[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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------