[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

EXAMINING EQUITY IN TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ENFORCEMENT

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

(117-4)

REMOTE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION
__________

FEBRUARY 24, 2021
__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
___________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

44-521 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Puerto Rico SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee GREG STANTON, Arizona
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
Vacancy

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Columbia, Chair
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DON YOUNG, Alaska ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Georgia
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JOHN KATKO, New York JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois MARK DeSAULNIER, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin GREG STANTON, Arizona
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
Puerto Rico ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
NANCY MACE, South Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit:

Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit:

Opening statement............................................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:

Opening statement............................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 58
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 95

WITNESSES

Larry Sandigo, Former Chair, Community Advisory Board for
Melendres v. Arpaio, Maricopa County, Arizona:

Oral statement............................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Lorraine M. Martin, President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Safety Council:

Oral statement............................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Michelle Ramsey Hawkins, Victim, Survivor, and Volunteer, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving:

Oral statement............................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Ken Barone, Project Manager, Institute for Municipal and Regional
Policy, Central Connecticut State University:

Oral statement............................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Rashawn Ray, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, University of
Maryland; Executive Director, Lab for Applied Social Science
Research, and Fellow, The Brookings Institution:

Oral statement............................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Letter of August 13, 2020, from Hon. Dusty Johnson, a
Representative in Congress from the State of South Dakota,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Johnson....................... 61
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton:

Letter of February 23, 2021, from Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and Dawn King,
President, Truck Safety Coalition.......................... 95
Red Light Camera Program--Checklist.......................... 101
Letter of February 23, 2021, from Chuck DeWeese, Chair,
Governors Highway Safety Association, and Assistant
Commissioner, New York Governor's Traffic Safety Committee. 102
Letter of February 24, 2021, from Leah Shahum, Executive
Director, Vision Zero Network.............................. 103
Article entitled, ``Nine key takeaways from the Globe's `Blind
Spot' investigation,'' by Matt Rocheleau, Vernal Coleman, Evan
Allen, Laura Crimaldi, and Brendan McCarthy, Boston Globe,
updated August 25, 2020, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Seth
Moulton........................................................ 106
Letter of March 10, 2021, from Gary Biller, President and Chief
Executive Officer, National Motorists Association (NMA), and
Legislative Text of NMA's Driver Education Through Enforcement
Response (DETER) Act, Submitted for the Record by Hon. David
Rouzer......................................................... 108

APPENDIX

Question from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson to Larry Sandigo, Former
Chair, Community Advisory Board for Melendres v. Arpaio,
Maricopa County, Arizona....................................... 111
Questions to Lorraine M. Martin, President and Chief Executive
Officer, National Safety Council, from:

Hon. Seth Moulton............................................ 111
Hon. Nikema Williams......................................... 112
Hon. Steve Cohen............................................. 112
Hon. Frederica S. Wilson..................................... 114
Hon. Rodney Davis............................................ 115
Hon. Mike Gallagher.......................................... 116
Question from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson to Michelle Ramsey
Hawkins, Victim, Survivor, and Volunteer, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving........................................................ 117
Questions to Ken Barone, Project Manager, Institute for Municipal
and Regional Policy, Central Connecticut State University,
from:

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 117
Hon. Frederica S. Wilson..................................... 118
Hon. Rodney Davis............................................ 119
Questions to Rashawn Ray, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology,
University of Maryland; Executive Director, Lab for Applied
Social Science Research, and Fellow, The Brookings Institution,
from:

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 120
Hon. Frederica S. Wilson..................................... 120

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

February 24, 2021

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Examining Equity in
Transportation Safety Enforcement''
_______________________________________________________________________

PURPOSE

The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
Wednesday, February 24, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn
House Office Building and virtually via Cisco WebEx to receive
testimony related to the hearing entitled ``Examining Equity in
Transportation Safety Enforcement.'' The purpose of this
hearing is to examine the role of enforcement in supporting
traffic safety, and associated equity implications. The
Subcommittee will hear from representatives of the Community
Advisory Board to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, The
National Safety Council, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Central
Connecticut State University's Institute for Municipal and
Regional Policy, and the University of Maryland.

BACKGROUND

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
vehicle-related crashes on our nation's roadways.\1\ To help
achieve this, NHTSA administers programs focused on deterring
unsafe driving behaviors--speeding, intoxicated driving,
distracted driving, etc.\2\ NHTSA's driver behavior programs
fall under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA's Core Values at https://www.nhtsa.gov/about-nhtsa/
nhtsas-core-values.
\2\ About NHTSA at https://www.nhtsa.gov/about-nhtsa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA provides formula and incentive grants to State
governments to develop and carry out effective highway safety
programs. NHTSA also administers the Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) which contains data on fatal traffic
crashes within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico. FARS is vital to the mission of NHTSA and is
critical to understanding the leading causes of motor vehicle
crash fatalities. FARS data is also used to evaluate whether
State efforts to improve traffic safety are effective. NHTSA
obtains the data from each State via cooperative agreement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fatality Analysis Reporting System at https://www.nhtsa.gov/
crash-data-systems/fatality-analysis-reporting-system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to receive funding from NHTSA, States are required
to develop an annual highway safety plan that is evidence-based
and data driven, and that responds to the safety problems in
that State.\4\ State governments must operate an effective
highway safety program consistent with national highway safety
goals and their highway safety plan.\5\ States administer the
program through a state highway safety agency.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Sec. 402(k)(5)(b)(i)(1) of title 23 U.S.C.
\5\ Id.
\6\ Sec. 402(b)(1) of title 23 U.S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authority to set and enforce traffic safety laws lies
with the States. Although NHTSA has no authority or
jurisdiction over law enforcement or State traffic safety laws,
it encourages States, Tribes, and U.S. Territories to adopt
strong traffic safety laws and pursue traffic safety
initiatives through its formula and incentive grant programs.
NHTSA research shows that one of the most effective means
for deterring unsafe driving behaviors is through enforcement
of traffic safety laws.\7\ Currently, many traffic safety laws
are enforced by State and local law enforcement agencies.
According to researchers at Stanford University, law
enforcement makes approximately 50,000 traffic stops nationwide
on an average day.\8\ More than 20 million drivers are pulled
over each year, making traffic stops one of the primary
interactions between the public and law enforcement. Funding
for law enforcement is an eligible expense under NHTSA's
highway safety programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/
812478_v5_countermeasures-that-work-a-highway-safety-countermeasures-
guide-9thedition-2017.pdf.
\8\ https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRAFFIC CRASHES

DATA

According to NHTSA analysis, motor vehicle crashes were the
13th leading cause of death overall in the U.S. in recent years
and the number one cause of death for teenagers and young
adults.\9\ In 2019, there were 36,096 people killed in motor
vehicle traffic crashes on U.S. roadways and an estimated 2.74
million injured.\10\ The U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) estimated motor vehicle crashes cost the U.S. economy
$242 billion in direct costs and $836 billion in indirect costs
in 2010.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812927.
\10\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
813060.
\11\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2019 fatality total represents a two percent decrease
from the 2018 total. While the 2019 fatality rate--the ratio of
the number of fatalities to the number of vehicle miles
traveled--was the lowest rate since 2014, total fatalities show
a 10 percent increase from the 2014 total. Although traffic
fatalities have declined over the last several years, NHTSA's
preliminary data indicates that traffic crash fatalities
increased in 2020.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
813004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMPACTS OF DANGEROUS DRIVING

Unsafe driving practices (speeding, intoxicated driving,
distracted driving, etc.) are the primary cause of traffic
crashes.\13\ According to NHTSA analysis, one person was killed
in a motor vehicle crash every 14 minutes in 2018.\14\ Another
five people were injured every minute while one pedestrian was
killed every 84 minutes that same year.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Top 7 Causes of Car Accidents--2020 Statistics at https://
www.after-car-accidents.com/car-accident-causes.html
\14\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812961.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more than two decades, speeding has been a contributing
factor in approximately one-third of all motor vehicle
fatalities making it one of the leading causes of roadway
deaths.\16\ In 2019, 9,277 people died in speeding-related
crashes accounting for roughly 25 percent of all traffic
fatalities that year.\17\ According to NHTSA, there are more
instances of speeding and reckless driving on the road now than
in the past because there are more drivers driving more miles
on the same roads today than ever before.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding.
\17\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
813060.
\18\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol-impaired driving remains a leading cause of roadway
fatalities each year, accounting for approximately one-third of
total motor vehicle traffic fatalities.\19\ Every day, almost
30 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes
which is an average of one person every 50 minutes.\20\ Drunk
driving is illegal in every state, yet in the 10-year period
from 2009-2018 more than 10,000 people died each year in drunk-
driving crashes.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving.
\20\ Id.
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other major contributors to traffic fatalities and injuries
include distracted driving, fatigued driving, drug-impaired
driving, and incorrect or non-use of seat belts.\22\ Distracted
driving alone claimed 2,841 lives in 2018.\23\ According to
NHTSA, sending or reading a text takes your eyes off the road
for five seconds. If a driver is travelling at 55 mph, those
five seconds equate to driving the length of an entire football
field with your eyes closed.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving.
\23\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812961.
\24\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENFORCEMENT AND EQUITY

There are many tools which help deter unsafe driving
behavior, such as driver's education, but enforcement of
traffic safety laws remains a key component of maintaining
safety on our roads according to NHTSA research on the most
effective countermeasures.\25\ However, the use of enforcement
to promote traffic safety raises significant equity
implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/
812478_v5_countermeasures-that-work-a-highway-safety-countermeasures-
guide-9thedition-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers analyzing traffic stop data from across the
U.S. have confirmed that law enforcement pull over minority
drivers at a higher rate than white drivers.\26\ In 2013, the
National Institute of Justice stated that, ``research has
verified that people of color are more often stopped than
whites.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/.
\27\ Racial Profiling and Traffic Stops, National Institute of
Justice (January 9, 2013) at https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/
racial-profiling-and-traffic-stops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, a class action lawsuit was brought against the
Sheriff of Maricopa County and the Maricopa County Sheriff's
Office (MCSO) in Arizona claiming officers were discriminating
against Latinos by targeting them for unlawful traffic
stops.\28\ The plaintiffs claimed that MCSO officers were
conducting ``saturation patrols'' in which officers would
saturate a given area of the county and target Latino drivers
for traffic stops as a way to check their immigration
status.\29\ The court later affirmed the plaintiffs' case,
finding that MCSO's use of race as a factor in deciding who to
pull over violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and issued an order prohibiting officers
from using race to decide whether or not to stop someone.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Manuel de Jesus ORTEGA-MELENDRES, et al., v. Joseph M. ARPAIO,
836 F. Supp. 2d 959 (D. Ariz. 2011).
\29\ Melendres v. Arpaio, 989 F. Supp. 2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013).
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) performed its own
investigation into the accusations in Maricopa County and found
that MCSO officers stopped Latinos in their vehicles, ``four to
nine times more often,'' than similarly situated non-Latino
drivers and that stops were made ``without the required legal
justification.'' \31\ The DOJ later filed a lawsuit against the
Sheriff and the MCSO and subsequently won.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-files-
lawsuit-arizona-against-maricopa-county-maricopa-county-sheriff-s.
\32\ Melendres v. Arpaio, 989 F. Supp. 2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is little data on traffic stops nationally because
traffic violations are issued by State and local governments.
Last year, researchers at Stanford University published a first
of its kind analysis of over 100 million traffic stops
conducted nationwide.\33\ The study found that black drivers
were less likely to be stopped after sunset, when a `veil of
darkness' masks one's race, suggesting bias in stop decisions
and that the bar for searching black and Hispanic drivers was
lower than that for searching white drivers.\34\ According to
the researchers' analysis, evidence shows, ``that the decisions
about whom to stop and, subsequently, whom to search are biased
against black and Hispanic drivers.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops
across the United States, Nature, Human Behavior (July 2020) at https:/
/5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf.
\34\ Id.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only is racial profiling unconstitutional, if an
individual is stopped for reasons other than traffic safety
problems law enforcement resources are not maximized to enhance
safety. Existing and proposed NHTSA grant programs aimed at
eliminating racial bias and improving the effectiveness of
traffic safety enforcement are detailed below.

SUMMARY OF NHTSA GRANT PROGRAMS

Congress authorizes funding for States, Tribes, and U.S.
Territories to pursue traffic safety efforts. Funds are
administered by NHTSA through the State and Community Highway
Safety Program and the National Priority Safety Programs. These
grant programs have been reauthorized and amended several
times, including most recently in 2015 when Congress enacted
H.R. 22, Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
(P.L. 114-94) which authorized $2.7 billion in funding over
five years for NHTSA traffic safety grants. Last year, the
House passed a surface transportation reauthorization bill,
H.R. 2 the Moving Forward Act, which would reauthorize and
amend NHTSA's traffic safety programs to provide increased
funding of $3.9 billion and enhance safety requirements.

SECTION 402

The State and Community Highway Safety Program (23 U.S.C.
402), commonly referred to as ``Section 402,'' provides Federal
aid to States for carrying out traffic safety initiatives
designed to reduce traffic crashes and resulting deaths and
injuries. Section 402 funds are apportioned via a statutory
formula based on population and roadway miles.
To receive Section 402 grant funds, a State must develop
and submit an annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP) to NHTSA for
approval each July. The HSP establishes the State's goals,
performance measures, targets, and strategies for improving
highway safety for the year. A State's HSP must address broad
safety objectives set by Congress, but States can distribute
their Section 402 funds to a wide network of sub-grantees
including local law enforcement agencies, municipalities,
universities, health care organizations, and other local
institutions.
According to NHTSA estimates, of the $270.4 million
authorized by Congress for Section 402 in fiscal year 2019
approximately $125 million went to law enforcement agencies,
while $38 million went to non-governmental organizations.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ This information was provided to the Committee by NHTSA on
October 30, 2020, via email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, as a condition of receiving Section 402
funds, States must participate in three high visibility law
enforcement mobilization campaigns each year. These national
campaigns are coordinated by the Secretary of Transportation
and targeted toward either alcohol or drug-impaired driving or
occupant seat belt use. High visibility enforcement campaigns
combine law enforcement efforts, increased visibility, and
public education to promote voluntary compliance with impaired
driving and seat belt laws.
The most recent State HSPs are available at: https://
www.nhtsa.gov/highway-safety-grants-program/state-highway-
safety-plans-and-annual-reports.

SECTION 405

The National Priority Safety Program (23 U.S.C. 405),
commonly referred to as ``Section 405,'' provides tiered grants
targeted at specific driving risks. While States enjoy the
flexibility of Section 402 funds, Section 405 funds focus
resources on specific driving behaviors, including leading
causes of roadway fatalities and injuries. Section 405 grants
are meant to incentivize States to adopt strong traffic safety
laws (such as setting a maximum blood alcohol concentration of
.08), improve performance outcomes (such as increasing seat
belt usage rates), or to promote public awareness and educate
drivers on the dangers of unsafe driving behaviors (such as
including distracted driving questions on State driver's
license examinations). Section 405 programs include:
LOccupant protection (seat belts)
LImprovements to state traffic safety information systems
LImpaired driving countermeasures
LDistracted driving
LMotorcyclist safety
LGraduated driver licensing laws
LNonmotorized safety

State application, approval, and denial information for
Section 405 grants is available to the public. Grant
determinations by State for fiscal year 2021 are available
here: https://www.nhtsa.gov/highway-safety-grants-program/fy-
2021-grant-funding-table.

RACIAL PROFILING GRANT PROGRAM

Section 1906 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU; P.
L. 109-59) established an incentive grant program to prohibit
racial profiling during traffic stops (Section 1906). The
purpose of the grant program was to encourage States to enact
and enforce laws that prohibit racial profiling and to maintain
and allow public inspection of statistical information
regarding the race and ethnicity of the driver and any
passengers for each motor vehicle stop in the State.
Authorization for the Section 1906 program lapsed in 2012, but
the program was subsequently reauthorized in the FAST Act in
2015.
The FAST Act amended Section 1906 and shifted the program's
focus to support data collection. To be eligible for Section
1906 funds today, a State must maintain and make publicly
available statistical information on each motor vehicle stop
made by a law enforcement officer. Recipients can use their
Section 1906 funds to cover the costs of collecting and
analyzing traffic stop data.
The FAST Act authorized up to $7.5 million from the Highway
Trust Fund annually for the Section 1906 program and set a
maximum award amount of no more than five percent of the
program's total authorization for each State. Since its
inception in 2006, twenty-three States have applied for and
received Section 1906 grant funds:
LAlaska
LArizona
LColorado
LConnecticut
LFlorida
LIdaho
LIndiana
LKansas
LMassachusetts
LMinnesota
LMissouri
LMontana
LNebraska
LNew Jersey
LOregon
LRhode Island
LSouth Carolina
LTennessee
LUtah
LVermont
LWashington
LWest Virginia
LWisconsin

H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act, would reauthorize the
Section 1906 program at $7.5 million per year through FY 2025.

H.R. 2 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

The Moving Forward Act contained two new grant programs
aimed at improving equity in traffic safety enforcement:

IMPLICIT BIAS

Section 3010 of H.R. 2 as passed by the House would
establish a new discretionary grant program available to
institutions of higher education for research and training in
the operation or establishment of an implicit bias training
program as it relates to racial profiling at traffic stops. The
grant was authorized at $10 million per year from the General
Fund.

DRIVER AND OFFICER EDUCATION

Section 3007 would establish a new Section 405 grant
program titled ``Driver and Officer Safety Education'' which
was adapted from H.R. 169, the Driver and Officer Safety
Education Act (116th). This new grant program would incentivize
States to include, as part of any driver education and safety
courses provided by the State, information on best practices
during traffic stops. This information includes the role of law
enforcement, individuals' legal rights, as well as how and
where to file a complaint against or on behalf of law
enforcement. States would also be required to provide similar
training for law enforcement.

WITNESS LIST

LMr. Larry Sandigo, Former Chairman, Community
Advisory Board (Maricopa County, AZ)
LMs. Lorraine Martin, President & CEO, The
National Safety Council
LMs. Michelle Ramsey Hawkins, Victim/Survivor,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
LMr. Ken Barone, Project Manager, Institute for
Municipal and Regional Policy, Central Connecticut State
University
LMr. Rashawn Ray, Professor of Sociology,
University of Maryland

EXAMINING EQUITY IN TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ENFORCEMENT

----------

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2021

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., in room
2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Cisco Webex, Hon.
Eleanor Holmes Norton (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present in person: Ms. Norton, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Garamendi,
Mr. Lynch, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Auchincloss, Mr. Carbajal, Ms.
Newman, Mr. Rodney Davis, Mr. Massie, Dr. Babin, Mr. Bost, Mr.
Westerman, Mr. Balderson, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Burchett, Mr.
Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Guest, and Mr. Nehls.
Present remotely: Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sires, Ms.
Brownley, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. DeSaulnier,
Mr. Brown, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Delgado, Mr. Pappas, Mr.
Lamb, Ms. Bourdeaux, Ms. Strickland, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr.
Huffman, Ms. Davids, Ms. Williams of Georgia, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Carson, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Miss Gonzalez-Colon, and
Mrs. Steel.
Ms. Norton. I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing.
It is good to be back in person at the House with the new
session of Congress.
This morning we will be discussing the use of enforcement
to promote traffic safety and the equity implications of it.
Now, this is a subject we could take up, and probably would
have taken up, at any time. But this is an appropriate time to
take it up because this is Black History Month and where some
of the issues have indeed come from.
This is the first Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
hearing. I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized
to declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
For Members participating remotely, and it looks like most
Members are, let me remind you of key regulations from the
House Committee on Rules. Members must be visible on video to
be considered in attendance and to participate, unless
experiencing connectivity issues. Members must also continue to
use the video function for the remainder of the time they are
attending this meeting and hearing unless experiencing
connectivity issues or other technical problems. And you know
how to be in touch with us if you are experiencing technical
problems.
If a Member is experiencing any connectivity issues or
other technical problems, please inform committee staff as soon
as possible so you can receive assistance. Just go to the chat
function available for Members on the Cisco Webex platform for
this purpose, or you can call the committee's main phone line,
(202) 225-4472, for technical assistance by phone.
Members may not participate in more than one committee
proceeding simultaneously. However, for security reasons,
Members may maintain a connection to the software platform
while not in attendance. And I am having to be in another
committee doing precisely that at this moment.
It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition
to unmute their microphone prior to speaking, and to keep their
microphone muted when not speaking to avoid inadvertent
background noise.
As the chair of today's meeting and hearing, I will make a
good-faith effort to provide every Member experiencing
connectivity issues an opportunity to participate fully in the
hearing.
If you have any documents that you want submitted to the
record, please have your staff email your document to
DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
Now, proceeding with my statement about why we are having
this hearing, a hearing we could have at any time, but it
seemed that Black History Month was a good time for the
hearing. The first subcommittee hearing of the 117th Congress
does show the importance of this issue and our commitment to
make highways and roadways safer and free from discrimination
for all users.
This subcommittee authorizes funding for States, Tribes and
U.S. Territories to pursue traffic safety efforts through the
State and Community Highway Safety Program, commonly referred
to as ``section 402.'' We also authorize tiered grants aimed at
addressing national traffic safety priorities, commonly
referred to as ``section 405.''
States can spend their traffic safety funds on a variety of
activities, such as community education and outreach on the
importance of using seatbelts or improvements to State traffic
record databases. States can also spend their funds on
enforcement of traffic safety laws. A large portion of traffic
safety grants go to law enforcement agencies. In fiscal year
2018, States spent over $200 million of their section 402 and
section 405 funds on law enforcement.
It is estimated that more than 20 million drivers are
pulled over each year, making traffic stops one of the primary
interactions between the public and law enforcement, so it is
crucial we understand how, and against whom, traffic safety
laws are enforced. Parenthetically, I have read of increased
traffic speed during this pandemic. Apparently people think you
can go fast because there are not many people on the road, and
as a result, there are an increasing number of accidents on the
road.
Today, we will hear witnesses describe not only the impacts
of traffic safety enforcement, which disproportionately affect
people of color, but methods to improve trust between
communities and law enforcement to bring about safe, equitable,
and just outcomes in these interactions.
We will also hear about the importance of using traffic
safety resources to address problems that lead to injuries and
deaths--such as impaired driving--rather than for traffic stops
that are used as a sweeping tool to interact with communities.
Targeting resources is necessary to ensure that we actually
move the needle on traffic safety.
I am especially interested to hear testimony from Ken
Barone of Central Connecticut State University. The reason I am
interested is he is program manager of the State of
Connecticut's Racial Profiling Prohibition Project, which is
supported by a grant program I championed to prohibit racial
profiling, known as section 1906, that has been a great
success. It is my understanding that other States are seeking
to replicate the Connecticut model, so I very much look forward
to hearing more about that program.
Thank you all for participating in today's hearing. I look
forward to learning more about what the committee can do to
ensure that traffic safety enforcement is fair as well as safe
for all Americans.
[Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Welcome to today's hearing. We will be discussing the use of
enforcement to promote traffic safety and the equity implications of
it. This is the first Subcommittee on Highways and Transit hearing of
the 117th Congress, which shows the importance of this issue and my
commitment to making our highways and roadways safer and free from
discrimination for all users.
This Subcommittee authorizes funding for States, Tribes and U.S.
Territories to pursue traffic safety efforts through the State and
Community Highway Safety Program, commonly referred to as ``Section
402.'' We also authorize tiered grants aimed at addressing national
traffic safety priorities, commonly referred to as ``Section 405.''
States can spend their traffic safety funds on a variety of activities,
such as community education and outreach on the importance of using
seat belts or improvements to State traffic record databases. States
can also spend their funds on enforcement of traffic safety laws. A
large portion of State traffic safety grants go to law enforcement
agencies. In fiscal year 2018, States spent over $200 million of their
Section 402 and Section 405 funds on law enforcement.
It is estimated that more than 20 million drivers are pulled over
each year, making traffic stops one of the primary interactions between
the public and law enforcement, so it is crucial we understand how, and
against whom, traffic safety laws are enforced. Today, we will hear
witnesses describe not only the impacts of traffic safety enforcement,
which disproportionately affect people of color, but methods to improve
trust between communities and law enforcement to bring about safe,
equitable and just outcomes in these interactions.
We will also hear about the importance of using traffic safety
resources to address problems that lead to injuries and deaths--such as
impaired driving--rather than for traffic stops that are used as a
sweeping tool to interact with communities. Targeting resources is
necessary to ensure that we actually move the needle on traffic safety.
I am especially interested to hear testimony from Ken Barone of
Central Connecticut State University. He is the Program Manager of the
State of Connecticut's Racial Profiling Prohibition Project, which is
supported by a grant program I championed to prohibit racial profiling,
known as Section 1906, that has been a great success. It is my
understanding that other States are seeking to replicate the
Connecticut model, so I am very much looking forward to hearing more
about that program.
Thank you all for participating in today's hearing, and I look
forward to learning more about what this Committee can do to ensure
that traffic safety enforcement is both fair and safe for all
Americans.

Ms. Norton. I would now like to call on my good friend, our
ranking member, Mr. Davis, for his opening statement.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity. And thanks to all of our witnesses here today to
discuss how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
programs contribute to highway safety and implications related
to equity.
NHTSA has an important mission: to save lives, prevent
injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes. To help achieve
this, NHTSA administers grant programs focused on deterring
unsafe driver behaviors such as speeding and impaired or
distracted driving, which are the primary causes of traffic
crashes.
States receive the NHTSA grants and are charged with
overseeing their State safety program. NHTSA has a successful
record, and has significantly reduced highway fatalities since
their high in 1973: 2019 traffic fatalities totaled 36,096,
which represents a 34-percent reduction from the 1973 fatality
level and a 2-percent reduction from the 2018 level.
Sadly, based on preliminary data, NHTSA estimates that
traffic fatalities increased in the first 9 months of 2020.
NHTSA and the Governors Highway Safety Association point to
increases in risky driving and reductions in enforcement
activities, just another deadly consequence from the COVID-19
pandemic.
NHTSA's research indicates that enforcement is one of the
most effective ways to combat unsafe driving behavior. Because
of this, States have decided to expend some NHTSA grant funds
on law enforcement activities. I believe that eliminating
enforcement activities would lead to more dangerous roads and
more fatalities and injuries.
However, I also know that since the early days of this
great Nation, this country has had problems with discrimination
and bias based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and
socioeconomic factors. Look no further than my own district and
the site of the 1908 Springfield race riots, one of those parts
of our Nation's history that is unfortunately credited with
being one of the birthplaces of the NAACP.
For the past few years, I have been working to designate
this site as a National Historic Monument within the National
Park Service, and I will take this as an opportunity today to
say I cannot wait to work with our colleague, Deb Haaland, when
she is hopefully confirmed, as I would support, as the next
Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior.
While Deb and I do not always agree on issues regarding
energy independence, it will be great to have a friend that we
can call to address issues that are important to our great
Nation and righting the wrongs of things that happened in our
Nation's history, and highlighting those instances where we can
come together and we can actually make sure that we learn about
biases that have happened decades and centuries before we are
here today.
While more work needs to be done on this front, we were
successful last year in getting the Trump administration to
actually include this site on the African American Civil Rights
Network, created by our former colleague and my good friend,
Lacy Clay. We need to acknowledge that these issues continue to
exist and must learn from past mistakes so that we can address
them in a holistic way.
I recognize NHTSA has no authority or jurisdiction over law
enforcement or law enforcement activities. But the House
Judiciary Committee has been focusing on this since 1997, when
it passed H.R. 118, the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of
1998. This is important work.
I pledge to assist the Judiciary Committee in examining
these issues, and Chair Norton, thank you for the opportunity
to be here today. Thanks again to our witnesses. I yield back
the balance of my time.
[Mr. Davis' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Thank you, Chair Norton, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today to discuss how the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration programs contribute to highway safety and implications
related to equity.
NHTSA has an important mission--to save lives, prevent injuries,
and reduce vehicle-related crashes. To help achieve this, NHTSA
administers grant programs focused on deterring unsafe driver behaviors
(such as speeding, and impaired or distracted driving), which are the
primary causes of traffic crashes. States receive the NHTSA grants and
are charged with overseeing their state safety program.
NHTSA has had a successful record and has significantly reduced
highway fatalities since their high in 1973. 2019 traffic fatalities
totaled 36,096--which represents a 34 percent reduction from the 1973
fatality level, and a 2 percent reduction from the 2018 level. Sadly,
based on preliminary data, NHTSA estimates that traffic fatalities
increased in the first nine months of 2020.
NHTSA and the Governors Highway Safety Association point to
increases in risky driving and reductions in enforcement activities--
just another deadly consequence from the COVID-19 pandemic.
NHTSA's research indicates that enforcement is one of the most
effective ways to combat unsafe driving behavior. Because of this,
states have decided to expend some NHTSA grant funds on law enforcement
activities.
I believe that eliminating enforcement activities would lead to
more dangerous roads and more fatalities and injuries.
However, I also know that, since the early days of this great
nation, this country has had problems with discrimination and bias
based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and socio-economic factors.
Look no further than my own district and the site of the 1908
Springfield Race Riot. For the past few years, I've been working to
designate the site as a National Historic Monument within the National
Park Service. While more work needs to be done on that front, we were
successful last year in getting the Trump Administration to include it
in the Department of Interior's African American Civil Rights Network.
We need to acknowledge that these issues continue to exist and must
learn from past mistakes so that we can address them in a holistic way.
I recognize that NHTSA has no authority or jurisdiction over law
enforcement or law enforcement activities. But the House Judiciary
Committee has been focusing on this since 1997 when it passed H.R. 118,
the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1998. This is important work,
and I pledge to assist the Judiciary Committee in examining these
issues.

Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis, for those
opening remarks.
I would like to recognize the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair. This is an important
hearing, and I expect we will get direction today and help from
our witnesses in how we can deal with this long-term,
persistent problem with traffic stops. It is clear the intent
of the law is safety. Distracted driving, drunk driving,
speeding--those are the principal causes of highway deaths.
And the slaughter goes on. We say, oh, we made progress
because, gee, the rate, the percentage, given miles traveled,
is down. Forty thousand seven hundred sixteen people lost in
1994. But still, in 2019--36,096. And we know that distracted
driving is growing as a problem.
In fact, many States, including my State, now prohibit use
of cell phones that are not hands-free. But there are myriad
things being added to cars that are distracting, including
startup companies that want to be able to display your email in
a heads-up display right in front of you while you are driving.
Great idea. Yeah, sure.
So we need to deal with these safety issues. And that is
what this money is supposed to be spent on. But we find that a
number of States, many States, have been using this for law
enforcement in ways that are not meaningfully dealing with the
major problems that cause traffic fatalities. In fact, they are
being used in ways that really reflect the systemic racism in
the United States of America, conscious or unconscious bias in
terms of the stops that are being made.
Meanwhile, we are not making the progress we want to make
on lowering the fatality rate. In H.R. 2, we had several
provisions that were aimed at addressing disparities and
increasing transparency in traffic safety enforcement. As the
chair discussed, H.R. 2 reauthorized and made improvements to
the section 1906 grant program to provide grants to States that
were collecting data on racial profiling during traffic stops.
Twenty-three States have applied for and received these
funds, including my State. In fact, we found we have
extraordinary problems of disparities in our largest city, in
Portland, Oregon, something that was not obvious before. We
need to root this out.
H.R. 2 included an implicit bias research and training
grant program to provide funds to universities for research and
training of law enforcement to identify implicit bias during
traffic stops. Today we will hear testimony on how both of
these tools can be used to address racial disparities in
traffic safety enforcement, and hopefully we will get some
other ideas that we could put into H.R. 2 as we rewrite the
bill as part of a major infrastructure package in this
Congress.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding today's hearing to examine the
equity implications of the most prevalent methods to enforce traffic
safety laws.
This is a complex and important issue that we cannot ignore. With
this hearing, the Committee is raising awareness of the need to improve
accountability in transportation safety enforcement and taking the
first steps to ensure that Federal transportation safety funds elevate
safety while maintaining the rights of every American.
The Highways and Transit Subcommittee authorizes hundreds of
millions of Federal dollars on an annual basis to help States and
communities make roads safer. We measure the success of safety
programs, in large part, by how many traffic-related fatalities occur
each year. As the former Chairman of this Subcommittee, I can tell you
that number has been too high for too long.
Some may point to the fact that the rate of traffic fatalities per
vehicle miles traveled has decreased during our lifetime and say we've
done our job. I say that's unacceptable. To put it in context for you--
in 1994 we lost 40,716 lives on our roadways. In 2019, we lost 36,096.
I'd say we have a lot more work to do.
We still lose an average of 100 lives per day due to motor vehicle
crashes. What's worse, the majority of these crashes are entirely
preventable. Year after year the leading cause of car crashes is human
behavior: excessive speed, drunk driving, and distraction.
For decades, enforcement of safety laws through traffic stops has
been a cornerstone of traffic safety. This Committee provides over $600
million annually for traffic safety grants to States, a portion of
which is spent on law enforcement activities. These funds are intended
to be spent deterring dangerous driving behaviors such as speeding or
not wearing a seat belt.
However, we know that far too often individuals are stopped for
reasons other than traffic safety violations. Not only is this a misuse
of law enforcement resources that are meant to enhance safety, it's
unconstitutional. As we will hear from witnesses today, the misuse of
traffic stops--due to conscious or unconscious bias, or worse, racial
profiling--has to be addressed head on.
There is no doubt that systemic racism exists in this country. It
is a cancer that has been ignored and allowed to grow and divide out of
control. Systemic racism has excused the criminality of the wealthy,
white, and well-connected, while being overly punitive toward people of
color and the marginalized. We must recognize that ensuring safety on
our roadways means not only protecting people from dangerous drivers
but protecting people of color from enforcement abuses as well.
Last year, this Committee advanced H.R. 2 the Moving Forward Act,
which included several provisions aimed at addressing disparities and
increasing transparency in traffic safety enforcement.
First, as Chair Norton discussed, H.R. 2 reauthorized and made
improvements to the Section 1906 grant program to provide grants to
States for collecting data on racial profiling during traffic stops.
Twenty-three States have applied for and received these funds since the
program's inception in 2006, including my own State of Oregon.
Further, H.R. 2 included an implicit bias research and training
grant program which would provide funds to universities for research
and training of law enforcement to identify implicit bias during
traffic stops. Today we will hear testimony on how both of these tools
can be used to address racial disparities in traffic safety
enforcement.
I thank our witnesses for being here and look forward to hearing
additional steps we can take to improve equity and transparency in
traffic safety enforcement.

Mr. DeFazio. So with that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Norton. I thank the chairman for his remarks, and I am
pleased that we got so far in perhaps the only full committee
bill that got through last year in the Congress ushered by our
chairman.
I would like to welcome our witnesses on our panel: Mr.
Larry Sandigo, who is the former chair of the Community
Advisory Board of Maricopa County, Arizona; Ms. Lorraine
Martin, president and CEO of the National Safety Council; Ms.
Michelle Ramsey Hawkins, victim and survivor, Mothers Against
Drunk Driving; Mr. Ken Barone, project manager, Institute for
Municipal and Regional Policy, Central Connecticut State
University; and Mr. Rashawn Ray, professor of sociology,
University of Maryland.
I thank all of you for being here and look forward to your
testimony. Before we begin, I would like to recognize
Representative Stanton to say a few words about Mr. Sandigo.
Representative Stanton.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am pleased
to welcome to the subcommittee Larry Sandigo, a native
Arizonan, a first-generation American, and a former member of
my congressional staff. Throughout his career as an immigration
attorney, Mr. Sandigo has fought to provide important legal
services to individuals of all ages, including children in
immigration detention in Arizona, and has been recognized by
his fellow practitioners for his exceptional advocacy.
In 2017 to 2020, Mr. Sandigo served as the chairman of the
Community Advisory Board that was established by the Federal
court following a class action lawsuit against then-Maricopa
County sheriff, Joe Arpaio, and his office for violating the
constitutional rights of Latinos in Maricopa County in traffic
enforcement decisions.
As chairman of the Community Advisory Board, Mr. Sandigo
worked to foster an important and open dialogue between the
community and the sheriff's office to improve mutual trust and
respect. During his tenure, the board advanced some specific
reforms and recommendations to improve how the sheriff's office
interacts with the Latino community to ensure equal protection
under the law in traffic enforcement.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Sandigo. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanton.
I would now like to recognize Representative Brown to say a
few words about Mr. Ray. Representative Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
hosting or convening this very important hearing today. It is
an honor to introduce Dr. Rashawn Ray, a David M. Rubenstein
Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution.
A proud constituent of Maryland's Fourth Congressional
District, Dr. Ray is also a professor of sociology at the
University of Maryland, and the executive director of the Lab
for Applied Social Science Research. In 2016, Dr. Ray and his
colleagues at the University of Maryland conducted research
focused on the Prince George's County police department to
understand differences in policing of individuals depending on
their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
That research is the foundation of a program developed to
help police officers identify and address implicit and
unconscious bias. The training program uses 3D virtual reality
to immerse officers in various situations while stress levels
are measured. Virtual reality training has been critical to
providing officers a risk-free setting to understand their own
biases and practice use of force and verbal de-escalation.
It is important to note that in his research, Dr. Ray
stresses that implicit bias training is not a one-size-fits-all
solution. It is because of the work that Dr. Ray has done at
the University of Maryland that I introduced the Bias in
Automobile Stops Act. This bill that I introduced was also
included in H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act, and it would
establish a new discretionary grant program for institutions of
higher education for research and training on implicit bias
training programs as it relates to racial profiling at traffic
stops.
I look forward to hearing Dr. Ray's testimony. I believe
the committee will find it very informative and valuable in our
deliberations. I look forward to continuing to work together
with the committee, with Dr. Ray, and his colleagues to better
address implicit bias and racial profiling in policing.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record. Since your full testimony has been made
a part of the record, the subcommittee requests that you limit
your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
Let's begin with Mr. Sandigo. You may proceed, sir.

TESTIMONY OF LARRY SANDIGO, FORMER CHAIR, COMMUNITY ADVISORY
BOARD FOR MELENDRES v. ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
LORRAINE M. MARTIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL; MICHELLE RAMSEY HAWKINS, VICTIM,
SURVIVOR, AND VOLUNTEER, MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING; KEN
BARONE, PROJECT MANAGER, INSTITUTE FOR MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL
POLICY, CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY; AND RASHAWN RAY,
Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND;
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAB FOR APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH,
AND FELLOW, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

Mr. Sandigo. Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, members of
the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today in
my capacity as the former chairman of the Community Advisory
Board in Melendres v. Arpaio, a Federal case at Maricopa
County, Arizona. The Community Advisory Board was created by
the court after it found that the sheriff's office had engaged
in racial profiling and unlawful traffic stops of Latino
drivers.
Long before there was a trial or statistical data attesting
to these facts, Latino families in Maricopa County knew that
race, and not criminality, was the basis of traffic
enforcement. If you were a Latino driver in Maricopa County,
you were four to nine times more likely to be pulled over by
the sheriff's office. You were also more likely to be searched,
detained, or arrested. This discriminatory practice applied to
Latinos across the board regardless of education, community
stature, or citizenship.
Under the guise of transportation safety, Sheriff Joe
Arpaio was doing what he really wanted to do, which was
immigration enforcement. Traffic stops became a pretext to
investigate Latinos for immigration violations. It did not
matter that the considerable majority of Latinos living in
Maricopa County are in fact American citizens or here lawfully.
These traffic stops evolved into a systematic and
specialized traffic enforcement scheme known as saturation
patrols. Sheriff's deputies would descend upon Latino
neighborhoods or places where Latinos gathered, saturating the
neighborhood, and would detain people based on alleged traffic
concerns or equipment failures. This happened for years.
No place seemed off limits. In one case, the sheriff's
deputies conducted a raid at a church that was helping Latino
workers. Their justification was that people were gathering on
the side of the street and causing transportation safety
concerns. At trial, this was found to be demonstrably not true,
as the officer's note said that the workers had been inside the
church parking lot. Imagine the effect on a community when you
are hunted at a house of worship, when seeking work is
dangerous, when your neighborhood has been marked.
Individual harm was compounded into community trauma. In a
different case, officers boarded a schoolbus and threatened the
children that they would deport their parents if they did not
behave. The fear was so intense that some of the children wet
themselves. That kind of pain does not just go away.
Behind every data point of a prolonged and unjustified stop
is a real person with a story and a family. The named plaintiff
in the case, Mr. Melendres, is a retired schoolteacher with
three children. He was a passenger in a car and was taken to
jail for hours. When he was finally let go, he was not cited or
charged with anything. I spoke with him yesterday, and Mr.
Melendres, like many others, talks about his experience in
terms of shame and humiliation. His dignity had been run over.
For children, the trauma was profound. For 9-year-old
Katherine, it was seeing her father arrested on TV. For 10-
year-old Heidi, it was having her mother taken away. But this
is not just a story of victimization. It is also a story of
resilience. The community rose up, organized itself, and began
to fight back. The fear of retaliation was real, but the
strength of character to say ``basta,'' or ``no more,'' was
even greater.
The lawsuit was lengthy and complex, but in sum, the
community won. The court found that the sheriff's policies and
procedures institutionalized the illegal consideration of race
as a factor in traffic enforcement practices. A few years after
the court ruling, the community won again, this time at the
ballot box, and Sheriff Joe was voted out of office.
Among the many reforms that the court ordered was the
creation of the Community Advisory Board, which facilitates
dialogue between the community and the sheriff's office, and
advises on recommendations to increase community trust. When
the new sheriff took office, I was jointly selected by him and
the plaintiff's representatives to help with this effort. I
would like to highlight two court-ordered reforms that the
community found particularly helpful.
One: The power of data, its collection, analysis, and
publication, soon became apparent. After the court ordered data
reports, clear patterns emerged. Not only were Latinos being
treated differently, but so were other communities of color.
This data allowed the community to keep track of progress and
offer specific recommendations for reform. As the data became
more and more of what I call ``community-friendly,'' or easy to
access and easy to understand, the community was able to
provide more effective recommendations.
The second reform that resonated with the community was the
use of body-worn cameras. Community members consistently asked
us about their use and policies. It was a reform that was
easily understood both in practice and in benefit.
Although I am no longer the chairman of the Community
Advisory Board, it continues the crucial work of rebuilding
trust and ensuring equitable traffic enforcement and dignity
for everyone.
Thank you for your time, and I welcome your questions.
[Mr. Sandigo's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Larry Sandigo, Former Chair, Community Advisory
Board for Melendres v. Arpaio, Maricopa County, Arizona
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Members of the Committee, thank
you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. My name is Larry
Sandigo and I am here in my capacity as former chairman of the
Community Advisory Board for Melendres v. Arpaio, a federal
constitutional case arising out of Maricopa County, Arizona. I am here
to bear witness to the impact racially discriminatory traffic
enforcement can have on communities of color.
I am a proud first-generation American whose parents fled Central
America to start a new life in the United States. Before I was even
born, the system had already marked my life. When my older brother was
still a baby, both of my parents became ensnared in the immigration
system. My mother spent a month detained, separated from my brother.
We were not unique. For immigrant families across Maricopa County,
a traffic stop was not just a traffic stop. A broken taillight could
lead to detention or deportation. The truth was, though, that you
didn't need a broken taillight to be pulled over because Latino
families in Maricopa County lived under a regime where race, and not
criminality, was the basis of traffic enforcement.
Case Background and Context
Long before there was a federal trial or statistical data attesting
to these facts, Latino families knew the Maricopa County Sheriff's
Office (MCSO) under Sheriff Joe Arpaio engaged in racially
discriminatory traffic enforcement. We knew that if we were pulled
over, we would be treated differently because we were Latino. Under the
guise of transportation safety, the Sheriff was doing what he really
wanted to do, which was immigration enforcement.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Melendres v. Arpaio, 989 F. Supp. 2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authority to conduct traffic enforcement gave MCSO officers
wide latitude to pull over vehicles to investigate the immigration
status of the driver and any passengers. Because MCSO first needed a
basis in state law to actually stop and detain persons, it began using
the traffic safety context as a pretext to investigate Latinos.\2\ It
did not matter that the considerable majority of Latinos living in
Maricopa County are in fact American citizens or are here lawfully.\3\
If you were a Latino driver in Maricopa County, you were four to nine
times more likely to be pulled over by the Sheriff's deputies.\4\ These
targeted traffic stops were scaled and were part of a systematic and
specialized attempt to enforce federal immigration law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See id. at 860.
\3\ See id. at 828.
\4\ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-files-
lawsuit-arizona-against-maricopa-county-maricopa-county-sheriff-s
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturation Patrols
MCSO began conducting large-scale traffic operations, known as
``saturation patrols,'' in Latino neighborhoods or places where Latinos
congregated. MCSO even established a hotline so that people could
report suspected undocumented immigrants and/or Latino workers to
MCSO.\5\ The distinction between Latino and undocumented immigrant
seemed to vanish, and all of us became fair game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Melendres v. Arpaio, 989 F. Supp. 2d 822, 850 (D. Ariz.
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the type of saturation patrol that targeted day laborers,
undercover MCSO officers would station themselves at locations where
Latino day laborers gathered and identify vehicles that would pick up
the workers.\6\ To be clear, it is not illegal to be a day laborer.\7\
Once a vehicle was identified, the undercover officers notified traffic
patrol units that were waiting in the area.\8\ The traffic patrol units
located the vehicle, followed it, and then established probable cause
for a traffic stop.\9\ By and large, Latino drivers and passengers were
questioned; white drivers and passengers were not.\10\ These were not
split-second safety decisions that the officers were making--these were
sustained and systematic policies. Transportation safety had been
effectively co-opted for race-based enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See id. at 831.
\7\ See id. at 850.
\8\ See id. at 831.
\9\ See id.
\10\ See id. at 851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturation patrols created a climate of fear in Latino
neighborhoods and the pretense of transportation safety was used to
cover all types of illegal enforcement. In one instance, MCSO received
a tip on its hotline that a church was providing assistance to Latino
workers.\11\ MCSO sent Latino undercover officers to investigate; they
signed up for work and verified that Latino workers were gathering
inside the church parking lot.\12\ There was no evidence of forced
labor or human smuggling, and no evidence of any traffic safety
concerns.\13\ A few days later, MCSO officers descended upon the church
and began arresting people. MCSO claimed in a press release that these
workers were causing transportation safety issues along the road.\14\
This was demonstrably not true, as the undercover officers' reports
detailed that people were gathering inside the church parking lot, not
along the road, and no arrests or citations were made on the basis of
traffic safety issues.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See id. at 852.
\12\ See id.
\13\ See id.
\14\ See id.
\15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Impact
Imagine the terror in a community when you are hunted at a house of
worship. Consider what happens when simply seeking work becomes
dangerous. Each of these people had a name and a story, and a family.
Each person who ended up detained or deported left a wake of
devastation behind them--individual harm compounded into a family harm
compounded into a community one. The loss of a parent ended in deep
psychological damage, and the simultaneous loss of a breadwinner
resulted in financial ruin for many families. Ten-year-old Heidi's
mother was taken by MCSO and she suddenly had to grow up. She now had
to get her little brother Miguel ready for kindergarten in the
mornings, and she had to teach her baby brother how to drink milk, for
he had been breastfeeding. In another case, Katherine was nine years
old, when while playing a game, her dad suddenly appeared on live
television, in handcuffs. Her mother was close behind him, also
arrested in an MCSO raid. Those images sear into a young child's mind,
and that kind of pain doesn't just go away. And for those Latinos who
were American citizens or here lawfully, where being stopped didn't
lead to immigration consequences, what remained was the humiliation and
degradation, the knowledge that your skin color had determined your
treatment.
There is not one right way to respond to this kind of trauma. Some
families moved away. Others tried to stay under the radar whenever
possible. Children wrote to the president, asking him to have mercy on
their broken families. Others rose up and faced the bully directly.
Victory at Trial
The Latino community began organizing itself and fighting back.
Experienced civil rights leaders teamed up with young people to start
collecting stories that would later serve as evidence. People started
filming the interactions. It required considerable courage for these
community members to go up against a machine that was intent on taking
them out. The fear of retaliation was real, but the strength of
character to say ``basta'', or ``no more,'' was even greater. Because
Sheriff was an elected position, people and community organizations
also began organizing politically.\16\ Eventually, a class action
lawsuit was filed in federal court, with the judge ruling that MCSO had
violated the constitutional rights of Latinos in Maricopa County by,
among other things, institutionalizing the illegal systematic
consideration of race in making traffic enforcement decisions.\17\ This
was a community victory. The judge ordered sweeping reforms, including
the creation of the Community Advisory Board (CAB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Sheriff Joe Arpaio was voted out of office in 2016. The case
continues under his successor.
\17\ Melendres v. Arpaio, 989 F. Supp. 2d 822, 898 (D. Ariz. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Community Advisory Board
The Community Advisory Board serves to facilitate dialogue between
the community and the MCSO, to provide recommendations for specific
reforms that will increase community trust and ensure that reforms are
being implemented. The task is herculean. One key factor about the
five-member CAB is independence--the CAB reports to the Court Monitor
and to the judge. Simply telling community members that the CAB does
not work for the MCSO removes barriers of trust. Another element is
that all CAB members must be from the affected community, elevating the
role of lived experience. Two members are appointed by the ACLU, two
members appointed by the Sheriff, and one member is a joint selection.
During my tenure as Chair, we held numerous community meetings, in
English and Spanish, to hear directly from those most affected. Almost
inherently, law enforcement and the community have different outlooks
and perspectives. We grappled with the dissonance, we dialogued, we
learned, we pushed MCSO to be better. We also witnessed the
generational impact created by racially based enforcement. At one
community meeting, community members reported that just blocks from
where we had gathered, officers had boarded a school bus and threatened
to deport parents if the children didn't behave. This scared the
children so much that some of them wet themselves. That kind of pain
and humiliation doesn't just go away. We fiercely believe, then and
now, that our constitutional rights as Latinos are not to be sacrificed
in the name of safety. Although the CAB members did not agree on
everything, there are a couple of reforms that particularly resonated
with us and the community at large, including the proper use of data
and body-worn cameras.
The Power of Data
The power of data--its collection, analysis, and publication--
became apparent and the community wanted more of it. If you don't know
what's happening, then it can be easy to pretend that all is well. If
you do know what's happening, then it allows you to pinpoint additional
areas for reform. The court ordered the collection and analysis of data
to analyze racial disparities in traffic stops, including stop length,
search rates, citation rates, arrest rates, and seizure rates. The
judge's order also required deputies to document the reasons for
stopping drivers.
One key element in data transparency is making it ``community
friendly''--data is more useful if it is easily understood by those
feeling the impact of policies and practices on the ground. We had
numerous ongoing conversations with MCSO to make the data more
accessible--this ranged from where it was placed on the website to
using more charts and graphics to using plain language to describe the
data. Once the data become more community friendly, the community could
ask harder questions, could compare the data to their experiences, and
engage at a higher level.
But not everything will be easily measured by data. Harm isn't just
data, and neither is dignity or respect. Behind every data point that
shows a ``disparate outcome'' in a traffic stop is a real person, a
person who is a member of a family and community. As each of those
disparate data points becomes a graph and a chart, in the community it
manifests itself as mistrust and fear. It is hard to measure
humiliation and it takes an investment to attempt to understand whether
trust has been rebuilt. Anecdotal evidence, such as community stories,
continue to be important.
Because data cannot accurately measure community or generational
harm, or is limited in its scope of collection and analysis, law
enforcement and institutions should continue listening to community
experiences and believing what they hear. Community members should not
have to ``prove'' something for law enforcement or institutions to take
their concerns seriously. Those affected will many times not have the
right language or terminology, or they will frame interactions in terms
of their feelings and sentiments. The more I learned about how MCSO
operated, the more I was able to ``translate'' community experiences
into terms the agency understood. Often times it took a series of
conversations to build the sufficient trust for a community member to
open up.
As data continues to be compiled and analyzed, the community will
continue monitoring the reforms and responding to long-standing issues
as well as ones that newly arise. My hope is that the data will be
compiled and disseminated at a more frequent rate and that decisions
will continue to be made on the basis of that data.
Body-Worn Cameras
Another key reform was the use of body-worn cameras. The community
easily understood the concept, and benefit, of them. With multiple
national examples of misconduct coming to light via camera recordings,
the community asked for specific updates on body-worn cameras--how many
deputies had them, when did they have to use them, what did they
actually look like, etc. And with that understanding came progressively
sophisticated questions, for example, inquiries about when a deputy was
allowed to mute their camera, or when they were allowed to turn it off.
Body-worn cameras also helped supervisors check the data and validate
it. If the data was showing an outlier for one or more measurements,
then the body camera footage could be reviewed. If there was a
misconduct complaint, then the footage was helpful to the
investigation.
Conclusion
The story of Maricopa County has not ended. Until the MCSO reaches
a sustained level of compliance, the CAB will continue to exist and
provide recommendations toward rebuilding community trust and ensuring
compliance with the court's orders. My hope and expectation is that the
Latino community will continue to demand equal protection under the
law, and that compliance, reform, and a new way of doing transportation
safety will emerge.
Thank you for your time and I welcome your questions.

Mr. DeFazio [presiding]. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Lorraine Martin.
Ms. Martin. Chairman DeFazio and Norton, Ranking Members
Graves and Davis, and members of the subcommittee, thank you
for inviting me here today to testify. It is truly an honor to
be here.
The National Safety Council has been America's leading
nonprofit safety advocate for over a century. Our mission is to
save lives, from the workplace to anyplace, and that includes
the roads. Our roadways became more dangerous last year, even
as the number of miles driven significantly decreased due to
the pandemic.
Preliminary NSC estimates show that the first 11 months of
last year, 38,370 Americans died on our roads. This represents
an outstanding 7-percent increase over the same period just a
year prior. It also represents a tragic reversal in the pre-
pandemic safety trends when our roads were becoming safer for
our drivers. I refer to the subcommittee in my written
statement for a State-by-State breakdown of these lives lost.
But suffice it to say, those 38,370 Americans are your
constituents. We can and must do better.
As we work to improve safety, it is essential that we also
address inequity in our Nation's transportation system because
too often, safety is the privilege of a few, not a right
enjoyed equitably by all. The National Safety Council
encourages the subcommittee to consider four points in any
future legislation, most of which we are pleased to see
included in the Moving Forward Act, which did pass the House
last year.
First, we need better demographic data for crashes and
traffic stops, and for that data to be shared more quickly than
it is now. This can be accomplished through increased funding
for agencies like NHTSA.
Second, we must consider alternatives to traditional
enforcement. This can include adoption of safe system
approaches with self-enforcing roads, automated enforcement,
and community policing, among other strategies.
Third, we believe Congress should expand section 1906 grant
program to ensure racial profiling does not occur in traffic
law enforcement. Fair and equitable application of roadway
safety laws is the only way to keep all users safe.
And finally, community members must be involved in the
development of traffic laws and safety programs, means for
enforcement, and roadway design to ensure that their needs are
being met.
There are several steps taken towards these goals in the
reauthorization passed by the House last year. We look forward
to supporting the reintroduction of this bill and working
together to incorporate today's learnings.
In closing, we applaud the subcommittee for holding today's
hearing. This conversation is an important step towards
achieving our shared goal, which is a transportation system
that prioritizes safety equitably for all. NSC pledges to work
alongside you to make this vision a reality. Thank you.
[Ms. Martin's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Lorraine M. Martin, President and Chief Executive
Officer, National Safety Council
Chair DeFazio, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member
Davis and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me to
testify today on behalf of the National Safety Council (NSC) on equity
in roadway safety. It is an honor to be with you today.
NSC is America's leading nonprofit safety advocate and has been for
over 100 years. As a mission-based organization, we work to eliminate
the leading causes of preventable death and injury, focusing our
efforts on the workplace, roadway and impairment. We create a culture
of safety to not only keep people safer at work, but also beyond the
workplace so they can live their fullest lives. Our more than 15,000
member companies and Federal agencies represent employees at nearly
50,000 U.S. worksites.
As I address you today, NSC is preparing to release the roadway
fatality estimates for calendar year 2020, an annual exercise NSC has
done for decades. While this early release does not contain certain
details--for example, the number of pedestrian crashes or crashes
involving large trucks--we see value in publishing this preview so that
decisionmakers can understand the state of safety on U.S. roadways.
In short: 2020 was a deadly year on our roads.
While much of the Nation was under stay-at-home orders during the
early stages of the coronavirus pandemic and therefore not traveling in
vehicles, the motor vehicle fatality rate increased by double digits in
March and April 2020 over 2019 levels. It did not improve as the year
progressed. Preliminary NSC estimates show a 24.2% fatality rate
increase and a 7% increase in the number of deaths in the first 11
months of 2020, as compared to the same period of 2019.\1\ The data
demonstrate that fatalities remained high once most states re-opened by
June. Fatalities increased by 17% in June, 14% in July, 13% in August,
13% in September, 19% in October, and 9% in November compared to
2019.\2\ A state-by-state breakdown of these fatalities through the end
of November 2020 is attached to this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/preliminary-
monthly-estimates/
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the drivers who remained on the roads during the pandemic, some
engaged in riskier behaviors, such as speeding, failing to wear seat
belts and driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs \3\--three
persistent causes of death on our roadways. During the first months of
the public health emergency, there was an initial reduction in seat
belt use among seriously and fatally injured passengers, according to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).\4\
According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) data, speeds
observed in 2020 were higher than those observed in 2019 across roadway
classifications.\5\ Additionally, alcohol, cannabinoid and opioid
prevalence increased among seriously and fatally injured road users
during the second quarter of 2020, as compared to the months before the
public health emergency.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Update to Special Reports on Traffic Safety During the COVID-
19 Public Health Emergency: Third Quarter Data,'' NHTSA, January 2021,
accessed on 2/10/21 at: https://handouts-
live.s3.amazonaws.com/5c2eaa050d2b4e819f13a04ba27e0999?X-Amz-
Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-
SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20210210T160309Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-
Expires=
86399&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJICNIQWVMWBRIUMQ%2F20210210%2Fus-east-
1%2Fs3%
2Faws4_request&X-Amz-
Signature=7b366adf02b90ab6eeef792694d6d50752686049a20d3c
2218203daf1d15f2a1
\4\ Ibid.
\5\ Ibid.
\6\ Thomas,et al. (2020, October). Drug and alcohol prevalence in
seriously and fatally injured road users before and during the COVID-19
public health emergency (Report No. DOT HS 813 018). National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/50941
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, we have not conquered the persistent problems of impaired
driving, speeding and lack of seat belt use. NSC believes we can and
must do better; we can reach zero roadway fatalities through a
multifaceted approach that includes education, strong laws, multiple
approaches to safety law enforcement, incorporation of new technology
and system design change.
As we work to improve safety, it is critical that we also address
equity in our nation's transportation system. We must pay attention not
only to our methods of improving safety, but also the manner in which
we address longstanding disparities that result from historical
imbalances in infrastructure investment,\7\ policy implementation and
decisionmaking.\8\ \9\ The House of Representatives took important
steps in this direction through several provisions in the Moving
Forward Act (H.R. 2), which passed the House last year. We were
particularly pleased to see the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.cbcfinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/
CBCFTransportationBriefing.pdf
\8\ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0739456X02238441
\9\ https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2020-03-
deconstruction-ahead-urban-highway-removal-changing-cities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant program to prohibit racial profiling and allow for
data collected during traffic stops to be publicly available.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See H.R. 2 (116), Sec. 3005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant program to fund institutions of higher education to
research racial profiling at traffic stops and develop training
programs to combat implicit bias.
NHTSA Section 405 grant program for states to include
training for not only police officers, but also drivers about their
rights, responsibilities and best practices during traffic stops.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) study regarding
the impact of transportation policies on people based on race,
ethnicity, nationality, age, disability status and gender identity.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See H.R. 2 (116), Sec. 40006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equity
Enforcement of traffic laws has been a primary strategy for
improving road safety for decades--and for good reason. Thousands of
lives have been saved by high-visibility enforcement campaigns such as
Click It or Ticket and Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over. These safety
programs continue to be important. We should also look carefully at how
traffic enforcement affects individuals and communities across the
country and make serious steps toward sustainable alternative safety
strategies as needed.
Each year, law enforcement officers stop 20 million people for
traffic violations. Traffic stops are the most common reason for
contact between people and the police.\12\ While there are proven
safety benefits from these stops, data show that some of these stops
are a result of racial profiling.\13\ NSC acknowledges that communities
with repeated and publicized negative interactions with law enforcement
can experience personal trauma, even when these interactions end
without incident, creating a lack of perceived safety.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Davis, E., Whyde, A.& Langton, L. Contacts between Police and
the Public, 2015 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018)
\13\ Pierson, Emma, et al. A large-scale analysis of racial
disparities in police stops across the United States (Nature Human
Behavior, Vol 4, July 2020).
\14\ https://fbaum.unc.edu/papers/OreyBaumgartnerSoroka-APSA-
2017.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research shows that people of color suffer higher rates of
pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries \15\ than their white
counterparts and that, frequently, programs and policies that aim to
support safety--such as those around jaywalking \16\--
disproportionately burden communities of color. Data show that people
of color, older adults and low-income communities are over-represented
in pedestrian fatalities \17\ and under-represented in the investments
made in transportation improvements.\18\ \19\ The chart below shows
that American Indian or Alaskan Native people run the highest risk of
being killed while walking along the roadside; other data show that
drivers are less likely to yield to Black people walking and
biking.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/dangerous-by-design-
2014
\16\ https://www.propublica.org/series/walking-while-black
\17\ https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/
\18\ https://www.cbcfinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/
CBCFTransportationBriefing.pdf
\19\ https://www.apha.org//media/files/pdf/topics/environment/
built_environment/srtsnp_equitytransp_factsheet2015.ashx
\20\ https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/
&httpsredir=1&article=1009&context=psy_fac

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

One reason these disparities exist is that not all streets are
created equally. Roads in low-income communities lack basic safety
features that are common in wealthier communities and have higher crash
rates as a result.\21\ \22\ This leads to so-called high-crash
corridors or high-injury networks. For example, Vision Zero SF in San
Francisco, CA found that 75% of the city's severe and fatal injuries
occur on just 13% of the city's street miles (see graphic below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Morency, P., Gauvin, L., Plante, C., Fournier, M., & Morency,
C. (2012). Neighborhood social inequalities in road traffic injuries:
the influence of traffic volume and road design. American journal of
public health, 102(6), 1112-1119. https://doi.org/10.2105/
AJPH.2011.300528
\22\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/
BeyondTraffic_tagged_508_final.pdf

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Data like these are available in every community that chooses to
collect it. Such information can empower policymakers, city planners
and engineers to direct limited resources to the areas in greatest need
of safety improvements to have the biggest impact.
Another mobility-related area that Congress should address is
driver license suspension. Over the past decades, non-driving-related
offenses, such as unpaid court fees and child support, littering, and
other infractions, have become cause for some states to suspend driver
licenses. NSC believes that driving-related offenses should be the only
cause for license suspension because such an action can lead to
detrimental impacts on a person, including loss of access to employment
opportunities and healthcare as well as overall mobility in communities
where no other transit options exist.
We supported the Driving for Opportunity Act in the 116th Congress
(S. 4186/H.R. 8881), which would have provided grants to states that do
not suspend or revoke a driver's license for failure to pay a non-
traffic-related civil or criminal fines or fees. Removing sanctions for
non-traffic safety violations rightly restores the focus on safety and
more accurately reflects each state's challenges related to speeding,
impaired driving and other high-risk driving behaviors. We also
appreciated that the bill required a GAO study on alternatives to
driver's license suspension for certain kinds of unsafe driving,
including models that allow drivers to continue to drive legally while
pursuing other driver-improvement opportunities. We understand
Representatives Scanlon and Fitzpatrick will soon reintroduce this
legislation in the House; NSC looks forward to working with you to
support the bill.
There is much work to be done, and we applaud the subcommittee for
holding this hearing today to discuss what we can do as a Nation. As
mentioned, it will take a multifaceted approach to change the systemic
ways our transportation system has perpetuated bias. It will also take
time. NSC pledges to work alongside you because safe mobility is a
right for all Americans and, indeed, all people.
Safety
Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) show
that 39,107 people were killed in motor vehicle incidents in 2019.\23\
We believe these crashes--which have a tremendous human toll and cost
the American economy over $463 billion a year \24\--are entirely
preventable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/roadway-fatalities-2019-
fars
\24\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/
introduction/

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Chart shows total motor vehicle data, source NSC estimates and National
Center for Health Statistics

Included below are the number of people killed in motor vehicle
crashes in the Chairs' and Ranking Members' states through November
2020, as well as the year-over-year percent increase: \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/
StatesCrashesAndAllVictims.aspx

Oregon.................................. 468 deaths (5% increase from
2019)
Washington, DC.......................... 36 deaths (44% increase from
2019)
Missouri................................ 908 deaths (13% increase
from 2019)
Illinois................................ 1,010 deaths (10% increase
from 2019)

These are the lives of your constituents. These mothers, fathers,
sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, friends and colleagues contributed to
the communities in which they lived. Yet, our national outrage at these
losses is conspicuously absent, particularly when compared to deaths in
other forms of transportation, such as aviation.
The United States has consistently avoided the hard choices needed
to save lives on the roadways. The reauthorization of the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is an opportunity for us to
make the right choices. The Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2) that passed the
House of Representatives last Congress provides a framework for making
changes to improve safety and equity.
The main behavioral causes of motor vehicle fatalities--lack of
seat belt use, alcohol-impaired driving, and speeding--have remained
the same for decades.

47% of Passenger vehicle occupants who die in motor vehicle
crashes are unbelted
28% of People who die in crashes are involved in alcohol-
impaired wrecks
26% of Motor vehicle fatalities are speed-related \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ NSC analysis of 2019 NHTSA data using the NHTSA query tool:
https://cdan.dot.gov/query
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education, Laws and Enforcement
NSC believes that the ``three-legged stool'' of roadway safety--
education, strong laws and enforcement--will remain important as we
work toward a Safe Systems approach and reach our ultimate goal of zero
roadway deaths. Education programs must reflect the communities they
serve and the laws must be written and applied fairly and enforced
equitably.
Education includes programs, communications and campaigns to
educate road users, community members, planners, and engineers to raise
awareness and provide information with the goal of changing an attitude
or behavior that will improve safety. An equitable approach to
education must consider and should include, but is not limited to:
Developing, executing and implementing programming with
community voices included in the process, particularly those
representing disadvantaged and/or highly impacted communities.
Using images, language and media that is reflective of
the community and audience.
Working with the community to identify issues to be
addressed, assessing what is needed and defining what implementation
and, ultimately, success would look like.
Working with trusted Ambassadors, spokespeople and
community leaders to help execute any campaigns or programs.

NSC supports enforcement of traffic safety laws as a mechanism to
support safe transportation and believes there are ways to address bias
and other equity problems found within enforcement. This includes
efforts to educate and promote compliance with laws and regulations
related to traffic safety. An equitable approach to enforcement must
consider and should include, but is not limited to:
Working with partners and stakeholders to create a plan
to ensure engagement with representatives of the community and
government in the development and drafting of any law or regulation.
This includes discussing effective means of enforcement within the
community.
Understanding whether and how enforcement of traffic
safety laws or regulations can exacerbate existing racial,
socioeconomic or accessibility issues and subsequently working with
stakeholders to identify solutions.
Assessing whether new or alternative forms of enforcement
can be deployed to effectively address the issue at hand, including but
not limited to: adoption of the Safe Systems approach with self-
enforcing roads, automated enforcement, community policing and other
strategies.
Advocating for data collection and assessment tools that
measure whether traffic safety enforcement unjustly burdens specific
communities or populations and providing appropriate solutions.
Educating and training those working on enforcement on
current best practices and techniques. To this end, NSC supports
evidence-based diversity, equity and inclusion training and other
appropriate training for law enforcement officers. Additionally, we
support the NHTSA grant program advanced by Representative Brown in
H.R. 2 that would provide resources to higher education institutions to
research and develop implicit bias training programs related to racial
profiling at traffic stops.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See H.R. 2 (116), Sec. 3010

Traffic enforcement can be conducted effectively in a variety of
ways and cities across the U.S. are exploring how to use new and
existing techniques to improve roadway safety while reducing equity
concerns, ensuring that people are safe in every sense of the word.
Automated enforcement is an evidence-based countermeasure that
changes driver behavior when used to monitor for speeding and red-light
enforcement. If applied equitably, it does not discriminate, and, when
used with a data-driven approach to target dangerous corridors, it
saves lives. NSC has worked with other safety stakeholders to create
checklists \28\ for communities installing automated enforcement that
encourages transparency to ensure this countermeasure is used in the
best way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Available at: https://www.iihs.org/media/1c936880-1816-44fe-
ab57-df603ad15714/ZjmPNA/News/2018/072418/RLC-program-checklist.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal restrictions on automated enforcement should be eliminated.
Additionally, Federal funding should be allowed to support automated
enforcement. H.R. 2 allowed for the use of Federal funds for automated
enforcement in work zones; NSC urges the inclusion of this provision,
as well as expanding uses for automated enforcement, in the
reauthorization this Congress.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide the Motor
Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States (MV
PICCS) \29\ to help policymakers determine the lives saved and costs of
implementation of 14 different evidence-based motor vehicle laws. While
many of these laws require state action, Congress should support
incentives to accelerate state adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speeding
Excessive speed is a problem in this country. When speeding
vehicles collide with pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road
users (VRU), the results are deadly. In 2019, 6,205 pedestrians were
killed in traffic crashes in the U.S.\30\ Pedestrians are 1.5 times
more likely than occupants of passenger vehicles to be killed in a car
crash. From 2009 to 2018, the number of pedestrian fatalities increased
by 53%.\31\ As illustrated, at 20 miles per hour (mph), 9 out of 10
pedestrians would survive being struck by a vehicle, while 9 out of 10
pedestrians would be killed at double that speed (at 40 mph).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/
index.html
\31\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/
pedestrians/data-details/
\32\ Image: Seattle Department of Transportation

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image: Seattle Department of Transportation

The data bear out the same case for vehicle crashes involving
speed. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) estimated that
increasing speed limits over the past 25 years have led to 37,000
additional deaths and that 26% of all crash fatalities in 2018 occurred
in speed-related crashes.\33\ IIHS collaborated with the AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety to conduct high-speed crash tests, which
demonstrated that higher speeds cancel out the safety benefits of
improved vehicle design.\34\ For example, during a test crash at 40
mph, the driver's space was minimally impacted. But at 50 mph, the
impact to the driver's space was much more pronounced. At 56 mph, the
interior of the vehicle was significantly compromised, most likely
leading to significant injuries to the driver and occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed
\34\ https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2218
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC recommends the following actions to address speeding:
Expand the scope of factors used to determine speeds,
such as crash history and roadway design and de-emphasize the 85th
percentile approach.
Expand the use of automated enforcement.
Allow for local control over speed limits.
Seat Belts
There is no question that seat belts play an important role in
keeping passengers safe. Seat belts save lives and reduce serious
injuries by half.\35\ In 2017, seat belts saved almost 15,000
lives.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812691
\36\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812691
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite being one of the most successful safety inventions, too
many people still choose not to use a seat belt. Regardless of other
causal factors, the lack of proper occupant restraint continues to
increase the severity and lethality of motor vehicle crashes. While
90.7% of American drivers and vehicle occupants used seat belts in
2019,\37\ one in 10 continued to put their lives at unnecessary risk by
opting out of seat belt use--with tragic consequences. Almost half
(47%) of people killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2019 were
unbelted.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Occupant Restraint Use In 2019: Results From the NOPUS
Controlled Intersection Study, NHTSA, October 2020, https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812992
\38\ NSC analysis of 2019 NHTSA data https://cdan.dot.gov/query
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, despite these compelling data, only 34 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands have primary enforcement of their seat belt laws \39\--
meaning law enforcement may stop vehicles solely for belt law
violations. Of the other 16 states, 15 have secondary laws, which
require police to have another reason for a traffic stop; New Hampshire
has no belt law for adults aged 18 and up. In 2018, 90.6% of passenger
vehicle occupants were belted in states with primary laws, while only
86.4% of occupants were belted in states with secondary or no seat belt
laws.\40\ Public education and high-visibility enforcement campaigns,
such as Click It or Ticket, have increased public awareness of the
dangers of driving unrestrained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ https://www.iihs.org/topics/seat-belts#laws
\40\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812662
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, our seat belt messaging remains inconsistent: young
children are required to ride in 5-point restraint child seats unless
they are on a school bus. Most school buses operating today only
include a seat belt for the driver--not for the passengers. However,
since 2002, lap and shoulder belts have been made available on school
buses, and some school systems do, in fact, use passenger seat
belts.\41\ Congress should act to require this important protection on
all school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ http://www.nasdpts.org/Documents/NASDPTS%20POSITION%20PAPER
%20PASSENGER%20LAP%20SHOULDER%20BELTS%20FINAL%20FEB%202014.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC believes the lack of belts on buses delivers a mixed message
that is at best confusing to children and at worst leads to lack of
seat belt use down the road, especially as teen drivers and passengers.
To this end, NSC supports Representative Cohen's bill, H.R. 3959 (in
the 116th Congress), the School Bus Safety Act, to require new buses to
have three-point belts so that children are appropriately protected
each and every ride.
Child Passenger Safety (CPS)
Correct use of a child-restraint system appropriate for a child's
age and size saves lives. NHTSA estimates that car seats reduce the
risk of fatal injury by 71% for infants and 54% for toddlers.\42\
Unfortunately, there are equity challenges with CPS as well, with data
showing that Black children are less likely to be restrained
appropriately.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812719
\43\ Lee, G., Pope, C. N., Nwosu, A., McKenzie, L. B., & Zhu, M.
(2019). Child passenger fatality: Child restraint system usage and
contributing factors among the youngest passengers from 2011 to 2015.
Journal of safety research, 70, 33-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jsr.2019.04.001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC supports the expansion of programs that recruit and train CPS
technicians from all communities and educate on the importance of CPS
for caregivers. These technicians conduct critical work by providing
one-on-one instruction to parents to learn how to install and use their
child's car seat properly. NSC supported Representative Titus's
amendment \44\ to H.R. 2 that expands NHTSA funding to allow states to
recruit and train CPS technicians and educate parents and caregivers
about proper use of CPS in low-income and underserved populations,
something hope will remain in any new legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See: https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
Titus%20041.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impairment
Another leading cause of roadway deaths is impairment. Every day,
almost 30 people die in alcohol-impaired crashes in the United States--
one every 50 minutes.\45\ In 2018, nearly 140 million Americans aged 12
or older consumed alcohol in the past month, with 16.6 million being
heavy users and 2.2 million between the ages of 12-17.\46\ Despite
these data, our culture does not prioritize safety on the roads: more
than 1 in 10 drivers admit to driving when they thought they were close
to or over the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit in the prior
year.\47\ NHTSA estimates 10,142 lives were lost in 2019 from alcohol-
impaired driving motor-vehicle crashes.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
\46\ https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/
NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf
\47\ http://tirf.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/RSM-TIRF-USA-2018-
Alcohol-Impaired-Driving-in-the-United-States-3.pdf
\48\ https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-alcohol-
impaired-driving
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The science on alcohol impairment is clear: drivers are four times
more likely to crash at .05 than if they had nothing to drink.\49\ Most
other industrialized countries have implemented a BAC of .05 or lower,
a change that has been followed by a decrease in the number of
fatalities from alcohol-impaired crashes. Lowering the BAC limit from
.08 to .05 is a proven method to save lives on the roadways that could
save as many as 1,500 American lives each year if implemented
nationally.\50\ Utah is the first state to pass a law lowering the BAC
to .05. NSC supports other states' efforts to implement such
legislation and hopes to see Federal legislation introduced to support
this goal as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Blomberg RD, Peck RC, Moskowitz H, Burns M, Fiorentino D: The
Long Beach/Fort Lauderdale relative risk study; J Safety Res 40:285;
2009.
\50\ Fell, J. C., and M. Scherer. 2017. Estimation of the potential
effectiveness of lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit
for driving from 0.08 to 0.05 grams per deciliter in the United States.
Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research. doi: 10.1111/
acer.13501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug-impaired driving is also a problem. Too many of our fellow
Americans suffer from substance use disorders involving both legal and
illegal drugs. Drug overdoses, led by opioids, are the leading cause of
preventable death in the U.S.\51\ In 2018, 1 in 5 people aged 12 or
older used an illicit drug in the past year. Marijuana is the most
commonly used impairing drug, followed by prescription pain
relievers.\52\ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report
that 12 million people aged 16 and older reported driving under the
influence of marijuana in the past year, and 2.3 million people aged 16
and older reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs other
than marijuana.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/
drugoverdoses/data-details/
\52\ https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/
NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf
\53\ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6850a1.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substance abuse is a complex problem, and good data are needed to
develop effective solutions. During the last national roadside survey
conducted by NHTSA in 2013-2014, the percentages of weekend nighttime
drivers who tested positive for alcohol, marijuana and illicit drugs
were 8.3%, 12.6% and 15.1%, respectively.\54\ These results are the
most comprehensive, national data available on impaired driving. The
national roadside survey has been a key tool to understanding impaired
driving on U.S. roads. NSC implores Congress to remove barriers to
conducting this survey because it is hard to stop deadly driving when
policymakers do not fully understand where and how it is happening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/behavioral-research/2013-14-national-
roadside-study-alcohol-and-drug-use-drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another key factor to establishing impaired driving data is the
creation of standards for driver drug testing. Beginning in 2007, the
Alcohol Drugs and Impairment Division (ADID) of the National Safety
Council has created and maintained a series of recommendations for the
appropriate scope and level of sensitivity of testing for drugs in
suspected drug-impaired-driving and motor-vehicle fatality
investigations. The process involves surveying of 70-100 laboratories
throughout the United States performing this work to determine the most
frequently encountered drugs, documenting trends in positive test
results and identifying the emergence of new impairing drugs in driving
populations. The survey also captures information about laboratory
capacity and capability as well as the available technology for routine
drug testing.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See https://www.forensicscienceeducation.org/forensic-
research/toxicology/duid/duid-survey/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This data has been used to generate a consensus document \56\ based
on diverse input from large and small, academic, public and private
laboratories, and from multiple states, containing two tiers of drugs
with identified involvement in impaired driving arrests and traffic
deaths. The first tier includes the most common, readily detectable
drugs that account for the greatest number of impaired driving cases
within the analytical capabilities of most laboratories. The second
tier are emerging drugs, which are less frequently detected or require
special testing equipment or technology, that should be considered in
cases where testing for tier 1 drugs is negative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29186455/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These recommendations have been voluntarily adopted by more than 50
of the most active laboratories in the country and the toxicology
community is working toward fuller adoption as a way to provide more
uniform and comprehensive testing and more reliable epidemiological
data on the severity of the drug-impaired driving problem. The fourth
iteration of these recommendations is being prepared and will be
published in early 2021. ADID work is being further developed into an
American National Standard by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
(AAFS) Standards Board (ASB), an accredited standards-development
organization serving the forensic community. This is expected to be
published in 2021.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ For more information see https://www.asbstandardsboard.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the widespread use, adoption and support of these
recommendations among the toxicology community, NSC recommends that
compliance with these standards be incorporated into Federal
legislation, with the goal of improving drug testing and impaired-
driving data collection. Additionally, NSC recommends that NHTSA use
these recommended standards to provide national guidance for driver
testing to all toxicology labs in the U.S.
Additionally, drug recognition experts (DREs) are a key enforcement
tool for many localities, especially as data show an increase in drug-
impaired driving. DREs are specially trained law enforcement officers
who can evaluate the signs of impairment from drugs and assist in
identifying and convicting drug-impaired drivers. This is especially
important because some drug tests only detect presence of the drug and
not impairment. Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE)
training is the first step in becoming a DRE.
According to data from the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, more DREs are needed to effectively address the drug-impaired
driving problem. In the Chair's state of Oregon, there are 207 DREs,
and 3.1 million licensed drivers. Illinois has 109 DREs and 8.5 million
licensed drivers and a new marijuana decriminalization law.\58\ NSC
supports the use of NHTSA and other Federal funding to pay for DRE and
ARIDE training to stop drug-impaired driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ https://www.theiacp.org/states-and-countries-with-dres
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data
Good data are foundational to making sound decisions about safety
interventions and are especially important to address equity concerns.
Congress authorizes funding for ``Section 1906'' grants to states to
encourage the collection of data to ensure racial profiling does not
occur in traffic law enforcement. Fair and equitable application of
roadway safety laws is the only way to keep all users safe. Mr. Barone
from Connecticut will testify today about his state's successful
program using these funds.
Despite the program being available to all 50 states, only six have
received funding in most recent rounds. Many states have not even
applied for the funding, even though some jurisdictions within them may
wish to gather this data. If states will not apply for funding,
Congress should explore allowing jurisdictions to apply for Section
1906 funding to support these programs. NSC believes public access to
traffic enforcement data is important and supports providing funding to
facilitate this data collection.
Additionally, other data tools at NHTSA should be fully evaluated
for effectiveness and updated. The fatality analysis reporting system
(FARS) is the national data collection tool for fatal roadway crashes,
and it needs updating. Currently, race and ethnicity are only reported
for fatalities. NSC recommends that race and ethnicity be reported for
all drivers involved in crashes so that we can gain a better picture of
the equity challenges we face on our roadways. Additionally, for a more
complete picture of fatal crashes, FARS should include events on non-
public roadways, such as driveways and parking lots. On a monthly
basis, NHTSA should use the state data it receives to release
preliminary fatality estimates. This data can provide important
insights to identify trends in a more timely manner; currently, a full
evaluation of FARS data usually occurs in October or November of the
following year.
Traffic data improvements across states are imperative too. The
longstanding reliance on local law enforcement officers is and
continues to be the foundation for understanding conditions that
contribute to crashes, such as roadway design, driver impairment and
weather, to name a few. In addition, emergency medical services (EMS)
data adds critical understanding of deaths and serious injuries from
motor vehicle-related crashes. EMS includes ambulance services and
other 911 medical response organizations that provide assessment and
medical care on scene, as well as during transportation to the
hospital.
The EMS data is a missing link to provide a more complete picture
of the health outcomes of crashes. Medical evaluation of the condition
of the victim and documented clinical measurements, such as vital signs
and other indicators, like the Glasgow Coma Scale, can be used to
calculate and approximate injury severity. EMS personnel contribute
this data to the National EMS Information System (NEMSIS), which is a
uniform standard for data collection and electronic record submission
about patient care on-scene and during transport to the hospital.
States with fully developed NEMSIS databases can upload records in near
real-time, linking crash and EMS records and, ultimately, trauma
registry data that is also available to most state EMS offices. This
data provides a clearer picture of the health impacts and outcomes of
crashes.
States regulate ambulance services, and, for nearly 50 years, state
licensure has required all ambulance services that respond to 911 calls
to submit EMS response and patient care data to the state. As of last
week, over 42 million patient care reports from over 11,000 local EMS
agencies had been voluntarily submitted to NHTSA's NEMSIS database by
state EMS offices for calendar year 2020. The rapid submission of
records to the national repository has allowed for weekly evaluation of
conditions of interest during the COVID pandemic to include not only
influenza-like illness, but also opioid overdoses and naloxone use,
motor vehicle crashes and behavioral emergencies. NHTSA's Office of EMS
has supported the creation and management of this national repository
for NEMSIS-compliant records since the late 1990's, but state EMS
offices do not receive Federal funds to aid in this data collection.
NSC supports allowing full integration of EMS offices in the highway
safety program development and use of NHTSA grant funds to bring all
states' NEMSIS databases up to date.
NHTSA also operates the Crash Reporting Sampling System (CRSS),
which is a national sample of fatal and non-fatal crashes. Since the
sample design does not allow for state-level estimates, users are
unable to evaluate non-fatal crash trends on a state-by-state basis.
Having more granularity by requiring more reporting of non-fatal crash
reports would allow for greater insight into roadway safety and help
identify dangerous roadways and other problems. As more states use
electronic reporting to share crash report data, NSC believes a more
robust CRSS is possible and more easily achievable.
Supporting states' purchasing of technology to allow near real-time
crash reporting improves safety and allows for a faster response by
planners, engineers and law enforcement. The House of Representatives
should support the ability to use both NHTSA 405 and 402 grant funding
to purchase technology and upgrade systems for faster reporting.
Congress should also support and explore efforts in collecting near-
miss data. This data can be used to proactively determine where to use
resources to address potential safety issues.
Information from show that the Regional Transportation Planning
Organization in Knoxville, TN used a combination of hospital data and
survey responses to identify near misses that were then shared with
planners and engineers. While these data have not been traditionally
collected and will require that we think creatively, it has the
potential to save lives without waiting for devastating crashes to
occur.
NHTSA Safety Grants
The NHTSA mission is roadway safety, and one of the most effective
tools to that end are the national grant programs that NHTSA operates,
providing funding to states for safety programs. States outline how
they will use these funds through their annual Highway Safety Plans
(HSP), which are developed by the transportation leaders in the states
including the Departments of Transportation, state highway safety
offices, law enforcement, EMS and others. It is key that each of these
offices fully participates in development of the HSP as each has a
unique and shared commitment to saving lives on the roadways, whether
it is to prevent the crash from occurring or to ensure an appropriate
response.
Section 402 grants--named for the section of statute in which the
program is located--are apportioned to states by a population and road
miles-based formula, and states have flexibility on how these funds are
used for behavior programs. The 405 grants--also named for the section
of statute in which the program is located--are dedicated to priority
programs listed below and have requirements that states must meet to
qualify for funding and incentives attached for meeting these
requirements.
Priority grant programs include:
405(b) Occupant protection grants (13% of funding).
405(c) Traffic Safety information systems (14.5% of funding).
405(d) Impaired driving, including 24-7 and ignition
interlock programs (52.5% of funding).
405(e) Distracted driving (8.5% of funding).
405(f) Motorcycle safety (1.5% of funding).
405(g) Graduated driver licensing (GDL) (5% of funding).
405(h) Nonmotorized safety (5% of funding).

The Section 405 provisions may require state laws be passed to
qualify for funding, and, in these cases, NHTSA must make a
determination whether these laws meet the goals as outlined. When NHTSA
has determined states do not qualify for funding, the decision process
and reasoning has not been clear. Without clear direction from NHTSA,
state legislators may not try to strengthen their laws again. NSC
supports the Committee requiring greater transparency by NHTSA on its
decisions when grant applications are rejected and increased engagement
of NHTSA with states to provide technical assistance to correct
eligibility gaps in laws. NSC supports authorizing additional resources
to support this assistance.
H.R. 2 appropriately continued and increased the Section 405
funding. Of particular note, NSC and the Governors Highway Safety
Association (GHSA) worked together to amend the FAST Act section 405
GDL provisions into a tiered system. We hope you will retain this
proposal in any new legislation, as drivers 21 and younger have the
highest fatal crash rates of any age group.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/age-of-
driver/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC also supported a new Section 405 grant program in H.R. 2 \60\
that would have encouraged states to include training for drivers (in
addition to police officers) about their rights, responsibilities and
best practices during traffic stops. This training would be completed
through State department of motor vehicles (DMVs). Ensuring that all
drivers understand their rights and responsibilities during traffic
stops would help address some concerns about equitable enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See H.R. 2 (116), Sec. 3007
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, NSC supports the States Afforded Funding Extensions
to Oppose Driving Recklessly in Vehicular Engagements (SAFE TO DRIVE)
Act, H.R. 762, bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives
Krishnamoorthi, Cohen and Gallagher, as well as Senators Klobuchar and
Blumenthal, to curb distracted driving. H.R. 762 would allow part of
distracted driving grant funding to be used if a state enacts primary-
enforced laws prohibiting texting and non-navigational use of cell
phones.
Workplace-Focused Safety
NHTSA grants are important tools to help improve roadway safety
through a variety of mechanisms. One successful, federally funded
opportunity focuses on the employer as an influencer. The Our Driving
Concern (ODC) Program is offered by NSC with funding from the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) through Section 405 NHTSA grant
funds.
Transportation incidents are the leading cause of occupational
fatalities in Texas and across the country.\61\ ODC was created to
provide states with a resource targeted at employers to reduce motor
vehicle related incidents on and off the job. ODC provides free
training, education and resources to employers on the biggest risk
areas in occupational transportation, including distracted driving,
aggressive driving, speeding, passenger restraint, impaired driving and
other transportation and driver safety topics. Many of these resources
are also provided in Spanish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/state-data/at-work/work-deaths-by-
state/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the traditional ODC program, in 2018 the Drug
Impairment Training for Texas Employers (DITTE) program launched. This
course trains safety leaders to identify impairment in the workplace,
explores the effects of alcohol and other drugs on driving and
workplace performance and highlights costs and lifestyle impacts of
driving impaired with the goal of reducing impairment on the roads both
on and off the job.
The ODC program provides continuous engagement in order to improve
the safety of Texas roads. This includes providing new resources and
new opportunities to engage safety managers regularly with the
understanding that improving roadway safety is not achieved with a
``one and done'' approach.
With funding from NHTSA through TxDOT, all of these trainings and
resources are provided free to Texas employers. Texas employers can
request a training for its employees, which can be done in person or
virtually. There are many opportunities to engage online, through both
live and on-demand webinars. Employers who have taken advantage of this
program have seen sustained reductions in traffic incidents. For
example, as part of its comprehensive employee traffic safety program,
Texas Mutual committed to a stricter phone-free driving policy,
shifting the culture from one of constant connectivity to one that
allows employees to safely disconnect if they are behind the wheel.
Since implementing ODC, Texas Mutual has seen a 61% decrease in
preventable crashes.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ https://txdrivingconcern.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Our-
Driving-Concern-White-Paper.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe Systems
While roadway design is not a focus of this hearing, I would like
to raise the role of prioritizing safety and improving infrastructure
design as essential components to improve safety for all roadway users.
By prioritizing safety, we commit to changing our nation's safety
culture. This means we have to accept that any life lost is one too
many. Once we accept that one death is too many, we will begin thinking
about how to take a ``Safe Systems'' approach to our roadways.\63\
Fully adopted by other modes of transportation, this means building
fail-safe features that anticipate human error and developing
infrastructure with safety margins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Safe systems approach is a holistic roadway strategy that
focuses on five action areas: safe roads, safe speeds, safe road use,
safe vehicles and effective post-crash care. The approach requires the
participation of all participants in the roadway transportation system
in safety efforts, and seeks to strengthen safety in all aspects of the
roadway transportation system so that if one part fails, the others
will still protect people from death or serious injury. https://
www.nsc.org/getattachment/cbffc278-6c2b-4c16-ad11-959201b2755e/t-safe-
systems-149
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safe Systems approach, a central emphasis of the Road to Zero
coalition, offers an alternative to dependence on law enforcement for
safety and, implemented equitably, could address historic problems in
safety investment. The Safe Systems approach reduces the need for law
enforcement by making roads and vehicles self-enforcing. It also
protects against human error, lessening the dependency on individual
behavior.
H.R. 2 takes important new steps in defining the Safe Systems
approach and encouraging its widespread adoption. Building a Safe
System will take time; we must get started. We will need active traffic
law enforcement until we build that system, so we need to take a hard
look at how enforcement is conducted to address equity concerns. In the
longer term, police could serve an essential role in facilitating the
Safe Systems approach, using their familiarity with traffic to diagnose
system problems and help designers find solutions.
With the understanding that people inevitably will make mistakes,
the built environment or infrastructure can be more forgiving to
eliminate fatalities. Some of these changes may include engineering
greater safety into a design. For example, in the pictures below, a
multi-lane intersection with a red light in Scottsdale, AZ was replaced
with a roundabout. With the intersection, there are 32 potential points
of failure but, with a roundabout, that is engineered down to only
8.\64\ Speeds are decreased, and if crashes do occur, they occur at
angles that are not as violent. Crosswalk length is also reduced,
reducing the amount of time pedestrians are exposed to cross-traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/
roundabouts/presentations/safety_aspects/long.cfm

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Successful infrastructure redesign can also look like the picture
below from New York City. The picture on the left shows two roads
merging without an area for pedestrians and the lane lines are non-
existent. However, the reworked merge incorporates clearly marked lanes
of travel, large sidewalks and areas for pedestrians with less exposure
to vehicles.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

These infrastructure changes are just as important in rural areas.
Rumble strips on the center line or edge of roadways can prevent the
roadway departure crashes that account for 51% of roadway fatalities in
the U.S.\65\ Cable median barriers can also provide a margin of safety
to redirect people to their lane of travel and high-friction surface
treatments can decrease vehicle stopping distance on roadways. These
are all tools we have available today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering is another lens through which to consider equity in
transportation. NSC believes that an equitable approach to engineering
must consider:
Addressing existing or historic bias, disenfranchisement
or overburdening of a specific group or population in any planning or
proposal considerations.
Creating contextually sensitive plans and solutions and
avoiding one-size-fits-all solutions. Changes or improvements must be
context-sensitive and meet the needs and desires of the individual
communities they purport to serve.
Identifying and assessing unintended consequences that
might result from well-intentioned efforts.
Engaging from the outset community members, stakeholders
and users to ensure the solution is having the intended effect.
Involving a diversity of people in testing and design to
increase safety.
Supporting the design of vehicle technology to improve
safety outcomes for all roadway users.
Supporting efforts to improve transportation and,
ultimately, enhance access and mobility independence.

Infrastructure changes can be expensive, but they do not have to
be. Through the Road to Zero Coalition, NSC has awarded millions in
grants to groups across the country working in communities of all
sizes. In the first year of grants, the National Complete Streets
Coalition, worked with three communities: Lexington, KY, Orlando, FL,
and South Bend, IN. Each city was provided only $8,000 dollars from the
grant for temporary infrastructure changes and each city had measurable
improvements to safety, even with a small-dollar investment.
Allowing for flexibility to implement local safety measures is key
to reflect local priorities. NSC encourages this Committee to explore
options for cities, counties and metropolitan planning organizations to
prioritize safety for their residents. This may allow for lowering
speed limits, instituting automated enforcement, collecting data,
accessing safety funds and other items. Local decisionmakers often have
better data and information from community members about areas in
severe need of transportation improvements and should be encouraged to
address disparities they see within their crash data.
The toughest change is the shift to truly prioritize safety by
changing safety culture on the roads. We are complacent when it comes
to losing so many people each and every day on our roads; we must
remember that these are not accidents, but crashes. We need strong and
passionate leaders committed to doing so. I can think of none better
than the members of this Committee and Subcommittee using the
reauthorization as the vehicle to accomplish it. We have successfully
changed safety culture in workplaces, around child passenger safety and
in other areas. We can do it here, too, but only with your help. NSC
looks forward to working with this Committee to develop these
provisions fully.
Road to Zero
More states and localities have adopted ``zero'' language into the
goals on our roadways. This language has been commonplace in other
settings, like workplaces, where NSC has focused since our founding,
with meaningful results. NSC also leads the Road to Zero Coalition, a
diverse group of over 1,600 organizational members committed to
eliminating roadway fatalities by 2050. The coalition represents
transportation organizations, businesses, academia, safety advocates
and others--the first time so many organizations and individuals have
collaborated to put forth a plan to address fatalities on our roads. To
these members and to NSC, ``zero'' is not just a catchphrase but an
attainable and necessary goal.
The Road to Zero Coalition, in its efforts to begin addressing
equity in transportation safety, hosted a series of well-received
discussions in fall of 2020. These sessions aimed to provide
information on the topic, engage partners on specific issues related to
the intersection of equity and roadway safety and begin the Coalition's
engagement on the topic. As a convener and voice for roadway safety,
the Coalition feels that it is important to use its platform to begin
these conversations with its partners and their networks. There were
four sessions held in total: Enforcement and Equity in Transportation
Safety, The Safety Premium: Designing for Equity in Vehicles and
Beyond, Connecting Prioritizing Safety with Transportation Equity, and
Road to Zero and Transportation Equity: An Opportunity to Learn,
Engage, and Act.
Last month, the Road to Zero coalition collaborated with Toward
Zero Deaths, Vision Zero and Families for Safe Streets to call on
President Biden and Secretary Buttigieg to set a goal of zero
fatalities by 2050. Over 1,500 organizations and individuals have
joined this call.\66\ We urge the House of Representatives, and
especially this Subcommittee, to echo these sentiments. We can no
longer stand by while 100 people die every day on our roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ https://www.nsc.org/getmedia/95d17f6b-14e6-4737-b648-
3d5992158826/rtz-biden-coalition-letter-formatted.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Earlier this month, NSC approved an equity in transportation policy
position and a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion statement.\67\ \68\ In
these documents, NSC recognizes and celebrates differences that may be
due to ancestry, color, national origin, race, gender identity, sex,
sexual orientation, age, religion, physical or mental disability, or
veteran status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ https://www.nsc.org/getattachment/757d2d64-8b77-4997-8fb4-
97d004188acf/t%20equity%20in%20transportation%20165
\68\ https://www.nsc.org/our-impact
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transportation policy position states: ``When achieved,
transportation equity can have a profound impact on communities,
enabling safe access to school, work, healthy food, parks, and more, as
well as empowering community members to become stakeholders in roadway
safety. Mobility independence for all road users becomes a reality.''
These goals should be priorities for this discussion today and our
actions going forward, and we must take time to listen, learn and
reflect on how we can all be part of the solution to address
disparities in transportation safety.

State motor-vehicle deaths and percent changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deaths Identical Periods Percent
--------------------------------- Changes
Number of ---------------
State Months 2019 2018
Reported 2020 2019 2018 to to
2020 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL U.S.......................................... 11 38,370 35,879 36,223 7% 6%
Alabama............................................ 11 839 834 838 1% 0%
Alaska............................................. 11 61 61 76 0% -20%
Arizona............................................ 11 939 911 928 3% 1%
Arkansas........................................... 11 598 463 451 29% 33%
California......................................... 11 3,348 3,161 3,199 6% 5%
Colorado........................................... 11 558 555 560 1% 0%
Connecticut........................................ 11 286 242 276 18% 4%
Delaware........................................... 11 109 123 99 -11% 10%
Dist. of Columbia.................................. 11 36 25 27 44% 33%
Florida............................................ 11 3,202 3,052 2,987 5% 7%
Georgia............................................ 10 1,298 1,223 1,228 6% 6%
Hawaii............................................. 11 75 101 107 -26% -30%
Idaho.............................................. 11 180 208 216 -13% -17%
Illinois........................................... 11 1,010 918 978 10% 3%
Indiana............................................ 11 814 737 773 10% 5%
Iowa............................................... 11 300 306 293 -2% 2%
Kansas............................................. 11 382 385 376 -1% 2%
Kentucky........................................... 11 721 680 663 6% 9%
Louisiana.......................................... 11 750 660 699 14% 7%
Maine.............................................. 11 158 160 116 -1% 36%
Maryland........................................... 11 536 465 451 15% 19%
Massachusetts...................................... 11 321 318 327 1% -2%
Michigan........................................... 11 964 896 901 8% 7%
Minnesota.......................................... 11 365 340 346 7% 5%
Mississippi........................................ 11 680 567 606 20% 12%
Missouri........................................... 11 908 805 843 13% 8%
Montana............................................ 11 190 173 165 10% 15%
Nebraska........................................... 11 215 229 216 -6% 0%
Nevada............................................. 11 280 248 309 13% -9%
New Hampshire...................................... 11 115 98 132 17% -13%
New Jersey......................................... 11 538 509 514 6% 5%
New Mexico......................................... 11 350 373 360 -6% -3%
New York........................................... 11 865 778 809 11% 7%
North Carolina..................................... 11 1,514 1,353 1,366 12% 11%
North Dakota....................................... 11 94 91 96 3% -2%
Ohio............................................... 11 1,134 1,057 984 7% 15%
Oklahoma........................................... 11 577 553 584 4% -1%
Oregon............................................. 11 468 446 425 5% 10%
Pennsylvania....................................... 11 1,070 1,025 1,152 4% -7%
Rhode Island....................................... 11 70 55 54 27% 30%
South Carolina..................................... 11 954 904 920 6% 4%
South Dakota....................................... 11 128 96 117 33% 9%
Tennessee.......................................... 11 1,115 1,029 960 8% 16%
Texas.............................................. 11 3,496 3,253 3,322 7% 5%
Utah............................................... 11 259 217 249 19% 4%
Vermont............................................ 11 61 41 57 49% 7%
Virginia........................................... 11 762 756 754 1% 1%
Washington......................................... 11 499 456 499 9% 0%
West Virginia...................................... 11 232 242 272 -4% -15%
Wisconsin.......................................... 11 555 511 537 9% 3%
Wyoming............................................ 11 110 141 106 -22% 4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Deaths are reported by state traffic authorities. ALL FIGURES ARE PRELIMINARY. To ensure proper
comparisons, 2018 and 2019 figures are preliminary figures covering the same reporting period as those for
2020. The total for 2018 is from the National Center for Health Statistics.
States in bold: States with a decrease in deaths from 2019 to 2020.

Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Ms. Martin.
Ms. Michelle Ramsey Hawkins.
Ms. Ramsey Hawkins. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman
DeFazio, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member
Davis, members of the subcommittee, for the invitation. My name
is Michelle Ramsey Hawkins, and I am honored to be here on
behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, representing millions
of victims and survivors.
I am a MADD volunteer from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. I am
also a social worker at IDEA Innovation Academy, where our
students are primarily from low-income communities of color.
One hundred percent of our students go on to college, and as a
Black woman and social worker and a mother who has suffered a
traumatic loss, I appreciate being heard.
Fair and just enforcement is crucial, and it is also
achievable. More than 10,000 people are killed every year in an
alcohol-related traffic crash, and hundreds of thousands more
are injured. MADD will not rest until drunk driving is a thing
of the past.
MADD works closely with law enforcement, supporting
officers' efforts to make our roads safer. Without traffic
safety enforcement and the deduction of police officers,
traffic fatalities and injuries increase sharply. Not one--but
two--drunk drivers changed my family's lives forever. On April
10, 2016, my children, 15-year-old Kaylee, 6-year-old Khaiden,
and 4-year-old Samuel, and I attended a party at my son
Khaiden's godfather's house.
Before we left, one of the guests promised Samuel a ride on
his motorbike the following weekend. Samuel was thrilled. As we
drove along the dark highway, Khaiden and Samuel chatted away
in the back seat, excited about being up past their bedtime. I
was unaware that up ahead, a trash compactor fell out of the
back seat of a pickup truck.
The driver had previous DUI convictions. On this night, he
was driving drunk yet again. He did not even bother to stop to
retrieve the trash compactor, which we later crashed into. I
pulled to the side of the road, I called police, and then my
parents, asking them to come pick up my kids while I waited for
help. I wanted my kids to be safe.
Meanwhile, two Good Samaritans set up orange safety
triangles to divert traffic. I remember the boys wrestling in
the grass. I remember asking my daughter to help her brothers,
instructing the boys to hold hands and stand in the grass away
from the road.
One minute, my children and I were waiting. The next
minute, I was lying on the ground, unable to move or see. I
heard my daughter's cries, but I heard nothing from my sons. I
knew they were gone. The drunk driver who plowed into the
safety triangles struck a car that struck me before running off
the road, slamming into my children and one of the Good
Samaritans.
In the ambulance, the EMT, an old high school friend, tried
to keep me from hearing that my boys had died on the scene.
Kaylee learned of the terrible truth while watching the news
from a hospital bed. The crash left her with back injuries and
nerve damage. None of us would ever be the same.
The impact of the crash damaged my sons' bodies so badly
that I never got to hold them again. Samuel's face had to be
reconstructed with clay for the funeral. While Sam never got
his motorbike ride, the sheriff's office sent out a whole fleet
for the funeral. Motorcycles could be seen for what seemed like
miles. For that, I was grateful.
For 2 years I watched the man who killed my sons and
injured three others walk free. For 2 years I went to court and
faced him. Finally, a judge sentenced him to 19 years in
prison. The repeat drunk driver who dropped the trash compactor
and set into motion the events of that night is already out of
jail.
It would be naive for my family to think that my family's
race and the race of the offenders did not play a role in what
happened after the crash. My children were Black boys. The
offenders were White men. What if it was the other way around?
Would I have been crucified in the media, accused of having my
children in the street, of being a negligent mother and somehow
responsible for their deaths?
As a Black mother, this is what I endured during the worst
moments of my life. What if I were White and the drunk drivers
were Black? Would we have had to fight so hard for so-called
justice? Would I have felt the need to explain to the world
that my beautiful boys were not just nameless statistics, but
somebodies, that Khaiden was a champion chess player who
excelled academically, and that Sam loved painting, and if you
got a picture from him, you got a Picasso? Two boys who saw no
race and everyone was their cousin.
Would I have felt the need to explain that their father is
a staff sergeant who is currently serving in the Army in
Afghanistan, or that their uncle was the first Black district
attorney for the city of Clinton, Louisiana? I should not have
to prove why my Black sons mattered, or how it feels to live
daily with inequity.
My family had the resources to work within the justice
system. We also had the support of MADD. MADD's concerned
Victims Services Specialist Valerie Cox stood with us at every
court appearance. I think about other families from communities
of color who may not have had the resources we had. How would
the system have treated them? What resources would they have
had at their disposal?
MADD understands my pain, not only as a mother who lost her
sons to drunk drivers, but as a mother of color who had to
fight extra-hard for some justice. MADD understands that
traffic safety enforcement is critical to keep drunk drivers
off the road. MADD understands and commends this committee for
support of highly visible enforcement. MADD also continues to
support law enforcement in their efforts to deter what would be
drunk drivers.
Simultaneously, MADD recognizes the need for efforts to
ensure enforcement is fair and just, and it must be paramount.
We know that there is racial and ethnic disparities in traffic
stops, and MADD commends this committee for its efforts to
address these disparities.
Fair and just enforcement is achievable but is not being
used to identify problems and solutions. Implicit bias is now
part of the dialogue. We all carry biases, normally or not,
regardless of our race and ethnicity. We are also positioned
today to eliminate drunk driving using technology.
While fair and just traffic safety enforcement remains
vital, advanced drunk driving prevention technology also
exists, and this technology has no bias. MADD is grateful for
the committee for including language in H.R. 2 last year that
calls for this technology to be standard equipment on all new
vehicles.
The promise of a day where drunk driving is----
Mr. DeFazio. Ms. Hawkins, if you could summarize.
Ms. Ramsey Hawkins. No problem. On behalf of drunk driving
victims, on behalf of my boys, allow me to leave you with two
simple messages.
First, fair and just traffic safety enforcement is
essential in every community across this Nation.
Second, drunk driving prevention technology must be adapted
as rapidly as possible.
And third, always remember victims and survivors. Thank
you.
[Ms. Ramsey Hawkins' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Michelle Ramsey Hawkins, Victim, Survivor, and
Volunteer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Good morning. Thank you Chair DeFazio, Chair Norton, Ranking Member
Graves, Ranking Member Davis and Members of the Subcommittee for the
invitation to appear before you today on an issue that is so personally
important to me and my family. My name is Michelle Ramsey Hawkins. I am
honored to be here on behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD),
representing millions of victims and survivors of drunk driving
crashes. I am an active MADD volunteer in Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
sharing my story through public speaking engagements across the state.
I am also a Social Worker at IDEA Innovation Academy with the IDEA
Public School System. Our k-12 students are primarily from low-income
communities of color. I am proud to say that one hundred percent of our
graduating seniors go on to college. As a Black woman, a Social Worker,
and as a mother who has suffered traumatic loss, I appreciate being
heard and look forward to continued collaboration with the Committee
and other stakeholders in the coming weeks and months. Fair and just
traffic safety enforcement is crucial, and as we will hear from other
witnesses today, it is also achievable.
In 2019, 10,142 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic
crashes, and hundreds of thousands more were seriously injured. For
forty years MADD has given a voice to mullions of crash victims and
their families. We have taken our collective pain and turned it into
action, with the goal of no more victims. From passage of the 21
Minimum Drinking Age Law, to the national .08 BAC standard, high
visibility enforcement campaigns, all-offender ignition interlock laws,
and the development of advanced drunk driving prevention technologies,
MADD will not rest until drunk driving is a thing of the past. We have
made tremendous progress in forty years, reducing drunk driving deaths
by over 52 percent. But the job is not done. According to the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, ``Alcohol-impaired
driving remains the deadliest and costliest danger on U.S. roads
today.'' And this profound human loss is 100 percent preventable.
I would also like to convey that MADD works closely with law
enforcement officers around the country, supporting enforcement efforts
to ensure that our roads are safe. Without traffic safety enforcement,
and the dedication of police officers, traffic fatalities and injuries
would increase exponentially.
My Story: Khaiden and Samuel
Not one--but two--drunk drivers changed my family's life forever.
On April 10, 2016, my three children--15-year-old Kaylee, 6-year-old
Khaiden, 4-year-old Samuel, and I--attended a housewarming party for
Khaiden's godbrother. Before we left that evening, one of the guests
promised Samuel a ride on his motorbike the following weekend. Samuel
was thrilled; he loved motorcycles. We said goodbye, not imagining that
for Samuel and Khaiden, there would be no next weekend.
As we drove home along a dark highway, Khaiden and Samuel chattered
away in the backseat, excited to be up past their bedtime. Their
father, a U.S. soldier, called on a flight home; he'd be back in time
to pick them up from school the next day.
The events of that night were already beginning to unfold. Up
ahead, a trash compactor fell from the back of a pickup. The driver,
who had two previous DUI convictions, was driving drunk that night,
too. He didn't bother to stop.
A minute later, we crashed into the trash compactor. I pulled to
the side of the road and got my children out of the car. I called law
enforcement and then my parents, asking them to pick up the kids while
I waited for the tow truck. I wanted them to be safe. Meanwhile, two
good Samaritans, a father and his teenage son who'd heard the initial
crash from their home, set up orange safety triangles to divert
traffic. I remember digging in my wallet for my roadside assistance
information. I remember the boys wrestling in the grass, and Samuel
complaining that Khaiden was blowing spit bubbles at him. I asked my
daughter to help with her brothers, instructing the boys to hold hands
in the grass, away from the road.
I have no memory of the second drunk driver--a man with a blood
alcohol content nearly three times the legal limit--crashing through
the safety triangles in his SUV. When I came to, I was lying on the
ground. I couldn't move or see. But I heard my daughter's cries--and
understood the absence of my sons'. They were already gone.
My daughter, Kaylee, was 10 by the time my second child, Khaiden,
came along. Kaylee was the first person to hold him, a fact she never
forgot, and she adjusted quickly to life with a baby in the house. When
Samuel--my bonus baby--arrived two years later, it was another story.
Samuel was just a few days old when I went into the kitchen to fix a
bottle. When I came back, I couldn't find him. Kaylee and Khaiden had
set him out on the patio, car seat and all. I explained to them that
they had to take care of one another. From then on, they did. Khaiden
and Samuel called each other ``brother.'' Kaylee and the boy's other
sister Haleigh were ``Sister.'' In the mornings, I sometimes found
Samuel tucked at the bottom of one of his sisters' beds. They were
incredibly close, while Kaylee, Khaiden and Sam shared a love of
basketball, Haleigh simply loved hanging out with her brothers. Khaiden
and Samuel never met a stranger. It didn't matter who you were--you
were their cousin. They were blessed with real-life superheroes: their
dad, a U.S. soldier, and my father, a veteran, who taught them how to
fish and took them on road trips.
Both boys attended the Baton Rouge Foreign Language Academic
Immersion program. After just three months, Khaiden spoke fluent
Spanish. Unbeknownst to me, my 6-year-old joined the chess club in his
afterschool program. We spent many weekends traveling to chess
tournaments; I was so proud when Khaiden placed second in his age group
in the entire state of Louisiana.
Samuel was my gentleman who always tucked in his shirt and wore a
belt. He said his glasses made him look cool like his Dad. He loved
painting and drawing. If you got a picture from Sam, you got a Picasso.
He always had a wad of bubblegum in his mouth. He was the smallest and
also the feistiest, trying to make himself louder and bigger. Samuel
wanted to play football--tackle football, not flag football. I told him
he had to wait until he turned 5. I didn't want anyone hitting my baby.
Authorities would reconstruct the events of that night: The drunk
driver who plowed through the safety triangles struck a car that then
struck me before running off the road and slamming into my 3 children
and the teenage neighbor. In the ambulance, the EMT, an old high school
friend, tried to keep me from hearing that my boys had died on the
scene. I told him I already knew. Kaylee learned the terrible truth
from the TV news that played in her hospital room. The crash had left
her with back injuries and nerve damage in her left foot. The emotional
injuries went deeper; she never played basketball again. She couldn't.
Not without her brothers. The teenager who'd come outside to help after
the crash endured more than 20 surgeries. He couldn't get his driver's
license at age 16 because he had fragments of his skull behind his
eyelids. To this day, he is not the same. None of us are.
My boys weren't nameless boys or statistics. They were Khaiden and
Samuel. They were my sons. They had just started their lives. They had
everything to live for. They were going to be somebody. Two drunk
drivers robbed them of their futures and robbed me of the closure I
needed as a mother. The impact of the crash caused so much trauma that
I never got the chance to hold them or touch them. Samuel's face had to
be reconstructed with clay; at the funeral, I could only look at their
caskets from a distance.
While Sam never got that ride on a motorbike, the sheriff's
department sent out a whole fleet for his funeral--motorcycles for what
seemed like miles. They escorted us everywhere we needed to go, and I
was so grateful for that, and for the outpouring of love for my boys. A
month after the funeral, I did what I had long promised my children--
and what doctors told me I couldn't do because of the severity of my
injuries. I walked across the stage to accept my master's degree in
social work, and I did it in heels. There was a walker waiting on the
other side, but I did it. I'd missed a lot of games and recitals
because I was in school. I owed it to Kaylee, Khaiden and Sam to see it
through.
For two years, the man who killed my sons and injured three others
walked free. For two years, I went to court and faced him and his
family. Finally, on July 26, 2018, a judge sentenced him to 19 years in
prison. The drunk driver who dropped the trash compactor and set into
motion the events of that night is already out of jail.
Racial Bias: After the Crash
It would be naive to think that my family's race, and the race of
the offenders, did not play a role in what happened after the crash.
My children were Black boys, the offenders White men. What if it
was the other way around? If I were white and my boys were white, and
the drunk drivers were Black, would I have been crucified in the
media--accused of having my children in the street that night, of being
a negligent mother and somehow responsible for their deaths? As a black
mother, that's what I endured during the worst moments of my life. The
loss and the judgement felt too much to bear.
If I were white and my boys were white, and the drunk drivers were
Black, would we have had to fight so hard for the so-called justice we
received?
Would I have felt the need to explain to the world that my
beautiful boys were somebodies? That I needed to prove their worth? To
explain that Khaiden and Samuel's father, currently serving in
Afghanistan, is a Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Army? That Khaiden and
Samuel's Uncle was the first black district attorney for the City of
Clinton, Louisiana? That another Uncle is a Senior Chief in the U.S.
Navy? That their grandfather served in Vietnam? My black boys mattered.
When my boys were taken from me, in such a senseless manner, it felt
like they didn't matter. And it felt like I had to prove that they did.
I understand what it feels like to live daily with inequities.
My family had resources to help us work within the justice system.
We also had the support of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD Victims
Services Specialist Valerie Cox stood with us at every court
appearance.
I think about other families--from communities of color--who may
not have the resources we have. How would the system have treated them?
What resources would they have had at their disposal?
MADD understands my pain, both as a mother who lost her sons to
drunk driving, and as a mother of color who had to fight extra hard for
some semblance of justice.
High Visibility Enforcement: The Most Proven Countermeasure to Combat
Drunk Driving
MADD also understands that traffic safety enforcement is critical
to keeping drunk drivers off the roads. And MADD is committed to fair
and just enforcement. MADD commends this Committee for its leadership
in creating and authorizing the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA's) high visibility enforcement program. The
program combines law enforcement efforts with efforts to publicize the
enforcement as a way to promote awareness and compliance with the law.
These efforts are proven to reduce crashes, death and injuries on our
roads. Sobriety checkpoints, saturation patrols and other high
visibility enforcement efforts should include increased publicity and
warnings to the public. Warning the public about upcoming enforcement
waves may seem counterintuitive, but in fact the purpose of the high
visibility enforcement effort is to stop people from engaging in risky
behavior in the first place. This is known as the ``general
deterrence'' effect, and it is one of the most effective
countermeasures we have in the fight against drunk driving. The more
obvious enforcement efforts are to the public, the less likely drivers
are to take illegal risks.
High visibility enforcement is designed to be conducted in
locations that are chosen based on data, sometimes identifying high-
volume and high-crash traffic areas. High-volume traffic areas assist
with the visibility of enforcement efforts, with more people seeing
these efforts--and, as a result, drivers are more likely to voluntarily
comply with traffic safety laws. Identifying ``hot spots,'' or high-
crash rate locations, is a tried and true approach to target
enforcement resources.
High visibility enforcement campaigns, such as ``Drive Sober or Get
Pulled Over'' and ``You Drink. You Drive. You Lose.'' are conducted at
the national, state and local level, and are proven to be very
effective when combined with enforcement efforts on the ground. A
significant portion of Section 402 funding is used to fund enforcement
countermeasures, including activities to support national high
visibility enforcement mobilizations. These efforts are key to saving
lives and preventing injuries on our nation's roads.
Fair and Just Traffic Safety Enforcement is Achievable
MADD will continue to support law enforcement in their efforts to
deter would-be drunk drivers. Officers are on the front lines of
traffic safety every single day. Victims and survivors have the utmost
respect for those who put their lives on the line so that others are
protected. And, tragically, the leading cause of death for police
officers killed in the line of duty is traffic crashes.
Simultaneously, MADD recognizes the need for reform. Efforts to
ensure that enforcement is fair and just must be paramount. We know
from witness testimony today that there are racial and ethnic
disparities in traffic stops. We know that Black and Hispanic drivers
are disproportionately stopped and disproportionately searched compared
to white drivers. We know that Black and Hispanic drivers are stopped
at a greater rate for equipment violations and administrative offenses
compared to white drivers. But there is little evidence to support a
claim that Black and Hispanic drivers more frequently commit these
offenses. And what is very compelling to me, a Black woman who has lost
her two Black sons in a violent, preventable traffic crash due to
illegal, deadly driving: racial and ethnic disparities are
significantly decreased when traffic enforcement is primarily focused
on hazardous driving behaviors.
We must do what we can to help foster a higher level of trust
between police agencies and the communities they serve. The stakes are
too important--the cost is too high.
The good news? Fair and just enforcement is achievable. Our
national conversation surrounding racial inequity is bringing more
stakeholders to the table. Research and hard data are now being used to
identify what the problems are, where problems exist, and what
solutions can be employed to do better. Best practices are being
identified and implemented. Organizations and individuals are
recognizing that we all must be a part of the solution. Implicit bias
is now a part of the dialogue, understanding perceptions we have as
individuals, and how we respond to the world around us based on our own
experiences. We all carry bias, whether we are aware of it or not,
regardless of our race and ethnicity. I would like to commend the
groundbreaking work of hearing witnesses Dr. Rashawn Ray and Ken
Barone. Thank you both for helping to frame these discussions, based on
research and real-world experience.
MADD commends this Committee for its leadership to address
disparities in enforcement practices. The Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2)
that passed the House in the last Congress contained numerous important
provisions to address these issues, including:
1. Section 3005: Grant program to prohibit racial profiling. These
funds go to research and implementation of research-based programs
focused on implicit bias training as it relates to racial profiling at
traffic stops. The program encourages institutions of higher education
to work collaboratively with State and local police departments. MADD
is very encouraged by results of the work Ken Barone has led in
Connecticut, with Central Connecticut State University working closely
with law enforcement agencies across the state. MADD encourages the
Committee to provide additional resources to implement best practices
across the country.
2. Section 3010: Implicit bias research and training grants. MADD
supports efforts to fund research in this area, such as the work
currently conducted by Dr. Rashawn Ray at the University of Maryland.
Dr. Ray's research is now incorporated into training police recruits,
using interactive programs to help bring about better interactions
between citizens and police officers.
3. Section 3007: National priority safety programs. Under this
section, a new component is added to the established Section 405
program called ``Driver and Officer Safety Education.'' This program
encourages States to include training for police officers and also
drivers (through DMVs) on rights, responsibilities, and best practices
during traffic stops.

MADD fully supports the above provisions, and is encouraged by the
Committee's commitment to address equity in traffic safety enforcement.
We look forward to working with Members of the Subcommittee to advance
these efforts. Traffic crash victims and survivors have a vested
interest in ensuring traffic enforcement is fair and just--because it's
the right thing to do, and so that essential traffic enforcement can
continue. A social worker, like myself, is not able to ride as a
passenger in every drunk driver's vehicle. A social worker was not able
to talk reason into the man who killed my boys, and injured me, my
daughter, and the good Samaritans who helped us. Some drivers make
illegal decisions that put others at grave risk on the roads, and law
enforcement officers are needed on the front lines, to serve and
protect the public.
Advanced Drunk Driving Prevention Technology Is Here . . . Now
We are better positioned today than ever before to eliminate risk
posed by drunk drivers. While traffic safety enforcement is the most
effective way to currently mitigate risk, advanced drunk driving
prevention technology exists now and will one day solve this public
health problem.
What if we could reduce the need for traffic safety enforcement?
What if drunk drivers were no longer able to get behind the wheel and
operate a vehicle as though it were a weapon? These questions are no
longer based on fantasy, but are now firmly rooted in reality. And
advanced drunk driving prevention technology does not notice a person's
race or ethnicity. Impairment prevention technology has no implicit
bias.
MADD is grateful to the Committee for inclusion of language modeled
after the Honoring Abbas Family Legacy to Terminate Drunk Driving
(HALT) Act in the House passed H.R. 2. Representative Debbie Dingell
led the way by proposing the groundbreaking legislation after a
devastating wrong-way drunk driving crash killed a family of five--
Isaam and Rima Abbas and their young children Ali, Isabella and
Giselle. House Energy and Commerce Chair Frank Pallone and Consumer
Protection Subcommittee Chair Jan Schakowsky helped lead efforts to
ensure passage, along with leadership of this Committee. The
legislation calls for a process that will lead to drunk driving
prevention technology as standard equipment in new vehicles.
Advanced drunk driving prevention technology is a game-changer for
MADD, giving victims and survivors a tangible, realistic expectation
for a future without drunk driving. This lifesaving technology must be
made standard equipment in all vehicles through adoption of a motor
vehicle safety standard.
A recent study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
estimates that more than 9,400 lives--about one-fourth of the current
traffic crash death total--will be saved each year when all vehicles
have advanced drunk driving prevention systems.
MADD submitted comments to a NHTSA Request for Information (RFI) on
advanced drunk driving prevention technology. We found more than 180
technologies that are currently deployed, in development, or soon to be
on the market that NHTSA must consider as part of a rulemaking process.
There are two types of passive automotive technologies that exist to
prevent drunk driving--driver monitoring and alcohol detection. These
are passive technologies that automatically gauge driver impairment, as
opposed to ignition interlocks that are installed in drunk driving
offenders' vehicles that require the motorist to actively blow into the
device. Driver monitoring can detect signs of distracted, impaired or
fatigued driving. Alcohol detection uses sensors to determine whether a
driver is under the influence of alcohol, and then prevent the vehicle
from moving.
In March 2019, Volvo announced technology that monitors for alcohol
or distracted driving impairment would be a feature on new vehicles in
the early 2020s. The Volvo system uses ``in-car cameras and other
sensors that monitor the driver and all the car to intervene if a
clearly intoxicated or distracted driver does not respond to warning
signals and is risking an accident involving serious injury or death.''
The Volvo systems detect impaired driving using the same technology
that more than 100 other driver monitoring systems use. These systems
determine a driver's state using one or a combination of the following
features: optical or infrared camera to look at the face or eyes of the
driver; seat to monitor body movement, breathing, heart rate or brain
waves; and steering wheel sensors. A video of Volvo's website describes
the technology, and various actions taken by the vehicle when
impairment is detected.

Volvo Video: https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/videos/
250162/in-car-cameras-and-intervention-against-intoxication-
distraction-animation1

Volvo Press Release: https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/
media/pressreleases/250015/volvo-cars-to-deploy-in-car-cameras-and-
intervention-against-intoxication-distraction

Additionally, Nissan had drunk driving prevention concept cars a decade
ago.
Nissan Drunk Driving Prevention Concept Car: https://www.nissan-
global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/OVERVIEW/dpcc.html

Toyota announced a drunk driving prevention system in 2007 with hopes
of having it in cars by the end of 2009. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/
wbna16449687
The Road Ahead: Dialogue, Collaboration, Growth, Action
The promise of a day without drunk driving is exciting for crash
victims and survivors. Our loved ones, however, are gone, and they
aren't coming back. MADD victims and survivors speak out and push for
change so that other families don't have to endure what we endure.
People ask me how I do it. How do you go on living after losing the
children who should have buried you? How do you stand up and talk about
it, over and over again? I went to therapy every single day. Without
it, I would have lost my mind. I cried a lot. I prayed a lot. I got
tired of people giving me a sad face, or rubbing my shoulders and my
back every time I was around them. I got tired of feeling sad and
depressed all the time. I would watch my daughter. ``Mom,'' she would
say, ``you're not going to be sad today.'' At first, I didn't
understand it. Now I do. I want to be a survivor. Not a victim. I want
to fight back. For Khaiden and Samuel. If not their mother, then who?
On behalf of drunk driving victims and survivors, on behalf of my
boys: traffic safety enforcement is essential to ensuring safety on our
roads, AND enforcement must be fair and just. Identifying best
practices and providing resources to encourage growth and change in
every community across the country, will serve us all.
I thank the Committee for inviting me to speak on behalf of crash
victims and survivors. It is my hope that by sharing my story I can
help to prevent other senseless tragedies from happening to other
families. I stand with MADD and the Committee in full support of
continued research and effective program development to end racial
inequities in enforcement. These crucial efforts, while challenging for
all involved, encourage essential dialogue and collaboration--with the
promise and hope of healing for communities of color and law
enforcement, and us all.

Mr. DeFazio. Thank you for that testimony. I know it is not
easy to talk about such a tragedy, so thank you.
Mr. Ken Barone.
Mr. Barone. Good morning. Chair DeFazio, Chair Norton,
Ranking Member Davis, and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is
Ken Barone, and I am the manager of the State of Connecticut's
Racial Profiling Prohibition Project.
My testimony today will focus on the benefits that the
section 1906 racial profiling prohibition grant program has had
on Connecticut's ability to address both equity and safety in
traffic enforcement, and the value of expanding the funding to
allow for even greater progress in eliminating racial profiling
in traffic enforcement while also working to improve the safety
of our roadways.
Traffic stops are the most common encounter between law
enforcement and the public. Understanding these routine
interactions requires States to move beyond anecdotal
conversations and to develop robust data collection and
analysis programs.
Connecticut first enacted an antiracial profiling law in
1999. However, until resources were provided through the
section 1906 program, Connecticut struggled to properly
implement the law. With the support of the section 1906 grant
program, we have developed a state-of-the-art data collection
and analysis system. To date, we have collected over 91 million
data points from more than 3\1/2\ million traffic stops.
Beyond simply collecting data, we have also conducted
meaningful statewide and departmental analysis over the last 6
years. Our analysis is designed to identify both statewide
trends and those departments with the most significant racial
and ethnic disparities. Rather than treating the analysis as
evidence of wrongdoing, we utilize the analysis as an early
intervention system. This approach allows us to focus our
limited resources on those departments that have the most
significant racial and ethnic disparities.
Departmental interventions are designed to be a
collaboration between researchers, the law enforcement agency,
and community stakeholders. These departmental interventions
have produced important, actionable findings that departments
have used to enact positive change. Since 2015, Connecticut's
statewide analysis has consistently identified some of the
trends.
Black and Hispanic drivers are disproportionally stopped
and disproportionally searched when compared to White drivers.
Police are significantly less likely to find contraband
resulting from a search involving a Black or Hispanic driver.
Black and Hispanic drivers are stopped at a greater rate
for equipment violations and other administrative offenses when
compared to White drivers. However, there is little evidence to
support a claim that Black and Hispanic drivers more frequently
commit these offenses.
Racial and ethnic disparities are significantly decreased
when traffic enforcement is primarily focused on hazardous
driving behaviors.
Although the primary motivation behind our work has been to
identify and address racial and ethnic disparities in traffic
enforcement, an added benefit to the program has been the
accumulation of a rich data set that can inform researchers,
practitioners, and transportation and law enforcement
administrators about the enforcement techniques that are most
effective in improving roadway safety.
I want to be very clear. Our program has consistently shown
that it is possible to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities
in traffic enforcement and improve roadway safety at the same
time.
The section 1906 program has been critical to our success
in Connecticut. It has allowed our State to dive headfirst into
an emotional and often traumatic conversation and create
meaningful and measurable reform by positively addressing both
equity and safety in traffic enforcement, all with stakeholders
at the helm. We are proud that in recent years, our approach
has been replicated in at least three other States, including
California, Oregon, and Rhode Island.
I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to
mention the important role that State departments of
transportation play in administering this grant program. We are
grateful for the continued support of the Connecticut
Department of Transportation.
In closing, I ask that you strongly consider the
reauthorization and expansion of the section 1906 program so
that Connecticut and other States can continue to make progress
on racial equity in traffic enforcement.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[Mr. Barone's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Ken Barone, Project Manager, Institute for
Municipal and Regional Policy, Central Connecticut State University
Chair DeFazio, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member
Davis, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today as the committee examines equity in
transportation safety and considers reauthorization of the section 1906
Racial Profiling Prohibition grants. My name is Ken Barone, and I am
the manager of the State of Connecticut's Racial Profiling Prohibition
Project. My testimony today will focus on the benefits that the section
1906 program has had on Connecticut's ability to address both equity
and safety in traffic enforcement, its efficacy for use in other
jurisdictions, and the value of expanding the funding to allow for even
greater progress in eliminating racial profiling in traffic enforcement
nationwide.
Disparities in the criminal justice system, particularly police
enforcement, have been a major source of political protest and social
unrest in the United States. Motor vehicle enforcement is a common
focus of these conversations since it is the public's most frequent
interaction with law enforcement. There is broad consensus in the value
of addressing these concerns, however there is often difficulty in
moving concerns to achievable and measurable action. Understanding
these interactions between law enforcement and the public requires
states to move beyond anecdotal conversations and develop robust data
collection and analysis programs. When married with dialogues centered
around the data, real and measured reform is possible.
Since 2006, at least 24 states have received funding through the
section 1906 program to develop data collection and analysis systems.
Connecticut's novel approach to collecting and analyzing traffic stop
data for evidence of discrimination is widely considered to be a
national model and has only been possible because of federal funds
available to our state through the section 1906 program and a strong
partnership with the Connecticut Department of Transportation. In
recent years, Connecticut's model has been replicated in at least three
other states including California, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Our goal
is to eliminate racial profiling, use data to improve roadway safety,
and increase trust between law enforcement and the communities they
serve. In light on the continued social unrest in the United States,
the section 1906 program is more vital than ever. Reauthorization and
expansion of the program will allow states like Connecticut to build
upon our success and continue to work towards a more fair and just
society.
The Connecticut Model
Connecticut first enacted an anti-racial profiling law in 1999.
After developing a system for paper-based reporting, the state invested
in two data analysis reports produced under the purview of the Office
of the Chief State's Attorney. Shortly after the publication of the
second report, the state moved oversight to the legislative African
American Affairs Commission. No reports were subsequently produced, and
as of 2011 only 27 of the approximately 92 law enforcement agencies
were still collecting and submitting the required data.
A well-publicized 2011 case of police profiling in East Haven, CT
renewed public and legislative attention to the efficacy of the state's
existing racial profiling law. Legislators responded by strengthening
the state law, which had largely been ignored since a few years after
its initial passage in 1999. The new law allowed for the creation of a
robust system for evaluating and addressing concerns about racial
profiling. Another important element was the statutory establishment of
a 20-member advisory board to help with the development,
implementation, and oversight of the new law. Advisory board members
consist of advocates, law enforcement administrators, academics,
policymakers, and community members. The board has continually worked
to create an efficient data collection system, centralized traffic stop
repository, and a rigorous analytical process. In the midst of these
changes, the Connecticut Department of Transportation applied for 1906
funds to bring the necessary resources to fully implement the new law.
The first phase of the process involved development of an
electronic data collection system. The task was to design an electronic
system that was both not overly burdensome to police and yet capable of
providing critical information to the public on an annual basis.
Connecticut was able to develop a system to collect universal traffic
stop data that could be submitted electronically on a monthly basis.
The system currently captures 26 data points from Connecticut's roughly
600,000 annual traffic stops. To date, the system contains
approximately 91 million data points from 3.5 million traffic stops.
Electronically collecting meaningful data from more than 100 police
agencies in a timely manner was a major first step towards achieving
our goals.
Once the data collection system was established, we quickly turned
our attention to the second phase of the process, which involved the
development of a thoughtful analytical system. Unique to Connecticut's
approach is the application of multiple statistical tests for
ascertaining the presence of racial and ethnic disparities. The idea
behind using more than one test to identify discrimination was an
insight made by members of the advisory board after observing that most
other states typically choose a single method for evaluating
disparities. The board observed that this choice often divided
stakeholders when one group did not agree with the results or
assumptions of a particular test, therefor sowing doubt as to whether
racial disparities exist or not. Such an approach to analyzing traffic
stop records only served to further fracture the distrust between law
enforcement and communities of color. The use of multiple tests in
Connecticut is designed to serve as a screening tool by which
stakeholders could then focus attention to those departments displaying
the greatest level of disparity. Colloquially, we refer to this as the
``preponderance of the evidence'' approach since disparities are
identified across a number of different dimensions including the
decision to stop a motorist, the outcome of the stop, and the decision
to search a motorist/vehicle.
The next stage in the Connecticut model is also unique to statewide
traffic stop data analysis and requires a detailed exploration of
jurisdiction specific information to better understand an identified
department's disparities. In my experience, municipal police agencies
are limited in their capacity to comprehensively analyze the factors
that contribute to their racial and ethnic disparities. Researchers
that simply point out racial and ethnic disparities can unintentionally
contribute to a further divide between law enforcement and the
communities they serve. Rather than treating our statistical analysis
as evidence of wrongdoing, researchers and policymakers utilized the
annual report as an early warning system that begins, rather than ends,
an ongoing and data-driven conversation. Departments identified in the
annual report partner with researchers for a comprehensive follow-up
intervention, which involves a deeper dive into their data in an effort
to identify specific policies and enforcement activities driving the
disparities. This phase of the process includes a quantitative and
qualitative analysis at the department and individual officer level. In
Connecticut, the goal is to collaborate with police and the advocacy
community to develop practical solutions.
As the final phase of the analytical process, stakeholders and
community members are invited into the process and encouraged to engage
in a dialogue with policing administrators and local elected officials.
In cases when there has been a particular stakeholder or advocacy group
with concerns about an identified department, they have been invited to
participate in the process at an earlier stage. Following the
conclusion of the in-depth analysis, researchers and the advisory board
will host a community forum in the identified communities. The forums
include a presentation of the research team's findings, a discussion
with policing administrators and a period for public comment/question.
Upon request, the research team has also made presentations to city or
town councils. By the time the research team hosts these community
forums, we have already identified the factors believed to be
contributing to the disparity. These factors typically fall into two
categories: 1) specific enforcement patterns or 2) (infrequently)
individualized actions by subsets of officers. During the forum, the
research team outlines an independent set of recommendations for
reforms and allows the public and stakeholders to provide input as to
their efficacy. Ultimately, the decision to enact the recommended
reforms is left to the community and policing administrators. However,
the value added of this approach is that it allows for a transparent
data-driven dialogue between stakeholders and policing administrators
about how specific enforcement policies contribute to observed patterns
of disparity.
The Connecticut model provides a streamlined framework for
identifying disparities and then using this information to hold data-
driven conversation between stakeholders in an effort to enact
interventions to mitigate future disparities. All or part of the
Connecticut model has recently been adopted by the States of Rhode
Island, Oregon, and California. Continued federal funding would not
only allow Connecticut to maintain its state-of-the-art program, but
also to expand upon its success. Additionally, as has been shown, the
Connecticut model provides a proven framework for developing a
streamlined state-level system to mitigate disparities in policing that
can be easily replicated in other states.
Highlights from Connecticut's Annual Analysis
Since 2015, Connecticut has produced five annual reports which
analyze racial disparities in traffic stops submitted by 107 law
enforcement agencies. The analysis has consistently identified these
trends in the data:
1. There are statistically significant racial and ethnic
disparities in traffic stops.
2. Black and Hispanic drivers are disproportionately stopped and
disproportionately searched compared to White drivers.
3. Police are significantly less likely to find contraband
resulting from a search involving a Black or Hispanic driver.
4. Black and Hispanic drivers are stopped at a greater rate for
equipment violations and administrative offenses compared to White
drivers. However, there is little evidence to support a claim that
Black and Hispanic drivers more frequently commit these offenses.
5. Racial and ethnic disparities are significantly decreased when
traffic enforcement is primarily focused on hazardous driving
behaviors, such as speed related, distracted driving, stop sign,
traffic control signal, or other types of moving violations.

Although the primary motivation behind our work has been to
identify and address racial and ethnic disparities in traffic
enforcement, an added benefit to the program has been the accumulation
of a rich dataset that can inform researchers, practitioners, and
transportation and law enforcement administrators about the enforcement
techniques that are most effective in improving roadway safety. Our
research has been able to substantially contribute to the ongoing
conversation about traffic safety in Connecticut.
In Connecticut we have found that racial and ethnic disparities in
traffic enforcement have largely been driven by police enforcement of
lower level equipment and administrative violations. As part of the
Connecticut law, police are required to report the reason for stopping
a motor vehicle. There are hundreds of individual motor vehicle
statutes but stops can generally be aggregated into one of three broad
categories: (1) safety related, (2) equipment related, or (3)
administrative related offenses. As previously noted, our annual
traffic stop assessment has consistently found that racial and ethnic
disparities are significantly decreased when law enforcement primarily
focuses on safety-related violations. We also know that safety-related
motor vehicle violations are significantly more likely to be a
contributing factor in motor vehicle crashes. On the other hand, racial
and ethnic disparities are greatest when law enforcement focuses more
on equipment and administrative offenses. Although legitimate reasons
may exist for the enforcement of these violations, we cannot ignore
that on balance they disproportionately impact Black and Hispanic
drivers. Additionally, when police spend their time pulling over
drivers for relatively minor traffic violations, they are committing
resources that then cannot be used for other activities that may have a
greater impact on public safety.
There is a commonly held belief that disparities in equipment and
administrative offenses occur more frequently in the Black and Hispanic
community due to socioeconomic factors rather than police enforcement
decisions. Although socioeconomic factors may play a role in such
violations, there is evidence that police officers are more likely to
enforce equipment and administrative violations in areas with higher
Black and Hispanic populations or where Black and Hispanic drivers are
more likely to be traveling. This is taken in combination with the fact
that police presence is also greater in these areas due to resource
allocation decisions that follow factors such as crime, calls for
service and accidents. In Connecticut, when testing this theory, we
have found that when police enforce these laws in areas with greater
White populations, the racial composition of violators reflects that.
While Connecticut data shows that Black and Hispanic drivers are
proportionally stopped at a higher rate for all types of traffic
violations than White drivers, the disparity is most significant for
equipment and administrative offenses. Within their respective
demographic groups, Black drivers are almost twice as likely and
Hispanic drivers are 1.5 times more likely to be stopped for an
equipment-related violation compared to White drivers. The disparity is
slightly less pronounced for administrative offenses. Within their
respective demographic groups, Black drivers are 1.2 times and Hispanic
drivers are 1.3 times more likely to be stopped for an administrative
offense compared to White drivers.
Examples of Successful Interventions
Continuous statewide analysis is important for understanding
trends; equally, if not more, significant is recognizing how targeted
departmental interventions drive those trends. Since 2015, Connecticut
has conducted interventions for 28 municipal police departments
identified as having a disparity in the annual report. The in-depth
analysis allows researchers to focus on the unique attributes of
specific subsection of a community where enforcement is targeted. Some
of the factors identified in Connecticut as contributing to potential
disparities for specific towns include locations of accidents, high
calls for service, DUI enforcement, crime rates, and retail and
entertainment. Researchers also conduct a more comprehensive post-stop
data review to examine disparities in stop outcomes, searches and hit
rates, and reasons for stops. The final piece of the in-depth analysis
moves beyond examining disparities at the department level and examines
individual officer information. The officer-level results are only
shared with law enforcement administrators who review the findings in
conjunction with additional officer information not available to
researchers. These interventions have produced important actionable
findings that departments have used to enact positive change.
The first example I would like to share is about disparities found
in a predominantly White suburban community outside of the city of New
Haven, CT, with a police department of approximately 106 officers. In
that particular department, Police enforcement was largely focused in
the one neighborhood with a high percentage of Black residents. The
data showed that this neighborhood had more calls for service and a
higher crime rate relative to the rest of the community. The
department's crime reduction strategy involved an elevated level of
traffic enforcement in this area in an attempt to address these issues.
Officers would primarily stop cars for low-level equipment and
administrative offenses and request consent to search the vehicle. In
particular, 22% of drivers were stopped for equipment violations and
18% for administrative offenses relative to 12% and 9% statewide,
respectively. Notably, this strategy was not implemented elsewhere in
the community. Based on the traffic stop data, illegal contraband was
rarely found in these searches (less than 7% of the time) and drivers
were frequently given warnings rather than tickets for the motivating
infractions. In addition, there was little empirical evidence that
these enforcement measures were having any effect on the areas elevated
crime rate.
Researchers and community stakeholders engaged the police
administration in dialogue about alternative crime reduction tools.
Following these conversations, the Chief enacted the following
policies: (1) traffic enforcement should be narrowly focused on
hazardous driving behaviors, (2) officers should cease consent
searches, and (3) officers should implement alternative methods for
interacting with the community. A year after implementing these
changes, equipment and administrative offenses fell considerably (6%
and 9%, respectively) as did consent searches. The department reported
that these changes coincided with a falling crime rate (5%) and
decreased rate of accidents (10%). Police searches were more successful
at finding contraband, that is, a 63-percentage point increase, and the
department ceased to be identified as having a disparity in subsequent
annual analyses.
Another success story comes from a small urban police department
that had been attempting to address a statewide increase in
unregistered motor vehicles. The department began deploying license
plate reader technology to identify and target drivers of such
vehicles. During the follow-up intervention, researchers identified
this specific enforcement activity as being the largest contributor to
the department's observed disparity. The underlying belief from police
administrators was that poverty was the true culprit of this disparity
due to increases in the state's registration fees. Thus, most of this
enforcement activity was concentrated in lowest income neighborhoods
where residents were largely Hispanic. Researchers used the
department's geographically mapped traffic stop data to demonstrate
that this enforcement activity was the driver of their disparity and
that registration violations were actually being found at similar rates
in many other areas of their community. As a result of the
intervention, the department employed a more broad-based and equitable
deployment of their license plate readers that helped to mitigate the
disparity in the proceeding years. This department's high search rate
and observed disparities in stop outcomes were significantly reduced
and this department was not identified in any subsequent reports
following the intervention.
A third success story comes from a suburban community located
outside of Connecticut's capital city of Hartford. During the
intervention, researchers identified that defective lighting violations
were a primary driver of the department's disparity. In fact, nearly
40% of the traffic stops in this department were for a defective
lighting violation. In discussions with the department, police
administrators attributed the lighting violations to a roving DUI
patrol largely enacted based on concerns about college students from a
local university. Researchers presented these administrators with data
suggesting only one of the 1,608 traffic stops made for defective
lighting violations that year had actually resulted in the driver being
charged with a DUI. In fact, drivers had been significantly more likely
to be charged with a DUI offense when stopped for speeding violations.
As a result of the intervention, the department altered their DUI
strategy and reduced the use of defective lighting violations as a
reason to stop cars, specifically to look for drunk drivers. The
department went from 1,608 defective lighting stops during the study
period to 671 in the year following the intervention. This new approach
resulted in both more effective enforcement and mitigated the disparity
in subsequent years. Since the disparity was largely driven by a
disproportionate number of minorities stopped for defective lighting,
the observed disparity was significantly reduced, and they were not
identified in subsequent reports following the intervention.
These examples highlight the benefits of Connecticut's hands-on
approach for identifying the underlying drivers of disparities and
finding strategies to help mitigate it. Engaging stakeholders
throughout the intervention process has allowed racial and ethnic
minority advocates, law enforcement, academics, and government
officials to come together in ways unimaginable even a decade ago. What
previously had been a war of anecdotes has been transformed into a
constructive data-driven conversation about policy. Stakeholders and
policing administrators now regularly attend panel conversations around
the state and speak in similar tones about the statewide effort. The
vitriol is gone from most conversations and has been replaced by a
focus on what more can be done.
Conclusion
The section 1906 program has been critical to the success of the
Connecticut model. It has allowed our state to dive headfirst into an
emotional, and often traumatic, conversation and create meaningful and
measurable reform by positively addressing both equity and safety in
traffic enforcement--all with the stakeholders at the helm. We are
eager to share our experience in Connecticut with other states looking
to best utilize future program funds and stand prepared to assist any
other state looking to develop similar programs.
We urge the reauthorization of the section 1906 program so that
Connecticut can continue to make progress on racial equity in traffic
enforcement while also improving traffic safety. I would also ask that
you consider providing additional baseline resources to both ensure
that any new state considering adoption of this program can meet
today's challenges and to allow current states utilizing the program to
advance the progress made in recent years. Additionally, I ask that you
consider expanding the use of program funds beyond data collection and
analysis efforts--much in the spirit of the original 1906 funding
parameters. States would benefit from the ability to provide relevant
police training, community engagement/outreach initiatives, and the
collection and analysis of other state specific data, such as
pedestrian stops, bicycle stops, and community satisfaction surveys.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our experience and I look
forward to working with the committee as it considers the
reauthorization of this program.

Ms. Norton [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Barone. In
fact, your program is of special interest to me since my bill
established the section 1906 program.
I want to call on the last witness, Dr. Rashawn Ray,
professor of sociology, University of Maryland.
Mr. Ray. Chair Norton, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Davis,
distinguished members of the committee, in particular
Representative Brown, thank you for the opportunity. We have
heard a lot about the disparities that exist in traffic stops.
I want to talk about our virtual reality program to improve
equity and objectivity in policing at traffic stops.
As you see here, there is an image of an officer in our
lab.
[Slides shown.]
Mr. Ray. We put officers in a virtual reality environment
where they encounter the sort of scenarios that they do every
single day, traffic stops, but other types of programs.
We have four major objectives: to improve decisionmaking
and reduce bias; evaluate how stress, sleep, and travel affect
judgment and behavior--these are factors that are oftentimes
underemphasized, but our research in the lab for applied social
science research at the University of Maryland suggests that
they matter quite a bit; provide tools and metrics to improve
interpersonal dynamics and cross-cultural awareness, and then
offer recommendations from our research that can reduce
conflict and misunderstanding.
We have developed over 100 virtual reality scenarios:
suspicious person scenes, domestic scenes, robbery scenes. But
I am going to double down on focusing on pullover scenes in
traffic stops for the purposes of this hearing.
Officers encounter people that vary by race, by gender, by
language. We went out with law enforcement in the State of
Maryland; you can see here officers showing us where they
stand. You see a police car in the back as if he pulled someone
over. You see that there is traffic going by on a busy street--
really, mimicking the sort of scenarios that they go through.
When officers go into the VR and they pull someone over,
they are given a series of prompts. Those prompts ask them, do
they want to run a driver's license? If they say yes, they see
a series of additional prompts talking about, do you want to
dismiss the driver with a warning? Do you want to give a
citation? Do you want to investigate further?
When they investigate further, they are able to look into
the vehicle. They find some marijuana residue. And then they
are asked what they want to do again. You can see on the left
that they encounter individuals of different racial
backgrounds. We do the same thing for gender and language as
well. They wear the same thing. You see the officer at the
bottom going through it.
And we collect a host of information, not only their
behavior and their decisionmaking, but also the participants'
physiological outcomes, which I will say something about in a
second; their attitudes; their demographics; the virtual
reality actor demographics; and then the setting. Are they in a
rural area? In an urban area? Is it busy, or is it not?
As you see here, we are taking officers through the virtual
reality. You see a series of metrics that I will talk about in
a second that allow us to get beyond just the way we might
think about the way that police officers behave, and actually
explain why they are behaving the way they do.
So we can collect information on weapon reaction time, so
the way that officers are actually responding in the moment. We
put little sensors on replica weapons. We outfit them to
specific departments. We know when officers pull their weapon,
when they shoot the trigger, when they put it back in their
holster. You can see the data blown up on the right side.
We can also track their eyes. We know exactly where they
are looking at. Anyone who is a law enforcement officer knows
that when they approach a vehicle, they are looking in the
vehicle. They are looking behind it. There is research
suggesting that they are more likely to look in the vehicle for
certain people, less likely for others. This becomes an
important training tool.
We can also examine a police officer's heart rate. We put
heart rate monitors on them. We can examine their heart rate,
as you see in this example. Officer CP starts out interacting
with someone. Heart rate is on the Y axis on the left. The
seconds is on the bottom. As he starts talking, his heart rate
increases because what the person is doing in this particular
scenario has led to that increase. And that could also impact
the officer's judgment.
We are able to compare some of these outcomes. So for
example, we could compare less experienced officers to more
experienced officers. More experienced officers tend to be more
stable, less stress, similar heart rates throughout, helping
them to make better decisions.
We can also examine their stress through speech. We put
their audio through a voice machine, and that tells us how
stressed officers might be.
And then finally, we give officers a police report to fill
out. But look. Instead of me just telling you this, I think one
of the best things to do is to show you. What you are going to
see is a brief demo showing you what it looks like when
officers go through the virtual reality program. You will see
an officer first going through what it looks like in our lab,
and then also something that is extremely innovative, which is
how we move beyond just working with officers in the lab to
help local police departments end up being able to interact
with people in person in a setting, say, with high school
students in a school.
So as we are pulling this up, part of what you will see is
the officer reacting. You will not be able to hear it; I will
narrate it through. But you will be able to see the officer
reacting in that moment with the goggles on. This is an officer
from the Midwest.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Ray. You can see that he is talking to someone, that he
is telling someone to move. He is giving directions. So they
are fully immersed in a 360-degree environment. But as I said,
one of the biggest innovations as well--it is not just our
ability to take the data, but to work with local communities to
improve police/community relationships.
We go into schools, work with local police departments. You
see this officer here with a traffic stop. We bring up an
officer and students up at the same exact time. They go through
the same scenario. You see the officer interacting with the
person on the screen. You see he is having a conversation with
her.
You will see in a second additional prompts pop up. And
part of what it is doing is asking the same questions that I
just showed you on the graph about what decisions that he wants
to make. Does he want to run the license? He runs the license;
it comes back suspended. He is asked to do additional things.
What this officer chose to do was to allow someone to come and
get the driver and also get the vehicle if they have a valid
driver's license. Other officers might choose to make different
decisions.
We then break students up in groups with police officers
and community members to have conversations about what is going
on. One of the most powerful things was a student who said that
he had never had a normal conversation with a police officer
before that day.
Our program is not only built to go across the country,
which we have done in some regards, but it also helps to
improve police/community relations.
So thank you for your time, and I look forward to the
questions.
[Mr. Ray's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Rashawn Ray, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology,
University of Maryland; Executive Director, Lab for Applied Social
Science Research, and Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Chair Norton and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, thank you for inviting me to testify in ``Examining
Equity in Transportation Safety Enforcement'' regarding the ``Bias in
Automobile Stops Act of 2021.''
I am also a Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland
and the Executive Director of the Lab for Applied Social Science
Research (LASSR). I am also a David M. Rubenstein Fellow at The
Brookings Institution. LASSR is a research center that regularly
partners with government agencies, organizations, and corporations to
conduct objective research evaluations and develop innovative research
products such as our virtual reality program with law enforcement and
incarcerated people.
I believe this legislation introduced by Congressman Anthony Brown
to establish an implicit bias program in vitality important. My written
testimony centers on how the virtual reality program we developed in
collaboration with law enforcement and computer scientists can reduce
bias, train officers better, and help them and the civilians they
encounter get home to their loved ones safely.
Research on Bias and Use of Force in Policing
Research shows disparities in traffic stops and police use of
force. In a comprehensive analysis of 20 states, Pierson and colleagues
(2017) found Black and Latino drivers were more likely to be ticketed,
searched, and arrested than White drivers. Research and policy makers
have pursued ways to explain and reduce gaps, with many pointing to
implicit bias as a key driver in these disparities. I believe that our
virtual reality program is the answer and is prime to be the present
and future of police training.
Virtual Reality Program for Law Enforcement
Since 2017, LASSR has developed over 100 virtual reality scenarios,
trained and worked with over 2,000 police officers in large, midsized,
and small departments across the country to develop and implement our
virtual reality decision-making program for law enforcement. We also
have hosted over 100 government officials including the Department of
Homeland Security and had hundreds of students participate in our
simulations to further improve its optimization. We have received
funding from private corporations to further enhance our technological
capabilities.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Merging social science with computer science and housed in the
College of Behavioral and Social Sciences (BSOS) and the Department of
Sociology at the University of Maryland, this program provides a
platform to evaluate decision-making in an immersive virtual reality
environment. We created tactical and social simulations that are used
for law enforcement training.
Major objectives include:
Improving objective decision making and reduce bias
Evaluating how stress, sleep, and travel affect judgment
and behavior
Providing tools and metrics to improve interpersonal
dynamics and cross-cultural awareness
Offering recommendations for future training to reduce
conflict and misunderstanding

Logistically, we have a virtual reality lab in the Department of
Sociology with ample space for officers to move around and interact
with the program. For departments outside of the DC region, we fly
groups of officers to our lab or take our mobile program to
departments. We train training officers on how to use the program,
provide logistical and software support, and conduct statistical
analysis and report back outcomes to the department. We also have set
costs for the software, equipment, and training based on the needs of
law enforcement agencies.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Collectively, our statistical tools allow us to integrate the
following factors to determine what most influences decision-making
behavior while in the field:
Participants' physiological outcomes
Participants' attitudes
Participants' demographics
Virtual reality actor demographics
Environment and setting of virtual reality scenarios
Virtual Reality Simulations
We developed virtual reality simulations that focus on traffic
stops, suspicious person scenarios, domestic incidents, and robberies.
Our virtual reality program immerses police officers with a 360-degree
first-person view of several interactive policing scenarios. One of our
primary scenarios entails officers interacting with drivers during
routine traffic stops.
Officers are instructed to talk to the drivers and make decisions
about whether or not to charge them with infractions. Scenarios evolve
based on officers' choices. For example, during the traffic stop,
officers can choose to run information about a civilian's license. If
the license is suspended, the civilian will react to this information
and discuss it with the officer. In some of the scenarios, there is
drug paraphernalia in the car. In this regard, officers have the
ability to search the vehicle and even arrest the driver.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

One unique aspect of our virtual reality program is the ability to
vary the setting and driver. Our scenarios occur in urban, suburban,
and rural settings to better capture the experiences that police
officers have depending on geography. The virtual reality program also
varies the race and gender of the driver. Some of the scenarios also
have accents (French, West African, or Spanish) with the same driver
acting with an accent and acting without an accent. These variations
allow for a research analysis that can determine how the setting and/or
driver demographics may matter during traffic stops.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Most importantly, our scenarios mimic actual police encounters in a
safe environment that allow police officers the ability to practice and
get better. Rarely do police officers have the ability to simulate
mundane encounters that occur regularly. Our program overcomes these
training limitations. We also audio and video record participants
during the simulations. In this regard, trained supervisors can review
scenarios with participants in order to evaluate performance and to
improve decision-making.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

By recording what officers say and what decisions they make, we
will not only test whether setting or demographics impact officers'
decisions, but how officers interact with civilians. Most importantly,
we can test officer decisions at several points during the encounter.
In the scenario shown above, officers make decisions at up to three
points: running the driver's license, searching the vehicle, and the
outcome of the stop. At each point, we record the severity of officers'
actions and code the level of respect used in their responses based on
audio (Voigt et al., 2017).
Attitudinal and Physiological Measures
Upgrading traditional shoot/don't shoot scenarios, our virtual
reality scenarios measure escalation/de-escalation, heart rate, stress
through speech, eye movement, body movement, and the speed at which an
officer reaches for a replica weapon. We also ask officers about their
sleep, work, and eating habits. We analyze data, present findings, and
write reports for police departments. The objective metrics we examine
have the potential to provide training staff with information to help
officers optimize their performance while in the field.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Officers Receiving Feedback

One innovation of our virtual reality program's ability to measure
and evaluate physiological responses. Our program includes five
outcomes important to the public safety community: heart rate, stress
as indicated in speech, eye tracking, body movement, and weapon
tracking. Physiological data are linked to the stimuli so we can
determine the exact point in time at which participants experience
stress, what information they are attending to, and when they use force
in a tactical situation. We can also measure what participants say, the
tone and tempo of their speech, deference terms used in speech, and
distance from the virtual reality character (a proxy for approach-
avoidance tendencies). Participants also complete an attitudinal survey
that allows us to examine the impact that attitudes have on decision-
making behaviors. Additionally, a post-simulation debriefing asks
participants questions about what they did during the interaction to
further hone in on decision making and training goals.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Computer Program that Measures Stress through Speech

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Fitbits that Measure Heart Rate down to the millisecond

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Trackers placed on replica weapons that allow for tracking body
movement

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Eye Tracking

While public attention towards police-civilian interactions has
tended to focus on high-profile cases like fatal shootings, less
commonly examined are more routine interactions civilians have with
police (i.e., traffic stops). Civilians from racial and ethnic
minorities feel officers are less respectful to them during these
interactions (Engel, 2005; Lundman & Kaufman, 2006). This may
contribute to decreased trust in law enforcement among Black and Latino
Americans compared to White Americans (Morin & Stepler, 2016; Ong &
Jenks, 2004; Skogan, 2006; Tyler, 2005). This loss of trust has serious
implications; civilians who doubt the legitimacy of law enforcement are
less likely to obey the law (Tyler, 2006).
We focus on officer respect and discretionary behavior during
traffic stops, as these interactions represent the only contact many
people have with law enforcement (Eith & Durose, 2011; Langton &
Durose, 2013). This makes them particularly consequential. Each
incident represents an opportunity to bolster or undermine trust in law
enforcement. Officers have discretion in these situations to pursue
actions with more or less severe consequences for civilians (McCartney
& Parent, 2015; Lipsky, 2010). For example, an officer who pulls over a
civilian for driving over the speed limit might lawfully give the
civilian a verbal warning, a written warning, or a citation. What
option the officer chooses is up to their discretion. Discretion is not
inherently problematic and is in fact necessary to prevent the criminal
justice system from being overwhelmed with minor crimes (McCartney &
Parent, 2015). Problems arise when officers (unintentionally or not)
apply discretion and respect differently across groups (Ridgeway,
2006).
Organizational Capacity and Administrative Structure
LASSR is at the forefront of cutting-edge social science research
that links to technological innovations like virtual reality in order
to make research more applied and palpable. LASSR has three spaces: a
conference suite and two lab spaces including five private, virtual
reality rooms and a large virtual reality suite outfitted for
interactive and movable virtual reality simulations. addition to
facilitating the design and relevancy of social science research by
forging connections with policy makers, organizations, corporations and
local communities, LASSR provides trainings and teaching modules for
continuing education and upgrading existing programs and organizations.
LASSR provides dissemination plans for programmatic expansion and
community outreach and has the capacity to conduct large-scale
quantitative studies, focused experiments, and smaller qualitative,
interview-based studies. LASSR produces evaluations and strategies for
highlighting successes and addressing shortcomings.
LASSR's administrative structure includes an Executive Director,
Lab Coordinator, Postdoctoral Fellows, Graduate Research Assistants,
Undergraduate Research Assistants, and Law Enforcement Consultants.
LASSR has Faculty Affiliates in the University of Maryland system that
span from computer science to public health. LASSR collaborates with a
series of policy and community partners including elected officials,
policy makers, community, health, and education organizations, and
police departments. LASSR is housed in the Department of Sociology in
the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of
Maryland. We can be contacted at LASSR@umd.edu.
Bibliography
Aldrete, G. (2004). Latino Immigrant Perceptions about the U.S. Police:
An Exploratory Study. (Unpublished master's thesis). University
of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE.
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police
body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens' complaints
against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 31, 509-535.
Burns, P., & Gimpel, J. G. (2000). Economic insecurity, prejudicial
stereotypes, and public opinion on immigration policy.
Political Science Quarterly, 115, 201-225.
Berg, J. A. (2009). Core networks and whites' attitudes toward
immigrants and immigration policy. Public Opinion Quarterly,
73, 7-31.
Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., Wittenbrink, B., Sadler, M. S., &
Keesee, T. (2007). Across the thin blue line: Police officers
and racial bias in the decision to shoot. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1006-1023.
Dai, M., Frank, J., & Sun, I. (2011). Procedural justice during police-
citizen encounters: The effects of process-based policing on
citizen compliance and demeanor. Journal of Criminal Justice,
39, 159-168.
Eith, C., Durose, M. (2011). Contacts between police and the public,
2008 (NCJ 234599). Special report prepared by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics. Washington, DC.
James, L., James, S. M., & Vila, B. J. (2016). The Reverse Racism
Effect: Are cops more hesitant to shoot Black than White
suspects?. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 457-479.
Jennings, W. G., Fridell, L. A., & Lynch, M. D. (2014). Cops and
cameras: Officer perceptions of the use of body-worn cameras in
law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 549-556.
Jonathan-Zamir, T., Mastrofski, S. D., & Moyal, S. (2015). Measuring
procedural justice in police-citizen encounters. Justice
Quarterly, 32, 845-871.
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a
random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive
solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54-69.
Langton, L. & Durose, M. (2013). Police behavior during traffic and
street stops, 2011 (NCJ 242937). Special report prepared by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC.
Lundman, R. J., & Kaufman, R. L. (2003). Driving while black: Effects
of race, ethnicity, and gender on citizen self-reports of
traffic stops and police actions. Criminology, 41, 195-220.
Martinez, R. (2007). Incorporating Latinos and immigrants into policing
research. Criminology, 6, 57-64.
Mastrofski, S. D., Jonathan-Zamir, T., Moyal, S., & Willis, J. J.
(2016). Predicting procedural justice in police-citizen
encounters. Criminal justice and behavior, 43, 119-139.
McCartney, S., & Parent, R. (2015). Ethics in law enforcement.
Victoria, BC: BCcampus. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/
ethicsinlawenforcement/
Menjivar, C., & Bejarano, C. (2004). Latino immigrants' perceptions of
crime and police authorities in the United States: A case study
from the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
27, 120-148.
Michelson, M. R. (2001). Political trust among Chicago Latinos. Journal
of Urban Affairs, 23, 323-334.
Morin, R., & Stepler, R. (2016, September 29). The racial confidence
gap in police performance. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org
Mucchetti, A. E. (2005). Driving while Brown: A proposal for ending
racial profiling in emerging Latino communities. Harvard Latino
Law Review, 8, 1-33.
Ong, M., & Jenks, D. A. (2004). Hispanic perceptions of community
policing: Is community policing working? Journal of Ethnicity
in Criminal Justice, 2, 53-66.
Pierce, S., & Selee, A. (2017). Immigration under Trump: A Review of
Policy Shifts in the Year Since the Election. Washington, DC:
Migration Policy Institute.
Pierson, E., Simoiu, C., Overgoor, J., Corbett-Davies, S.,
Ramachandran, V., Phillips, C., & Goel, S. (2017). A large-
scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the
United States. Arxiv.org
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation
to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 811.
Reaves, B. A. (2015). Local police departments, 2013: Personnel,
policies, and practices (NCJ 248677). Report prepared by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC.
Ridgeway, G. (2006). Assessing the effect of race bias in post-traffic
stop outcomes using propensity scores. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 22, 1-29.
Shear, M. D., & Benner, K. (2018, June 18). How anti-immigration
passion was inflamed from the fringe. The New York Times.
Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com
Skogan, W. G. (2016). Citizen satisfaction with police encounters.
Police Quarterly, 8, 298-321.
Smith, M. R., & Petrocelli, M. (2001). Racial profiling? A multivariate
analysis of police traffic stop data. Police Quarterly, 4-27.
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning
of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal
of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54.
Theodore, N., & Habans, R. (2016). Policing immigrant communities:
Latino perceptions of police involvement in immigration
enforcement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42, 970-
988.
Tyler, T.R. (2005). Policing in Black and White: Ethnic group
differences in trust and confidence in the police. Police
Quarterly, 8, 322-342.
Tyler, T.R. (2006). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Tyler, T.R., & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public
cooperation with the police and courts through. Russell Sage
Foundation.
Voigt, R., Camp, N. P., Prabhakaran, V., Hamilton, W. L., Hetey, R. C.,
Griffiths, C. M., et al. (2017). Language from police body
camera footage shows racial disparities in officer respect.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 114, 6521-6526.
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model:
The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. In
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141-
208). Academic Press.

Ms. Norton. Thank you, Dr. Ray. To hear those innovations
was very enlightening. We will proceed to questions now, and I
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barone, I mentioned your program in my own opening
remarks. I championed section 1906, and so I would like to hear
more about how it is operated and why it has been successful in
Connecticut against racial profiling. Apparently, you simply
did not treat your findings as evidence of wrongdoing. That is
where you began.
What are some of the outcomes you have been able to achieve
in Connecticut to address racial disparities in traffic stops
using this approach: no wrongdoing using the Connecticut
program?
Mr. Barone. Thank you for the question, Chair Norton, and
thank you for your continued support. The success of this
program has largely been the result of two factors. One is a
statewide creation of an advisory board of stakeholders that
have met monthly for the better part of 8 years to try and
tackle this issue.
The second thing that has led to the success of this
program are departmental interventions. We have often seen,
across the country, researchers come in, do a statewide study,
and simply point the finger at police agencies, tell them they
have a problem, and not help them figure out what is driving
that problem or help them determine what solutions they can
implement to address that problem.
And so we felt that it was our obligation as researchers
not to simply point the finger at law enforcement and walk
away. So we spend our time now identifying agencies that
require our attention, and we go in and we work with those
agencies along with community stakeholders to try and better
understand what are the factors driving disparities. I will
give you one example to put a finer point on it.
We had an agency in Connecticut that had a significant
racial disparity being driven by their use of low-level
lighting enforcement. They made 1,608 traffic stops in a 12-
month time period for defective lighting, and they had
articulated that it was part of their roving DUI patrol.
They were looking for drunk drivers without ever having
realized that out of the 1,608 stops for low-level lighting
violations, they had only identified 1 drunk driver. But in
fact, they were much more successful at identifying drunk
drivers when they use techniques that did not have racial and
ethnic disparities in the outcomes and were more likely to
identify drunk drivers like certain hazardous moving
violations. That level of analysis, those levels of
conversation, and that level of intervention in that case is
what has led to reforms in that agency.
We have been fortunate to do 28 departmental interventions
out of 107 agencies in the State of Connecticut and we have
made findings in all 28 agencies and helped all 28 agencies
improve the outcomes of their stops as a result of those
interventions, and us staying at the table with stakeholders
throughout the process.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Barone, I would like to know whether or not
other States have been able to replicate the model you have
achieved in Connecticut and with the same level of success. And
I would like to know about how much funding? Do you believe you
could do more with additional Federal investment, or is funding
just not an issue here? Could you answer those two questions?
Mr. Barone. Yes. So currently, three States have
replicated, to some version, the Connecticut model: Rhode
Island, California, and Oregon, all to great success, the same
type of approach--stakeholders, research, departmental
intervention.
The reality is that the funding is not nearly enough. Every
State that applies for this funding receives a $375,000 grant a
year. And in these challenging fiscal times--previously in
Connecticut, for example, we were fortunate to have funding
offset by State money which in recent years has dried up. And
obviously, in larger States like California and Oregon, that is
challenging as well.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Barone. And your
testimony that it has been replicated suggests to me that this
committee would want to do more to see that it is replicated
in--you say three States--in even more States. So I very much
appreciate that testimony regarding this innovation and would
like to now yield to the ranking member of the full committee,
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the
opportunity to hear from our witnesses.
Mr. Sandigo, as a former district staffer yourself, a
former district staffer to Mr. Stanton, being a former district
staffer myself, I understand the impact you would have had
working with him and I wish you the best in your new position.
Ms. Ramsey Hawkins, what a tragic story for you and your
family. And I am just glad you are able to share it with us
today, especially since it is personal for me. I was hit by a
drunk driver when I was 12. My ex-brother-in-law and I found
out that a Lincoln Continental in the early 1980s far
outweighed a Ford Maverick in the early 1980s. And we learned
the hard way, but we were both lucky enough to survive.
And it is interesting. Times have changed based upon a lot
of the investments that have been made into programs that NHTSA
is in charge of that would change the enforcement of drunk
driving back in 1982. And because of the advocacy of groups
like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we are in a much different
position to ensure that everyone, regardless of race,
ethnicity, or any other possible bias, are going to face the
consequences for their actions. And it is because of
organizations like yours and advocates like you that that
continues. We need to continue to fund NHTSA programs that are
obviously working.
But my questions go to Ms. Martin. And again, Ms. Martin,
great to talk with you yesterday. Thanks for the time today.
One of the items you touched upon in your testimony is drug-
impaired driving. Can you elaborate on the concerns of the
National Safety Council when it comes to drugged driving?
Ms. Martin. Yes. Thank you for that question. Today nearly
30 people die on our roadways from crashes related to alcohol-
impaired driving. But we also know that alcohol is not the only
impairment that an individual driver might be under--things
such as fatigue, distraction, as we heard in the opening
comments, and also, more recently, marijuana. So anything that
has a human being not being on par driving should be of our
concern.
Twenty-eight percent of all people who die in crashes were
involved in some kind of alcohol-related activity. So we do
know this is one of the most important things that we can
double down on, making sure that drivers are not impaired.
We heard in the testimony about technology that is
available to be put in cars to ensure that drivers are not
drunk. I will share, though, with marijuana it is a new
challenge for us because we need new technologies to be able to
understand whether somebody is impaired at that time as more
and more States legalize or decriminalize marijuana.
Mr. Davis. Well, and I am glad you brought that up. That
leads me to my next question. I am from Illinois. Illinois
legalized recreational marijuana. I support States being able
to do that. My legislature in Illinois decided that was the new
law of the land. But we have to make sure that we do the
research necessary to keep our roadways safe.
Now, you mentioned to me yesterday some of the concerns
that are being brought forth in regards to how to develop a
test that could possibly put THC levels in. But you also
mentioned some concerns about that being the barometer. Can you
expand on this for the subcommittee?
Ms. Martin. Yes. Thank you, sir. So today we know in
alcohol, we can do a blood alcohol level, and States have their
regulations around that that have been very effective, to have
a car-side or other kinds of interventions to understand how
much alcohol is in someone's system.
For THC or cannabis, it is a little more challenging. We do
not have that technology today that, roadside, could say
definitively that the amount of drug in your system is causing
a certain level of impairment. People are working on it. But in
the meantime, one of the technologies or techniques that are
used to ensure that we understand the impairment of an
individual is called a drug recognition expert.
And these are law enforcement individuals who are trained
to be able to determine impairment, regardless of doing
anything with actual substance in the body. So that is really
important, that we not only have those training programs, we
increase funding for those training programs, and make sure
that we have them across our Nation.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you very much for helping to explain
that issue, too.
Last question: If this committee decides to address the
issues of bias and equity by prohibiting States from using
NHTSA grant funds for enforcement activity, what effect will
that have on roadway safety?
Ms. Martin. The National Safety Council is very supportive
of law enforcement and all kinds of enforcement-related
programs. And the NHTSA grant programs have been critical to
that. So we definitely encourage that those problems be
remained in place and that they be focused on the techniques
and the remediations that we know really, truly can have more
safety on our roads, and we would encourage, in law
enforcement, enforcement alternatives to be part of that
program.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, and thank you again, all the
witnesses.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
I recognize now Ms. Johnson of Texas.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
fact that we have great witnesses, and would like to thank them
and also thank you for the hearing.
I would also like to ask unanimous consent to put my
opening statement in the record.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[Ms. Johnson of Texas' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Madam Chair, please allow me to thank you and the subcommittee for
holding this hearing on ``Examining Equity in Transportation Safety
Enforcement.'' The purpose of this hearing is to examine the role of
enforcement in supporting traffic safety, and associated equity
implications.
Transportation safety is a critical issue that encompasses multiple
areas. I am concerned about the equitable enforcement of traffic safety
laws. Racial profiling and the consequential mistrust of law
enforcement has to be met with meaningful solutions to keep the peace
and ensure fairness.
In Dallas and throughout our country, we are tackling the issue of
racial profiling in traffic stops. Currently, many traffic safety laws
are enforced by State and local law enforcement agencies. According to
researchers at Stanford University, law enforcement makes approximately
50,000 traffic stops nationwide on an average day. More than 20 million
drivers are pulled over each year, making traffic stops one of the
primary interactions between the public and law enforcement.
The use of enforcement to promote traffic safety raises significant
equity implications. Researchers analyzing traffic stop data from
across the U.S. have confirmed that law enforcement pull over minority
drivers at a higher rate than white drivers. In 2013, the National
Institute of Justice stated that, ``research has verified that people
of color are more often stopped than whites.'' If we know this to be
true, now is the time to eliminate this insidious problem.
I understand that last year, researchers at Stanford University
published a first of its kind analysis of over 100 million traffic
stops conducted nationwide. The study found that black drivers were
less likely to be stopped after sunset, when a `veil of darkness' masks
one's race, suggesting bias in stop decisions and that the bar for
searching black and Hispanic drivers was lower than that for searching
white drivers. According to the researchers' analysis, evidence shows,
``that the decisions about whom to stop and, subsequently, whom to
search are biased against black and Hispanic drivers.'' Not only is
racial profiling unconstitutional, if an individual is stopped for
reasons other than traffic safety problems then law enforcement
resources are not maximized to enhance safety.
Madam Chair, I am committed to both fighting systemic injustices in
transportation safety enforcement and ensuring that our streets and
highways are safe for everyone.

Ms. Johnson of Texas. Ms. Martin, I understand that the
National Safety Council is America's leading nonprofit safety
advocate and has been so for over 100 years. You documented
that people of color are disproportionately represented in
fatal crashes involving people walking. For the record, to what
do you attribute these disproportionately high numbers of
people of color being killed by a vehicle while walking?
Ms. Martin. Yes. It is a very important question, ma'am,
and thank you. In a lot of communities that people of color are
in, we do not have the same kind of safeguards in our roadways.
We may not have sidewalks, and if communities and residents are
using their roadway environment to walk or bicycle or use
pedestrian-related approaches to get where they need to be for
their job, for their healthcare, for whatever they need, they
are at higher risk.
Some of the data has also shown, unfortunately, that
drivers do not yield as much to persons of color, which is just
startling and alarming. And then again, data sets us free, as
we heard from Connecticut, understanding what is really going
on and then taking actions.
But not all roads are created equal, and we need to look in
the communities where we are seeing higher fatalities and
injuries and look at how the roads and roadway infrastructure
is being used, and ensure we put the investment where we know
we have the highest risk factors.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Barone, in your testimony you stated that ``disparities
in the criminal justice system, particularly police
enforcement, have been a major source of political protest and
social unrest in the United States. Motor vehicle enforcement
is a common focus of these conversations since it is the
public's most frequent interaction with law enforcement.''
What role does the collection of data play in equity and
transportation safety enforcement in combatting racial
profiling?
Mr. Barone. Thank you for the question, Representative. I
can tell you that in the absence of data, we have been having
these conversations anecdotally and people have come forward
with their experiences, which are important to share and
powerful, but they have often been refuted by law enforcement.
And once the cold, hard facts are presented, we can finally
advance the conversation, not to whether the problem exists,
but what do we do about the problem? And when we started this
work, for example, in Connecticut, we were still arguing over
whether we had a problem.
Once we finally collected the data, we could go and say, we
cannot be arguing anymore about whether this exists. Those
stories that people have been presenting, that they have been
sharing over recent years, they need to be believed because the
data supports them, which is why it is critical that we collect
this information moving forward.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Sandigo, is it your professional opinion and experience
that race-based enforcement of traffic safety laws actually
impedes transportation safety?
Mr. Sandigo. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
Absolutely. I think that the distrust that happens when a
community is subject to race-based enforcement can affect any
interaction with future law enforcement. For example, Latino
members of the community were hesitant to come forward as
witnesses if they had seen something on the road; they did not
want to interact with the sheriff's deputies because of what
that could lead to. Same thing that if they were victims of a
crime, they would not want to interact with the sheriff's
deputies.
And so the breaking of the bond between law enforcement and
the community affected future interactions. And it also created
distrust for citations around equipment failures because it was
used consistently against the community to pull them over.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I
think my time is about expired.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.
Now going to Mr. Johnson of South Dakota.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you very much, Madam
Chair. I appreciate that. And I want to thank the panelists,
who have offered, all of them, some compelling information for
us to consider.
But I could not help notice the relative scarcity of
information we have available to us today related to Native
Americans and people in Tribal areas. Of course, I want to
start by calling out some good behavior.
Madam Chair, you mentioned Tribal Governments in your
opening remarks and thank you for that. Mr. Davis, our ranking
member, noted Secretary-designate Haaland and our willingness
to work with her, and of course she knows well the issues
facing Indian Country.
And then I do want to call out Ms. Martin, who I was
grateful to see, on page 3 of her testimony, referenced some
data having to do with Native American fatalities. It was the
only reference to Native Americans or American Indians in the
40 or 50 or 60 pages of testimony before us, and I thought it
was important data for her to bring forward.
I want to dive into these issues a bit more because so many
of my friends who are American Indians have told me so many
times that they feel invisible, even when we are talking about
policy issues related to people of color, they feel as though
their issues are overlooked.
And so I do want us, as a subcommittee, to dive a little
deeper today during my time. And of course, we know that this
is a real issue; I would offer three data points to set the
stage.
First off, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration notes that there were 2,958 motor crash
fatalities among American Indians just in the years 2015 to
2019.
Secondly, I would note that in Ms. Martin's testimony,
which I referenced earlier, she notes that Native American
pedestrians are almost three times more likely to be killed or
to be involved in a fatal crash than White Americans.
I would commend all of you to the 2018 report Secretary
Chao did and submitted to Congress, ``Options for Improving
Transportation Safety in Tribal Areas.'' It is an excellent
read. It well defines opportunities for us as Congress, as well
as others, to make meaningful progress in this area. The
beginning of her report notes that in some States, Native
Americans are overrepresented in fatal crashes by as much as
four times the general population. They are chilling
statistics, in my mind; I am sure for many of my colleagues as
well. And I want to use a specific example from South Dakota
that I think might help some of my colleagues, who do not have
Indian Country within their district, understand the challenges
that American Indians face in this arena.
So let me talk about the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation,
which is served by the Oglala Sioux Tribal Police. And these
statistics are eye-opening. First off, this is the second
busiest law enforcement agency in Indian Country in the United
States of America, second only to the Navajo Nation. It is, by
my estimation, the second busiest law enforcement agency in the
State of South Dakota.
We are talking about their dispatch receiving 139,000 calls
last year, which resulted in over 72,000 calls for service and
9,000 arrests last year. I think we all probably understand
that those numbers were down because of COVID, but still
astronomically high. And we are talking about 2.5 million acres
under the jurisdiction of this law enforcement agency. They
have 43 sworn officers to govern 2.5 million acres.
So why do I bring this up? What does this all mean? I mean,
we are going to be dealing with law enforcement reform in the
117th Congress. We are going to be dealing in the broader
committee with the 5-year reauthorization of the surface
transportation bill. These are critically important pieces of
legislation that have a tremendous impact on the lives of
people, of course, across America, but particularly within
Indian Country.
And so I just want to make sure that we do not overlook the
lives of American Indians or those living in Tribal areas when
we are dealing with these huge pieces of legislation. And with
the seconds I have left, Madam Chair, I would just note one
additional resource for my colleagues.
Last year in August I sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and
to Leader McCarthy that outlined some investments that we in
Congress can make to address these law enforcement and
transportation safety issues in Indian Country. I would ask for
unanimous consent to have it entered into the record of today's
proceeding, and I believe I have a physical copy there in the
room, ma'am.
And with that, I would yield back, and thank you.
Ms. Norton. So ordered, Mr. Johnson.
[The letter referred to follows:]

Letter of August 13, 2020, from Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of South Dakota, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Johnson
August 13, 2020.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker,
U.S. House of Representatives H-232, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Minority Leader,
U.S. House of Representatives H-204, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy,
In the face of civil unrest following the death of George Floyd,
many in Congress have shown a desire to work in a bipartisan way to
enact change. As we continue the important task ahead of us, I urge you
to not forget the unique disparities Native Americans face within the
justice system.
Because of their political status with the United States, Native
Americans have a different relationship with the federal government
than any other people group in the United States. As a result of
various treaties, the federal government is obligated to provide
certain services to tribes. In the present day, tribal justice systems
primarily are organized under self-determination contracts (638
contracts) or are directly administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA). These arrangements are often fraught with funding shortages and
bureaucratic hurdles.
In my conversations with tribal leaders, they have identified the
following areas for reform. We must not forget these critical needs as
we work to make the justice system more equitable for all.
Recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers: Tribal
police departments experience tremendous difficulty in recruiting
qualified officers. Furthermore, even after qualified officers have
been hired and trained, it is difficult to retain these officers.
Congress should ensure qualified officers are sufficiently compensated,
with benefits. Additionally, if a tribal police department invests time
and money in training officers, those departments should be made aware
of their ability to offer incentives to officers to mitigate turnover
in their department.
Establishment of Northern Plains Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC). Recruiting and retaining qualified tribal law
enforcement officers would be helped by establishing a FLETC location
in the Northern Plains. Currently, tribal officers must travel to
Artesia, New Mexico for 16 weeks of training. The length of the program
and the distance from friends and family discourages many from becoming
tribal law enforcement officers.
Organizational accountability and transparency. Tribal leaders have
voiced concerns about lack of responsiveness from employees within BIA
Office of Justice Services (OJS). Additionally, there is concern about
lack of coordination between BIA OJS and other governmental entities.
This places unnecessary burden on tribal government officials,
diverting staff time towards navigating the federal bureaucracy and
away from core job duties. BIA OJS should provide Congress with a plan
to increase coordination both within the federal government and with
tribal governments, increase staff responsiveness, and reduce
unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.
Funding for detention centers. Detention centers on tribal lands in
South Dakota are in disrepair. Especially with the ongoing threat of
COVID-19, Congress, in conjunction with BIA's Office of Justice
Services (OJS), should ensure funds are appropriated and distributed to
the tribal detention centers most in need. Additionally, the repairs
and renovations to these detention centers must be done in close
coordination with local leadership, to ensure that the unique needs of
each community are met.
Funding for treatment centers. Our law enforcement officers are
often tasked with caring for and interacting with those deep in the
throes of addiction. While law enforcement often go above and beyond in
these situations, they should not be the primary caretakers of these
individuals. Tribal governments have been asking for funding for tribal
treatment centers for years. Congress should honor this request and
work to reduce regulatory barriers so that these can be implemented in
an expeditious manner.
Racial equity. Racial equity in justice and policing is vital to
increasing compassion and understanding in our society. There are
several ways to move toward this. We should ensure any data points
include indigenous people. Including them will help determine the scope
and extent of racial disparity in police encounters. Congress should
authorize federal funding for cultural training and indigenous conflict
de-escalation, and law enforcement agencies should work to recruit and
retain diverse workforces. Much of this should be done at the state and
local level. However, the federal government can set an example by
ensuring sufficient federal data collection and by incentivizing
cultural training through existing grant programs.
As we work towards racial equity in justice and policing reform, I
urge you to consider the needs and priorities of those in Indian
Country. I look forward to working with you to achieve these goals.
Sincerely,
Dusty Johnson,
Member of Congress.

Ms. Norton. I appreciate those statistics. I mean, people
are far more familiar with the statistics involving African
Americans. I had never heard the statistics you have just given
us on Native Americans. I imagine that the way in which we are
able to understand what is happening to Native Americans is
that these stops occur in areas which are Native American
areas. And I think they demand the kind of attention that I
think your questions have raised for the subcommittee and the
full committee.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Yes, sir.
I would like to recognize Mr. Sires at this time. Mr.
Sires, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Chair Norton. And thank you to all
our witnesses today.
I believe addressing equity in the traffic safety and
enforcement space is very important, especially since almost 70
percent of my district speaks a language other than English at
home. Sixty percent identify as Spanish-speaking. As a Cuban-
American in Congress, I believe it is my duty to use my voice
to help shine a light on and combat systemic racism and
explicit biases across the country and within our
transportation sector.
Mr. Sandigo, first I want to thank you for sharing the
stories of immigrants in this country. I think it is important
for Members of Congress and the public to hear about what
immigrant families and minority communities experience in
America and how these experiences are not unique but
commonplace in this country.
My question is to you, Mr. Sandigo. As a former chairman of
the Community Advisory Board, can you elaborate on the specific
reforms that were implemented and have proven to be most
effective at increasing community trust?
Mr. Sandigo. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. The
use and publication of data was key for the community to
understand what was happening. If you do not know what is
happening, it is easy to pretend that nothing bad is going on.
And so the data related not just to things like traffic stops,
traffic stop length, arrests and seizures, but also things--for
example, if someone filed a misconduct complaint, how long
would it take to be resolved? What was the process that the
deputy went through?
And so that information was critical for the community to
understand. And something that we really pressed the sheriff's
office on was making the information accessible. So, one was
making the information available in Spanish, and to have
Spanish speakers be able explain it and in terms that were
easily understood so that they did not get caught up in the
jargon or in something that was not understandable to them.
Mr. Sires. What else can we do? What more can we do?
Mr. Sandigo. As I mentioned in my testimony, body-worn
cameras were really effective in increasing community trust. It
was something that community members heard about. It was
something that they were interested in learning how it worked.
What were the policies behind it?
And it was something that they also had strong opinions on.
So, for example, if it came out that a sheriff's deputy had
muted the camera because they were talking strategy, community
members would look at that as, what do you mean they get to
mute it when they talk strategy? What are the policies and
parameters around that?
And so once they understood something like that, they would
be able to engage in a higher level conversation. And I think
also just the presence of a Community Advisory Board that was
independent--we did not report to the sheriff; we were not
under his jurisdiction--allowed there to be a level of trust
that we could channel their concerns up to the right people.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
Dr. Ray--are you there, Dr. Ray?
Mr. Ray. Yes, sir. I am here.
Mr. Sires. I am interested in hearing more about data
gathering from virtual reality. One of the things that I
noticed, and having been a former mayor, is that sometimes
police officers reacted when they made a stop if somebody had a
heavy accent, or somebody did not speak the proper English, it
seemed that their reaction immediately turned a little bit
hostile--in some cases, not all cases. I don't want to put
everybody in the same mold.
But there were many times where you almost can see it. Is
there a way in your studies that you can detect that?
Mr. Ray. Yes, sir. Definitely is. One of the things that we
do, we not only vary the race agenda of the person but also
their perceived ethnicity. We tested their faces with raters.
And we also include language, a series of languages that we
thought consciously about that are some of the most pervasive
in the United States--Spanish, French, Middle Eastern,
Mandarin, and Caribbean in terms of accents and words used.
So in that regard, we are actually able to assess that when
an officer interacts with someone, how do they respond to a
person's accent? One of the biggest things we found is that
when it is an accent or is difficult for someone to understand,
it oftentimes enhances stress. And so how can we help to reduce
that stress to reduce bias?
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much. My time is up, but thank
you very much.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Sires.
Next, Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Sandigo, in your testimony you speak of the use of
body-worn cameras. I believe that this is something that is
very important for our law enforcement to be equipped with
body-worn cameras. And I think it is important that we make
these body-worn cameras available to all law enforcement,
particularly those serving in rural jurisdictions.
We know that many large communities such as your county may
be able to fund bodycams, but there are smaller jurisdictions,
cities and towns, that are unable to afford this technology. A
lot of concerns come from these smaller constituents that are
unable to compete for some of the Federal grant funding that is
available for body-worn cameras, many of these grants going
toward larger urban cities than toward our rural police
departments. And this could lead to inequity and issues as far
as the technology that is possessed by large urban police
departments and then smaller rural departments.
And so my question is: Can you speak to the benefit of all
law enforcement units having broader access to the most up-to-
date body cameras and equipment to best create transparency in
law enforcement, and how this relates to those issues that we
are discussing today?
Mr. Sandigo. Congressman, thank you for the question. What
I can speak to is how it benefitted us in Maricopa County.
Maricopa County has urban areas, such as Phoenix, but it also
has rural areas on the outer edges of the county. And both in
the urban areas and in the rural areas, the use of body-worn
cameras, the knowledge that the community have that the
deputies had them and that they were using them.
And we even asked, can you bring one to a community
meeting, can you show us how it turns on, how it turns off,
what are the parameters around it, proved to be successful in
increasing community trust. And so both in the urban and rural
parts of Maricopa County, it was a helpful policy.
Mr. Guest. And would you agree that use of body-worn
cameras protects the general public from law enforcement who
may be physically or verbally abusive; but also, on the other
hand, it protects law enforcement from people who may make
claims against law enforcement that are unsubstantiated?
Mr. Sandigo. In my experience, both the deputies and the
community members liked the body-worn camera policy. For
example, if there was a misconduct complaint against a
particular officer, then it was easy to look over that
particular footage of that particular officer to see what had
actually happened. And so it went both ways in terms of
perceived benefit.
Mr. Guest. And Ms. Hawkins, I wanted to first thank you for
being here. I have read your testimony and I heard your opening
statement. I want to tell you how sorry we are for the loss of
your two sons that were killed by a drunk driver. I see here
that in this information, it looks like both individuals that
were involved were prosecuted. I see one has already been
released from custody and another is serving a prison sentence
of 19 years in the custody of, I am assuming, the Louisiana
Department of Corrections.
And I also want to commend you on being a part of MADD.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a phenomenal organization. As
a former prosecutor, I know that MADD serves an important role
between the prosecutor's office and law enforcement and the
victims.
But in looking at this, my question to you is: What should
we be doing to be more aggressive in our efforts to remove
drunk drivers from our streets? I know you talk a little bit
about some of the high-visibility enforcement, sobriety
checkpoints, saturation patrols. You talk a little bit in your
testimony about the use of technology, both passive and active
technology, that would be able to detect impairment. And so my
question to you is: What should law enforcement be doing to be
more aggressive?
And then finally, my followup question to that is: Do you
think that we should increase penalties for those convicted of
drinking and driving? In many States, my State of Mississippi,
assuming that no one is injured, before a DUI becomes a felony
you have to have two prior DUI convictions within 5 years.
And so I think it is important that we look at seeing what
we can do to increase those penalties. But I wanted to ask your
opinion on both what we should do to be more aggressive, and if
you think there needs to be a push by Congress to increase the
penalties for those convicted of drinking and driving.
Ms. Ramsey Hawkins. Thank you for your questions and this
opportunity.
First, we have to definitely start having these
conversations. We all have to come together at the table and
come find that common ground. We talked today about two
excellent programs that are working in States in bringing that
data. We have to bridge together everything that everyone has.
And we definitely, definitely need to increase the
penalties that are happening for drunk driving. That is just my
personal opinion on that, given my own personal experience. But
it starts with communities coming together and it takes people
like myself, the professors that are implementing these
programs--which are excellent programs so we stand behind that,
MADD in support--and we have got to have those conversations.
And it starts with just talking, bringing together
communities, law enforcement, in pushing these programs. It has
to happen. And so once we get these things going, bring it back
to the table, everyone brings what we have to offer, bring it
out to the community, and that is where we go.
Mr. Guest. Thank you. And Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentleman, and I particularly thank
him for his question on body-worn cameras. I have had a bill in
for some time to have Federal officers all wear body-worn
cameras. They are ubiquitous in the States; there is no reason
why the Federal officers should not also have such cameras.
Ms. Brownley.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. And
I thank all who have testified today, sharing their expertise.
I wanted to ask Mr. Barone a question. You said in your
testimony that only 23 States had applied for the section 1906
funding, so that is not all the States. Are the States that
have not applied, are they resistant to collecting such data,
or are there other reasons why these States are not applying
for these funds?
Mr. Barone. So we know that there are over 30 States that
require some form of data collection with regards to
information on traffic stops. And in my experience in talking
to a number of States and in talking to a number of
organizations like the Council of State Governments, which has
networks in all the States, one of the reasons why States have
not always taken advantage of the section 1906 program is
largely because of a lack of knowledge and a bit of a
disconnect.
The section 1906 program resides in the highway safety
offices, typically in State departments of transportation. And
oftentimes the work that is being done in States to address
racial disparities in policing is being done by some criminal
justice entity. So there has been a bit of a disconnect.
And I believe that this program would benefit from a
technical advisor, like many DOJ grant programs are
established, so that some entity can come in and help NHTSA get
the word out that these funds are available, and to help States
that, A, already collect this data utilize this funding to
enhance their program, and B, to reach out to States that are
not currently collecting data to build this infrastructure.
And again, I just think that bringing in some technical
advisor to help NHTSA on that would go a long way in getting
more States to know about the money, to use the money, and to
partner the transportation folks or with the criminal justice
folks.
Ms. Brownley. Thanks for that. And I notice that California
is one of the States that has replicated your model. But they
are also one of the States that have not applied for the
section 1906 funds.
Do you have any idea why California is not doing it? Do
they fall into the trap that you just described?
Mr. Barone. I have been fortunate enough to have done some
work in California as they helped to get their program up and
running and their law passed in 2015. And the reality is that I
think it is what I mentioned earlier, which is that $375,000 a
year in California, right, just does not go that far. And then
you have got to talk about all the work that goes into applying
for and oversight for receiving and spending the Federal
dollars.
It is just a challenge in California. I cannot speak for
them, but they may have made a calculation that they have over
400 police agencies in California that are going to be
collecting data. And so it is a much different challenge than,
say, we had in Connecticut, where there are 100 agencies and we
are a smaller State. And it is one of the reasons why I would
advocate for additional resources to be spent, that States
could have access to, to really ensure that resources are
provided through this program.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you for that.
And Dr. Ray, I have a question for you. I have heard you
testify before, so I think what you do is extraordinarily
important in terms of the training aspect. So in your research,
have you studied whether the race of a law enforcement officer
has any impact on racial bias in enforcement?
Mr. Ray. Yes. Thank you for that question. The race of the
officer does not matter as much as we might expect. What I mean
by that is, what we do is we are able to examine
comprehensively officers' implicit attitudes and their explicit
attitudes.
And we find that, regardless of race, that officers are
more likely to exhibit a form of bias against Black drivers and
Black pedestrians. And I think that is something that is
really, really important. Now, it does not mean that we do not
see a gap in implicit attitudes in terms of Black officers in
particular being less likely to hold these attitudes.
But when it plays out in the scenarios, there are a series
of factors that race also intersects with--for example, stress
level, sleep, whether or not they are hungry, their judgment.
And those factors oftentimes can lead to racial bias going on
steroids.
So we put officers through these programs. They repeatedly
go through. They get feedback from training officers to reduce
the likelihood of bias and reduce objectivity when they are
encountering someone in the field.
Ms. Brownley. And would you say the gender or the age of a
police officer still does not have any measurable impact?
Mr. Ray. So age is interesting because it relates
oftentimes to experience. Now, that does not always mean that
we do not have older officers who are less experienced. But age
and experience are highly correlated. We find that more
experienced officers are much more stable when they interact
with people, meaning more stable heart rates, more stable
stress levels, and they tend to make better decisions.
Gender is similar to race. When we actually look at our
scenarios and we are able--and let me be clear. We are one of
the first entities to be able to really examine attitudes and
behavior. There are some that examined attitudes. There are
some that just measure behavior. We are able to do both.
And when we put that together, we do not see as huge of an
impact when it comes to gender--say, women officers interacting
with people relative to men. Instead, what we find more broadly
in our research is that race and gender matter also within
police departments for promotion and equitable policies, that
then spills over into the street and leads to better
decisionmaking.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you so much, and I yield back my time,
Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. I thank Ms. Brownley for her questions.
I must say I was astounded to hear that there is no
difference between Black drivers in respect to these stops. So
that tells us that we should not simply assume where race
stands here.
I found that astonishing to hear, that those stops on the
part of Black officers appear as often as on the part of White
officers. This is the kind of testimony we need when we decide
what to do so that we do not take race into account where it is
not relevant.
Mr. Nehls, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ms. Norton.
I am glad that we are having this conversation today, and
as a former lawman for 30 years, I thought I might be able to
share some of my experiences.
Before I get into it, I would like to thank, personally
thank the thousands of law enforcement officers that are
serving our communities across this great country of ours each
and every day under the difficult conditions, and that includes
the Capitol Police.
So my hat is off to those that chose law enforcement as a
career.
I served as sheriff for Fort Bend County from January 2013
to 2020, for 8 years. And during those 8 years, I submitted a
report on racial profiling to the Texas Commission on Law
Enforcement. It was done each and every year.
Those reports are public, and anyone can look at them.
Every law enforcement agency in Texas that can pull someone
over is required to submit that report.
Now, I know Texas is not alone in requiring agencies to
collect and publish that data. Fort Bend is a great county. It
is the most diverse county in the entire country. That is
according to the Rice University Kinder Institute, a very
respected institution.
In 2019, the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office conducted
22,990 stops. The 22,990 stops had zero instances of any bodily
injury either to the deputy or the violator, and I am very
proud of that figure.
Now, I am not a statistician like Mr. Barone, but it was my
observation as sheriff that in predominantly White parts of the
county, traffic stops tended to be White. In predominantly
Hispanic parts, they tended to be Hispanic.
That data is available, and feel free to run regressions on
that.
It seems to me that if agencies are collecting and
publishing data, it should be the Department of Justice that
looks at it, not NHTSA. If a law enforcement agency is clearly
demonstrating racial profiling in its data, the DOJ can enter a
consent decree to improve policing.
And there are 13 agency investigations which are open
today. The DOJ should probably be the one who helps States
start collecting the data, too.
I will echo the comments of my colleagues and say that we
are probably not the committee in the House best equipped to
examine and debate this topic. NHTSA does great work on highway
safety programs, and you have to really think about the word
``safety.'' That is what their mission is.
My deputies use NHTSA training on child passenger safety to
help the parents in Fort Bend County, and believe it or not
that program saves lives, and I support it. It has been a
wonderful program.
I just do not see the utility in diverting funds from
safety programs to study things that should be the focus of
other Federal agencies.
Let's keep collecting the data, and let's use it to improve
law enforcement, but let's make sure that the right tools and
agency are being applied.
With that being said, I have a question for Mr. Barone, and
I am glad, sir, to see your success which Connecticut had with
section 1906, but do you believe the Federal Department of
Transportation is better equipped than the DOJ, the Department
of Justice, to work with law enforcement agencies as it relates
to racial profiling or racial bias?
Mr. Barone. Thank you for the question, Representative.
I can tell you that the section 1906 program has been used
to help States grapple with this issue themselves, and that the
Department of Justice in the case of Connecticut, oftentimes we
have taken our data and gone to the Department of Justice and
asked them to review things.
But the Federal agency NHTSA does not play a role in the
evaluating or in the establishment of the system that collects
and analyzes data. It is designed so that States can best
create the programs that work best for them and their
localities.
And so there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. The
approach we are taking in Connecticut, although it has been
replicated in other States, they have taken their own
modifications to that program to best fit what meets their
needs on a local level.
And so I just want to be clear that the Federal agency,
being NHTSA, really has been there to support the passing
through of funds to allow States to do this important work.
Mr. Nehls. As a sheriff, you know, being in law enforcement
for 30 years, the DOJ, you have heard of consent decrees. I
mentioned it earlier in my talk here and the 13 different
agencies.
And Mr. Sandigo referenced Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona with
the racial profiling, and I believe that the Department of
Justice investigated that. I do not believe it was DOT or
NHTSA.
And in Texas, this racial profiling report, it is done
annually, and the report is very, very specific. It asks for
race, and there may be many members on this committee, who have
no idea what I am talking about, but it asks for race.
Do you know on that report each and every traffic stop, the
23,000 that I mentioned, you have to answer yes or no whether
there was a search of that vehicle and whether there was
consent to search that vehicle?
I do not know if people even realize that that took place.
Do you know there is a question----
Ms. Norton. Could you ask the question?
Mr. Nehls [continuing]. That you have to respond to that
asks did the officer know the race of the violator before the
stop even took place?
So the point is all of the data is there in the great State
of Texas. That data is reported to HPD-City Council. In my
county, it was reported to Commissioners Court, and that is
collected in the receptacle by TCOLE.
So the information is there. So I believe that this is more
of a local issue. If there is racial profiling being done, if
there is bias or injustice, it would be done at the local
level, and we should start holding our chiefs of police and
maybe the mayors and others accountable.
But there has to be some accountability, but I believe it
needs to be kept at the local level. If there is criminal
activity, the Department of Justice needs to come in and
investigate it.
But I think NHTSA has an enormous amount of work to do. I
know that Ms. Martin talked about the increase of fatalities,
and that is sad. But NHTSA is too busy right now with
everything else to get involved in this discussion.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has long expired. I am not
sure there was a question there, but I want to move on now to
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Professor Ray, again, welcome to the committee, and thanks
for your testimony, in which you mentioned that since 2017, the
Lab for Applied Social Science Research at the University of
Maryland has developed over 100 virtual reality scenarios.
You testified that you have trained and worked with over
2,000 police officers in large, midsize, and small departments
across the country to develop and implement a virtual reality
decisionmaking program for law enforcement.
I just have a few questions. First, is this virtual reality
program ready to scale?
And if so, what does that look like logistically?
Mr. Ray. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
So, yes, we are prepared to scale. We have worked with
police officers in various places around the country, I mean,
including Maryland obviously, but North Carolina, Ohio,
Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee.
What it looks like logistically, what we have done up to
this point is we fly groups of officers into our lab, that
space that people were able to see on the images and the
videos.
We take them through our program. It takes about 2 hours to
go through. Oftentimes they will go through several scenarios.
But we are also equipped to be virtual and with resources
to go to specific departments. That is one of the big things
that departments ask us. They say, ``Hey, can we get this in
our department?''
We say yes. Oftentimes it is a funding issue for them at
the local level to be able to bring our equipment and what we
do for them.
We also have a train-the-trainer course, which people who
are part of the Department of Homeland Security have
participated in to train law enforcement officers to be able to
use our program to train their own officers.
Mr. Brown. How do you ensure the protection of information
and data?
You are collecting a lot of it during these scenarios. You
outlined to the committee the types of data, and so how do you
protect it and where is the information housed or stored? Who
has the custody of it?
Mr. Ray. So the data are stored on password protected
devices at the University of Maryland. When we set this up at
specific police departments, it is housed there in a similar
secured data file.
Importantly though is we really uphold confidentiality and
anonymity. We never ask personal identifying information, no
names, no badge numbers. Instead it is simply demographic
information, and we examine what we do at the group level.
Also importantly is, as Members of Congress know, at
universities one important part for oversight is we have what
is called Institutional Review Boards. We call them IRBs.
For any type of research we conduct, it has to be approved
by a committee. Oftentimes we have a series of revisions. With
this project that has definitely been the case, and so we have
a lot of protocols in place to protect officers.
I have a series of police officers in my family, and I
understand the importance of protecting their confidentiality
and anonymity and allowing them to train in a safe environment
so that then they can get on the street to reduce bias, to
treat people in a way that allows them to protect and serve.
Mr. Brown. So you mentioned the work you have done with
Prince George's County Police Department. That is the county
that I have the privilege of representing, at least part of it,
along with Mr. Hoyer.
Do you just work with departments from the Maryland area or
are you able to offer this program to departments across the
country?
Mr. Ray. Yes, we are definitely able to offer it to
departments around the country, and to date we have worked with
departments from North Carolina, from Ohio, Tennessee,
Arkansas, Missouri, and I should be clear that we work with
large, medium-size, and small departments.
That was really, really important for us. I am originally
from Tennessee. I went to grad school in Indiana, did a post
doc in California, and now I am in Maryland. I have lived all
over the country, and one thing I know is that a lot of small
and medium-size departments, particularly those in rural
America, get left out of programs like this.
We wanted to ensure that our program was set up where we
would be able to work with those departments, and we do have
the capacity to do that, to take it to scale, and with the
proper resources, we are able to bring small departments to us,
and for larger departments, we are able to outfit them with the
proper equipment and technology and then provide logistical and
software support to help them be able to use our program long
term.
Mr. Brown. Well, thank you, Professor Ray. And I see that
my time is about to expire. I will abide by the time allocated
through the rules of the committee.
I just want to thank you for the work that you are doing at
the University of Maryland and the work that you are doing at
Brookings. Thank you for testifying today, and it sounds like
this program, which is well developed, well thought out, and
can be tailored to so many different departments, is something
that is valuable.
And with additional Federal funding, I am hoping to see it
in departments across the country.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
And now I recognize Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to echo my colleagues' frustration with this
hearing and their sentiments highlighting our lack of
jurisdiction in many of these issue areas.
Additionally, it is more frustrating that we are foregoing
important time to discuss legitimate transportation issues to
discuss a topic that we have a solution for.
The solution is the JUSTICE Act that I introduced last
Congress and again earlier this month. The bill has received
bipartisan support and will improve community policing
standards that have been discussed during this hearing.
It is more ironic and frustrating that the bipartisan
JUSTICE Act was held up by Speaker Pelosi last Congress for
purely political reasons.
As Americans called out for justice and action, Speaker
Pelosi took the partisan route instead of aiming for change.
The cheap political win reared its ugly head again even when it
came to something like improving our policing and community
safety.
Unfortunately, despite our fellow Americans' calls for
action, it sounds like partisanship is the path that will be
taken once again.
I do appreciate many of my colleagues' sentiments during
this hearing, both Democrats and Republicans. Many of my
Republican colleagues have already joined my bill as
cosponsors.
But I would like to formally extend the offer to my friends
on the other side of the aisle.
It sounds like all of our intentions to improve our
communities are legitimate and thoughtful, and we have the
solution to improve our policing, and that is the JUSTICE Act.
To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have a
cosponsor sheet with me today and would love if any of my
Democratic colleagues would like to come on over or I can come
to you to sign this piece of legislation and help institute
real bipartisan change in our communities. I have a couple of
clean pens as well to sign onto that bill.
My question to any of the panelists, and by the way, I
thank you so much for coming today. My 23 years of law
enforcement in the third largest city in Minnesota, the city of
Duluth, has served me well in this position.
My question is: can any of the panelists give me their
definition of community policing?
Mr. Ray. I mean, I have no----
Ms. Norton. Who is your question for?
Mr. Stauber. Madam Chair, any of the panelists that would
like to answer that.
Can anyone give me their definition of community policing?
Mr. Ray. Yes, I have no problem jumping in on his question.
I have examined law enforcement for over a decade, and I
mentioned before that I have law enforcement in my family.
Community policing is not just about, say, playing
basketball with a kid or patrolling a neighborhood, but instead
it is about being affiliated with that neighborhood. It is
about being a part of that neighborhood. It is about
experiencing that neighborhood, sending your kids to that
neighborhood, sending your kids to the school, working out at
the gym.
And oftentimes we see this in more affluent neighborhoods.
Oftentimes they might be predominantly White, but we are less
likely to see that in low-income communities that tend to be
more communities of color.
So I think part of what a lot of people want in the
research that we have conducted at LASSR suggests that people
want similar sorts of relationships with law enforcement that
they see people in other neighborhoods having.
And I think when we talk about community policing, it is
also giving law enforcement certain resources to be in those
communities. There is a large study documenting that at some of
the largest cities around the country, their police officers,
similar to teachers, cannot afford to live there.
And so we need to ensure that there are certain incentives
to help them to be in those spaces to experience the community.
The other thing we are seeing----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Stauber----
Mr. Ray [continuing]. Is that minority officers are more
likely to live in the community. White officers are not.
Mr. Stauber. Have you read the JUSTICE Act?
Mr. Ray. Yes, I have, thoroughly. That is one of the things
that I do as a policy analyst, yes, sir.
Mr. Stauber. Perfect. And what you just said supports the
JUSTICE Act.
So to the witnesses and my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, there is a real simple definition of community policing.
Community policing is you do not police your community. You
police with your community. It will bring lasting, trusting,
long-term relations and help that community and help the
officers serve the community, and the community benefits.
It is a mutually beneficial way to police, and I think we
have lost the community policing concept. We have to get it
back.
And I really, really appreciate your comments, and I
appreciate your reading the JUSTICE Act because you told me you
did read the JUSTICE Act. Then I believe you support the
JUSTICE Act.
It has tremendous legislation that needed changes even
before you were in law enforcement.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
I appreciate his questions.
Mr. Pappas. You are recognized, Mr. Pappas.
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. Mr. Lamb. Mr. Lamb, you are recognized.
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. Mr. Auchincloss, you are recognized.
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. Mrs. Napolitano, you are recognized.
Mrs. Napolitano. Chair, I do not know. I had to leave the
meeting for a few minutes so I am not sure if this was covered
before, but I am concerned about the test for marijuana by law
enforcement officers.
Do they have an effective test to be able to determine if
there is impairment of anything, including marijuana?
Anybody?
Ms. Martin. Ma'am, I could take that.
As I mentioned before, there is a lot of research going on
right now with how best to understand if a driver is impaired
by marijuana. It is not the same as alcohol where you can test
somebody's blood.
I am not a medical professional, but I have been told that
marijuana is in your fat cells and not your blood, and it can
stay in your body for a long time.
So this is a challenging one, and it is one that we do need
to get our hands around as more and more States do legalize it,
and we know that there is an increased usage of it by folks
that are behind the wheel.
So right now, the most important thing is for us to
understand if someone is impaired, and drug recognition
experts, people trained to understand that, is probably our
best weapon until we understand how we can have some technology
to help us.
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
The question about the car being outfitted like Volvo for
drug impairment recognition, how far are we on that research
with cars?
And can we impose upon the carmakers the importance of
having [interruption to audio]?
Ms. Martin. I can take that one as well. We are fairly
along, as we heard from the representative from MADD, Ms.
Hawkins. There is technology to know whether or not a driver is
impaired by alcohol, and if they are over the blood alcohol
level that our States demand, either a .05 or .08, that does
exist today, and it has been used successfully in automobiles.
So there is an opportunity to have a message and have a
position on whether or not we want those in our vehicles today.
Other forms of impairment, including distracted driving and
some of the other things that cause a driver to not be on their
par, those are challenging, too, but there are some
technologies with cameras that some police use, and it is
really worth us focusing on the technology and figuring out how
we can get them into our vehicles, both commercial and
residential, as soon as viable.
Mrs. Napolitano. [Inaudible] how far along they are in
implementing them in all cars and all buses and all trucks.
How do we ensure that law enforcement is not using traffic
safety as a tool for immigration enforcement and neglecting the
purpose of preventing fatal traffic accidents?
Mr. Sandigo?
Mr. Sandigo. I am sorry, Congresswoman. Could you repeat
the question?
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we have law enforcement using
traffic safety for immigration purposes. How do we ensure that
law enforcement is not using traffic safety as a tool for
immigration enforcement and neglecting the purpose of
preventing fatal traffic accidents?
Mr. Sandigo. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
I think what is important is that State and local law
enforcement agencies focus on what they do best, and so when
they focus on increasing transportation safety, when they focus
on enforcing State and local law, then that is what makes the
community safer because that is what they are experts on. That
is what they do well.
Mr. Barone. If I can also chime in, what we have
consistently found in Connecticut and other States we have
worked in is that when traffic enforcement, when law
enforcement used the traffic code to primarily focus on the
safety of the roadways, not only is the safety of the roadways
improved, but we see decreased racial and ethnic disparities.
When traffic enforcement is started to be used as a crime
reduction tool, when it starts to be used as an immigration
tool, not only does it drive up racial and ethnic disparities,
it also reduces trust and legitimacy in police, and it impacts
the safety of the roadways because attention, time, and
resources are being taken away from those stops that we know
cause accidents and deaths.
Mrs. Napolitano. But we do not punish any law enforcement
agencies, not just the police officers--the agencies--for not
following the law. How do we go about that?
Mr. Barone. I do not have a comment on that. I mostly focus
on the data. I know in Connecticut we have outlawed the type of
policing practice that you are speaking about, and we have good
success in that here in Connecticut.
Ms. Norton. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I thank her
for her questions.
Mr. Balderson?
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. Mrs. Steel?
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Madam Chair and our ranking member.
And thank you to the witnesses here.
We all agree and support the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's mission to save lives, prevent
injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes.
I know everyone on this committee supports improving
traffic safety and also recognizes the importance of an equal
enforcement of our laws. We can all agree that discrimination
is anti-American and goes against everything this Nation stands
for.
When I was chairwoman of the Orange County Board of
Supervisors, I created a Law Enforcement Appreciation Day. In
Congress I remain committed to supporting our heroes. Any
attempt to defund the local law enforcement will only lead to a
surge in crime and unsafe communities.
We must make sure that we are safe, and we must ensure that
there is more training and community policing.
I welcome a discussion about traffic safety and am proud to
have worked with the district attorney in Orange County to
highlight the dangers of impaired driving.
However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
has no authority over the enforcement of traffic safety laws.
So I am concerned that our hearing today focuses on law
enforcement instead of safe roads.
In Orange County, traffic and congestion are some of the
biggest hurdles of our daily commuters. We all support safe
roads, highway improvements, and vehicle modernization.
On that note, I have one question for Ms. Martin. Besides
California, how are States and cities working to reduce
congestion?
What improvements need to be made to ensure there are fewer
distracted drivers on the road?
Ms. Martin. Thank you for that question, ma'am, and I will
take the first one on congestion.
And road design is so important to understanding how you
are using your roadways today and what kind of congestion you
have, whether that is cars or pedestrians, as we have heard
before, who are also at risk on our roadways.
So one of the most important things is to understand where
those congestion issues are, where your fatalities and injuries
are, and then to partner with both your communities and your
transportation engineers to see if there are some things that
you can do to design those roads to be less congested and less
deadly basically.
And there are simple things that can be done in many
communities that can reduce fatality rates. Some of them are in
my written testimony, but just simple things like rotaries and
whatnot that require people to slow down and can create a more
safe intersection. So it is really important.
The other thing is public transportation. Buses are one of
our safest transportation methodologies right now in some of
our urban areas, and making sure that those are safe and
available to folks that feel comfortable using them and that
they can access them easily with covered bus stops and other
kinds of mechanisms to make sure that getting from their home
to the bus stop is safe. Sidewalks, as I mentioned before.
So some of those fundamentals are really important to
addressing safety and congestion-related issues.
When we think about distracted driving, we would really
propose that there be some primary enforcement rules, and I
know several folks here on the committee have endorsed
legislation to say that drivers basically can be pulled over
for distracted driving activities, whether it is cell phone
usage or other kinds of operations in the vehicle.
Those are really strong enforcements. We have talked about
enforcement here a lot. It is an important tool to getting
safety on our roadways, whether it is law enforcement officers
or other alternatives. Enforcement is one way we change human
behavior.
And distracted driving is on the increase for all the
reasons we heard in the opening testimonies, with technologies
in cars, and it is really important that we address that with
some legislation.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Ms. Martin.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, I yield the
balance of my time.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentlewoman for her questions.
I next call on Mr. Balderson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you very much for being here.
My question is for Ms. Ramsey Hawkins and Ms. Martin.
But first, I would like to thank Ms. Ramsey Hawkins for
sharing your story with us today.
Last Congress I introduced the Drug-Impaired Driving
Education Act with my colleague, Congresswoman Kathleen Rice of
New York. This bill would establish an annual $5 million grant
program for States to educate the public on the dangers of
drug-impaired driving.
I am proud that this bill was endorsed by both the National
Safety Council and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and I look
forward to working with Congresswoman Rice and your
organizations to continue this effort and reintroduce this bill
in the 117th Congress.
Ms. Martin, you note in your testimony that alcohol,
marijuana, and opioid prevalence increased among seriously and
fatally injured road users during the second quarter of 2020 as
compared to the months before the public health emergency.
I know my friend from Illinois, the ranking member of this
subcommittee, touched on drug-impaired driving earlier, but I
was hoping you and Ms. Ramsey Hawkins could spend a few minutes
discussing the importance of public education campaigns on
drug-impaired driving and the efforts your organizations have
taken to reduce drug-impaired driving on our roadways.
Ms. Martin. Yes, thank you for that question. This is so
important.
As I mentioned before, every day almost 30 people die on
our roadways based on impaired and specifically alcohol-related
crashes.
It is so important that we educate on what it means to be
impaired behind the wheel and specifically related around
alcohol.
Some of the things that we can do are the campaigns that we
have had in the past and doubling down on those. During the
pandemic, we have seen increased use of all kinds of
substances, and we are not here to talk about opioids and other
kinds of substance use disorders, but anxiety, mental health,
all of these things often get exacerbated, and they are
complementary, unfortunately, in causing people to be impaired,
and alcohol is certainly one of those.
All of those statistics regarding the residents of our
Nation right now are climbing, and it is alarming because many
of those folks, unfortunately, do get behind the wheel when
they are under those kinds of stresses.
So it is really important for us to get back to basics.
That is educating; that is enforcement and some of the
technology that we talked about before.
Only one State in our Union here has gone to .05 for a
blood alcohol level. That is one we support. Other states and
other nations around the world have much more stringent
requirements around that, and it is something that we could do
fairly easily in our Nation, and it would have drastic positive
impacts for us.
Mr. Balderson. OK. I do have one followup for you. Can you
discuss, and you have talked a little bit about this, but can
you discuss the challenges or differences of educating the
public on the dangers of drug-impaired driving, especially
relating to the opioids and marijuana versus driving under the
influence of alcohol?
Ms. Martin. Yes, thank you.
Our Nation has really addressed the alcohol-related driving
issue for decades, and that is wonderful because we have made
progress, nowhere near enough as we just heard from the opening
testimony from Ms. Hawkins.
No life should be lost on our roadway at all, for any
reason, and certainly not because of an impaired driver. There
are a lot of folks that are under misinformation that cannabis
is not impairing or that you can drive better when you're under
the influence of cannabis.
So education campaigns are really desperately needed right
now, especially as States start to legalize more across our
Nation.
The same goes for other substances, as you referenced,
whether it is opioids, and those are impairing. It is why it
says on the bottle, you know, do not operate heavy equipment. A
car is heavy equipment.
And we need to educate both in the general public and I
would call on employers as a great place because many of their
employees drive on their behalf, and roadway-related or
vehicle-related fatalities is still the number one killer in
our employment.
So it is important to get their voice in this, that it is
not just alcohol. Any substance that causes you not to be on
par or even fatigue, which is not a substance but you are not
on par, it means you should not be operating in a safety
sensitive operation, and a car is one of those.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much, and I appreciate your
answers.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
I next call on Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have got a question to Ms. Lorraine Martin.
Ms. Martin, I was [interruption to audio] and can you hear
me?
Ms. Martin. Yes.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. OK. I do not know if you are aware.
Puerto Rico has 3.2 million American citizens living there, and
there are another 8,000 people living in the other four
Territories.
I think by excluding these 400,000 people we cannot have a
road to zero if we do not have an accurate representation for
all Americans with meaningful and complete data.
So my first question to you is to actually ask you to
include Puerto Rico and the other Territories in the data you
collect for annual traffic deaths. That for me is the most
important.
The second, I do not know if you are aware that in Puerto
Rico if you are more than 6 months behind or $2,500 behind in
your child support, you can lose your license issued by your
State.
And my question would be do you think this should be an
issue that Congress should resolve or that it should be left to
the State to resolve?
Ms. Martin. Well, thank you for that last one, and it is
very much an important issue that we have weighed in on, this
issue that you can use somebody's license and their ability to
drive as something that you can have as a penalty for other
nonroadway, nonrisky driving behavior remediation.
We do not support that. We do think a license removal
should be associated with driving-related incidences, not
things like alimony or any other kind of action that a State or
locality might be concerned with you on. Your license should
not be the thing that we use.
The simple fact is it often exacerbates whatever the
problem is you are trying to solve. If somebody cannot pay a
fine, you know, and now you are taking their car away, they
perhaps cannot get to work or cannot get to their healthcare or
get to the grocery store for their family, and so it actually
increases the inequities that we are trying to address here.
And we strongly support the Drive for Opportunity Act that
would say that license removal really should only be done for
unsafe driving-related practices.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. So how can these people who have not
paid civil fines be incentivized to pay current fees other than
to lose those privileges specifically?
Ms. Martin. Yes, I am not sure I am the best person to
answer that question, ma'am, on how to incentivize someone to
pay a fee, but we strongly, strongly recommend that it not be
the removal of their license.
There has got to be other ways to assist one of our
residents in our country of addressing those issues.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. You said in your testimony----
Ms. Norton. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. OK.
Ms. Norton. I now call on Mr. Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady. It is Burchett, but I
appreciate the good effort on my name. Thank you.
Ms. Hawkins, I am a parent, as you are, and I got started a
little later, but my heart goes out to you, and I cannot tell
you how much that hurts me that you have lost a loved one. I
could never, never experience anything like that, and I hope I
never do, and thank you so much for the courage to be here,
ma'am.
Dr. Ray, thank you for the testimony on the innovative use
of virtual reality technology. I would like to know who pays
for your training. Is it the Department of Justice?
Mr. Ray. No, sir. So we have grants that we receive, like
any other research that we would do. So I mean, it has been
various outlets over the years. We have had some local police
departments that have paid for the trainings that they have
gone through.
We have gotten grants from nonprofits. So it has kind of
been a hodgepodge of things, which is similar to what happens
in the academic space.
Mr. Burchett. Say that again. It is similar to the academic
what?
Mr. Ray. Just similar to how academics aim to get grant
money. So it has been a series of entities, but it has not been
the Department of Justice.
Mr. Burchett. OK. Ms. Martin, are you concerned at all that
your testimony recommends spending limited traffic safety
funding on programs that do not have direct linkages to traffic
safety?
Ms. Martin. I am not clear which ones those would be, sir.
I would say that our focus is on all of the different or a
kaleidoscope of things we need to do to help our residents be
safe, and those would be across what we call the four E's, and
that is education, enforcement, which we have talked a lot
about here today, and then engineering, technology, how we
design our streets.
All of those go into making sure that we have safe
transportation for all of our residents, not just for a few.
And on top of that we would then say the fourth E is going
to be equity in making sure that we do enforcement, education,
and engineering with the communities in mind that we are
serving and understanding what their current risks are on our
roadways.
Mr. Burchett. OK. Chairlady, I will yield back the
remainder of my time. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
I next recognize Mr. Auchincloss.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today and for
their commitment to equity in transportation safety
enforcement.
Ms. Martin, I would like to direct this line of inquiry to
you.
You mentioned in your testimony that people of color, older
adults, low-income communities are underrepresented in the
investments made in transportation improvements, and you also
highlighted at the latter portion of your written testimony the
importance of infrastructure investments and how we engineer
safe streets.
Could you speak for a minute or two about what role
dedicated bus lanes play in improving safety, especially in
high poverty communities?
Ms. Martin. Yes.
Mr. Auchincloss. Go ahead.
Ms. Martin. Yes, dedicated bus lanes really do help to
reduce traffic congestion, as I mentioned to the Congresswoman
just a moment ago, but also to create the ability for the
safest mode of operation to be used within many of our
communities, and that is busing.
We need to make sure that those bus access points are safe
as well with some kind of shelters, and as I mentioned, we need
to make sure wherever people are coming to, coming from to get
to their bus stops, is that it is safe for them to traverse
because they are most likely going to be on foot if they are
taking a bus.
So we need to look at the sidewalks, the infrastructure,
making sure they are not having to pass highways to get to
their bus stops, which in some communities they do.
So it is really getting in touch with the community,
understanding how they are going to use that public
transportation, and making sure it is safe for them to do so.
Mr. Auchincloss. Many of these decisions that you are
describing about bus safety are local or State-level decisions.
Could you address what role the Federal Government might have
in incentivizing better decisionmaking that is informed by data
about what we know works both in the United States and also in
cities around the world, especially in Europe and Asia that
have really effective bus lanes?
Ms. Martin. They do. Some of the grant programs we have
heard about here today with section 1906 and other programs
under NHTSA that highlight where we know there are proven
success stories, what we know works, and then providing Federal
funds to help States with implementing those programs.
I mean that is a very powerful tool. We have heard some
testimonials here from Connecticut and other places where they
have used those fundings, and I would endorse an increased
funding specifically on the areas where we know best practices
around the world have saved lives.
Mr. Auchincloss. Many of these best practices around the
world are focused on bus rapid transit, which has a pretty
tightly defined scope. It has high population density. It has
got 90-second headways. It has got on-platform or on-level
platform boarding, off-board ticketing.
Could you speak to which of those elements--in many areas,
especially in my district, bus rapid transit in totality may
not work right off the bat, but there could be elements of that
that you could implement.
Could you speak to maybe the most effective element of bus
rapid transit that could be put together piece by piece for
incremental improvements?
Ms. Martin. Yes. It is probably best for me to get back to
you on that one with some details. As I talked about here, I
think the lanes are really important, as is the actual shelters
or the access point to the bus that has become in some cases a
high safety risk.
So if I can take that for the record, I will get back to
you with some additional information.
Mr. Auchincloss. Absolutely. My office would welcome the
opportunity to work with you on this.
I want to raise one other modality, which is micromobility
and protected bicycle lanes.
And both in the public sector and in the private sector, as
a city councilor, as a product manager in an innovation lab for
an insurance company, I saw how effective micromobility lanes
can be. Oftentimes putting in protective infrastructure though
takes a backseat in transportation safety improvements, and it
oftentimes requires taking away parking spots in cities and
towns, which can be very unpopular.
Can you speak to any research that you have seen or data
that supports or does not support the idea that micromobility,
protected micromobility lanes both enhance access to jobs and
services and also increase safety for mobility?
Ms. Martin. Yes, they do both, sir, and we do have research
that shows that.
And we are seeing more and more pedestrian fatalities,
which we already noted in this hearing. So it is a place that
we need to make sure that if more and more folks are using
other mobilities, other forms of mobility, micromobility,
whether it is scooters or bicycles or their own two feet, that
they have to be able to do that safely.
And the death rates are up, and we know the usage is up. So
we would say that there are things that you can do to design
your roadways with dedicated bike lanes, making sure you have
sidewalks, understanding what the safety of scooters needs to
be since that is kind of still evolving for us. All of those
will help with mobility and help with safety at the same time.
Mr. Auchincloss. Similar followups, is there a particular
area where you think the Federal Government could be especially
impactful in inducing States and cities to put in protective
micromobility infrastructure?
Ms. Martin. Well, the legislation called Complete Streets
that was introduced last Congress, we would highly support
that, and it is a great place to look.
Mr. Auchincloss. And introduced, I believe by my home State
Senator, Mr. Ed Markey, which I strongly support.
Thank you, Ms. Martin, for your time, and I yield back the
balance.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
Now I am going back to Miss Gonzalez-Colon because the
timer had stopped working, and I believe she had not finished
her questions.
I apologize. Miss Gonzalez-Colon, you can proceed with your
questions.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was surprised that my time was expired when I was less
than 2 minutes. And thank you for going back.
I was making a question directly to Ms. Martin, and I will
go back now.
I was actually going through her testimony saying that she
was discussing the benefits of automated enforcement as an
evidence-based countermeasure to change driver behavior.
However, States, such as Iowa, where this is acknowledged
as a civil penalty without reporting tickets to law
enforcement, and it is a means to generate revenue. Thirteen
million photos were taken by a specific traffic camera, and
130,000 individuals were ticketed solely by 1 traffic camera
dubbed as a revenue camera.
However, there are other States who treat these fines as a
criminal charge, allowing individuals to challenge these
tickets in court, and we can see examples of this in different
States.
My question will be what is the best way to address these
cameras to elicit behavioral change rather than just raising
revenue.
Ms. Martin. Yes, thank you.
And as I mentioned earlier, we do support automated
enforcement because if it is used appropriately, it can help
you not only achieve better behavior on your roadways because
people do change their behavior if they know there is a camera
that might catch them speeding or going through a red light. So
they do relate to safety.
But they have to be done fairly, equitably, and as I
mentioned before, they should only be done to increase safety,
not for revenue purposes, not for any other kind of, you know,
actions that a municipality may be taking with their residents.
It should be for safety and safety alone. We have a
checklist that we give to jurisdictions, and I would be happy
to provide it to you and others that helps you make those
decisions, and clearly, these cameras should be put in places
where you know you have your highest fatalities, where you have
your highest speeders, not just in a community because you
would like to increase enforcement there.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. And how would situations like this
affect reciprocity for other means, such as tolling?
Ms. Martin. I am sorry. The question, ma'am, please?
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I mean situations like that will
affect reciprocity for other means, such as tolling?
Ms. Martin. Oh, tolling?
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Yes.
Ms. Martin. Yes. You know, I am not sure I have looked at
that issue. I will have to get back to you on that, the
connection between automated enforcement and tolling. Let me
take that for the record as well, please.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
And the last one, the last question will be to Mr. Sandigo.
My question, and I heard the question Ms. Brownley was
making to you and I was a little bit shocked as well.
The Community Advisory Board came up with recommendations
to improve racial disparities in traffic stops, right?
Including stop lengths, search rates, citation rates, arrest
rates, seizures rates, and the initial reason for stopping
drivers.
How did that information change behaviors?
Mr. Sandigo. Thank you so much for the question.
And I do want to clarify that the court ordered those
reforms. The Community Advisory Board was instrumental in
communicating that to the community and getting their feedback
on it.
I think what it allowed everyone to see and to know is
where actually the disparities were happening. Was it happening
on who they were choosing to stop? Was it happening on the
length of the stop or who was being arrested?
And so the fact that it looked at different factors allowed
the agency to zero in on where the reform needed to happen.
They also looked at whether it was an individual outlier or
whether it was a matter of policy that needed to be addressed
in order to implement reform in those areas.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Sandigo.
I know that my time is going to expire now. I will just
submit a final question. Will it be helpful if we include
language here in the forthcoming surface transportation bill
that makes funding either for programs more accessible than
just seven States that can actually get access to the BAC test
and do the 24/7 program and, you know, the blood alcohol
counting, you know, those kind of programs?
I do not know if we need to include that in the surface
test. I do not know if somebody would want to add those
comments for the record.
I know my time expired. So I want to thank the chairwoman
for allowing me to have my time back.
Thank you. I yield.
Ms. Norton. I am pleased the gentlelady could pick up on
her time.
As I am hearing this testimony, I am beginning to wonder
if, for example--and we heard testimony earlier--that Blacks
were stopped as often as Whites, and I wondered if this is
because stops were in Black neighborhoods, in Black communities
as opposed to stops of Blacks in communities that are White.
That is something I will want to find out as a result of
this hearing.
Next I want to call on Ms. Strickland.
I am going to go next while we wait--sorry?
Ms. Strickland, would you unmute? Ms. Strickland, you are
muted.
Ms. Strickland. Can you hear me now?
Ms. Norton. I can.
Ms. Strickland. All right. Sorry about that. Here we are.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Davis.
Traffic safety enforcement is top of mind for many of my
constituents at home, and not only does this testimony
presented clearly lay out the disparities that exist
nationwide, but its disastrous effects makes our lives unsafe
when we drive.
And back in Washington State, for example, there are
legislative proposals being offered to combat the cycle of
poverty that actually results from traffic enforcement. So this
is a very timely hearing, and I appreciate all the comments.
We talk about the importance of traffic stops and
collecting data, and this is what this is about, and the grants
that Congress can authorize to help States. It is worth noting
that a number of third-party studies attest to the same
results.
A study led by Stanford University found that Black and
Hispanic drivers get pulled over more than White drivers,
except at night when officers have difficulty seeing drivers'
faces.
A San Diego State University study attested the same, as
did a study at the University of South Carolina.
So this is for Mr. Barone.
From your experience, sir, what real-world differences can
happen when States themselves maintain and make publicly
available statistical information on each motor vehicle stop
made by law enforcement?
And how can the Federal Government better support our
States by making these efforts to reduce racial bias in
policing?
Thank you.
Mr. Barone. Thank you, Representative, for the question and
a very important question at that.
Transparency is key to legitimacy in policing, and it is
the first step to rebuilding trust in law enforcement and the
communities they serve.
Beyond that, simply sharing data is step 1. Step 2 is
having the people that know what that data says to sit down
with community stakeholders and law enforcement and figure out
why the data looks the way it does.
I will tell you from our experience here in Connecticut, we
have 107 police agencies. Every year we get our annual report.
Starting in 2014, we saw significant racial and ethnic
statewide disparities, and we would identify a group of
departments that were really contributing to that disparity
more so than others.
We began to work with them, to have interventions with
them, to figure out what are the factors driving these
disparities and getting departments to make changes.
The most recent report that we have published has shown a
significant decrease over the last 6 years in statewide racial
and ethnic disparities. Why? Because we have had time to
intervene in 28 of our 107 departments, all 28 departments
doing a little something to reduce the disparity in their
department, which has contributed to an overall reduction in
the statewide basis.
So people often think this can be done overnight. There
needs to be vigilance. There needs to be continued collection,
continued analysis, and continued conversation.
I know sometimes people do not want to hear this, but slow
and steady wins the race. We have been at this thoughtfully and
methodically in Connecticut for almost a decade now, and our
work is finally paying off.
The longer we wait, the longer it will pay off in other
States, and the section 1906 program is a great place to start
for the Federal Government to be able to support this type of
State-level work.
Ms. Strickland. Great. Well, thank you for that.
And to be clear, our witnesses testified today, this is a
safety issue. This is about safety, and when there is not
equity in enforcement, there is one less officer getting an
unsafe driver off the roads to protect all of us.
So now for Ms. Hawkins or Mr. Barone or Mr. Ray, based on
your research experience, how can addressing this issue of bias
with data, with collecting it, with reporting and analyzing it
actually improve our roadway safety?
Mr. Barone. I will start and just say that we know; we now
have lots of data that tells us when police focus on the things
that have the biggest contribution to accidents, speeding,
traveling too closely, talking on their cell phone, drinking
and driving, we see very little racial and ethnic disparities
in the data because they are focused on the violation.
When policing starts to use traffic laws as a crime
reduction tool, it tends to drive disparities.
We also know that drivers commit motor vehicle violations
at the same rate regardless of their race, and police will find
what they are looking for where they look for it, but we know
that they look for different violations in Black and Brown
communities than they do in White communities.
And in some regards we have created this self-fulfilling
prophecy, this idea that Black and Brown drivers are more
likely to have an administrative offense, and somehow that is
linked to poverty.
But we know that police run, for example, plates in Black
and Brown communities at a significantly higher rate than they
do in White communities to look for these administrative
offenses.
So the knowledge that this program has been able to do is
to inform that, to start asking questions: why are you running
plates here and not here? Right?
Why are you doing speed enforcement here and not here, and
how is that linked to traffic safety?
And so all of this can come together, and as I continue to
say, we can create win-win scenarios. We can improve traffic
safety and eliminate racial disparities.
Ms. Strickland. All right. Well, thank you, Madam
Chairwoman. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentlelady for her questions. Mr.
Cohen, I recognize Mr. Cohen at this time.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Norton. I want to
thank you for holding this hearing and particularly on this
Black History Month, when it is so important and most
pertinent, as you mentioned in your opening remarks.
Disparities in the criminal justice system, particularly
police enforcement, have been a major source of political
protest and social unrest in our country and rightfully so.
There are too many instances where a routine traffic stop has
turned into a tragic loss of life.
Researchers confirm law enforcement officers pull over
minority drivers at a higher rate than Caucasian drivers. My
city of Memphis, which is 65\1/2\ percent African American and
has a large Hispanic population as well, this is a particularly
disturbing statistic.
The racial profiling of drivers by law enforcement sows
divisions and distrust and ultimately distracts from the
intended goal to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
vehicle-related crashes on our Nation's roadways for all
individuals.
We must do better, and we can improve and get away from
this unconstitutional racial profiling. My Police Training and
Independent Review Act, which will be part of the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act, provides resources for diversity
training for law enforcement agencies. It is important they
have those diversity trainings.
This committee is engaged in this important work, and it
includes provisions in the bills to address this issue,
including creating grant programs for universities to conduct
implicit bias research, reauthorizing section 1906 programs,
which gives funding to the States to collect and analyze
traffic stop data, and prevent racial profiling.
I appreciate the witnesses' testimony and the insight that
they have provided.
Mr. Barone, let me ask you this question. Your findings
state that Black and Hispanic drivers are stopped more
frequently by law enforcement for vehicle equipment and
administrative-related driving offenses despite there being no
evidence that Black and Hispanic drivers commit these offenses
more often than White drivers.
Based on your experience working with law enforcement
agencies, have you found officers believe vehicle-related
violations correlate to dangerous driving behaviors or are they
just an excuse to stop somebody who they might be able to make
a collar on?
Mr. Barone. I have found that in some regards,
Representative, that in law enforcement we have created self-
fulfilling prophecies, right?
So this idea that there is a connection between
socioeconomic status and the maintenance of the equipment of
your vehicle or administrative offenses, and therefore, when
police are asked to go, in Connecticut for example, to ensure
that vehicles are properly registered, they tend to go look for
those violations where their implicit bias tells them they
think they are more likely to find them.
And when they run plates, for example, and they find
unregistered vehicles, it then reaffirms what they previously
believed.
Yet we know if the same exposure was made, police running
plates, for example, in predominantly White neighborhoods, we
know that they would find administrative offenses at the same
rate.
And so, frankly, the conversations we have had with law
enforcement have been informative to them as well, them
realizing that the correlations that they thought existed do
not necessarily exist. We have worked to help them to say what
is the issue that you are trying to address.
You are trying to address unregistered vehicles on your
roads. Let's figure out the most fair and equitable way for law
enforcement to look for those violations that you are trying to
address.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Barone. I think my time is kind
of winding down. I am not sure.
But I wanted to ask Ms. Martin. You addressed the issue of
people of color in low-income communities being overrepresented
pedestrian fatalities and underrepresented investments in their
infrastructure.
Mr. Auchincloss mentioned that Senator Markey, who at one
time was a Member of the House before he moved over to the
other body with lesser number of Members, he is the sponsor of
the bill, which I am the sponsor of the one in the House which
is our Safe Streets Act.
Are you familiar with the Safe Streets Act, Ms. Martin?
Ms. Martin. I am, and we fully support it at the National
Safety Council.
Mr. Cohen. What would be the areas you think we should
prioritize in our legislation in the Safe Streets Act to see to
it that racial misrepresentation and racial bias is eliminated?
Ms. Martin. Yes, I think the most important thing, like we
have said throughout this, is to get the data and to understand
where fatalities and injuries are occurring, and then to make
sure we understand with the community support how roadways and
infrastructure are being used and then understand what kind of
infrastructure enhancements, modifications can specifically
address those hazardous areas.
And we do not necessarily do that today. We often ``peanut
butter'' investments across various communities. We do not
necessarily use the data of fatalities and injuries to make our
investment decisions.
But it is really important that we do that because all of
the data shows in the places that we do have it that peoples of
color and minority communities have higher fatalities, have
higher injuries. That is where we should be spending our money,
and that is where we should be putting our infrastructure
dollars.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Martin.
We hope to pass that bill this year. There is always less
money put in the minority communities, sidewalks, shrubbery,
different things, medians that can make the streets more
attractive but also safer, and that is the purpose of the bill.
And with that, it is nice to see Mr. Sandigo on here with
his colorful background, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired, and I thank
Mr. Cohen for his questions.
Ms. Bourdeaux. Ms. Bourdeaux, you have 5 minutes.
Ms. Bourdeaux, I believe you are muted. Ms. Bourdeaux, will
you unmute yourself?
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. I think Ms. Bourdeaux is having audio issues.
So I am moving on, hoping she can fix those.
I am moving on now to Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And it is good to see my colleague from Tennessee as well,
Mr. Cohen.
And just a brief comment. I think it is really great and I
want to thank the panelists, too, that we are having this
discussion. Thank you to the chair for having it.
Congressman Lee and I have had a series of townhalls on
race, in general, in the last 6 years. We had one last week
with Reverend Cleaver, our good friend and colleague from
Missouri, and it has just been a wonderful experience. We have
regularly over 1,000 people join us with those townhalls.
And I think when we have these discussions about race in
America, as we are today, on these transportation issues, on
law enforcement when they are open and honest and evidence-
based research, it is quite liberating, at least the feedback I
have gotten and Congressman Lee, on our initiative.
So specifically, Mr. Barone, I want to thank you for your
work, but also your passion for your work. You reference in
your testimony, some research you did in New Haven,
Connecticut, in a predominantly African-American community
where traffic stops were accelerated, and your findings were
compelling as to the efficacy of that enforcement.
I want to ask you when you share it with the local police
department, these statistics, what happened to that
information? Was it well received?
Did it lead to any kind of policy changes specifically in
that neighborhood?
Mr. Barone. Thank you for the question.
The work that we have done in Connecticut, a component of
it has been to engage in the community in a dialogue about what
policing looks like and what it should look like, but one that
is informed based on the data.
And so in the example I provided in my testimony, it was a
predominantly White suburban community that bordered the city
of New Haven that was focusing a lot of attention in a
predominantly Black neighborhood within the community that also
bordered the city, which is also predominantly Black and
Hispanic.
And the policing looked very different in that neighborhood
and in that area than it did elsewhere in town. And the
department was fairly open to engaging in a thoughtful dialogue
with us about what was driving the disparities, why they
believed those disparities existed, and we took a long time
working with the department to drill down on that.
So they would say, for example, ``We placed more cops in
this area because we have more crime here.''
OK. And so we would go back and look at that, and then we
would say, ``Well, let's figure out what your police are doing
and how that is helping to impact or reduce crime, and is that
causing a disparity? And if it is, what can we do to address
that?''
We were happy to report that because of the changes that we
made and the dialogues that we had with the department and
their willingness to engage in this dialogue with the
community, it was not very long before their racial and ethnic
disparity disappeared. Community trust increased. Legitimacy in
policing increased, and that was largely driven by their
willingness to engage in this level of a thoughtful discussion.
And we really took that model. That was early on. We
started bringing that type of collaboration to the other
agencies we worked with.
In addition to working directly with departments, we also
host several forums with the community and the police
department and the stakeholders in the basement of church halls
and in townhall auditoriums to engage in this important
dialogue, and that is a really important component of the work
we do.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Just to follow up on that, having been a
mayor of a city of 130,000 people here in the bay area that is
diverse and was diverse then, I think back of community-
oriented policing 25, 30 years ago, and these cultural changes,
and I just wondered as a followup to your comments on how you
find in engaging over time in cultures in local police
departments that are more open, more based on community-
oriented policing.
Has that made a difference as far as you know over the last
three decades?
Mr. Barone. It has, but these have not always been easy
conversations to have. I will be honest with you. Usually when
we do our initial analysis, we drive down. We meet with the
department. We sit across the conference table with them for a
few hours, and those first few hours are often a little
contentious, right?
Nobody wants to be named in a report that says they might
have an issue with race. But usually once we can let the data
ground the conversation, we can start to move beyond some of
the emotion that is brought to the table, and we can start to
really look at what can be done to address the issue.
And a big thing that we push for in our work is to not have
it be done in a silo or in a vacuum, but to make sure that we
bring communities' stakeholders into the conversation so that
usually when law enforcement hears directly from the people
they serve, they are a little bit more open to implementing
those reforms that we have seen work.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thanks.
Mr. Ray, just briefly because my time is limited here.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Do you think that we could invest more in training,
particularly for virtual training? Will that help?
And do you have any research that would indicate that it
would?
Mr. Ray. Yes, sir. Thank you for your question.
Yes, most definitely. I mean more resources for police
departments, small, medium, and large, they want our training.
With the resources, it will be beneficial, and as Mr. Barone
was saying, we can really start to reduce the biases that exist
and improve objectivity and equity.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
I just want to thank the chair again and all the panelists.
This is terrific. Your work is terrific, and I look forward to
working with you to deploy more of your efforts.
Thanks a lot. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
And I would like to next call on Ms. Williams.
You have 5 minutes, Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and
Ranking Member Davis, for convening this hearing today.
So as we have been discussing during this conversation, the
most common interaction between law enforcement and the public
occurs at a traffic stop. For many Black and Brown people in
this country, a traffic stop is not a friendly nor routine
encounter, as events can quickly turn deadly.
Ms. Martin, you mentioned alternatives to traditional
enforcement, including the safe systems approach. Can you
please elaborate on the success of this approach in cities and
how it reduces inequities and implicit bias?
Ms. Martin. Yes, thank you for that question.
And one of the things that we know fundamentally is that
our residents cannot be safe if they do not feel safe, and they
need to both feel safe physically and they need to feel safe
when they interact with another human being as you have just
described in a traffic stop or law enforcement.
We need to make sure that that is an experience that can be
navigated appropriately.
That said, there are additional ways of enforcement as you
have alluded to, and we have talked about automated enforcement
as one of those ways that enables us to catch people with risky
behavior without having to have a traffic stop per se and can
be done in equitable ways as long as it is done for safety and
not for other means.
And also safe systems. Safe systems means we design our
roadways so that human beings who make mistakes and who do have
risky behavior, that they cannot necessarily do so, and they
are reminded like with rumble strips or rotaries, other ways to
design our systems so that a traffic stop, a traffic
enforcement activity does not have to happen in the first
place.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you.
And so those are systems that local governments are already
utilizing?
Ms. Martin. Yes, they are.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. And so what should Congress
consider in future legislation that can implement some of these
mechanisms that local municipalities are currently using?
Ms. Martin. We talked before about some of the Safe
Streets, Complete Streets. Those are going to be helped, that
legislation.
The bill that passed the House last year and hopefully will
be considered again has some really good safety-related
legislation in it that can help all the States if implemented.
And on top of all that, we have talked about the NHTSA
grants and making sure that they are focused on the places that
can have the highest impact, making sure people use those
grants, and making sure that they are well funded, and where
States do not choose to use the grants, allowing localities or
municipalities underneath those States to perhaps also
participate where today they cannot.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Ms. Martin, also in your testimony
you stated that driving-related offenses should be the only
cause for license suspension. We know that there is a
correlation between poverty and driver's license suspension.
While the decision to suspend driver's licenses are done at the
State level, what role should Congress play in ensuring that
the States do not suspend licenses for nontraffic-related
violations?
Ms. Martin. Yes, we talked before about the Driving for
Opportunity Act that has been proposed, and we fully support
that act. It does say that license suspension at State levels
should only be done for driver-related offenses and severe,
risk-based driver-related offenses.
So I do think legislation could be helpful there, and we
fully support that. It should not be something that exacerbates
the inequities we have already been talking about here today.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you so much, Ms. Martin.
And as we close out Black History Month, it is important
that we work together to ensure that transportation is
equitable and free of implicit bias. So I appreciate your time
today and your comments.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentlewoman for her questions.
And I would like to now go back to Ms. Bourdeaux where we
had some technical issues and she did not get to ask her
questions.
Mr. Bourdeaux, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bourdeaux. OK. Can you hear me?
Ms. Norton. I can hear you now.
Ms. Bourdeaux. Thank goodness. Thank you, Chairwoman
Norton. I appreciate it.
And thank you to all of the witnesses here today to discuss
the significant and very timely topic of equity in
transportation safety enforcement.
I am glad we are talking about this topic today. We have
African-American and Latinx citizens who have been suffering
the indignities of racially motivated traffic stops for
decades.
Further, the reports of Black people dying during or in the
aftermath of traffic stops has really dominated the news cycles
in recent years, including in the Seventh Congressional
District of Georgia.
In my district, a 22-year-old Black male motorist was
assaulted, punched and kicked, by two Gwinnett County police
officers during a routine traffic stop. Both officers have
since [interruption to audio] and have faced criminal charges,
but of course, we want these problems not to happen in the
first place.
It is very important to reiterate that the adverse
experiences that Black and Brown people face when interacting
with the police are real. This is not merely anecdotal or the
stuff of conjecture.
Racial profiling and implicit bias in traffic stops are
well known and substantial problems, and there is extensive
research on this issue showing this kind of bias in law
enforcement.
I know several people have asked about the section 1906
grants that passed under SAFETEA and were authorized under the
FAST Act.
And one thing I want to point out is that since the
program's inception, only 23 States have utilized this grant,
and Southern States, in particular, have been notably absent. I
think only four Southern States have actually used this grant.
And yet it is clear that participating in this program
would help reassure citizens of color that this issue is
important enough to investigate.
So I just wanted to go back to you, Ms. Martin, or Mr.
Barone, if you want to chip in on this. How do we get States
like Georgia to participate in this program?
What are pieces of this that you see that might be barriers
to States like Georgia in being involved in this grant program?
Ms. Martin. I can start, but I do think Mr. Barone can
provide some history because he has gone to other States and
brought his incredible program there.
The first thing is to show some examples and that's what he
has done so successfully and how it has changed in a
nonthreatening, nonblame-based approach the way that practices
are implemented and truly resulted in both more equity and
safer streets, which is really what we are all after.
As I mentioned before, we could consider when a State has
not chosen to be part of the program whether localities could,
towns, cities, and that may open things up a bit and give you
an example in your State that you could bring more broadly. So
that is just another thing to consider.
And I will give the time back over to the expert in
Connecticut.
Mr. Barone. Thank you, Ms. Martin, and thanks for the
question.
I would agree with everything Ms. Martin said, and I would
also go back to the comments I made earlier regarding the
benefit of potentially allowing for technical assistance so
that we can really ensure that States know that these resources
are available and to help States access the resources and put
together a program that does exactly what we have been able to
do in Connecticut, which is address equity and roadway safety.
I think once people have a better understanding, for
example, of what we have been able to do, it might incentivize
them to want to engage in this program.
And I also think in those States where maybe State
lawmakers are less interested in a State approach, which we
have been fortunate to have in Connecticut, allowing localities
to potentially access these funds to do this type of work at
the local level would also go a long way in showing the
benefits of the program.
Ms. Bourdeaux. Great. Thank you.
I am definitely interested in finding ways to let
localities access this program, make them aware of it, and help
them use that.
I am very interested in the application of technology, and
it has often occurred to me that, you know, the highway patrol
looking for people speeding could be replaced with, you know,
just machines that click when people drive by.
And in other countries, I once was in Switzerland, and if
you go over a certain amount of the speed limit and you pass
one of their devices, you are automatically mailed a speeding
ticket.
And I was just curious. You know, what are barriers to this
kind of technology in this country?
Has it been considered in some places?
Obviously, it would take a lot of the bias out of some of
those kinds of highway enforcement activities.
Ms. Martin. Yes, I can comment on that one, ma'am.
They have been very effective in some of our cities and
towns, and very much so worldwide of changing behavior, which
is what we are trying to do.
We are not trying to catch people, fine them. We want to
change their behavior so they are safer on the roadway to begin
with. And if they know there is a speed camera, which is kind
of generically what you just referred to, they do slow down,
and it is a very easy way to be equitable because everybody is
in the same boat as they go by that camera regardless.
But, again, we would say it needs to be used for safety,
and for some of the towns that perhaps had some bumps in
implementing these, it is because it was either perceived or
perhaps explicit that part of it was revenue-based or for some
other reason.
So the checklist that we have is really helpful, I think,
if you want to consider putting these in place. The performance
is there. We know it saves lives. So we are very supportive of
that technology.
Ms. Bourdeaux. Great. Thank you so much for that.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Norton. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I am pleased to recognize Mr. Lynch at this time.
You have 5 minutes, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your
kindness and for holding this hearing.
Ms. Ramsey Hawkins, I want to thank you for your
willingness to come before the committee today and to share
your story and for trying to take your own personal tragedy and
turn it to a positive on behalf of other families so that they
may not suffer the same fate.
My condolences to you for your loss of your sons, and your
story is far too common.
In the United States today, according to the National
Highway Transportation Safety Administration, automobile
crashes are the 13th leading category for causing death among
young people and the leading indicator for death among
teenagers and young adults.
In 2019, there were 36,000 people killed in motor vehicle
accident crashes on U.S. roadways and an estimated 2.74 million
injured.
Now, we did make progress in this country between 2000 and
2010 when the number of fatalities from drunk driving accidents
dropped significantly from 13,000 a year to 10,000, which is
still far too many, but we have plateaued at that level since
2010, and there has not been a significant reduction
thereafter.
And I appreciate all of the advocacies that you have done
with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and representing families
and victims, and I am just curious if you see steps that
Congress could take to make a meaningful impact on this
terrible situation.
Now, you have spent many hours working on this, and you
should be commended for your advocacy, but I would just like to
give you an opportunity if you have any perspective on what
Congress can do next to help further lower that risk to young
people and to families all across America.
Ms. Ramsey Hawkins. Thank you, Congressman.
What can we do? What Congress can do is continue to support
programs that are in place, such as Dr. Ray's and Dr. Barone's,
plus to continue to talk openly about what is happening in this
country and trust that between communities of color and law
enforcement, we need fair and just enforcement.
We need technology, neutral rulemaking to mandate
technology to prevent drunk driving. Until technology is
mandated in all the vehicles, we need to have these
conversations.
We need to continue to fund community programs, and we just
need to have open and honest dialogue about programs and
solutions, and that must continue to occur.
Mr. Lynch. Well, thank you.
I want to again thank you for your courage in turning your
own pain to the benefit of other families so that they may
avoid suffering similarly.
I want to thank you for your thoughtful advocacy and your
energy in this cause. It is very, very important to a lot of
American families.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. Ramsey Hawkins. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Well, I want to thank the gentleman for his
questions and for focusing on the witness who was a victim and
survivor. It is important to make sure that that testimony has
the appropriate questions. Ms. Hawkins represented Mothers
Against Drunk Driving.
I would like to ask, are there any further questions from
members of the subcommittee, either on webcam or in person?
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. Seeing none, I want to thank each of our
witnesses, in particular, for your very helpful testimony
today. Your comments have been informative and helpful, and
beyond that, your comments have been full of information and
insights that I know I did not have and I feel comfortable in
saying that most members of the committee on both sides did not
yet have and that we need to take into account in any further
legislation that is enacted.
I now ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them
further in writing.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's very helpful hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Submissions for the Record

----------

Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Norton, and thank you to our witnesses that are
appearing before us today.
I wholeheartedly believe that discrimination and bias have no place
in America, and that this Nation needs to continue to make progress in
this area.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not
have jurisdiction over law enforcement--States do.
States administer their highway safety programs and decide how to
use their NHTSA grant funding to address safety issues.
States spend a portion of their NHTSA grants on enforcement since
it has proven so effective in deterring unsafe driving behaviors.
To increase traffic safety, we need to double-down on what works--
infrastructure improvements and enforcement of traffic safety laws.
Without enforcement, we will not achieve the goal that we all share
of eliminating traffic fatalities.
Bias and discrimination when deciding to make a traffic stop is
unconstitutional, wastes limited resources, and should be eliminated.
However, radical efforts to take away or completely defund our law
enforcement is not a viable solution and would be counter to achieving
our bipartisan traffic safety goals including reaching zero deaths on
our nation's highways.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can
make improvements on both these fronts within the limited but important
role this Committee plays in enforcement activities.
Thank you, Chair Norton. I yield back.

Letter of February 23, 2021, from Catherine Chase, President, Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety, and Dawn King, President, Truck Safety
Coalition, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 23, 2021.
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chair,
Hon. Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
Thank you for holding tomorrow's hearing, ``Examining Equity in
Transportation Safety Enforcement.'' Ensuring that all people can
safely and equitably share in the transportation network is essential
to our daily lives and opportunities for health care, employment,
education, recreation, and others. This must be a cornerstone of our
Nation's transportation policy. We respectfully request this letter be
included in the hearing record.
Advancing safety on our roads is inextricably linked to ensuring
that all transportation users benefit from the improvements. Traffic
safety regulations and laws are ``vaccines'' that should be available
to everyone and have been integral in reducing motor vehicle crashes,
deaths and injuries. A recent report published by the Center for Study
of Responsive Law on the occasion of the 55th anniversary of Ralph
Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed noted:

No one in 1966 or 1974 predicted the huge number of lives that
would be saved with motor vehicle safety standards, vastly
upgraded and new state highway safety laws, and new highways
built under the federal aid highway program. In 1966 the number
of highway deaths were [sic] 50,894 (they increased to a high
of 54,589 by 1972). In 2019, the number of fatalities was
36,096, despite the huge increase in the number of drivers,
vehicles and miles traveled. Based on an analysis by the Center
for Auto Safety of deaths per million vehicle miles traveled,
an estimated 4.2 million lives were spared because of these
safety improvements in the U.S. from 1966 to 2019.

In 2015, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
estimated that since 1960, more than 600,000 lives have been saved by
motor vehicle safety technologies such as seat belts, airbags, child
seats, and electronic stability control. According to an article in the
American Journal of Epidemiology, ``Trends in Socioeconomic
Inequalities in Motor Vehicle Accident Deaths in the United States,
1995-2010'':

Legislation against alcohol-involved driving, such as 0.08-g/dL
blood alcohol concentration laws, sobriety checkpoints, and
minimum legal drinking age laws, have reduced fatal and
nonfatal crash injuries since they first were enacted in the
1970s. Mandatory seat-belt laws, particularly when robustly
enforced, increase seat-belt use and have reduced mortality
since their introduction in 1984. There have also been
improvements in alcohol-impaired driving fatalities and the use
of safety restraints.

This study also found that ``[b]etween 1995 and 2010, overall MVA
[motor vehicle accident] mortality rates fell by 15%-25%, depending on
whether they were measured as a function of population, VMT [vehicles
miles traveled], or PMT [person-miles traveled]. Crude mortality rates
were higher in men, blacks, and persons aged 65 years or older.'' Every
year on average, over 36,000 people are killed and 2.74 million more
are injured in motor vehicle crashes. Preliminary estimates from NHTSA
indicate that the fatality rate and total for the first nine months of
2020 increased over the same time period in 2019. This is in line with
troubling trends reported across the country, and confirmed by NHTSA,
of drivers engaged in riskier driving behaviors including speeding,
impairment, and lack of seat belt use during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Media and analytics reports note distracted driving increased as well.
Moreover, in 2019, over 5,000 people were killed in crashes
involving a large truck. Since 2009, the number of fatalities in large
truck crashes has increased by 48 percent.\1\ In 2019, 159,000 people
were injured in crashes involving a large truck, and the number of
large truck occupants injured increased by 18 percent. In fatal crashes
involving a truck and a passenger vehicle, 96 percent of the fatalities
were passenger vehicle occupants, according to the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety (IIHS). The cost to society from crashes involving
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) was estimated to be $143 billion in
2018, the latest year for which data is available. According to the
U.S. Department of Labor, truck driving is one of the most dangerous
occupations in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note, the 48 percent figure represents the overall change in
the number of fatalities in large truck involved crashes from 2009 to
2019. However, between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data
collection at U.S. DOT that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to
2015 the number of fatalities in truck involved crashes increased by 21
percent and between 2016 to 2019, it increased by 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This substantial crash death and injury toll also comes with a
serious financial burden. Based on 2010 data, crashes impose an annual
cost of over $800 billion to society, including $242 billion in direct
economic costs (NHTSA). When adjusted only for inflation, comprehensive
crash costs now near one trillion dollars, with direct economic costs
amounting to $292 billion--or an $885 ``crash tax'' on every American.
Additionally, crashes cost employers $47.4 billion in direct crash-
related expenses annually, based on 2013 data (Network of Employers for
Traffic Safety (NETS)). Similarly adjusted, the cost to employers is
now approximately $54 billion annually.
Ending the physical, emotional, and economic impacts of motor
vehicle crashes is achievable. It is vital that inequitable enforcement
is eliminated as this goal is pursued. The Subcommittee is to be
commended for convening this important hearing to discuss this issue.
Furthermore, we laud the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
for advancing numerous safety improvements in the Moving Forward Act
(116th Congress, H.R. 2) as well as those Committee members who
introduced stand-alone safety bills last session. We urge the
Subcommittee to once again, advance those overdue and needed safety
solutions as well as additional upgrades to accomplish our shared goal
of safety equity for all. The following recommendations will achieve
this goal; however, they are not an exhaustive list of our
organizations' safety and equity agendas.
Require and expand the use of proven technologies which are
demonstrated by data, research and experience to prevent,
mitigate or reduce motor vehicle crashes yet are currently
deployed inequitably.
Require Vehicle Safety Technology: Advanced driver assistance
systems (ADAS) including automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane
departure warning (LDW) and blind spot detection (BSD) have shown
remarkable potential. According to IIHS, AEB can reduce front-to-rear
motor vehicle crashes with injuries by 56 percent. Other ADAS
technologies have similar impressive results. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has included increasing
implementation of collision avoidance technologies in its Most Wanted
List of Transportation Safety Improvements since 2016. ADAS
technologies are already widely used in places like Europe, Australia,
Japan and Korea.
However, access to these lifesaving crash avoidance technologies
currently is not equitable. They are often sold as part of an
additional, expensive trim package coupled with other non-safety
features, or included as standard equipment only in high end models or
vehicles, which are unaffordable to many families. A report from
Consumer Reports found an astounding upcharge of more than $16,000 for
AEB with pedestrian detection in the second most popular vehicle sold
in the U.S. It is essential that vehicle safety technology be required
as standard equipment to make safety equitable and to expedite the
benefits to all road users. This requirement, which involves the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) developing minimum performance
standards, will also ensure these technologies function as expected and
needed including the detection and response to all road users.
Individuals who rely on walking or biking for utilitarian purposes,
rather than choice, to reach work or school are at the highest risk for
injury or death. Mandating safety equipment in all new vehicles and
ensuring the protection of vulnerable road users could address yet
another aspect of social inequality. Furthermore, as part of the
rulemaking process, NHTSA should be instructed to collect information
about the performance of the technology and any negative impacts on
people of color and be required to address these issues in the final
rule, issued by a date certain. Successful widespread infiltration of
advanced technologies into the marketplace and the resultant reduction
and mitigation of crashes should lead to a decrease in the interface of
road users and law enforcement.
Large trucks equipped with forward collision warning (FCW) and AEB
technology have also experienced lower crash rates. IIHS research,
which looked at approximately 2,000 crashes between 2017 and 2019,
found that FCW and AEB reduced rear-end crashes by 44 and 41 percent
respectively. Trucks equipped with FCW had 22 percent fewer crashes and
trucks with AEB had 12 percent fewer crashes than those without either
of these vital safeguards. The protections offered by these systems
would mitigate a myriad of crash causations including speed,
distraction, impairment and fatigue. Safety groups petitioned NHTSA to
initiate a rulemaking on AEB for all vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more in 2015. The petition was
granted but no regulatory action has been taken by the agency. AEB has
been required on large trucks in the European Union since 2015.
Congress should mandate the U.S. DOT completes the rulemaking so that
all truck drivers eventually have access to these crucial systems. A
requirement will reduce the cost of technology and level the economic
``playing field.''
Impaired driving continues to be a leading killer on our roads, and
its incidence can be similarly mitigated through technology by adoption
of advanced impaired driving prevention technology. According to IIHS,
technological solutions have the potential to save more than 9,000
lives a year if widely deployed. Technology that can passively detect
alcohol or monitor driver behavior behind the wheel has shown great
promise to prevent driving while impaired. Congress should move this
transformative technology forward by directing NHTSA to issue a final
rule requiring new vehicles to be equipped with advanced impaired
driving prevention technology subject to a minimum performance
standard. This will both reduce crashes and the need for law
enforcement officers to pull over impaired drivers.
Similarly, connected vehicle technology offers potential to improve
safety and limit the need for police officer/motorist interaction.
Specifically, vehicle-to-everything (known as V2X) communication can
relay signals to the vehicle about upcoming traffic lights and speed
limits, among other messaging, further improving the safety of drivers
and all road users. Connected vehicle technology can also amplify the
benefits of certain vehicle safety technologies. Vehicle technologies
are already being introduced that provide speed assistance. In fact,
the European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP) ``promotes the
installation of speed assistance systems that support drivers to
control their speed.'' We urge Congress to direct NHTSA to complete the
upgrade of U.S. NCAP to include this advancement and update and
complete the 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to require
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technology, as well as partner with the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to study the needs and benefits
of vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) with the goal of V2X communications
for safety. These steps could significantly advance safety and reduce
the role of law enforcement in traffic safety enforcement and crash
response.
Past legislation which promotes these issues and should be advanced
includes: Moving Forward Act (116th Congress, H.R. 2); 21st Century
Smart Cars Act (116th Congress, H.R. 6284); Protecting Roadside First
Responders Act (116th Congress, S. 2700/H.R. 4871); Safe Roads Act
(116th Congress, H.R. 3773); School Bus Safety Act (116th Congress, S.
2278/H.R. 3959); HALT Drunk Driving Act (116th Congress, 4354);
Reducing Impaired Driving for Everyone (RIDE) Act (116th Congress, S.
2604); and, Five-Stars for Safe Cars Act (116th Congress, H.R. 6256).
Expand the Use of Road Safety Technology: Automated enforcement
(AE), such as speed and red-light running cameras, is a verified
deterrent against frequent crash contributors and has been identified
by NHTSA, NTSB, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), IIHS
and others as an effective means to curb dangerous driving behavior.
Moreover, a recent review by the Congressional Research Service (CRS)
found that speed camera programs are effective in reducing speeding
and/or crashes near cameras. Additionally, for vulnerable road users,
such as pedestrians and bicyclists, small changes in speed can have a
large impact on survivability. New crash tests performed by IIHS, the
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, and Humanetics show that modest five
to ten miles per hour (mph) increases in speed can have a severe impact
on a driver's risk of injury or even death. Expanding the use of AE is
especially important considering in 2019 pedestrian and bicyclist
fatalities remained among the highest levels in 30 years. According to
the 2019 Dangerous by Design released by Smart Growth America and the
National Complete Streets Coalition, ``Drivers strike and kill people
of color, especially Black or African American and American Indian or
Alaska Native people, at higher rates compared to White, Non-Hispanic,
and Asian or Pacific Islander people.''
With local budgets strained because of the COVID-19 pandemic,
lifesaving AE should be used to augment local law enforcement efforts
to make certain that traffic safety laws are enforced in a safe and
judicious manner. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety joined leading
traffic safety organizations to produce a resource for communities
implementing new AE programs or updating existing ones called the Red
Light Camera Checklist (Checklist). We are currently in the process of
jointly updating the Checklist to apply to speed camera systems as
well. Furthermore, limiting the need for police interaction with
motorists will help reduce the safety risk of police officers and other
first responders from other vehicles while on the roadside. We urge the
Subcommittee to revise the language in 23 U.S.C. 402(c)(4) that
prohibits states that receive funding under this program from using
those awards on AE programs.
Encourage enactment and enforcement of comprehensive, transparent and
unambiguous traffic safety laws.
The intent of traffic safety laws and consistent enforcement is to
deter dangerous behaviors and ensure road safety. It is vitally
necessary that enforcement is conducted fairly and without bias or
excessive force. Some state legislatures have introduced bills to
revoke or weaken traffic safety laws without concurrently assuring the
safety need provided by such laws is equally met, which is especially
precarious considering the surge in risky driving behavior on our
roads. While numerous studies performed by NHTSA and others find that
primary enforcement seat belt laws do not result in increased ticketing
of people of color, the potential for improper enforcement and
harassment is an ongoing concern that is not limited to, nor created,
by seat belt and other traffic safety laws. Repeated requests that
NHTSA update its research pertaining to primary enforcement laws,
traffic stops and ticketing have gone unanswered, and we urge the
Subcommittee to call on them to do so as part of your ongoing efforts
to examine equity in transportation safety.
Congress should also establish an incentive grant program for
states to lower the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit to
.05 percent or lower, and to encourage states to fill gaps in their
seat belt laws to require all occupants in the front and rear seating
positions to buckle up and ensure everyone is protected. Moreover, 16
states still do not have an essential law requiring ignition interlock
devices (IIDs) for all offenders. Congress should enact a sanction
withholding federal highway construction money for states that do not
adopt an IID law by a date certain. This successful approach was used
to achieve uniform adoption of state laws on the 21-drinking age, zero
tolerance BAC for underage drinking and driving and a national .08
percent BAC. No state lost a single dollar of federal highway
construction money and every state now has these lifesaving laws.
Further, fatalities in distraction-affected crashes increased by 10
percent in 2019. Congress should direct improvements to the current
Section 405 incentive grant program to encourage state adoption of
better laws and stronger enforcement to curb distracted driving,
including by passing the SAFE TO DRIVE Act (H.R. 762/S. 195). We also
ask Congress to advance appropriate legislation to improve law
enforcement training including for procedures for traffic stops and to
promote better data and accountability in the enforcement of traffic
safety laws, among other issues.
Improve road infrastructure design, planning, maintenance and building
to factor in all road users and make changes to incorporate
safety upgrades to the road transportation system.
The Safe Systems approach is based on the reality that humans will
make mistakes, that they are vulnerable in crashes, and that it is
imperative fatalities and injuries on our roads are eradicated. It
includes research proven countermeasures such as lowering speed limits,
adding design elements that separate vulnerable road users from
vehicles (i.e., separated and protected bike lanes, accessible
sidewalks and pedestrian islands), redesigning roads which were once
designed for speed for mixed use, and advancing vehicle safety
technology including AEB and intelligent speed assistance. Congress
should take action to direct the U.S. DOT to offer grant opportunities
to incentivize the incorporation of Safe Systems principles in state
and local road infrastructure projects. These projects must be extended
to all neighborhoods to promote equity of the safety improvements. They
should aim to help improve our roads to ensure safety for mixed modal
use (i.e., vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, people who use
wheelchairs or other assistive devices, micromobility and other novel
mobility products) and expand the ability for localities to respond to
different road use challenges, among other upgrades.
Federal truck size and weight limits must be maintained and all special
interest exemptions must be rejected.
Federal limits on the weight and size of CMVs are intended to
protect all truck drivers, the entire traveling public and America's
roads and bridges. Yet, well-funded special interests continue to lobby
Congress for legislative provisions allowing larger and heavier trucks
that violate or circumvent these federal laws to operate in certain
states or for specific industries. State, roadway-specific and
industry-based exemptions and pilot programs to increase truck size and
weight will further erode an already economically inequitable system
and should be rejected.
Any consideration of autonomous vehicle (AV) legislation must include
policy positions in the ``AV Tenets.''
AV manufacturers and developers have touted the promise of AVs to
improve access, equity, mobility, environmental impact and safety. Yet,
without specific policies to require these outcomes, not only could
these goals be derailed, but wide-ranging negative consequences could
be experienced by a variety of diverse stakeholders. To address these
challenges, last November, we and numerous other stakeholders released
the ``Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Tenets,'' a comprehensive approach to
prioritize the safety of all road users, guarantee accessibility and
equity, preserve consumer and worker rights, and ensure local control
and sustainable transportation.
One example of a safeguard included in the AV Tenets is a ``vision
test'' for AVs. If a vehicle takes over the driving responsibility it
will need to ``see'' and properly respond to all vehicles, people, and
objects in the roadway including but not limited to Black and Brown
people, pedestrians, bicyclists, people who use wheelchairs and other
assistive technology, children and strollers, motorcyclists, roadway
infrastructure, construction zones and roadside personnel, and
interactions with law enforcement and first responders. Additionally,
the AV Tenets include a recommendation that if AVs are used as part of
transportation services, clear plans are needed to coordinate the safe
transportation for all people including the need for delivery of
medical care as well as laws in furtherance of social equity to protect
those who are marginalized (Black and Brown people, Indigenous people,
LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities, women, older adults, and all
other groups).
Further, the AV Tenets direct the U.S. DOT to review algorithms and
risk assessment procedures for potential issues, including bias, in
technologies that assist in or takeover the driving task. Any
identified problems must be corrected by the developer or manufacturer
and verified by the U.S. DOT. Coordination and oversight should be led
by the Office of the NHTSA Civil Rights Director in partnership with
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology,
NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Research, and NHTSA Chief Counsel's
office. The Office of the NHTSA Civil Rights Director should be given
adequate resources, expertise and authority to accomplish this role.
If, and when, Congress considers AV legislation these and the other
positions in the AV Tenets should be incorporated.
Maximizing safety and achieving equity in our transportation system
are complementary goals which should and can be realized together.
Thank you again for convening this important hearing and considering
our recommendations. We look forward to working with you to advance
safety equity for all road users.
Sincerely,
Catherine Chase,
President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
Dawn King,
President, Truck Safety Coalition.

cc: Members of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure

Red Light Camera Program--Checklist, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Eleanor Holmes Norton

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Letter of February 23, 2021, from Chuck DeWeese, Chair, Governors
Highway Safety Association, and Assistant Commissioner, New York
Governor's Traffic Safety Committee, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 23, 2021.
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chair,
House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Washington, DC.

RE: Examining Equity in Transportation Safety Enforcement

Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
Thank you for the opportunity to share a statement with the
subcommittee regarding the upcoming hearing Examining Equity in
Transportation Safety Enforcement.
The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) is a national
nonprofit association representing the State and Territorial Highway
Safety Offices (SHSOs). The SHSOs implement statewide programs to
address behavioral highway safety issues and partner with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to distribute grants for
a wide range of countermeasures, including education, enforcement and
community engagement, that are proven to help reduce roadway crashes,
injuries and fatalities. The mission of GHSA and its State members is
the safety of everyone on the road.
GHSA thanks the committee for holding a hearing on this important
topic. On September 23, 2020, GHSA released a statement condemning
racism and abuse in policing and calling for steps that SHSOs and law
enforcement agencies can take to achieve greater justice.
Traffic deaths remain a persistent public health crisis in our
country. In 2019, 36,096 Americans were killed on our roads and
preliminary estimates suggest that fatalities increased further in
2020. While GHSA continues to support the proven role of traffic
enforcement and the wider criminal justice system in protecting all
road users, clearly reforms are needed.
Last June, GHSA's Executive Board formed a Workgroup on Equity in
Traffic Enforcement to support the Association's work in this area.
GHSA has also recently engaged the transportation consulting firm
Kimley-Horn to assess the landscape of efforts across the SHSO to
promote equity in traffic enforcement as well as examine promising
practices in other State agencies.
GHSA commits to working with all stakeholders to address these
challenges in the traffic safety context. We specifically urge Congress
to direct NHTSA to use its convening authority to gather a diverse
spectrum of stakeholders together to develop solutions, including
highway safety advocates, civil rights advocates, community groups, and
national law enforcement organizations.
As Congress prepares for the upcoming transportation
reauthorization, GHSA offers the following additional recommendations:
Expand the Section 1906 Grant Program to Prohibit Racial
Profiling by providing States access to these funds for more than two
fiscal years and allowing these funds to be used for law enforcement
equity training and related programs.
Direct NHTSA to diversify the messages used in traffic
safety campaigns to influence behavior beyond enforcement and criminal
consequences, as well as evaluate the effectiveness of these additional
messages.

GHSA appreciates the opportunity to share our perspective, and we
look forward to our ongoing partnership with the U.S. Congress and U.S.
Department of Transportation to save lives on our nation's roads.
Regards,
Chuck DeWeese,
Chair, Governors Highway Safety Association.
Assistant Commissioner, New York Governor's Traffic Safety
Committee.

Letter of February 24, 2021, from Leah Shahum, Executive Director,
Vision Zero Network, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton
February 24, 2021.
To: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure--Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit

RE: February 24, 2021 Hearing on ``Examining Equity in
Transportation Safety Enforcement''

Thank you for bringing attention to this important issue at today's
hearing, ``Examining Equity in Transportation Safety Enforcement'' and
for offering the chance to share input.
We write on behalf of the Vision Zero Network, a national nonprofit
project working to advance the goal of Vision Zero: zero traffic deaths
or severe injuries for all road users, including those of us walking,
bicycling, riding transit or driving. We are proud to work closely with
more than 40 communities across the U.S. which have made local or
regional commitments to Vision Zero.
We write to share our serious concerns about the way police-led
traffic enforcement strategies are used--and, too often, abused--in the
U.S. And this includes the role that the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) plays.
We urge you to use your policymaking and funding authority to help
ensure that federal policies and funds support effective and equitable
strategies to promote safety on our roads, sidewalks and bikeways. Too
often, this appears not to be the case, to the serious detriment of the
public.
Numerous studies (and high-profile incidents viewed by millions
around the world) have shown racial bias in police-led traffic
enforcement in the U.S.
Examples include the following:
Police officers generally stop Black drivers at higher
rates than white drivers. And, once stopped, Black and Hispanic drivers
are searched more often than white drivers. (Source: https://
openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/)
The problems are similar for people walking and
bicycling. For instance, in 2019, 90% of the people that NYPD officers
summonsed for jaywalking were Black or Latinx, though only 55% of New
Yorkers are Black or Latinx. (Source: https://bit.ly/3aQw2ub)
In Tampa, Florida, a 2015 analysis showed that while
Black residents only made up about 40% of estimated bicycle riders, 73%
of all bicycle stops made by the police department were of Black
cyclists. (Source: http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wusf/files/
201604/cops-w0801-pub.pdf)
In Jacksonville, FL, Blacks were three times as likely to
be ticketed by police for a ``pedestrian violation,'' receiving 55% of
all pedestrian tickets while only accounting for 29% of the population,
according to a study released in 2017. (Source: https://
features.propublica.org/walking-while-black/jacksonville-pedestrian-
violations-racial-profiling/)

Evidence of over-policing and racial bias is compounded when we
recognize that Black people in the U.S. are also disproportionately
more likely to be killed while walking in traffic crashes. (Source:
https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/) This may not be a
surprise, as these communities' neighborhoods have been traditionally
underserved by safe everyday transportation infrastructure, such
``basics'' as safe and interconnected sidewalks and bikeways, safe
street crossings and low-speed safe streets.
What's Next?
We ask for an immediate, comprehensive and impartial review of
NHTSA's enforcement-related spending to analyze both the effectiveness,
in terms of measurable safety impacts, and evidence and impacts of
racial bias. Programs that cannot demonstrate effectiveness and
equitable means and ends should no longer be funded by NHTSA.
Alternative efforts that should be considered more appropriate to
replace NHTSA funding of traditional police-led enforcement include
investing in the following:
Support of local communities' engagement to determine
needs for their own safe, healthy, equitable, accessible transportation
options (Ex: from Los Angeles Dept. of Transportation: https://bit.ly/
3pMPbRX);
Community-led planning processes to invest in self-
enforcing street designs that do not rely on potentially biased police-
initiated actions and that are more effective and financially
sustainable;
Investment in restorative justice programs that aim for
positive behavior change versus punishments that disproportionately
harm low-income and people of color;
Resources to reform related, broken criminal justice
systems that criminalize poverty rather than improve traffic safety,
such as the practice of suspending drivers' licenses of people who
cannot afford fines and fees (Ex: from NYC's Center for Court
Innovation https://visionzeronetwork.org/restorative-justice-
strategies-for-safe-streets/)
Investment in the Safe Systems approach, as mentioned in
the hearing February 24, 2021 by the National Safety Council. This
includes prioritizing proactive, preventative measures, such as
evidence-based strategies for designing streets safely and setting
speeds at safe levels. (More from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA): https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/
FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf)
Flexibility for local and regional entities to access
NHTSA 1906 funding to analyze and address issue of racial bias in
traffic enforcement efforts, also mentioned during the hearing by
multiple panel experts.

At the Vision Zero Network, we support a pivot from the traditional
``E's'' approach of traffic safety (Education, Enforcement,
Engineering, etc.) to the Safe Systems approach, which prioritizes
improving the underlying systems and policies that center safety for
all road users--such as Complete Streets, lower speed limits, and
practices and policies that focus on proactively making safe behaviors
on the road the easy and obvious choices for road users. The Safe
Systems approach recognizes that we cannot enforce nor educate our way
out of the problem of nearly 40,000 traffic deaths each year, but that
we can design systems that proactively encourage safe behavior.
(See graphic below)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Rather than continuing the reactive and punitive approach of
today's police-led enforcement work, NHTSA can and should follow the
lead of other nations that have significantly improved their traffic
safety rates by taking a public health-inspired approach to
transportation safety, focusing on upstream measures to influence
behavior. These upstream measures include streets redesigned for
maximum safety, not maximum speed, and policies that give people
options to walk, bike, ride transit and drive--safely.
Not only is Vision Zero--and the Safe Systems approach underlying
it--the ethically responsible way to structure our decision making
around traffic safety and related goals, it is also a more equitable
and effective way than the traditional E's approach.
Analysis of traffic fatalities in 53 nations, conducted by the
World Resources Institute, found that those adopting a Safe Systems-
based approach, such as Vision Zero, achieved both the lowest rates of
traffic fatalities and the largest reduction in fatalities over 20
years (1994-2015). (Source: Sustainable & Safe: A Vision and Guidance
for Zero Road Deaths, World Resources Institute).
(See graphic below)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

The U.S. has failed in ensuring people safe, healthy, equitable
mobility options. Meanwhile, others across the globe are embracing the
Safe Systems approach and modernization of policies and practices that
have led to steady increases in safety. In fact, the U.S. ranks 42nd
out of 51 high-income nations for per capita traffic fatalities.
We share the goal with you and others across the nation of wanting
to ensure all people can move about our communities safely. We hope
this review of NHTSA's funding of enforcement practices will result in
important awareness-raising and changes to ensure traffic safety
efforts funded by the federal government are equitable, as well as
effective.
Thank you sincerely for your attention and leadership. If we can
answer any questions or discuss further, please reach out to us and
more information can be found at visionzeronetwork.org.
Sincerely,
Leah Shahum,
Executive Director, Vision Zero Network.

Article entitled, ``Nine key takeaways from the Globe's `Blind Spot'
investigation,'' by Matt Rocheleau, Vernal Coleman, Evan Allen, Laura
Crimaldi, and Brendan McCarthy, Boston Globe, updated August 25, 2020,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Seth Moulton
Nine key takeaways from the Globe's ``Blind Spot'' investigation
by Matt Rocheleau, Vernal Coleman, Evan Allen, Laura Crimaldi, and
Brendan McCarthy

Boston Globe, updated August 25, 2020

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Lane Turner/Globe Staff

For nearly a year, Globe reporters scoured crash data and records
and found that menacing drivers across the country are escaping
scrutiny--and remaining on the road--due to bureaucratic neglect. These
failures have been deadly.
The Globe's ``Blind Spot'' investigation examines the hidden
dangers on America's roads and found glaring problems with how drivers
are licensed and how the trucking industry is regulated.
Here are some of the key takeaways from the Globe's reporting.
1. There's no system to effectively track driving offenses between
states
Despite nearly 50 years of warnings by federal road safety
officials, the United States still has no effective national system to
keep tabs on drivers who commit serious offenses in another state.
Enforcement relies on state agencies to do their job, which they often
don't. It is a gap that puts everyone at risk every time we take to the
road.
2. This has had lethal consequences
One example of this was on display last summer when seven
motorcyclists were killed in New Hampshire crash. Volodymyr Zhukovskyy,
a 24-year-old truck driver with an atrocious record, allegedly crossed
the center line and crashed into the motorcyclists. His driver's
license should have been suspended at the time of the crash but
remained valid due to lapses at the Massachusetts Registry of Motor
Vehicles.
The Globe identified seven other people killed in recent years by
drivers with past violations that should have kept them off the road.
There are unquestionably many more, but restrictive state rules on
driver data make compiling a true tally almost impossible.
3. The scope of the problem is massive
A major company that collects and analyzes bulk driver data told
the Globe it estimates more than one in 10 drivers across the nation
has at least one offense--ranging from speeding to vehicular homicide--
that isn't reflected on the official record. Another data collection
company reported a similar trend.
In a nation of 227 million licensed drivers, that would add up to
more than 22 million unaccounted-for offenders, among them, almost
certainly, thousands, perhaps millions, who should have lost their
licenses, temporarily or permanently.
4. Sloppy recordkeeping, outdated communication, and neglect are to
blame
The United States counts on 50 state registries, plus the District
of Columbia, to police themselves and alert others when an out-of-state
driver breaks the law.
Often, the Globe found, states fail in this duty: Some neglect to
send warnings about dangerous drivers; some receive notices but don't
bother to read and record them.
And, even in this era of instant communication, agencies nationwide
still rely on mailing paper documents to directly notify each other
about infractions by out-of-state passenger drivers--a slow, labor
intensive process that is prone to administrative failures.
Seven states--including California, Arizona, New Hampshire, and
Rhode Island--have for years sent no direct mail notices at all, making
them islands of irresponsibility in the world of highway safety.
5. There are major gaps in oversight of the increasingly deadly
trucking industry
After more than a decade of declines, the frequency of fatal
crashes involving trucks shot up by 41 percent between 2009 and 2017.
In 2017, the last year for which complete statistics are available,
4,761 people died in crashes involving large trucks on American roads.
That's one person every two hours. That's a Boeing 737 plane crash
every two weeks.
And violations among trucking companies are common. Recent research
commissioned by trucking companies themselves suggests that 300,000
undetected drug users are currently piloting trucks.
6. Many trucks are poorly maintained to the point of peril
Federal statistics show that, on average, one in five of the more
than 4 million trucks regulated by the FMCSA is in such disrepair that
if it were stopped by safety inspectors, it would immediately be taken
out of service.
Yet, the federal agency responsible for protecting American drivers
from dangerous truckers, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, has allowed whole swaths of the industry--most
strikingly, small upstart companies--to operate with minimal or no
oversight, the Globe found.
7. How did it get this way?
The FMCSA simply lacks the firepower to wrangle a sprawling
industry with a fierce independent streak, which some safety advocates
liken to the Wild West.
The agency employs only about 1,200 people to oversee a sector with
half a million companies that is growing by more than 30,000 businesses
every year. The agency has no centralized way to check the backgrounds
of drivers, and drug testing requirements are inadequate.
Compliance with many of the agency's requirements is increasingly
monitored remotely, often with paperwork that companies simply send in,
with little verification or first-hand observation.
The FMCSA does get information from traffic stops by police and
unannounced roadside inspections conducted by state regulators. But
that provides a haphazard picture at best: More than a million of the
4.6 million commercial vehicles the FMCSA regulated in 2018, for
example, were not stopped once through the entire year, according to
federal statistics.
8. The problems are most glaring with fledgling companies
New trucking companies are required by the FMCSA to file reams of
paperwork before they can open up shop, promising that they understand
and will comply with regulations, but no one from the agency makes them
prove it.
No one checks whether they're telling the truth about their
background. There's no vehicle inspection, test, or in-person safety
audit before a new company is allowed to put vehicles 20 times the size
of passenger cars out on the highway.
This means that companies operate unproven during their early,
formative months in business, the very time when they are most in need
of oversight. Federal statistics from 2015 show that new companies have
a crash rate almost 60 percent higher than established ones.
9. Attempts to bolster trucking oversight have also fallen short
The National Transportation Safety Board sees itself as ``the
conscience and the compass of the transportation industry,'' but it
doesn't regulate the industry. Since 1971, the federal agency has been
issuing and reissuing the same plaintive warning: The regulatory system
that is supposed to keep trucking safe is full of loopholes that cost
lives.
In 2020, the Department of Transportation spent 25 times more
overseeing aviation than trucking, reflecting, in part, the headline-
grabbing nature of plane crashes that make air safety a national focus.
By contrast, trucking disasters that kill two or four or six at a time
rarely capture the nation's attention, and there is little public
pressure for change.

Letter of March 10, 2021, from Gary Biller, President and Chief
Executive Officer, National Motorists Association (NMA), and
Legislative Text of NMA's Driver Education Through Enforcement Response
(DETER) Act, Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer
National Motorists Association,
1001 Arboretum Drive, Suite 120,
Waunakee, WI 53597-2670, March 10, 2021.
Chair Eleanor Holmes Norton,
House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
2167 Rayburn House Office Building, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.

Re: Testimony for the Record
Subcommittee Hearing: Examining Equity in Transportation Safety
Enforcement
Submitted by the National Motorists Association

Dear Chair Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Members of the National Motorists Association--an alliance of
thousands of motorists across the United States who advocate for
traffic standards based on fairness and safety--watched the
Subcommittee's February 24, 2021, Examining Equity in Transportation
Safety Enforcement hearing with great interest.
The Section 402 grant program administered by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration provides funding to the states for
initiatives that reduce highway casualties through education and
enforcement. As currently codified, Section 402 requires states to
report annually on predefined performance measures so that they can
qualify for further traffic safety grants.
Included in those measures are the following three ticketing
activities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1............................. Number of seat Grant activity
belt citations reporting.
issued during
grant-funded
enforcement
activities.
A-2............................. Number of impaired- Grant activity
driving arrests reporting.
made during grant-
funded
enforcement
activities.
A-3............................. Number of speeding Grant activity
citations issued reporting.
during grant-
funded
enforcement
activities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current federal rules that NHTSA must abide by are explicit:
Issue a specific volume of traffic tickets or risk losing federal grant
money.
More than 20 states have made ticket quotas illegal. Section 402
rules, however, give them cover: It is mandatory to report on ticketing
activity levels to receive federal safety grants. The success in
securing future grants is predicated on efficiency in issuing
citations, not in showing reductions in traffic accidents and
fatalities. In actuality, those grant monies should be awarded based on
measurable safety improvements and not on how many tickets are handed
out each year.
States should be encouraged to concentrate their efforts on
educational and enforcement safety programs that are not based on
meeting prescribed ticketing levels. To that end, we urge members of
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to support
adding the NMA's DETER (Driver Education Through Enforcement Response)
Act language in the Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2021 as
follows:

``Amend Title 23. Highways, Chapter 4. Highway Safety, Section 402.
Highway safety programs of the United States Code by replacing
subparagraph (k)(5) in its entirety as follows:

(5) Performance Measures

For highway safety plans submitted under this subsection, the
performance measures required by the Secretary under paragraph
(4)(A) shall be limited to casualty and crash-rate
improvements. Funded enforcement campaigns may focus on
maintaining a visible police presence to influence safe driving
behaviors by the public but the Secretary shall ensure that the
use of ticketing activity such as the number of traffic stops
made, the number of tickets issued, or the number of arrests
made shall not be used to determine federal grant fund awards
to state or local agencies.''

Doing so will substantially reduce quota-based police interactions.
We would be pleased to provide additional information on this matter or
answer any questions you might have.
Sincerely,
Gary Biller,
President/CEO.
cc: Chairman Peter A. DeFazio, Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee
Members of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee

Attachment: Legislative Text, DETER Act
national motorists association's driver education through enforcement
response (deter) act
H.R. __

A BILL

To reinforce the stated purpose of state highway safety programs
per Title 23, Section 402 of the United States Code (``to reduce
traffic accidents and the resulting deaths, injuries, and property
damage''), to eliminate incentives that create traffic ticket and
arrest quotas, and to emphasize the driver education role of police-
presence campaigns.
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the ``Driver Education Through Enforcement
Response'' or DETER Act.

SECTION 2. FINDINGS
Congress finds that--
The primary purpose of highway safety grant funding is to improve
safety by reducing traffic violations, decreasing the number of traffic
collisions, and preventing (deterring) serious injury and property
damage through the education of drivers.

SECTION 3. IMPROVING DRIVER SAFETY EDUCATION BY POLICE RESPONSE AND
PROHIBITING FUNDING ACTIVITIES BASED ON TRAFFIC TICKET AND
ARREST QUOTAS.
Amend Title 23. Highways, Chapter 4. Highway Safety, Section 402.
Highway safety programs of the United States Code by replacing
subparagraph (k)(5) in its entirety as follows:

(5) Performance Measures

Appendix

----------

Question from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson to Larry Sandigo, Former Chair,
Community Advisory Board for Melendres v. Arpaio, Maricopa County,
Arizona

Question 1. Adequately addressing transportation equity is a
complex, intersectional process that requires long-term commitment from
the government and stakeholders.
Would you all support the establishment of an advisory committee
within the Department of Transportation that would advise the Secretary
on policies to promote transportation equity?
Answer. Yes, I completely support the establishment of an advisory
committee within the Department of Transportation that would advise the
Secretary on policies to promote transportation equity. Having served
on an advisory committee that dealt with equity issues in traffic
enforcement, there are a few factors that would help the success of
such a committee:
The committee must have the full support of the Secretary
and leadership in the Department, and that support must be communicated
to both internal staff and external stakeholders.
The committee should have the resources and access needed
to be successful. That would include staff support, a meaningful
budget, and robust access to all aspects, such as documents, reports,
internal data, etc., and units within the Department that deal with
equity.
The Department should consult and deliberate with the
committee in a meaningful way early in the process of formulating
policies and procedures.
The Department should provide a feedback loop that
demonstrates how the Department incorporated the committee's advice and
recommendations in its policies.
The Department should provide a staff point of contact
that has sufficient stature and influence to advocate for the
committee's recommendations.
The committee must be composed of people who have
expertise and experience, both professional and lived, with the
policies of the Department. The Department should also prioritize
having committee members who have been directly impacted by inequities
in transportation policies.

Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Lorraine M. Martin, President and
Chief Executive Officer, National Safety Council

Question 1. Ms. Martin, you testified that there were 39,107 people
killed in motor vehicle incidents in the United States in 2019 and that
those deaths are preventable.
To that end, would you support measures to expand the use of 405(c)
Traffic Safety Information Systems grants to match the statutorily-
stated purpose and improve interoperability and data sharing between
state and national data systems?
Answer. Improved data sharing can definitely help ensure that
problematic drivers are unable to move to another state and be licensed
to drive there and that infractions in other states are reported to a
driver's licensing state. Clarifying that this grant funding can be
used for improving interoperability of data systems would be helpful
for states that would like to use it for this purpose.

Question 2. Ms. Martin, seven of the 2019 deaths occurred on June
21 when an impaired Massachusetts driver plowed into a group of
motorcyclists--all Marine veterans and their significant others--as
they traveled to a charity event in New Hampshire. That driver had out-
of-state driving infractions, including a DUI in Connecticut, that
should have resulted in the loss of his license. When Connecticut sent
a paper notice to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles;
however, it went unopened along with thousands of others, allowing
unsafe drivers to remain on the road.
In an age when our phone notifications remind us where we parked or
tell us how many steps we've taken that day, would you support this
committee taking steps to help states move beyond paper and send out-
of-state driving infraction notices to the driver's licensing state
through digital or automatic notices?
Answer. Electronic transfer of data allows for real-time sharing of
notifications if all systems can communicate in this manner. In order
to reach the goal you have outlined, states may need financial support
to purchase equipment and training, and Congress could outline the use
of federal funding by states to support real-time transfer of data and
information in the reauthorization bill.

Question 3. Ms. Martin, following the death of those seven
individuals, I introduced the SAFE DRIVERS Act of 2019 to take these
steps and bring our traffic safety information systems into the 21st
century. The following year, the Boston Globe's Spotlight ran a series
highlighting this as a national problem, beyond the tragedy that first
brought it to my attention.
Would you recommend Congress adopt provisions within H.R. 2 to meet
the goals of the SAFE DRIVERS Act as I've outlined for you?
Answer. Yes, as you have outlined, there are several ways that
better and faster reporting of safety data could improve safety for all
roadway users. This goal is something Congress should enact when it
reconsiders a surface transportation reauthorization bill.

Question from Hon. Nikema Williams to Lorraine M. Martin, President and
Chief Executive Officer, National Safety Council

Question 4. Ms. Martin, in your written testimony, you discuss the
``safe system'' approach to roadway and infrastructure design. I
believe it is an important concept to work into our roadway planning
and design.
Can you discuss how the safe system approach would promote safety
and equity?
Answer. The Safe System approach offers an alternative to sole
dependence on enforcement and individual drivers for safety and,
implemented equitably, could address historic problems in safety
investment. The Safe System approach reduces the need for law
enforcement by making roads and vehicles self-enforcing. It also
protects against human error, lessening the dependency on individual
behavior of both roadway users and those enforcing transportation
safety laws.
This approach also takes into account all roadway users, including
bicyclists and pedestrians and does not prioritize one mode of
transportation over any others. With exponentially increasing
fatalities among vulnerable road users as opposed to those inside
vehicles, the safe system approach ensures that the safety of all
people, no matter how they choose to be mobile, is prioritized.
The National Safety Council (NCS) outlines the safe system approach
in this policy position (https://www.nsc.org/getattachment/cbffc278-
6c2b-4c16-ad11-959201b2755e/T-Safe-Systems-149) in which we support the
application of Safe System approaches to road safety in local, state,
federal, and private sector transportation policies.
NSC supports provisions in the Moving Forward Act that prioritize
the safe system approach in planning and engineering of our existing
and new roadways within the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).
We also support seeking opportunities for greater inclusion, beyond
HSIP, of the safe system approach in the reauthorization bill that the
117th Congress will introduce.

Questions from Hon. Steve Cohen to Lorraine M. Martin, President and
Chief Executive Officer, National Safety Council

Question 5. In 2019, 3,142 people were killed in crashes involving
a distracted driver, a nearly 10% increase from the previous year.
Additionally, crashes in which at least one driver was identified as
being distracted imposed an economic cost of $40 billion in 2010. And
yet, these crashes are known to be underreported because of differences
in police crash report coding, database limitations, and other
challenges. It is clear from an increasing body of safety research,
studies and data that the use of electronic devices for
telecommunications (such as mobile phones and text messaging),
telematics and entertainment can readily distract drivers from the
driving task. Crash risk increases dramatically--as much as four times
higher--when a driver is using a mobile phone, with no significant
safety difference between hand-held and hands-free phones observed in
many studies. Further, given the rapid growth of smart phone capability
and usage and the broadening range of distracting electronic
communication platforms and options (including apps, social media,
gaming, video chatting), device use may now be accomplished without
holding or consistently physically engaging with a device (voice-to-
text and/or dash mounted option).
How can Congress help address the problem of distracted driving?
Answer. Distracted driving is a danger to all roadway users and the
full extent of the problem is unknown. Distraction caused by talking on
the phone, browsing the internet, using apps, texting, and use of other
electronic devices, including in-vehicle systems while driving, puts
all roadway users at risk. NSC believes there is much more that
policymakers, auto manufacturers, and all road users can do to curb the
epidemic of distraction on our roadways. Our ``Distraction on the
Roadways'' Policy Position (https://www.nsc.org/getattachment/24fab695-
e1e0-485d-88e2-8e9b4ffa6266/t-distraction%20on%20the%20roadways%20-
%20166) outlines several steps we would recommend:
A multi-pronged approach is necessary to change driver
behavior when it comes to distracted driving, including stronger laws,
effective enforcement and widespread education.
Policymakers should pass strong laws prohibiting the use
of electronic devices while driving, including primary enforcement, and
allow for robust, equitable enforcement and public education efforts.
Vehicle and smartphone manufacturers should default to
``driving'' modes for vehicle devices and in-vehicle technology.
Prioritizing the Safe System approaches can help mitigate
many of these risks, especially as it pertains to building safer
infrastructure with all roadway users in mind. The approach requires
the involvement of all transportation system participants in safety
efforts, and seeks to strengthen safety in all aspects of the roadway
transportation system so that if one part fails, the others will still
protect people from death or serious injury. NCS outlines the Safe
System approach in this policy position (https://www.nsc.org/
getattachment/cbffc278-6c2b-4c16-ad11-959201b2755e/T-Safe-Systems-149)
in which we support the application of Safe System approaches to road
safety in local, state, federal, and private sector transportation
policies.
Improved roadway user distraction data is needed. NSC
supports efforts by state and federal agencies to collect and report
this data.

However, NSC does not support the utilization of these types of
laws to target specific populations, as outlined in our equity policy
position (https://www.nsc.org/getattachment/757d2d64-8b77-4997-8fb4-
97d004188acf/t%20equity%20in%20transportation%20165), or to achieve
anything other than the intended goal: to improve safety for all
roadway users.
Currently, Congress incentivizes States to curb distracted driving
through the NHTSA Section 405(e) grant program. NSC worked with the
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) to amend the current grant
structure in hopes of more states passing distracted driving laws.
Currently:
24 States and DC ban hand-held devices for all drivers;
6 States had partial hand-held device bans for drivers
(in certain zones and/or for certain license holders); and
36 States and DC restrict all cellphone use for drivers
under 18.

We hope this NSC and GHSA proposal will be adopted by Congress in
the reauthorization bill and will encourage more states to strengthen
distracted driving laws to save lives.

Question 6. You have endorsed the SAFE TO DRIVE Act. Can you expand
on how it and state laws more broadly can be improved to account for
the distracting capabilities that many phones now feature and what role
can Congress play in encouraging that action?
Answer. NSC is proud to support the SAFE TO DRIVE Act. If enacted,
this legislation will incentivize States to make violations of
distracted driving laws a primary-enforced offense and prohibits
texting and non-navigational use of a personal wireless communications
device.
Distracted driving is a danger to all roadway users and the extent
of the problem is unknown. Distraction caused by talking on the phone,
browsing the internet, using apps, texting, and use of other electronic
devices, including in vehicle systems, while driving puts all roadway
users at risk. NSC believes there is much more that policymakers, auto
manufacturers, and all road users can do to curb the epidemic of
distraction on our roadways. Our ``Distraction on the Roadways'' Policy
Position (https://www.nsc.org/getattachment/24fab695-e1e0-485d-88e2-
8e9b4ffa6266/t-distraction%20on%20the%20roadways%20-%20166) outlines
several steps we would recommend:
NSC believes that a multi-pronged approach is necessary
to change driver behavior when it comes to distracted driving,
including stronger laws, effective enforcement, and widespread
education.
Policymakers should pass strong laws prohibiting the use
of electronic devices while driving and allow for robust, equitable
enforcement and public education efforts.
Vehicle and smartphone manufacturers should default to
``driving'' modes for vehicle devices and in-vehicle technology.
Prioritizing the Safe System approaches can help mitigate
many of these risks, especially as it pertains to building safer
infrastructure with all roadway users in mind. The approach requires
the involvement of all participants in the roadway transportation
system in safety efforts and seeks to strengthen safety in all aspects
of the roadway transportation system so that if one part fails, the
others will still protect people from death or serious injury. The
National Safety Council (NCS) outlines the safe system approach in this
policy position (https://www.nsc.org/getattachment/cbffc278-6c2b-4c16-
ad11-959201b2755e/T-Safe-Systems-149) in which we support the
application of Safe System approaches to road safety in local, state,
federal, and private sector transportation policies.
Improved data related to distraction of roadway users is
needed. NSC supports efforts by state and federal agencies to collect
and report this data.

However, NSC does not support the utilization of these types of
laws to target specific populations, as outlined in our equity policy
position (https://www.nsc.org/getattachment/757d2d64-8b77-4997-8fb4-
97d004188acf/t%20equity%20in%20transportation%20165), or to achieve
anything other than the intended goal: to improve safety for all
roadway users.
As stated, we need states to strengthen their distracted driving
laws in general. As is outlined in the NSC ``Understanding Driver
Distraction'' white paper (https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-
topics/distracted-driving/distracted-brain), research shows that any
driver use of electronic devices increases cognitive distraction--the
inability to focus on a primary task such as driving. The human brain
is not capable of multitasking, or doing two things at once. Instead,
the brain is constantly attention-switching between the two tasks,
never giving full focus to either one. Driving is a complex task that
could change at any moment, and if a driver is not fully focused on the
driving task, the driver could cause a fatal crash. NSC encourages all
States to adopt primary enforced laws banning all non-navigational
driver use of electronic devices, particularly for novice drivers.

Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson to Lorraine M. Martin,
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Safety Council

Question 7. Ms. Martin, you mention in your testimony the lack of
safety improvements in low-income neighborhoods despite people of color
being overrepresented in fatal crashes involving pedestrians.
In your opinion, what is the driving factor preventing local
governments from implementing similar basic safety features that are
more common in wealthier neighborhoods?
Answer. Infrastructure design varies among neighborhoods.
Historically, there has been an underinvestment in safety
infrastructure in low-income areas, and this underinvestment leads to
less safe streets for all roadway users. We encourage transportation
planners and engineers to examine all areas for safety improvements,
and especially those that have high crash incidents. In my testimony, I
provided an example of a city that mapped where most of its fatal
crashes occurred, and it was on just 13% of the city's street miles.
Using this data, city planners had clear line of sight on where to
focus resources. Reviews like this can be done in any state and city to
use data to focus limited resources.
Additionally, we encourage policymakers to adopt a safe system
approach to roadway design. When implemented equitably, this approach
could address historic problems in safety investment. The Safe System
approach can reduce the need for enforcement by making roads self-
enforcing.

Question 8. And how can the federal government become a partner in
addressing this issue?
Answer. Provisions of H.R.2 from the 116th Congress took important
steps to help. These steps include:
Defining the safe system approach
Incorporating safe system into roadway planning decision
Prioritizing vulnerable road user safety projects
Authorizing a GAO study on the impact of transportation
design on marginalized communities

We support continued inclusion of these provisions in the117th
Congress legislation and know there are additional ways to incorporate
equity and the safe system approach into the authorization bill. We
look forward to working with you on these suggestions.

Question 9. Adequately addressing transportation equity is a
complex, intersectional process that requires long-term commitment from
the government and stakeholders.
Would you all support the establishment of an advisory committee
within the Department of Transportation that would advise the Secretary
on policies to promote transportation equity?
Answer. The National Safety Council (NSC) was honored to be
included in this hearing to examine equity in transportation safety
enforcement. This conversation is long overdue and forces all
stakeholders to take a critical eye to the way things have been done.
Last year, NSC adopted an Equity in Transportation Policy Position that
examined this issue, acknowledging we can do more (https://www.nsc.org/
getattachment/757d2d64-8b77-4997-8fb4-97d004188acf/
t%20equity%20in%20transportation%20165).
Federal Advisory Committees do provide an important mechanism for
input on topics from a range of stakeholders. NSC supports establishing
a federal advisory committee on equity in transportation at U.S.
Department of Transportation, and we would be honored to participate in
it.

Questions from Hon. Rodney Davis to Lorraine M. Martin, President and
Chief Executive Officer, National Safety Council

Question 10. We have struggled as a country with the problem of
impaired driving for decades. With increases in substance use, it is
possible drug impaired driving has increased, but we unfortunately do
not have good data.
Is there more we can do to better understand impaired driving,
including drug impaired driving?
Answer. We know that impaired driving, including drug impaired
driving, is a serious problem in our country. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 12 million people aged 16 and
older reported driving under the influence of marijuana in the past
year, and 2.3 million people aged 16 and older reported driving under
the influence of illicit drugs other than marijuana.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6850a1.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substance abuse is a complex problem, and good data are needed to
develop effective solutions. During the last national roadside survey
conducted by NHTSA in 2013-2014, the percentages of weekend nighttime
drivers who tested positive for alcohol, marijuana and illicit drugs
were 8.3%, 12.6% and 15.1%, respectively.\2\ These results are the most
comprehensive, national data available on impaired driving. The
national roadside survey is a key tool for understanding impaired
driving on U.S. roads. NSC implores Congress to remove barriers to
conducting this survey because it is hard to stop deadly driving when
policymakers do not fully understand where and how it is happening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/behavioral-research/2013-14-national-
roadside-study-alcohol-and-drug-use-drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we do not have standardized data for a clear
understanding of the problem of impaired driving. Consensus standards
have been established based on the prevalence of drugs found in current
testing, with recommendations to states to test for most common drugs,
and this list will be updated later this year. The first tier includes
the most common, readily detectable drugs that account for the greatest
number of impaired driving cases found by most laboratories. The second
tier are emerging drugs, which are less frequently detected or require
special testing equipment or technology that should be considered in
cases where testing for tier 1 drugs is negative.
These recommendations have been voluntarily adopted by more than 50
of the most active laboratories in the country and the toxicology
community is working towards fuller adoption as a way to provide more
uniform and comprehensive testing and more reliable epidemiological
data on the severity of drug-impaired driving. We encourage Congress to
help implement common testing across all states to ensure we have the
best data in order to understand and develop effective countermeasures
for drug-impaired driving.

Question 11. Do you think the Committee should continue to allow
States to expend NHTSA grants on traffic enforcement activity? If so,
what impact would that have on safety?
Answer. Yes, enforcement is an important and integral part of
roadway safety, and it must be conducted in a fair and equitable
manner. High visibility enforcement (HVE) campaigns, in which well-
publicized, concentrated and purpose-driven enforcement is combined
with highly-visible education efforts, have been demonstrated to result
in safer driving, and here are a few examples of these programs.
High visibility campaigns like ``Click it or Ticket''
resulted in a 20% increase of observed seat belt use in a 16-year
period.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.ems.gov/pdf/811232.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed camera installation reduced speeding by 14% at
camera sites, and the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit
by more than 10 miles per hour decreased by 82%.\4\ In 2014, DC
reported that on average, collisions and injuries in the camera
vicinity have decreased by 17% and 20% respectively in the three years
following installation, compared with the three preceding years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/speed-cameras-in-d-
c/
\5\ https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/predominately-
black-neighborhoods-in-d-c-bear-the-brunt-of-automated-traffic-
enforcement/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several studies have found that highly visible sobriety
checkpoint programs, a common impaired driving strategy, have achieved
10 to 20 percent reductions in alcohol-related crashes. (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3256786/; https://www.iihs.org/
topics/alcohol-and-drugs#alcohol-enforcement)
NHTSA has found that HVE campaigns to enforce handheld
cell phone bans can reduce observed phone use behind the wheel.
(https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/
812108_evaluationdistracteddrivingca-de.pdf)

Questions from Hon. Mike Gallagher to Lorraine M. Martin, President and
Chief Executive Officer, National Safety Council

Question 12. In terms of distracted driving grants, what changes do
you recommend to effectively curb distracted driving?
Answer. NSC supports NHTSA Section 405 grants, dedicated to
priority programs addressing persistent killers on our roadways, with
requirements and incentives that states must meet to qualify for
funding. Section 405(e) grants are focused on distracted driving.
NSC is proud to support the SAFE TO DRIVE Act. If enacted, this
legislation will incentivize States to make violations of distracted
driving laws a primary-enforced offense and prohibits texting and non-
navigational use of a personal wireless communications device.
Additionally, it may allow for some states that would otherwise not be
eligible, to qualify for these funds by enacting simple laws to curb
distracted driving.
We have also worked with the Governors Highway Safety Association
(GHSA) on provisions to amend section 405(e). This proposal encourages
states to enact primary enforcement laws, allow for flexibility on
fines, and other provisions. We look forward to working with you to
enact these amendments into law.

Question 13. For FY2020, 17 states applied for distracted driving
grants, but only 7 qualified to receive them. What do you think is the
reason for this disparity and how can it be rectified?
Answer. NSC supports the Committee requiring greater transparency
from NHTSA when grant applications are rejected and providing technical
assistance to states for correcting eligibility gaps through increased
NHTSA engagement.

Question 14. In terms of equity, does the National Safety Council
track how distracted driving grants can be used by states to reduce
traffic fatalities of minorities and marginalized groups? If so, what
are the findings?
Answer. NSC is not aware that racial data is available for
distracted driving fatalities. We know that strong laws change behavior
behind the wheel, and other factors make a difference too. The April
2021 distracted driving awareness month (DDAM) survey conducted by NSC
shows that passengers influence a driver's behavior. Results showed
that parents are less likely to use distracting technology when their
children are in the vehicle with them.
Likewise, a DDAM survey from 2016 showed that employees feel
pressure to answer a call, text or other communication from an employer
when behind the wheel, with 54% of drivers being distracted because of
work-related pressure. This is why we encourage all drivers to take our
Just Drive pledge during Distracted Driving Awareness Month every
April. We also encourage all employers to enact a distracted driving
policy banning all employee use of electronic devices while they are
driving. Employers can and should be at the forefront of a cultural
change to make the use of in-vehicle technology while driving
unacceptable. People outside the vehicle--whether employers, family
members, or friends--can help drivers be safer by not contacting them
when they know people are driving.

Question from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson to Michelle Ramsey Hawkins,
Victim, Survivor, and Volunteer, Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Question 1. Adequately addressing transportation equity is a
complex, intersectional process that requires long-term commitment from
the government and stakeholders.
Would you all support the establishment of an advisory committee
within the Department of Transportation that would advise the Secretary
on policies to promote transportation equity?
Answer. Thank you, Representative Wilson, for this question. Yes, I
would wholeheartedly support the establishment of an advisory committee
within the Department of Transportation that would advise the Secretary
on policies to promote transportation equity. The purpose of my
testimony on February 24, 2021 was not only to tell my story but to
bring awareness to the needs of transportation equity and specifically
how we can identify and promote fair and just traffic safety
enforcement.
MADD would like to continue to have a seat at the table as
discussions on equity and traffic safety enforcement move forward, and
data-driven solutions are identified. Traffic crash victims, including
survivors who are also people of color, deserve to be heard.
The advisory committee should consist of a diverse group of
individuals and organizations seeking equitable change for society as a
whole, and not just for a particular group or population. Members of
this advisory committee should speak for all and not for some in its
representation--including stakeholders who are part of the mezzo, macro
and micro populations of our country.
Thank you again for this opportunity.

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Ken Barone, Project Manager,
Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy, Central Connecticut State
University

Question 1. Mr. Barone, your testimony notes that while the primary
motivation behind your work has been to identify and address racial and
ethnic disparities in traffic enforcement, you soon realized that
addressing these disparities also had a significant impact on the
effectiveness of traffic safety.
Are other States hoping to achieve similar outcomes using this
approach? How can this Committee support State efforts to achieve these
outcomes?
Answer. Connecticut's approach to addressing racial and ethnic
disparities in traffic enforcement has been replicated, in some form,
by California, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Since 2000, at least 24 states
have required the collection and analysis of traffic stop data.
Unfortunately, most of the 24 states were not using the most advanced
analytical tools to evaluate disparities in the data. Based on
advancements made in the research in recent years, I believe there is a
strong interest by many of the 24 states for reauthorizing or enhancing
their programs. In recent months, we have engaged with the Council of
State Governments to identify at least 10 other states that may be
interested in replicating Connecticut's approach, with the support of
the Section 1906 program.
The Committee can support State efforts in the following ways:
1. Considering the continued social unrest around policing in the
United States, the section 1906 program is more vital than ever.
Reauthorization and expansion of the program will allow states like
Connecticut to build upon our success and continue to collaboratively
and transparently work towards a more fair and just society. Under the
Section 1906 program, eligible states cannot receive more than 5% of
the total annual funding. That amounts to no more than $375,000 per
state (regardless of size). Additional funding for States could go a
long way in helping to develop and maintain robust data collection and
analysis programs. Federal funding would be vital to developing
programs that take a hands-on approach for identifying the underlying
drivers of disparities and working with police departments to find
strategies to help mitigate those disparities.
2. The Section 1906 program would benefit from a technical advisor
to work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
to help additional states develop data collection and analysis programs
and navigate the Section 1906 program requirements. This would create a
more uniformed approach and allow for national and state by state
comparisons.
3. New states interested in participating in the program may need
time to assess their technical capabilities and ensure that state
regulations/statutes meet the program criteria. Allowing states to
access one-time funding through a planning grant is a great way to
incentivize states to explore the feasibility of the program. Some
states may realize that much of the infrastructure is already in place.
4. The Department of Transportation and NHTSA should develop plans
to conduct a national study to guide local law enforcement agencies on
strategies that they can use to increase roadway safety and reduce/
eliminate racial disparities.

Question 2. Mr. Barone, your findings indicate that racial
disparities in traffic enforcement in Connecticut have largely been
driven by police enforcement of lower level vehicle equipment and
administrative violations, such as a broken taillight.
Does the data show a correlation between ticketing drivers for
equipment or administrative violations and preventing traffic crashes?
Answer. We have not found any correlation between ticketing (or
stopping) drivers for equipment or administrative violations and
preventing traffic crashes. There are over 30,000 fatal motor vehicle
crashes in the United States each year. In 2019, there were 255 fatal
crashes in Connecticut. During that same period, there were over
112,000 reported motor vehicle accidents in the state. A review of
Connecticut's motor vehicle crash data between 2015 and 2019, indicates
that excessive speed was the leading contributing factor in crashes
(29% of crashes). Meanwhile, motor vehicle equipment issues (i.e.
brakes, tires, power train, suspension, lights, windows, mirrors, etc.)
were a contributing factor in approximately 12% of accidents. There is
no data on crashes related to administrative offenses because they do
not affect the data. The largest contributing factors in crashes
involving an injury was failure to stay in the lane and following too
closely.
Based on our research, it does not appear that the types of
equipment violations being enforced in Connecticut relate in any
significant way to the types of equipment issues that are identified as
contributing to accidents. On average, equipment-related violations
account for 14% of all traffic stops. On its face it may appear to
mirror the percentage of crashes where an equipment issue was a
contributing factor, but the data does not support this conclusion. Of
the equipment-related stops, defective lighting accounts for 9.4% of
stops, but is only identified as a contributing factor in 0.1% of
accidents. Stops for a display of plate violations account for 3.2% of
all traffic stops but are not a contributing factor in accidents.
Lastly, window tint and windshield obstruction violations account for
1.4% of all traffic stops but is only identified as a contributing
factor in less than 0.1% of accidents. The most common equipment issues
reported that contributed to a motor vehicle accident were related to
brakes, steering, power train, or tires. The equipment violations that
can be easily observed by a police officer (i.e. defective lights,
windshield obstruction, and excessive window tinting), are not the
equipment issues that contribute to motor vehicle accidents.

Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson to Ken Barone, Project Manager,
Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy, Central Connecticut State
University

Question 3. Mr. Barone and Mr. Sandigo, you both mentioned in your
testimonies the role of data in improving police practices. However,
this is only one piece of a complex puzzle to improve practices and
community relations.
How can Congress help local departments and communities make
meaningful changes to improve disparities in policing?
Answer. Local police departments and the communities they serve
must engage in an ongoing dialogue about how to improve racial and
ethnic disparities in policing. For too long, conversations between
police and the community have been grounded by anecdotal evidence.
Although sharing personal stories about police interactions is
important, it can sometimes serve to further divide the police and
community. One way Congress can ensure that these conversations are
grounded by data is to consider reauthorization and expansion of the
Section 1906 program.
Congress should consider incentivizing states that participate in
the Section 1906 program to go beyond simply collecting data. States
would greatly benefit from a process that not only analyzes data but
identifies departments with the most significant racial and ethnic
disparities for further intervention. States should use the analysis to
hold data-driven conversations between stakeholders to enact reforms to
mitigate future disparities.
Connecticut has found a lot of success in our hands-on approach for
identifying the underlying drivers of disparities and finding
strategies to help mitigate them. Engaging stakeholders throughout the
intervention process has allowed advocates, law enforcement, academics,
and government officials to come together in ways unimaginable even a
decade ago. What previously had been a war of anecdotes has been
transformed into a constructive data-driven conversation about policy.
Stakeholders and policing administrators now regularly attend panel
conversations around the state and speak in similar tones about the
statewide effort. The vitriol is gone from most conversations and has
been replaced by a focus on what more can be done.

Question 4. Based on your experiences, what is the best way to
establish a productive relationship between police and community
advisory boards?
Answer. The best way to establish a productive relationship between
police and community advisory boards is to ensure that all stakeholders
are at the table at all points in the process: from the development of
the method used to implement a racial profiling law, to discussing
results from any annual analysis or potential reforms. Connecticut's
success is largely due to the active participation of a statewide 20-
member advisory board. Advisory board members consist of advocates, law
enforcement administrators, academics, policymakers, and community
members. The advisory board was initially established to help with the
development, implementation, and oversight of our program. In time we
have found it to be extremely important that the board is transparent,
inclusive, and readily accessible to the public. Having a fair broker
in the chair role has also been helpful in keeping the group together.
Commitment to the process is key as well, as this ensures everyone
works together towards common goals. The value of developing
relationships cannot be understated; in Connecticut we've had many of
the same members of our advisory board since the project began in 2011.
Since its inception in 2012, a major focus for the board has been
to find ways to engage communities and local law enforcement officials
in a meaningful dialogue about racial and ethnic profiling. The
advisory board has successfully hosted community forums with local law
enforcement officials for almost a decade. During these forums, an
independent set of recommendations is presented by researchers and the
public is given an opportunity to provide input as to their efficacy.
The value added of this approach is that it allows for a transparent
data-driven dialogue between stakeholders and policing administrators
about how specific enforcement policies contribute to observed patterns
of disparity.

Question 5. Adequately addressing transportation equity is a
complex, intersectional process that requires long-term commitment from
the government and stakeholders.
Would you all support the establishment of an advisory committee
within the Department of Transportation that would advise the Secretary
on policies to promote transportation equity?
Answer. Absolutely. I think an advisory committee within the
Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration would greatly benefit policies developed by the agency
in promoting transportation equity.

Question from Hon. Rodney Davis to Ken Barone, Project Manager,
Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy, Central Connecticut State
University

Question 6. Your testimony mentions that racial and ethnic
disparities are greatest when law enforcement focuses more on lower
level equipment and administrative violations. To address this
disparity, a Connecticut town successfully focused its enforcement
efforts on hazardous driving behaviors.
How has this change affected community and police relations and
traffic safety?
Answer. As I mentioned in my testimony, in Connecticut we have
found that racial and ethnic disparities in traffic enforcement have
largely been driven by police enforcement of lower level equipment and
administrative violations. Our annual traffic stop assessment has
consistently found that racial and ethnic disparities are significantly
decreased when law enforcement primarily focus on safety-related
violations. We also know that safety-related motor vehicle violations
are significantly more likely to be a contributing factor in motor
vehicle crashes.
The Connecticut town referenced in my written testimony that
shifted their enforcement strategy from a significant focus on low
level equipment and administrative violations to a focus on hazardous
driving behaviors reported that these changes coincided with a falling
crime rate (5%) and decreased rate of accidents (10%). The department
also reported stronger relationships with the community following our
intervention. One reason for the improved relationship was because
community stakeholders were engaged with the police administration in a
dialogue about the factors driving the disparity. Our data analysis
helped to guide the conversation, but ultimately reforms were the
result of conversations between the community and police.
Initially, there was skepticism on the part of police that shifting
their focus away from low level equipment and administrative violations
would result in anything other than increased crime. Community members
were also skeptical that police would truly embrace the reforms and not
simply substitute one low level traffic violation for another. Law
enforcement skepticism disappeared when the data revealed that crime
and accidents were down following the change in enforcement practices.
Community skepticism also diminished as the community felt the benefits
of safer streets and a significant decrease in racial and ethnic
disparities.
With additional and more flexible funds available through the 1906
program, states could also benefit from implementing regular community
surveys and other qualitative and quantitative methods to assess
changes and determine their impact on traffic safety, community
perception and police/community relations.

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Rashawn Ray, Ph.D., Professor
of Sociology, University of Maryland; Executive Director, Lab for
Applied Social Science Research, and Fellow, The Brookings Institution

Question 1. Mr. Ray, I was interested to learn how virtual reality
can be used to identify and address implicit bias when officers
interact with drivers.
What are some of the disparities you've seen in your research and
how have they been addressed?
Answer. Chairman DeFazio, thank you for the questions. Our research
has shown that some officers exhibit racial and gender biases during
traffic stops. Officers are more likely to stop, search, and use force
on Black drivers relative to White drivers. As officers approach
vehicles after stops, they are less likely to look into the vehicles of
women as they approach the driver.
To address these disparities, The Lab for Applied Social Science
Research at the University of Maryland developed an innovative virtual
reality program to reduce bias and improve objectivity. Officers
participate in our program and repeatedly go through virtual reality
scenarios that mimic the encounters they have on a daily basis. We are
able to examine officers attitudes, physiological responses (including
heart rate, stress level, and eye movement), and behaviors. The more
that officers go through our virtual reality training program and
receive feedback from training officers, the more they improve their
equitable treatment of people, regardless of race, gender, or setting,
and in turn, reduce their biases.

Question 2. What has been the feedback from law enforcement about
this approach?
Answer. The Lab for Applied Social Science Research has worked with
dozens of large, medium, and small police departments across the
country. In addition to providing law enforcement with feedback, they
provide us with feedback on the utility and feasibility of our program.
Overwhelmingly, officers enjoy the experience and believe the
training to be useful for improving objectivity and reducing bias.
Additionally, officers report how realistic the virtual reality
scenarios are and how much better our program is compared to their
current technology-based trainings.

Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson to Rashawn Ray, Ph.D.,
Professor of Sociology, University of Maryland; Executive Director, Lab
for Applied Social Science Research, and Fellow, The Brookings
Institution

Question 3. Mr. Ray, in your testimony you highlighted the multiple
variables that your lab studies that aim to help police departments
address implicit bias, including race and environmental factors.
How can your research be used to improve departmental hiring
practices to employ the best talent to serve our communities?
Answer. Representative Wilson, thank you for your questions. We
believe that our virtual reality program can be used as part of the
background checks, in addition to continuing education and in-service
training. In fact, some high-ranking officers have recommended that our
program be used for during the background process. First, our program
can assess potential officers whose bias and social dominance scores
suggests they will be more likely to use an extreme amount of force.
Second, our program can assess which potential officers may need
remedial training to reduce biases. Gaining this information on the
frontend can weed out potential ``bad apples'' and give a police
department a baseline about the competencies and decision making of its
new recruits.

Question 4. And has your technology been used by departments to
help train new police officers before they hit the streets?
Answer. Yes, our virtual reality program has been used with police
cadets during their police academy training. Our program allows for
early-career officers and cadets to practice the type of scenarios
(traffic stops, domestic house calls, mental health calls, and store
burglaries) they will encounter on the job. We find that experience
improves objectivity and reduces bias so providing a program for early-
career officers to obtain more repetitions will reduce their stress and
improve their decision making.

Question 5. Adequately addressing transportation equity is a
complex, intersectional process that requires long-term commitment from
the government and stakeholders.
Would you all support the establishment of an advisory committee
within the Department of Transportation that would advise the Secretary
on policies to promote transportation equity?
Answer. Yes, I would support this advisory committee. It is
important for policymakers to understand that infrastructure and
transportation extends beyond roads and the vehicles on them. It is
also about the people in the vehicle who are on the roads.
Understanding these complex process as well as the social and
intersectional processes at play is vital.

[all]