[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENHANCING VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY TO PREVENT DRUNK DRIVING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMMERCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 14, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-19
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-603 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Chairwoman
KATHY CASTOR, Florida CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas Ranking Member
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois FRED UPTON, Michigan
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
TONY CARDENAS, California, Vice BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
Chair LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DARREN SOTO, Florida EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
JERRY McNERNEY, California
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Debbie Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, opening statement................................. 6
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................ 82
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, prepared statement..................................... 83
Witnesses
Helen Witty, National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Robert Strassburger, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety........................ 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Joan Claybrook, Board Member, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, and Former Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.......................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Additional material submitted for the record................. 55
Answers to submitted questions............................... 95
David Kelly, Executive Director, Coalition of Ignition Interlock
Manufacturers.................................................. 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Answers to submitted questions............................... 97
Submitted Material
Report, ``Getting to Zero Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities: A
Comprehensive Approach to a Persistent Problem (2018),''
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine,
submitted by Mrs. Dingell \1\
Letter of March 13 2019, from Coalition for Future Mobility to
Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Ms. Schakowsky............... 85
Letter of March 14, 2019, from Gary Shapiro, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Consumer Technology Association, to Mr.
Pallone, et al., submitted by Ms. Schakowsky................... 89
----------
\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20190314/109109/
HHRG-116-IF17-20190314-SD004.pdf.
Letter of March 14, 2019, from Robbie Diamond, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Securing America's Future Energy, to
Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Ms. Schakowsky............... 91
Letter of March 14, 2019, from John D. Bodnovich, Executive
Director, American Beverage Licensees, to Ms. Schakowsky and
Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky...................... 93
ENHANCING VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY TO PREVENT DRUNK DRIVING
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Castor,
O'Halleran, Cardenas, Soto, Rush, Matsui, McNerney, Dingell,
Rodgers (subcommittee ranking member), Burgess, Latta, Guthrie,
Bucshon, Hudson, and Carter.
Staff present: Sharon Davis, Chief Clerk; Evan Gilbert,
Press Assistant; Lisa Goldman, Counsel; Waverly Gordon, Deputy
Chief Counsel; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications
and Technology; Zach Kahan, Outreach and Member Service
Coordinator; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Chloe Rodriguez,
Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications,
Outreach, and Member Services; Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff
Director; Jordan Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Melissa
Froelich, Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection and
Commerce; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Bijan
Koohmaraie, Minority Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce;
Ryan Long, Minority Deputy Staff Director; and Brannon Rains,
Minority Staff Assistant.
Ms. Schakowsky. The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and
Commerce will now come to order.
I want to thank everybody for coming on this going-away
day. My plan is that we will get as many opening statements as
we can before votes, and then, hopefully, all of you will come
back to talk to our witnesses.
So, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
As the Consumer Protection Subcommittee, we are committed
to ensuring the safety of the American people. We have
addressed a number of auto safety issues over the years,
holding hearings on the Takata airbag defects and the GM
ignition switch defect. We had a hearing last year on drugged
driving, which has been on the rise in recent years. But we
haven't really addressed the No. 1 cause of death on America's
roads, drunk driving.
More than 10,000 deaths, about 30 percent of all fatal
crashes, are caused by drunk driving each year. That translates
into almost 30 people dying in drunk-driving crashes every day
or one person every 4 minutes in 2017. That is when the data is
from. And that is not counting the number of people who are
seriously injured in drunk-driving crashes.
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration,
NHTSA, conducted a study in 2016 that found that, quote,
``Alcohol was the largest contributor to crashes.'' Unquote. We
all know drunk driving is a problem, but whether it is because
they are too intoxicated to make reasonable judgments or they
inaccurately estimate their level of intoxication, people are
still making the choice to drive drunk.
So, today we are exploring some technologies that make it
harder for people to make the wrong decision. Currently,
ignition interlocks are available for installation in cars on
the road. These are devices that can detect levels of alcohol
in a person's system, and if above the legal limit, will
prevent a car from starting. Generally, this involves breathing
into a tube and waiting for an analysis to be completed, which
may take a little time. This, too, has been effective in
preventing individuals convicted of drunk driving from doing so
again, as long as the device is in his or her car.
All States have some form of ignition interlock laws, some
making it an option/condition after conviction, and some
requiring them for repeat offenders, and some requiring them
for all offenders. Often, people who have been convicted of
driving under the influence of alcohol will still drive, even
if their license is suspended or taken away. They still need to
drive to get to work or run necessary errands. Interlock
devices allow them to drive when they need to, but stop them
from putting themselves and others in danger by preventing them
from driving drunk.
So, I look forward to hearing today whether expanded use of
interlock devices can help lower the number of drunk-driving
crashes. Today's interlock devices, however, are not enough.
They are too intrusive for general use, and that is why NHTSA
has been working with the auto industry to develop more
integrated technologies, known as Driver Alcohol Detention
Systems for Safety, or DADSS, that can be deployed even more
expansively.
I know my friend and colleague, Debbie Dingell, will be
recognized, but it should be noted that several of her
constituents recently died in a tragic accident because of
drunk driving. Debbie has introduced legislation aimed at
curbing drunk driving. And so I thank her for her efforts to
make our roads safer, and I stand with you as an ally in your
fight.
NHTSA can and should be pressing automakers to develop and
deploy this technology faster, these different technologies
faster, and let's stop wasting time and start to take
meaningful steps to turn back the tide on these tragedies.
So, I want to thank all our witnesses for coming today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jan Schakowsky
As the Consumer Protection Subcommittee, we are committed
to ensuring the safety of the American people. We have
addressed a number of auto safety issues over the years--
holding hearings on the Takata airbag defects and the GM
ignition switch defect. We had a hearing last year on drugged
driving, which has been on the rise in recent years.
We have not really addressed the number one cause of death
on America's roadways--drunk driving. More than 10,000 deaths--
about 30 percent of all fatal crashes--are caused by drunk
driving each year. That translates to almost 30 people dying in
drunk-driving crashes every day or one person every 48 minutes
in 2017. And that's not counting the number of people who are
seriously injured in drunk-driving crashes.
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(NHSTA) conducted a study in 2016 that found ``alcohol was the
largest contributor to crash risk.''
We all know drunk driving is a problem. But whether it's
because they are too intoxicated to make a reasonable decision,
or they inaccurately estimate their level intoxication, people
are still making the choice to drive drunk.
So today we are exploring some technologies that make it
harder for people to make the wrong decision.
Currently, ignition interlocks are available for
installation in cars on the road. These are devices that can
detect levels of alcohol in a person's system and if above the
legal limit, will prevent a car from starting. Generally, this
involves breathing into a tube and waiting for an analysis to
be completed, which may take a little time. This tool has been
effective in preventing individuals convicted of drunk driving
from doing do again as long as the device is on his or her car.
All States have ignition interlock laws-some making it an
optional condition after conviction, some requiring them for
repeat offenders, and some requiring them for all offenders.
Often, people who have been convicted of driving under the
influence of alcohol will still drive even if their license is
suspended or taken. They still need to drive to get to work or
run necessary errands. Interlock devices allow them to drive
where they need to but stop them from putting themselves and
others in danger by preventing them from driving drunk.
I look forward to hearing today whether expanded use of
interlock devices can help lower the numbers of drunk-driving
crashes.
Today's interlock devices, however, are not enough. They
are too intrusive for general usage. And that is why NHTSA has
been working with the auto industry to develop more integrated
technology, known as Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety
or DADSS, that can be deployed even more expansively.
I know my friend and colleague Debbie Dingell will be
recognized, but it should be noted that several of her
constituents recently died in a tragic accident because of
drunk driving. Debbie has introduced legislation aimed at
curbing drunk driving, and so I thank her for her efforts to
make roads safer. And stand with you as an ally in your fight.
NHTSA can and should be pressing automakers to develop and
deploy this technology faster. Let's stop wasting time and
start to take meaningful steps to turn back the tide on these
tragedies.
Thank you. I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of
the subcommittee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
Ms. Schakowsky. And I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member
of the subcommittee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Consumer
Protection and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on enhancing
vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving.
``Drive sober or get pulled over'' is a phrase we all
remember hearing in the classroom or on television, and it
remains just as important a message today as it ever was. Drunk
driving is a significant public health concern that tragically
cuts life short for so many, not just those who make the
reckless decision to get behind the wheel after consuming
alcohol, but our family and friends on the road in the wrong
place at the wrong time.
Although alcohol-impaired driving has decreased by about 30
percent over the last three decades, it remains a serious and
fatal risk on our roadways, claiming almost 11,000 lives each
year. The status is not acceptable. We can, and we must, do
better.
Drug-impaired driving is also on the rise. Drug use and
abuse have increasingly become central social issues. On
opioids, last Congress we passed a comprehensive bipartisan
package to help combat the epidemic, expand access to
treatment, and protect our communities. But opioids aren't the
only drug making our roads less safe. So is marijuana. In fact,
marijuana is the most common drug found in fatally injured
drivers. It increases drowsiness and decreases reaction speed,
both of which severely limit a driver's ability to operate a
vehicle safely.
In 2012, my home State of Washington legalized marijuana,
and Washingtonians have seen decreases in roadway safety since
then. In 2017, the Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area conducted a report of the effects of marijuana. The report
produced some pretty disturbing results. One in five 10th-
graders, one in four 12th-graders reported riding with a driver
who had been using marijuana. One in six 12th-graders admitted
to driving a vehicle within 3 hours of consuming marijuana. The
percentage of marijuana-positive drivers has more than doubled
from 7.8 percent to 18.9 percent, and fatal crashes involving
marijuana have spiked to almost 13 percent from 7.8 percent
prior to legalization. The increase in recreational use of
marijuana poses a serious threat to roadway safety.
We must learn from the lessons we have seen in my home
State and make sure we are focusing on addressing drug-impaired
driving and alcohol-impaired driving. On this committee, it is
our job to explore how technology and innovation can improve
people's lives, even save their lives. For example, ride-
sharing technology platforms have given people better and more
options to get home safely. By providing an easy and user-
friendly option, more people are opting for ride sharing rather
than getting behind the wheel after drinking or taking drugs.
The subcommittee has been working on these issues for years,
highlighting the sharing economy at a disruptor series in 2015.
We should not lose sight of the fact that we lose about
40,000 Americans on our roads every year. Ninety-four percent
of car crashes are caused by human error. Whether it be driving
while tired, distracted, or after drinking or taking drugs,
human error causes crashes. Self-driving cars offer a
technology-based solution that will save lives if the
Government regulations are updated from their 1970s approach
over brake pedals and steering wheels.
I joined Republican Leader Walden and Representative Latta
on a letter to Chairman Pallone yesterday asking that we
continue our work in a bipartisan manner again this Congress.
I commend Chair Schakowsky for her leadership on this
important issue and look forward to working with you.
I want to thank our distinguished panel for your
willingness to engage in this discussion today, and I would
further welcome discussions with leaders who offer other
technology-based solutions to protect Americans.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Good morning and welcome to the Consumer Protection and
Commerce Subcommittee hearing on Enhancing Vehicle Technology
to Prevent Drunk Driving. ``Drive sober or get pulled over'' is
a phrase we all remember hearing in the classroom or on
television and it remains just as important a message today as
it ever has.
Drunk driving is a significant public health concern that
tragically cuts life short for so many--not just those that
make the reckless decision to get behind the wheel after
consuming alcohol but our family and friends on the road in the
wrong place at the wrong time. Although alcohol impaired
driving has decreased by about 30 percent over the last three
decades it remains a serious and fatal risk on our roadways
claiming almost 11,000 lives each year. The status quo is not
acceptable. We can, and we must do better.
Drug-impaired driving is also on the rise. Drug use and
abuse have increasingly become central social issues. On
opioids, last Congress we passed a comprehensive bipartisan
package to help combat the epidemic, expand access to
treatment, and protect our communities. But opioids aren't the
only drug making our roads less safe--so is marijuana. In fact,
marijuana is the most common drug found in fatally injured
drivers. It increases drowsiness and decreases reaction speed--
both of which severely limit a driver's ability to operate a
vehicle safely.
In 2012, my home State of Washington legalized marijuana
and Washingtonians have seen decreases in roadway safety since
then. In 2017, the Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area conducted a report on the effects of marijuana. The report
produced some pretty disturbing results. One in five 10th-
graders and one in four 12th-graders reported riding with a
driver who had been using marijuana. One in six 12th-graders
admitted to driving a vehicle within 3 hours of consuming
marijuana.
The percentage of marijuana-positive drivers has more than
doubled from 7.8 percent to 18.9 percent and fatal crashes
involving marijuana have spiked to almost 13 percent from 7.8
percent prior to legalization. The increase in recreational use
of marijuana poses a serious threat to roadway safety. We must
learn from the lessons we've seen in my home State and make
sure we are focusing on addressing drug-impaired driving and
alcohol-impaired driving.
On this committee, it's our job to explore how technology
and innovation can improve people's lives--even save their
lives. For example, ridesharing technology platforms have given
people better and more options to get home safely. By providing
an easy and user-friendly option, more people are opting for
ridesharing rather than getting behind the wheel after drinking
or taking drugs. The subcommittee has been working on these
issues for years, highlighting the sharing economy at a
Disrupter Series hearing in 2015.
We should not lose sight of the fact that we lose almost
40,000 Americans on our roads every year. 94 percent of car
crashes are caused by human error. Whether it be driving while
tired, distracted, or, after drinking or taking drugs, human
error causes crashes. Self-driving cars offer a technology-
based solution that will save lives if the Government
regulations are updated from their 1970s approach over brake
pedals and steering wheels.
I joined Republican Leader Walden and Representative Latta
on a letter to Chairman Pallone yesterday asking that we
continue work on the issue in a bipartisan manner again this
Congress.
I commend Chair Schakowsky for her leadership on this
important issue and look forward to working with you. I want to
thank our distinguished panel for your willingness to engage in
this discussion today. I would welcome further discussions with
leaders who offer other technology-based solutions to protect
Americans.
I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back.
The votes have been called, and it looks like we have one
to two votes, we think about 30 minutes. So, in fact, we are
going to recess. And I apologize to our witnesses, but we will
be back soon.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Ms. Schakowsky. I will call the subcommittee back to order,
and yield for an opening statement. In the absence of the
chairman of the full committee, I am happy to yield to
Congresswoman Dingell.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Schakowsky.
And I want to really give you a sincere and heartfelt thank
you for holding this important hearing today. As both of you
spoke about before votes, drunk driving brings pain to families
and communities across this country. Our community in Dearborn
and in Michigan felt it only eight weeks ago. In January, the
Abbas family, Issam, Rima, Ali, Isabella, and Giselle, were
driving back from a family vacation in Florida when their car
was struck head-on by a drunk driver. No one survived, and
everybody in our community felt it. They were active, integral
members of our community. But what is sad is that this story
has been repeated for years over and over again. And Congress
needs to step up and do something about it.
Their deaths, and the thousands just like them each year,
are avoidable and preventable. The technology exists to save
lives. A little girl at the funeral came up to me--she was a
classmate--and said, ``There is technology. Why are you not
using it? Why won't Congress act? My friend should be here
today.'' That statement is my heart.
So, my question to each Member, witness, and all the public
watching today is simple: Why aren't we using it? We need to
explore every possible solution, including giving law
enforcement the resources that they need to get drunk driving
off the roads. Institute mandatory first-offender interlock
laws across the country, and get the DADSS technology in cars
as fast as we can.
Nothing is going to bring back the Abbas family or the
thousands--there are more stories in the last week. I mean, we
should stop hearing these stories. Their lives are too
important to forget. We need to make sure that the family that
I know from my community, the Abbas family's death is not in
vain, for we need to make all of these deaths an example of why
we must act now. We must address this challenge.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Latta for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very
much for holding this very important hearing today.
And I thank our witnesses for being with us today.
We have the opportunity to discuss how we can utilize
different technologies to address and prevent drunk and drugged
driving. Over 10,000 people lost their lives in 2017 in
alcohol-impaired driving crashes. We have also seen a
significant increase in the number of American drivers killed
in vehicle crashes in which drugs were detected.
Ninety-four percent of overall vehicle accidents are
attributable to human errors or decisions, and we have seen a
significant increase in the number of Americans killed in
vehicle crashes in which drugs were detected. The statistics
are staggering and show that it is imperative that the public
and private sectors work together on a solution to prevent more
tragedies.
Amid the devastating opioid crisis, and as more States
legalize the use of marijuana, tackling this problem is now
more important than ever. According to the Governors Highway
Safety Association, in 2016, the number of drivers who were
fatally injured in accidents with drugs in their system
surpassed the number of those with alcohol in their system for
the very first time.
That is why in the last Congress I recognized the
importance of promoting and fostering innovation in self-
driving vehicle technology. As chair of this subcommittee in
the last Congress, I introduced the bipartisan SELF DRIVE Act,
which would have clarified the Federal and State roles in
regulating self-driving vehicles, ensure consumer safety,
reduce traffic-related fatalities and injuries, and improve
mobility for individuals with disabilities.
U.S. companies are investing major resources in the
research and development of this technology, and the SELF DRIVE
Act would have removed outdated regulations that were created
when self-driving vehicles were considered science fiction.
Since this legislation passed unanimously both in committee and
on the floor, it is my hope that we can make this a priority
again in this Congress.
We have an opportunity through technology to make
investments needed in self-driving technology as one step to
ending senseless deaths on our roads. Until that day comes, we
all need to do all we can to raise awareness of the dangers of
impaired driving.
And again, I want to thank all the members on this
committee and all of our staff on both sides of the aisle for
all the hard work that they did.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Good morning, I would like to thank our Chair holding this
important hearing, and I thank our witnesses for being here.
Today, we have the opportunity to discuss how we can utilize
different technologies to address and prevent drunk and drugged
driving.
Over 10,000 people lost their lives in 2017 in alcohol-
impaired driving crashes. We have also seen a significant
increase in the number of American drivers killed in vehicle
crashes in which drugs were detected. Ninety-four percent of
overall vehicle accidents are attributable to human errors or
decisions. The statistics are staggering and show that it is
imperative that the public and private sectors work together on
solutions to prevent more tragedies.
Amid the devastating opioid crisis, and as more States
legalize the use of marijuana, tackling this problem is now
more important than ever. According to the Governors Highway
Safety Association, in 2016 the number of drivers who were
fatally injured in accidents with drugs in their system
surpassed the number of those with alcohol in their system for
the first time.
That is why last Congress I recognized the importance of
promoting and fostering innovation in self-driving vehicle
technology. As chairman of this subcommittee, I introduced the
bipartisan SELF DRIVE Act, which would have clarified the
Federal and State roles in regulating self-driving vehicles,
ensured consumer safety, reduced traffic-related fatalities and
injuries, and improved mobility for individuals with
disabilities. U.S. companies are investing major resources in
the research and development of this technology and the SELF
DRIVE Act would have removed outdated regulations that were
created when self-driving vehicles were considered science
fiction.
Since this legislation passed unanimously both in committee
and on the House floor, it is my hope that we can make this a
priority again this Congress.
We have an opportunity through technology to make
investments needed in self-driving technology as one step to
ending senseless deaths on our roads. Until that day comes, we
need to do all we can to raise awareness of the dangers of
impaired driving. Again, I want to thank our Members and staff
on both sides of the aisle for their bipartisan legislation.
Thank you again, and I yield back my time.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
So, I would now like to introduce our witnesses for--oh,
the Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall
be made part of the record.
And now, I would like to introduce the witnesses. Ms. Helen
Witty is the national president of Mothers Against Drunk
Driving. Dr. Robert Strassburger oversees the DADSS program
that I am really anxious to hear more about. And the Honorable
Joan Claybrook, board member of Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety and former Administrator of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, NHTSA, welcome. And Dr. David Kelly, the
executive director of the Coalition of Ignition Interlocks
Manufacturers.
We want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today,
and we look forward to your testimony.
At this time, the Chair will now recognize each witness for
5 minutes. I think everybody here has testified. You know that
you have 5 minutes, and there is a light that will go off when
you have 1 minute left. So, I hope that you will consider
wrapping it up.
So, I am going to first begin, I want to begin. Ms. Witty,
you are recognized now for 5 minutes.
Put your microphone on. There you go.
STATEMENTS OF HELEN WITTY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, MOTHERS AGAINST
DRUNK DRIVING; ROBERT STRASSBURGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AUTOMOTIVE COALITION FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY;
JOAN CLAYBROOK, BOARD MEMBER, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO
SAFETY, AND FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND DAVID KELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
COALITION OF IGNITION INTERLOCK MANUFACTURERS
STATEMENT OF HELEN WITTY
Ms. Witty. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member
McMorris Rodgers, and other distinguished members of the
committee, for holding this hearing and for inviting me to
testify.
I am here today on behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving
and representing the millions of victims of drunk-driving
crashes.
I would also like to thank Representative Debbie Dingell
for her leadership and action following the tragic death of a
family from Dearborn. The Abbas family, Issam, Rima, Ali,
Isabella, and Giselle, were killed by a wrong-way driver, a
drunk driver.
Like the Abbas family, I have a story. I am here because my
16-year-old daughter is not. One day on a bright, sunny June
afternoon, she went rollerblading on a well-known route and
didn't come home. Until that day, my husband and I had the
dream family, the one we had always dreamed of, two children, a
girl and a boy. They were named for us. So, we had the perfect
names, John and John and Helen and Helen Marie. It was Helen
Marie because I didn't want to be ``Big Helen'' or ``Old
Helen''.
And she was my first born. So, she put me through my mom
paces, and she was so excited when she learned that her brother
John was due to arrive. But, yet, when she learned that he was
there to stay and she had to learn to share, she had to get
used to that, and she did. But the most important thing was she
learned to love him deeply. They were not perfect children,
perfect names maybe, but not perfect children. They were well-
adjusted and that what we had prayed for.
An alcohol- and marijuana-impaired teen driver ended our
dream. Helen Marie was rollerblading on a bike path when she
looked up and saw a car on that bike path spinning toward her.
There was nothing she could do but die very suddenly and very
violently.
I can't tell you what the days and months and years were
like after that. It was preparing for my 16-year-old daughter's
funeral. It was receiving a call asking for body parts. It was
packing up her things that still held her essence. It was
standing in a criminal courtroom.
But I can tell you that MADD was there. They were there to
show me I would not die of the grief. They were there to give
me hope, and they also gave me a platform on which I could
learn and, then, fight from--first, I could only lean on it--
toward a day when there's no more victims of this awful crime.
And the technology is there. That is the frustrating part.
H.M.'s life ended, but mine did not, and that is why I am
here. MADD's campaign to eliminate drunk driving is our top
priority, and the testimony I submitted contains detailed
information about two campaign components: law enforcement and
ignition interlocks.
Today, I would like to specifically talk about advanced
vehicle technologies which could one day prevent a drunk driver
from operating a vehicle. The idea for such technology was born
in 2006 at a MADD Technology Symposium in New Mexico. The
concept was to integrate into the vehicle a passive alcohol
sensor to unobtrusively detect a driver's BAC. The concept
became a reality over a decade ago and is known as DADSS. MADD
worked diligently to get this program started and to get the
Government funding to advance this program.
I represent drunk-driving victims who want this killing to
end now. Our goal is to get this technology into vehicles for
consumers to purchase as soon as possible. Therefore, I issue a
challenge to the auto industry, including OEM suppliers and the
Government, to make DADSS commercially available and for NHTSA
to begin a rulemaking on DADSS as soon as possible.
To aid in transferring DADSS to the auto industry for
commercialization, a large fleet test would help expedite the
technology. In 1982, the General Services Administration
ordered 5,000 cars with driver-side airbags. This stimulated
the market and resulted in widespread acceptance and use. MADD
calls for a similar model.
We understand that DADSS development is challenging, but
the industry has the resources and the expertise to make safety
advancements a reality. Auto detection technology needs to be a
top priority. With this committee's continued leadership, we
could soon witness historic results with 7,000 lives saved
every year.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Schakowsky and Ranking Member
McMorris Rodgers, for allowing me the opportunity to testify on
this important issue, and I look forward to working with all of
you and answering any questions you have for me. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Witty follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Strassburger, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT STRASSBURGER
Mr. Strassburger. Good morning, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
McMorris Rodgers, and distinguished members of this
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to update you on
the DADSS research program.
Despite significant efforts over the years, drunk driving
in the U.S. remains our most intractable safety problem. To
help address this, automakers and NHTSA formed the DADSS
partnership to research the widespread use of noninvasive
technology to prevent drunk driving. Public-private
partnerships like DADSS have led innovations that have enhanced
our everyday lives, such as the internet, GPS, the microchip,
and WiFi.
The DADSS program is working to invent technology that can
detect when a driver is impaired by alcohol and prevent the car
from moving. Once the technology has met rigorous performance
standards, it will be offered voluntarily as a safety option,
similar to other driver-assist systems like automatic emergency
braking or lane departure warning.
DADSS technologies hold the greatest promise and are likely
the fastest pathway for reversing the drunk-driving trends in
the United States. Two technologies are being researched, a
touch-based system and a breath-based system. The breath-based
system measures alcohol as a driver breathes normally when
seated in the driver's seat. The touch-based system measures
blood alcohol by shining an infrared light through the
fingertip of the driver when he or she touches a vehicle
control like the starter button.
A significant part of our research is focused on achieving
the performance specifications for speed, accuracy, precision,
and reliability of the alcohol measurement. These stringent
specifications are necessary to ensure that no driver at or
above .08 is allowed to drive, while also ensuring that sober
drivers are not hassled by the technology.
We are not modified existing or off-the-shelf technologies,
but inventing new technology that must reliably operate over
the 20-year life of a vehicle in the harshest environment, the
interior of a car. One measure of our progress is DADSS patent
portfolio, which currently includes 10 patent families
worldwide and covering 10 patent areas. The number of
applications exceeds 50, and nine patents have issued.
On-road testing of the DADSS prototype sensors is underway.
This is one of those sensors. This testing complements more
controlled testing in the laboratory and human subject testing
in a hospital setting. We are pleased and honored to have the
Virginia Highway Safety Office and James River Transportation
participate in the on-road evaluations.
Virginia is also helping in other ways to ready the public
for the deployment of DADSS technologies and to reduce drunk
driving generally that I describe in my written testimony.
Virginia is a model for other States to follow.
While the DADSS program is currently still in the invention
phase, we estimate that, in 2020, we will release the breath-
based DADSS technology for fleet vehicles and accessory
applications. And in 2024, we are targeting the release of both
the breath-based and touch-based DADSS technologies for
consumer vehicles, depending on resource availability in 2020
and beyond. While continued research is needed to achieve our
2020 and our 2024 objectives, I am more optimistic than ever
that we will be successful.
I will be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strassburger follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now, Ms. Claybrook, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOAN CLAYBROOK
Ms. Claybrook. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman and
Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers. It is a pleasure to be here
with the members of the subcommittee.
I am Joan Claybrook, and I am representing Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, a coalition of consumer health-safety
groups and insurers who are working together to save lives by
promoting the adoption of safety laws.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. The topic of the
hearing, enhancing vehicle technology to prevent drunk driving,
is an issue I feel passionately about and to which I have
devoted many efforts over many, many years in the last five
decades.
While we have made progress over the years, the grim
reality remains that a drunk-driving fatality occurs every 48
minutes on average, and alcohol-impaired crashes are the
largest single contributor to traffic fatalities in the United
States. It is past time to address drunk driving with bold
Federal action to facilitate wider use of these proved
technologies, enactment of proven State laws, and enhanced law
enforcement.
Advocates, as always, champion proven technology, and for
good reason. It is one of the most effective strategies
preventing deaths and injuries. In 2012, NHTSA estimated that,
since 1960, over 600,000 lives--and that is old data now--have
been saved by motor vehicle safety technologies, most of them
in Federal standards.
One of our most recent achievements was the Federal
requirement for rearview cameras as standard equipment in all
new cars as of May of this last year. This landmark law never
would have been enacted without the remarkable leadership of
Chairwoman Schakowsky and the tireless devotion of the victim
families. So, thank you so much, Madam Chairman.
Similarly, we push forward to reduce drinking and driving
with proven technologies, including ignition interlock devices,
known as IIDs, and sensor technology. Advocates commends
Representative Debbie Dingell--thank you so much--for your
recent introduction of legislation to reduce drunk driving
following the horrific crash that you mentioned in Northville,
Michigan.
State laws requiring all convicted drunk drivers to have an
IID installed in their vehicle have been shown to be incredibly
effective. As such, Congress and NHTSA should continue to
motivate the States to enact this lifesaving law and to
consider the addition of sanctions for States that fail to act.
Federal legislation, enacted with the warning of financial
sanctions, encourages every State to adopt the age 21 minimum
drinking age, a zero tolerance BAC law for under-age drinking
and driving, a .08 percent BAC law.
Every one of these lifesaving Federal laws resulting in
every State--every State--taking action. And not a single State
lost a dollar in Federal construction money, highway
construction money, as a result, although that was the penalty
if they did not, because they acted.
Additionally, the further development of sensor technology
holds great promise to reduce drunk-driving crashes.
Considerable research has gone into developing the Driver
Alcohol Detection System for Safety, known as DADSS. After more
than a decade of research and millions of dollars provided by
Congress, NHTSA and the industry should be doing everything
they can to get these technologies into the vehicles without
further delay.
But, unfortunately, they aren't, and I think the
instrumental word that Mr. Strassburger mentioned was that they
didn't want to have this in vehicles so that people wouldn't be
hassled by the technology. Well, people aren't hassled by this
technology because it doesn't come into play unless you are
drinking and driving. So, that is a ridiculous statement. I
call Mr. Strassburger ``the industry excuse man''. I have
testified against him on many, many occasions. And I hope that
he will get over this one day.
All right. So, placing DADSS into these vehicles is
essentially, and there is no better way to advance a potential
lifesaving technology. I just talked to Mr. Kelly, and it is my
estimate, based on what he said--I want to emphasize that--that
if we put these in every single vehicle, it would be about $10
a vehicle. Who wouldn't pay $10 to put this system into their
vehicles, so that people would not drive drunk?
While IIDs and sensor systems prevent drunk driving, one of
the most important defenses, of course, for the drunk driver is
a safe car as well. Current advanced driver assistance systems
such as automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning,
and blindspot detection have verified safety benefits. Yet,
none of these systems--none of them-- are required to be
standard equipment in all vehicles, and all of them are in some
vehicles. So, we know that they work.
In fact, many of these technologies are offered only on the
most expensive models as a part of a costly luxury package. We
urge Congress to require these proven technologies to be
standard equipment in all new vehicles by issuing new Federal
motor vehicle safety standards with a deadline for
implementation, just like the rear camera.
In addition to achieving these benefits now, these advanced
technologies can serve as building blocks on the path to
autonomous vehicles, which we have already heard Mr. Latta
mention today. And I appeared recently on a panel with some
industry individuals who said that they are a long way down the
road. So, they are not going to be the substitute for these
technology systems on alcohol, but----
Ms. Schakowsky. Please wrap it up. OK?
Ms. Claybrook. OK. Sorry.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Ms. Claybrook. And I would like to commend the law
enforcement officers who daily risk their lives in order to
prevent drunk driving. Their lives, too, would be better off if
we have these systems in cars.
So, by deploying all of these known sensible solutions, we
can once again make significant progress to reduce drunk
driving, and I hope that the committee will not fail to act on
this.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Claybrook follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back.
And now, Mr. Kelly, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID KELLY
Mr. Kelly. Good morning, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
McMorris Rodgers, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the invitation to appear before you today to discuss an issue
that I have dedicated most of my professional career towards,
reducing drunk driving.
My name is David Kelly. I am the executive director of the
Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers.
I do want to thank Representative Dingell for the
leadership that you have shown with your bill. I can tell you
from firsthand experience that the family really appreciates
what you have done and the support that you have given them.
So, I thank you for that.
The Coalition is composed of the Nation's leading companies
that manufacture ignition interlock devices. These devices
prohibit alcohol-impaired drivers from starting their vehicle.
We combine our members' expertise, innovation, and experience
to speak with one voice to reduce alcohol-related vehicle
fatalities.
Ignition interlocks do what no other technology available
today does. They stop drunk drivers from starting their
vehicle. An ignition interlock device is a breathalyzer, just
like this, that is installed in a drunk driver offender's
vehicle to prevent drinking and driving.
Interlocks must meet specific standards that are set by
NHTSA. All of the breath test data is stored in the device and
is sent to the monitoring agency that is subscribed by that
State.
Interlocks are a cost-effective and innovative solution
designed to keep our public roadways safe. At a cost of less
than $3 per day, paid for by the offender, interlocks provide a
safety blanket for the cost of a cup of coffee, while freeing
up law enforcement to pursue other crimes.
The supporters of ignition interlocks are a who's who in
traffic safety: MADD, AAA, Advocates, the Alliance for
Automobile Manufacturers, American Trauma Society, CDC, the
Governors Highway Safety Association, the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety, the National Safety Council,
Responsibility.org, just to name a few. All of these
organizations actively support ignition interlock devices and
first-offender laws.
Many convicted drunk drivers, however, continue to drive on
a suspended license because they must in order to keep their
jobs, take care of their families, or continue with school.
Interlocks provide an opportunity for offenders to continue to
drive legally and safely to successfully get on with their
lives.
The Coalition works with policymakers across the country to
provide the latest, credible, factual information on ignition
interlock devices. Our members are at the forefront of
effective ignition interlock programs in every State to deploy
this lifesaving technology. According to MADD, over the last
decade, interlocks have stopped 2.7 million attempts to drive
drunk--2.7 million over the last decade.
Our challenge is to get all 50 States to adopt first-
offender ignition interlock laws. Currently, 32 States have
first-offender laws on the books, and we are working with the
remaining 18 States to pass first-offender ignition interlock
laws.
However, we also advocate for other improvements to State
laws. This would include an immediate reinstatement measure
where you can get your driving privileges the day after you get
arrested or compliance-based removal where you do not have the
device removed from your vehicle until you can demonstrate a
changed behavior and a 30-day--60-day, depending on State law--
change of behavior where you have an alcohol-free experience
with the device.
Some of our cameras have cameras, have GPS. We have lots of
advanced technology in the devices. So, this is a lot of
technology in a very small handset.
Currently, States that have passed first-offender ignition
interlock laws should be awarded an incentive grant from NHTSA.
That was authorized in the last highway bill. However, the
NHTSA rules for awarding these grants are needlessly
complicated and inflexible. As a result, only seven of the 32
States with first-offender laws have even qualified for the
grant money. We are hoping to streamline that process in the
next authorization.
One of the other things that we need to think about in the
next authorization is law enforcement, providing them more
funds, as has been talked about, and also looking at how we are
going to get more arrests. We know drunk-driving arrests are
down over the past decade. We need to reverse this trend.
There are other technologies being developed and supported
by many in the safety community. While these technologies hold
promise, it is important to note that the only commercially
available technology that exists today to prevent an impaired
driver from starting their vehicle is the ignition interlock.
Technology will continue to evolve, including in the interlock
industry. As a safety community, we must be prepared to adapt
to emerging technologies. However, until they are ready to be
deployed, we can't forget what is proven and will likely be the
only technology available to prevent drunk driving for the
foreseeable future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much.
And now, we will begin 5 minutes of Member questions, and I
will recognize myself to begin.
I wanted to thank you, Ms. Witty, for the dedication that
you have had over the years now and your compelling story about
your daughter. Moms, everybody knows moms, and I'm just
wondering, the No. 1 priority, obviously, is to stop drunk
drivers. Is your No. 1 priority in that category that solutions
like DADSS are necessary?
Ms. Witty. Yes, DADSS needs to be commercialized and
deployed in a large fleet, so that more people hear about it.
Safety just is not an option. We need to stop the killing.
Here she is. Here is my rock star.
And what a beautiful way to use technology. Like
Representative Dingell said, why don't we use the technology?
And so, yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
So, Mr. Strassburger, the technology being developed for
the DADSS program shows some real potential for saving lives,
but progress seems to have stalled. And I would like to hear
more from you about the progress of the program.
Mr. Strassburger. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Progress is anything but stalled. We have made significant
progress with the breath-based technology, as I mentioned in my
statement and in my testimony. We are targeting releasing the
breath-based technology in 2020 for fleet applications.
I support and agree, and I think it is a constructive
suggestion, that this technology be deployed in GSA vehicles,
and would look forward to having a discussion about how we can
make that happen, how that should be structured as quickly as
possible. I agree that that would help further deployment.
Ms. Schakowsky. Can I just ask you a question?
Mr. Strassburger. Yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Can someone disconnect, not deploy--the
driver I am talking about--I mean, is this something that can
be overridden by the individual in the car?
Mr. Strassburger. The design of DADSS is intended not to be
overridden by the driver. And, in fact, our performance
specifications are such that we would make that very difficult.
However, we are looking at different operating scenarios where,
under extreme circumstances, it might need to be overridden,
and then, if it is, what followup action should be taken by the
driver. For example, performance of the vehicle is degraded
until they see a dealer to have the system restored, what have
you.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me talk to Ms. Claybrook, who has
certainly been the lifelong advocate on auto safety. Do you
have any concerns about the DADSS program or the compliance of
or willingness of the industry to help move that forward?
Ms. Claybrook. I don't know what is the matter with the
industry on this issue. This issue came up when I was NHTSA
Administrator in the 1970s. John DeLorean supported it in the
1970s and '80s on his experimental car, and he was a former
General Motors executive. Now we are talking about this has
been an active partnership since 2006. 2006, that is 13 years
ago. Where is this system? It didn't take that long to produce
airbags. Airbags are a lot more complicated than this, a lot
more complicated, and they cost a lot more. So, why isn't this
system in every car? I do not understand that.
I think this committee should pass a law that requires
NHTSA to issue a rule within 3 years to have them in every
single car in America. What is the problem? We have so many
people who drive drunk, and we can't figure out who they are
one by one. If we wait until they kill somebody or harm
somebody before a judge requires them to put this system in
their car--and there are 18 States that still don't do that--it
is just like a morass. Why not just do the simple thing?
And plus the fact they have to be wired into the car. The
manufacturer should put them in with their wiring as standard
equipment in every single car in America. If the DADSS system,
then, further develops and we feel we can use that, then let's
use that. But I don't understand this. It just is impossible. I
mean, it is a killer. This is a killer, and the auto industry
is fostering the deaths of these people, in my view.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me quickly just get to Mr. Kelly. Is
this a passive system? I am not quite understanding how this
works.
Mr. Kelly. So, it is an active system. And so, there is a
wire that would come out of the bottom of the handset that
would go into the ignition system. So, as you turn the car, you
take a test. When you pass the test, it completes the circuit
and the car then starts.
Ms. Schakowsky. What if you don't do the test?
Mr. Kelly. The car doesn't start.
Ms. Schakowsky. Oh, OK. I understand. So, it is really not
passive. You are required to do it?
Mr. Kelly. It is active.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. I yield back. And now, I yield to our
ranking member for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Witty, I, too, want to thank you for sharing your
daughter's story. It is heartbreaking, and I appreciate your
being here today.
I wanted to hear more about MADD's work with self-driving
vehicle technology companies. Do you believe that self-driving
vehicles could help reduce the number of alcohol-related
fatalities on our roadways?
Ms. Witty. Absolutely, yes. We support self-driving
vehicles. The problem is we don't know when that is going to be
possible. That is in the future. The DADSS program is right
now. We could do this. If DADSS was a top priority, it would be
in cars, and we could save 7,000 lives a year. Yes, absolutely.
AVs, wonderful, but it may be decades away. Now we have got
this. Let's stop the killing and save the lives we can today.
Mrs. Rodgers. Are there any lessons we have learned from
all the important work done by MADD and others to address drunk
driving that you think would apply to drug-impaired driving?
Ms. Witty. Absolutely, yes. Yes. It is frustrating for me
because my daughter was killed be a teenager who was impaired
on alcohol and marijuana both. Polydrug use is a huge issue.
But, right now, we have the science to stop the drunk part,
which they are still saying is the No. 1 killer. That is what
worries me so. Often, you know, oh, we have stopped focusing on
that. And the deaths are rising, almost 11,000. So, let's keep
our focus there and, also, deal with what is emerging with
marijuana. The science is still not there.
Did that answer your question?
Mrs. Rodgers. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Witty. I mean, you can see it. I am like there she is.
And there are so many stories that I meet; I see in the eyes
that the grief is there. Why can't we stop this?
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Ms. Witty. So, thank you.
Mrs. Rodgers. Mr. Kelly, 94 percent of traffic accidents
are due to human error, which includes making the decision to
drive while impaired, either after drinking, taking drugs, or
both. We are hearing about technologies inside traditional
cars, but how can new technologies, like self-driving vehicles,
help improve roadway safety and reduce impaired driving?
Mr. Kelly. Thank you for the question.
I think, as we have heard today, self-driving vehicles are
going to put the traffic safety community out of business, but
it is going to be out of business in 20 years, in 30 years, in
40. Who knows where that is, where that technology is? And what
we need to do, continue to work on that technology, continue to
develop those technologies because they are very important.
A lot of the technologies that go into self-driving
vehicles are already being implemented on sort of a one-by-one
basis in vehicles today. Putting them all together to get a
vehicle that works collectively is great, but we need to make
sure that we are dealing with what we can deal with today. And
that is one of the reasons that we are so passionate about
ignition interlocks and getting more of them installed on
vehicles.
Mrs. Rodgers. Part of the reason I asked the question is
because in Washington State we are seeing a dramatic increase
in the number of traffic accidents, traffic fatalities that do
involve marijuana and other drugs.
And I wanted to ask, while you were at NHTSA, was drug-
impaired driving a focus for the agency, and are there any
lessons learned from drunk driving and what we have done to
counter drunk driving that you think that we need to apply to
drug-impaired driving or masking, which is mixing drugs and
alcohol, that we should be thinking about here in Congress?
Mr. Kelly. Absolutely. Unfortunately, during my time at the
agency, the drug-impaired driving debate was much similar to
the drug-impaired driving debate of today. The discussion was
focused around what is a legal standard for driving while
impaired with marijuana, and that continues to be the big
question within the drug-impaired driving community. How are we
going to measure? How are we going to test? What is a legal
limit? And there is still no data, no science, and it is
frustrating that that discussion is the same.
One of the things that can be done, however, and as Helen
alluded to, one of the things that can be done today, and the
best thing that can be done today on drug-impaired driving is
to continue in the enforcement of our current laws, continue
enforcement of alcohol-impaired laws, get law enforcement out
there. Because with the poly use, we know that if the person
has been smoking marijuana or taking other drugs, the odds are
they have also been drinking. So, if you can get the
impairment, you can get to the drugs. That is what can be done
today.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
I will yield back my time. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back. And now, I
recognize Congressman Castor for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
As a Floridian, this hearing is particularly timely because
it is spring break time back home. And unfortunately, that also
brings binge drinking and a spike in traffic crashes. Studies
have shown that death tolls were 9 percent higher during spring
break in spring break destinations, with more deaths among
drivers under 25 and those traveling from out-of-State.
In Florida, drunk driving caused more than 15 crashes per
day in March of last year. So, this spike in deaths is an
unfortunate and ongoing problem. And I am not sure that
interlock devices after DUI convictions is getting to this
problem, especially folks who are driving rental cars.
So, Ms. Claybrook, you made it fairly clear you think that
Congress should pass a law and that interlock devices should be
mandated in all vehicles? Is that----
Ms. Claybrook. I do believe that for several reasons. One
is because they are not an irritant. I would prefer to have one
that is sensitive to your touch. But, for now, if we can't get
that immediately, I would say put in the interlock device.
Ms. Castor. OK.
Ms. Claybrook. What it does is it reminds everybody that
they are not supposed to drink and drive.
Ms. Castor. And how about the other witnesses? Do you
agree?
Ms. Witty. Me?
Ms. Castor. Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Witty. I want to stop the killing. I want to do what it
takes. So, if that is what it is going to take, then that is
what I would be for. I don't want to meet another heartbroken
person. So, I want it stopped.
Ms. Castor. And I really do appreciate you being here. I
have two daughters myself.
Ms. Witty. And I am a native Floridian.
Ms. Castor. So, you understand what happens at spring break
then.
Ms. Witty. Yes, I have been working in schools for 8 years
down in Miami. So, yes, absolutely.
Ms. Castor. OK.
Mr. Strassburger. Yes, in my written testimony I give some
benefits estimates of various technology approaches, of various
countermeasures. One of the conclusions that I make is that, if
we are to make significant progress reversing the tide on drunk
driving, we need vehicle-integrated technology. I am actually
technology agnostic. We have a number of ideas here today
between conventional interlocks, autonomous vehicles. I
personally think DADSS is the technology that will get us there
the fastest, but we need vehicle-integrated technology.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. And I think that one of the issues that we
grapple with in trying to get ignition interlocks installed on
vehicles for folks that are supposed to have them, I liken the
idea of mandating interlocks back to when we had an ignition
interlock system for seatbelts back in the '70s. I think that
there needs to be a lot more work done sort of proactively for
consumer education, for consumer acceptance. That experiment
was around for a year before Congress, then, reversed itself
because there was such a backlash. I think there needs to be
more work done to sort or prime the pump to get some better
consumer acceptance before we would go down that road.
Ms. Castor. OK.
Ms. Claybrook. Could I comment on that?
Ms. Castor. Yes, and I want to ask you a related question,
too. Back home in the Tampa Bay area, we have had this
phenomenon that is growing where drunk drivers and drivers are
now going the wrong way on the interstates. I mean, this has
happened over and over again. People are like, why are you
driving the wrong way on a bridge? Why are you going onto the
interstate? And oftentimes, it is a drunk driver and they have
already been convicted of drunk driving.
So, Ms. Claybrook, I mean, it is a similar issue. How do we
get at that problem, too?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, first of all, I hate to admit it, but
I was around when the interlock was proposed and put into
place. And I was working at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and then, as a consumer advocate. The real
issue was that it was very difficult sometimes to fasten the
belts. It was often the passenger side belt, where you had your
dog or your groceries that stopped the car from starting
because the belt wasn't around your groceries.
So, there were a lot of other problems that are quite
dissimilar from this. And this is very simple. You blow into it
and you are on your way. So, it is far simpler than the other
one. I think it does need a consumer information program to
educate people, but most people are scared to death of drunk
drivers. They don't want to be hit by a drunk driver, and they
are going to support whatever it is that stops people from
driving drunk and hurting them or their children. So, I don't
see the public relations problem with this at all.
Ms. Castor. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Congressman Burgess, I recognize you for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Well, thank you.
And thanks to our witnesses for being here today.
Ms. Witty, I have a constituent who has a similar story to
yours, unfortunately, which involved both alcohol and a
positive qualitative test for marijuana in the driver. Because
the blood alcohol level was below .08, no charges were filed.
So, here's a young man who was crossing in a crosswalk and
hit by a Jeep at night. And mom came in to see me, distraught
as you are, as you tell your story today. And her further
question to me is, why is it that when there are--she
understands the .08 being the level, the legal limit. But if
there is a confounding circumstance like a positive test for
marijuana, a good defense attorney can make a case for, well,
that could be remote, so it might not be active. I get that.
But if there are those two things coupled with a death in an
accident, that ought to be an automatic referral to a grand
jury, and in this case it wasn't.
So, I guess my question really is, I am appreciative of
trying to bring the technology into play and have it be
helpful, but are we educating our local DAs, our State folks?
Because drunk driving has been around for a while, but the
imposition of, as you said, polypharmacy along with the alcohol
really can confound the issue.
And I might just ask our two former Administrators, or
Acting Administrator, is this something on which you focused
during your time at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, helping the local DAs and the State officials?
Most of these are State laws, the driving laws that are
violated.
I have just got to tell you, it is heartbreaking that a mom
comes in and says, ``This is what happened and they didn't even
prosecute.''
Ms. Claybrook. I didn't quite understand the nature of your
question. Are you asking whether it should be lower than .08?
Mr. Burgess. Well, .08 does not conform to the legal
definition of driving impaired, but .08 plus a positive
qualitative test for a metabolite of marijuana----
Ms. Claybrook. Yes.
Mr. Burgess [continuing]. Coupled with the death of someone
in the accident sequence, those things to me should elevate
that. The accident investigation said, well, alcohol was
tested; it is below .08. No violation. Terribly sorry, sad
accident. Everyone goes on about their business.
Ms. Claybrook. Well, I certainly agree with you. I think
that it should elevate it. But I don't think that perfection
should stop the good. And so, I would step now as fast as
possible to try and have a vehicle-integrated system, as Mr.
Strassburger said the industry favors, not which one, but an
integrated vehicle system to start. And there does need to be
more development on how do you measure the drugs and, of
course, also some pharmaceuticals that are a problem as well,
and so, that are permissible. So, I think that that definitely
needs it.
I was concerned about it when I was the Administrator.
There wasn't as many drugs around, I have to say, when I was
NHTSA Administrator. So, it wasn't the main focus. I was
focused more on trying to get .08. It was then .10.
Mr. Burgess. Sure. It came up again with--yes, ma'am, Ms.
Witty?
Ms. Witty. The thing is, I faced this with my daughter. The
person who killed her was .09, but she was on marijuana. Well,
that doesn't matter. And 20 years more, and it still is there.
But what we have today is we have an empowered police force. A
DRE, a drug recognition expert, can tell. I have worked with
these officers. They can look at somebody and they can say what
they are on and what it is. So, I would love to see an
empowered police force that is believed in court and that could
be empowered in court. Because I have ridden with them.
Mr. Burgess. Yes, I need to reclaim my time, not to cut you
off----
Ms. Witty. OK.
Mr. Burgess [continuing]. But my time is limited.
Ms. Witty. OK.
Mr. Burgess. And the chairwoman is very aggressive about
gaveling me.
[Laughter.]
We spend a lot of time in this committee--and I have got
two former NHTSA Administrators--we spent a lot of time in this
committee, the subcommittee, on airbags and the Takata airbag
crisis, as you recall. We also spent time with the Chevrolet
Cobalt and the ignition switch cutting off, so the airbag was
not powered.
I have encountered a situation back home that I had not
encountered before. And that is the placement of a fake airbag
when an airbag is replaced, in this case after an accident, but
I guess it could also occur if an airbag was recalled in one of
these Takata sequences.
But here was a young woman, and the story is she was
impaired, so it fits into this discussion. But the airbag did
not deploy because the airbag was just junk. It was a shop rag
and some wax and some electrical tape because the airbag had
deployed on the car previously. They had fixed the damage. It
had cost $1,500 to put a new airbag in. Nobody wants to make
that expense. So, they go to a cut-rate shop that says, ``We
will get the sensor turned off,'' and as a consequence they put
in something that looked like a module but was not a module.
She hit a tree at 45 miles an hour, transected her aorta, and
died.
So, I had not encountered that before. I don't know if the
agency, if this is something that is appearing or this is just
a one-off.
But, Madam Chairman, I will submit that in writing to you,
because I know we don't have time to answer. But I hope we
would spend some time talking about the airbag situation
because we did not solve it 2 years ago when I was chairman.
Ms. Claybrook. If I could just respond, Madam Chairman,
just to say that, yes, there are examples of people doing that,
but it is not very frequent. And so, I wouldn't focus on that
in terms of whether or not these other systems would work well.
Mr. Burgess. If we don't surveil, if we don't know the
number, I mean----
Ms. Claybrook. Well, there needs to be surveillance. And
the insurance industry is also very helpful in that regard
because they pay for the new airbag to be put in after the
crash.
Mr. Burgess. It didn't work out in this case.
Ms. Schakowsky. So, I am going to recognize Mr. Soto, yes,
for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
What a fascinating topic, and how technology is just
evolving in so many areas of our society. You look at the
original solutions to drunk driving, in addition to just not
doing it. It was having designated drivers and taxis and the DC
Metro, or SunRail back in our district. Now we have Uber, Lyft,
and other ride shares that contribute a lot to helping get
those folks off the roads; driverless vehicles eventually. And
now, we have the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety
program.
And I really appreciate my colleague, Representative
Castor, talking about, should it be a penalty for existing
drunk drivers, an optional feature in cars, or should we go
right into it and make it a standard feature, particularly if
it was a push button?
And the idea that, could technology make drunk driving
obsolete? It is just a fascinating possibility in the world we
live in. And when you think about it, it would save all these
lives of folks who are victims who get hit, but also save a lot
of people from making a lot of bad mistakes and getting into
the criminal justice system by being drunk drivers, not only
from the injuries that they could sustain, but all the legal
expenses and that our court systems deal with on a daily basis.
So, if we were to eventually have this technology to a
level where it was standard equipment, and you simply, as an
American, pushed the button, and your car doesn't start because
you are over the limit, and we went nationwide with something
like that, it would be great to hear from each of the
panelists. What are the various concerns and issues that we
should be contemplating and addressing to create a regime like
that? And we will start from left to right, starting with Ms.
Witty.
Ms. Witty. The DADSS is what we would prefer for everyone
because ignition interlock, we would agree with you then, the
ignition interlock is more punitive and it makes the person
work. So, exactly, the DADSS program would be passive unless
you are breaking the law, exactly. Let's add hospitals to the
saving the money.
Mr. Soto. Sure.
Ms. Witty. We wouldn't have the injuries and all those. So,
as far as MADD is concerned, we see DADSS as what we would want
installed because it is not there unless you are breaking the
law.
Mr. Soto. Sure.
Mr. Strassburger, what concerns? What do we have to address
if we were to put together legislation eventually that would
address that?
Mr. Strassburger. So, the DADSS program has always been
structured from the beginning to build consumer awareness and
acceptance of the technology, in sync with the technology, so
that there is a consumer pull, coupled with an industry push
for the technology. I actually think we can get full
penetration faster that way.
There may be two things that need to be taken into
consideration with respect to a mandate. One is that we should
not be picking technology winners and losers. We should be
technology agnostic. And some of the technologies that we are
talking about here today are good examples of why that should
be.
The other thing I want to address is that, while I will, no
surprise, disagree with former Administrator Claybrook, not
hassling drivers who are not the problem, who don't see they
are the problem, is a very important consideration. And
seatbelt interlocks in the 1970s are very instructive.
Mr. Soto. Thank you. And we can imagine just a push button
where it turns or not, and your car doesn't start, for every
driver.
It would be great to hear from you next, Ms. Claybrook, as
well.
Ms. Claybrook. Well, I think that the most important thing
is for Congress to act. I think the people are just sick and
tired of waiting and waiting and waiting. This has been going
on since I was Administrator 40-plus years ago, and it is still
going on today. And people are dying every single year. These
deaths destroy families.
You know, Ms. Witty has risen to the height above it, but
most families are so devastated, and particularly if it is the
breadwinner. So, we should act, and if it means that we act as
something less than perfect, let's do that, and then, let's
make sure that we can get to DADSS. I hope that we could. That
would be fine with me, and I think the Government has put a
huge amount of money in it. The industry has put money into it.
Let's finish the job.
Mr. Soto. And Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. I think that in a perfect world what needs to be
done, and one of the big landmines in sort of going with that
type of program, is the public education. Look, nobody thinks
they are a bad driver. Nobody thinks they are a drunk driver.
It is always everybody else's fault. You know, you are the bad
driver; you are the one that cut me off. It doesn't matter you
were on your cell phone doing 30 miles an hour in the lefthand
lane, right? But that is the mentality of the driver. And we
need to do a lot more work to overcome that before we start
thinking about mandating technology across every vehicle.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back. And I now
recognize Representative Bucshon for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Well, thank you very much.
My wife's first cousin was killed on her first car date
when she was 16, a drunk driver. So, this affects every family.
I was a cardiovascular and thoracic surgeon before, and
obviously, in my role as treating trauma patients, I have seen
many people who have been hit or, honestly, have been driving
themselves drunk and have been injured. This is a critical
problem, and I would agree that it is something that we
probably have slowly tried to address, probably too slowly. And
it appears there is technology now that there is no excuse
really for not addressing this issue.
So, in that vein, Mr. Strassburger, when will the Driver
Alcohol Detection Systems that you are working on be
commercially available?
Mr. Strassburger. As I mentioned both in my written
testimony and my opening statement, we expect that, by 2020, we
will be releasing the breath-based technology for fleet and
accessory applications, and that by 2024----
Mr. Bucshon. So, at that time, what you are saying is that
you will release it, and I get that. There's a lot of
technologies that are released, but, then, are not economically
feasible. If you are going to add a thousand dollars to a
$12,000 car, a lot of times for many people that is not
economically feasible.
So what you are saying is, by 2020, this should be not only
available and potentially installed in vehicles, but it will be
economically feasible to install in all levels of vehicles, not
just high-end vehicles?
Mr. Strassburger. That is correct. The task that we took on
back when the campaign to eliminate drunk driving launched was
to demonstrate the commercial feasibility, viability, and
assure the certainty of the technology. That has been our focus
from day one.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
Mr. Strassburger. So, it is our intention that, if we can
demonstrate feasibility, viability, and certainty, that it will
be used.
Mr. Bucshon. Great. And I do agree that--and some of you
have talked about it--that you do, unfortunately and
frustratingly, have to have consumer buy-in on these types of
issues, because if you don't, people will go to the extremes to
try to subvert them. They will have friends touch the ignition
with their finger because they think they have had too much to
drink, and then, they will hop in the seat. Or they will have a
kid touch it, believe it or not. So, these types of things, we
do have to have consumer buy-in and understanding. We also have
to make ways that people can't get around these things, if we
decide to do it, as we should.
Mr. Kelly, what are the particular challenges drug-impaired
driving pose that alcohol-impaired driving does not?
Mr. Kelly. The biggest problem is setting the legal limit,
to define what is impairment from a drug. And each drug is
going to have a different--whether it is marijuana or whether
it is prescription drugs, whatever it is, each impair
differently. And setting a legal limit is probably the No. 1
challenge to try to define. Because as we talk about this in
this setting, when it gets down to an enforcement perspective
and in a prosecution perspective, judges and juries, they like
per se levels. And that is the biggest challenge of getting
these types of cases prosecuted.
Mr. Bucshon. And, for example, in my district in Newburgh,
Indiana, there was a sledding hill all the kids used, but they
probably shouldn't. But they have been doing it for decades. It
crosses a road, right? And so, a young lady, 16 years old, a
couple of years ago, an impaired driver was coming down the
road too quickly and hit her as she sledded across the road,
where she shouldn't have been. But, you know, kids do crazy
things. I have got four kids; I know this.
It turns out she blew zero on her breathalyzer test in the
field, did have some field sobriety tests that said she was
impaired. But it actually took the prosecutors and law
enforcement months and months and months to finally prove that
and convict her of reckless driving, essentially, being
impaired. But it was a struggle, right, because there was no
definable level of impairment. So, I would agree that that is a
substantial challenge.
And when you see the level of use, I mean, some people have
mentioned the data about how many high school kids are using
this. We need to work on that.
So, are there other things, other than breathalyzers and
other things, that we can do in vehicles that would help with
this? I mean, it is one thing. Maybe we shouldn't be able to
open the door, for example. Does anybody have an opinion on
that? Even get in the car at all?
Ms. Claybrook. Do what?
Mr. Bucshon. You would have, on the outside of the car, you
would have a detection system, and if you don't pass that, you
can't even open the car door.
Ms. Claybrook. Oh, I see.
Mr. Bucshon. I don't know.
Ms. Claybrook. I like that idea. I love technology.
Mr. Bucshon. I mean, that is an extreme.
But, anyway, my time has expired. I appreciate your
testimony. It is powerful. And, Ms. Witty, obviously, yours is
very powerful testimony, and we need to take all these things
into consideration and improve our systems.
Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back. And now, I will
recognize Congressman McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair and the ranking
member.
I thank the witnesses for really good, excellent testimony
this morning.
Mr. Strassburger, could you give us an update on the test
program, and specifically, how many cars are being tested?
Mr. Strassburger. Yes. So, with the wonderful cooperation
of the State of Virginia and James River Transportation, we are
operating up to four vehicles out of two sites, the Norfolk
Airport and the Richmond Airport. There is consideration being
given to expanding the number of vehicles tested in what we
call a naturalistic evaluation.
We will also, once we have OMB approval, be testing
anywhere between 20 and 40 vehicles in different locations
around the country that are representative of the extreme
environmental and other environmental conditions that you would
normally experience in a car. So, we are working on, we are
actually doing shakedown testing of those vehicles right now in
anticipation of OMB clearance, but we don't have that clearance
yet.
Mr. McNerney. So, about how many cars does it usually take
for an automaker to adopt a new technology?
Mr. Strassburger. Well, it depends on the technology and
the test matrix, but, normally, a lot more than what we are
testing right now. We are working on securing other
evaluations, as I have mentioned.
Mr. McNerney. Are you looking to partner with other States?
Is California one of the States you are----
Mr. Strassburger. California is not. They have not
expressed an interest, but we would love to have them.
Mr. McNerney. So, what are the obstacles that are keeping
from expanding to those States?
Mr. Strassburger. We will talk to any State that wants to
talk to us about deploying vehicles. NHTSA has issued guidance
to every State--that was, I think, back in 2016--that allows
them to use their Federal grant funding for DADSS programs. So,
I am open to talk to anyone, States or otherwise.
Mr. McNerney. So, it sounded like your testimony showed you
are expecting another 4-year extension of the DADSS testing, is
that right?
Mr. Strassburger. Not testing. There is, we estimate,
another 4 years of research that we need to conduct to be able
to release the DADSS derivative for privately owned vehicles,
that is, the version that would go on every car and truck that
a consumer would buy.
Mr. McNerney. Ms. Claybrook, what do you think about that
timeframe?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, what amazes me is, when the auto
industry wants to introduce a new technology, it is zip, it is
done. On the autonomous cars, which are so much more
complicated than what we are talking about today, they are
pushing hard to get autonomous. They tried to push legislation
through last year to get autonomous cars to be tested on the
highway and to be sold very shortly thereafter.
So, I think that it is like a bureaucratic nightmare that
we are experiencing here, and I see no reason why it is going
to take this long to test such a simple system as this. And it
is discouraging. It is discouraging to all the organizations
that have been working on this for so many years, but it is
like a slow walk. You know what I mean by that?
Mr. McNerney. Right, right.
Ms. Claybrook. So, I think it is time to get past the slow
walk. And there is one body in this United States Government
that can do, and that is the United States Congress.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you for that.
I want to follow up a little bit on what Mr. Bucshon was
talking about, universal impaired driving. There is no
mechanical--I mean, obviously, the blood levels are all over
the place for different substances. There is no mechanical
test. Is it feasible to have a mechanical test that a driver
would have to take before turning on the key, before the key
would turn on the ignition?
Ms. Claybrook. You mean for drugs?
Mr. McNerney. For impairment.
Ms. Claybrook. For impairment. I see.
Mr. Strassburger. That actually has been looked at in the
1970s, for example, to measure your cognitive ability. That is
something that we looked at. You would be given a string of
numbers, for example.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I think it is more important to have a
reflex than a cognitive----
Mr. Strassburger. But I think the approach was to look at
your ability to drive a vehicle safely. And so, that one was
looking at entering a string of numbers that were displayed on
the screen. The problem with that is that most people couldn't,
even if they were not impaired, complete that task.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McNerney. OK.
Mr. Kelly. And I think that there have been some
discussions around that as well. You know, impairment is
impairment; let's define the impairment and let's try to test
to the impairment. And that is one way to get around the legal
limit levels. I know a lot of groups are talking about that,
but action items there are very difficult to come by.
Mr. McNerney. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back. And now, I
recognize Congressman Carter for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank all of you for being here. What an important
subject.
And, Ms. Witty, God bless you. Thank you so much for your
testimony. We appreciate it.
Mr. Kelly, I am going to start with you. And you make a
good point: We do need to do something, and obviously, as much
as we can do about drunken driving. But your devices, you are
not up to the point where you can use it for drug driving.
Because what I want to discuss in my little bit of time here is
the drug driving. So, you are not at that point yet? Yours is
just with alcohol?
Mr. Kelly. The ignition interlock, yes, right now it is
specific to alcohol. There are some testing devices that are
out there that can detect marijuana, but it is the presence of
marijuana, and that is when you link it back to the impairment
level.
Mr. Carter. So, there are devices out there that can
actually monitor or measure for marijuana?
Mr. Kelly. It detects marijuana.
Mr. Carter. Detects marijuana?
Mr. Kelly. Detects it. And there are some other companies
that are looking at some research and some devices that would
be able to detect other types of drugs as well, but it is just
a strict pointer system, as opposed to saying, OK, well, now
you are impaired. Especially with marijuana, marijuana, first
of all, whether you smoke it, you vape it, it is an oil, it is
an edible----
Mr. Carter. Right, right.
Mr. Kelly [continuing]. It all is different.
Mr. Carter. Right.
Mr. Kelly. And so, even just pointing to it, it was
marijuana, it is difficult to say, OK, well, you know, was it a
week ago----
Mr. Carter. OK.
Mr. Kelly [continuing]. Or an hour ago?
Mr. Carter. Yes, that is exactly right.
Ms. Witty, let me ask you. I understand that in your
testimony, when I was reading it, it said that you support
MADD----
Ms. Witty. Yes.
Mr. Carter [continuing]. And the work that they are doing
with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
address drug driving. What do you want to see come out of that
effort? I know you are not here representing MADD, but what are
they looking for?
Ms. Witty. Well, what is MADD looking for?
Mr. Carter. In the way of monitoring for drug driving?
Ms. Witty. For drug driving?
Mr. Carter. Right.
Ms. Witty. I am here to support MADD.
Mr. Carter. OK.
Ms. Witty. And we are working hard. We are working in
tandem. The thing is, there are so many drugs. And what I hear
from police officers is, we can determine impairment, but for a
certain device to determine impairment is the question.
Mr. Carter. Right.
Ms. Witty. So, what happens is we know what determines
impairment through the BAC of alcohol. So, that is something we
know. The drugs, with the number of them and how they change so
quickly, that is an emerging issue. So, yes, but we are right
on it. We are drunk and drugged driving.
Mr. Carter. OK. OK.
Ms. Witty. So, absolutely.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely. OK. Well, here is my point: I agree
with Dr. Bucshon. I agree with Representative McNerney that we
need some kind of universal device that would help us or
universal solution.
Here is the point I want to make in full disclosure: I am
absolutely, adamantly opposed to the recreational use of
marijuana. Currently, I am the only pharmacist serving in
Congress. And I will tell you, I consider it to be nothing more
than a gateway drug. I am sorry, that is just my feeling. If
that offends you, then that is something you will just have to
deal with.
But let me tell you, right now, marijuana is a Schedule I
drug. That means that it is for investigational use only. It
cannot have research done on it. The DEA is failing the
American public here by not letting research take place on
marijuana. I would hope that MADD will address that.
We had an Attorney General who was going to address this,
who was going to say that we have a Federal law that prohibits
marijuana use. Yet, we have States going out legalizing the
recreational use of marijuana. But that Attorney General is
gone now. So, it is not being addressed.
This is something that needs to be addressed by the DEA.
Currently, I am writing an op-ed right now, in conjunction with
one of my Democratic colleagues, Representative Earl
Blumenauer, about the need for research in the medical
marijuana. Now that is a whole different subject than the
recreational marijuana. But we need to have the ability to do
research. If we could do research on marijuana, we would have
the ability to detect and maybe provide some of these and
create some of these devices that would check this.
So, I hope that that would be something that MADD would
address and something that MADD will work on and help us with.
Ms. Witty. I would hope so. Here is the issue: MADD has got
to focus on driving, drunk and drugged driving. And so, exactly
what you are saying. We can't get to the driving until we have
that research done.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely.
Ms. Witty. So, we have to be careful that we remain
focused. Just like we are not against alcohol; we are against
drunk driving. We have to take the position we are not against
marijuana; we are against marijuana and driving.
Now don't ask to say personally. OK? I mean, I get it.
And that is where our power is. We remain focused. But what
my worry is, this is not a priority. We need to keep this, the
drunk and drugged driving, a priority, so that we can stop the
killing that is happening.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely. A valid point. Thank you, Ms.
Witty, again, and God bless you.
Ms. Witty. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. And I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And I
now recognize for 5 minutes the Honorable Debbie Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And before my colleague leaves, I want to say to you that I
am a pragmatic person. Having had a sister that died of a drug
overdose and a father that was a drug addict, I have a very
natural reaction. But I also know it is a reality. My State
just legalized it, and it is being legalized in State after
State in this country, and we need to deal with it.
Part of the problem is--Madam Chairwoman, this is totally
off--but I would encourage us to get the Acting Administrator
of NHTSA in, who has this as a priority. Her problem has been
that they have not been able to test it. You are starting to
see more. But it needs to be an absolute priority. I think
everyone in this room is worried about impaired driving,
period. It is killing people.
So, pragmatically, you are absolutely right. I am having to
deal with it is legalized in Michigan now, and I want to make
sure we keep people safe in the process. So, I want to say
that.
Now I want to go to drunk driving, which we do know, we do
have the technology, and it is killing people. So, while we
have got to get there--and I want to thank my colleagues on the
Republican side, for I think today has truly been a very
bipartisan hearing--we have got a problem. And that is why we
are here. And we have had a problem since the '70s or the '60s
and the '50s. But, as Joan Claybrook says, we have been talking
about it since then.
I would also agree with Mr. Kelly that we do need a public
relations campaign because I don't remember this--some people
think I am old; I am seasoned, but not old; you are seasoned
and not old, either, Ms. Claybrook--but we still to this day
hear about that campaign to require seatbelts being buckled.
And it is used as an excuse for everything. And we have got to
stop using it. It is now 2019; it is not the 1970s, and people
are dying and the technology exists. So, I am looking at that
little girl who said to me, ``It exists. Why aren't we using
it?''
I thank all of you for being here.
Mr. Strassburger, you answered some questions about how
many are being currently tested. But what I want to figure out
is how we are going to get this from limited field testing to
something that is placed in the vehicles. I totally agree the 4
years is just way too long. We keep having that excuse.
And you said California--you got asked a question about
whether California was one of those States. Have you gone to
California? What are you doing to actively go out and market it
and to accelerate it?
Mr. Strassburger. So, what we are doing, number one is just
next week I am meeting with all of the OEMs to update them on
this technology and tell them that, now that we are moving to
fleet or see the time for fleet deployments, that they should
begin to consider including this in their own program plans and
package-protect for the technology.
Next month, we are at the National Fleet Administrators
Conference in Kentucky, meeting with them and trying to get
this deployed through fleets, et cetera.
Mrs. Dingell. I don't want to interrupt, but I am going to
have you give us more answers because I have only got 2 minutes
left.
But how many more vehicles do you need to get this solid
testing data?
Mr. Strassburger. I think that the suggestion that Ms.
Witty made about the GSA fleet is an excellent one.
Mrs. Dingell. OK. So, I am going to ask all of you, what
should Congress be doing to accelerate the pace of deployment
for DADSS?
Mr. Strassburger. Well, in our case, it would be to
continue to fund this research, and if we have additional
funding----
Mrs. Dingell. OK. We keep funding it, but it is not getting
there.
Ms. Claybrook or Mr. Kelly, would you care to comment?
Ms. Claybrook. What I would say is that the Congress should
mandate it with a date certain and pick a date when these
systems have to be in cars. Ask NHTSA to do the rulemaking.
Take all the research that has been done and evaluate it, and
show that these systems work, can be used. They are being used
now on the highway. If they are used now on the highway, why
can't they be in every car? I don't get it. And so, that is for
the interlock.
The DADSS should certainly be pushed, and NHTSA should be
given an instruction to do that and a date for getting them
into cars.
Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. I think the public education campaign needs to
be ramped up and some oversight on that and what is happening
there, especially working with NHTSA. What they are doing from
their involvement is helpful, too.
Mrs. Dingell. OK. I am going to move quickly.
Ms. Witty, I am going to switch subjects because I am down
to 20-some seconds.
In States that have mandatory first-offender interlock
laws, have you seen a reduced number of alcohol-related
fatalities?
Ms. Witty. Yes. Yes, by about 16 percent. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell. Ms. Claybrook, what do you think is needed to
have the other 18 States adopt mandatory first-offender
interlock laws?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, this Congress could require that the
States do that. Just like they did on age 21 and .08, have a
penalty, maybe a 2- or 3-year phase-in, and then, a penalty
apply. And as I said, the penalty is never going to apply
because all the States have always done it.
Mrs. Dingell. Ms. Witty, what is the cause of resistance
from States that haven't implemented the mandatory first-
offender laws?
Ms. Witty. That is a good question.
Mrs. Dingell. So, we will get you to answer that for the
record because I am now over.
Ms. Witty. I don't understand that.
Mrs. Dingell. Can I submit questions for the record, Madam
Chair?
Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
And I also request unanimous consent from the committee to
submit the full text of a report from the National Academy of
Sciences, which has items we should all be considering as we
are working this issue.
Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20190314/109109/
HHRG-116-IF17-20190314-SD004.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Sorry I had to be so fast.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back.
There are other things for the record: a letter from the
Coalition for Future Mobility--I am asking unanimous consent to
enter all of these into the record--a letter from the Consumer
Technology Association, a letter from Securing America's Future
Energy, and a letter from the American Beverage Licensees on
drunk driving and technology.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me just say that this hearing has
clearly raised a number of questions about whether NHTSA should
prioritize or is prioritizing the DADSS program. I think it
should be, but we want to hear. And we will have the NHTSA
Administrator before the subcommittee for an oversight hearing.
But, in the meantime, I plan to send a letter to NHTSA
requesting information about its current commitment to, and
future plans for, the DADSS program.
So, at this point, I want to thank all of our witnesses.
I want to thank all the Members that did come today. I want
to thank the ranking member. And I want to thank our staff on
both sides of the aisle for the good work that they did.
I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, that
each Member has 10 business days to submit additional questions
for the record to be answered by the witnesses who have
appeared. I ask each witness to respond promptly to any such
requests for information that you may receive.
And at this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
You will hear this statistic or some form of it many times
today--more than 10,000 people die every year from drunk-
driving crashes. It is the leading cause of traffic crash
deaths in the country. In my home State of New Jersey, drunk
driving killed 125 people in 2017. And we shouldn't forget that
drunk driving not only kills the people who drink and drive, it
often kills others.
This committee has spent lots of time over the past few
years exploring ways to make our roads safer. Yet, this issue
is rarely discussed. So I am glad we are finally shining a
light on the problem.
The thing is, drunk driving is preventable. But the
statistics haven't really changed since the mid-1990s. Drunk
driving has killed around 10,000 people every year for the past
25 years. That's more than 250,000 people who did not have to
die.
We know it's bad. The people who drive drunk know its bad.
But despite the statistics and despite all the tragic stories,
they still choose to drive drunk-whether it's because they are
too impaired to make a reasonable decision, or they can't read
their own level of intoxication.
We can no longer rely only on education campaigns or
punishment after the fact. The average drunk driver has driven
drunk more than 80 times before the first arrest. Fifty to 75
percent of drunk-driving offenders will drive drunk again. We
need to explore the ways we can stop this cycle.
There are devices available today to help. Many State laws
require ignition interlocks, which prevent the car from
starting if alcohol is detected through a breathalyzer or other
system, for repeat offenders. Now 30 States and Washington, DC,
require ignition interlocks even for first-time offenders.
These devices have been shown to be very effective is stopping
repeated offenses while they are installed.
Ignition interlocks, while quite effective, are generally a
temporary measure, used as a punishment after someone is caught
driving drunk. Use of the device can be intrusive-it may take
up to 30 seconds to get a reading.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration teamed
up with a group of automakers, the Automotive Coalition for
Traffic Safety, or ACTs, to engage in a research program to
study advanced technology to help eliminate drunk driving.
The program, known as the Driver Alcohol Detection System
for Safety, or DADSS, Program has been exploring technology to
automatically detect when a driver is intoxicated and prevent
the car from starting. Unlike current interlock devices, DADSS
technology would not affect normal driving behavior.
The program is looking at a breath-based system and a
touch-based system. Each of these technologies would be fully
integrated into vehicles. The hope is that these technologies
could be made available as an option for every new car or for
installation in cars previously purchased. This may be
particularly important for parents with teens just learning to
drive.
The DADSS program shows a lot of potential to significantly
reduce drunk driving. The program started 10 years ago, and
it's made significant progress developing these technologies.
But I'm concerned that progress has stalled. DADSS technology
is being tested in a few cars. But a few cars aren't enough.
I look forward to hearing today about how we can encourage
progress in the DADSS program as well as any other vehicle
technology that can help eradicate drunk driving and save
thousands of lives.
Thank you, and I yield the balance of my time to
Congresswoman Dingell.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Good morning, and thank you Chair Schakowsky for holding
today's hearing on drunk driving and ways in which we can use
technology to help prevent it. I would like to note that last
Congress, this subcommittee held a hearing to examine the
growing problem of drug-impaired driving. The fact is, impaired
driving, whether it be alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired, is a
serious public risk that continues to tragically cut so many
lives short.
Nearly 11,000 Americans lose their lives on our roadways
each year because of the reckless decision to get behind the
wheel after having consumed alcohol. That is almost 1 person
every 48 minutes. Just think, while we are here discussing ways
in which we can address this problem, we will lose several
lives. It is simply unacceptable. Data indicates that younger
adults are more at risk to be involved in an alcohol related
fatal crash. Among fatal crashes, the highest percentage of
drunk drivers is for ages 21 to 24 followed by 25 to 34. We
must promote innovation and education to save our youth.
Drug-impaired driving has also taken hold on our roadways
and the terrible scourge of opioid addiction shows its lethal
effects on driving.
The number of American drivers killed in car crashes in
which drugs were detected has steadily increased. Just a couple
years ago, almost half of all fatally injured drivers with
known results tested positive for drugs. The 10-year trend
demonstrates that drug-impaired driving has increased despite
seeing decreases in alcohol-impaired driving. But let me be
clear, it is never acceptable to drive impaired. Even the
slightest consumption of alcohol or drugs can have devastating
effects.
Thankfully, we are seeing technological advancements and
innovations that can help address the risks of impaired
driving. These technology-based solutions include ridesharing
companies giving consumers more transportation options,
appropriate uses of ignition interlock devices for those
convicted of driving impaired, breath- and touch-based sensors,
and self-driving vehicle technology.
Taking a step back, the committee has been focused on
roadway safety and technology to improve safety on the roads
throughout our history. With the recent rises of highway
fatalities, I would encourage this subcommittee to continue to
support new technologies that can drive that number down as we
see incredible investment and growth trajectories for companies
developing self-driving technologies.
Last Congress, this committee focused on self-driving
vehicle technology that could drastically reduce impaired
driving from our roadways altogether. We worked across the
aisle in a bipartisan fashion to help address the unacceptable
number of lives we lose each year and crafted the SELF DRIVE
Act.
The SELF DRIVE Act was championed by Representatives Latta,
Schakowsky, Upton, and Dingell--I want to thank you all for
your leadership on this issue. I believe the SELF DRIVE Act was
an example of this committee at its absolute best: working
together to address a real public crisis. As a result of that
approach, we were able to pass the SELF DRIVE Act out of
committee on a 54-0 vote and it eventually unanimously passed
the House.
As a reflection of our commitment to support technology to
reduce all highway fatalities, including those caused by drunk
driving, I hope this committee will prioritize this bipartisan
legislation issue to improve safety, increase mobility options,
and support American innovation and jobs.
Reducing impaired driving is a bipartisan issue. We all
care deeply about protecting lives on the roadways and doing
what we can to address the safety risk of impaired driving.
This issue has impacted every person in this room and I hope
with that in mind we can continue to work together on
solutions.
I want to thank our distinguished panel for being here
today and I look forward to our discussion.
Thank you. I yield back.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]