[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATION TO MAKE CARS IN AMERICA SAFER
=======================================================================
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
__________
JULY 24, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-56
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
40-723 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)
CONTENTS
----------
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
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Witnesses
Susan Clark Livingston, daughter of Dr. James Duane Livingston
III and Dr. Sherry Penney Livingston........................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Additional material submitted for the record................. 20
Benjamin R. Nordstrom, M.D., Executive Director,
Responsibility.org............................................. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Answers to submitted questions............................... 119
Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 56
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Additional material submitted for the record \1\
Answers to submitted questions............................... 122
Submitted Material
H.R. 3888, the Impaired Driving Study Act of 2019................ 92
H.R. 3593, the Hot Cars Act of 2019.............................. 94
H.R. 3145, the Protecting Americans from the Risks of Keyless
Ignition Technology Actof 2019................................. 102
H.R. 3890, the Combatting Impaired Driving Act of 2019........... 107
Letter of July 22, 2019, from Colleen Sheehey-Church to Ms.
Schakowsky and Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....... 109
Letter of July 23, 2019, from Suzanne Zitser of Westbrook, CT, to
Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Pallone, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.... 112
Letter of July 23, 2017 [sic], from Doug Schaub to subcommittee
members, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky........................... 114
Letter of July 23, 2019, from Nathaniel F. Wienecke, Senior Vice
President, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, to
Ms. Schakowsky and Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky... 115
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also is
available as part of Ms. Chase's statement at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF17/20190724/109842/HHRG-116-IF17-Wstate-ChaseC-
20190724.pdf.
LEGISLATION TO MAKE CARS IN AMERICA SAFER
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:26 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jan Schakowsky
(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Castor, Kelly,
O'Halleran, Blunt Rochester, Soto, Rush, Matsui, McNerney,
Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Rodgers (subcommittee ranking
member), Burgess, Latta, Guthrie, Bucshon, Hudson, Carter, and
Walden (ex officio).
Staff present: Billy Benjamin, Systems Administrator;
Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Evan Gilbert, Deputy Press
Secretary; Lisa Goldman, Senior Counsel; Waverly Gordon, Deputy
Chief Counsel; Daniel Greene, Professional Staff Member; Alex
Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications and Consumer
Protection; Joe Orlando, Staff Assistant; Alivia Roberts, Press
Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Policy
Analyst; Rebecca Tomilchik, Staff Assistant; Justin Discigil,
Minority Press Secretary; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Minority
Staff Assistant; and Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Counsel,
Consumer Protection and Commerce.
Ms. Schakowsky. The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and
Commerce will now come to order. The Chair now recognizes
herself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Good morning and thank you all for attending today's
hearing on legislation to make cars safer. We continue in the
subcommittee on our mission to save lives. The number of
vehicle-related fatalities has been staggering over the last
several years. In both 2017 and 2018, vehicle-related deaths
have exceeded 40,000.
This troubling development means that Congress must act,
and today we are here to look at bills to address contributing
factors to this spike in auto-related deaths. One of these
factors is impaired driving. I thank my colleague Debbie
Dingell for her leadership on this issue, and I thank Ranking
Member McMorris Rodgers and Representatives Bucshon and
McNerney for their initiative to address impaired driving.
Another factor is uneven or slow deployment of technology.
Since 1990, over 800 children have died from heatstroke in
vehicles. In the vast majority of those cases, the adult did
not realize the child was inside the car. Most of the children
dying are infants and toddlers, 87 percent are 3 years or
younger, but adults as well as pets have fallen victim to
heatstroke as well. Twenty-one children have died already this
year. Twenty-one. This is unacceptable. We can do better, and
we must do better.
This raises the question, How do we prevent heatstroke
deaths? It is not enough to educate parents about the risks.
Even the best parents can get distracted. We need safety
features built into our vehicles. You get a warning when you
leave your car keys in the ignition. You should get the warning
when a child is left in the back seat, and that is what the Hot
Cars Act does.
The bill, which was introduced with Representatives Tim
Ryan and Peter King, would require new vehicles to be equipped
with sensors, sensor technology, to detect the presence of a
child in the vehicle and notify the driver or parent. This
safety technology has already been developed, and it is
available in some vehicles today. A Hot Cars Act will ensure
that this lifesaving technology is equipped on all vehicles.
But our auto safety work does not end there. The New York
Times has identified at least 28 deaths and 45 injuries since
2006 attributed to carbon monoxide poisoning caused by keyless
ignition vehicles that were inadvertently left running. Since
keyless ignition systems do not require drivers to turn off a
vehicle to remove their key from the ignition, drivers can
leave their vehicle's--and that is what happens--key fob in
hand, not realizing that the vehicles are still running. A
vehicle left running in an attached garage can and has quickly
filled the living space with lethal levels of carbon monoxide.
We will hear more about that today.
The rise in keyless ignition has also exacerbated the
problem of automobile roll-aways. Unlike traditional ignition
systems, a keyless ignition system permits the driver to exit
the vehicle, key in hand, without the car being in park.
Fortunately, some auto manufacturers, including GM and Ford,
have responded to these hazards by implementing additional
safety features, including auto-shutoff systems to prevent
carbon monoxide poisoning and safeguards that prevent a vehicle
from shutting down unless the vehicle is in park.
Still, few automakers seem willing to address these new
risks to drivers and passengers and pedestrians and property
from keyless ignition technology. And that is why--let me check
on the time here, whoops--and that is why I introduced the PARK
IT Act with my colleagues Darren Soto, Joe Kennedy, and Seth
Moulton.
So I thank the witnesses for being here, especially Ms.
Livingston for being here because she has experienced the
tragedy of her parents dying. We will hear from her today. It
takes a lot of courage to be here.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jan Schakowsky
Good morning, thank you all for attending today's hearing
on legislation to make cars safer. The number of vehicle-
related fatalities has been stagnant over the last several
years. In both 2017 and 2018, vehicle-related deaths have
exceeded 40,000.
This troubling development means that Congress must act.
And today, we are here to look at bills to address contributing
factors to this spike in auto-related deaths. One of these
factors is impaired driving. I thank my colleague Debbie
Dingell for her leadership on the issue, and I thank Ranking
Member McMorris Rogers and Representatives Bucshon and McNerney
for their initiatives to address impaired driving.
Another factor is uneven or slow deployment of technology.
Since 1990, nearly 800 children have died from heat stroke in
vehicles. In the vast majority of those cases, the adult did
not realize the child was inside the car. Most of the children
dying are infants and toddlers--87% are 3 or younger. But
adults, as well as pets, have fallen victim to heatstroke as
well.
Twenty-one children have died already this year. TWENTY-
ONE. This is unacceptable. We can do better, and we must do
better.
This begs the question--How do we prevent heatstroke
deaths?
It's not enough to educate parents about the risks. Even
the best parent can get distracted.
We need safety features built into our vehicles. You get a
warning when you leave your keys in the ignition. You should
get a warning when a child is left in the back seat.
That's what the Hot Cars Act does. The bill, which I
introduced with Reps. Tim Ryan and Peter King, would require
new vehicles to be equipped with sensor technology to detect
the presence of a child in a vehicle and notify the driver or
parent.
This safety technology has already been developed, and it's
available in some vehicles today. Our Hot Cars Act will ensure
that this lifesaving technology is equipped on all vehicles.
But our auto safety work does not end there.
The New York Times has identified at least 28 deaths and 45
injuries since 2006 attributable to CO poisoning caused by
keyless ignitions vehicles that were inadvertently left
running.
Since keyless ignition systems do not require drivers to
turn off a vehicle to remove their key from the ignition,
drivers can leave their vehicle--key fob in hand--not realizing
the vehicle is still running. A vehicle left running in an
attached garage can quickly fill the living spaces with lethal
levels of carbon monoxide (CO).
The rise in keyless ignitions has also exacerbated the
problem of automobile rollaways. Unlike traditional ignition
systems, a keyless ignition system permits the driver to exit
the vehicle--keys in hand--without the car being in park.
Fortunately, some auto manufacturers, including GM and
Ford, have responded to these hazards by implementing
additional safety features, including auto shut-off systems to
prevent CO poisoning and safeguards that prevent a vehicle from
shutting down unless the vehicle is in ``park.'' Still, few
automakers seem willing to address the new risks posed to
drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and property from keyless
ignition technology.
That's why I introduced the PARK IT Act with my colleagues
Darren Soto, Joe Kennedy, and Seth Moulton.
I thank the witnesses for their testimony, and now
recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. So now I yield back, and I recognize Mrs.
Rodgers, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Consumer
Protection and Commerce, for 5 minutes for her opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning to
everyone and welcome to the Consumer Protection and Commerce
Subcommittee legislative hearing on improving motor vehicle
safety.
We lose more than 37,000 lives a year on our roads. We can
and we must do more to make our roadways safer, especially
considering most of these accidents were preventable. According
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 94
percent of all accidents are due to human error. These include
distracted driving, driving drowsy, and driving while under the
influence of alcohol or drugs.
Drunk driving remains a significant public health concern
that tragically cuts life short for too many--not just for
those who make the reckless decision to get behind the wheel
after consuming alcohol, but also our family and friends on the
road in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Drug-impaired driving is also on the rise. ``If you feel
different, you drive different.'' It is the new public safety
message from NHTSA. It means exactly what it says. If you
consume drugs, you will feel different. If you feel different,
you will drive different. And if you drive different, you will
put your life in danger and the lives of those on the road with
you.
Whether the drug is illegal or legally prescribed, driving
while drug impaired is a serious safety threat. According to a
recent report, in 2016 more than a thousand fatally injured
drivers, or almost 20 percent of the drug-positive drivers,
tested positive for opioids in their system. The most frequent
opioids abused were oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, fentanyl,
and methadone.
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. In 2012, my home State of
Washington legalized marijuana. According to a recent report
conducted by the Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area, one in five tenth-graders, one in four twelfth-graders
reported riding with a driver who had been using marijuana. One
in six twelfth-graders admitted to driving a vehicle within 3
hours of consuming marijuana. And 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, up from 7.8 percent prior to
legalization.
Recreational use of marijuana poses a serious threat to
roadway safety. We must learn from the lessons we have seen in
Washington State and make sure that we are focusing on
addressing drug-impaired driving and alcohol-impaired driving.
That is why I, along with Mr. McNerney, have introduced
legislation to direct NHTSA to study impaired driving to learn
more about the risk drug impairment poses. Our solution gives
NHTSA the flexibility it needs to examine the drug-impaired
driving in the most efficient and effective way possible. It
allows NHTSA to review methods to detect drug-impaired driving.
It supports NHTSA's research to review methods to detect drug-
impaired driving and develop impairment standards for driving
under the influence.
Our bill will lead to a better understanding of the risks
and the ways to prevent drug-impaired driving. It will allow
NHTSA to produce extremely important data that will inform
decisionmaking on policies that can save lives. We are also
considering legislation introduced by my colleagues Mr. Bucshon
and Mrs. Dingell that will authorize money that has been
appropriated for the last 2 years, 2 fiscal years. Returning to
regular order and ensuring funds are accounted for by this
committee is critical. Remember, if you feel different, you
drive different.
I would also like to acknowledge that this is the last day
for Melissa, who has been the head staffer for the Republicans
on the Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee. And I
just want to say thanks for her exceptional leadership. She has
a tremendous depth of knowledge, her strategic thinking, her
hard work, all to get results on behalf of the many important
issues before this committee. And although we are going to miss
her, I just wanted to take this opportunity to recognize her
and wish her all the best in this next chapter. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. And let me also wish Melissa the
best of luck and thank her for the service that she has been to
our committee.
And now I would recognize Mr. Pallone, the chairman of the
full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, and thanks
for all you do on these safety issues. I know we reported out
of the full committee last week a number of initiatives from
this subcommittee that you are responsible for that, you know,
to help children and, you know, this continues with your
constant efforts to help consumers, you know, in so many
different ways.
Since 2014, the number of auto fatalities has steeply
increased after nearly a decade of falling. And despite the
rising death toll, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, or NHTSA, has failed to prioritize vehicle
safety. NHTSA has failed to complete needed rulemakings or
prioritize resources to address preventable injuries and
fatalities.
Where the administration has been slow to act, Congress
must step in. The bills we are considering today will help
address preventable tragedies, including child vehicular
heatstroke, carbon monoxide poisoning, and impaired driving. As
we learned in May when this subcommittee held the hearing on
summer driving dangers, 823 children have died from heatstroke
after being left in hot cars over the last 20 years. And since
that hearing, 2 more children have died and that is 21 children
so far this year. No child should lose their life because they
became trapped in a hot car.
Fortunately, technologies exist today that can end these
senseless tragedies, technologies that can alert drivers to the
presence of a child in a vehicle or remind a driver to check
their back seat before leaving the car. Regrettably, these
sorts of lifesaving technologies have not yet been widely
deployed.
And I commend the chairwoman and Representatives Ryan and
King for their work on the Hot Cars Act. This legislation would
require vehicles to be equipped with safety technologies to
detect and alert the driver to the presence of a child or
occupant in the rear seat of a vehicle after the engine has
shut off. And I look forward to exploring how this
technological revolution can save lives.
I also look forward to exploring how we can ensure that
technological innovations like keyless ignition systems do not
actually present unintended safety issues. Keyless ignition
systems provide an added level of convenience for the driver:
Merely sit in the vehicle and push to start, all with your keys
in your pocket or bag. But that added convenience has been tied
to a troubling rise in carbon monoxide deaths, more than three
dozen since 2006. Without the physical motion of turning a key,
some drivers inadvertently forget to turn off the vehicle--I
will include myself among those--and some keyless ignition
systems permit the engine to continue idling even when the
driver exits the vehicle with the keys.
If the vehicle is left in an enclosed area, tragedy can
ensue as dangerous levels of carbon monoxide build. Such a
tragedy claimed the lives of Dr. James Livingston and Dr.
Sherry Penney. I thank Ms. Livingston for testifying today and
sharing her parents' story, and I again commend the chairwoman
as well as Representatives Soto, Kennedy, Moulton, Deutch, and
Gonzalez for introducing the PARK IT Act.
This legislation would ensure the engine of a keyless
ignition vehicle automatically shuts off if left idling for an
unreasonable amount of time. I also look forward to discussing
two impaired-driving bills. With 10,000 deaths--30 percent of
all fatal crashes--tied to drunk driving, and troubling
increases in the rate of drug-impaired driving, we have to
double down on our efforts to prevent such threats to auto
safety.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
With more than 40,000 deaths and 4.6 million injuries in
2017 alone, the chaos and destruction on our Nation's roads has
reached epidemic levels. And, unfortunately, automobile
fatalities are on the rise. Motor vehicle death rates have
steeply increased since 2014, after nearly a decade of falling.
A crisis of this magnitude demands swift and decisive
action. Action to deploy innovative, lifesaving crash avoidance
technologies like automatic emergency braking, forward
collision warning, and lane keeping support, which hold the
promise of cutting the number of automobile crashes in half.
Action to develop technologies that can automatically detect
when a driver is intoxicated and prevent the vehicle from
moving. Action to modernize the 5-Star Safety Rating for the
21st century automobile; enhance recall efforts; and finalize
over two dozen safety mandates languishing at NHTSA.
This hearing is the opening salvo in our campaign to bring
tragedies on our Nation's roads to an end. And we are starting
with a tranche of bills that will help eradicate some of the
most devastating auto safety issues, like child vehicular
heatstroke.
As we learned in May when this subcommittee held a hearing
on summer driving dangers, 823 children have died from
heatstroke after being left in hot cars over the last 20 years.
Fifty-two last year alone, and 21 children so far this year.
Since that hearing, 12 more children have perished.
No child should have their right to life taken from them
because they become trapped in a hot car. Fortunately,
technologies exist today that can end these senseless
tragedies--technologies that can alert drivers to the presence
of a child in the vehicle or remind a driver to check their
backseat before leaving the car. Regrettably, these sorts of
life saving technologies have not been widely deployed.
I applaud Chairwoman Schakowsky and Congressman Ryan for
their work on the Hot Cars Act--legislation that would require
vehicles to be equipped with safety technologies to detect and
alert the driver to the presence of a child or occupant in a
rear seat of a vehicle after the engine is shut off. And I look
forward to exploring how these technological revolutions can
save lives.
I also look forward to exploring how we can ensure that
technological innovations--like keyless ignition systems--do
not actually present safety issues. Keyless ignition systems
provide an added level of convenience for the driver--merely
sit in the vehicle and push to start, all with your keys in
your pocket. But that added convenience has been tied to a
troubling rise in carbon monoxide deaths--over three dozen
since 2006.
Without the physical motion of turning a key, some drivers
inadvertently forget to turn off the vehicle. And some keyless
ignition systems permit the engine to continue idling even when
the driver exits the vehicle with the keys. If the vehicle is
left in an enclosed area, tragedy can ensue as dangerous levels
of carbon monoxide build.
Such a tragedy claimed the lives of Dr. James D. Livingston
and Dr. Sherry H. Penney. I thank Ms. Livingston for testifying
today and sharing her parents' story. And I applaud Chairwoman
Schakowsky for introducing the PARK IT Act, legislation that
would ensure the engine of a keyless ignition vehicle
automatically shuts off if left idling for an unreasonable
amount of time.
I also look forward to discussing two impaired-driving
bills being considered here today. With 10,000 deaths--30
percent of all fatal crashes--tied to drunk driving and
troubling increases in the rate of drug-impaired driving, we
must double down on our efforts to prevent such threats to
automobile safety.
I thank our witnesses for testifying this morning, and I
look forward to the discussion.
Mr. Pallone. So I want to thank our witnesses, and I wanted
to yield the remainder of my time to Representative Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you and
Chairman Schakowsky for holding this important hearing today. I
want to start by talking about the single largest cause of
traffic fatalities: drunk driving. This is a cause that matters
to too many families that have been hit and struck by it, the
most recent in my own community by the Abbas family in January.
The Abbas family was driving back from a family vacation
when their car was struck head-on by a drunk driver, and there
were no survivors. Mother, father, three children needlessly
killed because someone made the decision to drink and drive.
July, this month, is the deadliest month for drunk driving.
Across the country, families and loved ones are repeating what
our community went through in January.
It is time. Congress has to step up and do something, and
do something we will. I am so proud to colead Mr. Bucshon's
bill that we are considering here today that would authorize
funds for pilot programs, demonstration projects, and
innovative solutions to address impaired driving, and I also
will be introducing legislation of my own later this week. I
yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair
now recognizes Mr. Walden, ranking member of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Good morning, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Good morning.
Mr. Walden. And thanks for having this hearing. Each year,
tragically, we lose 37,000 people on our roads, in no small
part due to impaired driving. And, in fact, since January of
2000, more than 200,000 people have died from impaired driving.
Now, whether that is alcohol, marijuana, or opioids, the
consumption of drugs is making our roads less safe and more
deadly.
Alcohol-impaired driving remains a serious problem and one
that cuts far too many lives short, as we all know. But drug-
impaired driving has also taken a hold of our roadways, and to
be clear, you cannot drive safely if you are impaired. While it
is illegal to drive while under the influence of marijuana,
opioids, or any potentially impairing drug, even if the drug
has been legally prescribed, sometimes it is difficult to
figure out.
Driving while impaired by any substance, legal or illegal,
puts drivers and those who share the road with them in great
danger. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
NHTSA, is getting the word out about the dangers of driving
after consuming drugs through its ``If You Feel Different, You
Drive Different'' and ``Drive High, Get a DUI'' campaigns, and
we are appreciative of that.
Today, we will discuss two measures that will help advance
NHTSA's efforts to combat impaired driving introduced by
Representatives Rodgers and Dr. Bucshon. The first bill, the
Combatting Impaired Driving Act of 2019, introduced by Dr.
Bucshon and Mrs. Dingell, authorized important funding to NHTSA
to conduct research on impaired driving, including drug-
impaired driving. The more NHTSA can focus on this issue, the
more we can learn about its unique challenges and make better,
more informed public policy decisions.
The second piece of legislation, the Impaired Driving Study
Act of 2019, introduced by Mrs. Rodgers and Mr. McNerney,
directs NHTSA to study impaired driving so we can learn more
about the devastating effects marijuana- and opioid-impaired
driving are having on our roads. And coming from a State that
has legalized marijuana, this is an increasingly important
issue to overcome.
The bill is intended to give NHTSA the flexibility it needs
to determine how best to study this issue and requires NHTSA to
report to us on the progress of the study as well any findings.
And under the bill, NHTSA can review different methods to
detect drug-impaired driving, work with State and local
partners on State-based drug-impaired driving policies, and
learn the role in extended drug impairment in motor vehicle
accidents, and any other issues NHTSA believes necessary to
examine to combat drug-impaired driving in effective and
efficient ways.
So I appreciate the work on that and on, obviously, the Hot
Cars Act as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Good morning, and thank you Madame Chair for holding
today's hearing focused on auto safety.
Each year, we lose almost 37,000 people on our roads, in no
small part due to impaired driving. In fact, since January
2000, more than 200,000 people have died from impaired driving.
Whether it be alcohol, marijuana, or opioids, the consumption
of drugs is making our roads less safe.
Alcohol-impaired driving remains a serious problem and one
that cuts far too many lives short. But drug-impaired driving
has also taken hold on our roadways. To be clear, you cannot
drive safely if you are impaired. It is illegal to drive while
under the influence of marijuana, opioids, or any potentially
impairing drug, even if the drug has been legally prescribed.
Driving while impaired by any substance--legal or illegal--puts
drivers and those who share the road with them in danger.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
is getting the word out about the dangers of driving after
consuming drugs through its ``If You Feel Different, You Drive
Different'' and ``Drive High, Get a DUI'' campaigns.
Today, we will discuss two measures that will help advance
NHTSA's efforts to combat impaired driving introduced by Rep.
Rodgers and Dr. Bucshon.
The first bill, the Combatting Impaired Driving Act of
2019, introduced by Dr. Bucshon and Mrs. Dingell, authorizes
important funding to NHTSA to conduct research on impaired
driving, including drug-impaired driving. The more NHTSA can
focus on this issue, the more we can learn about its unique
challenges and make better, more informed policy decisions.
The second bill, the Impaired Driving Study Act of 2019,
introduced by Ms. Rodgers and Mr. McNerney, directs NHTSA to
study impaired driving so that we can learn more about the
devastating effects marijuana- and opioid-impaired driving are
having on our roads.
The bill is intended to give NHTSA the flexibility it needs
to determine how best to study this issue and requires NHTSA to
report to us on the progress of their study as well as any
findings.
Under this bill, NHTSA can review different methods to
detect drug-impaired driving; work with State and local
partners on State-based drug-impaired driving policies; learn
the role and extent of drug impairment in motor vehicle
accidents; and any other issue NHTSA believes necessary to
examine to combat drug-impaired driving in effective and
efficient ways.
This study will produce critical information necessary for
us to make policy decisions. Saving lives from impaired driving
is a bipartisan issue.
I am hopeful we can continue to work together to advance
legislation to address this growing crisis of impaired driving
on our roads.
Today, I am also interested in learning more about the
other bills under consideration today, the Hot Cars Act,
introduced by Rep. Ryan, and the PARK IT Act, introduced by
Rep. Schakowsky, which seeks to address the threat of carbon
monoxide poisoning from motor vehicles. It is worth noting that
last week, we forwarded a bill led by Reps. Kuster and Carter
to the House floor to incentivize installing carbon monoxide
detectors in homes in order to help avoid these tragedies no
matter the source of carbon monoxide.
Again, thank you for holding today's hearing.
Mr. Walden. And with that I want to make sure and provide
plenty of time for Dr. Bucshon to discuss his legislation. With
that, Madam Chair, I would yield to him.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. And thank you to Chairwoman
Schakowsky and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for holding this
hearing today.
Impaired driving is an epidemic across our Nation that
claims far too many lives each year. Although we continue to
make headway in addressing drunk driving, drug-impaired driving
is on the rise. In 2018, 38 percent of drivers killed in
Indiana tested positive for alcohol, while 45 percent tested
positive for one or more drugs.
It is important that we take steps to promote technological
advancements that help our law enforcement professionals on the
ground to detect and prevent impaired driving. For that reason,
I introduced, along with Congresswoman Dingell, H.R. 3890, the
Combatting Impaired Driving Act of 2019.
This bill authorizes the Department of Transportation to
provide funding to support grants and pilot programs that
create innovative solutions to address impaired driving,
including alcohol-, opioid-, and marijuana-impaired driving. I
am glad to see the committee discuss this legislation today,
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can
eliminate impaired driving and save lives. And I yield back to
Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. And I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
And the Chair would like to remind Members on the committee
that, pursuant to committee rules, Members' written statements
will be made part of the record.
And I would now like to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing. We have Ms. Susan Livingston, daughter of Dr. James D.
Livingston and Dr. Sherry H. Penney. And I just want to give
again a special thank you to you. In our efforts to save lives
in this committee and to change laws, we have seen the courage
of family members who have suffered such devastating tragedies
come forward, and appreciate that so much.
We have Dr. Benjamin Nordstrom, executive director of
Responsibility.org. And Ms. Cathy Chase, president, Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety. We want to again thank all the
witnesses for joining us today. We look forward to hearing your
testimony. At this time, the Chair will recognize each witness
for 5 minutes to provide their opening statement.
Before I begin, I want to explain the lighting system for
those who may not know it. In front of you is a series of
lights. The light will initially be green at the start of your
opening statement. The light will turn yellow when you have 1
minute remaining, so please begin to wrap up your testimony at
that point. The light will turn red when your time expires. So,
Ms. Livingston, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF SUSAN CLARK LIVINGSTON, DAUGHTER OF DR. JAMES
DUANE LIVINGSTON III AND DR. SHERRY PENNEY LIVINGSTON; BENJAMIN
R. NORDSTROM, M.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESPONSIBILITY.ORG; AND
CATHERINE CHASE, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO
SAFETY
STATEMENT OF SUSAN CLARK LIVINGSTON
Ms. Livingston. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Schakowsky
and Ranking Member Rodgers, honored members of the
subcommittee. My name is Susan Clark Livingston. I am the first
female partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, the private banking
firm in Boston. I am on the executive committee and board of
governors of the Investment Company Institute in Washington,
and honorary consul general to Luxembourg for the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. But today I am here as a daughter and as a
mother.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about the
tragic simultaneous deaths of my parents, Dr. James Duane
Livingston and Dr. Sherry Penney Livingston. They died together
the evening of this past May 7. Their bodies were found the
early morning of May 10. I will never forget my sister
Barbara's phone call to me that morning saying, ``Dad and
Sherry passed away last night, both of them, from carbon
monoxide.''
There are no words for this kind of family tragedy, and yet
I want the story told. I am here today to tell you that these
deaths were preventable. They died of indifference. These
deaths were caused by an automobile design flaw that can be
fixed at low cost with readily available technology. It is a
design flaw the car industry and the NHTSA have known about
since keyless ignitions were introduced in 2006, 13 years ago.
The truth is, the car manufacturers have failed to install this
simple fix voluntarily. The NHTSA has failed to institute
regulations that were proposed back in 2011 to prevent these
deaths, so we beg you to act so that no other family has to go
through what ours has experienced.
As a family, we are still in shock, and we speak of these
amazing individuals in the past tense. It still feels very
strange. They are not yet in the ground. They will be buried
next week on Tuesday, July 30th, at St. James Church in Hyde
Park, New York--the church of our ancestors and that of
Franklin Delano Roosevelt--buried together beside my
grandparents and great-grandparents. We are still in mourning,
yet the more I learned about the failure of these car
manufacturers constantly touting the safety of their vehicles
to properly protect consumers, the more I want to be here
today, which I know is a busy day in Washington, but to ask for
your help to get this done.
Jim and Sherry had a love affair like no other. Married 34
years, they were inseparable. Dad called Sherry his bride, and
their love and respect for each other were unmatched. The news
reports on their deaths referred to them as elderly, but the
word hardly describes the physical and mental energy of these
two intellects. Daily aerobics, tennis, swimming, attendance at
every Harvard Club event both in Sarasota and Boston, season
tickets to the theater--they were indeed in their 80s, but
these seniors had so much life and love left in them. We loved
them. We miss them every day.
Dad got his Ph.D. from Harvard in Physics at the very young
age of 23. A brilliant scientist, 25-year research career at GE
in Schenectady, he had seven patents to his name on alloys that
are still used in the space program today. He followed Sherry's
career to Boston, being a feminist, and he was a professor of
physics at MIT for 22 years. Top-rated professor year after
year for freshman physics. I liked having him help me with my
homework. He was an author and avid tennis player, and he wrote
a space column for The Patriot Ledger. He was a pretty cool
guy. He was a proud father of three daughters and his only
granddaughter, Julia Pell Livingston, age 17, who is here with
me today.
Sherry, my stepmom, was a driving force of nature. At 4-
foot-10, she punched above her weight. Provost at Yale, first
woman chancellor of the entire system of University of
Massachusetts, and chancellor of UMass Boston with 20,000
students for over 12 years. She ran the Center for
Collaborative Leadership there until last year. There is an
endowed chair there in her name. She was my mentor, my role
model. She was on the board of Boston Edison, now Eversource,
the JFK Library. The night she died she gave a speech to the
International Women's Forum in Sarasota entitled, ``Women in
the 21st Century: Stuck or Unstuck?'' That was the last time
she was seen alive.
Dad retired from MIT just 3 years ago, but even after
retirement he had regular speaking engagements and continued to
author books. He awaited Sherry's retirement from UMass last
year. They looked forward to retirement between Sarasota and
Hingham, Mass, where they had just bought a new oceanfront
condo. It was built last winter. It looked out over the
shipyard and the harbor.
Their bodies were found Friday. They were moving into the
condo the following Tuesday. Sadly, they never saw it. They
were looking forward to these final years together, on the
verge of a new adventure after each working close to 50 years,
contributing as teachers and wonderful contributors to society.
They are no longer here to tell us what happened, and
people ask what happened, but the scenario might go something
like this. It could happen to anyone. It happened to two
energetic and lively Ph.Ds. After Sherry's speech, they drove
back to their condo, they opened the automatic door to the two-
car garage and drove in. Neither of these two were hard of
hearing. Sherry reminded Jim, ``It is trash night,'' and he
went over to roll out the garbage can and the recycling bin. I
know just where those barrels were in the garage.
Sherry was still in the car. Perhaps the radio is still on.
You know, the radio can run 4 minutes after a car stops. She
went to the back seat, took out the briefcase and her speech,
which we found later on the table in the condo, she entered the
ground floor condo through the door in the garage and closed
the garage door. After putting the barrels at the end of the
drive, Dad entered the condo through the front door just next
to the garage. The police found the key fob in Sherry's purse
when they recovered the bodies.
These engines are quiet. The key fob can be miles away from
a car once that engine starts running, some of you know. This
was a flawed vehicle murder weapon. It was missing a basic
safety feature. The neighbor noticed the barrels--sorry.
Ms. Schakowsky. Got to wrap up. Go ahead.
Ms. Livingston. OK, no problem.
Ms. Schakowsky. Just finish really fast.
Ms. Livingston. The neighbor noticed the barrels still left
outside at the curb. And just like Chairman Pallone, I myself
have also left my car idling. Carbon monoxide overwhelms a
victim, causes piercing headaches, disorientation, nausea. It
is not a great way to die. They found my dad's body, his head
in a pool of blood. The cleaning woman called 9--1--1. They
determined a hazmat team needed to evacuate the carbon dioxide.
Ms. Schakowsky. I am going to have to cut off your
testimony.
Ms. Livingston. Let me finish. We beg of you to please
prevent another family from going through this. I know we
cannot bring Dad back and Sherry back. Our family sky is dark
after losing these two bright stars, and how many more need to
die? Can this measure please be passed? Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Livingston follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I think it sounds like not only
did you lose precious parents, but they were great
contributors. And our condolences, I am sure I speak for the
whole subcommittee, are certainly with you, and that is why we
are dealing with this today.
Ms. Livingston. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. And now let me call on Dr. Nordstrom. You
are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN R. NORDSTROM
Dr. Nordstrom. Thank you.
Well, good morning, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member
Rodgers, and all of the distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I really want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify today in support of the Impaired Driving Study Act of
2019 and the Combatting Impaired Driving Act of 2019.
So my name is Dr. Benjamin Nordstrom. I am the executive
director at Responsibility.org, and we are a national nonprofit
that is funded by leading distilled spirits companies to
eliminate drunk driving and underage drinking. My background is
that I am a board-certified addiction psychiatrist, I am a
criminologist, and I also serve as a physician with the U.S.
Army Reserve.
I want to applaud this committee for its longtime
leadership on a whole host of auto and traffic safety issues,
such as the topics being discussed today, and I really want to
thank you for keeping focus on impaired driving over the years,
and that is the topic that I have been asked to speak about.
Now, my written testimony contains a lot of specific details,
and in my oral comments what I would like to do is focus on
three foundational points and then some policy recommendations.
The first point I want to make is that, while drunk-driving
deaths have fallen by 50 percent since 1982 and by about 30
percent since 1991, they have really plateaued over the past 10
years. And they still account for about a third of traffic
deaths, and that is around 11,000 deaths a year, each and every
one of which is completely preventable. And I think, as Ms.
Livingston's moving testimony points out, it is not just losing
a life, it leaves a hole in families, it leaves a hole in
communities, and they are all vitally important.
The second point I want to make is that drugged driving has
been increasing at an alarming rate over the past decade. Now,
it is really hard to give you a specific number about how much
it has because the data that we have around this are fairly
limited, but the information we do have is alarming.
Now, there are no national standards for obtaining
toxicological data after motor vehicle crashes or impaired
driving cases, and we know that obtaining these toxicological
samples and running tests on them is very expensive, and as a
result a lot of municipalities don't look after they ascertain
that there is a presence of an illegal blood alcohol
concentration, so we think that we are undercounting these
things, perhaps significantly.
My third foundational point is that increasingly people are
driving after having used more than one substance. We know this
from toxicological evidence from people who have died in
crashes. And the reason why this behavior is so lethal is that
combining drugs can lead to additive if not multiplicative
effects on impairment.
So continued investment in research initiatives to better
understand the scope of this problem as well as to better
understand how drugs impair driving is really essential to
guide not just resource allocation, but also to identify
effective drug-driving countermeasures. And we fully support
the proposed legislation to authorize NHTSA to study this issue
further.
Drug-impaired driving is different and more complex than
alcohol-impaired driving, and so a lot of the strategies that
have been used in alcohol-impaired driving can be applied to
this. There are going to be some specific policy approaches
that need to be used specifically for this. So a comprehensive
approach that includes public education, policy and enforcement
initiatives is outlined in my written testimony, but we fully
support the impaired-driving legislation introduced this week
to authorize NHTSA funding for grants and pilot programs into
drug-impaired driving prevention efforts.
So, in addition, the other things that are worth
considering include supporting the creation of a national
minimum standard for toxicological investigations in motor
vehicle crashes and drug-impaired driving cases; allocating
additional highway safety funds to improve State labs;
monitoring NHTSA's progress in creating large-scale education
efforts and then allocating funds appropriately to expand the
efforts that are deemed effective; using screening and
assessment in all cases of impaired driving so individual risk
treatment needs can be identified; researching the effects of
drugs on driver impairment and expanding the implementation of
accountability in DWI courts for high-risk offenders; and,
lastly, requiring the use of interlocks for all DUI offenders.
In conclusion, this is going to take a comprehensive
approach that is going to require that we break down some of
the silos that typically exist between the State and the
Federal levels and building broader coalitions than we have
ever had before so that we can reduce recidivism and save
lives. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Nordstrom follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now let me ask Ms. Chase to take 5 minutes and give her
statement.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE CHASE
Ms. Chase. Good morning, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking
Member McMorris Rodgers, and members of the subcommittee. I am
Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety. Celebrating our 30th anniversary this year, Advocates
is a unique and successful coalition of insurers, consumers,
public health and safety groups dedicated to preventing motor
vehicle crashes, which are responsible for approximately 100
deaths and 7,500 injuries each day, on average.
Thank you for convening this important hearing to address
issues that will protect and keep families whole. Steps can and
must be taken to protect children from tragic heatstroke
incidents in cars, to curb the dangers associated with keyless
ignition systems, and to reduce impaired driving. We are here
today because people are not infallible. We are, however,
inventive. There are current, proven solutions to these issues.
Tragically, the problem of hot cars has taken the lives of
at least 21 children this year, including 12 children during
the short time since this subcommittee held a hearing on this
issue in May. Moreover, we are in the dog days of summer and
most of the country just experienced a major heat wave,
punctuating the need for swift action.
Neuroscience experts have explained that common
circumstances such as stress, fatigue, or change in routine can
all lead to this serious and deadly outcome. Technology is
available now that can detect the presence of a child in a
vehicle and alert drivers and caregivers. The ability of the
system to detect is a critical component, especially since on
average over 25 percent of vehicular heatstroke deaths happen
as a result of the child getting into the car on their own.
I would like to now show a brief video to highlight this
feature from just a couple companies. I have been told that the
audio might not work, but I still think it is important that
you see that the technology is in existence.
[Video shown.]
So here, the detection system is in the roof--you can't see
it--and the alarm system was going off. If you could hear this,
it is quite loud and there are multiple components. There is an
audio, a visual, and also an app. In this instance, the child
is getting into the car unbeknownst to the parents. The dad
gets out. There is the visual. And now what you can't hear is a
very loud honking noise because the car detected that the child
was hiding in the car.
As you can see from the clips, lives can be saved now using
technology on the market today which, according to suppliers,
costs approximately 20 to 40 dollars. And the cost will go down
even further once it becomes standard equipment as we have
experienced with other safety technologies like rearview
cameras and airbags. We commend Chairwoman Schakowsky along
with Representatives Tim Ryan and Peter King for introducing
the Hot Cars Act and call on Congress to swiftly enact it.
Secondly, the invention of keyless ignition systems, also
known as push-button starts, has resulted in unintended deadly
consequences. This feature is now standard in nearly two-thirds
of vehicles sold, up from just over 10 percent in 2008. Without
needing to turn and remove a key to disengage the vehicle,
drivers can park their car in the garage, exit the car, and go
inside their home with their key in hand or handbag, all the
while thinking they have turned the car off. This scenario can
lead to a fatal level of carbon monoxide being emitted from the
parked, running car.
Stories like this continue to devastate families across the
country, including Susan who bravely recounted the recent
deaths of her parents. The PARK IT Act will require new cars
with keyless ignitions to have an automatic shutoff before
carbon monoxide can accumulate to a dangerous level.
Additionally, the legislation would help prevent vehicle
roll-aways, which happen when a driver exits the car while it
is still in gear. These incidents can lead to a driver being
struck by their own vehicle or the car continuing unabated,
potentially striking objects or people in its path. We applaud
the leadership of the chairwoman and other cosponsors in
introducing the PARK IT Act and urge Congress to enact it.
Thirdly, impaired driving continues to kill more than
10,000 people every year. My written testimony includes a
number of actions Congress should take, including getting
passive sensor technology such as DADSS into cars,
incentivizing States to lower their BAC laws and enact all
offender ignition interlock laws, and providing funds to
accelerate research, training, and solutions to the growing
problem of drug-impaired driving.
In conclusion, these remedies address a few of the
fallibilities of humans. Some claim that driverless cars will
be the panacea, and we hope they are correct. However, when
this subcommittee decides to consider driverless car
legislation, we urge you to require safeguards, including
minimum performance standards for technologies to protect those
in AVs and everyone around them. Proven technologies in
addition to the ones being discussed today such as automatic
emergency braking, blindspot detection, and lane departure
warning should be in all new cars now. They will both pave the
way toward AVs and save lives along the way.
Advocates looks forward to continuing to work with the
subcommittee to make cars, drivers, and roads in America safer.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chase follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional material submitted by Ms. Chase has been
retained in committee files and also is available as part of
her prepared statement at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
IF17/20190724/109842/HHRG-116-IF17-Wstate-ChaseC-20190724.pdf.]
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the excellent testimony of all our
witnesses. So we have concluded the opening statements, and now
we will move to Member questions. Each Member will have 5
minutes to ask questions of our witnesses, and I will start by
recognizing myself.
So one death may be an anomaly, but over three dozen
documented deaths prove that keyless ignition systems can be
deadly and dangerous, and without appropriate safeguards in
place anyone with a keyless ignition vehicle could be in
danger. So, Ms. Livingston, you yourself have accidentally left
your keyless ignition vehicle running--I have done it as well--
for 9 hours while you were at work. Is that right?
So what I wanted to ask you, though, is if you could
explain how easy it is for a distracted driver to inadvertently
leave keys in the ignition and the car running.
Ms. Livingston. Yes, so in my case I have had it happen
three times. And I dropped my car off at Wonderland T Station
to go into Boston and parked my car at Lucky's, an outdoor
garage, but my radio continued running. I listen to Bloomberg
on the way to work, and the radio was going. I grabbed my bag.
I stepped out. There is quite a bit of traffic, by the way, as
well, so you can't hear the engine.
I locked the car, and there is absolutely no indication,
went into work, and when I came back to the car I got in and I
looked at the dashboard and I thought, wait a minute. I think
my car is running. And I just felt really lucky I didn't run
out of gas. And I have heard so many stories now since this
happened to my parents of other people who came and their car
had run out of gas.
One time I did the old valet trick where I valeted the car
at the United Way Women's Breakfast in Boston, and they took
the car. I had the key fob in my purse. Went to the breakfast
and I came out to the valet and waited and waited, and all
these people were leaving. I was like, I have another meeting,
where is my car? And they said, ``Oh, you never gave us the key
fob.'' So again, this has happened.
And I had a friend who they rented a car, and he drove the
car up and his son took the rental car from here, from D.C., up
to New York, and his son got to New York and realized his dad
still had the key in his pocket. So these are things that
happen that are inconvenient and annoying, but usually not
fatal. And I would suggest this happens a lot.
Now, when there are two-thirds of new vehicles all have
this keyless technology, we really do need better systems, and
GM and Ford have embraced it.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thirty-six deaths that we have documented.
There may be more that we don't know about.
Ms. Livingston. There are many more, I am sure.
Ms. Schakowsky. Exactly. Mistakes obviously should not cost
lives. Ms. Livingston, should technologies that automatically
shut off a keyless ignition vehicle if the engine has idled for
a dangerous period of time be required in all cars, and do you
support the PARK IT Act?
Ms. Livingston. Yes, I support the act. And I have noted
that if the car had run just 30 minutes and turned off, my
parents would still be alive. I rented a GM down in Sarasota
when I was cleaning out the condo, which is not an easy job to
do, and it was so hot. It was 103 degrees, so I understand
people saying, ``Oh, I want to leave the a/c on.''
I had to grab papers to go to the lawyer, and I walked out
of the car and the horn honked. I mean that was a really great
reminder that I had the key. I intentionally was just running
into the condo and back. I think these things are so easy to
install, I can't get my head around why the other car
manufacturers have just ignored it.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
So I want to switch to a different topic right now. Twenty-
one children have tragically died this year--this is a record--
inside a hot car. A majority of these tragic deaths are
accidents, distracted parents merely going about their busy
lives accidentally leaving their children inside a rapidly
warming car.
So, Ms. Chase, the technologies exist today that can detect
the presence of a child left in a car. We saw your video. Why
is it important, so important, to adopt technologies that can
detect--I am talking about detection systems now--the presence
of a child, and why this is an element that is essential?
Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question. It is so important
that there is a detection system. First of all, no parent or
caregiver thinks that this will happen to them. Nobody wakes up
in the morning and thinks they are either going to leave their
child unintentionally or that a child will climb into a car,
but it is happening.
And we have the technological solutions, especially as you
mentioned, Madam Chairwoman, the detection system, because that
can say there is somebody in this car, or a pet, and action
needs to be taken. If there is just an alarm, that can be
accomplished with different technologies such as door
sequencing and it won't detect all of the children that are
dying now. So we want the effective solution to take place and
Hot Cars will do that.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Time flies, I yield back, and
now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mrs.
Rodgers.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Nordstrom, why is it important for NHTSA to study drug-
impaired driving, including the opioid impairment? Are there
holes in the data we have today that we could learn more about
with a targeted study?
Dr. Nordstrom. Indeed. Thank you for the question. First,
there are holes in the data, I think, because that really
speaks to one of the fundamental challenges that we have. When
we think about the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, which
looks at drugs that might be present in somebody after a fatal
car crash, what we see is that the way that is it implemented
is very different from State to State.
And it is used in 2 percent of cases in some States, up to
96 percent in other States, so there is not any uniformity to
it. And then, furthermore, when the drugs are actually looked
for, different cutoffs are used as well, and so we get uneven
reporting and so we are kind of constantly comparing apples to
oranges. It makes it really hard to know the actual full extent
of the problem.
The reason why it is very important is because there are
large educational holes that probably need to be filled. We
know that, when it comes to people's beliefs about using
different medications or different recreational drugs, there is
not any really clear sense from the population, the using
community, about what is safe and what isn't safe. And so we
have to understand the scope of the problem, so then we can
actually target finding out what kinds of countermeasures we
need to do and then measure them to see if they are working so
we know how to allocate those resources in the future.
Mrs. Rodgers. Good. What do you think is the most important
aspect to be studying as far as the drug-related impaired
driving?
Dr. Nordstrom. So I think that there are a number of things
that are really important, and I think that a big one is
looking at the prevalence of things. And so, looking at doing
things like oral fluid analysis where--and expanding
opportunities to do that like is being done in Michigan, I
think, would be very, very important so that we can understand
what is happening on the roads.
And then that also leads to, I think, the next thing that
is really important, which is a very, very good assessment and
screening for everybody who is found to be driving while
impaired, so that we can understand what their treatment needs
are and what their supervision needs are, so that we can
individualize plans so that we know that we are targeting the
underlying causes of very lethal criminal behavior.
Mrs. Rodgers. Great, I appreciate that. Would you share
with the committee what polydrug use is and what risk it poses
to the public? Is this an issue that NHTSA should focus on
during the study in our bill, and if so, how would improving
data on this issue help State and Federal officials?
Dr. Nordstrom. Thank you, yes. So polydrug use is just the
use of more than one psychoactive substance at the same time.
So that could be alcohol and marijuana, which seems to be the
most common combination that is being detected in the FARS
data. But it could also be, you know, cocaine or
methamphetamine and alcohol or it could be opioids and
marijuana. It could be lots of different things.
And the reason why that is very important is, again, those
substances are going to interact in the brain and create kind
of unpredictable at this point effects on driving. We know that
sometimes it is a one plus one equals two, and so people have--
smoke a little bit and do some opioids, and sometimes it is
actually multiplicative, and so you will get a 1 plus 1 equals
like a 3 kind of effect out of it.
And so this is the sort of things that we need to
understand better in terms of how these drugs affect people,
and then we also have to be able to communicate that to the
public so that they know what is safe.
Mrs. Rodgers. One last question. Based on your experience
with impaired driving, do you believe it is important to treat
drug-impaired driving as seriously as driving under the
influence of alcohol?
Dr. Nordstrom. Well, I certainly think it is every bit as
lethal. Now, we know that drunk driving is still far more
prevalent a behavior, but as people's drug use patterns change
over time, we are going to see those changes in our statistics
as well. And it is every bit as lethal, so it deserves as much
attention.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you very much. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I do want to acknowledge in the
audience today we have Helen Witty, who is the head of MADD,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who for decades has been helping
to make our roads safer.
And now I recognize Chairman Pallone for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Consumers have an expectation that safety is ingrained in
every component of their car, even features like keyless
ignition systems. But I wanted to start out by asking Ms.
Livingston, were you or your parents aware of the potential
dangers posed by keyless ignition vehicles, and even if your
parents were notified of the potential dangers, do you believe
that that awareness alone would have saved their lives, if I
can ask?
Ms. Livingston. No. They were not aware, as far as I know,
nor was I. And in fact, Sherry purchased this particular car
based on its safety features. So the keyless ignition has been
marketed and sold as a convenience without any real
notification of the potential dangers. I think education does
help, but as Ms. Chase suggested, humans make mistakes, and I
still think with a very inexpensive technology we really could
protect people and save lives.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. I am not even sure I
understand how it is a convenience, but whatever, thank you.
Ms. Livingston. Me neither. It wasn't that hard to turn a
key.
Mr. Pallone. I know.
Ms. Livingston. Do you agree? OK.
Mr. Pallone. I agree. Ford and General Motors have
installed technologies automatically shutting off the engine of
a keyless ignition vehicle if it has idled for an unsafe period
of time, and Toyota has pledged to do the same with its 2020-
year model vehicles.
So I wanted to ask Ms. Chase, with industry beginning to
adopt some of these safety features, why do you think it is
still important to have a robust Federal standard on the books?
We always ask the question, Do we need to do this?
Ms. Chase. We need to do this. And we need to do it because
these are voluntary measures, and there is no requirement
without a Federal mandate that this technology that has been
proven to save lives be in all cars. It is also not happening
quickly enough. With every passing day we are endangering
people throughout this country unnecessarily, when there is
proven technology that can be saving lives.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. And vehicle roll-aways are another
hidden danger tied to keyless ignition systems. With a
traditional ignition system, a driver is unable to physically
remove the key from the ignition until the vehicle is in park.
But with keyless ignition systems, drivers are reporting that
they can shut off and leave the vehicle with the car still in
gear.
So let me again, Ms. Chase, what safeguards can be deployed
to prevent these sorts of issues with that?
Ms. Chase. And I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Are you talking
about the roll-away issue?
Mr. Pallone. Yes, the roll-away.
Ms. Chase. So the PARK IT Act would solve this problem.
There are five conditions that if a car isn't in park, if the
door is open, if the driver is out, then the car will be
stopped. And this is essential legislation that should be
passed expeditiously, and that is a really hard thing to say.
But we really thank you for your leadership. And when we
know that people are dying when there is a solution at hand, it
is all the more tragic, so let's get this technology into cars.
We urge Congress to take immediate action on the PARK IT Act as
well as the Hot Cars Act to stop these preventable fatalities.
Mr. Pallone. Again, thank you, because I think we really
should spare no expense to protect our Nation's kids.
Ms. Chase, again, how expensive is the technology used to
detect the presence of a child in a vehicle and alert the
driver or parent?
Ms. Chase. I have spoken with a few of the suppliers, and I
have heard that it can range from 20 to 40 dollars. But the key
of that is, once they are required as standard equipment, we
all know that the price significantly goes down. So that is why
this legislation is so essential, to get it as standard
equipment into all cars.
Mr. Pallone. Now, we know that during our May hearing, Mr.
Harrison shared the heartbreaking story of the death of his
son, Chase, who tragically died after being accidentally left
in a hot car. So let me go back to Ms. Chase. Do you believe
that Mr. Harrison or any of the hundreds of other parents who
have lost a child to vehicular heatstroke would have been
willing to pay for these technologies?
Ms. Chase. Absolutely. Miles's story is heart wrenching. We
worked very closely with him and KidsandCars.org and all of the
incredibly brave families that come up to Congress, who have
been coming for years, and talk about the worst thing that has
ever happened to them and their families over and over again.
It is time for this technology to be put in all cars now.
Mr. Pallone. Just let me ask one more question. Do you
believe that child detection technologies are sophisticated
enough to accurately and reliably detect the presence of a
child in the vehicle?
Ms. Chase. I do believe that. And in fact, we are working
on holding another demonstration so that all Members of
Congress and members of the public can come see how this
technology works. We had one a couple months ago, and we are
going to keep showing this technology, which gets better and
better over time. But we believe that it is there now. And we
also know that the rulemaking process takes some time, so
what--that period of time, technology will continue to evolve.
When we are talking in the same breath about driverless cars,
certainly we can get a detection system into cars.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. I now recognize Mr. Latta for 5 minutes for
his questions.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you very
much for our witnesses for being with us in today's hearing.
Dr. Nordstrom, in your testimony you spoke about the need
to implement a comprehensive approach that includes innovative
solutions to eliminate impaired driving. Two of the bills that
we are discussing today aim to improve motor vehicle safety and
prevent impaired driving. In addition to these proposals, I
believe we should also be examining and encouraging the
deployment of self-driving technologies, which have the
potential to save tens of thousands of lives that are lost
every year to impaired 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. According to the Governors Highway Safety
Association, in 2016 the number of drivers who were fatally
injured in accidents with drugs in their systems surpassed the
number of those with alcohol in their system for the first time
ever.
Ninety-four percent of the accidents are attributed to
human error, including through impaired driving. These
statistics are staggering and show that we must work together
to prevent more tragedies. And that is why last Congress I
introduced the SELF DRIVE Act, which would have clarified the
Federal and State rules in regulating the self-driving
vehicles, ensured consumer safety, reduced traffic-related
fatalities and injuries, and improved mobility for individuals
with disabilities.
This legislation also included legislation from a previous
version of our chair, Chair Schakowsky's, legislation to
prevent the tragedies we heard about today when a child is left
in a hot car. The SELF DRIVE Act passed unanimously out of this
committee and on the floor, and I hope that we and our Democrat
colleagues will continue to work with me to make this a
priority again.
Self-driving cars are our future, and without congressional
action the U.S. will be at a competitive disadvantage and
Americans will lose out in its lifesaving benefits. We have
this opportunity to work towards ending senseless deaths on our
roads by making investments in our vehicle technology.
So, Dr. Nordstrom, have you considered the self-driving
vehicles as a component of the comprehensive approach to
addressing impaired driving?
Dr. Nordstrom. So thank you for the question. I think you
are absolutely right. I think that there is a lot that will be
gained when we get there, and I think that it is, you know,
that could be a massive boon for saving thousands of lives on
American roadways. The challenge is, it is going to take a
while to get there.
And so, in the meantime, you know, I am very heartened to
see the time and attention this committee is putting into all
of the incremental steps between now and when we finally get to
where you are describing so that we can save as many lives as
possible in the interim.
Mr. Latta. OK, so I just want to make sure. So in your
studies right now you haven't been taking in the thought of
driverless technologies, or you have been considering it as you
are doing the research?
Dr. Nordstrom. Well, I think that, you know, we see that as
something that is pretty far in the future for us, and
especially when you think about the way that the fleet is going
to turn over for the--that when we think about this and how we
are going to sort of allocate our efforts, we are concerned
about the nearer term.
So, even though I completely agree with you that that is
ultimately something that I think is going to be perhaps even
sort of solving the problem definitely, until we get there, we
have to be doing these other things.
Mr. Latta. OK. If I could just follow up with another
question. You focused on increasing dangers of drivers being
impaired by opioids across the country, and especially in my
home State of Ohio the opioid and drug addiction crisis has
devastated our communities. And you pointed out that the
Government, especially the FDA, can do more to increase
awareness of the safety risks of driving while impaired by
opioids.
What are some of the ways that the FDA can do this, and how
can the Federal Government, in general, help to improve the
understanding of opioid-impaired driving?
Dr. Nordstrom. So it is a great question, and I think that
ultimately one of the things that we really need to do is have
much better efforts at educating physicians on how to talk to
patients about risk when they are prescribing and also to talk
with pharmacists about how to talk about risks when they are
dispensing to people.
I can tell you from having been in clinical practice for
years, the number of patients who would express surprise when I
would tell them, ``Do not drive after you start taking this
medication until you know exactly how it affects you, and it is
going to take several days for you to know that.'' They would
say, ``Well, nobody has ever told me that before.''
And it is the kind of thing that we really need to be
pushing so that people understand what these risks are, because
I think that there is a lot of this that people just kind of
assume that, if their doctor or pharmacist isn't saying
something or if they are just putting a little sticker on the
bottle, it must not be that serious, and it really is. So I
think we need to be doing more in terms of educating.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
Madam Chair, my time has expired, and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Congresswoman Dingell for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I mentioned, this week I will be introducing a bill that
calls for commercializing and standardizing a passive alcohol
detection system. This technology needs to be the standard in
all new vehicles, and it will save 7,000 to 10,000 lives every
year. It also calls for a significant field test and a
reasonable rulemaking process leading towards making driver-
impaired technology a Federal standard. I hope my colleagues
can join me in supporting this measure, and I ask the
chairwoman if she would consider another hearing in September
when the legislation is introduced.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am a car girl, everybody knows that. And I believe the
U.S. auto industry is home to some of the best and the
brightest engineers in the world. They have solved complex
problems, and they are working on new and amazing safety
features all the time, and we all agree that we need to see
some of them put on the vehicles themselves.
You know, Frank asked, Do we need regulation. Well,
unfortunately, sometimes we do, and here is an example of when
we do. It is just when it comes to advancing technology in
vehicles that will prevent those who drink and drive, like the
driver alcohol detection system for safety, we have got to get
it done faster, because if the technology was in use today, the
Abbas Stop Drunk Driving Act and legislation wouldn't be
necessary.
So I want to first ask a couple of questions on DADSS,
because we have been hearing about this program for so long,
before I ever got to Congress, to tell you the truth. And while
we know there is room for improvement, we really need to get
this technology tested at scale in front of consumers so we can
start saving lives.
Dr. Nordstrom, these questions are for you. Do you have an
estimate on how many vehicles the DADSS program currently is
being tested on?
Dr. Nordstrom. I don't know right off the top of my head.
Mrs. Dingell. Can you get that for the record, please?
Dr. Nordstrom. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell. And in your opinion, what is needed to
finally--it is not a lot though, is it?
Dr. Nordstrom. No, ma'am.
Mrs. Dingell. It is like a minimal. But could you, just so
that--I know what it is, but can you give other people a sense
about of how many vehicles it is really being tested on?
Dr. Nordstrom. I think it is just a handful, ma'am.
Mrs. Dingell. Right, thank you. And in your opinion, what
is needed to finally move this technology from the lab and that
limited field testing to something that can be placed in
vehicles and fleet-tested on a larger scale?
Dr. Nordstrom. Well, from my understanding, it is
additional money in order to get the technology to finish the
development of it and to start putting it into vehicles.
Mrs. Dingell. It is only money?
Dr. Nordstrom. Well, money and time.
Mrs. Dingell. Do you think this technology--I shouldn't say
only money. Money does matter. Do you think this technology
would be ready for a fleet test of 1,500 cars by 2020?
Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, I am being told by the end of 2020 we
could expect that.
Mrs. Dingell. OK. I want to change my focus and ask a few
questions about mandatory first-offender interlocks. In States
that have mandatory first-offender interlock laws, have you
seen a reduced number of alcohol-related fatalities?
Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Dingell. Do you have a sense for the cause of the
resistance from States that haven't implemented that mandatory
first-offender law?
Dr. Nordstrom. So, from my conversations with people, you
know, the things that we kind of hear about are that there are
very frequently difficulties, especially in States that are
fairly rural, that getting people to places where they can get
those interlocks installed is difficult. And then the other
thing that we frequently hear is difficulty getting them put in
for indigent people.
Mrs. Dingell. OK. And one last one, Dr. Nordstrom. If a
police officer is out on patrol and sees someone swerving all
over the road, they hopefully will pull that person over,
because from the outside the car impaired driving tends to look
the same. It could be a sleepy driver. They could be drunk,
high--I share my colleagues' concerns about marijuana--texting
distract, or any combination of these.
Do you think that law enforcement is generally in need of
more resources for enforcement of impaired driving?
Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, ma'am. I definitely do.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Madam Chair, thanks for holding this hearing again, and I
hope we are going to stay very focused on this issue, and I
yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlelady yields back, and Mr.
Guthrie, I think, is next. Am I right? Yes.
Mr. Guthrie, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity, and thanks for having this hearing.
Thanks for being here and sharing your story, and thanks
for being here and sharing your expertise and your advocacy.
One of my big concerns--and I am really glad we are pursuing
the technology that affected your family, Ms. Livingston, but
also one of the concerns that I have had is impaired driving,
particularly as some States are making the decision to allow
people to use marijuana. And I think that encourages young
people to say it is OK, you know, I mean that for some reason
it is, and that is just my belief.
And so, the question I hear from law enforcement people,
just the difference is that, when you see impaired driving, the
difference is you can do a blood test, a sobriety test with
alcohol that you really can't do with marijuana. And so, as
more people are doing it, because it is being--the word not
encouraged, but saying it is OK, by the State saying it is OK
to do, then more people are doing it.
So, Dr. Nordstrom, just the differences between drunk
driving and--or just impaired driving, one by alcohol and one
by, I will just say marijuana, I know there are other people
and have other--and how--I know there is a study underway from
NHTSA to try to differentiate and how you can test for that in
the field test. Could you explain what is going on and how we
could explore further?
Dr. Nordstrom. So the challenge with alcohol versus
cannabis, you know, it is that alcohol is very, very well
studied at this point. It follows a pretty clear dose/response
curve that, when people drink a certain amount of standard
drinks, their blood level will rise a predictable amount.
Alcohol metabolism follows something called zero order
kinetics, which means that a very predictable amount is removed
over time, and it is just a much more sort of knowable field.
When it comes to cannabis and THC, which is the psychoactive
component in cannabis, that dose/response curve is much
trickier to estimate.
That the thing that is also difficult is the amount of THC
in any given product varies wildly. The root of administration
changes, whereas all alcohol is basically swallowed. Sometimes
people are smoking, sometimes people are swallowing and, you
know, orally ingesting cannabis products, so it is very, very
hard to know when the levels are going to rise, and then the
metabolism is different.
The other thing that is different is in alcohol we know
that a certain blood level corresponds to a certain level of
impairment. We don't have that same clear predictability when
it comes to blood levels----
Mr. Guthrie. Because you still have THC in your system but
not be impaired, right, because it lingers in your system
longer?
Dr. Nordstrom. So, well, THC itself will--it is always
going to be intoxicating, that is psychoactive and one of the
first metabolites. So one of the first breakdown steps in THC
is still active, eventually you get to an inactive form and
that inactive form stays around much longer than the active
forms do.
Mr. Guthrie. So you know when the active and inactive, and
active is what is intoxicating.
Dr. Nordstrom. So that is what is important.
Mr. Guthrie. It is impairment----
Dr. Nordstrom. For our purposes that is what is important
to measure for impairment.
Mr. Guthrie. What is the field test, field sobriety,
because if a police officer suspects alcohol or smells it or
whatever, they can do a field test to see if they are impaired,
then they go to the more--tests, if you are going to do
something in court, I am sure you have to go further than that.
Does the field tests--can you tell an impaired driver with
cannabis as you can with----
Dr. Nordstrom. Well, to Congresswoman Dingell's point, when
somebody is weaving around the road, that is the first
indication. When they pull them over and they are acting
impaired but they don't smell alcohol, they do a portable
breath test and it is negative, then this is where it gets
tricky. If they are not a specifically trained drug recognition
expert, they might not know necessarily what to look for.
Mr. Guthrie. So the walking heel-to-toe, touching your
nose, with your eyes, because that kind of stuff wouldn't be
the same effect as alcohol?
Dr. Nordstrom. They could do those field sobriety tests and
say, ``Yes, this person is impaired'' but not be able to detect
alcohol. So they will say, ``Well, something is up,'' and that
is where the oral fluid testing can be very useful. For
somebody who hasn't gone through all the rigorous training to
become a drug recognition expert, they could at least test oral
fluid and then say, ``OK, this person does have THC or its
active metabolite present in their system,'' and then you can
start building probable cause for building a more kind of
comprehensive that the person is driving under the influence of
cannabis.
Mr. Guthrie. And I am sure that is inconsistent across
police jurisdictions about how that is applied or not applied?
Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, sir. Yes. There is not a standard
approach. It is not--that oral fluid testing has not really
been built into standard operating procedure anywhere in the
United States, as far as I know.
Mr. Guthrie. Because there is no jurisdiction that does it
now?
Dr. Nordstrom. Not as part of SOP, sir.
Mr. Guthrie. OK.
Dr. Nordstrom. But it has been done in, I believe, Canada
and Australia. There is precedent.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, so there are some places that we could
study to see how it works and how it moves forward.
Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, sir.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, thanks for that. And I know it is very
concerning, and thanks for all of you for being here today. I
appreciate it very much, and I yield back.
Dr. Nordstrom. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and now I
recognize Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
You know, as technology increases in vehicles, we in
Congress have to keep up with those changes. And, while it is
so exciting to have vehicles that are keyless and others that
turn off and on for energy efficiency and others that will be
plugged in, this committee's work is going to have to continue
to make sure that we are doing the things we do to keep people
safe.
And we hear every week different issues that we have to
work on, and I am really proud to be part of a lot of these
bills to help increase vehicle safety, particularly joining our
chairwoman, Seth Moulton, and Congressman Kennedy, as well as
Congressman Moulton and dealing with issues in the PARK IT Act
of the risks of keyless ignition technology.
I wanted to first start by asking Ms. Livingston, How
important is this bill to protect our seniors, to protect our
children, and other vulnerable populations?
Ms. Livingston. Thank you for the question. I think it is
essential. I can't believe keyless ignition has been around for
over 10 years and we don't have a regulation. The auto industry
sometimes represents, ``Oh, we will do it on our own
voluntarily,'' has not happened. We need the legislation as
soon as possible.
Two more people have died since my parents died in May, and
it is not just elders. There was a young 20-year-old woman who
died and, sadly, her fiancee survived. Sometimes it is worse to
survive carbon monoxide. But we definitely need a law. NHTSA is
looking for leadership from Congress on this.
Mr. Soto. Do you think most consumers are aware right now
of the dangers of a car remaining on in a keyless ignition
scenario?
Ms. Livingston. I don't think so. I don't think my parents
knew. I know I wasn't really aware of it other than the fact
that I had left my car a few times when it was still running,
and I couldn't hear it. And I think this--so a little confusion
on terminology, but the auto-stop to save gas, as you
mentioned, a number of cars, when you get to a red light, the
car engine stops, so people think that the engine is off.
I think very few people are aware, and a number of people
after the story came out on my parents mentioned to me that
they had never heard of it, and then more and more stories come
out. We need to do something to protect consumers.
Mr. Soto. Thank you for that. And it is part of the initial
theme which is, you know, all these things are progressing, but
it is the Federal Government's responsibility with these types
of progress that are in interstate commerce to make sure they
are safe. People assume we are doing our jobs and today this is
part of that.
Ms. Chase, how important is the Hot Car technology, and a
similar question: Are people aware that this threat is out
there, in your opinion?
Ms. Chase. The Hot Car technology is essential because,
with every passing day and it is hot outside, and by the way
this still happens when it is not so hot out. It can happen
when it is 60 degrees outside. Children are at risk, and we
have a proven solution that there is a detection system and
alarm system. There is no reason why this shouldn't be in all
cars today.
Mr. Soto. And do you think people are aware of this risk,
particularly if it is 60 degrees out, who would really think
that that could be a risk?
Ms. Chase. You know, I think there is some awareness but
not enough. And nobody wakes up and thinks, oh, I might leave
my child in the car today. And this happens especially when
there is a change in routine where Mom is usually the one who
drops off the child at daycare, but Mom is out of town on a
business trip, so Dad is doing it today. And say Dad is driving
to work--we all kind of go on auto pilot in a sense, and you
start thinking about something at work or you get a call which
you shouldn't answer, but people do, and then you get
distracted and you forget there is a sleeping baby, rear-
facing.
There is no indication, really, there is no sound, there is
no movement. There is technology there that can solve this
problem. It is not the fault of the parents.
Mr. Soto. Well, and I am glad you mentioned that, because
that is what I would like to end on. The fact that we have this
increasing technology to help with some of the new issues that
other technology causes, it gives me hope that we are going to
be able to resolve these issues and prevent the kind of
tragedies that you all saw with your own eyes with your
families. So thanks for being here today, and thanks for your
courage.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and I now
recognize Mr. Bucshon for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just had a hot
car death in my district about a week and a half ago, 3 years
old, was apparently asleep. So this is--it has been devastating
for the family, but also for the community of Evansville,
Indiana, to realize that these things do happen. And the parent
was a responsible parent, it just happens. So I am glad the
committee is working towards addressing that particular issue.
I think it is important.
You were talking, Dr. Nordstrom, about THC and impairment.
As you know, opioid abuse is out there, but also just using
opioids for legitimate purposes. And you mentioned, I think, in
your testimony that because of that rise that there is a huge
opportunity for healthcare providers--and I was a physician
before I was in Congress--healthcare practitioners to address
opioid-impaired driving.
Can you further expand on the opportunities available and
how education plays a role and how physicians can help?
Dr. Nordstrom. Absolutely, and thank you for the question,
sir. You know, I am sure as you remember from being in
practice, very frequently you will see people whose medications
get added to, they are seeing a number of different specialists
and sometimes people aren't always thinking about medication
interactions, especially when it comes to sort of cumulative
effects on alertness.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
Dr. Nordstrom. So I think one thing that is very important
is to be making sure that we are educating physicians about not
just kind of the pharmacodynamic interactions, so how the drugs
relate to each other chemically, but then the pharmacokinetic
actions but also the pharmacodynamic interactions which----
Mr. Bucshon. So it could be, I mean there could be some
impairment with medications that are not opioid-related, right?
Dr. Nordstrom. Of course. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bucshon. You could have a couple medications that cause
reactions that would result in impaired driving that are not
traditionally thought of as being--causing impairment?
Dr. Nordstrom. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Bucshon. So that is where pharmacies come into play
too, right?
Dr. Nordstrom. And this is where, yes, that there has to be
sort of levels of intervention here, where if the physician
forgets or doesn't have the conversation, that the pharmacist
does. Because somebody is on an antihistamine that is sedating,
you know, that is going to potentially affect their ability to
drive, same as a benzodiazepine, the same as an opioid.
Mr. Bucshon. Right.
Dr. Nordstrom. You know, and so I think that the physicians
need to be thinking about this when they are doing informed
consent with patients about medications. But the other part of
it is that the doctors need to be thinking about when they are
prescribing making sure that they are reviewing the whole of
the med list and for the pharmacists to be doing the same thing
as----
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, I have seen patients on 20 medicines
before.
Dr. Nordstrom. Exactly.
Mr. Bucshon. Honestly, it is pretty routine. And Buddy, who
is a pharmacist, will tell you that is the case. So do we
have--and you were talking about just THC, but do we have
laboratory tests for drug, other non-THC drugs like opioids
that can hold up in court as it relates to impairment?
Dr. Nordstrom. Well, certainly we have----
Mr. Bucshon. Unless you have a zero tolerance. I mean, if
you have an opioid and the law is it is zero.
Dr. Nordstrom. And a zero tolerance. And there are per se
standards for opioids in Nevada and Ohio, I believe, and I
think those are the only two----
Mr. Bucshon. But broadly we don't.
Dr. Nordstrom. But broadly we really don't. And part of
this is that there is not that same level of knowledge about
what drug level in blood corresponds to----
Mr. Bucshon. Yes. But we do have pharmacokinetics. Probably
to get FDA approval, you are going to have to show human
pharmacokinetics for an opioid, right?
Dr. Nordstrom. Sure. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Bucshon. So, I mean, that may not necessarily have a
direct correlation, though, with an impairment to a level which
would make you dangerous.
Dr. Nordstrom. Exactly. And I think that those----
Mr. Bucshon. So how do we get to that? That is why this
money is important, right? How do we get to that?
Dr. Nordstrom. So I think part of it is doing those--having
those tests be done where they look at specifically driver
impairment at different blood level----
Mr. Bucshon. How did we do it with alcohol? Did we actually
have drivers and have them--I mean initially, way back.
Dr. Nordstrom. There are standardized lab sort of
experiments where you can be in a driving lab with lane
excursion and things like that.
Mr. Bucshon. That is what I am saying. Then you have people
literally drink alcohol and----
Dr. Nordstrom. Absolutely. The same methodology----
Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. Measure their drug and test. So
we don't do--we haven't done that for opioids, really?
Dr. Nordstrom. Well, I mean, I don't think we----
Mr. Bucshon. Or other drugs?
Dr. Nordstrom. Not to the same extent that we have with
alcohol where the blood level would----
Mr. Bucshon. Correlate.
Dr. Nordstrom [continuing]. Definitively correlate and hold
up in court in such a way that it would meet standards.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes. Yes, that is one of the things. And law
enforcement are in a pretty tough spot.
Dr. Nordstrom. Absolutely.
Mr. Bucshon. Because they--the field sobriety tests may or
may not hold up. And the reason I say that, I had a case in my
district, again, where a 16-year-old girl was hit as a
pedestrian and killed.
Dr. Nordstrom. Oh, my God.
Mr. Bucshon. And the driver in the field was obviously
impaired, but the laboratory tests showed no alcohol, no
opioids, and was probably THC, but ultimately they are still
trying to--this was a couple years ago. They are still trying
to prosecute that case. But there was a blood alcohol level of
zero, no opioids, no benzos, but clearly failed the field
sobriety test, probably on marijuana.
Dr. Nordstrom. Oh, my Lord.
Mr. Bucshon. And they have not been able to adjudicate that
case because there is no standard. So anyway, that does happen.
I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and I recognize
Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes for his questions.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chair and I thank the
witnesses this morning, very illuminating testimony. And I want
to thank the ranking member for inviting me to colead the
Impaired Driving Study Act. I have thought a lot about this
issue, actually.
And I am going to sort of follow up on Mr. Bucshon. Mr.
Nordstrom, can you envision a field impairment test that tests
manual dexterity that can hold up in court?
Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, sir. I mean, I think that with the
standard field sobriety test we can get to a point where the
officer, especially if it is a drug recognition officer, can
really correlate then what they are seeing in terms of a
performance decrement to a specific drug or a class of drugs.
So I think we could get there.
Mr. McNerney. And it would hold up in court?
Dr. Nordstrom. Ideally, sir, yes.
Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you. How would NHTSA conducting
such a study as proposed in our legislation help us to reduce
the number of casualties resulting from alcohol-impaired and
other impaired driving?
Dr. Nordstrom. Well, I think, sir, that if we have the
opportunity to get people on their first offense and we can
really identify what is going on, what they have been using,
and then come up with specific targeted plans for how to
intervene to address the underlying causes of the behavior,
then it could potentially correct the problem later on so that
there aren't multiple reoffenses.
Mr. McNerney. I mean, it is my impression that reoffenses
are really the dangerous incidents.
Dr. Nordstrom. That is, you know, the highest sort of risk
are those people that have very high blood alcohol levels, you
know, above 0.15. The multiple reoffenders and the polyusers,
those people account for about 70 percent of the DUI deaths, so
that those really high-risk people are the ones that we need to
be focusing on.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thanks. What are some of the things
that would be helpful for NHTSA to examine in conducting the
study?
Dr. Nordstrom. So I think that there are a number of
things, but I think really being able to get to the point where
we can meet the sort of standards, like the Daubert standards
for expert testimony. And so that is going to take a
significant amount of kind of work to be able to correlate what
we are seeing in terms of performance decrements so that, when
an expert goes into court and says that they have noticed that
this is, you know, what they have observed, that it can hold up
to rigorous cross examination so that the jury can have
confidence that there actually was a deficit there.
Mr. McNerney. So there is really opportunity for
improvement in impaired driving?
Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, sir.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Chase, I am going to talk a little bit about
cybersecurity issues with regard to all the safety. Today's
cars really are computers on wheels, and they can be hacked.
There was an incident in 2015 where two white hat hackers
cybercommandeered a Jeep Grand Cherokee, and so that has caused
some change in the rules. As cars become increasingly
interconnected, are you concerned that cybersecurity could pose
a threat to safety?
Ms. Chase. We are absolutely concerned about hacking and
threats to cars as they become more and more computerized, and
there needs to be some Federal action on this to protect both
the people in the car and all of us who are surrounding,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users.
Mr. McNerney. But what steps are the automobile industry
now taking to help prevent that?
Ms. Chase. I can't speak to what the auto industry is doing
right now, but what I can offer is that there should be some
Federal requirements that cars are not able to be hacked to the
best of the ability of the intelligence that is available now.
Mr. McNerney. So is NHTSA taking steps?
Ms. Chase. Not to my understanding.
Mr. McNerney. So then it is kind of up to Congress to do
something?
Ms. Chase. I would urge Congress to take steps to move this
along.
Mr. McNerney. OK. I thank the witnesses, and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and now I
recognize Mr. Carter for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank all of you
for being here, very important information.
Mr. Nordstrom, as Dr. Bucshon alluded to earlier, currently
I am the only pharmacist serving in Congress. And this is
extremely important to me, particularly as it relates to
medications and how they are impairing people, and particularly
when they are operating machinery, especially cars and trucks
and that type of thing.
Do you see this on the rise? Do you see a rise in the rate
of drug-impaired driving?
Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, sir, absolutely. That, you know, the
National Roadside Survey found that 22 percent of drivers
tested positive for illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter
medication.
Mr. Carter. Now, illegal prescription, are these
prescriptions----
Dr. Nordstrom. Illegal, comma, prescription, comma, or
over-the-counter medication.
Mr. Carter. So they were prescribed to them?
Dr. Nordstrom. Some of the time. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. OK. Well, OK. Let's just assume they were
prescribed for them and they were taking them like they were
supposed to be, but still they shouldn't have been behind the
wheel and using these medications.
Dr. Nordstrom. I mean, absolutely that happens.
Mr. Carter. OK. And any idea of any factors that led to
this increase or that have led to an increase? I mean----
Dr. Nordstrom. You know, sir, I don't need to tell a
pharmacist how much more medication is being consumed in this
country----
Mr. Carter. Right.
Dr. Nordstrom [continuing]. You know, I mean, when it comes
to opioids, we know we are 4 percent of the world population
and we consume about 80 percent of the world's opioids, right.
More and more, people are taking medication and they are doing
all kinds of things, including driving, you know, and so there
is certainly more of that happening.
Mr. Carter. Outside of opioids and marijuana, any other
particular medication, any other particular class of
medications that you see?
Dr. Nordstrom. No, you know, I mean, obviously when we are
talking about medications, the other things that we would worry
about are benzodiazepines and other sedative hypnotics. That
could certainly impair judgment and performance.
Mr. Carter. Let me ask you specifically about marijuana. In
full disclosure, I am not a fan. I am absolutely, adamantly
opposed to the recreational use of marijuana. Nevertheless, I
understand there are States that have legalized it. Do you see
an increase in impaired driving in those States?
Dr. Nordstrom. From the data that we have seen coming out
of--especially Washington has done a really incredible job
tracking their data, and it is one of the things that we would
really encourage States to do is to look at Washington's
example of measuring so that they can see----
Mr. Carter. So how are they measuring?
Dr. Nordstrom. So what Washington actually did is they went
back and they looked at blood samples from before they
legalized for different crashes and cases so that they could
see what happened pre and post. And, you know, they have seen
an increase, and I think it is just very important that other
States as they contemplate legalizing that they think about
doing that kind of rigorous measurement, so that they can see
what is happening after they make a change in policy so that
they know then how they are going to respond.
Mr. Carter. Are there any tests out there? I mean, you
know, we had a Breathalyzer and we can test for alcohol. What
about for marijuana? I mean, are there any--I am not familiar
with it. Georgia is not--it is not legal yet in Georgia, and I
hope it won't be. But nevertheless, I am just not familiar with
it.
Dr. Nordstrom. So there are oral fluid assays that can be
done, and there are portable oral fluid kits that can be done
at the roadside that look specifically for THC and active THC
metabolites. And that is about as--apart from doing bloodwork
and then GCMS, that is what we have got right now.
Mr. Carter. OK. I don't mean to be redundant, and I came in
on the tail end of Dr. Bucshon's questions, but in your
testimony you mentioned there is a huge opportunity for
collaboration with healthcare practitioners and pharmacists on
this issue. What do you see as the collaborative process, and
how can pharmacists play a role?
Dr. Nordstrom. Well, I certainly think that the
communication between physicians and pharmacists could always
be better. You know that as an addiction psychiatrist I have
great relationships with our pharmacists, because frequently
people would act one way in front of me and then when they are
in a retail setting that they would act in a very different
way, and they forgot that there was a licensed healthcare
professional who is still assessing them.
So we would get very, very good information back from the
pharmacists, and because we had them sign the HIPAA releases,
we could speak with pharmacists. And so, I mean, I think that
that kind of communication, though, needs to really happen
between prescribers, so not just physicians but any prescriber,
and the pharmacist on the dispensing end to make sure that if--
because if I made an oversight or an omission, the pharmacist
would catch it, would call me, and we made sure that the
communication was tight.
Mr. Carter. Great. Well, and, you know, just when I was
still practicing pharmacy, you know, it was routine when I
would dispense the medication, I would tell them, ``Look, this
is going to make you drowsy. Be careful if you are driving.'' I
mean that was just routine of what we did for patient
counseling.
Dr. Nordstrom. And I think that is the kind of thing we
need to be doing more of, sir.
Mr. Carter. Right, OK. Well, thank you very much, and I
yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. I now recognize Congresswoman Castor for 5
minutes.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this
hearing on how we make our cars safer, and I want to thank the
witnesses for sharing your expert points of view. And, Ms.
Livingston, thank you for sharing your very personal story of
your wonderful parents. I am sorry.
You know, automobile defects were identified over 10 years
ago. Ten years ago the Society of Automotive Engineers
identified the dangers posed by keyless ignition systems, two
years later NHTSA proposed a rule that would require
automobiles to provide supplementary warnings when a driver
inadvertently left a keyless ignition vehicle running, and yet
8 years later, now there is still no final rule.
The result has been at least 21 documented cases of people
dying from carbon monoxide poisoning after accidentally leaving
a keyless ignition vehicle running. I mean, automobile defects
that were identified over 10 years ago should not be causing
deaths in 2019.
Ms. Livingston, the vehicle that killed your parents was a
2017 Toyota Avalon, which was manufactured several years after
automakers identified carbon monoxide hazards tied to keyless
ignition systems and several years after NHTSA proposed
standards to reduce those risks. Do you believe that the auto
industry failed to protect your parents? Do you believe that
NHTSA failed to protect your parents?
Ms. Livingston. Absolutely.
Ms. Castor. Ms. Chase, I am concerned that NHTSA's hands-
off approach to addressing safety issues like keyless ignition
systems is costing lives. Why--you know, 10 years--why has
NHTSA not finalized the rule to protect the public? I mean, it
is going to take an act of Congress now to do this? But they
have had all of the evidence. How can we ensure that NHTSA
proactively identifies and addresses these sorts of automobile
safety issues?
Ms. Chase. You have identified the issue perfectly. And the
inaction at the agency is why the PARK IT Act and other pieces
of legislation that we have discussed today are critical,
because it is not moving and people are dying. And there is
technology that is existent and inexpensive that could be put
in all cars today.
So I urge this subcommittee then to move these bills
through, and let's get them to the floor and start saving
lives.
Ms. Castor. So that is the PARK IT Act, and hopefully it
will be moving. On the Hot Cars Act, a friend of mine--I went
grocery shopping with a friend of mine recently. They have a
new vehicle and they--you know, this is Tampa, Florida, we are
talking about--they wanted to make another stop at a different
store and I said, ``But you can't. Your groceries are going to
bake, and they are going to be ruined.''
And they said, ``No, look at this.'' In this vehicle there
is--the temperature will, the air conditioning will come on as
it is parked if the temperature in the car goes up too high. Is
that one of the answers?
Ms. Chase. That is one of the answers. So what is needed is
a detection system, so there must have been in whatever vehicle
that was a detection system that----
Ms. Castor. If it hit a certain temperature internally then
the a/c would come on for----
Ms. Chase. So that is one solution. So it has the detection
system, it kicks in the a/c, or it could also kick in the horn
beeping, or, you know, you get a notification on your phone.
There are a number of different ways that this problem can be
solved.
And what is so critical about the Hot Cars bill is that it
doesn't mandate one over the other, it just mandates that the
problem be solved. And there are different ways. There are
different innovators that can solve this problem, including the
one that you just mentioned.
Ms. Castor. And we were just talking about groceries, but
children are dying.
Ms. Chase. Children are dying, animals are dying, and it is
unnecessary.
Ms. Castor. And again, it looks like it is going to take an
act of Congress when it shouldn't. The agency should be more
proactive.
Ms. Chase. I agree with you.
Ms. Castor. A person's gender should not determine whether
he or she is injured or killed in an automobile crash, but
researchers have found that women are 73 percent more likely to
die or suffer severe injuries in a car crash than a man. And a
study from the University of Virginia suggests that female
crash dummies may contribute to this troubling trend.
According to the study, female crash dummies do not
appropriately account for the size and weight of an average
woman. Inaccurate test dummies can lead to ineffective safety
measures. Are you aware of this study, and what factors do you
think are contributing to the discrepancy here between men and
women and car crashes?
Ms. Chase. In honesty, I have read the highlights of the
study but not the extensive study. Some of my staff have. But I
am aware of the problem, and there needs to be more different
types of crash dummies that are more reflective of people's
body sizes and weights so that the equipment that is put into
cars will be responsive and protect them as they should.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
And I hope, Madam Chair, you will look into this with me.
Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. Fascinating questions and answers, or
things that need to be answered.
I now recognize Congresswoman Kelly for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank you
and the ranking member for holding this hearing. It is so
important. I too have left my car running, and both times--one
time I was trying to make the train and when I came back, I
wondered why my gas was so low. And the second time I had
actually parked it under Cook County's building and left the
car running all day, so I can relate to what you guys are
saying.
Ms. Livingston, you made a comment, ``Thanks for having the
hearing, and you know it is a busy day today,'' but I could say
on behalf of this committee, we are never too busy to save
lives. That is what this committee is about, so thank you for
being here.
Safety should be a standard feature of every new vehicle,
not an add-on that a consumer has to pay for. The level of
safety in your car should not depend on the size of your
wallet. But many existing and emerging safety technologies,
such as automatic emergency brakes, where automatic braking,
blind spot detection, and lane departure warnings are sold as
luxury items which must be purchased for an extra fee or as
part of an expensive add-on package, these additional costs may
put these lifesaving technologies out of reach for many
Americans. Automatic emergency brakes are not the same as
leather seats. Lane departure warnings are not the same as a
Bluetooth-enabled stereo.
Do you believe that selling safety-enhancing features such
as backseat warnings or a keyless ignition override as part of
accessory packages with a bunch of other gear like luxury floor
mats and wheel locks discourages consumers from buying cars
with crucial safety features? Any of you can answer.
Ms. Chase. I could not have said it better than you just
did that these safety features should be in all new vehicles,
and they should not be packaged with a moon roof or a heated
steering wheel. They should be--these are proven technologies
to reduce crashes, save lives, and prevent injuries. The only
reason that they are not being put into all new cars now is
that more money can be made from selling them as luxury
packages, or they are in some high-end vehicles that not
everyone can afford.
Ms. Kelly. Sure.
Either one of you, any comments?
Ms. Livingston. I totally agree with you. These are things
that are readily available, should be in every car, and we do
need an act of Congress. That is just the way it is. And the
car industries have proven over more than a decade that for the
keyless ignition that they haven't voluntarily put these
protections in, and some say that it could be only 60 cents a
car in that particular case. But to call things that are for
safety a luxury is just wrong.
Dr. Nordstrom. Well, ma'am, it is a bit outside my lane as
the Director of Responsibility.org, but certainly, I mean, as a
consumer I couldn't find fault with a single word that has been
said here.
Ms. Kelly. And, in the panel's opinion, are there certain
advanced safety technologies that should no longer be an option
but should be standard on all vehicles?
Ms. Chase. Obviously, the hot cars technology and the
cutoff switch for the keyless ignition switch, additionally
automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, blind spot
detection, just to name a few that have been proven by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to reduce crashes.
We know that these are effective. They should be in all
cars as standard equipment, and there should be performance
standards for them, so that if somebody calls something a
particular name, we know that it will respond the way that it
is expected to.
Ms. Kelly. OK, going back to watching people's pocketbooks,
what do you think can be done to retrofit all cars? Everybody
can't afford to buy a new car or, you know, everybody can't
afford some of the luxury cars.
Ms. Chase. I think there needs to be some more research and
studies done on how retrofits can be effected. I can say, in
terms of the hot cars, I have seen some aftermarket products. I
don't know the verification of them, but I have seen them.
And so, the problem therein, though, is that no one really
thinks that they are going to leave their child or that their
child is going to climb in, so that would put it incumbent upon
the consumer to go out and buy the aftermarket product. That is
why it needs to be standard, so that people, you know, have
that safety insurance without even thinking about it.
Ms. Livingston. I just wanted to mention on the keyless
ignition on how both GM and Ford embraced going in and making a
change and did a recall so that the older vehicles would have
it put in. It is possible to do. Technically, I think Toyota's
announcement that the new cars will have it is great. However,
there are a lot of cars out there and they will be on the road
7 or 8 years, and I think a recall is in order for that so more
people don't die.
Ms. Kelly. Good idea.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlelady yields back, and I now
recognize Mr. Rush for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and the ranking
member for conducting this hearing. It has been fascinating to
witness, and I certainly want to join with all my colleagues in
commending Ms. Livingston, whose courage to take her pain and
turn it into a pursuit of well-being for all Americans is
totally commendable, and we certainly want to express our
appreciation to you. You didn't have to do it, but you are
doing it, and we thank you so much for all your work and your
effort.
Ms. Chase, in your testimony you discussed the role that
technology can play in increasing vehicle and pedestrian
safety. Specifically, technologies like the AEB, the Automatic
Emergency Braking, are important factors in decreasing crash-
related injuries. That is why I was pleased to see the 2016
voluntary agreement implemented in AEB from 20 vehicle
manufacturers.
In one instance, NHTSA has announced that it will
accelerate its research into advanced AEB systems that include
pedestrian and bicyclist application. They have not done
enough. And that is why this morning I, along with seven of my
Democratic colleagues on this subcommittee, sent a letter to
NHTSA asking for an update on implementation of this advanced
technology.
That being said, can you please expand upon why this
technology is so important to pedestrian and bicyclist safety
and what other technologies should also be considered?
Ms. Chase. Congressman, thank you for your leadership, and
I look forward to reading your letter after the hearing is
concluded.
Mr. Rush. Right.
Ms. Chase. AEB is an essential piece of technology that
should be in all cars because the problems of impairments like
we discussed, and distraction among others, is prevalent in our
motoring public. And AEB, if someone is distracted or impaired,
will detect is it object or a person in front--hopefully a
person--that is an advanced AEB system--is in front of them,
and if a person doesn't brake, it will brake for them.
I would just like to make a side note about the voluntary
agreement. While it may seem like a step forward, we really
would like to see a minimum performance standard, because with
a voluntary agreement a company can walk away from it. A
company can also call something a system, name it something,
but we don't know how it truly performs.
So we would like to see the added step of it first being
required as a standard equipment and then also there being a
minimum performance standard for the technology.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Congresswoman Kelly asked a lot of questions that I want to
pursue. Most of my constituents don't have new cars. Most of
them have used cars. And 5 years down the road, new cars that
are online that will be purchased today and tomorrow will also
be used cars, and cars that may or may not have this advanced
technology. And I understand that there could possibly be
devices that will be marketed for to deal with some of these
issues that we have been discussing.
But what I would like you to inform this committee about is
what role can the Congress play in addressing the issues of
some of the older model cars in terms of how can we use this
legislative perspective that we have to address the issues of
older cars that are still a threat to life, limb, and safety.
Ms. Chase. As the proud owner of a 15-year-old minivan, I
hear you. And what I would encourage Congress to do is to find
out what NHTSA is doing on this issue. And then also I would
like to work with you and your staff to see if there are any
legislative solutions to this problem, because it is a problem.
There are a lot of used or secondhand vehicles on the road, and
they should not be, you know, they should have the advances
that are available in new cars. So I look forward to working
with you to see where we can go on this.
Mr. Rush. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. I want to thank all of the witnesses. This
was just really wonderful testimony today. Thank you for your
participation. There is a lot of followup that we need to do.
I want to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules,
they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for
the record to be answered by witnesses who have appeared. And I
want to ask each of the witnesses to, please, if you get
questions to respond as promptly as possible to those
questions.
At this time, the--let's see. Before that--so these are
things I would ask unanimous consent to insert into the record.
Where are we? OK. We have a letter from the College Church--oh,
I am sorry. OK, we have a letter from Colleen Church, advisor
and counsel to Responsibility.org, a letter from the daughter
of a carbon monoxide poisoning victim, a letter from the son of
a carbon monoxide poisoning victim, a letter from the American
Property Casualty Insurance Association. Is that it? So,
without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Schakowsky. And the committee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]