U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–978 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

EVERY LIFE COUNTS: IMPROVING THE SAFETY 

OF OUR NATION’S ROADWAYS 

(116–10) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 9, 2019 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chair 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, 

District of Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice Chair 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey 

GREG STANTON, Arizona 

DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida 

LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas 

COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas 

SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas 

ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa 

JESU ́ S G. ‘‘CHUY’’ GARCI ́A, Illinois 

ANTONIO DELGADO, New York 

CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire 

ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota 

HARLEY ROUDA, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

JENNIFFER GONZA ́ LEZ-COLO ́ N, 

Puerto Rico 

TROY BALDERSON, Ohio 

ROSS SPANO, Florida 

PETE STAUBER, Minnesota 

CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia 

GREG PENCE, Indiana 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey 

GREG STANTON, Arizona 

COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas 

SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas 

ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa, Vice Chair 

JESU ́ S G. ‘‘CHUY’’ GARCI ́A, Illinois 

ANTONIO DELGADO, New York 

CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire 

ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota 

HARLEY ROUDA, California 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

TROY BALDERSON, Ohio 

ROSS SPANO, Florida 

PETE STAUBER, Minnesota 

CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia 

GREG PENCE, Indiana 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the District of 

Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1 

Hon. Ross Spano, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

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

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 119 

Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida, prepared statement ................................................................................ 120 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member, National Transportation Safety Board: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Fred Jones, Vice Mayor, City of Neptune Beach, Florida, on behalf 

of Transportation for America: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Michael L. Brown, Chief of Police, Alexandria (Virginia) Police Department: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Jay Bruemmer, Vice President, K&G Striping, Inc., on behalf of the American 

Traffic Safety Services Association: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 60 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Mike Sewell, Active Transportation Service Line Leader, Gresham Smith, 

on behalf of the League of American Bicyclists: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 66 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Nicholas J. Smith, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer, the National Safety Council: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

I–14 Expansion and Improvement Act of 2019, H.R. 2220, 116th Cong., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Babin .................................................................. 110 

Letter of April 8, 2019, from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO, Intelligent 

Transportation Society of America, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton .......................................................................................................................... 121 

Statement of Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton ............................................ 122 

Statement of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, 

Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton ......................................................... 126 

Page

VI 

Statement of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton ......................................... 129 

Letter of April 9, 2019, from the Road to Zero Coalition, Submitted for 

the Record by Hon. Norton .................................................................................. 134 

Statement of J. Scott Marion, President-Infrastructure, Lindsay Corporation, 

Submitted for the Record by Hon. Lipinski ....................................................... 140 

Letters of April 10, 2019, and February 26, 2019, from the Coalition for 

Future Mobility, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Graves of Missouri ........ 141 

Statement of Benjamin Harvey, President, E.L. Harvey & Sons Inc., on behalf 

of the National Waste and Recycling Association, Submitted for the Record 

by Hon. Graves of Missouri ................................................................................. 143 

APPENDIX 

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member, 

National Transportation Safety Board ............................................................... 147 

Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson for Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member, National Transportation Safety Board ....................................................... 148 

Question from Hon. Brian Babin for Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member, National Transportation Safety Board .................................................................... 149 

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Hon. Fred Jones, Vice Mayor, 

City of Neptune Beach, Florida, on behalf of Transportation for America ..... 151 

Questions from Hon. Frederica S. Wilson for Hon. Fred Jones, Vice Mayor, 

City of Neptune Beach, Florida, on behalf of Transportation for America ..... 152 

Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton for Michael L. Brown, Chief 

of Police, Alexandria (Virginia) Police Department .......................................... 153 

Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton for Jay Bruemmer, Vice President, K&G Striping, Inc., on behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services 

Association ............................................................................................................ 154 

Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Nicholas J. Smith, Interim President 

and Chief Executive Officer, the National Safety Council ............................... 155 

vii 

1 ‘‘Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Encyclopedia.’’ National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, https://wwwfars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. 2 ‘‘New Projection: 2018 Pedestrian Fatalities Highest Since 1990.’’ Governors Highway Safety 

Association, 28 Feb. 2019, https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/pedestrians19. 

APRIL 4, 2019 

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ‘‘Every Life Counts: Improving the Safety of 

our Nation’s Roadways’’ 

PURPOSE 

The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on Tuesday, April 9, 2019, 

at 10:00 a.m. in HVC 210, Capitol Visitor Center, to receive testimony related to 

‘‘Every Life Counts: Improving the Safety of our Nation’s Roadways.’’ The purpose 

of this hearing is to assess the safety of our Nation’s roads and learn what can be 

done to lower the number of traffic-related fatalities and injuries. The Subcommittee 

will hear from a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Member, the Vice 

Mayor of Neptune, Florida, the City of Alexandria’s Chief of Police, the League of 

American Bicyclists, the National Safety Council, and the American Traffic Safety 

Services Association. 

BACKGROUND 

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

37,133 people lost their lives in accidents on U.S. roadways in 2017 1. That means 

an average of 101 people died each day in motor vehicle crashes, equating to roughly one fatality every 15 minutes. There were a total of 5,977 pedestrian fatalities 

in 2017, and preliminary reports indicate that number increased in 2018, leading 

to the highest rate of pedestrian fatalities since 1990 2. There were 783 cyclist 

deaths in 2017 and 852 cyclist deaths in 2016. And, the 5,172 motorcyclist fatalities 

in 2017 is more than twice what it was two decades ago. According to the National 

Safety Council, injuries from motor vehicle incidents totaled more than 4.6 million 

in 2017. 

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), unintentional injury is now 

the third leading cause of death for Americans. Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of unintentional injury deaths, second only to opioid overdoses. Roadway 

injuries are the eighth leading cause of death globally, according to the World 

Health Organization (WHO), and are the number one cause of death for children 

ages 5–14 and youth ages 15–29. 

The FAST Act (P.L 114–94), enacted on December 4, 2015, reauthorized Federal 

surface transportation programs through September 30, 2020. This legislation built 

on the foundation established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240), the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) (P.L 105–178) enacted in 1998, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (P.L. 109–59) 

enacted in 2005, and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– 

21) (P.L. 112–141) enacted in 2012. 

As part of each of these multi-year authorization bills, Congress has directed 

guaranteed Federal funding toward programs to ensure safety on our Nation’s 

roads. These include grants to improve physical roadway infrastructure; grant programs to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses; 


P:\Hearings\116\head.eps
viii 

3 ‘‘Special Investigation Report: Pedestrian Safety.’’ National Transportation Safety Board, 25 

Sept. 2018, https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR1803.pdf. 

grant programs to incentivize States to adopt laws and regulations to improve highway safety; and grants to assist State enforcement of vehicle and driver safety 

measures. Congress has also mandated that U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) agencies undertake numerous rulemakings in each of these areas to address 

outstanding safety concerns, many of which are discussed below. 

In 2016, FHWA, FMCSA, and NHTSA announced, in partnership with the National Safety Council, the launch of the ‘‘Road to Zero’’ coalition. The goal of the coalition is to end fatalities on the Nation’s roads within the next 30 years. The DOT 

committed $3 million in grants over three years to organizations working on lifesaving programs. The Road to Zero Coalition focuses on promoting strategies proven 

to save lives, such as seat belt use, traffic safety enforcement, and education campaigns. The coalition also focuses on developing new evidence-based strategies to addressing changes in driver behavior. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

The NTSB was created by Congress on April 1, 1967, as an independent Federal 

agency charged with investigating all civil aviation accidents and significant accidents in other modes of transportation. The NTSB determines the probable cause 

of the accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. Since its inception 50 years ago, the NTSB has investigated thousands of accidents and made more than 14,500 recommendations to improve transportation 

safety, including over 2,400 highway safety recommendations. Over 80 percent of 

NTSB safety recommendations have been acted upon favorably, saving lives. Specific information on NTSB recommendations is included below. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal-aid program, 

funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, which provides funding to projects that will 

achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads, including local roads and roads on tribal land. In order to use HSIP funding, 

a State must have an approved comprehensive, data-driven strategic highway safety 

plan (SHSP) that defines State safety goals and describes a program of strategies 

to improve safety. Funding provided under HSIP is apportioned to States to implement highway safety improvement projects, which are included in a State’s SHSP, 

to correct or improve hazardous road locations and features, or to address highway 

safety problems. The FAST Act increased funding for the HSIP program, providing a total of $11.6 

billion to States and tribes over five years. The FAST Act also increased funding 

for the rail-highway grade crossing program, funded out of HSIP. The set-aside increases from $225 million in FY 2016 to $245 million in FY 2020. The FAST Act 

amended eligible uses of HSIP funds to include only those listed in statute, most 

of which are related to physical infrastructure improvements to enhance safety, and 

specifically added the following eligible uses: installation of vehicle-to-infrastructure 

communication equipment; pedestrian hybrid beacons; and roadway improvements 

that provide separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles. 

The FAST Act also included ‘‘complete streets’’ language, which encourages States 

to adopt standards to provide for the safe and adequate accommodation of all surface transportation users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Comparable Senate language to require States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt such policies was not retained in 

the final Conference Report. The FAST Act also promotes the use of alternate design guides in order to right-size projects and accommodate all users, which contributes to more livable communities and expands safe transportation options. 

Policies such as complete streets help reduce accidents and fatalities for all road 

users by addressing a wide range of elements unique to each community, such as 

pedestrian accessibility, street crossings, and bus and bike lanes. In November 2018, 

the NTSB released a special investigative report to address pedestrian safety 3. Their recommendations included calling on FHWA to expand its support of state 

and local safety projects in order to develop a broad network of safety improvements, as well as establishing a national metric of pedestrian safety activity to improve local planning. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

NHTSA’s mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due 

to traffic accidents on the Nation’s roadways through education, research, and by 

ix 

4 ‘‘The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised).’’ National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2015, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ 

ViewPublication/812013. 5 ‘‘What Works: Strategies to Increase Restraint Use.’’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 Jan. 2015, https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/strategies.html. 6 ‘‘2017 Crime in the United States.’’ Federal Bureau of Investigation, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crimein-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-69/table-69.xls. 

promulgating and enforcing safety standards. The FAST Act reauthorized NHTSA’s 

behavioral highway safety programs. Section 402 of title 23, United States Code, requires States to have safety plans approved by the Secretary and designed to reduce 

fatalities, injuries, and property damage resulting from traffic accidents. Funding is 

distributed to States with approved plans through a formula based on population 

and public road mileage. The FAST Act increased funding to carry out state highway safety plans and reduced administrative requirements for States. 

The majority of motor vehicle deaths are linked to human behavior. Of the 37,133 

traffic related fatalities which occurred in 2017: • 10,874 (29 percent) were crashes where at least one driver was alcohol-impaired; • 9,717 (26 percent) were in crashes where at least one driver was speeding, and; • 3,166 (9 percent) were in crashes involving distracted driving. 

Traffic fatality data for each state can be found here: https:// 

crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812581 

NHTSA has also analyzed the economic costs of motor vehicle crashes and found 

that traffic-related accidents cost the U.S. $242 billion in 2010 4. Of that, $43 billion 

was attributed to alcohol-impaired crashes, and $52 billion was attributed to speedrelated crashes. Seat belt use prevented 12,500 fatalities, 308,000 serious injuries, 

and $50 billion in injury related costs in 2010. However, the failure of a substantial 

portion of the driving population to buckle up caused 3,350 unnecessary fatalities, 

54,300 serious injuries, and cost society $10 billion in easily preventable injury related expenses. In 2017, motor vehicle injuries are estimated to have cost the U.S. 

economy $433.8 billion, including medical expenses, lost wages and productivity, 

property damage, and other similar expenses, according to the National Safety 

Council. 

States can use their Section 402 funding on activities to carry out their States 

safety plans, including activities to improve enforcement of traffic safety laws. In 

their campaign Save LIVES, which aims to significantly lower traffic fatalities and 

injuries by 2050, the WHO included investment in traffic safety enforcement as one 

of its top six priorities. 

The CDC also recommends greater enforcement of seat belt laws to help lower the 

number of traffic-related fatalities caused by not using a restraint 5. The majority 

of Americans recognize the importance of wearing a seat belt, with the national use 

rate at almost 90 percent. However, of the passengers killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2017, 47 percent were not using a restraint. Despite a continued steady 

rate of fatalities due to alcohol impairment in recent years, traffic safety enforcement is steadily declining. According to data from the FBI, the number of drunk 

driving arrests decreased 24 percent from 2005 to 2017 6. 

STATE SAFETY GRANTS

In order to assist and incentivize States to improve safety in areas known to contribute to fatalities, Congress authorized the National Priority Safety Program (Section 405 of title 23, U.S.C.). Through this program, NHTSA makes grant funding 

available to States that adopt or implement programs or laws to: increase the use 

of occupant protection devices; reduce the number of alcohol impaired driving fatalities; encourage the adoption of laws which prohibit distracted driving; improve motorcyclist safety; improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of state safety data; and encourage the adoption of state 

graduated driver licensing laws. The FAST Act also added two new grants under 

Section 405, the 24–7 Sobriety Program and the Non-Motorized Safety program, 

which makes States with combined pedestrian and bicycle fatalities that exceed 15 

percent of total crash fatalities in that State eligible to receive funding to reduce 

such fatalities. Each State must meet specific criteria in each national priority program to qualify for funding. The FAST Act provided grant funding ($1.4 billion over 

five years) for this program. In 2019, the Non-Motorized Safety Grants program was 

fully utilized with each of the 25 states eligible for the grant receiving it. 

The FAST Act also made limited changes to the Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law, 

Distracted Driving, and Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive grants in order to increase the number of States eligible for those grants. To learn which States met the 

x 

7 ‘‘2013–2014 National Roadside Study of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers.’’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2017, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/13013-nrsldrugl092917lv6ltag.pdf. 8 ‘‘2016 Traffic Safety Culture Index.’’ AAA Foundation, Feb. 2017, https://aaafoundation.org/ 

2016-traffic-safety-culture-index/. 9 ‘‘Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk: A Case-Control Study.’’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Dec. 2016, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ 

812355ldrugalcoholcrashrisk.pdf. 

criteria for each grant program see: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/ 

documents/fy19lgrantdeterminationslandldeficiencieslinlstateapplications.pdf 

Despite the changes made to these safety grants under the FAST Act, states have 

not adapted their programs to qualify, leaving the program underutilized. The table 

below shows the number of states who were unsuccessful in meeting the programs’ 

criteria in 2019. Additionally, in each program, fewer States applied for grants in 

2019 than in 2018. For example, seventeen states applied for Graduated Driver Licensing Law grants last year, compared to only four states applying in 2019. 

Program Ignition Interlocks (405d) Comprehensive Distracted 

Driving (405e) 

Graduated Driver Licensing 

Law (405g) 

Applied 13 17 4 

Awarded 5 4 0 

Not Awarded 8 13 4 

Did Not Apply 43 39 52 

Not Eligible 0 0 0 

The NTSB’s FY 2019–2020 Most Wanted List includes recommendations to eliminate distractions, including a nationwide ban on the use of personal electronic devices by all drivers, and increased high-visibility enforcement for speeding and drug 

and alcohol impaired driving. The full list of recommendations can be found here: 

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Documents/2019-20/2019-20-MWL-SafetyRecs.pdf 

DRUGGED DRIVING

An emerging area of safety concern is drugged driving. NHTSA’s most recent 

Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers found that 20 percent of drivers tested positive for at least one drug that could affect safety 7. However, this figure does not represent or confirm how many drivers were impaired since a positive 

marijuana test can detect marijuana use in the past week. A 2016 AAA Foundation 

for Traffic Safety report found that an estimated 4.9 percent of drivers drove within 

an hour of using marijuana 8. 

In 2016, NHTSA conducted a study in Virginia called the Drug and Alcohol Crash 

Risk: A Case-Controlled Study, the largest of its kind ever conducted, which assessed whether marijuana use by drivers is associated with greater risk of crashes 9. 

The survey found that marijuana users are more likely to be involved in accidents, 

but that the increased risk may be due in part because marijuana users are more 

likely to be in groups at higher risk of crashes, particularly young men. 

Unlike the current 0.08 percent Blood Alcohol Content impairment standard, 

there is currently no impairment standard for marijuana. Marijuana has a larger 

variation in how it affects people than alcohol, making it more difficult to establish 

a uniform impairment standard. The FAST Act required NHTSA to report to Congress on several outstanding challenges of marijuana-impaired driving, including 

methods to detect marijuana-impaired driving, impairment standard feasibility, 

methods to differentiate the cause of a driving impairment between alcohol and 

marijuana, and the role and extent of marijuana impairment in motor vehicle accidents. That report was issued in July 2017 and provided three recommendations to 

address marijuana-impaired driving: 

• Increase training and resources for law enforcement officers using the most efficient and effective techniques to detect and recognize impairment in drivers; 

• Continue research to enable development of an impairment standard for driving 

under the influence of marijuana, and; 

xi 

10 ‘‘Marijuana-Impaired Driving a Report to Congress.’’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, July 2017, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812440-marijuana-impaired-driving-report-to-congress.pdf. 11 ‘‘End Alcohol and Other Drug Impairment—Highway.’’ National Transportation Safety 

Board, https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwlfs-19-20/mwl5-fsh.aspx. 12 ‘‘National Roadside Survey: NHTSA Changed Methodology to Address Driver Concerns.’’ 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 12 March 2018, https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/ 

690593.pdf. 

• Encourage States to collect data regarding the prevalence of marijuana use by 

drivers and among those arrested for impaired driving 10. 

NTSB recommendations for drugged driving include more research to get better 

data to understand the scope of the problem and the effectiveness of countermeasures 11. NTSB also recommends States should increase the collection, documentation, and reporting of driver breath and blood test results for alcohol and 

drugs following crashes. This is most readily done through NHTSA’s National Roadside Survey (NRS). 

In recent years, Congress has blocked NHTSA’s ability to continue this survey 

through an appropriations rider. In March 2018, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report to Senate and House Appropriations Committees which 

found that NHTSA had improved NRS methodology to address previous concerns 

leading to its prohibition 12. Their audit found there are key differences in how the 

NRS is conducted as compared to a traditional law enforcement checkpoint. As a 

result, participation in the NRS is entirely voluntary and has never resulted in an 

arrest, unlike law enforcement checkpoints. In response to these findings, the FY 

2019 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Act did not 

include the prohibition. 

AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES

Autonomous vehicles offer many safety improvements over human drivers, but 

they too have limitations. Within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure safety issues such as safely navigating road construction 

zones, pulling aside for emergency vehicles, understanding police controlled intersections are all unique challenges for autonomous vehicles. Roadway infrastructure 

needs to compliment autonomous vehicles include road striping and smart traffic 

lights. Finally, educating human drivers to anticipate and react accordingly to the 

driving style of autonomous vehicles will also need to be part of the process. 

WITNESSES 

• The Honorable Jennifer Homendy, Member, National Transportation Safety 

Board 

• The Honorable Fred Jones, Vice Mayor, City of Neptune Beach, Florida, on behalf of Transportation for America 

• Mr. Michael L. Brown, Chief of Police, City of Alexandria 

• Mr. Jay Bruemmer, Vice President, K & G Striping, Inc., on behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services Association 

• Mr. Mike Sewell, Active Transportation Service Line Leader, Gresham Smith, 

on behalf of The League of American Bicyclists 

• Mr. Nicholas Smith, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer, The National Safety Council 

(1) 

EVERY LIFE COUNTS: IMPROVING THE 

SAFETY OF OUR NATION’S ROADWAYS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

HVC–210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

(Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. The subcommittee will come to order. 

I want to welcome us all to today’s hearing. 

It is a priority for me and I hope for the members of this committee. It is certainly equally important to the other issues we are 

going to be considering as we move toward reauthorization. 

I do not see how we can reauthorize another transportation surface bill without considering not only how to build it, but how to 

make it safe for those who use it. I am going to ask Members to 

check on your district the way I did mine, and I wonder if your experience is like mine. 

In 2015, the District of Columbia pledged to end roadway fatalities by the year 2024. That must have been a year that was given 

to us by the Department of Transportation or somebody. 

Yet, every year since that pledge there has been an increase in 

fatalities. In the last 2 years of available data, traffic-related 

deaths in my own district spiked by 35 percent. That is why I am 

asking Members to look at their districts because I do not believe, 

unfortunately, that I am alone. 

Nationwide, in 2017, 37,133 people lost their lives in motor vehicle related crashes. Now, I spell that number out. Usually I round 

off the numbers, but I purposely did not do it for the purposes of 

this hearing because each number represents a life lost. 

Every day we lose more than 100 lives in traffic-related accidents. Some of those may be people walking in the streets or in the 

roads, and we have had an increase in those fatalities in my own 

district as well. Some of them may be people riding in automobiles 

or trucks. 

In 2016, the Department of Transportation announced the socalled Road to Zero. It was a coalition with a goal of completely 

eliminating roadway deaths within 30 years. Well, all I can say is 

we are off to a poor start. 

That is why pedestrian and traffic safety is a priority for me as 

chair of this subcommittee. I am anxious to learn from today’s witnesses, representing an increasingly diverse array of populations 

2 

who use our roadways, including pedestrians and bicyclists, and 

now people riding scooters, and law enforcement on what we can 

do about this trend. 

I would very much like this reauthorization to transform our approach to roadway safety to help us get anywhere close to zero 

deaths. That is an admirable goal. It is a goal we ought to set. 

We need to improve how we design our transportation networks. 

We need to improve how we educate the users of those networks, 

and we need to understand how to enforce the proven strategies 

that we already claim will save lives and apparently have not done 

so. 

Some in Congress may still live in the 20th century of transportation in wanting to eliminate the very small amount of funding 

that is used for transportation alternatives, but I think the people 

have already moved ahead of Congress and are already on the 

roads using alternative modes of transportation. 

All of these modes of transportation must be treated equally, not 

cars over scooters, not bicycles over walking. All must be treated 

as equally valid choices that people have chosen to move people. 

The options belong not to Congress but to the State and local communities who must be able to pursue the smartest and most efficient and right-sized projects to meet their own mobility needs of 

their own citizens. 

I am a big proponent of technology as holding promise to save 

lives, but human error and human choice today are very real problems, and we do not have the technology in place and will not have 

it in place for some time to save lives. 

So we cannot wait to remove humans from the equation before 

making the real progress we have promised to make. 

The three leading causes of motor vehicle deaths remain linked 

to the same human factors: alcohol impairment, speeding, and distracted driving. I am particularly interested in hearing from our 

witnesses on why we have not been able to curb this longstanding 

issue, road safety, and what we can do to stop these fatalities. 

I look forward to today’s discussion and thank each of our witnesses for sharing their insights, your much needed insights, with 

us. 

I would like to ask the ranking member, Mr. Spano, who is here 

for our ranking member, for his comments at this time. 

Mr. SPANO. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton. 

I want to welcome everybody to the hearing today. 

The current Federal surface transportation law, the FAST Act, 

expires on September 30th, 2020. Last month this subcommittee 

held a hearing to kick off its process to reauthorize Federal surface 

transportation programs. 

Today’s hearing builds on that and is focused on how Congress 

can improve the safety of our Nation’s roads. In 2017, as the Chair 

noted, 37,133 fatalities occurred on our Nation’s highways according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

While this is a 1.8-percent decrease from 2016, more can and 

should be done to further reduce highway fatalities. The Federal 

Surface Transportation Safety Programs are administered by different modal administrations within the Department of Transportation. These programs provide non-Federal partners with reVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
3 

sources to improve the safety of the Nation’s surface transportation 

system. 

Today’s hearing focuses on the safety programs administered by 

the Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. These programs require States to 

have a data-driven, performance-based approach to address their 

unique highway safety challenges. 

As we continue with our reauthorization process, it is important 

that we gather feedback on how well these programs are working 

and what other policy and programmatic change this committee 

should consider. 

With that I want to thank our witnesses for being with us this 

morning, and I look forward to hearing their testimony on this very 

important topic. 

Madam Chair. 

[Mr. Spano’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Ross Spano, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Florida 

Thank you, Chairwoman Norton. I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing. 

The current Federal surface transportation law, the FAST Act, expires on September 30, 2020. Last month, this subcommittee held a hearing to kick off its process to reauthorize Federal surface transportation programs. Today’s hearing builds 

on that and is focused on how Congress can improve the safety of the Nation’s 

roads. 

In 2017, 37,133 fatalities occurred on our Nation’s highways, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. While this is a 1.8 percent decrease 

from 2016, more can be done to further reduce highway fatalities. 

The Federal surface transportation safety programs are administered by different 

modal administrations within the Department of Transportation. These programs 

provide non-Federal partners with resources to improve the safety of the Nation’s 

surface transportation system. 

Today’s hearing focuses on the safety programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. These 

programs require states to have a data-driven, performance-based approach to address their unique highway safety challenges. 

As we continue with our reauthorization process, it is important that we gather 

feedback on how well these programs are working and what other policy and programmatic changes the committee should consider. 

With that, I want to thank our witnesses for being with us this morning, and I 

look forward to hearing their testimony on this very important topic. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

And we will hear now from the chairman of the full committee, 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Somehow we seem to have become sort of inured to the fact that 

100 people a day die in motor vehicle accidents. Yes, there is hortatory like, ‘‘Oh, we are going to move to zero,’’ but it is not being 

followed up with decisive action out of the Department of Transportation or in many State DOTs. 

So I am hopeful that as we move toward reauthorization of the 

FAST Act that we can put new direction and new emphasis on how 

to deal with this horrible toll. 

You know, obviously drunk driving is a big problem. That goes 

to enforcement issues. Speeding, enforcement issues. Distractions, 

I think a lot of States have yet to adopt laws regarding distractions, and there are new technologies that are potentially going to 

4 

build distractions into the automobiles or after-market distractions 

like heads-up displays where you can read your email on the windshield while you are driving. 

We have to deal with all of these evolving problems and then 

deal with the more traditional problems we have had. 

There has been also an alarming increase in pedestrian deaths, 

which the Chair mentioned, and cycling and pedestrian, and some 

of that can be dealt with as we rebuild this crumbling system, and 

when we look to Complete Streets or other ways to better segregate 

traffic, pedestrians and bicycles, that can help prevent some of 

those deaths. 

In some cities, they are putting in bike boxes at the front because 

the right turn is the most common cause of a vehicular collision 

with a cyclist, and you know, there are other things we can do that 

are pretty simple, not that expensive, but have not really been exploited to their potential. 

So I am looking forward to creative and innovative ideas. I look 

forward to the witnesses giving us some of those ideas. 

And with that I would yield back the balance of my time. 

[Mr. DeFazio’s prepared statement follows:] f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

Thank you, Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis, for holding this hearing. 

I am pleased that the subcommittee is prioritizing roadway safety—a topic that has 

not received the level of attention it deserves. 

We can and must do more to save lives and prevent injuries on our roads. Currently, more than 100 people a day die in motor vehicle accidents—that’s one life 

lost every fifteen minutes. Pedestrian deaths have also risen sharply in the last decade—an increase of 45 percent since 2009—and now account for 16 percent of all 

roadway fatalities. Somehow this has become tolerable. 

A total of 37,133 people were killed on our roadways in 2017. Let me put this 

in context—this is the equivalent of about 218 fully loaded airplanes falling out of 

the sky each year and yet somehow this has not spurred Americans to demand that 

enough is enough. If that weren’t bad enough, when you consider that the top 

causes of motor vehicle deaths are drunk driving, speeding, and distractions, you 

realize these deaths are entirely preventable. 

At a time when transportation is changing rapidly thanks to innovation, data 

sharing, and automation, it’s shocking we still aren’t making big strides in safety. 

We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard, because when it comes to 

roadway safety every single life counts. While we invest billions of dollars in research for cancer and other diseases and allocate new resources to combatting the 

opioid crisis, we have failed to seriously invest in lowering deaths on our Nation’s 

roadways. 

So what can we do? Making substantial progress towards saving lives requires a 

clear sense of—and strong commitment to—the goal of safety as the highest priority. 

Two decades ago, Sweden launched an effort called Vision Zero which set forth a 

road safety approach with a simple aim: ‘‘No loss of life is acceptable.’’ This model 

has been replicated in several countries around the world, and it guides the mission 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Road to Zero Coalition. And, 

many U.S. cities have independently adopted policies to work towards zero deaths 

in roadway accidents. Congress needs to demonstrate its commitment to making Vision Zero a reality as well. 

Unfortunately, highway safety has not been a high priority in transportation talks 

in Congress in recent years. In the development of both the FAST Act and MAP– 

21, there was a stark shift in the discourse over safety in Congress. Instead of developing solutions to promote safety, we sparred over proposals to ease state requirements on safety funding and exempt industry after industry from safety regulations. 

As Congress develops a bill to build 21st-century infrastructure, ensuring safety 

of the users of that infrastructure must be a top priority of this committee. Given 

5 

that two-thirds of fatalities are tied to drunk driving and excessive speed, I want 

to double down on Federal actions that we know work—education and enforcement. 

And we need to look at safety from all angles—not just promoting more responsible behavior by road users, but by ensuring that roadway design takes into account all users through smart policies, such as complete streets. Addressing the 

unique elements of each community, such as pedestrian accessibility, street crossings, and bus and bike lanes, rather than a cookie-cutter approach can have a profound impact on reducing traffic accidents and fatalities. 

I look forward to today’s discussion and learning what Congress can do to raise 

the bar on safety. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I introduce today’s panel, I want to note that we had 

many more stakeholder groups who were interested in speaking 

about safety than we could accommodate at today’s hearing, and 

that is really very encouraging to me that so many wanted to come 

forward to speak to this issue. 

It does speak to the rising consciousness and the pressure, I 

think, Congress needs to find ways, along with those in the States, 

to move this issue. 

I, therefore, ask unanimous consent to enter into the hearing 

record written statements from ITS America, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the American Road and Transportation 

Builders Association. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information is on pages 121–129.] 

Ms. NORTON. We want to move now to our witnesses: 

The Honorable Jennifer Homendy, Member of the National 

Transportation Safety Board; 

The Honorable Fred Jones, vice mayor, city of Neptune Beach, 

Florida, on behalf of Transportation for America; 

Mr. Michael L. Brown, chief of police, city of Alexandria, Virginia; 

Mr. Jay Bruemmer, vice president, K&G Striping Inc., on behalf 

of the American Traffic Safety Services Association; 

Mr. Mike Sewell, transportation service line leader, Gresham 

Smith, on behalf of the League of American Bicyclists; 

Mr. Nicholas Smith, interim president and chief executive officer 

of the National Safety Council. 

Thank you for being here. I look forward to your testimony. 

Without objection, our witnesses’ full statements will be included 

in the record. 

You may proceed, Ms. Homendy. 

6 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JENNIFER HOMENDY, MEMBER, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD; HON. FRED 

JONES, VICE MAYOR, CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH, FLORIDA, 

ON BEHALF OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA; MICHAEL 

L. BROWN, CHIEF OF POLICE, ALEXANDRIA (VIRGINIA) POLICE DEPARTMENT; JAY BRUEMMER, VICE PRESIDENT, K&G 

STRIPING, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRAFFIC 

SAFETY SERVICES ASSOCIATION; MIKE SEWELL, ACTIVE 

TRANSPORTATION SERVICE LINE LEADER, GRESHAM 

SMITH, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF AMERICAN 

BICYCLISTS; AND NICHOLAS J. SMITH, INTERIM PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE NATIONAL SAFETY 

COUNCIL 

Ms. HOMENDY. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Congressman Spano, Chairman DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for inviting the NTSB to testify today. 

The NTSB is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating major transportation disasters. We determine the probable cause of crashes and issue safety recommendations to Federal, State, and local agencies, and organizations to 

prevent future tragedies and injuries and save lives. 

We are not a regulatory agency in the conventional sense. We do 

not adopt or enforce safety standards. Since 1967, the NTSB has 

issued nearly 15,000 safety recommendations, about 2,500 of which 

are aimed at improving highway safety. 

Overall, more than 80 percent of those have been adopted, including recommendations that ensure airbags are safer, child restraint fitting stations are available nationwide, and the design 

and construction of schoolbuses are improved. 

Every 2 years, we release a ‘‘most wanted list’’ of transportation 

safety improvements to highlight issues that we believe are the 

greatest risk to safety. 

Our most recent list identifies 10 priorities, 7 of which affect 

highway safety. Today I want to focus on speeding, impaired driving, and pedestrian safety. 

Speeding is one of the most common factors in motor vehicle 

crashes. In 2016, more than 10,000 people were killed in speeding 

related crashes, about the same number of people killed in alcohol 

impaired driving crashes. Yet our attitude toward speeding is much 

different. It is seen as more socially acceptable. 

Together we need to change that mindset. In July 2017, we 

issued a study focused on reducing speeding related crashes. We 

found that, one, we need to change how we set speed limits in this 

country. Federal guidance to States is leading to ever-increasing 

speed limits, and as a result, deaths on our Nation’s roadways. 

From 2012 to 2016, we went from 32 States with maximum 

speed limits at or above 70 to 41. Seven of those States are at or 

above 80. 

We need to increase enforcement through the use of technologies, 

like automated speed enforcement and point-to-point enforcement. 

We need in-vehicle technologies to address speeding like speed limiters, and we need NHTSA to issue performance standards for such 

technologies. 

7 

We need national leadership to address speeding, which should 

include a campaign like Click It or Ticket, to change driver behavior and incentive grants to States to encourage them to implement 

programs to combat speeding. 

We also need to better address impairment in transportation. 

Twenty-nine die on our Nation’s roads daily due to alcohol-impaired driving crashes. That is one every 48 minutes. 

We recommend reducing the BAC limit to .05 or lower, and that 

NHTSA provide incentive grants to States to do so. 

We recommend requiring ignition interlocks for all convicted 

DWI offenders, and we want NHTSA to accelerate widespread implementation of technology to enable vehicles to detect driver impairment. 

Finally, pedestrian safety. Over the last 10 years, pedestrian fatalities have increased by 27 percent, while overall highway fatalities have decreased by 12 percent. 

In 2016, the NTSB began investigating a series of highway 

crashes and issued a study that included 11 recommendations to 

DOT focused on improving pedestrian safety. 

We recommend strengthening Federal standards on vehicle headlights; improving vehicle designs to reduce pedestrian fatalities and 

injuries; and ensuring collision avoidance technologies like pedestrian detection systems and automatic emergency braking are 

standard on all vehicles. 

We need better street designs. Traditional planning is geared towards motor vehicle traffic. So we recommend that States and 

MPOs implement a pedestrian safety action plan and that FHWA 

provide more resources for State and local pedestrian safety 

projects. 

Finally, we need better data to support the decisionmaking process. For example, in 2015, Portland, Oregon, identified 30 high 

crash streets and intersections that accounted for 57 percent of 

deadly crashes. 

By analyzing injury and crash data, Portland was able to determine where best to invest resources. 

In closing, let me emphasize that more than 100 people die on 

our highways every single day. In our view, one death is too many. 

We must change a culture that is willing to accept those losses, 

and we need your help to implement proven solutions. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I am 

happy to answer any questions. 

[Ms. Homendy’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member, National 

Transportation Safety Board 

Good morning Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman DeFazio, 

and Ranking Member Graves, and the Members of the Subcommittee. And, let me 

offer my congratulations to Vice Chair Finkenauer on her selection as Vice Chair 

of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) to testify before you today. 

In 1967, Congress established the NTSB as an independent agency within the 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) with a clearly defined mission to promote a higher level of safety in the transportation system. In 1974, Congress reestablished the NTSB as a separate entity outside of the USDOT, reasoning 

that ‘‘no federal agency can properly perform such (investigatory) functions unless 

8 

1 Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 § 302, Pub. L. 93-633, 88 Stat. 2166-2173 (1975). 

2 49 U.S.C. § 1131(b) 

3 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2017 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview 

(Washington, DC: NHTSA, 2018). 4 National Transportation Safety Board, 2019-2020 Most Wanted List (Washington, DC: NTSB, 

2019). 

it is totally separate and independent from any other . . . agency of the United 

States.’’ 1 Because the USDOT has broad operational and regulatory responsibilities 

that affect the safety, adequacy, and efficiency of the transportation system, and 

transportation accidents may suggest deficiencies in that system, the NTSB’s independence was deemed necessary for proper oversight. 

The NTSB is charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident 

in the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation— 

highway, rail, marine, and pipeline. We determine the probable cause of the accidents we investigate, and we issue recommendations to federal, state, and local 

agencies, and other entities, aimed at improving safety, preventing future accidents 

and injuries, and saving lives. The NTSB is not a regulatory agency in the conventional sense—it does not promulgate operating standards and does not certificate organizations and individuals. The goal of our work is to foster safety improvements, 

through formal and informal safety recommendations, for the traveling public. 

On call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, our investigators travel throughout the 

country and to every corner of the world in response to transportation disasters. In 

addition, we conduct special transportation safety studies and coordinate the resources of the federal government and other organizations to assist victims and 

their family members who have been impacted by major transportation disasters. 

Since our inception, we have investigated more than 146,000 aviation accidents and 

thousands of surface transportation accidents. We have issued more than 14,650 

safety recommendations to more than 2,400 recipients in all transportation modes, 

over 82 percent of which have been implemented. 

In the case of highway accidents, current law grants the NTSB jurisdiction to investigate those ‘‘highway accident[s], including a railroad grade crossing accident, 

the Board selects in cooperation with a State.’’ 2 The NTSB has a distinguished 

record of contributing to highway safety for decades. For example, as a result of the 

NTSB’s investigative work and safety recommendations, automobile airbags for all 

citizens are safer, child restraint fitting stations are available nationwide, and graduated driver licensing programs for teenagers have been implemented by many 

states. Additional examples of safety improvements inspired by or resulting from investigations or recommendations of the NTSB include improvements in the design 

and construction of school buses, highway barrier improvements, and center highmounted rear brake lights on automobiles. Although there is no way to quantify the 

accidents that did not happen or the lives that were not lost because of the efforts 

of the NTSB, the tangible safety improvements that can be directly associated with 

the work of the NTSB have saved countless lives and avoided millions and perhaps 

billions of dollars in injuries and property damage. 

Our goal is zero deaths and injuries on our nation’s roadways; to eliminate the 

more than 37,000 people killed in crashes on US highways in 2017.3

On February 4, 2019, we announced our Most Wanted List of Transportation 

Safety Improvements (MWL) for 2019-2020.4 First issued in 1990, the MWL serves 

as the agency’s primary advocacy tool to help save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce property damage resulting from transportation accidents. The NTSB created 

the program to increase industry, Congressional, and public awareness of the transportation safety issues identified in our accident investigations and safety studies. 

Safety issues highlighted on the MWL receive increased emphasis and become the 

primary focus of our advocacy activities. 

The issues selected for the MWL are chosen from our safety recommendations and 

emerging areas. Selections are based on the magnitude of risk, potential safety benefits, timeliness, and probability of advocacy efforts to bring about change. Issues 

selected have been thoroughly validated by our investigations. They are issues we 

identify as having received insufficient or inadequate action. They are issues that 

could create a high safety risk if not addressed. 

Our 2019-2020 list includes seven areas that affect highway safety: 

• Implement a Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Speeding-Related Crashes 

• End Alcohol and Other Drug Impairment 

• Eliminate Distractions 

• Strengthen Occupant Protection 

• Increase Implementation of Collision Avoidance Systems in All New Highway 

Vehicles 

9 

5 National Transportation Safety Board, Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles, (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2018). 

• Reduce Fatigue-Related Accidents • Require Medical Fitness—Screen for and Treat Obstructive Sleep Apnea 

My testimony today will focus on those areas most closely related to pedestrian 

and passenger vehicle safety. 

MOST WANTED LIST OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

Implement a Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Speeding-Related Crashes 

Speeding—either exceeding the speed limit or driving too fast for conditions—is 

one of the most common factors in motor vehicle crashes in the United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data show that in 2016, 

10,291 people were killed in crashes in which at least one driver was speeding. This 

represents 27 percent of the traffic fatalities that year, and a 5.6-percent increase 

from 2015. Speeding increases the likelihood of being involved in a crash, and it increases the severity of injuries sustained by all road users in a crash. 

On July 25, 2017, we adopted a safety study, Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes 

Involving Passenger Vehicles, which examined the causes and trends in speedingrelated crashes and countermeasures to prevent them.5 The study focused on five 

safety issues: • speed limits • data-driven approaches for speed enforcement • automated speed enforcement • intelligent speed adaptation • national leadership 

Speed limits are a critical component of speed management, but Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) guidance through the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (MUTCD) emphasizes that states and localities set speed limits within 5 

miles per hour (mph) of which 85% of vehicles are traveling. The focus on the 85th 

percentile has led to increasing speed limits across the United States. For example, 

in 2012, 35 states had maximum speed limits at or above 70 mph; that increased 

to 41 states by 2016, with 7 of those states at or above 80 mph. The NTSB recommends de-emphasizing the 85th percentile approach; requiring consideration of 

factors which are currently only optional, such as crash history, roadway characteristics, and roadway conditions; and incorporating a safe systems approach for urban 

roads (evaluating pedestrian and bicycle traffic). 

Speed limits must also be enforced to be effective. Successful enforcement is 

achieved through law enforcement commitment to data-driven, high-visibility enforcement. However, law enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes is inconsistent, which leads to underreporting of speeding-related crashes. This underreporting leads stakeholders and the public to underestimate the overall scope of 

speeding as a traffic safety issue nationally and hinders the effective implementation of data-driven speed enforcement programs. 

Automated speed enforcement (ASE) is also widely acknowledged as an effective 

countermeasure to reduce speeding-related crashes, fatalities, and injuries. However, only 14 states and the District of Columbia use it. Many states have laws that 

prohibit or place operational restrictions on ASE, and federal guidelines for ASE are 

outdated and not well known among ASE program administrators. Point-to-point 

enforcement, which is based on the average speed of a vehicle between two points, 

can be used on roadway segments many miles long. This type of ASE has had recent 

success in other countries, but it is not currently used in the United States. We recommend that state and local agencies use ASE and that the FHWA work with 

NHTSA to assess the effectiveness of point-to-point enforcement in the United 

States. 

In addition to enforcement efforts to address speeding, there needs to be increased 

leadership and attention for this at the national level. Current federal-aid programs 

do not ensure that states fund speed management activities at a level commensurate with the national impact of speeding on fatalities and injuries. Also, unlike 

other traffic safety issues with a similar impact (such as alcohol-impaired driving) 

there are no nationwide programs to increase public awareness of the risks of speeding. Although the USDOT has established a multi-agency team to coordinate speeding-related work throughout the department, this team’s work plan does not include 

means to ensure that the planned actions are completed in a timely manner. 

National, state, and local traffic safety stakeholders have repeatedly highlighted 

that—unlike other crash factors such as alcohol impairment or unbelted occupants— 

speeding has few negative social consequences associated with it. Surveys show 

10 

6 Compton, R.P., R.D. Blomberg, H. Moskowitz, M. Burns, R.C. Peck, and D. Fiorentino. 2002. 

‘‘Crash Risk of Alcohol-Impaired Driving.’’ Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety—T2002. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (August 4– 

drivers generally disapprove of speeding. However, most are complacent about the 

risks involved and speeding is a common behavior. Safety stakeholders told NTSB 

that because the dangers of speeding are not well-publicized, drivers underappreciate the risks of speeding in terms of crash causation. Stakeholders also expressed 

the belief that, to change public perceptions of speeding, a coordinated effort among 

safety advocacy groups, with strong leadership from the federal government, is 

needed. The lack of a national traffic safety campaign was cited as a key issue hindering the effective implementation of speeding prevention programs. 

NHTSA, through its Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) group, provides marketing 

materials and advice for states to use in developing traffic safety campaigns It also 

coordinates national traffic safety events. Our study found that none of the traffic 

safety events that NHTSA sponsored in 2016 addressed speeding. TSM does make 

available marketing materials that state and local agencies can use in their own 

campaigns. However, in the absence of a national speeding campaign, there is incomplete participation among states and little consistency among the individual 

state campaigns. 

We concluded that traffic safety campaigns that include highly publicized, increased enforcement can be an effective speeding countermeasure. This led us to 

recommend that NHTSA collaborate with other traffic safety stakeholders to develop and implement an ongoing program to increase public awareness of speeding 

as a national traffic safety issue. The program should include, but not be limited 

to, initiating an annual enforcement mobilization directed at speeding drivers. 

Another way to increase public awareness of speeding as a traffic safety issue is 

by providing states with financial incentives to be more engaged in addressing 

speeding. Highway Safety Program grants are allocated based on the population and 

road miles in each state, and these funds can be spent on any of 10 different focus 

areas (which includes speeding) according to a state’s Highway Safety Plan. In contrast, National Priority Safety Programs funds are directed toward seven different 

priority areas, with the funding level for each priority area (rather than the overall 

total) established by Congress. Each priority area has specific eligibility requirements that incentivize states to conduct particular traffic safety activities. Speeding 

is not one of the seven priority areas. 

The Highway Safety Program allows states significant leeway to spend funds according to their particular traffic safety priorities, including speeding; but it does 

not provide a means to encourage states to focus on national priorities. In contrast, 

National Priority Safety Program grants are specifically designed to encourage 

states to focus additional traffic safety efforts in areas of national importance. However, these funds currently cannot be used for speed management. Thus, we concluded that current federal-aid programs do not require or incentivize states to fund 

speed management activities at a level commensurate with the national impact of 

speeding on fatalities and injuries and recommended that NHTSA establish a program to incentivize state and local speed management activities. 

In the study, we also recommended completion of all actions in the USDOT 2014 

Speed Management Program Plan, FHWA assess of the effectiveness of point-topoint speed enforcement in the U.S., incentivizing passenger vehicle manufacturers 

and consumers to adopt intelligent speed adaptation systems, including speed limiters, and increasing the adoption of speeding-related Model Minimum Uniform 

Crash Criteria Guideline data elements and improving consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding-related crashes. 

End Alcohol and Other Drug Impairment in Transportation 

The issue area of alcohol and other drug impairment in transportation has been 

on every Most Wanted List we have published since 1990, and we have made hundreds of recommendations to address this issue. Impairment in transportation continues to be a public health concern, with more than 10,000 highway fatalities each 

year in the United States involving alcohol-impaired drivers. Impairment by overthe-counter medications, prescription drugs, synthetic drugs, and illicit substances 

is also a rising concern. 

We have recommended a comprehensive approach to address substance-impaired 

driving to prevent crashes, reduce injuries, and save lives. When it comes to alcohol 

use, research shows that impairment begins before a person’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level reaches 0.08 percent, the current illegal per se limit in every 

state except Utah, which was the first state to enact 0.05 BAC law in 2017. In fact, 

by the time BAC reaches 0.08, the risk of a fatal crash has more than doubled.6

11 

9, 2002). Montreal, Canada: International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. 

Blomberg, Richard D., Raymond C. Peck, Herbert Moskowitz, Marcelline Burns, and Dary 

Fiorentino. 2005. Crash Risk of Alcohol Involved Driving: A Case-Control Study. Stamford, CT: 

Dunlap and Associates, Inc. 7 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-13-001. 

8 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-12-048 

9 National Transportation Safety Board, Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Alcohol-Impaired 

Driving, Rpt. No. SR-13/01 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2013). 10 A. T. McCartt and others, Washington State’s Alcohol Ignition Interlock Law: Effects on Recidivism Among First DUI Offenders, (Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 

2012). 11 A. K. Lund and others, ‘‘Contribution of Alcohol-Impaired Driving to Motor Vehicle Crash 

Deaths in 2005,’’ 8th Ignition Interlock Symposium, Seattle, Washington (2007). 12 National Transportation Safety Board, Pickup Truck Centerline Crossover Collision with Medium-Size Bus on US Highway 83, Concan, Texas, March 29, 2017, Rpt. No. HAR-18/02 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2018). 13 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-18-056 and H-18-057. 

We have recommended that states lower the per se BAC threshold to 0.05 percent 

or lower. Further, we have recommended that NHTSA seek legislative authority to 

award incentive grants for states to establish a per se BAC limit of 0.05 or lower 

for all drivers not already required to adhere to lower BAC limits.7

To further deter impaired driving, we have also recommended high-visibility enforcement of impaired driving laws using passive alcohol-sensing technology, as well 

as encouraged the development of technology that will enable vehicles to detect driver impairment, like the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety 8. We have also 

made recommendations to reduce recidivism by driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenders. Recommended strategies include requiring ignition interlocks for all convicted DWI offenders and making special efforts to target repeat offenders.9

In the United States, ignition interlocks have historically been viewed as a sanction for repeat or high-BAC offenders; however, in recent years, the movement has 

been toward mandating ignition interlocks for all DWI offenders, including firsttime offenders. Currently 32 states plus the District of Columbia have all-offender 

ignition interlock laws. 

Research evaluation of ignition interlock programs over the last two decades has 

found that ignition interlock devices are effective in reducing recidivism among DWI 

offenders, sometimes by as much as 62 to 75 percent. One study examined the effectiveness of laws that require alcohol interlock installations for first-time offenders 

as well as repeat or high-BAC offenders; it found an additional benefit in reducing 

repeat DWI offenses.10 Another study estimated 1,100 deaths could have been prevented in 1 year had interlock devices been required for drivers with recent DUI 

convictions.11

Based on the lack of significant progress in reducing alcohol-impaired driving fatalities over the last two decades, it is clear that more can be done to prevent these 

tragedies. The evidence shows that ignition interlock technology can—and should— 

be embraced in this battle. 

Drugs other than, or in combination with, alcohol also pose an ongoing, increasing 

threat to highway safety. On March 29, 2017, near Concan, Texas, a pickup truck 

crossed into the opposite travel lane and collided with a medium-size bus, killing 

the bus driver and 12 passengers. We determined that the probable cause of the 

crash was the failure of the pickup truck driver to control his vehicle due to impairment stemming from his use of marijuana in combination with misuse of a prescribed medication.12 As part of this investigation, we found that law enforcement 

officers need advanced training to identify the signs and symptoms of impairment 

as well as additional tools, such as roadside drug screening devices, in order to better detect drivers operating under the influence of drugs. Oral fluid drug screening 

devices can improve the ability of law enforcement officers to detect drug-impaired 

drivers. We recommended that NHTSA develop and disseminate best practices, 

identify model specifications, and create a conforming products list for oral fluid 

drug screening devices. We also urged NHTSA to evaluate best practices and countermeasures found to be the most effective in reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes involving drug-impaired drivers and provide additional guidance to the states on 

drug-impaired driving.13

Eliminate Distractions 

Drivers and operators in all modes of transportation must keep their hands, eyes, 

and minds focused on operating their vehicles. According to NHTSA, distraction was 

12 

14 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, 2017 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 2017). 

DOT HS 812 603, p. 5. 15 National Transportation Safety Board, Multivehicle Collision, Interstate 44 Eastbound, Gray 

Summit, Missouri, August 5, 2010, Rpt. No. HAR-11/03 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2011). 16 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-15-042. 17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Primary Enforcement of Seat Belt Laws, https:// 

www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/factsheet/seatbelt.html 

reported to be involved in almost 3,200 highway fatalities, or 8.6 percent of all fatalities in 2017.14

On August 5, 2010, in an active work zone in Gray Summit, Missouri, a trucktractor was struck in the rear by a pickup truck, which was then struck in the rear 

by a school bus carrying 23 passengers. The school bus was then struck by another 

school bus carrying 31 passengers. The driver of the pickup and one passenger seated in the rear of the lead school bus were killed. A total of 35 passengers from both 

buses, the two bus drivers, and the driver of the truck-tractor sustained injuries 

ranging from minor to serious. We determined that the probable cause of the initial 

collision was the pickup driver’s distraction, likely due to his ongoing text messaging 

conversation. As a result of this investigation, we recommended that the 50 states 

and the District of Columbia ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers, and to 

use high-visibility enforcement and targeted communication campaigns.15 Currently, 

16 states ban hand-held use and new laws are being considered in many other 

states this year. In the seven years since we made these recommendations, we continue to encounter crashes where use of personal electronic devices played a part. 

Real change will require a three-pronged approach that includes strict laws, proper 

education, and effective enforcement. 

Strengthen Occupant Protection 

We have investigated many crashes in which improved occupant protection systems, such as seat belts, child restraints, and other vehicle design features, could 

have reduced injuries and saved lives. Recent investigations have highlighted the 

importance of proper use of the safety equipment, effective design, and readily accessible and identifiable evacuation routes on larger passenger vehicles, such as limousines, school buses, motor coaches, and other commercial vehicles. 

Seat belts are the best defense against motor vehicle injuries and fatalities because they protect vehicle occupants from the extreme forces experienced during 

crashes. Unbelted vehicle occupants frequently injure other occupants, and unbelted 

drivers are less likely than belted drivers to be able to control their vehicles. In addition, seat belts prevent occupant ejections. In 2016, only 1 percent of vehicle occupants using seat belts were ejected, while 29 percent of unbelted vehicle occupants 

were ejected. Among those occupants completely ejected from their passenger vehicles, 81 percent were killed. NHTSA estimates that seat belts saved the lives of 

nearly 15,000 motor vehicle occupants age 5 and older in 2016, nationwide. Further, 

had all passenger vehicle occupants age 5 and older used seat belts in 2016 an additional 2,456 lives could have been saved. From 1975 through 2015, seat belts saved 

more than 344,000 lives nationwide. 

Since 1995, we have recommended that states enact legislation providing for the 

primary enforcement of seat belt laws, which would allow law enforcement officers 

to stop a vehicle solely because occupants are not wearing seat belts. Currently, 34 

states and the District of Columbia authorize primary enforcement of their seat belt 

laws, but only 29 states apply the law to all passenger seating positions. In 2015, 

we recommended that states enact legislation for primary enforcement of a mandatory seat belt use law for all vehicle seating positions equipped with a passenger 

restraint system.16 This recommendation covers all motor vehicles, including buses. 

Primary enforcement of mandatory seat belt use laws remains the best way to raise 

and maintain high seat belt use rates. States that have enacted primary enforcement seat belt laws have historically experienced increases in seat belt use rates 

between 5 and 18 percentage points. The increased use is based on the realization 

by drivers that they may be stopped for violating the seat belt law.17

We have a long history of investigating school bus crashes. We have found 

compartmentalization to be effective in frontal collisions, but have also identified the 

limitations of passenger seats with no belts or lap belt only restraints. Modern 

school bus seat technology has overcome previous capacity issues, and the installation and proper use of passenger seat belts, particularly lap/shoulder belts, has 

made school buses safer in severe side impacts and rollovers. On November 21, 

2016, six students died, and more than 20 others were injured in Chattanooga, Tennessee, when a Hamilton County Department of Education school bus struck a utilVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
13 

18 National Transportation Safety Board, Selective Issues in School Bus Transportation Safety: 

Crashes in Baltimore, Maryland, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, Rpt. No. SIR-18/02 (Washington, 

DC: NTSB, 2018). 19 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations H-18-009 and H-18-010. 20The report concluded that the technology could have assisted the driver in maintaining vehicle control and mitigated the severity of the crash by reducing the speed of the vehicle. 21 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations H-10-012, H-10-013, H-13- 

013, H-13-014, H-13-015, and H-13-016. 22 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations H-14-002 and H-14-004. 23 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated 

in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey. February 2015, (DOT HS 812 115). 24 National Transportation Safety Board, The Use of Forward Collision Avoidance Systems to 

Prevent and Mitigate Rear-End Crashes, Rpt. No. SIR-15/01 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2015). 25 National Transportation Safety Board, Motorcoach Collision With Crash Attenuator in Gore 

Area, US Highway 101, Rpt. No. HAR-17/01 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2017). 

ity pole, rolled onto its right side, and collided with a tree. Contributing to the severity of the crash was the lack of passenger lap/shoulder belts on the bus.18 In a 

special investigation report we developed following this crash, we recommended that 

jurisdictions which do not yet require passenger belts in large school buses enact 

legislation to require that all new large school buses be equipped with passenger 

lap/shoulder belts for all passenger seating positions.19 The report also focused on 

the benefits of electronic stability control (ESC) and automatic emergency braking 

(AEB) in improving driver and vehicle safety.20

We have also made recommendations to NHTSA regarding front, side, and rear 

underride protections for tractor-trailer and single unit trucks to reduce underride 

and injuries to passenger vehicle occupants. Specifically, as a result of our safety 

investigations, we have recommended that NHTSA establish performance standards 

for front, side, and underride protection systems for single-unit trucks with gross 

vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds, and to require such systems on all such 

newly manufactured trucks.21 Each of these recommendations are currently classified ‘‘Open-Unacceptable Response.’’ We have also recommended that NHTSA require side and rear underride systems for newly manufactured trailers with gross 

vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds.22 Each of these recommendations is currently classified ‘‘Open-Acceptable Response.’’ 

Increase Implementation of Collision Avoidance Technologies 

More than 90 percent of crashes on United States roadways can be attributed to 

driver error.23 For more than two decades, we have been advocating implementation 

of various technologies to help reduce driver error. Vehicle-based collision avoidance 

technologies, such as forward collision warning (FCW) and autonomous emergency 

braking (AEB) systems, are important for avoiding or mitigating the impact of rearend crashes, which represent nearly half of all two-vehicle crashes. Other driver-assist and collision avoidance technologies, such as adaptive cruise control, advance 

lighting, blind spot detection, and lane departure warning systems can aid drivers 

and help reduce the occurrence of other types of crashes. These technologies improve 

visibility, help maintain safe distance between vehicles, alert drivers to impending 

hazards and potential crashes, or automatically brake to mitigate the consequence 

of a crash. 

In 2015, we issued a special investigation report regarding the use of forward collision avoidance systems to prevent and mitigate rear-end crashes. The report was 

based on the examination of current research into the effectiveness of collision 

avoidance systems and investigations of nine crashes—that resulted in 28 fatalities 

and injuries to 90 vehicle occupants—involving passenger or commercial vehicles 

striking the rear of another vehicle. As part of this report, we recommended that 

passenger and commercial vehicle manufacturers install FCW and AEB as standard 

equipment, and, in order to incentivize manufacturers, that NHTSA expand the 

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to include ratings for various collision avoidance technologies.24 Most recently, on the night of January 19, 2016, a motorcoach 

occupied by a driver and 21 passengers collided with an unmarked crash attenuator 

and concrete barrier on a highway in San Jose, California, during low visibility conditions. Two passengers were ejected and died, and the driver and 13 passengers 

were injured. Upon later testing, we determined that had the bus been equipped 

with a collision avoidance system, the system could have detected the crash attenuator and alerted the driver to the hazard to mitigate or prevent the crash.25

Reduce Fatigue-Related Accidents 

On March 20, 2016, a passenger car, driven by an 18-year-old and carrying three 

passengers ranging in age from 17 to 19, crossed a median and collided with a 

truck-tractor in combination with a semitrailer in Robstown, Texas. The three teenVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
14 

26 National Transportation Safety Board, Passenger Vehicle Median Crossover Crash, US 

Highway 77, Robstown, Texas, March 20, 2016, Rpt. No. HAB-16/09 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 

2016). 27 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Asleep at the Wheel: A National Compendium of Efforts to Eliminate Drowsy Driving. March 2017, DOT HS 812 352. 28 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Prevalence of Motor Vehicle Crashes Involving Drowsy 

Drivers, United States, 2009-2013, November 2014. 29 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts: Pedestrians. March 

2019. (DOT HS 812 681). 30 National Transportation Safety Board, Forum: Pedestrian Safety, (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2016). 31 National Transportation Safety Board, Pedestrian Safety, SIR-18/03 (Washington, DC: 

2018). 

age passengers were killed. We determined the probable cause of this crash was the 

car driver’s loss of control due to fatigue-induced inattention.26

NHTSA reported that, in 2015, more than 72,000 police-reported crashes involved 

drowsy driving, and those crashes resulted in 41,000 injuries and 846 deaths. However, NHTSA has acknowledged that these numbers likely are underestimated.27

Other research conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety estimated that 

more than 6,000 people are killed in drowsy-driving related crashes each year.28

We have issued more than 200 safety recommendations addressing fatigue-related 

problems across all modes of transportation. Tackling the problem of fatigue in highway transportation requires a comprehensive approach focused on research, education, training, technology, sleep disorder treatment, regulations, and on- and offduty scheduling policies and practices. Some of our earliest recommendations called 

for research to better understand the problem of fatigue in transportation, and over 

the past three decades, several studies have been done. But research only goes so 

far; we must now implement what we have learned. 

OTHER HIGHWAY SAFETY ISSUES

Pedestrian Safety 

Until 2010, the number of pedestrians killed in highway crashes decreased for 35 

years, but then reversed course. In 2017, the number of pedestrians who died in 

traffic crashes was 5,977, an increase of more than 45 percent since 2009.29 Pedestrian deaths in recent years account for 16 percent (or almost one in six) of all highway fatalities. 

In May 2016, we hosted a pedestrian safety forum, bringing together federal and 

state officials and experts to discuss key aspects of the issue.30 Additionally, between April and November 2016, we worked with local law enforcement partners 

to initiate 15 investigations into fatal pedestrian crashes. The investigative work on 

these crashes illustrated a variety of pedestrian safety issues. This work culminated 

in the adoption last September of our Special Investigation Report: Pedestrian Safety that included the completed investigations, a review of the literature, and information about promising countermeasures.31

The report found that vehicle-based countermeasures, such as improved headlights, vehicle designs that reduce injuries to pedestrians, and collision avoidance 

systems would improve pedestrian safety. We recommended that NHTSA revise 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 to improve vehicle lighting, develop performance test criteria for manufacturers to use in evaluating the extent to which 

automated pedestrian safety systems will mitigate pedestrian injuries, and incorporate those systems into the New Car Assessment Program. 

It also found that effective street designs for pedestrian safety are highly contextdependent and best managed by local interests. However, local officials would benefit from having improved resources, tools and funding support to develop and implement those plans. We recommended that FHWA expand its support of state and 

local safety projects beyond its current focus cities. 

Additionally, the study addressed limitations in the data available to decision 

makers who are working to reduce pedestrian crashes. Planners need localized pedestrian data to support the decision-making process. However, the most complete 

set of pedestrian crash data is more than two decades old. Thus, we recommended 

that NHTSA and the Centers for Disease Control work together to develop a detailed pedestrian crash data set combining highway crash data and injury health 

data with the goal of producing a national database of pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Further, we urged NHTSA to develop a detailed pedestrian crash data set that 

represents the current, complete range of crash types and that can be used for local 

and state analysis. Finally, we recommended that FHWA develop definitions and 

methods for collecting pedestrian exposure data. 

15 

32 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts: Motorcycles, 2016 

Data, February 2018, DOT HS 812 492. 33 National Transportation Safety Board, Select Risk Factors Associated with Causes of Motorcycle Crashes, SR-18/01 (Washington, DC: 2018). 34 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations H-07-37, H-07-38, and H07-39 

Motorcycle Safety 

We are concerned about the growing number of motorcyclists killed or injured in 

motorcycle crashes. In 2016, more than 5,000 motorcyclists were killed nationwide, 

or about 14 motorcyclists per day. The number of motorcycle crash fatalities has 

more than doubled over the last two decades. According to NHTSA, motorcycles are 

the most dangerous form of motor vehicle transportation. Motorcycles represent only 

3 percent of the vehicles on our roads, but motorcyclists accounted for 14 percent 

of all traffic fatalities.32

These concerns led us to complete a safety report in October 2018, which assessed 

select risk factors associated with the causes of motorcycle crashes in the United 

States and made recommendations for improving motorcycle crash prevention.33 The 

data analyzed in this report was provided by FHWA, from its 2016 Motorcycle 

Crash Causation Study (MCCS). The MCCS represents the most recent data available for studying motorcycle crashes in the United States since the USDOT published its comprehensive Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of 

Countermeasures report in 1981. 

We concluded many high-risk traffic situations between motorcycles and other 

motor vehicles could be prevented if vehicle drivers were better able to detect and 

anticipate the presence of a motorcycle when entering or crossing a road, making 

a turn or changing lanes. We also determined stability control systems on motorcycles could reduce single-vehicle crashes involving loss of control which would reduce the prevalence of motorcyclists killed or injured by impacts with fixed roadside 

objects. 

There is a need for enhanced braking and stability control systems on motorcycles. More than a third of the crashes analyzed involved a loss of control that contributed to crash causation. More widespread availability of enhanced braking and 

stability control systems on motorcycles could improve safety by enhancing the effectiveness of braking, collision avoidance performance, and stability control for both 

novice and experienced riders. 

In 2007, following a 2-day public forum on motorcycle safety at which it heard 

from a group of panelists representative of all important aspects of motorcycle safety, NTSB recommended that states require all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet 

compliant with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 218.34 The use 

of a compliant safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention and reduction of head injury. The effectiveness of appropriately designed motorcycle helmets 

in preventing and mitigating head injury is unequivocal. NHTSA estimates that helmets are 37 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries to motorcycle riders and 

41 percent effective for motorcycle passengers. 

Universal helmet laws do increase helmet use. Numerous state studies have 

shown that helmet law repeals led to reduced usage and increased fatalities. Likewise, enactment of a universal helmet law leads to increased usage and reduced motorcycle deaths. Currently, 19 states, plus the District of Columbia, have a universal 

helmet law. The remarkable effectiveness of universal helmet laws in preventing 

death and disability among motorcyclists is a powerful argument for the adoption 

of such laws, especially in light of the more than 5,200 motorcyclists who were killed 

on our highways in 2016. For more than 70 years, research has shown that helmets 

protect motorcyclists and passengers from death and serious injury. 

Bicycle Safety 

In 2017, almost 800 bicyclists were killed in the United States, representing 2 

percent of all traffic deaths. As bicycling becomes more popular as a form of active 

transportation, especially in urban areas, it is timely and important to ensure and 

improve roadway safety for bicyclists. We have begun a safety study to identify 

proven countermeasures that can improve bicyclist safety. In this study, we are exploring improved bicycle infrastructure, advanced vehicle-based technologies, and 

approaches to increase bicycle helmet use. We anticipate that the study will be published late this year. 

Automated Vehicles 

The use of automated vehicle (AV) controls and systems is accelerating rapidly in 

all modes of transportation. We have monitored AV development and we have a long 

16 

history of calling for systems to assist the operator by providing an increased margin of safety, such as automatic emergency braking. AVs that incorporate systems 

proven to enhance safety hold enormous potential benefits for safety. 

In 2018, the USDOT updated a federal AV policy focused on highly automated vehicles. Late last year, in response to a call for comments, we commented that 

NHTSA’s proposed AV policies are notable for the voluntary approach to manufacturers’ safety self-assessments, testing and validation of system safety, and AV reporting requirements. We applauded NHTSA’s efforts to work with industry. However, its general and voluntary guidance of emerging and evolutionary technological 

advancements shows a willingness to let manufacturers and operational entities define safety. The most recent AV guidance (AV 3.0) is only focused on SAE Level 3 

and above while not providing guidance for Level 2 vehicles. 

The USDOT has an important responsibility to ensure the safe development and 

deployment of AV technologies at all levels of automation, and this safety should 

not be voluntary. However, the policy thus far has carried an overarching message 

of promoting AV development, but a clear connection to minimum safety requirements has not yet been crafted. NHTSA can and should provide this required safety 

leadership. We urge NHTSA to lead with detailed guidance and specific standards 

and requirements. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. While my testimony has 

discussed many safety concerns, these are only some of the safety improvements we 

have identified as needed to prevent crashes, reduce injuries, and save lives. A list 

of safety recommendations we have made for highway safety that are reflected in 

our MWL is included with this testimony. I look forward to responding to your questions. 

APPENDIX: 2019–2020 MOST WANTED LIST RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TO REDUCE SPEEDINGRELATED CRASHES

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-05-020 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION: Install variable speed limit signs or implement 

alternate countermeasures at locations where wet weather can 

produce stopping distances that exceed the available sight distance. 

H-12-020 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Develop performance standards for advanced speed-limiting 

technology, such as variable speed 

limiters and intelligent speed adaptation devices, for heavy vehicles, 

including trucks, buses, and 

motorcoaches. 

17 

IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TO REDUCE SPEEDINGRELATED CRASHES

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-12-021 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: After establishing performance standards for advanced speedlimiting technology for heavy commercial vehicles, require that all 

newly manufactured heavy vehicles 

be equipped with such devices. 

H-17-018 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Complete the actions 

called for in your 2014 Speed Management Program Plan, and periodically publish status reports on 

the progress you have made. 

H-17-019 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Identify speeding-related 

performance measures to be used 

by local law enforcement agencies, 

including, but not limited to, the 

numbers and locations of speedingrelated crashes of different injury 

severity levels, speeding citations, 

and warnings, and establish a consistent method for evaluating datadriven, high-visibility enforcement 

programs to reduce speeding. Disseminate the performance measures and evaluation method to local 

law enforcement agencies. 

H-17-020 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Identify best practices for 

communicating with law enforcement officers and the public about 

the effectiveness of data-driven, 

high-visibility enforcement programs to reduce speeding, and disseminate the best practices to local 

law enforcement agencies. 

18 

IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TO REDUCE SPEEDINGRELATED CRASHES

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-17-021 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Work with the Governors 

Highway Safety Association, the 

International Association of Chiefs 

of Police, and the National Sheriffs’ 

Association to develop and implement a program to increase the 

adoption of speeding-related Model 

Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 

Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding-related 

crashes. 

H-17-022 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Work with the Federal 

Highway Administration to update 

the Speed Enforcement Camera 

Systems Operational Guidelines to 

reflect the latest automated speed 

enforcement (ASE) technologies 

and operating practices, and promote the updated guidelines among 

ASE program administrators. 

H-17-023 Open— 

Acceptable 

Alternate 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Work with the Federal 

Highway Administration to assess 

the effectiveness of point-to-point 

speed enforcement in the United 

States and, based on the results of 

that assessment, update the Speed 

Enforcement Camera Systems 

Operational Guidelines, as appropriate. 

19 

IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TO REDUCE SPEEDINGRELATED CRASHES

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-17-024 Open— 

Acceptable 

Alternate 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Incentivize passenger vehicle manufacturers and consumers 

to adopt intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) systems by, for example, 

including ISA in the New Car Assessment Program. 

H-17-025 Open— 

Acceptable 

Alternate 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Collaborate with other traffic safety stakeholders to develop 

and implement an ongoing program 

to increase public awareness of 

speeding as a national traffic safety 

issue. The program should include, 

but not be limited to, initiating an 

annual enforcement mobilization 

directed at speeding drivers. 

H-17-026 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Establish a program to 

incentivize state and local speed 

management activities. 

H-17-027 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: Revise Section 

2B.13 of the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices so that the 

factors currently listed as optional 

for all engineering studies are required, require that an expert system such as USLIMITS2 be used 

as a validation tool, and remove the 

guidance that speed limits in speed 

zones should be within 5 mph of 

the 85th percentile speed. 

20 

IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TO REDUCE SPEEDINGRELATED CRASHES

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-17-028 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: Revise Section 

2B.13 of the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices to, at a 

minimum, incorporate the safe system approach for urban roads to 

strengthen protection for vulnerable road users. 

H-17-029 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: Work with the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration to update the Speed 

Enforcement Camera Systems 

Operational Guidelines to reflect 

the latest automated speed enforcement (ASE) technologies and operating practices, and promote the 

updated guidelines among ASE 

program administrators. 

H-17-030 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: Work with the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration to assess the effectiveness of point-to-point speed enforcement in the United States 

and, based on the results of that 

assessment, update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, as appropriate. 

H-17-031 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE SEVEN STATES PROHIBITING AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT (MAINE, MISSISSIPPI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, 

NEW JERSEY, TEXAS, WEST 

VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN): 

Amend current laws to authorize 

state and local agencies to use 

automated speed enforcement. 

21 

IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TO REDUCE SPEEDINGRELATED CRASHES

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-17-032 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE TWENTY EIGHT STATES 

WITHOUT AUTOMATED SPEED 

ENFORCEMENT LAWS (ALABAMA, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, 

CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, 

FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, 

IDAHO, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, MONTANA, 

NEBRASKA, NEW MEXICO, 

NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH DAKOTA, 

VERMONT, VIRGINIA, AND WYOMING): Authorize state and local 

agencies to use automated speed 

enforcement. 

H-17-033 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE 15 STATES WITH AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT 

RESTRICTIONS (ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, ILLINOIS, 

LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, NEVADA, NEW YORK, OHIO, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH 

CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, UTAH, 

AND WASHINGTON): Amend current laws to remove operational 

and location restrictions on the use 

of automated speed enforcement, 

except where such restrictions are 

necessary to align with best practices. 

22 

IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TO REDUCE SPEEDINGRELATED CRASHES

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-17-034 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE GOVERNORS HIGHWAY 

SAFETY ASSOCIATION: Work 

with the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police, and the National Sheriffs’ 

Association to develop and implement a program to increase the 

adoption of speeding-related Model 

Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 

Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding-related 

crashes. 

H-17-035 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE: Work with the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Governors Highway Safety 

Association, and the National Sheriffs’ Association to develop and implement a program to increase the 

adoption of speeding-related Model 

Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 

Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding-related 

crashes. 

H-17-036 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION: Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Governors Highway Safety Association, and the 

International Association of Chiefs 

of Police to develop and implement 

a program to increase the adoption 

of speeding-related Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 

Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding-related 

crashes. 

23 

END ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG IMPAIRMENT

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-12-034 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE 45 STATES, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, AND THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA, WHICH HAVE LOW 

REPORTING RATES FOR BAC 

TESTING: Increase your collection, 

documentation, and reporting of 

blood alcohol concentration (BAC) 

test results by taking the following 

actions, as needed, to improve testing and reporting rates: (1) enact 

legislation, (2)issue regulations, 

and (3) improve procedures used by 

law enforcement agencies or testing 

facilities. 

H-12-035 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE 45 STATES, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, AND THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA, WHICH HAVE LOW 

REPORTING RATES FOR BAC 

TESTING: Once the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

has developed the blood alcohol 

concentration (BAC) testing and reporting guidelines recommended in 

Safety Recommendation H-12-32, 

incorporate the guidelines into a 

statewide action plan to achieve 

BAC reporting rates of at least 80 

percent of fatally injured drivers 

and at least 60 percent of drivers 

who survived fatal crashes. 

H-12-036 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE 50 STATES, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, AND THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA: Require law enforcement agencies to collect place of 

last drink (POLD) data as part of 

any arrest or accident investigation 

involving an alcohol-impaired driver. 

24 

END ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG IMPAIRMENT

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-12-037 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 

AND THE NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ 

ASSOCIATION: Inform your members of the value of collecting place 

of last drink (POLD) data as part 

of any arrest or accident investigation involving an alcohol-impaired 

driver. 

H-12-043 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Work with the Automotive 

Coalition for Traffic Safety, Inc., to 

accelerate widespread implementation of Driver Alcohol Detection 

System for Safety (DADSS) technology by (1) defining usability 

testing that will guide driver interface design and (2) implementing a 

communication program that will 

direct driver education and promote public acceptance. 

H-12-045 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO 33 STATES, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, 

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Enact laws to require the use 

of alcohol ignition interlock devices 

for all individuals convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenses. 

H-12-048 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE AUTOMOTIVE COALITION FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY: 

Work with the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration to accelerate widespread implementation of Driver Alcohol Detection 

System for Safety (DADSS) technology by (1) defining usability 

testing that will guide driver interface design and (2) implementing a 

communication program that will 

direct driver education and promote public acceptance. 

25 

END ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG IMPAIRMENT

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-13-001 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Seek legislative authority to 

award incentive grants for states to 

establish a per se blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit of 0.05 or 

lower for all drivers who are not already required to adhere to lower 

BAC limits. 

H-13-005 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE 50 U.S. STATES AND THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO AND THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA: Establish a per se 

blood alcohol concentration (BAC) 

limit of 0.05 or lower for all drivers 

who are not already required to adhere to lower BAC limits. 

H-13-006 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE 50 STATES, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO 

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Include in your impaired driving prevention plan or highway 

safety plan provisions for conducting high-visibility enforcement 

of impaired driving laws using passive alcohol-sensing technology during law enforcement contacts, such 

as routine traffic stops, saturation 

patrols, sobriety checkpoints, and 

accident scene responses. 

26 

END ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG IMPAIRMENT

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-13-007 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE 50 STATES, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, AND THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA: Include in your impaired driving prevention plan or 

highway safety plan elements to 

target repeat offenders and reduce 

driving while intoxicated (DWI) recidivism; such elements should include measures to improve compliance with alcohol ignition interlock 

requirements; the plan should also 

provide a mechanism for regularly 

assessing the success of these efforts. (H-13-07) [This recommendation supersedes Safety Recommendation H-00-26.] 

H-13-008 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE 50 STATES, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, AND THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA: Take the following 

steps to move toward zero deaths 

from impaired driving: (1) set specific and measurable targets for reducing impaired driving fatalities 

and injuries, (2) list these targets 

in your impaired driving prevention 

plan or highway safety plan, and 

(3) provide a mechanism for regularly assessing the success of implemented countermeasures and 

determining whether the targets 

have been met. (H-13-08) 

27 

END ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG IMPAIRMENT

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-13-009 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE 41 STATES THAT HAVE 

ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE 

SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION 

LAWS AND THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA: Incorporate into your 

administrative license suspension 

or revocation laws a requirement 

that drivers arrested for driving 

while intoxicated (DWI) use an alcohol ignition interlock on their vehicle for a period of time before obtaining full license reinstatement. 

(H-13-09) 

H-13-010 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE 10 STATES THAT DO NOT 

HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION LAWS AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO: Establish administrative license suspension or revocation laws 

that require drivers arrested for 

driving while intoxicated (DWI) to 

use an alcohol ignition interlock on 

their vehicle for a period of time 

before obtaining full license reinstatement. (H-13-10) 

H-15-038 Open— 

Acceptable 

Alternate 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Determine the prevalence of 

commercial motor vehicle driver 

use of impairing substances, particularly synthetic cannabinoids, 

and develop a plan to reduce the 

use of such substances. 

28 

END ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG IMPAIRMENT

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-15-039 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Work with motor carrier industry stakeholders to develop a 

plan to aid motor carriers in addressing commercial motor vehicle 

driver use of impairing substances, 

particularly those not covered 

under current drug-testing regulations such as by promoting best 

practices by carriers, expanding impairment detection training and 

authority, and developing performance-based methods of evaluation. 

H-15-043 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN TRUCKING 

ASSOCIATIONS, COMMERCIAL 

VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE, 

OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, UNITED MOTORCOACH 

ASSOCIATION: Inform your members about the dangers of driver 

use of synthetic drugs and encourage them to take steps to prevent 

drivers from using these substances. 

H-16-008 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Disseminate information to 

motor carriers about using hair 

testing as a method of detecting the 

use of controlled substances, under 

the appropriate circumstances. 

29 

END ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG IMPAIRMENT

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-18-035 Open— 

Response 

Received 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Examine the influence of alcohol and other drug use on motorcycle rider crash risk compared to 

that of passenger vehicle drivers, 

and develop guidelines to assist 

states in implementing evidencebased strategies and countermeasures to more effectively address substance-impaired motorcycle rider crashes. 

H-18-056 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Develop and disseminate 

best practices, identify model specifications, and create a conforming 

products list for oral fluid drug 

screening devices. 

H-18-057 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: 

Evaluate best practices and countermeasures found to be the most 

effective in reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes involving drugimpaired drivers and provide additional guidance to the states on 

drug-impaired driving in Countermeasures That Work: A Highway 

Safety Countermeasure Guide for 

State Highway Safety Offices. 

H-18-060 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE STATE OF TEXAS: Conduct 

an executive-level review of your 

impaired driving program and implement data-driven strategies that 

result in a downward trend in the 

number of fatalities, injuries, and 

crashes involving alcohol- and 

other drug-impaired drivers. 

30 

END ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG IMPAIRMENT

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-18-061 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION: Promote the 

importance of attending drug-impaired driving enforcement training 

and increase training access to 

meet the demands of local and 

state law enforcement. 

ELIMINATE DISTRACTIONS

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-03-009 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO 34 STATES: Add driver distraction codes, including codes for 

interactive wireless communication 

device use, to your traffic accident 

investigation forms. 

H-06-029 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO 6 MOTORCOACH INDUSTRY, 

PUBLIC BUS, AND SCHOOL BUS 

ASSOCIATIONS AND 3 UNIONS: 

Develop formal policies prohibiting 

cellular telephone use by commercial driver’s license holders with a 

passenger-carrying or school bus 

endorsement, while driving under 

the authority of that endorsement, 

except in emergencies. 

H-11-039 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE 50 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: (1) Ban 

the nonemergency use of portable 

electronic devices (other than those 

designed to support the driving 

task) for all drivers; (2) use the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration model of high visibility enforcement to support these 

bans; and (3) implement targeted 

communication campaigns to inform motorists of the new law and 

enforcement, and to warn them of 

the dangers associated with the 

nonemergency use of portable electronic devices while driving. 

31 

ELIMINATE DISTRACTIONS

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-11-047 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO CTIA-THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION AND THE CONSUMER 

ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION: 

Encourage the development of technology features that disable the 

functions of portable electronic devices within reach of the driver 

when a vehicle is in motion; these 

technology features should include 

the ability to permit emergency use 

of the device while the vehicle is in 

motion and have the capability of 

identifying occupant seating position so as not to interfere with use 

of the device by passengers. 

H-14-013 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE FIFTY STATES, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO: Ban the nonemergency use 

by pilot/escort vehicle drivers of 

portable electronic devices (other 

than those designed to support the 

pilot/escort vehicle driving task), 

except to communicate hazard-related information to the escorted 

vehicle. 

STRENGTHEN OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-11-036 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Modify Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 to require 

that all emergency exits on school 

buses be easily opened and remain 

open during an emergency evacuation. 

32 

STRENGTHEN OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-11-038 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: To cover the interim period 

until Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard 217 is modified as specified in Safety Recommendations H11-36 and -37, provide the states 

with guidance on how to minimize 

potential evacuation delays that 

could be caused by protruding latch 

mechanisms on emergency exit 

windows and by exit windows that 

require additional manual assistance to remain open during egress. 

H-11-045 Open— 

Response 

Received 

TO THE STATE OF MISSOURI: Revise your bus evacuation regulations to require that pupils traveling to an activity or on a field 

trip in a school bus or a schoolchartered bus be instructed in safe 

riding practices and on the location 

and operation of emergency exits 

prior to starting the trip. 

H-12-022 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Evaluate the effects of seat 

spacing and armrests as factors for 

potential occupant injury, and if 

safer spacing or armrest configurations are identified, develop and 

implement appropriate guidelines. 

33 

STRENGTHEN OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-13-032 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA, 

FLORIDA, LOUISIANA, NEW 

JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND 

TEXAS: Develop: (1) a handout for 

your school districts to distribute 

annually to students and parents 

about the importance of the proper 

use of all types of passenger seat 

belts on school buses, including the 

potential harm of not wearing a 

seat belt or wearing one but not adjusting it properly; and (2) training 

procedures for schools to follow 

during the twice yearly emergency 

drills to show students how to wear 

their seat belts properly. 

H-13-033 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA, 

FLORIDA, LOUISIANA, NEW 

JERSEY, NEW YORK, AND 

TEXAS: Upon publication of the 

National School Transportation 

Specifications and Procedures document, revise the handout and training procedures developed in Safety 

Recommendation H-13-32 to align 

with the national procedures as appropriate. 

34 

STRENGTHEN OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-13-035 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF STATE DIRECTORS OF 

PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

FOR PUPIL TRANSPORTATION, 

NATIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, SCHOOL 

BUS MANUFACTURERS TECHNICAL COUNCIL, AND NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL, 

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION 

SECTION: Develop guidelines and 

include them in the next update of 

the National School Transportation 

Specifications and Procedures to 

assist schools in training bus drivers, students, and parents on the 

importance and proper use of 

school bus seat belts, including 

manual lap belts, adjustable lap 

and shoulder belts, and flexible 

seating systems. 

H-13-036 Open— 

Acceptable 

Alternate 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF STATE DIRECTORS OF 

PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

FOR PUPIL TRANSPORTATION, 

AND NATIONAL SCHOOL 

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION: Provide your members with 

educational materials on lap and 

shoulder belts providing the highest level of protection for school bus 

passengers, and advise states or 

school districts to consider this 

added safety benefit when purchasing seat belt-equipped school 

buses. 

35 

STRENGTHEN OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-13-037 Open— 

Acceptable 

Alternate 

Response 

TO THE SCHOOL BUS MANUFACTURERS TECHNICAL COUNCIL: 

Develop a recommended practice 

for establishing and safeguarding 

the structural integrity of the entire school bus seating and restraint system, including the seat 

pan attachment to the seat frame, 

in severe crashes—in particular, 

those involving lateral impacts 

with vehicles of large mass. 

H-15-010 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Develop requirements addressing the minimum aisle width 

for safe evacuation from all buses, 

including those with moveable 

seats. 

H-15-020 Open— 

Response 

Received 

TO THE NATIONAL LIMOUSINE 

ASSOCIATION: Develop and distribute guidelines to your member 

operators urging them, during 

pretrip safety briefings, to (1) direct 

passengers to use seat belts where 

required by law and strongly encourage passengers to use seat 

belts where not required by law, 

and (2) encourage passengers to 

use properly adjusted head restraints. 

H-15-042 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE FIFTY STATES, DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA, AND PUERTO 

RICO: Enact legislation that provides for primary enforcement of a 

mandatory seat belt use law for all 

vehicle seating positions equipped 

with a passenger restraint system. 

(Safety Recommendation H-15-042 

supersedes Safety Recommendation 

H-97-2) 

36 

STRENGTHEN OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-17-001 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES 

INTERNATIONAL, INC.: Evaluate 

and, if appropriate, modify the 

driver and passenger floor structure design on new motorcoaches to 

prevent driver seat separation during crashes. 

H-17-008 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION AND THE UNITED MOTORCOACH ASSOCIATION: Encourage member passenger-carrying companies to (1) establish 

procedures to ensure that the seat 

belts on all buses are regularly inspected to maintain their 

functionality and accessibility, and 

(2) provide pretrip safety briefings 

emphasizing the benefits of seat 

belt use. 

H-17-012 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO GREYHOUND LINES, INC.: Provide pretrip safety briefings at all 

stops prior to departure when taking on new passengers, which describe the use of the emergency 

exits and the benefits of wearing 

seat belts. 

H-17-061 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Work with SAE International and the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration to 

improve truck-tractor side-mounted 

fuel tank crashworthiness to prevent catastrophic tank ruptures 

and limit post collision fuel spillage, and develop and promulgate 

an updated standard. 

37 

STRENGTHEN OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-17-062 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Work with SAE International and the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration to 

improve truck-tractor side-mounted 

fuel tank crashworthiness to prevent catastrophic tank ruptures 

and limit post collision fuel spillage, and develop and promulgate 

an updated standard. 

H-17-065 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO SAE INTERNATIONAL: Work 

with the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to improve truck-tractor side-mounted fuel tank crashworthiness to prevent catastrophic 

tank ruptures and limit post collision fuel spillage, and develop and 

promulgate an updated standard. 

H-18-009 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE STATES OF FLORIDA, 

LOUISIANA, NEW JERSEY, AND 

NEW YORK: Amend your statutes 

to upgrade the seat belt requirement from lap belts to lap/shoulder 

belts for all passenger seating positions in new large school buses in 

accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222. 

38 

STRENGTHEN OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-18-010 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE STATES OF ALABAMA, 

ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, 

CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, 

GEORGIA, HAWAII, IDAHO, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, 

MAINE, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, 

MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, 

NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW MEXICO, NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH 

DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, 

OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, 

SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, UTAH, 

VERMONT, WASHINGTON, 

WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, 

AND WYOMING; THE COMMONWEALTHS OF KENTUCKY, MASSACHUSETTS, PENNSYLVANIA, 

AND VIRGINIA; THE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA; AND THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO: Enact 

legislation to require that all new 

large school buses be equipped with 

passenger lap/shoulder belts for all 

passenger seating positions in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222. 

H-18-058 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL TRAFFICS 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: 

Amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 210 to increase the 

minimum anchorage spacing for individual seat belt assemblies, taking into account the dynamic testing of seat belt designs, seat belt 

fit, and vehicle configuration. 

39 

STRENGTHEN OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-18-059 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: 

Amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 to require lap/ 

shoulder belts for each passenger 

seating position on all new buses 

with a gross vehicle weight rating 

of more than 10,000 pounds but not 

greater than 26,000 pounds. 

H-18-062 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO MEDIUM-SIZE BUS MANUFACTURERS ARBOC SPECIALTY VEHICLES, LLC; COACH & EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION; REV GROUP, INC.; 

DIAMOND COACH CORPORATION; FOREST RIVER, INC.; 

GIRARDIN BLUE BIRD; SVO 

GROUP, INC.; AND THOMAS 

BUILT BUSES: Install lap/shoulder belts in all seating positions as 

standard, rather than optional, 

equipment in all newly manufactured medium-size buses. 

H-18-063 Open— 

Response 

Received 

TO THE SEAT MANUFACTURERS 

FREEDMAN SEATING COMPANY AND HSM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS: Supply 

seating systems equipped with lap/ 

shoulder belts as standard, rather 

than optional, equipment for medium-size buses. 

H-96-014 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE 50 STATES, THE 5 US 

TERRITORIES, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Review existing laws and enact legislation, if 

needed, that would: ensure that 

children up to 8 years old are required by the state’s mandatory 

child restraint use law to use child 

restraint systems and booster 

seats. 

40 

STRENGTHEN OCCUPANT PROTECTION

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-99-009 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Revise the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard 217, ‘‘Bus 

Window Retention and Release,’’ to 

require that other than floor-level 

emergency exits can be easily 

opened and remain open during an 

emergency evacuation when a motorcoach is upright or at unusual 

attitudes. 

H-99-049 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Expand your research on 

current advanced glazing to include 

its applicability to motorcoach occupant ejection prevention, and revise 

window glazing requirements for 

newly manufactured motorcoaches 

based on the results of this research. 

H-99-050 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: In 2 years, develop performance standards for motorcoach roof 

strength that provide maximum 

survival space for all seating positions and that take into account 

current typical motorcoach window 

dimensions. 

H-99-051 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Once performance standards 

have been developed for motorcoach 

roof strength, require newly manufactured motorcoaches to meet 

those standards. 

41 

INCREASE IMPLEMENTATION OF COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS IN

ALL NEW HIGHWAY VEHICLES

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-15-004 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Develop and apply testing 

protocols to assess the performance 

of forward collision avoidance systems in passenger vehicles at various velocities, including high speed 

and high velocity-differential. 

H-15-005 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Complete, as soon as possible, the development and application of performance standards and 

protocols for the assessment of forward collision avoidance systems in 

commercial vehicles. (Safety Recommendation H-15-005 supersedes 

Safety Recommendation H-01-006) 

H-15-006 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Expand the New Car Assessment Program 5-star rating 

system to include a scale that rates 

the performance of forward collision avoidance systems. 

H-15-007 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Once the rating scale, described in Safety Recommendation 

H-15-6, is established, include the 

ratings of forward collision avoidance systems on the vehicle 

Monroney labels. 

H-15-008 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO PASSENGER VEHICLE, 

TRUCK-TRACTOR, MOTORCOACH, AND SINGLE-UNIT 

TRUCK MANUFACTURERS: Install forward collision avoidance 

systems that include, at a minimum, a forward collision warning 

component, as standard equipment 

on all new vehicles. 

42 

INCREASE IMPLEMENTATION OF COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS IN

ALL NEW HIGHWAY VEHICLES

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-15-009 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO PASSENGER VEHICLE, 

TRUCK-TRACTOR, MOTORCOACH, AND SINGLE-UNIT 

TRUCK MANUFACTURERS: Once 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration publishes performance standards for autonomous 

emergency braking, install systems 

meeting those standards on all new 

vehicles. 

H-18-008 Open— 

Response 

Received 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Require all new school buses 

to be equipped with collision avoidance systems and automatic emergency braking technologies. 

H-18-019 Open— 

Response 

Received 

TO BLUE BIRD CORPORATION, 

COLLINS INDUSTRIES, INC., IC 

BUS, STARCRAFT BUS, THOMAS 

BUILT BUSES, INC., TRANS 

TECH, AND VAN-CON, INC.: Install a collision avoidance system 

with automatic emergency braking 

as standard equipment on all newly 

manufactured school buses. 

H-18-029 Open— 

Response 

Received 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Incorporate motorcycles in 

the development of performance 

standards for passenger vehicle 

crash warning and prevention systems. 

H-18-043 Open— 

Response 

Received 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Incorporate pedestrian safety systems, including pedestrian 

collision avoidance systems and 

other more-passive safety systems, 

into the New Car Assessment Program. 

43 

INCREASE IMPLEMENTATION OF COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS IN

ALL NEW HIGHWAY VEHICLES

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-18-044 Open— 

Response 

Received 

TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Develop a detailed pedestrian crash data set that represents 

the current, complete range of 

crash types and that can be used 

for local and state analysis and to 

model and simulate pedestrian collision avoidance systems. 

REDUCE FATIGUE-RELATED ACCIDENTS

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-09-009 Open— 

Await 

Response 

TO THE AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION AND THE UNITED MOTORCOACH ASSOCIATION: Inform your members through Web 

sites, newsletters, and conferences 

of the circumstances of the Mexican 

Hat, Utah, accident. The prepared 

information should encourage charter operators to develop written 

contingency plans for each charter 

to ensure that trip planning is in 

place in the event of driver fatigue, 

incapacitation, or illness or in the 

event of trip delays necessitating 

replacement drivers to avoid hoursof-service violations and inform 

drivers of their trip’s contingency 

plans. The prepared information 

should also provide information 

about the risks of operating in 

rural areas without wireless telephone coverage and advise members to carry mobile cellular amplifiers or satellite-based devices to 

communicate emergency events. 

44 

REDUCE FATIGUE-RELATED ACCIDENTS

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-09-010 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO ARROW STAGE LINES: Develop 

written contingency plans for each 

charter to ensure that trip planning is in place in the event of driver fatigue, incapacitation, or illness 

or in the event of trip delays necessitating replacement drivers to 

avoid hours-of-service violations 

and inform drivers of their trip’s 

contingency plans. 

H-12-029 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Establish an ongoing program to monitor, evaluate, report 

on, and continuously improve fatigue management programs implemented by motor carriers to identify, mitigate, and continuously reduce fatigue-related risks for drivers. (This safety recommendation 

supersedes Safety Recommendation 

H-08-14.) 

H-12-030 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Incorporate scientifically 

based fatigue mitigation strategies 

into the hours-of-service regulations for passenger-carrying drivers 

who operate during the nighttime 

window of circadian low. 

H-15-022 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO WAL-MART STORES, INC. 

(ORIGINALLY ISSUED TO 

WALMART TRANSPORTATION 

LLC): Develop and implement a fatigue management program based 

on the North American Fatigue 

Management Program guidelines. 

45 

REDUCE FATIGUE-RELATED ACCIDENTS

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-17-056 Open— 

Response 

Received 

TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR: Develop 

and disseminate guidelines and 

training material for agricultural 

employers and farm labor contractors on the dangers of driving while 

tired and on strategies for managing driver fatigue. 

REQUIRE MEDICAL FITNESS—SCREEN FOR AND TREAT OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-09-015 Open— 

Unacceptable 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Implement a program to 

identify commercial drivers at high 

risk for obstructive sleep apnea and 

require that those drivers provide 

evidence through the medical certification process of having been 

appropriately evaluated and, if 

treatment is needed, effectively 

treated for that disorder before 

being granted unrestricted medical 

certification. 

H-09-016 Open— 

Acceptable 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Develop and disseminate 

guidance for commercial drivers, 

employers, and physicians regarding the identification and treatment of individuals at high risk of 

obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), emphasizing that drivers who have 

OSA that is effectively treated are 

routinely approved for continued 

medical certification. 

46 

REQUIRE MEDICAL FITNESS—SCREEN FOR AND TREAT OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA

Recommendation 

# 

Overall 

Status Subject 

H-17-049 Open— 

Acceptable 

Alternate 

Response 

TO THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Make the 2016 Medical Review Board/Motor Carrier Safety 

Advisory Committee recommendations on screening for obstructive 

sleep apnea (OSA) easily accessible 

to certified medical examiners, and 

instruct the examiners to use the 

recommendations as guidance 

when evaluating commercial drivers for OSA risk. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you for your testimony. 

Vice Mayor Jones of Neptune Beach, Florida, on behalf of Transportation for America. 

Mr. JONES. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Members, and distinguished members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Transportation for America this morning. 

My name is Fred Jones, and in addition to representing the citizens of Neptune Beach as their vice mayor, I also work as a professional transportation planner for Michael Baker International and 

also serve on the advisory board for the National Complete Streets 

Coalition. 

Complete Streets, for those that are unfamiliar with the term, is 

a street that is designed to be safe and convenient for all users, be 

they drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and cyclists. 

Unfortunately, my community is part of the six most dangerous 

metropolitan areas in the country in which to walk and bike. In 

fact, the State of Florida is the most dangerous State in the Union 

for cyclists and pedestrians, and these safety trends are going in 

the wrong direction. 

If you, in fact, were to visit and join my family on the streets 

that I walk and bike on a daily basis, I think you would agree that 

they are not dangerous by accident, but dangerous by fundamental 

design. 

Part of the problem is that for the better part of the half century 

we have been focused on building bigger, faster roadways with 

wider lanes and development that is set back from the road to 

make our drivers more comfortable as they move quickly through 

our communities, all at the cost of human lives. 

In fact, roadways are often designed for travel speeds that are 

10 to 15 miles an hour faster than what the posted speed limit is, 

and we do know that drivers will follow this design cue. 

We know that speed leads to more deadly crashes, especially for 

the children that are walking to school or a bus patron that is 

47 

walking to their stop on their way to work, who lacked the protection of thousands of pounds of steel and aluminum. 

What is particularly frustrating is our acceptance of this level of 

danger and the loss of human life. We have a cure, but we just do 

not want to use it. 

I do want to preface that there are many States and communities 

across the country, and namely, the Florida Department of Transportation, that should be applauded for adopting robust Complete 

Street policies and initiatives to change these unsafe paradigms. 

However, what we are seeing is a major disconnect between what 

we think are feel-good policy frameworks and the actual implementation of safe roadways. 

As an illustration, there was a State road in my area where the 

district safety office had recommended actually removing a lane to 

reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians and make it safer. 

Well, what ended up happening, there was a little bit of community pushback, and so the agency conceded by growing the forecasted traffic rates and essentially killed what should have been a 

legacy project, and all in the nature of future traffic congestion. 

And even in instances when the traffic volumes are low enough 

to warrant building a Complete Street, we will often hear excuses 

that the road is a parallel reliever to an interstate or it is an evacuation route or, in fact, we are too far along in the design process 

to do anything different. 

Yet there are many roadways in our community where you could 

probably roll a bowling ball down the road on any given day and 

not hit anything. 

Nationally, Congress communicates its Federal priorities through spending, and while we do spend $40 billion in Federal funds annually in the highway program, less than $1 billion of this is often 

reserved for pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, and only $2.3 billion is dedicated to safety. 

If you visit this committee’s website, the issue profiled is the cost 

of congestion, and I get it. Congestion is very inconvenient and annoying. But the cost of congestion is roughly equivalent to the cost 

of the 37,000 lives that were lost on our roadways in 2017, a cost 

of over $356 billion, and that does not include the cost of injuries, 

which we know number in the millions. Yet safety spending represents a mere fraction of the money that is spent on the congestion. 

In 2012, Congress created a less than optimal performance management system that required MPOs and DOTs to set these performance safety targets, including for cyclists and pedestrians. 

Yet in 2017, 18 States have set performance targets forecasting 

more deaths for cyclists and pedestrians on the roadways. Simply 

put, we do know how to do better. 

In Orlando, for example, the Florida Department of Transportation redesigned Edgewater Drive by taking a travel lane and reconfiguring the road to make it more safe for pedestrians and cyclists. 

What were the results? Total collisions dropped 40 percent. Injury rates declined 71 percent. Pedestrian counts increased 23 percent. Cycling increased by 30 percent, and traffic actually dropped 

12 percent before returning to original levels. 

48 

1https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/ 

Most significantly, the corridor gained 77 new businesses and 

560 jobs, while the value of property along this corridor rose 80 

percent. 

Unfortunately, these projects more often than not are the exception. Engineers often have to get special approval to implement 

them in a process that can take more than 1 year. So why would 

we not want this to be the rule? 

As we bring up reauthorization, we are strongly urging Congress 

to lead a discussion about what it is that we plan to achieve, not 

just how much we are going to spend. We need to set specific measurable goals, particularly in terms of safety and livability benefits 

and hold decisionmakers accountable for reaching them. 

Above all, this program needs to be oriented to create a safer 

transportation system for all users. 

Thank you again for your leadership and inviting me to testify 

today, and I look forward to working with you in the next upcoming reauthorization bill. 

[Mr. Jones’ prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Jones, Vice Mayor, City of Neptune 

Beach, Florida, on behalf of Transportation for America 

Good morning Chairman, Ranking Member and distinguished members of the 

committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of Transportation for America, a national nonprofit dedicated to creating a transportation system that moves people, safely and affordably, to jobs and services by all means of 

travel with minimal impact to the community and the environment. 

My name is Fred Jones. I represent the citizens of Neptune Beach, Florida as 

Vice-Mayor on the City Council, and I also work as a transportation planner for Michael Baker International. Additionally, I serve on the advisory board of the National Complete Streets Coalition. Neptune Beach is a small, quiet coastal community nestled on the northeast coast of Florida between Atlantic Beach and Jacksonville Beach. While there are many wonderful things about my community—the 

beaches, our vibrant town center, the high quality of life, to name a few—we, unfortunately, are also part of the sixth most dangerous metropolitan area in our country 

in which to walk or bike. The state of Florida, which is the most dangerous state 

in the Union for bicyclists and pedestrians, is also home to the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, 

#6, #8 and #9 most dangerous cities. And these numbers are going in the wrong 

direction, in Florida and across the nation. 

Over the past 10 years, 5433 people in the state of Florida, including 419 people 

in the Jacksonville, were struck and killed trying to walk or bike to work, school, 

running errands or going to a friend’s house. These are the streets that I walk, bike 

and drive on. It is important that we recognize that these roadways are not dangerous by accident: they are dangerous by design.1

Some of the problem is that many people do not understand how small changes 

in roadway design and development patterns affect safety. Wider lanes and broader 

streets with buildings set back from the road signal to the driver that speed is allowed and encouraged—no matter what your posted speed limit is. In fact, often 

roadways are designed for traffic speeds 10-15 miles per hour faster than the posted 

speed. When we talk about roadway design, it’s important to emphasize context. We 

are not talking about limited access freeways but, rather, the misapplication of limited access freeway engineering and design solutions and parameters to local roadways. 

While transportation agencies claim that this is done for ‘‘safety reasons,’’ the underlying message is that they expect drivers to speed and want to clear space for 

those speeding drivers to make mistakes and correct them without crashing. This 

accommodation to drivers, in the name of ‘‘safety’’, creates more danger to those outside of the car because the driver naturally interprets these roadway design cues 

to go at the higher design speed, inducing the speeding behavior that the design 

engineers are trying to head off. And we know that speed leads to mistakes and 

49 

more deadly crashes, especially for those that don’t have thousands of pounds of 

steel and aluminum surrounding them. 

N. Flamingo and Pines Boulevard in the Miami area, a typical example of a major intersection in Florida. 

These issues—along with un-signaled crossings, long blocks and multiple driveways—create inherently dangerous conditions for people who walk or bike. All of 

these designs are put in place for the convenience of drivers and to move vehicles 

at a high rate of speed, which is the real underlying priority of our national transportation program, whether that was our intention or not. But most of all they all 

put people outside of a car in jeopardy. 

Arterial roadways (not limited access highways) in Miami areas. N. Okeechobee Road and Hialeah Gardens 

Boulevard is one of the most dangerous intersections in Florida today. 

What is particularly frustrating to me is the acceptance of this level of danger and 

loss of human life. It is not a problem that we don’t know how to solve. This isn’t 

a problem that we are powerless to address. We have a cure. But for whatever reasons, just don’t want to use it. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\jones1.eps P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\jones2.eps
50 

Two cities that have adopted one major cure, known as Vision Zero, have seen 

traffic fatalities fall significantly. Vision Zero emphasizes matching speeds of roadways based on the surrounding context. In other words, in populated areas, drivers 

should have an expectation that they will move slower than in the wide-open countryside or on limited access highways. The results speak for themselves: in New 

York City fatalities are down 28 percent since 2014. San Francisco is down 41 percent. If you just look at pedestrians, the decrease is 46 percent in New York City 

and 34 percent in San Francisco. Fortunately, several local cities in my home state 

have also begun to join this movement, including Tampa, Orlando, West Palm 

Beach and Miami. 

Despite knowing how to fix the problems, many of our transportation agencies are 

often concerned about the ramifications—often political—of making safety their top 

priority. To make space for people outside of a car, we sometimes have to take space 

from the cars. Even where doing so would create very minor delays—as in seconds— 

for drivers, it is enough to throw the option out. This resistance to change can be 

found at all levels—from local public works agencies to Congress and from broad 

policy to bureaucratic procedure and culture. 

I want to preface that there are many states and communities, and particularly 

the Florida DOT, that should be applauded for adopting robust complete street policies and initiatives to change this paradigm. However, there is a major disconnect 

or cultural barrier that exists between the policy framework around safety and complete streets and the actual implementation of innovative design solutions and 

projects that would provide better outcomes. Our success requires moving beyond 

a feel-good policy discussion to meaningful culture change, political will and leadership, and shifting priorities away from speed and capacity at all costs. 

I’m going to next provide a few examples and illustrations of the difficulties in 

building safer roads for all. In terms of procedure, every road project is designed 

around a standard that most people have never heard of, called Level of Service. 

This is a measure of how quickly cars can move and how easily they can maneuver 

through a roadway with little congestion or delay. A wide-open street with free flowing traffic on is considered LOS-A. Congested, stop and go traffic is LOS-F. As a 

result, your most economically productive corridors are considered failures in the 

transportation world, while those that are underutilized get an A. What is the 

equivalent safety standard that we use to design roads, you may ask? We don’t have 

one. We respond to clusters of crashes, we don’t design to avoid them. 

In terms of culture, you can find the focus on traffic speeds over safety everywhere. Highway engineers have historically been trained to build highways to maximize capacity, speed and vehicle throughput. This ideal has in turn been misapplied 

to all roadways, from highways to arterial roads to local, neighborhood streets. 

DOTs sometimes don’t believe that the federal government will permit them to implement a design that would slow traffic. Or they will claim that they aren’t allowed 

to use funding that way. Whether that is true or not (and in spite of several directives from (FHWA) Administration saying it isn’t true), they regularly blame the 

federal government for tying their hands. The excuse for failing to design a roadway 

for all users varies based on the type of road. 

On a state road in my metro area, the local DOT district safety office previously 

recommended a road diet or lane elimination to reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians and improve overall safety. There was some pushback, so the DOT immediately conceded and raised the forecasted traffic volumes and misapplied other traffic analyses to make a great project that would have provided a sense of arrival on 

a college campus look infeasible. Two things to take from this story. One, traffic projections and analyses are often over-estimated and DOTs have a lot of discretion on 

how they are established. Computer models used to generate such analyses are only 

as good as their inputs, and there’s nothing easier than tweaking such inputs to get 

desired outputs. Two, if there is traffic that might be impacted by accommodating 

pedestrians or cyclists, even if it is minor, it is often considered too much. 

If traffic volumes are not high enough to justify refusing to build a complete 

street, DOTs often will often provide other reasons for not changing the roadway 

such as claiming that the road is a parallel reliever to an Interstate or highway and 

that giving up space to pedestrians would impact drivers if a problem on the highway requires traffic to move to that roadway. On one street near downtown Jacksonville, traffic is not the problem. You could roll a bowling ball down the road at 

nearly any time of day and not hit anything. In this case, the local agency said they 

couldn’t give up a lane because even though the road is well below capacity, it is 

an evacuation route. There was also a recent instance, when planning for an innovative, autonomous transit service was only supported with the condition that no state 

roads could be considered for lane elimination. So instead of repurposing a portion 

51 

2https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/news/ct-lns-beach-park-pedestrian-fatals-st-0111-20170110-story.html 3 Based on the 2016 Revised Value of a Statistical Life Guidance set by the US Department of Transportation of $9.6 million per life. 

of the roadway to support enhanced cycling and walking and transit, things that 

the local community desire, they insisted that it be left alone—and empty. 

It isn’t just happening in Florida. It is happening in all of our states. For example, 

Beach Park, Illinois, has been trying to get better pedestrian protection along a 

state route that has seen four pedestrian fatalities over the last 15 months. In the 

most recent crash, the driver said he could not see the victim, but Illinois DOT has 

been slow to respond to the community’s call for visibility improvements. The response has been so slow and lackluster that the city is considering making the improvements on their own and paying penalties for failing to get the required permits.2

In terms of broad policy, Congress communicates federal priorities to the state departments of transportation (DOTs) and for metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) through spending. While we spend over $40 billion in federal funds per year 

in the highway program, less than $1 billion of that is reserved for the Transportation Alternatives program, which is targeted to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and only $2.3 billion is dedicated to safety improvements. 

Even in the messaging from Washington, DC, the convenience for drivers is primary. If you go to this committee’s website, the issue profiled is the cost of congestion. And I get it: congestion is annoying and inconvenient. I don’t like to sit in it 

either. But the cost cited on your website for congestion is roughly equivalent to the 

cost of the $37,133 lives lost on our roadways in 2017, a cost of $356,476,800,000.3

That doesn’t include the cost associated with those injured on our roads, which 

number in the millions of people each year. Yet safety spending is a small fraction 

compared to all the money we spend to address congestion. 

Bill Deatherage, of the Kentucky Council of the Blind, walking along Louisville, KY’s Brownsboro Road before 

and after sidewalk construction. Photo by Anne M. McMahon. 

In 2012, Congress required DOTs and MPOs to set performance targets in federal 

priority areas. Several of those targets are safety related, including overall fatalities 

and serious injuries as well as non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries (i.e., 

bicyclists and pedestrians). 

While this approach is referred to as ‘‘performance management’’ in the law, it 

is really simply performance tracking. Instead of setting targets and orienting 

spending around those targets, the program allows states to set priorities and report 

the safety results. If those targets are ambitious, wonderful. But Congress allows 

them to be negative too. As a result, in 2017, eighteen states set performance targets to kill more bicyclists and pedestrians on their roadways. 

You can find this information if you know where to go deep on the FHWA’s 

webpage to find them. There you must dig through 55 reports that are 60-70 pages 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\jones3.eps
52 

4https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/evaluating-complete-streets-projects-a-guide-forpractitioners/ 5https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-walk-score-boosts-your-homes-value-2016-08-11 

6http://www.marc.org/Government/GTI/Academy-for-Sustainable-Communities/SustainableSuccess-Stories-Honorees/2016/Grandview-Gateway 7https://www.completestreetsnc.org/project-examples/ex-eastblvdroaddiet/ 

each to find this information to compare across states. That’s better than the repair 

and other targets, which aren’t available on FHWA’s site at all. This is seven years 

after Congress required performance tracking. That is what passes for accountability in the federal transportation program. 

I have heard many people claim that the focus on congestion mitigation is important for the economy. As a local elected official, I can promise you that an empty 

roadway, while uncongested, is hardly an example of a healthy economy. Corridors 

that are full of cars and people are usually our highest performing economic centers. 

The National Complete Street Coalition analyzed 37 Complete Streets projects in 

across the nation and found that employment levels rose after Complete Streets 

projects—in some cases, significantly. Communities reported increased net new 

businesses after Complete Streets improvements, suggesting that Complete Streets 

projects made the street more desirable for businesses. In eight of the ten communities with available data, property values increased after the Complete Streets improvements.4

In fact, Redfin found, based on more than 1 million homes sold between January 

2014 and April 2016, that one walk-score point can increase the price of a home by 

an average of $3,250, or 0.9 percent. While the majority of home buyers were looking for homes in walkable neighborhoods, Redfin found that they make up just 2% 

of active listings.5 As we all know, when something is in high demand and low supply, it can push the price of that item substantially upward. As a result, walkable 

neighborhoods can become very expensive and are often out of reach for those that 

are most reliant on walking and transit for their daily activities. And the cost premium created by this low supply is created by restrictions in development and housing policy, but also by transportation programs. Much like the cost of diamonds is 

elevated by restricting supply, government is increasing the cost of walkable neighborhoods by blocking the market response to the ever-increasing demand for them. 

A design that would save thousands of lives every year. 

Some fear that making space for people walking and biking requires something 

to be taken from drivers. But when we build roads to move everyone, everyone does 

better. In Grandview, Missouri, a project was implemented to reinvigorate Main 

Street by improving the pedestrian accommodations along several blocks. The result 

was an increase in all modes: pedestrians by 900 percent, bicyclists by 40 percent 

and automobiles by 20 percent, although it remained uncongested. There were also 

90 percent fewer crashes after the changes. The city’s investment of $5 million has 

led to a return of $375 million. This amounts to approximately 1.5 times of the cities 

entire assessed property evaluation.6

In Charlotte, North Carolina, the state DOT redesigned East Boulevard from five 

lanes to three, adding new sidewalks and bike lanes back in 2006. As a result, they 

saw a dramatic reduction in crashes, more efficient traffic operations, a drop in 

speeding, and a 47 percent increase in non-residential property values that raised 

annual tax revenues by $530,000.7


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\jones4.eps
53 

8 Edgwater Drive Fact Sheet: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source= 

web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjgql2w2rnhAhVDnOAKHZ1cDGUQFjABegQIAhAC&url= 

http%3A%2F%2Famericas.uli.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F2%2FULIDocuments%2FEdgewater-Drive-Orlando-FL.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iqKJslcXyNniFKC6lV8gN 

In my home state of Florida, we know how to do this right when we want to. In 

Orlando, Florida DOT redesigned Edgewater Drive by taking a travel lane and reconfiguring the road to make space for pedestrians and bicyclists. Total collisions 

dropped by 40 percent, injury rates decline 71 percent, pedestrian counts increased 

by 23 percent and bicycling increased by 30 percent traffic dropped 12 percent before returning to original levels. Additionally, the corridor has gained 77 new businesses and 560 jobs, while the value of property along the corridor rose 80 percent.8

Yet these projects are the exception. Engineers actually have to get special approval to implement them, a process that can take more than a year. Why wouldn’t 

we want this to be the rule? 

As we consider the next six years of our national surface transportation spending, 

Congress should update the program to better protect all users. Congress should 

strengthen existing Complete Streets language to require states and metropolitan 

regions to plan, design, fund, and maintain safer streets. Congress should fund more 

Complete Streets projects. And Congress should create real accountability for roadway safety. States should not be allowed negative safety targets. If they are expecting more deaths then investments or changes need to be made to their programs. 

For years, we have heard about the need for more money. But it’s really not about 

the amount, but rather how it’s being prioritized and spent. Shouldn’t we ensure 

that federal funding goes to projects that improve safety, improve traffic operations 

and create the communities that people want? Every single dollar spent to resurface 

roadways could include a redesign that saves lives. But when a resurfacing project 

is developed, stakeholders and the community that might want Complete Streets 

are told that DOT will have to ‘‘study the matter’’ and then by the time the design 

concept is reviewed by the traffic division, the project is at 60 percent development 

and the DOT says they are too far into the process to consider the change. We are 

choosing bureaucratic, status quo procedure over human life. 

Florida DOT, particularly in resurfacing projects, claim they have little flexibility 

in federal funding rules to support enhancements outside of their right of way jurisdiction. And often this may be a sidewalk or transit stop outside of their right of 

way jurisdiction. This results in safety and complete street gaps whereby a sidewalk 

or resurfacing project avoids needed improvements on private or other agency propVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN

P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\jones5.eps P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\jones6.eps
54 

erty that would result in a safe, seamless project. We are choosing to leave this part 

of the transportation system out and it is killing people. 

After a road is built or resurfaced, we are told there is no money for retrofits. 

Even when there is, it is a fraction of the funding they are using to create the problem. It is like building an addition on your house while ignoring a gas leak. 

Moreover, as we enter this reauthorization, I look to you all on this committee 

to set clear goals about what we, the American people, will get for the investment. 

There is a lot of talk on Capital Hill about raising taxes and putting more funding 

into the surface transportation program to stabilize it over the long run. 

As we bring up reauthorization, Congress should lead a discussion about what we 

plan to achieve, not just about what you are going to spend. We need to set specific, 

measurable goals and hold decision-makers accountable for reaching them. There 

should be rewards for doing well and penalties for failure. And above all, this program should be oriented to create a safer transportation system for all users. Doing 

so will save lives while creating the economically vibrant, livable communities that 

Americans want. 

Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today. I look forward to working 

with you to do more for safety in the coming reauthorization bill. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor Jones. 

I am going to next ask the chief of police for the city of Alexandria, Michael L. Brown, to offer his testimony. Five minutes, 

please. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and also members 

of the committee. 

I am going to try and cover the high points in the written testimony I submitted, and principally what I was looking at and trying 

to offer or was asked to offer was the lens of law enforcement in 

trying to deal with the traffic safety implications across this country. 

In my testimony, we recognize in the profession that clearly the 

major issues were outlined by the chair regarding impaired driving, 

speeding, distraction, and the pedestrian conflicts occurring across 

the country. 

I would also add the issue of occupant protection as well because 

occupant protection speaks directly to the survivability should you 

get involved in a crash. 

But from the law enforcement perspective and the lens we look 

at the world, frankly, in terms of the competing interests that are 

placed upon law enforcement, and a lot of those interests come 

from the local level. The local demand of our neighborhoods in our 

communities tell us what we need to prioritize on. 

And, quite frankly, in some communities like the one in which 

I work, traffic and even parking is a significant issue. 

But that is not across the Nation, and so we need to be flexible 

in the way we look at creating an authorization that accounts for 

the local law enforcement and the local expectations that the law 

enforcement leaders and the officers who do the work are confronted with on a daily basis. 

I have included in my testimony a number of general recommendations, especially regarding incentivizing involvement of 

law enforcement. The current incentives for the national campaigns 

and those kinds of things that you find in the FAST Act and in previous editions of reauthorization provide an opportunity for law enforcement to engage in campaigns. It is a capacity-driven thing so 

that it could be coordinated on a national level. 

But that does not happen on a day-to-day basis, and as you have 

heard testimony by law enforcement officials across this country, 

55 

there are times where that capacity is drawn upon by other commitments and other challenges that law enforcement faces, aside 

from the fact that we are in an issue in some parts of the country 

where it is very difficult to recruit people and to fill the ranks of 

law enforcement. 

So this competition takes place within these incentives. General 

overtime programs we suggest should be continued for a variety of 

reasons, especially if they drive for capacity at the local level. 

The other thing that would be interesting in terms of trying to 

do this is to raise the awareness through these incentivization programs of traffic safety within the local political establishment. 

One of the things that I have suggested is develop a national 

narrative. The current national narrative in many cases, NHTSA 

does a good job, but it focuses on a lot of the specific things that 

we are looking at in our major campaign. 

The fact of the matter is most of the crashes that are occurring 

are directly related to bad behavior on the part of the participants, 

whether it be a bicyclist, a pedestrian, or some motorists. Very few 

of them are related to mechanical issues. 

People make bad choices, and people get hurt, and in some cases, 

they die. So what we were trying to do at least in the city that we 

have and in other parts and communities across the country is to 

elevate that discussion to something more than just the numbers, 

something more than just a campaign, trying to get out there and 

engage in the activity, making a traffic stop, not necessarily making a citation, but looking for the teachable moment that is going 

to change behavior and get people to voluntarily comply with the 

laws. 

That is taking place across the country at varying levels for the 

same kind of conditions that we talked about at the local level. 

I would suggest that we continue to focus on these key areas, but 

I would also suggest that in the new authorization we build in as 

much flexibility for a local government to establish the priorities 

that they are facing in their local issues. What happens in Alexandria is not the same it is going to be in L.A. It is not going to be 

the same as Salina, Kansas. 

And so we need to be able to provide them the opportunity to address their traffic safety issues, and I would also argue that the 

traffic safety issues are not accidents. They are crashes, and it is 

not just deaths. People who survive crashes, and we see them every 

day, in many cases have lifelong, lasting issues that change their 

life forever. 

So, Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity. I 

look forward to any questions the committee may have. 

[Mr. Brown’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Michael L. Brown, Chief of Police, Alexandria 

(Virginia) Police Department 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to come before you 

and represent the law enforcement perspective on traffic safety and law enforcement’s role in addressing this important issue. My testimony is offered to underscore the importance of traffic safety in our country and some of the challenges we 

face in addressing it. 

56 

Traffic safety is often defined by the number of crashes that have occurred and 

by the number the fatalities that have resulted from these crashes. While these are 

important measures, law enforcement deals with it on a much more personal level. 

Law enforcement officers respond to crash calls, investigate and deal with individual 

needs of those involved. This occurs thousands of times a day in our country. The 

level of law enforcement engagement is shaped by local capacity, community interest and political will. The role of the officers and the service they provide is often 

lost in national level discussions of traffic safety. My testimony will address major 

policy level issues it and it is also offered to you through this lens. 

TRAFFIC SAFETY IS A CRITICAL ISSUE FOR AMERICA

The sheer number of crashes in this country illustrates traffic safety is a critical 

issue that affects millions of people, however, it is frequently under prioritized in 

the context of other national priorities. Clearly, crashes that involve a fatality or 

a life changing issue have an impact on individuals and their families. I would also 

argue that involvement in crashes resulting in minor injuries or mere property damage also complicate the lives of people on a daily basis. Law enforcement officers 

know this and deal with this every day. Unfortunately, the latter situations are frequently ‘‘overlooked’’ in traffic safety discussions. 

Law enforcement is often called upon to deal with traffic safety issues. Each day, 

we receive many calls or complaints about specific traffic safety which we have to 

prioritize with our other calls for service. The public call us because they expect law 

enforcement to enforce traffic laws and mitigate their issue. This is based upon the 

premise that the real or perception of officers actively or potentially enforcing traffic 

safety laws will lead to some level of voluntary compliance by individuals in a specific area. Law enforcement acknowledges this expectation and perspective. Law enforcement agencies and their officers respond by prioritizing traffic safety along with 

the other expectations a community may place upon them, e.g.; crime responses, 

mental health calls, etc.). 

Law enforcement agencies understand the importance of traffic safety in the context of a community’s ‘‘quality of life’’. Many agencies have understood this for a 

long time. Others came to understand that perspective even better during the 

1990’s. The 1994 Crime Bill required participating law enforcement agencies to conduct ’town hall’ meetings with their communities across the country. One of the 

quality of life issues repeatedly raised in these meetings was traffic safety and traffic management. It became so prevalent that the U.S. Department of Justice’s COPS 

Office developed publications to help law enforcement agencies in responding to traffic safety issues. Today, law enforcement’s conversations with the public still include 

the traffic safety issue. The challenge remains—law enforcement is constantly balancing traffic safety as a community priority alongside more traditional policing 

issues. Community expectations for policing and traffic safety issues are local community based and the law enforcement response to these expectations vary by community across the nation. That said, there are some specific challenges for law enforcement that surface so often they deserve national discussion and attention. My 

following comments will cover some of the specific challenges that are high priority. 

IMPAIRED DRIVING

Driving under the influence is a major issue for the nation and its communities. 

While there has been a significant reduction in fatalities and a reported change in 

public acceptance of driving impaired, about 1/3 of all traffic fatalities are directly 

related to problem. Much of this success on this issue can be attributed to the efforts 

of MADD, law enforcement, and other community groups. The National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and others have also developed a robust 

toolkit to deal with this issue including impairment presumption levels, national enforcement campaigns, ignition interlock programs, DUI courts and others. However, 

local participation in these efforts varies across the nation. This variation can be 

attributed to local capacity and local political will. We need to remember that law 

enforcement’s response to impaired driving will be governed by these local conditions. 

The national approach to this issue should continue and incentivize the use of the 

current toolkit as these tools have been proven effective in dealing with impaired 

driving. However, there should be a renewed interest in engaging groups other than 

law enforcement more effectively in addressing impaired driving. Substance abuse 

is a major underlying cause of impaired driving and repeat offenders are a prime 

example of the substance abuse issues that law enforcement confronts in dealing 

with impaired driving. Law enforcement is not in the substance abuse treatment 

57 

business and increased access to substance abuse (public health) programs to deal 

with this issue should be promoted as an intervention measure. 

Law enforcement recognizes the importance of enforcing impaired driving laws 

and accepts its role as evidenced by the number of people they arrest for driving 

impaired. The evolution of impaired driving law over the years has led to officers 

completing incredibly long, detailed reports and other protocols which result in a 

major commitment of the officer’s time. I will not say this discourages officers from 

making DUI arrests nor am I suggesting the development of shortcuts which affect 

the rights of the arrested individual. The reality for the officer is that, in some 

cases, a misdemeanor DUI report can be as complicated as a criminal felony homicide case. There must be a way to develop a standardized national methodology 

which simplifies these reports which appropriately balances the needs of prosecutors 

and the rights of the arrestee. Finally, I must address the specific concerns of law enforcement over the impact 

of driving under the influence of drugs. The country has acknowledged that drug 

abuse is a public health issue and has many programs to deal with it in this framework. Law enforcement and prosecutors have successfully enforced impaired driving 

statues for many years and will continue to do so. That said, there is considerable 

concern within law enforcement over the potential public safety implications for impaired driving and the interests to increase public access to marijuana. Law enforcement is closely monitoring the experience of states and communities that have increased this legal access but the current debate can be confusing and alarming. For 

the officer, they recognize the absence of credible technology and informative research to assist them in assessing driver impairment during an impaired driving enforcement contact involving drugs. It is critical that these issues are addressed immediately to help guide officers in their impaired driving enforcement efforts. 

OCCUPANT PROTECTION

This issue remains a major issue for our nation. About half of the nation’s fatal 

crash reports indicate that one or more vehicle occupants are not wearing their safety belts. This proportion has also been relatively consistent for decades. The same 

observation can be found in national injury crashes. Again, NHTSA has developed 

a toolkit to get people to wear their seatbelts but the engagement of law enforcement varies across the nation due to local conditions and political will. 

The discussions of seatbelt enforcement often include concerns over the police 

overstepping their authority and/or over prioritizing the importance of seatbelt enforcement. Officers frequently still hear the response ‘‘don’t you have more important things to do’’ when they enforce seatbelt laws. Officers and their leaders are 

very aware of these conversations and positions and it can also have a ‘chilling’ effect on actual seatbelt enforcement. The nation needs to change the perspective on 

the importance of seatbelt laws to improve public compliance. Seatbelt enforcement 

needs to be viewed as a lifesaving effort not as a tactic used by officers to ‘pick on’ 

people. This is a problem which could also be fixed at some level over time through engineering and design. The use of seat belt interlocks for example could improve this 

behavior without the need for law enforcement. 

SPEEDING

Nobody likes getting a speeding ticket and yet speed continues to be an issue in 

most crashes in America. In many cases, it is the principle reason behind the crash. 

It is also a major factor in the severity of the crash and occupant survivability which 

relates to the principles of physics. Speed enforcement is a traditional enforcement 

activity in many police agencies and officers do it every day. Unfortunately, there 

are many more speeders than there are officers and voluntary compliance by motorists is often dependent upon the motorist’s perception that they will be caught 

speeding. Many motorists like the odds of not being caught and choose to speed. 

Speed limit compliance could be enhanced by incentivizing law enforcement efforts 

to speed enforcement at a national level. The increased use of automated speed enforcement technology could also prove useful providing such programs are implemented for traffic safety reasons and not revenue generation. Such programs must 

be implemented to avoid any challenges to police legitimacy. 

DISTRACTION

Distraction is a very real threat to the safe use of our transportation system. Law 

enforcement acknowledges that and where possible enforces the laws that are available to them. All transportation system users need to pay attention when using 

these systems. The emerging data is illustrating that this issue is growing especially 

58 

with our reliance on some technology. Many of the current laws focus on drivers and 

not other users like pedestrians and bicyclists while in the roadway. When this topic 

is discussed the issues surrounding police harassment and the ability of officers to 

detect distraction frequently surface. Some of the existing laws also make the law 

difficult for officers to enforce e.g.; manipulating a device or texting language. Officers will tell you of many instances where they see drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists 

and other transportation system users not paying attention and jeopardizing their 

own personal safety and the safety of others. This will continue unless the nation 

acknowledges this to be a problem. There should be a national effort to develop 

hands free laws which are applicable to all system users. There should also be a national priority assigned to this traffic safety threat and a more uniformed enforcement/compliance approach that is acceptable to the states and local authorities. 

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY

There is a growing concern in many communities over the safety of bicyclists and 

pedestrians. Law enforcement understands these concerns and responds to local 

traffic safety complaints on these issues on a daily basis. This is particularly important in urban centers and those communities that encourage these travel options. 

In many discussions on this issue there are references to pedestrians and bicyclists 

as ’vulnerable’ populations which are understandable especially when they share the 

road with cars. From the law enforcement perspective, there is plenty of blame to 

share as to what creates this conflict. At times it is the motor vehicle operator that 

does not recognize or ignores the laws and protections provided to pedestrians and 

cyclists. Yet, there are also many occasions where these same pedestrians/cyclists 

involved in these potential conflicts will position the argument so that they are the 

victim instead of acknowledging that each contributes to the traffic safety issue. 

This makes it difficult for officers when they take enforcement action involving pedestrian and cyclists. Like some of the other traffic safety issues I have discussed, 

the narrative needs to change on this issue so that traffic safety is a personal responsibility and all the players must follow the rules. 

OTHER IMPORTANT LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

There are other issues which I must bring up which can impact the role of law 

enforcement in performing its traffic safety responsibilities. These issues are real for 

law enforcement and the communities they serve and provide context for traffic 

safety enforcement. They include: 

Calls for Service and Officer Initiated Activity 

At one time in my career I was told by a federal official that ‘‘law enforcement 

will do what we tell them to do’’. Sadly, other federal officials that were present 

found that comment humorous at the time. Unfortunately, that perspective is a 

counterproductive to encouraging law enforcement participation and clearly ignores 

the daily realities of our officers. 

Traffic enforcement occurs when officers are on routine patrol and when they are 

responding to a specific traffic safety complaint from the community. The latter is 

treated like a call for service (e.g.; a 911 call) and the officer’s discretion to engage 

in enforcement may be affected. The officers still have discretion to give a warning 

or a citation but there is an expectation that they respond to the problem area and 

at least look for violations. Officers on routine patrol have greater discretion to engage in traffic enforcement. Patrolling officers may be more interested in other local 

policing priorities or their own specific policing interests rather than traffic safety. 

This has been and will continue to be a challenge for law enforcement leadership. 

Officers who acknowledge a public safety priority tend to respond to that priority. 

As such, it is important to develop a national narrative which elevates traffic enforcement as a community public safety threat which deserves the attention of the individual officer. The national narrative needs to be supported with messaging and incentives designed to promote officer engagement in this enforcement effort. 

Law Enforcement as an Intervention 

Enforcement is often portrayed as the key intervention for improving traffic safety. That is most likely the basis for the number of traffic enforcement call/requests 

law enforcement agencies receive each day. Research has demonstrated that good 

enforcement can have an impact on changing some behavior in traffic safety. In 

some cases, there are more profound foundational issues which dictate the need for 

other interventions. My coverage of impaired driving included some discussion of 

other intervention needs when substance abuse behavior is present. There are other 

disciplines which can be applied. Vehicle design, engineering, and other technologies 

can be useful in developing interventions which might stop problematic behavior. 

59 

Interlock systems for impaired driving and seatbelts are examples of design interventions. 

While law enforcement plays a critical role in changing traffic safety behavior 

many issues require a more complex intervention to effectively deal with any poor 

behavior. I do believe the role of law enforcement is significant in this effort but we 

should avoid defaulting to law enforcement as the entity that has sole responsibility 

for changing behavior that causes crashes. 

Officer Discretion and Legitimacy 

It is the individual officer that makes the decision to engage in traffic enforcement. Therefore, we must also acknowledge that officers are very aware of the climate in which they work and the public acceptance of their enforcement efforts. Officer decisions to engage involve the professional discretion they have during the 

performance of their duties. There is considerable research on officer discretion and 

it has shaped agencies policies. Law enforcement agencies have many policies to 

control the use of discretion but the myriad of fact patterns an officer confronts 

while performing their duties make it difficult to develop policy for every situation. 

That is one reason why law enforcement agencies commit so much time, energy, and 

money into selecting and training individuals that can exercise good judgment in 

the use of officer discretion. I would argue that, in practically every case, the competence and motivation of today’s officers is at a much higher level than ever before. 

Legitimacy is a foundational factor in policing and the police will not be effective 

without it. There have been past concerns and debates about law enforcement actions and legitimacy. There have also been some comments that these concerns and 

debates have resulted in fewer officers engaging in traffic enforcement as a result. 

While this may be the case in some communities, I have not seen research that conclusively proves that this is occurring on a national level. That said, it is important 

for law enforcement and political leadership to create an environment which suggests 

that officers should engage in traffic law enforcement to respond to community quality of life and public safety issues in a manner which promote police legitimacy within the community the officer serves. This may not be occurring in some communities 

and should be addressed in a manner which supports officers doing traffic enforcement for the right reasons—protecting the public. A development of a national position which encourages this environment would be useful for improved traffic law enforcement. 

Incentives for Law Enforcement 

I have referenced incentives in my testimony on several occasions. The incentives 

that are traditionally offered through the federal government relate to providing enforcement capacity. Providing funding is important for law enforcement agencies 

that lack the capacity to participate in national traffic safety enforcement efforts. 

Some approaches result in individual officers performing this enforcement on an 

overtime basis which, for some officers, may be incentive. Recently, there have been 

repeated reports within the law enforcement community that overtime details do not 

often sufficiently encourage officers to perform specific activities including traffic 

safety enforcement. This may be attributed to the many uses of overtime details to 

address non-traffic related issues. These other details may compete with traffic enforcement details for available officers to participate. Some law enforcement agencies also argue overtime is not a sufficient high priority or driving factor with some 

officers. Agencies often advise that filling these overtime details can be difficult as 

a result. Another reason for the difficulty in getting officers to participate in these 

details may also be the degree of importance officers assign to traffic safety. Many 

officers may not recognize their role in traffic safety and enforcement of traffic laws 

as being that important to their community. 

NATIONAL NARRATIVE

My testimony also makes several references to developing a national narrative 

outlining the importance of traffic safety and committing the resources to change 

the belief structures in the country relating to safety on and around our roadways. 

There are examples where this has worked in this area like the changed attitudes 

on impaired driving which was initiated by MADD. Other individual groups within 

the traffic safety community have made similar efforts to change attitudes and culture in specific areas with varying degrees of success. To me, this seems to be ’chipping away’ at the essential need for all of us in this country to change our behavior 

and improve our quality of life as it relates to all aspects of traffic safety. 

A national traffic safety improvement narrative would also be useful in getting law 

enforcement behind the traffic safety issue. Officers and their agencies have a history 

of responding to recognized threats to public safety. The drug and gang activity in 

60 

the 1980’s, the homeland security effort following 9/11 and, more recently, the issues 

related to mental health and opioid overdoses are prime examples of a motivated 

law enforcement response. What is missing today for law enforcement is the commitment to making traffic safety a high priority for our nation. 

CONCLUSIONS

I have offered a number of perspectives and suggestions in my testimony to assist 

the committee in its legislative deliberations. The issues surrounding traffic safety 

are complex and will require leadership to effectively change the behaviors that 

cause crashes in this country. We currently have individuals that provide that leadership in certain areas of traffic safety but a nationwide comprehensive commitment 

designed to make this issue a high priority for our country has been missing for 

some time. 

Within our communities are individuals who have personnel stories of how they 

were affected by a crash. Law enforcement officers make personal death or serious 

injury notifications to families and friends following a traffic crash on a daily basis. 

Officers who have done this, including me, will tell you the impact these notifications have on these family and friends as well as the officer are significant. The personal loss, the shock, and the feelings encountered by the officers are the same for 

traffic crashes as they are those notifications made following a major felony not related to traffic. I have said many times—it doesn’t matter if the injury or death is 

caused by a car fender or a bullet to loved ones. 

Our communities want a sustainable and safe quality of life. They want to feel 

safe in their communities and reduce all threats to safety. Law enforcement’s experience has shown this includes their expectations on traffic safety. The committee 

can play a key leadership role in raising the profile of traffic safety as a public safety issue across our nation. I am confident elevating the issue to a serious, high priority public safety issue will also lead to increased support from law enforcement. 

This effort may move our nation to a better and safer place than we currently find 

ourselves. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to offer my thoughts on this very important policy issue. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Chief Brown. 

Mr. Jay Bruemmer. 

Mr. BRUEMMER. Chairwoman Norton and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify to you today on 

behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services Association. 

ATSSA represents the manufacturers and installers of roadway 

safety infrastructure devices, such as guard rail and cable barriers, 

traffic signs, pavement markings, and work zone safety devices, 

among others. 

Our mission is to advance roadway safety and reduce fatalities 

and serious injuries to zero. 

Professionally, I have worked for K&G Striping for 34 years, a 

Missouri contractor who installs pavement markings, traffic signs, 

and traffic control. 

It is appropriate to be here discussing roadway safety during National Work Zone Awareness Week, as we honor those who lost 

their lives in work zones around the country, including nearly 800 

the previous year. 

My first project on an interstate quickly taught me the importance of roadway safety. While striping in a work zone on I–70 

nearly Lawrence, Kansas, I looked up to see a semi truck knocking 

over cones and headed right at me. I only had enough time to take 

one step back before I was blown off my feet by the wind. 

I was fortunate to go home that day to my family, but tragically 

many others are not so lucky. Please slow down in work zones. 

Mitigating driver behavior is a perennial challenge for transportation leaders, and knowing this, the roadway safety infrastructure 

61 

industry has innovated and deployed cost-effective countermeasures to combat negative driver behavior. Here are a few examples. 

Wrong-way driving crashes are often catastrophic when they 

occur, especially on highways and high-speed roads. Intelligent 

transportation systems in conjunction with signage combat wrongway driving. These systems detect a wrong-way driver and inform 

both the driver and law enforcement about the incident so law enforcement may intercede within minutes. 

Systematic devices like barriers are critically important to the 

safety ecosystem of a roadway network. This is particularly true in 

rural areas where 30 percent of total vehicle miles traveled occur, 

yet 50 percent of roadway fatalities occur. 

The Minnesota Department of Transportation installed cable median barrier along 150 miles of road. In the 3 years prior there 

were 19 fatal cross-median crashes. In the 3 years following, there 

were zero. 

We know that wider pavement markings have positive safety 

benefits, especially for older drivers. They also prove beneficial for 

machine-driven vehicles. Under adverse conditions, wider markings 

consistently improve machine vision detection. 

In 2017, nearly 6,000 pedestrians were killed in roadway crashes, and the previous year saw 840 cyclists killed. There are roadway safety infrastructure solutions that help protect both vulnerable users and motorists, including dedicated bike lanes with green 

pavement markings and delineators, as well as innovative 

retroreflective crosswalks for pedestrians. 

Thirty-seven thousand one hundred and thirty men, women, and 

children being killed on U.S. roads annually, we cannot allow safety to ever become an afterthought. 

None of these safety priorities can be achieved without a solvent, 

robustly funded Highway Trust Fund. 

ATSSA strongly supports increasing user fees to address the 

long-term viability of the trust fund. This includes indexing gas 

and diesel taxes and eventually moving towards the vehicle miles 

traveled user fee system. 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program, or HSIP, is the sole 

Federal highway program focused on roadway safety. States— 

which are responsible for the safety on all public roads—are able 

to use these funds for eligible activities. 

However, States are allowed to transfer up to 50 percent of their 

HSIP allocations. Given the importance of safety, ATSSA calls on 

Congress to eliminate or at the very least reduce the percentage of 

funds that can be transferred out of HSIP. 

Congress has previously ensured that funds from HSIP can only 

be used for roadway safety infrastructure projects. We urge the 

committee to continue this language as part of the FAST Act reauthorization and infrastructure packages. 

ATSSA calls on Congress to double the size of the Highway Safety Improvement Program to at least 10 percent of the overall core 

Federal-aid Highway Program so it can aggressively combat fatalities and serious injuries on U.S. roads and expand the use of costeffective, lifesaving roadway infrastructure countermeasures. 

62 

1 NHTSA 2017 Fatality Data—https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-announces-2017- 

roadway-fatalities-down 2 NHTSA Preliminary 2018 Fatality Data—https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ 

ViewPublication/812629 

In conclusion, we must not let safety slip as our top priority. 

Roadway safety infrastructure and the Highway Safety Improvement Program are key pieces of the safety puzzle. 

And ATSSA looks forward to working with the subcommittee to 

reduce fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation’s roads to zero. 

Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to any questions. 

[Mr. Bruemmer’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Jay Bruemmer, Vice President, K&G Striping, Inc., 

on behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services Association 

Chairman Holmes Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the American 

Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) on how investing in and improving the 

safety of America’s roadway system impacts each and every one of us. I currently 

serve as Chairman of ATSSA’s Government Relations Committee. I am also a past 

member of the ATSSA Board of Directors, past President of the ATSSA Chapter 

Presidents’ Council and past President of the Heart of America Chapter of ATSSA 

(comprised of Kansas and Missouri). ATSSA is a 1,500+ member international trade 

association which represents the manufacturers, installers and distributors of roadway safety infrastructure devices and services such as guardrail and cable barrier, 

traffic signs, pavement markings, rumble strips, high friction surface treatments, 

and work zone safety devices, among others. Our mission is to Advance Roadway 

Safety and reduce fatalities and serious injuries on U.S. roads toward zero. 

Professionally, I am the Vice President of K&G Striping Inc., a Riverside, MObased contractor focused on pavement marking, traffic sign installation, and traffic 

control. K&G Striping has been a contractor in the Midwest since 1982, incorporated in 1989, and now serves Johnson County, Jackson County and the greater 

Kansas City metro area. If you’re driving through western Missouri and find yourself in a roadway work zone, chances are you will see our trucks doing the work. 

In fact, Ranking Member Sam Graves represents our office here in Congress. 

Congratulations to Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairman 

Holmes Norton, and Ranking Member Davis on your new leadership positions on 

the Committee and Subcommittee, and thank you for holding this critically-important hearing. The timing of this hearing coincides with National Work Zone Awareness Week, honoring those who have lost their lives in roadway work zones and 

spreading awareness for the need to enhance safety in work zones around the country. In 2017, 799 people were killed in work zones, which includes both motorists 

and workers. 

We hear it almost every single day—that transportation safety is the number one 

priority. Members of Congress, the Executive Branch, businesses, states, local governments and users of the transportation system all talk about the importance of 

safety programs. But sometimes, the need to invest in safety infrastructure is easy 

to overlook or take for granted. But with more than 37,000 men, women and children being killed on U.S. roads annually, and from personal experience of working 

in roadway work zones, we cannot allow safety to ever become an afterthought or 

second priority. Period. 

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

37,133 individuals were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2017. This is truly a horrifying statistic; however, the glimmer of hope is that this was a reduction from 

2016 by approximately 2%.1 Additionally, preliminary 2018 data indicates that this 

decline in fatalities is potentially continuing.2 For me and the men and women employed by K&G Striping, this number hits very close to home, especially when you 

consider that in 2017, 799 of those fatalities occurred in work zones. Imagine yourself working on a road construction project, and passenger vehicles and motor carriers are traveling at 50, 60, 70+ miles per hour only feet from where you are working. You might be protected by a steel or concrete barrier, but you might just have 

63 

3 ‘‘Improving Driver Behavior with Infrastructure Safety Countermeasures’’ ATSSA case study 

publication, 2015 

some plastic cones and barrels separating you from thousands of pounds of speeding 

steel. I know from personal experience how terrifying this can be. 

When I was 18 years old, one of my first projects working on the interstate was 

on I-70 between Lawrence and Topeka. We were installing temporary pavement 

markings behind a lane closure to prepare to switch traffic to head to head on the 

eastbound lanes. While putting down reflective markers, I looked up to see a semitruck, which had not seen the lane closure in time, knocking over channelizers in 

the taper and headed directly toward me. I had just enough time to stand up, and 

take one step back before the wind blew me off my feet. When I stood back up, I 

saw the tire tracks through the tar I had put down for the next marker I was going 

to install. Had I not been lucky enough to look up when I did, the outcome would 

have been catastrophic. At the age of 18, I learned firsthand two incredibly important lessons: that I was not invincible and the importance of safety while working 

on the road. Years later when I became the owner of our business, I repeatedly used 

this experience to remind myself that the safety of my employees must be my primary concern. 

In 2005 as part of the SAFETEA–LU legislation, Congress authorized the Highway Safety Improvement Program or HSIP, and subsequently reauthorized that program in 2012 in MAP–21 and again in 2015 under the FAST Act. The HSIP program is the sole federal highway program focused on roadway safety infrastructure. 

Over the lifetime of the FAST Act, HSIP is authorized at approximately $12.5 billion, including set asides for the Work Zone Safety Grant and the Railway-Highway 

Crossings Program. States—which are responsible for the safety on all public roads, 

not only state-owned roads—are able to utilize these funds for eligible activities 

under HSIP. However, states are also allowed to transfer up to 50% of their HSIP 

allocations to other core federal-aid highway programs—such as the National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, Transportation Alternatives, National Highway Freight Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program and vice versa. 

And states have opted to utilize these transfer provisions. Under MAP–21 and the 

FAST Act—as of September 30, 2018—24 states transferred HSIP funds to other 

programs, totaling approximately $1.2 billion. Given the importance of safety and 

the need for safety to remain a priority area of investment, ATSSA calls on Congress to eliminate, or at the very least, reduce the percentage of funds that can be 

transferred out of HSIP to ensure that roadway safety infrastructure funds are 

being utilized on roadway safety infrastructure projects. 

Additionally, in MAP–21, Congress ensured that funds from the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) could only be used for eligible roadway safety infrastructure projects under HSIP. We urge the committee to continue this language as 

part of the FAST Act reauthorization. 

Mitigating driver behavior is a perennial challenge for transportation leaders; 

however, the roadway safety infrastructure industry has innovated and deployed 

cost-effective countermeasures to combat negative driver behavior. Here are a few 

examples. 

WRONG-WAY DRIVING

Although not incredibly frequent, wrong-way driving crashes are often catastrophic when they do occur, especially on highways and high-speed roads. There 

are several countermeasures that work to address this issue, namely signage, markings and LED lights on signs. However, road owners can also opt to utilize intelligent transportation systems, in conjunction with signs, to combat wrong-way driving. These systems detect a wrong-way driver and inform both the driver and law 

enforcement about the incident.3

HIGH FRICTION SURFACE TREATMENT

High friction surface treatments (HFST) are an example of an infrastructure safety countermeasure that does not require the driver to make behavioral changes in 

order to have a positive safety impact. These treatments are applied to high risk 

crash locations such as intersections or curves. Durable aggregate (usually bauxite) 

is applied to the road surface and bonded using a polymer binder. In 75 locations 

64 

4 ‘‘Improving Driver Behavior with Infrastructure Safety Countermeasures’’ ATSSA case study 

publication, 2015 5 ‘‘Traffic Control Device Innovations to Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Signalized 

Intersections’’ ATSSA case study publication, 2019 6Smarter Work Zones: Project Coordination and Technology Applications, ATSSA case study 

publication, 2016 7 ‘‘Preventing Vehicle Departures from Roadways’’ ATSSA case study publication 2015 

8 ‘‘Improving Driver Behavior with Infrastructure Safety Countermeasures’’ ATSSA case study 

publication, 2015 

in Kentucky where HFST were applied, roadway departure crashes decreased by 

91% in wet conditions and 78% in dry conditions.4

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY

In 2017, 5,977 pedestrians were killed in roadway crashes across the United 

States. In 2016, there were 840 bicyclists killed in roadway crashes. There are roadway safety infrastructure solutions that help protect both vulnerable users and motorists, including dedicate bicycle lanes with green pavement markings and flexible 

delineators as well as retroreflective crosswalks for pedestrians. One countermeasure focused on pedestrian safety is the Leading Pedestrian Interval Plus 

(LPI+), which allows the pedestrian to begin crossing the street before traffic is allowed to move. Studies have shown that LPIs can reduce vehicle-pedestrian crashes 

by as much as 60%.5

SMARTER WORK ZONES

As I mentioned, this week being National Work Zone Awareness Week, it is a crucial moment to talk about safety in work zones. Work zones are inherently dangerous areas, and the safety of the men and women working on the road is paramount. Making work zones smarter, safer, and more efficient will decrease fatalities 

and serious injuries for both drivers and workers. Smarter work zones can mean 

intelligent transportation systems, data collection and usage, project coordination, 

and stakeholder engagement, among many other activities. In Washington, DC, the 

District Department of Transportation (DDOT) realized that multiple road construction projects in the city were having interrelated impacts on road users. So in response, DDOT created a comprehensive, software-based work zone project management system which brought together roadway, utility, and developer construction 

activities which identified and lessened public right-of-way conflicts. The top goals 

of this approach were to minimize work zone location conflicts and impacts and improve safety and mobility within the work zones. A web-based work zone tracking 

application was used to gather all the data and then send that data to project coordinators to alert them of possible conflicts.6

BARRIER

Barrier is used either in a median or on the roadside to protect vehicles from leaving the road and impacting other fixed objects or on-coming traffic. Systemic devices 

such as barrier are critically important to the safety ecosystem of a road network. 

This is especially true in rural areas where, according to 2016 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) data, 30% of total vehicle miles traveled occurred, yet 50% of 

roadway fatalities also occurred. Fatalities on rural roads are disproportionately 

high. Over a four-year period, the Minnesota Department of Transportation installed cable barrier in 31 segments along 150 miles of roadway. In the three years 

prior to installation of the cable barrier, there were 19 fatal cross-median crashes. 

In the three years following installation, there were zero.7

We know that these countermeasures work. Through the use of dashboard cameras, we can see how effective roadway safety infrastructure can be. For example, 

this website shows footage from a camera affixed to a tractor-trailer truck on a highway. The video captured the image of another tractor-trailer truck nearly colliding 

head-on but the crash being mitigated by cable barrier. https://drive.google.com/file/ 

d/1L-5egeInhrJgB9pZO14PtObM7tYQkI1D/view 

WIDER, HIGH VISIBILITY PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND CAVS

Some countermeasures are seemingly commonsense, but they have lasting positive impacts not only for today’s human drivers, but also for connected and automated vehicles into the future. A Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) study 

found that wider pavement markings in Michigan reduced fatal and injury crashes 

by nearly 25%, nighttime crashes by nearly 40% and nighttime crashes in wet conditions by more than 33%.8 A 2011 study of Missouri roads found that wider paveVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
65 

9 ‘‘Innovative Safety Solutions with Pavement Markings and Delineation’’ ATSSA case study 

publication, 2016 10https://www.enotrans.org/article/two-decades-congress-still-pushing-21st-centuryinfrastructure/ 11 ‘‘Evaluation of the Effects of Pavement Marking Width on Detectability by Machine Vision: 

4-Inch versus 6-Inch Markings’’ October 2018 Texas A&M Transportation Institute 12 U.S. Census Bureau Data—https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/09/highest-medianhousehold-income-on-record.html 

ment markings had a positive safety impact in reducing fatal and serious injury 

crashes, including: a 46% reduction on rural, multilane undivided highways; a 38% 

reduction on urban, two-lane highways; and a 34% reduction on rural, multilane divided highways.9

We know that wider pavement markings have positive safety benefits, especially 

for older drivers. But the question arises of whether or not wider markings assist 

vehicles equipped with machine vision/connected and automated vehicles (CAVs). A 

separate TTI study finds that the answer is yes. In February 2017, BMW’s President and CEO-North America testified that clear lane markings were a critical component to a transportation network that was ready to deploy CAVs.10 Additionally, 

TTI undertook a separate study in 2018 which looked at wider pavement markings 

and CAVs. This study found that wider markings, under adverse conditions, consistently improved machine vision detection. Adverse conditions include: crack seal, 

pavement seams, scarring, ‘‘ghost’’ lines from previous markings, and glare.11

With that said, we believe that full deployment of CAVs is still some time away. 

The average age of a vehicle in the U.S. is 11.5 years old, and according to 2017 

data, the median household income in the United States is $61,372.12 In each congressional district, there are families who make below this average income line. And 

even for families who have a household income above the median, we need to recognize the fact that most families will not want to purchase a new car until they feel 

it is time for them to do so. It is hard to believe that, even once CAVs are readily 

available, families will be able to or necessarily want to immediately rush to their 

car dealer to purchase one of these new CAVs. It is important that we understand 

these realities when planning for the expanded deployment of these technologies. 

SAFETY FUNDING

None of these safety priorities can be achieved without a solvent, robustly-funded 

Highway Trust Fund. Continuing to spend more from the Highway Trust Fund than 

is collected through taxes and fees is not a long-term solution. We need to address 

these deficiencies. In that regard, we strongly support an increase to user fees to 

address the long-term viability of the Highway Trust Fund, which include increasing and indexing the motor fuels user fees, an eventual move towards a vehicle 

miles traveled user fee system, and where it makes sense, the use of public private 

partnerships (P3s). 

We view P3s as a separate issue from the Highway Trust Fund solvency. Increasing the use of P3s does not address the underlying fiscal cliff of the Highway Trust 

Fund. As we consider an infrastructure package and a FAST Act reauthorization, 

the Administration and Congress must grapple with the fact that increased direct 

federal investments are crucial to the rebuilding and safety of America’s roadway 

network. 

With any increase in revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, ATSSA calls on Congress to double the size of the Highway Safety Improvement Program to at least 

10% of the overall core federal-aid highway programs so that we can aggressively 

combat fatalities and serious injuries on U.S. roads and expand the use of cost-effective, life-saving roadway safety infrastructure countermeasures. 

In conclusion, as a nation, we have made great strides in all aspects of roadway 

safety: behavioral, vehicle, emergency response, and infrastructure. As we move into 

the third decade of the 21st century, we must continue to press forward with safety 

and not let it slip from our top priority. Roadway safety infrastructure and the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program are a key piece of the safety puzzle, and this 

Subcommittee has the opportunity and responsibility to lead the charge in reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries on our nation’s roads. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering 

any of your questions. 

Ms. NORTON. And thank you for your testimony. 

We want to hear next from Mr. Mike Sewell here on behalf of 

the League of American Bicyclists. 

66 

Mr. SEWELL. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton as well as distinguished members of this subcommittee. 

I am very happy to be here to answer your questions about pedestrian/bicycle safety. 

My name is Mike Sewell. I am from Louisville, Kentucky, where 

I work as a professional engineer. I also serve as the Active Transportation Service Line Leader and one of the owners of Gresham 

Smith. It is an architecture and engineering consulting firm. 

I am representing not only the engineering profession today, but 

also the League of American Bicyclists, where I serve on their 

board of directors. 

But most importantly today, I come to you as a daily bicycle commuter. As little as a decade ago, I would be a very highly unlikely 

candidate to be talking to you about bicycle and pedestrian safety. 

However, as fate would have it, I found myself stuck in a car in 

construction traffic watching pedestrians and bicyclists move across 

a Second Street bridge passing me, and so in a fit of frustration 

I decided I would abandon my car on the side of the road and attempt to join them. 

Something serendipitous happened about halfway across that 

Second Street bridge though. I heard a bicycle bell, and as I looked 

over my shoulder, a bicyclist said, ‘‘It is a beautiful day, is it not?’’ 

And in my current state of mind, I had a hard time matching his 

enthusiasm, and at that point I had an epiphany. My choice of 

transportation that morning was negatively influencing my ability 

to enjoy myself. 

So I decided right then and there I was going to bike to work the 

next day. That was almost 8 years ago, and I am pleased to say 

I have biked to work about every day since, and I now have a far 

better understanding of what it means to be joyful in a commute. 

But me as an engineer, that decision made me challenge myself 

in the decisions I was making and our public right-of-way that 

might impede or allow other folks to have a similar epiphany and 

enjoy themselves in their commute. 

And as most engineers will do, we dug into data, and what I 

found was quite alarming. Between 2008 and 2017, we saw pedestrian deaths increase by 35 percent while pedestrians as a mode 

share only increased by 1 percent. 

What that tells me is that pedestrian deaths make up a vastly 

disproportionate amount of fatalities on our roadway. 

Bike fatalities are at their highest level since the early 1990s, 

with a 3-year average increase of 14.7 percent. 

There are also direct ties to equity issues in our transportation 

network that relate also to fatalities. What we found is older 

adults, people of color, or people attempting to walk and bike in 

lower income communities are far disproportionately represented in 

fatalities as well. 

Part of this fix is education, and thankfully, the League of American Bicyclists has formal training programs that educate about 

60,000 bicycle riders about how better to engage in transportation 

in our corridors, stay visible, and ride with confidence. 

They have also formalized a bicycle-friendly driver program to 

better educate drivers on what to expect from bicyclists. 

67 

However, education alone is not enough. Congress has a critical 

role in addressing policy and funding that allows people like me, 

engineers, to proactively design safer transportation systems. 

Nationwide bicycling and walking make up approximately 12 

percent of trips. They roughly make up 18 percent of fatalities. Yet 

less than 1 percent of HSIP dollars are spent focusing on better bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure type projects to address these 

fatalities. 

Part of the reason is the way HSIP is set up. States were required to prioritize hot spots, basically pinpoints on a map that categorize how fatal accidents are happening in a location. 

But what we found, too, is that it is a straightforward approach, 

but it does not tell the entire story. There are other factors that 

determine if a pedestrian is going to be safe or a bicyclist is going 

to be safe, such as roadway classification, speed differential, geometry, as well as land use. All of these can be used for a data-driven 

approach to determine where safety issues are likely to occur or 

where future users will likely encounter them. 

This is also not just an urban problem. We found that our rural 

areas also have a lot of difficulty implementing meaningful and 

safe multimodal connections. 

Today I would like to suggest adding a special rule to HSIP that 

requires States to address vulnerable user safety where there is a 

high rate of fatalities related to vulnerable users. 

Despite increases in bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities nationwide, there are some good stories that come out of this. In some 

locations, States and cities are seeing decreases. Oregon, for instance, is a great example, having nearly a 31-percent decrease in 

the number of fatalities for bicyclists over the course of 2007 to 

2016, despite a 46-percent increase in bike commuter trips. 

These results can be replicated through proactive policy, appropriate funding, education, and better engineered streets for all 

users. 

I appreciate your time, and thank you for this opportunity. I look 

forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[Mr. Sewell’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Mike Sewell, Active Transportation Service Line 

Leader, Gresham Smith, on behalf of the League of American Bicyclists 

Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished members of this committee for the invitation to present my perspectives on bicycle and 

pedestrian safety. My name is Mike Sewell. I am from Louisville, Kentucky where 

I work as a professional engineer. I also serve as the Active Transportation Service 

Line leader and one of the owners of Gresham Smith, an Architecture, Engineering 

and design practice. Gresham Smith is an active member of the American Council 

of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the business association of the engineering industry representing more than 5,600 engineering firms and 600,000+ engineers, surveyors, architects, and other specialists nationwide. 

I am representing not only the engineering profession today, but also the League 

of American Bicyclists where I serve on their board of directors. Most importantly, 

today I come to you as a daily bicycle commuter. Since beginning to bike to work, 

I have ridden more than 7,000 miles and explored dozens of U.S. cities by bike and 

experienced both the fear and the joy of being a bicyclist on American roads. 

68 

BACKGROUND

The League of American Bicyclists has been a presence on Capitol Hill since 1880, 

when the first bicycle advocates rode to Washington, D.C. They presented a petition 

on a bicycle wheel demanding paved roads, which would be safer and more enjoyable for the rising number of bicyclists in America. Then, just as now, we wanted 

the voices of bicyclists to be heard in the design and future of our transportation 

system. As most people who bicycle will tell you, though, today’s roads certainly do 

not feel like they have been designed to make it easier to get to work by bike or 

get to work safely by bike. 

It has only been since 1991 that Congress has made funding for bicycling and 

walking projects part of federal transportation programs. In the intervening 28 

years, we have seen a significant increase in bicycling for both transportation and 

recreation. More recently, state and local governments have begun promoting bicycling as a transportation option to reduce congestion and improve public health with 

the proliferation of bike share systems, separated bike lanes, and state and local initiatives with significant investments in bicycling networks. In places like Minneapolis, New York and Virginia, rates of bicycling have increased significantly and 

these gains have often been accompanied by better safety outcomes for all road 

users. 

Metro Nashville Division Street Extension—Nashville, TN 

GEOGRAPHY/LOCAL BACKGROUND

Slightly more than 20% of all bike commuters can be found in just 10 cities, including New York City where nearly 50,000 people choose to travel to work by bike. 

When those in Washington think about someone bicycling for transportation, the 

image that might come to mind is a young person on Pennsylvania Avenue coming 

to work from Columbia Heights, benefiting from urban density and local bike amenities. 

But bicycling is by no means confined to first tier cities. Louisville, Kentucky, my 

hometown, is a strong example of how a mid-size city has also benefited from 

prioritizing bicycle facilities: 

• Over the last decade, Louisville has made a concerted effort to improve our bicycling options, and is now certified as a Silver-level Bicycle Friendly Community 

by the League of American Bicyclists. 

• Louisville is a member of the Road to Zero Coalition and Kentucky supports the 

national movement Toward Zero Deaths, focusing on how engineering roads can 

prevent deaths of people walking or biking. 

• These efforts have paid off: while nationwide the number of people killed 

while biking reached a 25-year high in 2016, Louisville saw a decrease in bicyclist fatalities in recent years even while biking to work increased significantly. 

• Bicycling in Louisville is not just an urban solution, but is a way to help people 

experience the city, countryside and places in between. 

• I personally am involved in projects dedicated to creating safe bikeways within the urban core, as well as a project linking the city to the countryside. That 

22-mile project will increase safe, healthy transportation options to nearby 

residents. 

• As a Gold Level Bike Friendly Business, Gresham Smith, actively pursued 

building space adjacent to better bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure as well 

as adjacent land uses that allow our employees access to more restaurants and 

shop that are also bike friendly. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\Sew1.eps
69 

Town Branch Commons—Lexington, KY 

Bicycling is also an important part of transportation in many rural states. In 

Montana, people bike to work at a rate more than twice the national average. In 

North Dakota, more people bike to work than use public transit. And in Northwest 

Arkansas, the construction of 163 miles of trails and paths over the last 10 years 

has led to a 24% average annual increase in bicycling. 

Town Branch Commons—Lexington, KY 

EQUITY

There is no denying that bicycling is an affordable and economical means of transportation and isused by a wide range of people to make a living. The money people 

save on transportation allows them to spend more in the local economy, as well as 

afford housing, education, and other necessary expenses. In fact, bicycling is integral 

to getting employees to and from work. According to data from the 2017 National 

Household Travel Survey, people from households with incomes of less than $25k 

per year took nearly 25% of all the nation’s bike trips. Similarly, the same survey 

said that 20% of bike trips were to earn a living, which is 4% higher than the percentage of trips to earn a living for all modes of transportation [https://nhts.ornl.gov/ 

vehicle-trips]. 

SAFETY

When I work with communities interested in increasing active transportation, one 

of their major concerns is safety. No community wants to lose a mother, father, son, 

daughter, or neighbor in a fatal crash. While multiple surveys show Americans want 

to bike more, it is often their concern about safety that stops them. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\Sew2.eps P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\Sew3.eps
70 

The concern for safety is one of both perception and reality. 

• Improvements in traffic safety over the last quarter century have not been 

evenly distributed; people in cars have been the main beneficiaries, while people 

biking and walking represent an increasing percentage of traffic fatalities. 

• But the data also shows increasing fatalities of people biking and walking, with 

more people being killed while biking in 2016 than in any year since 1991. 

• On a per trip basis, bicycling is just slightly more dangerous than walking and 

it is safer than walking on a per mile basis. 

You might be thinking we are seeing higher fatalities among bicyclists as a result 

of more people bicycling. However, the inverse is true. For example, despite their 

overall disparity in population size, more people bike to work in Oregon than in 

Texas, but in 2016 Oregon had 55 fewer bicyclists die on its roads than Texas. This 

difference in safety can be explained by at least two reasons: 

• Oregon has a long history of investing in safe bicycling infrastructure, meaning 

that more people are likely riding on safe infrastructure. Oregon has had a 

Complete Streets law since 1971 and makes bicyclist safety an emphasis area 

in its Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

• In comparison, Texas adopted a Complete Streets policy in 2011 and does not 

make bicyclist safety an emphasis area in its Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

• The number of people biking in Oregon leads to an effect known as ‘‘safety in 

numbers.’’ This effect has been found in numerous studies. The more people 

who bike leads to more driver awareness of bicyclists, more predictable behavior 

by bicyclists and drivers, and improved safety through better behavior. 

A re-imagined Broadway in Louisville, KY with a complete street approach. 

THE LEAGUE’S THEORY OF SAFETY

While there is limited data to pinpoint the reasons for increasing bicyclist fatalities, we know that bicyclists’ perceptions of safety and safety outcomes are shaped 

by drivers and the built environment. According to a 2012 NHTSA survey [https:// 

www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811841b.pdf], the most common reason that 

a bicyclist felt their safety was threatened was due to a motorist’s action—usually 

driving too close. In keeping with that data, improving bicyclist safety should also 

be about improving driver behavior, like limiting distractions, and implementing infrastructure that reduces or mitigates opportunities for drivers to threaten 

bicyclists. 

To improve bicyclist safety the League has pursued three strategies: 

1. Increasing bike infrastructure and networks, especially protected bike infrastructure. According to AARP [https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/getting-around/info-2016/why-bicycling-infrastructure-is-good-for-people-who-dontride-bikes.html], in New York City, injuries for motorists, pedestrians and 

bicyclists declined [http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/09/05/new-dot-report-showsprotected-bike-lanes-improve-safety-for-everybody/] by 20% on streets with protected bike lanes. 

• Bicycle infrastructure can include a variety of solutions based on different 

community needs. My written testimony includes pictures of some examples. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\Sew4.eps
71 

2. Promoting Complete Streets policies and practices. Earlier, I noted how Oregon’s early adoption of Complete Streets has led to decades of road design 

that have resulted in better safety outcomes for cyclists. That is because Complete Streets policies consider all users in the planning, design and construction phases of roads. By adopting policies and practices that assume consideration for all users, the costs of bicycle lanes can be reduced by up to 40% according to data from the FHWA [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ 

bicyclelpedestrian/publications/resurfacing/resurfacinglworkbook.pdf]. 

• Complete Streets can encompass a variety of street designs, safety improvements, and planning and operational practices. My written testimony includes 

picture of some examples. 

3. Adopting and enforcing safe passing laws, which require drivers to give cyclists 

at least three feet of clearance when they are passing. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures [http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/safely-passing-bicyclists.aspx], 32 states, including Kentucky have this 

type of law. 

• According to data from NHTSA, a person is most likely to be killed while 

biking when hit from behind despite this being a relatively rare collision type. 

The League believes that improving bicyclist safety will take dedicated pursuit of 

those three strategies and more. Congress should consider whether more proactive 

safety legislation—which might improve vehicle designs, provide incentives for advanced and automated vehicle safety systems, and create performance standards for 

in-vehicle and device-based distraction—are appropriate to supplement the strategies discussed here. 

Federally-backed initiatives that embrace the goal of zero traffic deaths, such as 

the Road to Zero Coalition and Towards Zero Deaths national safety strategy have 

attracted wide support, but some safety efforts require congressional leadership. 

Taking off my bike helmet and speaking as an engineer, the trend we are seeing 

in the engineering industry is toward a ‘‘safe systems’’ approach. The basic idea is 

that humans will continue to make mistakes and/or choose risky behaviors (e.g. distracted driving, speeding, driving while impaired, not wearing a seatbelt, etc.) so the 

transportation infrastructure should be designed to reduce fatalities when accidents 

do occur. 

Using a data-driven, analytical approach, engineers are deploying a variety of 

proven countermeasures and design strategies—such as corridor access management, adding turn lanes, medians and pedestrian crossing slands, and road diets/ 

reconfigurations, among many others—to control vehicle speeds, calm traffic, and 

thereby manage the kinetic energy transfer among road users in accidents. These 

factors, in addition to traditional design criteria such as sight distance, intersection 

design to reduce conflicts, and roadside improvements on horizontal curves, can enhance safety of all roadway users and adapt the structure and function of the system to accommodate the complexities of human behavior. 

HSIP ASK

One area where Congress can make a difference in the lives of people who bike 

and walk is the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). HSIP [https:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm] is a congressionally authorized road 

safety program that distributes more than $2 billion each year based on where data 

shows funding could improve road safety. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\Sew8.eps
72 

Louisville Metro Urban Bike Network—Louisville, KY 

First, I would encourage the committee to increase funding for HSIP commensurate with an overall increase in the federal-aid highway program. Safety elements 

are included in other apportionments, but HSIP is a primary tool for the kinds of 

enhancements we are discussing and cannot be neglected. 

Despite the data and safety outcome focus of the program, because the algorithms 

are written with blind spots, funding does not flow to places where bicyclists and 

pedestrians are dying. Currently, Congress requires HSIP funding to go to ‘‘hot 

spots’’ and leaves it up to state Departments of Transportation to write the formulas 

for where those hot spots occur. 

• For instance, the New Jersey DOT has a stated policy that its HSIP funding 

should be spent on pedestrian improvements in the same proportion of fatalities 

that are pedestrians. 

• However, despite over 30% of roadway fatalities in New Jersey being pedestrians, the state reports spending NONE of its HSIP on pedestrians. The ‘‘datadriven’’ formula cannot identify a hot spot for these pedestrian fatalities and so 

1 in every 3 roadway fatalities in New Jersey goes unaddressed by HSIP. 

Bicycling and walking make up 12% of transportation trips, 18% of roadway fatalities, and receive less than 1% of HSIP investments. In 10 states where bicyclist 

and pedestrian fatalities averaged more than 15% of all traffic fatalities in the last 

5 years, the state reported spending $0 of HSIP funding on bicyclist and pedestrian 

safety projects during that time. 

To effectively improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety through HSIP, Congress 

needs to provide leadership to state DOTs. 

• Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities do not usually occur in ‘‘hot spots’’ but do predictably occur along corridors that can be identified using alternative analyses. 

Often these corridors are arterial roadways with commercial and residential development and high observed speeds. 

• Speed is incredibly important for the safety of people biking and walking. 

• If you are driving 45 mph and hit a bicyclist or a pedestrian, there is a 90% 

chance you will kill them. At 35 mph the chances of death drop to 50%, at 

25 mph there is 85% chance of survival. 

The growing number of Vision Zero communities has found a vast majority of fatalities happen on a small percentage of roads with similar contexts. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\Sew5.eps
73 

1 Vision Zero SF 2019 Action Strategy. 

2Denver Vision Zero Action Plan. https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/ 

705/documents/visionzero/Denver-Vision-Zero-Action-Plan-draft-July2017.pdf. Pg.5 

Louisville Metro Urban Bike Network—Louisville, KY 

Metro Nashville 28th-31st Avenue Connector—Nashville, TN 

• For instance in San Francisco, 75% of severe and fatal traffic injuries occur on 

just 13% of its streets 1. 

• In Denver, 50% of traffic fatalities occur on 5% of the roads 2. 

Congress plays a critical role in leading the nation towards sustained improvements for people bikingand walking through the Highway Safety Improvement ProVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN

P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\Sew6b.eps P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\Sew7.eps
74 

gram. In past transportation bills, such as MAP–21 and the FAST Act, Congress 

has taken steps to improve the safety of people biking and walking, including: 

• Removing the requirement to focus only on hot spots. 

• Requiring more attention to bicycling and pedestrian crashes. 

• Allowing states to use HSIP on roads that have dangerous features, before fatalities occur. Allowing proactive systematic approaches to safety. 

Those changes were necessary and we applaud them. However, many states have 

not yet significantly addressed the crisis of safety for people who bike and walk. 

At this time, we are not asking states to change their HSIP formulas, but rather 

are proposing supplementing those formulas. We don’t want to throw out the good 

work done to address hot spots, but want to stop the perpetuation of blind spots 

and encourage states to slow down and take a harder look at what they might not 

be seeing. 

• In areas where vulnerable user fatalities are above a certain threshold, such as 

MPOs, regional planning areas, tribal lands, and other jurisdictions that receive 

federal funding, HSIP funds should be directed to vulnerable user safety 

projects and protections in those areas. 

• Such a change dovetails with changes in the FAST Act which requires states 

to consider all users when constructing and reconstructing on non-interstate 

Federal Highway System roads. These roads are often the arterials and connectors where bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities happen. 

• Vulnerable user safety projects could include separated bicycle infrastructure, 

improved at-grade crossings including medians, grade-separated connections 

across high speed and high volume roads, and wider shoulders on rural roads. 

Many of these projects are already recommended by the FHWA. 

RECOGNIZE PAST CHANGES

The changes we want for HSIP also dovetail with non-infrastructure changes 

made by Congress, which recognized the need for education and enforcement to complement safe infrastructure for people biking and walking. 

The League believes that traffic safety goes beyond infrastructure and vehicle 

standards. While my professional career is about building complete streets and better infrastructure for all road users, I am also a strong believer in the role of education in improving the safety of bicycling. 

• As a certified League Cycling Instructor, I have been trained to teach adults 

and children safe bicycling practices, including obeying traffic laws, practicing 

defensive bicycling techniques, and ensuring your bike is safe to ride. 

• Since the 1970s the League has trained more than 6,000 cycling instructors, 

and these instructors train an average of 60,000 bicyclists each year. Our materials have been translated into seven languages. 

• The League is also rolling out a Bicycle Friendly Driver curriculum. It is a program developed in Fort Collins, Colo., to teach drivers why bicyclists ride like 

we do and create a shared understanding of how we use the road. 

• As a lifelong learner in the transportation industry, programs like these help 

people better respond to the changes we are seeing on our roads and can better 

support people who choose or depend on biking and walking. 

On enforcement, the League celebrated Congress’s decision in the FAST Act to 

create the 405(h) program that funds education and enforcement around state laws 

pertaining to bicyclists and pedestrians in those states where bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities are more than 15% of all traffic fatalities. 

Since its creation in the FAST Act, every eligible state has applied for the available funding and that funding has been used for a variety of education and enforcement campaigns. 

• In Georgia [https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ 

galfy2018lar.pdf], 405(h) funds were used to publish bicycle safety messages, 

reaching over 14 million contacts by leveraging existing bicycling-related 

groups, and to distribute more than 17,000 bicycle safety guides to agencies and 

others. 

• In Oregon [https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ 

orlfy2018lar.pdf], 405(h) funds were used to fund mini-grants to localities to 

implement an ‘‘Oregon Friendly Driver’’ program. 

• In Florida [https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ 

fllfy18lar.pdf], 405(h) funds were used to develop a four-hour classroom 

based training course to improve the effectiveness of officers taking part in High 

Visibility Enforcement to support pedestrian and bicycle safety in Florida. 

The 405(h) program shows how directing funding to change the culture around 

how we view the safety of people biking and walking can be successful. Through 

75 

these programs, Congress has demonstrated attention to the safety of people biking 

and walking as well as encouraged continued actions to promote the safety of all 

people who use our nation’s roadways. 

In closing, I would like to again emphasize the need for updates to the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program so that it directs funding to the needs of all roadway 

users. As currently implemented, HSIP all too often has blind spots for the safety 

of people walking and biking. Just as we ask drivers to do, the program needs to 

check your blind spots for people you may not have seen. 

We appreciate the steps Congress has taken in the last two transportation bills 

on improving education regarding bicycle and pedestrian laws, and believe Congress 

should build on those steps by improving HSIP so that the transportation system’s 

most vulnerable users are not overlooked in its data-driven process. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Sewell. 

Next, Nicholas Smith for the National Safety Council. 

Mr. SMITH. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Spano, and Chairman DeFazio, as well as the members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on improving the safety on our Nation’s roadways. 

My name is Nick Smith, and I am the interim president and 

CEO of the National Safety Council, and I am also the chair of the 

Road to Zero Coalition, which is focused on reaching zero fatalities 

by 2050. 

Last year, the coalition, which is over 900 strong, representing 

transportation organizations, government, businesses, academia, 

safety advocates, including those organizations represented here 

today on this panel, issued this report [indicating a document], a 

framework to help us get to zero deaths on our roadways by the 

year 2050. 

Together we call out three steps to reach the goal of zero deaths 

on our roadways. One, we believe doubling down on what works 

through proven evidence-based strategies. 

Two, accelerate advanced lifesaving technology in vehicles and in 

infrastructure. 

And three, prioritize safety by adopting a safe systems approach 

and creating a positive safety culture. 

My full testimony mentions specific steps for each of these. Today 

I will focus on prioritizing safety, which is the third step we call 

out. 

Today over 100 people will die in crashes on our roadway. Yesterday over 100 people died in crashes, and tomorrow over 100 people will die again in motor vehicle crashes. But there is no outrage. 

In every other mode of transportation this committee oversees, 

there is a different expectation of safety. 

For example, after two airplane crashes, countries across the 

world grounded all Boeing 737 Max 800 and 900 airplanes. In less 

than a week, a coordinated global action was taken to address a 

potential risk to millions of people. 

This committee rightly held hearings to determine causation and 

next steps. We can all agree that this was the right decision, but 

every 72 hours, we lose 328 people, nearly the equivalent of these 

2 airplane crashes on U.S. roadways. 

Where is our outrage over these deaths? And where is our urgency to prevent them? We must demand safety for all no matter 

how they are mobile. 

76 

Now for the good news. We know how to prevent these fatalities 

from happening. We just have not had the will to prioritize these 

actions. 

The culture around traveling on the roadways is very different 

from the airways. We require safety management systems and 

safety training for people who work in our airway system, and we 

even have a safety briefing for passengers before every flight. 

When things go wrong, this committee demands answers. Several 

Federal agencies send people to investigate, and a plane can be 

grounded. Simply put, we have a strong safety culture when it 

comes to aviation. 

So how do we raise the bar on safety on our road? The reauthorization of the FAST Act provides you an opportunity to do so today. 

While prioritizing safety, the reauthorization bill should encourage States to pass strong laws to implement proven countermeasures to save lives, like automated enforcement and lowering 

the blood alcohol concentration. 

Also, the bill should support safer roadway designs that provide 

for the safe movement of all roadway users and incorporates safety 

no matter if in a rural, suburban, or urban area. We know that 

drivers are human and we make mistakes and errors, and safer designs can help make sure those errors do not become fatalities. 

These are only a few examples of how to prioritize safety and 

move toward our goal to zero deaths on our roadway system. 

I have with me a letter from the Road to Zero Coalition asking 

Congress to prioritize safety. This bill should not be about more 

miles of pavement only. It must include safety in every aspect of 

the bill. 

I urge you to use this report as a framework to prioritize safety 

in our transportation system. 

I hope you will join me in saying enough is enough. The value 

of life should not depend on whether you are sitting on an airplane 

or behind the wheel of a car. It is time to bring the culture of safety on our roadways to levels we have achieved in the air. We know 

how to get there. We just need the will to do so. 

I look forward to discussing more with you today. Thank you. 

[Mr. Smith’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Nicholas J. Smith, Interim President and Chief 

Executive Officer, the National Safety Council 

Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify today on improving the safety of our nation’s 

roadways. 

It is an honor to be with you today. My name is Nicholas Smith, and I am the 

Interim President and CEO of the National Safety Council (NSC) and the Chair of 

the Road to Zero Coalition. It is nice to be back in Washington, as I previously lived 

and worked here at the Department of Homeland Security and for Majority Leader 

Bill Frist. 

The National Safety Council is a 100-year-old nonprofit committed to eliminating 

preventable deaths in our lifetime by focusing on reducing fatalities and injuries in 

workplaces, on the road and in homes and communities. Our more than 15,000 

member companies represent employees at more than 50,000 U.S. worksites. Not 

only do we work with companies but also with organized labor, who share our dedication to keeping workers safe on and off the job. These members are across the 

United States and are likely in each district represented on this Committee. 

77 

1https://www.nsc.org/in-the-newsroom/2018-marks-third-straight-year-that-motor-vehicledeaths-are-estimated-to-have-reached-40-000 2https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/introduction/ 

3https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812662 

4https://www.responsibility.org/alcohol-statistics/drunk-driving-statistics/drunk-driving-fatality-statistics/ 5https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812451 

The National Safety Council estimates that over 40,000 people were killed in 

motor vehicle crashes in 2018.1 Included here are the number of people killed in 

motor vehicle crashes in 2018 from the Chairs’ and Ranking Members’ states, and 

a complete overview of all states is included with my testimony. 

District of Columbia 34 

Illinois 1,048 

Missouri 917 

Oregon 468 

© Copyright 2019 National Safety Council—All Rights Reserved 

These are the lives of your constituents. These mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, 

aunts and uncles contributed to the communities in which they lived. Yet, our national outrage at these losses is conspicuously absent, particularly when you compare to deaths in other forms of transportation, such as aviation. These crashes and 

deaths on our roadways not only have a human toll, but there is an annual cost 

to the American economy of over $433 billion.2

The United States has consistently avoided the hard choices needed to save lives 

on the roadways. The reauthorization of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is an opportunity for us to start making the right choices, and 

I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today about how to do more to save 

lives, because we know that all of these deaths are preventable. 

What disappoints many of us in the safety community is that the main causes 

of motor vehicle fatalities—lack of seat belt use, alcohol-impaired driving, and 

speed—have remained the same for decades. 

50% of people who die in motor vehicle crashes are unbelted 3

30% of people who die in crashes are involved in alcohol-impaired wrecks 4

27% of the fatalities are speed-related 5

The solutions to these problems are simple and clearly known, but we need the 

political and societal will to widely implement them. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\smith7.eps
78 

6https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812662 

7https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812662 

8https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812454 

9 Ibid. 

10https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/index.html 11https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving 

Recently, ‘‘zero’’ language has been incorporated into the goals on our roadways. 

This has been commonplace in other settings like workplaces, where NSC has been 

involved since its beginning, and it has had meaningful results. NSC is so committed to a zero goal on the roadways that we lead the Road to Zero Coalition, a 

diverse group of over 900 members committed to eliminating roadway fatalities by 

2050. Over the past two and a half years, the coalition has grown to include members from across the country representing transportation organizations, businesses, 

academia, safety advocates and others, the first time so many organizations have 

collaborated to put forth a plan to address fatalities on our roads. 

The centerpiece of our work together has been the creation of the Road to Zero 

report, a comprehensive roadmap of the strategies necessary to achieve our goal by 

2050. One year ago this month, the coalition issued our report with three primary 

recommendations. 

1. Double down on what works through proven, evidence-based strategies 

2. Accelerate advanced life-saving technology in vehicles and infrastructure 

3. Prioritize safety by adopting a safe systems approach and creating a positive 

safety culture 

DOUBLE DOWN

We know what works. Enacting evidence-based laws related to seatbelts, alcohol 

impairment and speed shows we are ready for change, and education about the laws 

combined with strong enforcement delivers on the change. We urge legislators to 

look at these and the many other laws that, if enacted, enforced and promoted 

would drive down fatalities. While many of these laws require state action, the federal government should consider incentives in the reauthorization bill to accelerate 

state adoption and enforcement. 

The data and research tell us that primary seat belt laws, lowered blood alcohol 

content laws, and better speed management efforts would have meaningful impact. 

Seatbelts 

Regardless of other causal factors, the lack of proper occupant restraint continues 

to increase the severity and lethality of motor vehicle crashes. While 89.6% of American drivers and vehicle occupants used seat belts in 2018, more than 1 in 10 continued to put their lives at unnecessary risk, with tragic consequences. Almost half 

(47%) of people killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2017 were unbelted.6 Yet despite 

these data, only 34 states and the District of Columbia have primary enforcement 

of their seatbelt laws—meaning law enforcement may stop vehicles solely for belt 

law violations. Of the other 16 states, 15 have secondary laws—requiring police to 

have another reason for a traffic stop—and one, New Hampshire, has no belt law. 

Primary seatbelt laws are proven to increase the rate of belt use and save lives. 

In 2018, 90.6% of passenger vehicle occupants were belted in states with primary 

laws, while only 86.4% of occupants were belted in states with secondary or no seatbelt laws.7 There should only be one acceptable level of safety. Public education and 

high-visibility enforcement campaigns such as Click It or Ticket have increased public awareness of the dangers of driving unrestrained, but will only be most effective 

when accompanied by strong laws. 

In 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates 

that the use of seat belts in passenger vehicles saved 14,668 lives and if all drivers 

and passengers had worn their seatbelts, an additional 2,456 lives would have been 

saved.8 In Oregon and Illinois, 16 and 52 lives respectively could have been saved 

with 100% seat belt use.9 Similarly, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 

provides the Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States 

(MV PICCS) to help policymakers determine the lives saved and costs of implementation of 14 different evidence-based motor vehicle laws. When comparing Oregon 

and Illinois again, seat belt enforcement campaigns could save 16 and 35 lives respectively.10

Impairment 

Another leading cause of roadway deaths is alcohol impairment. Every day, almost 30 people die in alcohol-impaired crashes in the United States—one every 48 

minutes.11 Despite these data, our culture does not prioritize safety, with more than 

79 

12http://tirf.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/RSM-TIRF-USA-2018-Alcohol-Impaired-Driving-inthe-United-States-3.pdf 13 Blomberg RD, Peck RC, Moskowitz H, Burns M, Fiorentino D: The Long Beach/Fort Lauderdale relative risk study; J Safety Res 40:285; 2009. 14Fell, 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. 15https://gallery.mailchimp.com/6bedee967fbeb62935e59055b/files/63d3f7b0-3f00-446b-9613- 

031039a61d02/iihslnewsl040419lemb.pdf?mclcid=5154c704bc&mcleid=ab62186d28 

1 in 10 drivers admitting to driving in the prior year when they thought they were 

close to or over the legal blood alcohol content(BAC) limit.12

The data are clear: drivers are four times more likely to crash at .05 than if they 

had nothing to drink.13 Most other industrialized countries have implemented a 

BAC of .05 or lower, changes which have been followed by decreasing numbers of 

fatalities from alcohol-impaired crashes. Lowering the BAC limit from .08 to .05 is 

proven to save lives on the roadways, and in the U.S. could save as many as 1,500 

lives if implemented nationally.14 Utah is the first state in the U.S. to pass a law 

lowering the BAC to .05. NSC supports other states attempting to implement such 

legislation, and hopes to see federal legislation introduced to this end. 

Source: National Transportation Safety Board ‘‘Safety Report on Eliminating Impaired Driving (2013)’’ 

Speed 

The United States has a fatal problem with driving too fast. Just last week, the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) estimated that increasing speed limits over the past 25 years have led to 37,000 deaths.15 Nearly 27% of roadway fatalities include speed as a causal factor, a factor that is even more deadly for our growing population of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and bicyclists. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\smith2.eps
80 

16 NSC analysis of NHTSA FARS data 17https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/files/ADAS-Technology-Names-Research-Report.pdf 18https://newsroom.aaa.com/2019/03/americans-fear-self-driving-cars-survey/ 

As illustrated, at 20 miles per hour, 9 out of 10 pedestrians would survive being 

struck by a vehicle, but if you double that speed, 9 out of 10 pedestrians would be 

killed. 

It is not only pedestrians and other vulnerable road users impacted by excess 

speed, but also 9,242 motor vehicle drivers and occupants who died in 2017 in 

speed-related crashes.16 One evidence-based proven countermeasure for speed is 

automated enforcement. Automated enforcement is proven to reduce speed and save 

lives, but implementation must be done properly, with safety—not revenue—as the 

primary objective. NSC, AAA, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and IIHS 

created the attached checklist to provide guidance to communities as they deploy 

automated enforcement. As you can see, the guidance encourages transparency and 

grace among enforcement actions given and dedication of the funds to safety, trauma care or similar purpose. 

There are other deadly problems on our roadways, like distraction, that we can 

do more to solve as well, and these issues should not be overlooked by this Committee. 

ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY

Technology is an important disrupter that will continue to transform roadway 

safety well into the foreseeable future. To reach zero deaths, we need to encourage 

the development of innovations that address human failures and road design failures and, once proven, establish mandates for adoption of technologies that work. 

Further, this regulatory certainty and defined standards should drive interoperability and ensure meaningful outcomes. Additionally, data collection on serious and 

fatal crashes should be required in order to share consistent and verified information, and testing on public roads should be reported to the jurisdictions in which 

the tests occur. This level of transparency will help consumers better understand 

the technology and how to operate in it, with it and around it. 

Establishing performance standards and common nomenclature for the automated 

vehicle (AV) technology will also help encourage better understanding. Earlier this 

year, AAA released a report about the lack of consistency. In it, they found adaptive 

cruise control has 20 different names and lane keeping assistance has 19 unique 

names.17 The trend continued with other technologies. These different names do not 

aid consumer understanding and acceptance. In fact, AAA also found that over 70% 

of consumers are afraid of fully automated vehicles.18 This reauthorization bill 

should help establish more standards for technology by building the necessary 

frameworks to support our desired outcomes to reduce deaths on the roadways, and 

it should include commercial motor vehicles too. 

As we sit here today, automakers, technology firms and others are developing partially and fully automated vehicles. The potential safety benefits of automated vehicles could be incredible. When ready, these vehicles will not glance down at their 

phone, speed through a red light or have an alcoholic beverage before getting behind 

the wheel—all mistakes that we as human drivers continue to make over and over 

again, with deadly consequences. To be clear, it will be decades before we have 

meaningful fleet penetration on U.S. roadways of AVs. In the meantime, there are 

significant technologies available in vehicles today, Advanced Driver Assistance SysVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN

P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\smith3.eps
81 

19https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/roundabouts/presentations/safetylaspects/long.cfm 

tems (ADAS) that can prevent or mitigate crashes. Consumer education about these 

technologies is key. 

While standards are essential, public education is also important. The National 

Safety Council is working to expand consumer education around these new technologies. NSC and the University of Iowa created a website, MyCarDoesWhat.org, 

to help. When a person visits MyCarDoesWhat.org, he or she learns about dozens 

of existing safety features such as lane departure warning, blind spot monitoring, 

backup cameras, automatic emergency braking and more. The MyCarDoesWhat 

team has developed videos, infographics and other informational pieces to help drivers understand how these technologies work and what they are capable of doing. 

The purpose of MyCarDoesWhat is to educate the public about these assistive safety 

features in order to maximize their potential lifesaving benefits. 

Additionally, the National Safety Council was a founding member of PAVE (Partners for Automated Vehicle Education), which launched in January. PAVE is a 

broad-based coalition that includes automotive and technology companies, safety 

and mobility advocates and community partners. PAVE members believe that in 

order to fully realize the benefits of self-driving technology, policymakers and the 

public need factual information about the present and future state of such technology. PAVE enhances public understanding through a variety of strategies including an educational website at PaveCampaign.org; ‘‘hands-on’’ demonstrations allowing the public to see and experience driverless technology; and workshops to help 

policymakers understand the technology. In the future, PAVE will produce educational toolkits for car dealers to help them communicate more effectively with customers about their vehicles’ capabilities and limitations. 

When it comes to technology, the U.S. prioritized safety years ago by dedicating 

spectrum for safety purposes to prevent crashes. Today, other groups would like to 

take the spectrum for streaming services. I urge this committee to direct the U.S. 

DOT, the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Commerce and 

others to maintain the spectrum for roadway safety purposes allowing vehicles to 

communicate with each other, infrastructure, pedestrians and others to prevent 

crashes. This spectrum provides a safety margin that we should not give away. 

PRIORITIZE SAFETY

By prioritizing safety, we commit to changing our nation’s safety culture. This 

means we have to accept that any life lost is one too many. Once we accept that 

one death is too many, we will begin thinking about how to take a ‘‘safe systems’’ 

approach to our roadways. Fully adopted by the aviation industry, this means building fail-safe features that anticipate human error and developing infrastructure 

with safety margins. 

With the understanding that people will make mistakes, the built environment or 

infrastructure can be more forgiving to eliminate fatalities. Some of these changes 

may include engineering greater safety into a design. For example, in the pictures 

below, a multi-lane intersection with a red light in Scottsdale, Arizona was replaced 

with a roundabout. With the intersection, there are 32 potential points of failure, 

but with a roundabout, that is engineered down to only 8.19 Speeds are decreased, 

and if crashes do occur, they occur at angles that are not as violent. 

Successful infrastructure redesign can also look like the picture below from New 

York City. The picture on the left shows two roads merging together without an 

area for pedestrians, and the lane lines are non-existent. However, the reworked 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\smith4.eps
82 

20https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadwayldept/ 

merge incorporates clearly marked lanes of travel, large sidewalks and areas of less 

exposure to vehicles for pedestrians. 

These infrastructure changes are just as important in rural areas. Rumble strips 

on the center line or edge of roadways can prevent the roadway departure crashes 

that account for 52% of fatalities in the U.S.20 Cable median barriers can also provide a margin of safety to redirect people in to their lane of travel, and high friction 

surface treatments can decrease vehicle stopping distance on roadways. These are 

all tools we have available today. 

Infrastructure changes can be expensive, but they do not have to be. Through the 

Road to Zero Coalition, NSC has awarded grants to groups across the country working in communities of all sizes. In the first year of grants, the National Complete 

Streets Coalition, which is testifying today too, worked with three communities: Lexington, KY, Orlando, FL, and South Bend, IN. Each city was provided only $8,000 

dollars from the grant for temporary infrastructure changes that you can see below 

to measure results. Each city had measurable improvements to safety even with a 

small dollar investment. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\smith5.eps
83 

The biggest and hardest change is the shift to truly prioritize safety by changing 

safety culture on the roads. We cannot be complacent when it comes to losing so 

many people each and every day on our roads. We need leaders in this area, and 

I can think of none better than the members of this Committee and Subcommittee. 

The reauthorization is the vehicle to accomplish this change. We have changed safety culture in workplaces, around child passenger safety and in other areas. We can 

do it here too with your help. 

OTHER PROVISIONS

There are specific provisions in the FAST Act that can be improved to prioritize 

safety. These include: 

• Altering the ‘‘Section 405’’ programmatic funds that largely go unused by reworking the program to give states different options 

• Expanding the use of Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Additionally, the National Safety Council believes we can use data to better target 

roadway areas for safety improvements. Identifying and prioritizing dangerous 

areas of roadways for safety improvements can save lives. 

Several states have provided estimates to the U.S. Department of Transportation 

that the fatalities in their states will increase. Focusing the spending in those states 

on safety to prevent this projection from coming true should be a priority for Congress. 

There are evidence-based safety solutions that federal dollars are prohibited to 

purchase or federal safety programs that have been cut, but there are several comm 

unities that would like to employ a range of options that will improve safety. Allowing flexibility in federal spending for evidence-based safety improvements can save 

lives, and I urge this committee to re-evaluate some of those restrictions on technology like automated enforcement and other programs. 

NSC looks forward to working with this Committee to fully develop these provisions. 

CONCLUSION

You have an opportunity in front of you to prioritize safety, and the National 

Safety Council is committed to working with you to reach zero fatalities on our roadways. I hope you will join me in saying enough is enough and start down the Road 

to Zero. It is not impossible. It just hasn’t been done yet. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\smith6.eps
84 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\smith8.eps
85 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. 

And I want to thank all of you for your testimony today. 

We will now move on to Members’ questions. Each Member will 

be recognized for 5 minutes of questions. 

I now recognize myself. 

And this is a question for all of the witnesses. This is frustrating 

to hear this testimony. Congress has spent some considerable funds 

to reduce highway deaths, and yet we hear that it has not, in fact, 

gone much below 35,000 a year since the 1950s. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\smith9.eps
86 

I mean, this is a country used to making some progress. Now, I 

recognize that much of this lies with local and State authorities, 

but I would like to ask all of you, and I will begin with Ms. 

Homendy, but it is a question for all of you. 

What in your view, and I recognize that there are many things 

that each of you think should be done, but I am trying to focus on 

major things now; what is the single most important thing that you 

think Congress can do to reduce the number of roadway fatalities, 

bearing in mind the State and localities are where the action is? 

So could I start with Ms. Homendy and just go on down the line? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Thank you very much for the question. 

And it is hard for the NTSB to pick one thing over another. So 

something I will say is it is a comprehensive approach. 

From our standpoint, it is effective guidance to the States. It is 

enforcement, high-visibility enforcement, education for drivers and 

others, and engineering, and that includes vehicle technologies, 

other technologies like collision avoidance systems, speed limiters, 

and better data. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir, Mr. Jones, Vice Mayor Jones? 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. 

Again, I think it has a lot to do with priorities and accountability. I think there are a lot of great tools in the toolbox to do 

good design. We have great examples of where we have retrofitted 

our streets to make them accessible and safe for all users. 

But again, I mentioned there is this disconnect between these 

large policy frameworks and the actual implementation. Sometimes 

I think it has a lot to do with just the culture. You know, engineers 

are often trained and their priorities are about moving cars as 

quickly and efficiently through communities as possible. 

And I think there needs to be a greater focus in on sort of changing the paradigm a little bit and prioritizing funding to do things 

like Complete Streets. 

I mean, Florida DOT, for example, the State has a wonderful 

Complete Streets policy, but what ends up happening is by the 

time it gets down to the local or the district level, a lot of times 

it falls by the wayside. 

And I think what we need is some more accountability to say, 

‘‘Look. We can do these projects. Let’s put a pot of funding that is 

dedicated solely to this effort and start to do more demonstration 

projects so people can see the benefits of these types of improvements in retrofit.’’ 

Ms. NORTON. Chief Brown? 

Mr. BROWN. Very briefly, I would say that, frankly, we should 

really change the narrative from the standpoint, and I put this in 

my written comments, to drive home the importance of what we 

are talking about. 

A lot of times the threat to the public and the individual road 

users, whether they be pedestrians, bikes or motorists, is lost in 

the discussion of the authorization regarding roadway use and construction and everything else. 

I put in my testimony a comment that I truly believe and I have 

said many times over. When you knock on a door and you wake 

somebody up and you tell them they have lost a loved one or a 

87 

friend, it does not matter if it is bullet or a fender. The same shock 

is there. 

Our officers across this country deal with that on a daily basis, 

as do professionals in the medical field and do it at a hospital, and 

yet we ignore this as a national issue. 

What we compete with in the law enforcement arena are other 

public health and public safety issues. The opioid task issue is a 

huge issue across this country. We are dealing with it, but no one 

says it with the same loud depth and a voice as it applies across 

this country, and yet it affects so many people and so many families. 

That is the national narrative, I think, that frankly Congress 

could tee up and charge all of us to do better at. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Bruemmer? 

Mr. BRUEMMER. The Highway Safety Improvement Program requires data-driven results from State DOTs. DOTs have data on 

where accidents happen. They lack the funding a lot of times to 

combat the problem. I think that is probably one of the most useful 

systems that Congress has at its disposal, is the ability to identify 

where crashes happen, where fatalities happen, and the ability to 

take action and provide results. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Sewell? 

Mr. SEWELL. I would like to echo a lot of what Mr. Jones has 

said. We have great tools currently as engineers and planners of 

our transportation network. The biggest issues are the data sets 

that we are using to identify where those issues could occur, and 

then the funding is always an issue. 

So I think for Congress to show leadership on both how we are 

attacking these to be more proactive and keep people safe as well 

as the pot of money that can be allocated towards safety projects 

are the two biggest things for me. 

Ms. NORTON. I’m going to allow Mr. Smith to answer briefly. 

Mr. SMITH. Of course. I certainly agree with everything that has 

been said here on the panel, and it really comes back down to the 

culture and addressing the culture. We would not accept this in the 

aviation industry, and we cannot accept it on the roadways. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

I am going to now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Spano. 

Mr. SPANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I represent a district, as I think maybe many of the Members on 

the dais do, that has urban areas and rural areas, and so you 

know, the differences in terms of the needs and the guidelines vary 

so greatly. 

So how does the next surface transportation reauthorization bill 

address the differing needs between rural and urban areas? That 

is the first question. 

And then how do you create or fashion a comprehensive bill that 

maybe is necessary to obtain compliance while still giving local 

folks some authority and wiggle room to best use those directions 

or directives to suit the needs of their local area? 

I know that is a big question, but maybe you could each address 

that. 

Ms. HOMENDY. Thank you. 

88 

And from our perspective, we have a number of safety recommendations we have issued. For NHTSA we have 108 safety recommendations that are open that we would urge Congress to address in the upcoming reauthorization. 

And from our standpoint, those issues regarding safety, it does 

not discriminate whether you are on a highway, whether you are 

on a rural road. They are critical safety issues that need to be addressed like impairment, adopting .05 instead of having .08; addressing speeding. 

There are a number of pedestrian safety issues that could also 

be addressed that we can get into in this hearing, but I think addressing those big safety issues would be critical because, like I 

said, it does not matter if you are on a highway or on a smaller 

road. These are still critical safety issues. 

Mr. SPANO. And if I might interject, Chief Brown, I think you 

more so than any of the other members on the panel stressed the 

need for some local input, control in terms of the decisionmaking 

process. 

So how do you square some of the broader requirements with the 

need to have that flexibility? 

Mr. BROWN. That is an excellent question, and quite frankly, 

there is a framework in the FAST Act that allows you to do some 

of that, but it gets down to the implementation of it. Nobody should 

be just given a block grant for traffic safety activity, but I think 

you can certainly use the FAST Act ideas and concepts to justify 

the need for it and tailor it to the local issue. 

And then the other key is to fund it. Unfortunately, oftentimes 

there is influence in that process as far as the allocations go where 

some projects do not get funded and some do. 

And in some cases, it is discouraging for some local law enforcement, and frankly, some local communities may not have the capacity to drive even the grant application process, to be real frank, 

even today. 

I would say that the more we provide an opportunity and a 

framework that is more detailed, but provides the flexibility to address the local issues, I think you can incorporate the same things 

that we are talking about here on this panel. 

The major issues are mostly across the country to one degree or 

another. 

Mr. SPANO. Vice Mayor? 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. 

And that is a great question, and it really points to the issue of 

context. And when we talk about Complete Streets, they certainly 

do look much different in a rural context than, say, in very urban 

areas, but yet they are still complete. 

And, again, I want to emphasize here that we are not talking 

about freeway design but rather what often happens is that sort of 

mentality ends up going to the local issue. So there is this mismatch where we think about how we design a freeway, and then 

we might apply it to what should be a local street with maybe two 

lanes and an opportunity for cyclists and pedestrians. 

And I think when it comes to addressing the issue of incentives, 

I think the more that we can offer to local jurisdictions, you know, 

in terms of additional funding when they actually meet the perVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
89 

formance standards, that is an issue. It is really about accountability. 

So if local jurisdictions can show that they are doing these 

projects, improving safety, reducing the loss of life, then perhaps 

they should be getting more money. 

Mr. SPANO. Mr. Bruemmer? 

Mr. BRUEMMER. Engineers have said that we are on the cusp of 

the largest revolution in surface transportation since the switch 

from horse and buggy. I think technology moves us forward and 

changes a lot of the dynamics that differentiate local versus rural. 

I think there needs to be a coalition of manufacturers from auto 

industry to surface transportation industry that create a cohesiveness between what we do moving forward. Things that most people 

do not think about that I think about every day are pavement 

markings. The auto industry has said what we need to drive our 

cars machine-wise is good pavement markings. 

I think the discussion needs to be brought from industry to make 

it all work so that we make the right steps moving forward. 

Mr. SPANO. I apologize, Mr. Sewell and Mr. Smith. I do not have 

any time remaining. 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Spano. 

Mr. Carbajal. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair. 

And thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today. 

Mr. Bruemmer, according to the National Safety Council, injuries 

from motor vehicle incidents totaled more than 4.6 million in 2017. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates 

that over 37,000 people lost their lives in accidents on U.S. roadways in that same year. 

In my district, Highway 46 is sadly known as Blood Alley due to 

the countless fatal crashes over the years. As we begin our work 

on a surface transportation reauthorization, what are some concrete actions Congress can take to make our roads safer? 

And, two, as we make greater strides in artificial intelligence and 

self-driving vehicle technologies, how can we start integrating this 

technology into our road planning? 

Mr. BRUEMMER. Thank you. 

As I mentioned before, I think technology is moving at a rapid 

pace from the auto industry. Unfortunately, they have kept their 

cards close to their vest from our side of the industry, but as we 

move forward, the discussion is now becoming more open that how 

does technology act with infrastructure. How does V2I move the 

conversation forward? 

I think that in the very near term, I think that progress can be 

seen. At the national level from Congress, I think it is focused on 

you are already aware of the major problem that you have on Highway 46. That is the start. 

Now the problem is talk to the engineers. Talk to the DOT. How 

do we fix this problem? And how do we bring a package from Congress that can help the State best rectify this problem? 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you. 

Ms. Homendy, in your testimony you reference the ‘‘most wanted 

list’’ of recommendations for highway safety. One of NTSB’s recVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
90 

ommendations is for the Department of Labor to develop and disseminate guidelines on the dangers of driving while tired. 

While it seems obvious, I want to ask you. Why are these guidelines necessary? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Thank you for the question. 

And if you do not mind me adding one thing to what the gentleman said on technology, there are safety technologies available 

today which are the building blocks to automated vehicles that you 

could use to save lives today. So we do not have to wait until those 

are on the road. 

So I just want to put that out there. 

On fatigue, a lot of the work that has been done by the NTSB 

has focused on commercial motor vehicles and not on autos, and a 

lot of that is focused on needing science-based hours-of-service 

standards, no exemptions to those standards, having fatigue management plans in place, implementing and using electronic logging 

devices, and screening diagnosis and treating of sleep apnea for 

FMCSA to do rulemaking in that area, and installation of collision 

avoidance systems which could help combat fatigue. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

And I want to call next Mr. Gallagher. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much. 

I thought it would take me 30 years to get up here at the top, 

but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GALLAGHER [continuing]. You know it is only going to last a 

couple of minutes. So I just want to savor it for a second. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Ms. Homendy, forgive me if I am mispronouncing that. In your opening statement, you noted that pedestrian deaths on our roadways have been increasing since 2010. In 

2016, nearly 6,000 pedestrians died in collisions with highway vehicles in the U.S. That is an average of 16 per day. 

And according to NTSB’s 2018 special investigation report, 

roughly 28 percent of those deaths occur on rural roads. 

My district in northeast Wisconsin has a lot of rural roads, and 

I know this was talked about a little bit before, but could you expand on whether there is a difference in NTSB safety recommendations for urban versus rural roads? 

Ms. HOMENDY. For the pedestrian safety study, we did find that 

there were more fatalities in urban environments and that 18 percent of the fatalities occurred at intersections, 72 percent at nonintersections, and 10 percent at other locations. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. I appreciate that. 

And for anyone on the panel, can you comment perhaps on the 

impact that commercial trucking has on pedestrian and nonpedestrian fatalities, if at all? 

I do not know who wants to volunteer. Who is brave? Sir, you 

look eager. If not eager, reluctantly willing to step up. 

Mr. BROWN. If I could, sir, I am not so sure that that is a highpriority issue in terms of the representation in fatalities and injuries. Unfortunately, when those incidents occur, because you are 

91 

dealing with the principle of physics, a bigger vehicle against a 

human being is not going to come out well for the human being. 

But generally speaking, I am not aware of a significant change 

in that kind of an environment under the scenario that you suggested. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, let me perhaps ask it a different way and 

sort of reveal what I am getting at here. 

So commercial trucks following local laws in 29 States are barred 

from using the Federal interstate which then forces them in many 

cases to stay on winding secondary roads where there are a lot of 

pedestrian crossings, bicycles, school crossings, traffic lights, and 

other obstacles, right? 

So in 2009, we in Congress authorized a pilot program in Maine 

that found that allowing these commercial trucks on the interstate 

even for short distances actually decreased fatalities by 37 percent, 

which makes sense, right? 

If you have these trucks sort of off the rural winding roads where 

there are a lot more pedestrians, perhaps they would avoid that 

unfortunate encounter that you referenced. 

So I just would ask particularly those who are representatives at 

the State and local level: would you in theory support States having the option of allowing some of these commercial trucks to use 

the Federal interstate for short distances in order to reduce highway fatalities? 

Mr. BROWN. It would depend upon what type of commercial vehicle we are talking about. Commercial vehicles are very broad. You 

can have those that involve the transportation, for example, of certain hazardous commodities, whether they are interstate or intrastate. There is a difference in that as far as title 49. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes. 

Mr. BROWN. In addition to that, there is also the concerns about 

what our local communities want in their backyard. 

We do have bypass traffic because of congestion and congestion 

mitigation efforts made by commercial drivers at times. But I think 

you will find that most local folks would love to have the local control over what is migrating through their cities. 

But whether or not those vehicles should be allowed on an interstate vis-a-vis through sort of thing, it would depend upon what 

they are trying to move, quite frankly. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes. And for us in northeast Wisconsin, logging 

is a big issue. You can imagine logging trucks, giving them the 

ability to for a short distance, 150 miles, use the Federal interstates. 

I do not know if anyone has dealt with any of these issues and 

wants to chime in. 

Mr. SEWELL. If I may real quickly, what you are speaking about 

is very closely tied to land use. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes. 

Mr. SEWELL. And when you are trying to provide access not only 

to commercial vehicles or you name it type of vehicle to get to a 

place they have to do business and you couple that with where we 

are focused on multimodal pedestrian and bicycle safety, establishing clear context for corridors and then assigning certain vehicles to allow access to places that eliminate conflicts and minimize, 

92 

as was mentioned, that speed differential between higher moving 

vehicles and pedestrians or slower moving vehicles is a great idea. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes. Well, thank you all for being here today. 

And I yield the balance of my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. 

And I do want to note that the subcommittee will be having a 

hearing on trucking and truck safety will be included in that. It is 

an important issue. 

Mrs. Craig. 

Mrs. CRAIG. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Norton. 

Ms. Homendy, your testimony particularly spoke to me. My stepsister lost her life in one of those intersections in Portland, Oregon. 

So she left a kindergartner to be raised by his dad and a family 

that was changed forever. 

So you know, I appreciate that the title of this hearing is ‘‘Every 

Life Counts.’’ I grew up in a family where that life was lost. So 

thank you all for being here. 

What I want to follow up on is just this comment about the rural 

areas. I come from Minnesota’s Second Congressional District, and 

according to the 2016 Federal Highway Administration data, rural 

areas account for 30 percent of total vehicle miles traveled. Yet 50 

percent of roadway fatalities take place in rural areas. 

As Mr. Bruemmer noted, over a 4-year period, the Minnesota 

DOT installed cable barriers in 31 segments along 150 miles of 

roadway. In the 3 years prior to installation, there were 19 fatal 

cross-median crashes, and in the 3 years following, there were zero. 

I would love to hear from you about those types of policy recommendations. Obviously, that is infrastructure investment. 

You also talked about speed and alcohol use. Is there any difference in these rural areas? 

And what recommendations would you make? Perhaps maybe 

start with Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, ma’am. The solution or the proper way to address many of the things that you are talking about in the rural 

areas does require a little bit of a combined approach actually. 

I have seen over and over again where infrastructure like center 

divider medians, Jersey walls, things to prevent crossovers will increase survivability in the case of a crash. 

But a lot of it has to do with behavior. So a lot of the things that 

you see in an urban environment involving impaired driving and 

the like we will see in a rural area. 

I have had the privilege in my career of working in rural areas, 

and I know exactly what you are talking about in terms of, you 

know, the tragedies sometimes are even worse because of the speed 

that is involved in those kinds of situations. 

It is kind of hard to go downtown in Alexandria at 85 miles an 

hour. It is much easier in a rural area, and that will complicate 

survivability in many cases. 

Mrs. CRAIG. Does anyone else have a thought on any of those factors in rural areas? Anything to add? 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. SEWELL. Thank you for the question. 

93 

I will tack on, too. It is very difficult to engineer bad decisions 

out of drivers, but one of the things that we can do is better influence user behavior. 

There is an infamous NHTSA quote. I believe it is 95 percent of 

errors everywhere in our transportation system are human error. 

I think there is a role in engineering and planning that you can 

eliminate user error or cut it down by positively influencing user 

behavior, by designing predictable, safer transportation connections. 

Mrs. CRAIG. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

I would like to call next on Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I grew up in a rural area of northwest Alabama and unfortunately saw several fatal highway accidents, and the thing that gets 

me about a lot of drivers is how many people do not wear seatbelts. 

There was a report that came out in 2002 that indicated there 

were 43,005 traffic fatalities, and of that, 19,103 were not wearing 

seatbelts. I think a later report said we would average saving over 

4,200 lives a year if just 90 percent of occupants wore seatbelts. 

I do not know what we can do. I know in Alabama we have seatbelt laws. If you do not have a seatbelt on, you get a ticket, but 

that just seems to be one of the most commonsense, easiest things 

you can do to increase your survivability of an automobile accident. 

Do you have anything to add to that, Ms. Homendy? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Yes. The single greatest defense against death 

and injury is the use of effective safety equipment. So whether that 

is seatbelts or age appropriate restraints for younger children, 

those are things that the NTSB has recommended, but also for all 

seating positions in a vehicle, not just in the front seats. 

And we have encouraged States to adopt primary enforcement 

laws so that when law enforcement officers pull a motor vehicle 

over that they can issue a ticket for not wearing seatbelts, not that 

you have to have another reason. 

Alabama does have a primary enforcement law, but some of the 

other States do not. You have to have another reason to issue a 

ticket for not wearing a seatbelt in some of the States. 

Mr. PALMER. Yes. Chief Brown, first of all, I want to commend 

your department on its response to the shooting at the baseball 

field. I was there. I was 20 steps from the guy. So I really am 

grateful for the courage of the officers who responded that day. 

Also, I would say the issues with impaired driving and the 

texting, and there is a big push for that, too. Is your department 

writing many tickets dealing with that? 

Mr. BROWN. First of all, sir, thank you very much for the compliments of our officers. We were very proud to serve that day. It 

was a very difficult day for us as well. 

If I may also add, in terms of the seatbelt issue, it ties in with 

these others as well. There are a lot of assumptions made, I think, 

by motorists and others that it is not going to be them. 

And in the case of occupant protection, your survivability in a 

crash is entirely dependent upon, especially with airbags, on the 

use of that seatbelt. It is an integral part of the engineering that 

94 

goes in there. And people do not wear their seatbelt and they get 

severely injured. 

In impaired driving and also in speeding and all the topical 

issues that have been mentioned on this panel and by the chair are 

addressed daily across this country with law enforcement. 

The real question is: what are they having to compete with at 

the same time they are addressing those issues? And the demands 

upon law enforcement in this Nation right now are incredible. 

The mental health requirements that we are having to deal with, 

the issues related to that, the drugs, opioids are high-priority 

issues for our communities. Traffic in some communities is high 

priority. It is in our city, but it is not that way across the country, 

and somehow that needs to change. 

Mr. PALMER. There is just one other issue I want to address, and 

that is the corporate auto fuel economy standards that impose the 

miles per gallon standards, which necessarily resulted in a lot of 

smaller, lighter vehicles being made. 

I think there is the safer, affordable fuel-efficient vehicles rule 

that is going to retain the 2020 model year standards, and they are 

estimating that that could save $500 billion in societal costs and 

save almost 13,000 lives. 

I am concerned as the father of two girls and one son. My first 

daughter, I bought her what I called a rolling airbag because of 

concerns for vehicle safety. 

But as we go to more electric vehicles, you are going to have a 

disproportionate problem there with weight if that vehicle is involved with a lighter vehicle. 

I just want your thoughts on retaining the 2020 model year 

standards. 

And what are we doing to compensate in vehicle manufacturing? 

Because even my pickup truck now gets almost 21 miles per gallon 

on the road. It is lighter than the truck I had before. 

Any thoughts on that, Ms. Homendy? 

Ms. HOMENDY. We have not looked at—that is not something we 

have looked at in CAFE standards. So—— 

Mr. PALMER. In terms of overall—— 

Ms. HOMENDY. In terms of mass, I mean, there—when it comes 

to crashes, we have looked at crashes, obviously, involving different 

motor vehicles, trucks with motor vehicles. So the mass of the vehicle definitely impacts what occurs in the tragedy, but it is not 

something that we have really focused on, the difference in the 

light vehicles versus heavy vehicles, to my—— 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Jones, did you want to respond to that? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. I just wanted to say, you know, being from 

northeast Florida, there is definitely a culture in terms of where 

we drive larger trucks. And, I mean, just traveling around I can see 

the difference. Every day when I am driving, probably 80 percent 

of the vehicles that are on the road are F–150s and larger SUVs, 

and that is part of the problem that we are seeing. And pedestrians 

and cyclists and other folks are really at a severe disadvantage 

when it comes to that. So that is—— 

Mr. PALMER. As are the smaller—— 

Mr. JONES. That is a tradeoff, yes. 

Mr. PALMER [continuing]. Smaller vehicles. 

95 

I have gone over my time, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for 

your patience with me, and I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Garcı ́a? 

Mr. GARCI ́A. Thank you, Madam Chair, as well as Ranking Member Davis, for holding this hearing. 

The statistics are very sobering and stark with respect to people 

who were killed on U.S. roadways in 2017: 37,000 and 4.6 million 

people were injured in 2017. I also marked a high in Chicago roadway fatalities. We went from 119 traffic-related deaths in 2016 to 

132 in 2017. Many of the areas that I represent in the city of Chicago are considered high crash corridors, according to Chicago’s Vision Zero plan. And many of them are in areas that have commercial strips, retail commercial strips in them. 

I would like to ask a question of Ms. Homendy. In Illinois we 

have had a dozen vehicle crashes where vehicles that were 

stopped—involving law enforcement stops, where—this happened 

in January, an Illinois State trooper, Christopher Lambert, stopped 

to assist with a crash and was struck and killed by a passing motorist. He is now 1 of 16 Illinois State troopers that have been 

killed in accidents starting the beginning of this year. 

I understand that the automatic emergency braking, or AEB, 

could help to prevent these crashes, and the NTSB has recommended the installation of this technology on all new passenger 

motor vehicles. Despite this recommendation, the AEB is not 

standard equipment in all new passenger vehicles. Why has the 

NTSB made such a recommendation, and what are the benefits of 

the recommendation, and why should AEB be standard equipment 

for all new vehicles? 

Ms. HOMENDY. The NTSB has issued several recommendations 

regarding collision avoidance, including AEB and forward collision 

warning, to prevent deaths such as the one that you mentioned in 

your statement just a minute ago. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not implemented those recommendations, and they are crucial for preventing fatalities and injuries. And so we are hopeful that they will 

move forward on those. 

Mr. GARCI ́A. Thank you. 

For Mr. Smith, according to Forbes, 10 automakers will be equipping half of their vehicles in 2018. In fact, NHTSA Administrator 

Heidi King recently said, ‘‘Technologies like automatic emergency 

braking can help make cars safer on roads, which means Americans are safer when traveling.’’ 

Are AEBs a sensible step in the right direction? And why should 

they be considered for large and heavy trucks, as well? 

Mr. SMITH. The work that we have done indicates that, in fact— 

that important technology. And we would suggest looking at all the 

technologies that are out there being developed. But this is a particularly important one to help reduce the rate of fatalities. And we 

would also encourage it being looked at in our commercial vehicles, 

as well, as an important way to reduce those fatalities. So we certainly think this is one of—as you think about those big impacts, 

one of those areas where you can have big impact, in terms of reducing fatalities. 

96 

Mr. GARCI ́A. Is it your sense that we are on the cusp of a significant breakthrough in safety, if recommendations like those you 

have made are actually implemented? 

Mr. SMITH. I think that those are going to help us on the path. 

The reality is as we convert the fleet of total vehicles on cars, it 

is going to be a slow process, just because of the turnover and the 

average age of cars, and things like that. But it is important we 

start implementing those things as the technology is proven today, 

recognizing there is that lag with respect to the integration into the 

broader fleets. 

Mr. GARCI ́A. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back my time. 

Ms. HOMENDY. Can I add one thing to that, Congressman? 

Mr. GARCI ́A. Sure. 

Ms. HOMENDY. Those technologies are available today, and we 

know from research that they are proven to save lives. And so what 

the NTSB has said is that they should be standard on all vehicles. 

Unfortunately, in many vehicles you have to pay for safety upgrades. In our view, safety is not a luxury. Those should be standard on all new vehicles, whether it is a heavy truck, a passenger 

vehicle, a motorcoach, or a schoolbus. They can and should be implemented today. 

Mr. GARCI ́A. Thank you for interjecting. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. And thank you, Mr. Garcı ́a. 

Mr. Webster? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Homendy, I listened to your testimony and you talked about 

ending alcohol and other drug impairments in transportation. You 

said in 1990 you first started printing statistics in that area about 

different modifications that could be done. I listened to that. 

I was in the State legislature then. I passed a law raising the 

drinking age to 21, lowering the blood alcohol to .08 and, for those 

under 21, .02. There was an open container law that we banned, 

and boots for repeat offenders on their vehicles, and some other 

things that we did. And I know those had an effect. I know those 

helped. And now you have got .05. 

To me the statistics seemed to prove that many of the problems 

come from substance abuse, or alcohol. And yet, when you get into 

really changing the system, you can do those, those are certainly 

laws that can be passed, and I was in full favor of those. But when 

it gets down to really limiting what you can consume, there is a 

strong lobby against that. And so if you try to do dram shop legislation, which keeps a bartender from serving somebody visibly intoxicated, it is going to be killed every single time, and other things. 

I just think if you picked out one thing, I would say impairment, 

especially from external sources, has got to be a major, major issue 

that, even though we have scraped the edges and done some 

things, not really hitting the core. Have you got any ideas about 

that? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Yes. Impairment is a significant issue. Ten thousand people lose their lives annually due to alcohol-impaired-related crashes—or more than 10,000. 

The NTSB has recommended reducing the BAC limit from .08 to 

.05 or lower. What we say, though, is it is not about stopping conVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
97 

sumption. You can consume alcohol, you just can’t drive in addition 

to it. And impairment, from all the research we have looked at, begins at the very first drink. There are significant challenges, a decline in visual functions, at .02; reduced coordination at .05. And 

so, when you talk about .08, then that makes the situation even 

worse. 

And so, from our standpoint, it is reducing the BAC limit to .05, 

requiring ignition interlocks for all offenders, not just repeat offenders. 

One thing that we found in the research is that by the time a 

first-time offender is convicted, they have driven impaired more 

than 80 times. And so we believe ignition interlocks for all offenders. And then, of course, in-vehicle technologies, which exist today, 

to prevent drivers from operating motor vehicles while impaired. 

Mr. WEBSTER. So there is other substances. You mentioned marijuana, and yet we just marched down this road of saying it is fine, 

nothing wrong with it. And yet have you seen any statistics related 

to that? 

Ms. HOMENDY. The data on marijuana is just not there. Unfortunately, we know how alcohol affects the human body, we just don’t 

know how marijuana does. For one—and we—and because of that 

we don’t have an impairment standard. 

And so, to determine impairment is so difficult because you have 

to look at how it is ingested, whether it is ingested, whether it is 

smoked, how frequently it is used. It changes, based on body factors. So we have recommended that NHTSA issue guidance to 

States to inform law enforcement officers when they should require 

testing, how they should do testing, what methods the laboratories 

should use, and cut-off levels. Because right now States are handling it all very differently. 

Mr. WEBSTER. OK, thank you. My time is out. Thank all of you 

for appearing. I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Espaillat? 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the 

witnesses for your testimony. The safety of roads is incredibly important for New York City, so much so that it was one of the first 

issues our mayor, Bill de Blasio, took on when he announced Vision 

Zero, a very ambitious program. 

Just this week I reintroduced legislation, the Stopping Threats 

on Pedestrians Act, or STOP Act, that will help localities install 

bollards in highly trafficked areas with many vulnerable users. 

Bollards in Time Square, New York City, were specifically cited as 

having prevented further deaths when a driver tried to use his vehicle to attack nearby pedestrians. 

The lack of bollards, some may argue, unfortunately, didn’t prevent the terrorist attack that occurred on October 31st, 2017, when 

a pickup truck went on the Hudson River bike path and killed 

many tourists that were in the area. I think that, in many ways, 

including this bill can help local governments address safety issues 

head on. 

Mr. Sewell, your testimony recommends changes to the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program to ensure that States spend funding 

on infrastructure improvement in proportion to the specific types of 

98 

safety problems the State encounters. Could you elaborate a little 

bit more on that? 

And particularly with regards to the use of bollards and the prevention of potential terrorist attacks, how do you see that playing 

out? Do we need to fund these very specific programs that can save 

lives? 

Mr. SEWELL. Well, I appreciate your question. And in the example that you gave, the use of bollards in certain settings is a proven 

countermeasure for restricting the flow of larger vehicles on certain 

designated routes. So on the greenway that you just mentioned, the 

installation of bollards in restricting the flow of those could be an 

absolute, you know, lifesaver. 

In terms of the HSIP and redirecting, you know, to fund 

proactively the fixes that you just mentioned, I believe it is a good 

idea. I think that if you look at the percentage of accidents that 

happen—or not accidents, but crashes that happen, and the loss of 

lives that happened, I think it should be an equity-based—we 

should have a proportionate amount of money dedicated to saving 

those lives. 

So yes, I agree with you completely. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. And do you support providing local governments 

more control over how the program should be funded, and where 

to implement these new strategies to prevent death? I mean I 

think there seems to be—local governments really know where 

these hot spots are at, right? And do you feel there should be more 

leverage, more flexibility in terms of how the funding is used? 

Mr. SEWELL. Yes, and I could not agree more. I think giving local 

municipalities where—if they are rural or urban settings, they are 

going to know best their constituents, what their local people are 

engaging and how they are engaging on their transportation network. And I absolutely think they would be the best to direct the 

funds in an appropriate manner, yes. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Madam Chair, let me just stress again the importance of these initiatives and the ability for municipalities to be 

able to determine where to spend the funding, and they get a fair 

share of funding to install bollards and other strategies that could 

prevent terrorist attacks. 

We have seen how, in New York City, that was tragic, and we 

also saw in Times Square how the bollards helped prevent deaths 

there, as a driver, a reckless driver, tragically went on the sidewalk 

and basically ran down people. 

But we must consider local opinions about where to place these. 

I think local law enforcement is also well equipped to let us know 

here in Washington where the hot spots—how we can spend the 

money and how we can save lives. 

Any additional comment? 

Mr. SEWELL. One quick one. On Times Square, in particular, that 

is a great example of a proactive fix. It was identified that it is a 

heavily used pedestrian area, and so it was decided to invest in 

place-making for that locale. And you see the result, in terms of not 

only adjacent businesses reaping the benefit of having a nice, fun 

place to interact, but, as you mentioned, the restriction of motor vehicular traffic reduces that conflict to basically zero. So I think that 

is a great example. I wanted to tack that on. Thank you. 

99 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LaMalfa? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Madam Chair. A lot of ideas here 

today. What I don’t hear often enough is, to me, happy drivers are 

drivers that are moving and getting to where they want to go. 

When you have happy drivers, less frustration, all that, things go 

better. 

Just coming in from the airport yesterday we saw a road rage 

thing break out because the two guys tried to occupy one spot on 

the on-ramp. And you know, so the infrastructure emphasis, I 

think, is really important, that we can actually have systems that 

move traffic better. Most of the time I hear the solutions are ways 

to corral people and make them where they can’t go where they 

want to go, and that is just highly frustrating. 

Some of the emphasis I have heard in the committee today is the 

impairment. I think that is extremely important that we get after 

people that are driving incompetently, whether it is under influence of alcohol. And this marijuana thing, you know, we have State 

after State just rushing to legalize this for normal use. 

When I was in the California State Legislature it was interesting. There was a bill early on for, basically, where you couldn’t 

discriminate against people that were on medical marijuana— 

where it was only medical at the time was supposedly legal—and 

the list of exemptions to where you couldn’t discriminate against 

an employee were all the important things, like operating equipment and being trusted with large amounts of money, and things 

like that. And so the areas where you didn’t want people acting 

that—being under that influence were actually the important ones. 

And so we have next to zero data on marijuana, yet there is research out there that I think we can point to that would start to 

get a baseline for what you could do with marijuana-influenced 

people, because everybody, I think, intuitively knows that marijuana influence does slow down your thinking ability and your ability to process more than one thing at a time. And people are amazing at how they can drive and think about 10 other things—you 

know, not necessarily good, but we see the distractions that are out 

there. We got to do a lot more on the marijuana situation. 

But coming back to traffic that is flowing is happier traffic, and, 

I mean, just around this town, one more example is that every single stoplight here seems like it is timed. You are sitting there for 

60 seconds at 10 o’clock, or 11 o’clock, or midnight, waiting for 

nothing, instead of the ones that have a sensor to allow you to go. 

And the amount of time you spend at stop lights and waiting for 

elevators in your life is really frustrating. 

But that said, in my own district in northern California, an area 

that I share with Mr. Garamendi, we have Highway 70 that travels 

between, basically—well, the key area we are talking about is 

Oroville and Marysville, you know, the Chico area. And we have 

had 40 deaths in that area, just since 2010—what we have here. 

And that is a traffic flow issue. So many times you are pent up behind vehicles going 45 miles an hour, people get frustrated, they 

pass where they shouldn’t. We have issues with the Oroville Dam 

spillway crisis and the evacuation there, the fires we have had in 

100 

the area. We have a lot of frustration and a lot of pent-up traffic 

there. 

I just throw it to you, Ms. Homendy, with Chief Brown, Mayor 

Jones. Wouldn’t one of the greatest ways to improve is take away 

the frustration, and allow traffic to flow, and get these projects 

done, rather than limiting people and frustrating more? Please. 

Ms. HOMENDY. I think I might need a little bit more clarification 

on the question. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. I think most people want to see traffic flow. 

But we hear a lot about how to impede what they are doing. How 

could we greater emphasize traffic flow in our conversations? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Well, part of it is road design, and we have to 

have road—right now, with road designers and engineers, the focus 

is on motor vehicle traffic, but not on the complete traffic, which 

is everything from pedestrians to bicyclists to everything on our 

Nation’s roads. So we have to have a comprehensive view on how 

we do road design from our traffic engineers. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. So roads designed in the 1940s or 1950s 

that are now accommodating triple the traffic, you know, that is 

the frustration. 

So Chief Brown, what would you touch on with an urban area 

like you have? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, I would add—actually, I am very familiar with 

the area you are from. I, frankly, grew up in Sacramento, so I 

know that area very well. 

My issue is that I think you need to have proper road design, 

and you need to keep it current. That is balanced against whatever 

the competing issues are that you are looking at at the local level, 

in terms of design. 

It doesn’t matter if it is an urban area or an external area; there 

are frustrations that take place within the driver’s world, based 

upon design. And sometimes they will—it will cause them to do 

things they would not ordinarily do, like blocking the box, following 

too close in an urban area, maybe crossing and passing when it is 

inappropriate. I have seen that from my own professional experience. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, a left turn light that sits there red when 

there is nobody coming for a mile, and you are waiting there for 

what, right? 

Mr. BROWN. But it doesn’t take away from that decisionmaking 

that that individual has, whether or not to go into that direction, 

make that call, place themselves and others in jeopardy. And I 

think we also have to keep that in mind. It is a behavioral thing 

in most cases with the crashes that we see. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, thank you. 

I will yield back. 

Mr. JONES. I—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. JONES. I was going to—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Oh, you wish to—OK. 

Mr. JONES. I did want to add on. I think that, again, this issue 

here is this happy drivers versus happy pedestrians and cyclists is 

something that we will continue to deal with. And again, it does 

boil it down to context. I think for so long that we have been deVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
101 

signing the roadways to minimize the delay on drivers, actually— 

I mean I would say more often than not signals are optimized to 

reduce and minimize the delay of drivers. And sometimes that does 

come at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists. 

I would say, you know, we will talk about the frustration of, well, 

we have to add 3 seconds to that signal. But say there is a lady 

or a person that is trying to walk across the street to get to their 

destination. We may add 10 minutes to their delay, because they 

have to walk down to the closest signalized intersection. 

So it is always going to be a balance there, and I think there is 

some context where, certainly, minimizing—or allowing or maximizing vehicular throughput is going to be the most important 

thing we can do. But there are a lot of contexts, particularly in cities and urban areas, where we have to allow for a greater accommodation of—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. 

Mr. JONES [continuing]. Pedestrians. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I would yield—need to yield back, thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Smith, in your testimony you emphasize the need for us to 

build a true culture of safety. Are there any areas in the traffic 

safety where you have seen success in doing this? If so, how could 

we translate those lessons to a broader cultural shift towards roadway safety habits? 

Mr. SMITH. Through our chairmanship of the Road to Zero Coalition we have been able to provide grants to local communities and 

through different organizations that have innovation, and bringing 

it to the forefront. 

We have seen some of the local communities integrate some of 

these grant dollars in a way that has addressed some of their key 

pain points. But what they have done is brought the community together as part of solving the solution. And so it is really about 

doing the design element of it, and bringing the community together, so that we aren’t just doing it in a vacuum, and understanding why the particular changes are being made. 

And I think there is just more we need to do, from an education 

perspective, quite frankly, across the country, why do we do some 

of what we need to do, and why do we need to fund what we are 

looking to do, particularly when it comes to some of the new augmentation technologies in our vehicles to make it safe, and to understand that it may have some limiting challenges for us, as we 

traditionally operate our vehicle, but also when it comes to some 

of the infrastructure, as well. Helping people understand, I think, 

is what is going to be critically important, and that is where we 

have seen some case examples where—with some of the grant dollars. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I remember an example of that in California, 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The effort they made some 30 

years ago. I think you were in Stockton at the time, Chief, maybe 

as a young child. But nonetheless, it was very, very successful in 

developing the laws. 

102 

Along that same line, it appears that nearly 30 percent of all fatalities are associated with impaired driving, mostly alcohol, but 

now, as the discussion has gone here, with marijuana and other 

drugs. Yet, at the same time, over the last 25 years or so, arrests 

for impaired driving are down, significantly down, according to the 

FBI statistics. 

So do we have an enforcement issue here? And if so, what do we 

do about it? And I will leave that open. I start with you, Chief, and 

then run down the line until I am out of time. 

Mr. BROWN. I will be happy to respond to that, and I did kind 

of address that in my comments. There are a number of reasons 

we think that that may be taking place. Frankly, if you are from 

the officer’s lens, if you will, the complexities that we currently 

have in terms of arrests and prosecuting for driving under the influence have grown significantly over that period of time. 

When I was a young officer in the 1970s I was in California. We 

could get done on a four-page piece of paper. Now that document 

is 27 pages long. There are homicide reports that are prepared that 

are shorter than some DUI cases, and we are talking about a misdemeanor. There are opportunities to streamline that and still provide and protect the rights of the individual. If we could come up 

with a way—and this is where—I think, positioned to do that. 

The other piece is the competing interests and demands on law 

enforcement. Right now law enforcement is challenged in ways that 

it was not challenged 25 years ago. If you go out in a patrol car 

today you will see officers responding to calls that they did not respond to 25 years ago, so they don’t have that discretion because 

they don’t have that ability and that time, if you will, the opportunity to engage in it. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. If you will excuse me for a second—because I 

am going to be out of time in a moment—but then the issue is really a lack of enforcement. Many reasons for that, but is it really an 

enforcement issue, that we need the police to be enforcing these 

laws? 

Mr. BROWN. I think it gets down to capacity more than anything 

else. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. So that is, again, capacity. 

Ms. Homendy? 

Ms. HOMENDY. It is also a training issue. In a recent accident investigation that we looked at in Concan, Texas, we saw some issues 

with the training of law enforcement. 

Basic training for law enforcement is standardized field sobriety 

testing. But NHTSA has a couple of great programs called the Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement program, or 

ARIDE, which provides 16 hours of training for law enforcement officials, and the Drug Recognition Expert Training, which is substantially more, 72 hours of classroom training and 60 hours of 

field training. And those law enforcement officers become highly 

skilled at detection and identification of impairment. 

So we urge—very few of them are trained at those levels, and we 

are urging more training. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Good. We are—I am almost out of time, and I 

just want to wrap up. If you look at the statistics here, 29 percent 

alcohol impaired and 26 percent speeding, it seems to me that both 

103 

of these are both information, as in Mothers Against Drunk Driving, but also enforcement. And that probably means money. 

I yield back my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Balderson? 

Mr. BALDERSON. Thank you. This is something—two subjects 

that I am very passionate about: bicycles and motorcycles. In fact, 

my friends say, ‘‘What are you going to ride today, Troy, a bike or 

a motorcycle?’’ So thank you all, and I appreciate some of your testimony that I have heard. 

Mr. Sewell, my first question for you is—and taking the time for 

being here today, and I appreciate the need for adequate safety and 

protections for our fellow bikers. The State of Ohio has a safe passing law in place, which requires drivers to give cyclists at least 3 

feet. I cosponsored that and really tried to raise awareness of that. 

In your experience—and that law has passed in the last general 

assembly—in your experience, how has the implementation of such 

laws impacted bike safety is the first question. 

If you would follow up with that, do you believe the common 

driver might be aware of such laws? I have an answer for that, and 

I think you know that response. And, if not, how can we improve 

the awareness? 

Mr. SEWELL. Absolutely. Well—and, first and foremost, I appreciate your support for the 3-foot passing law. I think it is an important law, but it is also coupled directly with education. 

I think you are correct, if I am assuming—your response to that 

second part of your question. It is important when drivers are educated about what it means. And I think there is some great demonstrations that you can help to educate drivers about what it 

means if you are a cyclist and you get buzzed, how terrifying that 

can be. I am a biker, too, of course, and so I have been in Columbus, and I have biked around, and I remember hearing when that 

came through. It is a great idea to have that, but it has to be coupled with education. 

Mr. BALDERSON. I totally agree with that. I appreciate your response, and I would love to work with you in trying to figure out 

how we can address that issue, and make sure that drivers are 

aware of it. And they love to see how close they can get those mirrors to us on the road. 

So my next question is for Ms. Homendy, and thank you very 

much for being here, and your testimony. My other passion, with 

the motorcycles—in your testimony you mentioned your safety report from 2018 regarding motorcycle crashes and recommendations 

for improving, preventions such as the need for enhanced braking 

and stability control systems on motorcycles. 

I myself have a model 2007 that already had that anti-lock brake 

system on it, but also the controlled—I mean it is similar to what 

you are talking about with the stability control. Have you seen an 

increase of where in the motorcycle community—of such needs that 

this report has—when it was released? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Sorry about that. Yes. We agree that we need 

anti-lock braking and stability control systems, and we recommend 

that they be standard on all motorcycles and that, again, safety is 

not a luxury, and we don’t feel that motorcyclists or auto drivers 

104 

should have to pay more for vehicles for safe technology. And so we 

recommend that they be included as standard on all motorcycles. 

Mr. BALDERSON. Most manufacturers today, just so you know, 

are making it standard. In the 2017 BMW that I have, it was 

standard equipment—— 

Ms. HOMENDY. Great. 

Mr. BALDERSON [continuing]. With anti-lock brakes. Now, to 

touch on that, though, the—and I have done all the motorcycle 

training, all the way through. At one time I was even going to be 

an instructor, and that is kind of what is going to lead me to that— 

but the one place I got to try that anti-lock brakes—I mean it is 

one thing to do it in a car, but anti-lock brakes on a motorcycle are 

completely different than they are a car. So I don’t think we have 

the pleasure of allowing motorcyclists to enact that anti-lock brake 

system to actually see what it is going to do. So I am going to try 

to encourage more and more manufacturers to offer their own input 

training. 

But I get an email every week on motorcycle training and the 

lack of instructors. How can we encourage to get more members of 

the motorcycle community—and anybody can answer this—to come 

out and help us with—I mean whether it is a free oil change, 

from—I mean I don’t know what that—but do you all have any 

ideas how we can encourage more motorcycle instructors to participate and help us train fellow motorcyclists? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Yes, I mean, you know, from our standpoint, you 

know, when it comes to safety—and I was just in Connecticut, testifying on the importance of motorcycle safety, and talked to some 

of the motorcyclists, and I think it is crucial to encourage them to 

get more training, and to have more instructors. 

And I think, from NTSB’s standpoint, it is just getting out there 

and encouraging people to improve safety and motorcycle safety, 

and trying to encourage them to get adequate training. 

Mr. BALDERSON. My time is up. I would love to continue this conversation. I yield back, or can—go ahead, sir. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. JONES. I just wanted to add more Harley-Davidson dealerships offering incentives for the instructors to come out. 

If you don’t mind, I did want to talk about the 3-foot rule, if that 

is possible. 

Ms. NORTON. Time is expired. 

Mr. JONES. OK. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Lowenthal? 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I am 

struck by reports that individuals with obstructive sleep apnea are 

twice as likely to be involved in motor vehicle accidents than are 

the general public. And we know that interventions like CPAPs can 

dramatically reduce the incidents of these accidents. 

I raise this because within the last 6 months one morning my 

wife says to me, ‘‘You know what, Alan? You are not breathing at 

night.’’ 

I said, ‘‘I don’t know, what are you talking about? I am breathing 

at night.’’ 

She said, ‘‘No, I timed it. I woke up. You go sometimes 7, 8 seconds without breathing.’’ 

105 

So I went to George Washington University Hospital and had a 

screening and found out I have serious sleep apnea, which I was 

not even aware of. And I will tell you, by using a CPAP, I am much 

more alert. I do—that is why I can ask you questions now. I would 

have been—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I never would have been able to ask any of 

these questions. 

So the reason I raise this is for years that the NTSB and other 

stakeholders have been concerned that Federal agencies haven’t 

implemented clear guidelines to ensure drivers and other transportation workers are screened for sleep apnea, yet in 2017 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad 

Administration withdrew efforts to update sleep apnea screening 

standards. 

So, Ms. Homendy, can you tell us more about the NTSB recommendations, and how great a safety risk is posed by sleep 

apnea? 

Ms. HOMENDY. It is a significant issue. And as you—so my husband has sleep apnea, didn’t even know it. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Me too, didn’t know. 

Ms. HOMENDY. Until I told him I was tired of him snoring and 

he had to go get help. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I just stopped breathing. At least he was snoring, you know. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HOMENDY. Hopefully—so, you know, we have issued—we 

have investigated a number of accidents involving fatigued drivers, 

whether it is in motor vehicles or large trucks or also in the rail 

industry, with operators of trains. And we have issued a number 

of recommendations on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment for 

sleep disorders like sleep apnea. 

I do know that some of the carriers and the railroads are doing 

some of that. But without a rulemaking it won’t occur, industrywide. So we are pushing that FMCSA and FRA adequately address 

this and issue a rulemaking to require screening, diagnosis, and 

treatment. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Well, thank you. I am going to ask Mr. Smith. 

What is your perspective at the National Safety Council? 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. Well, you know, we know that according to the 

AAA, over 328,000 drowsy driving crashes happen every year; 

109,000 of those resulted in injury, and 64,000 resulted in fatalities. So this clearly is a big issue, and it is a concern for us, and 

we definitely recognize that fatigue has been a challenge. 

We represent over 15,000 work employers who are dealing with 

fatigue, as well, in the workplace, and some of those instances it 

connects to some of the workplace safety. 

Where we see a big issue also comes from those shift workers, 

as well, that are six times more likely to be in an incident based 

on this drowsy driving. So certainly we think, in the commercial 

space, obviously we want to see the support for continuing to—— 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. And so I don’t have a lot of time, so I want to 

ask you. 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

106 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. So you do not support the withdrawing of efforts by the FMCSA or FRA? They just withdrew this. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, we do not support that, correct. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And, well, I yield back. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Lowenthal. 

Mr. Woodall? 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Homendy, let me begin with you. You were talking about 

hours of service earlier, and I thought you said you support hours 

of service with no exemptions or exceptions. I am thinking about 

a recent rulemaking for ready-mix concrete trucks, for example, 

that I would argue brings greater safety and more common sense 

to the industry. Could you tell me what you mean about no exceptions and no exemptions? 

Ms. HOMENDY. We do support science-based hours-of-service 

standards, and we don’t support exemptions to those standards. 

But we also support fatigue management plans as an adjunct to 

Federal standards. 

Mr. WOODALL. And when I am talking to dispatchers, they will 

say, ‘‘Rob, I am going to do what I have to do to fit within Federal 

hours of service, but I know the guy I am sending out is worn out. 

But I can’t—I don’t have the flexibility to let him do something different that works with his schedule and his needs. If he feels tired, 

he still has to stay on the road because if he doesn’t he is not going 

to get his hours in today.’’ 

Would you support some sort of flexibility for dispatcher and 

drivers? Or do you believe where we have those rules today, they 

need to sit right there? 

Ms. HOMENDY. And let me clarify exemptions, meaning we believe people should have adequate rest. We don’t support allowing 

them to continue driving if they are not fit for duty. 

Mr. WOODALL. Though that would be moving hours of service in 

a more restrictive direction. I am talking about providing more 

flexibility, but it is—your position is let—— 

Ms. HOMENDY. Correct. 

Mr. WOODALL. We have as much flexibility as you would like to 

see us have at the—— 

Ms. HOMENDY. Well—— 

Mr. WOODALL. At current—— 

Ms. HOMENDY. We would not support less off-duty time and more 

work time, that is correct. 

Mr. WOODALL. Thinking about some of the opportunities to partner with industry and safety, there has been some conversation 

about speed limiters today, there has been some conversation about 

moving trucks onto interstates. I don’t believe we have to have a 

winner and a loser in a safety conversation, it is just all win, win, 

win, right? We are all moving in the right direction. 

When you are thinking about the safety from—particularly from 

a bicyclist’s perspective, sir, to focus on the folks you represent, do 

you have the flexibility from your members to say, yes, we are 

going to make this gain on behalf of bicyclists? And what we will 

do, then, is we will also put more trucks on the Interstate Highway 

System, which may make your interstate drive different, but we 

107 

are going to improve your bicycle drive. Or is it a single-sided conversation when you are speaking on behalf of your members? 

Mr. SEWELL. No, I think you nailed it. I think you have to think 

of all users when you are designing any roadway. So you don’t 

want to do anything that would—and the other question that came 

earlier was one of frustration, from a motorist’s standpoint. 

We have to design systems that work for all users. That is part 

of the engineer’s creed. You are doing it for public betterment. And 

that includes drivers. And so, you have to think through, if you do 

move a mode of transportation to a different mechanism for transport, is that going to negatively impact safety for other users on 

that roadway, too? 

So yes, I think you said it very eloquently. It is a balancing act 

between all of these modes of transportation. 

Mr. WOODALL. Chief, let me ask you. I see your members more 

often than I would like to see them, but thank you for keeping my 

roads safe in that way. I am thinking about cameras on the roads. 

Do we utilize those cameras to also enforce our distracted driving 

and our seatbelt regulations? 

Mr. BROWN. Not so much with the seatbelt because, quite frankly, you need to be able to observe it, and it is difficult to get the 

placement. We do use them for red lights. In some communities 

they use them for speed enforcement. 

The key with the cameras, from my personal standpoint, is you 

need to make sure that it is for problems, not necessarily for the 

generation of revenue. That is a debate that becomes problematic 

for law enforcement, when they administer those programs. But if 

you identify problem areas and you deploy that type of technology, 

it will have an impact, to some extent, on some of the behavior, 

and you will get better compliance. 

It also increases capacity. But I will also tell you it also results 

in a number of complaints, because people don’t like to see those 

tickets coming in the mail. 

Mr. WOODALL. I share that distaste for those tickets coming in 

the mail. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WOODALL. But at some point, either the law is the law and 

we have to enforce it—you don’t have enough cops on the beat to 

cover every cell phone user. You don’t have enough cops on the 

beat to make sure that everybody is wearing their seat belt. And 

if the law is not evenly and aggressively enforced, my behavior is 

going to reflect that. 

Mr. BROWN. And not all the States allow it. And so that is a national thing. I am not sure exactly where some of the other Federal 

agencies may be. But frankly, there is—in the Commonwealth, for 

example, there are a number of communities that would be interested in having the flexibility of applying it for problem areas. Alexandria is one of them. I know that is true across the country, but 

not all the States allow for that, or they have limited applications 

that are appropriate. 

Mr. WOODALL. All right. I thank you all for being here. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. 

Mrs. Napolitano? 

108 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have questions 

for all of you, and this is another—it is public safety. Thank you 

for being here today. 

But of particular concern is the growing number of assaults on 

bus drivers. Not only are they heinous acts perpetrated on public 

servants, they also pose a great danger to passengers, pedestrians, 

and other vehicles, as some of these assaults happen while the 

driver is operating his vehicle. 

My bill, H.R. 1139, Transit Worker and Pedestrian Protection 

Act, has 100 bipartisan cosponsors, would provide FTA funds for 

transit agencies to install barriers to protect the driver and keep 

the bus operating safely. 

It also addresses the issue of blind spots in modern buses with 

large bus frames and sight mirrors that prevent them from—it 

blocks their view of pedestrians crossing the street. This has led to 

multiple severe accidents around the country. Some buses in the 

U.S. and many buses in Europe do not have this impediment, those 

large visual obstructions for the driver. It requires a transit agency 

to address and remove significant blind spots from the bus driver 

work station. And I have personally recommended that before they 

buy any buses, they talk to the manufacturer for those changes on 

the buses. 

Do you have any concerns about the assaults on bus drivers, and 

the blind spots and the transportation safety hazard? And should 

we address this issue in Congress? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Thank you, Chairwoman. I appreciate the question. The NTSB has not looked at assaults on rail or transit operators. But any injury or fatality is a concern to us, of course. 

We have issued recommendations on collision avoidance systems 

like automatic emergency braking or forward collision avoidance, 

which could help with other issues. But we haven’t specifically 

looked at the particular issue you are talking about. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you mind looking at it? We had—— 

Ms. HOMENDY. Absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [continuing]. People coming, bus drivers actually tell us all the heinous acts committed on them. 

Ms. HOMENDY. Yes. And, in fact, we are meeting with a few folks 

in a few days on that. 

Mr. BROWN. Mrs. Napolitano, from the standpoint of just being 

a cop, that is a felony, it is a criminal act, and that always causes 

us concern. The implications for that, should the bus—should the 

driver be operating a bus, are huge, because there are implications 

for all the passengers that are maybe on that bus, let alone the size 

difference on the vehicles. 

There are some communities that have had problems in that 

area. Not everyone has that same kind of a problem, that I could 

see from the stats. We have actually looked at that a little bit as 

it applies to the national capital region to see if it had implications 

for us and our city. 

But the potential jeopardy for the community is huge that is on 

that bus. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. BRUEMMER. I think the transportation of the future certainly 

relies on multimodal integrating, how does transit operate with 

109 

other sources: pedestrian, bikes, and regular vehicles. I think infrastructure, as we move forward, needs to change to accommodate 

those areas so that we do have separation between that. And certainly, you know, it is a major concern when you get pedestrian 

traffic moving across in front of a large vehicle. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. They can’t see them. 

Mr. BRUEMMER. There needs to be a—there is a concern there 

that they need to be able to integrate with each other. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? 

Well, it is a problem. I have met with the Los Angeles Transportation Department, and they tell me—I met with the drivers and 

they tell me that it has happened more often than not, especially 

on routes that are in neighborhoods that are questionable, and especially if they have new drivers assigned to those areas that are 

less knowledgeable about the area. 

There is another question I would like to have. Mr. Sewell, your 

testimony talks about the importance of designing a built environment through policies such as Complete Streets to consider all road 

users. You note that engineering is moving to safe system approach 

to designing for structure. 

Is the Federal highway policy currently set up to advance a systems approach and related policies, or do we need to make adjustments to ensure that States and cities design projects that 

prioritize safety? 

Mr. SEWELL. I appreciate your question. And I was recently in 

L.A., and there is—I think it is a great example of rapid evolution 

happening in the transportation network, and us poorly responding 

to it. 

And I think it goes back to—to answer your question more specifically—giving local control over how those transportation systems can respond to changes in how people want to move is the 

way to go. I think that that would have been a great help to a city 

like Los Angeles in responding to the emergence of scooters, and 

things like that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you for the answer. One of the 

things I would recommend, especially in California, you have the 

public access system, and you talk about information, training for 

the public, like in motorcycle training, you should develop or encourage the industry to do that. And go—free for public safety 

would be a tremendous help to the public. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mr. Babin? 

Dr. BABIN. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate 

that, and appreciate every one of you experts being here today. 

The first question that I have is for Ms. Homendy. Thank you 

very much for being here. I was just briefed by your Chairman, 

Robert Sumwalt, and he said to tell you hello. He knows you are 

going to do a great job. 

Ms. HOMENDY. No pressure. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. BABIN. Thank you. For a good part of my life, born and 

raised in southeast Texas—I represent the 36th District, from 

Houston to Louisiana—I have slowly watched Highway 59, U.S. 59, 

transition and change to become a part of the new Interstate 69. 

110 

Now I am leading efforts to try to expand the newly authorized 

Interstate 14 that will be running east and west through my district. 

And with the support of a number of my colleagues, I have, in 

fact, the bill language right here, Madam Chair, if I could enter 

this into the record. Would that be possible? 

Ms. NORTON. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

H.R. 2220 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 with respect 

to high priority corridors on the National Highwav System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. BABIN (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. GUEST, Mr. 

PALAZZO, Mr. BRADY, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. FLORES, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. CARTER of 

Texas, and Mr. WEBER of Texas): introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 with respect 

to high priority corridors on the National Highway System, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 

America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act of 2019’’. 

SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM. 

(a) IDENTIFICATION.— 

(1) CENTRAL TEXAS CORRIDOR.—Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(84) The Central Texas Corridor, including the route— 

‘‘(A) commencing in the vicinity of Texas Highway 338 in Odessa, Texas, running eastward generally following Interstate Route 20, connecting to Texas 

Highway 158 in the vicinity of Midland, Texas, then following Texas Highway 

158 eastward to United States Route 87 and then following United States Route 

87 southeastward, passing in the vicinity of San Angelo, Texas, and connecting 

to United States Route 190 in the vicinity of Brady, Texas; 

‘‘(B) commencing at the intersection of Interstate Route 10 and United States 

Route 190 in Pecos County, Texas, and following United States Route 190 to 

Brady, Texas; 

‘‘(C) following portions of United States Route 190 eastward, passing in the 

vicinity of Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, Woodville, and Jasper, to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing; 

‘‘(D) following United States Route 83 southward from the vicinity of Eden, 

Texas, to a logical connection to Interstate Route 10 at Junction, Texas; 

‘‘(E) following United States Route 69 from Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, 

Texas, north to United States Route 190 in the vicinity of Woodville, Texas; and 

‘‘(F) following United States Route 96 from Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, 

Texas, north to United States Route 190 in the vicinity of Jasper, Texas.’’. 

(2) CENTRAL LOUISIANA CORRIDOR.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(91) The Central Louisiana Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Louisiana Highway 8 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing and generallv following portions of Louisiana Highway 8 to Leesville, Louisiana, and then eastward 

on Louisiana Highway 28, passing in the vicinity of Alexandria, Pineville, Walters, 

and Archie, to the logical terminus of United States Route 84 at the Mississippi 

River Bridge at Vidalia, Louisiana.’’. 

111 

(3) CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI CORRIDOR.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, as amended by this Act, is further 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(92) The Central Mississippi Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of 

United States Route 84 at the Mississippi River and then generally following portions of United States Route 84 passing in the vicinity of Natchez, Brookhaven, 

Monticello, Prentiss, and Collins, to the logical terminus with Interstate Route 59 

in the vicinity of Laurel, Mississippi and continuing on Interstate Route 59 south 

to United States Route 98 in the vicinity of Hattiesburg connecting to United States 

Route 49 south following to Interstate Route 10 in the vicinity of Gulfport following 

Mississippi Route 601 southerly terminating near the Mississippi State Port at Gulfport.’’. 

(b) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN SEGMENTS ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM.—Section 

1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is 

amended in the first sentence— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(84),’’ after ‘‘subsection (c)(83),’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(90)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(90), subsection (c)(91), and subsection (c)(92)’’. 

(c) DESIGNATION.—Section 1105(e)(5)(C) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by striking ‘‘The route referred to in subsection 

(c)(84) is designated as Interstate Route I-14.’’ and inserting ‘‘The route referred to 

in subsection (c)(84)(A) is designated as Interstate Route I-14 North and the State 

of Texas shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such route as future Interstate Route I-14 North. The route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(B) is designated as Interstate Route I-14 South and the State of 

Texas shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying 

such route as future Interstate Route I-14 South. The routes referred to in subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F) of subsection (c)(84) and in subsections (c)(91) and 

(c)(92) are designated as Interstate Route I-14 and the States of Texas, Louisiana, 

and Mississippi shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, 

identifyiug such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-14. ’’. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. And I want to—with this in mind, I want to ask 

about safety in regards to converting a highway or State road to 

an interstate highway. 

In your experience with the NTSB, have you seen a correlation 

between improving roadway safety and updating existing roads, 

whether U.S. highways or State highways, in order to meet the 

interstate standards and grades? If you could, maybe elaborate 

your thoughts on that. 

Ms. HOMENDY. I apologize. On that question I will have to get 

back to you for the record and talk with some of our experts 

back—— 

Dr. BABIN. OK. 

Ms. HOMENDY [continuing]. In the office. 

Dr. BABIN. All right. 

Ms. HOMENDY. But I will respond, and also contact your office on 

that. 

Dr. BABIN. OK, that would be fine. Does anybody else want to 

take a stab at that? 

I will just wait and get back—if you will get back with me, Ms. 

Homendy. 

All right, this is for—the next question is for Mr. Bruemmer, if 

you don’t mind. Thank you for being here today, as well. You said 

it best in your testimony, that we cannot allow safety to ever become an afterthought or a second priority, period. I couldn’t agree 

with you more on that. 

And you know it better than most, that so much of the work this 

committee did on the FAST Act was to help stimulate innovation, 

improve safety through data-driven performance-based approaches, 

112 

and allow our States the flexibility they need to create programs 

unique to their needs for both motor and nonmotorized users. The 

data has clearly shown a reduction of motor vehicle fatalities, highlighting that safety programs all over the country are indeed working successfully. 

Could you share with the committee where you see the next generation of roadway safety moving, and where do you see innovative 

and creative ideas, and where they are taking us through the next 

decade in terms of safety and smart investment? Yes, sir. 

Mr. BRUEMMER. Thank you, Congressman. I think, as you look 

forward, you know, technology is really kind of the front-runner of 

this. Vehicles are becoming smarter. How does infrastructure react 

to the vehicles? 

From my experience what you look at is pavement markings that 

are now becoming more recognizable by machine-driven vehicles. 

You have signs which machines can read. They have got, basically, 

a QR code inset in them, so that the vehicle comes up and can tell 

what the sign reads. 

Dr. BABIN. Right. 

Mr. BRUEMMER. So I think as we look 5, 10 years down the road, 

how do we make that step from purely a human-driven world to 

integrating that technology, and we go forward. So that transition 

period is going to be difficult. I think we need to have a strong map 

forward of where do we want to be 20 to 25 years from now. 

Dr. BABIN. Right. OK. Thank you very much. 

And you know what? I don’t—unless anybody else has something 

they would like to add to that, thank you, Madam Chair, I will 

yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Babin. 

Dr. BABIN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Stanton? 

Mr. STANTON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. An excellent 

presentation today on an incredibly important topic: safety on our 

roadways and our highway systems. 

And as we plan a significant infrastructure bill through this committee, we need to make sure that safety is at the forefront, and 

it is equally as important, if not the most important investment we 

can make in this country is on roadway safety, particularly supporting cities and municipalities across the country, things like 

Complete Streets and Vision Zero and other programs that are successful models. 

The Federal Government can better support those cities, and 

hope that State legislatures don’t preempt cities who have a lot of 

innovative ideas. I say that as a former mayor of a city. 

And the specific issue I want to talk today about has to do with 

wrong-way drivers. Sadly, that is an issue that my community, the 

Greater Phoenix, Arizona, community, is confronting in a significant and sad way right now. 

In January of 2015 a dispatcher with the Phoenix Fire Department was on her way home from a late shift when she was killed 

on the I–17 in central Phoenix by a wrong-way driver. Megan 

Lange was 26 years old, a wife, a mother of two young boys. When 

the firefighters arrived at the scene of the accident, they knew that 

she was one of their own, because she was still in her uniform. 

113 

Megan’s death shook our community, and especially her fellow 

city employees. I was mayor at the time, and I will never forget 

taking that call. Her tragedy, unfortunately, was one of a series, 

part of a pattern of wrong-way drivers that our cities, counties, and 

State have to work hard to correct. 

Two out of three wrong-way crashes are caused by impaired drivers, often drivers with blood alcohol levels more than twice the 

legal limit. One-quarter of all wrong-way crashes are fatal, compared to just about 1 percent for other highway crashes. And 

though, nationally, the number of and rate of fatal crashes have 

been falling for decades, the number of fatal wrong-way crashes 

continues to creep upward. And that is something that we have to 

confront. 

So I will open up to all the panel, but particularly Mr. 

Bruemmer. Can you talk a little bit about what we can be doing, 

as Congress, to better support you and other safety-related organizations to decrease and even stop the epidemic of wrong-way crashes across our country? 

Mr. BRUEMMER. Thank you, Congressman. There are innovations 

coming out, as far as infrastructure, which improve the possibility 

that someone can’t go the wrong way: sensors, which activate lights 

to notify the driver; also relaying messages to law enforcement, so 

that they can respond quickly, knowing that there is someone going 

the wrong direction; pavement markings which are visible as you 

enter a ramp that, from one direction, say ‘‘Do Not Enter,’’ the 

other way they look normal. So I think that it is an infrastructure 

question. 

People get confused and lost, unfortunately, make a wrong turn 

up the wrong ramp, and it is catastrophic. How do you avoid that? 

And I think, really, infrastructure has to combat that at a one-onone level. 

Mr. STANTON. Excellent. Infrastructure and, of course, continuing 

with our efforts in terms of drunken driving and other types of 

driving under the influence. 

I will leave it—I will open up to other witnesses. What can we 

do, as Congress, Members of Congress, to better support efforts to 

reduce and end wrong-way driving? 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Stanton, if I could, the National Transportation 

Safety Board—I am going to steal your thunder a little bit—did a 

report. 

Ms. HOMENDY. That was my answer. 

Mr. BROWN. There you go. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BROWN. Don Carroll was the one that authored it. He used 

to be with the California Highway Patrol, did a work on wrong-way 

drivers. And most cops know that you have a disorientation issue, 

and largely it comes from impairment of some level. And also, it 

comes with, to some extent, with people who have developed some 

kind of limiting capability with their mind. 

There are ways to deal with that as intervention. So MADD has 

the interlock, they have been promoting the ignition interlock as an 

example. There are other ways to deal with the impairment issues, 

so that those people don’t get in a car and drive. 

114 

As far as the issues involving capacity, mental capacity, that is 

where the DMVs can come in and try to deal with those issues. 

And certainly that would be within the purview of an authorization 

act, should that be an issue. 

Mr. STANTON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Homendy, did the chief accurately represent NTSB perspective? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HOMENDY. He did. And the person he references, actually, is 

a former law enforcement official who is on staff at the NTSB. So 

we did a wrong-way special investigative report in 2012, and looked 

at six crashes. We had recommendations on improving road designs, having better signage, and then addressing impairment. 

And the NTSB’s views on impairment is reducing the legal BAC 

limits from .08 to .05 or lower; requiring ignition interlocks for all 

offenders, not just repeat offenders, including first-time offenders; 

stronger enforcement; and then also in-vehicle technology to prevent impaired drivers from getting in the vehicle and driving. 

Mr. STANTON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. The gentleman yields back. 

Mrs. Miller? 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton. West Virginia has 

been successful throughout the implementation of the Governor’s 

highway safety program. We have received millions of dollars 

through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to 

help implement several different programs in all 55 counties of my 

State. 

In my region of southern West Virginia, one of the largest challenges we face is impaired driving. Over 50 percent of impaired 

driving arrests in southern West Virginia counties have been identified as drug-related. Southern West Virginia has been ravaged by 

the opioid epidemic, especially as the economy in the region collapsed, due to the war on coal. The economic hopelessness faced by 

so many in my community has been hard to fathom. 

I have learned very quickly, since being in Congress, that we are 

very fluid in our movement, and in and out of committees, and in 

and out of chairs. So Ms. Homendy, I hope this question has not 

been asked to you before. 

Programs committed to stop drunk driving have been successful 

across the country. What programs are in development to stem the 

tide on drug-impaired driving? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Well, I know NHTSA has focused on drug-impaired driving. 

From the NTSB’s perspective, we have investigated a number of 

crashes involving impaired drivers. The difficulty with drugs is 

there is no impairment standard. And so we have recommended 

that DOT work with HHS to develop a standard. In the meantime, 

we have recommended that NHTSA issue guidance to States that 

tells law enforcement officers when to test, what drugs to test for, 

how to test, and cut-off levels to help determine impairment. 

In addition, we need advanced training for law enforcement officials, so that they can recognize when a driver is impaired. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. West Virginia is a hub for transportation, and our highways are a crossroads of trade and shipping. 

115 

Commercial trucking is essential for our economy, but has not seen 

the same decrease in accidents that passenger automobiles have. 

Mr. Jones, are there any programs in development aimed to protect our Nation’s commercial truckers, in particular? 

Mr. JONES. I am going to defer that answer, if maybe Ms. 

Homendy has some more perspective on that. I can’t speak about 

the commercial trucking industry directly. 

Mrs. MILLER. OK. 

Ms. HOMENDY. I mean for commercial driving, I would say fatigue. I mean, from our perspective, it is strong hours-of-service 

standards, no exemptions to those standards, strong fatigue mitigation, management plans, implementation of electronic logging devices, and then screening, diagnosis, and treatment for sleep apnea. 

So fatigue, we would say, is the major issue. 

Mrs. MILLER. OK. Does anyone else have any comments on that? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, at one point the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration also brought up the issue of distraction as a major 

issue with regards to—within the cockpit of the vehicle. And I 

would think that that would probably still ring true today. 

Mrs. MILLER. What type of distraction? 

Mr. BROWN. Basic distraction, in terms of the operating of the 

commercial vehicle, people manipulating cell phones, working on 

automated electronic logs, things of that nature, not paying attention to their driving. 

Mrs. MILLER. OK, thank you. I yield back my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mrs. Miller. Finally, our 

Ranking Member Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Finally bringing up the rear, huh? Pretty long hearing. You guys thought you were done, and then we keep walking 

back in, right? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Homendy, great to speak with you yesterday. I 

hear, because I am late, that some of my other colleagues asked 

about technology. I was going to channel Don Young [referring to 

nameplate swap]. Come on, what are you guys doing? The dean of 

the delegation, the dean of the House. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. In all seriousness, Ms. Homendy, you mentioned that 

the technology is not there yet. For States like Illinois that will be 

on a path to legalize marijuana, you know, my concern is how do 

we get technology up to the forefront to be able to do tests, a roadside test, just like we do with impaired drivers due to alcohol consumption. 

And you mentioned in your response that the technology is not 

here yet, but others are working on it. Right? Do you have anything else to add? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Right. We have recommended that DOT and HHS 

work together to provide additional testing mechanisms like oral 

fluid testing and hair testing. 

And in addition to just the testing, in the meantime, NHTSA can 

issue guidance to States, as I mentioned, for law enforcement officers to clarify when people should be tested, what types of drugs 

they should be tested for, and cut-off levels for testing. That guidance has not gone out yet. 

116 

But in addition, training for law enforcement officers. I mentioned a couple of programs to you yesterday that NHTSA has for 

advanced training for law enforcement officers. Basic training is 

the standard field sobriety testing for law enforcement officers, but 

NHTSA has two programs, one called the ARIDE program and one 

called DRE—it is an Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement program and the Drug Recognition Expert training—which 

provide 72 hours of classroom training and 40 to 60 hours of field 

training, which makes them highly skilled at detection and identification of impairment. And very few officers are trained at those 

levels, so we encourage additional training. 

Mr. DAVIS. Right, thank you. And I apologize, my team forgot the 

WWE belt I promised you yesterday. 

Ms. HOMENDY. I was hoping to wear it for my opening statement. 

Mr. DAVIS. My apologies to you and your entire team. 

Chief, first off, I want to say thank you. And if you could please 

relay my thanks and the thanks of many of my teammates for the 

courageous actions of your three officers who saved us all one fateful morning in Alexandria a few years ago. So thank you for that. 

And please, again, relay our thanks to them. I don’t think they get 

enough credit for that. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, sir. I will. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. In my home State of Illinois, Chief, we 

have had 15 officers struck this year already while outside of their 

vehicles. We have a law called Scott’s Law in Illinois that protects 

our law enforcement officials, our Good Samaritans, and even our 

tow truck drivers who are on the side of our roadways, trying to 

help motorists who are stranded. We are looking to expand Scott’s 

Law in Illinois, and I noticed this isn’t a law in every State. 

What type of activities would you recommend we do at the national level to stop the carnage that we have seen of our law enforcement officers and our Good Samaritans and tow truck drivers 

that we are seeing in Illinois? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, actually, NHTSA has actually taken a position 

of supporting the move over, at least in concept. 

But you are right, there are a lot of differences between the 

States. My former agency, the California Highway Patrol, just lost 

a sergeant just a couple of days ago over this very same thing. 

That is actually a disincentive in some cases for law enforcement 

to engage in traffic safety, because oftentimes they are exposed 

when they go out there. And so any way we can protect the highway worker—and that is not just the cop and the tow truck officers, and it is, in many cases, the person from DOT who is working 

on the road to repair a roadway. It is a paramount issue. 

Move-over laws work. They are difficult to enforce sometimes because, you know, usually there is congestion or other issues around 

it. But if you can get some level of compliance, it provides a buffer. 

And I think that would be appropriate to put into some authorization to encourage that at some point. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. This is something that we have not 

experienced at this level in my home State before. It has happened 

for many years, and it is something that, obviously, we need to address, especially with distracted driving and other issues that have 

117 

caused these terrible, tragic accidents, especially in the wake of 

technology and technological advances in our automobiles. 

I rented a car this weekend, and was driving around, and it notified me every time it thought I went outside the lane. I mean at 

some point we have got to recognize technological advances to assist in saving the lives of the brave men and women who wear that 

same uniform you do. 

Thank you for your time to each and every one of you, and I yield 

back no time that I have. 

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank the ranking member, and I particularly want to thank all of you who have come. You have given 

us new information, you have given us very helpful information on 

a very serious subject, where our country is badly in need of the 

contributions you have made today. 

I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers 

to any questions that may have been submitted in writing. 

And I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 

days for any additional comments and information submitted by 

Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

This hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(119) 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Tennessee 

Thank you, Chairwoman Norton for putting together this important hearing, and 

thanks to all the witnesses for being here today. 

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

37,133 people lost their lives in accidents on U.S. roadways in 2017, or 100 people 

died each day in motor vehicle crashes. 

We must do better. 

Fortunately, I believe there are several commonsense, bipartisan steps that Congress can take to improve highway safety. They include, the DUI Reporting Act, the 

School Bus Safety Act, the Stop Underrides Act, and the Horse Transportation Safety Act. 

DUI REPORTING ACT

The DUI Reporting Act (H.R. 1914) would stop the dangerous practice of charging 

repeat drunk drivers as first-time offenders. 

Just a few years ago, two teenagers from Memphis were killed when the car they 

were driving was struck by a drunk driver who had accrued seven DUI charges 

since 2008 and had been allowed to plead guilty five times to a first-offense DUI. 

Congressman Steve Chabot and I introduced legislation to stop this by creating 

an incentive for local law enforcement to report DUI arrests to the National Crime 

Information System, so prosecutors will know if a defendant is a repeat offender. 

This bipartisan bill has been endorsed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and 

I hope this committee will consider it soon. 

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY ACT

I hope this committee will also consider the School Bus Safety Act, a bill I am 

planning to reintroduce with Senator Tammy Duckworth, to implement several of 

the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendations to improve school bus 

safety. 

Specifically, the bill will ensure that there are seat belts at every seat and buses 

are equipped with safety measures like stability control and automatic braking systems. 

In November 2016, there were two high-profile school bus accidents in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and another in Baltimore, Maryland, that left 6 school-aged 

children robbed of their futures. 

These are chilling reminders that Congress needs to act. 

STOP UNDERRIDES ACT

I hope this committee will also take action on the Stop Underrides Act (H.R. 1511/ 

S. 665). 

In 2014, my constituents Randy and Laurie Higginbotham lost their 33-year-old 

son Michael, like thousands of others have, when his car crashed into a semi-truck 

trailer and ended up under it. Unfortunately, truck underride is not a new issue. 

It has been on the highway safety radar for decades, yet action has not been taken. 

That is why I introduced the Stop Underrides Act with our Transportation Committee colleague Mark DeSaulnier, and Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Marco 

Rubio, to require all large truck trailers to have front, side, and rear underride 

guards. 

This bill will save lives and I encourage my colleagues to support it. 

120 

HORSE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ACT

I hope this committee will also take action to protect the lives of both horses and 

humans as horses are transported on our nation’s highways. 

In 2007, fifteen horses died when a double deck trailer carrying 59 Belgian draft 

horses overturned on Route 41 in Illinois. Unfortunately, accidents like this are not 

uncommon. 

Drivers can currently exploit a loophole in current regulation banning the transport of horses in double deck trailers, thus giving drivers an incentive to 

inhumanely transport horses to assembly points then reload them into single level 

trailers just outside their final destination. 

This practice is not only dangerous and inhumane to the horses, but to the traveling public, as well. 

That is why I introduced the bipartisan Horse Transportation Safety Act (H.R. 

1400) along with Representatives Peter King, and Transportation Committee members Dina Titus and Brian Fitzpatrick, to ensure the humane and safe transportation of horses. 

If enacted, it would prohibit interstate transportation of horses in a motor vehicle 

containing two or more levels stacked on top of one another. It would also create 

civil penalties of at least $100 for each horse involved. 

These bills will help save lives, and I hope this committee will take action on 

them. I once again thank the chair for holding today’s hearing and yield back. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Florida 

Thank you, Chairwoman Norton. 

Improving safety on our roadways is a top priority for my constituents and me. 

Seemingly every day, I see a fresh news story about a traffic collision that either 

claimed lives or caused injuries in my community. 

On November 8, 2018, my longtime friend and neighbor, Alvin Watson, was fatally struck by a vehicle while jogging near his home. He was a beloved husband, 

father, colleague, and friend. 

In January, seven people, five of whom were children, lost their lives on their way 

to Disney World after their church van collided with three other vehicles. 

Just last month, a father and his six-year-old son were struck as they walked to 

school. While they weren’t seriously injured, this was still an extremely traumatic 

event for them. 

In 2017 alone, more than 3,100 people, including 654 pedestrians, died on Florida 

roadways. 

As pedestrians, Floridians face a risk of fatality that’s incomparable to any other 

state. 

Shockingly, of the 20 most dangerous metropolitan areas for pedestrians in the 

nation, 9 are in Florida. 

In fact, the stretch of I-95 that runs through Miami-Dade County, which I represent, had more fatal accidents than any other part of the nearly 2000-mile interstate highway in 2015. 

Suffice it to say, traffic safety reforms are desperately needed in my state and district. 

We can and must do better. 

As we consider legislation to reauthorize the FAST Act and invest in our infrastructure, I will advocate for robust investments and policies to reduce traffic fatalities and strongly prioritize pedestrian safety. 

I have a few questions. 

f 

121 

Letter from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton 

APRIL 8, 2019. 

Hon. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

Chair 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 

Hon. RODNEY DAVIS

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 

DEAR CHAIR NORTON AND RANKING MEMBER DAVIS: 

In anticipation of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit upcoming hearing 

entitled ‘‘Every Life Counts: Improving the Safety of our Nation’s Roadways,’’ the 

Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America) writes to underscore 

how new and developing Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) technology that depends on 

the 5.9 GHz band is allowing us to finally address the lives lost and ruined on our 

nation’s roads. Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V), Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I), and Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P)—collectively referred to as Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X)— 

have incredible potential to dramatically improve the safety, accessibility, and operational performance of our road infrastructure and vehicle safety. 

Safety is the top priority of the nation’s transportation system. According to the 

U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 37,133 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 2017, which 

roughly breaks down to just over 100 fatalities per day. Examples of V2V deployments available today include systems that provide emergency braking and the ability to be the ‘‘eyes and ears’’ of other vehicles. Non-Line-of-Sight awareness, as it’s 

known, means that drivers and vehicles can see around corners and receive information about hazards in the roadway, even if they cannot see the hazard. V2V communications help move traffic more efficiently with demand responsive traffic signaling 

and allow emergency response vehicles to preempt signals. 

V2I provides vehicles and drivers information about infrastructure operations— 

weather and pavement condition, how signals are directing traffic, and even the location of potential hazards at intersections and other critical road safety hotspots. 

V2I applications include red light violation warnings, reduced speed zone warnings, 

curve speed warnings, and spot weather impact warnings. V2I soon will support 

other applications that will disseminate the condition of the infrastructure, such as 

bridge integrity and collect data from cars that describe pavement condition. V2I 

technology helps drivers safely negotiate intersections and prevent intersection 

crashes. Another connected vehicle safety application that helps drivers with left 

turns at intersections could help prevent left-turn crashes. NHTSA estimates that 

safety applications enabled by V2V and V2I could eliminate or mitigate the severity 

of up to 80 percent of non- impaired crashes, including crashes at intersections or 

while changing lanes. 

V2X will enable us to deploy safety solutions to protect vulnerable users of the 

system, which will be transformational. By allowing vehicles to communicate with 

these users through sensors or vehicle to device communication (V2P), we can significantly reduce the number of pedestrians killed on our roadways. 

Public sector agencies can also reap the benefits of V2X. Increasingly, vehicles will 

rely on digital formatting of roadway information to process roadway rules. ITS 

America member Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada recently 

became first in the world to put roadway information into a digital format. As connected vehicles drive over the roadway, they can pick up differences between the 

‘‘digital’’ road and the actual road. This could eliminate the need for agencies to 

manually examine roadways for striping or automatically report potholes instead of 

waiting for enough drivers to incur tire damage before fixing them. These vehicles 

will also give an up-to-the-minute snapshot of the system—how it is performing, are 

there any incidents, live weather conditions, etc. Millions of dollars have already 

been invested in this effort, including incorporating connected vehicle technologies 

into infrastructure by states and cities. Eighty-four communities in the United 

States are deploying or planning to deploy connected vehicle technology. Of that 

number, 54 sites are operational, and 30 are in development. Nearly every state has 

at least one connected vehicle deployment. V2I deployments include expansions of 

the Safety Pilot Model Deployment in Ann Arbor (MI), large pilot deployments in 

New York City, Tampa, and Wyoming, and the Smart City Challenge in Columbus 

(OH). 

122 

1Statistics are from the U.S. Department of Transportation unless otherwise noted. 

These technologies can also enhance automated driving systems, which can provide numerous economic, environmental, and societal benefits, such as decreased 

congestion and fuel consumption, and increased access for older adults and people 

with disabilities. 

However, V2X communications are by no means guaranteed. The 5.9 GHz band 

for V2X is being targeted by cable companies and their supporters who are seeking 

additional spectrum for enhanced WiFi experience and are aggressively pressuring 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to force V2X to share this spectrum 

with unlicensed consumer broadband devices. Speed matters when safety information is involved. Sharing the band could compromise the speed and put lives at risk. 

What if a driver knew, in fractions of a second, that an airbag deployed in a car 

in front of him/her? Alternatively, that the car in front, around the next curve, was 

sliding on black ice? Or a pedestrian is around the next corner? Thanks to V2X technology, that driver would react—and avoid a crash. Deploying life-saving technologies that allow cars, buses, trucks, bicycles, pedestrians, motorcycles, street 

lights, and other infrastructure to talk to each other will ensure more people arrive 

home safely. 

ITS America supports preserving the entire 5.9 GHz band for existing, new, and 

developing V2X technologies. We want to make sure all three phases of testing for 

the 5.9 GHz band are complete before the FCC rules on whether the spectrum can 

be shared between V2X operations and unlicensed devices like WiFi. Any unlicensed 

use in the band should be done without harmful interference to the incumbent technology or other intelligent transportation systems technologies. Finally, ITS America 

requests a report from the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) on the outcomes of the FCC studies. USDOT must ensure Congress and transportation stakeholder that transportation safety will not be compromised in the 5.9 GHz band. 

Sincerely, 

SHAILEN P. BHATT

President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America 

cc: House of Representatives Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

Ron Thaniel, ITS America Vice President of Legislative Affairs 

f 

Statement of Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton 

INTRODUCTION

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a coalition of public health, 

safety, and consumer organizations, insurers and insurance agents that promotes 

highway and auto safety through the adoption of federal and state laws, policies and 

regulations. Advocates is unique both in its board composition and its mission of advancing safer vehicles, safer motorists and road users, and safer roads. We respectfully request that this statement be included in the hearing record. 

DEATHS AND INJURIES ON OUR NATION’S ROADS REMAIN UNACCEPTABLY HIGH

In 2017, more than 37,000 people were killed and 2.7 million were injured in 

motor vehicle crashes.1 Crashes impose a financial toll of over $800 billion in total 

costs to society and $242 billion in direct economic costs, equivalent to a ‘‘crash tax’’ 

of $784 on every American. This incredibly high level of carnage and expense would 

not be tolerated in any other mode of transportation. 

Moreover, fatal truck crashes continue to occur at an alarmingly high rate. In 

2017, crashes involving large trucks killed 4,761 people. This is an increase of 9 percent from the previous year and an increase of 41 percent since 2009. The number 

of 2017 fatalities in crashes involving large trucks is also the highest since 2007. 

Additionally, 149,000 people were injured in crashes involving large trucks in 2017. 

In fatal two-vehicle crashes between a large truck and a passenger motor vehicle, 

97 percent of the fatalities were occupants of the passenger vehicle. The cost to society from crashes involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) was estimated to be 

$134 billion in 2016. 

123 

AVAILABLE COMMONSENSE AND COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS

While far too many lives are lost and people are injured on our Nation’s roads 

each year, proven solutions are currently available that can help to prevent or mitigate these senseless tragedies. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) currently values each life lost ina crash at $9.6 million. Each one of these 

senseless tragedies not only irreparably harms families and communities, but they 

also impose significant costs on society that can be avoided. 

Proven, Advanced Vehicle Technologies Should be Standard in All Vehicles 

Every day on average, over 100 people are killed and 7,500 people are injured in 

motor vehicle crashes. Nearly a third of all crashes continue to be caused by an impaired driver and speed is a contributing factor in over 25 percent of crashes. Additionally, distracted driving resulted in over 3,000 deaths in 2017 alone. Advanced 

vehicle technologies can prevent and lessen the severity of crashes and should be 

required as standard equipment on all vehicles. These include automatic emergency 

braking (AEB), lane departure warning (LDW) and blind spot detection (BSD) for 

cars, trucks and buses. These systems can help stop crashes from occurring, as well 

as reduce the impact of crashes that do occur. The Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety (IIHS) has found that AEB can decrease front-to-rear crashes with injuries 

by 56 percent, LDW can reduce single-vehicle, sideswipe and head-on injury crashes 

by over 20 percent, and BSD can diminish injury crashes from lane change by nearly 25 percent. However, these safety systems are often sold as part of an additional, 

expensive trim package along with other non-safety features, or included only in 

high end models or vehicles. Moreover, there are currently no minimum performance standards to ensure they perform as expected. 

Recommendation: Advanced vehicle technologies that have proven to be effective 

at preventing and mitigating crashes, including AEB, LDW and BSD, should be 

standard equipment on all cars, trucks and buses. 

Commonsense Regulation of Experimental Driverless Car Technology is Essential 

Autonomous vehicles (AVs), also known as driverless cars, are being developed 

and tested on public roads without sufficient safeguards to protect both those within 

the AVs and everyone sharing the roadways with them without consent. Numerous 

public opinion polls show a high skepticism and fear about the technology, and for 

good reason. At least six crashes resulting in four fatalities have occurred in the 

U.S. involving cars equipped with autonomous technology that are being investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 

While AVs have tremendous promise to meaningfully reduce traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries as well as increase mobility, once they are proven to be safe, they 

must be subject to minimum performance standards set by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (U.S. DOT). These standards should include, but not be limited to, 

cybersecurity, vehicle electronics, driver engagement for AVs that require a human 

driver to take over at any point, and a ‘‘vision test’’ for driverless cars to ensure 

they can properly detect and respond to their surroundings. Additionally, minimum 

performance requirements and protections will be especially critical as autonomous 

systems are deployed in commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Large trucks and buses 

should always have an appropriately-trained and licensed driver behind the wheel, 

and introduction of automated systems should never be used as a rationale for 

weakening operational rules such as hours of service, driver training and other important requirements. 

The recent crashes involving the Boeing 737 MAX airplane tragically highlight 

the catastrophic results that can occur when automated technology potentially malfunctions and is not subject to thorough oversight. Reports have indicated that 

many aspects of the plane’s certification were delegated to Boeing. In addition, safety systems that could have assisted the pilots were not required as standard equipment. Lastly, both planes were being operated by experienced pilots that had extensive training. Yet, there are no such federal training requirements for individuals 

testing or operating automated vehicle technology or for the consumers who purchase these vehicles and are using them on public roads. 

Recommendation: AVs must be subject to minimum performance standards set by 

the U.S. DOT including for cybersecurity, vehicle electronics, driver engagement for 

AVs that require a human driver to take over at any point, and a ‘‘vision test’’ for 

driverless cars to ensure they can properly detect and respond to their surroundings. 

Crash Data Must be Collected and Available 

At a minimum, crash data should be collected, recorded, accessible, and shared 

with appropriate federal agencies and researchers so that safety-critical problems 

124 

can be identified. Consumers must also be given essential information about the 

limitations and capabilities of AVs in the owner’s manual and at the point of sale, 

as well as via a public website searchable by VIN that includes, at a minimum, vehicle information such as any exemptions from federal safety standards and the 

AV’s operational design domain (ODD). 

Recommendation: Crash data generated by vehicles should be collected, recorded, 

accessible, and shared with appropriate federal agencies and researchers so that 

safety- critical problems can be identified. In addition, consumers must also be given 

essential information about the limitations and capabilities of AVs in the owner’s 

manual and at the point of sale, as well as via a public website searchable by VIN. 

Vulnerable Road Users Must be Protected 

Deaths and injuries of pedestrians and bicyclists remain unacceptably high. In 

fact, in 2016, pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities hit their highest levels in nearly 30 

years. Vehicles can be designed, specifically in the front end, to reduce the severity 

of impacts with pedestrians and/or bicyclists. Additionally, collision avoidance systems for pedestrians, like advanced AEB, have promise to further reduce deaths and 

injuries. Advocates continues to monitor research on the effectiveness of these systems and will support data-driven solutions to these fatalities. Moreover, the New 

Car Assessment Program (NCAP) must be updated to include pedestrian crashworthiness and pedestrian crash avoidance. Upgrades to infrastructure could also 

offer pedestrians and bicyclists better protection to reduce the occurrence and severity of crashes. 

Recommendation: NHTSA should be directed to issue a standard for improved vehicle designs to reduce the severity of impacts with road users. In addition, NCAP 

must be updated to include pedestrian crashworthiness and pedestrian crash avoidance. 

Improving Safety for Older Americans 

In 2017, over 6,500 people age 65 and older were killed in traffic crashes—representing 18 percent of all traffic fatalities. Advocates has developed federal legislative proposals addressing both human factors and vehicle design issues to advance 

the safety of older adults. These recommended improvements include development 

of a crash test dummy representing older occupants, endorsing revisions to NCAP 

to include a ‘‘Silver Car Rating’’, and promoting a modification of the injury criteria 

used in crash tests to address the specific injury patterns suffered by older occupants. Additionally, Advocates supported the need to mandate that hybrid and electric vehicles be manufactured to make sounds when operating at speeds below 18 

miles per hour in order to enable child and adult pedestrians and bicyclists, especially those with visual-impairments and older adults, to identify the presence and 

movement of these very quiet vehicles. This final rule was issued in December 2016 

and compliance is required by September 2020. 

Recommendation: NHTSA should be required to develop a crash test dummy representing older occupants, revise NCAP to include a ‘‘Silver Car Rating’’, and modify 

injury criteria used in crash tests to address the specific injury patterns suffered 

by older occupants. 

The Epidemic of Distracted Driving Must be Addressed 

In 2017, crashes involving a distracted driver claimed 3,166 lives. Moreover, 

crashes in which at least one driver was identified as being distracted imposes an 

annual economic cost of $40 billion dollars, based on 2010 data. Issues with underreporting crashes involving cell phones remain because of differences in police crash 

report coding, database limitations, and other challenges. It is clear from an increasing body of safety research, studies and data that the use of electronic devices for 

telecommunications (such as mobile phones and text messaging), telematics and entertainment can readily distract drivers from the driving task. 

Numerous devices and applications, which pose a substantial danger for distracted driving, are being built into motor vehicles. Yet, NHTSA has issued nonbinding guidelines which recommend, but do not require, that clearly unsafe electronic devices should not be installed in vehicles. This does not prohibit manufacturers from installing electronic communications devices that have highly distracting 

features and will not prevent manufacturers from disregarding the agency guidelines. 

Recommendation: NHTSA should issue regulations to strictly limit the use of electronic communication and information features that can be operated while driving, 

and to prohibit the use of those features that cannot be conducted safely while driving. 

125 

NHTSA Must be Sufficiently Funded and Given Additional Authorities 

Ensuring NHTSA has adequate resources, funds and staff is a crucial priority. 

However, the Administration has proposed reducing NHTSA’s vehicle safety program by $49 million (26 percent) from the agency’s 2019 budget. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94) authorized $214,073,440 

for NHTSA’s vehicle safety program for fiscal year 2020. The Administration’s request is $63 million less than the Congressional authorization. In addition, under 

the Administration’s proposal the enforcement budget, which supports the agency’s 

efforts to identify safety recalls and ensure new vehicles meet federal safety standards, will be cut by $13.5 million (40.9 percent) and the rulemaking budget will be 

cut by $2.4 million (9.6 percent). 

In recent years, millions of motor vehicles have been recalled for serious and 

sometimes fatal safety defects. NHTSA must have the ability to take immediate action when the agency determines that a defect involves a condition that substantially increases the likelihood of serious injury or death if not remedied immediately. 

This ‘‘imminent hazard’’ power is needed to protect the public, by allowing the agency to direct manufacturers to immediately notify consumers and remedy the defect 

as soon as possible. Further, NHTSA must also be given the authority to pursue 

criminal penalties in appropriate cases where corporate officers who acquire actual 

knowledge of a serious product danger that could lead to serious injury or death and 

knowingly and willfully fail to inform NHTSA and warn the public. Under current 

federal law, many agencies already have authority to pursue criminal penalties including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The lack of criminal penalty authority has hampered the agency’s ability to deter automakers from safety defect recidivism. 

Recommendation: Considering the unacceptably high number of fatalities and injuries on our Nation’s roads, the prevalence of recalls, and the new responsibilities 

incumbent upon the U.S. DOT as AVs are developed and deployed, NHTSA must 

have additional resources and authorities to effectively oversee vehicle safety. 

Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Must be Improved 

Large truck crash fatalities continue to skyrocket. Each day on average, 13 people 

are killed and more than 400 more are injured in large truck crashes. This preventable fatality toll amounts to a major airplane crash every other week of the year. 

However, technology currently exists that can help to reverse these grim statistics. 

They include crash avoidance systems like AEB and speed limiting devices. This 

equipment should be made standard on all large trucks. Advocates has also recommended mandating comprehensive underride guards for large trucks in order to 

prevent serious injuries and deaths that occur in crashes in which a passenger vehicle goes underneath the rear, side or front of a truck—known as ‘‘underride.’’ 

Additionally, the lack of uniform adequate training for candidates wishing to obtain their commercial driver’s license (CDL) has been a known safety problem for 

decades. Yet, a rule requiring training for all new CDL applicants issued in 2016 

failed to include a requirement that they receive a minimum number of hours of 

the behind-the-wheel (BTW) training. This type of real-world experience is needed 

to enhance the ability of CDL applicants to operate a CMV safely. In addition to 

these measures, federal truck safety laws including truck size and weight limits, 

truck driver hours of service rules, and the age requirement for transporting interstate commerce should not be weakened. 

Further, the safety deficiencies of motorcoaches identified in countless recommendations and crash investigations by the NTSB had not been addressed for 

years, even decades, until deadlines for agency action were enacted in the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act (Pub. L. 112-141). Even still, 

NHTSA has yet to complete several of these rulemakings despite a long overdue 

Congressional deadline of October 2014. 

Recommendation: Lifesaving technology including AEB, speed limiting devices 

and underride guards should be standard equipment on CMVs and trailers. Federal 

truck safety laws including truck size and weight limits, truck driver hours of service rules, and the age requirement for transporting interstate commerce should not 

be weakened, and truck driver training requirements should be enhanced. Overdue 

rulemakings enhancing the safety of motorcoaches must be completed without further delay. 

Our Most Precious Passengers Need Enhanced Protections 

Every year, nearly 500,000 school buses transport more than 25 million children 

to and from school and school-related activities according to the NTSB. School bus 

crashes are similar in many respects to aviation crashes—crashes are infrequent but 

126 

when they do occur, the results can be catastrophic. Leading safety experts have determined that all school buses should be equipped with safety belts to improve passenger safety. Since 2013, the NTSB has recommended that new school buses be 

equipped with safety belts. Moreover, the American Academy of Pediatrics has a 

long standing position that new school buses should be equipped with safety belts. 

NHTSA also supports requiring safety belts on school buses, and has stated that 

its goal is to make sure there are no fatalities in school buses. Additional technologies can also make school buses safer. NTSB has recommended that school 

buses be equipped with both electronic stability control (ESC) and AEB. In addition, 

motion-activated detection systems that can detect pedestrians located near the outside of the school bus and alert the driver of their presence can improve safety for 

students boarding and departing a school bus. 

Recommendation: Congress should require that important safety advancements be 

made to ensure the safety of children both inside and outside of school buses. 

CONCLUSION

America’s roads are needlessly dangerous. Far too many lives are lost and serious 

injuries sustained in crashes each year. However, commonsense solutions are at 

hand that can help to improve the safety of all road users. With bold action from 

this Committee, these measures can be implemented and lives can be saved. 

f 

Statement of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, 

Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton 

Chairman Norton, Ranking Member Davis and members of the subcommittee, the 

American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on a subject that is of primary importance to 

our organization, the entire transportation construction industry and the American 

public—Every Life Counts: Improving the Safety of our Nation’s Roadways. 

Established in 1902, ARTBA represents over 8,000 member companies and individuals who design, build and manage the nation’s highways, public transit, airports 

and intermodal transportation systems. The primary goal of the association is to 

grow and protect transportation infrastructure investment to meet the public and 

business demand for safe and efficient travel. Accordingly, the jobsite safety of the 

men and women who build and maintain America’s transportation infrastructure— 

as well as that of those who travel through our work zones and drive on our completed roadways—has been a top priority for ARTBA’s membership. 

As an example of ARTBA’s commitment to roadway safety, in 2016 we launched 

the Safety Certification for Transportation Project Professionals(tm) (SCTPP). This 

industry driven program aspires to ensure the safety and well-being of construction 

workers, motorists, truck drivers, pedestrians and their families by making transportation project sites worldwide zero-incident zones. 

The SCTPP credential aims to show employers and peers that credentialed transportation professionals can identify common hazards found on transportation project 

sites and correct them to prevent safety incidents that could result in deaths or injuries. Earning the professional certification also demonstrates command of internationally-recognized core competencies for safety awareness and risk management 

on transportation projects. 

The program was accredited by the American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) in May 2018; well over 300 people have earned the credential. And we are 

just beginning. 

SAFER ROADS AND WORK ZONES

ARTBA understands highway safety is an intricate balance between the roadway 

infrastructure, the vehicle and the motorist. That equilibrium is particularly challenged during construction operations where workers labor barely inches away from 

motorists who are often travelling at high rates of speed. We commend the committee for happening to schedule this hearing during National Work Zone Awareness Week, which for 20 years has promoted safety for all roadway users and construction workers who navigate these potentially hazardous roadway construction 

zones. ARTBA is particularly concerned with the trend of increasing deaths and injuries on these sites. 

Over the past eight years, work zone fatalities have increased significantly, from 

586 in 2010 to 799 in2017 (the latest year for which data is available). That is a 

jump of over 30 percent. The table below represents the number work zone-related 

127 

fatalities, as tracked by the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration’s ‘‘Fatality Analysis Reporting System’’ or FARS: 

This trend is obviously moving in the wrong direction, and we agree with the committee that a more serious investigation into the cause of work zone fatalities—and 

all roadway fatalities—is urgently needed. 

A FOCUS ON INFRASTRUCTURE

ARTBA’s experience over the past 117 years has led to an understanding that 

roadway users will make errors. Design, construction and operation of the transportation network should emanate from this premise, allowing for the development of 

a more ‘‘forgiving’’ roadway system. 

In the United States, this principle requires a new paradigm. Today, much of 

America’s basic road safety strategy today is aimed at reducing human error. Most 

federal efforts focus on reducing the number of crashes by improving motorists’ behavior, including the interaction of drivers with pedestrians, cyclists, large trucks 

and other motorists. ARTBA believes we must turn that premise around by accepting the fact that some motorists will inevitably make mistakes. Too often they pay 

for their mistakes with their lives—or the lives of innocent bystanders. 

On all major routes—and others to the extent practicable—our roadway system 

must anticipate user error and be designed, constructed, equipped and operated to 

forgive the errant user and protect the innocent worker, pedestrian, cyclist or other 

driver. 

SEVERITY VS. FREQUENCY

In conjunction with reducing fatalities, ARTBA believes our transportation system 

must be improved to reduce the severity of incidents. In some situations, such as 

the use of roundabouts, a possible increased rate in the frequency of accidents may 

be a viable trade-off for a decrease in the severity of injuries. The U.S. should 

prioritize the quality of human life and health above the rate of traffic incidents. 

ARTBA’s premise does not remove responsibility from the driver to operate his 

or her vehicle in a safe and courteous manner. All transportation users have an obligation to follow laws, standards and customs that promote safe and efficient use of 

the system. At the same time, funds must be provided to give transportation system 

owners greater opportunities to properly operate their systems. 

To date, U.S. policy accepts the fact this is an imperfect system, with a goal to 

reduce the unsafe consequences of that system. ARTBA believes America’s safety 

goal should be developing a transportation system that features zero predictable 

crashes with severe consequences—beginning with the major networks through to 

all other roadways to the extent practicable. 

PARADIGM SHIFT

This vision requires a paradigm shift on two parallel tracks: 

1. The focus of reducing incidents on America’s transportation system must be 

viewed asreducing severity of injuries as opposed to reducing the number of 

crashes. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\FTR-Norton-ARTBA-1.eps
128 

2. The policy anticipates user errors and emphasizes design, construction and 

maintenance of asystem that will be ‘‘forgiving’’ of errant behavior. 

This change in philosophy is necessary because system users do not have all the 

relevant information needed to make critical decisions related to their safety and 

the safety of other users. For example, drivers are repeatedly reminded: ‘‘speed 

kills,’’ but the problem is not just speed but kinetic energy. Kinetic energy causes 

the damage in a collision or a crash, yet users are blind to it. They feel safe when 

they shouldn’t. If the transportation system looked dangerous—and hazards were 

visible in a manner which users could perceive and appreciate—reliance on improved user behavior would be sufficient. The design and operation of America’s 

transportation system must compensate for this information gap and systematically 

seek to eliminate such invisible hazards. 

On April 14, 2010, Dr. Ted Miller of the Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation (PIRE) offered testimony on this approach before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.He made a remarkable statement to Congress: ‘‘The 

cost of crashes involving deficient roadway conditions dwarf the costs of crashes involving alcohol, speeding, or failure to wear a safety belt . . . Focusing as much on 

improving road safety conditions as on reducing impaired driving would save thousands of lives and billions of dollars each year.’’ He further estimated ‘‘motor vehicle 

crashes in which roadway conditions is a contributing factor cost the U.S. economy 

more than $217 billion each year.’’ 

Dr. Miller’s comments were based on a significant research study commissioned 

by the Transportation Construction Coalition—a partnership of 31 national construction associations and construction trade unions that is co-chaired by ARTBA 

and the Associated General Contractors of America. Completed in 2009, the study 

is entitled, ‘‘On a Crash Course: The Dangers and Health Costs of Deficient Roadways.’’ In the report Dr. Miller described several immediate solutions for problem 

spots including using brighter and more durable pavement markings, adding rumble 

strips to shoulders, mounting more guardrails or safety barriers, and installing traffic signals and better signs with easier-to-read legends. Dr. Miller emphasized: 

‘‘More significant road improvements include replacing non-forgiving poles with 

breakaway poles, adding or widening shoulders, improving roadway alignment, replacing or widening narrow bridges, reducing pavement edges and abrupt drop offs, 

and clearing more space on the roadside.’’ 

Ten years later, the report’s findings remain valid, and the state of America’s infrastructure may well be in worse condition now than it was a decade ago. ARTBA’s 

April 1 report on the state of U.S. bridges found the pace of bridge repair in the 

U.S. is slowing. At the current pace, it would take more than 80 years to replace 

or repair the nation’s structurally deficient bridges. That’s longer than the average 

life expectancy of a person living in the U.S. The report, based on an analysis of 

the recently-released U.S. Department of Transportation 2018 National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database, revealed 47,052 bridges are classified as structurally deficient and in poor condition. The length of America’s structurally deficient bridges 

if placed end-to-end would span nearly 1,100 miles, the distance between Chicago 

and Houston. 

A HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT

ARTBA commends Congress for its long-standing support of roadway infrastructure safety. In the MAP-21 and FAST Act surface transportation laws, Congress ensured that funds set aside for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

would be dedicated to highway infrastructure safety improvements. The legislation 

also continued to provide support for the National Work Zone Safety Information 

Clearinghouse, a public-private partnership dedicated to providing research, information, conferences and many other resources aimed at improving roadway work 

zone safety. We hope Congress will continue to support these important programs. 

A FIRST STEP

While there are many needs for roadway improvements—and demands on resources to make those improvements are challenging—some efforts simply require 

doing that which Congress has already identified as an immediate need. For example, through federal rulemaking after the SAFETEA-LU surface transportation law 

and further provisions in both the MAP-21 and FAST Act laws, Congress and previous administrations have expressed in a bipartisan manner the intent to use increased positive separation between workers and motorists on construction projects 

that present significant hazards to both workers and roadway users. However, the 

law has not been fully implemented and positive separation is still not used as reguVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
129 

larly as Congress intended. New products and technologies are available that make 

the practice more practical and cost-effective. 

Congress should continue to mandate the Federal Highway Administration to 

strengthen areas of its Subpart K regulation in accordance with the MAP-21 law 

that requires additional considerations for use of positive separation. It should also 

institute provisions in the next surface transportation law that allow for greater enforcement and/or consequences for those who violate the law. Congress should also 

urge FHWA to include similar positive separation considerations in the agency’s 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The law is clear and prescriptive as to when positive protective systems are to be used by the owner/agency 

and should be followed accordingly. 

CONCLUSION

Improved safety on America’s roadways is a critically important goal. With limited 

resources it is imperative that Congress review all the means available for saving 

lives and use those resources in a manner that is most effective—both now and in 

the long term. Investment in improved roadway infrastructure is a proven means 

to achieve this goal, and will be effective independent of an individual’s behavior, 

whether he or she decides to act responsibly, or chooses to drive impaired, distracted 

or fatigued. 

We have the technology and ‘‘know how’’ to build our roadway system to anticipate user error. It can be designed, constructed, equipped, and operated to forgive 

the errant user and protect the innocent victim. Sound investment in safe transportation infrastructure is a bi-partisan priority. ARTBA encourages T&I Committee 

members to act in urgency with their colleagues in other House committees and the 

Senate to complete an infrastructure investment bill that will not only improve 

transportation operations, but also dramatically reduce the nearly 40,000 lives lost 

each year on America’s roads. 

f 

Statement of the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton 

INTRODUCTION

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) welcomes the opportunity to submit this testimony related to safety on 

this nation’s highways. AASHTO represents the state departments of transportation 

(state DOTs) of all 50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. 

The State DOTs appreciate the leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, along with your Senate and House peers in partner committees, in shepherding the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in December 2015. This legislation has ensured stability in the federally-supported passenger rail, freight, safety, highway, and transit programs through 2020. 

The safety of all users of the transportation system is a top priority for every state 

DOT and safety is one of AASHTO’s key reauthorization policy areas included as 

part of our Transportation Policy Form (TPF). Under the direction of the TPF, the 

state DOTs last year initiated an extensive 18-month effort to develop and adopt 

reauthorization policy recommendations by October of this year. It is a bottom-up 

process, where we are currently in the process of gathering expert input from our 

wide range of technical committees comprising leaders from all state DOTs. We’re 

also seeking our industry partners’ input during this process prior to our formal 

adoption later next year, in order to maximize the inclusivity of perspectives in our 

policy recommendations to come. 

In order to improve the safety of the transportation system for all users, infrastructure owners and operators, such as state DOTs, must take a multidisciplinary 

and data-driven approach to transportation safety. Transportation safety performance is linked to a variety of elements, including roadway design, traffic law enforcement, road user behavior, and emergency crash response. Therefore, effective 

transportation safety necessitates a multidisciplinary effort and requires that the infrastructure owners and operators partner with a range of stakeholders and exercise 

flexibility in how best to use limited funding in order to eliminate traffic fatalities 

and serious injuries. 

As the owners and operators of a significant portion of this nation’s roadways, 

AASHTO members have been at the forefront in ensuring a safe transportation system through safety innovation. In 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century (MAP-21) was passed which requires states to use a performance-based 

management approach to establish targets and then allocate funding to projects and 

130 

1http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx 

2https://store.transportation.org/item/collectiondetail/180 

3https://store.transportation.org/Item/CollectionDetail?ID=131 

programs that will help a state achieve those targets. The law required the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), to establish a number of national performance measures, of which safety is one of four major groups. The law and subsequent 

regulations set certain requirements for state DOTs to establish targets and to 

make progress towards achieving those targets prior to imposing certain consequences. For safety, all state DOTs must establish targets for five safety performance measures: 1. Number of fatalities on all public roads 

2. Fatality rate on all public roads 

3. Number of serious injuries on all public roads 

4. Serious injury rate on all public roads 

5. Number of non-motorist fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads 

State DOTs are able to establish their own targets for each safety performance 

measure and must report their targets through their annual Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) report and the Highway Safety Plan (HSP) report. The 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determines whether a state DOT has 

made significant progress towards achieving their targets if they meet or exceed 

four out of five targets or if their final number is better than a baseline value calculated by FHWA. If a state DOT is determined to have not made significant 

progress towards their safety performance measures, FHWA will impose a number 

of consequences. 

Safety is considered one of the more mature performance management areas since 

state DOTs have been establishing and reporting on many different safety performance measures through their HSIP, Highway Safety Plans, and Strategic Highway 

Safety Plans (SHSP) for nearly ten years. The target-setting process a state DOT 

uses to establish their targets is very comprehensive and data-driven. It is comprehensive in that it includes many different stakeholders and addresses all public 

roads and all users of the transportation system. It is data-driven in that numerous 

sources of data are included in the analysis including the Fatal Accident Reporting 

System (FARS), law enforcement data, serious injury databases, and roadway design elements. All of this data and information is then used to better understand 

why crashes occurred where and when they did. Finally, predictive tools and models 

are used to better understand how best to program funding for specific projects to 

prevent the crashes from occurring, be it countermeasures, design elements, enforcement efforts, and/or public information campaigns. 

Thus, an important aspect to programming funding is flexibility both in how funds 

can be used among engineering, education, enforcement and emergency services efforts as well as within the engineering domain where state DOTs have the most 

control to identify which engineering solution may be most appropriate to improve 

safety. In order to make the best engineering decision, state DOTs have pooled their 

resources to research and develop a number of different design guides that transportation professionals can use to plan and design better and safer transportation systems. The following are examples of the design guides that the state DOTs have developed through AASHTO: • Highway Safety Manual 1—provides a complete collection of quantitative safety 

analysis methods to estimate crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations in order to better plan and design safer roadways. • Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2 (also known as the 

AASHTO Green Book)—presents a framework for the geometric design of roadways that is flexible, multimodal, and performance-based providing guidance to 

engineers and designers who strive to make unique design solutions that meet 

the needs of all highway and street users on a project-by-project basis. The newest edition introduces a set of ‘‘contextual’’ classifications—such as rural, rural 

town, suburban, urban, and urban core—that will help better guide geometric 

design efforts to create more ‘‘flexible and performance-based’’ designs for new 

projects as well as for existing roads. Work has begun on the next edition, 

which is expected to fully implement a multimodal, performance-based approach 

for road designers to use to improve safety by meeting the needs of all roadway 

users. 

• Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities 3—provides guidelines for the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of pedestrian facilities, including signals and signing. The guide recommends methods 

for accommodating pedestrians, which vary among roadway and facility types, 

and addresses the effects of land use planning and site design on pedestrian 

131 

4https://store.transportation.org/Item/CollectionDetail?ID=116 

5https://store.transportation.org/Item/CollectionDetail?ID=133 

6https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/faq.cfm#perf 

mobility. A new, updated edition of this guide is scheduled to be published this 

year. 

• Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 4—provides detailed planning and 

design guidelines on how to accommodate bicycle travel and operation in most 

riding environments. It covers the planning, design, operation, maintenance, 

and safety of on-road facilities, shared use paths, and parking facilities. Flexibility is provided through ranges in design values to encourage facilities that 

are sensitive to local context and incorporate the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. Work on a new edition is currently underway. 

• Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets 5— 

provides a comprehensive reference of current practice in the geometric design 

of transit facilities on streets and highways, including local buses, express 

buses, and bus rapid transit operating in mixed traffic, bus lanes, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes, as well as bus-only roads within street and freeway environments. It also covers streetcars and LRT running in mixed traffic and transit lanes, and within medians along arterial roadways. 

All of these guides provide planners, engineers, and designers with significant 

flexibility in how they ultimately design a transportation project while taking into 

account the overall safety and operations of the facility. These guides do not establish mandatory requirements for how a project should be designed, rather they emphasize flexibility and encourage planners, engineers, and designers to take into account the unique aspects of each individual project. In fact, state DOTs are adding 

even more flexibility to these guides while continuing to ensure they remain research-based and peer-reviewed. For example, the next edition of the Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets will include updates to educate engineers 

and designers on the flexibility inherent in the guide and further emphasize the 

multimodal nature of our transportation system which includes all users. 

Given the comprehensive nature of improving the safety of our transportation system, the remainder of this testimony focuses on three points that have been identified to date through the TPF process that should be addressed in future federal surface transportation authorization laws: 

1. Continue to focus on implementation of the performance management regulations; 

2. The need to add flexibility for the use of HSIP funding; and 

3. The need to add eligibility and increased federal share for railway-highway 

grade crossing projects. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

All state DOTs are now in the process of implementing the performance management requirements that were established in law as part of MAP-21 and the FAST 

Act. The new and updated performance management regulations were developed 

and published over a six year time period beginning in 2013 and ending in 2018 

with the publication of the final rule regarding 23 CFR § 490, National Performance 

Management Measures, Subpart H and the FTA Safety final rule in July 2018. 

State DOTs are currently working to implement the first required aspect of these 

provisions, which is to establish targets for the federal performance measures, incorporate those targets into the planning process, and report on progress towards 

achieving the targets. Under the current rules, the first comprehensive report documenting and analyzing the results of the first reporting cycle will not be available 

until CY2022, at the earliest, since the first reporting cycle goes from January 1, 

2018 to December 31, 2021 6. 

AASHTO members believe the current regulations are working. A case in point 

is the Missouri DOT (MoDOT) and their current efforts to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on the public roadways. As with all state DOTs, 2017 was the first year 

for which Missouri had to establish safety targets for the five national-level safety 

performance measures identified above for CY2018. From the beginning, MoDOT established five-year targets by first establishing a goal for an annual reduction in fatalities and serious injuries. MoDOT used their strategic highway safety plan (called 

the Blueprint) goal of 700 fatalities by 2020, which had the support of many stakeholders statewide, to drive these targets. Their initial 2017 targets for fatalities was 

a seven percent reduction, with a four percent reduction for serious injuries and for 

non-motorized users. These were considered very aggressive targets since the number of fatalities had increased in 2015 and 2016. 

132 

MoDOT, unfortunately, did not achieve their aggressive targets set in 2017 but 

was encouraged to see a reduction in the number of fatalities nonetheless. For 2018, 

they continued to pursue their Blueprint target of 700 fatalities by 2020 and set targets even more aggressively at nine percent reduction for fatalities and five percent 

reduction for serious injuries and four percent reduction for non-motorized users. 

For 2019, they are proposing even more aggressive targets of 13 percent reduction 

for fatalities, eight percent reduction for serious injuries and a five percent reduction for non-motorized to continue the course to reach the Blueprint target. Since 

the beginning of federal safety targets, MoDOT has always set targets based on an 

anticipated reduction each year. Fatality and serious injury numbers started decreasing consistently in 2017 and continue as of this date. 

Because of the data-driven process MoDOT used and setting aggressive targets to 

improve safety, the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission allocated an 

additional $10 million in 2017 for safety projects. MoDOT supported the grass roots 

Buckle Up Phone Down campaign which took aim at reducing distracted driving. 

And, in 2017, MoDOT targeted Natural Bridge Road in St. Louis that had three 

times the number of pedestrian crashes compared to other similar roadways (20 fatalities from 2012-2016). Since the multi-disciplinary efforts of this innovative 

project started, there has only been one pedestrian fatality, a decrease of 95% While 

MoDOT is seeing success in their efforts to establish aggressive targets that aim to 

drive down the number of fatalities and serious injuries we must remember that 

MoDOT alone cannot be held responsible for a state’s ultimate results. MoDOT sets 

safety targets based on efforts to improve highway safety using the comprehensive 

approach which includes engineering, education, enforcement, emergency services, 

and public policy as well as significant engagement with statewide partners, local 

agencies, and elected officials as part of the solution for reducing fatalities. 

The MoDOT story is but one of 52 examples occurring throughout the United 

States. We believe it is an example of a true success story in the way a data-driven 

process like performance management can be used to identify areas of concern, 

agencies can set targets, and then strategies identified to achieve those targets. To 

this end, AASHTO recommends that no consideration be given to changing existing 

regulations that would alter the current performance management requirements 

until after at least two full reporting cycles in order to give the state DOTs time 

and experience in addressing the regulations which is 2026. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY

Under current law, HSIP funds are restricted to use on specific activities and cannot be used for education, enforcement, safety research, or emergency medical service safety programs. The legislative change in the FAST Act effectively restricts 

HSIP eligibility to only 28 strategies, activities or projects listed in the legislation, 

eliminating the ability to use HSIP funds for public awareness and education efforts, infrastructure and infrastructure-related equipment to support emergency 

services, and enforcement of traffic safety laws that are identified in the states’ 

Strategic Highway Safety Plans. 

Prior to the enactment of the FAST Act, state DOTs had the flexibility to choose 

safety projects and programs that would lead to the best safety outcome—whether 

the solutions were roadway safety infrastructure projects or were implemented in 

combination with non-infrastructure programs. SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 had provided this flexibility in order to identify: 1) the right solution to fit the unique needs 

of specific areas or stretches of roadway and to help reverse a trend of increasing 

fatalities; 2) a systemic approach to address a type of crash state wide; and/or 3) 

a behavioral issue in a certain area or part of the population. Unfortunately, the 

FAST Act changed the ability of state DOTs to truly implement a comprehensive 

and data-driven process since states are limited in how they can use their limited 

HSIP funding. 

Ultimately, the FAST Act changes are inconsistent with the intent of a state’s 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which calls for a multidisciplinary approach to reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The lack of flexibility in safety project selection in the HSIP program, particularly non-infrastructure related activities, stifles innovative safety improvements and partnerships that 

lead to crash reductions and reduced highway fatalities. AASHTO recommends that 

Congress restore flexibility for states to use a portion of HSIP funds for non-infrastructure safety programs and for safety research. 

RAILWAY-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS

Crashes at highway-rail grade crossings are a perennial issue for many state and 

local DOTs from a safety perspective. According to the U.S. Government AccountVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
133 

7https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/695317.pdf 

ability Office, railway-highway crossings are one of the leading causes of railroadrelated deaths 7. According to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) data, in 

2017, there were more than 2,100 crashes resulting in 273 fatalities. Since 2009 

crashes have occurred at a fairly constant rate. And, research sponsored by the FRA 

identified vehicle driver behavior as the main cause of highway-rail grade crossing 

crashes and that factors such as train and traffic volume can contribute to the risk 

of a crash. In addition, over 70 percent of fatal crashes in 2017 occurred at grade 

crossings with gates. Railway-highway crossings are an important contributor to a 

state DOT’s fatality and serious injury rates and through the 23 USC § 130 program, the federal government provides states funding to improve grade-crossing 

safety. Within the 23 USC § 130 Program, there are four concerns that the state 

DOTs have: conflict related to the federal share between 23 USC § 120 and § 130 

programs, the need for additional flexibility in the use of railway-highway funds, the 

need to increase incentive payments for communities, and the eligibility of projects 

for funding. 

Federal Share—For the at-grade rail-highway crossing program, there is 

a conflict in current law. 23 USC § 120 allows for a 100 percent federal 

share for certain safety projects or projects within Indian reservations, 

national parks, and national monuments while 23 USC § 130, RailwayHighway Crossing, set the federal share at 90 percent. This difference in 

what is allowed for the total federal share has resulted in a lot of confusion at both state DOTs and the FHWA. For example, the FHWA allowed 

thirty-five states plus the District of Columbia to incorrectly authorize 

863 projects at 100 percent federal share (per 23 USC § 120) rather than 

at 90 percent as currently provided in 23 USC § 130. The FHWA is now 

requiring states to reimburse the federal-aid program for the difference 

on railway-highway crossing projects authorized above the 90 percent 

share on or after April 14, 2016, which totals over $26 million. 

Unfortunately, decreasing the federal share to 90 percent and requiring 

state DOTs to reimburse the federal-aid highway program for the difference already approved and spent will be counterproductive to the intent of the law and burdensome to many of the localities where the 

projects were constructed for two reasons. 

First, many of the railway-highway crossing projects that were originally 

allowed at the 100 percent federal share are located in rural areas that 

are off the state highway system. And, most of these locations are in 

small cities and counties that do not have the financial resources to provide the needed ten percent match for the cost of the projects. 

Second, if the intent of the law is to improve safety and state DOTs now 

have to reimburse FHWA for the $26 million, they likely have to take 

money away from other projects that are also designed to improve safety. 

Additional flexibility is needed in order to assist rural counties and small 

cities address their railway- highway crossing safety challenges. 

Given the confusion and uncertainty that has been created by the differences in these two sections of Title 23, AASHTO recommends that the 

two sections be aligned to allow 100 percent participation of 23 USC § 

130 funds, resulting in the funding being less restrictive to use at the 

local level where the need is often greatest. AASHTO believes these 

changes will provide significant safety benefits for rural areas where railhighway crossings can result in significant safety concerns. In addition, 

AASHTO believes that the current requirement that states reimburse the 

federal-aid highway program for the $26 million be rescinded so that 

states can continue to focus on safety. 

Incentive payments—States and railroads may make incentive payments 

of up to $7,500 for the permanent closure of at-grade railway-highway 

crossings. Although there are set-aside funds to help incentivize communities to close grade crossings, the $7,500 limit is often not enough to convince local officials to support closing these grade crossings, as the cost 

of such projects are substantially more expensive than this amount. 

AASHTO recommends that the $7,500 incentive payment amount be increased to $100,000 in order to encourage the closure of at-grade railwayhighway crossings. 

134 

1https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/preliminary-estimates/ 

Eligibility—The current 23 USC § 130 railway-highway crossing program 

does not include replacement of functionally obsolete warning devices as 

an eligible activity. While research shows that a large percentage of 

crashes occur at railway-highway crossing with gates, the research also 

shows that modern and updated devices can reduce crashes occurring at 

railway-highway crossings as well. Thus, AASHTO recommends adding 

the replacement of functionally obsolete warning devices with modern 

and innovative devices and techniques to the list of eligible uses of 23 

USC § 130 funds. 

CONCLUSION

Every state DOT views a high priority of their work being to provide a safe transportation system to the public. State DOTs have the expertise, data, and analytics 

to understand where crashes are occurring, how to mitigate the effect of those 

crashes, and program limited funding to achieve critical safety targets. Ultimately, 

while the state DOTs are held accountable for the federal performance management 

safety target achievement, we must remember that state DOTs alone are not solely 

responsible for achieving the safety targets. Determining how best to mitigate crashes from occurring that result in serious injuries and fatalities must include the ability for all partners to: • design better infrastructure and vehicles; • educate the public about safe use of roadways regardless of mode; • enforce existing laws and/or establish new laws; and • ensure emergency services are quick to arrive and well equipped if a crash does 

occur. Clearly, a state DOT has direct influence over some of these efforts, but certainly 

not all. Other state agencies, local agencies, elected officials and numerous other 

stakeholders are all part of the solution for reducing fatalities and serious injuries 

and the federal laws and regulations must be designed to enable a state DOT to 

have as much flexibility as possible to focus limited funding on programs and 

projects that have the potential to reduce the number of crashes as much as possible. 

AASHTO members encourage the Committee to continue to provide the necessary 

funding and program flexibility in order to best meet the safety challenges of today 

and best prepare for the safety challenges of the future. 

f 

Letter from the Road to Zero Coalition, Submitted for the Record by Hon. 

Norton 

APRIL 9, 2019. 

Hon. JOHN BARRASSO

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. PETER DEFAZIO

2134 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. TOM CARPER

513 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. SAM GRAVES

1135 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 

DEAR CHAIRMEN BARRASSO AND DEFAZIO AND RANKING MEMBERS CARPER AND

GRAVES: The Road to Zero coalition [https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/get-involved/road-tozero] believes reaching zero deaths on the nation’s roads is not impossible; it just 

has not been done yet. We are a broad-based diverse group of organizations committed to eliminating roadway fatalities by 2050. Over the past two years we have 

grown to more than 900 members from across the country representing every facet 

of the transportation and safety communities. It is the first time so many organizations have collaborated to put forth a plan to address fatalities on our roads, which 

recently increased after years of decline. 

In 2018, the National Safety Council (NSC) estimates more than 40,000 people 

lost their lives in roadway crashes.1 Additionally, pedestrian fatalities are at a higher level than any time in the last 25 years. This is unacceptable. 

Everyone can do something to reduce fatalities on the roadway—including government leaders, industry, safety experts, transportation planners, engineers, techVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
135 

nology providers, health professionals, and advocates. Together, we have awarded 

eighteen Safe System Innovation Grants for leading safety projects and issued a 

seminal report, The Road to Zero: A Vision for Achieving Zero Roadway Deaths by 

2050, on how to reach this bold objective. 

• Double down on what works through proven, evidence-based strategies 

• Advance life-saving technology in vehicles and infrastructure 

• Prioritize safety by adopting a safe systems approach and creating a positive 

safety culture 

We hope this report and the goals in it can help you in your roles, and the Road 

to Zero Coalition stands ready to assist and show how we are implementing this 

vision each and every day across the United States. 

Sincerely, 

19th Judicial District Court Baton Rouge • 2eyes.justdrive • 3 little Halos Safety Town • 92nd District Court of Michigan Case Management • A Sobering 

Choice Coalition • AAA • AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety • AARP • AARP 

Driver Safety • Acadian Ambulance Service • ACRT Inc. • Active Transportation Alliance • Advanced Drivers of North America • Advocates for Highway 

& Auto Safety • Agero • Air Safety Engineering • Alaska Child Passenger Safety Coalition • Alert Today Florida • AlertDriving • Alexandria Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee • Alliance for a Healthy Orange County • Alliance 

for Safe Kids • Alta Planning + Design • ALTARUM, Center for Behavioral 

Health • Alvin Lester • Amazon • America Walks • American Ambulance Association • American Association for Justice (AAJ} • American Association of 

Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials • American Automotive Leasing Association 

(AALA) • American Bar Association/NHTSA Judicial Outreach Liaison Chaney 

Taylor • American Bar Association/NHTSA Judicial Outreach Liaison Judge 

Jack Kennedy • American Bar Association/NHTSA Judicial Outreach Liaison 

Judge Mary Jane Knisely • American College of Emergency Physicians • American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Assn. (ADTSEA) • American Family 

Children’s Hospital • American Highway Users Alliance/Roadway Safety Foundation • American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) • American Insurance 

Association (AIA) • American Motorcyclist Association • American Public Works 

Association (APWA) • American Road and Transportation Builders Association 

• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) • American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) • American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA} • American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) • American Trucking Associations (ATA} • Amy Stewart CSP • AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety • Anne 

Lusk, Ph.D. - Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health • Arcadis • ARI • Arizona Department of Transportation • Arkansas Highway and Transportation 

Department • Arrow Expedite, Inc. • Association *Friends Of Road* for Sikasso 

Mali (Africa) • Association for Safe International Road Travel (ASIRT} • Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM) • Association of 

Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) • Association of Ignition Interlock Program 

Administrators • Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations • Association of National Stakeholders in Traffic Safety Education • Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APSE) • Association of Transportation Safety 

Information Professionals • Athens-Clarke County • Atlanta Bike • Austin 

Transportation Department • Autonontraffic • B.R.A.K.E.S. • Baltimore City 

Department of Transportation • Baltimore Metropolitan Council • Baton RougeCourts • Baton Rouge Planning Commission • BCR Consulting LLC • Beach 

Cities Cycling Club • Beaverhead Development Corporation • Behind The 

Wheel With ADHD • Below 100 • BenPohlSpeaks • Benton County Arkansas 

• Berkeley Media Studies Group • Berlin (VT) Police Deparatment • Better Eugene-Springfield Transit (BEST) • Bicycle Coalition of Maine • Bicycle Colorado 

• Big Picture Huntsville • Bike Cleveland • Bike Pittsburgh • Bike Routes 4 

Fitness Inc. • Bike San Diego • BikeWalkKC • Blue Hills Neighborhood Assoc. 

• Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio • Boone County Highway Department, IL • Boone County Public Works, KY • Borough of Kennett Square 

• Borough of Matamoras • Borough of Nesquehoning, PA • Borris Automotive 

& Safety Solutions • Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU) • 

Brain Injury Association of America • Brandmotion • Breakthru Beverage • 

Bristol-Myers-Squibb • Broadspectrum • Buchanan County Secondary Roads-IA 

• Buckle Up for Life • Buckle Up Your Pet • Butte Cares Inc. • C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, Injury Prevention Program • California University of PA • California Walks • Cape Canaveral City Council • Cape Coral Police Department 

• Capital District Transportation Committee-New York • Capitol Region Council 

136 

of Governments Traffic Planner • car2go North America • Carol Stream Police 

Department • Cary Medical Center • Casanova Powell Consulting • Cascade Bicycle Club • Casey Feldman Foundation • CDC-National Center for Injury Prevention and Control • CDC-(NIOSH) • CDC Center for Disease Control and Prevention • CEC Electrical • CellSlip • Transport Hartford Academy at the Center 

for Latino Progress • Center for Safe Alaskans • Center for Seabees Facilities 

Engineering • Center for Transportation Safety • Center for Transportation Research at the USF • Center for Vehicle Safety • Centerstone Kentucky • Chesapeake Region Safety Council Maryland Chapter • Chicago Department of Transportation • Child Injury Prevention Alliance • Children and Parent Resource 

Group, Inc. • Children’s Mercy Hospital • Citizen Response Corps • City of 

Akron (OH) Police Department • City of Atlanta Office of Mobility Planning • City of Bethlehem • City of Birmingham (AL) Traffic Engineering Department • City of Boulder • City of Bowling Green • City of Broken Arrow, OK • City 

of Charlotte • City of Charlotte Vision Zero • City of Chicago • City of Cincinnati • City of Columbia, MO • City of Coweta, OK • City of Cupertino Safe 

Routes to School • City of Dallas • City of Decatur, AL • City of Dillon, MT • City of Durango • City of Durant, OK • City of Durham Department of Transportation • City of East Point, Georgia • City of Edgewater • City of Elganger • City of Eugene • City of Fort Lauderdale • City of Fremont • City of Hardy, 

Arkansas • City of Hernando • City of Irvine • City of Kalamazoo-Public Services Department • City of Kissimmee • City of Lakeland • City of Lansing, 

Michigan • City of Longwood, FL • City of Louisville • City of Marshall, IL • City of Memphis • City of Monterey • City of Morgantown, WV • City of Mountain Brook • City of Naples • City of North Miami Beach, FL • City of Norwalk, 

CT • City of Omaha • City of Orlando Transportation Department • City of 

Philadelphia • City of Pittsburgh Department of Mobility and Infra. • City of 

Richmond, CA • City of Richmond, VA • City of Roanoke • City of Rolling Mead- ows • City of San Antonio-TCI • City of San Jose • City of Santa Ana • City 

of Santa Monica, CA • City of Shreveport • City of West Memphis • City of 

West Palm Beach • City of Westchester (NY) Safe Streets • City of Westfield • City of Whittier (CA) Police Department • Clackamas County Drive to Zero • Clark County, WA • Clastran • Coastal Carolina University Department of 

Public Safety • College of Southern Maryland • Collegiate Life Investment 

Foundation (CLIF) • Colorado Drive Safe • Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance • Community Action Partnership of Orange County • Community Anti-Drug 

Coalitions of America • Community Initiatives (Sponsor of Vision Zero Network) • Connecticut DOT • Connecticut Highway Safety Office/Department of Transportation • Coner Lynch Foundation • Consumer Technology Association • Conway Police Department • Coshocton County Engineer’s Office • Cowboy Barriers LLC • Cranberry Township, PA • Crane 1 Services • Creative Visions • 

Cross County Connection TMA • CTIA-Everything Wireless • Cycling Advocates 

of Southern Arizona (CASAz) • Daimler Trucks North America • Dakota County 

Attorney’s Office • DC Government • Decide2drive • Dee Davila-Estelle • Delaware General Health District • Delfasco, LLC • Delhaize America, LLC • Delphi 

Automotive • DENSO • Department of Homeland Security • Department of the 

Navy • Distribution Inc. • District Department of Transportation • District Department of Transportation-Highway Safety Office • Doodnauth Thompson • 

Dothan-Houston County Substance Abuse Partnership • Douglaston Local Development Corporation • Draper • Drive Smart • Drive Smart Virginia • Drivers 

Education of Southern Maryland, Inc. • Driving Dynamics • Duke Trauma Center • Dulles Greenway • Eagle Ridge Institute • East New York 4 Gardens Inc 

• Econometrica, Inc. • Ecostratas Services • eDriving • Educational Alternatives 

OBA Oklahoma Community • El Paso County, CO • Embark • Embry Riddle 

Aeronautical University • Emergency Medical Services for Children Center • 

Emergency Medicine Foundation • EMS for Children Innovation and Improvement Center • Eno Center for Transportation • Equipment & Controls, Inc. • 

Erie County (Ohio) Engineer’s Office • Escambia County BCC • eSociates • 

ESRP Corporation • EthosEnergy Field Services • Family, Career and Community Leaders of America • Fathers Against Distracted Driving (FADD) • Federal 

Highway Administration-Illinois • Federal Highway Administration-Texas Division • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) • Federal Highway Administration Safety R&D • Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) • 

FedEx • FIA Foundation • Fighting Back Santa Maria Valley • First Group • 

Fleet Complete • FleetGuide • Florida Department of Transportation • Florida 

Law Enforcement Liaison Program • Florida T2 Center • Florida Teen Safe 

Driving Coalition • Ford Driving Skills for Life • Ford Motor Company Fund 

& Community Services • Forks Township • Forty Fort Police Department • ForVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
137 

ward Pinellas • Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility (FAAR) • Foundation for Safe Driving • Franklin Regional Council of Governments • Fullerton Collaborative • GAF • Gas Station TV • The General Sessions Music City 

Community Court, VIII • George L. Reagle and Associates • George Washington 

University Hospital • Global Automakers • Global Brake Safety Council • Global Health Advocacy Incubator • GO Bike Buffalo • Goodhue County Health and 

Human Services • Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) • Governors 

State University-Campus Police Department • Grand River Navigation Company • Graves County Road Department • Guam Office of Highway Safety • Gulf Breeze Police Department, FL • Guts of Grief • H.E.A.R.T. Coalition, Inc. • Haas Alert • Handytube • Hang Up and Drive • Harford County Sheriff’s Office • Hawaii Bicycling League • Hays Companies • Health by Design • Healthy 

Communities of Brownsville, Inc. • HED Academy • Hennepin County Public 

Works • Here • Hernando County Community Anti-Drug Coalition • Higher 

Education Center for Alcohol and Drug Prevention • Hill County Road Dept • Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office • Hitch42 LLC • Holly Springs Police Department (GA) • Hollywood Crawford Door Company • Honda Motors • Howard 

County Fire and Rescue • Howard University Hospital-Injury Prevention • Human Factors and Machine Lab at Texas A&M • Humboldt General Hospital 

EMS Rescue • Hydrokinetics • Illinois Department of Transportation • Illinois 

Safety Consultants • llluminite360 • IMMI • Impact Teen Drivers • Improve 

Hybrid Safety • In Control Family Foundation • In Memory of Tristan Beckett 

Schultz • Independence County Road Department • Indian Health Service • Injury Prevention Center at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock • Injury Prevention Center 

of Greater Dallas • lnova Injury Prevention and Outreach • Institute for Car 

Crash Justice • Institute for Transportation at Iowa State University • Institute 

of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) • Institute of Transportation Engineers Public Fellow • Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety (IIHS) • Intelligent Car Coalition • Interactive Education Concepts • International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) • International Association of EMS Chiefs • International Center for Automotive Medicine • lnviro 

Solutions Group • Ion Science • Iowa Methodist Medical Center • Iowa-Illinois 

Safety Council • iRap • ITE Public Fellow Member • J.D. Power • J&M Tank 

Lines • Jefferson County Iowa • Jessica and Kelli Uhl Memorial Foundation • JodenesVoice • John Burns Construction Company • Johns Hopkins Center for 

Injury Research and Policy • Johns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit • Johnson County Trails • JPACC Foundation • Just Drive, Inc. • Justice 

Speakers Institute • Justicia Vial • Kahn Media Inc. • Katasi, Inc. • Katherine 

Wilson Art • Kelly, Remmel, and Zimmerman Bike Law • Ken’s Beverage Inc. • Keolis Transit America • KidsAndCars.org • Kimley-Horn • Kinetic Metrics 

LLC • Kittelson & Associates • Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. • 

Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization • KSPAN-KY Safety 

& Prevention Alignment Network • Kwik Trip • Laborers’ Health & Safety 

Fund of North America • Lake Forest Park Citizens’ Commission • Lance 

Wheeler Memorial Roadway Safety Initiative • Landstar Transportation Logistics, Inc. • Lane Council of Governments • Lansing Area Safety Council • LaSalle County Highway Department • LeasePlan USA • Lexington-Fayette 

Urban County Government • Liberty Mutual • LifeFlight Eagle • LifeSaverApp 

LLC • Lime • Lindsey Research Services LLC • LINK Houston • LivableStreets 

Alliance • LOOK! Save A Life • Lorain County Public Health, OH • Los Angeles 

DOT • Los Angeles Police Department • Los Angeles Walks • Louisiana Bureau 

of EMS • Louisiana Center for Transportation Safety • Louisiana Destination 

Zero Deaths • Louisville Metro Department of Public Works and Assets • Loyola 

University New Orleans • Lyft • Lytx, Inc. • M-C North America Inc. • MADD 

• MADD-Maine Chapter • MADD Washington State Chapter • Madison County 

Safety Coalition • Mahube-OTWA Community Action Partnership • Main Line 

Health Center for Population Research • Malcolm Omari Hill Scholarship Fund 

Inc. • Manatee County Public Works • Marc and Tamara Schwartz • Marconi 

Pacific, LLC • Massachusetts Department of Transportation • Massachusetts 

State Police • McLean County Planning Commission (Illinois) • Mechanical Systems Company, LLC • Mecklenburg Safe Communities • MedStar Washington 

Hospital Center • Message Loud • MGA Research • Michigan State University 

• Mid-Region Council of Governments (NM) • Milt Olin Foundation • Minnesota 

Office of Traffic Safety • Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths • Mississippi Safety 

Services • Missouri Bicycle & Pedestrian Federation • Mobileye Vision Technologies Inc. • Mobility 4 All, GBC • Montana State University-Western Transportation • Monterey County Health Department • Montgomery County District 

Attorney’s Office-Texas • Montgomery County, Maryland Government-Vision • 

138 

Morgan State University • Motor Carriers of Montana • Motor Equipment and 

Manufacturers Association • Motorcycle Riders Foundation • Mount Joy Borough • Mourning Parents Act, Inc. • Muller Welding Company • Munich Reinsurance America Inc. • NAFA Fleet Management Association • Nassau Alcohol 

Crime Drug Abatement Coalition • Nassau County, FL • National/Local Technical Assistance Program Association • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (TRB) • National Advanced Driving Simulator University 

of Iowa • National Association of Attorneys General • National Association of 

City Transportation Officials (NACTO) • National Association of Counties 

(NACo) • National Association of County Engineers (NACE) • National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) • National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT) • National Association of State EMS Offi- cers • National Association of State Head Injury Administrators • National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators • National Association of 

Trailer Manufacturers (NATM) • National Association of Women Highway Safety Leaders • National Center for DWI Courts • National Center for Rural Road 

Safety at Montana State University • National Center for Safe Routes to 

School-UNC Highway Center • National Child Passenger Safety Board • National Coalition for Safer Roads • National Coalition for the Homeless • National Complete Streets Coalition/Smart Growth America • National District Attorneys Association (NOAA) • National District Attorneys Association/National 

Traffic Law • National EMS Management Association • National Fire Protection Association • National Foundation for Teen Safe Driving • National Governors Association (NGA) • National Governors Association Center for Best 

Practices • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Judicial • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Public Health • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Tribal Judicial Fellow • National Institute of Health-National Institute on Aging • National League of Cities (NLC) • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) • National Opinion Research Center at the 

University of Chicago • National Organizations for Youth Safety (NOYS) • National Safety Council-Chesapeake Region Safety Council • National Safety 

Council-Nebraska Safety Council • National Safety Council-North Dakota Safety Council • National Safety Council-Ohio Chapter • National Safety CouncilOklahoma Safety Council • National Safety Council-Safety Council of SW Ohio • National Safety Council (NSC) • National Safety Council of Northern New 

England • National Safety Council of South Carolina • National Safety Council/ 

National Child Passenger Safety Board • National Sheriffs Association • National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) • National Waste and Recycling Association • Nationwide Insurance • Naumann Hobbs Material Handling • Nauto, Inc. • NAVAIR/Military/NAS Patuxent River • Naval Safety Center • 

NavFac Bethesda • NC DWI Services • NDOT Highway Safety Office • Nebraska Bicycling Alliance • Nebraska Department of Transportation Highway 

Safety • Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS) • Nevada Highway Patrol • Nevada Office of Traffic Safety • New Mexico Department of Transportation • New Mexico DOT Traffic Safety Division • New Mexico DOT • New 

Mexico LTAP Center • New Middletown Police • New York City • New York 

City-Department of Transportation • New York City Police Department • Nexar 

• Nikhil Badlani Foundation • NJM Insurance Company • NLTAPA • NNID 

Foundation Inc. • NoCell Technology • Nonprofits Insurance Alliance Group • 

North Carolina DOT Rail Division • North Carolina Division of Public Health 

• North Central Texas Council of Governments • North Dakota Department of 

Transportation • North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority • Northeast 

Transportation Connections • Northeastern New York Safety & Health Council 

• Northeastern University • Northwest Missouri Regional Council of Governments • Northwestern Medicine • Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 

Energy, Installations and Environment • Office of the Attorney General, DC • 

Office of the Chief Judge-Circuit Court of Cook County • Office of Emergency 

Medical Services, Commonwealth of Massachusetts • Oklahoma Insurance Department • Oklahoma State University • Open Data Nation • Operation Lifesaver, Inc. • Orbcomm • Oregon Walks • Our Driving Concern Oklahoma • Our 

Driving Concern Texas • PA Trauma Systems Foundation • PACE Coalition • 

Pace Suburban Bus • Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization • Palmetto Cycling Coalition • Palouse Injury Research Laboratory-University of 

Idaho • Parachute Vision Zero Network • Paramedic Foundation • Partnership 

for Change • Patricia E. Adams, DTM • Patriot Rail Company LLC • Paul 

Shindman • Pedal Pushers, LLC • Pedestrians Educating Drivers on Safety, 

Inc. • PedNet Coalition • Pendleton County Fiscal Court/Road Dept. • PennsylVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
139 

vania DUI Association • People That Care, Inc. • Perry Township • Pete 

Stoppani Consulting LLC • Philip B Demosthenes LLC • Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) • Police Foundation • Port Vue Borough • Preco Electronics • Prevention Institute • Prince Georges County • Professor Gregory Shill • ProFrac Services, LLC • Progistics Distribution, Inc. • Promedica Hospital • Property Casualty Insurers Association of America • Protective Insurance Company • Psychemedics Corporation • Public Health Institute • Puerto Rico Safety 

Group, Inc. • Pulse by Safety F1rst • Quanta Services • R+L Carriers Inc. • RADO • Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. • Regional Transportation Commission, 

Washoe County • Remember Me • Rhode Island Department of Transportation • Rhode Island Traffic Safety Coalition • Richland County Regional Planning • Ridar Systems • Ridge Policy Group • Rimkus Consulting Group • RMT Calgary • Road Runner Media • Road Safe America • Road-iQ • Roadside Guardian • Roadway Safety Foundation • Roane County Anti-Drug Coalition • Robert 

Bosch LLC • Roberta Carlson-Total ControlTraining • Robinson Engineering 

Ltd. • Rockdale County DOT (GA) • Rockland County Department of Health 

(NY) • Rocky Mountain Tribal Epidemiology Center • Rowan University • Roy 

Jorgensen Associates • Russell Hurd • Rutgers University-CAIT • Safe Bus For 

Us • Safe Communities MDC • Safe Kids • Safe Kids Austin • Safe Kids Grand 

Forks • Safe Kids Pima County • Safe Kids Thurston County • Safe Kids Worldwide • Safe Roads Alliance • Safe States Alliance • SAFE.voyage • Safety Center Incorporated • Safety Compliance Associates • SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. • SafetySock • SafeWise • San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency • Sara’s Wish Foundation • The Sawaya Foundation • Schneider National, Inc. • Seattle & King County Department of Public Health • Seattle Neighborhood 

Greenways • Secure Your Load • Sentinel Transportation, LLC • SFARA • Shasta County Chemical People • Shenandoah Valley Bicycle Coalition • Shreya 

R. Dixit Memorial Foundation • Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition • Skilled Motorcyclist Association-Inc. • Slow Roll Chicago • Smart Growth America/National 

Complete Streets Coalition • SmartDrive Systems, Inc. • Snohomish County 

District Court • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International • Southern Alleghenies Planning & Development Commission • Southern Chester 

County Regional Police Department • Southwest Renewal Foundation of High 

Point, Inc. • Specific Range Solutions • Square One Education Network • St. 

John Trauma Center • St. Joseph Mercy Hospital-Oakland • St. Joseph, Missouri Planning Organization • St. Joseph’s University, Beirut • Stapleton Foundation • Stone County • StopDistractions.org • StopUnderrides.com • Stratacomm • StreetSafeUS • Students AgainstDestructive Decisions (SADD) • Subaru • Substance Abuse Free Environment, Inc. • Survive the Ride • SurvivetheDrive.org • Suwannee Lumber Company • Swedish Transport Administration • Syngenta • Taking Texas to Zero • Tampa Police Department • 

Tangipahoa Reshaping Attitudes for Community • TCW, Inc. • Techstring • 

Teen Safe Driving Coalition of NJ • Tenneco • Tennessee Child Passenger Safety Center • Tennessee Department of Health • Tennessee Department of Transportation • Tennessee Tech University, iCube • Texans Standing Tall • Texas 

A&M-Applied Cognitive Ergonomics Lab • Texas A&M NeuroErgonomics Laboratory • Texas A&M Transportation Institute-Transportation • Texas A&M 

University • Texas Department of Transportation • Texas Municipal Courts 

Education Center • Texas Transportation Commissioner • Thackery Group • 

The Chemours Company • The Connor Johnson Memorial Foundation • The 

Crim Fitness Foundation • The Dutch Reach Project • The Gillen Group • The 

John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers • The KDR Challenge 

• The Lance Wheeler Memorial Roadway Safety Initiative • The Lane Construction Corp. • The League of American Bicyclists • The LA County Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority • The Mitre Corporation • The Paramedic Foundation 

• The Ray • The Sandy Johnson Foundation: Making Our Roads Safer • The 

SmartDrive Foundation • The Trucking Alliance • The University of Tennessee 

Center for Transportation Research • The Wonderful Corporation • ThinkFirst 

National Injury Prevention Foundation • Thompson Driving • TOCSS FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL USA INC • Together for Safer Roads • Tom Wood 

Group • Toole Design Group • ToughLove Corporation • Town of Danville Department of Public Works • Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea • Toyota Collaborative Safety Research Center • Traffic PD • Traffic Safety Education Foundation • TransOptions • Transportation Alternatives • Transportation4 America • 

Transystems • Trauma Agency-Health Care District Palm Beach County • Travelers • Travelers Institute • Tri-County Regional Planning Commission • Truck 

Safety Coalition • Truckload Carriers Association • TrueMotion • Trumbull 

Walks • Tulare County Association of Governments • U.S. DOT-OST • U.S. 

140 

DOT-Transportation Safety • U.S. Department of Transportation-Volpe Center 

• U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT) • U.S. Department of Transportation OCIO • Uber • UFG Insurance • University Children Hospital Injury 

Prevention Center • University of Alabama-Birmingham Youth Safety Lab • 

University of Alabama Translational Research for Injury • University of British 

Columbia Sustainable Transport • UC Berkeley SafeTREC • University of California, San Diego • University of Idaho • University of Iowa Injury Prevention 

Research Center • University of Michigan Transportation Research • University 

of Minnesota-Roadway Safety Institute • University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC) • University of NM, Dept of Civil, Construction • University of 

North Florida • University of South Alabama-Transportation Safety Lab • University of Texas at San Antonio • University of Utah • Upper Dublin Township, 

OH • Upper Merion Area Community Alliance for a Safer Tomorrow • Urban 

Health Partnerships • USAA • USAF Auxiliary, CAP, Oregon Wing • USDOTOffice of the Secretary of Transportation • Utah Safety Council • Varsity Sports 

Unlimited • VB Safety Services, LLC • Velodyne LiDAR • Velvac • Vermont 

Center For Independent Living • Vermont Highway Safety Alliance • Village of 

Blanchester-Ohio • Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles/Highway Safety • 

Virginia Tech Transportation Institute • Virginia Tech, Center for Injury Biomechanics • Virginia Trucking Association • Vision Impact Institute • Vision 

Zero-NYC DOT • Vision Zero Amarillo • Vision Zero Greensboro • Vision Zero 

Network • Vision Zero Network-City of Boston • Vision Zero North Carolina • 

Vision Zero North Carolina/North Carolina State University • VOLPE CenterU.S. Department of Transportation • Volvo Trucks • VR Motion Corp. • Walk 

Boston • Walk Denver • Walk It! Bike It! Lewisburg • Walk Long Beach • Walk 

San Francisco • Washington College GIS Program • Washington Traffic Safety 

Commission • Waste Management • Waycare Technologies • Wayne State University Transportation Research Group • Waze • WCA Waste of Texas • We 

Save Lives • West Side Youth Development Coalition • WV Connecting Communities • Westat • Western Carolina University • Western Kentucky University 

• Western OK TSET Healthy Living Program • Whitehall Township • Wichita 

State University Visual Perception and Cognition Lab • Wiessinger Consulting 

LLC • Winthrop Harbor Police Department • Wiomax • Wireless Research Center of NC • Worth Township, PA • Wyoming Department of Transportation • 

Wyoming Montana Safety Council • Yakama Nation DNR Engineering • Youth 

Safety Council of Vermont • Youth Towers • Zendrive • Zero Fatalities Iowa • 

Zurich Insurance 

f 

Statement of J. Scott Marion, President-Infrastructure, Lindsay 

Corporation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Lipinski 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I read the Committee’s press release announcing today’s hearing, ‘‘Every Life Counts: Improving the Safety of our 

Nation’s Roadways,’’ with great interest and respectfully would like to submit the 

following comments for the record. 

For more than six decades, Lindsay Transportation Solutions has been dedicated 

to developing products and services that help make roads safer. Construction work 

zones are growing in number around the country. The natural aging of existing 

roadway infrastructure ensures that more and more maintenance and rehabilitation 

will be required. Our goal is to reduce traffic congestion and to improve safety 

forboth motorists and work crews through the use of innovative tools and state-ofthe-art technology. 

Work zones, by their very definition, create two major issues that must be addressed in some way:safety and mobility. In the United States, highway work zones 

are responsible for almost 25% of all non- recurring congestion and 10% of overall 

congestion. According to the National Workzone Safety Information Clearinghouse, 

there were 799 work zone-related fatalities in the U.S. in 2017—up 4.5% from the 

previous three-year average of 764. 

Vehicle accidents are more common in work zones, and traffic congestion through 

work zones on urban arterials and freeways is often considered to be ‘‘unavoidable.’’ 

Fortunately, technology is providing new solutions to these problems at an accelerated rate. By combining the best of these new technologies, agencies can effectively 

reduce injury accidents and mitigate traffic congestion through construction work 

zones. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022 

establishes DOT’s strategic goals and objectives for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 through 

141 

FY 2022. It reflects the Secretary’s priorities for achieving DOT’s mission through 

four strategic goals: 

• Safety: Reduce Transportation-Related Fatalities and Serious Injuries Across 

the TransportationSystem. 

• Infrastructure: Invest in Infrastructure to Ensure Mobility and Accessibility and 

to StimulateEconomic Growth, Productivity and Competitiveness for American 

Workers and Businesses. 

• Innovation: Lead in the Development and Deployment of Innovative Practices 

and Technologies that Improve the Safety and Performance of the Nation’s 

Transportation System. 

• Accountability: Serve the Nation with Reduced Regulatory Burden and Greater 

Efficiency,Effectiveness and Accountability. 

As you and your colleagues work to repair America’s infrastructure during a time 

where our roads, bridges and other infrastructure are desperately in need of investment, we must be creative and innovative in addressing these needs in ways that 

allow every tax dollar to be spent more efficiently andeffectively and still meet the 

Secretary’s priorities for achieving DOT’s mission through the fourstrategic goals 

outlined in the DOT’s Strategic Plan. 

The utilization of innovative technologies that help manage lanes and construction applications tocreate ‘‘Safe, Dynamic Highways’’ offering real-time roadway reconfiguration while maintaining positive barrier protection between lanes can assist 

in meeting the strategic goals outlined in the DOT’s Strategic Plan. For instance, 

to reduce worker exposure, moveable barrier installations can becombined with 

automated traffic control technology. At the push of a button, traffic advisory signs 

and lane closure gates can be activated to channel road users into the current lane 

configuration. 

These automated control systems can be operated onsite or remotely, or they can 

be combined with real-time intelligent traffic data that can analyze traffic patterns 

to determine the best times to reconfigure the roadway. Data from the cloud is sent 

to automated traffic control as well as the moveable barrier system operators to 

keep traffic congestion and road closure confusion to a minimum through the work 

zone. Together, these new technologies will create safer, less congested work zone environments for motorists and provide greater safety for workers by decreasing exposure to vehicles and removing confusion from lane configuration changes. 

We welcome the opportunity to work with you and your staff as you begin to consider the scope and reach of an infrastructure bill and we strongly urge the committee to consider the role that innovative technologies, like moveable barriers, can 

play in assisting Congress in addressing roadway improvements and congestion 

while improving the safety of our nation’s roadways. 

f 

Letters from the Coalition for Future Mobility, Submitted for the Record 

by Hon. Graves of Missouri 

APRIL 10, 2019. 

Hon. PETER A. DEFAZIO

Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515 

Hon. SAM GRAVES

Ranking Member, Transportation and Infrastructure, 2164 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 

Hon. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

Chair, Highways and Transit, 2136 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20515 

Hon. RODNEY DAVIS

Ranking Member, Highways and Transit, 1740 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515 

CHAIRMAN DEFAZIO, RANKING MEMBER GRAVES, CHAIR NORTON, AND RANKING

MEMBER DAVIS: 

In 2017, more than 37,000 lives were lost on U.S. roadways, including approximately 6,000 pedestrians. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 94% of all vehicle crashes—including the crashes that take the lives of 

roadway users—are due to human choice or error. 

The Coalition for Future Mobility (CFM), a diverse, multi-stakeholder group representing auto manufacturers, suppliers, repairers, technology and communications 

companies, mobility providers, state and city governments, safety and national secuVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
142 

rity groups, consumers, seniors, persons with disabilities, and others, writes to underscore the critical role automated vehicles (AVs) could play in helping to reduce 

the number of crashes and lives lost due human choice or error. 

Current federal safety programs focus primarily on behavior—such as incentives 

to states to increase seat belt use, as well as educating the public about drunk driving or resources to increases enforcement programs, which were established before 

AV safety technologies were created. We hope that the details uncovered at this 

hearing serve as a reminder that the status quo of primarily working to support 

driver behavioral programs alone cannot be expected to eliminate or substantially 

reduce roadway crashes and fatalities. We encourage you to support legislation and 

regulatory updates that help to promote safety technologies—including automated 

vehicle technologies as a way to lessen the more than 37,000 fatalities on our nation’s roadways. 

Further information on the potential benefits of AV technology and bipartisan AV 

legislation can be found on the attached letter that our coalition sent to all Members 

of Congress on February 26, 2019. We at CFM look forward to working with you 

to help improve safety by lessening the loss of life on U.S. roadways. 

THE COALITION FOR FUTURE MOBILITY

Enclosure 

ENCLOSURE—LETTER FROM THE COALITION FOR FUTURE MOBILITY SENT TO CONGRESS

ON FEBRUARY 26, 2019

FEBRUARY 26, 2019. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI

Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, H-232, The Capitol, Washington, DC 20515 

Hon. KEVIN MCCARTHY

Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, H-204, The Capitol, Washington, DC 

20515 

Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL

Majority Leader, United States Senate, S-230, The Capitol, Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER

Minority Leader, United States Senate, S-221, The Capitol, Washington, DC 20510 

SPEAKER PELOSI, MINORITY LEADER MCCARTHY, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER

MCCONNELL, AND MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: 

Roughly two years ago, the Coalition for Future Mobility—a group of key stakeholders that represents a wide cross section of auto manufacturers, suppliers, repairers, technology companies, mobility providers, state and local governments, safety and national security groups, consumers, seniors, and persons with disabilities— 

was created to highlight the critical need for a federal framework that allows for 

the safe development, testing, and deployment of automated vehicles (AVs) here in 

the United States. We write to thank those Members of Congress who were involved 

in working to pass AV legislation in the 115th Congress and urge you to continue 

those efforts this year. Without question, Congress is uniquely suited to help provide 

greater clarity regarding both state and federal authorities that can help when it 

comes to the safe testing, development, and deployment of AV technologies. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has found that 

human choice or error is a factor in approximately 94% of all motor vehicle crashes 

on U.S. roads—crashes that took the lives of over 37,000 men, women, and children 

in 2017. By facilitating technology that can potentially eliminate these bad choices 

and unintentional errors, we can help prevent many crashes from happening and 

dramatically reduce injuries and fatalities on our roadways. 

While safety is a critical component in the drive for the development of AVs, these 

vehicles can also provide life-changing opportunities for those who are not adequately served by current mobility options, such as seniors, persons with disabilities, and those who require more affordable transportation. Further, the benefits 

of these vehicles extend to other roadway users. Large-scale AV implementation 

could also mean less congestion and greater efficiency on our roads. 

Last Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate recognized the 

importance of providing a federal framework for AVs. The House of Representatives 

passed the bipartisan SELF DRIVE Act (H.R. 3388) without a vote in opposition. 

Shortly after the House acted, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation unanimously passed similar legislation. In spite of strong, bipartisan 

support, legislation was unable to receive floor consideration in the Senate. Our coalition encourages you and your colleagues to redouble your efforts to move forward 

with legislation that will help improve safety, provide a tech-neutral path forward 

143 

1https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0016.pdf 

2 Ibid 

for private industry to innovate, and ensure clarity for regulators at all levels of government. 

The status quo should not be acceptable. Recognizing the potential of this technology to positively impact millions of Americans, we urge you to support a federal 

AV framework this Congress. Our Coalition members stand ready to work with you. 

3M • 60 Plus • Alliance for Transportation Innovation • Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers • American Council of the Blind • American Highway Users Alliance • American Network of Community Options and Resources • Americans for 

Tax Reform • Aptiv • Argo AI, LLC • Aurora • Automotive Service Association 

• Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International • Association of 

Global Automakers • Competitive Enterprise Institute • CTIA • Digital Liberty 

• Harman • Mobileye • Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association • Narcolepsy Network • National Association of Manufacturers • National Cued Speech 

Association • National Federation of the Blind • National Taxpayers Union • 

R Street Institute • Securing America’s Future Energy • Segs4Vets • Telecommunications Industry Association • Third Way • U.S. Pan Asian American 

Chamber of Commerce • U.S. Tire Manufacturers • Via • What3Words • Wine 

& Spirits Wholesalers of America 

cc: All Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senators 

f 

Statement of Benjamin Harvey, President, E.L. Harvey & Sons Inc., on behalf of the National Waste and Recycling Association, Submitted for the 

Record by Hon. Graves of Missouri 

Good morning, Chairman Holmes Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members 

of the Committee. My name is Benjamin Harvey and I am the President of E. L. 

Harvey & Sons Inc. located in Westborough, Mass. E. L. Harvey & Sons is a fullservice waste and recycling firm that provides services for commercial and industrial corporations and municipalities throughout eastern Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine. My company is a member of the National 

Waste & Recycling Association, also known as NWRA, which I am representing before the committee today in my capacity as the association’s chairman. 

NWRA is the voice in the nation’s capital for the private-sector waste and recycling industry that is essential to maintaining the quality of American life. The delivery of waste and recycling services impacts all residential, commercial, and industrial properties on a daily basis. Apart from the U.S. Postal Service, the waste and 

recycling industry is one of the few, if not the only other, that travels on every roadway in the country at least once each week. 

Association members operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia and can 

be found in most, if not all, U.S. congressional districts. Waste and recycling facilities number nearly 18,000 scattered throughout the U.S., mirroring population centers. Our nearly 700 members are a mix of publicly-traded and privately-owned 

local, regional, and Fortune 500 national and international companies. 

The industry directly employs about 420,000 people as of early 2018 with a total 

payroll of more than $21 billion. It is estimated that the private sector waste and 

recycling industry accounts for over one million jobs and generates nearly a quarter 

of a trillion dollars in U.S. GDP. 

Tens of thousands of these hard-working men and women in the waste and recycling industry become vulnerable road users everyday as part of their job. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has named the waste and recycling collector as the 

fifth most dangerous occupation (2018).1 In 2017, ‘‘Waste and Recycling’’ had 33 fatalities, of which 23 were transportation related.2

Safety is the number one value for the waste and recycling industry. The goal 

each day is for every worker and driver to go home safely at the end of their shifts, 

without a crash, injury or fatality. Our work is focused on making collection, processing, and disposal operations less dangerous by encouraging safety training as 

well as providing assistance in complying with regulations and company safety rules 

and policies. 

Despite these industry efforts, distracted driving by motorists with whom we 

share the road puts waste and recycling drivers and workers at risk every day. 

Many of the transportation related fatalities were caused by inattentive or distracted drivers who failed to yield to waste and recycling collection vehicles. Most 

144 

of the time, the danger is the same as that experienced by police officers, fire fighters, and tow truck drivers who are stopped along the side of the road. 

The private sector of the waste and recycling industry has a commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV) fleet of more than 100,000 collection trucks and an even greater number of CMV Drivers. These trucks are primarily Heavy-Duty Vehicles as defined by 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with a GVWR of more than 26,000 

pounds. The industry’s fleet includes, but is not limited to, waste and recycling collection trucks, roll-off trucks, post collection tractor trailers, container delivery, and 

grapple trucks. 

The waste (garbage, trash, solid waste) and recycling (paper, plastic, aluminum, 

metal, compost) collection trucks that service nearly every American household and 

business are the most recognized part of the industry’s fleet. Although waste and 

recycling collection trucks are virtually identical in most respects, they are significantly different in the means by which the material is emptied into the cargo area 

(e.g. rear-, front-, automated side-load, etc.). 

According to FHWA’s 2016 Freight Quick Facts Report, ‘‘Waste/Scrap’’ is the tenth 

largest commodity by tonnage shipped in the U.S. The industry’s truck operations 

moved 92 percent of the 652.9 million tons transported by all modes in 2015. 

Assuming that two-thirds of the industry’s trucks are in use on any given workday, that means approximately 70,000 workers are exposed to dangerous driving situations, such as distracted driving, each workday. 

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), distracted driving is ‘‘any activity that diverts attention from driving, including talking 

or texting on your phone, eating and drinking, talking to people in your vehicle, fiddling with the stereo, entertainment or navigation system-anything that takes your 

attention away from the task of safe driving.’’ It is estimated that during daylight 

hours approximately 481,000 drivers are using handheld cell phones while driving, 

creating significant potential for injury or death. 

NHTSA reports that 3,450 people were killed by distracted drivers in 2016 and 

562 of these fatalities were not occupants of a vehicle but rather pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and others including waste and recycling industry employees. In 2015, 

distracted drivers were responsible for 391,000 injuries in motor vehicle crashes. 

Teens were the largest age group reported as distracted at the time of fatal crashes. 

Driving requires the full attention of motorists. Texting in particular poses a danger since sending or reading a text takes one’s eyes off the road for an average of 

4.6 seconds. Traveling at 55 MPH while texting is the equivalent of driving the 

length of a football field with your eyes closed. 

NHTSA is engaged in several efforts to educate Americans about the dangers of 

distracted driving including public service announcements, social media campaigns, 

‘‘Distracted Driving Awareness Month’’ every April, and partnerships with state and 

local police departments to enforce laws against distracted driving. 

These law enforcement officials are also undertaking the difficult task of enhanced 

enforcement of distracted driving laws. This is complicated by the need to observe 

the offense before making a traffic stop since, unlike with impaired driving, the prohibited behavior has typically ended once a driver is pulled over. 

So far, 23 states have enacted ‘‘Move Over’’ laws that cover waste and recycling 

workers. The statutes vary from state to state, but the laws generally require drivers to slow down and yield to collection vehicles, especially when the operator is 

emptying a cart or walking back to the truck. ‘‘Move Over’’ laws are saving lives 

by requiring drivers to exercise caution and avoid distractions when they are approaching a collection truck. 

NWRA has been at the forefront of efforts to expand state ‘‘Move Over’’ laws to 

include ‘‘amber lighted vehicles’’ such as waste and recycling, tow trucks, and other 

similar industries. However, these laws are only effective if the motoring public 

knows about and law enforcement enforces them. 

A 2014 incident in central Florida involving an NWRA-member company is a perfect example. One of their collection workers was injured by a car and the law enforcement officer did not issue a citation to the driver of the vehicle, despite Florida’s recently expanded ‘‘Move Over’’ law. When the company’s safety director asked 

for the ‘‘Move Over’’ law to be invoked, the officer stated he did not know about the 

statute, nor did the command staff of that department. This shows the need to educate both law enforcement and the public about the necessity to move over as well 

as the consequences of not moving over. NWRA is confident that this situation is 

not an isolated event. 

NWRA urges Congress to use federal infrastructure legislation or surface transportation appropriations as a vehicle to enact incentives for states to adopt ‘‘Move 

Over’’ laws that include waste and recycling collection workers similar to the incentives it uses to encourage states to set and keep their legal drinking age at 21 years 

145 

old. This is an opportunity for Congress to make a real difference in improving safety with minimal effort and no additional cost. 

Thank you for your consideration of our position. We look forward to working with 

the committee to improve the safety of our nation’s highways. I will be happy to 

respond to any questions that you may have. 

(147) 

APPENDIX

QUESTIONS FROM HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO FOR HON. JENNIFER HOMENDY, MEMBER, 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Each of your testimonies highlight the dangers of speeding, which increases the 

likelihood of a crash and the severity of injuries sustained, and nearly guarantees 

pedestrian death at 40 miles per hour. Mr. Bruemmer, you share your own 

harrowing story of nearly being struck by a truck in a work zone. 

Member Homendy, you cite Federal Highway Administration guidance which emphasizes that States and localities ‘‘set speed limits within 5 miles per hour of which 

85 percent of vehicle are traveling’’, known as the 85th percentile rule. This has led 

to a situation where in 2016, 41 States had maximum speed limits at or above 70 

miles per hour, and 7 of those States were at or above 80 miles per hour. 

Question 1. Can you comment further on NTSB’s recommendation to move away 

from this 85th percentile approach? 

ANSWER. The NTSB recommends that the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) ‘‘revise Section 2B.13 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices so 

that the factors currently listed as optional for all engineering studies are required, 

require that an expert system such as USLIMITS2 be used as a validation tool, and 

remove the guidance that speed limits in speed zones should be within 5 mph of 

the 85th percentile speed’’ (H-17-27). 

The intent of this recommendation is to de-emphasize the use of the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is obtained by conducting an engineering 

study of ideal traffic flows unaffected by inclement weather or traffic congestion. 

The use of the 85th percentile speed assumes that the majority of drivers are capable of selecting appropriate speeds according to weather conditions, traffic, road geometry, and roadside development, and that they operate at reasonable and prudent 

speeds. Because the research that provided the strongest empirical support of the 

use of the 85th percentile speed is dated (having been conducted in the late 1950s) 

and was conducted only on 2- and 4-lane rural highways, it is unclear whether the 

85th percentile speed equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate 

on all road types, such as those in cities. Heavily populated urban areas typically 

have higher numbers of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Research has clearly shown that these road users have little chance of surviving a 

collision with a motor vehicle traveling at high speed. 

Additionally, the use of the 85th percentile speed has resulted in increasing speed 

limits among states. For example, the Texas Transportation Code states that the 

speed limit for certain roads is 70 miles per hour (mph). To increase speed limits, 

Texas requires an engineering study that follows the Texas Department of Transportation’s ‘‘Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones,’’ which emphasize the 85th 

percentile speed. Over time, speed limits in Texas have increased from 70 mph to 

85 mph, the highest posted speed limit in the United States. In 2012, 35 states had 

a maximum speed limit of 70 mph, with Texas and Utah at or above 80 mph. Just 

4 years later, in 2016, 41 states had a maximum speed limit of 70 mph, with 7 

states at or above 80 mph. 

Therefore, although assessing roadway operating speed remains important, a 

more balanced approach to setting speed limits that also considers the vulnerability 

of pedestrians and bicyclists and crash experience should replace the one that primarily favors vehicular traffic. 

Question 2. What policies should Congress look at to reduce speeding? Do you 

think this can be achieved through education and enforcement alone, or do we also 

need to look at road design has to slow people down in many contexts? 

ANSWER. One of the items on the NTSB’s 2019-2020 Most Wanted List addresses 

speeding by calling for lawmakers, industry, and every American to work together 

to ‘‘implement a comprehensive strategy to reduce speeding-related crashes.’’ 

148 

Through research and accident investigations, the NTSB has identified proven countermeasures that must be used broadly to reduce speeding-related crashes. These 

countermeasures include automated enforcement technology, education campaigns, 

vehicle technology, and infrastructure design. The NTSB urges Congress to consider 

actions that (1) encourage data-driven speed enforcement that may include both traditional and automated enforcement technology; (2) urge NHTSA and the FHWA to 

update and promote best practices for implementing automated speed enforcement; 

(3) push for social change that makes speeding culturally unacceptable; (4) accelerate the development of performance standards for and industry adoption of advanced speed-limiting technology for heavy vehicles such as trucks, buses, and 

motorcoaches; (5) create incentive mechanisms to increase adoption of speed-limiting 

technology for passenger vehicles; (6) emphasize a complete street policy that encourages roadway designs that slow drivers down to the safe speed, such as using 

road diets, lane narrowing, and curve reconfiguration. Reducing speeding-related fatalities and injuries must include all countermeasures, including road design, education, and enforcement. 

Attached is a list of NTSB recommendations that, if implemented, would reduce 

speeding-related crashes and save lives. These recommendations supplement our 

Most Wanted List issue item regarding speeding. The NTSB urges Congress to consider them when developing legislation. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. FREDERICA S. WILSON FOR HON. JENNIFER HOMENDY, 

MEMBER, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Member Homendy, congratulations on your appointment to the NTSB. I look forward to working with you. 

As you know, in 2017, 26 percent of crashes involved at least one speeding driver. 

Speeding is a major contributor to fatal accidents in Florida and throughout the nation. In your testimony, you called for ‘‘increased leadership and attention’’ to speeding on the national level. 

Question 3. What are some actions this Congress can take to ensure that speeding 

is being prioritized at a level that reflects its role in fatal accidents? 

ANSWER. In interviews the NTSB has conducted, national, state, and local traffic 

safety stakeholders repeatedly mentioned that—unlike other crash factors such as 

alcohol impairment or unbelted occupants—speeding is associated with few negative 

social consequences, and it does not have a leader campaigning to increase public 

awareness about the issue at the national level. Stakeholders further stated that 

they thought the dangers of speeding are not well-publicized, and that society therefore underappreciates the risks of speeding. The resulting complacency among drivers has led to speeding becoming a common behavior, even though surveys indicate 

that drivers generally disapprove of other drivers speeding. Stakeholders also expressed the belief that, to gradually change public perceptions of speeding, safety 

advocacy groups must launch a coordinated effort, with strong leadership from the 

federal government. 

We have recommended several actions that can be taken at the national level, including implementing an ongoing program to increase public awareness of speeding 

as a national traffic safety issue, including an annual enforcement mobilization; establishing programs to incentivize state and local speed management activities, for 

example via federal-aid programs such as the National Priority Safety Program; and 

prioritizing and promoting federal transportation agency efforts to address speeding, 

such as the work coordinated by the DOT’s multiagency Speed Management Team. 

Attached is a list of our recommendations to reduce speeding-related crashes. 

These recommendations supplement this issue area on our 2019-2020 Most Wanted 

List. We urge Congress to consider them when developing future legislation. 

Speeding 

Member Homendy, in your testimony, you highlight the glaring fact that neither the 

Highway Safety Program nor the National Priority Safety Program truly incentivize 

states to address the issue of speeding. You also mentioned that stakeholders cited 

the lack of a national traffic safety campaign as a key hindrance to increasing public 

awareness. 

Question 4. Can you describe what an effective campaign should include? 

ANSWER. An effective campaign to address speeding should be informed by the 

successes of other highway safety campaigns, such as the long-running ‘‘Click It or 

Ticket’’ national campaign to increase seat belt usage. ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ includes 

an annual high-visibility enforcement mobilization, a robust communications strategy at the national and state levels, legislated incentives to encourage high participation among the states, and dedicated funding. Research has shown that the comVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
149 

munications component of a traffic safety campaign increases safety benefits; by 

using consistent messaging over many years, 85% of the public recognizes the ‘‘Click 

It or Ticket’’ slogan, according to NHTSA surveys. 

Pedestrian fatalities 

Member Homendy, I was pleased to learn that NTSB investigated the recent increase of pedestrians killed in highway crashes. Your investigation found that pedestrian deaths now account for almost one in six highway fatalities. 

Question 5. Why are pedestrian deaths so much higher now than they were a decade ago? 

ANSWER. In 2008, 4,414 pedestrians died in traffic crashes, representing 12% of 

all traffic fatalities. In 2017, almost 6,000 pedestrians were killed, comprising 16% 

of all traffic deaths (based on NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts). There can be a multitude of reasons, and no single factor is causing the substantial increase over the 

last 10 years. One key ingredient is the rapid increase in urban population. In 2008, 

72% of pedestrian deaths occurred in urban areas. In 2017, the percentage reached 

80%. Pedestrians and motor vehicles are interacting more in our cities. Because 

most roadways were designed in an era where vehicular traffic took precedence, 

moving vehicles from one place to another quickly was favored over the needs of 

other users, such as pedestrians. Many multilane arterial roadways with high speed 

limits still snake through our highly populated cities, which is why managing speed 

is key to tackling pedestrian safety. This requires an integrated approach that includes lowering speed limits, enforcement, education, and road design. Many cities 

lack adequate pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. Pedestrian 

crashes also appear to be getting deadlier, with deaths per 100 crashes increasing 

by 29 percent in the last decade (IIHS, 2018). This increase may be the result of 

changes to the vehicle fleet (for example, more SUVs). In addition, factors like distraction and impairment continue to affect pedestrians and drivers. Accordingly, we 

have issued recommendations to address vehicle design, roadway design, vehicle 

speed, impairment, and distraction. 

QUESTION FROM HON. BRIAN BABIN FOR HON. JENNIFER HOMENDY, MEMBER, 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Question 6. During the hearing, Member Homendy committed to providing a response to Representative Babin’s question asked at the hearing: In your experience 

with the NTSB, have you seen a correlation between improving roadway safety and 

updating existing roads (US/state highways) in order to meet the Interstate standards and grades? 

ANSWER. NTSB believes that both new and redesigned highways should be built 

to the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

and Federal Highway Administration standards in order to incorporate the best 

available safety technology. Whenever a jurisdiction brings a roadway up to current 

design standards the result should be an improvement to the safety of the facility 

because it is using the latest in barriers, signage and a current evaluation of geometric design (in regard to the speed limit). In its investigation of a 2003 highway 

crash in Hewitt, Texas, we found that the highway (I-35) has been expanded from 

a US/state highway to an Interstate, but the roadway was not upgraded to meet 

Interstate standards. In that case, the correlation between improving roadway safety and updating existing roads (US/state highways) in order to meet the Interstate 

standards and grades was not done. Our investigation cited the poor roadway conditions and inadequate stopping sight distances on I-35 in its determination of the 

probable cause for that crash. 

150 

ATTACHMENT—NTSB RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE SPEEDING-RELATED CRASHES


P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\homendy1.eps
151 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO FOR HON. FRED JONES, VICE MAYOR, CITY

OF NEPTUNE BEACH, FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA

Mr. Jones, your testimony notes that the performance metrics established by Congress in MAP-21 allows States to set their own priorities and targets. States are 

considered in compliance with performance management requirements as long as 

they are tracking a particular metric—States do not have to make progress or improve their performance over time. Your testimony reports that in 2017, 18 States 

set safety performance targets that were worse in terms of fatalities than the previous year. 

Question 1. Do you support stronger accountability under the performance management system, to actually require States to demonstrate improvement in a parVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN

P:\Hearings\116\HT\4-9-2019_36978\homendy2.eps
152 

ticular metric? Would you support a requirement to shift more funds to build infrastructure projects that reduce fatalities for any State that does not set, or does not 

meet, a target that is an actual safety improvement? 

ANSWER. Yes. While States were granted the flexibility and discretion to set priorities and report their results under the current FHWA performance management 

system, enabling negative safety targets should be prohibited. In 2017, eighteen 

states established targets resulting in more bicyclist and pedestrian deaths on their 

facilities. If the States are to be held to a higher standard of accountability with 

respect to safety measures, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists, any State 

that does not set, or does not meet, such targets beyond reasonable control, may receive less funding for traditional, capacity-based projects or have their allocated 

funds redirected to safety and complete street projects. 

Additionally, we would like to see greater emphasis and reliance on other nontraditional roadway performance metrics such as community and economic development, job creation, health impacts, and resiliency over the conventional use of roadway capacity, level-of-service and delay as the primary metrics for funding and 

prioritization. This is particularly for States and communities planning and constructing more complete streets and multimodal infrastructure. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. FREDERICA S. WILSON FOR HON. FRED JONES, VICE MAYOR, 

CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH, FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA

Mr. Jones, your testimony notes that the performance metrics established by Congress in MAP-21 allows states to set their own priorities and targets. States are considered in compliance with performance management requirements as long as they 

are tracking a particular metric; they do not have to make progress or improve their 

performance over time. Your testimony reports that in 2017, 18 states set safety 

performance targets that were worse in terms of fatalities than the previous year. 

Question 2. Do you support greater accountability under the performance management system to actually require states to demonstrate improvement in a particular 

metric? 

ANSWER. Yes. Our transportation agencies’ top priority should be safety. We cannot claim that safety is a priority if we are willing to tolerate safety targets—actual 

goals—for our roads to get less safe. And our current program tolerates just that. 

Why is that? Because we understand that there are many priorities that need to 

be addressed, and as a matter of policy Congress has been comfortable if transportation agencies place other priorities above safety. But this should not be the case. 

In the aviation industry, planes are grounded in order to protect safety. Safety is 

a goal placed above economics and convenience. Likewise, safety should be the top 

priority in surface transportation, and that priority should be clear in our program 

spending so long as there are preventable crashes occurring on our roadways. 

There is no world in which we will ever have enough money to address everything 

that needs to be addressed on our transportation system. That means we have to 

set priorities. And safety should always be the top one. 

Local Choice 

Mr. Jones, your testimony provides some good examples of complete streets projects, 

but also describes what happens when a state DOT does not want to or feels it does 

not have flexibility with federal funds to pursue a complete streets approach or 

other design enhancement. The committee has heard from local government stakeholders in past hearings that greater control over project choice at the local government level would help bring about projects in communities that are perhaps not the 

priority of the state DOT. 

Question 3. If Congress expanded the role of local governments in programming 

federal transportation funding, and you had greater direct control over how federal 

funds are spent in your community, do you believe this would result in a different 

range of projects than when the decision making is controlled by Florida DOT? 

ANSWER. Yes and that is because state governments have typically overlooked the 

local trip in spite of the fact that most trips are local. State departments of transportation were formed to build highways that connect cities and towns while the 

locals have had the responsibility of moving people around that city or town. Also 

while state departments of transportation have responsibility for roads, the cities 

are not just trying to move people around but are also trying to create great places 

and create high quality of life. In the case of Florida, if local governments had more 

control and decision-making on FDOT facilities, they would likely support different 

ranges of projects that promote placemaking and quality of life over vehicular 

throughput, such as reducing speeds, lane widths, or reallocating travel lanes for 

other travel modes or community spaces. 

153 

Bringing more voices into the program can only generate more diversity in terms 

of the challenges we are trying to address and how we address them. 

Mr. Jones, you state in your testimony that ‘‘We have a cure’’ for reducing trafficrelated fatalities, ‘‘But for whatever reasons, we just don’t want to use it.’’ 

Question 4. What are some of the ‘‘cures’’ New York and San Francisco implemented that decreased traffic fatalities by 28 and 41 percent, respectively? What are 

some of the solutions that were specific to pedestrians? 

ANSWER. Both cities slowed down traffic speeds. Mistakes are inevitable with humans. But mistakes turn more deadly for people in and outside a car the faster cars 

are going. True ‘‘Vision Zero’’ cities are lowering speed limits, slimming down lanes, 

and taking other steps to slow down traffic. There should be an expectation that 

when a driver arrives in a town or city that they slow down in order to create a 

safe environment and to create a great place to spend time in. Other strategies that 

help are shorter and more visible crossings for pedestrians and bringing front doors 

for houses and businesses along the road to the sidewalk, creating a canopy that 

makes the area more comfortable for pedestrians and encourages drivers to slow 

down. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON FOR MICHAEL L. BROWN, CHIEF

OF POLICE, ALEXANDRIA (VIRGINIA) POLICE DEPARTMENT

Chief Brown, your testimony calls for a ‘‘national narrative’’ on the importance of 

traffic safety and committing the resources to carry it out. You note that this would 

help law enforcement across the nation unite behind traffic safety, much like the 

response to homeland security efforts following 9/11 and more recently the opioid 

crisis. You state ‘‘what is missing today for law enforcement is the commitment to 

making traffic safety a high priority for our nation.’’ 

Question 1. What can Congress do to promote this national narrative and to demonstrate the Federal commitment improving safety on our roads? 

ANSWER. The first step to changing the national narrative on traffic safety would 

be to raise the level of awareness and driving home the negative consequences of 

both traffic deaths and injuries. The message should be sufficiently powerful to 

demonstrate the costs to, not only to those involved in crashes, but also to their families, friends, employers, and the nation as a whole. These costs are more than just 

dollars. There can also be quality of life implications that can last a lifetime, e.g.; 

permanent disability. 

Practically all of the crashes are preventable and predictable. They are caused by 

poor choices made by individuals that are sharing our roadways. The message 

should be broad enough to capture the attention of everyone as a quality of life issue 

in our communities. The current traffic safety messages are good but they focus on 

individual problems. The ultimate message should transmit a message that this is 

indeed a public health crisis. 

Aside from the message, Congress can make a more dramatic impact through the 

reauthorization. The reauthorization should provide more flexibility in for law enforcement to address traffic safety issues in their local communities. As I mentioned 

during the hearing, the issues raised in prior reauthorizations are important but 

they may not be the highest priority in every community. The new reauthorization 

could continue to highlight the prior focus areas but it should also provide more 

flexibility and support for enforcement on the issues that might be facing the communities law enforcement serves. This can be accomplished by setting up an adjusted program providing less restrictive guidance to the states to deliver the assets 

or funding to law enforcement. Issues like speeding, right of way violations, jaywalking, and similar, often overlooked but important community issues can be addressed. 

The design of a traffic safety enforcement program must also recognize that officers will make stops for issues based upon what they see as a legitimate and important violation. When making a traffic stop officers often find other issues relevant 

to traffic safety. For example, an officer stopping a speeding vehicle may ultimately 

detect an impaired driver, a driver on a cell phone, or someone not wearing a seatbelt. 

Additionally, the practice of ‘‘counting tickets’’ should be avoided in grant activity 

reports. Citations are but one means of measuring activity and finding teachable 

moments for those on the road. Sometimes, a verbal warning can be just as effective. Counting tickets can also have a chilling effect on officer engagement and may 

even depress the level of engagement that is being sought. 

The guidance to the state highway safety offices needs to be more specific otherwise it creates the opportunity for differing interpretations in developing projects. 

These interpretations may also be too restrictive and may result in fewer grant apVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
154 

plications or lower levels of officer engagement. Past authorizations have frequently 

resulted in different interpretations by federal and state officials which can discourage law enforcement participation especially when law enforcement is interested in 

enforcing local traffic safety issues. Another approach to consider might be a direct 

appropriation to law enforcement agencies that are interested in working on traffic 

safety in their community. This would reduce the influence of interpretation issues. 

Finally, if this is to be serious effort to improve traffic safety it must be accompanied by a substantial increase in funding designed to address local traffic issues. 

The past reauthorizations have focused on a select group of important issues. More 

funding for local traffic issues needs to be included to encourage participation in a 

comprehensive national traffic safety effort. As I mentioned in my testimony, the capacity of law enforcement is already taxed in most communities with non-traffic related issues. The use of overtime grants has been the traditional approaches applied 

to increase this capacity and this should be continued. However, not every agency 

can use this approach. It might useful to consider adding traffic safety officer positions to those agencies that can justify an extreme lack of capacity. 

Chief Brown, you mention in your testimony that you support expansion of automated speed enforcement, granted that it is used for public safety purposes and not 

revenue generation. I believe many constituents oppose automated speed enforcement technologies because they assume that revenue would be the real motive behind it. 

Question 2. How can we implement automated enforcement in a way which eases 

these concerns? 

ANSWER. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed a considerations document which outlines many of the steps law enforcement should consider when looking at automated enforcement. The NHTSA document focuses on problem identification needs to promote the legitimacy of the enforcement efforts and the proper use of the technology that is used. 

Another issue of some concern in the public’s perspective is whether or not the 

fines that result from this enforcement are a revenue source. NHTSA addresses this 

issue in its document but it does not specifically address what a non-law enforcement agency may feel about these fines. Too often, the fine revenue becomes a fiscal 

revenue stream for communities which feeds the narrative that citations are issued 

to ease fiscal concerns. Whatever is being considered at the local level the local government and law enforcement agencies should consider all of these issues and the 

NHTSA guidance is helpful. 

The use of automated enforcement on a national level will not be possible without 

encouraging or incentivizing state efforts to adopt legislation that enables this type 

of enforcement. Automated enforcement is not available in every state or community 

and its implementation is often inconsistent. This inconsistency does not help with 

public acceptance. The new authorization could and should address this issue so 

more agencies can employ automated enforcement technology at the local level 

across the nation in a consistent manner. 

Finally, there should funding to further develop technology to address other traffic 

safety issues. Currently, there is a focus on running red lights and speeding issues. 

There should also be challenge to develop technology to identify other traffic safety 

violations, (e.g.; jaywalking, cell phone use, failure to yield conditions), especially 

with the emerging technological systems being placed on our roadways and in our 

vehicles. 

Overall, automated enforcement could prove to further enhance compliance with 

traffic safety laws by increasing the public’s perception that violations may be discovered through the use of this technology. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON FOR JAY BRUEMMER, VICE PRESIDENT, K&G STRIPING, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICES ASSOCIATION

Mr. Bruemmer, one of the solutions to addressing the dangerousness of work zones 

is work zone project management software, and you note that it has been employed 

by the District of Columbia. 

Question 1. Can you provide more detail on how this system worked and tell us 

whether there are any other places you’re aware of that are using similar methods? 

If not, how can we help promote its adoption in other cities? 

ANSWER. In responding to your written question regarding the smarter work zone 

application in Washington, DC, I wanted to point you and the Subcommittee staff 

to ATSSA’s innovation website which is focused on educating departments of transVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:42 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\4-9-20~1\36978.TXT JEAN
155 

1 ATSSA Innovation Website—http://innovate.atssa.com/innovative-technology-by-state.html 

2Washington, DC case study on project coordination—https://www.workzonesafety.org/files/ 

documents/SWZ/DClPClcaselstudy.pdf 3Guide to Project Coordination for Minimizing Work Zone Mobility Impacts—https:// 

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16013/index.htm 4Project coordination repository—https://www.workzonesafety.org/swz/swzproject-coordination/ 

outreach/ 

portation and public works agencies on the opportunities that exist for smarter work 

zones and innovative roadway safety countermeasures generally.1

Additionally, I have attached the case study publication entitled, Smarter Work 

Zones: Project Coordination and Technology Applications. This publication is focused 

on various applications of smarter work zones across the nation, including the application in Washington, DC.2 Project coordination is a focus for departments of transportation (DOTs) around the country. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

created a Guide to Project Coordination for Minimizing Work Zone Mobility Impacts, 

which helps DOTs utilize project coordination in their planning and execution.3

Finally, there is additional information on project coordination efforts around the 

country, including case studies.4 Local transportation agencies rely on state DOTs 

and ultimately FHWA to incorporate new technology into projects and provide best 

practices. FHWA is in the process of developing systems to update their specifications to keep pace with emerging innovation through an update to the Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). We encourage Congress to provide 

FHWA the resources to promote adoption of this and other new life-saving roadway 

safety infrastructure countermeasures. As for the Washington, DC-specific example, 

upon further conversations with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), 

DDOT indicated difficulties in moving the project forward due to continuous software maintenance upgrades. That said, project coordination, in general, is important part of work zone safety, and it underscores the need to have guidelines and 

systems in place to keep up with ever-evolving technology. 

ATTACHMENT—CASE STUDY PUBLICATION ENTITLED ‘‘SMARTER WORK ZONES: PROJECT

COORDINATION AND TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS’’ 

[The case study publication is retained in committee files.] 

QUESTION FROM HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO FOR NICHOLAS J. SMITH, INTERIM

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL

Mr. Smith, your testimony raises the specter of the FCC reneging on its initial decision to preserve a small piece of bandwidth for connected vehicles to communicate 

critical safety information with high speed and accuracy. Today, big telecomm wants 

to share the spectrum despite the lack of studies that guarantee their transmission 

will not interfere with vehicle to vehicle communication that will save lives. 

Question 1. Should this committee allow the FCC to undercut the opportunity to 

prevent 37,000 deaths a year so people can download a movie a few minutes faster? 

ANSWER. Mr. Chairman, the United States prioritized safety in 1999 by preserving the 5.9 GHz spectrum band for roadway safety communication. Communication between vehicles and other objects over this spectrum has the opportunity to 

mitigate and prevent crashes that could result in the loss of life. Infrastructure owners and vehicle manufacturers have begun installing 5.9 compatible technology, and 

the National Safety Council (NSC) would like to see implementation progress and 

proliferate. 

The FCC and the Department of Transportation should exercise vigorous oversight of any testing of unlicensed devices to ensure no interference in the band that 

compromises safety. NSC urges Congress to monitor this testing as well. 

Life-saving technology can operate over this band, including in areas that are 

often overlooked by other technology buildouts. NSC encourages Congress to preserve this spectrum for safety to help eliminate these preventable deaths. 

Æ