[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EVERY LIFE COUNTS: IMPROVING THE SAFETY OF OUR NATION'S ROADWAYS
=======================================================================
(116-10)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 9, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-978 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
JOHN GARAMENDI, California RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., ROB WOODALL, Georgia
Georgia JOHN KATKO, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana BRIAN BABIN, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JARED HUFFMAN, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JULIA BROWNLEY, California RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida DOUG LaMALFA, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
MARK DeSAULNIER, California PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Chair BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York Puerto Rico
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona ROSS SPANO, Florida
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas GREG PENCE, Indiana
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
(ii)
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee DON YOUNG, Alaska
JOHN GARAMENDI, California ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Arkansas
Georgia BOB GIBBS, Ohio
JARED HUFFMAN, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JULIA BROWNLEY, California THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California ROB WOODALL, Georgia
MARK DeSAULNIER, California JOHN KATKO, New York
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York MIKE BOST, Illinois
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey DOUG LaMALFA, California
GREG STANTON, Arizona BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa, Vice Chair MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota ROSS SPANO, Florida
HARLEY ROUDA, California PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey GREG PENCE, Indiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DINA TITUS, Nevada
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, opening statement..................................... 1
Hon. Ross Spano, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida:
Opening statement............................................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Tennessee, prepared statement.................................. 119
Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement........................... 120
WITNESSES
Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member, National Transportation Safety
Board:
Oral statement............................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Fred Jones, Vice Mayor, City of Neptune Beach, Florida, on
behalf of Transportation for America:
Oral statement............................................... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Michael L. Brown, Chief of Police, Alexandria (Virginia) Police
Department:
Oral statement............................................... 54
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Jay Bruemmer, Vice President, K&G Striping, Inc., on behalf of
the American Traffic Safety Services Association:
Oral statement............................................... 60
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Mike Sewell, Active Transportation Service Line Leader, Gresham
Smith, on behalf of the League of American Bicyclists:
Oral statement............................................... 66
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Nicholas J. Smith, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer,
the National Safety Council:
Oral statement............................................... 75
Prepared statement........................................... 76
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act of 2019, H.R. 2220, 116th
Cong., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Babin.................. 110
Letter of April 8, 2019, from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and
CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Norton.................................. 121
Statement of Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton....... 122
Statement of the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton........... 126
Statement of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Norton......................................................... 129
Letter of April 9, 2019, from the Road to Zero Coalition,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton........................ 134
Statement of J. Scott Marion, President-Infrastructure, Lindsay
Corporation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Lipinski......... 140
Letters of April 10, 2019, and February 26, 2019, from the
Coalition for Future Mobility, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Graves of Missouri............................................. 141
Statement of Benjamin Harvey, President, E.L. Harvey & Sons Inc.,
on behalf of the National Waste and Recycling Association,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Graves of Missouri............ 143
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Hon. Jennifer Homendy,
Member, National Transportation Safety Board................... 147
Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson for Hon. Jennifer
Homendy, Member, National Transportation Safety Board.......... 148
Question from Hon. Brian Babin for Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member,
National Transportation Safety Board........................... 149
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Hon. Fred Jones, Vice
Mayor, City of Neptune Beach, Florida, on behalf of
Transportation for America..................................... 151
Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson for Hon. Fred Jones, Vice
Mayor, City of Neptune Beach, Florida, on behalf of
Transportation for America..................................... 152
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton for Michael L. Brown,
Chief of Police, Alexandria (Virginia) Police Department....... 153
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton for Jay Bruemmer, Vice
President, K&G Striping, Inc., on behalf of the American
Traffic Safety Services Association............................ 154
Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Nicholas J. Smith,
Interim President and Chief Executive Officer, the National
Safety Council................................................. 155
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
April 4, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``Every Life Counts:
Improving the Safety of our Nation's Roadways''
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
Tuesday, April 9, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in HVC 210, Capitol
Visitor Center, to receive testimony related to ``Every Life
Counts: Improving the Safety of our Nation's Roadways.'' The
purpose of this hearing is to assess the safety of our Nation's
roads and learn what can be done to lower the number of
traffic-related fatalities and injuries. The Subcommittee will
hear from a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Member,
the Vice Mayor of Neptune, Florida, the City of Alexandria's
Chief of Police, the League of American Bicyclists, the
National Safety Council, and the American Traffic Safety
Services Association.
BACKGROUND
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), 37,133 people lost their lives in
accidents on U.S. roadways in 2017 \1\. That means an average
of 101 people died each day in motor vehicle crashes, equating
to roughly one fatality every 15 minutes. There were a total of
5,977 pedestrian fatalities in 2017, and preliminary reports
indicate that number increased in 2018, leading to the highest
rate of pedestrian fatalities since 1990 \2\. There were 783
cyclist deaths in 2017 and 852 cyclist deaths in 2016. And, the
5,172 motorcyclist fatalities in 2017 is more than twice what
it was two decades ago. According to the National Safety
Council, injuries from motor vehicle incidents totaled more
than 4.6 million in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Encyclopedia.''
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, https://
wwwfars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx.
\2\ ``New Projection: 2018 Pedestrian Fatalities Highest Since
1990.'' Governors Highway Safety Association, 28 Feb. 2019, https://
www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/pedestrians19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
unintentional injury is now the third leading cause of death
for Americans. Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of
unintentional injury deaths, second only to opioid overdoses.
Roadway injuries are the eighth leading cause of death
globally, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), and
are the number one cause of death for children ages 5-14 and
youth ages 15-29.
The FAST Act (P.L 114-94), enacted on December 4, 2015,
reauthorized Federal surface transportation programs through
September 30, 2020. This legislation built on the foundation
established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240), the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (P.L 105-178) enacted in
1998, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59)
enacted in 2005, and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21) (P.L. 112-141) enacted in 2012.
As part of each of these multi-year authorization bills,
Congress has directed guaranteed Federal funding toward
programs to ensure safety on our Nation's roads. These include
grants to improve physical roadway infrastructure; grant
programs to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving
large trucks and buses; grant programs to incentivize States to
adopt laws and regulations to improve highway safety; and
grants to assist State enforcement of vehicle and driver safety
measures. Congress has also mandated that U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) agencies undertake numerous rulemakings in
each of these areas to address outstanding safety concerns,
many of which are discussed below.
In 2016, FHWA, FMCSA, and NHTSA announced, in partnership
with the National Safety Council, the launch of the ``Road to
Zero'' coalition. The goal of the coalition is to end
fatalities on the Nation's roads within the next 30 years. The
DOT committed $3 million in grants over three years to
organizations working on lifesaving programs. The Road to Zero
Coalition focuses on promoting strategies proven to save lives,
such as seat belt use, traffic safety enforcement, and
education campaigns. The coalition also focuses on developing
new evidence-based strategies to addressing changes in driver
behavior.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
The NTSB was created by Congress on April 1, 1967, as an
independent Federal agency charged with investigating all civil
aviation accidents and significant accidents in other modes of
transportation. The NTSB determines the probable cause of the
accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing
future accidents. Since its inception 50 years ago, the NTSB
has investigated thousands of accidents and made more than
14,500 recommendations to improve transportation safety,
including over 2,400 highway safety recommendations. Over 80
percent of NTSB safety recommendations have been acted upon
favorably, saving lives. Specific information on NTSB
recommendations is included below.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal-
aid program, funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, which
provides funding to projects that will achieve a significant
reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public
roads, including local roads and roads on tribal land. In order
to use HSIP funding, a State must have an approved
comprehensive, data-driven strategic highway safety plan (SHSP)
that defines State safety goals and describes a program of
strategies to improve safety. Funding provided under HSIP is
apportioned to States to implement highway safety improvement
projects, which are included in a State's SHSP, to correct or
improve hazardous road locations and features, or to address
highway safety problems.
The FAST Act increased funding for the HSIP program,
providing a total of $11.6 billion to States and tribes over
five years. The FAST Act also increased funding for the rail-
highway grade crossing program, funded out of HSIP. The set-
aside increases from $225 million in FY 2016 to $245 million in
FY 2020. The FAST Act amended eligible uses of HSIP funds to
include only those listed in statute, most of which are related
to physical infrastructure improvements to enhance safety, and
specifically added the following eligible uses: installation of
vehicle-to-infrastructure communication equipment; pedestrian
hybrid beacons; and roadway improvements that provide
separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles.
The FAST Act also included ``complete streets'' language,
which encourages States to adopt standards to provide for the
safe and adequate accommodation of all surface transportation
users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit
riders of all ages and abilities. Comparable Senate language to
require States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
to adopt such policies was not retained in the final Conference
Report. The FAST Act also promotes the use of alternate design
guides in order to right-size projects and accommodate all
users, which contributes to more livable communities and
expands safe transportation options.
Policies such as complete streets help reduce accidents and
fatalities for all road users by addressing a wide range of
elements unique to each community, such as pedestrian
accessibility, street crossings, and bus and bike lanes. In
November 2018, the NTSB released a special investigative report
to address pedestrian safety \3\. Their recommendations
included calling on FHWA to expand its support of state and
local safety projects in order to develop a broad network of
safety improvements, as well as establishing a national metric
of pedestrian safety activity to improve local planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Special Investigation Report: Pedestrian Safety.'' National
Transportation Safety Board, 25 Sept. 2018, https://www.ntsb.gov/
safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR1803.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and
reduce economic costs due to traffic accidents on the Nation's
roadways through education, research, and by promulgating and
enforcing safety standards. The FAST Act reauthorized NHTSA's
behavioral highway safety programs. Section 402 of title 23,
United States Code, requires States to have safety plans
approved by the Secretary and designed to reduce fatalities,
injuries, and property damage resulting from traffic accidents.
Funding is distributed to States with approved plans through a
formula based on population and public road mileage. The FAST
Act increased funding to carry out state highway safety plans
and reduced administrative requirements for States.
The majority of motor vehicle deaths are linked to human
behavior. Of the 37,133 traffic related fatalities which
occurred in 2017:
10,874 (29 percent) were crashes where at least
one driver was alcohol-impaired;
9,717 (26 percent) were in crashes where at least
one driver was speeding, and;
3,166 (9 percent) were in crashes involving
distracted driving.
Traffic fatality data for each state can be found here:
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812581
NHTSA has also analyzed the economic costs of motor vehicle
crashes and found that traffic-related accidents cost the U.S.
$242 billion in 2010 \4\. Of that, $43 billion was attributed
to alcohol-impaired crashes, and $52 billion was attributed to
speed-related crashes. Seat belt use prevented 12,500
fatalities, 308,000 serious injuries, and $50 billion in injury
related costs in 2010. However, the failure of a substantial
portion of the driving population to buckle up caused 3,350
unnecessary fatalities, 54,300 serious injuries, and cost
society $10 billion in easily preventable injury related
expenses. In 2017, motor vehicle injuries are estimated to have
cost the U.S. economy $433.8 billion, including medical
expenses, lost wages and productivity, property damage, and
other similar expenses, according to the National Safety
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2010 (Revised).'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May
2015, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States can use their Section 402 funding on activities to
carry out their States safety plans, including activities to
improve enforcement of traffic safety laws. In their campaign
Save LIVES, which aims to significantly lower traffic
fatalities and injuries by 2050, the WHO included investment in
traffic safety enforcement as one of its top six priorities.
The CDC also recommends greater enforcement of seat belt
laws to help lower the number of traffic-related fatalities
caused by not using a restraint \5\. The majority of Americans
recognize the importance of wearing a seat belt, with the
national use rate at almost 90 percent. However, of the
passengers killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2017, 47
percent were not using a restraint. Despite a continued steady
rate of fatalities due to alcohol impairment in recent years,
traffic safety enforcement is steadily declining. According to
data from the FBI, the number of drunk driving arrests
decreased 24 percent from 2005 to 2017 \6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``What Works: Strategies to Increase Restraint Use.'' Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 Jan. 2015, https://www.cdc.gov/
motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/strategies.html.
\6\ ``2017 Crime in the United States.'' Federal Bureau of
Investigation, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-
u.s.-2017/tables/table-69/table-69.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE SAFETY GRANTS
In order to assist and incentivize States to improve safety
in areas known to contribute to fatalities, Congress authorized
the National Priority Safety Program (Section 405 of title 23,
U.S.C.). Through this program, NHTSA makes grant funding
available to States that adopt or implement programs or laws
to: increase the use of occupant protection devices; reduce the
number of alcohol impaired driving fatalities; encourage the
adoption of laws which prohibit distracted driving; improve
motorcyclist safety; improve the timeliness, accuracy,
completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of
state safety data; and encourage the adoption of state
graduated driver licensing laws. The FAST Act also added two
new grants under Section 405, the 24-7 Sobriety Program and the
Non-Motorized Safety program, which makes States with combined
pedestrian and bicycle fatalities that exceed 15 percent of
total crash fatalities in that State eligible to receive
funding to reduce such fatalities. Each State must meet
specific criteria in each national priority program to qualify
for funding. The FAST Act provided grant funding ($1.4 billion
over five years) for this program. In 2019, the Non-Motorized
Safety Grants program was fully utilized with each of the 25
states eligible for the grant receiving it.
The FAST Act also made limited changes to the Alcohol-
Ignition Interlock Law, Distracted Driving, and Graduated
Driver Licensing Incentive grants in order to increase the
number of States eligible for those grants. To learn which
States met the criteria for each grant program see: https://
www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/
fy19_grantdeterminations_and_deficiencies_in_stateapplications.p
df
Despite the changes made to these safety grants under the
FAST Act, states have not adapted their programs to qualify,
leaving the program underutilized. The table below shows the
number of states who were unsuccessful in meeting the programs'
criteria in 2019. Additionally, in each program, fewer States
applied for grants in 2019 than in 2018. For example, seventeen
states applied for Graduated Driver Licensing Law grants last
year, compared to only four states applying in 2019.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Graduated
Ignition Distracted Driver
Program Interlocks Driving Licensing
(405d) (405e) Law (405g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied 13 17 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awarded 5 4 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Awarded 8 13 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Not Apply 43 39 52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Eligible 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTSB's FY 2019-2020 Most Wanted List includes
recommendations to eliminate distractions, including a
nationwide ban on the use of personal electronic devices by all
drivers, and increased high-visibility enforcement for speeding
and drug and alcohol impaired driving. The full list of
recommendations can be found here: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/
mwl/Documents/2019-20/2019-20-MWL-SafetyRecs.pdf
DRUGGED DRIVING
An emerging area of safety concern is drugged driving.
NHTSA's most recent Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by
Drivers found that 20 percent of drivers tested positive for at
least one drug that could affect safety \7\. However, this
figure does not represent or confirm how many drivers were
impaired since a positive marijuana test can detect marijuana
use in the past week. A 2016 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
report found that an estimated 4.9 percent of drivers drove
within an hour of using marijuana \8\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``2013-2014 National Roadside Study of Alcohol and Drug Use by
Drivers.'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2017,
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/13013-
nrs_drug_092917_v6_tag.pdf.
\8\ ``2016 Traffic Safety Culture Index.'' AAA Foundation, Feb.
2017, https://aaafoundation.org/2016-traffic-safety-culture-index/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, NHTSA conducted a study in Virginia called the
Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk: A Case-Controlled Study, the
largest of its kind ever conducted, which assessed whether
marijuana use by drivers is associated with greater risk of
crashes \9\. The survey found that marijuana users are more
likely to be involved in accidents, but that the increased risk
may be due in part because marijuana users are more likely to
be in groups at higher risk of crashes, particularly young men.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk: A Case-Control Study.'' National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Dec. 2016, https://
www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/
812355_drugalcoholcrashrisk.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the current 0.08 percent Blood Alcohol Content
impairment standard, there is currently no impairment standard
for marijuana. Marijuana has a larger variation in how it
affects people than alcohol, making it more difficult to
establish a uniform impairment standard. The FAST Act required
NHTSA to report to Congress on several outstanding challenges
of marijuana-impaired driving, including methods to detect
marijuana-impaired driving, impairment standard feasibility,
methods to differentiate the cause of a driving impairment
between alcohol and marijuana, and the role and extent of
marijuana impairment in motor vehicle accidents. That report
was issued in July 2017 and provided three recommendations to
address marijuana-impaired driving:
Increase training and resources for law
enforcement officers using the most efficient and effective
techniques to detect and recognize impairment in drivers;
Continue research to enable development of an
impairment standard for driving under the influence of
marijuana, and;
Encourage States to collect data regarding the
prevalence of marijuana use by drivers and among those arrested
for impaired driving \10\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Marijuana-Impaired Driving a Report to Congress.'' National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, July 2017, https://
www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812440-marijuana-
impaired-driving-report-to-congress.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB recommendations for drugged driving include more
research to get better data to understand the scope of the
problem and the effectiveness of countermeasures \11\. NTSB
also recommends States should increase the collection,
documentation, and reporting of driver breath and blood test
results for alcohol and drugs following crashes. This is most
readily done through NHTSA's National Roadside Survey (NRS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``End Alcohol and Other Drug Impairment--Highway.'' National
Transportation Safety Board, https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/
mwlfs-19-20/mwl5-fsh.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, Congress has blocked NHTSA's ability to
continue this survey through an appropriations rider. In March
2018, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report
to Senate and House Appropriations Committees which found that
NHTSA had improved NRS methodology to address previous concerns
leading to its prohibition \12\. Their audit found there are
key differences in how the NRS is conducted as compared to a
traditional law enforcement checkpoint. As a result,
participation in the NRS is entirely voluntary and has never
resulted in an arrest, unlike law enforcement checkpoints. In
response to these findings, the FY 2019 Transportation,
Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Act did not
include the prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``National Roadside Survey: NHTSA Changed Methodology to
Address Driver Concerns.'' U.S. Government Accountability Office, 12
March 2018, https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/690593.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
Autonomous vehicles offer many safety improvements over
human drivers, but they too have limitations. Within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure safety issues such as safely navigating road
construction zones, pulling aside for emergency vehicles,
understanding police controlled intersections are all unique
challenges for autonomous vehicles. Roadway infrastructure
needs to compliment autonomous vehicles include road striping
and smart traffic lights. Finally, educating human drivers to
anticipate and react accordingly to the driving style of
autonomous vehicles will also need to be part of the process.
WITNESSES
The Honorable Jennifer Homendy, Member, National
Transportation Safety Board
The Honorable Fred Jones, Vice Mayor, City of
Neptune Beach, Florida, on behalf of Transportation for America
Mr. Michael L. Brown, Chief of Police, City of
Alexandria
Mr. Jay Bruemmer, Vice President, K & G Striping,
Inc., on behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services
Association
Mr. Mike Sewell, Active Transportation Service
Line Leader, Gresham Smith, on behalf of The League of American
Bicyclists
Mr. Nicholas Smith, Interim President and Chief
Executive Officer, The National Safety Council
EVERY LIFE COUNTS: IMPROVING THE SAFETY OF OUR NATION'S ROADWAYS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton (Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Ms. Norton. The subcommittee will come to order.
I want to welcome us all to today's hearing.
It is a priority for me and I hope for the members of this
committee. It is certainly equally important to the other
issues we are going to be considering as we move toward
reauthorization.
I do not see how we can reauthorize another transportation
surface bill without considering not only how to build it, but
how to make it safe for those who use it. I am going to ask
Members to check on your district the way I did mine, and I
wonder if your experience is like mine.
In 2015, the District of Columbia pledged to end roadway
fatalities by the year 2024. That must have been a year that
was given to us by the Department of Transportation or
somebody.
Yet, every year since that pledge there has been an
increase in fatalities. In the last 2 years of available data,
traffic-related deaths in my own district spiked by 35 percent.
That is why I am asking Members to look at their districts
because I do not believe, unfortunately, that I am alone.
Nationwide, in 2017, 37,133 people lost their lives in
motor vehicle related crashes. Now, I spell that number out.
Usually I round off the numbers, but I purposely did not do it
for the purposes of this hearing because each number represents
a life lost.
Every day we lose more than 100 lives in traffic-related
accidents. Some of those may be people walking in the streets
or in the roads, and we have had an increase in those
fatalities in my own district as well. Some of them may be
people riding in automobiles or trucks.
In 2016, the Department of Transportation announced the so-
called Road to Zero. It was a coalition with a goal of
completely eliminating roadway deaths within 30 years. Well,
all I can say is we are off to a poor start.
That is why pedestrian and traffic safety is a priority for
me as chair of this subcommittee. I am anxious to learn from
today's witnesses, representing an increasingly diverse array
of populations who use our roadways, including pedestrians and
bicyclists, and now people riding scooters, and law enforcement
on what we can do about this trend.
I would very much like this reauthorization to transform
our approach to roadway safety to help us get anywhere close to
zero deaths. That is an admirable goal. It is a goal we ought
to set.
We need to improve how we design our transportation
networks. We need to improve how we educate the users of those
networks, and we need to understand how to enforce the proven
strategies that we already claim will save lives and apparently
have not done so.
Some in Congress may still live in the 20th century of
transportation in wanting to eliminate the very small amount of
funding that is used for transportation alternatives, but I
think the people have already moved ahead of Congress and are
already on the roads using alternative modes of transportation.
All of these modes of transportation must be treated
equally, not cars over scooters, not bicycles over walking. All
must be treated as equally valid choices that people have
chosen to move people. The options belong not to Congress but
to the State and local communities who must be able to pursue
the smartest and most efficient and right-sized projects to
meet their own mobility needs of their own citizens.
I am a big proponent of technology as holding promise to
save lives, but human error and human choice today are very
real problems, and we do not have the technology in place and
will not have it in place for some time to save lives.
So we cannot wait to remove humans from the equation before
making the real progress we have promised to make.
The three leading causes of motor vehicle deaths remain
linked to the same human factors: alcohol impairment, speeding,
and distracted driving. I am particularly interested in hearing
from our witnesses on why we have not been able to curb this
longstanding issue, road safety, and what we can do to stop
these fatalities.
I look forward to today's discussion and thank each of our
witnesses for sharing their insights, your much needed
insights, with us.
I would like to ask the ranking member, Mr. Spano, who is
here for our ranking member, for his comments at this time.
Mr. Spano. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton.
I want to welcome everybody to the hearing today.
The current Federal surface transportation law, the FAST
Act, expires on September 30th, 2020. Last month this
subcommittee held a hearing to kick off its process to
reauthorize Federal surface transportation programs.
Today's hearing builds on that and is focused on how
Congress can improve the safety of our Nation's roads. In 2017,
as the Chair noted, 37,133 fatalities occurred on our Nation's
highways according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
While this is a 1.8-percent decrease from 2016, more can
and should be done to further reduce highway fatalities. The
Federal Surface Transportation Safety Programs are administered
by different modal administrations within the Department of
Transportation. These programs provide non-Federal partners
with resources to improve the safety of the Nation's surface
transportation system.
Today's hearing focuses on the safety programs administered
by the Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. These programs require States to
have a data-driven, performance-based approach to address their
unique highway safety challenges.
As we continue with our reauthorization process, it is
important that we gather feedback on how well these programs
are working and what other policy and programmatic change this
committee should consider.
With that I want to thank our witnesses for being with us
this morning, and I look forward to hearing their testimony on
this very important topic.
Madam Chair.
[Mr. Spano's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ross Spano, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida
Thank you, Chairwoman Norton. I want to welcome everyone to today's
hearing.
The current Federal surface transportation law, the FAST Act,
expires on September 30, 2020. Last month, this subcommittee held a
hearing to kick off its process to reauthorize Federal surface
transportation programs. Today's hearing builds on that and is focused
on how Congress can improve the safety of the Nation's roads.
In 2017, 37,133 fatalities occurred on our Nation's highways,
according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. While
this is a 1.8 percent decrease from 2016, more can be done to further
reduce highway fatalities.
The Federal surface transportation safety programs are administered
by different modal administrations within the Department of
Transportation. These programs provide non-Federal partners with
resources to improve the safety of the Nation's surface transportation
system.
Today's hearing focuses on the safety programs administered by the
Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. These programs require states to have a data-driven,
performance-based approach to address their unique highway safety
challenges.
As we continue with our reauthorization process, it is important
that we gather feedback on how well these programs are working and what
other policy and programmatic changes the committee should consider.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses for being with us this
morning, and I look forward to hearing their testimony on this very
important topic.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
And we will hear now from the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Somehow we seem to have become sort of inured to the fact
that 100 people a day die in motor vehicle accidents. Yes,
there is hortatory like, ``Oh, we are going to move to zero,''
but it is not being followed up with decisive action out of the
Department of Transportation or in many State DOTs.
So I am hopeful that as we move toward reauthorization of
the FAST Act that we can put new direction and new emphasis on
how to deal with this horrible toll.
You know, obviously drunk driving is a big problem. That
goes to enforcement issues. Speeding, enforcement issues.
Distractions, I think a lot of States have yet to adopt laws
regarding distractions, and there are new technologies that are
potentially going to build distractions into the automobiles or
after-market distractions like heads-up displays where you can
read your email on the windshield while you are driving.
We have to deal with all of these evolving problems and
then deal with the more traditional problems we have had.
There has been also an alarming increase in pedestrian
deaths, which the Chair mentioned, and cycling and pedestrian,
and some of that can be dealt with as we rebuild this crumbling
system, and when we look to Complete Streets or other ways to
better segregate traffic, pedestrians and bicycles, that can
help prevent some of those deaths.
In some cities, they are putting in bike boxes at the front
because the right turn is the most common cause of a vehicular
collision with a cyclist, and you know, there are other things
we can do that are pretty simple, not that expensive, but have
not really been exploited to their potential.
So I am looking forward to creative and innovative ideas. I
look forward to the witnesses giving us some of those ideas.
And with that I would yield back the balance of my time.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis, for holding this
hearing. I am pleased that the subcommittee is prioritizing roadway
safety--a topic that has not received the level of attention it
deserves.
We can and must do more to save lives and prevent injuries on our
roads. Currently, more than 100 people a day die in motor vehicle
accidents--that's one life lost every fifteen minutes. Pedestrian
deaths have also risen sharply in the last decade--an increase of 45
percent since 2009--and now account for 16 percent of all roadway
fatalities. Somehow this has become tolerable.
A total of 37,133 people were killed on our roadways in 2017. Let
me put this in context--this is the equivalent of about 218 fully
loaded airplanes falling out of the sky each year and yet somehow this
has not spurred Americans to demand that enough is enough. If that
weren't bad enough, when you consider that the top causes of motor
vehicle deaths are drunk driving, speeding, and distractions, you
realize these deaths are entirely preventable.
At a time when transportation is changing rapidly thanks to
innovation, data sharing, and automation, it's shocking we still aren't
making big strides in safety. We should be holding ourselves to a
higher standard, because when it comes to roadway safety every single
life counts. While we invest billions of dollars in research for cancer
and other diseases and allocate new resources to combatting the opioid
crisis, we have failed to seriously invest in lowering deaths on our
Nation's roadways.
So what can we do? Making substantial progress towards saving lives
requires a clear sense of--and strong commitment to--the goal of safety
as the highest priority. Two decades ago, Sweden launched an effort
called Vision Zero which set forth a road safety approach with a simple
aim: ``No loss of life is acceptable.'' This model has been replicated
in several countries around the world, and it guides the mission of the
U.S. Department of Transportation and the Road to Zero Coalition. And,
many U.S. cities have independently adopted policies to work towards
zero deaths in roadway accidents. Congress needs to demonstrate its
commitment to making Vision Zero a reality as well.
Unfortunately, highway safety has not been a high priority in
transportation talks in Congress in recent years. In the development of
both the FAST Act and MAP-21, there was a stark shift in the discourse
over safety in Congress. Instead of developing solutions to promote
safety, we sparred over proposals to ease state requirements on safety
funding and exempt industry after industry from safety regulations.
As Congress develops a bill to build 21st-century infrastructure,
ensuring safety of the users of that infrastructure must be a top
priority of this committee. Given that two-thirds of fatalities are
tied to drunk driving and excessive speed, I want to double down on
Federal actions that we know work--education and enforcement.
And we need to look at safety from all angles--not just promoting
more responsible behavior by road users, but by ensuring that roadway
design takes into account all users through smart policies, such as
complete streets. Addressing the unique elements of each community,
such as pedestrian accessibility, street crossings, and bus and bike
lanes, rather than a cookie-cutter approach can have a profound impact
on reducing traffic accidents and fatalities.
I look forward to today's discussion and learning what Congress can
do to raise the bar on safety.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I introduce today's panel, I want to note that we
had many more stakeholder groups who were interested in
speaking about safety than we could accommodate at today's
hearing, and that is really very encouraging to me that so many
wanted to come forward to speak to this issue.
It does speak to the rising consciousness and the pressure,
I think, Congress needs to find ways, along with those in the
States, to move this issue.
I, therefore, ask unanimous consent to enter into the
hearing record written statements from ITS America, Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety, and the American Road and
Transportation Builders Association.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information is on pages 121-129.]
Ms. Norton. We want to move now to our witnesses:
The Honorable Jennifer Homendy, Member of the National
Transportation Safety Board;
The Honorable Fred Jones, vice mayor, city of Neptune
Beach, Florida, on behalf of Transportation for America;
Mr. Michael L. Brown, chief of police, city of Alexandria,
Virginia;
Mr. Jay Bruemmer, vice president, K&G Striping Inc., on
behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services Association;
Mr. Mike Sewell, transportation service line leader,
Gresham Smith, on behalf of the League of American Bicyclists;
Mr. Nicholas Smith, interim president and chief executive
officer of the National Safety Council.
Thank you for being here. I look forward to your testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record.
You may proceed, Ms. Homendy.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JENNIFER HOMENDY, MEMBER, NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD; HON. FRED JONES, VICE MAYOR, CITY
OF NEPTUNE BEACH, FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
AMERICA; MICHAEL L. BROWN, CHIEF OF POLICE, ALEXANDRIA
(VIRGINIA) POLICE DEPARTMENT; JAY BRUEMMER, VICE PRESIDENT, K&G
STRIPING, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY
SERVICES ASSOCIATION; MIKE SEWELL, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE LINE LEADER, GRESHAM SMITH, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
AMERICAN BICYCLISTS; AND NICHOLAS J. SMITH, INTERIM PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL
Ms. Homendy. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Congressman
Spano, Chairman DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for inviting the NTSB to testify today.
The NTSB is an independent Federal agency charged by
Congress with investigating major transportation disasters. We
determine the probable cause of crashes and issue safety
recommendations to Federal, State, and local agencies, and
organizations to prevent future tragedies and injuries and save
lives.
We are not a regulatory agency in the conventional sense.
We do not adopt or enforce safety standards. Since 1967, the
NTSB has issued nearly 15,000 safety recommendations, about
2,500 of which are aimed at improving highway safety.
Overall, more than 80 percent of those have been adopted,
including recommendations that ensure airbags are safer, child
restraint fitting stations are available nationwide, and the
design and construction of schoolbuses are improved.
Every 2 years, we release a ``most wanted list'' of
transportation safety improvements to highlight issues that we
believe are the greatest risk to safety.
Our most recent list identifies 10 priorities, 7 of which
affect highway safety. Today I want to focus on speeding,
impaired driving, and pedestrian safety.
Speeding is one of the most common factors in motor vehicle
crashes. In 2016, more than 10,000 people were killed in
speeding related crashes, about the same number of people
killed in alcohol impaired driving crashes. Yet our attitude
toward speeding is much different. It is seen as more socially
acceptable.
Together we need to change that mindset. In July 2017, we
issued a study focused on reducing speeding related crashes. We
found that, one, we need to change how we set speed limits in
this country. Federal guidance to States is leading to ever-
increasing speed limits, and as a result, deaths on our
Nation's roadways.
From 2012 to 2016, we went from 32 States with maximum
speed limits at or above 70 to 41. Seven of those States are at
or above 80.
We need to increase enforcement through the use of
technologies, like automated speed enforcement and point-to-
point enforcement. We need in-vehicle technologies to address
speeding like speed limiters, and we need NHTSA to issue
performance standards for such technologies.
We need national leadership to address speeding, which
should include a campaign like Click It or Ticket, to change
driver behavior and incentive grants to States to encourage
them to implement programs to combat speeding.
We also need to better address impairment in
transportation. Twenty-nine die on our Nation's roads daily due
to alcohol-impaired driving crashes. That is one every 48
minutes.
We recommend reducing the BAC limit to .05 or lower, and
that NHTSA provide incentive grants to States to do so.
We recommend requiring ignition interlocks for all
convicted DWI offenders, and we want NHTSA to accelerate
widespread implementation of technology to enable vehicles to
detect driver impairment.
Finally, pedestrian safety. Over the last 10 years,
pedestrian fatalities have increased by 27 percent, while
overall highway fatalities have decreased by 12 percent.
In 2016, the NTSB began investigating a series of highway
crashes and issued a study that included 11 recommendations to
DOT focused on improving pedestrian safety.
We recommend strengthening Federal standards on vehicle
headlights; improving vehicle designs to reduce pedestrian
fatalities and injuries; and ensuring collision avoidance
technologies like pedestrian detection systems and automatic
emergency braking are standard on all vehicles.
We need better street designs. Traditional planning is
geared towards motor vehicle traffic. So we recommend that
States and MPOs implement a pedestrian safety action plan and
that FHWA provide more resources for State and local pedestrian
safety projects.
Finally, we need better data to support the decisionmaking
process. For example, in 2015, Portland, Oregon, identified 30
high crash streets and intersections that accounted for 57
percent of deadly crashes.
By analyzing injury and crash data, Portland was able to
determine where best to invest resources.
In closing, let me emphasize that more than 100 people die
on our highways every single day. In our view, one death is too
many. We must change a culture that is willing to accept those
losses, and we need your help to implement proven solutions.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
am happy to answer any questions.
[Ms. Homendy's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member, National
Transportation Safety Board
Good morning Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman
DeFazio, and Ranking Member Graves, and the Members of the
Subcommittee. And, let me offer my congratulations to Vice Chair
Finkenauer on her selection as Vice Chair of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for inviting the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to
testify before you today.
In 1967, Congress established the NTSB as an independent agency
within the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) with a
clearly defined mission to promote a higher level of safety in the
transportation system. In 1974, Congress reestablished the NTSB as a
separate entity outside of the USDOT, reasoning that ``no federal
agency can properly perform such (investigatory) functions unless it is
totally separate and independent from any other . . . agency of the
United States.'' \1\ Because the USDOT has broad operational and
regulatory responsibilities that affect the safety, adequacy, and
efficiency of the transportation system, and transportation accidents
may suggest deficiencies in that system, the NTSB's independence was
deemed necessary for proper oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 Sec. 302, Pub. L. 93-633,
88 Stat. 2166-2173 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTSB is charged by Congress with investigating every civil
aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in
other modes of transportation--highway, rail, marine, and pipeline. We
determine the probable cause of the accidents we investigate, and we
issue recommendations to federal, state, and local agencies, and other
entities, aimed at improving safety, preventing future accidents and
injuries, and saving lives. The NTSB is not a regulatory agency in the
conventional sense--it does not promulgate operating standards and does
not certificate organizations and individuals. The goal of our work is
to foster safety improvements, through formal and informal safety
recommendations, for the traveling public.
On call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, our investigators travel
throughout the country and to every corner of the world in response to
transportation disasters. In addition, we conduct special
transportation safety studies and coordinate the resources of the
federal government and other organizations to assist victims and their
family members who have been impacted by major transportation
disasters. Since our inception, we have investigated more than 146,000
aviation accidents and thousands of surface transportation accidents.
We have issued more than 14,650 safety recommendations to more than
2,400 recipients in all transportation modes, over 82 percent of which
have been implemented.
In the case of highway accidents, current law grants the NTSB
jurisdiction to investigate those ``highway accident[s], including a
railroad grade crossing accident, the Board selects in cooperation with
a State.'' \2\ The NTSB has a distinguished record of contributing to
highway safety for decades. For example, as a result of the NTSB's
investigative work and safety recommendations, automobile airbags for
all citizens are safer, child restraint fitting stations are available
nationwide, and graduated driver licensing programs for teenagers have
been implemented by many states. Additional examples of safety
improvements inspired by or resulting from investigations or
recommendations of the NTSB include improvements in the design and
construction of school buses, highway barrier improvements, and center
high-mounted rear brake lights on automobiles. Although there is no way
to quantify the accidents that did not happen or the lives that were
not lost because of the efforts of the NTSB, the tangible safety
improvements that can be directly associated with the work of the NTSB
have saved countless lives and avoided millions and perhaps billions of
dollars in injuries and property damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1131(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our goal is zero deaths and injuries on our nation's roadways; to
eliminate the more than 37,000 people killed in crashes on US highways
in 2017.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2017 Motor
Vehicle Crashes: Overview (Washington, DC: NHTSA, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 4, 2019, we announced our Most Wanted List of
Transportation Safety Improvements (MWL) for 2019-2020.\4\ First issued
in 1990, the MWL serves as the agency's primary advocacy tool to help
save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce property damage resulting from
transportation accidents. The NTSB created the program to increase
industry, Congressional, and public awareness of the transportation
safety issues identified in our accident investigations and safety
studies. Safety issues highlighted on the MWL receive increased
emphasis and become the primary focus of our advocacy activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Transportation Safety Board, 2019-2020 Most Wanted
List (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issues selected for the MWL are chosen from our safety
recommendations and emerging areas. Selections are based on the
magnitude of risk, potential safety benefits, timeliness, and
probability of advocacy efforts to bring about change. Issues selected
have been thoroughly validated by our investigations. They are issues
we identify as having received insufficient or inadequate action. They
are issues that could create a high safety risk if not addressed.
Our 2019-2020 list includes seven areas that affect highway safety:
Implement a Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Speeding-
Related Crashes
End Alcohol and Other Drug Impairment
Eliminate Distractions
Strengthen Occupant Protection
Increase Implementation of Collision Avoidance Systems in
All New Highway Vehicles
Reduce Fatigue-Related Accidents
Require Medical Fitness--Screen for and Treat Obstructive
Sleep Apnea
My testimony today will focus on those areas most closely related
to pedestrian and passenger vehicle safety.
most wanted list of transportation safety improvements
Implement a Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Speeding-Related Crashes
Speeding--either exceeding the speed limit or driving too fast for
conditions--is one of the most common factors in motor vehicle crashes
in the United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) data show that in 2016, 10,291 people were killed in crashes in
which at least one driver was speeding. This represents 27 percent of
the traffic fatalities that year, and a 5.6-percent increase from 2015.
Speeding increases the likelihood of being involved in a crash, and it
increases the severity of injuries sustained by all road users in a
crash.
On July 25, 2017, we adopted a safety study, Reducing Speeding-
Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles, which examined the causes
and trends in speeding-related crashes and countermeasures to prevent
them.\5\ The study focused on five safety issues:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Transportation Safety Board, Reducing Speeding-Related
Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles, (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
speed limits
data-driven approaches for speed enforcement
automated speed enforcement
intelligent speed adaptation
national leadership
Speed limits are a critical component of speed management, but
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance through the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) emphasizes that states and
localities set speed limits within 5 miles per hour (mph) of which 85%
of vehicles are traveling. The focus on the 85th percentile has led to
increasing speed limits across the United States. For example, in 2012,
35 states had maximum speed limits at or above 70 mph; that increased
to 41 states by 2016, with 7 of those states at or above 80 mph. The
NTSB recommends de-emphasizing the 85th percentile approach; requiring
consideration of factors which are currently only optional, such as
crash history, roadway characteristics, and roadway conditions; and
incorporating a safe systems approach for urban roads (evaluating
pedestrian and bicycle traffic).
Speed limits must also be enforced to be effective. Successful
enforcement is achieved through law enforcement commitment to data-
driven, high-visibility enforcement. However, law enforcement reporting
of speeding-related crashes is inconsistent, which leads to
underreporting of speeding-related crashes. This underreporting leads
stakeholders and the public to underestimate the overall scope of
speeding as a traffic safety issue nationally and hinders the effective
implementation of data-driven speed enforcement programs.
Automated speed enforcement (ASE) is also widely acknowledged as an
effective countermeasure to reduce speeding-related crashes,
fatalities, and injuries. However, only 14 states and the District of
Columbia use it. Many states have laws that prohibit or place
operational restrictions on ASE, and federal guidelines for ASE are
outdated and not well known among ASE program administrators. Point-to-
point enforcement, which is based on the average speed of a vehicle
between two points, can be used on roadway segments many miles long.
This type of ASE has had recent success in other countries, but it is
not currently used in the United States. We recommend that state and
local agencies use ASE and that the FHWA work with NHTSA to assess the
effectiveness of point-to-point enforcement in the United States.
In addition to enforcement efforts to address speeding, there needs
to be increased leadership and attention for this at the national
level. 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. Also, unlike other
traffic safety issues with a similar impact (such as alcohol-impaired
driving) there are no nationwide programs to increase public awareness
of the risks of speeding. Although the USDOT has established a multi-
agency team to coordinate speeding-related work throughout the
department, this team's work plan does not include means to ensure that
the planned actions are completed in a timely manner.
National, state, and local traffic safety stakeholders have
repeatedly highlighted that--unlike other crash factors such as alcohol
impairment or unbelted occupants--speeding has few negative social
consequences associated with it. Surveys show drivers generally
disapprove of speeding. However, most are complacent about the risks
involved and speeding is a common behavior. Safety stakeholders told
NTSB that because the dangers of speeding are not well-publicized,
drivers underappreciate the risks of speeding in terms of crash
causation. Stakeholders also expressed the belief that, to change
public perceptions of speeding, a coordinated effort among safety
advocacy groups, with strong leadership from the federal government, is
needed. The lack of a national traffic safety campaign was cited as a
key issue hindering the effective implementation of speeding prevention
programs.
NHTSA, through its Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) group, provides
marketing materials and advice for states to use in developing traffic
safety campaigns It also coordinates national traffic safety events.
Our study found that none of the traffic safety events that NHTSA
sponsored in 2016 addressed speeding. TSM does make available marketing
materials that state and local agencies can use in their own campaigns.
However, in the absence of a national speeding campaign, there is
incomplete participation among states and little consistency among the
individual state campaigns.
We concluded that traffic safety campaigns that include highly
publicized, increased enforcement can be an effective speeding
countermeasure. This led us to recommend that NHTSA collaborate with
other traffic safety stakeholders to develop and implement an ongoing
program to increase public awareness of speeding as a national traffic
safety issue. The program should include, but not be limited to,
initiating an annual enforcement mobilization directed at speeding
drivers.
Another way to increase public awareness of speeding as a traffic
safety issue is by providing states with financial incentives to be
more engaged in addressing speeding. Highway Safety Program grants are
allocated based on the population and road miles in each state, and
these funds can be spent on any of 10 different focus areas (which
includes speeding) according to a state's Highway Safety Plan. In
contrast, National Priority Safety Programs funds are directed toward
seven different priority areas, with the funding level for each
priority area (rather than the overall total) established by Congress.
Each priority area has specific eligibility requirements that
incentivize states to conduct particular traffic safety activities.
Speeding is not one of the seven priority areas.
The Highway Safety Program allows states significant leeway to
spend funds according to their particular traffic safety priorities,
including speeding; but it does not provide a means to encourage states
to focus on national priorities. In contrast, National Priority Safety
Program grants are specifically designed to encourage states to focus
additional traffic safety efforts in areas of national importance.
However, these funds currently cannot be used for speed management.
Thus, we concluded that current federal-aid programs do not require or
incentivize states to fund speed management activities at a level
commensurate with the national impact of speeding on fatalities and
injuries and recommended that NHTSA establish a program to incentivize
state and local speed management activities.
In the study, we also recommended completion of all actions in the
USDOT 2014 Speed Management Program Plan, FHWA assess of the
effectiveness of point-to-point speed enforcement in the U.S.,
incentivizing passenger vehicle manufacturers and consumers to adopt
intelligent speed adaptation systems, including speed limiters, and
increasing the adoption of speeding-related Model Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria Guideline data elements and improving consistency in law
enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes.
End Alcohol and Other Drug Impairment in Transportation
The issue area of alcohol and other drug impairment in
transportation has been on every Most Wanted List we have published
since 1990, and we have made hundreds of recommendations to address
this issue. Impairment in transportation continues to be a public
health concern, with more than 10,000 highway fatalities each year in
the United States involving alcohol-impaired drivers. Impairment by
over-the-counter medications, prescription drugs, synthetic drugs, and
illicit substances is also a rising concern.
We have recommended a comprehensive approach to address substance-
impaired driving to prevent crashes, reduce injuries, and save lives.
When it comes to alcohol use, research shows that impairment begins
before a person's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level reaches 0.08
percent, the current illegal per se limit in every state except Utah,
which was the first state to enact 0.05 BAC law in 2017. In fact, by
the time BAC reaches 0.08, the risk of a fatal crash has more than
doubled.\6\ We have recommended that states lower the per se BAC
threshold to 0.05 percent or lower. Further, we have recommended that
NHTSA seek legislative authority to award incentive grants for states
to establish a per se BAC limit of 0.05 or lower for all drivers not
already required to adhere to lower BAC limits.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Compton, R.P., R.D. Blomberg, H. Moskowitz, M. Burns, R.C.
Peck, and D. Fiorentino. 2002. ``Crash Risk of Alcohol-Impaired
Driving.'' Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety--T2002. Proceedings of the
16th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety
(August 4-9, 2002). Montreal, Canada: International Council on Alcohol,
Drugs and Traffic Safety. Blomberg, Richard D., Raymond C. Peck,
Herbert Moskowitz, Marcelline Burns, and Dary Fiorentino. 2005. Crash
Risk of Alcohol Involved Driving: A Case-Control Study. Stamford, CT:
Dunlap and Associates, Inc.
\7\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-
13-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further deter impaired driving, we have also recommended high-
visibility enforcement of impaired driving laws using passive alcohol-
sensing technology, as well as encouraged the development of technology
that will enable vehicles to detect driver impairment, like the Driver
Alcohol Detection System for Safety \8\. We have also made
recommendations to reduce recidivism by driving while intoxicated (DWI)
offenders. Recommended strategies include requiring ignition interlocks
for all convicted DWI offenders and making special efforts to target
repeat offenders.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-
12-048
\9\ National Transportation Safety Board, Reaching Zero: Actions to
Eliminate Alcohol-Impaired Driving, Rpt. No. SR-13/01 (Washington, DC:
NTSB, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States, ignition interlocks have historically been
viewed as a sanction for repeat or high-BAC offenders; however, in
recent years, the movement has been toward mandating ignition
interlocks for all DWI offenders, including first-time offenders.
Currently 32 states plus the District of Columbia have all-offender
ignition interlock laws.
Research evaluation of ignition interlock programs over the last
two decades has found that ignition interlock devices are effective in
reducing recidivism among DWI offenders, sometimes by as much as 62 to
75 percent. One study examined the effectiveness of laws that require
alcohol interlock installations for first-time offenders as well as
repeat or high-BAC offenders; it found an additional benefit in
reducing repeat DWI offenses.\10\ Another study estimated 1,100 deaths
could have been prevented in 1 year had interlock devices been required
for drivers with recent DUI convictions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A. T. McCartt and others, Washington State's Alcohol Ignition
Interlock Law: Effects on Recidivism Among First DUI Offenders,
(Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2012).
\11\ A. K. Lund and others, ``Contribution of Alcohol-Impaired
Driving to Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths in 2005,'' 8th Ignition Interlock
Symposium, Seattle, Washington (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the lack of significant progress in reducing alcohol-
impaired driving fatalities over the last two decades, it is clear that
more can be done to prevent these tragedies. The evidence shows that
ignition interlock technology can--and should--be embraced in this
battle.
Drugs other than, or in combination with, alcohol also pose an
ongoing, increasing threat to highway safety. On March 29, 2017, near
Concan, Texas, a pickup truck crossed into the opposite travel lane and
collided with a medium-size bus, killing the bus driver and 12
passengers. We determined that the probable cause of the crash was the
failure of the pickup truck driver to control his vehicle due to
impairment stemming from his use of marijuana in combination with
misuse of a prescribed medication.\12\ As part of this investigation,
we found that law enforcement officers need advanced training to
identify the signs and symptoms of impairment as well as additional
tools, such as roadside drug screening devices, in order to better
detect drivers operating under the influence of drugs. Oral fluid drug
screening devices can improve the ability of law enforcement officers
to detect drug-impaired drivers. We recommended that NHTSA develop and
disseminate best practices, identify model specifications, and create a
conforming products list for oral fluid drug screening devices. We also
urged NHTSA to evaluate best practices and countermeasures found to be
the most effective in reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes
involving drug-impaired drivers and provide additional guidance to the
states on drug-impaired driving.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ National Transportation Safety Board, Pickup Truck Centerline
Crossover Collision with Medium-Size Bus on US Highway 83, Concan,
Texas, March 29, 2017, Rpt. No. HAR-18/02 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2018).
\13\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-
18-056 and H-18-057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate Distractions
Drivers and operators in all modes of transportation must keep
their hands, eyes, and minds focused on operating their vehicles.
According to NHTSA, distraction was reported to be involved in almost
3,200 highway fatalities, or 8.6 percent of all fatalities in 2017.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety
Facts, 2017 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (Washington, DC: US
Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 2017). DOT HS 812 603, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 5, 2010, in an active work zone in Gray Summit, Missouri,
a truck-tractor was struck in the rear by a pickup truck, which was
then struck in the rear by a school bus carrying 23 passengers. The
school bus was then struck by another school bus carrying 31
passengers. The driver of the pickup and one passenger seated in the
rear of the lead school bus were killed. A total of 35 passengers from
both buses, the two bus drivers, and the driver of the truck-tractor
sustained injuries ranging from minor to serious. We determined that
the probable cause of the initial collision was the pickup driver's
distraction, likely due to his ongoing text messaging conversation. As
a result of this investigation, we recommended that the 50 states and
the District of Columbia ban the nonemergency use of portable
electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving
task) for all drivers, and to use high-visibility enforcement and
targeted communication campaigns.\15\ Currently, 16 states ban hand-
held use and new laws are being considered in many other states this
year. In the seven years since we made these recommendations, we
continue to encounter crashes where use of personal electronic devices
played a part. Real change will require a three-pronged approach that
includes strict laws, proper education, and effective enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ National Transportation Safety Board, Multivehicle Collision,
Interstate 44 Eastbound, Gray Summit, Missouri, August 5, 2010, Rpt.
No. HAR-11/03 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strengthen Occupant Protection
We have investigated many crashes in which improved occupant
protection systems, such as seat belts, child restraints, and other
vehicle design features, could have reduced injuries and saved lives.
Recent investigations have highlighted the importance of proper use of
the safety equipment, effective design, and readily accessible and
identifiable evacuation routes on larger passenger vehicles, such as
limousines, school buses, motor coaches, and other commercial vehicles.
Seat belts are the best defense against motor vehicle injuries and
fatalities because they protect vehicle occupants from the extreme
forces experienced during crashes. Unbelted vehicle occupants
frequently injure other occupants, and unbelted drivers are less likely
than belted drivers to be able to control their vehicles. In addition,
seat belts prevent occupant ejections. In 2016, only 1 percent of
vehicle occupants using seat belts were ejected, while 29 percent of
unbelted vehicle occupants were ejected. Among those occupants
completely ejected from their passenger vehicles, 81 percent were
killed. NHTSA estimates that seat belts saved the lives of nearly
15,000 motor vehicle occupants age 5 and older in 2016, nationwide.
Further, had all passenger vehicle occupants age 5 and older used seat
belts in 2016 an additional 2,456 lives could have been saved. From
1975 through 2015, seat belts saved more than 344,000 lives nationwide.
Since 1995, we have recommended that states enact legislation
providing for the primary enforcement of seat belt laws, which would
allow law enforcement officers to stop a vehicle solely because
occupants are not wearing seat belts. Currently, 34 states and the
District of Columbia authorize primary enforcement of their seat belt
laws, but only 29 states apply the law to all passenger seating
positions. In 2015, we recommended that states enact legislation for
primary enforcement of a mandatory seat belt use law for all vehicle
seating positions equipped with a passenger restraint system.\16\ This
recommendation covers all motor vehicles, including buses. Primary
enforcement of mandatory seat belt use laws remains the best way to
raise and maintain high seat belt use rates. States that have enacted
primary enforcement seat belt laws have historically experienced
increases in seat belt use rates between 5 and 18 percentage points.
The increased use is based on the realization by drivers that they may
be stopped for violating the seat belt law.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-
15-042.
\17\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Primary
Enforcement of Seat Belt Laws, https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
calculator/factsheet/seatbelt.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a long history of investigating school bus crashes. We have
found compartmentalization to be effective in frontal collisions, but
have also identified the limitations of passenger seats with no belts
or lap belt only restraints. Modern school bus seat technology has
overcome previous capacity issues, and the installation and proper use
of passenger seat belts, particularly lap/shoulder belts, has made
school buses safer in severe side impacts and rollovers. On November
21, 2016, six students died, and more than 20 others were injured in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, when a Hamilton County Department of Education
school bus struck a utility pole, rolled onto its right side, and
collided with a tree. Contributing to the severity of the crash was the
lack of passenger lap/shoulder belts on the bus.\18\ In a special
investigation report we developed following this crash, we recommended
that jurisdictions which do not yet require passenger belts in large
school buses enact legislation to require that all new large school
buses be equipped with passenger lap/shoulder belts for all passenger
seating positions.\19\ The report also focused on the benefits of
electronic stability control (ESC) and automatic emergency braking
(AEB) in improving driver and vehicle safety.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ National Transportation Safety Board, Selective Issues in
School Bus Transportation Safety: Crashes in Baltimore, Maryland, and
Chattanooga, Tennessee, Rpt. No. SIR-18/02 (Washington, DC: NTSB,
2018).
\19\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations
H-18-009 and H-18-010.
\20\ The report concluded that the technology could have assisted
the driver in maintaining vehicle control and mitigated the severity of
the crash by reducing the speed of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also made recommendations to NHTSA regarding front, side,
and rear underride protections for tractor-trailer and single unit
trucks to reduce underride and injuries to passenger vehicle occupants.
Specifically, as a result of our safety investigations, we have
recommended that NHTSA establish performance standards for front, side,
and underride protection systems for single-unit trucks with gross
vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds, and to require such systems
on all such newly manufactured trucks.\21\ Each of these
recommendations are currently classified ``Open-Unacceptable
Response.'' We have also recommended that NHTSA require side and rear
underride systems for newly manufactured trailers with gross vehicle
weight ratings over 10,000 pounds.\22\ Each of these recommendations is
currently classified ``Open-Acceptable Response.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations
H-10-012, H-10-013, H-13-013, H-13-014, H-13-015, and H-13-016.
\22\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations
H-14-002 and H-14-004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase Implementation of Collision Avoidance Technologies
More than 90 percent of crashes on United States roadways can be
attributed to driver error.\23\ For more than two decades, we have been
advocating implementation of various technologies to help reduce driver
error. Vehicle-based collision avoidance technologies, such as forward
collision warning (FCW) and autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems,
are important for avoiding or mitigating the impact of rear-end
crashes, which represent nearly half of all two-vehicle crashes. Other
driver-assist and collision avoidance technologies, such as adaptive
cruise control, advance lighting, blind spot detection, and lane
departure warning systems can aid drivers and help reduce the
occurrence of other types of crashes. These technologies improve
visibility, help maintain safe distance between vehicles, alert drivers
to impending hazards and potential crashes, or automatically brake to
mitigate the consequence of a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Critical
Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash
Causation Survey. February 2015, (DOT HS 812 115).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, we issued a special investigation report regarding the use
of forward collision avoidance systems to prevent and mitigate rear-end
crashes. The report was based on the examination of current research
into the effectiveness of collision avoidance systems and
investigations of nine crashes--that resulted in 28 fatalities and
injuries to 90 vehicle occupants--involving passenger or commercial
vehicles striking the rear of another vehicle. As part of this report,
we recommended that passenger and commercial vehicle manufacturers
install FCW and AEB as standard equipment, and, in order to incentivize
manufacturers, that NHTSA expand the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
to include ratings for various collision avoidance technologies.\24\
Most recently, on the night of January 19, 2016, a motorcoach occupied
by a driver and 21 passengers collided with an unmarked crash
attenuator and concrete barrier on a highway in San Jose, California,
during low visibility conditions. Two passengers were ejected and died,
and the driver and 13 passengers were injured. Upon later testing, we
determined that had the bus been equipped with a collision avoidance
system, the system could have detected the crash attenuator and alerted
the driver to the hazard to mitigate or prevent the crash.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ National Transportation Safety Board, The Use of Forward
Collision Avoidance Systems to Prevent and Mitigate Rear-End Crashes,
Rpt. No. SIR-15/01 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2015).
\25\ National Transportation Safety Board, Motorcoach Collision
With Crash Attenuator in Gore Area, US Highway 101, Rpt. No. HAR-17/01
(Washington, DC: NTSB, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduce Fatigue-Related Accidents
On March 20, 2016, a passenger car, driven by an 18-year-old and
carrying three passengers ranging in age from 17 to 19, crossed a
median and collided with a truck-tractor in combination with a
semitrailer in Robstown, Texas. The three teenage passengers were
killed. We determined the probable cause of this crash was the car
driver's loss of control due to fatigue-induced inattention.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ National Transportation Safety Board, Passenger Vehicle Median
Crossover Crash, US Highway 77, Robstown, Texas, March 20, 2016, Rpt.
No. HAB-16/09 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA reported that, in 2015, more than 72,000 police-reported
crashes involved drowsy driving, and those crashes resulted in 41,000
injuries and 846 deaths. However, NHTSA has acknowledged that these
numbers likely are underestimated.\27\ Other research conducted by the
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety estimated that more than 6,000 people
are killed in drowsy-driving related crashes each year.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Asleep at the
Wheel: A National Compendium of Efforts to Eliminate Drowsy Driving.
March 2017, DOT HS 812 352.
\28\ AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Prevalence of Motor Vehicle
Crashes Involving Drowsy Drivers, United States, 2009-2013, November
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have issued more than 200 safety recommendations addressing
fatigue-related problems across all modes of transportation. Tackling
the problem of fatigue in highway transportation requires a
comprehensive approach focused on research, education, training,
technology, sleep disorder treatment, regulations, and on- and off-duty
scheduling policies and practices. Some of our earliest recommendations
called for research to better understand the problem of fatigue in
transportation, and over the past three decades, several studies have
been done. But research only goes so far; we must now implement what we
have learned.
other highway safety issues
Pedestrian Safety
Until 2010, the number of pedestrians killed in highway crashes
decreased for 35 years, but then reversed course. In 2017, the number
of pedestrians who died in traffic crashes was 5,977, an increase of
more than 45 percent since 2009.\29\ Pedestrian deaths in recent years
account for 16 percent (or almost one in six) of all highway
fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety
Facts: Pedestrians. March 2019. (DOT HS 812 681).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2016, we hosted a pedestrian safety forum, bringing together
federal and state officials and experts to discuss key aspects of the
issue.\30\ Additionally, between April and November 2016, we worked
with local law enforcement partners to initiate 15 investigations into
fatal pedestrian crashes. The investigative work on these crashes
illustrated a variety of pedestrian safety issues. This work culminated
in the adoption last September of our Special Investigation Report:
Pedestrian Safety that included the completed investigations, a review
of the literature, and information about promising countermeasures.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ National Transportation Safety Board, Forum: Pedestrian
Safety, (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2016).
\31\ National Transportation Safety Board, Pedestrian Safety, SIR-
18/03 (Washington, DC: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report found that vehicle-based countermeasures, such as
improved headlights, vehicle designs that reduce injuries to
pedestrians, and collision avoidance systems would improve pedestrian
safety. We recommended that NHTSA revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 108 to improve vehicle lighting, develop performance test
criteria for manufacturers to use in evaluating the extent to which
automated pedestrian safety systems will mitigate pedestrian injuries,
and incorporate those systems into the New Car Assessment Program.
It also found that effective street designs for pedestrian safety
are highly context-dependent and best managed by local interests.
However, local officials would benefit from having improved resources,
tools and funding support to develop and implement those plans. We
recommended that FHWA expand its support of state and local safety
projects beyond its current focus cities.
Additionally, the study addressed limitations in the data available
to decision makers who are working to reduce pedestrian crashes.
Planners need localized pedestrian data to support the decision-making
process. However, the most complete set of pedestrian crash data is
more than two decades old. Thus, we recommended that NHTSA and the
Centers for Disease Control work together to develop a detailed
pedestrian crash data set combining highway crash data and injury
health data with the goal of producing a national database of
pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Further, we urged NHTSA to develop
a detailed pedestrian crash data set that represents the current,
complete range of crash types and that can be used for local and state
analysis. Finally, we recommended that FHWA develop definitions and
methods for collecting pedestrian exposure data.
Motorcycle Safety
We are concerned about the growing number of motorcyclists killed
or injured in motorcycle crashes. In 2016, more than 5,000
motorcyclists were killed nationwide, or about 14 motorcyclists per
day. The number of motorcycle crash fatalities has more than doubled
over the last two decades. According to NHTSA, motorcycles are the most
dangerous form of motor vehicle transportation. Motorcycles represent
only 3 percent of the vehicles on our roads, but motorcyclists
accounted for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety
Facts: Motorcycles, 2016 Data, February 2018, DOT HS 812 492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These concerns led us to complete a safety report in October 2018,
which assessed select risk factors associated with the causes of
motorcycle crashes in the United States and made recommendations for
improving motorcycle crash prevention.\33\ The data analyzed in this
report was provided by FHWA, from its 2016 Motorcycle Crash Causation
Study (MCCS). The MCCS represents the most recent data available for
studying motorcycle crashes in the United States since the USDOT
published its comprehensive Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and
Identification of Countermeasures report in 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ National Transportation Safety Board, Select Risk Factors
Associated with Causes of Motorcycle Crashes, SR-18/01 (Washington, DC:
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We concluded many high-risk traffic situations between motorcycles
and other motor vehicles could be prevented if vehicle drivers were
better able to detect and anticipate the presence of a motorcycle when
entering or crossing a road, making a turn or changing lanes. We also
determined stability control systems on motorcycles could reduce
single-vehicle crashes involving loss of control which would reduce the
prevalence of motorcyclists killed or injured by impacts with fixed
roadside objects.
There is a need for enhanced braking and stability control systems
on motorcycles. More than a third of the crashes analyzed involved a
loss of control that contributed to crash causation. More widespread
availability of enhanced braking and stability control systems on
motorcycles could improve safety by enhancing the effectiveness of
braking, collision avoidance performance, and stability control for
both novice and experienced riders.
In 2007, following a 2-day public forum on motorcycle safety at
which it heard from a group of panelists representative of all
important aspects of motorcycle safety, NTSB recommended that states
require all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet compliant with U.S.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 218.\34\ The use of a
compliant safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention
and reduction of head injury. The effectiveness of appropriately
designed motorcycle helmets in preventing and mitigating head injury is
unequivocal. NHTSA estimates that helmets are 37 percent effective in
preventing fatal injuries to motorcycle riders and 41 percent effective
for motorcycle passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations
H-07-37, H-07-38, and H-07-39
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal helmet laws do increase helmet use. Numerous state
studies have shown that helmet law repeals led to reduced usage and
increased fatalities. Likewise, enactment of a universal helmet law
leads to increased usage and reduced motorcycle deaths. Currently, 19
states, plus the District of Columbia, have a universal helmet law. The
remarkable effectiveness of universal helmet laws in preventing death
and disability among motorcyclists is a powerful argument for the
adoption of such laws, especially in light of the more than 5,200
motorcyclists who were killed on our highways in 2016. For more than 70
years, research has shown that helmets protect motorcyclists and
passengers from death and serious injury.
Bicycle Safety
In 2017, almost 800 bicyclists were killed in the United States,
representing 2 percent of all traffic deaths. As bicycling becomes more
popular as a form of active transportation, especially in urban areas,
it is timely and important to ensure and improve roadway safety for
bicyclists. We have begun a safety study to identify proven
countermeasures that can improve bicyclist safety. In this study, we
are exploring improved bicycle infrastructure, advanced vehicle-based
technologies, and approaches to increase bicycle helmet use. We
anticipate that the study will be published late this year.
Automated Vehicles
The use of automated vehicle (AV) controls and systems is
accelerating rapidly in all modes of transportation. We have monitored
AV development and we have a long history of calling for systems to
assist the operator by providing an increased margin of safety, such as
automatic emergency braking. AVs that incorporate systems proven to
enhance safety hold enormous potential benefits for safety.
In 2018, the USDOT updated a federal AV policy focused on highly
automated vehicles. Late last year, in response to a call for comments,
we commented that NHTSA's proposed AV policies are notable for the
voluntary approach to manufacturers' safety self-assessments, testing
and validation of system safety, and AV reporting requirements. We
applauded NHTSA's efforts to work with industry. However, its general
and voluntary guidance of emerging and evolutionary technological
advancements shows a willingness to let manufacturers and operational
entities define safety. The most recent AV guidance (AV 3.0) is only
focused on SAE Level 3 and above while not providing guidance for Level
2 vehicles.
The USDOT has an important responsibility to ensure the safe
development and deployment of AV technologies at all levels of
automation, and this safety should not be voluntary. However, the
policy thus far has carried an overarching message of promoting AV
development, but a clear connection to minimum safety requirements has
not yet been crafted. NHTSA can and should provide this required safety
leadership. We urge NHTSA to lead with detailed guidance and specific
standards and requirements.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. While my
testimony has discussed many safety concerns, these are only some of
the safety improvements we have identified as needed to prevent
crashes, reduce injuries, and save lives. A list of safety
recommendations we have made for highway safety that are reflected in
our MWL is included with this testimony. I look forward to responding
to your questions.
APPENDIX: 2019-2020 MOST WANTED LIST RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implement a Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Speeding-Related Crashes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation # Overall Status Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-05-020 Open-- TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
Acceptable TRANSPORTATION: Install
Response variable speed limit signs or
implement alternate
countermeasures at locations
where wet weather can produce
stopping distances that
exceed the available sight
distance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-020 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Develop
performance standards for
advanced speed-limiting
technology, such as variable
speed limiters and
intelligent speed adaptation
devices, for heavy vehicles,
including trucks, buses, and
motorcoaches.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-021 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: After
establishing performance
standards for advanced speed-
limiting technology for heavy
commercial vehicles, require
that all newly manufactured
heavy vehicles be equipped
with such devices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-018 Open-- TO THE UNITED STATES
Acceptable DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
Response Complete the actions called
for in your 2014 Speed
Management Program Plan, and
periodically publish status
reports on the progress you
have made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-019 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Identify
speeding-related performance
measures to be used by local
law enforcement agencies,
including, but not limited
to, the numbers and locations
of speeding-related crashes
of different injury severity
levels, speeding citations,
and warnings, and establish a
consistent method for
evaluating data-driven, high-
visibility enforcement
programs to reduce speeding.
Disseminate the performance
measures and evaluation
method to local law
enforcement agencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-020 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Identify best
practices for communicating
with law enforcement officers
and the public about the
effectiveness of data-driven,
high-visibility enforcement
programs to reduce speeding,
and disseminate the best
practices to local law
enforcement agencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-021 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Work with the
Governors Highway Safety
Association, the
International Association of
Chiefs of Police, and the
National Sheriffs'
Association to develop and
implement a program to
increase the adoption of
speeding-related Model
Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria Guideline data
elements and improve
consistency in law
enforcement reporting of
speeding-related crashes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-022 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Work with the
Federal Highway
Administration to update the
Speed Enforcement Camera
Systems Operational
Guidelines to reflect the
latest automated speed
enforcement (ASE)
technologies and operating
practices, and promote the
updated guidelines among ASE
program administrators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-023 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Alternate ADMINISTRATION: Work with the
Response Federal Highway
Administration to assess the
effectiveness of point-to-
point speed enforcement in
the United States and, based
on the results of that
assessment, update the Speed
Enforcement Camera Systems
Operational Guidelines, as
appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-024 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Alternate ADMINISTRATION: Incentivize
Response passenger vehicle
manufacturers and consumers
to adopt intelligent speed
adaptation (ISA) systems by,
for example, including ISA in
the New Car Assessment
Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-025 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Alternate ADMINISTRATION: Collaborate
Response with other traffic safety
stakeholders to develop and
implement an ongoing program
to increase public awareness
of speeding as a national
traffic safety issue. The
program should include, but
not be limited to, initiating
an annual enforcement
mobilization directed at
speeding drivers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-026 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Establish a
program to incentivize state
and local speed management
activities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-027 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable ADMINISTRATION: Revise
Response Section 2B.13 of the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices so that the factors
currently listed as optional
for all engineering studies
are required, require that an
expert system such as
USLIMITS2 be used as a
validation tool, and remove
the guidance that speed
limits in speed zones should
be within 5 mph of the 85th
percentile speed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-028 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable ADMINISTRATION: Revise
Response Section 2B.13 of the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices to, at a minimum,
incorporate the safe system
approach for urban roads to
strengthen protection for
vulnerable road users.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-029 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable ADMINISTRATION: Work with the
Response National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration to
update the Speed Enforcement
Camera Systems Operational
Guidelines to reflect the
latest automated speed
enforcement (ASE)
technologies and operating
practices, and promote the
updated guidelines among ASE
program administrators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-030 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable ADMINISTRATION: Work with the
Response National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration to
assess the effectiveness of
point-to-point speed
enforcement in the United
States and, based on the
results of that assessment,
update the Speed Enforcement
Camera Systems Operational
Guidelines, as appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-031 Open-- TO THE SEVEN STATES
Await PROHIBITING AUTOMATED SPEED
Response ENFORCEMENT (MAINE,
MISSISSIPPI, NEW HAMPSHIRE,
NEW JERSEY, TEXAS, WEST
VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN):
Amend current laws to
authorize state and local
agencies to use automated
speed enforcement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-032 Open-- TO THE TWENTY EIGHT STATES
Await WITHOUT AUTOMATED SPEED
Response ENFORCEMENT LAWS (ALABAMA,
ALASKA, CALIFORNIA,
CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE,
FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII,
IDAHO, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS,
KENTUCKY, MASSACHUSETTS,
MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA,
MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA,
NEW MEXICO, NORTH CAROLINA,
NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA,
PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH DAKOTA,
VERMONT, VIRGINIA, AND
WYOMING): Authorize state and
local agencies to use
automated speed enforcement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-033 Open-- TO THE 15 STATES WITH
Await AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT
Response RESTRICTIONS (ARIZONA,
ARKANSAS, COLORADO, ILLINOIS,
LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, NEVADA,
NEW YORK, OHIO, OREGON, RHODE
ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA,
TENNESSEE, UTAH, AND
WASHINGTON): Amend current
laws to remove operational
and location restrictions on
the use of automated speed
enforcement, except where
such restrictions are
necessary to align with best
practices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-034 Open-- TO THE GOVERNORS HIGHWAY
Acceptable SAFETY ASSOCIATION: Work with
Response the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, the
International Association of
Chiefs of Police, and the
National Sheriffs'
Association to develop and
implement a program to
increase the adoption of
speeding-related Model
Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria Guideline data
elements and improve
consistency in law
enforcement reporting of
speeding-related crashes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-035 Open-- TO THE INTERNATIONAL
Await ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF
Response POLICE: Work with the
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, the
Governors Highway Safety
Association, and the National
Sheriffs' Association to
develop and implement a
program to increase the
adoption of speeding-related
Model Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria Guideline data
elements and improve
consistency in law
enforcement reporting of
speeding-related crashes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-036 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL SHERIFFS'
Acceptable ASSOCIATION: Work with the
Response National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, the
Governors Highway Safety
Association, and the
International Association of
Chiefs of Police to develop
and implement a program to
increase the adoption of
speeding-related Model
Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria Guideline data
elements and improve
consistency in law
enforcement reporting of
speeding-related crashes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Alcohol and Other Drug Impairment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation # Overall Status Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-034 Open-- TO THE 45 STATES, THE
Await COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,
Response AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
WHICH HAVE LOW REPORTING
RATES FOR BAC TESTING:
Increase your collection,
documentation, and reporting
of blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) test
results by taking the
following actions, as needed,
to improve testing and
reporting rates: (1) enact
legislation, (2)issue
regulations, and (3) improve
procedures used by law
enforcement agencies or
testing facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-035 Open-- TO THE 45 STATES, THE
Await COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,
Response AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
WHICH HAVE LOW REPORTING
RATES FOR BAC TESTING: Once
the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration has
developed the blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) testing
and reporting guidelines
recommended in Safety
Recommendation H-12-32,
incorporate the guidelines
into a statewide action plan
to achieve BAC reporting
rates of at least 80 percent
of fatally injured drivers
and at least 60 percent of
drivers who survived fatal
crashes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-036 Open-- TO THE 50 STATES, THE
Await COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,
Response AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
Require law enforcement
agencies to collect place of
last drink (POLD) data as
part of any arrest or
accident investigation
involving an alcohol-impaired
driver.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-037 Open-- TO THE INTERNATIONAL
Await ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF
Response POLICE AND THE NATIONAL
SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION: Inform
your members of the value of
collecting place of last
drink (POLD) data as part of
any arrest or accident
investigation involving an
alcohol-impaired driver.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-043 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Work with the
Automotive Coalition for
Traffic Safety, Inc., to
accelerate widespread
implementation of Driver
Alcohol Detection System for
Safety (DADSS) technology by
(1) defining usability
testing that will guide
driver interface design and
(2) implementing a
communication program that
will direct driver education
and promote public
acceptance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-045 Open-- TO 33 STATES, THE COMMONWEALTH
Await OF PUERTO RICO, AND THE
Response DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Enact
laws to require the use of
alcohol ignition interlock
devices for all individuals
convicted of driving while
intoxicated (DWI) offenses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-048 Open-- TO THE AUTOMOTIVE COALITION
Acceptable FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY: Work with
Response the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration to
accelerate widespread
implementation of Driver
Alcohol Detection System for
Safety (DADSS) technology by
(1) defining usability
testing that will guide
driver interface design and
(2) implementing a
communication program that
will direct driver education
and promote public
acceptance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-001 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Seek
legislative authority to
award incentive grants for
states to establish a per se
blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) limit of 0.05 or lower
for all drivers who are not
already required to adhere to
lower BAC limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-005 Open-- TO THE 50 U.S. STATES AND THE
Await COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Response AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
Establish a per se blood
alcohol concentration (BAC)
limit of 0.05 or lower for
all drivers who are not
already required to adhere to
lower BAC limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-006 Open-- TO THE 50 STATES, THE
Await COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Response AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
Include in your impaired
driving prevention plan or
highway safety plan
provisions for conducting
high-visibility enforcement
of impaired driving laws
using passive alcohol-sensing
technology during law
enforcement contacts, such as
routine traffic stops,
saturation patrols, sobriety
checkpoints, and accident
scene responses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-007 Open-- TO THE 50 STATES, THE
Await COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,
Response AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
Include in your impaired
driving prevention plan or
highway safety plan elements
to target repeat offenders
and reduce driving while
intoxicated (DWI) recidivism;
such elements should include
measures to improve
compliance with alcohol
ignition interlock
requirements; the plan should
also provide a mechanism for
regularly assessing the
success of these efforts. (H-
13-07) [This recommendation
supersedes Safety
Recommendation H-00-26.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-008 Open-- TO THE 50 STATES, THE
Await COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,
Response AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
Take the following steps to
move toward zero deaths from
impaired driving: (1) set
specific and measurable
targets for reducing impaired
driving fatalities and
injuries, (2) list these
targets in your impaired
driving prevention plan or
highway safety plan, and (3)
provide a mechanism for
regularly assessing the
success of implemented
countermeasures and
determining whether the
targets have been met. (H-13-
08)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-009 Open-- TO THE 41 STATES THAT HAVE
Await ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE
Response SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION LAWS
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
Incorporate into your
administrative license
suspension or revocation laws
a requirement that drivers
arrested for driving while
intoxicated (DWI) use an
alcohol ignition interlock on
their vehicle for a period of
time before obtaining full
license reinstatement. (H-13-
09)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-010 Open-- TO THE 10 STATES THAT DO NOT
Await HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE
Response SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION LAWS
AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PUERTO RICO: Establish
administrative license
suspension or revocation laws
that require drivers arrested
for driving while intoxicated
(DWI) to use an alcohol
ignition interlock on their
vehicle for a period of time
before obtaining full license
reinstatement. (H-13-10)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-038 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
Acceptable SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
Alternate Determine the prevalence of
Response commercial motor vehicle
driver use of impairing
substances, particularly
synthetic cannabinoids, and
develop a plan to reduce the
use of such substances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-039 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
Unacceptable SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Work
Response with motor carrier industry
stakeholders to develop a
plan to aid motor carriers in
addressing commercial motor
vehicle driver use of
impairing substances,
particularly those not
covered under current drug-
testing regulations such as
by promoting best practices
by carriers, expanding
impairment detection training
and authority, and developing
performance-based methods of
evaluation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-043 Open-- TO AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION,
Await AMERICAN TRUCKING
Response ASSOCIATIONS, COMMERCIAL
VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE,
OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT
DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, UNITED
MOTORCOACH ASSOCIATION:
Inform your members about the
dangers of driver use of
synthetic drugs and encourage
them to take steps to prevent
drivers from using these
substances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-16-008 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
Unacceptable SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
Response Disseminate information to
motor carriers about using
hair testing as a method of
detecting the use of
controlled substances, under
the appropriate
circumstances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-035 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Response TRAFFIC SAFETY
Received ADMINISTRATION: Examine the
influence of alcohol and
other drug use on motorcycle
rider crash risk compared to
that of passenger vehicle
drivers, and develop
guidelines to assist states
in implementing evidence-
based strategies and
countermeasures to more
effectively address substance-
impaired motorcycle rider
crashes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-056 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Await TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Develop and
disseminate best practices,
identify model
specifications, and create a
conforming products list for
oral fluid drug screening
devices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-057 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY
Await ADMINISTRATION: Evaluate best
Response practices and countermeasures
found to be the most
effective in reducing
fatalities, injuries, and
crashes involving drug-
impaired drivers and provide
additional guidance to the
states on drug-impaired
driving in Countermeasures
That Work: A Highway Safety
Countermeasure Guide for
State Highway Safety Offices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-060 Open-- TO THE STATE OF TEXAS: Conduct
Await an executive-level review of
Response your impaired driving program
and implement data-driven
strategies that result in a
downward trend in the number
of fatalities, injuries, and
crashes involving alcohol-
and other drug-impaired
drivers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-061 Open-- TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
Await TRANSPORTATION: Promote the
Response importance of attending drug-
impaired driving enforcement
training and increase
training access to meet the
demands of local and state
law enforcement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate Distractions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation # Overall Status Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-03-009 Open-- TO 34 STATES: Add driver
Acceptable distraction codes, including
Response codes for interactive
wireless communication device
use, to your traffic accident
investigation forms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-06-029 Open-- TO 6 MOTORCOACH INDUSTRY,
Await PUBLIC BUS, AND SCHOOL BUS
Response ASSOCIATIONS AND 3 UNIONS:
Develop formal policies
prohibiting cellular
telephone use by commercial
driver's license holders with
a passenger-carrying or
school bus endorsement, while
driving under the authority
of that endorsement, except
in emergencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-11-039 Open-- TO THE 50 STATES AND THE
Await DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: (1) Ban
Response the nonemergency use of
portable electronic devices
(other than those designed to
support the driving task) for
all drivers; (2) use the
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration model
of high visibility
enforcement to support these
bans; and (3) implement
targeted communication
campaigns to inform motorists
of the new law and
enforcement, and to warn them
of the dangers associated
with the nonemergency use of
portable electronic devices
while driving.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-11-047 Open-- TO CTIA-THE WIRELESS
Await ASSOCIATION AND THE CONSUMER
Response ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION:
Encourage the development of
technology features that
disable the functions of
portable electronic devices
within reach of the driver
when a vehicle is in motion;
these technology features
should include the ability to
permit emergency use of the
device while the vehicle is
in motion and have the
capability of identifying
occupant seating position so
as not to interfere with use
of the device by passengers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-14-013 Open-- TO THE FIFTY STATES, THE
Await DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND THE
Response COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO:
Ban the nonemergency use by
pilot/escort vehicle drivers
of portable electronic
devices (other than those
designed to support the pilot/
escort vehicle driving task),
except to communicate hazard-
related information to the
escorted vehicle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strengthen Occupant Protection
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation # Overall Status Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-11-036 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Modify
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 217 to require that
all emergency exits on school
buses be easily opened and
remain open during an
emergency evacuation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-11-038 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: To cover the
interim period until Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
217 is modified as specified
in Safety Recommendations H-
11-36 and -37, provide the
states with guidance on how
to minimize potential
evacuation delays that could
be caused by protruding latch
mechanisms on emergency exit
windows and by exit windows
that require additional
manual assistance to remain
open during egress.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-11-045 Open-- TO THE STATE OF MISSOURI:
Response Revise your bus evacuation
Received regulations to require that
pupils traveling to an
activity or on a field trip
in a school bus or a school-
chartered bus be instructed
in safe riding practices and
on the location and operation
of emergency exits prior to
starting the trip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-022 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Evaluate the
effects of seat spacing and
armrests as factors for
potential occupant injury,
and if safer spacing or
armrest configurations are
identified, develop and
implement appropriate
guidelines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-032 Open-- TO THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA,
Await FLORIDA, LOUISIANA, NEW
Response JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND TEXAS:
Develop: (1) a handout for
your school districts to
distribute annually to
students and parents about
the importance of the proper
use of all types of passenger
seat belts on school buses,
including the potential harm
of not wearing a seat belt or
wearing one but not adjusting
it properly; and (2) training
procedures for schools to
follow during the twice
yearly emergency drills to
show students how to wear
their seat belts properly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-033 Open-- TO THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA,
Await FLORIDA, LOUISIANA, NEW
Response JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND TEXAS:
Upon publication of the
National School
Transportation Specifications
and Procedures document,
revise the handout and
training procedures developed
in Safety Recommendation H-13-
32 to align with the national
procedures as appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-035 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
Acceptable STATE DIRECTORS OF PUPIL
Response TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION,
NATIONAL SCHOOL
TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION,
SCHOOL BUS MANUFACTURERS
TECHNICAL COUNCIL, AND
NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL,
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION
SECTION: Develop guidelines
and include them in the next
update of the National School
Transportation Specifications
and Procedures to assist
schools in training bus
drivers, students, and
parents on the importance and
proper use of school bus seat
belts, including manual lap
belts, adjustable lap and
shoulder belts, and flexible
seating systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-036 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
Acceptable STATE DIRECTORS OF PUPIL
Alternate TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,
Response NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION, AND
NATIONAL SCHOOL
TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION:
Provide your members with
educational materials on lap
and shoulder belts providing
the highest level of
protection for school bus
passengers, and advise states
or school districts to
consider this added safety
benefit when purchasing seat
belt-equipped school buses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-13-037 Open-- TO THE SCHOOL BUS
Acceptable MANUFACTURERS TECHNICAL
Alternate COUNCIL: Develop a
Response recommended practice for
establishing and safeguarding
the structural integrity of
the entire school bus seating
and restraint system,
including the seat pan
attachment to the seat frame,
in severe crashes--in
particular, those involving
lateral impacts with vehicles
of large mass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-010 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Develop
requirements addressing the
minimum aisle width for safe
evacuation from all buses,
including those with moveable
seats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-020 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL LIMOUSINE
Response ASSOCIATION: Develop and
Received distribute guidelines to your
member operators urging them,
during pretrip safety
briefings, to (1) direct
passengers to use seat belts
where required by law and
strongly encourage passengers
to use seat belts where not
required by law, and (2)
encourage passengers to use
properly adjusted head
restraints.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-042 Open-- TO THE FIFTY STATES, DISTRICT
Await OF COLUMBIA, AND PUERTO RICO:
Response Enact legislation that
provides for primary
enforcement of a mandatory
seat belt use law for all
vehicle seating positions
equipped with a passenger
restraint system. (Safety
Recommendation H-15-042
supersedes Safety
Recommendation H-97-2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-001 Open-- TO MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES
Await INTERNATIONAL, INC.: Evaluate
Response and, if appropriate, modify
the driver and passenger
floor structure design on new
motorcoaches to prevent
driver seat separation during
crashes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-008 Open-- TO THE AMERICAN BUS
Await ASSOCIATION AND THE UNITED
Response MOTORCOACH ASSOCIATION:
Encourage member passenger-
carrying companies to (1)
establish procedures to
ensure that the seat belts on
all buses are regularly
inspected to maintain their
functionality and
accessibility, and (2)
provide pretrip safety
briefings emphasizing the
benefits of seat belt use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-012 Open-- TO GREYHOUND LINES, INC.:
Acceptable Provide pretrip safety
Response briefings at all stops prior
to departure when taking on
new passengers, which
describe the use of the
emergency exits and the
benefits of wearing seat
belts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-061 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
Acceptable SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Work
Response with SAE International and
the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration to
improve truck-tractor side-
mounted fuel tank
crashworthiness to prevent
catastrophic tank ruptures
and limit post collision fuel
spillage, and develop and
promulgate an updated
standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-062 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Work with SAE
International and the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety
Administration to improve
truck-tractor side-mounted
fuel tank crashworthiness to
prevent catastrophic tank
ruptures and limit post
collision fuel spillage, and
develop and promulgate an
updated standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-065 Open-- TO SAE INTERNATIONAL: Work
Await with the Federal Motor
Response Carrier Safety Administration
and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration
to improve truck-tractor side-
mounted fuel tank
crashworthiness to prevent
catastrophic tank ruptures
and limit post collision fuel
spillage, and develop and
promulgate an updated
standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-009 Open-- TO THE STATES OF FLORIDA,
Await LOUISIANA, NEW JERSEY, AND
Response NEW YORK: Amend your statutes
to upgrade the seat belt
requirement from lap belts to
lap/shoulder belts for all
passenger seating positions
in new large school buses in
accordance with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard 222.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-010 Open-- TO THE STATES OF ALABAMA,
Await ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO,
Response CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE,
GEORGIA, HAWAII, IDAHO,
ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA,
KANSAS, MAINE, MARYLAND,
MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA,
MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI,
MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW
HAMPSHIRE, NEW MEXICO, NORTH
CAROLINA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO,
OKLAHOMA, OREGON, RHODE
ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH
DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, UTAH,
VERMONT, WASHINGTON, WEST
VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, AND
WYOMING; THE COMMONWEALTHS OF
KENTUCKY, MASSACHUSETTS,
PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA;
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AND
THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO:
Enact legislation to require
that all new large school
buses be equipped with
passenger lap/shoulder belts
for all passenger seating
positions in accordance with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 222.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-058 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL TRAFFICS
Await SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Amend
Response Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 210 to increase the
minimum anchorage spacing for
individual seat belt
assemblies, taking into
account the dynamic testing
of seat belt designs, seat
belt fit, and vehicle
configuration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-059 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY
Await ADMINISTRATION: Amend Federal
Response Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
208 to require lap/shoulder
belts for each passenger
seating position on all new
buses with a gross vehicle
weight rating of more than
10,000 pounds but not greater
than 26,000 pounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-062 Open-- TO MEDIUM-SIZE BUS
Await MANUFACTURERS ARBOC SPECIALTY
Response VEHICLES, LLC; COACH &
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION; REV GROUP, INC.;
DIAMOND COACH CORPORATION;
FOREST RIVER, INC.; GIRARDIN
BLUE BIRD; SVO GROUP, INC.;
AND THOMAS BUILT BUSES:
Install lap/shoulder belts in
all seating positions as
standard, rather than
optional, equipment in all
newly manufactured medium-
size buses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-063 Open-- TO THE SEAT MANUFACTURERS
Response FREEDMAN SEATING COMPANY AND
Received HSM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS:
Supply seating systems
equipped with lap/shoulder
belts as standard, rather
than optional, equipment for
medium-size buses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-96-014 Open-- TO THE 50 STATES, THE 5 US
Acceptable TERRITORIES, AND THE DISTRICT
Response OF COLUMBIA: Review existing
laws and enact legislation,
if needed, that would: ensure
that children up to 8 years
old are required by the
state's mandatory child
restraint use law to use
child restraint systems and
booster seats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-99-009 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Revise the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 217, ``Bus Window
Retention and Release,'' to
require that other than floor-
level emergency exits can be
easily opened and remain open
during an emergency
evacuation when a motorcoach
is upright or at unusual
attitudes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-99-049 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Expand your
research on current advanced
glazing to include its
applicability to motorcoach
occupant ejection prevention,
and revise window glazing
requirements for newly
manufactured motorcoaches
based on the results of this
research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-99-050 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: In 2 years,
develop performance standards
for motorcoach roof strength
that provide maximum survival
space for all seating
positions and that take into
account current typical
motorcoach window dimensions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-99-051 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Once
performance standards have
been developed for motorcoach
roof strength, require newly
manufactured motorcoaches to
meet those standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase Implementation of Collision Avoidance Systems in All New
Highway Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation # Overall Status Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-004 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Develop and
apply testing protocols to
assess the performance of
forward collision avoidance
systems in passenger vehicles
at various velocities,
including high speed and high
velocity-differential.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-005 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Unacceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Complete, as
soon as possible, the
development and application
of performance standards and
protocols for the assessment
of forward collision
avoidance systems in
commercial vehicles. (Safety
Recommendation H-15-005
supersedes Safety
Recommendation H-01-006)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-006 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Expand the
New Car Assessment Program 5-
star rating system to include
a scale that rates the
performance of forward
collision avoidance systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-007 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Acceptable TRAFFIC SAFETY
Response ADMINISTRATION: Once the
rating scale, described in
Safety Recommendation H-15-6,
is established, include the
ratings of forward collision
avoidance systems on the
vehicle Monroney labels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-008 Open-- TO PASSENGER VEHICLE, TRUCK-
Acceptable TRACTOR, MOTORCOACH, AND
Response SINGLE-UNIT TRUCK
MANUFACTURERS: Install
forward collision avoidance
systems that include, at a
minimum, a forward collision
warning component, as
standard equipment on all new
vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-009 Open-- TO PASSENGER VEHICLE, TRUCK-
Acceptable TRACTOR, MOTORCOACH, AND
Response SINGLE-UNIT TRUCK
MANUFACTURERS: Once the
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration
publishes performance
standards for autonomous
emergency braking, install
systems meeting those
standards on all new
vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-008 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Response TRAFFIC SAFETY
Received ADMINISTRATION: Require all
new school buses to be
equipped with collision
avoidance systems and
automatic emergency braking
technologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-019 Open-- TO BLUE BIRD CORPORATION,
Response COLLINS INDUSTRIES, INC., IC
Received BUS, STARCRAFT BUS, THOMAS
BUILT BUSES, INC., TRANS
TECH, AND VAN-CON, INC.:
Install a collision avoidance
system with automatic
emergency braking as standard
equipment on all newly
manufactured school buses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-029 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Response TRAFFIC SAFETY
Received ADMINISTRATION: Incorporate
motorcycles in the
development of performance
standards for passenger
vehicle crash warning and
prevention systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-043 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Response TRAFFIC SAFETY
Received ADMINISTRATION: Incorporate
pedestrian safety systems,
including pedestrian
collision avoidance systems
and other more-passive safety
systems, into the New Car
Assessment Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-18-044 Open-- TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
Response TRAFFIC SAFETY
Received ADMINISTRATION: Develop a
detailed pedestrian crash
data set that represents the
current, complete range of
crash types and that can be
used for local and state
analysis and to model and
simulate pedestrian collision
avoidance systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduce Fatigue-Related Accidents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation # Overall Status Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-09-009 Open-- TO THE AMERICAN BUS
Await ASSOCIATION AND THE UNITED
Response MOTORCOACH ASSOCIATION:
Inform your members through
Web sites, newsletters, and
conferences of the
circumstances of the Mexican
Hat, Utah, accident. The
prepared information should
encourage charter operators
to develop written
contingency plans for each
charter to ensure that trip
planning is in place in the
event of driver fatigue,
incapacitation, or illness or
in the event of trip delays
necessitating replacement
drivers to avoid hours-of-
service violations and inform
drivers of their trip's
contingency plans. The
prepared information should
also provide information
about the risks of operating
in rural areas without
wireless telephone coverage
and advise members to carry
mobile cellular amplifiers or
satellite-based devices to
communicate emergency events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-09-010 Open-- TO ARROW STAGE LINES: Develop
Acceptable written contingency plans for
Response each charter to ensure that
trip planning is in place in
the event of driver fatigue,
incapacitation, or illness or
in the event of trip delays
necessitating replacement
drivers to avoid hours-of-
service violations and inform
drivers of their trip's
contingency plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-029 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
Unacceptable SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
Response Establish an ongoing program
to monitor, evaluate, report
on, and continuously improve
fatigue management programs
implemented by motor carriers
to identify, mitigate, and
continuously reduce fatigue-
related risks for drivers.
(This safety recommendation
supersedes Safety
Recommendation H-08-14.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-12-030 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
Unacceptable SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
Response Incorporate scientifically
based fatigue mitigation
strategies into the hours-of-
service regulations for
passenger-carrying drivers
who operate during the
nighttime window of circadian
low.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-15-022 Open-- TO WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Acceptable (ORIGINALLY ISSUED TO WALMART
Response TRANSPORTATION LLC): Develop
and implement a fatigue
management program based on
the North American Fatigue
Management Program
guidelines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-056 Open-- TO THE UNITED STATES
Response DEPARTMENT OF LABOR: Develop
Received and disseminate guidelines
and training material for
agricultural employers and
farm labor contractors on the
dangers of driving while
tired and on strategies for
managing driver fatigue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Require Medical Fitness--Screen for and Treat Obstructive Sleep Apnea
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation # Overall Status Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-09-015 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
Unacceptable SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
Response Implement a program to
identify commercial drivers
at high risk for obstructive
sleep apnea and require that
those drivers provide
evidence through the medical
certification process of
having been appropriately
evaluated and, if treatment
is needed, effectively
treated for that disorder
before being granted
unrestricted medical
certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-09-016 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
Acceptable SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
Response Develop and disseminate
guidance for commercial
drivers, employers, and
physicians regarding the
identification and treatment
of individuals at high risk
of obstructive sleep apnea
(OSA), emphasizing that
drivers who have OSA that is
effectively treated are
routinely approved for
continued medical
certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-17-049 Open-- TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
Acceptable SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Make
Alternate the 2016 Medical Review Board/
Response Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee recommendations on
screening for obstructive
sleep apnea (OSA) easily
accessible to certified
medical examiners, and
instruct the examiners to use
the recommendations as
guidance when evaluating
commercial drivers for OSA
risk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Norton. Thank you for your testimony.
Vice Mayor Jones of Neptune Beach, Florida, on behalf of
Transportation for America.
Mr. Jones. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Members,
and distinguished members of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
Transportation for America this morning.
My name is Fred Jones, and in addition to representing the
citizens of Neptune Beach as their vice mayor, I also work as a
professional transportation planner for Michael Baker
International and also serve on the advisory board for the
National Complete Streets Coalition.
Complete Streets, for those that are unfamiliar with the
term, is a street that is designed to be safe and convenient
for all users, be they drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and
cyclists.
Unfortunately, my community is part of the six most
dangerous metropolitan areas in the country in which to walk
and bike. In fact, the State of Florida is the most dangerous
State in the Union for cyclists and pedestrians, and these
safety trends are going in the wrong direction.
If you, in fact, were to visit and join my family on the
streets that I walk and bike on a daily basis, I think you
would agree that they are not dangerous by accident, but
dangerous by fundamental design.
Part of the problem is that for the better part of the half
century we have been focused on building bigger, faster
roadways with wider lanes and development that is set back from
the road to make our drivers more comfortable as they move
quickly through our communities, all at the cost of human
lives.
In fact, roadways are often designed for travel speeds that
are 10 to 15 miles an hour faster than what the posted speed
limit is, and we do know that drivers will follow this design
cue.
We know that speed leads to more deadly crashes, especially
for the children that are walking to school or a bus patron
that is walking to their stop on their way to work, who lacked
the protection of thousands of pounds of steel and aluminum.
What is particularly frustrating is our acceptance of this
level of danger and the loss of human life. We have a cure, but
we just do not want to use it.
I do want to preface that there are many States and
communities across the country, and namely, the Florida
Department of Transportation, that should be applauded for
adopting robust Complete Street policies and initiatives to
change these unsafe paradigms.
However, what we are seeing is a major disconnect between
what we think are feel-good policy frameworks and the actual
implementation of safe roadways.
As an illustration, there was a State road in my area where
the district safety office had recommended actually removing a
lane to reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians and make
it safer.
Well, what ended up happening, there was a little bit of
community pushback, and so the agency conceded by growing the
forecasted traffic rates and essentially killed what should
have been a legacy project, and all in the nature of future
traffic congestion.
And even in instances when the traffic volumes are low
enough to warrant building a Complete Street, we will often
hear excuses that the road is a parallel reliever to an
interstate or it is an evacuation route or, in fact, we are too
far along in the design process to do anything different.
Yet there are many roadways in our community where you
could probably roll a bowling ball down the road on any given
day and not hit anything.
Nationally, Congress communicates its Federal priorities
through spending, and while we do spend $40 billion in Federal
funds annually in the highway program, less than $1 billion of
this is often reserved for pedestrian and cyclist
infrastructure, and only $2.3 billion is dedicated to safety.
If you visit this committee's website, the issue profiled
is the cost of congestion, and I get it. Congestion is very
inconvenient and annoying. But the cost of congestion is
roughly equivalent to the cost of the 37,000 lives that were
lost on our roadways in 2017, a cost of over $356 billion, and
that does not include the cost of injuries, which we know
number in the millions. Yet safety spending represents a mere
fraction of the money that is spent on the congestion.
In 2012, Congress created a less than optimal performance
management system that required MPOs and DOTs to set these
performance safety targets, including for cyclists and
pedestrians.
Yet in 2017, 18 States have set performance targets
forecasting more deaths for cyclists and pedestrians on the
roadways. Simply put, we do know how to do better.
In Orlando, for example, the Florida Department of
Transportation redesigned Edgewater Drive by taking a travel
lane and reconfiguring the road to make it more safe for
pedestrians and cyclists.
What were the results? Total collisions dropped 40 percent.
Injury rates declined 71 percent. Pedestrian counts increased
23 percent. Cycling increased by 30 percent, and traffic
actually dropped 12 percent before returning to original
levels.
Most significantly, the corridor gained 77 new businesses
and 560 jobs, while the value of property along this corridor
rose 80 percent.
Unfortunately, these projects more often than not are the
exception. Engineers often have to get special approval to
implement them in a process that can take more than 1 year. So
why would we not want this to be the rule?
As we bring up reauthorization, we are strongly urging
Congress to lead a discussion about what it is that we plan to
achieve, not just how much we are going to spend. We need to
set specific measurable goals, particularly in terms of safety
and livability benefits and hold decisionmakers accountable for
reaching them.
Above all, this program needs to be oriented to create a
safer transportation system for all users.
Thank you again for your leadership and inviting me to
testify today, and I look forward to working with you in the
next upcoming reauthorization bill.
[Mr. Jones' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Jones, Vice Mayor, City of Neptune
Beach, Florida, on behalf of Transportation for America
Good morning Chairman, Ranking Member and distinguished members of
the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf
of Transportation for America, a national nonprofit dedicated to
creating a transportation system that moves people, safely and
affordably, to jobs and services by all means of travel with minimal
impact to the community and the environment.
My name is Fred Jones. I represent the citizens of Neptune Beach,
Florida as Vice-Mayor on the City Council, and I also work as a
transportation planner for Michael Baker International. Additionally, I
serve on the advisory board of the National Complete Streets Coalition.
Neptune Beach is a small, quiet coastal community nestled on the
northeast coast of Florida between Atlantic Beach and Jacksonville
Beach. While there are many wonderful things about my community--the
beaches, our vibrant town center, the high quality of life, to name a
few--we, unfortunately, are also part of the sixth most dangerous
metropolitan area in our country in which to walk or bike. The state of
Florida, which is the most dangerous state in the Union for bicyclists
and pedestrians, is also home to the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8 and #9
most dangerous cities. And these numbers are going in the wrong
direction, in Florida and across the nation.
Over the past 10 years, 5433 people in the state of Florida,
including 419 people in the Jacksonville, were struck and killed trying
to walk or bike to work, school, running errands or going to a friend's
house. These are the streets that I walk, bike and drive on. It is
important that we recognize that these roadways are not dangerous by
accident: they are dangerous by design.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the problem is that many people do not understand how small
changes in roadway design and development patterns affect safety. Wider
lanes and broader streets with buildings set back from the road signal
to the driver that speed is allowed and encouraged--no matter what your
posted speed limit is. In fact, often roadways are designed for traffic
speeds 10-15 miles per hour faster than the posted speed. When we talk
about roadway design, it's important to emphasize context. We are not
talking about limited access freeways but, rather, the misapplication
of limited access freeway engineering and design solutions and
parameters to local roadways.
While transportation agencies claim that this is done for ``safety
reasons,'' the underlying message is that they expect drivers to speed
and want to clear space for those speeding drivers to make mistakes and
correct them without crashing. This accommodation to drivers, in the
name of ``safety'', creates more danger to those outside of the car
because the driver naturally interprets these roadway design cues to go
at the higher design speed, inducing the speeding behavior that the
design engineers are trying to head off. And we know that speed leads
to mistakes and more deadly crashes, especially for those that don't
have thousands of pounds of steel and aluminum surrounding them.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
N. Flamingo and Pines Boulevard in the Miami area, a typical example of
a major intersection in Florida.
These issues--along with un-signaled crossings, long blocks and
multiple driveways--create inherently dangerous conditions for people
who walk or bike. All of these designs are put in place for the
convenience of drivers and to move vehicles at a high rate of speed,
which is the real underlying priority of our national transportation
program, whether that was our intention or not. But most of all they
all put people outside of a car in jeopardy.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Arterial roadways (not limited access highways) in Miami areas. N.
Okeechobee Road and Hialeah Gardens Boulevard is one of the most
dangerous intersections in Florida today.
What is particularly frustrating to me is the acceptance of this
level of danger and loss of human life. It is not a problem that we
don't know how to solve. This isn't a problem that we are powerless to
address. We have a cure. But for whatever reasons, just don't want to
use it.
Two cities that have adopted one major cure, known as Vision Zero,
have seen traffic fatalities fall significantly. Vision Zero emphasizes
matching speeds of roadways based on the surrounding context. In other
words, in populated areas, drivers should have an expectation that they
will move slower than in the wide-open countryside or on limited access
highways. The results speak for themselves: in New York City fatalities
are down 28 percent since 2014. San Francisco is down 41 percent. If
you just look at pedestrians, the decrease is 46 percent in New York
City and 34 percent in San Francisco. Fortunately, several local cities
in my home state have also begun to join this movement, including
Tampa, Orlando, West Palm Beach and Miami.
Despite knowing how to fix the problems, many of our transportation
agencies are often concerned about the ramifications--often political--
of making safety their top priority. To make space for people outside
of a car, we sometimes have to take space from the cars. Even where
doing so would create very minor delays--as in seconds--for drivers, it
is enough to throw the option out. This resistance to change can be
found at all levels--from local public works agencies to Congress and
from broad policy to bureaucratic procedure and culture.
I want to preface that there are many states and communities, and
particularly the Florida DOT, that should be applauded for adopting
robust complete street policies and initiatives to change this
paradigm. However, there is a major disconnect or cultural barrier that
exists between the policy framework around safety and complete streets
and the actual implementation of innovative design solutions and
projects that would provide better outcomes. Our success requires
moving beyond a feel-good policy discussion to meaningful culture
change, political will and leadership, and shifting priorities away
from speed and capacity at all costs.
I'm going to next provide a few examples and illustrations of the
difficulties in building safer roads for all. In terms of procedure,
every road project is designed around a standard that most people have
never heard of, called Level of Service. This is a measure of how
quickly cars can move and how easily they can maneuver through a
roadway with little congestion or delay. A wide-open street with free
flowing traffic on is considered LOS-A. Congested, stop and go traffic
is LOS-F. As a result, your most economically productive corridors are
considered failures in the transportation world, while those that are
underutilized get an A. What is the equivalent safety standard that we
use to design roads, you may ask? We don't have one. We respond to
clusters of crashes, we don't design to avoid them.
In terms of culture, you can find the focus on traffic speeds over
safety everywhere. Highway engineers have historically been trained to
build highways to maximize capacity, speed and vehicle throughput. This
ideal has in turn been misapplied to all roadways, from highways to
arterial roads to local, neighborhood streets. DOTs sometimes don't
believe that the federal government will permit them to implement a
design that would slow traffic. Or they will claim that they aren't
allowed to use funding that way. Whether that is true or not (and in
spite of several directives from (FHWA) Administration saying it isn't
true), they regularly blame the federal government for tying their
hands. The excuse for failing to design a roadway for all users varies
based on the type of road.
On a state road in my metro area, the local DOT district safety
office previously recommended a road diet or lane elimination to reduce
the crossing distance for pedestrians and improve overall safety. There
was some pushback, so the DOT immediately conceded and raised the
forecasted traffic volumes and misapplied other traffic analyses to
make a great project that would have provided a sense of arrival on a
college campus look infeasible. Two things to take from this story.
One, traffic projections and analyses are often over-estimated and DOTs
have a lot of discretion on how they are established. Computer models
used to generate such analyses are only as good as their inputs, and
there's nothing easier than tweaking such inputs to get desired
outputs. Two, if there is traffic that might be impacted by
accommodating pedestrians or cyclists, even if it is minor, it is often
considered too much.
If traffic volumes are not high enough to justify refusing to build
a complete street, DOTs often will often provide other reasons for not
changing the roadway such as claiming that the road is a parallel
reliever to an Interstate or highway and that giving up space to
pedestrians would impact drivers if a problem on the highway requires
traffic to move to that roadway. On one street near downtown
Jacksonville, traffic is not the problem. You could roll a bowling ball
down the road at nearly any time of day and not hit anything. In this
case, the local agency said they couldn't give up a lane because even
though the road is well below capacity, it is an evacuation route.
There was also a recent instance, when planning for an innovative,
autonomous transit service was only supported with the condition that
no state roads could be considered for lane elimination. So instead of
repurposing a portion of the roadway to support enhanced cycling and
walking and transit, things that the local community desire, they
insisted that it be left alone--and empty.
It isn't just happening in Florida. It is happening in all of our
states. For example, Beach Park, Illinois, has been trying to get
better pedestrian protection along a state route that has seen four
pedestrian fatalities over the last 15 months. In the most recent
crash, the driver said he could not see the victim, but Illinois DOT
has been slow to respond to the community's call for visibility
improvements. The response has been so slow and lackluster that the
city is considering making the improvements on their own and paying
penalties for failing to get the required permits.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/
news/ct-lns-beach-park-pedestrian-fatals-st-0111-20170110-story.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of broad policy, Congress communicates federal priorities
to the state departments of transportation (DOTs) and for metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) through spending. While we spend over $40
billion in federal funds per year in the highway program, less than $1
billion of that is reserved for the Transportation Alternatives
program, which is targeted to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure,
and only $2.3 billion is dedicated to safety improvements.
Even in the messaging from Washington, DC, the convenience for
drivers is primary. If you go to this committee's website, the issue
profiled is the cost of congestion. And I get it: congestion is
annoying and inconvenient. I don't like to sit in it either. But the
cost cited on your website for congestion is roughly equivalent to the
cost of the $37,133 lives lost on our roadways in 2017, a cost of
$356,476,800,000.\3\ That doesn't include the cost associated with
those injured on our roads, which number in the millions of people each
year. Yet safety spending is a small fraction compared to all the money
we spend to address congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Based on the 2016 Revised Value of a Statistical Life Guidance
set by the US Department of Transportation of $9.6 million per life.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Bill Deatherage, of the Kentucky Council of the Blind, walking along
Louisville, KY's Brownsboro Road before and after sidewalk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
construction. Photo by Anne M. McMahon.
In 2012, Congress required DOTs and MPOs to set performance targets
in federal priority areas. Several of those targets are safety related,
including overall fatalities and serious injuries as well as non-
motorized fatalities and serious injuries (i.e., bicyclists and
pedestrians).
While this approach is referred to as ``performance management'' in
the law, it is really simply performance tracking. Instead of setting
targets and orienting spending around those targets, the program allows
states to set priorities and report the safety results. If those
targets are ambitious, wonderful. But Congress allows them to be
negative too. As a result, in 2017, eighteen states set performance
targets to kill more bicyclists and pedestrians on their roadways.
You can find this information if you know where to go deep on the
FHWA's webpage to find them. There you must dig through 55 reports that
are 60-70 pages each to find this information to compare across states.
That's better than the repair and other targets, which aren't available
on FHWA's site at all. This is seven years after Congress required
performance tracking. That is what passes for accountability in the
federal transportation program.
I have heard many people claim that the focus on congestion
mitigation is important for the economy. As a local elected official, I
can promise you that an empty roadway, while uncongested, is hardly an
example of a healthy economy. Corridors that are full of cars and
people are usually our highest performing economic centers.
The National Complete Street Coalition analyzed 37 Complete Streets
projects in across the nation and found that employment levels rose
after Complete Streets projects--in some cases, significantly.
Communities reported increased net new businesses after Complete
Streets improvements, suggesting that Complete Streets projects made
the street more desirable for businesses. In eight of the ten
communities with available data, property values increased after the
Complete Streets improvements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/evaluating-complete-
streets-projects-a-guide-for-practitioners/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, Redfin found, based on more than 1 million homes sold
between January 2014 and April 2016, that one walk-score point can
increase the price of a home by an average of $3,250, or 0.9 percent.
While the majority of home buyers were looking for homes in walkable
neighborhoods, Redfin found that they make up just 2% of active
listings.\5\ As we all know, when something is in high demand and low
supply, it can push the price of that item substantially upward. As a
result, walkable neighborhoods can become very expensive and are often
out of reach for those that are most reliant on walking and transit for
their daily activities. And the cost premium created by this low supply
is created by restrictions in development and housing policy, but also
by transportation programs. Much like the cost of diamonds is elevated
by restricting supply, government is increasing the cost of walkable
neighborhoods by blocking the market response to the ever-increasing
demand for them. A design that would save thousands of lives every
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-walk-score-boosts-your-
homes-value-2016-08-11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some fear that making space for people walking and biking requires
something to be taken from drivers. But when we build roads to move
everyone, everyone does better. In Grandview, Missouri, a project was
implemented to reinvigorate Main Street by improving the pedestrian
accommodations along several blocks. The result was an increase in all
modes: pedestrians by 900 percent, bicyclists by 40 percent and
automobiles by 20 percent, although it remained uncongested. There were
also 90 percent fewer crashes after the changes. The city's investment
of $5 million has led to a return of $375 million. This amounts to
approximately 1.5 times of the cities entire assessed property
evaluation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.marc.org/Government/GTI/Academy-for-Sustainable-
Communities/Sustainable-Success-Stories-Honorees/2016/Grandview-Gateway
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In Charlotte, North Carolina, the state DOT redesigned East
Boulevard from five lanes to three, adding new sidewalks and bike lanes
back in 2006. As a result, they saw a dramatic reduction in crashes,
more efficient traffic operations, a drop in speeding, and a 47 percent
increase in non-residential property values that raised annual tax
revenues by $530,000.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.completestreetsnc.org/project-examples/ex-
eastblvdroaddiet/
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In my home state of Florida, we know how to do this right when we
want to. In Orlando, Florida DOT redesigned Edgewater Drive by taking a
travel lane and reconfiguring the road to make space for pedestrians
and bicyclists. Total collisions dropped by 40 percent, injury rates
decline 71 percent, pedestrian counts increased by 23 percent and
bicycling increased by 30 percent traffic dropped 12 percent before
returning to original levels. Additionally, the corridor has gained 77
new businesses and 560 jobs, while the value of property along the
corridor rose 80 percent.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Edgwater Drive Fact Sheet: https://www.google.com/
url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=
web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjgq_2w2rnhAhVDnOAKHZ1cDGUQFjABegQIAhAC&url=
http%3A%2F%2Famericas.uli.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F2%2FULI-
Documents%2FEdgewater-Drive-Orlando-
FL.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iqKJs_cXyNniFKC6_V8gN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Yet these projects are the exception. Engineers actually have to
get special approval to implement them, a process that can take more
than a year. Why wouldn't we want this to be the rule?
As we consider the next six years of our national surface
transportation spending, Congress should update the program to better
protect all users. Congress should strengthen existing Complete Streets
language to require states and metropolitan regions to plan, design,
fund, and maintain safer streets. Congress should fund more Complete
Streets projects. And Congress should create real accountability for
roadway safety. States should not be allowed negative safety targets.
If they are expecting more deaths then investments or changes need to
be made to their programs.
For years, we have heard about the need for more money. But it's
really not about the amount, but rather how it's being prioritized and
spent. Shouldn't we ensure that federal funding goes to projects that
improve safety, improve traffic operations and create the communities
that people want? Every single dollar spent to resurface roadways could
include a redesign that saves lives. But when a resurfacing project is
developed, stakeholders and the community that might want Complete
Streets are told that DOT will have to ``study the matter'' and then by
the time the design concept is reviewed by the traffic division, the
project is at 60 percent development and the DOT says they are too far
into the process to consider the change. We are choosing bureaucratic,
status quo procedure over human life.
Florida DOT, particularly in resurfacing projects, claim they have
little flexibility in federal funding rules to support enhancements
outside of their right of way jurisdiction. And often this may be a
sidewalk or transit stop outside of their right of way jurisdiction.
This results in safety and complete street gaps whereby a sidewalk or
resurfacing project avoids needed improvements on private or other
agency property that would result in a safe, seamless project. We are
choosing to leave this part of the transportation system out and it is
killing people.
After a road is built or resurfaced, we are told there is no money
for retrofits. Even when there is, it is a fraction of the funding they
are using to create the problem. It is like building an addition on
your house while ignoring a gas leak.
Moreover, as we enter this reauthorization, I look to you all on
this committee to set clear goals about what we, the American people,
will get for the investment. There is a lot of talk on Capital Hill
about raising taxes and putting more funding into the surface
transportation program to stabilize it over the long run.
As we bring up reauthorization, Congress should lead a discussion
about what we plan to achieve, not just about what you are going to
spend. We need to set specific, measurable goals and hold decision-
makers accountable for reaching them. There should be rewards for doing
well and penalties for failure. And above all, this program should be
oriented to create a safer transportation system for all users. Doing
so will save lives while creating the economically vibrant, livable
communities that Americans want.
Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today. I look
forward to working with you to do more for safety in the coming
reauthorization bill.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor Jones.
I am going to next ask the chief of police for the city of
Alexandria, Michael L. Brown, to offer his testimony. Five
minutes, please.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and also members of
the committee.
I am going to try and cover the high points in the written
testimony I submitted, and principally what I was looking at
and trying to offer or was asked to offer was the lens of law
enforcement in trying to deal with the traffic safety
implications across this country.
In my testimony, we recognize in the profession that
clearly the major issues were outlined by the chair regarding
impaired driving, speeding, distraction, and the pedestrian
conflicts occurring across the country.
I would also add the issue of occupant protection as well
because occupant protection speaks directly to the
survivability should you get involved in a crash.
But from the law enforcement perspective and the lens we
look at the world, frankly, in terms of the competing interests
that are placed upon law enforcement, and a lot of those
interests come from the local level. The local demand of our
neighborhoods in our communities tell us what we need to
prioritize on.
And, quite frankly, in some communities like the one in
which I work, traffic and even parking is a significant issue.
But that is not across the Nation, and so we need to be
flexible in the way we look at creating an authorization that
accounts for the local law enforcement and the local
expectations that the law enforcement leaders and the officers
who do the work are confronted with on a daily basis.
I have included in my testimony a number of general
recommendations, especially regarding incentivizing involvement
of law enforcement. The current incentives for the national
campaigns and those kinds of things that you find in the FAST
Act and in previous editions of reauthorization provide an
opportunity for law enforcement to engage in campaigns. It is a
capacity-driven thing so that it could be coordinated on a
national level.
But that does not happen on a day-to-day basis, and as you
have heard testimony by law enforcement officials across this
country, there are times where that capacity is drawn upon by
other commitments and other challenges that law enforcement
faces, aside from the fact that we are in an issue in some
parts of the country where it is very difficult to recruit
people and to fill the ranks of law enforcement.
So this competition takes place within these incentives.
General overtime programs we suggest should be continued for a
variety of reasons, especially if they drive for capacity at
the local level.
The other thing that would be interesting in terms of
trying to do this is to raise the awareness through these
incentivization programs of traffic safety within the local
political establishment.
One of the things that I have suggested is develop a
national narrative. The current national narrative in many
cases, NHTSA does a good job, but it focuses on a lot of the
specific things that we are looking at in our major campaign.
The fact of the matter is most of the crashes that are
occurring are directly related to bad behavior on the part of
the participants, whether it be a bicyclist, a pedestrian, or
some motorists. Very few of them are related to mechanical
issues.
People make bad choices, and people get hurt, and in some
cases, they die. So what we were trying to do at least in the
city that we have and in other parts and communities across the
country is to elevate that discussion to something more than
just the numbers, something more than just a campaign, trying
to get out there and engage in the activity, making a traffic
stop, not necessarily making a citation, but looking for the
teachable moment that is going to change behavior and get
people to voluntarily comply with the laws.
That is taking place across the country at varying levels
for the same kind of conditions that we talked about at the
local level.
I would suggest that we continue to focus on these key
areas, but I would also suggest that in the new authorization
we build in as much flexibility for a local government to
establish the priorities that they are facing in their local
issues. What happens in Alexandria is not the same it is going
to be in L.A. It is not going to be the same as Salina, Kansas.
And so we need to be able to provide them the opportunity
to address their traffic safety issues, and I would also argue
that the traffic safety issues are not accidents. They are
crashes, and it is not just deaths. People who survive crashes,
and we see them every day, in many cases have lifelong, lasting
issues that change their life forever.
So, Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity. I
look forward to any questions the committee may have.
[Mr. Brown's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael L. Brown, Chief of Police, Alexandria
(Virginia) Police Department
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to come
before you and represent the law enforcement perspective on traffic
safety and law enforcement's role in addressing this important issue.
My testimony is offered to underscore the importance of traffic safety
in our country and some of the challenges we face in addressing it.
Traffic safety is often defined by the number of crashes that have
occurred and by the number the fatalities that have resulted from these
crashes. While these are important measures, law enforcement deals with
it on a much more personal level. Law enforcement officers respond to
crash calls, investigate and deal with individual needs of those
involved. This occurs thousands of times a day in our country. The
level of law enforcement engagement is shaped by local capacity,
community interest and political will. The role of the officers and the
service they provide is often lost in national level discussions of
traffic safety. My testimony will address major policy level issues it
and it is also offered to you through this lens.
traffic safety is a critical issue for america
The sheer number of crashes in this country illustrates traffic
safety is a critical issue that affects millions of people, however, it
is frequently under prioritized in the context of other national
priorities. Clearly, crashes that involve a fatality or a life changing
issue have an impact on individuals and their families. I would also
argue that involvement in crashes resulting in minor injuries or mere
property damage also complicate the lives of people on a daily basis.
Law enforcement officers know this and deal with this every day.
Unfortunately, the latter situations are frequently ``overlooked'' in
traffic safety discussions.
Law enforcement is often called upon to deal with traffic safety
issues. Each day, we receive many calls or complaints about specific
traffic safety which we have to prioritize with our other calls for
service. The public call us because they expect law enforcement to
enforce traffic laws and mitigate their issue. This is based upon the
premise that the real or perception of officers actively or potentially
enforcing traffic safety laws will lead to some level of voluntary
compliance by individuals in a specific area. Law enforcement
acknowledges this expectation and perspective. Law enforcement agencies
and their officers respond by prioritizing traffic safety along with
the other expectations a community may place upon them, e.g.; crime
responses, mental health calls, etc.).
Law enforcement agencies understand the importance of traffic
safety in the context of a community's ``quality of life''. Many
agencies have understood this for a long time. Others came to
understand that perspective even better during the 1990's. The 1994
Crime Bill required participating law enforcement agencies to conduct
'town hall' meetings with their communities across the country. One of
the quality of life issues repeatedly raised in these meetings was
traffic safety and traffic management. It became so prevalent that the
U.S. Department of Justice's COPS Office developed publications to help
law enforcement agencies in responding to traffic safety issues. Today,
law enforcement's conversations with the public still include the
traffic safety issue. The challenge remains--law enforcement is
constantly balancing traffic safety as a community priority alongside
more traditional policing issues. Community expectations for policing
and traffic safety issues are local community based and the law
enforcement response to these expectations vary by community across the
nation. That said, there are some specific challenges for law
enforcement that surface so often they deserve national discussion and
attention. My following comments will cover some of the specific
challenges that are high priority.
impaired driving
Driving under the influence is a major issue for the nation and its
communities. While there has been a significant reduction in fatalities
and a reported change in public acceptance of driving impaired, about
1/3 of all traffic fatalities are directly related to problem. Much of
this success on this issue can be attributed to the efforts of MADD,
law enforcement, and other community groups. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and others have also developed a
robust toolkit to deal with this issue including impairment presumption
levels, national enforcement campaigns, ignition interlock programs,
DUI courts and others. However, local participation in these efforts
varies across the nation. This variation can be attributed to local
capacity and local political will. We need to remember that law
enforcement's response to impaired driving will be governed by these
local conditions.
The national approach to this issue should continue and incentivize
the use of the current toolkit as these tools have been proven
effective in dealing with impaired driving. However, there should be a
renewed interest in engaging groups other than law enforcement more
effectively in addressing impaired driving. Substance abuse is a major
underlying cause of impaired driving and repeat offenders are a prime
example of the substance abuse issues that law enforcement confronts in
dealing with impaired driving. Law enforcement is not in the substance
abuse treatment business and increased access to substance abuse
(public health) programs to deal with this issue should be promoted as
an intervention measure.
Law enforcement recognizes the importance of enforcing impaired
driving laws and accepts its role as evidenced by the number of people
they arrest for driving impaired. The evolution of impaired driving law
over the years has led to officers completing incredibly long, detailed
reports and other protocols which result in a major commitment of the
officer's time. I will not say this discourages officers from making
DUI arrests nor am I suggesting the development of shortcuts which
affect the rights of the arrested individual. The reality for the
officer is that, in some cases, a misdemeanor DUI report can be as
complicated as a criminal felony homicide case. There must be a way to
develop a standardized national methodology which simplifies these
reports which appropriately balances the needs of prosecutors and the
rights of the arrestee.
Finally, I must address the specific concerns of law enforcement
over the impact of driving under the influence of drugs. The country
has acknowledged that drug abuse is a public health issue and has many
programs to deal with it in this framework. Law enforcement and
prosecutors have successfully enforced impaired driving statues for
many years and will continue to do so. That said, there is considerable
concern within law enforcement over the potential public safety
implications for impaired driving and the interests to increase public
access to marijuana. Law enforcement is closely monitoring the
experience of states and communities that have increased this legal
access but the current debate can be confusing and alarming. For the
officer, they recognize the absence of credible technology and
informative research to assist them in assessing driver impairment
during an impaired driving enforcement contact involving drugs. It is
critical that these issues are addressed immediately to help guide
officers in their impaired driving enforcement efforts.
occupant protection
This issue remains a major issue for our nation. About half of the
nation's fatal crash reports indicate that one or more vehicle
occupants are not wearing their safety belts. This proportion has also
been relatively consistent for decades. The same observation can be
found in national injury crashes. Again, NHTSA has developed a toolkit
to get people to wear their seatbelts but the engagement of law
enforcement varies across the nation due to local conditions and
political will.
The discussions of seatbelt enforcement often include concerns over
the police overstepping their authority and/or over prioritizing the
importance of seatbelt enforcement. Officers frequently still hear the
response ``don't you have more important things to do'' when they
enforce seatbelt laws. Officers and their leaders are very aware of
these conversations and positions and it can also have a `chilling'
effect on actual seatbelt enforcement. The nation needs to change the
perspective on the importance of seatbelt laws to improve public
compliance. Seatbelt enforcement needs to be viewed as a lifesaving
effort not as a tactic used by officers to `pick on' people.
This is a problem which could also be fixed at some level over time
through engineering and design. The use of seat belt interlocks for
example could improve this behavior without the need for law
enforcement.
speeding
Nobody likes getting a speeding ticket and yet speed continues to
be an issue in most crashes in America. In many cases, it is the
principle reason behind the crash. It is also a major factor in the
severity of the crash and occupant survivability which relates to the
principles of physics. Speed enforcement is a traditional enforcement
activity in many police agencies and officers do it every day.
Unfortunately, there are many more speeders than there are officers and
voluntary compliance by motorists is often dependent upon the
motorist's perception that they will be caught speeding. Many motorists
like the odds of not being caught and choose to speed. Speed limit
compliance could be enhanced by incentivizing law enforcement efforts
to speed enforcement at a national level. The increased use of
automated speed enforcement technology could also prove useful
providing such programs are implemented for traffic safety reasons and
not revenue generation. Such programs must be implemented to avoid any
challenges to police legitimacy.
distraction
Distraction is a very real threat to the safe use of our
transportation system. Law enforcement acknowledges that and where
possible enforces the laws that are available to them. All
transportation system users need to pay attention when using these
systems. The emerging data is illustrating that this issue is growing
especially with our reliance on some technology. Many of the current
laws focus on drivers and not other users like pedestrians and
bicyclists while in the roadway. When this topic is discussed the
issues surrounding police harassment and the ability of officers to
detect distraction frequently surface. Some of the existing laws also
make the law difficult for officers to enforce e.g.; manipulating a
device or texting language. Officers will tell you of many instances
where they see drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and other
transportation system users not paying attention and jeopardizing their
own personal safety and the safety of others. This will continue unless
the nation acknowledges this to be a problem. There should be a
national effort to develop hands free laws which are applicable to all
system users. There should also be a national priority assigned to this
traffic safety threat and a more uniformed enforcement/compliance
approach that is acceptable to the states and local authorities.
pedestrian and bicycle safety
There is a growing concern in many communities over the safety of
bicyclists and pedestrians. Law enforcement understands these concerns
and responds to local traffic safety complaints on these issues on a
daily basis. This is particularly important in urban centers and those
communities that encourage these travel options. In many discussions on
this issue there are references to pedestrians and bicyclists as
'vulnerable' populations which are understandable especially when they
share the road with cars. From the law enforcement perspective, there
is plenty of blame to share as to what creates this conflict. At times
it is the motor vehicle operator that does not recognize or ignores the
laws and protections provided to pedestrians and cyclists. Yet, there
are also many occasions where these same pedestrians/cyclists involved
in these potential conflicts will position the argument so that they
are the victim instead of acknowledging that each contributes to the
traffic safety issue. This makes it difficult for officers when they
take enforcement action involving pedestrian and cyclists. Like some of
the other traffic safety issues I have discussed, the narrative needs
to change on this issue so that traffic safety is a personal
responsibility and all the players must follow the rules.
other important law enforcement considerations
There are other issues which I must bring up which can impact the
role of law enforcement in performing its traffic safety
responsibilities. These issues are real for law enforcement and the
communities they serve and provide context for traffic safety
enforcement. They include:
Calls for Service and Officer Initiated Activity
At one time in my career I was told by a federal official that
``law enforcement will do what we tell them to do''. Sadly, other
federal officials that were present found that comment humorous at the
time. Unfortunately, that perspective is a counterproductive to
encouraging law enforcement participation and clearly ignores the daily
realities of our officers.
Traffic enforcement occurs when officers are on routine patrol and
when they are responding to a specific traffic safety complaint from
the community. The latter is treated like a call for service (e.g.; a
911 call) and the officer's discretion to engage in enforcement may be
affected. The officers still have discretion to give a warning or a
citation but there is an expectation that they respond to the problem
area and at least look for violations. Officers on routine patrol have
greater discretion to engage in traffic enforcement. Patrolling
officers may be more interested in other local policing priorities or
their own specific policing interests rather than traffic safety.
This has been and will continue to be a challenge for law
enforcement leadership. Officers who acknowledge a public safety
priority tend to respond to that priority. As such, it is important to
develop a national narrative which elevates traffic enforcement as a
community public safety threat which deserves the attention of the
individual officer. The national narrative needs to be supported with
messaging and incentives designed to promote officer engagement in this
enforcement effort.
Law Enforcement as an Intervention
Enforcement is often portrayed as the key intervention for
improving traffic safety. That is most likely the basis for the number
of traffic enforcement call/requests law enforcement agencies receive
each day. Research has demonstrated that good enforcement can have an
impact on changing some behavior in traffic safety. In some cases,
there are more profound foundational issues which dictate the need for
other interventions. My coverage of impaired driving included some
discussion of other intervention needs when substance abuse behavior is
present. There are other disciplines which can be applied. Vehicle
design, engineering, and other technologies can be useful in developing
interventions which might stop problematic behavior. Interlock systems
for impaired driving and seatbelts are examples of design
interventions.
While law enforcement plays a critical role in changing traffic
safety behavior many issues require a more complex intervention to
effectively deal with any poor behavior. I do believe the role of law
enforcement is significant in this effort but we should avoid
defaulting to law enforcement as the entity that has sole
responsibility for changing behavior that causes crashes.
Officer Discretion and Legitimacy
It is the individual officer that makes the decision to engage in
traffic enforcement. Therefore, we must also acknowledge that officers
are very aware of the climate in which they work and the public
acceptance of their enforcement efforts. Officer decisions to engage
involve the professional discretion they have during the performance of
their duties. There is considerable research on officer discretion and
it has shaped agencies policies. Law enforcement agencies have many
policies to control the use of discretion but the myriad of fact
patterns an officer confronts while performing their duties make it
difficult to develop policy for every situation. That is one reason why
law enforcement agencies commit so much time, energy, and money into
selecting and training individuals that can exercise good judgment in
the use of officer discretion. I would argue that, in practically every
case, the competence and motivation of today's officers is at a much
higher level than ever before.
Legitimacy is a foundational factor in policing and the police will
not be effective without it. There have been past concerns and debates
about law enforcement actions and legitimacy. There have also been some
comments that these concerns and debates have resulted in fewer
officers engaging in traffic enforcement as a result. While this may be
the case in some communities, I have not seen research that
conclusively proves that this is occurring on a national level. That
said, it is important for law enforcement and political leadership to
create an environment which suggests that officers should engage in
traffic law enforcement to respond to community quality of life and
public safety issues in a manner which promote police legitimacy within
the community the officer serves. This may not be occurring in some
communities and should be addressed in a manner which supports officers
doing traffic enforcement for the right reasons--protecting the public.
A development of a national position which encourages this environment
would be useful for improved traffic law enforcement.
Incentives for Law Enforcement
I have referenced incentives in my testimony on several occasions.
The incentives that are traditionally offered through the federal
government relate to providing enforcement capacity. Providing funding
is important for law enforcement agencies that lack the capacity to
participate in national traffic safety enforcement efforts. Some
approaches result in individual officers performing this enforcement on
an overtime basis which, for some officers, may be incentive. Recently,
there have been repeated reports within the law enforcement community
that overtime details do not often sufficiently encourage officers to
perform specific activities including traffic safety enforcement. This
may be attributed to the many uses of overtime details to address non-
traffic related issues. These other details may compete with traffic
enforcement details for available officers to participate. Some law
enforcement agencies also argue overtime is not a sufficient high
priority or driving factor with some officers. Agencies often advise
that filling these overtime details can be difficult as a result.
Another reason for the difficulty in getting officers to participate in
these details may also be the degree of importance officers assign to
traffic safety. Many officers may not recognize their role in traffic
safety and enforcement of traffic laws as being that important to their
community.
national narrative
My testimony also makes several references to developing a national
narrative outlining the importance of traffic safety and committing the
resources to change the belief structures in the country relating to
safety on and around our roadways. There are examples where this has
worked in this area like the changed attitudes on impaired driving
which was initiated by MADD. Other individual groups within the traffic
safety community have made similar efforts to change attitudes and
culture in specific areas with varying degrees of success. To me, this
seems to be 'chipping away' at the essential need for all of us in this
country to change our behavior and improve our quality of life as it
relates to all aspects of traffic safety.
A national traffic safety improvement narrative would also be
useful in getting law enforcement behind the traffic safety issue.
Officers and their agencies have a history of responding to recognized
threats to public safety. The drug and gang activity in the 1980's, the
homeland security effort following 9/11 and, more recently, the issues
related to mental health and opioid overdoses are prime examples of a
motivated law enforcement response. What is missing today for law
enforcement is the commitment to making traffic safety a high priority
for our nation.
conclusions
I have offered a number of perspectives and suggestions in my
testimony to assist the committee in its legislative deliberations. The
issues surrounding traffic safety are complex and will require
leadership to effectively change the behaviors that cause crashes in
this country. We currently have individuals that provide that
leadership in certain areas of traffic safety but a nationwide
comprehensive commitment designed to make this issue a high priority
for our country has been missing for some time.
Within our communities are individuals who have personnel stories
of how they were affected by a crash. Law enforcement officers make
personal death or serious injury notifications to families and friends
following a traffic crash on a daily basis. Officers who have done
this, including me, will tell you the impact these notifications have
on these family and friends as well as the officer are significant. The
personal loss, the shock, and the feelings encountered by the officers
are the same for traffic crashes as they are those notifications made
following a major felony not related to traffic. I have said many
times--it doesn't matter if the injury or death is caused by a car
fender or a bullet to loved ones.
Our communities want a sustainable and safe quality of life. They
want to feel safe in their communities and reduce all threats to
safety. Law enforcement's experience has shown this includes their
expectations on traffic safety. The committee can play a key leadership
role in raising the profile of traffic safety as a public safety issue
across our nation. I am confident elevating the issue to a serious,
high priority public safety issue will also lead to increased support
from law enforcement. This effort may move our nation to a better and
safer place than we currently find ourselves.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to offer my thoughts on
this very important policy issue.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chief Brown.
Mr. Jay Bruemmer.
Mr. Bruemmer. Chairwoman Norton and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify to you
today on behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services
Association.
ATSSA represents the manufacturers and installers of
roadway safety infrastructure devices, such as guard rail and
cable barriers, traffic signs, pavement markings, and work zone
safety devices, among others.
Our mission is to advance roadway safety and reduce
fatalities and serious injuries to zero.
Professionally, I have worked for K&G Striping for 34
years, a Missouri contractor who installs pavement markings,
traffic signs, and traffic control.
It is appropriate to be here discussing roadway safety
during National Work Zone Awareness Week, as we honor those who
lost their lives in work zones around the country, including
nearly 800 the previous year.
My first project on an interstate quickly taught me the
importance of roadway safety. While striping in a work zone on
I-70 nearly Lawrence, Kansas, I looked up to see a semi truck
knocking over cones and headed right at me. I only had enough
time to take one step back before I was blown off my feet by
the wind.
I was fortunate to go home that day to my family, but
tragically many others are not so lucky. Please slow down in
work zones.
Mitigating driver behavior is a perennial challenge for
transportation leaders, and knowing this, the roadway safety
infrastructure industry has innovated and deployed cost-
effective countermeasures to combat negative driver behavior.
Here are a few examples.
Wrong-way driving crashes are often catastrophic when they
occur, especially on highways and high-speed roads. Intelligent
transportation systems in conjunction with signage combat
wrong-way driving. These systems detect a wrong-way driver and
inform both the driver and law enforcement about the incident
so law enforcement may intercede within minutes.
Systematic devices like barriers are critically important
to the safety ecosystem of a roadway network. This is
particularly true in rural areas where 30 percent of total
vehicle miles traveled occur, yet 50 percent of roadway
fatalities occur.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation installed cable
median barrier along 150 miles of road. In the 3 years prior
there were 19 fatal cross-median crashes. In the 3 years
following, there were zero.
We know that wider pavement markings have positive safety
benefits, especially for older drivers. They also prove
beneficial for machine-driven vehicles. Under adverse
conditions, wider markings consistently improve machine vision
detection.
In 2017, nearly 6,000 pedestrians were killed in roadway
crashes, and the previous year saw 840 cyclists killed. There
are roadway safety infrastructure solutions that help protect
both vulnerable users and motorists, including dedicated bike
lanes with green pavement markings and delineators, as well as
innovative retroreflective crosswalks for pedestrians.
Thirty-seven thousand one hundred and thirty men, women,
and children being killed on U.S. roads annually, we cannot
allow safety to ever become an afterthought.
None of these safety priorities can be achieved without a
solvent, robustly funded Highway Trust Fund.
ATSSA strongly supports increasing user fees to address the
long-term viability of the trust fund. This includes indexing
gas and diesel taxes and eventually moving towards the vehicle
miles traveled user fee system.
The Highway Safety Improvement Program, or HSIP, is the
sole Federal highway program focused on roadway safety.
States--which are responsible for the safety on all public
roads--are able to use these funds for eligible activities.
However, States are allowed to transfer up to 50 percent of
their HSIP allocations. Given the importance of safety, ATSSA
calls on Congress to eliminate or at the very least reduce the
percentage of funds that can be transferred out of HSIP.
Congress has previously ensured that funds from HSIP can
only be used for roadway safety infrastructure projects. We
urge the committee to continue this language as part of the
FAST Act reauthorization and infrastructure packages.
ATSSA calls on Congress to double the size of the Highway
Safety Improvement Program to at least 10 percent of the
overall core Federal-aid Highway Program so it can aggressively
combat fatalities and serious injuries on U.S. roads and expand
the use of cost-effective, lifesaving roadway infrastructure
countermeasures.
In conclusion, we must not let safety slip as our top
priority. Roadway safety infrastructure and the Highway Safety
Improvement Program are key pieces of the safety puzzle.
And ATSSA looks forward to working with the subcommittee to
reduce fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation's roads to
zero.
Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to any
questions.
[Mr. Bruemmer's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jay Bruemmer, Vice President, K&G Striping, Inc.,
on behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services Association
Chairman Holmes Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf
of the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) on how
investing in and improving the safety of America's roadway system
impacts each and every one of us. I currently serve as Chairman of
ATSSA's Government Relations Committee. I am also a past member of the
ATSSA Board of Directors, past President of the ATSSA Chapter
Presidents' Council and past President of the Heart of America Chapter
of ATSSA (comprised of Kansas and Missouri). ATSSA is a 1,500+ member
international trade association which represents the manufacturers,
installers and distributors of roadway safety infrastructure devices
and services such as guardrail and cable barrier, traffic signs,
pavement markings, rumble strips, high friction surface treatments, and
work zone safety devices, among others. Our mission is to Advance
Roadway Safety and reduce fatalities and serious injuries on U.S. roads
toward zero.
Professionally, I am the Vice President of K&G Striping Inc., a
Riverside, MO-based contractor focused on pavement marking, traffic
sign installation, and traffic control. K&G Striping has been a
contractor in the Midwest since 1982, incorporated in 1989, and now
serves Johnson County, Jackson County and the greater Kansas City metro
area. If you're driving through western Missouri and find yourself in a
roadway work zone, chances are you will see our trucks doing the work.
In fact, Ranking Member Sam Graves represents our office here in
Congress.
Congratulations to Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves,
Chairman Holmes Norton, and Ranking Member Davis on your new leadership
positions on the Committee and Subcommittee, and thank you for holding
this critically-important hearing. The timing of this hearing coincides
with National Work Zone Awareness Week, honoring those who have lost
their lives in roadway work zones and spreading awareness for the need
to enhance safety in work zones around the country. In 2017, 799 people
were killed in work zones, which includes both motorists and workers.
We hear it almost every single day--that transportation safety is
the number one priority. Members of Congress, the Executive Branch,
businesses, states, local governments and users of the transportation
system all talk about the importance of safety programs. But sometimes,
the need to invest in safety infrastructure is easy to overlook or take
for granted. But with more than 37,000 men, women and children being
killed on U.S. roads annually, and from personal experience of working
in roadway work zones, we cannot allow safety to ever become an
afterthought or second priority. Period.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), 37,133 individuals were killed in motor vehicle crashes in
2017. This is truly a horrifying statistic; however, the glimmer of
hope is that this was a reduction from 2016 by approximately 2%.\1\
Additionally, preliminary 2018 data indicates that this decline in
fatalities is potentially continuing.\2\ For me and the men and women
employed by K&G Striping, this number hits very close to home,
especially when you consider that in 2017, 799 of those fatalities
occurred in work zones. Imagine yourself working on a road construction
project, and passenger vehicles and motor carriers are traveling at 50,
60, 70+ miles per hour only feet from where you are working. You might
be protected by a steel or concrete barrier, but you might just have
some plastic cones and barrels separating you from thousands of pounds
of speeding steel. I know from personal experience how terrifying this
can be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA 2017 Fatality Data--https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/
us-dot-announces-2017-
roadway-fatalities-down
\2\ NHTSA Preliminary 2018 Fatality Data--https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/812629
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was 18 years old, one of my first projects working on the
interstate was on I-70 between Lawrence and Topeka. We were installing
temporary pavement markings behind a lane closure to prepare to switch
traffic to head to head on the eastbound lanes. While putting down
reflective markers, I looked up to see a semi-truck, which had not seen
the lane closure in time, knocking over channelizers in the taper and
headed directly toward me. I had just enough time to stand up, and take
one step back before the wind blew me off my feet. When I stood back
up, I saw the tire tracks through the tar I had put down for the next
marker I was going to install. Had I not been lucky enough to look up
when I did, the outcome would have been catastrophic. At the age of 18,
I learned firsthand two incredibly important lessons: that I was not
invincible and the importance of safety while working on the road.
Years later when I became the owner of our business, I repeatedly used
this experience to remind myself that the safety of my employees must
be my primary concern.
In 2005 as part of the SAFETEA-LU legislation, Congress authorized
the Highway Safety Improvement Program or HSIP, and subsequently
reauthorized that program in 2012 in MAP-21 and again in 2015 under the
FAST Act. The HSIP program is the sole federal highway program focused
on roadway safety infrastructure. Over the lifetime of the FAST Act,
HSIP is authorized at approximately $12.5 billion, including set asides
for the Work Zone Safety Grant and the Railway-Highway Crossings
Program. States--which are responsible for the safety on all public
roads, not only state-owned roads--are able to utilize these funds for
eligible activities under HSIP. However, states are also allowed to
transfer up to 50% of their HSIP allocations to other core federal-aid
highway programs--such as the National Highway Performance Program,
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, Transportation
Alternatives, National Highway Freight Program, and the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program and vice versa.
And states have opted to utilize these transfer provisions. Under
MAP-21 and the FAST Act--as of September 30, 2018--24 states
transferred HSIP funds to other programs, totaling approximately $1.2
billion. Given the importance of safety and the need for safety to
remain a priority area of investment, ATSSA calls on Congress to
eliminate, or at the very least, reduce the percentage of funds that
can be transferred out of HSIP to ensure that roadway safety
infrastructure funds are being utilized on roadway safety
infrastructure projects.
Additionally, in MAP-21, Congress ensured that funds from the
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) could only be used for
eligible roadway safety infrastructure projects under HSIP. We urge the
committee to continue this language as part of the FAST Act
reauthorization.
Mitigating driver behavior is a perennial challenge for
transportation leaders; however, the roadway safety infrastructure
industry has innovated and deployed cost-effective countermeasures to
combat negative driver behavior. Here are a few examples.
wrong-way driving
Although not incredibly frequent, wrong-way driving crashes are
often catastrophic when they do occur, especially on highways and high-
speed roads. There are several countermeasures that work to address
this issue, namely signage, markings and LED lights on signs. However,
road owners can also opt to utilize intelligent transportation systems,
in conjunction with signs, to combat wrong-way driving. These systems
detect a wrong-way driver and inform both the driver and law
enforcement about the incident.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Improving Driver Behavior with Infrastructure Safety
Countermeasures'' ATSSA case study publication, 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
high friction surface treatment
High friction surface treatments (HFST) are an example of an
infrastructure safety countermeasure that does not require the driver
to make behavioral changes in order to have a positive safety impact.
These treatments are applied to high risk crash locations such as
intersections or curves. Durable aggregate (usually bauxite) is applied
to the road surface and bonded using a polymer binder. In 75 locations
in Kentucky where HFST were applied, roadway departure crashes
decreased by 91% in wet conditions and 78% in dry conditions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Improving Driver Behavior with Infrastructure Safety
Countermeasures'' ATSSA case study publication, 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pedestrian and bicycle safety
In 2017, 5,977 pedestrians were killed in roadway crashes across
the United States. In 2016, there were 840 bicyclists killed in roadway
crashes. There are roadway safety infrastructure solutions that help
protect both vulnerable users and motorists, including dedicate bicycle
lanes with green pavement markings and flexible delineators as well as
retroreflective crosswalks for pedestrians. One countermeasure focused
on pedestrian safety is the Leading Pedestrian Interval Plus (LPI+),
which allows the pedestrian to begin crossing the street before traffic
is allowed to move. Studies have shown that LPIs can reduce vehicle-
pedestrian crashes by as much as 60%.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Traffic Control Device Innovations to Improve Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety at Signalized Intersections'' ATSSA case study
publication, 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
smarter work zones
As I mentioned, this week being National Work Zone Awareness Week,
it is a crucial moment to talk about safety in work zones. Work zones
are inherently dangerous areas, and the safety of the men and women
working on the road is paramount. Making work zones smarter, safer, and
more efficient will decrease fatalities and serious injuries for both
drivers and workers. Smarter work zones can mean intelligent
transportation systems, data collection and usage, project
coordination, and stakeholder engagement, among many other activities.
In Washington, DC, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT)
realized that multiple road construction projects in the city were
having interrelated impacts on road users. So in response, DDOT created
a comprehensive, software-based work zone project management system
which brought together roadway, utility, and developer construction
activities which identified and lessened public right-of-way conflicts.
The top goals of this approach were to minimize work zone location
conflicts and impacts and improve safety and mobility within the work
zones. A web-based work zone tracking application was used to gather
all the data and then send that data to project coordinators to alert
them of possible conflicts.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Smarter Work Zones: Project Coordination and Technology
Applications, ATSSA case study publication, 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
barrier
Barrier is used either in a median or on the roadside to protect
vehicles from leaving the road and impacting other fixed objects or on-
coming traffic. Systemic devices such as barrier are critically
important to the safety ecosystem of a road network. This is especially
true in rural areas where, according to 2016 Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) data, 30% of total vehicle miles traveled
occurred, yet 50% of roadway fatalities also occurred. Fatalities on
rural roads are disproportionately high. Over a four-year period, the
Minnesota Department of Transportation installed cable barrier in 31
segments along 150 miles of roadway. In the three years prior to
installation of the cable barrier, there were 19 fatal cross-median
crashes. In the three years following installation, there were zero.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Preventing Vehicle Departures from Roadways'' ATSSA case
study publication 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that these countermeasures work. Through the use of
dashboard cameras, we can see how effective roadway safety
infrastructure can be. For example, this website shows footage from a
camera affixed to a tractor-trailer truck on a highway. The video
captured the image of another tractor-trailer truck nearly colliding
head-on but the crash being mitigated by cable barrier. https://
drive.google.com/file/d/1L-5egeInhrJgB9pZO14PtObM7tYQkI1D/view
wider, high visibility pavement markings and cavs
Some countermeasures are seemingly commonsense, but they have
lasting positive impacts not only for today's human drivers, but also
for connected and automated vehicles into the future. A Texas A&M
Transportation Institute (TTI) study found that wider pavement markings
in Michigan reduced fatal and injury crashes by nearly 25%, nighttime
crashes by nearly 40% and nighttime crashes in wet conditions by more
than 33%.\8\ A 2011 study of Missouri roads found that wider pavement
markings had a positive safety impact in reducing fatal and serious
injury crashes, including: a 46% reduction on rural, multilane
undivided highways; a 38% reduction on urban, two-lane highways; and a
34% reduction on rural, multilane divided highways.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Improving Driver Behavior with Infrastructure Safety
Countermeasures'' ATSSA case study publication, 2015
\9\ ``Innovative Safety Solutions with Pavement Markings and
Delineation'' ATSSA case study publication, 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that wider pavement markings have positive safety benefits,
especially for older drivers. But the question arises of whether or not
wider markings assist vehicles equipped with machine vision/connected
and automated vehicles (CAVs). A separate TTI study finds that the
answer is yes. In February 2017, BMW's President and CEO-North America
testified that clear lane markings were a critical component to a
transportation network that was ready to deploy CAVs.\10\ Additionally,
TTI undertook a separate study in 2018 which looked at wider pavement
markings and CAVs. This study found that wider markings, under adverse
conditions, consistently improved machine vision detection. Adverse
conditions include: crack seal, pavement seams, scarring, ``ghost''
lines from previous markings, and glare.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.enotrans.org/article/two-decades-congress-still-
pushing-21st-century-infrastructure/
\11\ ``Evaluation of the Effects of Pavement Marking Width on
Detectability by Machine Vision: 4-Inch versus 6-Inch Markings''
October 2018 Texas A&M Transportation Institute
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that said, we believe that full deployment of CAVs is still
some time away. The average age of a vehicle in the U.S. is 11.5 years
old, and according to 2017 data, the median household income in the
United States is $61,372.\12\ In each congressional district, there are
families who make below this average income line. And even for families
who have a household income above the median, we need to recognize the
fact that most families will not want to purchase a new car until they
feel it is time for them to do so. It is hard to believe that, even
once CAVs are readily available, families will be able to or
necessarily want to immediately rush to their car dealer to purchase
one of these new CAVs. It is important that we understand these
realities when planning for the expanded deployment of these
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. Census Bureau Data--https://www.census.gov/library/
stories/2018/09/highest-median-
household-income-on-record.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
safety funding
None of these safety priorities can be achieved without a solvent,
robustly-funded Highway Trust Fund. Continuing to spend more from the
Highway Trust Fund than is collected through taxes and fees is not a
long-term solution. We need to address these deficiencies. In that
regard, we strongly support an increase to user fees to address the
long-term viability of the Highway Trust Fund, which include increasing
and indexing the motor fuels user fees, an eventual move towards a
vehicle miles traveled user fee system, and where it makes sense, the
use of public private partnerships (P3s).
We view P3s as a separate issue from the Highway Trust Fund
solvency. Increasing the use of P3s does not address the underlying
fiscal cliff of the Highway Trust Fund. As we consider an
infrastructure package and a FAST Act reauthorization, the
Administration and Congress must grapple with the fact that increased
direct federal investments are crucial to the rebuilding and safety of
America's roadway network.
With any increase in revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, ATSSA
calls on Congress to double the size of the Highway Safety Improvement
Program to at least 10% of the overall core federal-aid highway
programs so that we can aggressively combat fatalities and serious
injuries on U.S. roads and expand the use of cost-effective, life-
saving roadway safety infrastructure countermeasures.
In conclusion, as a nation, we have made great strides in all
aspects of roadway safety: behavioral, vehicle, emergency response, and
infrastructure. As we move into the third decade of the 21st century,
we must continue to press forward with safety and not let it slip from
our top priority. Roadway safety infrastructure and the Highway Safety
Improvement Program are a key piece of the safety puzzle, and this
Subcommittee has the opportunity and responsibility to lead the charge
in reducing fatalities and serious injuries on our nation's roads.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to answering any of your questions.
Ms. Norton. And thank you for your testimony.
We want to hear next from Mr. Mike Sewell here on behalf of
the League of American Bicyclists.
Mr. Sewell. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton as well as
distinguished members of this subcommittee.
I am very happy to be here to answer your questions about
pedestrian/bicycle safety.
My name is Mike Sewell. I am from Louisville, Kentucky,
where I work as a professional engineer. I also serve as the
Active Transportation Service Line Leader and one of the owners
of Gresham Smith. It is an architecture and engineering
consulting firm.
I am representing not only the engineering profession
today, but also the League of American Bicyclists, where I
serve on their board of directors.
But most importantly today, I come to you as a daily
bicycle commuter. As little as a decade ago, I would be a very
highly unlikely candidate to be talking to you about bicycle
and pedestrian safety. However, as fate would have it, I found
myself stuck in a car in construction traffic watching
pedestrians and bicyclists move across a Second Street bridge
passing me, and so in a fit of frustration I decided I would
abandon my car on the side of the road and attempt to join
them.
Something serendipitous happened about halfway across that
Second Street bridge though. I heard a bicycle bell, and as I
looked over my shoulder, a bicyclist said, ``It is a beautiful
day, is it not?''
And in my current state of mind, I had a hard time matching
his enthusiasm, and at that point I had an epiphany. My choice
of transportation that morning was negatively influencing my
ability to enjoy myself.
So I decided right then and there I was going to bike to
work the next day. That was almost 8 years ago, and I am
pleased to say I have biked to work about every day since, and
I now have a far better understanding of what it means to be
joyful in a commute.
But me as an engineer, that decision made me challenge
myself in the decisions I was making and our public right-of-
way that might impede or allow other folks to have a similar
epiphany and enjoy themselves in their commute.
And as most engineers will do, we dug into data, and what I
found was quite alarming. Between 2008 and 2017, we saw
pedestrian deaths increase by 35 percent while pedestrians as a
mode share only increased by 1 percent.
What that tells me is that pedestrian deaths make up a
vastly disproportionate amount of fatalities on our roadway.
Bike fatalities are at their highest level since the early
1990s, with a 3-year average increase of 14.7 percent.
There are also direct ties to equity issues in our
transportation network that relate also to fatalities. What we
found is older adults, people of color, or people attempting to
walk and bike in lower income communities are far
disproportionately represented in fatalities as well.
Part of this fix is education, and thankfully, the League
of American Bicyclists has formal training programs that
educate about 60,000 bicycle riders about how better to engage
in transportation in our corridors, stay visible, and ride with
confidence.
They have also formalized a bicycle-friendly driver program
to better educate drivers on what to expect from bicyclists.
However, education alone is not enough. Congress has a
critical role in addressing policy and funding that allows
people like me, engineers, to proactively design safer
transportation systems.
Nationwide bicycling and walking make up approximately 12
percent of trips. They roughly make up 18 percent of
fatalities. Yet less than 1 percent of HSIP dollars are spent
focusing on better bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure type
projects to address these fatalities.
Part of the reason is the way HSIP is set up. States were
required to prioritize hot spots, basically pinpoints on a map
that categorize how fatal accidents are happening in a
location.
But what we found, too, is that it is a straightforward
approach, but it does not tell the entire story. There are
other factors that determine if a pedestrian is going to be
safe or a bicyclist is going to be safe, such as roadway
classification, speed differential, geometry, as well as land
use. All of these can be used for a data-driven approach to
determine where safety issues are likely to occur or where
future users will likely encounter them.
This is also not just an urban problem. We found that our
rural areas also have a lot of difficulty implementing
meaningful and safe multimodal connections.
Today I would like to suggest adding a special rule to HSIP
that requires States to address vulnerable user safety where
there is a high rate of fatalities related to vulnerable users.
Despite increases in bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities
nationwide, there are some good stories that come out of this.
In some locations, States and cities are seeing decreases.
Oregon, for instance, is a great example, having nearly a 31-
percent decrease in the number of fatalities for bicyclists
over the course of 2007 to 2016, despite a 46-percent increase
in bike commuter trips.
These results can be replicated through proactive policy,
appropriate funding, education, and better engineered streets
for all users.
I appreciate your time, and thank you for this opportunity.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[Mr. Sewell's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Sewell, Active Transportation Service Line
Leader, Gresham Smith, on behalf of the League of American Bicyclists
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and
distinguished members of this committee for the invitation to present
my perspectives on bicycle and pedestrian safety. My name is Mike
Sewell. I am from Louisville, Kentucky where I work as a professional
engineer. I also serve as the Active Transportation Service Line leader
and one of the owners of Gresham Smith, an Architecture, Engineering
and design practice. Gresham Smith is an active member of the American
Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the business association of
the engineering industry representing more than 5,600 engineering firms
and 600,000+ engineers, surveyors, architects, and other specialists
nationwide.
I am representing not only the engineering profession today, but
also the League of American Bicyclists where I serve on their board of
directors. Most importantly, today I come to you as a daily bicycle
commuter. Since beginning to bike to work, I have ridden more than
7,000 miles and explored dozens of U.S. cities by bike and experienced
both the fear and the joy of being a bicyclist on American roads.
background
The League of American Bicyclists has been a presence on Capitol
Hill since 1880, when the first bicycle advocates rode to Washington,
D.C. They presented a petition on a bicycle wheel demanding paved
roads, which would be safer and more enjoyable for the rising number of
bicyclists in America. Then, just as now, we wanted the voices of
bicyclists to be heard in the design and future of our transportation
system. As most people who bicycle will tell you, though, today's roads
certainly do not feel like they have been designed to make it easier to
get to work by bike or get to work safely by bike.
It has only been since 1991 that Congress has made funding for
bicycling and walking projects part of federal transportation programs.
In the intervening 28 years, we have seen a significant increase in
bicycling for both transportation and recreation. More recently, state
and local governments have begun promoting bicycling as a
transportation option to reduce congestion and improve public health
with the proliferation of bike share systems, separated bike lanes, and
state and local initiatives with significant investments in bicycling
networks. In places like Minneapolis, New York and Virginia, rates of
bicycling have increased significantly and these gains have often been
accompanied by better safety outcomes for all road users.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Metro Nashville Division Street Extension_Nashville, TN
geography/local background
Slightly more than 20% of all bike commuters can be found in just
10 cities, including New York City where nearly 50,000 people choose to
travel to work by bike. When those in Washington think about someone
bicycling for transportation, the image that might come to mind is a
young person on Pennsylvania Avenue coming to work from Columbia
Heights, benefiting from urban density and local bike amenities.
But bicycling is by no means confined to first tier cities.
Louisville, Kentucky, my hometown, is a strong example of how a mid-
size city has also benefited from prioritizing bicycle facilities:
Over the last decade, Louisville has made a concerted
effort to improve our bicycling options, and is now certified as a
Silver-level Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American
Bicyclists.
Louisville is a member of the Road to Zero Coalition and
Kentucky supports the national movement Toward Zero Deaths, focusing on
how engineering roads can prevent deaths of people walking or biking.
These efforts have paid off: while nationwide the
number of people killed while biking reached a 25-year high in
2016, Louisville saw a decrease in bicyclist fatalities in
recent years even while biking to work increased significantly.
Bicycling in Louisville is not just an urban solution,
but is a way to help people experience the city, countryside and places
in between.
I personally am involved in projects dedicated to
creating safe bikeways within the urban core, as well as a
project linking the city to the countryside. That 22-mile
project will increase safe, healthy transportation options to
nearby residents.
As a Gold Level Bike Friendly Business, Gresham Smith,
actively pursued building space adjacent to better bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure as well as adjacent land uses that allow our
employees access to more restaurants and shop that are also bike
friendly.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Town Branch Commons_Lexington, KY
Bicycling is also an important part of transportation in many rural
states. In Montana, people bike to work at a rate more than twice the
national average. In North Dakota, more people bike to work than use
public transit. And in Northwest Arkansas, the construction of 163
miles of trails and paths over the last 10 years has led to a 24%
average annual increase in bicycling.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Town Branch Commons_Lexington, KY
equity
There is no denying that bicycling is an affordable and economical
means of transportation and isused by a wide range of people to make a
living. The money people save on transportation allows them to spend
more in the local economy, as well as afford housing, education, and
other necessary expenses. In fact, bicycling is integral to getting
employees to and from work. According to data from the 2017 National
Household Travel Survey, people from households with incomes of less
than $25k per year took nearly 25% of all the nation's bike trips.
Similarly, the same survey said that 20% of bike trips were to earn a
living, which is 4% higher than the percentage of trips to earn a
living for all modes of transportation [https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-
trips].
safety
When I work with communities interested in increasing active
transportation, one of their major concerns is safety. No community
wants to lose a mother, father, son, daughter, or neighbor in a fatal
crash. While multiple surveys show Americans want to bike more, it is
often their concern about safety that stops them.
The concern for safety is one of both perception and reality.
Improvements in traffic safety over the last quarter
century have not been evenly distributed; people in cars have been the
main beneficiaries, while people biking and walking represent an
increasing percentage of traffic fatalities.
But the data also shows increasing fatalities of people
biking and walking, with more people being killed while biking in 2016
than in any year since 1991.
On a per trip basis, bicycling is just slightly more
dangerous than walking and it is safer than walking on a per mile
basis.
You might be thinking we are seeing higher fatalities among
bicyclists as a result of more people bicycling. However, the inverse
is true. For example, despite their overall disparity in population
size, more people bike to work in Oregon than in Texas, but in 2016
Oregon had 55 fewer bicyclists die on its roads than Texas. This
difference in safety can be explained by at least two reasons:
Oregon has a long history of investing in safe bicycling
infrastructure, meaning that more people are likely riding on safe
infrastructure. Oregon has had a Complete Streets law since 1971 and
makes bicyclist safety an emphasis area in its Strategic Highway Safety
Plan.
In comparison, Texas adopted a Complete Streets
policy in 2011 and does not make bicyclist safety an emphasis
area in its Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
The number of people biking in Oregon leads to an effect
known as ``safety in numbers.'' This effect has been found in numerous
studies. The more people who bike leads to more driver awareness of
bicyclists, more predictable behavior by bicyclists and drivers, and
improved safety through better behavior.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A re-imagined Broadway in Louisville, KY with a complete street
approach.
the league's theory of safety
While there is limited data to pinpoint the reasons for increasing
bicyclist fatalities, we know that bicyclists' perceptions of safety
and safety outcomes are shaped by drivers and the built environment.
According to a 2012 NHTSA survey [https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/
nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811841b.pdf], the most common reason that a
bicyclist felt their safety was threatened was due to a motorist's
action--usually driving too close. In keeping with that data, improving
bicyclist safety should also be about improving driver behavior, like
limiting distractions, and implementing infrastructure that reduces or
mitigates opportunities for drivers to threaten bicyclists.
To improve bicyclist safety the League has pursued three
strategies:
1. Increasing bike infrastructure and networks, especially
protected bike infrastructure. According to AARP [https://www.aarp.org/
livable-communities/getting-around/info-2016/why-bicycling-
infrastructure-is-good-for-people-who-dont-ride-bikes.html], in New
York City, injuries for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists declined
[http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/09/05/new-dot-report-shows-protected-
bike-lanes-improve-safety-for-everybody/] by 20% on streets with
protected bike lanes.
Bicycle infrastructure can include a variety of
solutions based on different community needs. My written
testimony includes pictures of some examples.
2. Promoting Complete Streets policies and practices. Earlier, I
noted how Oregon's early adoption of Complete Streets has led to
decades of road design that have resulted in better safety outcomes for
cyclists. That is because Complete Streets policies consider all users
in the planning, design and construction phases of roads. By adopting
policies and practices that assume consideration for all users, the
costs of bicycle lanes can be reduced by up to 40% according to data
from the FHWA [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/
bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/resurfacing_workbook.pdf].
Complete Streets can encompass a variety of street
designs, safety improvements, and planning and operational
practices. My written testimony includes picture of some
examples.
3. Adopting and enforcing safe passing laws, which require drivers
to give cyclists at least three feet of clearance when they are
passing. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures
[http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/safely-passing-
bicyclists.aspx], 32 states, including Kentucky have this type of law.
According to data from NHTSA, a person is most likely
to be killed while biking when hit from behind despite this
being a relatively rare collision type.
The League believes that improving bicyclist safety will take
dedicated pursuit of those three strategies and more. Congress should
consider whether more proactive safety legislation--which might improve
vehicle designs, provide incentives for advanced and automated vehicle
safety systems, and create performance standards for in-vehicle and
device-based distraction--are appropriate to supplement the strategies
discussed here.
Federally-backed initiatives that embrace the goal of zero traffic
deaths, such as the Road to Zero Coalition and Towards Zero Deaths
national safety strategy have attracted wide support, but some safety
efforts require congressional leadership.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Taking off my bike helmet and speaking as an engineer, the trend we
are seeing in the engineering industry is toward a ``safe systems''
approach. The basic idea is that humans will continue to make mistakes
and/or choose risky behaviors (e.g. distracted driving, speeding,
driving while impaired, not wearing a seatbelt, etc.) so the
transportation infrastructure should be designed to reduce fatalities
when accidents do occur.
Using a data-driven, analytical approach, engineers are deploying a
variety of proven countermeasures and design strategies--such as
corridor access management, adding turn lanes, medians and pedestrian
crossing slands, and road diets/ reconfigurations, among many others--
to control vehicle speeds, calm traffic, and thereby manage the kinetic
energy transfer among road users in accidents. These factors, in
addition to traditional design criteria such as sight distance,
intersection design to reduce conflicts, and roadside improvements on
horizontal curves, can enhance safety of all roadway users and adapt
the structure and function of the system to accommodate the
complexities of human behavior.
hsip ask
One area where Congress can make a difference in the lives of
people who bike and walk is the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP). HSIP [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm]
is a congressionally authorized road safety program that distributes
more than $2 billion each year based on where data shows funding could
improve road safety.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Louisville Metro Urban Bike Network_Louisville, KY
First, I would encourage the committee to increase funding for HSIP
commensurate with an overall increase in the federal-aid highway
program. Safety elements are included in other apportionments, but HSIP
is a primary tool for the kinds of enhancements we are discussing and
cannot be neglected.
Despite the data and safety outcome focus of the program, because
the algorithms are written with blind spots, funding does not flow to
places where bicyclists and pedestrians are dying. Currently, Congress
requires HSIP funding to go to ``hot spots'' and leaves it up to state
Departments of Transportation to write the formulas for where those hot
spots occur.
For instance, the New Jersey DOT has a stated policy that
its HSIP funding should be spent on pedestrian improvements in the same
proportion of fatalities that are pedestrians.
However, despite over 30% of roadway fatalities in New
Jersey being pedestrians, the state reports spending NONE of its HSIP
on pedestrians. The ``data-driven'' formula cannot identify a hot spot
for these pedestrian fatalities and so 1 in every 3 roadway fatalities
in New Jersey goes unaddressed by HSIP.
Bicycling and walking make up 12% of transportation trips, 18% of
roadway fatalities, and receive less than 1% of HSIP investments. In 10
states where bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities averaged more than 15%
of all traffic fatalities in the last 5 years, the state reported
spending $0 of HSIP funding on bicyclist and pedestrian safety projects
during that time.
To effectively improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety through
HSIP, Congress needs to provide leadership to state DOTs.
Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities do not usually occur
in ``hot spots'' but do predictably occur along corridors that can be
identified using alternative analyses. Often these corridors are
arterial roadways with commercial and residential development and high
observed speeds.
Speed is incredibly important for the safety of people
biking and walking.
If you are driving 45 mph and hit a bicyclist or a
pedestrian, there is a 90% chance you will kill them. At 35 mph
the chances of death drop to 50%, at 25 mph there is 85% chance
of survival.
The growing number of Vision Zero communities has found a vast
majority of fatalities happen on a small percentage of roads with
similar contexts.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Louisville Metro Urban Bike Network_Louisville, KY
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Metro Nashville 28th-31st Avenue Connector_Nashville, TN
For instance in San Francisco, 75% of severe and fatal
traffic injuries occur on just 13% of its streets \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vision Zero SF 2019 Action Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Denver, 50% of traffic fatalities occur on 5% of the
roads \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Denver Vision Zero Action Plan. https://www.denvergov.org/
content/dam/denvergov/Portals/705/documents/visionzero/Denver-Vision-
Zero-Action-Plan-draft-July2017.pdf. Pg.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress plays a critical role in leading the nation towards
sustained improvements for people bikingand walking through the Highway
Safety Improvement Program. In past transportation bills, such as MAP-
21 and the FAST Act, Congress has taken steps to improve the safety of
people biking and walking, including:
Removing the requirement to focus only on hot spots.
Requiring more attention to bicycling and pedestrian
crashes.
Allowing states to use HSIP on roads that have dangerous
features, before fatalities occur. Allowing proactive systematic
approaches to safety.
Those changes were necessary and we applaud them. However, many
states have not yet significantly addressed the crisis of safety for
people who bike and walk.
At this time, we are not asking states to change their HSIP
formulas, but rather are proposing supplementing those formulas. We
don't want to throw out the good work done to address hot spots, but
want to stop the perpetuation of blind spots and encourage states to
slow down and take a harder look at what they might not be seeing.
In areas where vulnerable user fatalities are above a
certain threshold, such as MPOs, regional planning areas, tribal lands,
and other jurisdictions that receive federal funding, HSIP funds should
be directed to vulnerable user safety projects and protections in those
areas.
Such a change dovetails with changes in the FAST Act
which requires states to consider all users when constructing
and reconstructing on non-interstate Federal Highway System
roads. These roads are often the arterials and connectors where
bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities happen.
Vulnerable user safety projects could include
separated bicycle infrastructure, improved at-grade crossings
including medians, grade-separated connections across high
speed and high volume roads, and wider shoulders on rural
roads. Many of these projects are already recommended by the
FHWA.
recognize past changes
The changes we want for HSIP also dovetail with non-infrastructure
changes made by Congress, which recognized the need for education and
enforcement to complement safe infrastructure for people biking and
walking.
The League believes that traffic safety goes beyond infrastructure
and vehicle standards. While my professional career is about building
complete streets and better infrastructure for all road users, I am
also a strong believer in the role of education in improving the safety
of bicycling.
As a certified League Cycling Instructor, I have been
trained to teach adults and children safe bicycling practices,
including obeying traffic laws, practicing defensive bicycling
techniques, and ensuring your bike is safe to ride.
Since the 1970s the League has trained more than 6,000
cycling instructors, and these instructors train an average of 60,000
bicyclists each year. Our materials have been translated into seven
languages.
The League is also rolling out a Bicycle Friendly Driver
curriculum. It is a program developed in Fort Collins, Colo., to teach
drivers why bicyclists ride like we do and create a shared
understanding of how we use the road.
As a lifelong learner in the transportation industry,
programs like these help people better respond to the changes we are
seeing on our roads and can better support people who choose or depend
on biking and walking.
On enforcement, the League celebrated Congress's decision in the
FAST Act to create the 405(h) program that funds education and
enforcement around state laws pertaining to bicyclists and pedestrians
in those states where bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities are more than
15% of all traffic fatalities.
Since its creation in the FAST Act, every eligible state has
applied for the available funding and that funding has been used for a
variety of education and enforcement campaigns.
In Georgia [https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/
files/documents/ga_fy2018_ar.pdf], 405(h) funds were used to publish
bicycle safety messages, reaching over 14 million contacts by
leveraging existing bicycling-related groups, and to distribute more
than 17,000 bicycle safety guides to agencies and others.
In Oregon [https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/
files/documents/or_fy2018_ar.pdf], 405(h) funds were used to fund mini-
grants to localities to implement an ``Oregon Friendly Driver''
program.
In Florida [https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/
files/documents/fl_fy18_ar.pdf], 405(h) funds were used to develop a
four-hour classroom based training course to improve the effectiveness
of officers taking part in High Visibility Enforcement to support
pedestrian and bicycle safety in Florida.
The 405(h) program shows how directing funding to change the
culture around how we view the safety of people biking and walking can
be successful. Through these programs, Congress has demonstrated
attention to the safety of people biking and walking as well as
encouraged continued actions to promote the safety of all people who
use our nation's roadways.
In closing, I would like to again emphasize the need for updates to
the Highway Safety Improvement Program so that it directs funding to
the needs of all roadway users. As currently implemented, HSIP all too
often has blind spots for the safety of people walking and biking. Just
as we ask drivers to do, the program needs to check your blind spots
for people you may not have seen.
We appreciate the steps Congress has taken in the last two
transportation bills on improving education regarding bicycle and
pedestrian laws, and believe Congress should build on those steps by
improving HSIP so that the transportation system's most vulnerable
users are not overlooked in its data-driven process.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Sewell.
Next, Nicholas Smith for the National Safety Council.
Mr. Smith. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member
Spano, and Chairman DeFazio, as well as the members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on
improving the safety on our Nation's roadways.
My name is Nick Smith, and I am the interim president and
CEO of the National Safety Council, and I am also the chair of
the Road to Zero Coalition, which is focused on reaching zero
fatalities by 2050.
Last year, the coalition, which is over 900 strong,
representing transportation organizations, government,
businesses, academia, safety advocates, including those
organizations represented here today on this panel, issued this
report [indicating a document], a framework to help us get to
zero deaths on our roadways by the year 2050.
Together we call out three steps to reach the goal of zero
deaths on our roadways. One, we believe doubling down on what
works through proven evidence-based strategies.
Two, accelerate advanced lifesaving technology in vehicles
and in infrastructure.
And three, prioritize safety by adopting a safe systems
approach and creating a positive safety culture.
My full testimony mentions specific steps for each of
these. Today I will focus on prioritizing safety, which is the
third step we call out.
Today over 100 people will die in crashes on our roadway.
Yesterday over 100 people died in crashes, and tomorrow over
100 people will die again in motor vehicle crashes. But there
is no outrage. In every other mode of transportation this
committee oversees, there is a different expectation of safety.
For example, after two airplane crashes, countries across
the world grounded all Boeing 737 Max 800 and 900 airplanes. In
less than a week, a coordinated global action was taken to
address a potential risk to millions of people.
This committee rightly held hearings to determine causation
and next steps. We can all agree that this was the right
decision, but every 72 hours, we lose 328 people, nearly the
equivalent of these 2 airplane crashes on U.S. roadways.
Where is our outrage over these deaths? And where is our
urgency to prevent them? We must demand safety for all no
matter how they are mobile.
Now for the good news. We know how to prevent these
fatalities from happening. We just have not had the will to
prioritize these actions.
The culture around traveling on the roadways is very
different from the airways. We require safety management
systems and safety training for people who work in our airway
system, and we even have a safety briefing for passengers
before every flight.
When things go wrong, this committee demands answers.
Several Federal agencies send people to investigate, and a
plane can be grounded. Simply put, we have a strong safety
culture when it comes to aviation.
So how do we raise the bar on safety on our road? The
reauthorization of the FAST Act provides you an opportunity to
do so today.
While prioritizing safety, the reauthorization bill should
encourage States to pass strong laws to implement proven
countermeasures to save lives, like automated enforcement and
lowering the blood alcohol concentration.
Also, the bill should support safer roadway designs that
provide for the safe movement of all roadway users and
incorporates safety no matter if in a rural, suburban, or urban
area. We know that drivers are human and we make mistakes and
errors, and safer designs can help make sure those errors do
not become fatalities.
These are only a few examples of how to prioritize safety
and move toward our goal to zero deaths on our roadway system.
I have with me a letter from the Road to Zero Coalition
asking Congress to prioritize safety. This bill should not be
about more miles of pavement only. It must include safety in
every aspect of the bill.
I urge you to use this report as a framework to prioritize
safety in our transportation system.
I hope you will join me in saying enough is enough. The
value of life should not depend on whether you are sitting on
an airplane or behind the wheel of a car. It is time to bring
the culture of safety on our roadways to levels we have
achieved in the air. We know how to get there. We just need the
will to do so.
I look forward to discussing more with you today. Thank
you.
[Mr. Smith's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nicholas J. Smith, Interim President and Chief
Executive Officer, the National Safety Council
Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on improving
the safety of our nation's roadways.
It is an honor to be with you today. My name is Nicholas Smith, and
I am the Interim President and CEO of the National Safety Council (NSC)
and the Chair of the Road to Zero Coalition. It is nice to be back in
Washington, as I previously lived and worked here at the Department of
Homeland Security and for Majority Leader Bill Frist.
The National Safety Council is a 100-year-old nonprofit committed
to eliminating preventable deaths in our lifetime by focusing on
reducing fatalities and injuries in workplaces, on the road and in
homes and communities. Our more than 15,000 member companies represent
employees at more than 50,000 U.S. worksites. Not only do we work with
companies but also with organized labor, who share our dedication to
keeping workers safe on and off the job. These members are across the
United States and are likely in each district represented on this
Committee.
The National Safety Council estimates that over 40,000 people were
killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2018.\1\ Included here are the
number of people killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2018 from the
Chairs' and Ranking Members' states, and a complete overview of all
states is included with my testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nsc.org/in-the-newsroom/2018-marks-third-straight-
year-that-motor-vehicle-deaths-are-estimated-to-have-reached-40-000
District of Columbia 34
Illinois 1,048
Missouri 917
Oregon 468
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Copyright 2019 National Safety Council_All Rights Reserved
These are the lives of your constituents. These mothers, fathers,
sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles contributed to the communities in
which they lived. Yet, our national outrage at these losses is
conspicuously absent, particularly when you compare to deaths in other
forms of transportation, such as aviation. These crashes and deaths on
our roadways not only have a human toll, but there is an annual cost to
the American economy of over $433 billion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/
introduction/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States has consistently avoided the hard choices needed
to save lives on the roadways. The reauthorization of the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is an opportunity for us to
start making the right choices, and I appreciate the opportunity to
talk with you today about how to do more to save lives, because we know
that all of these deaths are preventable.
What disappoints many of us in the safety community is that the
main causes of motor vehicle fatalities--lack of seat belt use,
alcohol-impaired driving, and speed--have remained the same for
decades.
50% of people who die in motor vehicle crashes are unbelted \3\
30% of people who die in crashes are involved in alcohol-impaired
wrecks \4\
27% of the fatalities are speed-related \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812662
\4\ https://www.responsibility.org/alcohol-statistics/drunk-
driving-statistics/drunk-driving-fatality-statistics/
\5\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812451
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The solutions to these problems are simple and clearly known, but
we need the political and societal will to widely implement them.
Recently, ``zero'' language has been incorporated into the goals on
our roadways. This has been commonplace in other settings like
workplaces, where NSC has been involved since its beginning, and it has
had meaningful results. NSC is so committed to a zero goal on the
roadways that we lead the Road to Zero Coalition, a diverse group of
over 900 members committed to eliminating roadway fatalities by 2050.
Over the past two and a half years, the coalition has grown to include
members from across the country representing transportation
organizations, businesses, academia, safety advocates and others, the
first time so many organizations have collaborated to put forth a plan
to address fatalities on our roads.
The centerpiece of our work together has been the creation of the
Road to Zero report, a comprehensive roadmap of the strategies
necessary to achieve our goal by 2050. One year ago this month, the
coalition issued our report with three primary recommendations.
1. Double down on what works through proven, evidence-based
strategies
2. Accelerate advanced life-saving technology in vehicles and
infrastructure
3. Prioritize safety by adopting a safe systems approach and
creating a positive safety culture
double down
We know what works. Enacting evidence-based laws related to
seatbelts, alcohol impairment and speed shows we are ready for change,
and education about the laws combined with strong enforcement delivers
on the change. We urge legislators to look at these and the many other
laws that, if enacted, enforced and promoted would drive down
fatalities. While many of these laws require state action, the federal
government should consider incentives in the reauthorization bill to
accelerate state adoption and enforcement.
The data and research tell us that primary seat belt laws, lowered
blood alcohol content laws, and better speed management efforts would
have meaningful impact.
Seatbelts
Regardless of other causal factors, the lack of proper occupant
restraint continues to increase the severity and lethality of motor
vehicle crashes. While 89.6% of American drivers and vehicle occupants
used seat belts in 2018, more than 1 in 10 continued to put their lives
at unnecessary risk, with tragic consequences. Almost half (47%) of
people killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2017 were unbelted.\6\ Yet
despite these data, only 34 states and the District of Columbia have
primary enforcement of their seatbelt laws--meaning law enforcement may
stop vehicles solely for belt law violations. Of the other 16 states,
15 have secondary laws--requiring police to have another reason for a
traffic stop--and one, New Hampshire, has no belt law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812662
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary seatbelt laws are proven to increase the rate of belt use
and save lives. In 2018, 90.6% of passenger vehicle occupants were
belted in states with primary laws, while only 86.4% of occupants were
belted in states with secondary or no seatbelt laws.\7\ There should
only be one acceptable level of safety. Public education and high-
visibility enforcement campaigns such as Click It or Ticket have
increased public awareness of the dangers of driving unrestrained, but
will only be most effective when accompanied by strong laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812662
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
estimates that the use of seat belts in passenger vehicles saved 14,668
lives and if all drivers and passengers had worn their seatbelts, an
additional 2,456 lives would have been saved.\8\ In Oregon and
Illinois, 16 and 52 lives respectively could have been saved with 100%
seat belt use.\9\ Similarly, the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention provides the Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and
Cost Calculator for States (MV PICCS) to help policymakers determine
the lives saved and costs of implementation of 14 different evidence-
based motor vehicle laws. When comparing Oregon and Illinois again,
seat belt enforcement campaigns could save 16 and 35 lives
respectively.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812454
\9\ Ibid.
\10\ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impairment
Another leading cause of roadway deaths is alcohol impairment.
Every day, almost 30 people die in alcohol-impaired crashes in the
United States--one every 48 minutes.\11\ Despite these data, our
culture does not prioritize safety, with more than 1 in 10 drivers
admitting to driving in the prior year when they thought they were
close to or over the legal blood alcohol content(BAC) limit.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
\12\ http://tirf.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/RSM-TIRF-USA-2018-
Alcohol-Impaired-Driving-in-the-United-States-3.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data are clear: drivers are four times more likely to crash at
.05 than if they had nothing to drink.\13\ Most other industrialized
countries have implemented a BAC of .05 or lower, changes which have
been followed by decreasing numbers of fatalities from alcohol-impaired
crashes. Lowering the BAC limit from .08 to .05 is proven to save lives
on the roadways, and in the U.S. could save as many as 1,500 lives if
implemented nationally.\14\ Utah is the first state in the U.S. to pass
a law lowering the BAC to .05. NSC supports other states attempting to
implement such legislation, and hopes to see federal legislation
introduced to this end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Blomberg RD, Peck RC, Moskowitz H, Burns M, Fiorentino D: The
Long Beach/Fort Lauderdale relative risk study; J Safety Res 40:285;
2009.
\14\ Fell, J.C., and M. Scherer. 2017. Estimation of the potential
effectiveness of lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit
for driving from 0.08 to 0.05 grams per deciliter in the United States.
Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research. doi: 10.1111/
acer.13501.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: National Transportation Safety Board ``Safety Report on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminating Impaired Driving (2013)''
Speed
The United States has a fatal problem with driving too fast. Just
last week, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) estimated
that increasing speed limits over the past 25 years have led to 37,000
deaths.\15\ Nearly 27% of roadway fatalities include speed as a causal
factor, a factor that is even more deadly for our growing population of
vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and bicyclists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://gallery.mailchimp.com/6bedee967fbeb62935e59055b/files/
63d3f7b0-3f00-446b-9613-031039a61d02/
iihs_news_040419_emb.pdf?mc_cid=5154c704bc&mc_eid=ab62186d28
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As illustrated, at 20 miles per hour, 9 out of 10 pedestrians would
survive being struck by a vehicle, but if you double that speed, 9 out
of 10 pedestrians would be killed.
It is not only pedestrians and other vulnerable road users impacted
by excess speed, but also 9,242 motor vehicle drivers and occupants who
died in 2017 in speed-related crashes.\16\ One evidence-based proven
countermeasure for speed is automated enforcement. Automated
enforcement is proven to reduce speed and save lives, but
implementation must be done properly, with safety--not revenue--as the
primary objective. NSC, AAA, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
and IIHS created the attached checklist to provide guidance to
communities as they deploy automated enforcement. As you can see, the
guidance encourages transparency and grace among enforcement actions
given and dedication of the funds to safety, trauma care or similar
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ NSC analysis of NHTSA FARS data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are other deadly problems on our roadways, like distraction,
that we can do more to solve as well, and these issues should not be
overlooked by this Committee.
advance technology
Technology is an important disrupter that will continue to
transform roadway safety well into the foreseeable future. To reach
zero deaths, we need to encourage the development of innovations that
address human failures and road design failures and, once proven,
establish mandates for adoption of technologies that work. Further,
this regulatory certainty and defined standards should drive
interoperability and ensure meaningful outcomes. Additionally, data
collection on serious and fatal crashes should be required in order to
share consistent and verified information, and testing on public roads
should be reported to the jurisdictions in which the tests occur. This
level of transparency will help consumers better understand the
technology and how to operate in it, with it and around it.
Establishing performance standards and common nomenclature for the
automated vehicle (AV) technology will also help encourage better
understanding. Earlier this year, AAA released a report about the lack
of consistency. In it, they found adaptive cruise control has 20
different names and lane keeping assistance has 19 unique names.\17\
The trend continued with other technologies. These different names do
not aid consumer understanding and acceptance. In fact, AAA also found
that over 70% of consumers are afraid of fully automated vehicles.\18\
This reauthorization bill should help establish more standards for
technology by building the necessary frameworks to support our desired
outcomes to reduce deaths on the roadways, and it should include
commercial motor vehicles too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/files/ADAS-Technology-
Names-Research-Report.pdf
\18\ https://newsroom.aaa.com/2019/03/americans-fear-self-driving-
cars-survey/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we sit here today, automakers, technology firms and others are
developing partially and fully automated vehicles. The potential safety
benefits of automated vehicles could be incredible. When ready, these
vehicles will not glance down at their phone, speed through a red light
or have an alcoholic beverage before getting behind the wheel--all
mistakes that we as human drivers continue to make over and over again,
with deadly consequences. To be clear, it will be decades before we
have meaningful fleet penetration on U.S. roadways of AVs. In the
meantime, there are significant technologies available in vehicles
today, Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) that can prevent or
mitigate crashes. Consumer education about these technologies is key.
While standards are essential, public education is also important.
The National Safety Council is working to expand consumer education
around these new technologies. NSC and the University of Iowa created a
website, MyCarDoesWhat.org, to help. When a person visits
MyCarDoesWhat.org, he or she learns about dozens of existing safety
features such as lane departure warning, blind spot monitoring, backup
cameras, automatic emergency braking and more. The MyCarDoesWhat team
has developed videos, infographics and other informational pieces to
help drivers understand how these technologies work and what they are
capable of doing. The purpose of MyCarDoesWhat is to educate the public
about these assistive safety features in order to maximize their
potential lifesaving benefits.
Additionally, the National Safety Council was a founding member of
PAVE (Partners for Automated Vehicle Education), which launched in
January. PAVE is a broad-based coalition that includes automotive and
technology companies, safety and mobility advocates and community
partners. PAVE members believe that in order to fully realize the
benefits of self-driving technology, policymakers and the public need
factual information about the present and future state of such
technology. PAVE enhances public understanding through a variety of
strategies including an educational website at PaveCampaign.org;
``hands-on'' demonstrations allowing the public to see and experience
driverless technology; and workshops to help policymakers understand
the technology. In the future, PAVE will produce educational toolkits
for car dealers to help them communicate more effectively with
customers about their vehicles' capabilities and limitations.
When it comes to technology, the U.S. prioritized safety years ago
by dedicating spectrum for safety purposes to prevent crashes. Today,
other groups would like to take the spectrum for streaming services. I
urge this committee to direct the U.S. DOT, the Federal Communications
Commission, the Department of Commerce and others to maintain the
spectrum for roadway safety purposes allowing vehicles to communicate
with each other, infrastructure, pedestrians and others to prevent
crashes. This spectrum provides a safety margin that we should not give
away.
prioritize safety
By prioritizing safety, we commit to changing our nation's safety
culture. This means we have to accept that any life lost is one too
many. Once we accept that one death is too many, we will begin thinking
about how to take a ``safe systems'' approach to our roadways. Fully
adopted by the aviation industry, this means building fail-safe
features that anticipate human error and developing infrastructure with
safety margins.
With the understanding that people will make mistakes, the built
environment or infrastructure can be more forgiving to eliminate
fatalities. Some of these changes may include engineering greater
safety into a design. For example, in the pictures below, a multi-lane
intersection with a red light in Scottsdale, Arizona was replaced with
a roundabout. With the intersection, there are 32 potential points of
failure, but with a roundabout, that is engineered down to only 8.\19\
Speeds are decreased, and if crashes do occur, they occur at angles
that are not as violent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/
roundabouts/presentations/safety_aspects/long.cfm
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Successful infrastructure redesign can also look like the picture
below from New York City. The picture on the left shows two roads
merging together without an area for pedestrians, and the lane lines
are non-existent. However, the reworked merge incorporates clearly
marked lanes of travel, large sidewalks and areas of less exposure to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vehicles for pedestrians.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
These infrastructure changes are just as important in rural areas.
Rumble strips on the center line or edge of roadways can prevent the
roadway departure crashes that account for 52% of fatalities in the
U.S.\20\ Cable median barriers can also provide a margin of safety to
redirect people in to their lane of travel, and high friction surface
treatments can decrease vehicle stopping distance on roadways. These
are all tools we have available today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure changes can be expensive, but they do not have to
be. Through the Road to Zero Coalition, NSC has awarded grants to
groups across the country working in communities of all sizes. In the
first year of grants, the National Complete Streets Coalition, which is
testifying today too, worked with three communities: Lexington, KY,
Orlando, FL, and South Bend, IN. Each city was provided only $8,000
dollars from the grant for temporary infrastructure changes that you
can see below to measure results. Each city had measurable improvements
to safety even with a small dollar investment.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The biggest and hardest change is the shift to truly prioritize
safety by changing safety culture on the roads. We cannot be complacent
when it comes to losing so many people each and every day on our roads.
We need leaders in this area, and I can think of none better than the
members of this Committee and Subcommittee. The reauthorization is the
vehicle to accomplish this change. We have changed safety culture in
workplaces, around child passenger safety and in other areas. We can do
it here too with your help.
other provisions
There are specific provisions in the FAST Act that can be improved
to prioritize safety. These include:
Altering the ``Section 405'' programmatic funds that
largely go unused by reworking the program to give states different
options
Expanding the use of Highway Safety Improvement Program
Additionally, the National Safety Council believes we can use data
to better target roadway areas for safety improvements. Identifying and
prioritizing dangerous areas of roadways for safety improvements can
save lives.
Several states have provided estimates to the U.S. Department of
Transportation that the fatalities in their states will increase.
Focusing the spending in those states on safety to prevent this
projection from coming true should be a priority for Congress.
There are evidence-based safety solutions that federal dollars are
prohibited to purchase or federal safety programs that have been cut,
but there are several comm unities that would like to employ a range of
options that will improve safety. Allowing flexibility in federal
spending for evidence-based safety improvements can save lives, and I
urge this committee to re-evaluate some of those restrictions on
technology like automated enforcement and other programs.
NSC looks forward to working with this Committee to fully develop
these provisions.
conclusion
You have an opportunity in front of you to prioritize safety, and
the National Safety Council is committed to working with you to reach
zero fatalities on our roadways. I hope you will join me in saying
enough is enough and start down the Road to Zero. It is not impossible.
It just hasn't been done yet.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
And I want to thank all of you for your testimony today.
We will now move on to Members' questions. Each Member will
be recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
I now recognize myself.
And this is a question for all of the witnesses. This is
frustrating to hear this testimony. Congress has spent some
considerable funds to reduce highway deaths, and yet we hear
that it has not, in fact, gone much below 35,000 a year since
the 1950s.
I mean, this is a country used to making some progress.
Now, I recognize that much of this lies with local and State
authorities, but I would like to ask all of you, and I will
begin with Ms. Homendy, but it is a question for all of you.
What in your view, and I recognize that there are many
things that each of you think should be done, but I am trying
to focus on major things now; what is the single most important
thing that you think Congress can do to reduce the number of
roadway fatalities, bearing in mind the State and localities
are where the action is?
So could I start with Ms. Homendy and just go on down the
line?
Ms. Homendy. Thank you very much for the question.
And it is hard for the NTSB to pick one thing over another.
So something I will say is it is a comprehensive approach.
From our standpoint, it is effective guidance to the
States. It is enforcement, high-visibility enforcement,
education for drivers and others, and engineering, and that
includes vehicle technologies, other technologies like
collision avoidance systems, speed limiters, and better data.
Ms. Norton. Yes, sir, Mr. Jones, Vice Mayor Jones?
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Again, I think it has a lot to do with priorities and
accountability. I think there are a lot of great tools in the
toolbox to do good design. We have great examples of where we
have retrofitted our streets to make them accessible and safe
for all users.
But again, I mentioned there is this disconnect between
these large policy frameworks and the actual implementation.
Sometimes I think it has a lot to do with just the culture. You
know, engineers are often trained and their priorities are
about moving cars as quickly and efficiently through
communities as possible.
And I think there needs to be a greater focus in on sort of
changing the paradigm a little bit and prioritizing funding to
do things like Complete Streets.
I mean, Florida DOT, for example, the State has a wonderful
Complete Streets policy, but what ends up happening is by the
time it gets down to the local or the district level, a lot of
times it falls by the wayside.
And I think what we need is some more accountability to
say, ``Look. We can do these projects. Let's put a pot of
funding that is dedicated solely to this effort and start to do
more demonstration projects so people can see the benefits of
these types of improvements in retrofit.''
Ms. Norton. Chief Brown?
Mr. Brown. Very briefly, I would say that, frankly, we
should really change the narrative from the standpoint, and I
put this in my written comments, to drive home the importance
of what we are talking about.
A lot of times the threat to the public and the individual
road users, whether they be pedestrians, bikes or motorists, is
lost in the discussion of the authorization regarding roadway
use and construction and everything else.
I put in my testimony a comment that I truly believe and I
have said many times over. When you knock on a door and you
wake somebody up and you tell them they have lost a loved one
or a friend, it does not matter if it is bullet or a fender.
The same shock is there.
Our officers across this country deal with that on a daily
basis, as do professionals in the medical field and do it at a
hospital, and yet we ignore this as a national issue.
What we compete with in the law enforcement arena are other
public health and public safety issues. The opioid task issue
is a huge issue across this country. We are dealing with it,
but no one says it with the same loud depth and a voice as it
applies across this country, and yet it affects so many people
and so many families.
That is the national narrative, I think, that frankly
Congress could tee up and charge all of us to do better at.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Bruemmer?
Mr. Bruemmer. The Highway Safety Improvement Program
requires data-driven results from State DOTs. DOTs have data on
where accidents happen. They lack the funding a lot of times to
combat the problem. I think that is probably one of the most
useful systems that Congress has at its disposal, is the
ability to identify where crashes happen, where fatalities
happen, and the ability to take action and provide results.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Sewell?
Mr. Sewell. I would like to echo a lot of what Mr. Jones
has said. We have great tools currently as engineers and
planners of our transportation network. The biggest issues are
the data sets that we are using to identify where those issues
could occur, and then the funding is always an issue.
So I think for Congress to show leadership on both how we
are attacking these to be more proactive and keep people safe
as well as the pot of money that can be allocated towards
safety projects are the two biggest things for me.
Ms. Norton. I'm going to allow Mr. Smith to answer briefly.
Mr. Smith. Of course. I certainly agree with everything
that has been said here on the panel, and it really comes back
down to the culture and addressing the culture. We would not
accept this in the aviation industry, and we cannot accept it
on the roadways.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
I am going to now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Spano.
Mr. Spano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I represent a district, as I think maybe many of the
Members on the dais do, that has urban areas and rural areas,
and so you know, the differences in terms of the needs and the
guidelines vary so greatly.
So how does the next surface transportation reauthorization
bill address the differing needs between rural and urban areas?
That is the first question.
And then how do you create or fashion a comprehensive bill
that maybe is necessary to obtain compliance while still giving
local folks some authority and wiggle room to best use those
directions or directives to suit the needs of their local area?
I know that is a big question, but maybe you could each
address that.
Ms. Homendy. Thank you.
And from our perspective, we have a number of safety
recommendations we have issued. For NHTSA we have 108 safety
recommendations that are open that we would urge Congress to
address in the upcoming reauthorization.
And from our standpoint, those issues regarding safety, it
does not discriminate whether you are on a highway, whether you
are on a rural road. They are critical safety issues that need
to be addressed like impairment, adopting .05 instead of having
.08; addressing speeding.
There are a number of pedestrian safety issues that could
also be addressed that we can get into in this hearing, but I
think addressing those big safety issues would be critical
because, like I said, it does not matter if you are on a
highway or on a smaller road. These are still critical safety
issues.
Mr. Spano. And if I might interject, Chief Brown, I think
you more so than any of the other members on the panel stressed
the need for some local input, control in terms of the
decisionmaking process.
So how do you square some of the broader requirements with
the need to have that flexibility?
Mr. Brown. That is an excellent question, and quite
frankly, there is a framework in the FAST Act that allows you
to do some of that, but it gets down to the implementation of
it. Nobody should be just given a block grant for traffic
safety activity, but I think you can certainly use the FAST Act
ideas and concepts to justify the need for it and tailor it to
the local issue.
And then the other key is to fund it. Unfortunately,
oftentimes there is influence in that process as far as the
allocations go where some projects do not get funded and some
do.
And in some cases, it is discouraging for some local law
enforcement, and frankly, some local communities may not have
the capacity to drive even the grant application process, to be
real frank, even today.
I would say that the more we provide an opportunity and a
framework that is more detailed, but provides the flexibility
to address the local issues, I think you can incorporate the
same things that we are talking about here on this panel.
The major issues are mostly across the country to one
degree or another.
Mr. Spano. Vice Mayor?
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
And that is a great question, and it really points to the
issue of context. And when we talk about Complete Streets, they
certainly do look much different in a rural context than, say,
in very urban areas, but yet they are still complete.
And, again, I want to emphasize here that we are not
talking about freeway design but rather what often happens is
that sort of mentality ends up going to the local issue. So
there is this mismatch where we think about how we design a
freeway, and then we might apply it to what should be a local
street with maybe two lanes and an opportunity for cyclists and
pedestrians.
And I think when it comes to addressing the issue of
incentives, I think the more that we can offer to local
jurisdictions, you know, in terms of additional funding when
they actually meet the performance standards, that is an issue.
It is really about accountability.
So if local jurisdictions can show that they are doing
these projects, improving safety, reducing the loss of life,
then perhaps they should be getting more money.
Mr. Spano. Mr. Bruemmer?
Mr. Bruemmer. Engineers have said that we are on the cusp
of the largest revolution in surface transportation since the
switch from horse and buggy. I think technology moves us
forward and changes a lot of the dynamics that differentiate
local versus rural.
I think there needs to be a coalition of manufacturers from
auto industry to surface transportation industry that create a
cohesiveness between what we do moving forward. Things that
most people do not think about that I think about every day are
pavement markings. The auto industry has said what we need to
drive our cars machine-wise is good pavement markings.
I think the discussion needs to be brought from industry to
make it all work so that we make the right steps moving
forward.
Mr. Spano. I apologize, Mr. Sewell and Mr. Smith. I do not
have any time remaining.
Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Spano.
Mr. Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Bruemmer, according to the National Safety Council,
injuries from motor vehicle incidents totaled more than 4.6
million in 2017. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration estimates that over 37,000 people lost their
lives in accidents on U.S. roadways in that same year.
In my district, Highway 46 is sadly known as Blood Alley
due to the countless fatal crashes over the years. As we begin
our work on a surface transportation reauthorization, what are
some concrete actions Congress can take to make our roads
safer?
And, two, as we make greater strides in artificial
intelligence and self-driving vehicle technologies, how can we
start integrating this technology into our road planning?
Mr. Bruemmer. Thank you.
As I mentioned before, I think technology is moving at a
rapid pace from the auto industry. Unfortunately, they have
kept their cards close to their vest from our side of the
industry, but as we move forward, the discussion is now
becoming more open that how does technology act with
infrastructure. How does V2I move the conversation forward?
I think that in the very near term, I think that progress
can be seen. At the national level from Congress, I think it is
focused on you are already aware of the major problem that you
have on Highway 46. That is the start.
Now the problem is talk to the engineers. Talk to the DOT.
How do we fix this problem? And how do we bring a package from
Congress that can help the State best rectify this problem?
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Ms. Homendy, in your testimony you reference the ``most
wanted list'' of recommendations for highway safety. One of
NTSB's recommendations is for the Department of Labor to
develop and disseminate guidelines on the dangers of driving
while tired.
While it seems obvious, I want to ask you. Why are these
guidelines necessary?
Ms. Homendy. Thank you for the question.
And if you do not mind me adding one thing to what the
gentleman said on technology, there are safety technologies
available today which are the building blocks to automated
vehicles that you could use to save lives today. So we do not
have to wait until those are on the road.
So I just want to put that out there.
On fatigue, a lot of the work that has been done by the
NTSB has focused on commercial motor vehicles and not on autos,
and a lot of that is focused on needing science-based hours-of-
service standards, no exemptions to those standards, having
fatigue management plans in place, implementing and using
electronic logging devices, and screening diagnosis and
treating of sleep apnea for FMCSA to do rulemaking in that
area, and installation of collision avoidance systems which
could help combat fatigue.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
And I want to call next Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you very much.
I thought it would take me 30 years to get up here at the
top, but----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gallagher [continuing]. You know it is only going to
last a couple of minutes. So I just want to savor it for a
second.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gallagher. Ms. Homendy, forgive me if I am
mispronouncing that. In your opening statement, you noted that
pedestrian deaths on our roadways have been increasing since
2010. In 2016, nearly 6,000 pedestrians died in collisions with
highway vehicles in the U.S. That is an average of 16 per day.
And according to NTSB's 2018 special investigation report,
roughly 28 percent of those deaths occur on rural roads.
My district in northeast Wisconsin has a lot of rural
roads, and I know this was talked about a little bit before,
but could you expand on whether there is a difference in NTSB
safety recommendations for urban versus rural roads?
Ms. Homendy. For the pedestrian safety study, we did find
that there were more fatalities in urban environments and that
18 percent of the fatalities occurred at intersections, 72
percent at nonintersections, and 10 percent at other locations.
Mr. Gallagher. I appreciate that.
And for anyone on the panel, can you comment perhaps on the
impact that commercial trucking has on pedestrian and
nonpedestrian fatalities, if at all?
I do not know who wants to volunteer. Who is brave? Sir,
you look eager. If not eager, reluctantly willing to step up.
Mr. Brown. If I could, sir, I am not so sure that that is a
high-priority issue in terms of the representation in
fatalities and injuries. Unfortunately, when those incidents
occur, because you are dealing with the principle of physics, a
bigger vehicle against a human being is not going to come out
well for the human being.
But generally speaking, I am not aware of a significant
change in that kind of an environment under the scenario that
you suggested.
Mr. Gallagher. Well, let me perhaps ask it a different way
and sort of reveal what I am getting at here.
So commercial trucks following local laws in 29 States are
barred from using the Federal interstate which then forces them
in many cases to stay on winding secondary roads where there
are a lot of pedestrian crossings, bicycles, school crossings,
traffic lights, and other obstacles, right?
So in 2009, we in Congress authorized a pilot program in
Maine that found that allowing these commercial trucks on the
interstate even for short distances actually decreased
fatalities by 37 percent, which makes sense, right?
If you have these trucks sort of off the rural winding
roads where there are a lot more pedestrians, perhaps they
would avoid that unfortunate encounter that you referenced.
So I just would ask particularly those who are
representatives at the State and local level: would you in
theory support States having the option of allowing some of
these commercial trucks to use the Federal interstate for short
distances in order to reduce highway fatalities?
Mr. Brown. It would depend upon what type of commercial
vehicle we are talking about. Commercial vehicles are very
broad. You can have those that involve the transportation, for
example, of certain hazardous commodities, whether they are
interstate or intrastate. There is a difference in that as far
as title 49.
Mr. Gallagher. Yes.
Mr. Brown. In addition to that, there is also the concerns
about what our local communities want in their backyard.
We do have bypass traffic because of congestion and
congestion mitigation efforts made by commercial drivers at
times. But I think you will find that most local folks would
love to have the local control over what is migrating through
their cities.
But whether or not those vehicles should be allowed on an
interstate vis-a-vis through sort of thing, it would depend
upon what they are trying to move, quite frankly.
Mr. Gallagher. Yes. And for us in northeast Wisconsin,
logging is a big issue. You can imagine logging trucks, giving
them the ability to for a short distance, 150 miles, use the
Federal interstates.
I do not know if anyone has dealt with any of these issues
and wants to chime in.
Mr. Sewell. If I may real quickly, what you are speaking
about is very closely tied to land use.
Mr. Gallagher. Yes.
Mr. Sewell. And when you are trying to provide access not
only to commercial vehicles or you name it type of vehicle to
get to a place they have to do business and you couple that
with where we are focused on multimodal pedestrian and bicycle
safety, establishing clear context for corridors and then
assigning certain vehicles to allow access to places that
eliminate conflicts and minimize, as was mentioned, that speed
differential between higher moving vehicles and pedestrians or
slower moving vehicles is a great idea.
Mr. Gallagher. Yes. Well, thank you all for being here
today.
And I yield the balance of my time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher.
And I do want to note that the subcommittee will be having
a hearing on trucking and truck safety will be included in
that. It is an important issue.
Mrs. Craig.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Norton.
Ms. Homendy, your testimony particularly spoke to me. My
stepsister lost her life in one of those intersections in
Portland, Oregon. So she left a kindergartner to be raised by
his dad and a family that was changed forever.
So you know, I appreciate that the title of this hearing is
``Every Life Counts.'' I grew up in a family where that life
was lost. So thank you all for being here.
What I want to follow up on is just this comment about the
rural areas. I come from Minnesota's Second Congressional
District, and according to the 2016 Federal Highway
Administration data, rural areas account for 30 percent of
total vehicle miles traveled. Yet 50 percent of roadway
fatalities take place in rural areas.
As Mr. Bruemmer noted, over a 4-year period, the Minnesota
DOT installed cable barriers in 31 segments along 150 miles of
roadway. In the 3 years prior to installation, there were 19
fatal cross-median crashes, and in the 3 years following, there
were zero.
I would love to hear from you about those types of policy
recommendations. Obviously, that is infrastructure investment.
You also talked about speed and alcohol use. Is there any
difference in these rural areas?
And what recommendations would you make? Perhaps maybe
start with Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Yes, ma'am. The solution or the proper way to
address many of the things that you are talking about in the
rural areas does require a little bit of a combined approach
actually.
I have seen over and over again where infrastructure like
center divider medians, Jersey walls, things to prevent
crossovers will increase survivability in the case of a crash.
But a lot of it has to do with behavior. So a lot of the
things that you see in an urban environment involving impaired
driving and the like we will see in a rural area.
I have had the privilege in my career of working in rural
areas, and I know exactly what you are talking about in terms
of, you know, the tragedies sometimes are even worse because of
the speed that is involved in those kinds of situations.
It is kind of hard to go downtown in Alexandria at 85 miles
an hour. It is much easier in a rural area, and that will
complicate survivability in many cases.
Mrs. Craig. Does anyone else have a thought on any of those
factors in rural areas? Anything to add?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Sewell. Thank you for the question.
I will tack on, too. It is very difficult to engineer bad
decisions out of drivers, but one of the things that we can do
is better influence user behavior.
There is an infamous NHTSA quote. I believe it is 95
percent of errors everywhere in our transportation system are
human error. I think there is a role in engineering and
planning that you can eliminate user error or cut it down by
positively influencing user behavior, by designing predictable,
safer transportation connections.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
I would like to call next on Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I grew up in a rural area of northwest Alabama and
unfortunately saw several fatal highway accidents, and the
thing that gets me about a lot of drivers is how many people do
not wear seatbelts.
There was a report that came out in 2002 that indicated
there were 43,005 traffic fatalities, and of that, 19,103 were
not wearing seatbelts. I think a later report said we would
average saving over 4,200 lives a year if just 90 percent of
occupants wore seatbelts.
I do not know what we can do. I know in Alabama we have
seatbelt laws. If you do not have a seatbelt on, you get a
ticket, but that just seems to be one of the most commonsense,
easiest things you can do to increase your survivability of an
automobile accident.
Do you have anything to add to that, Ms. Homendy?
Ms. Homendy. Yes. The single greatest defense against death
and injury is the use of effective safety equipment. So whether
that is seatbelts or age appropriate restraints for younger
children, those are things that the NTSB has recommended, but
also for all seating positions in a vehicle, not just in the
front seats.
And we have encouraged States to adopt primary enforcement
laws so that when law enforcement officers pull a motor vehicle
over that they can issue a ticket for not wearing seatbelts,
not that you have to have another reason.
Alabama does have a primary enforcement law, but some of
the other States do not. You have to have another reason to
issue a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt in some of the
States.
Mr. Palmer. Yes. Chief Brown, first of all, I want to
commend your department on its response to the shooting at the
baseball field. I was there. I was 20 steps from the guy. So I
really am grateful for the courage of the officers who
responded that day.
Also, I would say the issues with impaired driving and the
texting, and there is a big push for that, too. Is your
department writing many tickets dealing with that?
Mr. Brown. First of all, sir, thank you very much for the
compliments of our officers. We were very proud to serve that
day. It was a very difficult day for us as well.
If I may also add, in terms of the seatbelt issue, it ties
in with these others as well. There are a lot of assumptions
made, I think, by motorists and others that it is not going to
be them.
And in the case of occupant protection, your survivability
in a crash is entirely dependent upon, especially with airbags,
on the use of that seatbelt. It is an integral part of the
engineering that goes in there. And people do not wear their
seatbelt and they get severely injured.
In impaired driving and also in speeding and all the
topical issues that have been mentioned on this panel and by
the chair are addressed daily across this country with law
enforcement.
The real question is: what are they having to compete with
at the same time they are addressing those issues? And the
demands upon law enforcement in this Nation right now are
incredible.
The mental health requirements that we are having to deal
with, the issues related to that, the drugs, opioids are high-
priority issues for our communities. Traffic in some
communities is high priority. It is in our city, but it is not
that way across the country, and somehow that needs to change.
Mr. Palmer. There is just one other issue I want to
address, and that is the corporate auto fuel economy standards
that impose the miles per gallon standards, which necessarily
resulted in a lot of smaller, lighter vehicles being made.
I think there is the safer, affordable fuel-efficient
vehicles rule that is going to retain the 2020 model year
standards, and they are estimating that that could save $500
billion in societal costs and save almost 13,000 lives.
I am concerned as the father of two girls and one son. My
first daughter, I bought her what I called a rolling airbag
because of concerns for vehicle safety.
But as we go to more electric vehicles, you are going to
have a disproportionate problem there with weight if that
vehicle is involved with a lighter vehicle.
I just want your thoughts on retaining the 2020 model year
standards.
And what are we doing to compensate in vehicle
manufacturing? Because even my pickup truck now gets almost 21
miles per gallon on the road. It is lighter than the truck I
had before.
Any thoughts on that, Ms. Homendy?
Ms. Homendy. We have not looked at--that is not something
we have looked at in CAFE standards. So----
Mr. Palmer. In terms of overall----
Ms. Homendy. In terms of mass, I mean, there--when it comes
to crashes, we have looked at crashes, obviously, involving
different motor vehicles, trucks with motor vehicles. So the
mass of the vehicle definitely impacts what occurs in the
tragedy, but it is not something that we have really focused
on, the difference in the light vehicles versus heavy vehicles,
to my----
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Jones, did you want to respond to that?
Mr. Jones. Yes. I just wanted to say, you know, being from
northeast Florida, there is definitely a culture in terms of
where we drive larger trucks. And, I mean, just traveling
around I can see the difference. Every day when I am driving,
probably 80 percent of the vehicles that are on the road are F-
150s and larger SUVs, and that is part of the problem that we
are seeing. And pedestrians and cyclists and other folks are
really at a severe disadvantage when it comes to that. So that
is----
Mr. Palmer. As are the smaller----
Mr. Jones. That is a tradeoff, yes.
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Smaller vehicles.
I have gone over my time, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for
your patience with me, and I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair, as well as Ranking
Member Davis, for holding this hearing.
The statistics are very sobering and stark with respect to
people who were killed on U.S. roadways in 2017: 37,000 and 4.6
million people were injured in 2017. I also marked a high in
Chicago roadway fatalities. We went from 119 traffic-related
deaths in 2016 to 132 in 2017. Many of the areas that I
represent in the city of Chicago are considered high crash
corridors, according to Chicago's Vision Zero plan. And many of
them are in areas that have commercial strips, retail
commercial strips in them.
I would like to ask a question of Ms. Homendy. In Illinois
we have had a dozen vehicle crashes where vehicles that were
stopped--involving law enforcement stops, where--this happened
in January, an Illinois State trooper, Christopher Lambert,
stopped to assist with a crash and was struck and killed by a
passing motorist. He is now 1 of 16 Illinois State troopers
that have been killed in accidents starting the beginning of
this year.
I understand that the automatic emergency braking, or AEB,
could help to prevent these crashes, and the NTSB has
recommended the installation of this technology on all new
passenger motor vehicles. Despite this recommendation, the AEB
is not standard equipment in all new passenger vehicles. Why
has the NTSB made such a recommendation, and what are the
benefits of the recommendation, and why should AEB be standard
equipment for all new vehicles?
Ms. Homendy. The NTSB has issued several recommendations
regarding collision avoidance, including AEB and forward
collision warning, to prevent deaths such as the one that you
mentioned in your statement just a minute ago.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not
implemented those recommendations, and they are crucial for
preventing fatalities and injuries. And so we are hopeful that
they will move forward on those.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
For Mr. Smith, according to Forbes, 10 automakers will be
equipping half of their vehicles in 2018. In fact, NHTSA
Administrator Heidi King recently said, ``Technologies like
automatic emergency braking can help make cars safer on roads,
which means Americans are safer when traveling.''
Are AEBs a sensible step in the right direction? And why
should they be considered for large and heavy trucks, as well?
Mr. Smith. The work that we have done indicates that, in
fact--that important technology. And we would suggest looking
at all the technologies that are out there being developed. But
this is a particularly important one to help reduce the rate of
fatalities. And we would also encourage it being looked at in
our commercial vehicles, as well, as an important way to reduce
those fatalities. So we certainly think this is one of--as you
think about those big impacts, one of those areas where you can
have big impact, in terms of reducing fatalities.
Mr. Garcia. Is it your sense that we are on the cusp of a
significant breakthrough in safety, if recommendations like
those you have made are actually implemented?
Mr. Smith. I think that those are going to help us on the
path. The reality is as we convert the fleet of total vehicles
on cars, it is going to be a slow process, just because of the
turnover and the average age of cars, and things like that. But
it is important we start implementing those things as the
technology is proven today, recognizing there is that lag with
respect to the integration into the broader fleets.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back my time.
Ms. Homendy. Can I add one thing to that, Congressman?
Mr. Garcia. Sure.
Ms. Homendy. Those technologies are available today, and we
know from research that they are proven to save lives. And so
what the NTSB has said is that they should be standard on all
vehicles. Unfortunately, in many vehicles you have to pay for
safety upgrades. In our view, safety is not a luxury. Those
should be standard on all new vehicles, whether it is a heavy
truck, a passenger vehicle, a motorcoach, or a schoolbus. They
can and should be implemented today.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you for interjecting.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. And thank you, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Webster?
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Homendy, I listened to your testimony and you talked
about ending alcohol and other drug impairments in
transportation. You said in 1990 you first started printing
statistics in that area about different modifications that
could be done. I listened to that.
I was in the State legislature then. I passed a law raising
the drinking age to 21, lowering the blood alcohol to .08 and,
for those under 21, .02. There was an open container law that
we banned, and boots for repeat offenders on their vehicles,
and some other things that we did. And I know those had an
effect. I know those helped. And now you have got .05.
To me the statistics seemed to prove that many of the
problems come from substance abuse, or alcohol. And yet, when
you get into really changing the system, you can do those,
those are certainly laws that can be passed, and I was in full
favor of those. But when it gets down to really limiting what
you can consume, there is a strong lobby against that. And so
if you try to do dram shop legislation, which keeps a bartender
from serving somebody visibly intoxicated, it is going to be
killed every single time, and other things.
I just think if you picked out one thing, I would say
impairment, especially from external sources, has got to be a
major, major issue that, even though we have scraped the edges
and done some things, not really hitting the core. Have you got
any ideas about that?
Ms. Homendy. Yes. Impairment is a significant issue. Ten
thousand people lose their lives annually due to alcohol-
impaired-related crashes--or more than 10,000.
The NTSB has recommended reducing the BAC limit from .08 to
.05 or lower. What we say, though, is it is not about stopping
consumption. You can consume alcohol, you just can't drive in
addition to it. And impairment, from all the research we have
looked at, begins at the very first drink. There are
significant challenges, a decline in visual functions, at .02;
reduced coordination at .05. And so, when you talk about .08,
then that makes the situation even worse.
And so, from our standpoint, it is reducing the BAC limit
to .05, requiring ignition interlocks for all offenders, not
just repeat offenders.
One thing that we found in the research is that by the time
a first-time offender is convicted, they have driven impaired
more than 80 times. And so we believe ignition interlocks for
all offenders. And then, of course, in-vehicle technologies,
which exist today, to prevent drivers from operating motor
vehicles while impaired.
Mr. Webster. So there is other substances. You mentioned
marijuana, and yet we just marched down this road of saying it
is fine, nothing wrong with it. And yet have you seen any
statistics related to that?
Ms. Homendy. The data on marijuana is just not there.
Unfortunately, we know how alcohol affects the human body, we
just don't know how marijuana does. For one--and we--and
because of that we don't have an impairment standard.
And so, to determine impairment is so difficult because you
have to look at how it is ingested, whether it is ingested,
whether it is smoked, how frequently it is used. It changes,
based on body factors. So we have recommended that NHTSA issue
guidance to States to inform law enforcement officers when they
should require testing, how they should do testing, what
methods the laboratories should use, and cut-off levels.
Because right now States are handling it all very differently.
Mr. Webster. OK, thank you. My time is out. Thank all of
you for appearing. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Espaillat?
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the
witnesses for your testimony. The safety of roads is incredibly
important for New York City, so much so that it was one of the
first issues our mayor, Bill de Blasio, took on when he
announced Vision Zero, a very ambitious program.
Just this week I reintroduced legislation, the Stopping
Threats on Pedestrians Act, or STOP Act, that will help
localities install bollards in highly trafficked areas with
many vulnerable users. Bollards in Time Square, New York City,
were specifically cited as having prevented further deaths when
a driver tried to use his vehicle to attack nearby pedestrians.
The lack of bollards, some may argue, unfortunately, didn't
prevent the terrorist attack that occurred on October 31st,
2017, when a pickup truck went on the Hudson River bike path
and killed many tourists that were in the area. I think that,
in many ways, including this bill can help local governments
address safety issues head on.
Mr. Sewell, your testimony recommends changes to the
Highway Safety Improvement Program to ensure that States spend
funding on infrastructure improvement in proportion to the
specific types of safety problems the State encounters. Could
you elaborate a little bit more on that?
And particularly with regards to the use of bollards and
the prevention of potential terrorist attacks, how do you see
that playing out? Do we need to fund these very specific
programs that can save lives?
Mr. Sewell. Well, I appreciate your question. And in the
example that you gave, the use of bollards in certain settings
is a proven countermeasure for restricting the flow of larger
vehicles on certain designated routes. So on the greenway that
you just mentioned, the installation of bollards in restricting
the flow of those could be an absolute, you know, lifesaver.
In terms of the HSIP and redirecting, you know, to fund
proactively the fixes that you just mentioned, I believe it is
a good idea. I think that if you look at the percentage of
accidents that happen--or not accidents, but crashes that
happen, and the loss of lives that happened, I think it should
be an equity-based--we should have a proportionate amount of
money dedicated to saving those lives.
So yes, I agree with you completely.
Mr. Espaillat. And do you support providing local
governments more control over how the program should be funded,
and where to implement these new strategies to prevent death? I
mean I think there seems to be--local governments really know
where these hot spots are at, right? And do you feel there
should be more leverage, more flexibility in terms of how the
funding is used?
Mr. Sewell. Yes, and I could not agree more. I think giving
local municipalities where--if they are rural or urban
settings, they are going to know best their constituents, what
their local people are engaging and how they are engaging on
their transportation network. And I absolutely think they would
be the best to direct the funds in an appropriate manner, yes.
Mr. Espaillat. Madam Chair, let me just stress again the
importance of these initiatives and the ability for
municipalities to be able to determine where to spend the
funding, and they get a fair share of funding to install
bollards and other strategies that could prevent terrorist
attacks.
We have seen how, in New York City, that was tragic, and we
also saw in Times Square how the bollards helped prevent deaths
there, as a driver, a reckless driver, tragically went on the
sidewalk and basically ran down people.
But we must consider local opinions about where to place
these. I think local law enforcement is also well equipped to
let us know here in Washington where the hot spots--how we can
spend the money and how we can save lives.
Any additional comment?
Mr. Sewell. One quick one. On Times Square, in particular,
that is a great example of a proactive fix. It was identified
that it is a heavily used pedestrian area, and so it was
decided to invest in place-making for that locale. And you see
the result, in terms of not only adjacent businesses reaping
the benefit of having a nice, fun place to interact, but, as
you mentioned, the restriction of motor vehicular traffic
reduces that conflict to basically zero. So I think that is a
great example. I wanted to tack that on. Thank you.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaMalfa?
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. A lot of ideas here
today. What I don't hear often enough is, to me, happy drivers
are drivers that are moving and getting to where they want to
go. When you have happy drivers, less frustration, all that,
things go better.
Just coming in from the airport yesterday we saw a road
rage thing break out because the two guys tried to occupy one
spot on the on-ramp. And you know, so the infrastructure
emphasis, I think, is really important, that we can actually
have systems that move traffic better. Most of the time I hear
the solutions are ways to corral people and make them where
they can't go where they want to go, and that is just highly
frustrating.
Some of the emphasis I have heard in the committee today is
the impairment. I think that is extremely important that we get
after people that are driving incompetently, whether it is
under influence of alcohol. And this marijuana thing, you know,
we have State after State just rushing to legalize this for
normal use.
When I was in the California State Legislature it was
interesting. There was a bill early on for, basically, where
you couldn't discriminate against people that were on medical
marijuana--where it was only medical at the time was supposedly
legal--and the list of exemptions to where you couldn't
discriminate against an employee were all the important things,
like operating equipment and being trusted with large amounts
of money, and things like that. And so the areas where you
didn't want people acting that--being under that influence were
actually the important ones.
And so we have next to zero data on marijuana, yet there is
research out there that I think we can point to that would
start to get a baseline for what you could do with marijuana-
influenced people, because everybody, I think, intuitively
knows that marijuana influence does slow down your thinking
ability and your ability to process more than one thing at a
time. And people are amazing at how they can drive and think
about 10 other things--you know, not necessarily good, but we
see the distractions that are out there. We got to do a lot
more on the marijuana situation.
But coming back to traffic that is flowing is happier
traffic, and, I mean, just around this town, one more example
is that every single stoplight here seems like it is timed. You
are sitting there for 60 seconds at 10 o'clock, or 11 o'clock,
or midnight, waiting for nothing, instead of the ones that have
a sensor to allow you to go. And the amount of time you spend
at stop lights and waiting for elevators in your life is really
frustrating.
But that said, in my own district in northern California,
an area that I share with Mr. Garamendi, we have Highway 70
that travels between, basically--well, the key area we are
talking about is Oroville and Marysville, you know, the Chico
area. And we have had 40 deaths in that area, just since 2010--
what we have here. And that is a traffic flow issue. So many
times you are pent up behind vehicles going 45 miles an hour,
people get frustrated, they pass where they shouldn't. We have
issues with the Oroville Dam spillway crisis and the evacuation
there, the fires we have had in the area. We have a lot of
frustration and a lot of pent-up traffic there.
I just throw it to you, Ms. Homendy, with Chief Brown,
Mayor Jones. Wouldn't one of the greatest ways to improve is
take away the frustration, and allow traffic to flow, and get
these projects done, rather than limiting people and
frustrating more? Please.
Ms. Homendy. I think I might need a little bit more
clarification on the question.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. I think most people want to see traffic
flow. But we hear a lot about how to impede what they are
doing. How could we greater emphasize traffic flow in our
conversations?
Ms. Homendy. Well, part of it is road design, and we have
to have road--right now, with road designers and engineers, the
focus is on motor vehicle traffic, but not on the complete
traffic, which is everything from pedestrians to bicyclists to
everything on our Nation's roads. So we have to have a
comprehensive view on how we do road design from our traffic
engineers.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. So roads designed in the 1940s or
1950s that are now accommodating triple the traffic, you know,
that is the frustration.
So Chief Brown, what would you touch on with an urban area
like you have?
Mr. Brown. Well, I would add--actually, I am very familiar
with the area you are from. I, frankly, grew up in Sacramento,
so I know that area very well.
My issue is that I think you need to have proper road
design, and you need to keep it current. That is balanced
against whatever the competing issues are that you are looking
at at the local level, in terms of design.
It doesn't matter if it is an urban area or an external
area; there are frustrations that take place within the
driver's world, based upon design. And sometimes they will--it
will cause them to do things they would not ordinarily do, like
blocking the box, following too close in an urban area, maybe
crossing and passing when it is inappropriate. I have seen that
from my own professional experience.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, a left turn light that sits there red
when there is nobody coming for a mile, and you are waiting
there for what, right?
Mr. Brown. But it doesn't take away from that
decisionmaking that that individual has, whether or not to go
into that direction, make that call, place themselves and
others in jeopardy. And I think we also have to keep that in
mind. It is a behavioral thing in most cases with the crashes
that we see.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, thank you.
I will yield back.
Mr. Jones. I----
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Jones. I was going to----
Mr. LaMalfa. Oh, you wish to--OK.
Mr. Jones. I did want to add on. I think that, again, this
issue here is this happy drivers versus happy pedestrians and
cyclists is something that we will continue to deal with. And
again, it does boil it down to context. I think for so long
that we have been designing the roadways to minimize the delay
on drivers, actually--I mean I would say more often than not
signals are optimized to reduce and minimize the delay of
drivers. And sometimes that does come at the expense of
pedestrians and cyclists.
I would say, you know, we will talk about the frustration
of, well, we have to add 3 seconds to that signal. But say
there is a lady or a person that is trying to walk across the
street to get to their destination. We may add 10 minutes to
their delay, because they have to walk down to the closest
signalized intersection.
So it is always going to be a balance there, and I think
there is some context where, certainly, minimizing--or allowing
or maximizing vehicular throughput is going to be the most
important thing we can do. But there are a lot of contexts,
particularly in cities and urban areas, where we have to allow
for a greater accommodation of----
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Mr. Jones [continuing]. Pedestrians.
Mr. LaMalfa. I would yield--need to yield back, thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Smith, in your testimony you emphasize the need for us
to build a true culture of safety. Are there any areas in the
traffic safety where you have seen success in doing this? If
so, how could we translate those lessons to a broader cultural
shift towards roadway safety habits?
Mr. Smith. Through our chairmanship of the Road to Zero
Coalition we have been able to provide grants to local
communities and through different organizations that have
innovation, and bringing it to the forefront.
We have seen some of the local communities integrate some
of these grant dollars in a way that has addressed some of
their key pain points. But what they have done is brought the
community together as part of solving the solution. And so it
is really about doing the design element of it, and bringing
the community together, so that we aren't just doing it in a
vacuum, and understanding why the particular changes are being
made.
And I think there is just more we need to do, from an
education perspective, quite frankly, across the country, why
do we do some of what we need to do, and why do we need to fund
what we are looking to do, particularly when it comes to some
of the new augmentation technologies in our vehicles to make it
safe, and to understand that it may have some limiting
challenges for us, as we traditionally operate our vehicle, but
also when it comes to some of the infrastructure, as well.
Helping people understand, I think, is what is going to be
critically important, and that is where we have seen some case
examples where--with some of the grant dollars.
Mr. Garamendi. I remember an example of that in California,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The effort they made some 30
years ago. I think you were in Stockton at the time, Chief,
maybe as a young child. But nonetheless, it was very, very
successful in developing the laws.
Along that same line, it appears that nearly 30 percent of
all fatalities are associated with impaired driving, mostly
alcohol, but now, as the discussion has gone here, with
marijuana and other drugs. Yet, at the same time, over the last
25 years or so, arrests for impaired driving are down,
significantly down, according to the FBI statistics.
So do we have an enforcement issue here? And if so, what do
we do about it? And I will leave that open. I start with you,
Chief, and then run down the line until I am out of time.
Mr. Brown. I will be happy to respond to that, and I did
kind of address that in my comments. There are a number of
reasons we think that that may be taking place. Frankly, if you
are from the officer's lens, if you will, the complexities that
we currently have in terms of arrests and prosecuting for
driving under the influence have grown significantly over that
period of time.
When I was a young officer in the 1970s I was in
California. We could get done on a four-page piece of paper.
Now that document is 27 pages long. There are homicide reports
that are prepared that are shorter than some DUI cases, and we
are talking about a misdemeanor. There are opportunities to
streamline that and still provide and protect the rights of the
individual. If we could come up with a way--and this is where--
I think, positioned to do that.
The other piece is the competing interests and demands on
law enforcement. Right now law enforcement is challenged in
ways that it was not challenged 25 years ago. If you go out in
a patrol car today you will see officers responding to calls
that they did not respond to 25 years ago, so they don't have
that discretion because they don't have that ability and that
time, if you will, the opportunity to engage in it.
Mr. Garamendi. If you will excuse me for a second--because
I am going to be out of time in a moment--but then the issue is
really a lack of enforcement. Many reasons for that, but is it
really an enforcement issue, that we need the police to be
enforcing these laws?
Mr. Brown. I think it gets down to capacity more than
anything else.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. So that is, again, capacity.
Ms. Homendy?
Ms. Homendy. It is also a training issue. In a recent
accident investigation that we looked at in Concan, Texas, we
saw some issues with the training of law enforcement.
Basic training for law enforcement is standardized field
sobriety testing. But NHTSA has a couple of great programs
called the Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement
program, or ARIDE, which provides 16 hours of training for law
enforcement officials, and the Drug Recognition Expert
Training, which is substantially more, 72 hours of classroom
training and 60 hours of field training. And those law
enforcement officers become highly skilled at detection and
identification of impairment.
So we urge--very few of them are trained at those levels,
and we are urging more training.
Mr. Garamendi. Good. We are--I am almost out of time, and I
just want to wrap up. If you look at the statistics here, 29
percent alcohol impaired and 26 percent speeding, it seems to
me that both of these are both information, as in Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, but also enforcement. And that probably
means money.
I yield back my time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Balderson?
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. This is something--two subjects
that I am very passionate about: bicycles and motorcycles. In
fact, my friends say, ``What are you going to ride today, Troy,
a bike or a motorcycle?'' So thank you all, and I appreciate
some of your testimony that I have heard.
Mr. Sewell, my first question for you is--and taking the
time for being here today, and I appreciate the need for
adequate safety and protections for our fellow bikers. The
State of Ohio has a safe passing law in place, which requires
drivers to give cyclists at least 3 feet. I cosponsored that
and really tried to raise awareness of that.
In your experience--and that law has passed in the last
general assembly--in your experience, how has the
implementation of such laws impacted bike safety is the first
question.
If you would follow up with that, do you believe the common
driver might be aware of such laws? I have an answer for that,
and I think you know that response. And, if not, how can we
improve the awareness?
Mr. Sewell. Absolutely. Well--and, first and foremost, I
appreciate your support for the 3-foot passing law. I think it
is an important law, but it is also coupled directly with
education.
I think you are correct, if I am assuming--your response to
that second part of your question. It is important when drivers
are educated about what it means. And I think there is some
great demonstrations that you can help to educate drivers about
what it means if you are a cyclist and you get buzzed, how
terrifying that can be. I am a biker, too, of course, and so I
have been in Columbus, and I have biked around, and I remember
hearing when that came through. It is a great idea to have
that, but it has to be coupled with education.
Mr. Balderson. I totally agree with that. I appreciate your
response, and I would love to work with you in trying to figure
out how we can address that issue, and make sure that drivers
are aware of it. And they love to see how close they can get
those mirrors to us on the road.
So my next question is for Ms. Homendy, and thank you very
much for being here, and your testimony. My other passion, with
the motorcycles--in your testimony you mentioned your safety
report from 2018 regarding motorcycle crashes and
recommendations for improving, preventions such as the need for
enhanced braking and stability control systems on motorcycles.
I myself have a model 2007 that already had that anti-lock
brake system on it, but also the controlled--I mean it is
similar to what you are talking about with the stability
control. Have you seen an increase of where in the motorcycle
community--of such needs that this report has--when it was
released?
Ms. Homendy. Sorry about that. Yes. We agree that we need
anti-lock braking and stability control systems, and we
recommend that they be standard on all motorcycles and that,
again, safety is not a luxury, and we don't feel that
motorcyclists or auto drivers should have to pay more for
vehicles for safe technology. And so we recommend that they be
included as standard on all motorcycles.
Mr. Balderson. Most manufacturers today, just so you know,
are making it standard. In the 2017 BMW that I have, it was
standard equipment----
Ms. Homendy. Great.
Mr. Balderson [continuing]. With anti-lock brakes. Now, to
touch on that, though, the--and I have done all the motorcycle
training, all the way through. At one time I was even going to
be an instructor, and that is kind of what is going to lead me
to that--but the one place I got to try that anti-lock brakes--
I mean it is one thing to do it in a car, but anti-lock brakes
on a motorcycle are completely different than they are a car.
So I don't think we have the pleasure of allowing motorcyclists
to enact that anti-lock brake system to actually see what it is
going to do. So I am going to try to encourage more and more
manufacturers to offer their own input training.
But I get an email every week on motorcycle training and
the lack of instructors. How can we encourage to get more
members of the motorcycle community--and anybody can answer
this--to come out and help us with--I mean whether it is a free
oil change, from--I mean I don't know what that--but do you all
have any ideas how we can encourage more motorcycle instructors
to participate and help us train fellow motorcyclists?
Ms. Homendy. Yes, I mean, you know, from our standpoint,
you know, when it comes to safety--and I was just in
Connecticut, testifying on the importance of motorcycle safety,
and talked to some of the motorcyclists, and I think it is
crucial to encourage them to get more training, and to have
more instructors.
And I think, from NTSB's standpoint, it is just getting out
there and encouraging people to improve safety and motorcycle
safety, and trying to encourage them to get adequate training.
Mr. Balderson. My time is up. I would love to continue this
conversation. I yield back, or can--go ahead, sir.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jones. I just wanted to add more Harley-Davidson
dealerships offering incentives for the instructors to come
out.
If you don't mind, I did want to talk about the 3-foot
rule, if that is possible.
Ms. Norton. Time is expired.
Mr. Jones. OK.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Lowenthal?
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I am
struck by reports that individuals with obstructive sleep apnea
are twice as likely to be involved in motor vehicle accidents
than are the general public. And we know that interventions
like CPAPs can dramatically reduce the incidents of these
accidents.
I raise this because within the last 6 months one morning
my wife says to me, ``You know what, Alan? You are not
breathing at night.''
I said, ``I don't know, what are you talking about? I am
breathing at night.''
She said, ``No, I timed it. I woke up. You go sometimes 7,
8 seconds without breathing.''
So I went to George Washington University Hospital and had
a screening and found out I have serious sleep apnea, which I
was not even aware of. And I will tell you, by using a CPAP, I
am much more alert. I do--that is why I can ask you questions
now. I would have been----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lowenthal. I never would have been able to ask any of
these questions.
So the reason I raise this is for years that the NTSB and
other stakeholders have been concerned that Federal agencies
haven't implemented clear guidelines to ensure drivers and
other transportation workers are screened for sleep apnea, yet
in 2017 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the
Federal Railroad Administration withdrew efforts to update
sleep apnea screening standards.
So, Ms. Homendy, can you tell us more about the NTSB
recommendations, and how great a safety risk is posed by sleep
apnea?
Ms. Homendy. It is a significant issue. And as you--so my
husband has sleep apnea, didn't even know it.
Mr. Lowenthal. Me too, didn't know.
Ms. Homendy. Until I told him I was tired of him snoring
and he had to go get help.
Mr. Lowenthal. I just stopped breathing. At least he was
snoring, you know.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Homendy. Hopefully--so, you know, we have issued--we
have investigated a number of accidents involving fatigued
drivers, whether it is in motor vehicles or large trucks or
also in the rail industry, with operators of trains. And we
have issued a number of recommendations on the screening,
diagnosis, and treatment for sleep disorders like sleep apnea.
I do know that some of the carriers and the railroads are
doing some of that. But without a rulemaking it won't occur,
industrywide. So we are pushing that FMCSA and FRA adequately
address this and issue a rulemaking to require screening,
diagnosis, and treatment.
Mr. Lowenthal. Well, thank you. I am going to ask Mr.
Smith.
What is your perspective at the National Safety Council?
Mr. Smith. Sure. Well, you know, we know that according to
the AAA, over 328,000 drowsy driving crashes happen every year;
109,000 of those resulted in injury, and 64,000 resulted in
fatalities. So this clearly is a big issue, and it is a concern
for us, and we definitely recognize that fatigue has been a
challenge.
We represent over 15,000 work employers who are dealing
with fatigue, as well, in the workplace, and some of those
instances it connects to some of the workplace safety.
Where we see a big issue also comes from those shift
workers, as well, that are six times more likely to be in an
incident based on this drowsy driving. So certainly we think,
in the commercial space, obviously we want to see the support
for continuing to----
Mr. Lowenthal. And so I don't have a lot of time, so I want
to ask you.
Mr. Smith. Sure.
Mr. Lowenthal. So you do not support the withdrawing of
efforts by the FMCSA or FRA? They just withdrew this.
Mr. Smith. Yes, we do not support that, correct.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And, well, I yield back.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Lowenthal.
Mr. Woodall?
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Homendy, let me begin with you. You were talking about
hours of service earlier, and I thought you said you support
hours of service with no exemptions or exceptions. I am
thinking about a recent rulemaking for ready-mix concrete
trucks, for example, that I would argue brings greater safety
and more common sense to the industry. Could you tell me what
you mean about no exceptions and no exemptions?
Ms. Homendy. We do support science-based hours-of-service
standards, and we don't support exemptions to those standards.
But we also support fatigue management plans as an adjunct to
Federal standards.
Mr. Woodall. And when I am talking to dispatchers, they
will say, ``Rob, I am going to do what I have to do to fit
within Federal hours of service, but I know the guy I am
sending out is worn out. But I can't--I don't have the
flexibility to let him do something different that works with
his schedule and his needs. If he feels tired, he still has to
stay on the road because if he doesn't he is not going to get
his hours in today.''
Would you support some sort of flexibility for dispatcher
and drivers? Or do you believe where we have those rules today,
they need to sit right there?
Ms. Homendy. And let me clarify exemptions, meaning we
believe people should have adequate rest. We don't support
allowing them to continue driving if they are not fit for duty.
Mr. Woodall. Though that would be moving hours of service
in a more restrictive direction. I am talking about providing
more flexibility, but it is--your position is let----
Ms. Homendy. Correct.
Mr. Woodall. We have as much flexibility as you would like
to see us have at the----
Ms. Homendy. Well----
Mr. Woodall. At current----
Ms. Homendy. We would not support less off-duty time and
more work time, that is correct.
Mr. Woodall. Thinking about some of the opportunities to
partner with industry and safety, there has been some
conversation about speed limiters today, there has been some
conversation about moving trucks onto interstates. I don't
believe we have to have a winner and a loser in a safety
conversation, it is just all win, win, win, right? We are all
moving in the right direction.
When you are thinking about the safety from--particularly
from a bicyclist's perspective, sir, to focus on the folks you
represent, do you have the flexibility from your members to
say, yes, we are going to make this gain on behalf of
bicyclists? And what we will do, then, is we will also put more
trucks on the Interstate Highway System, which may make your
interstate drive different, but we are going to improve your
bicycle drive. Or is it a single-sided conversation when you
are speaking on behalf of your members?
Mr. Sewell. No, I think you nailed it. I think you have to
think of all users when you are designing any roadway. So you
don't want to do anything that would--and the other question
that came earlier was one of frustration, from a motorist's
standpoint.
We have to design systems that work for all users. That is
part of the engineer's creed. You are doing it for public
betterment. And that includes drivers. And so, you have to
think through, if you do move a mode of transportation to a
different mechanism for transport, is that going to negatively
impact safety for other users on that roadway, too?
So yes, I think you said it very eloquently. It is a
balancing act between all of these modes of transportation.
Mr. Woodall. Chief, let me ask you. I see your members more
often than I would like to see them, but thank you for keeping
my roads safe in that way. I am thinking about cameras on the
roads. Do we utilize those cameras to also enforce our
distracted driving and our seatbelt regulations?
Mr. Brown. Not so much with the seatbelt because, quite
frankly, you need to be able to observe it, and it is difficult
to get the placement. We do use them for red lights. In some
communities they use them for speed enforcement.
The key with the cameras, from my personal standpoint, is
you need to make sure that it is for problems, not necessarily
for the generation of revenue. That is a debate that becomes
problematic for law enforcement, when they administer those
programs. But if you identify problem areas and you deploy that
type of technology, it will have an impact, to some extent, on
some of the behavior, and you will get better compliance.
It also increases capacity. But I will also tell you it
also results in a number of complaints, because people don't
like to see those tickets coming in the mail.
Mr. Woodall. I share that distaste for those tickets coming
in the mail.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Woodall. But at some point, either the law is the law
and we have to enforce it--you don't have enough cops on the
beat to cover every cell phone user. You don't have enough cops
on the beat to make sure that everybody is wearing their seat
belt. And if the law is not evenly and aggressively enforced,
my behavior is going to reflect that.
Mr. Brown. And not all the States allow it. And so that is
a national thing. I am not sure exactly where some of the other
Federal agencies may be. But frankly, there is--in the
Commonwealth, for example, there are a number of communities
that would be interested in having the flexibility of applying
it for problem areas. Alexandria is one of them. I know that is
true across the country, but not all the States allow for that,
or they have limited applications that are appropriate.
Mr. Woodall. All right. I thank you all for being here.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Woodall.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have questions
for all of you, and this is another--it is public safety. Thank
you for being here today.
But of particular concern is the growing number of assaults
on bus drivers. Not only are they heinous acts perpetrated on
public servants, they also pose a great danger to passengers,
pedestrians, and other vehicles, as some of these assaults
happen while the driver is operating his vehicle.
My bill, H.R. 1139, Transit Worker and Pedestrian
Protection Act, has 100 bipartisan cosponsors, would provide
FTA funds for transit agencies to install barriers to protect
the driver and keep the bus operating safely.
It also addresses the issue of blind spots in modern buses
with large bus frames and sight mirrors that prevent them
from--it blocks their view of pedestrians crossing the street.
This has led to multiple severe accidents around the country.
Some buses in the U.S. and many buses in Europe do not have
this impediment, those large visual obstructions for the
driver. It requires a transit agency to address and remove
significant blind spots from the bus driver work station. And I
have personally recommended that before they buy any buses,
they talk to the manufacturer for those changes on the buses.
Do you have any concerns about the assaults on bus drivers,
and the blind spots and the transportation safety hazard? And
should we address this issue in Congress?
Ms. Homendy. Thank you, Chairwoman. I appreciate the
question. The NTSB has not looked at assaults on rail or
transit operators. But any injury or fatality is a concern to
us, of course.
We have issued recommendations on collision avoidance
systems like automatic emergency braking or forward collision
avoidance, which could help with other issues. But we haven't
specifically looked at the particular issue you are talking
about.
Mrs. Napolitano. Would you mind looking at it? We had----
Ms. Homendy. Absolutely.
Mrs. Napolitano [continuing]. People coming, bus drivers
actually tell us all the heinous acts committed on them.
Ms. Homendy. Yes. And, in fact, we are meeting with a few
folks in a few days on that.
Mr. Brown. Mrs. Napolitano, from the standpoint of just
being a cop, that is a felony, it is a criminal act, and that
always causes us concern. The implications for that, should the
bus--should the driver be operating a bus, are huge, because
there are implications for all the passengers that are maybe on
that bus, let alone the size difference on the vehicles.
There are some communities that have had problems in that
area. Not everyone has that same kind of a problem, that I
could see from the stats. We have actually looked at that a
little bit as it applies to the national capital region to see
if it had implications for us and our city.
But the potential jeopardy for the community is huge that
is on that bus.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Bruemmer. I think the transportation of the future
certainly relies on multimodal integrating, how does transit
operate with other sources: pedestrian, bikes, and regular
vehicles. I think infrastructure, as we move forward, needs to
change to accommodate those areas so that we do have separation
between that. And certainly, you know, it is a major concern
when you get pedestrian traffic moving across in front of a
large vehicle.
Mrs. Napolitano. They can't see them.
Mr. Bruemmer. There needs to be a--there is a concern there
that they need to be able to integrate with each other.
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Well, it is a problem. I have met with the Los Angeles
Transportation Department, and they tell me--I met with the
drivers and they tell me that it has happened more often than
not, especially on routes that are in neighborhoods that are
questionable, and especially if they have new drivers assigned
to those areas that are less knowledgeable about the area.
There is another question I would like to have. Mr. Sewell,
your testimony talks about the importance of designing a built
environment through policies such as Complete Streets to
consider all road users. You note that engineering is moving to
safe system approach to designing for structure.
Is the Federal highway policy currently set up to advance a
systems approach and related policies, or do we need to make
adjustments to ensure that States and cities design projects
that prioritize safety?
Mr. Sewell. I appreciate your question. And I was recently
in L.A., and there is--I think it is a great example of rapid
evolution happening in the transportation network, and us
poorly responding to it.
And I think it goes back to--to answer your question more
specifically--giving local control over how those
transportation systems can respond to changes in how people
want to move is the way to go. I think that that would have
been a great help to a city like Los Angeles in responding to
the emergence of scooters, and things like that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you for the answer. One of the
things I would recommend, especially in California, you have
the public access system, and you talk about information,
training for the public, like in motorcycle training, you
should develop or encourage the industry to do that. And go--
free for public safety would be a tremendous help to the
public. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mrs. Napolitano.
Mr. Babin?
Dr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate
that, and appreciate every one of you experts being here today.
The first question that I have is for Ms. Homendy. Thank
you very much for being here. I was just briefed by your
Chairman, Robert Sumwalt, and he said to tell you hello. He
knows you are going to do a great job.
Ms. Homendy. No pressure.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Babin. Thank you. For a good part of my life, born and
raised in southeast Texas--I represent the 36th District, from
Houston to Louisiana--I have slowly watched Highway 59, U.S.
59, transition and change to become a part of the new
Interstate 69. Now I am leading efforts to try to expand the
newly authorized Interstate 14 that will be running east and
west through my district.
And with the support of a number of my colleagues, I have,
in fact, the bill language right here, Madam Chair, if I could
enter this into the record. Would that be possible?
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
H.R. 2220
To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 with respect to high priority corridors on the National
Highwav System, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Babin (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Abraham,
Mr. Guest, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Brady, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Flores, Mr.
Williams, Mr. Carter of Texas, and Mr. Weber of Texas):
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
A BILL
To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 with respect to high priority corridors on the National
Highway System, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``I-14 Expansion and
Improvement Act of 2019''.
SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
(a) Identification.--
(1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is
amended to read as follows:
``(84) The Central Texas Corridor, including the route--
``(A) commencing in the vicinity of Texas Highway 338
in Odessa, Texas, running eastward generally following
Interstate Route 20, connecting to Texas Highway 158 in the
vicinity of Midland, Texas, then following Texas Highway 158
eastward to United States Route 87 and then following United
States Route 87 southeastward, passing in the vicinity of San
Angelo, Texas, and connecting to United States Route 190 in the
vicinity of Brady, Texas;
``(B) commencing at the intersection of Interstate
Route 10 and United States Route 190 in Pecos County, Texas,
and following United States Route 190 to Brady, Texas;
``(C) following portions of United States Route 190
eastward, passing in the vicinity of Fort Hood, Killeen,
Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston,
Woodville, and Jasper, to the logical terminus of Texas Highway
63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing;
``(D) following United States Route 83 southward from
the vicinity of Eden, Texas, to a logical connection to
Interstate Route 10 at Junction, Texas;
``(E) following United States Route 69 from Interstate
Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United States Route 190
in the vicinity of Woodville, Texas; and
``(F) following United States Route 96 from Interstate
Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United States Route 190
in the vicinity of Jasper, Texas.''.
(2) Central louisiana corridor.--Section 1105(c) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(91) The Central Louisiana Corridor commencing at the
logical terminus of Louisiana Highway 8 at the Sabine River
Bridge at Burrs Crossing and generallv following portions of
Louisiana Highway 8 to Leesville, Louisiana, and then eastward
on Louisiana Highway 28, passing in the vicinity of Alexandria,
Pineville, Walters, and Archie, to the logical terminus of
United States Route 84 at the Mississippi River Bridge at
Vidalia, Louisiana.''.
(3) Central mississippi corridor.--Section 1105(c) of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991,
as amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(92) The Central Mississippi Corridor commencing at the
logical terminus of United States Route 84 at the Mississippi
River and then generally following portions of United States
Route 84 passing in the vicinity of Natchez, Brookhaven,
Monticello, Prentiss, and Collins, to the logical terminus with
Interstate Route 59 in the vicinity of Laurel, Mississippi and
continuing on Interstate Route 59 south to United States Route
98 in the vicinity of Hattiesburg connecting to United States
Route 49 south following to Interstate Route 10 in the vicinity
of Gulfport following Mississippi Route 601 southerly
terminating near the Mississippi State Port at Gulfport.''.
(b) Inclusion of Certain Segments on Interstate System.--
Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence--
(1) by inserting ``subsection (c)(84),'' after ``subsection
(c)(83),''; and
(2) by striking ``and subsection (c)(90)'' and inserting
``subsection (c)(90), subsection (c)(91), and subsection
(c)(92)''.
(c) Designation.--Section 1105(e)(5)(C) of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by
striking ``The route referred to in subsection (c)(84) is
designated as Interstate Route I-14.'' and inserting ``The
route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(A) is designated as
Interstate Route I-14 North and the State of Texas shall erect
signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary,
identifying such route as future Interstate Route I-14 North.
The route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(B) is designated as
Interstate Route I-14 South and the State of Texas shall erect
signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary,
identifying such route as future Interstate Route I-14 South.
The routes referred to in subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F)
of subsection (c)(84) and in subsections (c)(91) and (c)(92)
are designated as Interstate Route I-14 and the States of
Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi shall erect signs, as
appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifyiug such
routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-14. ''.
Dr. Babin. OK. And I want to--with this in mind, I want to
ask about safety in regards to converting a highway or State
road to an interstate highway.
In your experience with the NTSB, have you seen a
correlation between improving roadway safety and updating
existing roads, whether U.S. highways or State highways, in
order to meet the interstate standards and grades? If you
could, maybe elaborate your thoughts on that.
Ms. Homendy. I apologize. On that question I will have to
get back to you for the record and talk with some of our
experts back----
Dr. Babin. OK.
Ms. Homendy [continuing]. In the office.
Dr. Babin. All right.
Ms. Homendy. But I will respond, and also contact your
office on that.
Dr. Babin. OK, that would be fine. Does anybody else want
to take a stab at that?
I will just wait and get back--if you will get back with
me, Ms. Homendy.
All right, this is for--the next question is for Mr.
Bruemmer, if you don't mind. Thank you for being here today, as
well. You said it best in your testimony, that we cannot allow
safety to ever become an afterthought or a second priority,
period. I couldn't agree with you more on that.
And you know it better than most, that so much of the work
this committee did on the FAST Act was to help stimulate
innovation, improve safety through data-driven performance-
based approaches, and allow our States the flexibility they
need to create programs unique to their needs for both motor
and nonmotorized users. The data has clearly shown a reduction
of motor vehicle fatalities, highlighting that safety programs
all over the country are indeed working successfully.
Could you share with the committee where you see the next
generation of roadway safety moving, and where do you see
innovative and creative ideas, and where they are taking us
through the next decade in terms of safety and smart
investment? Yes, sir.
Mr. Bruemmer. Thank you, Congressman. I think, as you look
forward, you know, technology is really kind of the front-
runner of this. Vehicles are becoming smarter. How does
infrastructure react to the vehicles?
From my experience what you look at is pavement markings
that are now becoming more recognizable by machine-driven
vehicles. You have signs which machines can read. They have
got, basically, a QR code inset in them, so that the vehicle
comes up and can tell what the sign reads.
Dr. Babin. Right.
Mr. Bruemmer. So I think as we look 5, 10 years down the
road, how do we make that step from purely a human-driven world
to integrating that technology, and we go forward. So that
transition period is going to be difficult. I think we need to
have a strong map forward of where do we want to be 20 to 25
years from now.
Dr. Babin. Right. OK. Thank you very much.
And you know what? I don't--unless anybody else has
something they would like to add to that, thank you, Madam
Chair, I will yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
Dr. Babin. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Stanton?
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. An excellent
presentation today on an incredibly important topic: safety on
our roadways and our highway systems.
And as we plan a significant infrastructure bill through
this committee, we need to make sure that safety is at the
forefront, and it is equally as important, if not the most
important investment we can make in this country is on roadway
safety, particularly supporting cities and municipalities
across the country, things like Complete Streets and Vision
Zero and other programs that are successful models.
The Federal Government can better support those cities, and
hope that State legislatures don't preempt cities who have a
lot of innovative ideas. I say that as a former mayor of a
city.
And the specific issue I want to talk today about has to do
with wrong-way drivers. Sadly, that is an issue that my
community, the Greater Phoenix, Arizona, community, is
confronting in a significant and sad way right now.
In January of 2015 a dispatcher with the Phoenix Fire
Department was on her way home from a late shift when she was
killed on the I-17 in central Phoenix by a wrong-way driver.
Megan Lange was 26 years old, a wife, a mother of two young
boys. When the firefighters arrived at the scene of the
accident, they knew that she was one of their own, because she
was still in her uniform.
Megan's death shook our community, and especially her
fellow city employees. I was mayor at the time, and I will
never forget taking that call. Her tragedy, unfortunately, was
one of a series, part of a pattern of wrong-way drivers that
our cities, counties, and State have to work hard to correct.
Two out of three wrong-way crashes are caused by impaired
drivers, often drivers with blood alcohol levels more than
twice the legal limit. One-quarter of all wrong-way crashes are
fatal, compared to just about 1 percent for other highway
crashes. And though, nationally, the number of and rate of
fatal crashes have been falling for decades, the number of
fatal wrong-way crashes continues to creep upward. And that is
something that we have to confront.
So I will open up to all the panel, but particularly Mr.
Bruemmer. Can you talk a little bit about what we can be doing,
as Congress, to better support you and other safety-related
organizations to decrease and even stop the epidemic of wrong-
way crashes across our country?
Mr. Bruemmer. Thank you, Congressman. There are innovations
coming out, as far as infrastructure, which improve the
possibility that someone can't go the wrong way: sensors, which
activate lights to notify the driver; also relaying messages to
law enforcement, so that they can respond quickly, knowing that
there is someone going the wrong direction; pavement markings
which are visible as you enter a ramp that, from one direction,
say ``Do Not Enter,'' the other way they look normal. So I
think that it is an infrastructure question.
People get confused and lost, unfortunately, make a wrong
turn up the wrong ramp, and it is catastrophic. How do you
avoid that? And I think, really, infrastructure has to combat
that at a one-on-one level.
Mr. Stanton. Excellent. Infrastructure and, of course,
continuing with our efforts in terms of drunken driving and
other types of driving under the influence.
I will leave it--I will open up to other witnesses. What
can we do, as Congress, Members of Congress, to better support
efforts to reduce and end wrong-way driving?
Mr. Brown. Mr. Stanton, if I could, the National
Transportation Safety Board--I am going to steal your thunder a
little bit--did a report.
Ms. Homendy. That was my answer.
Mr. Brown. There you go.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Brown. Don Carroll was the one that authored it. He
used to be with the California Highway Patrol, did a work on
wrong-way drivers. And most cops know that you have a
disorientation issue, and largely it comes from impairment of
some level. And also, it comes with, to some extent, with
people who have developed some kind of limiting capability with
their mind.
There are ways to deal with that as intervention. So MADD
has the interlock, they have been promoting the ignition
interlock as an example. There are other ways to deal with the
impairment issues, so that those people don't get in a car and
drive.
As far as the issues involving capacity, mental capacity,
that is where the DMVs can come in and try to deal with those
issues. And certainly that would be within the purview of an
authorization act, should that be an issue.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much.
Ms. Homendy, did the chief accurately represent NTSB
perspective?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Homendy. He did. And the person he references,
actually, is a former law enforcement official who is on staff
at the NTSB. So we did a wrong-way special investigative report
in 2012, and looked at six crashes. We had recommendations on
improving road designs, having better signage, and then
addressing impairment.
And the NTSB's views on impairment is reducing the legal
BAC limits from .08 to .05 or lower; requiring ignition
interlocks for all offenders, not just repeat offenders,
including first-time offenders; stronger enforcement; and then
also in-vehicle technology to prevent impaired drivers from
getting in the vehicle and driving.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
Mrs. Miller?
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton. West Virginia
has been successful throughout the implementation of the
Governor's highway safety program. We have received millions of
dollars through the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to help implement several different programs in
all 55 counties of my State.
In my region of southern West Virginia, one of the largest
challenges we face is impaired driving. Over 50 percent of
impaired driving arrests in southern West Virginia counties
have been identified as drug-related. Southern West Virginia
has been ravaged by the opioid epidemic, especially as the
economy in the region collapsed, due to the war on coal. The
economic hopelessness faced by so many in my community has been
hard to fathom.
I have learned very quickly, since being in Congress, that
we are very fluid in our movement, and in and out of
committees, and in and out of chairs. So Ms. Homendy, I hope
this question has not been asked to you before.
Programs committed to stop drunk driving have been
successful across the country. What programs are in development
to stem the tide on drug-impaired driving?
Ms. Homendy. Well, I know NHTSA has focused on drug-
impaired driving.
From the NTSB's perspective, we have investigated a number
of crashes involving impaired drivers. The difficulty with
drugs is there is no impairment standard. And so we have
recommended that DOT work with HHS to develop a standard. In
the meantime, we have recommended that NHTSA issue guidance to
States that tells law enforcement officers when to test, what
drugs to test for, how to test, and cut-off levels to help
determine impairment.
In addition, we need advanced training for law enforcement
officials, so that they can recognize when a driver is
impaired.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. West Virginia is a hub for
transportation, and our highways are a crossroads of trade and
shipping. Commercial trucking is essential for our economy, but
has not seen the same decrease in accidents that passenger
automobiles have.
Mr. Jones, are there any programs in development aimed to
protect our Nation's commercial truckers, in particular?
Mr. Jones. I am going to defer that answer, if maybe Ms.
Homendy has some more perspective on that. I can't speak about
the commercial trucking industry directly.
Mrs. Miller. OK.
Ms. Homendy. I mean for commercial driving, I would say
fatigue. I mean, from our perspective, it is strong hours-of-
service standards, no exemptions to those standards, strong
fatigue mitigation, management plans, implementation of
electronic logging devices, and then screening, diagnosis, and
treatment for sleep apnea. So fatigue, we would say, is the
major issue.
Mrs. Miller. OK. Does anyone else have any comments on
that?
Mr. Brown. Yes, at one point the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration also brought up the issue of distraction
as a major issue with regards to--within the cockpit of the
vehicle. And I would think that that would probably still ring
true today.
Mrs. Miller. What type of distraction?
Mr. Brown. Basic distraction, in terms of the operating of
the commercial vehicle, people manipulating cell phones,
working on automated electronic logs, things of that nature,
not paying attention to their driving.
Mrs. Miller. OK, thank you. I yield back my time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mrs. Miller. Finally, our
Ranking Member Davis.
Mr. Davis. Finally bringing up the rear, huh? Pretty long
hearing. You guys thought you were done, and then we keep
walking back in, right?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Davis. Ms. Homendy, great to speak with you yesterday.
I hear, because I am late, that some of my other colleagues
asked about technology. I was going to channel Don Young
[referring to nameplate swap]. Come on, what are you guys
doing? The dean of the delegation, the dean of the House.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Davis. In all seriousness, Ms. Homendy, you mentioned
that the technology is not there yet. For States like Illinois
that will be on a path to legalize marijuana, you know, my
concern is how do we get technology up to the forefront to be
able to do tests, a roadside test, just like we do with
impaired drivers due to alcohol consumption.
And you mentioned in your response that the technology is
not here yet, but others are working on it. Right? Do you have
anything else to add?
Ms. Homendy. Right. We have recommended that DOT and HHS
work together to provide additional testing mechanisms like
oral fluid testing and hair testing.
And in addition to just the testing, in the meantime, NHTSA
can issue guidance to States, as I mentioned, for law
enforcement officers to clarify when people should be tested,
what types of drugs they should be tested for, and cut-off
levels for testing. That guidance has not gone out yet.
But in addition, training for law enforcement officers. I
mentioned a couple of programs to you yesterday that NHTSA has
for advanced training for law enforcement officers. Basic
training is the standard field sobriety testing for law
enforcement officers, but NHTSA has two programs, one called
the ARIDE program and one called DRE--it is an Advanced
Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement program and the Drug
Recognition Expert training--which provide 72 hours of
classroom training and 40 to 60 hours of field training, which
makes them highly skilled at detection and identification of
impairment. And very few officers are trained at those levels,
so we encourage additional training.
Mr. Davis. Right, thank you. And I apologize, my team
forgot the WWE belt I promised you yesterday.
Ms. Homendy. I was hoping to wear it for my opening
statement.
Mr. Davis. My apologies to you and your entire team.
Chief, first off, I want to say thank you. And if you could
please relay my thanks and the thanks of many of my teammates
for the courageous actions of your three officers who saved us
all one fateful morning in Alexandria a few years ago. So thank
you for that. And please, again, relay our thanks to them. I
don't think they get enough credit for that.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, sir. I will.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. In my home State of Illinois, Chief,
we have had 15 officers struck this year already while outside
of their vehicles. We have a law called Scott's Law in Illinois
that protects our law enforcement officials, our Good
Samaritans, and even our tow truck drivers who are on the side
of our roadways, trying to help motorists who are stranded. We
are looking to expand Scott's Law in Illinois, and I noticed
this isn't a law in every State.
What type of activities would you recommend we do at the
national level to stop the carnage that we have seen of our law
enforcement officers and our Good Samaritans and tow truck
drivers that we are seeing in Illinois?
Mr. Brown. Well, actually, NHTSA has actually taken a
position of supporting the move over, at least in concept.
But you are right, there are a lot of differences between
the States. My former agency, the California Highway Patrol,
just lost a sergeant just a couple of days ago over this very
same thing.
That is actually a disincentive in some cases for law
enforcement to engage in traffic safety, because oftentimes
they are exposed when they go out there. And so any way we can
protect the highway worker--and that is not just the cop and
the tow truck officers, and it is, in many cases, the person
from DOT who is working on the road to repair a roadway. It is
a paramount issue.
Move-over laws work. They are difficult to enforce
sometimes because, you know, usually there is congestion or
other issues around it. But if you can get some level of
compliance, it provides a buffer. And I think that would be
appropriate to put into some authorization to encourage that at
some point.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. This is something that we have
not experienced at this level in my home State before. It has
happened for many years, and it is something that, obviously,
we need to address, especially with distracted driving and
other issues that have caused these terrible, tragic accidents,
especially in the wake of technology and technological advances
in our automobiles.
I rented a car this weekend, and was driving around, and it
notified me every time it thought I went outside the lane. I
mean at some point we have got to recognize technological
advances to assist in saving the lives of the brave men and
women who wear that same uniform you do.
Thank you for your time to each and every one of you, and I
yield back no time that I have.
Ms. Norton. I want to thank the ranking member, and I
particularly want to thank all of you who have come. You have
given us new information, you have given us very helpful
information on a very serious subject, where our country is
badly in need of the contributions you have made today.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may have been submitted in
writing.
And I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for
15 days for any additional comments and information submitted
by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
This hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Tennessee
Thank you, Chairwoman Norton for putting together this important
hearing, and thanks to all the witnesses for being here today.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), 37,133 people lost their lives in accidents on U.S. roadways
in 2017, or 100 people died each day in motor vehicle crashes.
We must do better.
Fortunately, I believe there are several commonsense, bipartisan
steps that Congress can take to improve highway safety. They include,
the DUI Reporting Act, the School Bus Safety Act, the Stop Underrides
Act, and the Horse Transportation Safety Act.
dui reporting act
The DUI Reporting Act (H.R. 1914) would stop the dangerous practice
of charging repeat drunk drivers as first-time offenders.
Just a few years ago, two teenagers from Memphis were killed when
the car they were driving was struck by a drunk driver who had accrued
seven DUI charges since 2008 and had been allowed to plead guilty five
times to a first-offense DUI.
Congressman Steve Chabot and I introduced legislation to stop this
by creating an incentive for local law enforcement to report DUI
arrests to the National Crime Information System, so prosecutors will
know if a defendant is a repeat offender.
This bipartisan bill has been endorsed by Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, and I hope this committee will consider it soon.
school bus safety act
I hope this committee will also consider the School Bus Safety Act,
a bill I am planning to reintroduce with Senator Tammy Duckworth, to
implement several of the National Transportation Safety Board's
recommendations to improve school bus safety.
Specifically, the bill will ensure that there are seat belts at
every seat and buses are equipped with safety measures like stability
control and automatic braking systems.
In November 2016, there were two high-profile school bus accidents
in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and another in Baltimore, Maryland, that
left 6 school-aged children robbed of their futures.
These are chilling reminders that Congress needs to act.
stop underrides act
I hope this committee will also take action on the Stop Underrides
Act (H.R. 1511/S. 665).
In 2014, my constituents Randy and Laurie Higginbotham lost their
33-year-old son Michael, like thousands of others have, when his car
crashed into a semi-truck trailer and ended up under it. Unfortunately,
truck underride is not a new issue. It has been on the highway safety
radar for decades, yet action has not been taken.
That is why I introduced the Stop Underrides Act with our
Transportation Committee colleague Mark DeSaulnier, and Senators
Kirsten Gillibrand and Marco Rubio, to require all large truck trailers
to have front, side, and rear underride guards.
This bill will save lives and I encourage my colleagues to support
it.
horse transportation safety act
I hope this committee will also take action to protect the lives of
both horses and humans as horses are transported on our nation's
highways.
In 2007, fifteen horses died when a double deck trailer carrying 59
Belgian draft horses overturned on Route 41 in Illinois. Unfortunately,
accidents like this are not uncommon.
Drivers can currently exploit a loophole in current regulation
banning the transport of horses in double deck trailers, thus giving
drivers an incentive to inhumanely transport horses to assembly points
then reload them into single level trailers just outside their final
destination.
This practice is not only dangerous and inhumane to the horses, but
to the traveling public, as well.
That is why I introduced the bipartisan Horse Transportation Safety
Act (H.R. 1400) along with Representatives Peter King, and
Transportation Committee members Dina Titus and Brian Fitzpatrick, to
ensure the humane and safe transportation of horses.
If enacted, it would prohibit interstate transportation of horses
in a motor vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of one
another. It would also create civil penalties of at least $100 for each
horse involved.
These bills will help save lives, and I hope this committee will
take action on them. I once again thank the chair for holding today's
hearing and yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
Thank you, Chairwoman Norton.
Improving safety on our roadways is a top priority for my
constituents and me.
Seemingly every day, I see a fresh news story about a traffic
collision that either claimed lives or caused injuries in my community.
On November 8, 2018, my longtime friend and neighbor, Alvin Watson,
was fatally struck by a vehicle while jogging near his home. He was a
beloved husband, father, colleague, and friend.
In January, seven people, five of whom were children, lost their
lives on their way to Disney World after their church van collided with
three other vehicles.
Just last month, a father and his six-year-old son were struck as
they walked to school. While they weren't seriously injured, this was
still an extremely traumatic event for them.
In 2017 alone, more than 3,100 people, including 654 pedestrians,
died on Florida roadways.
As pedestrians, Floridians face a risk of fatality that's
incomparable to any other state.
Shockingly, of the 20 most dangerous metropolitan areas for
pedestrians in the nation, 9 are in Florida.
In fact, the stretch of I-95 that runs through Miami-Dade County,
which I represent, had more fatal accidents than any other part of the
nearly 2000-mile interstate highway in 2015.
Suffice it to say, traffic safety reforms are desperately needed in
my state and district.
We can and must do better.
As we consider legislation to reauthorize the FAST Act and invest
in our infrastructure, I will advocate for robust investments and
policies to reduce traffic fatalities and strongly prioritize
pedestrian safety.
I have a few questions.
Letter from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO, Intelligent
Transportation Society of America, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Norton
April 8, 2019.
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chair
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515
Hon. Rodney Davis
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515
Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
In anticipation of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
upcoming hearing entitled ``Every Life Counts: Improving the Safety of
our Nation's Roadways,'' the Intelligent Transportation Society of
America (ITS America) writes to underscore how new and developing
Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) technology that depends on the 5.9 GHz band
is allowing us to finally address the lives lost and ruined on our
nation's roads. Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V), Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
(V2I), and Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P)--collectively referred to as
Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X)--have incredible potential to dramatically
improve the safety, accessibility, and operational performance of our
road infrastructure and vehicle safety.
Safety is the top priority of the nation's transportation system.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 37,133 people lost their lives
in motor vehicle crashes in 2017, which roughly breaks down to just
over 100 fatalities per day. Examples of V2V deployments available
today include systems that provide emergency braking and the ability to
be the ``eyes and ears'' of other vehicles. Non-Line-of-Sight
awareness, as it's known, means that drivers and vehicles can see
around corners and receive information about hazards in the roadway,
even if they cannot see the hazard. V2V communications help move
traffic more efficiently with demand responsive traffic signaling and
allow emergency response vehicles to preempt signals.
V2I provides vehicles and drivers information about infrastructure
operations--weather and pavement condition, how signals are directing
traffic, and even the location of potential hazards at intersections
and other critical road safety hotspots. V2I applications include red
light violation warnings, reduced speed zone warnings, curve speed
warnings, and spot weather impact warnings. V2I soon will support other
applications that will disseminate the condition of the infrastructure,
such as bridge integrity and collect data from cars that describe
pavement condition. V2I technology helps drivers safely negotiate
intersections and prevent intersection crashes. Another connected
vehicle safety application that helps drivers with left turns at
intersections could help prevent left-turn crashes. NHTSA estimates
that safety applications enabled by V2V and V2I could eliminate or
mitigate the severity of up to 80 percent of non- impaired crashes,
including crashes at intersections or while changing lanes.
V2X will enable us to deploy safety solutions to protect vulnerable
users of the system, which will be transformational. By allowing
vehicles to communicate with these users through sensors or vehicle to
device communication (V2P), we can significantly reduce the number of
pedestrians killed on our roadways.
Public sector agencies can also reap the benefits of V2X.
Increasingly, vehicles will rely on digital formatting of roadway
information to process roadway rules. ITS America member Regional
Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada recently became first in
the world to put roadway information into a digital format. As
connected vehicles drive over the roadway, they can pick up differences
between the ``digital'' road and the actual road. This could eliminate
the need for agencies to manually examine roadways for striping or
automatically report potholes instead of waiting for enough drivers to
incur tire damage before fixing them. These vehicles will also give an
up-to-the-minute snapshot of the system--how it is performing, are
there any incidents, live weather conditions, etc. Millions of dollars
have already been invested in this effort, including incorporating
connected vehicle technologies into infrastructure by states and
cities. Eighty-four communities in the United States are deploying or
planning to deploy connected vehicle technology. Of that number, 54
sites are operational, and 30 are in development. Nearly every state
has at least one connected vehicle deployment. V2I deployments include
expansions of the Safety Pilot Model Deployment in Ann Arbor (MI),
large pilot deployments in New York City, Tampa, and Wyoming, and the
Smart City Challenge in Columbus (OH).
These technologies can also enhance automated driving systems,
which can provide numerous economic, environmental, and societal
benefits, such as decreased congestion and fuel consumption, and
increased access for older adults and people with disabilities.
However, V2X communications are by no means guaranteed. The 5.9 GHz
band for V2X is being targeted by cable companies and their supporters
who are seeking additional spectrum for enhanced WiFi experience and
are aggressively pressuring the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
to force V2X to share this spectrum with unlicensed consumer broadband
devices. Speed matters when safety information is involved. Sharing the
band could compromise the speed and put lives at risk. What if a driver
knew, in fractions of a second, that an airbag deployed in a car in
front of him/her? Alternatively, that the car in front, around the next
curve, was sliding on black ice? Or a pedestrian is around the next
corner? Thanks to V2X technology, that driver would react--and avoid a
crash. Deploying life-saving technologies that allow cars, buses,
trucks, bicycles, pedestrians, motorcycles, street lights, and other
infrastructure to talk to each other will ensure more people arrive
home safely.
ITS America supports preserving the entire 5.9 GHz band for
existing, new, and developing V2X technologies. We want to make sure
all three phases of testing for the 5.9 GHz band are complete before
the FCC rules on whether the spectrum can be shared between V2X
operations and unlicensed devices like WiFi. Any unlicensed use in the
band should be done without harmful interference to the incumbent
technology or other intelligent transportation systems technologies.
Finally, ITS America requests a report from the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) on the outcomes of the FCC studies. USDOT must
ensure Congress and transportation stakeholder that transportation
safety will not be compromised in the 5.9 GHz band.
Sincerely,
Shailen P. Bhatt
President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America
cc: House of Representatives Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Ron Thaniel, ITS America Vice President of Legislative Affairs
Statement of Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton
introduction
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a coalition of
public health, safety, and consumer organizations, insurers and
insurance agents that promotes highway and auto safety through the
adoption of federal and state laws, policies and regulations. Advocates
is unique both in its board composition and its mission of advancing
safer vehicles, safer motorists and road users, and safer roads. We
respectfully request that this statement be included in the hearing
record.
deaths and injuries on our nation's roads remain unacceptably high
In 2017, more than 37,000 people were killed and 2.7 million were
injured in motor vehicle crashes.\1\ Crashes impose a financial toll of
over $800 billion in total costs to society and $242 billion in direct
economic costs, equivalent to a ``crash tax'' of $784 on every
American. This incredibly high level of carnage and expense would not
be tolerated in any other mode of transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Statistics are from the U.S. Department of Transportation
unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, fatal truck crashes continue to occur at an alarmingly
high rate. In 2017, crashes involving large trucks killed 4,761 people.
This is an increase of 9 percent from the previous year and an increase
of 41 percent since 2009. The number of 2017 fatalities in crashes
involving large trucks is also the highest since 2007. Additionally,
149,000 people were injured in crashes involving large trucks in 2017.
In fatal two-vehicle crashes between a large truck and a passenger
motor vehicle, 97 percent of the fatalities were occupants of the
passenger vehicle. The cost to society from crashes involving
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) was estimated to be $134 billion in
2016.
available commonsense and cost-effective solutions
While far too many lives are lost and people are injured on our
Nation's roads each year, proven solutions are currently available that
can help to prevent or mitigate these senseless tragedies. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) currently values each
life lost ina crash at $9.6 million. Each one of these senseless
tragedies not only irreparably harms families and communities, but they
also impose significant costs on society that can be avoided.
Proven, Advanced Vehicle Technologies Should be Standard in All
Vehicles
Every day on average, over 100 people are killed and 7,500 people
are injured in motor vehicle crashes. Nearly a third of all crashes
continue to be caused by an impaired driver and speed is a contributing
factor in over 25 percent of crashes. Additionally, distracted driving
resulted in over 3,000 deaths in 2017 alone. Advanced vehicle
technologies can prevent and lessen the severity of crashes and should
be required as standard equipment on all vehicles. These include
automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warning (LDW) and
blind spot detection (BSD) for cars, trucks and buses. These systems
can help stop crashes from occurring, as well as reduce the impact of
crashes that do occur. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) has found that AEB can decrease front-to-rear crashes with
injuries by 56 percent, LDW can reduce single-vehicle, sideswipe and
head-on injury crashes by over 20 percent, and BSD can diminish injury
crashes from lane change by nearly 25 percent. However, these safety
systems are often sold as part of an additional, expensive trim package
along with other non-safety features, or included only in high end
models or vehicles. Moreover, there are currently no minimum
performance standards to ensure they perform as expected.
Recommendation: Advanced vehicle technologies that have proven to
be effective at preventing and mitigating crashes, including AEB, LDW
and BSD, should be standard equipment on all cars, trucks and buses.
Commonsense Regulation of Experimental Driverless Car Technology is
Essential
Autonomous vehicles (AVs), also known as driverless cars, are being
developed and tested on public roads without sufficient safeguards to
protect both those within the AVs and everyone sharing the roadways
with them without consent. Numerous public opinion polls show a high
skepticism and fear about the technology, and for good reason. At least
six crashes resulting in four fatalities have occurred in the U.S.
involving cars equipped with autonomous technology that are being
investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
While AVs have tremendous promise to meaningfully reduce traffic
crashes, fatalities and injuries as well as increase mobility, once
they are proven to be safe, they must be subject to minimum performance
standards set by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT).
These standards should include, but not be limited to, cybersecurity,
vehicle electronics, driver engagement for AVs that require a human
driver to take over at any point, and a ``vision test'' for driverless
cars to ensure they can properly detect and respond to their
surroundings. Additionally, minimum performance requirements and
protections will be especially critical as autonomous systems are
deployed in commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Large trucks and buses
should always have an appropriately-trained and licensed driver behind
the wheel, and introduction of automated systems should never be used
as a rationale for weakening operational rules such as hours of
service, driver training and other important requirements.
The recent crashes involving the Boeing 737 MAX airplane tragically
highlight the catastrophic results that can occur when automated
technology potentially malfunctions and is not subject to thorough
oversight. Reports have indicated that many aspects of the plane's
certification were delegated to Boeing. In addition, safety systems
that could have assisted the pilots were not required as standard
equipment. Lastly, both planes were being operated by experienced
pilots that had extensive training. Yet, there are no such federal
training requirements for individuals testing or operating automated
vehicle technology or for the consumers who purchase these vehicles and
are using them on public roads.
Recommendation: AVs must be subject to minimum performance
standards set by the U.S. DOT including for cybersecurity, vehicle
electronics, driver engagement for AVs that require a human driver to
take over at any point, and a ``vision test'' for driverless cars to
ensure they can properly detect and respond to their surroundings.
Crash Data Must be Collected and Available
At a minimum, crash data should be collected, recorded, accessible,
and shared with appropriate federal agencies and researchers so that
safety-critical problems can be identified. Consumers must also be
given essential information about the limitations and capabilities of
AVs in the owner's manual and at the point of sale, as well as via a
public website searchable by VIN that includes, at a minimum, vehicle
information such as any exemptions from federal safety standards and
the AV's operational design domain (ODD).
Recommendation: Crash data generated by vehicles should be
collected, recorded, accessible, and shared with appropriate federal
agencies and researchers so that safety- critical problems can be
identified. In addition, consumers must also be given essential
information about the limitations and capabilities of AVs in the
owner's manual and at the point of sale, as well as via a public
website searchable by VIN.
Vulnerable Road Users Must be Protected
Deaths and injuries of pedestrians and bicyclists remain
unacceptably high. In fact, in 2016, pedestrian and bicyclist
fatalities hit their highest levels in nearly 30 years. Vehicles can be
designed, specifically in the front end, to reduce the severity of
impacts with pedestrians and/or bicyclists. Additionally, collision
avoidance systems for pedestrians, like advanced AEB, have promise to
further reduce deaths and injuries. Advocates continues to monitor
research on the effectiveness of these systems and will support data-
driven solutions to these fatalities. Moreover, the New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP) must be updated to include pedestrian crashworthiness
and pedestrian crash avoidance. Upgrades to infrastructure could also
offer pedestrians and bicyclists better protection to reduce the
occurrence and severity of crashes.
Recommendation: NHTSA should be directed to issue a standard for
improved vehicle designs to reduce the severity of impacts with road
users. In addition, NCAP must be updated to include pedestrian
crashworthiness and pedestrian crash avoidance.
Improving Safety for Older Americans
In 2017, over 6,500 people age 65 and older were killed in traffic
crashes--representing 18 percent of all traffic fatalities. Advocates
has developed federal legislative proposals addressing both human
factors and vehicle design issues to advance the safety of older
adults. These recommended improvements include development of a crash
test dummy representing older occupants, endorsing revisions to NCAP to
include a ``Silver Car Rating'', and promoting a modification of the
injury criteria used in crash tests to address the specific injury
patterns suffered by older occupants. Additionally, Advocates supported
the need to mandate that hybrid and electric vehicles be manufactured
to make sounds when operating at speeds below 18 miles per hour in
order to enable child and adult pedestrians and bicyclists, especially
those with visual-impairments and older adults, to identify the
presence and movement of these very quiet vehicles. This final rule was
issued in December 2016 and compliance is required by September 2020.
Recommendation: NHTSA should be required to develop a crash test
dummy representing older occupants, revise NCAP to include a ``Silver
Car Rating'', and modify injury criteria used in crash tests to address
the specific injury patterns suffered by older occupants.
The Epidemic of Distracted Driving Must be Addressed
In 2017, crashes involving a distracted driver claimed 3,166 lives.
Moreover, crashes in which at least one driver was identified as being
distracted imposes an annual economic cost of $40 billion dollars,
based on 2010 data. Issues with underreporting crashes involving cell
phones remain because of differences in police crash report coding,
database limitations, and other challenges. It is clear from an
increasing body of safety research, studies and data that the use of
electronic devices for telecommunications (such as mobile phones and
text messaging), telematics and entertainment can readily distract
drivers from the driving task.
Numerous devices and applications, which pose a substantial danger
for distracted driving, are being built into motor vehicles. Yet, NHTSA
has issued non-binding guidelines which recommend, but do not require,
that clearly unsafe electronic devices should not be installed in
vehicles. This does not prohibit manufacturers from installing
electronic communications devices that have highly distracting features
and will not prevent manufacturers from disregarding the agency
guidelines.
Recommendation: NHTSA should issue regulations to strictly limit
the use of electronic communication and information features that can
be operated while driving, and to prohibit the use of those features
that cannot be conducted safely while driving.
NHTSA Must be Sufficiently Funded and Given Additional Authorities
Ensuring NHTSA has adequate resources, funds and staff is a crucial
priority. However, the Administration has proposed reducing NHTSA's
vehicle safety program by $49 million (26 percent) from the agency's
2019 budget. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
(Pub. L. 114-94) authorized $214,073,440 for NHTSA's vehicle safety
program for fiscal year 2020. The Administration's request is $63
million less than the Congressional authorization. In addition, under
the Administration's proposal the enforcement budget, which supports
the agency's efforts to identify safety recalls and ensure new vehicles
meet federal safety standards, will be cut by $13.5 million (40.9
percent) and the rulemaking budget will be cut by $2.4 million (9.6
percent).
In recent years, millions of motor vehicles have been recalled for
serious and sometimes fatal safety defects. NHTSA must have the ability
to take immediate action when the agency determines that a defect
involves a condition that substantially increases the likelihood of
serious injury or death if not remedied immediately. This ``imminent
hazard'' power is needed to protect the public, by allowing the agency
to direct manufacturers to immediately notify consumers and remedy the
defect as soon as possible. Further, NHTSA must also be given the
authority to pursue criminal penalties in appropriate cases where
corporate officers who acquire actual knowledge of a serious product
danger that could lead to serious injury or death and knowingly and
willfully fail to inform NHTSA and warn the public. Under current
federal law, many agencies already have authority to pursue criminal
penalties including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food
and Drug Administration, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The lack of criminal penalty authority has hampered the agency's
ability to deter automakers from safety defect recidivism.
Recommendation: Considering the unacceptably high number of
fatalities and injuries on our Nation's roads, the prevalence of
recalls, and the new responsibilities incumbent upon the U.S. DOT as
AVs are developed and deployed, NHTSA must have additional resources
and authorities to effectively oversee vehicle safety.
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Must be Improved
Large truck crash fatalities continue to skyrocket. Each day on
average, 13 people are killed and more than 400 more are injured in
large truck crashes. This preventable fatality toll amounts to a major
airplane crash every other week of the year. However, technology
currently exists that can help to reverse these grim statistics. They
include crash avoidance systems like AEB and speed limiting devices.
This equipment should be made standard on all large trucks. Advocates
has also recommended mandating comprehensive underride guards for large
trucks in order to prevent serious injuries and deaths that occur in
crashes in which a passenger vehicle goes underneath the rear, side or
front of a truck--known as ``underride.''
Additionally, the lack of uniform adequate training for candidates
wishing to obtain their commercial driver's license (CDL) has been a
known safety problem for decades. Yet, a rule requiring training for
all new CDL applicants issued in 2016 failed to include a requirement
that they receive a minimum number of hours of the behind-the-wheel
(BTW) training. This type of real-world experience is needed to enhance
the ability of CDL applicants to operate a CMV safely. In addition to
these measures, federal truck safety laws including truck size and
weight limits, truck driver hours of service rules, and the age
requirement for transporting interstate commerce should not be
weakened.
Further, the safety deficiencies of motorcoaches identified in
countless recommendations and crash investigations by the NTSB had not
been addressed for years, even decades, until deadlines for agency
action were enacted in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (MAP-21) Act (Pub. L. 112-141). Even still, NHTSA has yet to
complete several of these rulemakings despite a long overdue
Congressional deadline of October 2014.
Recommendation: Lifesaving technology including AEB, speed limiting
devices and underride guards should be standard equipment on CMVs and
trailers. Federal truck safety laws including truck size and weight
limits, truck driver hours of service rules, and the age requirement
for transporting interstate commerce should not be weakened, and truck
driver training requirements should be enhanced. Overdue rulemakings
enhancing the safety of motorcoaches must be completed without further
delay.
Our Most Precious Passengers Need Enhanced Protections
Every year, nearly 500,000 school buses transport more than 25
million children to and from school and school-related activities
according to the NTSB. School bus crashes are similar in many respects
to aviation crashes--crashes are infrequent but when they do occur, the
results can be catastrophic. Leading safety experts have determined
that all school buses should be equipped with safety belts to improve
passenger safety. Since 2013, the NTSB has recommended that new school
buses be equipped with safety belts. Moreover, the American Academy of
Pediatrics has a long standing position that new school buses should be
equipped with safety belts. NHTSA also supports requiring safety belts
on school buses, and has stated that its goal is to make sure there are
no fatalities in school buses. Additional technologies can also make
school buses safer. NTSB has recommended that school buses be equipped
with both electronic stability control (ESC) and AEB. In addition,
motion-activated detection systems that can detect pedestrians located
near the outside of the school bus and alert the driver of their
presence can improve safety for students boarding and departing a
school bus.
Recommendation: Congress should require that important safety
advancements be made to ensure the safety of children both inside and
outside of school buses.
conclusion
America's roads are needlessly dangerous. Far too many lives are
lost and serious injuries sustained in crashes each year. However,
commonsense solutions are at hand that can help to improve the safety
of all road users. With bold action from this Committee, these measures
can be implemented and lives can be saved.
Statement of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton
Chairman Norton, Ranking Member Davis and members of the
subcommittee, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association
(ARTBA) appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on a
subject that is of primary importance to our organization, the entire
transportation construction industry and the American public--Every
Life Counts: Improving the Safety of our Nation's Roadways.
Established in 1902, ARTBA represents over 8,000 member companies
and individuals who design, build and manage the nation's highways,
public transit, airports and intermodal transportation systems. The
primary goal of the association is to grow and protect transportation
infrastructure investment to meet the public and business demand for
safe and efficient travel. Accordingly, the jobsite safety of the men
and women who build and maintain America's transportation
infrastructure--as well as that of those who travel through our work
zones and drive on our completed roadways--has been a top priority for
ARTBA's membership.
As an example of ARTBA's commitment to roadway safety, in 2016 we
launched the Safety Certification for Transportation Project
Professionals(tm) (SCTPP). This industry driven program aspires to
ensure the safety and well-being of construction workers, motorists,
truck drivers, pedestrians and their families by making transportation
project sites worldwide zero-incident zones.
The SCTPP credential aims to show employers and peers that
credentialed transportation professionals can identify common hazards
found on transportation project sites and correct them to prevent
safety incidents that could result in deaths or injuries. Earning the
professional certification also demonstrates command of
internationally-recognized core competencies for safety awareness and
risk management on transportation projects.
The program was accredited by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) in May 2018; well over 300 people have earned the
credential. And we are just beginning.
safer roads and work zones
ARTBA understands highway safety is an intricate balance between
the roadway infrastructure, the vehicle and the motorist. That
equilibrium is particularly challenged during construction operations
where workers labor barely inches away from motorists who are often
travelling at high rates of speed. We commend the committee for
happening to schedule this hearing during National Work Zone Awareness
Week, which for 20 years has promoted safety for all roadway users and
construction workers who navigate these potentially hazardous roadway
construction zones. ARTBA is particularly concerned with the trend of
increasing deaths and injuries on these sites.
Over the past eight years, work zone fatalities have increased
significantly, from 586 in 2010 to 799 in2017 (the latest year for
which data is available). That is a jump of over 30 percent. The table
below represents the number work zone-related fatalities, as tracked by
the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration's ``Fatality
Analysis Reporting System'' or FARS:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This trend is obviously moving in the wrong direction, and we agree
with the committee that a more serious investigation into the cause of
work zone fatalities--and all roadway fatalities--is urgently needed.
a focus on infrastructure
ARTBA's experience over the past 117 years has led to an
understanding that roadway users will make errors. Design, construction
and operation of the transportation network should emanate from this
premise, allowing for the development of a more ``forgiving'' roadway
system.
In the United States, this principle requires a new paradigm.
Today, much of America's basic road safety strategy today is aimed at
reducing human error. Most federal efforts focus on reducing the number
of crashes by improving motorists' behavior, including the interaction
of drivers with pedestrians, cyclists, large trucks and other
motorists. ARTBA believes we must turn that premise around by accepting
the fact that some motorists will inevitably make mistakes. Too often
they pay for their mistakes with their lives--or the lives of innocent
bystanders.
On all major routes--and others to the extent practicable--our
roadway system must anticipate user error and be designed, constructed,
equipped and operated to forgive the errant user and protect the
innocent worker, pedestrian, cyclist or other driver.
severity vs. frequency
In conjunction with reducing fatalities, ARTBA believes our
transportation system must be improved to reduce the severity of
incidents. In some situations, such as the use of roundabouts, a
possible increased rate in the frequency of accidents may be a viable
trade-off for a decrease in the severity of injuries. The U.S. should
prioritize the quality of human life and health above the rate of
traffic incidents.
ARTBA's premise does not remove responsibility from the driver to
operate his or her vehicle in a safe and courteous manner. All
transportation users have an obligation to follow laws, standards and
customs that promote safe and efficient use of the system. At the same
time, funds must be provided to give transportation system owners
greater opportunities to properly operate their systems.
To date, U.S. policy accepts the fact this is an imperfect system,
with a goal to reduce the unsafe consequences of that system. ARTBA
believes America's safety goal should be developing a transportation
system that features zero predictable crashes with severe
consequences--beginning with the major networks through to all other
roadways to the extent practicable.
paradigm shift
This vision requires a paradigm shift on two parallel tracks:
1. The focus of reducing incidents on America's transportation
system must be viewed asreducing severity of injuries as opposed to
reducing the number of crashes.
2. The policy anticipates user errors and emphasizes design,
construction and maintenance of asystem that will be ``forgiving'' of
errant behavior.
This change in philosophy is necessary because system users do not
have all the relevant information needed to make critical decisions
related to their safety and the safety of other users. For example,
drivers are repeatedly reminded: ``speed kills,'' but the problem is
not just speed but kinetic energy. Kinetic energy causes the damage in
a collision or a crash, yet users are blind to it. They feel safe when
they shouldn't. If the transportation system looked dangerous--and
hazards were visible in a manner which users could perceive and
appreciate--reliance on improved user behavior would be sufficient. The
design and operation of America's transportation system must compensate
for this information gap and systematically seek to eliminate such
invisible hazards.
On April 14, 2010, Dr. Ted Miller of the Pacific Institute for
Research & Evaluation (PIRE) offered testimony on this approach before
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.He made a
remarkable statement to Congress: ``The cost of crashes involving
deficient roadway conditions dwarf the costs of crashes involving
alcohol, speeding, or failure to wear a safety belt . . . Focusing as
much on improving road safety conditions as on reducing impaired
driving would save thousands of lives and billions of dollars each
year.'' He further estimated ``motor vehicle crashes in which roadway
conditions is a contributing factor cost the U.S. economy more than
$217 billion each year.''
Dr. Miller's comments were based on a significant research study
commissioned by the Transportation Construction Coalition--a
partnership of 31 national construction associations and construction
trade unions that is co-chaired by ARTBA and the Associated General
Contractors of America. Completed in 2009, the study is entitled, ``On
a Crash Course: The Dangers and Health Costs of Deficient Roadways.''
In the report Dr. Miller described several immediate solutions for
problem spots including using brighter and more durable pavement
markings, adding rumble strips to shoulders, mounting more guardrails
or safety barriers, and installing traffic signals and better signs
with easier-to-read legends. Dr. Miller emphasized: ``More significant
road improvements include replacing non-forgiving poles with breakaway
poles, adding or widening shoulders, improving roadway alignment,
replacing or widening narrow bridges, reducing pavement edges and
abrupt drop offs, and clearing more space on the roadside.''
Ten years later, the report's findings remain valid, and the state
of America's infrastructure may well be in worse condition now than it
was a decade ago. ARTBA's April 1 report on the state of U.S. bridges
found the pace of bridge repair in the U.S. is slowing. At the current
pace, it would take more than 80 years to replace or repair the
nation's structurally deficient bridges. That's longer than the average
life expectancy of a person living in the U.S. The report, based on an
analysis of the recently-released U.S. Department of Transportation
2018 National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database, revealed 47,052 bridges
are classified as structurally deficient and in poor condition. The
length of America's structurally deficient bridges if placed end-to-end
would span nearly 1,100 miles, the distance between Chicago and
Houston.
a history of congressional support
ARTBA commends Congress for its long-standing support of roadway
infrastructure safety. In the MAP-21 and FAST Act surface
transportation laws, Congress ensured that funds set aside for the
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) would be dedicated to highway
infrastructure safety improvements. The legislation also continued to
provide support for the National Work Zone Safety Information
Clearinghouse, a public-private partnership dedicated to providing
research, information, conferences and many other resources aimed at
improving roadway work zone safety. We hope Congress will continue to
support these important programs.
a first step
While there are many needs for roadway improvements--and demands on
resources to make those improvements are challenging--some efforts
simply require doing that which Congress has already identified as an
immediate need. For example, through federal rulemaking after the
SAFETEA-LU surface transportation law and further provisions in both
the MAP-21 and FAST Act laws, Congress and previous administrations
have expressed in a bipartisan manner the intent to use increased
positive separation between workers and motorists on construction
projects that present significant hazards to both workers and roadway
users. However, the law has not been fully implemented and positive
separation is still not used as regularly as Congress intended. New
products and technologies are available that make the practice more
practical and cost-effective.
Congress should continue to mandate the Federal Highway
Administration to strengthen areas of its Subpart K regulation in
accordance with the MAP-21 law that requires additional considerations
for use of positive separation. It should also institute provisions in
the next surface transportation law that allow for greater enforcement
and/or consequences for those who violate the law. Congress should also
urge FHWA to include similar positive separation considerations in the
agency's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The law is
clear and prescriptive as to when positive protective systems are to be
used by the owner/agency and should be followed accordingly.
conclusion
Improved safety on America's roadways is a critically important
goal. With limited resources it is imperative that Congress review all
the means available for saving lives and use those resources in a
manner that is most effective--both now and in the long term.
Investment in improved roadway infrastructure is a proven means to
achieve this goal, and will be effective independent of an individual's
behavior, whether he or she decides to act responsibly, or chooses to
drive impaired, distracted or fatigued.
We have the technology and ``know how'' to build our roadway system
to anticipate user error. It can be designed, constructed, equipped,
and operated to forgive the errant user and protect the innocent
victim. Sound investment in safe transportation infrastructure is a bi-
partisan priority. ARTBA encourages T&I Committee members to act in
urgency with their colleagues in other House committees and the Senate
to complete an infrastructure investment bill that will not only
improve transportation operations, but also dramatically reduce the
nearly 40,000 lives lost each year on America's roads.
Statement of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton
introduction
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) welcomes the opportunity to submit this testimony
related to safety on this nation's highways. AASHTO represents the
state departments of transportation (state DOTs) of all 50 States,
Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico.
The State DOTs appreciate the leadership of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, along with your Senate and
House peers in partner committees, in shepherding the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in December 2015. This legislation
has ensured stability in the federally-supported passenger rail,
freight, safety, highway, and transit programs through 2020.
The safety of all users of the transportation system is a top
priority for every state DOT and safety is one of AASHTO's key
reauthorization policy areas included as part of our Transportation
Policy Form (TPF). Under the direction of the TPF, the state DOTs last
year initiated an extensive 18-month effort to develop and adopt
reauthorization policy recommendations by October of this year. It is a
bottom-up process, where we are currently in the process of gathering
expert input from our wide range of technical committees comprising
leaders from all state DOTs. We're also seeking our industry partners'
input during this process prior to our formal adoption later next year,
in order to maximize the inclusivity of perspectives in our policy
recommendations to come.
In order to improve the safety of the transportation system for all
users, infrastructure owners and operators, such as state DOTs, must
take a multidisciplinary and data-driven approach to transportation
safety. Transportation safety performance is linked to a variety of
elements, including roadway design, traffic law enforcement, road user
behavior, and emergency crash response. Therefore, effective
transportation safety necessitates a multidisciplinary effort and
requires that the infrastructure owners and operators partner with a
range of stakeholders and exercise flexibility in how best to use
limited funding in order to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious
injuries.
As the owners and operators of a significant portion of this
nation's roadways, AASHTO members have been at the forefront in
ensuring a safe transportation system through safety innovation. In
2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) was
passed which requires states to use a performance-based management
approach to establish targets and then allocate funding to projects and
programs that will help a state achieve those targets. The law required
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), to establish a number of
national performance measures, of which safety is one of four major
groups. The law and subsequent regulations set certain requirements for
state DOTs to establish targets and to make progress towards achieving
those targets prior to imposing certain consequences. For safety, all
state DOTs must establish targets for five safety performance measures:
1. Number of fatalities on all public roads
2. Fatality rate on all public roads
3. Number of serious injuries on all public roads
4. Serious injury rate on all public roads
5. Number of non-motorist fatalities and serious injuries on all
public roads
State DOTs are able to establish their own targets for each safety
performance measure and must report their targets through their annual
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) report and the Highway Safety
Plan (HSP) report. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determines
whether a state DOT has made significant progress towards achieving
their targets if they meet or exceed four out of five targets or if
their final number is better than a baseline value calculated by FHWA.
If a state DOT is determined to have not made significant progress
towards their safety performance measures, FHWA will impose a number of
consequences.
Safety is considered one of the more mature performance management
areas since state DOTs have been establishing and reporting on many
different safety performance measures through their HSIP, Highway
Safety Plans, and Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) for nearly ten
years. The target-setting process a state DOT uses to establish their
targets is very comprehensive and data-driven. It is comprehensive in
that it includes many different stakeholders and addresses all public
roads and all users of the transportation system. It is data-driven in
that numerous sources of data are included in the analysis including
the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), law enforcement data,
serious injury databases, and roadway design elements. All of this data
and information is then used to better understand why crashes occurred
where and when they did. Finally, predictive tools and models are used
to better understand how best to program funding for specific projects
to prevent the crashes from occurring, be it countermeasures, design
elements, enforcement efforts, and/or public information campaigns.
Thus, an important aspect to programming funding is flexibility
both in how funds can be used among engineering, education, enforcement
and emergency services efforts as well as within the engineering domain
where state DOTs have the most control to identify which engineering
solution may be most appropriate to improve safety. In order to make
the best engineering decision, state DOTs have pooled their resources
to research and develop a number of different design guides that
transportation professionals can use to plan and design better and
safer transportation systems. The following are examples of the design
guides that the state DOTs have developed through AASHTO:
Highway Safety Manual \1\--provides a complete collection
of quantitative safety analysis methods to estimate crash frequency or
severity at a variety of locations in order to better plan and design
safer roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets \2\
(also known as the AASHTO Green Book)--presents a framework for the
geometric design of roadways that is flexible, multimodal, and
performance-based providing guidance to engineers and designers who
strive to make unique design solutions that meet the needs of all
highway and street users on a project-by-project basis. The newest
edition introduces a set of ``contextual'' classifications--such as
rural, rural town, suburban, urban, and urban core--that will help
better guide geometric design efforts to create more ``flexible and
performance-based'' designs for new projects as well as for existing
roads. Work has begun on the next edition, which is expected to fully
implement a multimodal, performance-based approach for road designers
to use to improve safety by meeting the needs of all roadway users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://store.transportation.org/item/collectiondetail/180
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of
Pedestrian Facilities \3\--provides guidelines for the planning,
design, operation, and maintenance of pedestrian facilities, including
signals and signing. The guide recommends methods for accommodating
pedestrians, which vary among roadway and facility types, and addresses
the effects of land use planning and site design on pedestrian
mobility. A new, updated edition of this guide is scheduled to be
published this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://store.transportation.org/Item/CollectionDetail?ID=131
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities \4\--
provides detailed planning and design guidelines on how to accommodate
bicycle travel and operation in most riding environments. It covers the
planning, design, operation, maintenance, and safety of on-road
facilities, shared use paths, and parking facilities. Flexibility is
provided through ranges in design values to encourage facilities that
are sensitive to local context and incorporate the needs of bicyclists,
pedestrians, and motorists. Work on a new edition is currently
underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://store.transportation.org/Item/CollectionDetail?ID=116
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on
Highways and Streets \5\--provides a comprehensive reference of current
practice in the geometric design of transit facilities on streets and
highways, including local buses, express buses, and bus rapid transit
operating in mixed traffic, bus lanes, and high-occupancy vehicle
lanes, as well as bus-only roads within street and freeway
environments. It also covers streetcars and LRT running in mixed
traffic and transit lanes, and within medians along arterial roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://store.transportation.org/Item/CollectionDetail?ID=133
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of these guides provide planners, engineers, and designers with
significant flexibility in how they ultimately design a transportation
project while taking into account the overall safety and operations of
the facility. These guides do not establish mandatory requirements for
how a project should be designed, rather they emphasize flexibility and
encourage planners, engineers, and designers to take into account the
unique aspects of each individual project. In fact, state DOTs are
adding even more flexibility to these guides while continuing to ensure
they remain research-based and peer-reviewed. For example, the next
edition of the Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets will
include updates to educate engineers and designers on the flexibility
inherent in the guide and further emphasize the multimodal nature of
our transportation system which includes all users.
Given the comprehensive nature of improving the safety of our
transportation system, the remainder of this testimony focuses on three
points that have been identified to date through the TPF process that
should be addressed in future federal surface transportation
authorization laws:
1. Continue to focus on implementation of the performance
management regulations;
2. The need to add flexibility for the use of HSIP funding; and
3. The need to add eligibility and increased federal share for
railway-highway grade crossing projects.
implementation of performance management regulations
All state DOTs are now in the process of implementing the
performance management requirements that were established in law as
part of MAP-21 and the FAST Act. The new and updated performance
management regulations were developed and published over a six year
time period beginning in 2013 and ending in 2018 with the publication
of the final rule regarding 23 CFR Sec. 490, National Performance
Management Measures, Subpart H and the FTA Safety final rule in July
2018. State DOTs are currently working to implement the first required
aspect of these provisions, which is to establish targets for the
federal performance measures, incorporate those targets into the
planning process, and report on progress towards achieving the targets.
Under the current rules, the first comprehensive report documenting and
analyzing the results of the first reporting cycle will not be
available until CY2022, at the earliest, since the first reporting
cycle goes from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021 \6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/faq.cfm#perf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AASHTO members believe the current regulations are working. A case
in point is the Missouri DOT (MoDOT) and their current efforts to
reduce fatalities and serious injuries on the public roadways. As with
all state DOTs, 2017 was the first year for which Missouri had to
establish safety targets for the five national-level safety performance
measures identified above for CY2018. From the beginning, MoDOT
established five-year targets by first establishing a goal for an
annual reduction in fatalities and serious injuries. MoDOT used their
strategic highway safety plan (called the Blueprint) goal of 700
fatalities by 2020, which had the support of many stakeholders
statewide, to drive these targets. Their initial 2017 targets for
fatalities was a seven percent reduction, with a four percent reduction
for serious injuries and for non-motorized users. These were considered
very aggressive targets since the number of fatalities had increased in
2015 and 2016.
MoDOT, unfortunately, did not achieve their aggressive targets set
in 2017 but was encouraged to see a reduction in the number of
fatalities nonetheless. For 2018, they continued to pursue their
Blueprint target of 700 fatalities by 2020 and set targets even more
aggressively at nine percent reduction for fatalities and five percent
reduction for serious injuries and four percent reduction for non-
motorized users. For 2019, they are proposing even more aggressive
targets of 13 percent reduction for fatalities, eight percent reduction
for serious injuries and a five percent reduction for non-motorized to
continue the course to reach the Blueprint target. Since the beginning
of federal safety targets, MoDOT has always set targets based on an
anticipated reduction each year. Fatality and serious injury numbers
started decreasing consistently in 2017 and continue as of this date.
Because of the data-driven process MoDOT used and setting
aggressive targets to improve safety, the Missouri Highways and
Transportation Commission allocated an additional $10 million in 2017
for safety projects. MoDOT supported the grass roots Buckle Up Phone
Down campaign which took aim at reducing distracted driving. And, in
2017, MoDOT targeted Natural Bridge Road in St. Louis that had three
times the number of pedestrian crashes compared to other similar
roadways (20 fatalities from 2012-2016). Since the multi-disciplinary
efforts of this innovative project started, there has only been one
pedestrian fatality, a decrease of 95% While MoDOT is seeing success in
their efforts to establish aggressive targets that aim to drive down
the number of fatalities and serious injuries we must remember that
MoDOT alone cannot be held responsible for a state's ultimate results.
MoDOT sets safety targets based on efforts to improve highway safety
using the comprehensive approach which includes engineering, education,
enforcement, emergency services, and public policy as well as
significant engagement with statewide partners, local agencies, and
elected officials as part of the solution for reducing fatalities.
The MoDOT story is but one of 52 examples occurring throughout the
United States. We believe it is an example of a true success story in
the way a data-driven process like performance management can be used
to identify areas of concern, agencies can set targets, and then
strategies identified to achieve those targets. To this end, AASHTO
recommends that no consideration be given to changing existing
regulations that would alter the current performance management
requirements until after at least two full reporting cycles in order to
give the state DOTs time and experience in addressing the regulations
which is 2026.
highway safety improvement program flexibility
Under current law, HSIP funds are restricted to use on specific
activities and cannot be used for education, enforcement, safety
research, or emergency medical service safety programs. The legislative
change in the FAST Act effectively restricts HSIP eligibility to only
28 strategies, activities or projects listed in the legislation,
eliminating the ability to use HSIP funds for public awareness and
education efforts, infrastructure and infrastructure-related equipment
to support emergency services, and enforcement of traffic safety laws
that are identified in the states' Strategic Highway Safety Plans.
Prior to the enactment of the FAST Act, state DOTs had the
flexibility to choose safety projects and programs that would lead to
the best safety outcome--whether the solutions were roadway safety
infrastructure projects or were implemented in combination with non-
infrastructure programs. SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 had provided this
flexibility in order to identify: 1) the right solution to fit the
unique needs of specific areas or stretches of roadway and to help
reverse a trend of increasing fatalities; 2) a systemic approach to
address a type of crash state wide; and/or 3) a behavioral issue in a
certain area or part of the population. Unfortunately, the FAST Act
changed the ability of state DOTs to truly implement a comprehensive
and data-driven process since states are limited in how they can use
their limited HSIP funding.
Ultimately, the FAST Act changes are inconsistent with the intent
of a state's Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which calls for a
multidisciplinary approach to reducing highway fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads. The lack of flexibility in safety project
selection in the HSIP program, particularly non-infrastructure related
activities, stifles innovative safety improvements and partnerships
that lead to crash reductions and reduced highway fatalities. AASHTO
recommends that Congress restore flexibility for states to use a
portion of HSIP funds for non-infrastructure safety programs and for
safety research.
railway-highway crossings
Crashes at highway-rail grade crossings are a perennial issue for
many state and local DOTs from a safety perspective. According to the
U.S. Government Accountability Office, railway-highway crossings are
one of the leading causes of railroad-related deaths \7\. According to
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) data, in 2017, there were
more than 2,100 crashes resulting in 273 fatalities. Since 2009 crashes
have occurred at a fairly constant rate. And, research sponsored by the
FRA identified vehicle driver behavior as the main cause of highway-
rail grade crossing crashes and that factors such as train and traffic
volume can contribute to the risk of a crash. In addition, over 70
percent of fatal crashes in 2017 occurred at grade crossings with
gates. Railway-highway crossings are an important contributor to a
state DOT's fatality and serious injury rates and through the 23 USC
Sec. 130 program, the federal government provides states funding to
improve grade-crossing safety. Within the 23 USC Sec. 130 Program,
there are four concerns that the state DOTs have: conflict related to
the federal share between 23 USC Sec. 120 and Sec. 130 programs, the
need for additional flexibility in the use of railway-highway funds,
the need to increase incentive payments for communities, and the
eligibility of projects for funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/695317.pdf
Federal Share--For the at-grade rail-highway crossing program,
there is a conflict in current law. 23 USC Sec. 120 allows for
a 100 percent federal share for certain safety projects or
projects within Indian reservations, national parks, and
national monuments while 23 USC Sec. 130, Railway-Highway
Crossing, set the federal share at 90 percent. This difference
in what is allowed for the total federal share has resulted in
a lot of confusion at both state DOTs and the FHWA. For
example, the FHWA allowed thirty-five states plus the District
of Columbia to incorrectly authorize 863 projects at 100
percent federal share (per 23 USC Sec. 120) rather than at 90
percent as currently provided in 23 USC Sec. 130. The FHWA is
now requiring states to reimburse the federal-aid program for
the difference on railway-highway crossing projects authorized
above the 90 percent share on or after April 14, 2016, which
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
totals over $26 million.
Unfortunately, decreasing the federal share to 90 percent and
requiring state DOTs to reimburse the federal-aid highway
program for the difference already approved and spent will be
counterproductive to the intent of the law and burdensome to
many of the localities where the projects were constructed for
two reasons.
First, many of the railway-highway crossing projects that were
originally allowed at the 100 percent federal share are located
in rural areas that are off the state highway system. And, most
of these locations are in small cities and counties that do not
have the financial resources to provide the needed ten percent
match for the cost of the projects.
Second, if the intent of the law is to improve safety and state
DOTs now have to reimburse FHWA for the $26 million, they
likely have to take money away from other projects that are
also designed to improve safety. Additional flexibility is
needed in order to assist rural counties and small cities
address their railway- highway crossing safety challenges.
Given the confusion and uncertainty that has been created by
the differences in these two sections of Title 23, AASHTO
recommends that the two sections be aligned to allow 100
percent participation of 23 USC Sec. 130 funds, resulting in
the funding being less restrictive to use at the local level
where the need is often greatest. AASHTO believes these changes
will provide significant safety benefits for rural areas where
rail-highway crossings can result in significant safety
concerns. In addition, AASHTO believes that the current
requirement that states reimburse the federal-aid highway
program for the $26 million be rescinded so that states can
continue to focus on safety.
Incentive payments--States and railroads may make incentive
payments of up to $7,500 for the permanent closure of at-grade
railway-highway crossings. Although there are set-aside funds
to help incentivize communities to close grade crossings, the
$7,500 limit is often not enough to convince local officials to
support closing these grade crossings, as the cost of such
projects are substantially more expensive than this amount.
AASHTO recommends that the $7,500 incentive payment amount be
increased to $100,000 in order to encourage the closure of at-
grade railway-highway crossings.
Eligibility--The current 23 USC Sec. 130 railway-highway
crossing program does not include replacement of functionally
obsolete warning devices as an eligible activity. While
research shows that a large percentage of crashes occur at
railway-highway crossing with gates, the research also shows
that modern and updated devices can reduce crashes occurring at
railway-highway crossings as well. Thus, AASHTO recommends
adding the replacement of functionally obsolete warning devices
with modern and innovative devices and techniques to the list
of eligible uses of 23 USC Sec. 130 funds.
conclusion
Every state DOT views a high priority of their work being to
provide a safe transportation system to the public. State DOTs have the
expertise, data, and analytics to understand where crashes are
occurring, how to mitigate the effect of those crashes, and program
limited funding to achieve critical safety targets. Ultimately, while
the state DOTs are held accountable for the federal performance
management safety target achievement, we must remember that state DOTs
alone are not solely responsible for achieving the safety targets.
Determining how best to mitigate crashes from occurring that result in
serious injuries and fatalities must include the ability for all
partners to:
design better infrastructure and vehicles;
educate the public about safe use of roadways regardless
of mode;
enforce existing laws and/or establish new laws; and
ensure emergency services are quick to arrive and well
equipped if a crash does occur.
Clearly, a state DOT has direct influence over some of these
efforts, but certainly not all. Other state agencies, local agencies,
elected officials and numerous other stakeholders are all part of the
solution for reducing fatalities and serious injuries and the federal
laws and regulations must be designed to enable a state DOT to have as
much flexibility as possible to focus limited funding on programs and
projects that have the potential to reduce the number of crashes as
much as possible.
AASHTO members encourage the Committee to continue to provide the
necessary funding and program flexibility in order to best meet the
safety challenges of today and best prepare for the safety challenges
of the future.
Letter from the Road to Zero Coalition, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Norton
April 9, 2019.
Hon. John Barrasso
307 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
Hon. Peter DeFazio
2134 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
Hon. Tom Carper
513 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
Hon. Sam Graves
1135 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairmen Barrasso and DeFazio and Ranking Members Carper and
Graves:
The Road to Zero coalition [https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/get-
involved/road-to-zero] believes reaching zero deaths on the nation's
roads is not impossible; it just has not been done yet. We are a broad-
based diverse group of organizations committed to eliminating roadway
fatalities by 2050. Over the past two years we have grown to more than
900 members from across the country representing every facet of the
transportation and safety communities. It is the first time so many
organizations have collaborated to put forth a plan to address
fatalities on our roads, which recently increased after years of
decline.
In 2018, the National Safety Council (NSC) estimates more than
40,000 people lost their lives in roadway crashes.\1\ Additionally,
pedestrian fatalities are at a higher level than any time in the last
25 years. This is unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/preliminary-
estimates/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone can do something to reduce fatalities on the roadway--
including government leaders, industry, safety experts, transportation
planners, engineers, technology providers, health professionals, and
advocates. Together, we have awarded eighteen Safe System Innovation
Grants for leading safety projects and issued a seminal report, The
Road to Zero: A Vision for Achieving Zero Roadway Deaths by 2050, on
how to reach this bold objective.
Double down on what works through proven, evidence-based
strategies
Advance life-saving technology in vehicles and
infrastructure
Prioritize safety by adopting a safe systems approach and
creating a positive safety culture
We hope this report and the goals in it can help you in your roles,
and the Road to Zero Coalition stands ready to assist and show how we
are implementing this vision each and every day across the United
States.
Sincerely,
19th Judicial District Court Baton Rouge 2eyes.justdrive 3
little Halos Safety Town 92nd District Court of Michigan Case
Management A Sobering Choice Coalition AAA AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety AARP AARP Driver Safety Acadian
Ambulance Service ACRT Inc. Active Transportation Alliance
Advanced Drivers of North America Advocates for Highway &
Auto Safety Agero Air Safety Engineering Alaska Child
Passenger Safety Coalition Alert Today Florida AlertDriving
Alexandria Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Alliance for a Healthy Orange County Alliance for Safe Kids
Alta Planning + Design ALTARUM, Center for Behavioral Health
Alvin Lester Amazon America Walks American Ambulance
Association American Association for Justice (AAJ) American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
American Automotive Leasing Association (AALA) American Bar
Association/NHTSA Judicial Outreach Liaison Chaney Taylor
American Bar Association/NHTSA Judicial Outreach Liaison Judge
Jack Kennedy American Bar Association/NHTSA Judicial Outreach
Liaison Judge Mary Jane Knisely American College of Emergency
Physicians American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Assn.
(ADTSEA) American Family Children's Hospital American
Highway Users Alliance/Roadway Safety Foundation American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) American Insurance
Association (AIA) American Motorcyclist Association
American Public Works Association (APWA) American Road and
Transportation Builders Association American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE)
American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA)
American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) American
Trucking Associations (ATA) Amy Stewart CSP AnnaLeah & Mary
for Truck Safety Anne Lusk, Ph.D. - Harvard T.H. Chan School
of Public Health Arcadis ARI Arizona Department of
Transportation Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department
Arrow Expedite, Inc. Association *Friends Of Road* for
Sikasso Mali (Africa) Association for Safe International Road
Travel (ASIRT) Association for the Advancement of Automotive
Medicine (AAAM) Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM)
Association of Ignition Interlock Program Administrators
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Association of National Stakeholders in Traffic Safety
Education Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals
(APSE) Association of Transportation Safety Information
Professionals Athens-Clarke County Atlanta Bike Austin
Transportation Department Autonontraffic B.R.A.K.E.S.
Baltimore City Department of Transportation Baltimore
Metropolitan Council Baton Rouge-Courts Baton Rouge
Planning Commission BCR Consulting LLC Beach Cities Cycling
Club Beaverhead Development Corporation Behind The Wheel
With ADHD Below 100 BenPohlSpeaks Benton County Arkansas
Berkeley Media Studies Group Berlin (VT) Police Deparatment
Better Eugene-Springfield Transit (BEST) Bicycle Coalition
of Maine Bicycle Colorado Big Picture Huntsville Bike
Cleveland Bike Pittsburgh Bike Routes 4 Fitness Inc. Bike
San Diego BikeWalkKC Blue Hills Neighborhood Assoc.
Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio Boone County Highway
Department, IL Boone County Public Works, KY Borough of
Kennett Square Borough of Matamoras Borough of
Nesquehoning, PA Borris Automotive & Safety Solutions
Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) Brain
Injury Association of America Brandmotion Breakthru
Beverage Bristol-Myers-Squibb Broadspectrum Buchanan
County Secondary Roads-IA Buckle Up for Life Buckle Up Your
Pet Butte Cares Inc. C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, Injury
Prevention Program California University of PA California
Walks Cape Canaveral City Council Cape Coral Police
Department Capital District Transportation Committee-New York
Capitol Region Council of Governments Traffic Planner
car2go North America Carol Stream Police Department Cary
Medical Center Casanova Powell Consulting Cascade Bicycle
Club Casey Feldman Foundation CDC-National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control CDC-(NIOSH) CDC Center for
Disease Control and Prevention CEC Electrical CellSlip
Transport Hartford Academy at the Center for Latino Progress
Center for Safe Alaskans Center for Seabees Facilities
Engineering Center for Transportation Safety Center for
Transportation Research at the USF Center for Vehicle Safety
Centerstone Kentucky Chesapeake Region Safety Council
Maryland Chapter Chicago Department of Transportation Child
Injury Prevention Alliance Children and Parent Resource
Group, Inc. Children's Mercy Hospital Citizen Response
Corps City of Akron (OH) Police Department City of Atlanta
Office of Mobility Planning City of Bethlehem City of
Birmingham (AL) Traffic Engineering Department City of
Boulder City of Bowling Green City of Broken Arrow, OK
City of Charlotte City of Charlotte Vision Zero City of
Chicago City of Cincinnati City of Columbia, MO City of
Coweta, OK City of Cupertino Safe Routes to School City of
Dallas City of Decatur, AL City of Dillon, MT City of
Durango City of Durant, OK City of Durham Department of
Transportation City of East Point, Georgia City of
Edgewater City of Elganger City of Eugene City of Fort
Lauderdale City of Fremont City of Hardy, Arkansas City
of Hernando City of Irvine City of Kalamazoo-Public
Services Department City of Kissimmee City of Lakeland
City of Lansing, Michigan City of Longwood, FL City of
Louisville City of Marshall, IL City of Memphis City of
Monterey City of Morgantown, WV City of Mountain Brook
City of Naples City of North Miami Beach, FL City of
Norwalk, CT City of Omaha City of Orlando Transportation
Department City of Philadelphia City of Pittsburgh
Department of Mobility and Infra. City of Richmond, CA City
of Richmond, VA City of Roanoke City of Rolling Meadows
City of San Antonio-TCI City of San Jose City of Santa Ana
City of Santa Monica, CA City of Shreveport City of West
Memphis City of West Palm Beach City of Westchester (NY)
Safe Streets City of Westfield City of Whittier (CA) Police
Department Clackamas County Drive to Zero Clark County, WA
Clastran Coastal Carolina University Department of Public
Safety College of Southern Maryland Collegiate Life
Investment Foundation (CLIF) Colorado Drive Safe Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance Community Action Partnership of
Orange County Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
Community Initiatives (Sponsor of Vision Zero Network)
Connecticut DOT Connecticut Highway Safety Office/Department
of Transportation Coner Lynch Foundation Consumer
Technology Association Conway Police Department Coshocton
County Engineer's Office Cowboy Barriers LLC Cranberry
Township, PA Crane 1 Services Creative Visions Cross
County Connection TMA CTIA-Everything Wireless Cycling
Advocates of Southern Arizona (CASAz) Daimler Trucks North
America Dakota County Attorney's Office DC Government
Decide2drive Dee Davila-Estelle Delaware General Health
District Delfasco, LLC Delhaize America, LLC Delphi
Automotive DENSO Department of Homeland Security
Department of the Navy Distribution Inc. District
Department of Transportation District Department of
Transportation-Highway Safety Office Doodnauth Thompson
Dothan-Houston County Substance Abuse Partnership Douglaston
Local Development Corporation Draper Drive Smart Drive
Smart Virginia Drivers Education of Southern Maryland, Inc.
Driving Dynamics Duke Trauma Center Dulles Greenway Eagle
Ridge Institute East New York 4 Gardens Inc Econometrica,
Inc. Ecostratas Services eDriving Educational
Alternatives OBA Oklahoma Community El Paso County, CO
Embark Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Emergency
Medical Services for Children Center Emergency Medicine
Foundation EMS for Children Innovation and Improvement Center
Eno Center for Transportation Equipment & Controls, Inc.
Erie County (Ohio) Engineer's Office Escambia County BCC
eSociates ESRP Corporation EthosEnergy Field Services
Family, Career and Community Leaders of America Fathers
Against Distracted Driving (FADD) Federal Highway
Administration-Illinois Federal Highway Administration-Texas
Division Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal
Highway Administration Safety R&D Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) FedEx FIA Foundation
Fighting Back Santa Maria Valley First Group Fleet Complete
FleetGuide Florida Department of Transportation Florida
Law Enforcement Liaison Program Florida T2 Center Florida
Teen Safe Driving Coalition Ford Driving Skills for Life
Ford Motor Company Fund & Community Services Forks Township
Forty Fort Police Department Forward Pinellas Foundation
for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility (FAAR) Foundation for
Safe Driving Franklin Regional Council of Governments
Fullerton Collaborative GAF Gas Station TV The General
Sessions Music City Community Court, VIII George L. Reagle
and Associates George Washington University Hospital Global
Automakers Global Brake Safety Council Global Health
Advocacy Incubator GO Bike Buffalo Goodhue County Health
and Human Services Governors Highway Safety Association
(GHSA) Governors State University-Campus Police Department
Grand River Navigation Company Graves County Road Department
Guam Office of Highway Safety Gulf Breeze Police
Department, FL Guts of Grief H.E.A.R.T. Coalition, Inc.
Haas Alert Handytube Hang Up and Drive Harford County
Sheriff's Office Hawaii Bicycling League Hays Companies
Health by Design Healthy Communities of Brownsville, Inc.
HED Academy Hennepin County Public Works Here Hernando
County Community Anti-Drug Coalition Higher Education Center
for Alcohol and Drug Prevention Hill County Road Dept
Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office Hitch42 LLC Holly
Springs Police Department (GA) Hollywood Crawford Door
Company Honda Motors Howard County Fire and Rescue Howard
University Hospital-Injury Prevention Human Factors and
Machine Lab at Texas A&M Humboldt General Hospital EMS Rescue
Hydrokinetics Illinois Department of Transportation
Illinois Safety Consultants llluminite360 IMMI Impact
Teen Drivers Improve Hybrid Safety In Control Family
Foundation In Memory of Tristan Beckett Schultz
Independence County Road Department Indian Health Service
Injury Prevention Center at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Injury
Prevention Center of Greater Dallas lnova Injury Prevention
and Outreach Institute for Car Crash Justice Institute for
Transportation at Iowa State University Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries, Inc. Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Institute of Transportation Engineers Public
Fellow Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
Intelligent Car Coalition Interactive Education Concepts
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
International Association of EMS Chiefs International Center
for Automotive Medicine lnviro Solutions Group Ion Science
Iowa Methodist Medical Center Iowa-Illinois Safety Council
iRap ITE Public Fellow Member J.D. Power J&M Tank Lines
Jefferson County Iowa Jessica and Kelli Uhl Memorial
Foundation JodenesVoice John Burns Construction Company
Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy Johns
Hopkins International Injury Research Unit Johnson County
Trails JPACC Foundation Just Drive, Inc. Justice Speakers
Institute Justicia Vial Kahn Media Inc. Katasi, Inc.
Katherine Wilson Art Kelly, Remmel, and Zimmerman Bike Law
Ken's Beverage Inc. Keolis Transit America KidsAndCars.org
Kimley-Horn Kinetic Metrics LLC Kittelson & Associates
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. Knoxville Regional
Transportation Planning Organization KSPAN-KY Safety &
Prevention Alignment Network Kwik Trip Laborers' Health &
Safety Fund of North America Lake Forest Park Citizens'
Commission Lance Wheeler Memorial Roadway Safety Initiative
Landstar Transportation Logistics, Inc. Lane Council of
Governments Lansing Area Safety Council LaSalle County
Highway Department LeasePlan USA Lexington-Fayette Urban
County Government Liberty Mutual LifeFlight Eagle
LifeSaverApp LLC Lime Lindsey Research Services LLC LINK
Houston LivableStreets Alliance LOOK! Save A Life Lorain
County Public Health, OH Los Angeles DOT Los Angeles Police
Department Los Angeles Walks Louisiana Bureau of EMS
Louisiana Center for Transportation Safety Louisiana
Destination Zero Deaths Louisville Metro Department of Public
Works and Assets Loyola University New Orleans Lyft Lytx,
Inc. M-C North America Inc. MADD MADD-Maine Chapter
MADD Washington State Chapter Madison County Safety Coalition
Mahube-OTWA Community Action Partnership Main Line Health
Center for Population Research Malcolm Omari Hill Scholarship
Fund Inc. Manatee County Public Works Marc and Tamara
Schwartz Marconi Pacific, LLC Massachusetts Department of
Transportation Massachusetts State Police McLean County
Planning Commission (Illinois) Mechanical Systems Company,
LLC Mecklenburg Safe Communities MedStar Washington
Hospital Center Message Loud MGA Research Michigan State
University Mid-Region Council of Governments (NM) Milt Olin
Foundation Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety Minnesota
Toward Zero Deaths Mississippi Safety Services Missouri
Bicycle & Pedestrian Federation Mobileye Vision Technologies
Inc. Mobility 4 All, GBC Montana State University-Western
Transportation Monterey County Health Department Montgomery
County District Attorney's Office-Texas Montgomery County,
Maryland Government-Vision Morgan State University Motor
Carriers of Montana Motor Equipment and Manufacturers
Association Motorcycle Riders Foundation Mount Joy Borough
Mourning Parents Act, Inc. Muller Welding Company Munich
Reinsurance America Inc. NAFA Fleet Management Association
Nassau Alcohol Crime Drug Abatement Coalition Nassau County,
FL National/Local Technical Assistance Program Association
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (TRB)
National Advanced Driving Simulator University of Iowa
National Association of Attorneys General National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) National
Association of Counties (NACo) National Association of County
Engineers (NACE) National Association of Development
Organizations (NADO) National Association of Emergency
Medical Technicians (NAEMT) National Association of State EMS
Officers National Association of State Head Injury
Administrators National Association of State Motorcycle
Safety Administrators National Association of Trailer
Manufacturers (NATM) National Association of Women Highway
Safety Leaders National Center for DWI Courts National
Center for Rural Road Safety at Montana State University
National Center for Safe Routes to School-UNC Highway Center
National Child Passenger Safety Board National Coalition for
Safer Roads National Coalition for the Homeless National
Complete Streets Coalition/Smart Growth America National
District Attorneys Association (NOAA) National District
Attorneys Association/National Traffic Law National EMS
Management Association National Fire Protection Association
National Foundation for Teen Safe Driving National Governors
Association (NGA) National Governors Association Center for
Best Practices National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Judicial National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Public Health National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Tribal Judicial Fellow National Institute of Health-National
Institute on Aging National League of Cities (NLC) National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National
Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago National
Organizations for Youth Safety (NOYS) National Safety
Council-Chesapeake Region Safety Council National Safety
Council-Nebraska Safety Council National Safety Council-North
Dakota Safety Council National Safety Council-Ohio Chapter
National Safety Council-Oklahoma Safety Council National
Safety Council-Safety Council of SW Ohio National Safety
Council (NSC) National Safety Council of Northern New England
National Safety Council of South Carolina National Safety
Council/National Child Passenger Safety Board National
Sheriffs Association National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) National Waste and Recycling Association Nationwide
Insurance Naumann Hobbs Material Handling Nauto, Inc.
NAVAIR/Military/NAS Patuxent River Naval Safety Center
NavFac Bethesda NC DWI Services NDOT Highway Safety Office
Nebraska Bicycling Alliance Nebraska Department of
Transportation Highway Safety Network of Employers for
Traffic Safety (NETS) Nevada Highway Patrol Nevada Office
of Traffic Safety New Mexico Department of Transportation
New Mexico DOT Traffic Safety Division New Mexico DOT New
Mexico LTAP Center New Middletown Police New York City
New York City-Department of Transportation New York City
Police Department Nexar Nikhil Badlani Foundation NJM
Insurance Company NLTAPA NNID Foundation Inc. NoCell
Technology Nonprofits Insurance Alliance Group North
Carolina DOT Rail Division North Carolina Division of Public
Health North Central Texas Council of Governments North
Dakota Department of Transportation North Jersey
Transportation Planning Authority Northeast Transportation
Connections Northeastern New York Safety & Health Council
Northeastern University Northwest Missouri Regional Council
of Governments Northwestern Medicine Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Energy, Installations and
Environment Office of the Attorney General, DC Office of
the Chief Judge-Circuit Court of Cook County Office of
Emergency Medical Services, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Oklahoma Insurance Department Oklahoma State University
Open Data Nation Operation Lifesaver, Inc. Orbcomm Oregon
Walks Our Driving Concern Oklahoma Our Driving Concern
Texas PA Trauma Systems Foundation PACE Coalition Pace
Suburban Bus Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization
Palmetto Cycling Coalition Palouse Injury Research
Laboratory-University of Idaho Parachute Vision Zero Network
Paramedic Foundation Partnership for Change Patricia E.
Adams, DTM Patriot Rail Company LLC Paul Shindman Pedal
Pushers, LLC Pedestrians Educating Drivers on Safety, Inc.
PedNet Coalition Pendleton County Fiscal Court/Road Dept.
Pennsylvania DUI Association People That Care, Inc. Perry
Township Pete Stoppani Consulting LLC Philip B Demosthenes
LLC Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) Police
Foundation Port Vue Borough Preco Electronics Prevention
Institute Prince Georges County Professor Gregory Shill
ProFrac Services, LLC Progistics Distribution, Inc.
Promedica Hospital Property Casualty Insurers Association of
America Protective Insurance Company Psychemedics
Corporation Public Health Institute Puerto Rico Safety
Group, Inc. Pulse by Safety F1rst Quanta Services R+L
Carriers Inc. RADO Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. Regional
Transportation Commission, Washoe County Remember Me Rhode
Island Department of Transportation Rhode Island Traffic
Safety Coalition Richland County Regional Planning Ridar
Systems Ridge Policy Group Rimkus Consulting Group RMT
Calgary Road Runner Media Road Safe America Road-iQ
Roadside Guardian Roadway Safety Foundation Roane County
Anti-Drug Coalition Robert Bosch LLC Roberta Carlson-Total
ControlTraining Robinson Engineering Ltd. Rockdale County
DOT (GA) Rockland County Department of Health (NY) Rocky
Mountain Tribal Epidemiology Center Rowan University Roy
Jorgensen Associates Russell Hurd Rutgers University-CAIT
Safe Bus For Us Safe Communities MDC Safe Kids Safe Kids
Austin Safe Kids Grand Forks Safe Kids Pima County Safe
Kids Thurston County Safe Kids Worldwide Safe Roads
Alliance Safe States Alliance SAFE.voyage Safety Center
Incorporated Safety Compliance Associates SafetyBeltSafe
U.S.A. SafetySock SafeWise San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency Sara's Wish Foundation The Sawaya
Foundation Schneider National, Inc. Seattle & King County
Department of Public Health Seattle Neighborhood Greenways
Secure Your Load Sentinel Transportation, LLC SFARA
Shasta County Chemical People Shenandoah Valley Bicycle
Coalition Shreya R. Dixit Memorial Foundation Silicon
Valley Bicycle Coalition Skilled Motorcyclist Association-
Inc. Slow Roll Chicago Smart Growth America/National
Complete Streets Coalition SmartDrive Systems, Inc.
Snohomish County District Court Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) International Southern Alleghenies Planning &
Development Commission Southern Chester County Regional
Police Department Southwest Renewal Foundation of High Point,
Inc. Specific Range Solutions Square One Education Network
St. John Trauma Center St. Joseph Mercy Hospital-Oakland
St. Joseph, Missouri Planning Organization St. Joseph's
University, Beirut Stapleton Foundation Stone County
StopDistractions.org StopUnderrides.com Stratacomm
StreetSafeUS Students AgainstDestructive Decisions (SADD)
Subaru Substance Abuse Free Environment, Inc. Survive the
Ride SurvivetheDrive.org Suwannee Lumber Company Swedish
Transport Administration Syngenta Taking Texas to Zero
Tampa Police Department Tangipahoa Reshaping Attitudes for
Community TCW, Inc. Techstring Teen Safe Driving
Coalition of NJ Tenneco Tennessee Child Passenger Safety
Center Tennessee Department of Health Tennessee Department
of Transportation Tennessee Tech University, iCube Texans
Standing Tall Texas A&M-Applied Cognitive Ergonomics Lab
Texas A&M NeuroErgonomics Laboratory Texas A&M Transportation
Institute-Transportation Texas A&M University Texas
Department of Transportation Texas Municipal Courts Education
Center Texas Transportation Commissioner Thackery Group
The Chemours Company The Connor Johnson Memorial Foundation
The Crim Fitness Foundation The Dutch Reach Project The
Gillen Group The John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated
Drivers The KDR Challenge The Lance Wheeler Memorial
Roadway Safety Initiative The Lane Construction Corp. The
League of American Bicyclists The LA County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority The Mitre Corporation The
Paramedic Foundation The Ray The Sandy Johnson Foundation:
Making Our Roads Safer The SmartDrive Foundation The
Trucking Alliance The University of Tennessee Center for
Transportation Research The Wonderful Corporation
ThinkFirst National Injury Prevention Foundation Thompson
Driving TOCSS FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL USA INC Together for
Safer Roads Tom Wood Group Toole Design Group ToughLove
Corporation Town of Danville Department of Public Works
Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea Toyota Collaborative Safety
Research Center Traffic PD Traffic Safety Education
Foundation TransOptions Transportation Alternatives
Transportation4 America Transystems Trauma Agency-Health
Care District Palm Beach County Travelers Travelers
Institute Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Truck
Safety Coalition Truckload Carriers Association TrueMotion
Trumbull Walks Tulare County Association of Governments
U.S. DOT-OST U.S. DOT-Transportation Safety U.S. Department
of Transportation-Volpe Center U.S. Department of
Transportation (US DOT) U.S. Department of Transportation
OCIO Uber UFG Insurance University Children Hospital
Injury Prevention Center University of Alabama-Birmingham
Youth Safety Lab University of Alabama Translational Research
for Injury University of British Columbia Sustainable
Transport UC Berkeley SafeTREC University of California,
San Diego University of Idaho University of Iowa Injury
Prevention Research Center University of Michigan
Transportation Research University of Minnesota-Roadway
Safety Institute University of Mississippi Medical Center
(UMMC) University of NM, Dept of Civil, Construction
University of North Florida University of South Alabama-
Transportation Safety Lab University of Texas at San Antonio
University of Utah Upper Dublin Township, OH Upper Merion
Area Community Alliance for a Safer Tomorrow Urban Health
Partnerships USAA USAF Auxiliary, CAP, Oregon Wing USDOT-
Office of the Secretary of Transportation Utah Safety Council
Varsity Sports Unlimited VB Safety Services, LLC Velodyne
LiDAR Velvac Vermont Center For Independent Living
Vermont Highway Safety Alliance Village of Blanchester-Ohio
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles/Highway Safety Virginia
Tech Transportation Institute Virginia Tech, Center for
Injury Biomechanics Virginia Trucking Association Vision
Impact Institute Vision Zero-NYC DOT Vision Zero Amarillo
Vision Zero Greensboro Vision Zero Network Vision Zero
Network-City of Boston Vision Zero North Carolina Vision
Zero North Carolina/North Carolina State University VOLPE
Center-U.S. Department of Transportation Volvo Trucks VR
Motion Corp. Walk Boston Walk Denver Walk It! Bike It!
Lewisburg Walk Long Beach Walk San Francisco Washington
College GIS Program Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Waste Management Waycare Technologies Wayne State
University Transportation Research Group Waze WCA Waste of
Texas We Save Lives West Side Youth Development Coalition
WV Connecting Communities Westat Western Carolina
University Western Kentucky University Western OK TSET
Healthy Living Program Whitehall Township Wichita State
University Visual Perception and Cognition Lab Wiessinger
Consulting LLC Winthrop Harbor Police Department Wiomax
Wireless Research Center of NC Worth Township, PA Wyoming
Department of Transportation Wyoming Montana Safety Council
Yakama Nation DNR Engineering Youth Safety Council of Vermont
Youth Towers Zendrive Zero Fatalities Iowa Zurich
Insurance
Statement of J. Scott Marion, President-Infrastructure, Lindsay
Corporation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Lipinski
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I read the Committee's
press release announcing today's hearing, ``Every Life Counts:
Improving the Safety of our Nation's Roadways,'' with great interest
and respectfully would like to submit the following comments for the
record.
For more than six decades, Lindsay Transportation Solutions has
been dedicated to developing products and services that help make roads
safer. Construction work zones are growing in number around the
country. The natural aging of existing roadway infrastructure ensures
that more and more maintenance and rehabilitation will be required. Our
goal is to reduce traffic congestion and to improve safety forboth
motorists and work crews through the use of innovative tools and state-
of-the-art technology.
Work zones, by their very definition, create two major issues that
must be addressed in some way:safety and mobility. In the United
States, highway work zones are responsible for almost 25% of all non-
recurring congestion and 10% of overall congestion. According to the
National Workzone Safety Information Clearinghouse, there were 799 work
zone-related fatalities in the U.S. in 2017--up 4.5% from the previous
three-year average of 764.
Vehicle accidents are more common in work zones, and traffic
congestion through work zones on urban arterials and freeways is often
considered to be ``unavoidable.'' Fortunately, technology is providing
new solutions to these problems at an accelerated rate. By combining
the best of these new technologies, agencies can effectively reduce
injury accidents and mitigate traffic congestion through construction
work zones.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Strategic Plan for FY
2018-2022 establishes DOT's strategic goals and objectives for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2018 through FY 2022. It reflects the Secretary's priorities
for achieving DOT's mission through four strategic goals:
Safety: Reduce Transportation-Related Fatalities and
Serious Injuries Across the TransportationSystem.
Infrastructure: Invest in Infrastructure to Ensure
Mobility and Accessibility and to StimulateEconomic Growth,
Productivity and Competitiveness for American Workers and Businesses.
Innovation: Lead in the Development and Deployment of
Innovative Practices and Technologies that Improve the Safety and
Performance of the Nation's Transportation System.
Accountability: Serve the Nation with Reduced Regulatory
Burden and Greater Efficiency,Effectiveness and Accountability.
As you and your colleagues work to repair America's infrastructure
during a time where our roads, bridges and other infrastructure are
desperately in need of investment, we must be creative and innovative
in addressing these needs in ways that allow every tax dollar to be
spent more efficiently andeffectively and still meet the Secretary's
priorities for achieving DOT's mission through the fourstrategic goals
outlined in the DOT's Strategic Plan.
The utilization of innovative technologies that help manage lanes
and construction applications tocreate ``Safe, Dynamic Highways''
offering real-time roadway reconfiguration while maintaining positive
barrier protection between lanes can assist in meeting the strategic
goals outlined in the DOT's Strategic Plan. For instance, to reduce
worker exposure, moveable barrier installations can becombined with
automated traffic control technology. At the push of a button, traffic
advisory signs and lane closure gates can be activated to channel road
users into the current lane configuration.
These automated control systems can be operated onsite or remotely,
or they can be combined with real-time intelligent traffic data that
can analyze traffic patterns to determine the best times to reconfigure
the roadway. Data from the cloud is sent to automated traffic control
as well as the moveable barrier system operators to keep traffic
congestion and road closure confusion to a minimum through the work
zone. Together, these new technologies will create safer, less
congested work zone environments for motorists and provide greater
safety for workers by decreasing exposure to vehicles and removing
confusion from lane configuration changes.
We welcome the opportunity to work with you and your staff as you
begin to consider the scope and reach of an infrastructure bill and we
strongly urge the committee to consider the role that innovative
technologies, like moveable barriers, can play in assisting Congress in
addressing roadway improvements and congestion while improving the
safety of our nation's roadways.
Letters from the Coalition for Future Mobility, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Graves of Missouri
April 10, 2019.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member, Transportation and Infrastructure, 2164 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chair, Highways and Transit, 2136 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Rodney Davis
Ranking Member, Highways and Transit, 1740 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chair Norton, and Ranking
Member Davis:
In 2017, more than 37,000 lives were lost on U.S. roadways,
including approximately 6,000 pedestrians. According to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 94% of all vehicle crashes--
including the crashes that take the lives of roadway users--are due to
human choice or error.
The Coalition for Future Mobility (CFM), a diverse, multi-
stakeholder group representing auto manufacturers, suppliers,
repairers, technology and communications companies, mobility providers,
state and city governments, safety and national security groups,
consumers, seniors, persons with disabilities, and others, writes to
underscore the critical role automated vehicles (AVs) could play in
helping to reduce the number of crashes and lives lost due human choice
or error.
Current federal safety programs focus primarily on behavior--such
as incentives to states to increase seat belt use, as well as educating
the public about drunk driving or resources to increases enforcement
programs, which were established before AV safety technologies were
created. We hope that the details uncovered at this hearing serve as a
reminder that the status quo of primarily working to support driver
behavioral programs alone cannot be expected to eliminate or
substantially reduce roadway crashes and fatalities. We encourage you
to support legislation and regulatory updates that help to promote
safety technologies--including automated vehicle technologies as a way
to lessen the more than 37,000 fatalities on our nation's roadways.
Further information on the potential benefits of AV technology and
bipartisan AV legislation can be found on the attached letter that our
coalition sent to all Members of Congress on February 26, 2019. We at
CFM look forward to working with you to help improve safety by
lessening the loss of life on U.S. roadways.
The Coalition for Future Mobility
Enclosure
enclosure--letter from the coalition for future mobility sent to
congress on february 26, 2019
February 26, 2019.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, H-232, The
Capitol, Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Kevin McCarthy
Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, H-204, The Capitol,
Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader, United States Senate, S-230, The Capitol, Washington,
DC 20510
Hon. Charles Schumer
Minority Leader, United States Senate, S-221, The Capitol, Washington,
DC 20510
Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Senate Majority Leader
McConnell, and Minority Leader Schumer:
Roughly two years ago, the Coalition for Future Mobility--a group
of key stakeholders that represents a wide cross section of auto
manufacturers, suppliers, repairers, technology companies, mobility
providers, state and local governments, safety and national security
groups, consumers, seniors, and persons with disabilities--was created
to highlight the critical need for a federal framework that allows for
the safe development, testing, and deployment of automated vehicles
(AVs) here in the United States. We write to thank those Members of
Congress who were involved in working to pass AV legislation in the
115th Congress and urge you to continue those efforts this year.
Without question, Congress is uniquely suited to help provide greater
clarity regarding both state and federal authorities that can help when
it comes to the safe testing, development, and deployment of AV
technologies.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
found that human choice or error is a factor in approximately 94% of
all motor vehicle crashes on U.S. roads--crashes that took the lives of
over 37,000 men, women, and children in 2017. By facilitating
technology that can potentially eliminate these bad choices and
unintentional errors, we can help prevent many crashes from happening
and dramatically reduce injuries and fatalities on our roadways.
While safety is a critical component in the drive for the
development of AVs, these vehicles can also provide life-changing
opportunities for those who are not adequately served by current
mobility options, such as seniors, persons with disabilities, and those
who require more affordable transportation. Further, the benefits of
these vehicles extend to other roadway users. Large-scale AV
implementation could also mean less congestion and greater efficiency
on our roads.
Last Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate
recognized the importance of providing a federal framework for AVs. The
House of Representatives passed the bipartisan SELF DRIVE Act (H.R.
3388) without a vote in opposition. Shortly after the House acted, the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation unanimously
passed similar legislation. In spite of strong, bipartisan support,
legislation was unable to receive floor consideration in the Senate.
Our coalition encourages you and your colleagues to redouble your
efforts to move forward with legislation that will help improve safety,
provide a tech-neutral path forward for private industry to innovate,
and ensure clarity for regulators at all levels of government.
The status quo should not be acceptable. Recognizing the potential
of this technology to positively impact millions of Americans, we urge
you to support a federal AV framework this Congress. Our Coalition
members stand ready to work with you.
3M 60 Plus Alliance for Transportation Innovation
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers American Council of the
Blind American Highway Users Alliance American Network of
Community Options and Resources Americans for Tax Reform
Aptiv Argo AI, LLC Aurora Automotive Service Association
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
Association of Global Automakers Competitive Enterprise
Institute CTIA Digital Liberty Harman Mobileye Motor
& Equipment Manufacturers Association Narcolepsy Network
National Association of Manufacturers National Cued Speech
Association National Federation of the Blind National
Taxpayers Union R Street Institute Securing America's
Future Energy Segs4Vets Telecommunications Industry
Association Third Way U.S. Pan Asian American Chamber of
Commerce U.S. Tire Manufacturers Via What3Words Wine &
Spirits Wholesalers of America
cc: All Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senators
Statement of Benjamin Harvey, President, E.L. Harvey & Sons Inc., on
behalf of the National Waste and Recycling Association, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Graves of Missouri
Good morning, Chairman Holmes Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and
Members of the Committee. My name is Benjamin Harvey and I am the
President of E. L. Harvey & Sons Inc. located in Westborough, Mass. E.
L. Harvey & Sons is a full-service waste and recycling firm that
provides services for commercial and industrial corporations and
municipalities throughout eastern Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Maine. My company is a member of the National Waste &
Recycling Association, also known as NWRA, which I am representing
before the committee today in my capacity as the association's
chairman.
NWRA is the voice in the nation's capital for the private-sector
waste and recycling industry that is essential to maintaining the
quality of American life. The delivery of waste and recycling services
impacts all residential, commercial, and industrial properties on a
daily basis. Apart from the U.S. Postal Service, the waste and
recycling industry is one of the few, if not the only other, that
travels on every roadway in the country at least once each week.
Association members operate in all 50 states and the District of
Columbia and can be found in most, if not all, U.S. congressional
districts. Waste and recycling facilities number nearly 18,000
scattered throughout the U.S., mirroring population centers. Our nearly
700 members are a mix of publicly-traded and privately-owned local,
regional, and Fortune 500 national and international companies.
The industry directly employs about 420,000 people as of early 2018
with a total payroll of more than $21 billion. It is estimated that the
private sector waste and recycling industry accounts for over one
million jobs and generates nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars in
U.S. GDP.
Tens of thousands of these hard-working men and women in the waste
and recycling industry become vulnerable road users everyday as part of
their job. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has named the waste and
recycling collector as the fifth most dangerous occupation (2018).\1\
In 2017, ``Waste and Recycling'' had 33 fatalities, of which 23 were
transportation related.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0016.pdf
\2\ Ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety is the number one value for the waste and recycling
industry. The goal each day is for every worker and driver to go home
safely at the end of their shifts, without a crash, injury or fatality.
Our work is focused on making collection, processing, and disposal
operations less dangerous by encouraging safety training as well as
providing assistance in complying with regulations and company safety
rules and policies.
Despite these industry efforts, distracted driving by motorists
with whom we share the road puts waste and recycling drivers and
workers at risk every day. Many of the transportation related
fatalities were caused by inattentive or distracted drivers who failed
to yield to waste and recycling collection vehicles. Most of the time,
the danger is the same as that experienced by police officers, fire
fighters, and tow truck drivers who are stopped along the side of the
road.
The private sector of the waste and recycling industry has a
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) fleet of more than 100,000 collection
trucks and an even greater number of CMV Drivers. These trucks are
primarily Heavy-Duty Vehicles as defined by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) with a GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds. The
industry's fleet includes, but is not limited to, waste and recycling
collection trucks, roll-off trucks, post collection tractor trailers,
container delivery, and grapple trucks.
The waste (garbage, trash, solid waste) and recycling (paper,
plastic, aluminum, metal, compost) collection trucks that service
nearly every American household and business are the most recognized
part of the industry's fleet. Although waste and recycling collection
trucks are virtually identical in most respects, they are significantly
different in the means by which the material is emptied into the cargo
area (e.g. rear-, front-, automated side-load, etc.).
According to FHWA's 2016 Freight Quick Facts Report, ``Waste/
Scrap'' is the tenth largest commodity by tonnage shipped in the U.S.
The industry's truck operations moved 92 percent of the 652.9 million
tons transported by all modes in 2015.
Assuming that two-thirds of the industry's trucks are in use on any
given workday, that means approximately 70,000 workers are exposed to
dangerous driving situations, such as distracted driving, each workday.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), distracted driving is ``any activity that diverts attention
from driving, including talking or texting on your phone, eating and
drinking, talking to people in your vehicle, fiddling with the stereo,
entertainment or navigation system-anything that takes your attention
away from the task of safe driving.'' It is estimated that during
daylight hours approximately 481,000 drivers are using handheld cell
phones while driving, creating significant potential for injury or
death.
NHTSA reports that 3,450 people were killed by distracted drivers
in 2016 and 562 of these fatalities were not occupants of a vehicle but
rather pedestrians, bicyclists, and others including waste and
recycling industry employees. In 2015, distracted drivers were
responsible for 391,000 injuries in motor vehicle crashes. Teens were
the largest age group reported as distracted at the time of fatal
crashes.
Driving requires the full attention of motorists. Texting in
particular poses a danger since sending or reading a text takes one's
eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds. Traveling at 55 MPH
while texting is the equivalent of driving the length of a football
field with your eyes closed.
NHTSA is engaged in several efforts to educate Americans about the
dangers of distracted driving including public service announcements,
social media campaigns, ``Distracted Driving Awareness Month'' every
April, and partnerships with state and local police departments to
enforce laws against distracted driving.
These law enforcement officials are also undertaking the difficult
task of enhanced enforcement of distracted driving laws. This is
complicated by the need to observe the offense before making a traffic
stop since, unlike with impaired driving, the prohibited behavior has
typically ended once a driver is pulled over.
So far, 23 states have enacted ``Move Over'' laws that cover waste
and recycling workers. The statutes vary from state to state, but the
laws generally require drivers to slow down and yield to collection
vehicles, especially when the operator is emptying a cart or walking
back to the truck. ``Move Over'' laws are saving lives by requiring
drivers to exercise caution and avoid distractions when they are
approaching a collection truck.
NWRA has been at the forefront of efforts to expand state ``Move
Over'' laws to include ``amber lighted vehicles'' such as waste and
recycling, tow trucks, and other similar industries. However, these
laws are only effective if the motoring public knows about and law
enforcement enforces them.
A 2014 incident in central Florida involving an NWRA-member company
is a perfect example. One of their collection workers was injured by a
car and the law enforcement officer did not issue a citation to the
driver of the vehicle, despite Florida's recently expanded ``Move
Over'' law. When the company's safety director asked for the ``Move
Over'' law to be invoked, the officer stated he did not know about the
statute, nor did the command staff of that department. This shows the
need to educate both law enforcement and the public about the necessity
to move over as well as the consequences of not moving over. NWRA is
confident that this situation is not an isolated event.
NWRA urges Congress to use federal infrastructure legislation or
surface transportation appropriations as a vehicle to enact incentives
for states to adopt ``Move Over'' laws that include waste and recycling
collection workers similar to the incentives it uses to encourage
states to set and keep their legal drinking age at 21 years old. This
is an opportunity for Congress to make a real difference in improving
safety with minimal effort and no additional cost.
Thank you for your consideration of our position. We look forward
to working with the committee to improve the safety of our nation's
highways. I will be happy to respond to any questions that you may
have.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member,
National Transportation Safety Board
Each of your testimonies highlight the dangers of speeding, which
increases the likelihood of a crash and the severity of injuries
sustained, and nearly guarantees pedestrian death at 40 miles per hour.
Mr. Bruemmer, you share your own harrowing story of nearly being struck
by a truck in a work zone.
Member Homendy, you cite Federal Highway Administration guidance which
emphasizes that States and localities ``set speed limits within 5 miles
per hour of which 85 percent of vehicle are traveling'', known as the
85th percentile rule. This has led to a situation where in 2016, 41
States had maximum speed limits at or above 70 miles per hour, and 7 of
those States were at or above 80 miles per hour.
Question 1. Can you comment further on NTSB's recommendation to
move away from this 85th percentile approach?
Answer. The NTSB recommends that the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) ``revise Section 2B.13 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices so that the factors currently listed as optional for all
engineering studies are required, require that an expert system such as
USLIMITS2 be used as a validation tool, and remove the guidance that
speed limits in speed zones should be within 5 mph of the 85th
percentile speed'' (H-17-27).
The intent of this recommendation is to de-emphasize the use of the
85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is obtained by
conducting an engineering study of ideal traffic flows unaffected by
inclement weather or traffic congestion. The use of the 85th percentile
speed assumes that the majority of drivers are capable of selecting
appropriate speeds according to weather conditions, traffic, road
geometry, and roadside development, and that they operate at reasonable
and prudent speeds. Because the research that provided the strongest
empirical support of the use of the 85th percentile speed is dated
(having been conducted in the late 1950s) and was conducted only on 2-
and 4-lane rural highways, it is unclear whether the 85th percentile
speed equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate on
all road types, such as those in cities. Heavily populated urban areas
typically have higher numbers of vulnerable road users, such as
pedestrians and bicyclists. Research has clearly shown that these road
users have little chance of surviving a collision with a motor vehicle
traveling at high speed.
Additionally, the use of the 85th percentile speed has resulted in
increasing speed limits among states. For example, the Texas
Transportation Code states that the speed limit for certain roads is 70
miles per hour (mph). To increase speed limits, Texas requires an
engineering study that follows the Texas Department of Transportation's
``Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones,'' which emphasize the 85th
percentile speed. Over time, speed limits in Texas have increased from
70 mph to 85 mph, the highest posted speed limit in the United States.
In 2012, 35 states had a maximum speed limit of 70 mph, with Texas and
Utah at or above 80 mph. Just 4 years later, in 2016, 41 states had a
maximum speed limit of 70 mph, with 7 states at or above 80 mph.
Therefore, although assessing roadway operating speed remains
important, a more balanced approach to setting speed limits that also
considers the vulnerability of pedestrians and bicyclists and crash
experience should replace the one that primarily favors vehicular
traffic.
Question 2. What policies should Congress look at to reduce
speeding? Do you think this can be achieved through education and
enforcement alone, or do we also need to look at road design has to
slow people down in many contexts?
Answer. One of the items on the NTSB's 2019-2020 Most Wanted List
addresses speeding by calling for lawmakers, industry, and every
American to work together to ``implement a comprehensive strategy to
reduce speeding-related crashes.'' Through research and accident
investigations, the NTSB has identified proven countermeasures that
must be used broadly to reduce speeding-related crashes. These
countermeasures include automated enforcement technology, education
campaigns, vehicle technology, and infrastructure design. The NTSB
urges Congress to consider actions that (1) encourage data-driven speed
enforcement that may include both traditional and automated enforcement
technology; (2) urge NHTSA and the FHWA to update and promote best
practices for implementing automated speed enforcement; (3) push for
social change that makes speeding culturally unacceptable; (4)
accelerate the development of performance standards for and industry
adoption of advanced speed-limiting technology for heavy vehicles such
as trucks, buses, and motorcoaches; (5) create incentive mechanisms to
increase adoption of speed-limiting technology for passenger vehicles;
(6) emphasize a complete street policy that encourages roadway designs
that slow drivers down to the safe speed, such as using road diets,
lane narrowing, and curve reconfiguration. Reducing speeding-related
fatalities and injuries must include all countermeasures, including
road design, education, and enforcement.
Attached is a list of NTSB recommendations that, if implemented,
would reduce speeding-related crashes and save lives. These
recommendations supplement our Most Wanted List issue item regarding
speeding. The NTSB urges Congress to consider them when developing
legislation.
Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson for Hon. Jennifer Homendy,
Member, National Transportation Safety Board
Member Homendy, congratulations on your appointment to the NTSB. I look
forward to working with you.
As you know, in 2017, 26 percent of crashes involved at least one
speeding driver. Speeding is a major contributor to fatal accidents in
Florida and throughout the nation. In your testimony, you called for
``increased leadership and attention'' to speeding on the national
level.
Question 3. What are some actions this Congress can take to ensure
that speeding is being prioritized at a level that reflects its role in
fatal accidents?
Answer. In interviews the NTSB has conducted, national, state, and
local traffic safety stakeholders repeatedly mentioned that--unlike
other crash factors such as alcohol impairment or unbelted occupants--
speeding is associated with few negative social consequences, and it
does not have a leader campaigning to increase public awareness about
the issue at the national level. Stakeholders further stated that they
thought the dangers of speeding are not well-publicized, and that
society therefore underappreciates the risks of speeding. The resulting
complacency among drivers has led to speeding becoming a common
behavior, even though surveys indicate that drivers generally
disapprove of other drivers speeding. Stakeholders also expressed the
belief that, to gradually change public perceptions of speeding, safety
advocacy groups must launch a coordinated effort, with strong
leadership from the federal government.
We have recommended several actions that can be taken at the
national level, including implementing an ongoing program to increase
public awareness of speeding as a national traffic safety issue,
including an annual enforcement mobilization; establishing programs to
incentivize state and local speed management activities, for example
via federal-aid programs such as the National Priority Safety Program;
and prioritizing and promoting federal transportation agency efforts to
address speeding, such as the work coordinated by the DOT's multiagency
Speed Management Team.
Attached is a list of our recommendations to reduce speeding-
related crashes. These recommendations supplement this issue area on
our 2019-2020 Most Wanted List. We urge Congress to consider them when
developing future legislation.
Speeding
Member Homendy, in your testimony, you highlight the glaring fact that
neither the Highway Safety Program nor the National Priority Safety
Program truly incentivize states to address the issue of speeding. You
also mentioned that stakeholders cited the lack of a national traffic
safety campaign as a key hindrance to increasing public awareness.
Question 4. Can you describe what an effective campaign should
include?
Answer. An effective campaign to address speeding should be
informed by the successes of other highway safety campaigns, such as
the long-running ``Click It or Ticket'' national campaign to increase
seat belt usage. ``Click It or Ticket'' includes an annual high-
visibility enforcement mobilization, a robust communications strategy
at the national and state levels, legislated incentives to encourage
high participation among the states, and dedicated funding. Research
has shown that the communications component of a traffic safety
campaign increases safety benefits; by using consistent messaging over
many years, 85% of the public recognizes the ``Click It or Ticket''
slogan, according to NHTSA surveys.
Pedestrian fatalities
Member Homendy, I was pleased to learn that NTSB investigated the
recent increase of pedestrians killed in highway crashes. Your
investigation found that pedestrian deaths now account for almost one
in six highway fatalities.
Question 5. Why are pedestrian deaths so much higher now than they
were a decade ago?
Answer. In 2008, 4,414 pedestrians died in traffic crashes,
representing 12% of all traffic fatalities. In 2017, almost 6,000
pedestrians were killed, comprising 16% of all traffic deaths (based on
NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts). There can be a multitude of reasons, and
no single factor is causing the substantial increase over the last 10
years. One key ingredient is the rapid increase in urban population. In
2008, 72% of pedestrian deaths occurred in urban areas. In 2017, the
percentage reached 80%. Pedestrians and motor vehicles are interacting
more in our cities. Because most roadways were designed in an era where
vehicular traffic took precedence, moving vehicles from one place to
another quickly was favored over the needs of other users, such as
pedestrians. Many multilane arterial roadways with high speed limits
still snake through our highly populated cities, which is why managing
speed is key to tackling pedestrian safety. This requires an integrated
approach that includes lowering speed limits, enforcement, education,
and road design. Many cities lack adequate pedestrian facilities, such
as sidewalks and crosswalks. Pedestrian crashes also appear to be
getting deadlier, with deaths per 100 crashes increasing by 29 percent
in the last decade (IIHS, 2018). This increase may be the result of
changes to the vehicle fleet (for example, more SUVs). In addition,
factors like distraction and impairment continue to affect pedestrians
and drivers. Accordingly, we have issued recommendations to address
vehicle design, roadway design, vehicle speed, impairment, and
distraction.
Question from Hon. Brian Babin for Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member,
National Transportation Safety Board
Question 6. During the hearing, Member Homendy committed to
providing a response to Representative Babin's question asked at the
hearing: In your experience with the NTSB, have you seen a correlation
between improving roadway safety and updating existing roads (US/state
highways) in order to meet the Interstate standards and grades?
Answer. NTSB believes that both new and redesigned highways should
be built to the current American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials and Federal Highway Administration standards
in order to incorporate the best available safety technology. Whenever
a jurisdiction brings a roadway up to current design standards the
result should be an improvement to the safety of the facility because
it is using the latest in barriers, signage and a current evaluation of
geometric design (in regard to the speed limit). In its investigation
of a 2003 highway crash in Hewitt, Texas, we found that the highway (I-
35) has been expanded from a US/state highway to an Interstate, but the
roadway was not upgraded to meet Interstate standards. In that case,
the correlation between improving roadway safety and updating existing
roads (US/state highways) in order to meet the Interstate standards and
grades was not done. Our investigation cited the poor roadway
conditions and inadequate stopping sight distances on I-35 in its
determination of the probable cause for that crash.
attachment--ntsb recommendations to reduce speeding-related crashes
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Hon. Fred Jones, Vice Mayor,
City of Neptune Beach, Florida, on behalf of Transportation for America
Mr. Jones, your testimony notes that the performance metrics
established by Congress in MAP-21 allows States to set their own
priorities and targets. States are considered in compliance with
performance management requirements as long as they are tracking a
particular metric--States do not have to make progress or improve their
performance over time. Your testimony reports that in 2017, 18 States
set safety performance targets that were worse in terms of fatalities
than the previous year.
Question 1. Do you support stronger accountability under the
performance management system, to actually require States to
demonstrate improvement in a particular metric? Would you support a
requirement to shift more funds to build infrastructure projects that
reduce fatalities for any State that does not set, or does not meet, a
target that is an actual safety improvement?
Answer. Yes. While States were granted the flexibility and
discretion to set priorities and report their results under the current
FHWA performance management system, enabling negative safety targets
should be prohibited. In 2017, eighteen states established targets
resulting in more bicyclist and pedestrian deaths on their facilities.
If the States are to be held to a higher standard of accountability
with respect to safety measures, particularly for pedestrians and
bicyclists, any State that does not set, or does not meet, such targets
beyond reasonable control, may receive less funding for traditional,
capacity-based projects or have their allocated funds redirected to
safety and complete street projects.
Additionally, we would like to see greater emphasis and reliance on
other non-traditional roadway performance metrics such as community and
economic development, job creation, health impacts, and resiliency over
the conventional use of roadway capacity, level-of-service and delay as
the primary metrics for funding and prioritization. This is
particularly for States and communities planning and constructing more
complete streets and multimodal infrastructure.
Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson for Hon. Fred Jones, Vice
Mayor, City of Neptune Beach, Florida, on behalf of Transportation for
America
Mr. Jones, your testimony notes that the performance metrics
established by Congress in MAP-21 allows states to set their own
priorities and targets. States are considered in compliance with
performance management requirements as long as they are tracking a
particular metric; they do not have to make progress or improve their
performance over time. Your testimony reports that in 2017, 18 states
set safety performance targets that were worse in terms of fatalities
than the previous year.
Question 2. Do you support greater accountability under the
performance management system to actually require states to demonstrate
improvement in a particular metric?
Answer. Yes. Our transportation agencies' top priority should be
safety. We cannot claim that safety is a priority if we are willing to
tolerate safety targets--actual goals--for our roads to get less safe.
And our current program tolerates just that. Why is that? Because we
understand that there are many priorities that need to be addressed,
and as a matter of policy Congress has been comfortable if
transportation agencies place other priorities above safety. But this
should not be the case. In the aviation industry, planes are grounded
in order to protect safety. Safety is a goal placed above economics and
convenience. Likewise, safety should be the top priority in surface
transportation, and that priority should be clear in our program
spending so long as there are preventable crashes occurring on our
roadways.
There is no world in which we will ever have enough money to
address everything that needs to be addressed on our transportation
system. That means we have to set priorities. And safety should always
be the top one.
Local Choice
Mr. Jones, your testimony provides some good examples of complete
streets projects, but also describes what happens when a state DOT does
not want to or feels it does not have flexibility with federal funds to
pursue a complete streets approach or other design enhancement. The
committee has heard from local government stakeholders in past hearings
that greater control over project choice at the local government level
would help bring about projects in communities that are perhaps not the
priority of the state DOT.
Question 3. If Congress expanded the role of local governments in
programming federal transportation funding, and you had greater direct
control over how federal funds are spent in your community, do you
believe this would result in a different range of projects than when
the decision making is controlled by Florida DOT?
Answer. Yes and that is because state governments have typically
overlooked the local trip in spite of the fact that most trips are
local. State departments of transportation were formed to build
highways that connect cities and towns while the locals have had the
responsibility of moving people around that city or town. Also while
state departments of transportation have responsibility for roads, the
cities are not just trying to move people around but are also trying to
create great places and create high quality of life. In the case of
Florida, if local governments had more control and decision-making on
FDOT facilities, they would likely support different ranges of projects
that promote placemaking and quality of life over vehicular throughput,
such as reducing speeds, lane widths, or reallocating travel lanes for
other travel modes or community spaces.
Bringing more voices into the program can only generate more
diversity in terms of the challenges we are trying to address and how
we address them.
Mr. Jones, you state in your testimony that ``We have a cure'' for
reducing traffic-related fatalities, ``But for whatever reasons, we
just don't want to use it.''
Question 4. What are some of the ``cures'' New York and San
Francisco implemented that decreased traffic fatalities by 28 and 41
percent, respectively? What are some of the solutions that were
specific to pedestrians?
Answer. Both cities slowed down traffic speeds. Mistakes are
inevitable with humans. But mistakes turn more deadly for people in and
outside a car the faster cars are going. True ``Vision Zero'' cities
are lowering speed limits, slimming down lanes, and taking other steps
to slow down traffic. There should be an expectation that when a driver
arrives in a town or city that they slow down in order to create a safe
environment and to create a great place to spend time in. Other
strategies that help are shorter and more visible crossings for
pedestrians and bringing front doors for houses and businesses along
the road to the sidewalk, creating a canopy that makes the area more
comfortable for pedestrians and encourages drivers to slow down.
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton for Michael L. Brown, Chief
of Police, Alexandria (Virginia) Police Department
Chief Brown, your testimony calls for a ``national narrative'' on the
importance of traffic safety and committing the resources to carry it
out. You note that this would help law enforcement across the nation
unite behind traffic safety, much like the response to homeland
security efforts following 9/11 and more recently the opioid crisis.
You state ``what is missing today for law enforcement is the commitment
to making traffic safety a high priority for our nation.''
Question 1. What can Congress do to promote this national narrative
and to demonstrate the Federal commitment improving safety on our
roads?
Answer. The first step to changing the national narrative on
traffic safety would be to raise the level of awareness and driving
home the negative consequences of both traffic deaths and injuries. The
message should be sufficiently powerful to demonstrate the costs to,
not only to those involved in crashes, but also to their families,
friends, employers, and the nation as a whole. These costs are more
than just dollars. There can also be quality of life implications that
can last a lifetime, e.g.; permanent disability.
Practically all of the crashes are preventable and predictable.
They are caused by poor choices made by individuals that are sharing
our roadways. The message should be broad enough to capture the
attention of everyone as a quality of life issue in our communities.
The current traffic safety messages are good but they focus on
individual problems. The ultimate message should transmit a message
that this is indeed a public health crisis.
Aside from the message, Congress can make a more dramatic impact
through the reauthorization. The reauthorization should provide more
flexibility in for law enforcement to address traffic safety issues in
their local communities. As I mentioned during the hearing, the issues
raised in prior reauthorizations are important but they may not be the
highest priority in every community. The new reauthorization could
continue to highlight the prior focus areas but it should also provide
more flexibility and support for enforcement on the issues that might
be facing the communities law enforcement serves. This can be
accomplished by setting up an adjusted program providing less
restrictive guidance to the states to deliver the assets or funding to
law enforcement. Issues like speeding, right of way violations,
jaywalking, and similar, often overlooked but important community
issues can be addressed.
The design of a traffic safety enforcement program must also
recognize that officers will make stops for issues based upon what they
see as a legitimate and important violation. When making a traffic stop
officers often find other issues relevant to traffic safety. For
example, an officer stopping a speeding vehicle may ultimately detect
an impaired driver, a driver on a cell phone, or someone not wearing a
seatbelt.
Additionally, the practice of ``counting tickets'' should be
avoided in grant activity reports. Citations are but one means of
measuring activity and finding teachable moments for those on the road.
Sometimes, a verbal warning can be just as effective. Counting tickets
can also have a chilling effect on officer engagement and may even
depress the level of engagement that is being sought.
The guidance to the state highway safety offices needs to be more
specific otherwise it creates the opportunity for differing
interpretations in developing projects. These interpretations may also
be too restrictive and may result in fewer grant applications or lower
levels of officer engagement. Past authorizations have frequently
resulted in different interpretations by federal and state officials
which can discourage law enforcement participation especially when law
enforcement is interested in enforcing local traffic safety issues.
Another approach to consider might be a direct appropriation to law
enforcement agencies that are interested in working on traffic safety
in their community. This would reduce the influence of interpretation
issues.
Finally, if this is to be serious effort to improve traffic safety
it must be accompanied by a substantial increase in funding designed to
address local traffic issues. The past reauthorizations have focused on
a select group of important issues. More funding for local traffic
issues needs to be included to encourage participation in a
comprehensive national traffic safety effort. As I mentioned in my
testimony, the capacity of law enforcement is already taxed in most
communities with non-traffic related issues. The use of overtime grants
has been the traditional approaches applied to increase this capacity
and this should be continued. However, not every agency can use this
approach. It might useful to consider adding traffic safety officer
positions to those agencies that can justify an extreme lack of
capacity.
Chief Brown, you mention in your testimony that you support expansion
of automated speed enforcement, granted that it is used for public
safety purposes and not revenue generation. I believe many constituents
oppose automated speed enforcement technologies because they assume
that revenue would be the real motive behind it.
Question 2. How can we implement automated enforcement in a way
which eases these concerns?
Answer. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
has developed a considerations document which outlines many of the
steps law enforcement should consider when looking at automated
enforcement. The NHTSA document focuses on problem identification needs
to promote the legitimacy of the enforcement efforts and the proper use
of the technology that is used.
Another issue of some concern in the public's perspective is
whether or not the fines that result from this enforcement are a
revenue source. NHTSA addresses this issue in its document but it does
not specifically address what a non-law enforcement agency may feel
about these fines. Too often, the fine revenue becomes a fiscal revenue
stream for communities which feeds the narrative that citations are
issued to ease fiscal concerns. Whatever is being considered at the
local level the local government and law enforcement agencies should
consider all of these issues and the NHTSA guidance is helpful.
The use of automated enforcement on a national level will not be
possible without encouraging or incentivizing state efforts to adopt
legislation that enables this type of enforcement. Automated
enforcement is not available in every state or community and its
implementation is often inconsistent. This inconsistency does not help
with public acceptance. The new authorization could and should address
this issue so more agencies can employ automated enforcement technology
at the local level across the nation in a consistent manner.
Finally, there should funding to further develop technology to
address other traffic safety issues. Currently, there is a focus on
running red lights and speeding issues. There should also be challenge
to develop technology to identify other traffic safety violations,
(e.g.; jaywalking, cell phone use, failure to yield conditions),
especially with the emerging technological systems being placed on our
roadways and in our vehicles.
Overall, automated enforcement could prove to further enhance
compliance with traffic safety laws by increasing the public's
perception that violations may be discovered through the use of this
technology.
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton for Jay Bruemmer, Vice
President, K&G Striping, Inc., on behalf of the American Traffic Safety
Services Association
Mr. Bruemmer, one of the solutions to addressing the dangerousness of
work zones is work zone project management software, and you note that
it has been employed by the District of Columbia.
Question 1. Can you provide more detail on how this system worked
and tell us whether there are any other places you're aware of that are
using similar methods? If not, how can we help promote its adoption in
other cities?
Answer. In responding to your written question regarding the
smarter work zone application in Washington, DC, I wanted to point you
and the Subcommittee staff to ATSSA's innovation website which is
focused on educating departments of transportation and public works
agencies on the opportunities that exist for smarter work zones and
innovative roadway safety countermeasures generally.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ATSSA Innovation Website--http://innovate.atssa.com/innovative-
technology-by-state.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, I have attached the case study publication entitled,
Smarter Work Zones: Project Coordination and Technology Applications.
This publication is focused on various applications of smarter work
zones across the nation, including the application in Washington,
DC.\2\ Project coordination is a focus for departments of
transportation (DOTs) around the country. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) created a Guide to Project Coordination for
Minimizing Work Zone Mobility Impacts, which helps DOTs utilize project
coordination in their planning and execution.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Washington, DC case study on project coordination--https://
www.workzonesafety.org/files/documents/SWZ/DC_PC_case_study.pdf
\3\ Guide to Project Coordination for Minimizing Work Zone Mobility
Impacts--https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16013/index.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, there is additional information on project coordination
efforts around the country, including case studies.\4\ Local
transportation agencies rely on state DOTs and ultimately FHWA to
incorporate new technology into projects and provide best practices.
FHWA is in the process of developing systems to update their
specifications to keep pace with emerging innovation through an update
to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). We encourage
Congress to provide FHWA the resources to promote adoption of this and
other new life-saving roadway safety infrastructure countermeasures. As
for the Washington, DC-specific example, upon further conversations
with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), DDOT indicated
difficulties in moving the project forward due to continuous software
maintenance upgrades. That said, project coordination, in general, is
important part of work zone safety, and it underscores the need to have
guidelines and systems in place to keep up with ever-evolving
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Project coordination repository--https://
www.workzonesafety.org/swz/swzproject-coordination/outreach/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
attachment--case study publication entitled ``smarter work zones:
project coordination and technology applications''
[The case study publication is retained in committee files.]
Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Nicholas J. Smith, Interim
President and Chief Executive Officer, The National Safety Council
Mr. Smith, your testimony raises the specter of the FCC reneging on its
initial decision to preserve a small piece of bandwidth for connected
vehicles to communicate critical safety information with high speed and
accuracy. Today, big telecomm wants to share the spectrum despite the
lack of studies that guarantee their transmission will not interfere
with vehicle to vehicle communication that will save lives.
Question 1. Should this committee allow the FCC to undercut the
opportunity to prevent 37,000 deaths a year so people can download a
movie a few minutes faster?
Answer. Mr. Chairman, the United States prioritized safety in 1999
by preserving the 5.9 GHz spectrum band for roadway safety
communication. Communication between vehicles and other objects over
this spectrum has the opportunity to mitigate and prevent crashes that
could result in the loss of life. Infrastructure owners and vehicle
manufacturers have begun installing 5.9 compatible technology, and the
National Safety Council (NSC) would like to see implementation progress
and proliferate.
The FCC and the Department of Transportation should exercise
vigorous oversight of any testing of unlicensed devices to ensure no
interference in the band that compromises safety. NSC urges Congress to
monitor this testing as well.
Life-saving technology can operate over this band, including in
areas that are often overlooked by other technology buildouts. NSC
encourages Congress to preserve this spectrum for safety to help
eliminate these preventable deaths.
[all]