again, Mr. Farrah, you represent many manufacturers who
    are testing full autonomous vehicles. Can those vehicles
    operate outside their Operational Driving Domain?
        Mr. Farrah. Senator Markey, again, thank you for that
    question.
        The state of the industry, the state of the technology
    right now, is that our members are operating at Level 4. That
    does mean, as you said, that they are confined to an
    Operational Design Domain. That is a set of safety limitations
    that are put on the vehicle, whether geographic or weather that
    you mentioned.
        Right now, those vehicles remain within the ODD. The ODD
    can be something like the City of San Francisco or the City of
    Phoenix and Scottsdale. It could be a stretch of highway for
    things like autonomous trucking. And that's where we are from a
    technology perspective, and we'll make sure that we continue to
    roll out the technology deliberately and safely.
        Senator Markey. Thank you. And should autonomous vehicles,
    or vehicles with driver assistance features engaged, be able to
    operate outside their Operational Design Domain, Mr. Farrah?
        Mr. Farrah. I cannot speak to the driver assistance
    features in terms of what it is, the state of the technology is
    there. I can only speak to Level 4 technology where our members
    are now.
        Senator Markey. Well, again, my view is that there's
    absolutely no reason that driving features like Tesla's
    Autopilot or full autonomous vehicles should be operating
    outside of their Operational Design Domain.
        Thank you for this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and thank all the
    witnesses for their expert testimony.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Markey.
        Senator Lujan, you're recognized for your questions.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Luja. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nelson, I wanted
    to start by thanking you for highlighting the importance of the
    HALT Act in your testimony. I was proud to work with a
    bipartisan coalition of colleagues, Senators Rick Scott,
    Shelley Moore Capito, and our Chairman, Senator Gary Peters,
    who is also a champion for road safety, to get this landmark
    provision included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
        Now once implemented, based on statistics that we see
    across the country, as many as 10,000 lives a year could be
    saved by the inclusion of this technology. Over the past few
    years, I've been encouraged to see industry partners stand up
    and become part of the solution to get impaired driving
    technology in vehicles.
        In December of last year, General Motors CEO Mary Barra
    said that technology to passively detect alcohol in cars
    exists, and that it's coming soon.
        At CES this year, Tier 1 automotive supplier Magna
    introduced their latest test car with new safety technology,
    combining a number of interior sensing technologies to detect
    driver impairment.
        Mr. Nelson, since the President signed the HALT Act into
    law in 2021, how has the technology available on the market
    changed?
        Mr. Nelson. Thank you for the question, Senator. And before
    I respond to your question, I want to, on behalf of the safety
    community and especially victims and survivors, thank you and
    your colleagues for getting HALT over the finish line.
        Relative to your question about how technology has evolved
    since implementation of the IIJA, to your point, these
    technologies existed already before the IIJA became law. But
    certainly the HALT making it into that legislation has spurred
    innovation.
        There's no question that the technology to make this
    happen, whether it be just alcohol or the passive detection of
    alcohol plus vehicle monitoring, are combined together. All of
    those options exist right now. OEMs are already working at ways
    to implement it.
        And NHTSA issuing its final rule is the only way we're
    going to make sure that we stop allowing 37 people to die on
    our roads in impaired driving crashes every day that it's
    delayed.
        Senator Lujan. So let me ask you a follow up to that,
    pertaining to the rule. Why is it so important that NHTSA issue
    their notice of public rulemaking by November 15, 2024?
        Mr. Nelson. Again, I think every day that we delay that
    rulemaking, we allow 37 people to die on our roads in impaired
    driving crashes. It's a life-or-death situation.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And having had--now have
    sat in many vehicles, including the test vehicles that Magna
    was showing, who's one of the largest suppliers to GM, if I'm
    not mistaken, it was impressive to me to see what people have
    already developed, and to positively learn the number of
    patents that have been filed by American auto manufacturers, as
    well as American major suppliers, is encouraging.
        That was one of the goals of this, was to encourage the
    market to respond to providing these solutions as well. So
    thank you very much for that as well.
        Now Ms. Chace, I appreciate you highlighting the importance
    of another key technology in transportation safety. Yes or no:
    will future innovations in transportation safety rely on
    technology like broadband to keep drivers and vulnerable road
    users safe?
        Ms. Chace. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        The answer is there's more than one way to communicate. So
    broadband is a key solution. But there's also dedicated
    spectrum for safety, critical collision avoidance, V2X
    communications. There's also wireless communication options.
    And particularly with advances in 5G technology and others,
    there are many ways to communicate core safety information to
    road users. Broadband is a key backbone of our system, but it's
    not the only way to communicate.
        Senator Lujan. Is broadband needed for wireless towers to
    work?
        Ms. Chace. Broadband is needed for ubiquitous communication
    and infrastructure.
        Senator Lujan. So I'm not trying to be cute here, but the
    way that I understand a tower that, well, that mobile phone
    providers depend on, there's fiber that goes to a tower, and
    then that tower has antennas, and it provides a canopy to
    coverage, things of that nature. So the hard wire to that
    tower, that's a necessity, correct?
        Ms. Chace. So I can't speak to the exact specifications of
    what's needed for a tower----
        Senator Lujan. OK, let me go on, then. The reason I'm
    asking this question--let me ask the question the way that you
    answered. If there's no connectivity in rural communities, is
    that going to prevent some of the benefits to accessing future
    roadway safety technologies?
        So if they don't have wireless, there's no broadband,
    there's no canopy in a rural community, do they get the benefit
    from the same technologies available in a big city that has
    robust connectivity with wireless providers or broadband
    canopies built by folks in the community?
        Ms. Chace. So those technologies need to be prioritized in
    rural areas, for sure. For more reasons just than
    transportation safety, of course. Right? There's significant
    economic and other benefits that come from having that type of
    connectivity.
        Those solutions will enhance some of the more modern
    technological advances in transportation safety. But there are
    solutions even right now.
        There's an example of an AI-based--a sensor- and an AI-
    based solution being used on an Indian reservation, Yakima
    Nation, who does not have robust connectivity. And they're able
    to then actually track and understand dangerous situations,
    near-misses and such, at an intersection using this contained
    solution that is not dependent on a broadband connection.
        So I would say to you there are additional ways to bring
    those solutions to rural communities. But I agree with you that
    broadband connectivity and cellular connectivity, building that
    out in the future to all of our communities, is important.
        Senator Lujan. And Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree that
    whether it's Lidar or other sensors participating with some AI
    sensor capability in a hard drive is going to help a rural
    community. The problem I have is all the other bells and
    whistles that require Internet access or wireless access? If
    there's not connectivity in the community, then they don't get
    that.
        And people living in rural communities deserve the same
    safety that's going to be in a vehicle in the biggest cities in
    America. That's the point that I was trying to make.
        And Mr. Chairman, if you'd indulge me quickly.
        Is it Mr. Farrah, Jeff? Farrah? Because of the question
    that Mr. Markey was asking with the Level 3 vehicles, which--if
    I'm correct with these things, when they're--that when it's a
    Level 3, it'll alert you if your hands aren't on the steering
    wheel at a certain state or something, like you have to touch
    it; or even with a Tesla, it says, ``OK, your session is turned
    off,'' you have to use your hands the whole time until you turn
    off the car, park it, and all the rest. Is that correct?
        Mr. Farrah. Senator, yes. We refer to that as ``conditional
    automation.''
        Senator Lujan. So is it legal or illegal for someone to buy
    a weight and strap it to a steering wheel in a Level 3 vehicle
    and let the thing drive itself?
        Mr. Farrah. Senator, I don't know the exact law. We don't
    represent manufacturers that do that. We're a Level 4, Level 5
    organization.
        Senator Lujan. So you don't represent all self-driving
    platforms of vehicles? Only Level 4, Level 5?
        Mr. Farrah. We represent truly autonomous vehicle
    companies, Level 4, Level 5----
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I'll say my question for
    someone else, Gary--or sorry, Mr. Chairman.
        The question I have is, it's my understanding now for folks
    that have Level 3 cars, that there are manufacturers that sell
    gizmos that hook onto a steering wheel--there are some people
    nodding head--yes, here. I'm not saying that they've done it.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Lujan. But you attach this thing to the steering
    wheel, and then the steering wheel thinks that your hand is on
    it. I don't know if that's good or bad. Someone found a
    loophole, and so they're selling these things.
        It's just something that the smart people should take a
    look at, is all that I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Peters. Very good. Well, thank you, Senator Lujan.
        And I want to thank each of our witnesses. Thank you for
    being here today. Thank you for taking time out of your busy
    schedules to provide testimony and help us work through these
    issues.
        The hearing record will remain open for four weeks. Any
    senators who wish to submit questions or statements for the
    hearing record should do so within two weeks, by June 4.
    Witnesses will then have two weeks or until June 18 to respond
    to the Committee questions.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                          Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
                                                           May 20, 2024

    Hon. Gary Peters, Chair,
    Hon. Todd Young, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
    Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, Freight and Ports,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Peters and Ranking Member Young:

        Thank you for holding tomorrow's hearing, ``Examining the Roadway
    Safety Crisis and Highlighting Community Solutions.'' With deaths and
    injuries on our Nation's roads at historically high levels, we urge the
    Subcommittee to advance proven solutions to enhance public safety.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) respectfully requests
    this letter be included in the hearing record.
    Motor Vehicle Crashes are a Devastating and Costly Public Health Crisis
        The carnage and expense borne from crashes on our roadways are at
    historic highs. On average, 116 people were killed every day on roads
    in the U.S. in 2022, totaling just over 42,500 fatalities.\1\ An
    additional 2.38 million people were injured.\2\ This represents a 29
    percent increase in deaths in just a decade.\3\ Early projections for
    2023 traffic fatalities remain at a similar level.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes in 2022, NHTSA, Apr.
    2024, DOT HS 813 560. (Overview 2022).
        \2\ Overview 2022.
        \3\ Traffic Safety Facts 2021: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash
    Data, NHTSA, Dec. 2023, DOT HS 813 527, (Annual Report 2021); and
    Overview 2022; [comparing 2013 to 2022].
        \4\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats, Early Estimate of Motor
    Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2023, NHTSA, Apr. 2024, DOT HS 813 561.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to vehicle occupants, other road users experienced
    upturns in deaths. Approximately 7,522 pedestrians and 1,105 bicyclists
    were killed in 2022, representing a one percent and 13 percent increase
    respectively, from 2021.\5\ In 2022, 6,218 motorcyclists were killed,
    accounting for 15 percent of all traffic fatalities.\6\ This is the
    highest number of motorcyclists killed since at least 1975.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Overview 2022.
        \6\ NHTSA, Motorcycle Safety, Overview, available at: https://
    www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/
    motorcycles#::text=Overview,killed%20since%20at%20least%201975.
        \7\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Conservatively, the annual economic cost of motor vehicle crashes
    is approximately $340 billion (2019 dollars).\8\ This means that every
    person living in the U.S. essentially pays an annual ``crash tax'' of
    over $1,000. Moreover, the total value of societal harm from motor
    vehicle crashes in 2019 was nearly $1.4 trillion.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
    2019, NHTSA, Dec. 2022, DOT HS 813 403. (Economic and Societal Impact
    2019).
        \9\ Economic and Societal Impact 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Safety Standards Have Saved Hundreds of Thousands of Lives
        The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
    estimated that between 1960 and 2012, over 600,000 lives have been
    saved by motor vehicle safety technologies.\10\ Advocates always has
    enthusiastically championed rulemaking for innovative vehicle safety
    technologies shown to prevent injuries and deaths because it is
    effective. In 1991, Advocates led the coalition that supported
    enactment of the bipartisan Intermodal Surface Transportation
    Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991\11\ which included a mandate for front
    seat airbags as standard equipment. As a result, by 1997, every new car
    sold in the United States was equipped with this technology and the
    lives saved have been significant. Airbags have saved an estimated
    50,457 lives from 1987 to 2017, according to NHTSA.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012, DOT HS 812 069
    (NHTSA, 2015); See also, NHTSA AV Policy, Executive Summary, p. 5
    endnote 1.
        \11\ Pub. L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991). Statistics are from the U.S.
    Department of Transportation unless otherwise noted.
        \12\ Traffic Safety Facts 2018, A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
    Crash Data, DOT HS 812 981, NHTSA (Nov. 2020).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Advocates continued to support proven lifesaving technologies as
    standard equipment in all vehicles in other Federal legislation and
    regulatory proposals. These efforts include: tire pressure monitoring
    systems;\13\ rear outboard 3-point safety belts;\14\ electronic
    stability control;\15\ rear safety belt reminder systems;\16\ brake
    transmission interlocks;\17\ safety belts on motorcoaches;\18\ rear-
    view cameras;\19\ safer power window switches;\20\ advanced driver
    assistance systems (ADAS);\21\ impaired driving prevention
    technology;\22\ enhanced vehicle hood and bumpers to better protect
    vulnerable road users;\23\ systems to address the issue of unattended
    children in vehicles;\24\ and, advanced head lamps.\25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
    Documentation (TREAD) Act, Pub. L. 106-414 (Nov. 1, 2000).
        \14\ Anton's Law, Pub. L. 107-318 (Dec. 4, 2002).
        \15\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
    Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005).
        \16\ Id.
        \17\ Id.
        \18\ Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act,
    Pub. L. 112-141 (Jan. 3, 2012).
        \19\ Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007,
    Pub. L. 110-189 (Feb. 28, 2008).
        \20\ Id.
        \21\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117-58 (Nov.
    15, 2021).
        \22\ Id.
        \23\ Id.
        \24\ Id.
        \25\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Requiring proven safety technologies as standard equipment in
    vehicles also promotes traffic safety equity for new car buyers, the
    next generation of used car buyers, other vehicle occupants and road
    users outside the vehicle when the rulemaking includes them, as it
    should when applicable. Rulemaking accelerates fleet penetration and
    amplifies the safety benefits of the technology while curbing its cost
    due to economies of scale.
        Advocates also publishes an annual Roadmap to Safety report. This
    comprehensive tool provides a guide for communities, state
    legislatures, governors, Congress, and the U.S. Department of
    Transportation (DOT) on how to reverse the trend of skyrocketing deaths
    and injuries on U.S. roads.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Must be Implemented
            with Expediency and Thoroughness
        Commonsense solutions were advanced by the Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation during the consideration of the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).\26\ These include
    provisions and robust appropriation levels to advance the Safe System
    Approach (SSA) and Complete Streets which undertake a holistic method
    to improve safety for all in the roadway environment. Vehicle safety
    technology and roadway infrastructure improvements designed to upgrade
    safety have great potential to complement each other and
    collaboratively save lives. For example, the IIJA authorizes safety
    upgrades to the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) which will
    help to protect vulnerable road users, such as infrastructure features
    that calm traffic and reduce vehicle speeds, separate road users to
    minimize conflicts, and deter dangerous driving. It also includes
    provisions requiring automatic emergency braking (AEB) for passenger
    motor vehicles and large trucks.\27\ According to the Insurance
    Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), AEB has the capability to reduce
    car front-to-rear crashes with injuries by 56 percent and large truck
    front-to-rear crashes by 41 percent.\28\ NHTSA estimates that requiring
    AEB on light vehicles will save at least 362 lives and mitigate 24,321
    non-fatal injuries annually.\29\ In addition to curbing the physical
    and emotional toll on families, the ripple effect of crash reductions
    is wide-ranging and results in less damage to infrastructure, less
    congestion caused by crashes, less crash related costs, and less
    expenditure of first responder and health care resources, among others.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
        \27\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 24208 (2021).
        \28\ IIHS, Real World Benefits of Crash Avoidance Technologies
    (Dec. 2020).
        \29\ 89 FR 39686, 39687 (May 9, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While Advocates lauds NHTSA for recently issuing a Final Rule that
    requires passenger vehicles be equipped with an AEB system that detects
    pedestrians, the agency must promptly complete the rulemaking requiring
    AEB on heavy vehicles as well as other required rules to save lives and
    meet the deadlines set by Congress.\30\ These include rulemakings
    involving advanced impaired driving technology; systems to address the
    issue of unattended children in vehicles leading to pediatric
    heatstroke; technology to curb driver distraction and automation
    complacency; lane departure warning and lane keeping assist systems;
    adaptive driving beam headlamps; upgrades to hoods and bumpers to
    better protect vulnerable road user safety; updates to the New Car
    Assessment Program (NCAP); seat belts for limousine passengers;
    strengthening seatback safety standards; and, automatic shutoff and
    keyless ignition systems. Additionally, numerous safety rulemakings
    mandated by Congress in laws preceding the IIJA are exceedingly
    overdue.\31\ Advocates looks forward to working with the Subcommittee
    and the U.S. DOT to optimize safety outcomes in a robust, expeditious
    and equitable manner.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ 89 FR 39686 (May 9, 2024).
        \31\ See Attachment A.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additional Safety Solutions Must be Advanced
        Several bills introduced in this Congress would help address the
    unacceptable death and injury toll on our Nation's roads and should be
    enacted without delay. These include: Booster Seat Safety Act (H.R.
    607); Complete Streets Act (S. 3670/H.R. 7082); DOT Victim and Survivor
    Advocate Act; End DWI Act (H.R. 8213); Mail Traffic Deaths Reporting
    Act (HR 7527); Pedestrian Hazard, Awareness and Safety Expansion
    (PHASE) Act (HR 6111); Save Our Pedestrians Act of 2024 (H.R. 7191);
    School Bus Safety Act (S. 2746); Shielding All Federal Employees and
    Consumers from Actionable Recall Situations (SAFE CARS) Act (H.R. 799);
    Used Car Safety Recall and Repair Act (S. 4053); and, She Develops
    Regulations In Vehicle Equality and Safety (She DRIVES) Act.
        There are additional actions that Congress can take to address the
    public safety crisis on our Nation's roads. These include directing
    NHTSA to require promising vehicle safety technologies including blind
    spot detection (BSD), intelligent speed assistance (ISA) and rear AEB
    with cross traffic alert on all new vehicles. Moreover, AEB systems
    that can detect and respond to vulnerable road users such as bicyclists
    can help to mitigate and prevent additional crashes. The IIJA permitted
    Federal funding for automated enforcement (speed and red-light cameras)
    in work and school zones.\32\ Congress should continue to encourage the
    use of this technology to address dangerous driving behaviors. Further,
    drugged impaired driving poses a significant threat to roadway users.
    Establishing roadside testing technology, accelerating research to
    determine a causal link and a standard for cannabis impaired driving,
    and substantial funding for law enforcement training can all help to
    address this deeply concerning and growing issue.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 24102 (2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Unfortunately, several misguided measures introduced in this
    Congress would harm public safety and thus, should not become law.
    These include: No Kill Switches in Cars Act (HR 6563); the MOVE Act (HR
    7496); Safer Highways and Increased Performance for Interstate Trucking
    (SHIP IT) Act (H.R. 471); Ceasing Age-Based (CAB) Trucking Restrictions
    Act (H.R. 267); Deregulating Restrictions on Interstate Vehicles and
    Eighteen Wheelers (DRIVE) Act (H.R. 3039); Licensing Individual
    Commercial Exam-takers Now Safely and Efficiently (LICENSE) Act (S.
    1649/H.R. 3013); and, Safe Routes Act of 2023 (S. 1818/H.R. 2493).
    Experimental Autonomous Driving Technology Remains Unproven
        In stark contrast to the effectiveness of Federal standards and
    proven safety technology, cars equipped with automated driving system
    (ADS) technology, which includes autonomous vehicles (AV) and is
    unregulated, have been involved in numerous serious and deadly crashes.
        Many of these incidents have been subject to investigation by the
    National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and NHTSA. Recently, NHTSA
    has announced investigations of Tesla's Autopilot System, Ford's Blue
    Cruise and the autonomous vehicle operations of Waymo and Zoox.\33\
    Furthermore, according to data collected by NHTSA's Standing General
    Order (SGO) 2021-1 requiring manufacturers to report certain crashes
    involving vehicles equipped with automated driving systems (ADS) or SAE
    Level 2 ADAS, approximately 598 crashes have involved ADS and 1,444
    have involved ADAS. These include 33 crashes resulting in a
    fatality.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Tom Krisher, US probes whether Tesla Autopilot recall did
    enough to make sure drivers pay attention, AP Apr. 26, 2024). Natalie
    Neysa Alund, Mike Snider, Feds open preliminary investigation into
    Ford's hands-free driving tech BlueCruise, USA Today (Apr, 29, 2024);
    Peter Valdes-Dapena, Waymo and Zoox are under Federal investigation as
    self-driving cars allegedly behave erratically, CNN (May, 14, 2024).
        \34\ Totals by severity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, several San Francisco transportation agencies
    submitted comments to the California Public Utilities Commission last
    year detailing numerous dangerous incidents involving AVs operating in
    the city.\35\ These events include:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ San Francisco Comments to the Draft Resolution Approving
    Authorization for Waymo Autonomous Vehicle Passenger Service Phase I
    Driverless Deployment Program, R.12-12-011 (May 31, 2023). Available
    at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://
    sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SF-Comments-on-Waymo.pdf.

       Interfering with emergency response operations including 18
            incidents documented by the San Francisco Fire Department in
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            which AVs put firefighters and the public at risk.

       Making planned and unplanned stops in travel lanes that have
            interfered with transit service and blocked traffic.

       Intrusions into construction zones where City employees were
            working.

       Obstructions caused by AVs having to interpret and respond
            to human traffic control officers.

       Erratic driving.\36\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ Id. at pgs. 9-11.

        What San Francisco has been experiencing must not be replicated
    across the Nation by continuing to allow for the proliferation of AVs
    that do not comply with any Federal safety regulations setting minimum
    performance standards for the driverless technology and related
    systems. Many promises have been touted about AVs bringing reductions
    in motor vehicle crashes and resultant deaths and injuries, lowering
    traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, expanding mobility and
    accessibility, improving efficiency, and creating more equitable
    transportation options and opportunities. However, as Transportation
    Secretary Buttigieg and others within the auto industry have
    acknowledged, these outcomes are far from certain.\37\ Last week,
    Secretary Buttigieg also noted that AVs need to be held to a higher
    standard, ``The standard should be, don't just be as good as a human
    driver. Be much, much better.'' \38\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ Nilay Patel and Andrew J. Hawkins, Pete Buttigieg is Racing to
    Keep Up with Self Driving Cars. The Verge (Jan. 6, 2022); Rebecca
    Fannin, Where the billions spent on autonomous vehicles by U.S. and
    Chinese giants is heading, CNBC (May 23, 2022).
        \38\ Keith Laing, Bloomberg News, ``Pete Buttigieg Says Robotaxis
    Must Become Safer Drivers Than Humans,'' May 16, 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Supporters of AVs often assert that these vehicles will improve
    roadway safety by inaccurately stating that 94 percent of crashes are
    due to human error pointing to a report from NHTSA as support for this
    misleading claim. However, the agency stated in the same document with
    this statistic that ``[a]lthough the critical reason is an important
    part of the description of events leading up to the crash, it is not
    intended to be interpreted as the cause of the crash nor as the
    assignment of the fault to the driver, vehicle, or environment
    (emphasis added).'' \39\ In addition, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy has
    declared that using the statistic in such a manner is ``dangerous'' and
    ``[a]t the same time it relieves everybody else of responsibility they
    have for improving safety, including DOT.'' \40\ Proponents of AVs also
    have made the claim that these vehicles will prevent 90 percent of
    crash fatalities.\41\ Yet, there is no credible research cited
    supporting such an assertion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ Singh, S. (2015, February). Critical reasons for crashes
    investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey.
    (Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 115).
    Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
        \40\ Hope Yen and Tom Krisher, NTSB chief to fed agency: Stop using
    misleading statistics, Associated Press (Jan. 1 8. 2022).
        \41\ Iyad Rahwan and Azim Shariff, Self-Driving Cars Could Save
    Many Lives. But Mental Roadblocks Stand in the Way. Wall Street Journal
    (Apr. 6, 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In sharp contrast to what is happening in the U.S., other countries
    are taking a more calculated, careful, and cautious approach to the
    development of AVs.\42\ Often-repeated claims about the U.S. ``falling
    behind'' other countries in the ``race'' for AVs are simply not true
    nor supported by research. For example:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ Autonomous vehicles: cross jurisdictional regulatory
    perspectives update, Oct. 7, 2022.

       China continues to require permits or restricts operations
            of AVs on its roads to only those areas approved by the
            authorities.\43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ China drafts rules on use of self-driving vehicles for public
    transport; Aug. 8, 2022, Reuters; and Baidue bags China's first fully
    driverless robotaxi licenses, Aug. 7, Reuters. Real driverless cars are
    now legal in Shenzhen, China's tech hub, Jul. 25, 2022, TechCrunch+.

       Germany continues to require permits, approvals, and limits
            areas of operation for AVs.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ Germany completes legal framework for autonomous driving |
    Federal Cabinet approves new ordinance, Apr. 2022, Malterer, M.

       In Japan, the introduction of Level 4 vehicles is controlled
            and limited to specific areas, operations, and oversight.\45\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ Japan to open roads to autonomous vehicles in 2023, Nov. 28,
    2022, Wessling, B., The RobotReport.

       The latest United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
            (UNECE) regulations limit operations to restrict risks and
            oversee approval through testing and other requirements.\46\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ New rules to improve road safety and enable fully driverless
    vehicles in the EU, Jul. 6, 2022, UNECE.

        In sum, no country is selling fully automated vehicles for
    unfettered use to the public and by many accounts, none will be for a
    significant amount of time.\47\ According to the most recent KPMG
    analysis, the U.S. ranks fourth in the world for AV readiness, while
    China stands at number twenty. In sum, the U.S. is not lagging other
    countries in allowing AVs to go to market, but we are behind in
    establishing comprehensive regulations to ensure public safety will not
    be jeopardized or diminished.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \47\ Lawrence Ulrich, Driverless Still a Long Way From Humanless,
    N.Y. Times (Jun. 20, 2019); Level 5 possible but ``way in the future'',
    says VW-Ford AV boss, Motoring (Jun. 29, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Considering the current inadequate performance of partial
    automation and fully autonomous technologies, it is unsurprising that
    the public has significant concerns. In February 2023, Advocates
    commissioned a public opinion poll which found that 83 percent of
    respondents were concerned with sharing the road with driverless cars.
    This number increased to 86 percent of respondents regarding driverless
    trucks.\48\ Yet, 64 percent of respondents indicated that their
    concerns would be addressed if the vehicles were required to meet
    minimum government standards.\49\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \48\ ENGINE'S CARAVAN SURVEY, Public Concern About Driverless Cars
    and Trucks (Feb. 2023).
        \49\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Autonomous Driving Technology Policy: Protecting Public Safety Must be
            First and Foremost
        Currently, AVs are being tested throughout the country, and
    companies are collecting data on their performance every day. AVs used
    solely for testing do not have to comply with current FMVSS, including
    those that provide occupant protection.\50\ Additionally, companies
    already can apply for exemptions from FMVSS.\51\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ 49 USC 30112(b)(10).
        \51\ 49 CFR 555.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Any Federal legislation that is advanced by Congress likely will
    set AV policy for decades to come and must include minimum standards to
    improve safety on our Nation's roads before these vehicles are sold in
    the marketplace. In the meantime, it is essential that NHTSA continues
    to collect and evaluate the data obtained through the SGO involving
    these technologies, as well as improve the reporting requirements in
    the SGO as enumerated in letters from members of Congress to the U.S.
    DOT.\52\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \52\ Letter from Reps. Schakowsky, Castor and Trahan to NHTSA
    Acting Administrator Ann Carlson (Feb. 28, 2023); Letter from Reps.
    Mullin, Eshoo, Pelosi, Diaz Barragan, Lee, DeSaulnier, Carson, Doggett,
    Peters and Carbajal to NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman (Apr.
    11, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, state and local regulatory action on AVs, even though
    the Federal government has not taken regulatory action, must not be
    prohibited. As the incidents noted above in San Francisco demonstrate,
    fundamental and commonsense safeguards must be instituted for testing
    on public roads including the establishment of independent
    institutional review boards to certify the safety of the protocols and
    procedures for testing of AVs on public roads.
        To identify a people-and-safety-first path forward on AVs,
    Advocates and numerous stakeholders developed the ``AV Tenets,'' These
    sound and sensible policy positions should be a foundational part of
    any national AV policy. The AV Tenets are based on expert analysis,
    real-world experience, and public opinion. They have four main
    categories including: 1) prioritizing safety of all road users; 2)
    guaranteeing accessibility and equity; 3) preserving consumer and
    worker rights; and, 4) ensuring local control and sustainable
    transportation. They are supported by a coalition of more than 65
    organizations representing consumers, public health and safety experts,
    pedestrians, bicyclists, disability rights activists, emergency
    responders, law enforcement, labor and others. Requiring that AVs meet
    minimum performance standards, including for cyber security, and that
    operations are subject to adequate oversight, including a comprehensive
    database accessible by vehicle identification number (VIN) with basic
    safety information, are fundamental prerequisites and will save lives
    and boost consumer confidence in this burgeoning technology.
    Conclusion
        Thank you for your consideration of these critically important
    issues. All levels of government can and must do more to protect all
    road users by implementing the proven solutions afforded by a Safe
    Systems Approach. Conversely, any legislation to erode current safety
    protections must be rejected. As always, we are ready and willing to be
    of assistance to you in furtherance of our shared goal of improving
    safety.
                Sincerely,
                                               Catherine Chase,
                                                             President.
    cc: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation
                                     ______

                      OVERDUE & AT-RISK SAFETY REGULATIONS
        Statutory deadlines to issue final rules are in red.
        All dates provided by agency for rulemaking actions are per the
    Fall 2023 Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda and February 2024 Significant
    Rulemaking Report.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
       Rear Seat Belt Reminders (DUE--October 1, 2015)

         Advocates and Public Citizen filed Petition for
                Rulemaking on November 21, 2007.

         NHTSA issued Request for Comments on Petition on June
                29, 2010.

         Mandated in MAP-21 (Sec. 31503).

         Final Rule to be issued 3 years from date of
                enactment--October 1, 2015.

         NHTSA granted Petition and issued ANPRM on September
                27, 2019.

         NHTSA issued NPRM on September 7, 2023.

       Improved Child LATCH Restraint System (DUE--October 1, 2015)

         Mandated in MAP-21 (Sec. 31502).

         Final Rule to be issued 3 years from date of
                enactment--October 1, 2015.

         NHTSA issued NPRM on January 23, 2015.

         NHTSA estimated that a Final Rule would be issued in
                December 2023.

       Crash Avoidance Technologies on Vehicle Label (DUE--December
            4, 2016)

         Mandated in FAST Act (Sec. 24322).

         Congressional deadline for issuance of Final Rule--
                December 4, 2016.

         NHTSA estimated that a NPRM will be issued in 2023.

       Motorcoach Anti-Ejection Countermeasures (DUE--October 1,
            2014)

         Mandated in MAP-21 (Sec. 32703(b)(2)).

         Congressional deadline for issuance of Final Rule--
                October 1, 2014.

         Final Rule requiring seat belts on intercity buses
                issued in November 2013.

         NPRM issued regarding emergency exits, window
                retention and release and glazing for portals on May 6,
                2016.

         NHTSA estimates that a Final Rule will be issued in
                June 2024.

       Notification of Vehicle Safety Recalls Via E-mail (DUE--
            August 29, 2016)

         Mandated in FAST Act (Sec. 24104).

         Congressional deadline for issuance of Final Rule--
                August 29, 2016.

         NHTSA issued NPRM on September 1, 2016.

         NHTSA estimated that a Supplemental NPRM would be
                issued in April 2024.

       Corporate Responsibility For NHTSA Reports (DUE--December 4,
            2016)

         Mandated in FAST Act (Sec. 24112).

         NHTSA estimated that a NPRM would be issued in
                November 2023.

       Retention of Safety Records by Manufacturers (DUE--June 4,
            2017)

         Mandated in FAST Act (Sec. 24403).

         Congressional deadline for issuance of Final Rule--
                June 4, 2017.

         NHTSA issued NPRM on May 15, 2019.

         NHTSA estimated that a Supplemental NPRM would be
                issued in December 2023.
    Joint NHTSA/FMCSA Rulemakings
       Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters

         Grant of Petition for Rulemaking--Mar. 18, 2011.

         NPRM was issued on August 26, 2016.

         FMCSA issued Supplemental ANPRM on May 4, 2022

         FMCSA estimates that Supplemental NPRM will be issued
                in May 2024.
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
       New Entrant Assurance Process Proficiency Exam (DUE--April
            1, 2014)

         Congress originally sought action in Sec. 210 of the
                1999 MCSIA.

         FMCSA published an ANPRM in 2009.

         MAP-21 (Sec. 32101(b)) requires a final rule be issued
                in 18 months--by April 1, 2014.

         FMCSA estimates that Supplemental ANPRM will be issued
                in July 2024.
    Rulemakings Withdrawn
       Mandatory Event Data Recorder Requirements

         NHTSA initiated rulemaking on Feb. 22, 2011.

         NPRM issued on Dec. 13, 2012.

         Rulemaking withdrawn February 8, 2019.

       State Inspection of Passenger Carrying Vehicles

         Mandated in MAP-21 (Sec. 32710).

         Requires FMCSA complete rulemaking to consider
                requiring states to annually inspect passenger carrying
                vehicles.

         ANPRM published in April 2016.

         Rulemaking withdrawn May 1, 2017.

         RFC on withdrawal issued on May 10, 2022.

       Evaluation of Drivers for Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA)

         FMCSA was considering regulatory actions that address
                the safety risks associated with drivers afflicted with
                non-treated OSA.

         ANPRM was issued on March 10, 2016.

         Rulemaking withdrawn August 8, 2017.
                                     ______

                             Alliance for Automotive Innovation
                                           Washington, DC, May 21, 2024

    Hon. Gary Peters,
    Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, Freight, and Ports,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Todd Young,
    Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, Freight, and Ports,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Peters and Ranking Member Young,

        As you know, in 2023, almost 41,000 people died on American
    roadways. While we are grateful that the number of deaths on our
    roadways is slowly decreasing after an increase during the pandemic,
    our goal remains to reduce this number to zero. As the leading voice of
    the auto industry, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto
    Innovators) appreciates the Subcommittee's focus on ``Examining the
    Roadway Safety Crisis and Highlighting Community Solutions''.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Auto Innovators is the singular, authoritative, and respected
    voice of the automotive industry, representing motor vehicle
    manufacturers responsible for nearly 98 percent of cars and light
    trucks sold in the U.S., original equipment suppliers, technology
    companies, and others within the automotive ecosystem.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Advocates, academics, and experts all recognize that a safe system
    approach to roadway safety is the best way to address the epidemic of
    roadway deaths. That system has five components: Safer Vehicles, Safer
    People, Safer Speeds, Safer Roads, and Safer Post Crash Care. This is a
    holistic approach to a complicated and multifaceted problem.
        Automakers and automotive suppliers are doing their part to develop
    and advance innovations that make vehicles safer for occupants and
    other road users.
        Our members continue to develop life-saving crash avoidance and
    crash worthiness technologies. This includes safety innovations such as
    seat belts, air bags, Automated Emergency Braking, camera-and GPS-based
    systems to detect speed limits and alert drivers if they exceed the
    posted speed limit, lane departure warnings, and lane keeping assist.
    Without these technologies in vehicles, deaths and serious injuries on
    our roads would be significantly higher.
        However, vehicles must also operate within a system which, in some
    cases, is not designed with the safety of drivers, passengers, or
    vulnerable road users (pedestrians or cyclists) in mind. The traffic
    system may have poor signage or lighting, deteriorating or non-existent
    lane markings, or lack sidewalks or cycling lanes.
        In addition, the vehicles must operate in a system where speed
    limits, reckless driving, or impaired driving may not be always
    enforced. The vehicles are operated by individuals who may not be fully
    informed about the safety technologies on their vehicles or on other
    vehicles. This problem requires all of us--local, state and Federal
    government, manufacturers and roadway users--to do our part to improve
    the system for roadway safety. Auto Innovators applauds the
    Subcommittee for focusing on this crucial topic. There is a public
    health crisis on our Nation's roadways. Only by working together to
    create a safe system will we be able to achieve a roadway system with
    zero deaths.
                Sincerely,
                                               Garrick Francis,
                                     Vice President of Federal Affairs.
                                     ______

                              American Motorcyclist Association
                                           Washington, DC, May 21, 2024
    Chairman Gary Peters and Ranking Member Todd Young:

        Autonomous vehicle (AV) safety remains a significant concern for
    road users. Rulemaking from the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT)
    continues to sacrifice safety for technological flexibility. Further,
    these agencies often reject pressure from manufacturers to bring
    products to market without adequate testing.
        The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) has worked on the issue
    of autonomous vehicles with Congress and Federal agencies since the
    1990s. Most recently, the AMA connected with NHTSA during rulemaking on
    the New Car Assessment Program and Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB).
    In 2015, the AMA submitted comments to NHTSA regarding implementing
    automatic emergency braking into its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
    These comments outlined concerns for NHTSA, including tests with
    motorcycles, size and weight calculations, and acceptable standards for
    AEB systems registering motorcycles. In 2022, the AMA again engaged
    with NHTSA on the NCAP AEB issue to outline motorcycle fatality data
    and urge NHTSA to include motorcycles in testing these systems.
        Throughout this rulemaking process, NHTSA admits it ``does not have
    data on how AEB systems would respond to other vehicle types such as
    heavy vehicles or motorcycles.'' Despite Congress allowing NHTSA to
    determine the appropriate effective date for this requirement, the
    agency moved forward without guaranteeing AEB technology will not
    negatively impact motorcyclists.
        Overreliance on autonomous systems that integrate Advance Drive-
    Assistance Systems (ADAS)--along with advertising that fails to make
    the limitations of these features clear to drivers--is to blame for the
    dangerous situations we see on the road today. Tragic crashes are often
    a result of driver overconfidence in the capability of autonomous
    systems to react. This technology also contributes to the increase in
    distracted driving accidents when operators allow the vehicle to assume
    the driving tasks. The rush to market AV technology creates concerns
    regarding readiness for real-world driving scenarios. Autopilot systems
    are under scrutiny, with Federal investigations initiated following
    issues involving autonomous systems in Tesla, Ford, Zoox and Waymo
    vehicles.
        Recently, the Washington Post reported that according to NHTSA
    data, there have been 17 fatal incidents, five serious injuries and 736
    crashes involving Tesla vehicles operating in Autopilot mode since
    2019. Additional data from July 2021 to April 2023 by NHTSA from
    manufacturers show 281 crashes involving automated driving systems and
    916 with ADAS. These include 21 crashes resulting in a fatality. These
    incidents highlight the challenge of ensuring driver attention given
    the limits of available technology. These systems must have the ability
    to identify and respond to various road conditions, including the
    presence of emergency vehicles.
        AMA President and CEO Rob Dingman recognizes the potential of AV
    technology to enhance safety but expressed concerns about the rush to
    market without ensuring the highest safety standards throughout the
    development and implementation process.
        ``It is astounding that, despite clear and sensible safety
    recommendations and countless concerns raised by a large variety of
    stakeholders calling for regulations on this technology, it has taken a
    slew of recent accidents involving first responders to finally prompt
    the NHTSA to look at the severity of the issue,'' Dingman said.
        ``The AMA and its Board believe that this technology can bring a
    greater measure of safety to motorcyclists and drivers, but we remain
    greatly concerned that the rush to market of driver-assist systems,
    semi-autonomous vehicles and highly-automated vehicles poses a
    significant threat to motorcyclists when the developers of this
    technology and the vehicle manufacturers are not held to the highest
    safety standards throughout the entire development and implementation
    process,'' Dingman added.
        There are currently approximately 9 million registered motorcycles
    in the U.S. The AMA feels strongly that AV legislation must include
    comprehensive safety standards, appropriate Federal government
    oversight and industry accountability. At a minimum, performance
    standards must include requirements that ensure driverless vehicles can
    properly identify and respond to roadway surroundings. This includes
    other cars, motorcycles, pedestrians and cyclists, and road markings
    and traffic signs.
        We recommend, at minimum, proposed autonomous vehicle legislation
    include the following:

       Rulemaking--Set new standards specific to seeing, detecting
            and properly reacting to motorcycles;

       Testing--Ensure motorcycles are part of testing and
            development procedures;

       Advisory committees--Public user advisory committees should
            include a representative from the motorcycle community and a
            manufacturer or a separate motorcycle-specific advisory
            committee;

       Consumer education--Require a public, easily accessible, and
            searchable database where consumers can look up important
            safety information such as the limitations and capabilities of
            different products offered by AV manufacturers or service
            providers, as well as clarifications for marketing terms such
            as autopilot, super cruise, etc. For example, the database
            should inform consumers what each relevant automakers' systems
            AutoPilot can and cannot do in terms of the driving task;

       Safety Evaluation Reports--AV manufacturers must be required
            to detail and make public how their vehicles identify
            motorcycles among other road users. Manufacturers must also
            include human error analysis in safety reports;

       Crash data/reporting--AV manufacturers must report incidents
            between AVs and motorcycles just as they would incidents
            between AVs and other road users. Manufacturers must also
            include human error analysis in crash data and reporting.

        As the landscape of transportation evolves with the introduction of
    AV technology, addressing concerns surrounding safety, regulatory
    oversight and inclusion of motorcycles is paramount. Collaborative
    efforts between stakeholders, Federal agencies and advocacy groups are
    essential to mitigate risks and ensure the safe integration of AVs into
    the transportation ecosystem. Comprehensive data collection and
    analysis, along with proactive regulatory measures, are vital to
    fostering public trust and ensuring the safety of all road users amidst
    the advancement of AV technology. Considering motorcycles in regulatory
    frameworks and testing procedures is crucial for enhancing road safety
    and preventing potential hazards associated with AV technology. The AMA
    urges legislators and Federal agencies to prioritize motorcycle safety
    in AV policy and guidelines.
        Founded in 1924, the AMA is a nonprofit organization with 214,000+
    members and represents more than 10 million motorcycling households in
    America. Our mission is to promote the motorcycle lifestyle and protect
    the future of motorcycling.
                                     ______

                                      National League of Cities
                                           Washington, DC, May 21, 2024

    Hon. Maria Cantwell,
    Chair,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Ted Cruz,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Cruz:

        On behalf of America's 19,000 cities, towns, and villages, the
    National League of Cities (NLC), greatly appreciates the Committee's
    leadership in supporting the safety improvements in the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) such as the Safe Streets and Roads for
    All (Safe Streets) program and the Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE)
    program. Thank you for hosting today's hearing, Examining the Roadway
    Safety Crisis and Highlighting Community Solutions, to explore how we
    can continue to work together to address our Nation's transportation
    safety issues. Local governments of all sizes and states applaud your
    focus and commitment to transportation safety.
        America loses more than 100 people each day in traffic crashes
    which is why NLC has committed to work to highlight safety improvements
    with local elected officials through our safety challenge, Federal
    application bootcamps, and extensive training sessions. With the Safe
    Streets program now available, local governments are able to honor the
    more than 44,000 lives lost last year by applying to be part of a
    national movement to solve this challenge that touches every state.
    While the Safe Streets program is a relatively small funding program by
    comparison to Federal highway safety programs, the 663 local
    governments who are participating in the Safe Streets program continue
    to share the significant value of solving safety challenges on all of
    the road network and working alongside state and Federal transportation
    partners to continue to reduce crashes and deaths nationally through a
    safe system approach.
        It is notable that among the IIJA programs, the Safe Streets grants
    have attracted many smaller, disadvantaged, and mid-sized communities
    who are fiscally conscientious with their budgets and Federal grants.
    While local governments do not all have the same resources, we must
    reiterate strongly that having substantial resources to navigate the
    Federal maze of contracts and obligations should not be a prerequisite
    to partnering with the Federal government to meet a national need.
    Otherwise, Federal policy will continue to leave out a lot of pockets
    of America that need balanced resources the most. Congress proved that
    balance was possible when they utilized streamlined processes for the
    Treasury's State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds which has contributed
    greatly to U.S. economic stability today. NLC continues to welcome
    bipartisan bills like Sen. Peters, Lankford, Cornyn, Braun and
    Sinema's--S.2286--Streamlining Federal Grants Act of 2023--which will
    improve the Federal administrative burden of applications to accomplish
    Congress' objectives. NLC also continues to highlight the need for
    Congress' support for the Federal technical assistance support
    programs, such as the Thriving Communities program, and
    intergovernmental outreach efforts to connect with communities
    consistently and directly.

        As with all sectors, technology offers great promise for
    transportation safety, but NLC must request this Committee's oversight
    of safety challenges in both semi-autonomous vehicles today and future
    autonomous vehicles (AVs) as well as your support for National Highway
    Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) staff capacity to address
    this expanding area. The current environment of AVs on the road
    injuring pedestrians, hitting buses, and disrupting emergency personnel
    makes it abundantly clear that more safety checks are needed.
    Deployment of AVs could move faster and more safely with collaborative
    testing relationships with cities and regions that enhance mobility
    options while reducing emissions, crashes and congestion. Local
    officials widely support a competitive American economy that embraces
    technology like AVs, but we must integrate them in a manner that
    ensures safe operations if we want to reduce road deaths and injuries.
        NLC thanks the Committee for creating the Rail Crossing Elimination
    program and also for passing the Railway Safety Act of 2023 (S.576) out
    of Committee swiftly. America's cities, small towns, governors,
    counties, first responders, and railroad customers have spent the last
    year sharing with Congress how helpful rail safety legislation would be
    as we learn from train derailments not just East Palestine, but
    Paulsboro, NJ; Maryville, TN; and so many others. The RCE program
    continues to show great progress in improving transportation safety at
    rail crossings like in Fairfield, OH, but not all communities can cost
    effectively build overpasses or underpasses. More communities remain
    concerned about the safety of rail crossings where overpasses and
    underpasses may not be feasible so more innovative solutions may be
    needed especially where trains consistently block road crossings
    without consequences. Additionally, it is notable that the costs for
    rail crossing infrastructure improvements have increased along with
    highly volatile railroad project estimates so continuing to cost-
    stabilize and advance rail safety improvements remains a key
    opportunity for further collaboration for Congress, the Federal
    Railroad Administration, and communities with our railroad partners.
        We look forward to continuing to work with this Committee to
    advance safer roads and save lives together.
                Sincerely,
                                           Clarence E. Anthony,
                                            CEO and Executive Director,
                                                 National League of Cities.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                Sam Krassenstein
        Question 1. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    (NHTSA) is currently working on a number of rulemakings, including some
    that were mandated as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act. Which rules will have the greatest impact on safety and should be
    prioritized by NHTSA?
        Answer. I am not deeply familiar with the specifics of NHTSA's
    rulemakings, but the agency has number of ongoing rulemakings that
    appear to have strong potential to save lives on our roads. We are
    supportive of rules that encourage more equitable uses of Federal funds
    and create incentives to address the most critical and dangerous road
    segments, not to just spend funding where convenient and easy. For
    example, the proposed changes to HSIP to require community
    participation in funding decisions have the potential to shift the
    impact of those funds away from thinly veiled state of good repair
    projects to projects that truly address road safety.

        Question 2. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a
    provision that I authored to require that states publish vulnerable
    road user safety assessments, which reports on incidents involving
    vulnerable road users and on countermeasures. How should public and
    private sector actors use this information to improve road safety?
        Answer. Vulnerable road users--including pedestrians, bicyclists,
    and others outside of motor vehicles--account for a concerning and
    growing share of fatalities on our roadways. Across the country, even
    as traffic fatalities in 2022 decreased by 1.7 percent as compared to
    2021, fatalities for people walking still increased by 0.7 percent. See
    NHTSA's Traffic Safety Facts: Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes
    in 2022. The Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessments required under the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) require each state to
    meaningfully analyze vulnerable road user fatalities and serious
    injuries by evaluating the data associated with those serious and fatal
    crashes and by considering the demographics of the locations where
    these crashes occurred. As part of the assessment, IIJA also requires
    the states to identify areas that are high risk to vulnerable road
    users and to include a program of projects or strategies that will
    reduce the risk to vulnerable road users in the identified high-risk
    areas.
        Both the public and private sectors may then use the results from
    these data-driven assessments when identifying projects for
    implementation. Planners, agency decisionmakers, the community at
    large, and others all can use the results of these assessments to
    select projects that will have the biggest impact on saving lives and
    that will provide communities with roadways where vulnerable road users
    feel safe and comfortable when moving about. Moreover, IIJA added a new
    vulnerable road user ``special rule,'' requiring States with annual
    vulnerable road user fatalities that make up 15 percent or more of the
    State's total annual crash fatalities to use at least 15 percent of
    their Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) formula funds for
    safety projects that address vulnerable road user safety. See 23 U.S.C.
    148(g)(3). The States that trigger that special rule may find projects
    to fund with their HSIP funds in the list of projects developed under
    the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment. These VRU assessments are
    critical for cities like Detroit that have a high number of State-owned
    roadways with a disproportionate number of road fatalities and serious
    injuries by Vulnerable Road Users to advocate for funds to be used to
    address those challenges directly.

        Question 3. How can Federal transportation funding programs better
    incentivize safer infrastructure design?
        Answer. The City of Detroit supports the continuation of
    transportation funding that is dedicated to safety and specifically
    supports the tremendous value of the Safe Streets and Roads for All
    program and its impact on road safety. We would like to see Congress
    and the USDOT develop additional incentives to incorporate road safety
    into all road projects. Efforts that incorporate the Safe System
    Approach--such as complete streets design principles--should be
    required for all projects using Federal funding, including projects
    that use funding annually apportioned to the States by formula. For
    many cities like Detroit with thousands of miles of legacy road
    infrastructure, the majority of investment comes in the form of state
    of good repair projects often funded through Federal formula
    apportionment funds. Under the current funding structure, road agencies
    are often left with an impossible choice of prioritizing state of good
    repair versus road safety. Building in safety requirements (which could
    include things as basic as 11-foot lane widths, high-visibility
    continental style crosswalks, and other low-cost pavement marking
    improvements) and community participation requirements as conditions of
    using Federal funding can help increase road safety and reduce road
    crashes and fatalities.

        Question 4. What role does infrastructure design have in making
    autonomous vehicles safer? How should responsibility for this role be
    divided between levels of government?
        Answer. Safe infrastructure design is critical for all road users,
    including those using autonomous vehicles. Continued coordination among
    multiple parties will be important as this new technology continues to
    evolve.

        Question 5. Some vehicles are marketed as fully autonomous but do
    not yet have that capability. Do drivers of such vehicles adequately
    understand the limitations and capabilities of their vehicle's
    autopilot systems? If not, what should be done to increase consumer
    awareness of their responsibilities when behind the wheel of such
    vehicles?
        Answer. The City of Detroit does not have a position on this issue.

        Question 6. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the ability to collect
    and report detailed safety data. What additional data should NHTSA
    collect to assess AV safety? How can NHTSA better compare the safety of
    AVs and other vehicles?
        Answer. Data is a key part of understanding safety issues on our
    roadways and in making improvements to address those issues. I do not
    have the background to recommend the data to collect from AVs and the
    methods of comparing safety of AVs and other vehicles. However, any
    opportunity to increase data collection that allows road agencies to
    address infrastructure challenges is a benefit. For example, there
    would be value to knowing where near miss incidents are occurring
    between Connected & Autonomous Vehicles and Vulnerable Road Users.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                Sam Krassenstein
        Question 1. In your testimony you mentioned some of the engagement
    of local Detroit small businesses in your roadway safety strategy. Can
    you speak to the local economic impacts that roadway safety
    improvements have had in Detroit neighborhoods that receive them? What
    strategies for engaging private stakeholders in roadway safety planning
    have been more effective?
        Answer. Roadway safety improvements completed through the Detroit's
    Streetscape program have created vibrant corridors of small businesses
    throughout the City. The idea behind the streetscape program was to
    create commercial corridors that were comfortable for people to walk
    around in order to spur economic development. Corridors like Livernois,
    McNichols, Kercheval, and Bagley where the City invested in traffic
    calming and streetscaping resulted in increased private investment for
    residential and commercial development ranging from new apartment
    buildings, restaurants, and art galleries. Before each streetscape
    project, the City completed extensive community engagement through
    surveys, stakeholder interviews, and public meetings to determine what
    type of improvements were most suitable for each neighborhood.

        Question 2. We discussed Safe Streets for All grants in the
    hearing, and I think they are essential for expanding state and local
    capacity to improve safety on existing roads. But it's not enough to do
    safety after the fact--we need to be building safe systems approaches
    into our streets the first time around. What are some suggestions you
    have for how Congress and the Department of Transportation can ensure
    that new roads and transportation systems are designed with safety in
    mind?
        Answer. The City of Detroit agrees with the tremendous value of the
    Safe Streets for All program and its impact on road safety. Congress
    and USDOT should develop ways to continue to incentivize road safety
    for all road projects. Safe systems approaches such as complete streets
    design principles should be required for all projects using Federal
    funding including projects funded through annual formula
    appropriations. For many cities like Detroit with thousands of miles of
    legacy road infrastructure, the majority of investment comes in the
    form of state of good repair projects often funded through Federal
    apportionment funds. Road agencies are often left with an impossible
    choice of prioritizing state of good repair versus road safety.
    Building in safety requirements (which could include things as basic as
    11-foot lane widths, high-visibility continental style crosswalks, and
    other low-cost pavement marking improvements) and community
    participation requirements as conditions of using Federal funding can
    help increase road safety and reduce road crashes and fatalities.

        Question 3. As Chair of the Motorcycle Caucus, I am concerned with
    local and Federal efforts to improve motorcycle safety. How has
    motorcycle safety factored into Detroit's roadway safety planning? Has
    the City undertaken any educational or awareness-raising efforts
    regarding sharing the road?
        Answer. Motorcycle Safety is an extremely important issue within
    Detroit. Between 2017 and 2022, 325 people were killed or seriously
    injured in motorcycle crashes in Detroit. We created a transportation
    plan called Streets for People based on creating safe streets for all
    road users, including motorcyclists. The City of Detroit is also paying
    attention to the recent creation of the NHTSA Motorcyclist Advisory
    Council for recommendations on education and awareness-raising efforts
    we could implement in Detroit. We're supportive of programs that
    improve motorcycle awareness and promote training of riders.

        Question 4. In your testimony you discuss the importance of inter-
    jurisdictional collaboration in safe street interventions. One
    recommendation you have is including flexibility on Safe Streets For
    All Grant match requirements to incentivize interest and cooperation.
    Can you expand on that recommendation and any other steps you think
    Congress could take to better support and incentivize inter-
    jurisdictional collaboration on roadway safety priorities?
        Answer. Detroit, like many cities, has roads within its boundaries
    that are not under its jurisdiction, belonging to either the County or
    the State Road Agencies. Often these streets are the largest arterial
    roads where the most dangerous crashes occur. As noted in my written
    testimony, 80 percent of all crashes in Detroit occur on 3 percent of
    streets, and 34 percent of those crashes resulted in death or serious
    injury from 2017 to 2020. The streets making up Detroit's High Injury
    Network tend to be wide, overbuilt streets that encourage speeding with
    few opportunities for people to cross the street safely. These also
    tend to be streets not under Detroit's jurisdiction but instead
    belonging to Wayne County or Michigan DOT. As for the match
    requirements, I recommend that incentives, such as waived the match
    requirements in disadvantaged communities, be added to encourage cross-
    agency collaboration for addressing dangerous streets under State or
    County jurisdiction. I would also recommend building safety & community
    participation requirements into Federal Road funding programs to
    encourage collaboration between road jurisdiction owners and
    localities.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                  Laura Chace
        Question 1. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    (NHTSA) is currently working on a number of rulemakings, including some
    that were mandated as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act. Which rules will have the greatest impact on safety and should be
    prioritized by NHTSA?
        Answer. It is critical that NHTSA act as quickly as possible to
    finalize all rulemakings, including crash avoidance and impaired
    driving technology, that will improve the safety of all road users. ITS
    America has been supportive of the four additional technologies that
    NHTSA proposed updating the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP),
    including blind spot detection, blind spot intervention, lane keeping
    support, and pedestrian automatic emergency braking.\1\ Furthermore,
    NHTSA should finalize the proposed rule and Federal Motor Vehicle
    Safety Standard (FMVSS) requiring the inclusion of lane departure
    warnings and lane-keep assist systems in new passenger motor vehicles.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0002; https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/
    nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/NCAP
    -ADAS-RFC-03-03-2022-web.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NHTSA should also focus more attention on safety technologies such
    as vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications and should prioritize
    inclusion of V2X in NCAP. Importantly, this regulatory action to
    support V2X deployment would signal support for the technology to
    American automakers. NHTSA should also consider developing an ``if-
    equipped'' standard for V2X in passenger vehicles. The National
    Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) first recommended in 2013 that NHTSA
    require V2X in new vehicles after identifying additional fatal crashes
    that could have been prevented by these technologies, and it continues
    to call for the technology's inclusion in new vehicles.

        Question 2. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a
    provision that I authored to require that states publish vulnerable
    road user safety assessments, which reports on incidents involving
    vulnerable road users and on countermeasures. How should public and
    private sector actors use this information to improve road safety?
        Answer. Vulnerable road users (VRUs) are increasingly at-risk on
    our roads, and we must use every tool in our toolbox to proactively
    address this safety crisis. VRU safety assessments are an important way
    for state and local transportation agencies to gather information about
    injuries and fatalities on their roads and devise data-driven plans and
    countermeasures to prevent future harm. ITS America is grateful for
    Senator Schatz's leadership on this important issue.
        The VRU safety assessments should be used to help inform future
    planning decisions, roadway design, and any other changes to physical
    or digital assets to make roadways safer for all users. For example,
    public and private sector entities should be using the data from the
    assessments to determine which technology tools would be helpful in
    preventing future injuries and fatalities--such as retiming traffic and
    crosswalk signals, installing sensors near bike lanes, or investing in
    V2X communication technology.

        Question 3. How can Federal transportation funding programs better
    incentivize safer infrastructure design?
        Answer. To reach Vision Zero, we must reimagine Federal
    transportation funding programs and how we prioritize infrastructure
    investments. In the 21st century, our transportation system is no
    longer just asphalt, concrete, and steel--it is made up of sensors,
    cameras, data, and software. Federal transportation funding programs
    can incentivize safer infrastructure design by providing substantial
    and certain funding for transportation technology and incorporating
    technology into USDOT policies and infrastructure planning processes.
        Safe infrastructure and road design are key elements to reducing
    injuries and fatalities on our roads. Our transportation system
    requires a layered approach, combining hard and digital infrastructure,
    and technology can play a critical role in designing, building, and
    maintaining infrastructure.
        ITS America members are using computer vision and machine learning
    tools to identify near-misses at intersections and dangerous patterns,
    giving agencies key insights into how they should redesign their
    roadway infrastructure to proactively prevent injuries and deaths.
    Transportation agencies are using AI to predict maintenance needs on
    bridges and identify potholes and cracks on asphalt roads, helping
    agencies make the most out of their limited resources to keep roads
    safe for all users. ITS America member Blyncsy is working with Hawaii
    DOT to survey roads for cracks, striping issues, and physical damage
    using computer vision and cameras, then using AI machine learning to
    analyze imagery to make roadways safer and detect road degradation.
        Given technology's integral role in a safe transportation and
    infrastructure system, Federal transportation policy must be updated
    and modernized to include transportation technology at every step of
    the process, from planning to construction to operations and
    maintenance. Safer infrastructure design starts with planning, and we
    can plan better by using AI and digital tools that help agencies
    collect data, design intersections, and plan future infrastructure
    construction. Digital infrastructure tools provide valuable insights to
    local transportation authorities on how to best manage their system and
    design safer roads in a cost-effective way. Broader deployment of these
    technologies would lead to measurable and meaningful safety outcomes.
        Safer infrastructure and roadway design can come in the form of
    Complete Streets that go beyond just the physical elements and use
    technology to reduce congestion, enhance traffic efficiency, and
    improve safety by minimizing interactions between vehicles and
    vulnerable road users. Smart traffic management systems, for instance,
    utilize real-time data and sensors to monitor traffic flow and adjust
    signal timings accordingly. AI-powered decision support tools for
    state, local, and tribal transportation agencies can help assist in the
    siting and deployment of Complete Streets.

        Question 4. What role does infrastructure design have in making
    autonomous vehicles safer? How should responsibility for this role be
    divided between levels of government?
        Answer. Automated vehicles (AVs) rely on collecting and processing
    information about their surrounding environment quickly and accurately
    to drive safely on the road. Without sufficient and maintained
    infrastructure, AVs may not have the correct or sufficient information
    to make informed driving decisions. Infrastructure needs to support
    communication between vehicles (V2V) and infrastructure (V2I), allowing
    AVs to exchange information with each other and traffic signals, in
    effect making them connected automated vehicles. AVs rely on cameras,
    lidar, and radar to perceive surroundings, so it is critical that
    infrastructure is designed in a clear, visible way for AVs (i.e., lane
    markings, traffic signs, signals).
        NHTSA and the Federal government have the capability to be the
    leading regulators on AV safety and infrastructure, but their inaction
    has transferred responsibility to state and local governments who
    should not be responsible for regulating the safety of vehicles. Local
    governments can and should continue to ensure that local road
    infrastructure can support AV deployment. ITS America supports the
    release of a Federal AV safety framework such as NHTSA's AV STEP,
    though we are uncertain about the status of this framework. We
    encourage NHTSA to meaningfully engage with public sector regulators
    and private sector technology developers to develop such a framework. A
    national standard for infrastructure design and communication
    requirements for AVs would assist with deploying AVs safely at a wider
    scale.

        Question 5. Some vehicles are marketed as fully autonomous but do
    not yet have that capability. Do drivers of such vehicles adequately
    understand the limitations and capabilities of their vehicle's
    autopilot systems? If not, what should be done to increase consumer
    awareness of their responsibilities when behind the wheel of such
    vehicles?
        Answer. It is important that language describing a vehicle's
    capabilities be clear and transparent to its occupants. Public
    education regarding the uses, differences, and driver responsibilities
    surrounding Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Automated
    Driving Systems (ADS) will enhance the safety benefit of those
    technologies while preventing misuse. Further consumer awareness about
    ADAS and ADS is needed to ensure that drivers know their
    responsibilities when getting behind the wheel. NHTSA is well
    positioned to lead a public education campaign on the differences
    between ADAS and ADS that speaks to a consumer audience in clear, non-
    technical, non-marketing terms.
        ADAS falls into automation Levels 0-2 where drivers maintain
    responsibility for the vehicle, ranging from the driver always
    maintaining control to the vehicle taking control of speed and changing
    lanes in certain conditions, with drivers ready to take control quickly
    at any moment. The term ADS refers to Levels 3-5 of autonomy, with
    Levels 4 and 5 operating without the need for a human driver present.
    These AVs are meant to operate without human input, designed to
    strictly obey traffic laws, follow speed limits, and come to complete
    stops at red lights or stop signs.
        The absence of Federal leadership on AVs from NHTSA has further
    increased the possibility for misuse and misunderstanding of automated
    technologies in vehicles. To increase consumer awareness and
    acceptance, NHTSA needs to provide leadership by working with industry
    and state and local governments on an AV safety framework and not
    relying on a patchwork on state and local laws.

        Question 6. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the ability to collect
    and report detailed safety data. What additional data should NHTSA
    collect to assess AV safety? How can NHTSA better compare the safety of
    AVs and other vehicles?
        Answer. Data collection is vital to the safety of AVs and their
    passengers, and it provides valuable insights for surrounding
    infrastructure improvement. Measuring the impact of AVs and ADS
    technology in real-world scenarios will require greater collection of
    publicly accessible data about automated driving operations. NHTSA
    issued the Standing General Order (SGO) for AV safety data nearly two
    years ago and should seek more public input by issuing a Request for
    Information (RFI) to update the SGO reporting requirements. Data
    collection should also clearly differentiate between road
    classifications and local conditions, particularly incidents involving
    Level 2 ADAS and Level 4 ADS. By issuing an RFI, NHTSA will be able to
    confer with various stakeholders on what should be added and/or removed
    from the current SGO process to create the most informed environment
    when addressing ADAS and ADS safety.
        The current SGO crash reporting requirements do not include vehicle
    miles traveled (VMT) or crash location data, which limits the ability
    to estimate crash occurrence rates and fully understand crash causes.
    Collecting this type of data would not only help assess AV safety but
    also provide a better understanding of the safety comparisons between
    AVs and human-operated vehicles.
        The safety benefits of AVs compared to other types of vehicles are
    well established. AVs do not get drowsy, drunk, or distracted like
    human drivers often do behind the wheel. Fatigue, distraction, and
    impairment cause thousands of preventable crashes, injuries, and deaths
    every year on American roads. It is important that NHTSA recognize
    these inherent safety benefits of AVs and take a stronger leadership
    role in the regulation and deployment of AVs on the road. Continuing to
    make progress on the AV STEP program and safety frameworks would be a
    great way forward for broader deployment and more regulatory certainty.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                  Laura Chace
        Question 1. As you know, Ranking Member Young and I have advocated
    for connected vehicle technology and the many safety applications it
    can offer--from school bus safety to collision warnings for vulnerable
    road users. I know ITSA has been engaged on the Department of
    Transportation's draft National V2X Deployment Plan. Furthering
    adoption of C-V2X technology requires leadership and coordination from
    within the Department. In your testimony, you discuss the role of the
    Federal Highway Administration's ITS Joint Program Office on connected
    technologies. What more can and should NHTSA specifically be doing to
    promote deployment of connected technologies?
        Answer. ITS America is grateful for Chairman Peters' and Ranking
    Member Young's leadership on the issue of V2X and steadfast support for
    deploying transportation technology. ITS America is also grateful for
    the efforts of the Federal Highway Administration, ITS Joint Program
    Office, and OST-R in championing V2X across the Administration and
    creating the draft National V2X Deployment Plan. However, NHTSA has not
    been an active participant in the public conversation on V2X and must
    engage more robustly to spur deployment at-scale. In its position as
    the motor vehicle safety regulator, NHTSA should provide more
    leadership to the transportation industry, and the automotive sector in
    particular, through clear communication that V2X should be a priority.
    NHTSA should continue to collaborate with the industry on V2X and
    ensure strong participation in the implementation of USDOT's soon-to-
    be-published National V2X Deployment Plan. The National Transportation
    Safety Board (NTSB) first recommended in 2013 that NHTSA require V2X in
    new vehicles after identifying additional fatal crashes that could have
    been prevented by these technologies, and continues to call for the
    technology's inclusion in new vehicles. NHTSA has the opportunity to
    step forward and play a significant role in deploying V2X at scale.
        Through the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), NHTSA can take
    regulatory action to support V2X deployment. The inclusion of V2X
    within NCAP would be a clear way for NHTSA to signal support to
    American automakers for incorporation within new vehicle models. The
    necessity of V2X inclusion has already been accepted by global
    automakers in the Chinese market, and Europe's Euro NCAP has recognized
    the safety potential for V2X technologies. The data on the safety,
    efficiency, and environmental benefits provided by these technologies
    has been made clear to global regulators, and the benefits associated
    with V2X deployment are not new to NHTSA. Harnessing the innovation of
    connected technologies could produce better safety outcomes for all
    road users. It is time that NHTSA fully signal their support for V2X
    deployment by including these technologies in NCAP. As another signal
    to automakers and the public, NHTSA should also consider developing an
    ``if-equipped'' standard for V2X in passenger vehicles.

        Question 2. In your testimony you point out that transportation
    stakeholders are still waiting for a final rule from the FCC outlining
    how C-V2X technologies should be deployed to maximize effectiveness and
    reduce interference in the 5.9 giga-Hertz band. What challenges do you
    believe a forthcoming FCC rule on this issue needs to address in order
    to better facilitate deployment? What role can and should the
    Department of Transportation play in working with the FCC on this?
        Answer. USDOT has been working very closely with the FCC on key
    issues for the Second Report and Order, including interference. It is
    critical that the FCC takes the steps that the Department has been
    clearly articulating to protect safety messages from harmful
    interference from unlicensed devices and limit the use of adjacent
    spectrum on either side of the 5.9 GHz until potential impacts are
    fully understood.
        The FCC should issue the Second Report and Order before the end of
    the year to provide regulatory certainty to OEMs and IOOs looking to
    deploy C-V2X technology. Regulatory certainty is necessary to spur
    public and private sector investment in V2X technologies. When
    deployed, V2X technologies have the potential to produce better safety
    outcomes for road users and significantly reduce the number of
    fatalities. ITS America encourages the FCC to continue to have
    productive, engaging conversations with USDOT, NTIA, and other Federal
    policymakers to fully understand and address the needs of the
    transportation safety community, provide regulatory certainty, and
    allow unimpeded spectrum access that is necessary to reach the full
    potential of these technologies.

        Question 3. In your testimony you discuss ITSA's efforts to ensure
    that certain advanced transportation technologies are included as
    eligible expenditures under Bipartisan Infrastructure Law programs. As
    you also noted, under the B-I-L, Congress created the SMART grant
    program specifically aimed at incorporating advanced technology into
    transportation systems. Over the next 2 years, as we begin to consider
    the next Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill, how would you
    recommend Congress approach balancing tailored discretionary programs
    with more integrated eligibility for technology in formula funds?
        Answer. Transportation technologies that are seen today were not
    even contemplated when our country's infrastructure was constructed.
    Funding levels and policies need to be updated and modernized to
    include transportation technology at every step of the process to meet
    our country's economic and mobility needs. Funding stability for ITS
    and transportation technology is crucial to fully accessing safety
    benefits and improving the Nation's infrastructure.
        ITS America proudly supports current discretionary grant programs,
    such as SMART and ATTAIN, which have helped spur the growth of safety-
    enhancing ITS technology. Many of our members have obtained funding
    through these programs to deploy transportation technology such as
    direct and networked V2X technology, open data standards for rural
    transit needs, wrong way driving countermeasures, and audio warnings at
    intersections for pedestrians. However, discretionary grant programs
    are insufficient to achieve the scale of deployment needed to make a
    measurable impact on the country's transportation system, as technology
    pilots and demonstrations are often limited under these programs in
    size, scope, and location.
        While it is important that technology remains eligible under
    transportation formula programs, just expanding eligibility is not
    enough. ITS deployers at the state and local level need substantial and
    certain funding for technology to allow for deployment at scale. We
    must move to incorporate technology throughout the lifecycle of
    projects and into planning and asset management processes,
    strengthening the research and development of technologies, and
    advancing technology workforce development programs to reap the full
    safety benefits of transportation technology. This means providing
    Federal formula funding dedicated to transportation technology that can
    save lives and improve outcomes for road users.
        ITS America encourages Congress to reevaluate how technology is
    funded under the Federal transportation programs, which is currently
    designed for physical infrastructure and does not adequately consider
    the procurement, maintenance, and operations needs of a technology-
    inclusive infrastructure system.

        Question 4. I have been proud to work with Ranking Member Young on
    improving school bus safety--including the passage of the STOP for
    School Buses Act. Can you speak to what technological solutions to
    illegal passing of stopped school buses that have emerged, such as
    radar detection warning systems, audible warning systems, extended stop
    arms, and more?
        Answer. School bus safety is paramount for children across the
    country. Far too many children are injured or killed each year by
    vehicles which illegally pass school buses on roads. ITS America is
    grateful for Chairman Peters and Ranking Member Young's efforts in the
    STOP for School Buses Act. This is a significant step forward in making
    sure students are safe when getting onto and off school buses.
        Technology can play an important role in preventing injuries and
    fatalities with school buses, including onboard warning systems and
    extended stop arms with LED lights, adding another visual cue to nearby
    drivers.
        V2X technology is another solution which can prevent student
    injuries and fatalities. V2X communications in school buses can give
    bus drivers advanced audible or visual warnings of oncoming traffic
    that may not be slowing down for the stopped bus. The bus driver can
    then delay opening the door if the vehicle cannot stop or alert
    children outside the bus to remain on the curb and avoid the oncoming
    vehicle. In each of these scenarios, connected vehicle technologies
    provide a digital layer of safety to keep students safe getting to and
    from school. Additionally, V2X communications within passenger vehicles
    can alert drivers when a school bus is present and/or stopped on the
    road, giving the driver advanced warning to slow down and come to a
    stop. V2X communications are especially important for objects that are
    out of the driver's line of sight, so a driver may receive alerts even
    when the school bus is not visible to them.
        Sustained, widespread deployment of lifesaving V2X technology in
    school buses will help to significantly decrease the number of illegal
    school bus passings each year, while reducing the number of associated
    tragedies that occur on our roads.

        Question 5. Many localities that are under resourced or lacking
    expertise may be less likely to adopt technology interventions as part
    of roadway safety planning. Do you believe there is a need for DOT to
    be involved in developing a clearinghouse of best practices for certain
    proven technology interventions or providing technical assistance to
    communities to suggest solutions that may work for them?
        Answer. Absolutely. Education, workforce development, and technical
    assistance are key to upskilling transportation agencies today. Small,
    local agencies may not have the manpower or knowledge base to
    understand the benefits of the technology, how to procure it, how to
    deploy it, and how to navigate grant program applications like SMART,
    ATTAIN, and Safe Streets and Roads for All.
        To that end, USDOT should work with stakeholders like ITS America
    to develop best practices and resources for deploying and procuring
    technology solutions that will bring safety benefits to communities of
    all sizes across the country. We must meet communities where they are
    in terms of their literacy regarding transportation technology and
    provide the resources to support them. We must prioritize continued
    investment in education, workforce development, and technical
    assistance to make sure localities understand the technology and how to
    deploy it. It is important the USDOT continue to be a leader in
    encouraging the adoption of proven technology tools and providing
    assistance to communities who want to adopt them.
        We are grateful for the work of the USDOT's ITS Joint Programs
    Office (JPO) for their efforts to educate our transportation workforce
    through professional capacity building programs and other training
    initiatives. The ITS JPO's Smart Community Resource Center (SCRC) is a
    great resource that provides information and tools about smart
    communities and ITS technologies, deployment support, and links to
    USDOT funding opportunities that support deployment. This resource is
    an excellent blueprint for providing much-needed technical resources
    for states and localities looking to deploy technologies. As the
    adoption of AI technologies grows, it is more important than ever that
    Congress and USDOT put our transportation workforce ahead of the curve
    on using AI to make our transportation system safer, smarter, and more
    resilient.
        The current transportation technology procurement process can be
    lengthy and onerous, especially for localities that may lack the
    resources and expertise, slowing down projects and threatening the
    efficiency of investment in technology solutions for safety. We have
    seen through our own members that procurement of ITS technology can be
    a barrier to deployment. Local transportation agencies need additional
    Federal guidance on standards, definitions, and best practices around
    technology procurement so that they are more likely to incorporate
    technology into roadway safety planning. When considering amendments to
    our current procurement process, we would recommend that Congress
    prioritize enhancing coordination between Federal, state, and local
    transportation policymakers, as well as improving procurement
    flexibility within Federal grant opportunities.
                                     ______

          Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz to
                                  Laura Chace
    Connected Vehicles ANPRM
        On March 1, 2024, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and
    Security released an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
    requesting comments on issues related to connected vehicles (CVs)
    equipped with information and communications technology and services
    (ICTS) systems. The ANPRM proposes defining ``connected vehicle'' as
    ``an automotive vehicle that integrates onboard networked hardware with
    automotive software systems to communicate via dedicated short-range
    communication, cellular telecommunications connectivity, satellite
    communication, or other wireless spectrum connectivity with any other
    network or device.'' Further, such vehicles ``integrate hardware that
    enables connectivity within the vehicle and/or external connectivity.''

        Question 1. Please describe whether, in your view, it would be
    possible to manufacture such a vehicle exclusively of U.S. components.
        Answer. The complexity of the global supply chain makes the
    production of connected, automated, and electric vehicles in the United
    States (or even North America) extremely challenging at present.
    Factors for this include extraction and refining of critical materials,
    consolidation of components manufacturing, speed of innovation in China
    vs. Western economies, and a concentration of chip-level technology in
    the Pacific Rim.
        Any strategy focused on restoring America's technological edge in
    this vital sector for economic or national security reasons must focus
    on component level manufacturing deficits. There must also be an
    awareness that reshoring these capabilities will take several years in
    the best-case scenario and must remain nimble to retain pricing and
    innovation competitiveness with other regions of the world.

        Question 2. Please describe whether, in your view, there are any
    vehicle types--such as electric vehicles--that would not meet the
    ANRPM's proposed definition.
        Answer. The broad descriptions used in the wording of the ICTS
    ANPRM have the potential to apply to virtually every new vehicle on the
    road today.

        Question 3. The ANPRM specifically focuses on ICTS products and
    services from persons ``owned by, controlled by, or subject to the
    jurisdiction or direction of'' certain foreign adversaries, including
    China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.
        a. To what degree do your member companies utilize ICTS components
    from the countries listed above?
        Our response depends on which component or system is in question.
    For technologies like Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X)
    technologies, a key aspect of ITS America's transportation connectivity
    efforts, the supply chain links can be more specifically articulated.
    There is no sole source Chinese supplier for C-V2X devices. In fact,
    the majority of Tier 1 and 2 suppliers in the C-V2X ecosystem are based
    outside of China. European, Japanese, and Korean suppliers are key
    players in the supply chain for C-V2X components.

        b. Please describe any measures taken by your member companies to
    ensure the security and safety of vehicles containing ICTS components
    from the countries listed above.
        Answer. Many component suppliers undergo rigorous and continuous
    third-party testing that includes binary analysis; integrated testing
    and remediation throughout the software development lifecycle;
    penetration testing (manual and automated); independent risk
    assessments; and comprehensive software transparency and reporting
    measures, such as the generation of Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs)
    and Vulnerability Exploitability eXchange (VEX) for software products.
    Components that undergo such tests prior to deployment would
    significantly eliminate any opportunities that might otherwise exist
    for foreign adversaries to leverage their influence to insert
    vulnerabilities allowing for future backdoor attacks once deployed in
    connected vehicles. Many component suppliers also voluntarily comply
    with the FCC's Cyber Trust Mark program and have obtained the Cyber
    Trust Mark designation.

        Question 4. In general, how would restricted access to foreign-made
    components or systems impact the American automobile industry,
    including vehicle costs, employment, and overall competitiveness?
        a. How would such restrictions potentially impact the tripartite
    auto manufacturing supply chain throughout the U.S., Mexico, and
    Canada?
        Answer. Given the limited domestic manufacturing capabilities of
    many of the components needed in the automotive sector, as well as the
    components needed to supply life-saving transportation technologies,
    overly-broad component importation regulations in this space could
    significantly hamper our capabilities in both sectors. ITS America
    recommends that the Department of Commerce work with other Federal
    stakeholders to create a program in which Federal partners and industry
    can collaborate on identifying potential vulnerabilitiesand react to
    them in a practical way that doesn't cripple supplies of vehicles or
    lifesaving technologies to consumers. There needs to be practical glide
    paths to extricate systems or vehicles from vulnerabilities that
    weren't known in advance.
        Any additional regulations pertaining to OEMs or the transportation
    industry writ large should be structured in a way which would account
    for the lengthy production cycle associated with automotive product
    design and manufacturing, which connectivity technologies are subject
    to. When considering an application for a temporary authorization as
    described in question 27 of the ANPRM, the Department should review
    whether the automotive manufacturer has demonstrated commitment to and
    compliance with particular privacy and security best practices,
    particularly as it relates to any ICTS components that have been
    supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the
    jurisdiction or direction of 15 CFR 7.4 countries.
        To facilitate this, the Department may want to consider developing
    a trusted partner program by which an automotive manufacturer could
    demonstrate such commitment and compliance. Once an automotive
    manufacturer has been admitted into the trusted partner program, it can
    self-certify continued compliance with the program requirements.
    Additionally, ITS America recommends that the Department consider
    moving towards setting cybersecurity standards for ICTS hardware and
    software, promote further development of requirements on
    organizational, processes, technical and methods to ensure cyber
    security for vehicles and the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology's (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework, and support OEM
    participation in cross-industry collaboration (Auto-ISAC) to address
    risks and vulnerabilities in cooperation with national authorities.

        Question 5. To your knowledge, have any American connected
    vehicles, as defined by the ANPRM, been compromised by a foreign
    adversary in a manner that would affect the safety or security of the
    United States? If yes, please describe any incidents.
        Answer. To our knowledge, no American connected vehicle, as defined
    by the ANRPM, has been compromised by a foreign adversary in a manner
    that would affect the safety or security of the United States.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                  Jake Nelson
        Question 1. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    (NHTSA) is currently working on a number of rulemakings, including some
    that were mandated as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act. Which rules will have the greatest impact on safety and should be
    prioritized by NHTSA?
        Answer. The HALT Act, included in the Infrastructure Investment and
    Jobs Act, set a deadline for NHTSA to issue a final rule Advanced
    Impaired Driving Prevention Technology by November 15, 2024. The agency
    will miss this deadline, delaying the implementation of what could be
    the most effective vehicle safety measure since the seatbelt. The
    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that alcohol-detection
    systems preventing drivers with BAC levels of 0.08 or higher could save
    about 10,000 lives annually once fully implemented in U.S. passenger
    vehicles. This rulemaking stands to have the greatest impact on safety
    and should be prioritized by NHTSA.

        Question 2. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a
    provision that I authored to require that states publish vulnerable
    road user safety assessments, which reports on incidents involving
    vulnerable road users and on countermeasures. How should public and
    private sector actors use this information to improve road safety?
        Answer. AAA supports state safety data systems that allow for the
    identification of transportation safety investments not only on the
    basis of crash experience or crash rate, but also on the basis of crash
    potential. Using an inventory of roadway attributes or other data-
    supported means can help predict where states can target projects to
    maximize opportunities to advance safety before traffic injuries and
    deaths occur in those locations, especially to help protect vulnerable
    users of the transportation system. Proactive systemwide deployment of
    safety countermeasures in this fashion is a key tenet of the Safe
    System Approach, which has significantly reduced traffic deaths in
    developed nations like Australia (47 percent) and Spain (80 percent).

        Question 3. How can Federal transportation funding programs better
    incentivize safer infrastructure design?
        Answer. AAA strongly supports requiring rather than incentivizing
    states using Highway Safety Improvement Program funds to prioritize
    projects that have the greatest potential to reduce the State's roadway
    fatalities and serious injuries. Safety data should drive the targeting
    of Federal funding to advance safety where needed most. Whether a state
    is upgrading or expanding existing infrastructure, or building out new
    infrastructure, finding opportunities to maximize safety of system
    users should be required.

        Question 4. What role does infrastructure design have in making
    autonomous vehicles safer? How should responsibility for this role be
    divided between levels of government?
        Answer. The American Society of Civil Engineers' most recent
    infrastructure report card gives America's roads a ``D'' and bridges a
    ``C'' and finds that 46,154 bridges in the country are structurally
    deficient. The U.S. has underfunded its transportation infrastructure
    for several years, resulting in a backlog of road and bridge repairs.
    Traditional vehicles and automated driving systems will both benefit
    from infrastructure investments that bring roads and bridges into a
    good state of repair.
        Additionally, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released a
    Tech Brief entitled Impacts of Automated Vehicles on Highway
    Infrastructure, in which they conducted a comprehensive literature
    review, engaged with highway infrastructure owners and operators
    (IOOs), and interviewed industry experts and key stakeholders to
    document the potential impact of AVs on highway infrastructure.
    According to their findings ``pavement markings are the foremost
    physical infrastructure priority for IOOs in supporting AV
    deployment.'' \1\ Specifically, FHWA notes ``Pavement markings should
    be designed to be visible and detectable in dry and wet conditions
    during both daytime and nighttime.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Federal Highway Administration Report Impacts of Automated
    Vehicles on Highway Infrastructure (FHWA-HRT-21-015) (Gopalakrishna et
    al., 2020). Retrieved from: https://www
    .fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/21051/
    index.cfm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AAA recognizes the Federal government plays a critical role in
    guiding a comprehensive strategy for national automated vehicle
    deployment. With regards to infrastructure investment that will benefit
    the safe deployment of the ADS this will require collaboration between
    U.S. DOT agencies, state departments of transportation, and local and
    municipal governments.

        Question 5. Some vehicles are marketed as fully autonomous but do
    not yet have that capability. Do drivers of such vehicles adequately
    understand the limitations and capabilities of their vehicle's
    autopilot systems? If not, what should be done to increase consumer
    awareness of their responsibilities when behind the wheel of such
    vehicles?
        Answer. According to AAA survey research, most U.S. drivers feel
    either fearful (66 percent) or uncertain (25 percent) about the
    prospect of fully self-driving vehicles, a fear that has not decreased
    since spiking last year in 2023.\2\ This perception could stem from
    misleading or confusing names of vehicle systems that are on the
    market. AAA found that 22 percent of Americans expect driver support
    systems, with names like Autopilot, ProPILOT, or Pilot Assist, to have
    the ability to drive the car by itself without any supervision,
    indicating a gap in consumer understanding.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Fear of Self-Driving Cars on the Rise. (2023). Retrieved from:
    https://newsroom.aaa.com/2023/03/aaa-fear-of-self-driving-cars-on-the-
    rise/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, interest in semi-autonomous technologies like Automatic
    Emergency Braking (AEB) and Lane Keeping Assistance remains high. The
    auto industry should continue advancing vehicle technologies
    consistently and reasonably to alleviate concerns. For example,
    industry stakeholders should be consistent in how these technologies
    are named and described so as to alleviate confusion among
    consumers.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ CLEARING THE CONFUSION: Common Naming for Advanced Driver
    Assistance Systems. (2022). Retrieved from: https://newsroom.aaa.com/
    wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Clearing-the-Confusion-One-Pager-New-
    Version-7-25-22.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It's also important that consumers understand the capabilities and
    limitations of these systems. AAA Foundation research shows that false
    expectations for ADAS can lead to misuse and driver distraction.\4\
    Survey findings include:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ McDonald, A., Carney, C. & McGehee, D.V. (2018). Vehicle
    Owners' Experiences with and Reactions to Advanced Driver Assistance
    Systems (Technical Report). Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for
    Traffic Safety.

       Blind Spot Monitoring--80 percent of drivers are unaware of
            its limitations or wrongly believe it monitors behind the
            vehicle or reliably detects bicycles, pedestrians, and fast-
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            moving vehicles.

       Blind Spot Monitoring/Rear Cross-Traffic Alert--25 percent
            of users rely solely on these systems, neglecting visual checks
            or shoulder checks.

       Forward Collision Warning/Automatic Emergency Braking--
            Nearly 40 percent of drivers are unaware of their limitations
            or confuse the technologies, with some believing forward
            collision warning can apply brakes. About one in six vehicle
            owners don't know if their vehicle has automatic emergency
            braking.

       Forward Collision Warning/Lane Departure Warning--25 percent
            of users feel comfortable engaging in other tasks while
            driving.

        Auto manufacturers should stop overselling and underdelivering on
    these technologies. Instead, they should take care to use more accurate
    wording to name and describe what these technologies do and under which
    conditions they may not function as designed.

        Question 6. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the ability to collect
    and report detailed safety data. What additional data should NHTSA
    collect to assess AV safety? How can NHTSA better compare the safety of
    AVs and other vehicles?
        Answer. Safety should never be compromised to hasten automated
    vehicle deployment. Currently, the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) requests Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments
    (VSSA) from industry that outline how they address automated vehicle
    safety. While these voluntary documents have provided critical
    information to the public on how safety is being addressed during the
    development of ADS, they lack sufficient details on testing results and
    vehicle design considerations being contemplated. In order to more
    fully inform the public of safety parameters put into place for ADS,
    future efforts or Federal legislation should mandate that safety self-
    assessments capture any incident that includes contact with another
    vehicle, vulnerable road user or stationary object, including video of
    the scenario and supporting sensor data. Mandatory safety self-
    assessments should be issued before an ADS developer tests on public
    roads.
        ADS manufacturers should also notify NHTSA about changes to the
    vehicle's capabilities before it is deployed on public roads. This
    recommendation coincides with recommendations from the National
    Transportation Safety Board, which also recommended that NHTSA require
    AV developers submit a safety self-assessment report to the agency
    after its investigation of the 2018 Uber AV test vehicle crash. The
    report to NHTSA should also include explanations of updates to the
    software that enables the ADS. Further, the vehicle manufacturer should
    perform additional testing to ensure that the vehicle's safety case is
    maintained or enhanced as new functionality is added or existing
    functionality is repaired. Among these considerations, NHTSA may also
    want to seek information from a developer that shows the vehicle's
    overall safety case is maintained should vehicle capabilities evolve.
        Moreover, NHTSA should mandate that testing results be made
    available to the public for review to create a feedback process that
    allows the public and industry stakeholders the opportunity to address
    key concerns that arise from the data.
        AAA believes, NHTSA should also develop a revised safety framework,
    in conjunction with private industry, academia and standards bodies to
    sponsor research to develop authoritative methods for safety assurance
    of automated driving systems (ADS), including a layered set of
    complementary test settings in simulation, test track and on-road
    testing, wherein each setting progressively validates the functionality
    and safety with greater fidelity, as suggested in Koopman and
    Wagner.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Koopman and Wagner, Toward a Framework for Highly Automated
    Vehicle Safety Validation, 2018 SAE World Congress, SAE 2018-01-1071.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Safety assurance programs should be stakeholder and technology
    neutral and be applied to all stakeholders who seek to test or deploy
    ADS and ADS-equipped vehicles. Data from ADS safety assurance programs
    should be made available in a consistent format for validation by
    independent third parties. We note that a ``testing regime'' by
    manufacturers and/or third parties incorporating simulation testing,
    closed-track testing, and on-road testing is complementary and that no
    one form of test setting alone is enough to make a credible safety
    argument.
        Thus, ADS developers should be required to develop and submit
    explicit explanations and data to NHTSA and the public, detailing:

       The methodical exposure of the ADS to all expected driving
            maneuvers under all expected driving conditions in the
            vehicle's operating environment, demonstrating the behavioral
            competencies of the ADS.

       The object and event detection and response (OEDR)
            capabilities of the highly automated vehicle, noting the ADS
            performance and identifying situations requiring supervisor
            intervention (``disengagement'').

       Aterative testing of scenarios, identifying edge cases that
            challenge ADS, recreating such edge cases in closed-course, and
            re-testing in the real-world.

        NHTSA should place the burden on an ADS developer to explain (a)
    why the ADS behaves in a certain manner when subject to external
    objects and or events, (b) how a consumer will interact with the new
    technology, and (c) the safety benefit of removing traditional vehicle
    features, if requested by an ADS developer. Requiring vehicle
    developers to provide this data will aid NHTSA and the public in
    considering when and how to use the vehicles and could ultimately help
    inform the development of future Federal safety standards and promote
    industry learnings that ensure the safe deployment of ADS vehicles on
    our Nation's roads.
        NHTSA should also encourage developers to consider scenario testing
    informed by various standards organizations and regulatory bodies,
    including EuroNCAP, ISO, SAE, the U.S. Department of Defense, and
    NHTSA's own Framework for Automated Driving System Testable Cases and
    Scenarios.
        Consumer education must be a core element of any new automated
    vehicle regulation or legislation. However, Congress should prioritize
    consumer education and training on vehicle technology available in cars
    today. It is important for consumers to understand these technologies'
    capabilities and limitations and differentiate them from fully
    automated vehicles not yet available to the public.
        In addition to the data NHTSA should require of ADS developers it
    is also important to ensure the data created by the vehicle is
    protected. Automated vehicles have the potential to generate a lot of
    personal data and present new privacy and cybersecurity issues.
    Legislation or regulations should ensure transparency about the
    collection, protection, and use of this data and that appropriate
    security protection protocols are in place to minimize potential
    breaches. Consumers should clearly understand what data is collected
    from an automated vehicle and how it is used.
        Congress plays a crucial role in balancing the pace of new vehicle
    technology implementation, ensuring it does not get ahead of consumer
    safety. AAA urges the Federal government to carefully consider how to
    develop, test and safely deploy automated vehicles while also
    considering how to build public confidence and trust in the technology.
                                     ______

        Response to Writtens Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                  Jake Nelson
        Question 1. As the representative of over 50 separately owned and
    operated motor vehicle clubs, you have a unique perspective of what it
    means to work on roadway safety issues across jurisdictions. Roadway
    planning is inherently inter-jurisdictional, which creates challenges
    for local or state departments of transportation attempting to enact a
    holistic vision of roadway safety. Can you discuss what some of these
    challenges are, and can you give the committee some good examples of
    state, local, or tribal coordination on roadway safety planning?
        Answer. One of the best examples of how the lack of state and local
    coordination can hinder traffic safety occurs when changing maximum
    posted speed limits on state-owned roadways. AAA recommends stronger
    state requirements to coordinate with local governments when
    determining changes to maximum posted speed limits on higher-speed
    state highways. The AAA Foundation recently published new research
    documenting the ``spillover effect'' whereby traffic crash experiences
    on surrounding roadways can be exacerbated unintentionally when speed
    limits are raised on nearby highways or highway segments.\6\ To
    minimize unintended safety consequences, it is important for
    transportation departments, at all levels, to coordinate and work
    closely together when considering posted speed limit adjustments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Romo, A., McDonough, J., Wei, A. & Yang, C.Y.D. (2024).
    Uncovering the Spillover Effect from Posted Speed Limit Changes: A Tool
    to Examine Potential Safety Concerns (Technical Report). Washington,
    D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Related to setting speed limits, AAA recommends that states be
    strongly discouraged from using the 85th percentile operating speed
    when setting maximum posted speed limits and incentivized to utilize a
    safety-prioritizing method such as the expert system (e.g., USLIMITS,
    USLIMITS2 or the anticipated USLIMITS3). Further, AAA recommends that
    state reporting requirements include proper documentation of methods
    utilized within the reporting period to adjust maximum posted speed
    limits on state roadways and include the proportion of those instances
    where the 85th percentile operating speed was considered.
        In 2018, the AAA Foundation conducted a national survey\7\ of 175
    traffic engineers across the 48 continental United States representing
    local (44 percent) and state (54 percent) agencies, as well as private
    consulting firms (2 percent). Results indicated that 98 percent of
    respondents consider the 85th percentile operating speed when raising
    or lowering posted speed limits and that 3 out of 10 respondents either
    had never heard about an expert system (i.e., USLIMITS or USLIMITS2) or
    had any understanding of the system. Further, respondents indicated
    that their agencies do not recommend (19 percent) nor provide training
    (10 percent) for such a safety-prioritizing system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Kim, W., Kelley-Baker, T. & Chen, K.T. (2019). Review of
    Current Practices for Setting Posted Speed Limits (Research Brief).
    Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One of the best examples of state and local government coordination
    AAA has recently encountered is the coordination between the Florida
    Department of Transportation, Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami.
    Here's an overview of their collaborative efforts:
    Joint Initiatives and Programs
      1.  Vision Zero Initiative. Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami
            have adopted Vision Zero policies, aiming to eliminate all
            traffic fatalities and serious injuries. FDOT supports these
            efforts by providing funding, technical assistance, and
            aligning state-level safety strategies with local goals.

      2.  Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). FDOT's SHSP outlines
            statewide goals for reducing traffic-related fatalities and
            injuries. The department collaborates with Miami-Dade County
            and the City of Miami to implement SHSP strategies locally,
            ensuring that safety measures are tailored to address specific
            regional issues.
    Infrastructure Projects
      1.  Complete Streets. The Complete Streets program promotes the
            design and operation of roadways for safe use by all, including
            pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit riders. FDOT
            works with local governments to implement Complete Streets
            principles in urban planning and roadway design projects.

      2.  Roadway Improvements and Upgrades. FDOT, Miami-Dade County, and
            the City of Miami collaborate on various roadway improvement
            projects. These projects include intersection redesigns, the
            addition of bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, and the
            installation of traffic calming measures to enhance safety.

      3.  Community Involvement. FDOT, Miami-Dade County, and the City of
            Miami engage with local communities through public meetings,
            workshops, and forums. These interactions ensure that community
            feedback is considered in safety planning and that residents
            are informed about upcoming projects and initiatives.

        Overall, the collaboration between FDOT, Miami-Dade County, and the
    City of Miami is integral to enhancing roadway safety. By combining
    resources, expertise, and efforts, these entities work together to
    create a safer transportation environment for all users.
        To discuss the coordination AAA has observed in more detail, please
    contact Stacy Miller, District Six Secretary of Transportation, located
    at 1000 N.W. 111 Avenue, Miami, Florida 33172, or by phone at (305)
    470-5197.

        Question 2. In your testimony, you state that ``Roadway engineers,
    but especially behavioral highway safety practitioners and policymakers
    would benefit from more guidance and technical assistance relative to
    the proper adoption of SSA principles to maximize measurable safety
    gains.'' Can you expand on how you think the Department of
    Transportation can help achieve this goal?
        Answer. The AAA Foundation has published a report\8\ designed to
    assist local decision-makers, transportation professionals, and
    community advocates in effectively communicating about why the Safe
    System policies and engineering approaches are necessary, how they
    work, and how they benefit everyone who uses the roads. The guide also
    assists in communicating to road users about the kinds of
    infrastructure projects recommended by the Safe System Approach, which
    can more effectively help build community-level support for these
    projects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Michael, J.P., Chirles, T.J., Frattaroli, S., LaJeunesse, S.,
    Austin, L.L., Romo, A., McDonough, J. & Yang, C.Y.D. (2023). A Safe
    System Guide for Transportation: Sharing this Approach to Lead Your
    Community to Action (Technical Report). Washington, D.C.: AAA
    Foundation for Traffic Safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A companion guide in development now is designed for these same
    audiences specifically to help facilitate the adoption of Safe System
    Approach principles when developing Highway Safety Improvement Plans
    and State Highway Safety Plans.
        The USDOT and its agencies should aid in promoting these guidance
    documents to state and local stakeholders to leverage when developing
    strategic plans relative to the use of Federal transportation funding.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                  Laura Sandt
        Question 1. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    (NHTSA) is currently working on a number of rulemakings, including some
    that were mandated as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act. Which rules will have the greatest impact on safety and should be
    prioritized by NHTSA?
        Answer. I haven't been part of research to estimate the safety
    effects or relative benefits of the different rules that are currently
    in the rulemaking process. However, generally speaking, any rulemaking
    efforts aimed at reducing kinetic energy in the transportation system
    are likely to be highly impactful and should be prioritized. Excess
    kinetic energy is the primary mechanism underlying crashes of all
    types, affecting people of all ages and abilities. There are a number
    of speed managing technologies with proven safety benefits, such as
    Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA), which can be applied to large
    trucks/commercial vehicles, fleet vehicles, as well as privately owned
    vehicles. Similarly, there are many ways that vehicle designs can be
    improved to reduce vehicle size/height, weight, and the likelihood of
    causing severe and fatal injuries to people struck by them. A focus on
    implementing and evaluating the effects of vehicle-based safety
    measures to reduce kinetic energy is an important priority. Evaluation
    of these technologies requires data, and NHTSA's traffic records team
    is responsible for development of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash
    Criteria (MMUCC). Ensuring that MMUCC and other traffic records systems
    incorporates key data needed to measure speed and system kinetic
    energy, and that states are collecting and reporting these data
    elements in a timely way, is an important need to help inform future
    rulemaking as well.

        Question 2. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a
    provision that I authored to require that states publish vulnerable
    road user safety assessments, which reports on incidents involving
    vulnerable road users and on countermeasures. How should public and
    private sector actors use this information to improve road safety?
        Answer. The Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Safety Assessments are a
    much-needed step to help a variety of safety partners to understand the
    issues, trends, and opportunities to improve safety for people of all
    ages, travel modes, and abilities. The assessments can be used to
    engage the public on important safety risks and challenges for
    vulnerable road users, and to seek additional feedback. Given the
    current challenges with VRU data quality, completeness, timeliness, and
    consistency, the VRU assessments can also be used to highlight the gaps
    in the data available and identify needed improvements to data that
    would make the assessments more robust and reliable in the future. As
    data quality improves and more states adopt consistent analysis methods
    and performance measures, the VRU assessments will likely play an
    important role in helping to assess progress and identify ongoing and
    emerging concerns to prioritize in strategic safety plans.

        Question 3. How can Federal transportation funding programs better
    incentivize safer infrastructure design?
        Answer. There needs to be a focus on institutionalizing safety
    throughout the entire project development and maintenance/operations
    lifecycle, such that new roads are designed in alignment with the
    principles of Safe Systems and that safety risks on existing roads can
    be proactively identified and addressed. One powerful practice observed
    in Safe System adopting countries such as New Zealand and Australia is
    to require Road Safety Audits (or Safe System Audits) as a standard
    (i.e., mandated) and funded practice (Chiarenza et al., 2023). Road
    Safety Audits are conducted by multidisciplinary teams of trained and
    certified auditors, who independently review projects at key milestones
    in the project development lifecycle to ensure safety is imbedded in
    the design. In the US, we have guidance for conducting Road Safety
    Audits and some agencies are performing them, but the practice is not
    required, sufficiently funded, or staffed to the degree needed to
    ensure consistency and comprehensiveness across the transportation
    network.

        Questiom 4. What role does infrastructure design have in making
    autonomous vehicles safer? How should responsibility for this role be
    divided between levels of government?
        Answer. This question relates to issues extending beyond my area of
    research expertise, but I can point to a study conducted by colleagues
    at UNC and Appalachian State University (Combs and Shay, 2023) that
    examined the role of infrastructure in improving safety for all road
    users as Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) make up an
    increasingly significant portion of the vehicle fleet. The study also
    offers recommendations for state and local agency actions; their key
    recommendations included:

            ``facilitating CAV-readiness discussions among diverse
            stakeholders, designing intersections to serve CAVs but
            prioritize pedestrian safety and comfort, developing methods to
            understand impacts on non-vehicular travelers, and supporting
            research on post-pandemic public engagement'' (Combs and Shay,
            2023).

        Question 5. Some vehicles are marketed as fully autonomous but do
    not yet have that capability. Do drivers of such vehicles adequately
    understand the limitations and capabilities of their vehicle's
    autopilot systems? If not, what should be done to increase consumer
    awareness of their responsibilities when behind the wheel of such
    vehicles?
        Answer. There are several studies that have provided evidence that
    drivers often do not adequately understand the limitations and
    capabilities of their vehicle's technology features and systems. This
    may lead to instances of over-trust or under trust of such features,
    both of which can result in less than optimal safety outcomes. One
    study by Teoh (2020) found that system name can affect understanding
    and use of vehicle technologies and concluded that systems need to be
    named such that they do not mislead drivers. The AAA Foundation has
    supported a number of studies about this issue that make
    recommendations on ways to enhance consumer awareness, including the
    report, The Impact of Information on Consumer Understanding of A
    Partially Automated Driving System, Singer & Jenness, 2020.
        Importantly, as vehicle technologies continue to evolve, there is a
    need to inform consumers not just at the point of sale (or resale or
    rental) of a vehicle but to build in awareness and experience/skill-
    building throughout the entire driver education, training, testing, and
    licensing lifecycle. Vehicles and in-vehicle systems could also be
    important tools for raising consumer awareness, for example by
    incorporating owner's manuals or interactive training into existing
    displays.

        Question 6. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the ability to collect
    and report detailed safety data. What additional data should NHTSA
    collect to assess AV safety? How can NHTSA better compare the safety of
    AVs and other vehicles?
        Answer. Several research groups and safety organizations, including
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, have called for enhanced data
    definitions, standards, and data collection to help assess AV safety.
    To holistically assess safety issues, the following data are needed, at
    a minimum:

       Vehicle ``exposure'' measures (time driving, miles driven)
            in different environments/road types within the operational
            design domain

       Vehicle speed data (pre-crash and at time of impact)

       System failures and malfunctions (type, number of events,
            and frequency)

       Disengagements and driver takeover events (type, number of
            events, and frequency)

       Operator errors; issues with human machine interface (type,
            number of events, and frequency)

       Near collisions (i.e., near misses), including those
            involving pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users, cane
            users, etc. (type, number of events, and frequency)

       Pre-crash maneuvers (type, number of events, and frequency)

       Number/frequency of crashes, as well as crash type,
            location, involved parties, injury severity, and environmental
            conditions

       Number/frequency of cyber security issues

       Public perception of safety

        Offering recommendations on specific AV safety testing/comparison
    methods and standards are beyond my area of expertise, but I would
    refer to work of Dr. Phil Koopman (Carnegie Melon), including his July
    26, 2023 testimony to the Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as Dr.
    Missy Cummings (George Mason University) and the research team involved
    with our CSCRS study, Safety testing for connected and automated
    vehicles through physical and digital iterative deployment.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                  Laura Sandt
        Question 1. One aspect of the Safe Systems Approach to roadway
    safety is understanding the relationship between human behavior and the
    vehicles on the road as well as the design of the roads themselves.
    Right now, NHTSA is responsible for the majority of behavioral research
    related to roadway technology, while FHWA--a different sub-agency
    within the Department of Transportation--is responsible for setting
    standards related to roadway design. I know you have worked with both
    agencies on safety-related projects. Do you believe it would be
    beneficial to see more coordination between these two entities in
    carrying out these responsibilities? What do you think that could look
    like?
        Answer. Yes, I believe it would be beneficial to see more
    coordination between NHTSA and FHWA, along with other agencies that
    have a key role in delivering transportation services and defining or
    measuring health and safety outcomes (such as FMCSA, FTA, BTS, and
    CDC). With more opportunities for and structures to enhance
    collaboration, these entities could share and integrate data that could
    help us better understand transportation related choices, behaviors,
    exposure to risk, injuries, and health outcomes. Coordination across
    agencies could also lead to more integrated and pooled funding to
    support holistic programs delivered by local agencies; opportunities to
    implement holistic safety interventions with a single grant source
    might help reduce the administrative burden for local agencies that
    currently seek funding across multiple entities. It might also help to
    streamline the identification of shared research needs and provide
    sustained funding for research that could be more holistic and cross-
    cutting as well.

        Question 2. In my opening statement I discussed how many
    transportation safety experts such as yourself have coalesced around
    the safe systems approach to roadway safety. Can you discuss how your
    research on the safe systems approach has enabled you to provide
    concrete guidance to local and state transportation stakeholders doing
    roadway planning? Do you have ideas for how we can encourage more
    collaboration between transportation planners and experts such as
    yourself?
        Answer. Communities are leading the way in terms of innovating and
    implementing Safe System approaches and it is the job of transportation
    safety researchers such as myself to be engaged with state and local
    agencies and support the development and evaluation of programs.
    University-based researcher groups are uniquely equipped to help
    convene different partners, support communities of practice, offer
    training and workforce development, and provide technical assistance
    with data collection, data integration, and analysis. Providing
    sustained opportunities for collaboration beyond a one-time grant or
    research project is one way to help support and maintain partnerships
    between agency practitioners and university-based researchers and
    safety experts.

        Question 3. In your testimony you cite several studies looking
    specifically at motorcycle safety on our roads. As an avid
    motorcyclist, I am concerned with how overrepresented we are in roadway
    fatality statistics. Based on your and your colleagues' research, can
    you discuss how different speed management solutions would impact
    motorcycle drivers specifically? Additionally, from a public health
    education perspective, do you think it would be helpful for more states
    to include motorcycle safety, including information about sharing the
    road, in drivers' ed curriculums?
        Answer. There are speed management approaches that are uniquely
    suited to support motorcyclist safety and target the locations in which
    motorcyclists are most at risk of a crash, such as curve delineation
    measures, traffic calming treatments, and pavement markings (such as
    optical speed bars) used on steep grades or on the approaches to sharp
    curves. More generally, speed management efforts can benefit
    motorcyclists by affording other drivers on the road more time to
    detect motorcyclists and distance to avoid a crash. Given the large
    weight differential between motorcyclists and other vehicles on the
    road, speed management of larger vehicles is critical to reduce the
    amount of kinetic energy directed toward more vulnerable motorcyclists
    in the event of a collision. There have been many changes in the two-
    wheeler vehicle market, and driver education training, testing, and
    licensure should be routinely updated to reflect changes in technology,
    safety trends, and priority issues/risks.
                                     ______

          Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ted Budd to
                                  Laura Sandt
        Question. Sen. Thom Tillis has sponsored a bill (S. 3092, the
    Collision Avoidance Systems Act of 2023) to make certain motorists have
    the ability to use pulsating center-mount brake lights. These devices
    pulse the center brake light (within the photometric range called for
    within Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108) 4 times in 1.2
    seconds when a brake is first applied. Can you speak to how these
    pulsating brake lights, and other technologies, contribute to a
    holistic approach to roadway safety?
        Answer. Thank you for this question. I am not familiar with the
    specific technology referenced (pulsating brake lights) or any research
    related to their safety performance, or safety outcomes in relation to
    other devices or technologies available. However, speaking broadly,
    technologies with proven safety benefits--made available to drivers of
    all ages, income levels, and in all places--are an important part of a
    holistic, Safe System approach. Safety-oriented improvements to vehicle
    technologies hold the potential to improve compliance with laws, reduce
    error-making among drivers, help identify and avoid risks and potential
    crashes, and generally reduce the likelihood and severity of injury
    outcomes.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                  Jeff Farrah
        Question 1. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    (NHTSA) is currently working on a number of rulemakings, including some
    that were mandated as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act. Which rules will have the greatest impact on safety and should be
    prioritized by NHTSA?
        Answer. There are two important outstanding rulemakings, one at
    NHTSA, the other at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
    (``FMCSA'') that should be prioritized to help bring the safety
    benefits of autonomous vehicle (``AV'') technologies to communities
    across the country. The first rulemaking, from NHTSA, would create the
    ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety Transparency and Evaluation Program (``AV
    STEP'').\1\ First announced in July of 2023,\2\ AV STEP would create an
    exemption and oversight framework for deploying non-FMVSS compliant
    ADS-equipped vehicles with permission from NHTSA. If put into place,
    this program would benefit AV developers by providing them a clear
    regulatory path forward for vehicles whose designs require exemptions
    from current FMVSS and would also provide NHTSA with valuable data on
    AV safety, which can inform further AV-related rulemaking. NHTSA had
    originally indicated that a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPRM'')
    would be issued on AV STEP in the fall of 2023, but that NPRM has yet
    to be made public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Exemption and Demonstration Framework for Automated Driving
    Systems 2127-AM60, Reginfo.Gov, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
    eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202304&RIN=2127
    -AM60.
        \2\ Ann Carlson, Acting Adm'r, Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin.,
    Keynote Address at the Automated Road Transportation Symposium
    (ARTS2023) (July 12, 2023), https://www.nhtsa
    .gov/speeches-presentations/automated-road-transportation-symposium-
    arts23-keynote-address.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The second outstanding rulemaking that would help with the wider
    deployment of AV technologies and their safety benefits is FMCSA's
    proposed rule on Motor Carrier Operation of Automated Driving System
    (ADS)-Equipped Commercial Motor Vehicles.\3\ This rulemaking would make
    needed updates to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
    (``FMCSRs'') to incorporate considerations for ADS-equipped commercial
    motor vehicles (``CMVs'') and codify FMCSA's existing interpretation
    that the FMCSRs do not require a human driver to operate or be present
    in a CMV operated by a SAE Level 4 or Level 5 ADS.\4\ Currently this
    rulemaking is under review by the Office of Management and Budget, and
    it is unclear when it will be finalized.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Motor Carrier Operation of Automated Driving System (ADS)-
    Equipped Commercial Motor Vehicles 2126-AC17, Reginfo.Gov, https://
    www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pub
    Id=202310&RIN=2126-AC17.
        \4\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Preparing for the Future of
    Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0) 9 (Oct. 2018), https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/
    automated-vehicles/320711/preparing-future-transportation-automated-
    vehicle-30.pdf; Safe Integration of Automated Driving Systems-Equipped
    Commercial Motor Vehicles, 84 Fed. Reg. 24449, 24453 (May 28, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One additional piece of regulatory action at FMCSA that would aid
    in the deployment of AVs and promote roadway safety is the granting of
    the existing AV-industry-backed exemption petition that would allow
    ADS-equipped vehicles to use alternative warning devices to signal when
    an ADS-equipped CMV is stopped on the roadside.\5\ This data-backed
    exemption petition was filed in January 2023 and has been pending for
    17 months. This is far beyond the typical review period for equipment
    and lighting-related petitions, which over the last several years have,
    on average, been completed within 8 months.\6\ FMCSA should act
    expeditiously to ensure AV developers can more easily deploy their CMVs
    and contribute to improving roadway safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See Aurora & Waymo, FMCSA-2023-0071-0011, Joint Waymo-Aurora
    Application for Exemption (Jan. 10, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/
    document/FMCSA-2023-0071-0011.
        \6\ FMCSA's own regulations state that the agency will attempt to
    issue a final decision on any exemption application within 180 days of
    receipt. 49 C.F.R. Sec. 381.320.

        Question 2. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a
    provision that I authored to require that states publish vulnerable
    road user safety assessments, which reports on incidents involving
    vulnerable road users and on countermeasures. How should public and
    private sector actors use this information to improve road safety?
        Answer. Improving the safety of vulnerable road users (``VRUs'') is
    a vital task for improving overall roadway safety. In the first half of
    2023, an estimated 3,373 pedestrians were killed on U.S. roads, a 14
    percent increase over 2019.\7\ In 2021, NHTSA recorded 966 cyclist
    deaths (a 1.9 percent increase over 2020) and 41,615 cyclist injuries
    (a 7 percent increase over 2020).\8\ These numbers are only a portion
    of the over 40,000 roadway deaths,\9\ and over 2 million roadway
    injuries that the U.S. has faced in recent years.\10\ Consistent with
    the U.S. Department of Transportation's safe systems approach, new
    vehicle technologies, including AVs, can be an important tool for
    improving the safety of VRUs and the overall safety of our roads.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Governors Highway Safety Ass'n, Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities
    by State January-June 2023 Preliminary Data, 3 (2023), https://
    www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians24.
        \8\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp., DOT
    HS 813 484, 2021 Data--Bicyclistsand Other Cyclists (June 2023),
    https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813484.pdf.
        \9\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp., DOT
    HS 813 561, Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2023
    (April 2024), https://crashstats
    .nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813561.
        \10\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
    DOT HS 813 560 Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes in 2022 (April
    2024), https://crashstats.nhtsa
    .dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
    813560#::text=The%20estimated%20number%20of%20peo
    ple,2021%20to%2075%20in%202022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        An ADS, which serves as the heart and brain of an AV, is equipped
    with suites of sensor systems (including lidar, radar, and cameras)
    with sensitivities, capabilities, and reaction times well beyond those
    of a human driver. These sensors grant an ADS a 360-degree field of
    vision which can detect, track, and react to objects and people even
    when hidden from human perception due to vehicles, buildings, and other
    obstructions. ADS are specifically developed to detect VRUs and predict
    and safely respond to their unique behavior.
        Much of the danger on our roads currently stems from human error,
    including speeding, impaired driving, unfamiliarity with the roadway,
    and fatigue. AVs are designed to remove that error from the equation.
    AVs have built a significant safety record through more than a decade
    of development, testing, and deployment, and ADS-equipped vehicles have
    now driven millions of miles autonomously, with vehicles operated by
    AVIA members having driven nearly 70 million autonomous miles on public
    roads in the U.S. alone.\11\ Reinsurer Swiss Re recently published an
    analysis of 3.8 million autonomous miles driven by passenger AVs
    operated by AVIA member Waymo, and found that when compared to baseline
    human drivers, Waymo AVs reduced bodily
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association Releases First-Ever
    ``State of AV'' Report, Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n (Apr. 10,
    2024), https://theavindustry.org/newsroom/press-releases/first-ever-
    state-of-av-report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        injury claims by 100 percent, and reduced property damage claims by
    76 percent.\12\ These results led Swiss Re to conclude that Waymo's AVs
    are ``significantly safer towards other road users than human drivers
    are.'' \13\ Waymo's own review of over 7 million rider-only autonomous
    miles found that the company's AVs demonstrated a 85 percent reduction
    in crashes involving any injury, and a 57 percent reduction in police-
    reported crashes when compared to human drivers.\14\ As the deployment
    of AVs grows, so will the safety benefits, for VRUs, passengers, and
    motor vehicle drivers alike.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Luigi Di Lillo et al., Comparative Safety Performance of
    Autonomous- and Human Drivers: A Real-World Case Study of the Waymo One
    Service (2023), https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2309/2309.01206.pdf.
        \13\ Id.
        \14\ Waymo Significantly Outperforms Comparable Human Benchmarks
    Over 7 Million Miles of Rider-Only Driving, Waymo (Dec. 20, 2023),
    https://waymo.com/blog/2023/12/waymo-significantly-outperforms-
    comparable-human-benchmarks-over-7-million/.

        Question 3. How can Federal transportation funding programs better
    incentivize safer infrastructure design?
        Answer. AVs can benefit from infrastructure improvements and
    advancements just as any other road user would. Improvements to things
    like intersection signaling, lane marking, and roadway surfaces serve
    AVs just as much as they do human drivers, as they improve overall
    driving conditions. While AVs are designed to operate on the road as it
    is today, and do not require any new or updated infrastructure to
    function, they can leverage smart infrastructure and connected vehicle
    (``CV'') technologies to supplement their own sensing systems. For
    example, AVIA member Cavnue is developing a number of AV-focused
    infrastructure technologies and is currently working with state
    governments in Michigan\15\ and Texas\16\ to build out first-of-their
    kind connected infrastructure corridors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Michigan Project, Cavnue, https://www.cavnue.com/michigan-
    project (last visited June 20, 2024).
        \16\ The SH 130 Smart Freight Corridor, Cavnue, https://
    www.cavnue.com/homepage/texas-project/ (last visited June 20, 2024).

        Question 4. What role does infrastructure design have in making
    autonomous vehicles safer? How should responsibility for this role be
    divided between levels of government?
        Answer. As noted above, AVs are designed to operate without added
    infrastructure, and benefit from infrastructure improvements much like
    any other driver would. While not necessary for AV operations, AVs may
    also benefit from smart infrastructure and CV technologies.

        Question 5. Some vehicles are marketed as fully autonomous but do
    not yet have that capability. Do drivers of such vehicles adequately
    understand the limitations and capabilities of their vehicle's
    autopilot systems? If not, what should be done to increase consumer
    awareness of their responsibilities when behind the wheel of such
    vehicles?
        Answer. In any discussion of vehicle automation and roadway safety,
    it is critical to distinguish autonomous vehicles from other types of
    technology. ``Driver-assistance technology''--which can be found in
    tens of millions of cars and trucks on our roads today--can be
    important and helpful, but it is not autonomous driving. SAE
    International's J3016 standard, which has been adopted industry wide,
    establishes 6 levels of driving automation, rising from ``No Driving
    Automation'' (Level 0) to ``Full Driving Automation'' (Level 5). Level
    2 systems (often called advanced driver assistance systems or ``ADAS'')
    are available on a number of vehicles today and are capable of
    ``partial driving automation,'' but require human supervision at all
    times.\17\ It is important that consumers understand the capabilities
    and limitations of those technologies. The misuse of driver assistance
    technologies cuts against the AV industry's goals for improving roadway
    safety, and risks conflating driver assistance technologies with more
    advanced and capable AV technologies. As the primary regulator and
    public educator on motor vehicles NHTSA has a key role to play in
    helping consumers understand the capabilities and limits of driver
    assistance technologies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ See SAE Int'l, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to
    Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, J2016_202104
    (2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AVIA members are focused on the development of SAE Level 4 and 5
    vehicles, truly autonomous vehicles whose automated driving systems are
    responsible for the entire dynamic driving task and are capable of
    reaching a minimal risk condition should an incident or failure occur
    while on the road. AVIA members are dedicated to properly educating
    policymakers and regulators on the capabilities and safety benefits of
    these vehicles, and we have recently released a set of TRUST Principles
    to guide our work with government, communities, and the public at
    large.\18\ Among these principles is support for transparency in AV
    industry interactions with government and the public to help build
    trust and understanding between all parties. The AV industry believes
    that public trust in AVs goes hand-in-hand with their deployment and
    that we must earn and maintain that trust.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ See Trust Principles, Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, https:/
    /theavindustry.org/trust-principles (last visited June 10, 2024).

        Question 6. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the ability to collect
    and report detailed safety data. What additional data should NHTSA
    collect to assess AV safety? How can NHTSA better compare the safety of
    AVs and other vehicles?
        Answer. AV developers are already providing NHTSA with important
    safety data via the agency's Standing General Order 2021-01
    (``SGO'').\19\ Under the SGO, AV developers provide the agency with
    detailed reports of any incidents or crashes involving their ADS-
    equipped vehicles within days of an event and provide monthly updates
    to NHTSA on previously reported incidents. The reporting requirements
    of the SGO encompass even minor collisions and incidents where a human
    driver, and not the ADS, are at fault. Regulators in states like
    California are also collecting data on AVs operating under their
    jurisdiction, with the California Department of Motor Vehicles
    publishing public disengagement (describing incidents where a vehicle's
    ADS disengages)\20\ and collision reports that include data from
    hundreds of vehicles on a yearly basis.\21\ California's Public
    Utilities Commission also collects data on AVs engaged in autonomous
    ride hail deployments within the state.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ See Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Second Amended
    Standing General Order 2021-01 (2023). https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/
    nhtsa.gov/files/2023-04/Second-Amended-SGO-2021-01_2023-04-05_2.pdf.
        \20\ Disengagement Reports, CA Dep't of Motor Vehicles, https://
    www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/
    disengagement-reports/ (last visited June 20, 2024).
        \21\ Autonomous Vehicle Collision Reports, CA Dep't of Motor
    Vehicles, https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/
    autonomous-vehicles/autonomous-vehicle-collision-reports/ (last visited
    June 20, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Should NHTSA seek further data on the safety of AVs, the agency
    should complete the rulemaking first proposed almost a year ago and
    launch the ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety Transparency and Evaluation
    Program (``AV STEP'').\22\ The agency has said publicly that AV STEP
    would provide a ``wealth of data'' on AV safety and performance, while
    also providing added transparency on AV deployments.\23\ The best way
    to ensure NHTSA has access to the data it needs on AVs is to complete
    the AV STEP rulemaking and open the program to AV developers across the
    country.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Ann Carlson, Acting Adm'r, Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety
    Admin., Keynote Address at the Automated Road Transportation Symposium
    (ARTS2023) (July 12, 2023), https://www
    .nhtsa.gov/speeches-presentations/automated-road-transportation-
    symposium-arts23-keynote-address.
        \23\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

         Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                  Jeff Farrah
        Question. Comprehensive and transparent data collection is
    essential to proving out the safety case on AVs and gaining public
    trust, as well as ensuring NHTSA has the data it needs for substantive
    regulatory analysis to ensure the safety of autonomous technologies.
    Under current policy, can you outline what categories of data NHTSA
    collects from your member companies on level 4 operations, what
    authorities that data is collected under, and whether each collection
    is voluntary or mandatory? In your view, what additional data does
    NHTSA need, if any, to undertake regulatory action, including new FMVSS
    specific to level 4 autonomous vehicles?
        Answer. Currently, NHTSA collects important safety data from AV
    developers via the agency's Standing General Order 2021-01
    (``SGO'').\24\ Under the SGO, AV developers are required to provide
    detailed reports to the agency of any incidents or crashes involving
    their automated driving system-(``ADS'') equipped vehicles within days
    of an event and provide monthly updates to NHTSA on previously reported
    incidents. The reporting requirements of the SGO encompass even minor
    collisions and incidents where a human driver, and not the ADS, are at
    fault. SGO reporting is mandatory for those AV operating entities named
    in the order, including a number of AVIA members. Regulators in states
    like California also use state regulatory power to collect data on AVs
    operating under their jurisdiction, with the California Department of
    Motor Vehicles publishing for the public disengagement reports
    (describing incidents where a vehicle's ADS disengages)\25\ and
    collision reports that include data from hundreds of vehicles on a
    yearly basis.\26\ California's Public Utilities Commission also
    collects data on AVs engaged in autonomous ride hail deployments within
    the state. These data collections are mandated as part of the
    permitting process for testing and deploying AVs in California.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ See Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Second Amended
    Standing General Order 2021-01 (2023). https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/
    nhtsa.gov/files/2023-04/Second-Amended-SGO-2021-01_2023-04-05_2.pdf.
        \25\ Disengagement Reports, CA Dep't of Motor Vehicles, https://
    www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/
    disengagement-reports/ (last visited June 20, 2024).
        \26\ Autonomous Vehicle Collision Reports, CA Dep't of Motor
    Vehicles, https://www.dmv.ca
    .gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/autonomous-
    vehicle-collision-reports/ (last visited June 20, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Should NHTSA seek further data on the safety of AVs to inform
    future rulemaking, the agency would be best served by completing the
    process first announced in July of 2023 and launching the ADS-Equipped
    Vehicle Safety Transparency and Evaluation Program (``AV STEP'').\27\
    NHTSA has publicly stated that AV STEP would provide a ``wealth of
    data'' on AV safety and performance, while also providing added
    transparency on AV deployments.\28\ By committing to AV STEP, NHTSA can
    serve its own data needs while also providing assistance to AV
    developers looking to deploy their vehicles across the country.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Ann Carlson, Acting Adm'r, Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety
    Admin., Keynote Address at the Automated Road Transportation Symposium
    (ARTS2023) (July 12, 2023), https://www
    .nhtsa.gov/speeches-presentations/automated-road-transportation-
    symposium-arts23-keynote-address.
        \28\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

          Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz to
                                  Jeff Farrah
    Corrupted Vehicles ANPRM
        On March 1, 2024, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and
    Security released an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
    requesting comments on issues related to connected vehicles (CVs)
    equipped with information and communications technology and services
    (ICTS) systems. The ANPRM proposes defining ``connected vehicle'' as
    ``an automotive vehicle that integrates onboard networked hardware with
    automotive software systems to communicate via dedicated short-range
    communication, cellular telecommunications connectivity, satellite
    communication, or other wireless spectrum connectivity with any other
    network or device.'' Further, such vehicles ``integrate hardware that
    enables connectivity within the vehicle and/or external connectivity.''

        Question 1. Please describe whether, in your view, it would be
    possible to manufacture such a vehicle exclusively of U.S. components.
        Answer. Entities across the automotive and transportation
    industries need the highest quality products available on the market-
    including some manufactured by foreign entities when there is no
    reasonable alternative-to meet key performance and safety requirements.
    At present this is especially true for autonomous vehicles (``AVs''),
    as AV technologies are relatively new and not all key components are as
    available from the domestic market as would be preferable. The AV
    industry's supply chain is diverse, and AVs themselves contain a mix of
    domestic equipment and software designed and purpose-built by AV
    developers, motor vehicles designed and built both domestically and
    abroad, and component technologies and software sourced globally. When
    sourcing equipment, AVIA members prioritize safety and must balance
    technical demands, performance requirements, and production and
    deployment timelines. Suppliers may produce components of differing
    designs from company to company, which can lock AV developers into sole
    source relationships as they design vehicle systems around what is
    available.

        Question 2. Please describe whether, in your view, there are any
    vehicle types--such as electric vehicles--that would not meet the
    ANRPM's proposed definition.
        Answer. In AVIA's public comments on the Bureau of Industry and
    Security's (``BIA'') ANPRM,\1\ we did not raise issue with the
    definitions used by the agency, but did encourage BIS to, whenever
    possible, use definitions from existing industry standards, such as SAE
    International's J3016 standard,\2\ when discussing AV-related issues to
    ensure consistency of terminology across government agencies and
    industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, Comment Letter on Advanced
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Securing the Information and
    Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain: Connected Vehicles
    (Apr. 30, 2024), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/BIS-2024-0005-
    0039.
        \2\ See SAE International, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms
    Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,
    J2016_202104 (2021).

        Question 3. The ANPRM specifically focuses on ICTS products and
    services from persons ``owned by, controlled by, or subject to the
    jurisdiction or direction of'' certain foreign adversaries, including
    China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.
        a. To what degree do your member companies utilize ICTS components
    from the countries listed above?
        Answer. AVIA members rely on both off-the-shelf and specially made
    lidar sensors, and foreign lidar manufacturers, including some based in
    China. As indicated above, it is imperative that key performance and
    safety requirements are met to ensure safe AV operations.
        b. Please describe any measures taken by your member companies to
    ensure the security and safety of vehicles containing ICTS components
    from the countries listed above.
        Answer. AVIA members undertake a number of security and safety
    practices to ensure the security of their vehicles, regardless of the
    country of origin of any component, as we discussed in greater detail
    in our comments on BIS's ANPRM.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, Comment Letter on Advanced
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Securing the Information and
    Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain: Connected Vehicles
    (Apr. 30, 2024), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/BIS-2024-0005-
    0039.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To navigate the world, an AV must constantly process diverse types
    of data, using a suite of on-board sensors, including lidars, radars,
    and cameras. This data is fed into the vehicle's automated driving
    system (``ADS''), which uses the data to safely plan a vehicle's route,
    react to the environment around the vehicle-including other cars,
    pedestrians, cyclists, traffic infrastructure, and more-and control the
    vehicle's movements. The ADS's sensors operate in a complementary
    fashion, with the strengths of one sensor making up for any weaknesses
    of another. While lidar, for example, performs best in clear weather
    conditions, radar is not disrupted by fog or rain, but lidar's lasers
    can provide a much more detailed set of data on the objects around it.
    At the same time, lidar and radar sensors cannot capture color or read
    text, so cameras and machine vision systems help detect and interpret
    road signs and identify the difference between types of objects.
        At the core, AVs rely on data collection and communications systems
    to navigate the world. Each AVIA member has developed their own ADS,
    meaning even when using off-the-shelf lidars, radars, cameras, or other
    components, these systems utilize confidential business information
    unique to each company and each developer's ADS, and they generally
    contain proprietary software and protected data. Due to this structure,
    AVIA members have embraced robust cybersecurity programs and developed
    the architecture of their ADS and systems to keep data secure. In the
    case of AVIA members, data flows and cybersecurity systems are designed
    to ensure that all data flowing through the ADS and its related
    components is controlled by the AVIA member and remains firmly under
    the control and monitoring of the respective domestic AV developer.
    These security practices extend to connectivity as well, with
    communication by ADS components routed through the ADS or other systems
    under the AVIA member's control. These measures not only assure that
    intellectual property and confidential data are secured, but also that
    the overall safety of the ADS is not compromised.
        The networks within an ADS are often designed to be closed, routing
    all communication through a single point and cutting off any ability
    for sensors or other components to communicate separately from the ADS.
    Network security techniques like network segmentation allow AV
    developers to compartmentalize systems within the vehicle's overall
    network and place security controls around communication between those
    networks, further limiting what information passes between different
    systems.\4\ Data-rich systems like lidar will often require a hard-
    wired ethernet or other high bandwidth connection to ensure point cloud
    data is effectively communicated to the ADS. Firmware or software
    updates for individual ADS sensors and components will need to be
    uploaded manually or transmitted first to the ADS before being
    transmitted to individual systems, a process which allows for
    additional cybersecurity measures. AV developers can require vendors to
    provide a component's source code to verify that there are no backdoors
    or hostile functionality present. The AV developer can then validate
    the update using internal engineering teams. The process involves
    scrubbing a patch prior to integrating it into a component. Prior to
    releasing a patch to the ADS, developers can undertake extensive
    validation testing, including lab and bench testing to ensure only
    expected sensor data is being transmitted over existing/permitted data
    links. Once accepted by internal engineering and integration platforms,
    a firmware update is accepted and can be loaded onto an ADS through a
    system maintained and controlled by the AV developer. At no point
    during the process is there direct communication from the supplier to
    the component. When using this type of system architecture, developers
    can be aware of every update loaded onto an ADS under their control,
    providing an added layer of security, and helping to reduce the
    likelihood of unauthorized access or updates that could alter a
    vehicle's performance without their knowledge.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ What is network segmentation?, VMWare, https://www.vmware.com/
    topics/glossary/content
    /network-
    segmentation.html#::text=Network%20segmentation%20is%20a%20network,serv
    ices%
    20to%20each%20sub%2Dnetwork (last visited Apr. 22, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For wireless communication outside of the vehicle, an ADS will rely
    primarily on commercial cellular data networks, with both standard and
    proprietary security protocols used to receive vehicle telemetry and
    provide remote assistance when needed. However, the connection speeds
    offered are not sufficient to constantly stream all the data collected
    by an ADS while in operation, and developers will typically reserve
    cellular bandwidth for mission critical data and operations. While the
    actual amount of data an AV produces can vary, depending on the
    technologies in use, an AV is capable of producing up to twenty
    terabytes of data per hour,\5\ far more than can be reliably uploaded
    via cellular networks outside of perfect conditions not normally found
    in the real world.\6\ The scale of the data produced by an AV can also
    make intrusions into a vehicle's systems by a third-party easier to
    detect, as unauthorized attempts to move vehicle data would be
    immediately noticeable due to the significant bandwidth demands.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Florian Gotz, The Data Deluge: What do we do with the data
    generated by AVs?, Siemens (Jan. 22, 2021), https://
    blogs.sw.siemens.com/polarion/the-data-deluge-what-do-we-do-with-the-
    data-generated-by-avs/.
        \6\ Tim Fisher, 5G Speed: How to Understand the Numbers, Lifewire
    (Sept. 21, 2023), https://www.lifewire.com/5g-speed-4180992.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Common cybersecurity practices in the AV industry include adherence
    to organization-wide security strategies like the National Highway
    Transportation Safety Administration's (``NHTSA'') Cybersecurity Best
    Practices for the Safety of Modern Vehicles (``Cyber Best Practices'')
    which provides cybersecurity policy and procedure recommendations not
    only for the AV industry, but also for entities across the motor
    vehicle supply chain.\7\ In the Cyber Best Practices, NHTSA also
    recommends that the automotive industry follow the National Institute
    of Standards and Technology's (``NIST'') Cybersecurity Framework, which
    provides guidance to organizations of all kinds on how to structure
    cybersecurity programs.\8\ By internalizing and building on the
    prescriptions of NHTSA's Cyber Best Practices, AVIA members have
    established strong cybersecurity programs that ensure cybersecurity
    risks are identified, investigated, and mitigated across their
    operations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Cybersecurity Best
    Practices for the Safety of Modern Vehicles (Sept. 2022), https://
    www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-09/cybersecurity-best-
    practices-safety-modern-vehicles-2022-tag.pdf
        \8\ See Nat'l Inst. of Standards and Tech., NIST CSWP 29, The NIST
    Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (Feb. 26, 2024), https://
    nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP
    .29.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because AV technology is innovative, proprietary, and highly
    valuable, companies are incentivized to be even more careful in how
    they approach cybersecurity. AVIA members employ large teams of
    security experts focused specifically on protecting their technology
    from external access or misuse. This starts by establishing, with the
    help of industry standards and best practice guidelines, clear internal
    processes for identifying and mitigating cybersecurity risks before
    they happen--processes that may block unauthorized entities, including
    15 CFR 7.4 entities, from changing the component configuration or
    firmware, leading to a robust set of cybersecurity tools to keep
    vehicles and systems secure. By building on the guidance in NHTSA's
    Cyber Best Practices and other industry standards and guides, AVIA
    members can create layers of procedures and technical solutions,
    reducing cybersecurity risks and strengthening their ability to detect
    and mitigate vulnerabilities quickly. These procedures and solutions
    can also be used to evaluate and secure software and materials up and
    down the AV industry's supply chain.
        To help ensure the security of their vehicles and systems, AVIA
    members can also impose requirements on vendors and use industry
    standards and tools to evaluate if those requirements are met. In
    addition to NHTSA's Cyber Best Practices and NIST's Cybersecurity
    Framework, this includes NIST's Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk
    Management Practices for Systems and Organizations, which provides
    comprehensive guidance on identifying, assessing, and mitigating
    cybersecurity risks across supply chains through structured risk
    management systems informed by risk assessments.\9\ Much like NIST's
    Cybersecurity Framework, the intent of this document is for entities to
    build cybersecurity considerations across operations, including when
    engaging with suppliers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See Jon Boyens et al., Nat'l Inst. of Standards and Tech., NIST
    SP 800-161r1, Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for
    Systems and Organizations (May 2022), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/
    nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-161r1.pdf.

        Question 4. In general, how would restricted access to foreign-made
    components or systems impact the American automobile industry,
    including vehicle costs, employment, and overall competitiveness?
        Answer. As noted above, entities across the automotive and
    transportation industries, including within the AV industry, need the
    highest quality products available on the market-including some
    manufactured by foreign entities when there is no reasonable
    alternative-to meet key performance and safety requirements.
    Restricting access to these components could harm the safety of
    American AVs, as they will not be able to access the best equipment
    available and hamper the growth and competitiveness of the U.S. AV
    industry by limiting access to key technologies that foreign
    competitors would remain able to use without issue.
        a. How would such restrictions potentially impact the tripartite
    auto manufacturing supply chain throughout the U.S., Mexico, and
    Canada?
        Answer. As these restrictions would presumably be targeted at any
    vehicle intended for the U.S. market, restrictions on the sourcing of
    components would impact the manufacturing supply chain across the U.S.,
    Mexico, and Canada. In the short term these restrictions could disrupt
    ongoing manufacturing as companies seek to source parts from suppliers
    not subject to restrictions. In the long term it could encourage the
    development of new suppliers in all three countries to source advanced
    components locally.

        Questtion 5. To your knowledge, have any American connected
    vehicles, as defined by the ANPRM, been compromised by a foreign
    adversary in a manner that would affect the safety or security of the
    United States? If yes, please describe any incidents.
        Answer. AVIA only has knowledge of the AV industry and cannot speak
    to all connected vehicles across the country. That said, to our
    knowledge this has not occurred to any AV operating within the U.S.
                                     ______

          Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ted Budd to
                                  Jeff Farrah
        Question. Your testimony highlights the fact that the autonomous
    vehicle industry's primary goal is to improve roadway safety. The
    sophisticated systems found on autonomous vehicles give them a full
    360-degree awareness of the environment around the vehicle, and the
    response time of any AV far outperforms anything a human driver could
    be capable of. As many of the statements here today have attested, the
    number one cause of traffic incidents is simple human error so, I would
    like to know, what steps can Congress take to encourage the development
    of autonomous vehicles and are there any harmful regulations standing
    in the way of the AV industry?
        Answer. Research continues to show the many ways that human
    behavior overwhelmingly represents the most common factor in fatal
    accidents on our roads. A recent study by the National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration (``NHTSA'') found that over 55 percent of all
    people injured or killed in a roadway incident tested positive for one
    or more drugs (including alcohol).\10\ Drivers are also frequently
    distracted by electronics; at any given time, almost 3 percent of all
    drivers are looking at or using their handheld device.\11\ Studies have
    also found that drivers manipulating cell phones are two to six times
    more at risk for a crash.\12\ Several categories of behavior-related
    fatalities have increased in the past few years, including police-
    reported alcohol-involved crashes and deaths of unrestrained
    passengers.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
    DOT HS 813 399, Alcohol and Drug Prevalence Among Seriously or Fatally
    Injured Road Users, 2 (2022), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/65623/
    dot_65623_DS1.pdf.
        \11\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
    DOT HS 813 184c, Driver Electronic Device Use in 2020, 1 (2021),
    https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813184.pdf.
        \12\ Distracted driving, INS. INST. FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY, https://
    www.iihs.org/topics/distracted-driving (last visited June 20, 2024).
        \13\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
    DOT HS 813 298, Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities And
    Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2021, 1 (2022), https://
    www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-estimate-2021-traffic-fatalities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For years, the U.S. Department of Transportation has promoted a
    safe systems approach to addressing traffic fatalities: safe people,
    safe speeds, safe vehicles, safe roads, and post-crash care. AVs are
    poised to help combat roadway deaths by removing human error from the
    driving equation and have built a significant safety record through
    more than a decade of development, testing, and deployment. Automated
    Driving System-(``ADS'') equipped vehicles have now driven millions of
    miles autonomously, with vehicles operated by AVIA members having
    driven nearly 70 million autonomous miles on public roads in the U.S.
    alone.\14\ Reinsurer Swiss Re recently published an analysis of 3.8
    million autonomous miles driven by passenger AVs operated by AVIA
    member Waymo, and found that when compared to baseline human drivers,
    Waymo AVs reduced bodily injury claims by 100 percent, and reduced
    property damage claims by 76 percent.\15\ These results led Swiss Re to
    conclude that Waymo's AVs are ``significantly safer towards other road
    users than human drivers are.'' \16\ Waymo's own review of over 7
    million rider-only autonomous miles found that the company's AVs
    demonstrated a 85 percent reduction in crashes involving any injury,
    and a 57 percent reduction in police-reported crashes when compared to
    human drivers.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association Releases First-Ever
    ``State of AV'' Report, Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n (Apr. 10,
    2024), https://theavindustry.org/newsroom/press-releases/first-ever-
    state-of-av-report.
        \15\ Luigi Di Lillo et al., Comparative Safety Performance of
    Autonomous-and Human Drivers: A Real-World Case Study of the Waymo One
    Service (2023), https://arxiv.org/
    ftp/arxiv/papers/2309/2309.01206.pdf.
        \16\ Id.
        \17\ Waymo Significantly Outperforms Comparable Human Benchmarks
    Over 7 Million Miles of Rider-Only Driving, Waymo (Dec. 20, 2023),
    https://waymo.com/blog/2023/12/waymo-significantly-outperforms-
    comparable-human-benchmarks-over-7-million/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Perhaps the most important thing Congress can do to help further
    the deployment of AVs and ensure Americans across the country can enjoy
    the safety benefits of the technology is to pass Federal AV legislation
    like the AV START Act previously introduced by Sens. Peters and
    Thune.\18\ Such a bill should encompass all vehicle types and include
    statutory and regulatory changes to support the wider deployment of AVs
    across the U.S. AVIA's own Federal policy framework, published last
    year, details a number of components such a law should include.\19\
    AVIA was pleased to see the Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group--led by
    Senators Schumer, Rounds, Heinrich, and Young--encourage continued
    ``work on developing a Federal framework for testing and deployment of
    autonomous vehicles across all modes of transportation to remain at the
    forefront of this critical space. This effort is particularly critical
    as our strategic competitors, like the Chinese Communist Party,
    continue to race ahead and attempt to shape the vision of this
    technology.'' \20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ See American Vision for Safer Transportation through
    Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies Act, S. 1885, 115th Cong.
    (2017), https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1885.
        \19\ Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, Federal Policy Framework for
    Our AV Future (March 2023), https://theavindustry.org/resources/AVIA-
    Federal-Policy-Framework-for-Our-AV-Future.pdf.
        \20\ Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group, Driving U.S. Innovation in
    Artificial Intelligence 12-13 (May 2024), https://www.politico.com/f/
    ?id=0000018f-79a9-d62d-ab9f-f9af975
    d0000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress should also encourage NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier
    Safety Administration (``FMCSA'') to complete important outstanding
    rulemakings that, once completed, would help bring the safety benefits
    of AV technologies to communities across the country. The first
    rulemaking, from NHTSA, would create the ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety
    Transparency and Evaluation Program (``AV STEP'').\21\ First announced
    in July of 2023,\22\ AV STEP would create an exemption and oversight
    framework for deploying non-FMVSS compliant ADS-equipped vehicles with
    permission from NHTSA. If put into place, this program would benefit AV
    developers by providing them a clear regulatory path forward for
    vehicles whose designs require exemptions from the current FMVSS but
    would also provide NHTSA with valuable data on AV safety, which can
    inform further AV-related rulemaking. NHTSA had originally indicated
    that a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPRM'') would be issued on AV
    STEP in the fall of 2023, but that NPRM has yet to be made public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Exemption and Demonstration Framework for Automated Driving
    Systems 2127-AM60, Reginfo.Gov, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
    eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202304&RIN=2127
    -AM60.
        \22\ Ann Carlson, Acting Adm'r, Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety
    Admin., Keynote Address at the Automated Road Transportation Symposium
    (ARTS2023) (July 12, 2023), https://www.nhtsa
    .gov/speeches-presentations/automated-road-transportation-symposium-
    arts23-keynote-address.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The second outstanding rulemaking that would help with the wider
    deployment of AV technologies and their safety benefits is FMCSA's
    proposed rule on Motor Carrier Operation of Automated Driving System
    (ADS)-Equipped Commercial Motor Vehicles.\23\ This rulemaking would
    make needed updates to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
    (``FMCSRs'') to incorporate considerations for ADS-equipped commercial
    motor vehicles (``CMVs'') and codify FMCSA's existing interpretation
    that the FMCSRs do not require a human driver to operate or be present
    in a CMV operated by a SAE Level 4 or Level 5 ADS.\24\ Currently this
    rulemaking is under review by the Office of Management and Budget, and
    it is unclear when it will be finalized.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Motor Carrier Operation of Automated Driving System (ADS)-
    Equipped Commercial Motor Vehicles 2126-AC17, Reginfo.Gov, https://
    www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pub
    Id=202310&RIN=2126-AC17.
        \24\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Preparing for the Future of
    Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0) 9 (Oct. 2018), https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/
    automated-vehicles/320711/preparing-future-transportation-automated-
    vehicle-30.pdf; Safe Integration of Automated Driving Systems-Equipped
    Commercial Motor Vehicles, 84 Fed. Reg. 24449, 24453 (May 28, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One additional piece of regulatory action at FMCSA that would aid
    in the deployment of AVs and promote roadway safety is the granting of
    an existing AV-industry-backed exemption petition that would allow ADS-
    equipped vehicles to use alternative warning devices to signal when an
    ADS-equipped CMV is stopped on the roadside.\25\ This data-backed
    exemption petition was filed in January 2023 and has been pending for
    17 months. This is far beyond the typical review period for equipment
    and lighting-related petitions, which over the last several years have,
    on average, been completed within 8 months.\26\ FMCSA should act
    expeditiously to ensure AV developers can more easily deploy their
    commercial motor vehicles and contribute to improving roadway safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ See Aurora & Waymo, FMCSA-2023-0071-0011, Joint Waymo-Aurora
    Application for Exemption (Jan. 10, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/
    document/FMCSA-2023-0071-0011.
        \26\ FMCSA's own regulations state that the agency will attempt to
    issue a final decision on any exemption application within 180 days of
    receipt. 49 C.F.R. Sec. 381.320.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------