U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

68–403 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–1068 

NHTSA OVERSIGHT: AN EXAMINATION OF THE 

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROVISIONS OF SAFETEA–LU 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

PRODUCT SAFETY, AND INSURANCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

GEORGE S. LEMIEUX, Florida 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Republican Staff Director 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican General Counsel 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY, AND 

INSURANCE 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 28, 2010 ..................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 1 

Letter, dated September 23, 2010, to Hon. Mark Pryor, from Colonel 

Winford E. Phillips, Governor’s Highway Safety Representative, Arkansas State Police ............................................................................................. 12 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 3 

Statement of Senator Wicker .................................................................................. 4 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 17 

WITNESSES

Hon. David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Jacqueline S. Gillan, Vice President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety . 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Robert Strassburger, Vice President, Vehicle Safety and Harmonization, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ..................................................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Laura Dean-Mooney, National President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving 

(MADD) ................................................................................................................. 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Neil Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration; and 

Representative, Governor’s Highway Safety Association (GHSA) ................... 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Ethan Ruby, Accident Victim, New York, New York ........................................... 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Ira H. Leesfield, Past President, Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers .................. 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Thomas M. James, President and CEO, Truck Renting and Leasing Association ........................................................................................................................ 81

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

APPENDIX

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 105 

National Automobile Dealers Association, prepared statement .......................... 106 

Letter, dated October 12, 2010, to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV and Hon. 

Kay Bailey Hutchison from Sam Graves, Member of Congress; and Rick 

Boucher, Member of Congress ............................................................................. 109 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. David L. Strickland by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 110 

Hon. Roger F. Wicker ....................................................................................... 111 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Claire McCaskill to Ethan 

Ruby and Responded to by David C. Cook, Marc S. Moller Kreindler & 

Kreindler LLP ...................................................................................................... 112 

Response to written question submitted by Hon. Byron Dorgan to Ira H. 

Leesfield ................................................................................................................ 114 

Page

IV 

Response to written questions submitted to Thomas M. James by: 

Hon. Claire McCaskill ...................................................................................... 115 

Hon. Byron Dorgan ........................................................................................... 115 

Letter, dated October 12, 2010, to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, Hon. Kay 

Bailey Hutchison, Hon. Mark Pryor, and Hon. Roger Wicker from Thomas 

M. James, President and CEO, Truck Renting and Leasing Association ....... 116 

(1) 

NHTSA OVERSIGHT: 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

PROVISIONS OF SAFETEA–LU 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT

SAFETY, AND INSURANCE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:29 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Pryor, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. I’ll go ahead and call the Subcommittee to order. 

I want to thank everyone for coming to the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Public Safety—excuse me, Product Safety, and 

Insurance Subcommittee. 

I want to thank all of my colleagues for being here. We have a 

few more on the way. And I’m going to give a brief opening statement here, and then I’ll let others give opening statements if they 

prefer. And the witnesses will have 5 minutes to give their opening 

remarks. 

We’re going to leave the record—we’re going to put all of your 

opening statements in the record, so don’t feel like you have to 

cover everything, because we’ll put in the record. And also, we’re 

going to leave the record open for a few days afterwards for followup questions. 

Let me go ahead and get underway. The other little housekeeping issue is, in about an hour we’re going to have a couple of 

rollcall votes on the floor, so we may have to recess this subcommittee briefly, and run over and vote, and come back. But, we’ll 

work through that at the appropriate time. 

NHTSA has two core missions: vehicle safety and highway safety. Today’s hearing will focus mostly on highway safety. The highway safety mission consists of safety and research programs designed to decrease vehicle deaths and injuries by changing driver 

behavior regarding seatbelt use, drunk driving, speeding, motorcycle safety, child restraints, and, most recently, distracted driving, 

as well as other areas. 

2 

NHTSA addresses driver behavior with safety grants to States 

that enact certain laws or carry out enforcement activities such as 

police patrols. NHTSA also conducts national advertising programs 

related to seatbelts and drunk driving as part of its coordination 

with the States. In addition, NHTSA conducts research into driver 

behavior safety concerns such as impaired driving, distracted driving, teen driving, and the emerging problem of older drivers now 

that the baby-boomers have begun to retire. 

The vast majority of these programs and grants are funded 

through the Highway Trust Fund. While we will not get into a debate over the Highway Trust Fund in this hearing, it is important 

that we recognize its current shortcomings as we consider plans to 

adequately fund important highway safety initiatives. 

In 2005, Congress enacted SAFETEA–LU, a reauthorization of 

the Federal Highway programs, including NHTSA’s highway safety 

programs. This authorization expired in September 2009, and has 

been extended now by the Congress five times. The most recent extension is scheduled to expire on December 31 of this year. New 

legislation is being—is needed to reauthorize these programs and 

other NHTSA functions, and it’s clear that funding levels are currently inadequate. NHTSA is in need of additional funding and resources to not only implement existing programs, but also to implement new programs related to drunk driving, distracted driving, 

and others that may need to be included in the upcoming reauthorization. 

This hearing will provide the Subcommittee with the opportunity 

to examine the Safety Grant programs as they exist under the current authorization, and to consider new strategies for funding programs to improve driver safety. 

I look forward to receiving input from all of our witnesses today. 

And I look forward to working with each of them as this committee 

and subcommittee begin to develop the NHTSA reauthorization bill 

as part of the larger surface transportation reauthorization legislation in the coming weeks and months. 

And I also want to thank all of my colleagues for their participation and their attention to these very important public safety matters. 

Another issue that we will address today, in our third panel, is 

vicarious liability. And the subject is something that I know Senator Nelson and others have been interested in. We’ll review a provision in the 2005 SAFETEA–LU bill, added by Congressman 

Graves of Missouri, that preempted State tort laws, as they relate 

to liability for vehicle rental companies. So, I look forward to hearing about the impact of that amendment and how it has impacted 

citizens and companies in the various states. 

Now what I’d like to I’d like to do at this point, I know that Senator Nelson has other committees he has to get to, so why don’t I 

recognize Senator Nelson for his opening statement, and then we’ll 

go to the witnesses. 

Thank you. 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for participating today. And 

one particular witness, a personal friend of mine, Ira Leesfield, is 

a tireless advocate of justice. He is from Florida and he’s a tireless 

advocate, both in the courtroom, as well as, outside of the courtroom. For example, he received the AJC’s Judge Learned Hand 

Award for preferred excellent—excellence, in honor of the memory 

of Judge Learned Hand and the principles that that judge stood 

for, and that was the rights of the individual and the importance 

of democratic values in an orderly society. 

Now, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Senator Wicker, we 

have a unique situation in Florida, and you’re going to touch on it 

in the third panel. We have about 40—minimum 40 million, and 

it’s probably approaching 60 million, visitors a year to Florida. Of 

course, our tourism industry is one of our large industries. And a 

lot of those guests come from foreign countries. And when they get 

to Florida, they rent a car. In the wisdom of the State legislature, 

under Governor Jeb Bush, they lowered the tort limits, lowering it 

to $500,000 for damage and $100,000 for pain and suffering. That 

was Governor Bush and a Republican legislature. 

But, along comes the Graves Amendment, and it wipes out 

States’ rights. A State that has a unique situation, unlike Arkansas 

and unlike Mississippi, tens of millions of visitors, many of whom 

are foreign guests that rent a car, get in an accident, and leave the 

country, and the injured is left without compensation. That’s why, 

in the wisdom of Governor Bush, in wanting to put limits on tort 

liability, they lowered it, but they lowered it to that 500/100 level. 

But, what happens now, as we—and you’ve heard me say this before; Florida is not only a microcosm of the country, it’s now a microcosm of the Western Hemisphere—with so many visitors coming 

in from Latin America, Europe—and, of course, what are the 

draws? The draws are our beaches. The draws are Miami, an international city. The draws are, obviously, the attractions in Orlando. 

Orlando and Miami are two of the largest international airports in 

the world. And when one of those foreign guests gets in an accident, and there is no financial liability of the guest, because they’re 

gone, then the injured person is up-creek without a paddle. 

I would ask you to consider as this third panel deliberates this— 

this is going to be opposed, of course, by the rental car companies, 

and I understand that. But, rental car companies, because of the 

number of customers that they have, make tens of billions of dollars in the State of Florida. And for trying to protect people, I 

would urge that you consider States’ rights, in the State lawmaking body and its Governor, to know what should apply best to 

the unique circumstances of that State. That’s not the present situation, with the Graves Amendment, and that thoughtful balance 

was completely overturned. 

Now, let me just say, in closing, before I came here to the Senate, 

I was the elected Insurance Commissioner of Florida. And I stood 

on States’ rights for States to have the ability to judge what were 

their best consumer law protections. We count on members of the 

legislature and our elected officials. 

4 

Now, on this committee, you’ve got former Governors, you’ve got 

former members of the legislature, you’ve got former law enforcement officers on this committee, all of whom have real-world experience in preserving the delicate balance of States’ rights and Federal power. And I hope that this committee will draw on that experience in determining this. 

And I believe that, given the unique circumstances that we find 

in our State, that this ought to be an exception to the Graves 

Amendment. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m going to go on to these committee meetings, and I will try 

to get back. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. If my voice holds out. 

Senator PRYOR. I understand. Thank you very much. 

Senator Wicker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Senator Nelson’s voice has held out very well 

so far. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief statement that I would like 

to give before we allow our witnesses to testify. 

Of course we’re holding a hearing today into the safety provisions 

of our last highway bill and the way it is administered through 

NHTSA. These are important programs that have a significant impact on highway safety in each of our States. The Highway Safety 

Grant programs have a budget of over $600 million for Fiscal Year 

2010, so it is very important to ensure that the funds are being 

used effectively and efficiently. 

I want to thank Chairman Pryor, for taking this opportunity to 

do oversight. 

Transportation Secretary LaHood recently announced that in 

2009, highway deaths fell to 33,808, the lowest number since 1950. 

This decline follows an encouraging trend, as fatalities have decreased every year since 2005. Last year’s decline occurred even 

though the estimated vehicle miles traveled for the year actually 

increased above the 2008 levels. Forty-one states, including my 

home State of Mississippi, saw a reduction in the total number of 

highway fatalities. The number of people injured in a crash also 

fell for the 10th straight year. 

While these numbers are encouraging and show continuing improvement, there are still far too many deaths and injuries that 

occur on our roads. Statistics show that motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for those between the ages of 3 

and 34. 

The goal of everyone here today is to continue the decline in 

highway deaths each year, and the Federal grants provided to the 

States to implement safety plans play an important role. 

Today, we will learn more about the grants and how they are 

used. We need to discover where they’re working well and where 

they could be made more efficient. This should help us make the 

program more efficient for the States and for the drivers and passengers on our roads. 

5 

It is important to examine how the States report data and how 

NHTSA utilizes that data to administer the grants appropriately. 

It is also important to learn from NHTSA about their plans for the 

future; how the administration intends to continue seeing this decline in accidents. 

There are many exciting developments occurring in vehicle safety 

technology. Each day, it seems we’re moving more toward the futuristic cars previously only seen in movies, with vehicles able to 

sense trouble before it happens, and in some cases, to react for 

drivers to help keep them safe. It will be important to hear from 

our witnesses as to how these technologies are being utilized and 

what NHTSA’s role should be in facilitating the next-generation vehicle safety measures. 

We’re fortunate to have expert witnesses here today who can tell 

us more about these programs. In our first panel, we will hear from 

NHTSA Administrator Strickland; in our second panel, from stakeholders in the vehicle highway safety community. 

I, too, may not be able to make the third panel, but I appreciate 

the insight that my colleague from Florida has provided there. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being with us today and 

sharing their knowledge and experience. They are important resources for us as we review the highway safety provisions of 

SAFETEA–LU, and I look forward to a productive hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

And we’ve been joined by Senator Udall, who I understand has 

to go preside in the Senate, here, in a just a minute. 

So, go ahead—— 

Senator UDALL. That is—— 

Senator PRYOR.—make your statement please. 

Senator UDALL.—correct, Senator Pryor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. And I thank you for holding this hearing today 

on highway safety programs. 

Highway safety is critical; and, while great steps have been made 

since the enactment of SAFETEA, it’s important for us to continue 

to evaluate the safety programs for effectiveness. It’s also important that we continue to identify ways to improve highway safety 

in the future. 

Combating drunk driving has been a focus of mine for nearly 20 

years, and it will stay a focus until it’s eliminated. While the existing programs to reduce drunk driving are helping move us forward, 

drunk driving remains the primary cause of fatal crashes. Additionally, despite their positive track record of reducing recidivism, 

only 11 States have enacted ignition interlock laws for convicted 

DUI offenders. That’s why I’ve introduced the ROADS SAFE legislation that was incorporated into the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 

ROADS SAFE authorizes and increases funding for research 

being conducted by NHTSA and leading automakers as they develop vehicle safety technologies to prevent drunk-driving crashes. 

Some describe this effort as a Manhattan Project to end drunk 

driving. The technologies developed in this program could one day 

6 

be used to prevent anyone from driving any vehicle if their blood 

alcohol content is above .08. 

But, drunk driving isn’t our only highway safety challenge. Our 

highways can be made safer for all through simple changes in behavior. What is critical to understand is how we can help encourage these daily changes across the Nation every day so that lives 

will be saved. 

And it’s good to see the Honorable David Strickland here, Senator Pryor. As Administrator, I know that he, with his experience 

here at the Commerce Committee, is going to put a priority on 

drunk driving and highway safety. And sorry I’m going to miss his 

testimony, since I’m headed off to preside. 

But, I’d also ask to put my full statement in the record. 

Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Without objection. Thank you for being here. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Senator Pryor, thank you holding this hearing on highway safety programs. 

Highway safety is critical and while great steps have been made since the enactment of SAFETEA it is important for us to continue to evaluate the safety programs 

for effectiveness. It is also important that we continue to identify ways to further 

improve highway safety in the future. 

Combating drunk driving has been a focus of mine for nearly twenty years and 

it will stay a focus until it is eliminated. While the existing programs to reduce 

drunk driving are helping move us forward, drunk driving remains the primary 

cause of fatal crashes. Additionally despite their positive track record of reducing 

recidivism, only 11 states have enacted ignition interlock laws for convicted DUI offenders. That is why I have introduced the ROADS SAFE legislation that was incorporated into the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 

ROADS SAFE authorizes and increases funding for research being conducted by 

NHTSA and leading automakers as they develop vehicle safety technologies to prevent drunk driving crashes. Some describe this effort as a ‘‘Manhattan Project’’ to 

end drunk driving. The technologies developed in this program could 1 day be used 

to prevent anyone from driving any vehicle if their blood alcohol content is above 

0.08. 

But drunk driving isn’t our only highway safety challenge. Our highways can be 

made safer for all through simple changes in behavior. What is critical to understand is how we can help encourage these daily changes across the Nation everyday 

so that lives will be saved. NHTSA is leading the effort in guiding those changes 

and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today on how NHTSA will continue to address changes needed to improve safety on our roads. 

Senator PRYOR. Now, this brings us to our first panel and our 

first witness. And our—this witness, here, is no stranger to this 

committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator PRYOR. He lived in this committee, was this committee, 

for years and years, and we appreciate his service here, and we certainly appreciate his service over at NHTSA. So, I’d like to introduce the Honorable David Strickland, Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

Go ahead. 

7 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID L. STRICKLAND, 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you so much, Chairman Pryor, Ranking 

Member Wicker. 

This is my first time back before my old subcommittee. It’s an 

honor and a privilege to be before you as the Administrator of 

NHTSA. And I look forward to working with this committee and 

the Congress in the going-forward days on preparing for reauthorization. 

NHTSA recently released data showing that in 2009 the Nation 

continued to make dramatic progress in motor vehicle safety. Fatalities fell almost 10 percent between 2008 and 2009, and injuries 

fell by more than 5 percent. There are many reasons for this improvement, but Congressional leadership was key, for I believe that 

the grants, research, and other programs authorized by SAFETEA– 

LU, played a key role in the significant reduction in highway fatalities. Overall, both the number and the rate of fatalities on our 

roadways have fallen by more than 20 percent between 2004 and 

2009. Some of the key indicators include seatbelt use being up by 

6 percent, and child passenger restraint use for children 8-yearsold and younger is up by 6 percent. 

There is one indicator that is moving in the wrong direction: motorcycle fatalities. Between 2004 and 2009, the number of motorcycle riders killed increased by 11 percent, to 4,462 riders. However, we did see the first decrease in motorcycle fatalities in more 

than a decade between 2008 and 2009. We need to build on last 

year’s progress. The most important step we could take is to assure 

that all riders wear Department of Transportation-compliant helmets, which are 37 percent effective in reducing fatalities. 

We estimate that helmets prevented over 1,800 fatalities in 2008, 

and at least 800 additional fatalities could have been avoided if 

those riders wore helmets. NHTSA will actively work with the Congress to promote helmet use. 

The Nation has enjoyed 17 consecutive quarters of reduction in 

highway crash fatalities, an unprecedented occurrence. Aside from 

the admittedly important exception of motorcyclists, all the data is 

moving in the correct direction. 

It is important to acknowledge that this progress may be partly 

attributable to the economic downturn that this country is currently suffering. While overall miles driven have increased, we believe that discretionary travel may have fallen. Data suggests that 

these trips are higher risk than daily commuting trips. So, as the 

economy improves, crashes may increase somewhat. That makes it 

all the more important that we continue to promote programs that 

work, and continue to modify and revise our approach to further 

enhance safety. 

Therefore, I’d like to highlight a couple of the programs that 

work very well in SAFETEA–LU. 

The Section 406 Safety Belt Incentive Program provided a sizable 

incentive for States to adopt primary belt laws, and 14 states either adopted or upgraded their primary belt laws. Another 7 states 

qualify for 406 funds by achieving 2 consecutive years of observed 

belt use of 85 percent. 

8 

In addition, 18 states enacted new booster-seat laws, up from the 

5 states and the District of Columbia that had such laws in 2006. 

The Section 410 Impaired Driving Countermeasure Program 

made approximately $650 million available in grants to the states 

between 2006 and 2010. From 2004 and 2009, alcohol-related fatalities on our roadways declined by 17 percent. 

This Congress also provided $29 million each year to fund highvisibility enforcement campaigns to support on-the-ground enforcement efforts to reduce impaired driving and increase seatbelt use. 

These funds are used to place paid advertising to educate the public, which includes our campaigns ‘‘Over the Limit, Under Arrest’’ 

and, for seatbelts, ‘‘Click It or Ticket.’’ 

In addition to building on the successes we have seen in 

SAFETEA–LU, we at NHTSA are looking forward to continuing to 

work with this committee and the Congress on addressing evolving 

risks that we have observed in the traffic safety arena, as well as 

improving countermeasures for our more mature risks. 

We have ongoing concerns about pedestrian safety and distraction. And we have initiated pilot programs in each of these areas 

in the hope to use the results to guide policy recommendations for 

the next reauthorization. 

We also feel very strongly that encouraging and expanding the 

use of interlocks for those convicted of drunk driving would make 

significant strides in protecting the driving public from the ravages 

of this criminal act. 

Under the leadership of Secretary LaHood, the Department looks 

forward to working with this committee to address highway safety 

challenges of today and in the future. 

Thank you so much for this opportunity to appear before you 

today, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickland follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID L. STRICKLAND, ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is a great pleasure to be back in 

familiar surroundings to talk with you today about SAFETEA–LU. Just as previous 

authorizations have structured NHTSA’s safety programs in the past—by establishing grant programs, funding research areas, and highlighting key issues—the 

next authorization will shape Federal and States safety programs for years to come. 

Therefore, I am very pleased to be invited to share my thoughts on SAFETEA–LU 

and its results. 

Secretary LaHood recently released data showing that in 2009, the Nation continued to make dramatic progress in motor vehicle safety. Fatalities fell almost 10 percent between 2008 and 2009, and injuries declined by more than 5 percent. Fatalities fell in 41 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Many factors help 

account for this broad-based, nationwide improvement. Secretary LaHood has been 

focused on safety since his first day in office, and his example and persistence have 

inspired me and all of NHTSA to redouble our efforts to fight unsafe driving behaviors. Our State and local partners, who are in the field every day, enforcing traffic 

laws, training new drivers, developing local outreach campaigns, and otherwise promoting safety, are obviously crucial in the progress we have seen. But part of the 

progress is attributable to Congress, for I believe that the grants, research, and 

other programs authorized by SAFETEA–LU played an important role in the significant reduction in highway fatalities. 

As the chart (See last page) shows, almost all the safety indicators we monitor 

indicate that safety has improved since the passage of SAFETEA–LU. Overall, both 

the number and the rate of traffic fatalities have fallen by about 21 percent between 

2004 and 2009. Some of the other rows in the chart suggest why the number may 

9 

be falling: seat belt use is up by 5 percent, and child passenger restraint use among 

occupants 8 years old or younger is up by 6 percent. 

However, you will notice that there is one indicator that is moving in the wrong 

direction, motorcycle fatalities. Between 2004 and 2009, the number of motorcycle 

riders killed increased from just over 4,200 to almost 4,462, an 11 percent increase. 

The number of motorcycle fatalities did fall between 2008 and 2009, the first time 

we have seen a decrease in more than a decade. We need to work to build on last 

year’s progress. The most important step we could take would be to assure that all 

riders wear a DOT-compliant helmet, which are 37 percent effective in reducing fatalities. We estimate that helmets prevented over 1,800 fatalities in 2008, and that 

more than 800 additional fatalities could have been avoided if all riders wore helmets. NHTSA will actively work with Congress to promote helmet use. 

This chart demonstrates that overall, the programs Congress created in 

SAFETEA–LU, and the tools that were provided to NHTSA, had the intended effect. 

The Nation has enjoyed sixteen (16) consecutive quarters of reduction in highway 

crash fatalities, an unprecedented occurrence. Aside from the admittedly important 

exception of motorcyclists, the data are moving in the correct direction: belt use is 

up, alcohol impaired fatalities are down, and overall fatalities and injuries are falling. 

It is important to acknowledge that this progress may be partly attributable to 

the economic downturn the country continues to suffer through. While overall traffic 

has increased, we believe discretionary travel may have fallen. Data suggests these 

trips are higher risk than daily commuting trips. So as the economy improves, 

crashes may increase somewhat. That makes it all the more important that we continue to promote programs that work, and continue to modify and revise our approach to further enhance safety. Therefore, I would like to spend a minute discussing why that is, what we think worked in SAFETEA–LU. 

First, SAFETEA–LU established the Section 406 Safety Belt Incentive program. 

This program provided a sizable incentive for States to adopt primary belt laws, and 

fourteen (14) States have either adopted new primary belt laws (PBLs), or upgraded 

existing laws because of this incentive. Another seven (7) States qualified for Section 

406 grants by achieving two consecutive years of eighty-five percent (85 percent) observed safety belt usage. Enactment of a primary safety belt use law is one of the 

most important safety countermeasures available. States enacting primary belt laws 

typically see about a 10 percent increase in belt use, and belts have been shown 

to be about 50 percent effective in reducing fatalities, still the single most important 

piece of safety equipment in a vehicle. The Section 406 incentive program clearly 

had a positive effect in increasing safety belt usage across the Nation and contributing to the reduction in highway fatalities through the authorization period. 

In addition, 18 states enacted new booster seat laws, up from the 5 States and 

DC that had such laws in 2006. These laws are crucial in protecting our youngest 

and most vulnerable citizens. 

The Section 410 Impaired Driving Countermeasure Program made approximately 

$650 million in grants available to the States from 2006–2010. During the same period, alcohol-related fatalities on the Nation’s highways declined by seventeen percent (17%) from 13,099 to 10,839. This reduction reflects the hard work of the agency, States and communities, law enforcement agencies across the nation, and the 

non-governmental organizations that work so hard to prevent impaired driving 

crashes. 

Congress also provided in SAFETEA–LU, $29 million each year to fund high visibility enforcement campaigns to support law enforcement efforts on-the-ground to 

reduce impaired driving and increase safety belt use. These funds are used to place 

paid advertising to educate the public about the ‘‘Over the Limit. Under Arrest.,’’ impaired driving national crackdown, and the Click It or Ticket, national safety belt 

usage mobilization. High visibility enforcement is a very successful model for achieving highway safety behavior modification and our national enforcement campaigns, 

particularly Click It or Ticket, have become a part of the national lexicon. We are 

piloting this approach for dealing with distracted driving in Hartford and Syracuse, 

and the early results look very promising. 

SAFETEA–LU also had some special emphasis areas including annual funding for 

older driver safety and for law enforcement training on police pursuits. The older 

driver program has resulted in the creation of a variety of programs aimed at older 

drivers, particularly related to improving the scientific basis of driver licensing decisions through the development and promotion of driver fitness medical guidelines. 

During the authorization period, fatalities involving drivers age 65 and older 

dropped by 16 percent even while the population of older drivers continued to increase. While older individuals exhibit safer behavior—in fatal crashes, they are less 

likely to be alcohol impaired and more likely to be buckled—too many older citizens 

10 

continue to die in fatal crashes. NHTSA has also worked with law enforcement organizations to develop vehicular pursuit training, which helps promote the safety of 

public, the violator, and the officer. NHTSA and the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) have partnered to 

develop and provide a comprehensive pursuit policy program. Over 400 instructors 

have been trained, and workshops are in progress which, among other components, 

encourage law enforcement agencies to analyze current pursuit policies and training 

requirements. 

Apart from safety countermeasure programs, SAFETEA–LU continued a grant 

program structure with multiple grant programs addressing individual countermeasures such as impaired driving, occupant protection, motorcycle safety, child and 

booster seats, data improvement, and the highway safety formula grant program. 

These multiple grants often come with different application deadlines, different 

State matching requirements, and different types of eligibility requirements. While 

providing maximum flexibility to States to qualify for grant funding during a Fiscal 

Year, and ably advancing programmatic objectives in each area, these multiple application and matching requirements create resource administration problems for 

the States, as well as the Department of Transportation. In SAFETEA–LU, Congress directed the DOT to consolidate grant applications, by establishing a process 

whereby States could apply for all grants with a single application. Unfortunately, 

the Department was unable to meet this mandate, due to the large number of grant 

programs and the wide variation in grant criteria. In particular, some grants depend on States passing a certain law to be eligible for a grant that year. The potential to qualify for different grants at different points of the Fiscal Year makes establishing a consolidated grant application impossible. 

We look forward to a fruitful dialogue with the Committee and our State and nongovernmental partners on potential methods for dealing with the administrative as 

well as programmatic requirements of our national highway safety program. 

NHTSA has worked with, and will continue to work with, other U.S. DOT agencies 

that have a role in improving highway safety within the Department. That includes 

RITA regarding the ITS Program; FMCSA regarding commercial vehicle safety; and 

FHWA regarding the roadway infrastructure design and operations, as well as for 

the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2). 

SAFETEA–LU has been a very successful piece of legislation. The Committee, the 

Congress, the multiple constituencies with an interest in the transportation program and we at the Department can look back on SAFETEA–LU and know that 

it helped our Nation make significant strides in improving highway safety. 

We can be proud of what has been accomplished but also recognize that so much 

more needs to be done. Clearly, even with the lowest absolute fatality number since 

1950 and the lowest fatality rate number in our Nation’s history, more than 33,000 

fatalities a year on our highways is not a number that we can accept. We need to 

renew our commitment to finding new and better ways to reach those difficult to 

reach populations to change their behavior, to make vehicles safer, to develop new 

technologies to improve our safety margin, so that we can continue to make steady 

progress in reducing this preventable epidemic of roadway crashes. 

We must also anticipate new areas for fruitful effort, such as initiatives to address 

driver distraction, to address issues before they become serious, national problems. 

Under the leadership of Secretary LaHood, the Department looks forward to 

working with this Committee to address the highway safety challenges of today and 

into the future. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today and will be happy 

to try to answer any questions you may have. 

SAFETEA–LU Safety Performance Indicators 

2004 Current Change 

Total Fatalities 42,836 33,808 –21% 

MC Fatalities 4,028 4,462 +11% 

Fatality Rate 1.44 1.13 –22% 

Alcohol Impaired Fatalities 13,099 10,839 –17% 

Belt Use Rate 80% 85% +6% 

Child Restraint Use, <8 82% 87% +6% 

Universal Helmet Laws 20+DC 20+DC NA 

PBL 21+DC 31+DC +48% 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you very, very much. And thank you for 

your statement. 

11 

And you, along with all the other witnesses, will submit your 

written testimony for the record. So, thank you for providing that 

to the Committee. 

Let me just dive in here with a few questions. I actually have 

prepared, literally, 9 pages of questions about these various grant 

programs, and we can go through a lot of detail and a lot of minutia on it. I may submit some of those for the record and let you respond to those so I don’t take up some of my colleagues’ time here. 

But, I do have an overall question first, and that is: I know the Administration is looking at the next highway bill, and I’m wondering, if you know—and you may not know—but is the idea of increasing the fuel tax to fund more infrastructure and more highway safety programs—is that being discussed within the Administration, and could you give us a quick update on that? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, there’s really not too much of an update, 

Senator. I apologize for that. But, I can say that there are active 

and ongoing conversations about the funding mechanisms of the 

next highway bill. The successes of the fuel economy laws and rules 

that this Congress passed, and that NHTSA and EPA have implemented, have clearly reduced our fuel consumption in America, 

which has impacted the gas tax. So we recognize that we’ll have 

to find a way forward in funding our next reauthorization. Those 

conversations are ongoing between all of the agencies affected, and 

we will definitely return to the Congress when we have that answer. 

Senator PRYOR. You know, one of the things I pick up in my 

State, even from the folks who want lower taxes and less government, they still are comfortable with us investing in infrastructure. 

That’s a—it’s kind of a fundamental government responsibility, and 

it works, you know, to the overall good of society and to the various 

communities around the State—I mean around the country. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Actually, I’d like to add one thing about infrastructure, Senator. I think it’s absolutely right in terms of our investment for the state of good repair, and obviously in the areas 

that clearly need new infrastructure for growth and efficiency. But, 

infrastructure is just a part in the safety calculus. The changes 

that have been made by the Federal Highway Administration in 

support of the States—good infrastructure has actually saved thousands of lives, as well, and that cannot be overlooked as we have 

this overall discussion about NHTSA’s programs and the work of 

this committee. 

Senator PRYOR. Right, I agree with that. And I think that there’s 

no question that we should put more money in infrastructure, and 

I think we ought to put more money into the safety programs, as 

well. And my guess is that we’d have a lot of safety groups and 

folks from all over the country who would agree with that. But, the 

balance we have to find is, you know, How much is enough? I 

mean—in one way, there’s never enough. We can always put more 

and more and more into it. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. That’s true. 

Senator PRYOR. But, we have to find that balance, and that’ll be 

a challenge for us as we go through this. But, one question I have 

for you is the issue of collecting accurate data and accurate information from the States. We’ve heard from various States. In fact, 

12 

I’d like to submit a letter, for the record, from the Arkansas State 

Police. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

STATE OF ARKANSAS—ARKANSAS STATE POLICE

Little Rock, AR, September 23, 2010 

Hon. MARK PRYOR, 

Senate Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance Subcommittee, 

Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Pryor: 

In advance of the September 28, 2010 Subcommittee hearing on the Federal highway safety programs, I would like to submit comments for the record. As the Director of the Arkansas State Police and the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative 

for Arkansas, I am a member of the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). 

GHSA is a non-profit association that represents state highway safety agencies. 

GHSA’s members administer Federal behavioral highway safety grant programs. 

Highway Safety continues to be an important issue in the State of Arkansas. Traffic related fatalities and injuries continue to be a major public health problem in 

this country and in Arkansas. Although we have made some progress, there were 

still more than 500 traffic fatalities and 13,000 injuries in Arkansas last year. Traffic crashes not only cause devastation to families and individuals, but they also cost 

the State an estimated $2 billion in economic loss annually. 

To address this problem, the Federal Government must make highway safety a 

national priority and play a strong role in developing highway safety policies and 

programs. I concur with GHSA’s position on reauthorizing the Federal highway 

safety programs. Specifically, GHSA urges Congress to: 

• Maintain a Strong Federal Role in Highway Safety 

• Develop a National Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

• Emphasize performance-based planning 

• Enhance funding for data improvements 

• Consolidate grant programs and streamline grant program administration 

• Enhance flexibility 

• Improve incentive programs and address such areas as aggressive driving and 

speeding, teen driving and distracted driving 

• Strengthen state programs through accountability, training and research 

One area of particular importance to Arkansas is the recommendation to enhance 

funding for data improvements. To set appropriate performance goals and measure 

progress, states need adequate data. Unfortunately, obtaining good data is not a 

simple task. The Section 408 (23 U.S.C. 408) data improvement incentive grant program has helped states improve their highway safety information (traffic records) 

systems, with particular focus on improvements to the crash data systems. However, 

this program is funded at only $34.5 million a year and Arkansas receives only the 

minimum $500,000 annually. Unfortunately, enhancements to data systems are 

very expensive and require sustained resources. Improvements to automate our 

crash database alone cost millions. 

Furthermore, in Arkansas, as in other states, we are increasingly funding improvements to other components of our traffic records systems, such as electronic 

citation and emergency medical services information systems. With the expectation 

to collect performance data from the various systems comes a great need for adequate funding to automate data collection and make other improvements to enhance 

data sharing. 

Also, I would like to emphasize opposition to new sanctions. I concur with GHSA’s 

position that incentives are a more appropriate method to encourage state action. 

In Arkansas, the Section 406 (23 U.S.C. 406), Safety Belt Performance Grant, 

proved successful by providing additional incentive for the state to pass a primary 

seat belt law in 2009. The State received a one-time grant award for highway programs. These funds are being put to good use in addressing the State’s highway 

safety problems, especially in program areas where there is little or no available 

funding. First of all, the state was able to use these funds to educate the public 

about the new primary seat belt law. In addition, the funds are providing resources 

in other needed areas such as for the implementation of the State’s electronic citaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
13 

tion system, to formulate a program to combat aggressive driving, and for teen driver safety. 

Lastly, I would encourage Congress to carefully consider the pending distracted 

driving proposal, S. 1938, which would provide incentives to states that satisfy certain eligibility criteria. Currently, there are only eight potentially eligible states (Arkansas is not included). However, even those states would not qualify because the 

criteria are too stringent. We concur with GHSA’s recommendation that this proposal be reexamined and adjustments made to allow more states to qualify and receive the necessary funds to implement appropriate countermeasures to address this 

emerging problem. The reauthorization provides an opportunity for Congress to address distracted driving in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner. 

I applaud you and the Subcommittee for your work on highway safety and I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Colonel WINFORD E. PHILLIPS, 

Governor’s Highway Safety Representative. 

Senator PRYOR. And I know other Senators here may have other 

documents to submit. We’ll be glad to do that. 

But, I know that collecting accurate data is a challenge, and I 

know that there is a program; you know, it’s probably underfunded, 

because, you know, I think my State only gets $500,000, and that’s 

not a whole lot of money to really try to improve your technology 

and make your data more accurate. 

But, are you finding that with other states? And what is 

NHTSA’s view on how we can improve the accurate collection of 

data? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Oh, certainly. Data is the backbone of what we 

do, in terms of being able to identify risks and being able to find 

the proper countermeasures, and seeing the effectiveness of those 

countermeasures. Traffic records is one of them. As we funded traffic records in the Section 408 Grant and the National Driver Register, we’ve been hearing from all the states, of needing more resources in this area, not only for better collection, but the ability 

to share that data with the Federal Government and with the 

States. So, it’s something that we look forward to working with this 

committee on in trying to make sure we can improve the efficiency 

and the usage of the resources and trying to find a way forward 

to continue our work in modernizing all of our data collection, 

whether it’s the FARS or the NASS or if it’s in traffic records. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. And my last question, until I turn it over 

to Senator Wicker, is—there’s this new, emerging challenge of distracted driving. And I think that—obviously, with cell phones and 

other things, but now, with text and just general mobile Internet 

access, et cetera, it has become a real challenge. I know that Secretary LaHood has been on this issue. I know he has had it—at 

least one, maybe many conferences on this to try to bring awareness and try to bring consensus on this issue. And Senator Rockefeller has filed a bill, as well. 

And I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to look over the Rockefeller bill and if you think that that’s a good starting point, or if 

you think Senator Rockefeller has, you know, figured it out and we 

just ought to adopt it as-is. Or, I didn’t know if you had a—any 

thoughts on the Rockefeller bill or any recommendations at this 

point. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, you’ve sort of put me on the spot, in 

terms—— 

14 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STRICKLAND.—of Senator Rockefeller’s legislation. And I 

was—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator PRYOR. That’s why you’re here. 

Mr. STRICKLAND.—I was his Senior Counsel in the Consumer 

Protection Committee—and part of the drafting of that piece of legislation, so I’m officially meeting myself around the corner on that 

particular question. 

We believe, at DOT, that anything that incentivizes the creation 

of strong texting and hand-held cell phone laws should be supported. Senator Rockefeller’s bill definitely does that, providing incentives of up to $50 million to the States to encourage hand-held 

cell phone bans and texting bans. We are very much in support of 

that proposition, and we’re supportive of all of the efforts that may 

move the fight on distractive driving forward. 

Secretary LaHood has been very fixated on distraction. In addition to the second Summit that we held, on the 21st, which was 

very well attended—over 600 people from around the country came 

and met to discuss about the way forward on distraction—NHTSA’s 

also in the process of working with the State of New York and the 

State of Connecticut on two pilot programs with a high-visibility 

enforcement campaign. It’s called ‘‘Phone in One Hand, Ticket in 

the Other.’’ We’ve had amazing results in the reduction of drivers 

that are texting and using hand-held cell phones. I am happy to 

talk about that in more detail, but thank you so much for the question. 

Senator PRYOR. Great, thank you. 

Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Well, thank you very much, and thank you for 

your testimony. 

Senator Nelson, before he left, was speaking about the wisdom 

of State governments. So, let me follow up on that with a couple 

of claims from the Governors Highway Safety Association. 

First of all, each State has a strategic highway safety plan, but, 

in their testimony that will follow, the Governors Association discusses the lack of a national highway safety plan. Do you believe 

that the lack of such a plan has resulted in fragmentation of Federal behavioral highway safety resources? And should we have such 

a national plan? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, Senator Wicker, the work of NHTSA and 

the Department of Transportation is dealing with our long-term 

goal-setting for both the States and the country. Our activities, in 

terms of our management reviews, in terms of us providing data 

and guidance to the States, effectively creates that national framework to which you are alluding to. Now, do we have a stated overarching national plan like some of the European countries have? 

We do not. But, we also have a much different system, in terms 

of how we organize and we work with the States. The one thing 

that we have learned over the years is the waxing and waning of 

how the Federal Government interacts with the States. And, over 

our several highway bills, that relationship has evolved and improved. I think that keeping the flexibility of the States, while at 

the same time having the leadership of the Department of TransVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
15 

portation, creates the coordination where I think we gain those efficiencies of scale. 

However, any notion of improving that coordination is always a 

good thing, and we’re happy to work with this committee, working 

with our stakeholders, and GHSA, in trying to find a way forward 

in better coordination in that area. 

Senator WICKER. It does seem a bit ironic, that States are coming 

forward and saying we need more of a Federal plan, and the Federal Government is seemingly talking about State flexibility and 

federalism. 

But, I’ll move on to the next question—again with regard to the 

Governors Association. They somewhat complained that there are 

too many incentive grants and there are too many different applications and deadlines. Are you familiar with that—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Very. 

Senator WICKER.—complaint? The Governors Association testifies 

that the behavioral grants should be consolidated into one program 

with earmarks for specific issues. So, what do you say to that? 

Would this be a better way to administer the behavioral highway 

safety grants? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. The work in SAFETEA–LU that was taken up 

in this committee, and in the Congress ultimately, worked to consolidate the number of incentive grants, for this very reason. And 

I know—— 

Senator WICKER. So, there were more before—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, there were. 

Senator WICKER.—SAFETEA–LU? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely. 

Senator WICKER. Yes. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. We consolidated several of them. And as we 

walk into this reauthorization, we are looking to once again lower 

the administrative burdens for the States and to consolidate and 

make things more efficient, in the right way. The one thing we 

have to be mindful of is that, as we are providing these resources 

and these programs that are backed by research, that it has to be 

data-driven. We want to provide the right flexibility, but, if you 

consolidate too much, you may end up having improper allocation 

of resources. 

I think that we need to have an ongoing conversation with the 

States in how we consolidate, but we, at NHTSA and the Department, do believe that we can make this process more efficient and 

less burdensome to the States, and we’re looking forward to working with them, to find a way to do that going forward. 

Senator WICKER. And one other thing, Mr. Chairman, and then 

I’ll turn it over to Senator Klobuchar; and that is to follow up on 

the Chair’s statement about distracted driving. 

Let me make it clear, every member of this committee is interested in doing what we can to prevent accidents caused by distracted driving. It’s just important, in my judgment, that whatever 

we do and whatever scarce resources we have, be spent on research-based results—research-based facts. 

The Highway Loss Data Institute just released a new study 

claiming that they have not found a reduction in crashes after laws 

take effect that ban texting by all drivers. As a matter of fact, 

16 

there’s some research to indicate that, in those States, drivers actually take steps to hide their texting, and it results in higher claims 

and higher accidents. If that’s the case, then we need to know that. 

It may seem counterintuitive, but I think we need to base our funding and base our actions on the real research. 

Also, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found a fourfold increase in the risk of injury crashes associated with phoning. 

Their hypothesis is, not only are drivers not complying with the 

ban, but they are recognizing that using their cell phones is illegal, 

and they’re trying to hide their behavior, which, I mentioned earlier, could exacerbate the risk of drivers taking their eyes off the 

road. 

There are a lot of forms of distracted driving. I know that the 

young people, who are perhaps the age of my staffers, can take an 

iPod now into the car, and play that iPod, and there may not be 

a law against that, but it would very severely distract someone of 

my technical knowledge. 

My daughter was injured in a distracted-driving accident. In that 

case, the driver was changing a CD, which strikes me as a very 

dangerous maneuver that, obviously, is done every day, tens of 

thousands of times, by drivers. It may be that working with an 

iPod or changing a CD in your CD player is more dangerous than 

talking on a telephone or texting on a telephone. I don’t know. But, 

I think if we’re going to go at the problem, we need to go at it 

based on real research and not just what seems to us to be the best 

way to handle that. 

So, I can assure you, having had my first-born child injured in 

a car accident caused by distracted driving, I want to get at the 

worst kinds of distracted driving. I don’t hear anybody talking 

about changing CDs or playing music or changing the time on a 

clock, or eating while driving down the road. I just want to make 

sure that we are targeting the most dangerous kinds of distracted 

driving. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Wicker, I could not have said it better myself, in terms of following—— 

Senator WICKER. Oh, you probably could have. 

Mr. STRICKLAND.—and following the research. That’s what we 

are committed to do. We have a long-term research plan that we 

have provided to the Congress, in terms of how we are going to approach our research. I want to address a couple things that you 

mentioned in your question to me. 

First, about the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s research. My staff and I are very familiar with this. We have a lot 

of concerns about how the study was conducted, because their 

methodology did not control for factors that affect the number of 

crashes, like enforcement, like education programs, like high-visibility campaigns, which we are currently undertaking in Hartford, 

Connecticut, and in Syracuse. In those two States where we have 

had high visibility campaigns along with strong enforcement, we 

have seen, in Hartford a 56-percent drop in hand-held use; and in 

Syracuse, New York, we had a 38-percent reduction in hand-held 

cell phone usage. For texting, it was 68 percent in Hartford, and 

42 percent in Syracuse. 

17 

Frankly, I think that the Insurance Institute’s analysis really is 

taking a look at data that is based on a lot of laws that may not 

necessarily be strictly enforced. There are a lot of other factors that 

are in play, and we have several questions out to the Insurance Institute about their methodology. Frankly, we take a lot of this to 

task, and we believe that our research, ongoing and what we know 

right now, actually does identify the proper risk. 

So, while we stand forward and we are willing to take any research, we want to make sure that it is scientifically valid and 

sound, and we have significant questions about that HLDI study. 

On your second point, about other issues that may be distracting, 

you’re absolutely right. Actually, the most distracting thing in your 

car that we found in our statistics is an insect. Insects are off the 

charts. The number of crashes correlated to having a bee or something in your car is well above texting and handling a cell phone. 

Eating, having active teenagers in the backseat of the car, with the 

teenage driver, there are all kinds of things that are distractions. 

Bottom line being is this—— 

Senator WICKER. That little pig going ‘‘wee, wee, wee.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STRICKLAND.—oh, that little pig, exactly, that—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STRICKLAND.—he’s especially annoying. 

But, the point being—is this. The driver’s job behind the wheel 

is to drive. Hands at 10 and 2, and being alert and aware. Whether 

you’re handling a CD, handling an iPod, eating a double cheeseburger, or playing with your radio, all of those things are distracting. You should have your eyes on the road. Our statistics 

have shown that if your eyes are off the road for more than 4 seconds, your risk of accidents are just exponentially higher. 

So, you’re absolutely right. It isn’t just about texting and driving 

using your phone; it’s about all distractions. Our work at NHTSA 

is encompassing education and enforcement programs to deal with 

all of that. 

Senator WICKER. Just briefly, you’re not suggesting that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety would have a reason to skew 

their numbers or cook the research—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Oh, no, I’m not saying that they’re having their 

fingers on influencing research in any particular way. I just think 

their data is wrong. 

Senator WICKER. I see. Thank you. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much. 

And thank you also for bringing that up, Senator Wicker. 

And I think you got a sense—Administrator Strickland came to 

my State and kicked off a Distracted Driving Summit, and there 

were hundreds and hundreds of teenagers, and he not only impressed them with how cool he was, because he read his whole 

notes off the iPad—they were literally, like, ‘‘Whoa’’—— 

[Laughter.] 

18 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—but then just his passion for the issue and 

the way he could relate to these kids by talking about double 

cheeseburgers, it really worked. And so, I think that, if I could paraphrase what you were talking about here, it’s just—it is—putting 

these laws on the books can never be a bad thing, but it’s what you 

do with those laws. And so, that’s what I want to approach, a little 

bit. And you want to get the message out that it’s—you don’t want 

to be texting while you’re driving. I actually think it would be helpful for certain enhanced penalties for when people get—just—I’m 

looking at my old prosecutor’s job—sometimes it’s a per se violation, if someone’s killed or maimed, if you have a DW-—a blood alcohol above a certain level. You could say the same thing with 

texting; if you’re texting, it’s a per se. I think that would be helpful. 

But—and those are actually easier to enforce and prove, because 

when someone’s—dies or killed, that—someone’s killed or is hurt, 

then that’s a huge police investigation. 

But, for the everyday driver, could you talk a little bit about the 

enforcement? And we know we’re not going to be able to pick up 

every single person who’s texting. But, I’ve seen, with seatbelts, 

having those days where people know they’re going to do—that the 

cops are going to do it, it can have a long-term effect. 

And I guess, just with the seatbelt issue, if you could talk, or 

maybe look for me, on data showing that—when they first put out 

seatbelt laws, I bet you it didn’t change anything the next year. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. You’re right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But, over time, as there was enforcement 

mechanisms, as things happened, it did change seatbelt use, which 

I understand is one of the main reasons we’re having less fatalities 

on the road. 

So, do you want to talk about this in the context of history with 

seatbelts? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely, happy to, Senator Klobuchar, and 

thank you for the opportunity. 

The seatbelt program, actually, the ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ program, 

began in North Carolina in 1984. We adopted it at the national 

level and really began putting resources and taking it nationwide 

in 2001. Before we began our wide enforcement messaging on seatbelts, seatbelt usage was at 60 percent in America—six-zero. Today 

for 2009, our seatbelt rate use is up to 85 percent now. That’s because, when you have high-visibility campaigns advertising at the 

times when people are watching TV during major television events, 

sporting events, and then you have cops everywhere enforcing the 

law, and you do it on a regular basis, people get the message. They 

recognize the fact that it’s points on your license, it’s a huge fine, 

and behavior changes. We’ve seen that. 

We’ve only been at it for about a few months with the same type 

of campaign, on distracted driving, ‘‘A Phone in One Hand, Ticket 

in the Other.’’ But, as I conveyed to Senator Wicker, just a few moments ago, our results are just fantastic. We are looking at huge 

reductions in people using their hand-held cell phone and people 

texting, because when you have waves of police officers giving tickets—they’ve given over 4,500 tickets in Syracuse, New York, and 

they’ve given about 4,200 tickets out in Hartford, Connecticut. The 

first day we kicked that campaign off, they gave out 250 tickets in 

19 

an hour in Syracuse, New York. I’ll guarantee you that people 

spread the word. When people know that you’re getting pulled over 

for using your phone, people stop using their phone. That’s what 

we’re seeing. 

We’re going to wait for the full pilot to complete. It takes a year 

for us to finish the pilot, but I am very heartened by these results 

and what we’ve seen from belts and what we’ve seen from impaired 

driving—‘‘Over the Limit and Under Arrest’’—I feel very strongly 

that this exact type of process and campaign and enforcement will 

work for distracted driving. 

One last note. The captain from Syracuse, New York, actually 

came to the Distracted Driving Summit, last week, and talked 

about how they are learning countermeasures and evolving and figuring out how drivers adopt behavior and try to sneak in—they figured out how to position themselves and how to look into the cars. 

Not only are they effective, but they’re getting better. The more 

that we do this type of thing, and the more that we do it in more 

States around the country, I think the more effective this program 

will be, and we’re going to see huge numbers move, just like we did 

in seatbelts. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, I mean, it just goes without—anyone 

who has driven and has tried doing this—and I know a lot of people in this room have—and you’ve had that moment where you sort 

of veer off the road a little bit, and you get back on, and you think, 

‘‘If someone had been standing there, if someone had been on a bicycle, if another car had been there, that would have been it.’’ 

So, it just—for me, we don’t need the evidence that it’s a problem. We know that. And we have the decrease in fatalities, due to 

seatbelt laws and due to DWI laws. But I think what I remembered 

from speaking at your conference, and the research we did, there 

still had been some increase with teen accidents and teen driving 

that people believe is related to this, the texting. 

There are two approaches—was brought up—Senator Rockefeller’s bill—as we look at how to get States to come onboard with 

this. One is the carrot approach. I support both of these, am on 

both bills. One is the stick approach. I wondered if you wanted to 

comment, weigh in on these two different approaches. The stick 

being with highway funds, to try to get States to move on distracted driving laws, who haven’t moved; and the other is incentives. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. The Department of Transportation believes in 

any methodology that improves safety. We find that incentives 

have worked. We’ve found that sanctions have worked. We support 

both. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK, very good. Thank you for that. 

The other bill that I wanted to mention was a bill I have with 

Senators Gillibrand and Dodd, the STANDUP bill, with—it looks 

like graduated driving standards. This isn’t just about texting; this 

is about realizing that there is such a much higher accident fatality 

rate with teenaged drivers, and especially when they’re younger. 

Many States, like mine, have graduated drivers licenses and— 

where you get—you know, you can only drive with a parent at first, 

and then you work your way up. 

20 

What do you think? Do you think those work? And do you want 

to comment on graduated licensing? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely, the STANDUP Act is a great piece 

of legislation, and we’re very supportive of what you’re trying to do 

in that bill. 

Graduated drivers licenses is the foundation for teaching young 

drivers how to be good citizens of the road. Now, we’ve seen variance in the rigidity and the strictness of graduated drivers license 

laws around the country. We support good, strong ones, which really have younger drivers driving with adults, making sure that they 

don’t have other teen passengers in the car to distract them, that 

there is good educational component along with the on-road experience. There are real opportunities for graduated drivers licenses, 

and the States that have good laws have shown remarkable increases in safety of teens, and we are very supportive of all GDL 

laws that take that really strong approach. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, I will report that to my 15-year-old 

daughter, because she smiled when I told her, and said ‘‘I’ll be driving for a long time before you ever get that through Congress.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The other thing, I wanted to thank you 

again for including me in that Distracted Driving Summit. I 

thought it was incredible. I think Secretary LaHood’s leadership, 

your leadership, has been just so strong on this. And, to me, a lot 

of this—we’ve got to get these laws in place. It’s pretty simple. 

Then we have to get that education campaign; and that, combined 

with enforcement. 

We’ve got a roadmap from work with seatbelts. We know how we 

can do this, where it won’t be that expensive. What’s expensive is 

all the lost lives and the accidents and everything that’s happening 

because of this distracted driving. So, I want to thank you for that. 

And also, I will tell you, Mark, if—Senator Pryor—if you ever go 

to the Distracted Driving Summit, it is the most attentive audience 

in the world. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No one is doing a BlackBerry, and they all 

listen. So, I highly recommend it. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. No, Senator, thank you. And thank you for your 

attendance at the Summit. We really did appreciate that and thank 

you for your ongoing leadership in this area. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Strickland, thank you for being here today. 

And, like I said, I have some follow-up questions that I’ll submit 

in writing. We’re going to leave the record open for 2 weeks, so 

we’d love to get those to you as quick as possible. And I’m sure 

some others have those, as well. 

Thank you. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir. Senator, I’d also like to submit for the 

record this chart, on our SAFETEA–LU Performance Measures, 

that I have on display. It gives a summation of all of our programs 

and the impact they’ve had on moving safety forward. 

Senator PRYOR. OK, great. Well I appreciate that. Yes, we’ll 

make that part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

21 

Senator PRYOR. And I do have one follow-up question. Again, it 

relates to Senator Rockefeller, who couldn’t be here today. But, I— 

there’s a—NHTSA is undergoing the Occupant Ejection Mitigation 

Rule. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes. 

Senator PRYOR. Do you have an update on that for the—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, I do, actually. 

Senator PRYOR. I know that you guys are looking at trying to reduce the number of ejections and, you know—you know the—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely. 

Senator PRYOR.—statistics better than I do. But, I know that you 

guys are in process, so if you could give us that update, that’d be 

great. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely. In December 2009, we issued our 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the ejection mitigation standard. 

What this deals with is protecting people against full and partial 

ejections through side windows, especially those that happen in 

rollover crashes. 

The comment period closed in February of this year and we intend on issuing the final rule by January of 2011, and we are on 

pace to do that. 

Senator PRYOR. Good. Well, thank you. And again, we may have 

some more follow-ups there, as well, but thank you. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you so much, Senator. I appreciate it. 

Senator PRYOR. You bet. Thank you. 

And what we’ll do now is bring up our second panel. And what 

I’ll—would like to do is just go ahead and introduce them very 

briefly as the staff is swapping out the microphones and all that. 


928CHART1.eps
22 

And we have a vote on the floor, here, in about 10 minutes, so— 

we have four witnesses. I’d love for the—each one to keep their 

opening statements to 5 minutes or less, emphasis on the ‘‘less.’’ 

That’d be great, if we could. And then what I’ll do is probably recess the Subcommittee, run and vote. I think we have two votes. 

And I’ll come right back. So, we may take a 10-, 15-, whatever it 

may take, but a few-minute recess, and then come back in for the 

testimony on that second panel. 

Our first witness is Ms. Jacqueline Gillan, Vice President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. Our second will be Mr. Robert 

Strassburger, Vice President, Vehicle Safety & Harmonization Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Third will be Ms. Laura DeanMooney, President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. And fourth is 

Mr. Neil Pedersen, Administrator of the Maryland State Highway 

Administration, on behalf of the Governors Highway Safety Association. 

So, what I’d like to do is, Ms. Gillan, ask you to make your statement, and again, remind all the witnesses that we’ll put your written statement in the record, and if we could be 5 minutes or less, 

that’d be great. 

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY 

Ms. GILLAN. OK, thank you. 

Is this on? OK. There it is. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Pryor and Senator Klobuchar. Thank 

you for inviting me to testify. 

First of all, let me commend this committee for being an important bipartisan force in advancing highway and auto safety issues. 

In fact, you’ve had a very busy last year, in moving several pieces 

of key legislation, which advocates in the safety community strongly support: the Motor Carrier—the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety 

Act, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010, in response to sudden 

unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles, and the Distracted 

Driving Prevention Act. And we strongly hope that these bills will 

be passed before the end of the 111th Congress. 

Clearly, the recent announcement about a significant drop in 

highway fatalities is great news for all of us. However, annual 

motor vehicle deaths are still equivalent to a major airplane crash 

every single day of the year. Recent declines in highway deaths 

these past 2 years are almost certainly related to the economic 

downturn, high gas prices, and a decrease in discretionary driving. 

In fact, I have a chart, in my testimony, which shows how declines 

in highway fatality corresponds with economic downturns. 

Currently, we have at hand both traffic safety technological solutions and safety programs that have the potential to make drastic 

reductions. But, the problem is, we’re waiting too long to act on 

some of these proven and effective safety solutions. 

Over the past 15 years, through different authorization, we’ve 

spent billions of dollars on State traffic safety programs and various issue-specific incentive grants. And, while these are worthwhile efforts and have resulted in some really terrific State and 

local law enforcement campaigns, they suffer from two major flaws. 

First, the Highway Safety Program’s grant programs generally lack 

23 

safety performance measures to provide accountability and ensure 

effectiveness. And second, the various incentive grant programs 

have not resulted in the adoption of the most effective highway 

safety laws by every State. And over time, the States have successfully insisted on program flexibility, both in terms of funding and 

performance, at the expense of accountability and effectiveness. 

And we strongly support the approach taken in the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee draft authorization bill to establish performance measures for these traffic safety grant programs, so that we can increase accountability and we can direct resources that have the best opportunity for high payoff. 

Another significant obstacle in reducing highway deaths and injuries is this lack of uniform traffic safety laws. And included in 

my testimony are various maps which show which States have motorcycle helmet laws, primary seatbelt laws, tough drunk-driving 

laws, and teen driving laws. And right now, we have this patchwork quilt, and it’s really essential that we have Federal leadership 

in this area. And it was Federal leadership that resulted in every 

single State passing a minimum-21 drinking age, because of Senator Lautenberg’s efforts, and .08 BAC, as well as minimum licensing standards for commercial drivers, sponsored by former Senator 

Danforth, and a zero-tolerance BAC law to combat underage drinking and driving, sponsored by the late Senator Byrd. 

Every time Congress has used a sanction, every State has adopted the law, and not a single State has ever lost a single dollar of 

Federal aid highway funds, and thousands of lives have been 

saved. There are—no question that sanctions work. 

And, while incentive grants may be the appropriate means to 

start the process of encouraging States to act, sanctions have always been successful in finishing the job. And there are several examples of that in SAFETEA–LU, where we have a primary incentive grant program, a half a billion dollars, and we still don’t have 

every State with a primary enforcement seatbelt law. And every 

State needs that. 

We also commend Senator Klobuchar for the STANDUP Act. 

Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for teenagers in every State. That’s really an important bill that starts out 

with incentive grant programs and then moves to sanctions. 

Some advice. as a former mother of two teens, I tried desperately 

to get Maryland—the State of Maryland to toughen their laws before my children started driving. It didn’t work out that way, so 

there were two laws in our house. There was Maryland law and 

Mom’s law. And Mom’s law prevailed. And I can say I safely got 

them through that period. So. 

But, definitely, we want to make sure that every teen in every 

State is covered by a strong graduated drivers licensing law. We 

know too much about how successful these laws—and we know 

that, right now, too many teens are dying every day on our highways. 

Another important issue is impaired driving. It is still a scourge 

on our highways, and we strongly support legislation, introduced 

by Senator Lautenberg, on requiring States to pass ignition interlock laws. 

24 

I could go on. As you know, we have worked very closely with 

this committee on the Distracted Driving Prevention Act, which we 

support, and also the Alert Drivers Act, by Senator Schumer. 

In conclusion, there are really no acceptable excuses anymore for 

delaying, any longer, the adoption of these lifesaving laws. It’s really like withholding a vaccination. And we also need to improve the 

effectiveness of traffic safety programs, and particularly some of 

the incentive grant programs. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify. We look forward to working with you. Clearly, the reauthorization bills have always had an 

important and strong safety component, and we’re very happy with 

the bills that are moving through this committee right now. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I am Jacqueline Gillan, Vice 

President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates). Advocates is a coalition of public health, safety, and consumer organizations, insurers and insurance 

agents working together to prevent highway deaths and injuries through the adoption of safety policies and regulations and the enactment of state and Federal safety 

laws. This year, Advocates celebrated 20 years as a unique coalition dedicated to 

improving highway and auto safety by addressing it as a public health issue. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has been an important force in advancing highway and 

auto safety laws these past two decades. Members of this Committee, Democrats 

and Republicans, have been leaders on numerous safety legislative efforts addressing impaired driving, occupant protection and motor carrier safety. In fact, there are 

several critically important safety bills that this Committee is advancing and Advocates strongly supports that we hope will be enacted into law during the remaining 

days of the 111th Congress, including S. 554, the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act 

of 2009, S. 3302, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 (MVSA) and S. 1938, the Distracted Driver Prevention Act of 2009. In every prior surface transportation authorization bill enacted by Congress in the past 20 years, Advocates’ safety priorities 

have focused on supporting enactment of programs, policies and laws that lead to 

safer roads, safer vehicles and safer drivers. As I discuss in this testimony, significant progress in achieving reductions in highway fatalities and injuries, and in preventing a return to higher fatality levels, will require Congress to adopt new safety 

countermeasures in all three areas. As the Committee considers the needs for traffic 

safety programs in the next surface transportation authorization bill there are a 

number of issues that we urge you to consider that will improve safety nationwide 

and ensure that the recent downward trend in traffic fatalities is not merely a 

short-term statistical blip. All of our proposals are effective both in terms of preventing crashes, saving lives, reducing disabling injuries, and saving billions of dollars for our Nation. 

Overview of Traffic Safety 

Traffic safety for the past two decades reflects both our successes and failures as 

a nation to protect our citizens from the tragic loss of life, serious physical injuries 

and enormous costs imposed by motor vehicle crashes. We have been successful in 

driving down the annual fatality rate over the long-term by increasing seat belt use 

and child occupant protection, enacting tough drunk driving countermeasures, 

adopting truck size limits, requiring vehicles to be equipped with proven safety technologies like airbags and electronic stability control, and designing more crashworthy vehicles. 

At the same time, however, there is a major unfinished safety agenda that Congress needs to address. Recent deaths and recalls involving Toyota vehicles have revealed resource and regulatory gaps in our government’s oversight and enforcement 

of safety defects, revolving door concerns involving agency staff, overdue vehicle 

safety standards and the lack of transparency that has blocked consumers from access to essential information that affects their safety. 

25 

1Traffic Safety Facts 2007, Table 4, p. 18, DOT HS 811 002, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA). 2The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000, DOT HS 809 446, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (May 2002) available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ 

staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%20Consumer%20Information/Articles/ 

Associated%20Files/EconomicImpact2000.pdf. 3 Highlights of 2009 Motor Vehicle Crashes, Traffic Safety Facts Research Note, DOT HS 811 

363, NHTSA (Aug. 2010). 4 10 Leading Causes of Injury Death by Age Group Highlighting Unintentional Injury Deaths, 

United States—2006, National Vital Statistics System, National Center for Health Statistics, 

Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. 

Additionally, we have failed to close gaps in state traffic safety laws that would 

prevent many drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel, protect novice teen drivers by enacting strong graduated driver licensing (GDL) programs in every state, 

stop the huge number of occupant fatalities by requiring seat belt and motorcycle 

helmet use, and protect the public from emerging safety threats such as distracted 

driving and dangerous overweight trucks. All of these safety problems result in 

thousands of preventable highway fatalities each year. The failure of all states to 

adopt the most effective safety requirements in these areas is a national tragedy 

that impedes the best intentioned programs from achieving national safety goals. 

Recent Data Trends 

For 15 years, from 1993 through 2007, the annual national traffic fatality total 

exceeded 40,000 deaths a year. Despite improvements in the fatality rate, the actual 

number of highway deaths remained relatively static, creeping up to as many as 

44,000 deaths per year, with a cumulative total of more than 630,000 traffic deaths 

in that decade and a half.1 Yes, the continual decline in the overall fatality rate 

meant that despite annual increases in registered vehicles and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), our efforts were holding the fatality total in check. However, it also signaled an inability to make sufficient and sustained progress on the core safety 

issues that contribute to the unacceptably large annual death toll. The fact that the 

annual number of fatalities remained constant meant that the core safety problem 

was not getting any smaller. Not only does this level of tragic, needless loss translate into over 100 persons killed each and every day—the equivalent of a daily commercial passenger airline crash—but it exacts an annual economic toll of more than 

$230 billion 2 in economic costs—a yearly crash ‘‘tax’’ of about $800 for every child, 

woman and man in the United States. 

The most recent safety data provides welcome news—deaths are down and many 

lives have been saved. Traffic fatality and other indicators in the past 2 years have 

dropped below 40,000 deaths for the first time since 1992. In the past 2 years reductions in fatalities exceeded all predictions with traffic deaths dropping to 37,423 in 

2008 and to 33,808 in 2009.3 While these improvements are gratifying because they 

mean fewer lives were lost on our highways, it does not necessarily mean that we 

have permanently broken through the 40,000 fatality barrier and can relax our efforts to improve public safety. Even with the recent decreases in annual fatalities, 

motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for Americans ages 3 to 

34.4 If history is our guide, the 2008–2009 fatality decrease is likely to be only a 

temporary decline that will certainly reverse, as has occurred following each previous decrease in fatalities that accompanied economic downturns. Unless Congress 

takes additional steps to ensure effective safety programs are in place to prevent 

a return to fatality levels that exceed 40,000 deaths per year, history will be repeated. 

Drops in Highway Deaths Correlate with Economic Downturns 

A significant portion of the current fatality reduction is due to the recessionary 

downturn in the national economy beginning in 2007. Historically, declines in traffic 

fatalities are correlated with reductions in economic activity and disruptions to the 

national economy. It is well documented that the economic impact of events such 

as high gas prices, extensive unemployment and recession are accompanied by large 

decreases in fatality statistics due to reduced discretionary driving and economic activity. To place the recent fatality figures in perspective, the chart included in my 

testimony indicates that at least since 1971, highway traffic deaths have temporarily declined each time the national economy has experienced a recession, only to 

increase again as the economy recovered. 

26 

5 An Analysis of the Significant Decline in Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2008 (Significant 

Decline Report), pp. 1–2, DOT HS 811 346, NHTSA (June 2010). 6 Id., pp. 17–22, using Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rates for Metropolitan Statistical Areas. 7 Id. at p. 2. 8 Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2011, Statement of the Administrator at 1–2, NHTSA (Feb. 

2011). 9Significant Decline Report, p. 2. 

In June, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a 

report that found ‘‘similar significant declines in fatalities were seen during the 

early 1980s and the early 1990s. Both of these periods coincided with significant 

economic recessions in the United States.’’ 5 The NHTSA report goes on to document 

the striking association between the decline in fatalities, especially among younger 

drivers ages 16 to 24, and unemployment rates in major cities.6 ‘‘[L]arge fatality declines tended to coincide with areas that had higher increases in rates of unemployment.’’ 7

There is good reason to believe that there is a cause and effect relationship because as economic conditions deteriorate, especially when accompanied by high unemployment rates, spending on gasoline and travel decline as well. Even before the 

agency report was issued, the NHTSA Administrator, David Strickland, cautioned 

that while the downward trend in fatalities is encouraging, ‘‘do not expect [it] to 

continue once the country rebounds from its current economic hardships. With any 

rebound, the expectation is that discretionary driving will increase, which in turn 

may reverse fatality reductions with increased exposure.’’ 8 The question for the 

safety community, government leaders and elected officials is how can we sustain 

and improve the windfall reduction in fatalities as the economy rebounds. 

The Unfinished Safety Agenda 

As the economy recovers and economic activity, employment and discretionary 

driving return to pre-recession levels, so too will the number of motor vehicle crashes and the traffic fatality total. NHTSA has noted, however, that following past recoveries while traffic fatalities increased to higher levels the fatality total did not 

return to the levels that existed prior to the recession.9 While true, this outcome 

is not guaranteed. Most likely, the reduced levels of annual fatalities experienced 

after the previous two recessionary periods were the result of improved safety regulations and programs adopted in the years preceding the recovery. We have costeffective, successful safety countermeasures at hand that can address both traffic 

safety and technological improvements but we are waiting too long act. For this reason, it is critical that Congress adopt strong safety measures in the next surface 

transportation reauthorization bill if we are to ensure that the annual fatality total 

remains at or below the 2009 level of 34,000 traffic fatalities. 


928JGILL1.eps
27 

10The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU), Pub. L. 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005); the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA–21), Pub. L. 105–178 (June 9, 1998); and, the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L. 102–240 (Dec. 18, 1991). 11 23 U.S.C. § 402. 12SAFETEA–LU included incentive grant programs for occupant protection, safety belt performance, traffic safety information systems, alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures, motorcyclist safety, and child safety and child booster seat safety. 13Lives Saved in 2008 by Restraint Use and Minimum Drinking Age Laws, Traffic Safety 

Facts, DOT HS 811 153, NHTSA (June 2009). 14 Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety Programs, p. 1, GAO–03–474, Government Accountability Office (GAO) (Apr. 2003). 15 Id., p. 4. 16 23 U.S.C. § 412; enacted as Title II, § 2008(a), SAFETEA–LU, Pub. L. 109–59 (Aug. 10, 

2005). 17Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues, Despite State Eligibility and 

Management Difficulties, p. 4, GAO–08–398, GAO (Mar. 2008). 18 Id. 19Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States’ Challenges, and Issues for Reauthorization, Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director Physical infrastructure, p. 3, Testimony Before 

the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives, p. 3, GAO (July 16, 2008). 20 Id. 

The Traffic Safety and Incentive Grant Programs 

Over the past 15 years, through three separate authorization laws,10 the Nation 

has spent billions of dollars on traffic safety programs comprised of the Highway 

Safety Programs (Section 402) 11 and various issue-specific incentive grant programs.12 The dollar amounts are huge: more than $3.5 billion has been authorized 

for highway safety and various incentive grant programs over the past 10 years. The 

highway safety and incentive grant programs have supported many worthwhile efforts, especially state and local enforcement campaigns that have been the bulwark 

of local safety initiatives. Also, several states have adopted optimal safety laws in 

response to the incentive grant programs. In part as a result of these efforts, 

NHTSA estimates that many lives have been saved through seat belt and child restraint use.13 Yet, no discernable progress was made in bringing down the total 

number of traffic deaths until 2008. While these programs are the cornerstones of 

Federal and state traffic safety efforts, they suffer from two major flaws. First, the 

highway safety grant programs generally lack safety performance measures to provide accountability and ensure effectiveness. Second, the various incentive grant 

programs have not resulted in the adoption of the most effective traffic safety laws 

in all states. 

Lack of Performance Measures and Effective Oversight 

The Section 402 highway safety grant program has been the traditional means 

of providing the states with Federal funding to support state and local safety initiatives, education and enforcement efforts. Over time, however, the insistence on providing greater program flexibility, both in terms of funding and performance, has 

complicated program accountability and oversight. By 1998, NHTSA had ‘‘adopted 

a performance-based approach to oversight, under which the states set their own 

highway safety goals and targets. . . .’’ 14 Even with each state developing an annual safety plan, weaknesses in state plans were revised through subsequent ‘‘improvement plans’’ but agency regional offices made limited and inconsistent use’’ of 

the revised plans.15 In fact, Congress had to require that NHTSA review each state 

highway safety program at least once every 3 years and perform other standard 

oversight procedures.16

The incentive grant programs also lack adequate performance measures to determine effectiveness. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), ‘‘state 

performance is generally not tied to the receipt of the grants. . . .’’ 17 In addition, 

of the current incentive programs, ‘‘three of the five grants [programs] do not include performance accountability mechanisms that would link the receipt of grant 

funds to states’ ability to meet those performance goals.’’ 18 Despite the increased 

management reviews and oversight of state programs required by Congress, GAO 

found that NHTSA does not analyze, at the national level, the agency’s recommendations to states made as part of the review process or systematically track 

whether states have implemented the agency’s recommendations.19 Most damning, 

in 2008 GAO concluded that over the previous 10 years a key indicator of program 

effectiveness—traffic fatalities—had not improved.20

Although in the 2-years since the GAO report there has been a downturn in total 

traffic fatalities, Advocates remains convinced that the traffic safety programs are 

28 

21Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, § 2003, Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee, markup draft [Committee Print] (June, 2009). 22Teens, Texting, Tragedy, The 2010 Roadmap To State Highway Safety Laws, Advocates 

(Jan. 2010) (2010 Roadmap Report) available at http://www.saferoads.org/2010-roadmap-statehighway-safety-laws. 23Grants for primary safety belt use laws, Title II, § 2005, SAFETEA–LU, codified at 23 

U.S.C. § 406. 24Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues, Despite State Eligibility and Management 

Issues, Government Accountability Office (Mar. 2008), available at http://www.gao.gov/ 

new.items/d08398.pdf. 25 Adoption of primary enforcement seat belt laws increased seat belt use rates by 11 percent 

in New Jersey, 13 percent in Alabama and 14 percent in Michigan. Strengthening Safety Belt 

Use Laws—Increase Belt Use, Decrease Crash Fatalities and Injuries, Traffic Safety Facts, Laws, 

NHTSA (Apr. 2004) available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/new-fact-sheet03/ 

SeatBeltLaws.pdf. 26 In 2008, NHTSA estimated that an additional 4,152 lives could have been saved with 100 

percent belt use. Lives Saved in 2008 by Restraint Use and Minimum Drinking Age Laws, p. 

1, Traffic Safety Facts, DOT HS 811 153, NHTSA (June 2009). 

in desperate need of clear and specific performance measures. The approach taken 

in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee draft reauthorization 

bill has merit. It requires state safety plans to include ‘‘quantifiable performance 

targets’ and also directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish performance 

targets in each safety category.21 This will go a long way toward placing the grant 

programs on a sounder footing in terms of providing greater accountability and will, 

ultimately, improve the effectiveness of the highway safety and incentive grant programs. 

Grant Programs Have Not Resulted in All States Adopting Basic Safety 

Laws 

The traffic safety and incentive programs have not resulted in the adoption of optimal safety laws by all states. Advocates ‘‘2010 Roadmap Report’’ 22 evaluating 

state adoption of 15 basic traffic safety laws makes it abundantly evident that many 

states have not taken the vitally important and proven safety actions that are urgently needed to save lives on our highways. Because states receive funding, irrespective of whether the state has adopted primary enforcement seat belt, strong 

GDL programs, alcohol ignition interlock, all-rider motorcycle helmet, and other effective traffic safety laws, the program cannot achieve maximum lifesaving benefits. 

New York was the first state to adopt a primary enforcement seat belt law in 

1984—over 25 years ago—yet today only 31 states and the District of Columbia 

have adopted this critical safety law. Despite the fact that Congress provided an incentive grant program with $500 million to encourage states to adopt primary enforcement seat belt laws in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU),23 only 10 states have enacted primary enforcement laws since 2005.24

States that have adopted primary enforcement laws have maximized the effort to 

increase belt use rates and use the program grants to reinforce the message through 

public information, education and enforcement. It is well documented that states 

with primary enforcement seat belt use laws generally increase seat belt use rates 

by 10 percentage points or more after enactment of the law.25 However, states that 

have not enacted primary enforcement laws are not making the maximum effort to 

increase belt use rates. This is of critical importance because each year thousands 

of people die needlessly just because they did not buckle up.26

Incentive grant programs should be leveraged with requirements that all states 

must eventually adopt policies that have proven effective in improving safety. Experience has shown that the most efficient way to increase public awareness and compliance with safety policies is through the passage of state laws, coupled with public 

education and local enforcement. Time after time, in state after state, it has been 

shown that education without the law does not accomplish the goal of improved traffic safety. We found this out in our early efforts to reduce drunk driving. Slogans, 

public service announcements, and key chains were ineffective strategies but tough 

drunk driving laws with strong penalties were effective. While incentive programs 

are the appropriate means to start the process of encouraging states to adopt tried 

and true safety practices, Congress must eventually require compliance with proven 

public safety policies through the use of sanctions of Federal-aid highway funding. 

For this reason, Advocates believes it is already time to turn incentive grant programs into sanctions in order to advance adoption of laws that are proven to dramatically save lives. With regard to primary enforcement seat belt laws, all-rider 

motorcycle helmet laws, comprehensive teen driving laws and impaired driving 

laws, the scientific data is overwhelming and it is beyond question that these laws 

29 

27Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, § 1516, Enforcement of Primary Seat Belt 

Laws, and § 1517, Use of Ignition Interlock Devices to Prevent Repeat Intoxicated Driving, 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, markup draft, House of Representatives [Committee Print] (June, 2009). 28Pub. L. 98–363 (July 17, 1984), codified as National Minimum Drinking Age, 23 U.S.C. 

§ 158. 

29Determine Why There Are Fewer Young Alcohol-Impaired Drivers, What caused the decrease?, DOT HS 809 348. NHTSA (1998), available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ 

research/FewerYoungDrivers/ivlwhatlcaused.htm. 30Statistical Analysis of Alcohol-Related Driving Trends, 1982–2005, DOT HS 810 942. 

NHTSA (2008), available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/ 

Reports/2008/810942.pdf. 31Young Drivers. Traffic Safety Facts 2008 , DOT HS 811 169, NHTSA (2009), available at 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811169.PDF. 32Title XII, Pub. L. 99–570 (Oct. 27, 1986), codified as 49 U.S.C. §§ 31301 et seq.. 33The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 and Classified Driver Licensing. Transportation Research Board Publications Index, Accession Number 00475965, 1988, p. 14, available at http://pubsindex.trb.org/view.aspx?id=286034. 34Title III, § 320, Pub. L. 104–59 (Nov. 28, 1995), codified as 23 U.S.C. § 161. 

save lives and reduce state and Federal health care costs. These laws are like a vaccine and every family in every state should be protected. The maps included in my 

testimony show that state adoption of optimal safety laws has resulted in a patchwork quilt of lifesaving laws across the country. Incentive grants have never been 

able to achieve uniform adoption of critical traffic safety laws and it is time to turn 

the incentives into sanctions. For this reason, Advocates supports the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee highway reauthorization bill which includes 

proposed sanctions for states that fail to enact primary seat belt enforcement and 

alcohol ignition interlock laws.27 Advocates’ supports these provisions because when 

it comes to public safety, sanctions save lives. 

When Congress Acts, States React and Lives Are Saved 

Congressional leadership is critical and has been effective in encouraging state action with the adoption of Federal sanctions. The potential withholding of Federal 

highway construction funds—sanctions—has been an effective and successful means 

to expedite state passage of safety laws and to create a uniform, national safety policy. Over 20 years of legislative history has proven that when Congress reinforces 

the need for states to pass a lifesaving law by invoking sanctions, states consistently 

and promptly enact those life-saving laws. It is important to point out that no state 

has ever lost a single dollar of Federal highway funds as a result of a Federal sanction. 

In the 1980s, for example, Americans lacked a uniform law across all 50 states 

that set a minimum drinking age of 21 to eliminate the ‘‘blood borders’’ problem. 

The differences in drinking age laws resulted in young drivers from states with a 

minimum drinking age of 21 driving to adjacent states that had a lower legal drinking age, consuming alcohol, and then driving home while under the influence. This 

resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of teen drivers and young passengers, 

earning these areas the designation, ‘‘blood borders.’’ In 1984, because of the leadership of Sen. Lautenberg (D–NJ), Congress enacted the Uniform Drinking Age Act,28

which required states to enact a minimum age 21 law for the purchase and use of 

alcoholic beverages or face a potential decrease in Federal highway funds.29 The law 

was also championed by then-Secretary of Transportation, Elizabeth Dole, and 

signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. Within 3 years, the District of Columbia and the 28 states that lacked an age 21 minimum drinking age law met the 

Federal standard. Since the enactment of the Uniform Drinking Age Act the overall 

alcohol-related traffic fatality rate has been reduced by half,30 and NHTSA estimates that 27,052 lives have been saved as a result.31

Similarly, in the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986,32 Congress included a sanction to encourage states to pass a law requiring specific criteria for 

the testing and licensing of commercial drivers.33 This provision was authored by 

the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. By 1992, every state 

had passed a law requiring the testing and licensing standards outlined by the Secretary of Transportation. 

In another example, 26 states lacked a zero tolerance law to better enforce the 

age 21 drinking law. Congress responded by including in the 1995 National Highway Systems Designation Act, a provision authored by the late Senator Robert Byrd 

(D–WV), requiring a portion of Federal highway funds be withheld from states that 

failed to enact a zero tolerance law for young drivers.34 By 1998, every state and 

the District of Columbia had passed a zero tolerance law. 

30 

35Title III, § 351, Pub. L. 106–346 (Oct. 23, 2000), codified as 23 U.S.C. § 163. See .08 BAC 

illegal per se level, Traffic Safety Facts, vol. 2 No. 1, NHTSA (March 2004), available at http:// 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/New-fact-sheet03/fact-sheets04/Laws–08BAC.pdf. 36 According to the NHTSA, in the 35 year period from 1975 to 2008 child restraints saved 

8,959 children, frontal air bags (in use general use since the late 1980s but not universally mandated until the mid–1990s) saved 27,840 occupants, and the 21-Year-Old Drinking Age law 

saved 27,052 people. NHTSA estimates that while seat belt use saved 255,115 occupants, they 

could have saved an additional 359,845 people if all occupants had used seat belts. Likewise, 

while motorcycle helmet use saved 30,495 lives over the 35 year period, another 27,433 lives 

could have been saved if all riders had worn protective helmets. Traffic Safety Facts 2008, DOT 

HS 811 170, Final Edition, Back Cover, NHTSA (2009). 37Young Drivers, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at 1, DOT HS 811 169 (2009). 38 Id. 39 U.S. Bureau of the Census (1999). 40Young Drivers at 2. 41Significant Decline Report, p. 8. 42 Id. 

The experience enacting a uniform drunk driving threshold is also instructive. In 

1998, Congress initially tried using incentive grants to encourage states to pass .08 

blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits. After several years, only 2 states and the 

District of Columbia had passed .08 percent BAC laws. Finally, in the Department 

of Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Congress required the 

remaining states without .08 BAC laws to enact the law lose a portion of their highway funds.35 Ten states passed .08 BAC laws within the first year after the sanction 

was applied and, by 2005, all 33 states that lacked a .08 BAC law had adopted the 

law. 

These facts illustrate that the use of sanctions by Congress to prompt states to 

enact lifesaving laws has been universally effective. Not only have the states enacted these safety laws in a timely fashion, but not one state has lost any Federal 

highway funds, and thousands upon thousands of lives have been saved as a result. 

As important, there is a heavy price to be paid for the failure of states to adopt 

these life-saving laws. According to NHTSA, while many lives have been saved by 

seat belt and motorcycle helmet use over the years, an equal or greater number of 

lives could have been saved (but were not) because of the failure of vehicle occupants and motorcycle riders to take basic precautions.36 The failure of states to 

enact these safety policies as state law has been a major contributing factor in these 

losses. 

Five Laws That Will Make American Families Safer 

The opportunities to improve traffic safety are many. This testimony addresses 

five (5) critical safety measures that Congress should pass that will protect every 

family in every state. These opportunities will save thousands of lives and, in some 

cases, include incentive grants coupled with sanctions to accelerate state adoption 

of uniform traffic safety laws that require: 

• optimal graduated driver license requirements for teenage drivers; 

• primary enforcement seat belt use laws; 

• alcohol ignition interlock technology for convicted drunk and drugged drivers; 

• ban on the use of distracting electronic devices while driving; and 

• all-rider motorcycle helmet use. 

Teenage Driving Safety—Strong, Comprehensive Graduated Driver 

Licensing (GDL) Laws Save Lives 

Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for teenagers between 

15 and 20 years of age.37 The number and percentage of young licensed drivers in 

the U.S. population has increased from 12.6 million (4.8 percent) in 1997, to 13.2 

million (6.4 percent) in 2007.38 The teen driver population will continue to increase 

as the current cohort of 12- to 19-year-olds expands to 34.9 million this year, increasing the pool of those eligible to obtain drivers licenses.39 Young drivers also 

represented 14 percent of all drivers involved in police-reported crashes in 2008.40

Although in 2008 there was a notable 23 percent decline in fatalities among 16 

to 20 year old vehicle occupants,41 16 to 20 year olds still comprised 13 percent of 

all occupant fatalities,42 and young drivers remain over-represented in terms of 

motor vehicle crashes. In 2009, 2,336 drivers, ages 15 to 20 years old, were involved 

in fatal crashes, involving a total of 5,623 fatalities, including their passengers, peVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
31 

43Fatalities in Crashes Involving a Young Driver (Ages 15–20), by State and Fatality Type, 

FARS 2009, NHTSA. Data provided in response to NHTSA search request. 44Young Drivers, Traffic Safety Facts 2008 at 1. 45The state-by-state breakdown of deaths in teen driver fatal crash from 2005 to 2009 for 

states represented on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is: AK (75); 

AR (596); CA (3,385); FL (2,839); GA (1,326); HI (105); KS (404); LA (848); MA (365); ME (154); 

MN (473); MO (1,057); MS (778); ND (116); NE (310); NJ (539); NM (351); NV (307); SC (808); 

SD (144); TX (3,218); VA (813); WA (516); and, WV (299). 46Williams, et al., Evaluation of New Jersey’s Graduated Driver Licensing Program, Traffic 

Injury Prevention 11:1–7 (Feb. 2010). 

destrians and the drivers and occupants of other vehicles.43 Young drivers comprise 

about 12 percent of all drivers who are involved in fatal crashes.44

Over the past 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, a staggering total of 36,071 fatalities have occurred in motor vehicle crashes involving teen drivers nationwide. The 

map on the next page indicates the cumulative number of deaths in crashes involving teen drivers by state. More than half of those deaths, 19,826, have occurred in 

the 24 states represented by Members on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.45 This makes a strong case for the need to protect teen drivers 

in a uniform manner, from state-to-state, regardless of where novice drivers learn 

to drive. 

Fortunately, there is a proven method for reducing teen driving deaths. Graduated driver license (GDL) laws phase-in driving privileges over time and in low 

risk circumstances. This allows teen drivers to be introduced slowly to driving and 

to obtain driving experience under safer conditions. Research has shown the effectiveness of state GDL programs in reducing teen driver crashes and teenage fatalities. A recent study evaluating New Jersey’s unique combination of a higher licensing age and a strong GDL system applicable to all novice drivers shows that after 

GDL implementation, there were significant reductions in the crash rates of 17- 

year-olds in all reported crashes (16 percent), injury crashes (14 percent) and fatal 

crashes (25 percent).46 In Illinois, there has been a dramatic drop—more than 50 

percent—in teen-related fatalities since their comprehensive GDL program took efVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

928JGILL2.eps
32 

47 Information provided by the Office of the Illinois Secretary of State, available at 

www.cyberdriveillinois.com/press/2009/january/090128d1.html, and from the Illinois Department of Transportation, available at http://www.dot.il.gov/press/r040709.html. 48www.saferoads4teens.org. 49Occupant Protection, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at 3, DOT HS 811 160, NHTSA (2009). 50 Id. at 2. 

fect in January 2008.47 Even factoring in fewer fatalities due to reduced exposure 

in an economic downturn, Illinois’ strong set of GDL laws undoubtedly played a significant role in this successful outcome. 

Advocates recommends five components for an optimal GDL law based on the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations, extensive research 

conducted on the effectiveness of strong GDL laws, and policies supported by the 

American Academy of Pediatrics and other public health and safety organizations: 

• minimum age limit of 16 years to obtain a learners permit, and age 18 for lifting all restrictions for newly licensed drivers; 

• minimum six-month holding period for a learners permit and intermediate 

stage; 

• ban on non-emergency use of cell phone and other communication devices during learners permit and intermediate stage; 

• restriction on unsupervised nighttime driving in learners and intermediate 

stage; 

• restriction on more than one non-familial teenage passenger in intermediate 

stage. 

Despite the proven safety effectiveness of GDL laws that meet these optimal features, there remains a patchwork quilt of teen driving laws in states across the Nation. Some states have weak laws while others have stronger laws creating another 

example of ‘‘blood borders.’’ As a result, millions of novice teen drivers lack some 

of the most basic protections that could prevent teen crashes and save lives. It is 

time for Congress to act in this public health crisis to encourage state adoption of 

comprehensive GDL laws. 

Legislation that would accomplish this has already been introduced in Congress, 

S. 3269, the Safe Teen And Novice Driver Uniform Protection (STANDUP Act) sponsored by Senators Gillibrand (D–NY), Dodd (D–CT), Klobuchar (D–MN), Carper (D– 

DE), Cardin (D–MD), Lieberman (D–CT) and Whitehouse (D–RI). The House has introduced a companion measure, H.R. 1895, with twenty-one co-sponsors including 

Representatives Bishop (D–NY), Castle (R–DE) and Van Hollen (D–MD). The legislation requires states to adopt the optimal GDL features mentioned above. The bill 

allows the Secretary of Transportation to consider additional requirements, such as 

minimum hours of behind-the-wheel driving time and driver training courses, before 

full licensure is granted. The bill also provides for $25 million per year for 3 years 

as incentive grants to entice states to adopt these laws. Furthermore, the bill includes a potential sanction on Federal-aid highway funds to ensure that when all 

is said and done, uniform state GDL laws across the Nation will save the lives of 

our most precious possession—our children. This legislation is supported by the 

Saferoads4teens Coalition 48 whose members include more than 150 national, state 

and local groups representing teens and parents, consumer, health, and safety interests, emergency doctors and nurses, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Mothers 

Against Drunk Driving (MADD), firefighters, law enforcement, insurance companies 

and the auto industry. This legislation, when passed, has the potential to significantly reduce teen crashes, deaths and injuries similar to the safety gains made in 

saving teen lives with enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age. 

Buckling Up—Primary Enforcement Seat Belt Laws Save Lives 

Seat belts remain the most effective occupant protection safety device in motor vehicles. Research shows that when lap/shoulder seat belts are used they reduce the 

risk of fatal injury by 45 percent, and the risk of moderate-to-critical injuries by 50 

percent to front-seat occupants in passenger vehicles. Additionally, seat belts reduce 

the risk of fatal injury by 60 percent, and the risk of moderate-to-critical injuries 

by 65 percent, for occupants of light trucks.49 Yet, in 2008, more than half of the 

occupants killed in fatal crashes, 55 percent, were unrestrained in crashes where 

restraint use was known.50

Seat belts save lives by keeping occupants in the vehicle, thus preventing complete ejection in a crash. Ejection from the vehicle is one of the most serious and 

deadly events that can occur in a crash. In fatal crashes in 2008, 77 percent of occuVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
33 

51 Id. at 3. 52Seat Belt Use in 2009—Use Rates in the States and Territories, Traffic Safety Facts, Crash 

Stats, DOT HS 811 324, NHTSA (May 2010). 53Farmer, C. M. & Williams, A. F., Effect on Fatality Risk of Changing from Secondary to 

Primary Seat Belt Enforcement, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Dec. 2004), available 

at http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/pdf/iihsseatbeltsof.pdf. 54Strengthening Safety Belt Use Laws—Increase Belt Use, Decrease Crash Fatalities and Injuries, Traffic Safety Facts, Laws, NHTSA (Apr. 2004). 

55The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000, at 55. 56Occupant Protection, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at 3. 57 Id. 58 Id. at 4. 59Traffic Safety Facts 2008, Lives Saved by Restraint Use and 21-Year-Old Minimum Legal 

Drinking Age Laws Chart, Inside Back Cover, DOT HS 811 170, NHTSA (2009). 

pants who were totally ejected from the vehicle were killed.51 Nevertheless, the national observed seat belt use rate was 84 percent in 2009,52 and only 31 states and 

the District of Columbia have enacted primary enforcement seat belt use laws, while 

19 states have not. 

In states with primary enforcement laws, belt use is higher. A study conducted 

by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that when states 

strengthen their laws from secondary enforcement to primary, driver death rates decline by an estimated 7 percent.53 Use levels are typically 10 to 15 percentage points 

higher in these states than in states without primary enforcement laws.54 Needless 

deaths and injuries that result from a lack of seat belt use cost society an estimated 

$26 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity, and other injury-related 

costs.55

NHTSA estimates that in 2008, seat belts saved 13,250 lives among passenger vehicle occupants over age 4.56 If all passenger occupants over age 4 had worn seat 

belts in 2008 an estimated 17,402 lives, or an additional 4,152 lives, could have been 

saved.57 NHTSA calculates that between 1975 and 2008 seat belts saved an estimated total of more than 255,000 lives.58 Had seat belt use rates been 100 percent 

over the years, more than 350,000 additional lives would have been saved.59

Congress has already tried to persuade states to adopt primary seat belt enforcement laws with a generous grant program. As mentioned, the 2005 SAFETEA–LU 

Act provided $500 million in incentive grant funding to entice states to pass primary 

enforcement seat belt laws. In the 5 years that incentive program was in effect, only 

ten (10) states enacted primary seat belt enforcement laws and 19 states still have 

not. 

Incentive grants must be coupled with potential sanctions in order to boost the 

national seat belt use rate and to save thousands more lives each year. That is why 

Advocates supports the measure adopted by the House Transportation and InfraVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

928JGILL3.eps
34 

60Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, § 1516, Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee, markup draft [Committee Print] (June, 2009). 61 Highlights of 2009 Motor Vehicle Crashes, Traffic Safety Facts Research Note, Table 3, p. 

2, DOT HS 811 363, NHTSA (Aug. 2010). 62 Alcohol-Impaired Driving, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at 1, DOT HS 811 155, NHTSA (2009). 63 2010 Roadmap Report at 26. 

structure Committee to amend existing law to include a potential sanction for states 

that do not adopt a primary enforcement seat belt use law by September 30, 2012.60

Convicted Drunk Drivers—Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices Save Lives 

Drinking and driving continues to be a national scourge on our Nation’s highways. 

While a number of measures have successfully reduced the historically high levels 

of carnage caused by drunk driving back in the 1980s, nearly a third of traffic 

deaths occur in alcohol involved crashes. Although the total number of alcohol-related crash deaths declined in 2009 to 10,839 people, 7 percent less than in 2008, 

alcohol involved crashes still accounted for 32 percent of all traffic fatalities.61 Except for the recent 2008–2009 dip in fatalities during the recession, the annual level 

of alcohol-involved crash fatalities has not declined significantly in the past 10 

years.62 Previous decreases in fatalities were in large measure due to a wave of enactment of state anti-impaired driving laws, serious enforcement of those laws and 

educational efforts by MADD) and others to raise awareness of the problem. In 

order to continue to reduce the number of needless alcohol related crash deaths suffered on our highways each year, and to maintain fatality reductions resulting from 

the recessionary downturn, more must be done to keep impaired drivers off our 

streets and roads. 

One such measure is the required installation of technology to prevent drunk driving recidivism. An effort led by MADD and supported by Advocates is already underway to urge states to adopt a mandatory interlock system to prevent persons convicted of impaired driving, including first time offenders who have been convicted 

of an impaired driving offense, from starting their vehicle when they are again impaired. A breath alcohol ignition interlock device (IID) is similar to a breathalyzer 

used by police to determine if a driver has an illegally high BAC level. The IID is 

linked to a vehicle’s ignition system and requires a driver who has previously been 

convicted of an impaired driving offense to breathe into the device. If the analyzed 

result exceeds the programmed BAC limit for the driver, the vehicle will not start. 

But if the alcohol in the driver’s system registers below the prohibited limit, the 

driver can start the vehicle and begin driving. 

Today, modern technology is used not just to provide drivers with vital safety information, but also to allow Internet access and entertainment and business communications that can interfere with the driving task. There is no reason that technology should not be used to prevent impaired drivers who have prior convictions 

for that offense from operating motor vehicles. 

Most Americans support this initiative as well. In 2009, a survey conducted by 

the IIHS found that 84 percent of respondents said that ignition interlock devices 

for convicted drunk drivers is a good idea.63

However, only 13 states have adopted the use of IID technology to prevent first 

time offenders convicted of impaired driving from repeating the same dangerous behavior at the expense of others. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia 

have yet to adopt this life-saving law. 

35 

64Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, § 1517, see note 25 supra. 65 An Examination of Driver Distraction as Recorded in NHTSA Data bases, Traffic Safety 

Facts Research Note, at 1, DOT HS 811 216, NHTSA (Sept. 2009). 66Olson, et al., Driver Distraction in Commercial Motor Vehicle Operations, Virginia Tech 

Transportation Institute (2009). 

Senator Lautenberg (D–NJ), has introduced the Drunk Driving Repeat Offender 

Prevention Act of 2009, S. 2920, that advances the cause of safety by requiring all 

states to adopt IID technology to prevent traffic crashes. The bill includes the tried 

and true approach of invoking potential sanctions in order to prompt states to enact 

laws that require the use of IIDs following a conviction for impaired driving. Advocates strongly supports S. 2920 because taking the keys out of the hands of drunk 

drivers is the most effective action we can take to stop convicted drunk drivers from 

becoming repeat offenders. And, as previously mentioned, the House Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee has adopted this approach in its pending reauthorization bill.64 Every family deserves to be protected from drunk drivers, and every 

state should have this law. 

Distracted Driving—Curb the Use of Electronic Devices While Driving to 

Save Lives 

Although various kinds of distractions have been a part of driving since the automobile was invented, the emergence of personal electronic communications devices 

that can readily be used while operating a vehicle has presented a whole new category of driver distraction and danger than ever before. The growing use of builtin and after-market or nomadic devices by drivers began with cell phone use but 

has proliferated through a myriad of personal electronics that allow drivers to access the Internet, perform office work and to send and receive text messages while 

driving. As a result, in 2009, there were an estimated 5,474 fatalities and 448,000 

injuries in crashes where driver distraction was a factor.65

Text messaging while driving poses the most extreme and evident crash risk danger. Diversion of attention from the driving task to input or read a text message 

clearly interferes with drivers’ ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. A 2009 

study found that text messaging while driving increases the risk of a safety-critical 

event by more than 23 times compared to drivers who are focused on the driving 

task.66

A mounting number of research studies and data show that the use of a mobile 

telephone while driving, whether hand-held or hands-free, is equivalent to driving 

under the influence of alcohol at the threshold of the legal limit of .08 percent blood 

alcohol concentration (BAC). Hand-held mobile phone use and dialing while driving 

require drivers to divert attention from the road and from the driving task, yet 


928JGILL4.eps
36 

67Distracted Driving Summit, September 21, 2010 (Washington, D.C.), information last 

accessed on Sept. 20, 2010 and available at http://www.distraction.gov/2010summit/. 68Distracted Driving Summit, September 30–October 1, 2009 (Washington, D.C.) 69Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, Executive Order No. 13513 

(Oct. 1, 2009), 74 FR 51225 (Oct. 6, 2009). 70See Limiting the Use of Wireless Communications Devices, Final Rule, 75 FR 59118 (Sept. 

27, 2010); Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Applicability of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations to Texting by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers, Notice of Regulatory Guidance, 75 

FR 4305 (Jan. 27, 2010). 71Distracted Driving Petition for Rulemaking: Requesting Issuance of a Rule to Consider Prohibiting or Restricting the Use of Electronic Devices During the Operation of Commercial Motor 

hands-free phone use has also been shown to involve cognitive distraction that is 

no less dangerous in terms of diverting attention from the driving task and the potential risk of crash involvement. 

To date, 30 states and the District of Columbia have enacted all-driver text messaging bans, although 4 of these states have secondary enforcement, but 20 states 

have no such law. 

Two significant pieces of legislation have been introduced in the Senate to prohibit drivers from sending, receiving and accessing text messages while driving passenger vehicles: The Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2009, S. 1938, introduced 

by Chairman Rockefeller (D–WV) and the Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless 

Texting by Drivers, or the ALERT Drivers Act, of 2009, S. 1536, introduced by Sen. 

Schumer (D–NY). Each bill is a strong initiative intended to address distracted driving, and Advocates supports the goals of both bills. We applaud Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison and the other members of this committee for 

moving this legislation to the Senate floor on June 9, 2010. Advocates is convinced 

that a combination of incentive grants and sanctions is the most effective strategy 

to ensure that text messaging prohibitions are expeditiously adopted in all states. 

The Administration has taken some good first steps to reverse the rising tide of 

crashes that involve distracted driving as a factor. Last week the Secretary of 

Transportation convened the second national conference on distracted driving,67 in 

an effort to keep the focus on this safety problem at the national level. Just after 

the first such conference 68 President Obama issued a proclamation banning text 

messaging by Federal employees,69 and the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

took measures to curb distracted driving in commercial vehicles.70 However, the 

problem of distracted driving in commercial vehicles is not limited only to text messaging. For that reason, Advocates filed a petition for rulemaking with the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which regulates commercial vehicle 

operations, seeking a review of all types of electronic devices used in commercial vehicles, not just those that support text messaging.71


928JGILL5.eps
37 

Vehicles, dated September 24, 2009, filed by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety with the 

FMCSA Administrator. 72Motorcycle Safety, National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 807 709 

(Oct. 1999), available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/moto 

safety.html. 73Motorcycles, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, DOT HS 811 159, at 1, NHTSA (2009). 74 A Highway Safety Countermeasures Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, DOT HS 810 

891, p. 5–4, NHTSA (3d ed., Jan. 2008) (NHTSA Safety Countermeasures Guide). 75Traffic Safety Facts 2008, Table 10, p. 28. 76Motorcycles, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at 1. 77 Highlights of 2009 Motor Vehicle Crashes, pp. 1 and 3. 78Motorcycles, Traffic Safety Facts 2008, at 6. 79 Id. at 3. 80The National Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89–563 (Sept. 9, 1966). 81See e.g., Evaluation of the Reinstatement of the Helmet Law in Louisiana, DOT HS 810 

956, NHTSA (May 2008), available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/nhtsalstaticlfilel 

downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated 

%20Files/810956.pdf. 82Traffic Safety Facts 2008, Table 10, p. 28. 83 NTSB Recommendations H–07–38, available at http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2007/ 

H07l38.pdf, and H–07–39, available at http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2007/H07l39.pdf. 84 Id. 

Motorcycle Deaths—Rose for 11 Straight Years and Helmet Laws are Under 

Attack 

NHTSA estimates that 80 percent of motorcycle crashes injure or kill a rider.72

2008 was the 11th straight year in which motorcycle crash fatalities increased, rising to 5,290 motorcyclists killed and 96,000 were injured.73 This is more than double 

the motorcycle fatalities in 1998 and a level not seen since 1981.74 While motorcycle 

fatalities finally decreased to 4,462 in 2009, that figure still represents fatality numbers that are more than double what the figure was in 1997, the last year in which 

motorcycle fatalities experienced a decline.75 While fatality and injury rates for 

other types of vehicles have dropped over the years, the fatality and injury rates 

for motorcycles have been steadily rising.76

At present, motorcycles make up less than 3 percent of all registered vehicles and 

only 0.4 percent of all vehicle miles traveled, but motorcyclists accounted for 13 percent of total traffic fatalities and 19 percent of all occupant fatalities.77 NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,829 motorcyclists in 2008 and that if all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 823 lives could have been saved.78

NHTSA estimates that 148,000 motorcyclists have been killed in traffic crashes 

since 1966.79

In the past, annual motorcycle rider deaths were much lower in part because most 

states had all-rider motorcycle helmet laws. Congress used the power of the sanction 

to require states to enact helmet use laws.80 When the sanction was repealed by 

Congress, the states followed suit with more than half the states repealing their helmet laws.81

Some motorcycle enthusiasts who oppose motorcycle helmet use laws have asserted that training and education alone are the way to improve motorcycle safety. 

However, in SAFETEA–LU, Congress included a number of measures aimed at promoting motorcycle training and education. These programs have not proven effective 

in stemming the increasing tide of motorcycle fatalities. In 2008, motorcycle crash 

deaths were still on the rise to an all time high of 5,290 deaths 82 despite the 

SAFETEA–LU funded motorcycle education grant program. The 2009 reduction in 

motorcycle deaths may well prove to be only a temporary respite due to reduced vehicle miles of travel as a result of the economic downturn. 

Today, only 20 states and the District of Columbia require helmet use by all motorcycle riders. The map below indicates the status of the law in each state. This 

year, 9 of those state laws were under attack by repeal attempts. In 2007, the NTSB 

recommended that all states without an all-rider helmet law should adopt one.83 Research conclusively and convincingly shows that all-rider helmet laws save lives and 

reduce medical costs. While helmets will not prevent crashes from occurring, they 

have a significant and positive effect on preventing head and brain injuries during 

crashes. These are the most life-threatening and long-term injuries as well as the 

most costly. 

In 1992, California’s all-rider helmet law took effect resulting in a 40 percent drop 

in its Medicaid costs and total hospital charges for medical treatment of motorcycle 

riders.84

38 

Conclusion 

The quality of life for all Americans depends on a safe, reliable, economical and 

environmentally sound surface transportation system. Transportation solutions to 

promote mobility and the economy must involve not only financial investments, but 

investments in safety as well. Highway crashes cost our Nation more than $230 billion annually. This is money that could be better spent on addressing surface transportation needs. Making necessary changes to the performance and effectiveness of 

the highway safety and incentive grant programs, including requiring the adoption 

of proven, practical safety laws and policies will dramatically improve traffic safety, 

reduce deaths and injuries and lower societal costs that accompany motor vehicle 

crashes. 

The significant reduction in highway fatalities that has occurred over the last 2 

years affords an opportunity to continue the downward trend and make substantial 

and lasting reductions in annual fatalities. There are no acceptable excuses for delaying any longer the adoption of lifesaving laws that can help secure these lower 

fatality levels in the future. Over the course of the next five-year authorization bill 

we can save thousands of lives each year if we act wisely and act now. If the opportunity slips away without action we could suffer more than 200,000 fatalities and 

another 10 million injuries in that 5-year timeframe. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and I am pleased to answer your questions. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Mr. Strassburger. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT STRASSBURGER, VICE PRESIDENT, 

VEHICLE SAFETY AND HARMONIZATION, ALLIANCE OF 

AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS 

Mr. STRASSBURGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As we’ve already heard this morning, the Nation recorded its 

lowest traffic fatality rate last year. And the decline continues in 

2010. Some attribute this to the economic downturn, but the fact 

is, it began well before the downturn started, and it continues even 

as vehicle miles traveled rebounds. 

We are seeing a sustained declined in fatalities because a decade 

ago, government, industry, and other stakeholders stepped up efVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

928JGILL6.eps
39 

forts to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries. And we are now seeing 

the payoff. 

For our part, automakers are waging a safety technology revolution—conceiving, developing and implementing new safety systems 

with real-world benefits. Still, 33,808 people lost their lives last 

year on our roads, and about 2.2 million were injured. Tragically, 

53 percent of vehicle occupants killed were not restrained by safety 

belts. Moreover, 32 percent of those killed died because of a drunk 

driver. 

If we are to fully realize the benefits of vehicle safety technologies, we must address drivers’ most dangerous behaviors. As 

this committee moves forward with reauthorization of safety grant 

programs, we urge you to focus on those that provide the greatest 

safety benefits. 

The Alliance recommends the following: 

Primary enforcement safety belt-use laws result in higher usage 

rates, and that saves lives. The time has come to treat safety belt 

use with the same seriousness as drunk driving, and sanction 

States that have failed to adopt a primary law, in the same way 

the Congress required States to adopt .08 laws. We further urge 

that funding continue for ‘‘Click It or Ticket,’’ NHTSA’s high-visibility enforcement campaign for safety belts. 

Drunk driving remains one of our most pervasive problems. 

While we’ve made progress over the last three decades, that 

progress pales in comparison to the size of the problem we face. 

That is why the Alliance is working with MADD to eliminate 

drunk driving permanently. We support MADD’s campaign to 

eliminate drunk driving, which seeks to mandate the use of a 

Breathalyzer by anyone convicted of drunk driving, and requests 

additional funding for research of in-vehicle technologies that could 

prevent drunk drivers from driving. 

We urge the Senate to include the provisions of the DDROP Act 

and the ROADS SAFE Act in its reauthorization bill. In addition, 

we urge that funding for the high-visibility enforcement campaign, 

‘‘Over the Limit, Under Arrest,’’ continue. 

Alliance members take concerns about driver distraction very seriously, and we applaud this committee’s efforts to raise awareness 

about the dangers of distracted driving. Digital technology has created a connected culture that forever has changed our society. 

Automakers are working to manage technology to help drivers keep 

their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel. But, as we have 

learned, to be fully effective in addressing a safety problem, we 

need to supplement automakers’ actions with consumer education 

and strong laws, visibly enforced. 

The Alliance supports laws banning hand-held texting and handheld calling while driving, to accelerate the transition to more advanced, safer ways to communicate. We urge you to include the 

provisions of the Distracted Driving Prevention Act in the reauthorization bill, and funding for research to better understand driver behaviors, an evaluation of various means to addressing distracted driving. 

Obtaining a drivers license is a privilege, and special care should 

be taken in granting that privilege to new drivers. A recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study found that teen graduated 

40 

licensing laws rated ‘‘good’’ by the Institute are associated with 30- 

percent lower fatal crash rate among 15- to 17-year-olds, compared 

with laws that are rated ‘‘poor.’’ We urge you to include the provisions of the STANDUP Act in the reauthorization bill. 

NHTSA and safety researchers need robust data systems to assess current and future safety needs of adults and children. The 

National Automobile Sampling System, NASS, should be funded at 

a level sufficient to attain its intended design size. The Alliance 

recommends that $40 million annually is needed. 

In conclusion, reducing injuries and fatalities from auto crashes 

is a significant public health challenge. We appreciate the leadership shown by the members of this committee to address these 

issues, and we share your goals. We look forward to continuing to 

work with you to make our roads the safest in the world. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I’d be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strassburger follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT STRASSBURGER, VICE PRESIDENT, VEHICLE SAFETY

AND HARMONIZATION, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members. My name is Robert 

Strassburger and I am Vice President of Vehicle Safety and Harmonization at the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance). The Alliance is a trade association 

of twelve car and light truck manufacturers including BMW Group, Chrysler LLC, 

Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, 

Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen Group of America and Volvo. Within Alliance membership, safety is a top priority. We operate in a high-tech industry 

that uses cutting-edge safety technology to put people first. 

The latest government facts and figures show that U.S. motorists have never been 

safer. Just this month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) announced that U.S. traffic fatalities dropped to a record low last year: 

a 9.7 percent decline from the year before. In 2009, there were 33,808 fatalities in 

motor vehicle traffic crashes, the lowest fatality number since 1950. 2009 also 

brought the Nation its lowest fatality rate ever: 1.13 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 


928STRA1.eps
41 

These declines are even more significant in the face of sharp increases in other 

key factors—more drivers driving greater distances. In the past 60 years, VMT has 

more than quadrupled and the number of licensed drivers has more than doubled. 

Vehicle safety technologies combined with consumer education and tough laws combating the most dangerous driver behaviors have provided us sharp declines in critical fatality and injury statistics, all to the benefit of the traveling public. 

Nevertheless, we want to continue to reduce the risk of crashes and fatalities even 

further. Advancing real world motor vehicle safety remains a public health challenge, and automakers are doing our part. Even during the recent economic downturn, the auto industry spent more than $86 billion globally in R&D in 2008. Most 

of the safety features on motor vehicles in the U.S.—antilock brakes, stability control, side airbags for head and chest protection, side curtains, pre-crash occupant positioning, lane departure warning, collision avoidance and more, were developed and 

implemented voluntarily by manufacturers, in advance of any regulatory mandates. 

The industry is moving forward, engaging in high-tech research and implementation 

of new safety technologies including autonomous braking systems, vehicle safety 

communications systems for crash avoidance and much more. Our commitment is 

to continuously improve motor vehicle safety. 

However, we also recognize that vehicle improvements alone cannot get us to 

where we need to be as a nation. Even last year’s historic low fatality figure represents a public health issue that requires us to identify the root causes and focus 

our collective efforts on the factors that will provide the biggest real world safety 

benefits. To that end, the single largest cause of fatal crashes is still alcohol-impaired driving. In fact, even though 2009’s actual number of alcohol-related fatalities fell slightly, the percentage of fatalities caused by alcohol-impairment actually 

increased. And while safety belt use levels are at all-time highs, more than half of 

all people killed in traffic crashes last year were not wearing safety belts. 

These are just two examples of why the Alliance aggressively supports tough laws, 

education programs and high-visibility enforcement to address drivers’ most dangerous behaviors. As this Committee prepares for the next authorization of highway 

safety grant programs, the Alliance recommends focusing precious resources on programs that will provide the most safety benefits: increasing safety belt usage; reducing drunk driving and distracted driving; reducing crashes caused by novice drivers; 

and ensuring NHTSA’s traffic safety database continues to be the world’s best. 

Increasing Safety Belt Usage 

No industry sector over the past 25 years has devoted more resources to increasing safety belt usage: the automobile industry has spent $33 million on these efforts 

between 1996 and 2007 alone. Safety belts are the most effective means immediately available to motorists to keep them safe in crashes. The Alliance is proud 

of the work we have done with our traffic safety partners to successfully pass primary safety belt enforcement laws in more than 30 states. As soon as possible, that 

needs to be 50 states. 

SAFETEA–LU included the largest incentive grant program in history as a way 

to encourage states to pass these proven and effective belt laws. Those incentives 

helped influence elected officials in 12 states to enact primary enforcement laws in 

recent years. Unfortunately, adoption of these laws also failed by narrow margins 

in many other states. 

NHTSA’s figures show that the total passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate per 

100 million VMT is 9 percent higher in non-primary enforcement states than it is 

for states that have primary enforcement legislation in place. According to the agency, an additional 4,100 lives would have been saved in 2008 (the latest year for 

which data is available) if all unrestrained passenger vehicle occupants five and 

older involved in fatal crashes had worn their safety belts. 

It has taken a quarter century to get just over half of the states to adopt primary 

enforcement laws. The Alliance now urges Congress to take the next step and include provisions for withholding a percentage of Highway Trust Fund monies from 

states that have failed to adopt primary enforcement safety belt laws. And, furthermore, we urge Congress to announce its intention to include such a provision as 

soon as possible, as this will induce state legislatures to act now. 

Sanctions have worked effectively to accelerate the process of passing laws and 

creating uniform safety policy in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia. Congress employed this tactic to encourage states to adopt a minimum legal drinking 

age of 21 (1984), zero alcohol tolerance laws for youth under 21 (1995), and 0.08 

percent per se blood alcohol content (BAC) laws (2000). It is time to take a similar 

step with primary enforcement laws. 

42 

Reducing Drunk Driving 

Another significant traffic safety concern continues to be impaired driving, which 

accounts for more than 32 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities. We have made substantial progress in reducing impaired driving in the last two decades, but we must 

do more. 

In November 2006, the Alliance, among others, joined with the U.S. Department 

of Transportation, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the Governors 

Highway Safety Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 

to support MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. The Campaign is pursuing the adoption of state laws mandating the installation of alcohol ignition interlocks (breathalyzers) on vehicles driven by convicted drunk drivers. New Mexico has 

become the first state to adopt this mandate, and has benefited by seeing a 30 percent drop in alcohol-involved crashes. Injuries and fatalities are down too, by 32 percent and 22 percent respectively. The bipartisan reauthorization bill introduced in 

the House by Transportation Committee Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member 

Mica included a provision requiring states to adopt mandatory ignition interlocks 

for convicted offenders as a condition for receiving Section 410 grants. Last December, Senators Lautenberg and Udall introduced similar legislation, the Drunk Driving Repeat Offender Prevention Act (S. 2920). We urge the Senate to include similar 

provisions in its reauthorization bill. 

In addition, in 2008 the Alliance, working through the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS), joined NHTSA in a five-year, $10 million cooperative agreement to research in-vehicle alcohol detection technologies that could prevent drivers 

from even starting a vehicle if their blood alcohol content is at or above 0.08, which 

is the legal limit. Such technologies hold tremendous promise for keeping alcoholimpaired drivers off the road and reducing their impact on innocent motorists and 

passengers who lose their lives or are injured in drunk driving crashes. An I IHS 

analysis reveals that if driver blood alcohol concentrations can be limited to less 

than 0.08, approximately 9,000 lives might be saved annually. We are pleased to 

support Senator Udall’s legislation, S. 3039, which would aid the funding of this crucial research. 

Reducing Distracted Driving 

Alliance members take concerns about driver distraction very seriously, and we 

applaud this Committee’s efforts to raise the awareness about the dangers of distracted driving. While technology has made our world more connected than ever, the 

ease of connectivity has presented us all with new challenges. Alliance members 


928STRA2.eps
43 

prioritize safety in vehicle design, including cutting-edge in-vehicle information systems that allow drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. 

This is why we recommend the Congress adopt the proven three-prong strategy 

that has worked so effectively in reducing drunk driving and increasing safety belt 

usage: (1) appropriate laws backed up by high visibility enforcement; (2) increased 

consumer education; and (3) increased research dollars to further evaluate driver behavior and safety countermeasures. 

The Alliance supports state laws banning hand-held texting and hand-held calling 

while driving, to accelerate the transition to more advanced, safer ways to communicate. The Alliance also supports the use of texting bans like those proposed by 

Chairman Rockefeller in S. 1938 to combat unsafe behavior, and is working with 

Congress and other stakeholders to ensure that the legislation passed allows for innovative technologies to be included on the cars of the future to provide consumers 

with important safety benefits. 

We need consumer education so that drivers know that even with the cutting-edge 

technology found in today’s cars—driving distractions remain a risk. Not just handheld texting and hand-held calling, but eating, drinking, searching for a CD—anything that prolongs a driver’s ‘‘eyes off road’’ time presents a risk. This is why the 

Alliance is proud to partner with leading medical associations in launching a broad, 

national, multimedia campaign to raise awareness. The OMG Campaign launched 

this month is a national, multi-media campaign designed to help raise awareness 

of the dangers of distracted driving. 

And third on the distracted driving front, the Alliance recognizes the need to fund 

continued research so that we can further understand driver behaviors and evaluate 

alternative means of addressing the concern. This three-pronged approach has 

worked for 0.08 BAC limits and ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ safety belt usage campaigns. 

It will work here as well. 


928STRA3.eps
44 

With regard to increasing safety belt usage and preventing drunk and distracted 

driving, we also urge the Committee to continue its leadership by providing Federal 

funding for paid advertising to support high visibility enforcement campaigns, like 

‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ and ‘‘Over the Limit, Under Arrest.’’ This advertising is essential 

to the continuing success of these activities. 

Reducing Crashes Caused by Novice Drivers 

Alliance members believe that obtaining a driver’s license is a privilege and, as 

such, states should take special care in granting that privilege to new drivers. A 

recent IIHS study found that teen licensing laws rated ‘‘good’’ are associated with 

a 30 percent lower fatal crash rate among 15–17 year-olds, compared with licensing 

laws that are rated ‘‘poor.’’ Examples of helpful teen licensing laws include: requiring all occupants to wear safety belts when a teen is behind the wheel; restricting 

the number of passengers for teenage drivers; prohibiting impaired driving at any 

level; and prohibiting all portable electronic communication and entertainment devices. 

The Alliance supports inclusion of language similar to S. 3269, the STANDUP 

ACT, co-sponsored by Senator Klobuchar. The STANDUP ACT would establish minimum Federal requirements for state graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws and 

provide incentive grants for states to adopt GDL laws that meet those minimum requirements within 3 years. After 3 years, those states that have not adopted these 

GDL laws would be subject to a sanction of their highway funding. 

Ensuring NHTSA’s Traffic Safety Database Continues to be the World’s Best 

Lastly, as we work to further improve real world safety through additional advancements in vehicle design, NHTSA and safety researchers must have robust 

databases upon which to assess current and future safety needs of adults and children. The National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) is an essential nationwide 

data collection resource that provides the department and safety researchers with 

detailed motor vehicle crash and injury information. t is operated by the National 

Center for Statistics and Analysis of NHTSA. NASS—which began in 1979—is a primary resource for identifying traffic safety issues, establishing priorities, assisting 

in the design of future safety countermeasures and for evaluating existing countermeasures. 

The budget for NASS has not kept pace with either the department’s informational needs or inflation. Moreover, these needs are growing as Alliance members 

reinvent the automobile in response to societal demands for ever safer and cleaner 

vehicles. The capability of NASS has been dramatically reduced. Currently, NASS 

collects in-depth data on approximately 4,500 crashes—less than a third of the intended design size of 15,000 to 20,000 crash cases annually. Further, NASS lacks 

adequate data on children involved in motor vehicle crashes. 

NASS should be funded at a level sufficient to attain its intended design size to 

ensure critical ‘‘real-world’’ data is collected at a sufficient number of sites nationwide to provide the statistically valid, nationally representative sample originally intended. The Alliance also supports enhancing NASS’s capacity to collect sufficient 

data concerning our most precious cargo—our children. An additionally funded child 

occupant protection component to NASS is currently in pilot development at NHTSA 

through industry grants to The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. These goals can 

be accomplished with an incremental $40 million annual investment in NASS, 

which equates to $1.73 cents for every $100 of economic loss from traffic injuries 

and fatalities. 

Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations, and we look forward 

to working with this Committee as you move forward in the process. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Ms. Dean-Mooney? 

STATEMENT OF LAURA DEAN-MOONEY, NATIONAL 

PRESIDENT, MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING (MADD) 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Thank you, Chairman Pryor. 

MADD last week celebrated its 30th anniversary with a rally at 

the Capitol, with hundreds of our volunteers focused on one thing: 

the elimination of drunk driving. 

45 

As you both know, I joined MADD after my husband, Mike Dean, 

was killed in Texas by a drunk driver going—leaving me to raise 

our 8-month-old daughter alone. 

Mike left a business meeting on November 21, 1991, in Oklahoma, and drove to the Dallas/Fort Worth area to visit his family. 

At 7:15 p.m. on that Thursday night, a drunk driver met Mike’s car 

head-on, killing him instantly, making me a widow and a single 

mom. The offender, who also died at the scene, had a blood alcohol 

concentration of .34 and an empty bottle of whiskey in his car. 

For more than 17 years, I have volunteered at—for MADD’s mission, at the local, State, and national level, and I will continue this 

work until no one has to face the loss that I faced due to a drunk 

driver. Last year, 10,839 real people were killed in alcohol-related 

crashes; almost one-third of all fatalities. 

Additional NHTSA statistics paint a startling portrait of what’s 

happening on our roads. One Arkansas resident holds the record 

for most DUIs, with 44 convictions. In my home State of Texas, 

over 120,000 motorists are driving with three or more DUI convictions, and over 18,000 are driving with five or more convictions. 

But, fortunately, MADD does have a plan. MADD’s campaign to 

eliminate drunk driving, which, first, supports more resources for 

high visibility law enforcement; second, requires convicted drunk 

drivers to install an ignition interlock device; and, lastly, turns cars 

into the cure, through the development of advanced in-vehicle technology. As you all know, an interlock is a breath-test device that 

is linked to a vehicle’s ignition system. It allows the DUI offender 

to continue to drive wherever they need to go, they just can’t drive 

drunk. 

The research on interlocks is crystal clear and irrefutable. Since 

New Mexico and Arizona implemented all-offender interlock laws, 

DUI fatalities in those States have been reduced by 30 and 33 percent, respectively. Every American should be protected by an alloffender interlock law. 

MADD is now facing roadblocks from the alcohol industry and 

DUI defense attorneys as we try to pass this law in State legislatures. We strongly urge the Committee to work with the Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee to include an all-offender interlock Federal standard in the reauthorization bill. This 

lifesaving measure is sound policy. 

While interlocks are currently the most proven technology available to stop drunk driving, a program is underway to provide an 

advanced in-vehicle option for consumers. This technology could potentially eliminate drunk driving. The DADSS system is a result 

of a research agreement between NHTSA and many of the world’s 

leading auto manufacturers. The purpose of this agreement is to 

research, develop, and demonstrate non-invasive in-vehicle technologies that can very quickly and accurately measure a driver’s 

BAC. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that 

over 8,000 lives could be saved if this technology is widely deployed 

in the U.S. 

Senator Tom Udall and Senator Bob Corker have introduced bipartisan legislation, the ROADS SAFE Act, which would authorize 

an addition—$12 million per year for DADSS. ROADS SAFE has 

46 

been included as part of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act in both the 

House and the Senate. 

On behalf of all DUI victims and potential future victims of this 

violent crime, MADD urges Congress to pass the MVSA this year 

with an authorization for this program. 

Turning to the grant programs, MADD agrees with GHSA, that 

the program needs to be streamlined. It is also critical that dollars 

are spent on programs that work. SAFETEA–LU traffic safety 

grants represent the majority of funds that States spend on drunkdriving prevention. With respect to the impaired-driving grant program, MADD recommends doing away with the qualifying criteria, 

so that all States automatically receive their funding. But, funding 

must be spent on activities that can save the most lives, with 

meaningful performance and activity measures in place to gauge 

program effectiveness. NHTSA must have the authority to ensure 

that the States are moving in the right direction. 

A series of IG and GAO reports have been released showing what 

is needed to improve traffic safety grant programs. The IG and the 

GAO have made several recommendations to NHTSA, including 

the development of performance measures, in coordination with the 

States. While NHTSA has since worked with the States to develop 

performance measures, MADD does not feel that these measures 

are meaningful enough to fulfill the intent of the IG and the GAO. 

MADD appreciates the work of this committee that you’ve done 

in the years, directing GAO and the IG to review NHTSA’s programs, and in outlining steps that NHTSA can take to improve its 

oversight functions and the effectiveness of State expenditures. We 

look forward to working with the Committee to make additional 

improvements. 

To conclude, this committee’s leadership is important, and we 

will eliminate drunk driving. MADD asks the Committee to consider ways to make ignition interlocks part of the next reauthorization bill, and we also thank you for turning cars into the cure for 

drunk driving by passing the ROADS SAFE Act and implementing 

the Highway Safety Grant Program changes to ensure that States 

receive the funding and spend it on activities that will save the 

most lives and prevent injuries. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dean-Mooney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURA DEAN-MOONEY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING (MADD) 

Thank you, Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Wicker, for the opportunity to 

testify before the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance. Your leadership and the leadership of this committee are to be commended 

as we work to save lives and eliminate drunk driving in our Nation. 

Just last week, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) celebrated its 30th Anniversary with a national conference held here in our Nation’s Capital. This past 

Thursday we held a rally on the Hill, with hundreds of MADD volunteers focused 

on one thing: the elimination of drunk driving in America. 

Since our founding in 1980, drunk driving fatalities have dropped by over 40 percent. We are proud of our successes, but as we reflect on 30 years of advocacy with 

the goal of saving lives, we must not accept complacency. We all must recommit to 

saving lives and the elimination of drunk driving. The National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released its fatality analysis reporting system (FARS) statistics. While fatalities are down, there is much more work to be 

47 

done. Every one of us should be outraged that 10,839 people, one-third of all highway fatalities, died due to drunk driving. 

Over MADD’s 30 year history of advocacy, 300,000 lives have been saved since 

our founding. We have put a face to the crime of drunk driving, sharing story after 

story of lives cut short due to someone’s senseless actions. It is these stories, including my own, that continue to propel our organization forward, moving toward the 

attainable goal of eliminating this public health epidemic once and for all. 

I became involved with MADD after my husband, Mike Dean, was killed in Texas 

by a drunk driver, leaving me to raise our 8-month-old daughter alone. On November 21, 1991, Mike left a business meeting in Oklahoma and drove to the DallasFort Worth area to visit his family. 

At 7:15 p.m., a drunk driver going the wrong way on a Texas highway met Mike’s 

car head on, killing him instantly and simultaneously making me both a grieving 

widow and a single mom. The offender, who died at the crash scene, had a blood 

alcohol concentration (BAC) of .34 and was driving with an almost empty bottle of 

whiskey in his car. 

For more than 17 years, I have worked as a volunteer to advance MADD’s mission 

at the local, state, and national level. 

Mr. Chairman, we have made great progress in the fight against drunk driving— 

much of which occurred in the 1980s and through the mid-1990s—thanks to strong 

laws like the 21 minimum drinking age, administrative license revocation, zero-tolerance for youth, and the national .08 BAC standard. These laws coupled with the 

equally important efforts of law enforcement, publicized at certain high-risk times 

of the year through high-visibility crackdown mobilizations, have led to tremendous 

reductions in fatalities and injuries. 

While drunk driving fatalities have decreased, America continues to practice a 

‘‘catch and release’’ program: law enforcement does their very best to catch drunk 

drivers, and we as a society through our legislatures and courts, oftentimes let them 

go with few consequences. 

A couple of statistics collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) paint a startling portrait of what’s happening on our roads. 

• One Arkansas resident holds the record for most DUI’s with 44 convictions. 

• In my home state of Texas, 124,662 motorists are driving with three or more 

DUI convictions and 18,271 are driving with five or more convictions. 

Unfortunately, this type of data is not available for all states. 

Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving 

Fortunately MADD, with support from Members of Congress, NHTSA and others 

in the highway safety community, has a plan. 

Following only those solutions proven to work, MADD announced the Campaign 

to Eliminate Drunk Driving in November 2006. 

The Campaign consists of three parts, all singularly focused on putting a longoverdue end to drunk driving tragedies of our roads: 

• Support the heroes who keep our roads safe. High-visibility law enforcement 

catches drunk drivers and discourages others from driving drunk. 

• Require convicted drunk drivers to blow before they go. Ignition interlock devices, or in-car breathalyzers, require all convicted drunk drivers to prove they 

are sober before the car will start. 

• Turn cars into the cure. Tomorrow’s cars will protect each of us, automatically 

determining whether or not the driver is at or above the legal limit of .08 and 

failing to operate if the driver is impaired. 

High-Visibility Law Enforcement: A Proven Solution 

Studies show that the combination of paid media ads combined with high visibility law enforcement is proven to deter drunk drivers from getting behind the 

wheel. MADD advocated authorizing $29 million per year for NHTSA to conduct 

three annual mobilization efforts as part of SAFETEA–LU. We thank the Committee for authorizing the program, and we hope to see it continue at even more 

robust funding levels. Drunk Driving: Over the Limit, Under Arrest is conducted 

twice yearly and Click it or Ticket once per year. Both campaigns have been highlyeffective. 

The paid ads target audiences at the highest risk to drive drunk. While the ads 

are running on television and radio, law enforcement conducts sobriety checkpoints 

and saturation patrols. Would-be offenders see the advertisements, see law enforcement out in force, and realize that they will be caught if they drive drunk. 

48 

MADD recommends that the next reauthorization bill include increased funding 

for up to 5 yearly crackdowns focusing on drunk driving and seatbelt enforcement. 

Interlocks Save Lives 

In the past, we as a society have focused on license revocation as the primary 

countermeasure to drunk driving. If you’re caught driving drunk, you’ll lose your 

driver’s license. The reality is that 50 to 75 percent of these offenders will continue 

to drive illegally. In addition, unless you live in an area with accessible mass transit 

options, you need a car to get to and from work, school, treatment and other everyday destinations. 

An alcohol ignition interlock is a breath test device linked to a vehicle’s ignition 

system. When a driver wishes to start their vehicle, they must first blow into the 

device. The vehicle will not start unless the driver’s BAC is below a pre-set standard. 

The alcohol ignition interlock allows a DUI offender to continue to drive wherever 

they need to go. He or she just can’t drive drunk and hurt your family or mine. 

Studies overwhelmingly show that interlocks work. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reviewed ignition interlocks and has stated that ‘‘based on strong evidence of the effectiveness of interlocks in reducing re-arrest rates, the (CDC) Task 

Force recommended that ignition interlock programs be implemented.’’ In addition 

to the CDC, there are more than 15 published studies on interlock effectiveness 

which show that interlocks are associated with substantial and impressive reductions in recidivism, ranging from 50 percent to 90 percent. The evaluations involve 

a diversity of programs, accounting for the variation in results. 

The research on ignition interlocks is crystal clear and irrefutable. Beyond the research, we have fatality data that proves interlocks are effective. In 2005, New Mexico became the first state to require interlocks for all convicted DUI offenders. Since 

this time, DUI fatalities in the state have been reduced by over 30 percent. Arizona 

passed a similar law in 2006 and has seen a 33 percent reduction in DUI fatalities. 

Today, thanks in part to MADD’s campaign, 11 states require all DUI offenders 

to use an ignition interlock device. Two states highly incentivize DUI offenders to 

use an interlock and California passed a pilot program requiring all convicted DUI 

offenders in four counties (with a total population of 14 million people) to use an 

ignition interlock device. 

The population in these states and counties covers over 84 million Americans— 

a subset of America that is now under the protection of all offender ignition interlock laws. 

Every American should be protected by this lifesaving policy. It is the right thing 

to do be. That is why MADD is calling for a Federal standard which would require 

interlocks for all convicted DUI offenders. This is the same approach the Congress 

took with the 21 minimum drinking age law and the .08 per se BAC law. No state 

has ever lost money as a result of the national standards. 

While MADD has made great progress in state advocacy work, we have encountered several roadblocks to progress. Therefore, we must turn to the Congress for 

help. 

An example of this roadblock is in Maryland where an ignition interlock law was 

considered in a legislature dominated by criminal defense attorneys. The Senate 

President, Michael Miller, is a DUI defense attorney who, according to his law firm’s 

website ‘‘practices in the areas of criminal law, traffic law, DWI and personal injury.’’ Senator Miller worked to amend interlock legislation to remove the interlock 

penalty for DUI offenders who plead down to a lesser punishment, known as probation before judgment. Roughly half of those arrested for DUI in Maryland will plead 

to this lesser offense. 

In the House of Delegates, the Judiciary Chairman is also a well known DUI defense attorney who routinely amends sound DUI law in favor of significant judicial 

discretion. The Washington Post Editorial Board commented on this fact in a March 

30, 2010 editorial which I will submit for the record. It is titled Maryland Lawmakers Need to Stop Coddling Drunk Drivers. 

Maryland is but one example. The truth is that these patterns exist across the 

country. The need for a Federal interlock standard could not be more clear. 

In the House, Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica have included just 

such a standard in their version of the highway reauthorization bill. In the Senate, 

Senators Lautenberg and Tom Udall have introduced the Drunk Driving Repeat Offender Prevention Act, or DDROP, which mirrors language in the House reauthorization bill by requiring all DUI offenders to use an interlock for at least 6 months. 

MADD strongly urges this committee to work with the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee to include an all offender ignition interlock standard in the 

Senate version of the highway reauthorization bill. The Insurance Institute for 

49 

Highway Safety estimates that 1,100 lives could be saved if every state required all 

drunk drivers to use an ignition interlock device. This is due to specific deterrence. 

MADD expects that more lives could be saved as New Mexico and Arizona both experienced over 30 percent reductions in DUI fatalities due to general and specific 

deterrence from widespread use of ignition interlocks. 

Advanced Alcohol Detection Technology 

While interlocks are currently the most proven technology available to stop drunk 

driving, a program is underway which could one day literally eliminate drunk driving. During a 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works hearing, Chairman Barbara Boxer referred to this effort as the ‘‘Manhattan Project’’ for drunk driving. 

The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS, is the result of a cooperative research agreement currently underway between NHTSA and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS), comprised of many of the world’s leading 

auto manufacturers. The agreement is a public-private partnership with both entities providing $1 million per year for 5 years. 

The purpose of this $10 million agreement is to research, develop, and demonstrate non-invasive in-vehicle alcohol detection technologies that can very quickly 

and accurately measure a driver’s BAC. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

estimates that over 8,000 lives could be saved if advanced alcohol technology is 

widely deployed in the United States. These advanced technologies offer the potential for a system that could prevent the vehicle from being driven when the driver’s 

BAC exceeds the legal limit. 

Any technology which is developed must be highly accurate, nearly instantaneous, 

and not hassle the sober driver. If the technology is successful, a sober driver would 

notice no difference in his or her driving experience. Any technology developed must 

be set to detect blood alcohol concentrations of .08 or above. 

In the first phase of technology development, three companies have been selected 

through a request for proposal process and testing will be performed in conjunction 

with the Harvard Medical School. While we are encouraged and hopeful that 

DADSS will succeed in identifying a technology to one day eliminate drunk driving, 

we need the help of Congress to guarantee that this technology becomes a reality. 

Senator Tom Udall and Senator Bob Corker have introduced bipartisan legislation, the Research of Alcohol Detection Systems for Stopping Alcohol-related Fatalities Everywhere Act, or ROADS SAFE, which would authorize an additional $12 

million per year for DADSS. Many Senators on this Committee are cosponsors of 

the legislation, and we thank them for their leadership and support. In the House, 

Representatives Ehlers and Sarbanes have introduced similar legislation. 

ROADS SAFE has been included as part of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MVSA) 

in both the House and the Senate. On behalf of all DUI victims, and potential future 

victims of this violent crime, MADD urges Congress to pass the MVSA this year 

with an authorization for this program. The additional funding would provide an essential financial boost to the development of this technology, as well as ensure a 

greater Federal commitment toward eliminating drunk driving. 

It is of vital importance that ROADS SAFE be authorized as soon as possible. 

Every year that we allow drunk drivers to continue to drive on our roads, there are 

thousands of unnecessary deaths and injuries. MADD urges Congress to provide $12 

million a year to address a problem that costs the United States $130 billion each 

year. This is an excellent return on taxpayer investment. 

Reevaluating the Highway Safety Grant Formula Program 

MADD looks forward to working with you and your staff to provide specific policy 

recommendations to strengthen the current highway safety grant programs. 

MADD agrees with our friends at the Governors Highway Safety Administration 

(GHSA) that the highway safety grant program needs to be streamlined. It is logical 

to combine programs into one large ‘‘pot’’ with funding allocated to those areas of 

critical importance to highway safety. This allows states to use one application yearly instead of applying for numerous different grants at various times throughout the 

year. Because funding is limited, it is critical that dollars be spent in key areas such 

as impaired driving, safety belts and data collection. 

MADD would like to offer some particular recommendations toward the impaired 

driving countermeasure program, commonly known as the 410 program. 

First, it is imperative that impaired driving funds be distributed to all states. 

Taxpayer’s pay into the highway trust fund and it is important that this funding 

go back to the states to be spent on proven impaired driving countermeasures. Currently, the 410 program requires states to meet certain criteria each year in order 

to qualify for this funding. In addition, the 10 best and 10 worst states automatically receive funding. MADD would like to do away with this current structure. 

50 

While well intended, the 410 program creates an unnecessary burden to states in 

order to receive funds. We do not want to withhold this funding from any state since 

it serves as such a large portion of all funds spent on impaired driving efforts. What 

we do want is to make sure that funds are spent wisely and effectively. 

MADD recommends that funding be spent on activities that work, and performance and activity measures should be in place to gauge program effectiveness. In 

the impaired driving category, this means activities like implementation of alcohol 

ignition interlock programs, law enforcement activities, DUI data collection, and 

DUI judicial education such as through the Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor 

(TSRP) program. 

In return for receiving funds, states must create specific, meaningful performance 

and activity measures that will show progress, or lack thereof, in reducing DUI fatalities year to year. States should be measured against themselves year to year. 

MADD also asks the Committee to consider giving NHTSA more authority in 

working with states as they develop their strategic highway safety plan. In the past, 

NHTSA had plan approval authority to ensure that states were spending funds effectively. That authority was taken away in the late 1990s, and as a result there 

have been concerns that NHTSA does not have enough recourse to effectively work 

with states which are trending in the wrong direction. 

Concerns that grew as a result of the removal of NHTSA’s plan approval authority led this committee and others to consult with the Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). A series of OIG and GAO 

reports have been released, showing what is needed to improve traffic safety grant 

programs. Some of these reports focus specifically on impaired driving resources. 

In the OIG’s Department of Transportation (DOT) FY 2007 Top Management Report, the OIG states that: 

‘‘[N]o appreciable improvement in the number of highway fatalities can be 

achieved until alcohol-related fatalities drop dramatically. States are the 

linchpin in achieving this drop and ensuring that $555 million in Federal funding authorized for state alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants are targeted 

toward strategies that have the most impact.’’ 

One of the OIG’s recommended actions from the FY07 report was: ‘‘Promoting Improved Performance Measures and Enhanced State Accountability to Maximize Efforts to Reduce Fatalities Caused by Impaired Driving.’’ The report goes on to state 

the following: 

‘‘NHTSA—the lead Federal agency responsible for reducing alcohol-impaired 

driving—could assist in this effort by ensuring that the states include more 

meaningful measures linked to key program strategies in their performance 

plans.’’ 

While NHTSA has since worked with the states to develop indicators to measure 

performance in priority program areas, MADD does not feel that these measures are 

meaningful enough to fulfill the intent of the OIG. 

In a March 2007 OIG report titled ‘‘Audit of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s Alcohol-Impaired Driving Traffic Safety Program’’ (report #MH– 

2007–036), the OIG states: 

‘‘Officials in NHTSA and the 10 states we reviewed attributed success in combating alcohol-impaired driving to many factors. They agreed that, while other 

strategies may be important, a successful traffic safety program should include 

strategies focusing on two key elements: (1) sustained enforcement of laws (to 

include highly visible police presence and media efforts) and (2) effective prosecution and full application of available sanctions . . . we concluded that 

NHTSA should do more to measure state implementation of these strategies so 

that additional funding for countering alcohol-impaired driving is effectively 

used.’’ 

The OIG includes the following table as an example of potential improved performance measures: 

Table 3. Benefits From Potential Improved Performance Measures 

Strategy Potential Improved 

Performance Measure Potential Benefits for NHTSA if States Used Such Measures 

Sustained Enforcement Accomplish sustained 

enforcement at a set 

percentage* of at-risk 

areas in the state. 

NHTSA could better determine the degree to which states 

were carrying out SAFETEA–LU required assurances to 

pursue this strategy. 

51 

Table 3. Benefits From Potential Improved Performance Measures—Continued 

Strategy Potential Improved 

Performance Measure Potential Benefits for NHTSA if States Used Such Measures 

NHTSA could better determine whether emphasis on sustained enforcement had an impact on alcohol-related fatalities and injuries in at-risk areas. 

Prosecution and 

Sanctions 

Achieve a set 

percentage* of successful convictions for alcohol-impaired driving 

offenses. 

NHTSA could better determine whether specialized training programs for prosecutors had an impact on conviction 

rates. 

NHTSA could better determine the impact of structural 

change, such as the establishment of courts specializing 

in alcohol-impaired driving cases. 

Source: OIG. 

*Percentage to be determined by NHTSA and the states. 

To demonstrate the lack of NHTSA’s ability to fully gauge the impact of Federal 

resources on traffic safety, and the way in which establishing more meaningful performance measures and goals would help, the OIG points out that: 

‘‘According to NHTSA, sustained enforcement was defined as ‘at least one enforcement event conducted weekly in areas of a state where 60 percent or more 

of the alcohol-related fatalities occurred.’ Yet, none of the states included this 

measure in their annual plans or reports provided to NHTSA . . . Regarding 

effective prosecution, NHTSA had not yet established a specific measure, although one state did report to a limited extent on improvements in conviction 

rates for alcohol-impaired driving offenses.’’ 

The GAO has also reviewed NHTSA’s programs, highlighting management difficulties in a March 2008 and stating that: 

‘‘NHTSA’s intermediate outcome measures do not include measures to track behaviors that influence alcohol-related fatalities. Such measures could include 

the numbers of impaired driving citations issues, arrests, and convictions.’’ 

The OIG and GAO have made several recommendations to NHTSA, including the 

development of intermediate performance measures in coordination with the states. 

Since that time, MADD is pleased that NHTSA and the states have moved forward 

with the development of performance and activity measures. However, the report 

that resulted from this collaborative effort, in MADD’s opinion, has not resulted in 

the establishment of meaningful performance and activity measures that respond to 

serious concerns raised by this Committee and the OIG and GAO. The August 2008 

NHTSA/DOT report, titled ‘‘Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and 

Federal Agencies’’ (DOT HS 811 025) is a starting point, setting forth a ‘‘minimum 

set of performance measures’’ (emphasis added), but does not go far enough. 

MADD appreciates the work this Committee has done over the years in directing 

GAO and the IG to review NHTSA’s programs, and outlining steps that NHTSA can 

take to improve its oversight functions and the effectiveness of state expenditures. 

We look forward to working with the Committee to make additional improvements, 

with the ultimate goal of eliminating drunk driving. 

MADD has one final recommendation that we would urge the Committee to consider: we believe it would be beneficial to encourage all states to hire a statewide 

DUI coordinator. This is based on the highly successful model of New Mexico’s appointment of a DUI Czar. Drunk driving is an enormous problem that encompasses 

many jurisdictions: law enforcement, the judiciary, administrative offices, probation, 

treatment, etc. Often times these jurisdictions do not effectively coordinate and communicate their efforts, making it difficult to have a functional system in place. A 

DUI coordinator would also bring greater accountability and minimize finger pointing between state agencies. We believe that if every state had a DUI coordinator 

we would see great improvements in state efforts to combat drunk driving, much 

like in New Mexico. 

Conclusion 

The Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving started as a lofty goal in 2006 and 

has rapidly progressed to being on the verge of reality. In 2006, just 2 million Americans were protected by all offender interlock laws. Today, 84 million people are protected by these laws, but MADD will not stop until interlocks for all offenders becomes the law of the land. 

52 

With this Committee’s leadership, we will eliminate drunk driving. MADD asks 

the Committee to consider ways to make alcohol ignition interlocks an important 

part of the next reauthorization bill. 

We also ask for the support of Congress to turn cars into the cure for drunk driving by passing the ROADS SAFE Act. 

Finally, by streamlining and revamping the current highway safety formula grant 

program, we can make changes which will ensure states receive their funding and 

spend it on activities that will save the most lives and prevent the most injuries. 

Thank you to this Committee, and thank you to Chairman Pryor, and Ranking 

Member Wicker, for holding this important hearing, and for your leadership on this 

issue. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Mr. Pedersen, can you give your opening statement in, say, 3 to 

5 minutes? Is that—— 

Mr. PEDERSEN. I had certainly—— 

Senator PRYOR. If that’s possible, then I’ll stay, and then we’ll recess as soon as you finish. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF NEIL PEDERSEN, ADMINISTRATOR, MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; AND REPRESENTATIVE, GOVERNOR’S HIGHWAY SAFETY 

ASSOCIATION (GHSA) 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Neil Pedersen. I’m the Maryland State Highway Administrator, as you said, and also the Governors Highway Safety 

Representative from Maryland. And I thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Governors Highway Safety 

Association. 

Governors Highway Safety Association members administer one 

formula grant program, seven incentive grant programs, and two 

penalty transfer fund programs. And, as you heard earlier from 

Senator Wicker, we’re very concerned about the fact that these all 

have different schedules, they all have been put together in a piecemeal fashion. So, our first recommendation is that there be a national plan developed that takes a more strategic approach toward 

highway traffic safety. A national plan should be developed under 

NHTSA’s leadership, but working together with State, local, and 

private-sector input. 

We also strongly recommend that there be a single Highway 

Safety Grant Program, with earmarks for impaired driving, occupant protection, and motorcycle safety, with a single application 

date at the beginning of the Federal fiscal year, and support, in 

concept, the approach taken by the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee. 

We also would like to spend less of our time on the administrative parts of having to apply for funds, and have more of our time 

and money be going into, actually, the programs themselves. 

We’re very much in favor of a performance-based approach. We 

have worked together with NHTSA on a core set of 15 performance 

measures. We would like to see the programs really be far more focused on where the performance data is saying we have our biggest 

problems, and also based on where research is saying that we will 

have the greatest effect, in terms of where we have invested our 

dollars, as well. 

In terms of specific program changes, we support expanding the 

purpose and scope of the 2010 Motorcyclist Safety Program, comVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
53 

bining the three occupant protection programs into a single, moreperformance-based program, and focusing the 410 Impaired Driving Incentive Program and the countermeasures that have been 

proven to be most effective; that is really letting the data and the 

research results drive where the money is being spent in the 410 

Program itself. 

We’d also support authorization of funding to combat aggressive 

driving and excessive speeding. We believe, today, there is not 

enough Federal funding focus on the speed problem itself. Speed 

accounts for approximately one-third of all crashes, yet there are 

no funds dedicated to combat speed. 

We also support funding to encourage States to improve their 

graduated driver licensing programs. We’re very supportive, in concept, of the incentives that Senator Klobuchar has proposed. 

GHSA very strongly supports substantially increased funding for 

data improvements. We believe that that’s really the basis for a 

sound performance-based approach. Today, we do not get nearly 

enough money, in terms of supporting data programs and data improvements. If we’re going to be most effective in a performancebased approach, we really do have to have a sound data basis for 

the programs themselves. 

And finally—and there’s more detail in my written testimony— 

we would really like to see more emphasis on funding both of research and training. Really, today, the key, from my perspective 

and from GHSA’s perspective, is, we should be putting our money 

where research has told us we’d get the greatest results. In the 

many, many different programs, only about a third of them really 

are based on what I would call sound scientific-research basis. And 

we need to have more money for research telling us where our 

money should be going. 

And as many of the baby-boomers, who are leading the safety efforts, are reaching retirement age, we really have to be training the 

next generation of safety professionals. 

In summary, GHSA has recommended that the current grant 

planning and application process should be consolidated and 

streamlined; programs should be more performance-based, with 

greater flexibility, and some programmatic changes should be 

made. 

And I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pedersen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NEIL PEDERSEN, ADMINISTRATOR, MARYLAND STATE

HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; AND REPRESENTATIVE, GOVERNOR’S HIGHWAY SAFETY

ASSOCIATION (GHSA) 

I. Introduction 

Good morning. My name is Neil Pedersen and I am Administrator of the Maryland State Highway Administration and Governor’s Highway Safety Representative 

for Maryland. This morning I am representing the Governors Highway Safety Association. GHSA is a nonprofit association that represents state highway safety agencies. Its members administer Federal behavioral highway safety grant programs 

that are authorized under Title II of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU). They are appointed by 

their Governors to administer these grant programs and implement statewide highway safety programs. Areas of focus include: impaired driving; occupant protection; 

speeding and aggressive driving; distracted driving; younger and older drivers; bicyVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
54 

cle, motorcycle and pedestrian safety; traffic records and highway safety workforce 

development. 

As you know, traffic-related fatalities and injuries continue to be a major public 

health problem in this country. Although we have made some progress, there were 

still more than 33,000 fatalities and 2.2 million injuries in 2009—the last year for 

which complete statistics are available. Traffic crashes not only cause devastation 

to families and individuals, but they also cost the Nation an estimated $230 billion 

annually. Unfortunately, these crashes happen in one’s and two’s, so there is little 

public awareness about them and even less public outcry against them. 

To address this problem, the Federal Government must make the reduction of 

highway fatalities and injuries a national priority and play a strong role in developing highway safety policies and programs. The Federal Government has played 

such a role since the enactment of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. This Act solidified the Federal leadership position on highway safety while also establishing a 

partnership with state governments. The Act created the Section 402 State and 

Community Highway Safety grant program (23 U.S.C. 402) which provided funding 

to states on a formula basis for developing and implementing state highway safety 

programs. As the Congress develops the highway safety programs under the next 

reauthorization, it is important to maintain this strong Federal role. Just as the 

Federal Government deems it important to prevent tobacco and drug use, underage 

drinking or obesity, it must also protect the public on the roadways. Without Federal assistance and leadership, especially in these difficult economic times, it is unlikely that states would be able to provide the necessary resources to enhance roadway safety and prevent injuries and fatalities. 

II. National Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

As noted above, the Federal behavioral highway safety program has grown since 

the Highway Safety Act was first enacted in 1966. New programs have been added, 

others dropped. Under the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA–21), 

five new incentive programs and two penalty transfer programs were added to the 

existing Section 402 program and the Section 410 (23 U.S.C. 410) impaired driving 

incentive grant program. Under SAFETEA–LU, four of those incentive programs 

were dropped and five new incentive programs were added. Since enactment of 

SAFETEA–LU, two new incentive programs have been proposed: one addressing distracted driving and one supporting teen empowerment programs. Vocal constituencies have pressured Congress to authorize new Federal behavioral incentive grant 

programs that meet the narrow needs of those constituencies. As a result, the Federal highway safety program has been developed in a piecemeal fashion without an 

overall plan, resulting in tremendous fragmentation of Federal behavioral highway 

safety resources at the Federal level and administrative and programmatic difficulties at the state level. 

It is time, as the National Surface Transportation and Revenue Policy Study Commission recommended in its 2009 report, to develop a national highway safety strategic plan with national highway safety goals. Other countries, such as Canada and 

Australia, have developed national strategic highway safety plans that involved all 

levels of government and the private sector in the development process. Each state 

has its own Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP), as required by Section 148 of 

SAFETEA–LU. The missing component is a national plan. GHSA supports the development of a comprehensive national strategic highway safety plan and recommends 

that that the next reauthorization bill should call for the creation of such a plan. 

GHSA also supports a vision of zero highway safety fatalities. The loss of one life 

is one too many. Over time, and with education, enforcement, safety infrastructure 

improvements, vehicle improvements, and technological advances, such an ambitious goal can be achieved. 

Further, GHSA supports the interim goal recommended by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and others of halving 

fatalities by 2030. This interim goal would require annual reductions of 1,000 fatalities a year. In 2006, the country nearly reduced fatalities by that amount, demonstrating that yearly reductions of this magnitude are possible. Since that time, 

fatalities have been reduced by more than 1,000 per year, culminating in the most 

recent reduction of more than 3,000 fatalities in 2009 alone. While the poor economy 

has played a major role, these reductions cannot be explained solely by the economic 

downturn. Implementation of effective countermeasures, vehicle and roadway improvements and greater coordination among state agencies involved in highway 

safety have all contributed to the declines in fatalities. GHSA recommends that the 

next reauthorization should support this vision and interim goal and should provide 

both the resources and the programs to enable achievement of the interim goal. 

55 

GHSA is part of an informal State Highway Safety Alliance comprised of the 

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), AASHTO, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), the Commercial Vehicle 

Safety Alliance (CVSA), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and 

the National Association of State Emergency Medical Service Officials (NASEMSO) 

who are participating in the development of a national strategic highway safety 

plan. These groups have issued a set of principles for the next reauthorization of 

Federal highway safety programs including behavioral, commercial motor vehicle 

and safety infrastructure. (Please see attachment). 

III. Performance Measures 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General (IG) and the National Surface Transportation Study Commission all recommended the Federal behavioral highway safety programs become 

more performance-based. In fact, the behavioral programs are already more performance-based than other Federal surface transportation programs. States are currently required to identify their highway safety problems using various data, set annual performance goals for reducing fatalities and injuries, and then report at the 

end of the year on whether they have reached those goals. 

GHSA concurs that the behavioral highway safety programs should be more performance-based and sees that as the next step in enhancing the state planning process. Beginning in 2004, GHSA took steps on its own to enhance state highway safety 

planning and encourage more performance- and research-based decisionmaking. The 

Association developed a template for state Highway Safety Plans and Annual Reports that strengthens the goal-setting and reporting processes. In 2006, GHSA, 

with funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

produced a report summarizing all the current research on effective highway safety 

countermeasures. The report, Countermeasures That Work, has been updated annually by NHTSA and has been used by states to select research-based, effective countermeasures for their annual Highway Safety Plans. 

In 2008, to address the concerns raised by GAO and others, NHTSA and GHSA 

embarked on a process to identify, by consensus, a common set of performance 

measures that all levels of government will use in their highway safety planning 

processes. Currently, there is agreement on ten outcome measures, two behavioral 

measures and three activity measures. States began to use the first fourteen measures in their FY 2010 Highway Safety Plans (HSP) and year-end Annual Reports 

(AR) and will continue to do so annually. States have begun to use the 15th measure with their FY 2011 HSPs and ARs and will do so annually (Please see the reports and materials located here: www.ohsa.oro/html/projects/perf msrs/index 

.html.). A similar consensus process has been undertaken to identify a common set 

of performance measures for traffic records systems. GHSA recommends that if Congress should create a performance-based behavioral highway safety grant program, 

that it should use the performance measures already developed cooperatively between 

GHSA and DOT and currently in use by the states. 

For states that are under-performing, the House Transportation and Infrastructure bill proposes that the Department of Transportation should have the authority 

to reprogram a state’s funds. There is already a process for DOT to review a state’s 

performance annually and recommend improvements. This process, known as the 

Special Management Review (SMR) process, is a collaborative one between the 

underperforming state and NHTSA’s regional office in which the state is located. 

The decision to reprogram funding could be an adjunct to that process but should 

be a mutual decision between the state and Federal agency. The House bill also continues but reduces the size of the penalties for states failing to submit an adequate 

plan that were authorized under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. It is unclear when 

those penalties would ever be used against an under-performing state if its funds 

are reprogrammed and a revised HSP is submitted. GHSA recommends that the 

penalties should be repealed. 

If Congress concurs that the behavioral highway safety programs should be more 

performance-based, it must provide the resources to states to collect the necessary 

performance data. The current Section 408 data improvement program (23 U.S.C. 

408), which is primarily focused on improvements to crash data systems, is only 

funded at $34.5 million a year. The average grant to states is only $500,000. Improvements to traffic records systems are extremely expensive. Pennsylvania’s enhancements to its crash data system, for example, cost the state more than $10 million. The Federal Government cannot be expected to pay the entire cost of improving 

state data systems; however, it is clear that funding for the 408 program is woefully 

inadequate. 

56 

Further, states are increasingly funding improvements in the other components 

of traffic records systems, particularly e-citation systems, DWI information tracking 

systems and emergency medical services (EMS) information systems. If states are 

expected to collect performance data such as statewide citation data or more precise 

injury data, then they need the funding to automate data collection and make other 

improvements to the data systems that would yield the requisite performance data. 

GHSA urges that the funding for the 408 program should be increased substantially 

to $100 million a year. The Association further recommends that no programmatic 

changes should be made to the Section 408 program. Another problem is that there is no uniform definition of serious injuries, so it 

is difficult to determine improvements in performance on this issue. Most states use 

an injury measurement scale called KABCO (killed, incapacitating injury, non-incapacitating injury, etc.). The KABCO scale is a measure of the functional injury level 

of the victim at the crash scene. The codes are selected based on the on-site judgment of the investigating police officer completing the crash report. 

However, KABCO is imprecise and relies on overworked law enforcement officials 

at the scene of a crash to make a determination of the extent of injury. A more precise serious injury surveillance system must be put in place. There is unanimity in 

the highway safety community that there is a need for greater uniformity in the 

definition of serious injuries. GHSA recommends that NHTSA should be directed to 

use a portion of its Section 403 Research and Demonstration funding (23 U.S.C. 403) 

to develop, by consensus, a more accurate definition of serious injuries. 

IV. Program Consolidation 

Another concern is the proliferation of incentive grant programs. The difficulty is 

that the funding streams are stove-piped, which causes fragmentation and impedes 

comprehensive, performance-based planning and programmatic implementation. The 

National Study Commission, the Bipartisan Policy Group, Transportation 4 America 

and others have all called for greater consolidation of Federal surface transportation 

programs. It is expected that the Administration’s reauthorization bill will include 

greater consolidation of surface transportation programs. 

In the House bill, all of the behavioral grant programs (except the Section 408 

data improvement program) are consolidated into a single program with earmarks 

for impaired driving, occupant protection and motorcycle safety. GHSA strongly supports the House program consolidation proposal and urges that it should be enacted. 

GHSA believes that if Congress is pressured by constituent groups to continue 

separate grant programs, then it must streamline the administration of those programs and give states more flexibility on the use of the funding. Currently, there 

are different applications and application deadlines for each incentive program. One 

application is due in February, one in June, three in July, two in August and one 

in September. Some of the applications are for funding in the current fiscal year, 

others for funding in the upcoming fiscal year. Half of the incentive funding isn’t 

given out until the end of the fiscal year. States are forced to carry over funding 

until the next fiscal year, yet they are criticized for having too much carryover 

money. Such a fragmented approach makes it extremely difficult for states to plan 

or implement their annual programs effectively. 

Whether there is a consolidated program or not, GHSA strongly recommends that 

there should be a single grant application deadline as well as a single application 

and that all of the grant funding should be allocated on October 1. We recognize 

there will be a transition in which states that enact certain qualifying legislation 

won’t receive grant funding until the following Fiscal Year. GHSA recommends that 

the current deadlines and applications should continue in the first year of the reauthorization to give the states a chance to get used to a new process. Following that, 

the single application, deadline and grant allocation should go into effect. 

If separate behavioral highway safety grant programs are authorized, GHSA 

strongly recommends that there should be greater flexibility between those programs. 

Currently, states have no flexibility to move funding between programs. States 

should be allowed to flex a portion of their behavioral highway safety grant funds 

based upon their demonstrated needs. As part of their annual HSP, states are required to submit data indicating their main highway safety problems. This assessment can be used to justify spending more funding in a particular area such as impaired driving, occupant protection or motorcycle safety. It is Congress’ interest to 

ensure that states spend their Federal funding in the areas where it will have the 

most impact and address the greatest need. 

GHSA further recommends states should be given the authority to pool a small 

portion of their highway safety grant funds. Currently, states are not allowed to pool 

any NHTSAadministered state grants. When an initiative is undertaken on a regional basis with 402 funds (such as the Smooth Operator aggressive driving proVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
57 

gram in Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., northern Virginia, and the Maryland suburbs), the participating states must go through a cumbersome process of transferring funds from one jurisdiction to another. A mechanism should be set up to allow 

states to work together regionally on law enforcement activities or paid media and 

other educational campaigns. States also should be able to pool funds to support 

specific highway safety research projects, as is allowed with Federal-aid highway 

funding. Similarly, a mechanism should be established to allow states to work together on data improvements. Multiple states, for example, may want to fund specific enhancements to software programs jointly used by those states. Or, they may 

want to hire a data contractor who can serve all the states in a region. There may 

be substantial savings by allowing states to pool their funds in this manner. 

V. Program Improvements 

The current incentive grant programs have provided needed funding to states to 

address a range of highway safety issues. However, in at least two of the incentive 

programs, the eligible uses of incentive funds are too restrictive. 

While the Section 410 program has been a valuable tool for enhancing state resources to address drunk driving, some of the 410 criteria have proven too difficult 

to implement (e.g., the BAC testing requirement), and others (e.g., the self-sufficiency requirement) have not encouraged any state action. GHSA expects that a 

number of states will fall out of compliance with the program because the requirements are too stringent. This is counterproductive. If the program is continued as 

a separate categorical grant program, GHSA recommends the program be refocused 

on those countermeasures that are known to be effective (e.g., high visibility enforcement, DUI courts and judicial education) or have the potential to be extremely effective (e.g., interlocks for first time offenders). GHSA supports the MADD Campaign 

to Eliminate Drunk Driving. These changes in the 410 program are very much in 

line with the Campaign and would help to realize the Campaign’s goals. 

The Section 406 primary seat belt incentive grant program (23 U.S.C. 406) has 

only been modestly successful. Only a handful of states have enacted primary seat 

belt laws since the programs’ inception. If there is separate funding for occupant 

protection, GHSA recommends that the 406 program should be combined with the 

Section 405 program (23 U.S.C. 405) and the Section 2011 child passenger protection program to form a single occupant protection program. Funds should be allocated to states based on a number of criteria such as seat belt use rates, fatality 

rates of unbelted drivers and primary seat belt and booster seat law enactment. 

Funding should be used to support a range of occupant protection activities such 

as high visibility and sustained enforcement, paid media, education programs, seat 

belt usage surveys, child passenger technician training, child restraint usage surveys, and child passenger protection education and enforcement programs. 

States that do not have primary belt laws or very high belt usage do not currently 

qualify for 406 funds. This has put tremendous pressure on their 402 allocations to 

fund the annual law enforcement mobilization and paid media. If the 406 program 

were restructured, it would provide a base of funding for occupant protection activities (including the annual high visibility mobilization) while allowing states to use 

their 402 funding for other safety purposes. 

If the 2010 motorcyclist incentive grant program is continued as a separate grant 

program, changes need to be made to it. It is also too restrictive and too small to 

have an impact. As GHSA’s recent Survey of the States: Motorcycle Safety Programs 

showed, many states are no longer able to support their motorcycle safety programs 

based on licensing and training user fees alone. More Federal assistance is needed— 

funding for the 2010 program should be increased substantially, to $20 or $25 million. 

NHTSA’s National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS) has shown that the best 

way to advance motorcycle safety is to address the problem comprehensively by focusing on such areas as licensing, education and training, protective gear, roadway 

safety, public information programs on speeding and impairment, conspicuity, enforcement, vehicle improvements, and sharing the road. The current 2010 program 

prohibits states from addressing the problem of motorcycle safety comprehensively. 

Eligible states should be allowed to use the funding for additional purposes such as 

licensing improvements, helmet education and enforcement programs, and impaired 

motorcycling programs. States should also be required to designate a lead state motorcycle safety agency and prepare a motorcycle safety strategic plan. 

GHSA also recommends that there should be a focus on aggressive driving and 

speed management in the next reauthorization. Speeding is a factor in an estimated 

one-third of all crashes—a figure that has remained unchanged over the last decade. 

Speeding costs society an estimated $40 billion annually. According to the NHTSAfunded 2005 Speed Forum report, ‘‘speeding dilutes the effectiveness of other priVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
58 

ority traffic safety programs, including efforts to reduce impaired driving, increase 

safety belt use, and improve pedestrian and motorcycle safety. Speeding and speedrelated crashes occur on all road types, from limited-access divided highways to local 

streets. Drivers speed in all types of vehicles. Speeding is a local, state, and national 

problem.’’ Speeding is one of the three primary factors in fatalities and injuries 

(along with impairment and failure to wear occupant protection devices) and is a 

major factor in aggressive driving, yet there are no Federal funds specifically to address the problem. 

A 2005 study published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) found that 

a 1 percent decrease in travel speed reduces injury crashes by about 2 percent, serious injury crashes by about 3 percent, and fatal crashes by about 4 percent. On a 

street with an average travel speed of 40 mph, a reduction to 38 mph is a 5 percent 

decrease. Crashes would be reduced by about 10 percent, serious injury crashes by 

about 14 percent, and fatal crashes by about 19 percent. Clearly, a small reduction 

in speeds can have a big impact. 

GHSA recommends that states should be encouraged to undertake speed and aggressive driving enforcement, conduct speed management workshops in their states, 

implement automated speed enforcement programs, or conduct public information 

campaigns about speeding and aggressive driving. In addition, GHSA recommends 

Congress fund a national campaign to re-educate the public about the dangerous 

consequences of speeding and aggressive driving, a biennial national speed monitoring data collection study to determine how fast the traveling public is actually 

going and research into emerging technological applications for measuring and controlling speed and aggressive driving. 

Another area of concern not addressed by SAFETEA–LU is teen driving. Although 

teen driver fatalities have decreased by 20 percent between 1988 and 2008, teens 

are still over-represented in fatal crashes. Motor vehicle-related fatalities are the 

leading cause of death for teenagers, and nearly 3,000 teens were killed in 2008. 

One of the most effective countermeasures is the graduated driving license law. 

Forty-nine states (excluding North Dakota) have graduated driver licensing laws. 

However, some states do not limit (or have high limits) on the number of passengers 

allowed in the vehicle and have lenient restrictions on nighttime driving. Research 

has shown that a teen’s risk of crashing increases substantially with each passenger. (That is, with one passenger, the risk is doubled. With two passengers, the 

risk is quadrupled.) Similarly, research has shown that there is a peak of teen 

crashes at night. By limiting driving to earlier nighttime hours, the risk of a teen 

crash is reduced. GHSA recommends that the next reauthorization should address 

teen driving and provide positive encouragement to states to strengthen the nighttime and passenger restrictions. 

A final area not addressed by SAFETEA–LU is distracted driving. According to 

NHTSA, nearly 6,000 persons were killed in crashes related to driver inattention 

and distraction in 2008. S. 1938, the Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2009, 

would provide incentives to states that satisfy certain eligibility criteria. States 

must have a hand-held cell phone ban, a texting ban and satisfy a number of other 

criteria. Eight states are currently potentially eligible for grants. However, none of 

the states will qualify because the criteria are too stringent. The bill addresses distracted driving as if it were a mature highway safety issue. In fact, it is an emerging issue on which there is relatively little research on the effectiveness of certain 

countermeasures to address distracted driving. State legislatures are enacting more 

simple and straightforward legislation than they would if the issue were a more mature one like impaired driving. Hence, the criteria for increasingly stringent penalties and the one for making a crash involving a fatality a criminal penalty are 

particularly problematic. Further, the criteria to require states to include distracted 

driving in the driver’s manual and test are not supported by research at all. If anything, research on driver education shows that it is not an effective way to enhance 

driver safety. In the next reauthorization, these criteria should be examined very 

closely and adjustments made accordingly. 

VI. Program Management, Research and Training 

SAFETEA–LU authorized NHTSA to conduct management reviews (MR) of states 

every 3 years and programmatic management reviews (SMRs) of underperforming 

states. NHTSA initiated these processes in 2005 and has been reviewing state programs since then. 

In 2007, however, GHSA grew concerned about the consistency of the reviews 

from state-to-state. The Association hired a contractor to review the MR’s and identify areas of inconsistency. In June of 2007, representatives from NHTSA and GHSA 

met and worked collaboratively to develop a more standardized approach to the 

MRs. The following year, the contractor undertook a similar review of state SMRs. 

59 

Another collaborative meeting was held to develop a more standardized approach 

to the SMRs. Both NHTSA and GHSA have established their own quality control 

task forces to review the MRs and SMRs and ensure that the 2007 and 2008 agreements are being followed. 

GHSA has also undertaken its own efforts to enhance the management of state 

highway safety programs. It has developed a monitoring advisory to help states enhance the monitoring of sub-grantees. It has also developed a model Policies and 

Procedures Manual covering all of the relevant Federal regulations and guidance for 

Federal behavioral highway safety programs. GHSA’s consultant will also begin 

working on a self-assessment protocol so that state highway safety offices can improve their management practices between Management Reviews. 

The Management Reviews and Special Management Reviews have been helpful to 

states and have identified issues that need to be addressed by the state highway 

safety offices. The partnership between NHTSA and GHSA has helped ensure that 

the MR and SMR criteria are applied consistently across the country. GHSA recommends that the NHTSA oversight requirements should be continued in the next 

reauthorization unchanged. SAFETEA–LU also authorized funding for research under 23 U.S.C. 403. However, the amount of funding devoted solely to behavioral research is small—only 

$7.7 million in FY 2011—and partially earmarked for specific research projects. 

NHTSA’s behavioral research budget has remained unchanged for more than a decade. This means that research on the effectiveness of specific highway safety countermeasures can be undertaken only if and when such research reaches the top of 

NHTSA’s priority research list. In fact, the November 2008 National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report on the effectiveness of highway safety 

programs found that, of 104 behavioral countermeasures, only 23 had sufficient research with which to be able to determine cost-effectiveness. Without sufficient research to indicate what works and what doesn’t, states are forced to implement best 

practices rather than appropriate research-based programs. GHSA recommends that 

NHTSA’s behavioral research budget should be substantially increased. 

Training is another area of concern for GHSA. There is tremendous turnover 

among the Governor’s Representatives and Highway Safety Coordinators who run 

the state highway safety agencies, particularly as baby boomers retire. It is critical 

that incoming leaders of state highway safety offices and their staffs receive appropriate training so that they can understand the complexities of highway safety and 

run effective programs. As noted in the TRB Special Report 289, Building the Road 

Safety Profession in the Public Sector, there is an urgent need to improve the training for safety professionals and ensure that it is multi-disciplinary. GHSA supports 

dedicated funding for NHTSA training so that the agency can enhance all of its 

training, including developing distance-based learning. Further, there is a need for 

NHTSA to work more closely with the Federal Highway Administration and the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration training operations. Presently, there 

is no process for administering multidisciplinary training such as the Highway Safety 101 course that was developed and pilot tested under an NCHRP grant. As a result, the course, which provides basic training for anyone (not just highway safety 

offices) involved in highway safety, is languishing. GHSA recommends that a small 

amount of funding should be authorized to support a safety training coordination 

function within DOT. 

GHSA appreciates the opportunity to testify before the Consumer Subcommittee 

and looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and full Committee on the 

next surface transportation legislation. 

ATTACHMENT

Recommendations for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization 

The undersigned organizations support the following recommendations for the highway safety portions of the next surface transportation reauthorization legislation: 

Establish National Performance Goal and State Targets 

The State Highway Safety Alliance urges Congress to establish a national goal 

of halving motor vehicle fatalities by 2030 and authorize a Federal program that 

enables state and local governments to attain that goal. 

State highway safety-related agencies should set state performance targets in their 

federally-funded highway safety plans that would enable them to move toward attainment of the national goal. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) should work cooperatively with state safety-related agencies to identify performance measures with which to measure state 

60 

progress. At the end of each Federal Fiscal Year, states should report results using 

agreed-upon performance measures. Rather than penalizing states if they are unable to reach their safety targets within a fixed time period, the Federal safety 

agencies and their state agency counterparts should cooperatively identify creative 

strategies for enhancing results at the state level. 

Increase Safety Funding 

Although progress has been made in highway safety, almost 34,000 people—more 

than 90 a day—were killed and 2.2 million were injured in motor vehicle crashes 

in 2009. Most of these crashes were preventable. Increased funding must be authorized to enable states to reverse these troubling statistics and meet national safety 

goals and state highway safety targets. The State Highway Safety Alliance urges 

Congress to increase the level of Federal highway safety program funding commensurate with increases in other core programs. Increased highway safety funding for 

the grant programs administered by FHWA, NHTSA and FMCSA would enable 

states to improve safety on the roadways, address hazardous driving behavior and 

ensure that unsafe commercial motor vehicles are taken off the road. 

Streamline Program Administration and Enhance Flexibility 

The Alliance urges Congress to consolidate separate categorical highway safety 

programs to the greatest extent possible. Federal programs should have a single application and application deadline. Congress should identify eligible activities for the 

consolidated funding, but states should have the flexibility to determine how much 

funding should be used for each eligible activity so that funding is targeted toward 

the most critical highway safety problems. Requirements on states related to Maintenance of Effort (MOE), if not dispensed with altogether, need to be simplified and 

made so they incentivize state and local safety activities. They also should be based 

on activity levels or outputs and not purely on funding. 

Strengthen Strategic Highway Safety Planning 

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) requirements of the Sec. 148 Highway 

Safety Improvement Program have been a positive force for addressing safety in the 

states. The State Highway Safety Alliance supports those requirements and recommends that they be strengthened. States should continue to convene broad committees to oversee the state highway safety planning effort. At a minimum, these 

committees should consist of representatives of state and local agencies responsible 

for engineering, education, enforcement, emergency medical systems, licensing, and 

commercial vehicle safety. The SHSP should address highway safety issues on all 

public roads, target funding to areas of highest need as identified by state and local 

data, and set statewide safety performance targets. Any separate federally-funded 

safety implementation plans (e.g., the Highway Safety Plan, the Commercial Vehicle 

Safety Plan, the State Transportation Plan) should support the SHSP performance 

targets, and states should update their SHSPs at least once during the reauthorization period. 

Support Enhanced Data Collection and Analysis 

The collection of performance data is central to the effective functioning of Federal 

performance-based programs. In order to track and analyze performance, states 

need to be able to collect more complete, reliable and accurate data, have automated 

and linked data systems, exploit emerging data collection technologies and utilize 

better data analysis tools. Data improvements are complex and expensive. Federal 

funds for these improvements have been inadequate. This is a priority for states and 

the State Highway Safety Alliance urges Congress to fund state data improvements 

at significantly higher levels than current ones. 

Increase Investment in Safety Research and Development 

State highway safety programs are stronger and more effective if they are built 

around evidence-based strategies. Research to produce the evidence of countermeasure effectiveness has been difficult because Federal funding for highway safety 

research is so limited. More countermeasure research is urgently needed. Research 

is also needed to evaluate emerging safety technologies, demonstrate and evaluate 

new strategies for reducing highway deaths and injuries, develop model laws and 

model programs and identify and document best practices. Additional driver and vehicle-related research is needed to enhance the safety of drivers and vehicles and 

to strengthen Federal regulations. The State Highway Safety Alliance strongly supports increased funding for Federal highway safety research. 

61 

Prepare the Safety Workforce for the Future 

The highway safety workforce at the state level is aging, and institutional knowledge about highway safety issues and programs will be diminished when the current 

workforce retires. There have been few efforts to attract young professionals into the 

field or enhance the professional capabilities of the current workforce. Members of 

the State Highway Safety Alliance are extremely concerned about this trend and 

urge Congress to allow states to obligate their highway safety grant funds (those 

administered by FHWA, NHTSA and FMCSA) for workforce development, training 

and education with a 100 percent Federal share. Congress should more adequately 

fund Federal highway safety training for states, and a Center for Highway Safety 

Excellence should be established to facilitate the development of innovative safety 

workforce training (such as peer-to-peer training programs) and support better integration of highway safety training of the three Federal safety agencies. 

Choose Incentives Over Sanctions 

The Alliance submits that incentives are preferable to sanctions and transfer penalties. Incentives give states the flexibility and resources to find creative, resultsoriented solutions that meet safety goals and fit state and local needs. States are 

currently sanctioned for at least seven different safety-related purposes. An over-reliance on sanctions moves Federal highway safety programs away from a cooperative Federal-state partnership and generates increased state resistance toward the 

very safety issues that Congress wishes states to address. 

NEIL SCHUSTER, 

President and CEO, 

AAMVA. 

DR. PAUL HALVERSON, 

President, Director, Division of Health, 

Arkansas Department of Human 

Services, ASTHO. 

VERNON F. BETKEY, JR., 

Chairman, Chief, Maryland Highway 

Safety Office, GHSA. 

LARRY L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ BROWN, SR., 

President, Executive Director, 

Mississippi Department of 

Transportation, AASHTO. 

FRANCIS (BUZZY) FRANCE, 

President, Maryland State Police, CVSA. 

MICHAEL J. CARROLL, 

President, Chief of the West Goshen 

Township, Pennsylvania, Police 

Department, IACP. 

STEVEN L. BLESSING, 

President, Director, State of Delaware 

EMS, NASEMSO. 

The State Highway Safety Alliance is comprised of the three major recipients of 

the United States Department of Transportation grants as well as other state-based 

safety stakeholders. 

The Alliance represents state agencies with roles in improving highway safety 

through infrastructure, driver behavior, licensing, incident response, and enforcement approaches. 

The IACP, while not a member of the alliance, shares its goals, concerns, and priorities with respect to these recommendations for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you very much. 

We have these two rollcall votes, and if I don’t leave here in 

about 1 minute, I’m going to miss the first one. So, what we’ll do 

is, we’ll recess. And my guess is, you know, we’re talking about 

maybe a minute—15 minute recess, something like that. 

But, we’ll recess, subject to the call of the Chair. 

And I want to thank you all for your testimony, and I look forward to the questions. 

[Recess.] 

Senator PRYOR. I’ll go ahead and call us back into order. 

I want to again, thank of all our witnesses for their patience, and 

thank all of the members of the public who are here and watching 

this for their patience, as well. 

62 

Again, I want to thank all of you for your statements and keeping those as brief as you could so that the Committee could run 

over and vote on the Senate floor. 

Mr. Strassburger, let me ask you, if I may—you talked about, in 

your statement a few minutes ago, that there has been this partnership, or this collaboration, between government and industry, 

and also other stakeholders. And I think your point is that that collaboration has been effective and we need to try to continue that 

as best we can. 

Let me ask about the design of a vehicle—it’s something that Ms. 

Dean-Mooney mentioned a few minutes ago—where there’s now 

technology that’s available, that I guess can be put in cars, that 

might help with distracted driving, or might help, maybe, you 

know, with some built-ins on a car, that maybe you could put some 

things that might prevent drunk drivers from using vehicles. Could 

you talk about that for a little bit? 

Mr. STRASSBURGER. Sure, Senator. 

There are a number of technologies, so-called ‘‘driver-assist’’ technologies, that we’re developing currently, to help the driver do their 

primary job better, which is maintaining the safe control of their 

vehicle. So, some of these technologies include lane departure 

warning systems, blindspot warning systems, forward-collision 

warning systems—all of which can help the driver maintain safe 

control of the vehicle. And one of the other ones, in that same vein, 

we are also working—and you heard the Administrator talk briefly 

about it this morning—working with the NHTSA to develop advanced technology that could monitor the blood alcohol concentration of drivers, noninvasively, so that the sober driver would not be 

hassled. 

And that—we are in about the third year of a 5-year program 

with the agency. We’ve just received device prototypes that are 

being tested up at a lab in Boston, and they are undergoing 

human-subjects testing, as well, with the help of the Harvard Medical School. And they’re showing great promise. They would probably not be ready for vehicle integration for another 5 or 7 years, 

but they are showing tremendous progress. 

And I think we have benefited—our research has benefited by 

the research that’s being done for homeland security purposes, to 

sense or sniff chemical precursors of IEDs or other bad stuff. And 

once you know how to sniff one chemical, it’s just a matter of retuning to be able to sniff, in this instance, for alcohol. 

So, it shows a lot of great promise; and I think, should it come 

to fruition, we stand a very good chance of eliminating drunk driving. 

Senator PRYOR. Have you—has your organization been working 

with MADD and other organizations on this? 

Mr. STRASSBURGER. Yes, we have. As I testified, we are supporting MADD’s campaign to eliminate drunk driving. That campaign is modeled after the ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ program, which has 

proven to work, which means—as with any traffic safety problem, 

we need strong laws, visibly enforced; consumer education about 

those laws, and the fact that they’re being enforced, and how they 

can protect themselves; and then we need to look at the role of 

technology. So it’s that—the overall package or the comprehensiveVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
63 

ness of that program that’s ultimately going to get us to eliminating drunk driving. And it’s important that we do all of it, not 

just one piece of it. 

Senator PRYOR. Ms. Dean-Mooney, has your organization been 

pleased with the collaboration you’ve had with the automakers? 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Yes, Senator, we absolutely have been. 

MADD agrees completely with what Mr. Strassburger said, that 

technology will ultimately be the key to the elimination of drunk 

driving, and that all pieces have to come together. Behavior modification is certainly a part of that; but, 30 years after we’ve been 

in place, people still drive drunk, because they can, and because we 

tolerate it, as a society. But, we are very pleased to be working 

with the Auto Alliance. 

Senator PRYOR. And you mention, I think, in your statement a 

few moments ago, that not all industry is supportive of MADD, 

maybe—I think you said the defense attorney—Criminal Defense 

Bar and—did you say the alcohol industry? Who all is—who all 

tends to be in a different place than you? 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Well, primarily the public supports our efforts, which is the most important piece. Criminal defense attorneys, and State houses often chair committees that our bills will 

have to go through, and we hit—have hit roadblocks there, because 

they choose not to let our bills go forward. The good thing about 

us is, we continue to come back, we never go away. But, the—certain segments of the alcohol industry will also try to oppose our 

bills, as they have in the past with .08, as they have with underage 

drinking laws, as well. But, we will continue to show, through data, 

through research, that what we speak about, is the facts, and what 

we believe will happen is the elimination of drunk driving, ultimately. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. Let me ask about that data question. Mr. 

Pedersen, that’s actually one of the questions I had for you. Because I hear, from my folks in Arkansas—and I’m sure other Senators have heard similar things from their States—they—that the 

issue of data collection is critical, and I—my understanding is, from 

a State’s perspective, or city’s perspective, it can be very expensive, 

as well, to have the right technology and the ability to collect data 

accurately. What’s your view of that, and what’s your experience 

with that? 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Absolutely, data is the key, particularly if we 

want to be moving to a performance basis for the safety programs. 

It’s very expensive to collect data, it’s also very expensive to be 

analyzing and processing the data, as well. 

Senator PRYOR. Do you collect it through accident reports—— 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Yes. 

Senator PRYOR.—things like that? 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Yes. From police agencies. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Mr. PEDERSEN. And then the data actually has to be processed, 

and a lot of quality control has to be going into it. There are a lot 

of issues that you have to be looking at, in terms of consistency 

within the data, to be making sure that it is quality data before 

you can be using it. 

64 

But, in the end, serving as a Governors Highway Safety Representative, in an organization that really takes a performance 

basis seriously, we want to be investing our dollars where we 

know, first, we have a problem based on what the data is telling 

us, and second, where the research is telling us we can be making 

a difference. And the key to good research is good data. 

So, it’s not just the analysis for the programs at the State level, 

it’s ultimately so that we can be having the research results that 

ensures that we’re investing the dollars most wisely. 

Senator PRYOR. Ms. Gillan, I would like to ask you about data, 

and the accuracy of data and data collection, and how we measure 

how effective these safety programs are. Did you want to have a 

comment on that? 

Ms. GILLAN. Well, Advocates has—all of the positions that we 

take on Federal and State legislation is data-driven. And we are 

concerned about the funding at NHTSA for the collection of data. 

And I think that this committee did a great job, in the MVSA bill, 

in really boosting NHTSA’s vehicle safety programs, and, in turn, 

supporting the collection of data for both FARS, which is their annual Fatality Accident Reporting System, and NASS. 

Clearly, if we don’t give NHTSA the resources to collect that 

data, then it affects how the States do the programs that they 

have, and also the programs that Congress has. And I think that 

everybody on this panel would agree that—I don’t think we have 

done as good a job as we should in collecting that data and getting 

it out there so that we can make those kind of informed decisions. 

Senator PRYOR. And from your standpoint, is that a matter of 

money and financing better data collection, better technology? 

Ms. GILLAN. I think it’s both. I think that we need to give the 

agency the resources. I also think that we need to collect better 

data, at the State level, on crashes right now. It’s very difficult to 

ascertain, in a police accident report, whether, in fact, there has 

been some distraction, whether the driver was using a cell phone 

or was texting. And I think that’s contributing to some of this confusion about, you know, Are these laws working? 

And the fact of the matter is, Senator, too, a lot of crashes are 

multifactor crashes, they would involve speed and texting. And so, 

it has been hard, I think, with the data that we’re collecting, to 

really clearly, sort of, see some of those trends. And we’ve missed 

some. I mean, we clearly missed what was happening with Toyota 

in the sudden acceleration. I think we missed some of the distracted driving, for years—we should have known sooner about 

what was going on—because of the issue of inadequate data collection. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Pedersen, let me ask something that you— 

or follow up on something that you mentioned, which is more of a 

paperwork issue for the States, and that is kind of going to a single 

application, or a streamlined process to apply for these grants. How 

much of an impediment is it for the States to, kind of throughout 

the year, have applications that come due at different times in the 

year, and have to, I guess, reapply and reapply—oftentimes, the 

same information, I assume—but, how much of an impediment is 

that for the States? 

65 

Mr. PEDERSEN. From a perspective of Governors Highway Safety 

Representative, who really is charged with looking at things more 

strategically, I’m very frustrated that we’re dealing with one program at a time, in terms of the applications that are going in, the 

decisions that are being made. We really need to be taking a more 

holistic view of the decisions that we are making, and doing it all 

at one time, so that we can have one single decision that is being 

made, regarding resource allocations. 

Second, by having many different applications that have to be 

submitted, you’re just increasing the amount of administrative 

work that goes with it, instead of a single application and dealing 

with NHTSA one single time. To the extent that we can be reduce 

the amount of money that has to be going to grant administration 

more resources can be put into the programs, which will result in 

greater traffic safety. 

Senator PRYOR. Let me follow up on one of Senator Klobuchar’s 

questions earlier. It was kind of a carrot-and-stick question. It’s a 

classic question, between State and Federal Government, on, you 

know, How many incentives should we have, versus, you know, 

how many sticks should we have, in the process? And I know that 

States—when I hear from States, they want flexibility, they want, 

you know, to not be punished if they don’t do something. But, 

where’s the balance there? How do we—as policymakers here, how 

do we set this up to where we find the most effective combination 

of carrots and sticks? 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Well, again, if we take a performance basis, we 

should have a program that is driven by where the data is telling 

us we have the greatest problems and where we can get the greatest results. And there should be more of a programmatic review of 

whether the States are allocating the money where it is most effective. 

States have been opposed to sanctions in the past. GHSA is opposed to sanctions. I can tell you, from the perspective of the person who has to appear before the legislative committees to try to 

convince them to be passing legislation, that we are far more effective in getting legislation passed when we can be demonstrating, 

through data, that we have a problem, and we can be demonstrating, through research, that there are results, than when I 

go in and say, ‘‘We have to do it, because the Feds will sanction 

us if we don’t do it.’’ All that does is create resentment on the part 

of the legislative committees at the State level, and they will not 

be nearly as cooperative, in terms of passing legislation that is actually effective. 

Ms. GILLAN. And, Senator Pryor? 

Senator PRYOR. Yes—— 

Ms. GILLAN. I just—let me just augment and give my view, because I do testify before a lot of State legislatures, and—on this 

issue—and we have many State legislators, for instance, that are 

supporting the STANDUP Act, with the sanction, because we know 

that, without that sanction, they won’t be able to get that law 

through. 

I have a sister who is a State Senator in Montana. I’ve been 

pushing her to try to get a primary enforcement seatbelt law 

through the Montana State legislature, and she has said to me priVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
66 

vately, and she will say it publicly, ‘‘Show me a sanction and I’ll 

show you that law.’’ 

So, I think that we can start out with incentives, but they’re— 

clearly, the history of incentives are not working, and we need to 

go to sanctions, especially for laws on primary enforcement seatbelt 

law, teens, motorcycle helmets, and drunk driving, where we are 

not making the progress that we should. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Strassburger? 

Mr. STRASSBURGER. Yes, if I could. I’m—Senator, I’d just take the 

middle-of-the-road position, here. 

The first primary enforcement law that was adopted was in 1984 

in the State of New York. Twenty-five years later, after considerable amount of effort by my industry—and investment by my industry—to say nothing of the efforts made by Congress—we’ve just 

this—passed—or, this year, we got over just half of the States—30. 

So, clearly, primary enforcement laws are ripe for a sanction. 

To start with incentives first, and then move to sanctions, is 

probably the right balance. There is case law, South Dakota v. 

Dole, that—and I’m not a lawyer, but my novice reading of it is, 

is that—that case concluded, absolutely, it’s the—within the authority of Congress to withhold funds, so long as they are not punitive. But, the court didn’t give any direction as to what is punitive. 

So, I’m personally concerned about loading the States up with numerous sanctions all at once, but I think, clearly, we should start 

with primary enforcement safety belt law, move to drunk driving, 

and then on to the others, in priority order, as they are, as we see 

from the data is that—what are our biggest problems. 

Senator PRYOR. Ms. Dean-Mooney, let me ask you about one of 

those laws, the open-container law. It’s in Section 154 of Title 23. 

How is the open-container provision working out there in the 

States? My understanding is, there are—I don’t have the number, 

but not every State has adopted that. And give us your sense of 

how the open-container law is working. 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. Well, unfortunately, Senator, we don’t have 

that data with us, but we’ll be happy to provide it to you for the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

LAURA DEAN-MOONEY, MADD NATIONAL PRESIDENT

Response to Question Posed by Senator Mark Pryor 

In 1998, as part of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21), 

a Federal program was established to encourage states to enact laws that prohibit 

the possession and consumption of alcohol in motor vehicles. Section 154 of Title 23 

of the U.S. Code authorizes the transfer of a portion of a State’s Federal-Aid highway construction funds if a state does not comply with program requirements for 

enacting an open container law. 

Each year nearly 11,000 people are killed due to drunk driving, and 350,000 more 

are injured. A 2002 NHTSA study showed that states without open container laws 

experienced significantly greater proportions of alcohol-involved fatal crashes than 

states with open container laws. NHTSA’s national surveys on drinking and driving 

show that a majority of the public supports open container laws, even in States 

without such laws. 

To comply with Section 154, a State’s open container law must: 

• Prohibit both possession of any open alcoholic beverage container and consumption of any alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle; 

67 

• Cover the passenger area of a motor vehicle, including unlocked glove compartments and any other areas of the vehicle that are readily accessible to the driver or passengers while in their seats; 

• Apply to all open alcoholic beverage containers and alcoholic beverages, including beer, wine and spirits; 

• Apply to all vehicle occupants, except for passengers of vehicles designed and 

used primarily for the transportation of people for compensation (such as buses, 

taxi cabs or limousines), or the living quarters of motor homes; 

• Apply to all vehicles on a public highway or right of way (i.e., on the shoulder) 

of a public highway; and 

• Require primary enforcement of the law, rather than requiring probable cause 

that another violation had been committed before allowing enforcement of the 

open container law. 

States that failed to enact a compliant law by FY 2001 and FY 2002 had 1.5 percent of their highway construction funds transferred to either the State’s 402 program to be used for impaired driving countermeasures, or the State’s Hazard Elimination Program (HEP). The HEP is now referred to as the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). After FY 2002, the percentage of transferred funds increased 

to 3 percent. 

To date, 39 states and the District of Columbia comply with the law. These states 

are: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, 

New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington 

and Wisconsin. 

When the open container standard was enacted in 1998, only 13 states and the 

District of Columbia had compliant laws. The standard has been effective in encouraging 26 states to enact compliant open container laws, a very strong outcome. But 

no State has passed an open container law since FY 2006. It is unlikely that the 

remaining 11 states will come into compliance as a result of the standard. Perhaps 

one way to strengthen the current program would be to remove the option to transfer funds to the HSIP, instead only allowing funds to be transferred to the 402 program for impaired driving countermeasures. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. 

But, I think—isn’t fair to say that not all states have done opencontainer laws, but—you know, some have and some haven’t, and 

it’s kind of a—my understanding is, it’s kind of a mixed result. 

Ms. DEAN-MOONEY. That’s correct. There is a mixed result. I 

mean, in Texas, where I live, there are still drive-thru liquor 

stores, you can pull right up and—although they have an open-container law in Texas, they’re still selling by the can—and you can 

take that in your car, under the assumption that you’re not supposed to open it while you’re in your vehicle. We have some work 

to do there. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Well, really, I have other questions that I may submit for the 

record, because, again, some of this is detailed, about some of the 

specific programs and some of your specifics in your testimony. 

But, I think what I’d like to do is—unless someone has something 

else to add before we close here, I’d like to go on to the third panel. 

So, let me just say thank you very much for your time and participation. I’m sorry we had a vote in the middle of your panel. But, 

very helpful, and we appreciate you all. 

And again, we’re going to leave the record open for a couple 

weeks, and you’ll probably get some follow-up questions from the 

staff or from individual offices on this. 

So, thank you very much for being here. 

68 

Senator PRYOR. What I’m going to do is go ahead and call up the 

third panel. And I know that the Committee staff will want to 

swap out the nameplates and reset the microphones, et cetera, so 

I’ll go ahead and just very briefly mention our three witnesses, 

and—without giving a lot of background on them, but just very 

briefly mention them. 

First, we have Mr. Ethan Ruby. He’s from New York, New York. 

And second, we will have Mr. Ira Leesfield, he’s past President of 

the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers. And third, we will have Mr. 

Thomas M. James, President and CEO of the Truck Renting and 

Leasing Association. 

So, as soon as they get set and all the microphones are set up, 

we’ll turn it over to Mr. Ruby. But, we will—— 

Before I get started, let me go ahead and say that Senator 

Hutchison has requested that these letters from International 

Trucks of Houston and Rush Enterprises—looks like ‘‘in San Antonio’’—be placed in the record. And so, without objection, I’ll do 

that—am glad to do that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

RUSH ENTERPRISES, 

New Braunfels, TX; 

San Antonio, TX, September 22, 2010 

Hon. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

Ranking Member, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Ranking Member Hutchison: 

I am writing to request your support for the preservation of the Federal law prohibiting states from imposing vicarious liability on owners of rented and leased vehicles, codified at 49 U.S.C. 30106 and commonly known as the Graves Law. I very 

much appreciate your support for the passage of this law in 2005. Unfortunately, 

there have already been multiple attempts during this Congress to repeal this common sense law, and turn back the clock to reinstate antiquated vicarious liability 

laws that hold non-negligent owners of rented and leased vehicles liable for the actions of their customers operating the vehicles. 

Preservation of this vicarious liability uniformity law is critical to the success of 

Texas-based businesses like Rush Enterprises. The constitutionality and preemptive 

authority of the Graves Law, has been affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals and 

U.S. District Court, as well as the highest courts in several states, including the 

Minnesota Supreme Court and Florida Supreme Court. Especially in this economy, 

repeal of the Graves Law could have a devastating impact on both small and large 

businesses. 

Rush Enterprises operates the largest network of heavy- and medium-duty truck 

dealerships in North America in addition to its truck leasing operations. Rush Enterprises has approximately 2950 employees in 68 locations, and owns approximately 3000 trucks. Some of the businesses who lease trucks from Rush Enterprises 

include Pepsi/Tropicana, Costco, International Paper, and Boise Cascade. 

Rush’s leased trucks are being used in interstate commerce throughout the United 

States. If the Federal vicarious liability uniformity law were to be repealed, it would 

subject Rush Enterprises to liability for injury and property damage resulting from 

the actions of negligent drivers solely because we own the trucks. Repealing the 

Graves Law would immediately restore vicarious liability laws in states such as 

New York, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Minnesota, and Florida, and Rush Enterprises would be exposed to liability there even in the absence of any negligence 

on our part. Even if we are not subject to a lawsuit, the return of vicarious liability 

laws would lead to an increase in insurance costs, rental and lease costs, and an 

overall increase in the cost of commercial transportation. Ultimately, it is the consumer who suffers through higher costs of goods throughout the Nation. 

I understand that your Committee will be holding a hearing on vicarious liability 

and the Graves Law on September 28. On behalf of Rush Enterprises, I would 

greatly appreciate your help in preserving the vicarious liability uniformity law if 

69 

the issue of repeal should be brought up in the Senate during the remainder of this 

Congressional Session. Thank you for your consideration, and please call me if you 

would like to discuss this issue and its critical importance to my Texas business. 

Best regards, 

W. MARVIN RUSH, 

Chairman, 

Rush Enterprises, Inc. 

INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS OF HOUSTON

fka OLYMPIC INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS

Houston, TX, September 22, 2010 

Hon. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Ranking Member Hutchison: 

I am writing to request your support for the preservation of the Federal law prohibiting states from imposing vicarious liability on owners of rented and leased vehicles, codified at 49 U.S.C. 30106 and commonly known as the Graves Law. I very 

much appreciate your support for the passage of this law in 2005. Unfortunately, 

there have already been multiple attempts during this Congress to repeal this common sense law, and turn back the clock to reinstate antiquated vicarious liability 

laws that hold non-negligent owners of rented and leased vehicles liable for the actions of their customers operating the vehicles. 

Preservation of this vicarious liability uniformity law is critical to the success of 

Texas-based businesses like Kyrish Truck Centers, and the leasing business which 

is part of that network of dealerships, Kyrish Idealease. The constitutionality and 

preemptive authority of the Graves Law, has been affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court, as well as the highest courts in several states, including the Minnesota Supreme Court and Florida Supreme Court. Especially in this 

economy, repeal of the Graves Law could have a devastating impact on both small 

and large businesses. 

Kyrish Truck Centers operates one of the largest networks of heavy- and mediumduty truck dealerships in the U.S. in addition to its truck leasing operations. Kyrish 

Truck Centers and Kyrish Idealease together have approximately 550 employees in 

11 locations, and owns 1857 trucks. Some of the businesses who lease trucks from 

Kyrish Idealease include food companies, paper companies, furniture companies, 

building material companies, medical waste companies, chemical companies, beverage companies, floral companies and on and on. 

Kyrish Idealease’s leased trucks are being used in interstate commerce throughout the United States. If the Federal vicarious liability uniformity law were to be 

repealed, it would subject Kyrish Idealease to liability for injury and property damage resulting from the actions of negligent drivers solely because we own the trucks. 

Repealing the Graves Law would immediately restore vicarious liability laws in 

states such as New York, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Minnesota, and Florida, and Kyrish Idealease would be exposed to liability there even in the absence 

of any negligence on our part. Even if we are not subject to a lawsuit, the return 

of vicarious liability laws would lead to an increase in insurance costs, rental and 

lease costs, and an overall increase in the cost of commercial transportation. Ultimately, it is the consumer who suffers through higher costs of goods throughout the 

Nation. 

I understand that your Committee will be holding a hearing on vicarious liability 

and the Graves Law on September 28. On behalf of Kyrish Truck Centers and 

Kyrish Idealease, I would greatly appreciate your help in preserving the vicarious 

liability uniformity law if the issue of repeal should be brought up in the Senate 

during the remainder of this Congressional Session. Thank you for your consideration, and please call me if you would like to discuss this issue and its critical importance to my Texas business. 

Sincerely, 

E.A. KYRISH, 

President. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Ruby, you want to go ahead for us? 

Thank you. Thanks for being here. 

70 

STATEMENT OF ETHAN RUBY, 

ACCIDENT VICTIM, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. RUBY. Thank you very much, and it’s an honor to be here 

and speaking on behalf of my fellow taxpaying Americans. I thank 

you for that opportunity. 

My name is Ethan Ruby. On November 29, 2000, I was a pedestrian, in a crosswalk in New York City, walking with the marked 

cross—with a white ‘‘Walk’’ sign, and a driver, owned by Budget 

Rent A Car, ran a red light, striking a van in that intersection, and 

that car had the right-of-way. The ensuing collision, the van and 

other car careened into me, which resulted in me being immediately and irreparably paralyzed. I was 25 years old then. 

Fortunately for me, because I lived in New York, whose laws at 

that time held the rental car companies accountable for the injuries 

caused by their negligent drivers. That was before the Graves 

Amendment. I was able to win compensation from Budget Rent A 

Car, and I’ve had a fighting chance to regain my life to the best 

of my abilities. 

I’m here today to ask that Congress repeal the Graves Amendment. I speak today on behalf of tomorrow’s accident victims, who 

will suffer catastrophic injuries, but lack the financial capacity to 

restore and improve the quality of their lives. If the Graves Amendment is not repealed, many of those victims are likely to lack the— 

likely to lack—access the essential medical care, replace their lost 

earnings, and provide them with a reasonable compensation for 

their suffering. 

In my case, you should know that the driver of the Rent A Car 

had warrants out for his arrest for unpaid speeding tickets in other 

States. However, Budget gave this driver a car without checking 

the validity of his driver’s license or his driving record. 

Let me describe to you briefly, what the Budget Rent A Car driver did to me and what my life has been like since the accident. 

In the aftermath of the accident, I was taken by ambulance to 

a local hospital, where I received emergency care and underwent 

major surgery to stabilize my condition. It was immediately clear 

that I would never walk again. I sustained an irreversible spinal 

cord injury. I could not move my legs, I was in intense pain, and 

I was more prepared to die than to live. Not only was I paralyzed, 

but I lost control of my bladder and bowel function; normal sexual 

function and capacity was also lost. Nothing has changed and nothing will change. 

Months of incredibly difficult, arduous, and expensive rehabilitation followed my emergency and intensive care at the hospital. The 

struggle to regain the strength and ability just to learn to sit upright, using my head to balance, as I had lost all control of my 

chest and body, and then learn to be able to live from the place of 

a chair, was a monumental change. A wheelchair was going to be 

my way of moving from place to place for the rest of my life. For 

those who are able to walk normally, it may be hard to imagine 

the efforts it takes to learn to transition from walking to a wheelchair. Also, once you’re confined to a wheelchair, you’ll find that 

life does not accommodate to you, you are always—have to accommodate to that and the seeming insurmountable obstacles that 

come each and every day. 

71 

The cost of my medical and rehabilitation care has been astronomical. Once my limited private and personal medical insurance 

were exhausted, I was forced to use my savings to meet those expensive needs. And I relied on my family for as much help as possible. 

Future medical, surgical, and rehabilitation care will also be very 

costly. My doctors predicted that the medical complication as I go 

through life will only increase, to avoid the inevitable infections 

and cascade of problems that they will cause. As you probably recall, Christopher Reeves died from complications of a spinal cord 

injury. 

Before the accident, I was strong, healthy, athletic, running my 

own securities day-trading company, making a good living, and my 

future looked bright. Thankfully, I had a team of dedicated lawyers, led by Marc Moller and David Cook, of Kreindler & Kreindler, 

who prepared my case and represented me in a lengthy and hardfought battle against Budget Rent A Car, who used their massive 

corporate profits to hire the best lawyers they could to protect 

those profits. 

After years of litigation, just prior to jury selection, Budget conceded liability, leading the quantum of damages to be determined 

by the jury. Once the elements of damage were sought—one of the 

elements of damages were sought—to be able to harvest for—sperm 

for potential in vitro fertilization, should I be able to, one day, 

marry. Thankfully, I now share the joy of a 20-month old son with 

my wife, who I was lucky to be able to marry, only because I had 

the means to recover after this injury. 

Despite all my pain, suffering, and loss, I was one of the lucky 

ones. My ordeal has brought me into contact with many spinalcord-injury victims who I then try to—who I try to encourage to 

make the best of their lives, despite their circumstances. Their 

lives are incredibly hard. I know, from past experiences that they 

have shared with me, that their quality of life is directly influenced 

by the amount of money they have, or lack thereof. Without the 

money to obtain adequate care, replace the lost income, spinal-cordinjury victims’ lives are victimized twice; first, by the accident 

caused by the injury, and second, with painful certainty that they 

will not have the financial resources to reach the highest level of 

recovery they might be able to achieve. 

The reason the Graves Amendment has such a draconian and 

unfair impact is that it shifts the burden of loss from the profitmaking rental companies and their insurers to the potential victims of their negligent drivers. It is simply unfair to make the innocent victims of accidents protect rental companies’ coffers. Moreover, to the extent that the victims then need help, any limited relief most likely will have to come from the State; that means taxpayers ultimately foot the bill if victims cannot. That is what the 

Graves Amendment has done, and that is why I’m here to ask that 

Congress repeal it. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruby follows:] 

72 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ETHAN RUBY, ACCIDENT VICTIM, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman: 

My name is Ethan Ruby. On November 29, 2000, I was a pedestrian walking 

across a street in New York City within the marked pedestrian crosswalk with the 

right-of-way when a rental car owned by Budget Rent-A-Car ran a red light and 

struck a van in that intersection that had the right-of-way. In the ensuing collision, 

the van careened into the crosswalk and struck me, which resulted in my being immediately and irreparably paralyzed. I was then 25 years old. 

Fortunately for me, because I live in New York whose law held rental car companies as vehicle owners responsible for injuries caused by their negligent drivers. Before the Graves Amendment became law, I was able to win compensation from 

Budget Rent-A-Car and have a fighting chance to make the best of my compromised 

life. 

I am here today to ask that Congress repeal the Graves Amendment. 

I speak on behalf of tomorrow’s accident victims who will suffer catastrophic injuries, but lack the financial capacity to restore and improve the quality of their lives 

if commercial rental car companies are insulated from liability for the negligence 

of those who rent their vehicles. If the Graves Amendment is not repealed, many 

of those victims are likely to lack access to essential medical care, replace their lost 

earnings potential, and provide them with reasonable compensation for their suffering. 

In my case, you should know that the driver of the rented car had warrants out 

for his arrest for unpaid speeding tickets when he commandeered the Budget car 

he was driving. To the best of my knowledge, nothing was done by Budget to check 

the validity of renters’ driving records prior to entrusting their vehicle to them or 

even to determine whether their drivers licenses were in good standing. All a driver 

had to do was present a driver’s license to a rental car agency’s desk clerk and a 

credit card and he or she would be given a car. No questions were asked as to 

whether the driver had any other insurance in effect that would provide automobile 

liability protection to an innocent victim of an accident. Drivers were furthermore 

given the option of purchasing or declining automobile liability insurance coverage 

through the rental car company. 

Let me describe for you what Budget Rent-A-Car’s driver did to me and what my 

life has been like in the nearly 10 years since my accident. 

In the aftermath of the accident, I was taken by ambulance to a local hospital 

in New York where I received emergency care and underwent major surgery to stabilize my condition. It was immediately clear that I would never walk again. I sustained an irreversible spinal cord injury. I could not move my legs, was in intense 

pain, and was more prepared to die than to live. Not only was I paralyzed, I lost 

control of my bladder and bowel function. Normal sexual function and capacity was 

also lost. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. 

Months of incredibly difficult and arduous rehabilitation followed my emergency 

and intensive care in the hospital. The struggle to gain the strength and ability just 

to learn to sit upright using my head to balance me (as I had lost all control of my 

body from the chest down) and then to learn and be able to move from a stable chair 

or bed into a wheelchair was a monumental challenge. A wheelchair was going to 

be my way of moving from place-to-place for the rest of my life. For those who are 

able to walk normally it may be hard to imagine the effort it takes to learn how 

to transition from walking to a wheelchair. Also, once you are confined to a wheelchair, you find that life does not accommodate you and there are constant, seemingly insurmountable obstacles to overcome to adapt to your new condition. 

The cost of my medical and rehabilitation care was astronomical. Once my limited 

private and personal medical insurance was exhausted, I was forced to use savings 

to meet many of the expenses, and I relied on my family for as much help as they 

were able to provide. Future medical, surgical and rehabilitation care will likewise 

be very costly. 

My doctors predicted medical complications as I go through life. They are right. 

I must be diligent to avoid infection and the cascade of problems they cause. 

Before the accident I was strong, healthy, athletic, running my own securities day 

trading business and making a good living. The future looked bright. 

Thankfully, I had a team of dedicated lawyers led by Marc S. Moller and David 

C. Cook of Kreindler & Kreindler who prepared my case and represented me in a 

lengthy and hard fought trial against Budget Rent-A-Car. After years of litigation, 

just prior to jury selection, Budget conceded liability leaving the quantum of damages to be determined by the jury. The jury returned a substantial verdict in December 2004. With minor adjustment after the defendant sought a reduction in the 

verdict, it was upheld on appeal. (Attached to the statement are two opinions for 

73 

the trial and Appellate Court in my case and the brief which explains our position 

in detail.) One of the elements of damages we sought was money to harvest sperm 

to be available for in vitro fertilization were I able to marry. I now share the joy 

of a young son, 20-months-old, with my beautiful wife who I married after I was 

injured and progressed to my present level of recovery. 

I was lucky! 

My ordeal has brought me into contact with many spinal cord injury victims who 

I try to encourage to make the best of their lives despite their circumstances. Their 

lives are incredibly hard. I know from the experiences they have shared with me 

that the quality of their lives is directly influenced by the amount of money they 

have, or lack, to gain the best medical care possible and to make the adjustments 

that will make their lives livable. Without the money to obtain adequate care and 

replace lost income, spinal cord accident victims’ lives are victimized twice: first by 

the accident that caused the injury and second, with painful certainly, that they will 

not have the financial resources to reach the highest level of recovery their condition 

allows nor experience any realistic enjoyable quality of life. 

The reason the Graves Amendment has such a draconian and unfair impact is 

that is shifts the burden of loss from the profit-making rental car companies and 

their insurers who have the capacity to protect their economic interest, to the potential victims of their negligent drivers. It simply is unfair to make the innocent victims of accidents protect rental car company coffers. Moreover, to the extent that 

victims then need help, any limited relief most likely has to come from the state. 

Taxpayers ultimately foot the bill if victims cannot. That is what the Graves 

Amendment has done. 

The Graves Amendment should be repealed. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Mr. Leesfield. 

STATEMENT OF IRA H. LEESFIELD, PAST PRESIDENT, 

ACADEMY OF FLORIDA TRIAL LAWYERS 

Mr. LEESFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

Senator Nelson for his very kind remarks at the beginning of the 

session. 

I am here to speak on why the Graves Amendment is a really 

bad idea, an idea that was not thought out and not well conceived. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Graves Amendment was not a bad idea 

for the major rental car companies of the United States, but it was 

a very bad idea for the citizens of the United States, and a very 

bad idea for States’ rights, and a very bad idea for the U.S., local, 

and State governments. So, I’d like to address each one of those in 

my brief time. 

We’ve heard from a citizen—we’ve heard from Ethan—but his 

story is not alone, and it’s not isolated. The Graves Amendment, 

passed in 2005, shifted the responsibility from corporate rental car 

companies to governments, local hospitals, local healthcare providers, and anybody who would take—pick up the tab for somebody 

injured by a rental car company. 

Now, in real life, Mr. Chairman, may I tell you how this really 

worked? Any State, such as Florida, where I’m from, but any State 

had the right to pass a State law. Florida had State laws which 

said that rental car companies were responsible, up to a certain 

amount. For the history of the State of Florida, as a matter of 

States’ rights, Floridians could recover from corporate wrongdoers, 

including rental car companies. 

Now, in 1999, a Republican Governor, a Republican Senate and 

a Republican House in Florida, as a matter of States’ rights, limited Floridians’ recoveries but did not eliminate those recoveries; it 

merely limited them. And that limitation was a maximum recovery 

74 

of $100,000 for economic loss—for noneconomic loss, and $500,000 

for economic loss. 

That now has been totally eliminated by Graves. What Graves 

has done is taken away the States’ rights to be the experimental 

place for individuals who are injured. In Florida, for instance, we 

have 8.6 million foreign visitors a year, as Senator Nelson alluded 

to, and we have 76 million domestic visitors. Those people, whether 

they come from Asia, South America, the Orient, wherever, come 

into Florida. There is no requirement that they have insurance. 

They rent a car. There’s no requirement that they have financial 

responsibility. And if they injure someone, like Ethan or anybody 

else, they go back to their home country, their home venue, and we 

are left holding the bag. The ‘‘we’’ being the taxpayers. Because 

when people are injured and there is no corporate responsibility, 

what happens is, the taxpayers, either the local counties, the 

States, or the Federal Government, pick up the tab. Someone is 

going to pay for the medical care. If Nathan—Ethan did not get a 

fair recovery, he would have been—his medical care would have 

been provided for by the taxpayers of New York or elsewhere. 

So, what Graves does, really—it’s a good idea for the rental companies. There’s no—this is a—Enterprise, for instance, is a 10.1-billion-dollar-a-year—billion-dollar-a-year—company. Enterprise has 

bought Alamo. If the Chair and the Committee look at the submission of the rental car industry, you do not see as one of their sponsors, on page seven, you do not see the mom-and-pop operation that 

they claim to be protecting in a pro-competitive way; you only see 

the big five. You only see the largest rental car companies, who, 

candidly, are just making more profit on an insurable loss. 

If you go to page 10 of their ‘‘Positive Results’’: Since the passage 

of Graves in 2005, the courts have paid great deference, as they 

should, to Congress. Now, the courts don’t know that Graves never 

got a hearing in the Senate, that there was 20 minutes of discussion about Graves, 5 minutes from Congressman Nadler, 5 minutes 

from Mr. Graves, and 10 minutes from Mr. Conyers; that was the 

end of the discussion. They don’t know that. The courts say, ‘‘We’re 

going to follow what the Congress has done.’’ 

So, on page 10, when the industry lists their positive results— 

and they call them that: ‘‘positive results’’—they include Ethan— 

they’d like to include Ethan, but they didn’t, because his accident 

happened beforehand—as one of the positive results. In other 

words, ‘‘We, the rental car industry, are not going to pay for the 

injury and the damage and the loss that we caused by not checking 

a driver’s license, by not insisting on insurance, by not checking the 

driver’s record.’’ All you check—go, today, to a rental-car stand at 

any airport or anywhere else, and all that gets checked is your 

credit card and to see if you submit a driver’s license. We never go 

beyond what that driver’s license says about the drinking record, 

the safety record of the driver. 

So, Mr. Chairman, you opened this session with the impact— 

your words were ‘‘the impact on highway safety.’’ I’m here to tell 

you that, when you don’t have corporate responsibility, you don’t 

have highway safety. And what Graves has done, it has eliminated—not modified, as each State has the right to do, not finetuned, not somewhat limited—it has eliminated corporate responsiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
75 

1List of States—attached. 

2 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (2005). 

bility in the rental-car sphere, a sphere that 15 States plus the District of Columbia enforced, in their own way, in their own legislature, and with their own common law. 

So, we don’t want any more ‘‘positive results.’’ We want Ethan 

to be able—if he’s wrongly injured, we want him to be able to go 

to court. Graves and the industry, the five giants of the industry, 

have eliminated a right, in an uncareful, rushed way in 2005, and 

that—it is now time to turn back the clock to the right way and 

turn back the clock to true justice. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leesfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IRA H. LEESFIELD, PAST PRESIDENT, ACADEMY OF FLORIDA TRIAL LAWYERS

In Florida, District of Columbia, and fourteen other states, including New York 

and California, vicarious liability has been part of legal jurisprudence, dating back 

for almost 90 years. As enunciated by the Florida Supreme Court in Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 44, 86 So. 629 (1920), the owner of an automobile 

‘‘. . . may not deliver it over to anyone he pleases and not be responsible,’’ Southern 

Cotton. Vicarious liability, as recognized in 1920, was extended to automobile lessors by the Florida Supreme Court in 1947. Lynch v. Walker, 31 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 

1947), and again in Susco Car Rental System v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959). 

Fifteen of the similarly situated states developed, either by statute or common 

law, a mechanism for protecting its citizens and visitors from the life changing negligence of those behind the wheel of a vehicle entrusted to them.1

Not surprisingly, the importance of vicarious liability to the modern proliferation 

of the rental car industry coincided with a huge number of U.S. and foreign visitors 

coming into jurisdictions, doing harm and leaving. For instance, the Florida Chamber of Commerce recently reported over 82 million people visit Florida every year, 

and the numbers for California and New York are similar. 

Necessarily, these jurisdictions shifted to vehicle owners, including for profit rental companies, accountability for the destruction of mayhem left behind when rental 

vehicles caused life-changing injuries and deaths within their borders. 

In 2004, ‘‘out of the blue’’ or more understandably, out of Missouri, the home of 

Enterprise Rental Cars, came the notion that the rental car industry should be 

granted full immunity from any damage caused by a driver who they entrusted 

their vehicle to for profit. In other words, no matter what the driving record or 

availability of insurance of the rental car driver, the rental car industry was to be 

completely immune and shielded from damages to innocent bystanders. This would, 

and did, wipe out any notion of rental car responsibility. 

Rental car companies tried to repeal vicarious liability statutes, state-by-state, 

particularly, New York. They were not successful inasmuch as the law-making bodies of these states felt it was necessary to incentivize safety by making profitable 

companies, who rent to negligent drivers, responsible for the life changing injuries 

to innocent parties. The industry then changed their focus from state legislature to 

Congress. In 2004, during the debate of the highway reauthorization bill, 

SAFETEA–LU, Representative Graves (R–MO) introduced an amendment specifically and completely abolishing rental vicarious liability under any state law. There 

was never any committee hearing on the issue. Nevertheless, the amendment failed 

in the Committee. In late 2004, Representative Graves brought the amendment up 

during the House floor debate, and the amendment failed by a voice vote. He then 

introduced the amendment again in January 2005, and asked for a recorded vote, 

at which time the amendment narrowly passed with bipartisan support and opposition. The amendment was never introduced in the Senate. Despite the objections of 

numerous groups, including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 

amendment became part of the final bill language and is now codified in the U.S. 

Code.2

In the 5 years since the passage of the Graves’ Amendment (as contrasted with 

the long history of state vicarious liability laws), Federal, state, county and local 

governments have been picking up the tabs and subsidizing the rental car industry 

by paying for enormous medical expenses and social services provided to those inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
76 

3Some of the more telling cases include visitors from other jurisdictions with completely different driving customs, driving on the wrong side of the road and killing innocent pedestrians. 

jured, maimed or killed by rental car customers. Annually, in Florida, there are 

thousands of examples, where visitors from overseas, or throughout the United 

States fly to Orlando, rent a car, and for a variety of reasons, cause egregious injuries to a Florida family or even another family visiting from out-of-state.3 At the 

point of rental, there is no requirement to produce insurance, a valid driver’s license, check a driving record, or even familiarize the renter/user with the rules of 

the road. It is a free for all! The rental car industry only requires verification of 

the credit card to protect themselves, often leaving the innocent state resident without any recourse to injury or death. 

The net effect and history of the law in Florida and other states has been unnecessarily tragic. For instance, the Florida legislature in 1999, as part of a sweeping 

state tort reform statute, modified, but did not eliminate, vicarious liability for rental car companies. A Florida House and Senate controlled by Republicans and a Florida Republican Governor Jeb Bush, determined, as a matter of state’s rights, that 

at least the economic interest of the innocent and injured Floridian would be recognized. In 1999, Florida passed § 324.021(9)(b)(2), which modified vicarious liability 

allowing the injured party to recover $500,000 in special damages, which would pay 

only for medical expenses and lost wages and an additional $100,000 for pain, disfigurement and loss of quality of life. This carefully crafted language is what the 

Florida legislature determined was best for the people and the State of Florida. 

Inadequate as that recovery may seem, that was the law of Florida until the rental car industry opted for complete abolition on the Federal law. The 1999 Florida 

law, before Graves, really served as a conduit allowing Federal, State, county and 

local hospitals and healthcare providers to be paid by the rental car malfeasant. 

Part of the burden remained with the rental car industry as a matter of public policy and financial responsibility. The most severely injured or killed citizen could get, 

even for a lifetime of pain and suffering, only $100,000 from the rental car company. 

Now, under the present Graves’ Amendment, there is no recourse whatsoever. The 

rental car industry obtained government subsidy for damage caused by their vehicles. All the while, insurance coverage to the rental car industry has been available. 

The price is paid by innocent residents of states with large visiting populations, 

and ultimately, paid for by taxpayers and medical facilities. The rental car customer, whether from Sweden or Seattle, returns the car, leaving the carnage on the 

road and drives off, scot-free. Under the Graves’ Amendment, a rental car company 

that rents to these damaging drivers, without checking for insurance, has complete 

immunity. Innocent victims and their governments are left holding the bag. That 

bag is paid for by Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and/or state and local 

healthcare providers. 

The Graves’ Amendment should be repealed under our system of federalism and 

state legislatures should be permitted to govern legislation uniquely evaluated by 

state legislatures. 

ATTACHMENT

Vicarious Liability State Statutes *

Updated February 2009 

State Type of Liability Case Citation or Statute 

Arizona Unlimited Liability The owner of a motor vehicle who rents it to another without a 

driver, other than as a bona fide transaction involving the sale of 

the motor vehicle, without having procured the required public liability insurance or without qualifying as a self-insurer pursuant 

to §§ 28–4007 with at least the minimum limits prescribed in sub- section A of this section [$15,000 for one vehicle; $10,000 for each 

additional motor vehicle. Proof of the ability to respond in damages in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars is sufficient 

for any number of motor vehicles] is jointly and severally liable 

with the renter for damage caused by the negligence of the renter 

operating the motor vehicle. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28–2166(A),(F). 

California Limited Liability Every owner of a motor vehicle is liable and responsible for death 

or injury to person or property resulting from a negligent or 

wrongful act or omission in the operation of the motor vehicle, in 

the business of the owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of the 

owner. Cal. Veh. Code § 17150. 

77 

Vicarious Liability State Statutes *—Continued 

Updated February 2009 

State Type of Liability Case Citation or Statute 

The liability of an owner, bailee of an owner, or personal representative of a decedent imposed by this chapter and not arising 

through the relationship of principal and agent or master and 

servant is limited to the amount of fifteen thousand dollars 

($15,000) for the death of or injury to one person in any one accident and, subject to the limit as to one person, is limited to the 

amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for the death of or injury to more than one person in any one accident and is limited to 

the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for damage to property of others in any one accident. Cal. Veh. Code § 17151. 

Connecticut Unlimited Liability Any person renting or leasing to another any motor vehicle owned 

by him shall be liable for any damage to any person or property 

caused by the operation of such motor vehicle while so rented or 

leased, to the same extent as the operator would have been liable 

if he had also been the owner. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14–154a(a). 

Delaware Unlimited Liability The owner of a motor vehicle who is engaged in the business of 

renting motor vehicles without drivers, who rents any such vehicle without a driver to another, otherwise than as a part of a bona 

fide transaction involving the sale of such motor vehicle, and permits the renter to operate the vehicle upon the highways and who 

does not carry or cause to be carried public liability insurance in 

an insurance company or companies approved by the Insurance 

Commissioner of this State insuring the renter against liability 

arising out of the renter’s negligence in the operation of such 

rented vehicle in limits of not less than $10,000 for anyone killed 

or injured and $20,000 for any number more than 1 injured or 

killed in any 1 accident, and against liability of the renter for 

property damage in the limit of not less than $5,000 for 1 accident, shall be jointly and severally liable with the renter for any 

damages caused by the negligence of the latter in operating the 

vehicle and for any damages caused by the negligence of renting 

the vehicle from the owner. Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 6102(a). 

D.C. Unlimited Liability Whenever any motor vehicle, after the passage of this subchapter, 

shall be operated upon the public highways of the District of Columbia by any person other than the owner, with the consent of 

the owner, express or implied, the operator thereof shall in case of 

accident, be deemed to be the agent of the owner of such motor vehicle, and the proof of the ownership of said motor vehicle shall be 

prima facie evidence that such person operated said motor vehicle 

with the consent of the owner. D.C. Code Ann. § 50–1301.08. 

Florida Limited Liability Common law doctrine of Dangerous Instrumentality. Limited by 

Fla. Stat. § 324.021 which limits car rental company vicarious liability to $100,000 per person and up to $300,000 per incident for 

bodily injury and up to $50,000 for property damage. If the lessee 

or the operator of the motor vehicle is uninsured or has any insurance with limits less than $500,000 combined property damage 

and bodily injury liability, the lessor shall be liable for up to an 

additional $500,000 in economic damages only arising out of the 

use of the motor vehicle. The additional specified liability of the 

lessor for economic damages shall be reduced by amounts actually 

recovered from the lessee, from the operator, and from any insurance or self-insurance covering the lessee or operator. 

§ 324.021(9)(b)(2). 

Idaho Limited Liability (1) Every owner of a motor vehicle is liable and responsible for the 

death of or injury to a person or property resulting from negligence in the operation of his motor vehicle, in the business of the 

owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the vehicle 

with the permission, expressed or implied, of the owner, and the 

negligence of the person shall be imputed to the owner for all purposes of civil damages. (2) The liability of an owner for imputed 

negligence imposed by the provisions of this section and not arising through the relationship of principal and agent or master and 

servant is limited to the amounts set forth under ‘‘proof of financial responsibility.’’ Idaho Code § 49–2417 

‘‘Proof of financial responsibility’’ means proof of ability to respond 

in damages for liability, on account of accidents occurring subsequent to the effective date of the proof, arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, in the amount of 

twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) because of bodily injury to 

or death of one (1) person in any one (1) accident, and, subject to 

the limit for one (1) person, in the amount of fifty thousand dollars 

($50,000) because of bodily injury to or death of two (2) or more 

persons in any one (1) accident, and in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one (1) accident. Idaho Code § 49–117 

78 

Vicarious Liability State Statutes *—Continued 

Updated February 2009 

State Type of Liability Case Citation or Statute 

Iowa Unlimited Liability In all cases where damage is done by any motor vehicle by reason 

of negligence of the driver, and driven with the consent of the 

owner, the owner of the motor vehicle shall be liable for such 

damage. Iowa Code § 321.493 

Maine Unlimited Liability An owner engaged in the business of renting motor vehicles, with 

or without drivers, who rents a vehicle to another for use on a 

public way, is jointly and severally liable with the renter for damage caused by the negligence of the renter in operating the vehicle 

and for any damages caused by the negligence of a person operating the vehicle by or with the permission of the renter. 29–A 

Me. Rev. Stat. § 1652 Limitation: This section does not give a passenger in a rented vehicle a right of action against the owner. 

Also, this section does not affect contributory negligence as a defense. 

Michigan Limited Liability This section shall not be construed to limit the right of a person to 

bring a civil action for damages for injuries to either person or 

property resulting from a violation of this act by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle or his or her agent or servant. The owner 

of a motor vehicle is liable for an injury caused by the negligent 

operation of the motor vehicle . . . The owner is not liable unless 

the motor vehicle is being driven with his or her express or implied consent or knowledge. It is presumed that the motor vehicle 

is being driven with the knowledge and consent of the owner if it 

is driven at the time of the injury by his or her spouse, father, 

mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, or other immediate member of the family. Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.401(1). As used in this 

chapter, ‘‘owner’’ does not include a person engaged in the business of leasing motor vehicles who is the lessor of a motor vehicle 

pursuant to a lease providing for the use of the motor vehicle by 

the lessee for a period that is greater than 30 days. Mich. Comp. 

Laws § 257.401a. A person engaged in the business of leasing 

motor vehicles who is the lessor of a motor vehicle under a lease 

providing for the use of the motor vehicle by the lessee for a period of 30 days or less is liable for an injury caused by the negligent operation of the leased motor vehicle only if the injury occurred while the leased motor vehicle was being operated by an 

authorized driver under the lease agreement or by the lessee’s 

spouse, father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, or other immediate family member. Unless the lessor, or his or her agent, 

was negligent in the leasing of the motor vehicle, the lessor’s liability under this subsection is limited to $20,000.00 because of 

bodily injury to or death of 1 person in any 1 accident and 

$40,000.00 because of bodily injury to or death of 2 or more persons in any 1 accident. Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.401(3). 

Minnesota Limited Liability Whenever any motor vehicle shall be operated within this state, 

by any person other than the owner, with the consent of the 

owner, express or implied, the operator thereof shall in case of accident, be deemed the agent of the owner of such motor vehicle in 

the operation thereof. Minn. Stat. §170.54. Notwithstanding section 170.54, an owner of a rented motor vehicle is not vicariously 

liable or legal damages resulting from the operation of the rented 

motor vehicle in an amount greater than $100,000 because of bodily injury to one person in any one accident and, subject to the 

limit for one person, $300,000 because of injury to two or more 

persons in any one accident, and $50,000 because of injury to or 

destruction of property of others in any one accident, if the owner 

of the rented motor vehicle has in effect, at the time of the accident, a policy of insurance or self-insurance, as provided in section 

65B.48, subdivision 3, covering losses up to at least the amounts 

set forth in this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph alters or affects the obligations of an owner of a rented motor vehicle to comply with the requirements of compulsory insurance through a policy of insurance as provided in section 65B.48, subdivision 3; or 

through self-insurance as provided in section 65B.48, subdivision 

3; or with the obligations arising from section 72A.125 for products sold in conjunction with the rental of a motor vehicle. Nothing in this paragraph alters or affects liability, other than vicarious liability, of an owner of a rented motor vehicle. Minn. Stat. 

65B.49, subd. 5(h)(i)(2). 

79 

Vicarious Liability State Statutes *—Continued 

Updated February 2009 

State Type of Liability Case Citation or Statute 

Nevada Limited Liability The short-term lessor of a motor vehicle who permits the shortterm lessee to operate the vehicle upon the highways, and who 

has not complied with NRS 482.295 insuring or otherwise covering 

the short-term lessee against liability arising out of his negligence 

in the operation of the rented vehicle in limits of not less than 

$15,000 for any one person injured or killed and $30,000 for any 

number more than one, injured or killed in any one accident, and 

against liability of the short-term lessee for property damage in the 

limit of not less than $10,000 for one accident, is jointly and severally liable with the short-term lessee for any damages caused by 

the negligence of the latter in operating the vehicle and for my 

damages caused by the negligence of any person operating the vehicle by or with the permission of the short-term lessee, except 

that the foregoing provisions do not confer any right of action 

upon any passenger in the rented vehicle against the short-term 

lessor. This section does not prevent the introduction as a defense 

of contributory negligence to the extent to which this defense is 

allowed in other cases. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 482.305 

New York Unlimited Liability Every owner of a vehicle used or operated in this state shall be 

liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property 

resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle, 

in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person using or 

operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of 

such owner. Whenever any vehicles as hereinafter defined shall be 

used in combination with one another, by attachment or tow, the 

person using or operating any one vehicle shall, for the purposes 

of this section, be deemed to be using or operating each vehicle in 

the combination, and the owners thereof shall be jointly and severally liable hereunder. N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Code § 388. 

Oklahoma Limited Liability (a) In the event the owner of a for-rent motor vehicle has not 

given proof of financial responsibility as provided in Section 8–101 

of this title, then the Tax Commission shall not register any motor 

vehicle owned by such person and rented, or intended to be 

rented, to another unless such owner shall demonstrate, to the 

satisfaction of the Commissioner, his financial ability to respond 

in damages as follows: 

1. If he applies for registration of one motor vehicle, in e sum of at 

least Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) for any one person injured or killed and in e sum of Forty Thousand Dollars 

($40,000.00) for any number more than one injured or killed in 

any one accident. 

2. If he applies for the registration of more than one motor vehicle, then in the foregoing sums for one motor vehicle, and Twenty 

Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) additional for each motor vehicle in 

excess of one, but it shall be sufficient for the owner to demonstrate ability to respond in damages in the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) for any number of motor vehicles. 

(b) The Department shall cancel the registration of any motor vehicle rented without a driver whenever the Department ascertains 

that the owner has failed or is unable to comply with the requirements of this section. 

(c) Any owner of a for-rent motor vehicle who has given proof of financial responsibility under this section or who in violation of this 

act, has failed to give proof of financial responsibility shall be 

jointly and severally liable with any person operating such vehicle 

for any damages caused by the negligence of any person operating 

the vehicle by or with the permission of the owner, except that the 

foregoing provision shall not confer any right of action upon any 

passenger in any such rented vehicle as against the owner. 47 

Okla. Stat. Ann. § 8–102 

Pennsylvania Limited Liability Failure of a person engaged in the rental of motor vehicles to comply with sections 1 and 2 [i.e., section 2151 and 2153, which provide, respectively, as follows: No motor vehicle rented or leased 

from any location in this Commonwealth may be covered by an insurance policy or self-insurance arrangement which excludes benefits if the lessee or any other authorized driver is involved in a 

vehicular accident while under the influence of drugs or intoxicating beverages at the time of the accident; and it shall be the 

duty of the lessor of motor vehicles to ensure that, in the event 

the rented motor vehicle is not returned during the contracted 

rental period, all liability or first party coverage continues until 

such time as the motor vehicle is reported to the police as stolen] 

shall, as a matter of law, render such person responsible for the 

mandated minimum limits of financial responsibility set forth in 

the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law arising out of the 

use of the motor vehicle for which the lessee would otherwise be 

responsible. 73 Pa. Stat. § 2153 

80 

Vicarious Liability State Statutes *—Continued 

Updated February 2009 

State Type of Liability Case Citation or Statute 

Rhode Island Limited Liability 

[Effective until 

June 2, 2009] 

(a) Except as provided below, any owner of a for hire motor vehicle or truck who has given proof of financial responsibility under 

this chapter or who in violation of this chapter has failed to give 

proof of financial responsibility, shall be jointly and severally liable with any person operating the vehicle for any damages caused 

by the negligence of any person operating the vehicle by or with 

the permission of the owner. 

(b) The liability of a lessor of a short-term rental motor vehicle or 

truck under this section shall be subject to a limit of $250,000 for 

bodily injury to or the death of one person, and subject to the 

limit for one person, to a limit of $500,000 for bodily injury to or 

the death of two or more persons in any one accident, and a limit 

of $25,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others 

in any one accident. 

(c) With respect to any long-term lease motor vehicle or truck: (1) 

the owner and/or lessor (and/or its successors or assignees) of a 

long-term lease motor vehicle or truck who is not the operator of 

the vehicle at the time of an accident shall not be jointly and severally liable with the operator and/or the lessee of the vehicle for 

any damages caused by the negligence of any person operating the 

vehicle if, at the time of the accident, the lessee has valid motor 

vehicle liability insurance which contains limits in an amount 

equal to or greater than $100,000 for bodily injuries to any one 

person in any one accident, $300,000 for bodily injuries in any one 

accident, and $50,000 for damage to property of others in any accident or a combined single limit of $300,000 or greater; (2) If the 

lessee of a long-term lease motor vehicle or truck does not have 

insurance in the amounts set forth in subsection (c)(1) above, then 

the liability of the owner and/or lessor (and/or its successors or assignees) of a long-term lease motor vehicle or truck shall not exceed the difference between: (1) the motor vehicle liability insurance limits actually maintained by the lessee of the long-term 

lease motor vehicle or truck at the time of the accident; and (2) 

$100,000 for bodily injuries to any one person, $300,000 for bodily 

injuries in any one accident, and $50,000 for damage to property 

of others in any accident. (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent an owner who has furnished proof of financial 

responsibility or any person operating the vehicle from making defense in an action upon the ground of comparative negligence to 

the extent to which the defense is allowed in other cases (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, or 

any provisions contained under title 31 to the contrary, the operator’s valid collectable liability or self-insurance providing coverage 

or liability protection for any third party liability claims shall be 

primary, and the valid and collectable liability or self-insurance 

providing coverage or liability protection for any third-party liability claims for the owner and/or lessor arising out of the operation 

of the vehicle shall be excess. This shall be stated in ten (10) point 

type on the face of any short-term rental agreement. R.I. Stat 

§ 31–34–4(b). 

Wisconsin Limited Liability (1) No lessor or rental company may for compensation rent or 

lease any motor vehicle unless there is filed with the department 

on a form prescribed by the department a certificate for a good 

and sufficient bond or policy of insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do an automobile liability insurance or surety business 

in this state. The certificate shall provide that the insurer which 

issued it will be liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of the motor vehicle in the amounts set forth in s. 

344.01(2)(d). No lessor or rental company complying with this subsection, and no lessor or rental company entering into or acquiring 

an interest in any contract for the rental or leasing of a motor vehicle for which any other lessor or rental company has complied 

with this subsection, is liable for damages caused by the negligent 

operation of the motor vehicle by another person. 

81 

Vicarious Liability State Statutes *—Continued 

Updated February 2009 

State Type of Liability Case Citation or Statute 

(2) Any lessor or rental company failing to comply with this section is directly liable for damages caused by the negligence of the 

person operating such rented or leased vehicle, but such liability 

may not exceed the limits set forth in s. 344.01(2)(d) with respect 

to the acceptable limits of liability when furnishing proof of financial responsibility.). [‘‘Proof of financial responsibility’’ or ‘‘proof of 

financial responsibility for the future’’ means proof of ability to respond in damages for liability on Account of accidents occurring 

subsequent to the effective date of such proof, arising out of the 

maintenance or use of a motor vehicle in the amount of $25,000 

because of Bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident and, subject to such limit for one person, in the amount of 

$50,000 because of bodily injury to or death of 2 or more persons 

in any one accident and in the amount of $10,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident.] 

Wis. Stat. § 344.51 

* Note: this chart lists only vicarious liability statutes pertaining to motor vehicles which are rented, loaned, or leased by the 

owner to other adults. It does not include statutes specific to minor use, employee use, or insurance statutes which set forth mandatory insurance provisions for rental cars or owner-operator coverage. For purposes of this chart, vicarious liability is not categorized 

as limited where the basis for the limitation is the length of time that a motor vehicle has been rented or leased and/or the weight 

of a motor vehicle. (e.g., Iowa Code Ann. § 321.493 limits vicarious liability where a vehicle is leased for a period of 12 months or 

more pursuant to a written agreement.) 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Mr. James. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. JAMES, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

TRUCK RENTING AND LEASING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here on this issue of vicarious liability. 

My name is Tom James. I’m the President and CEO of the Truck 

Renting and Leasing Association. However, I’m testifying on behalf 

of a much broader coalition, which illustrates the much broader impact that these vicarious liability laws have on transportation in 

general, both commercial transportation and consumer transportation. 

The members of our coalition include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, the American 

Trucking Associations, and associations representing rental car 

companies, auto dealers, truck dealers, and auto manufacturers. 

This is much more than a car rental issue, this is a consumer 

choice issue and this is a business transportation issue. 

We support the Graves voucher provision as enacted in 

SAFETEA–LU. Graves voucher eliminates liability—without fault, 

only—for vehicle renting and leasing companies, making the system of assigning liability more fair. 

Let’s just be clear what Graves voucher does and doesn’t do: 

Graves voucher does not protect any rental, leasing, or car-sharing company from liability for its own negligence. In essence, Mr. 

Leesfield, the corporate wrongdoers—if you are a wrongdoer, you 

are not protected by Graves. If you are found liable of any sort of 

negligence, you are not protected by Graves. 

What Graves does do is, it preserves the rights of States to enact 

laws mandating the minimum levels of insurance coverage for the 

privilege of operating and registering a vehicle. States still strive 

to strike a balance—and I’m sure it’s not an easy one for State legislatures—between affordable insurance and victim compensation. 

But, make no mistake, there are no uninsured rental or leased vehicles on the road, even those driven by foreign drivers. Every vehiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
82 

cle that leaves a rental car shop, or that leaves an auto dealer’s lot, 

that’s leased by a consumer, is covered by the minimal levels of financial responsibility that that particular State in which the transaction has occurred has determined is appropriate and right. 

As Americans, we believe that individuals must be held responsible for the consequences of what they do. But, a doctrine of vicarious liability imposes liability on non-negligent companies. This doctrine dates back to the days when horse-and-buggy rental operators 

were supposed to know the personalities of their horses and when 

chauffeured drivers—when a limo got in an accident, you wanted 

to get to the guy in the back of the car, not the guy driving the 

car, because that’s where the money was. 

Nowadays, in contrast, non-negligent rental and leasing companies cannot foresee whether our customers will drive our cars 

across State lines; and in some cases, with some of my association 

members, we expect them, because they are engaged in interstate 

commercial transportation. 

The interstate nature of rental and leasing share—and carshared fleets just does not work with the patchwork nature of varying State vicarious liability laws. These laws leave non-negligent— 

prior to 2005, left non-negligent rental and leasing companies vulnerable to liabilities, which we can neither anticipate nor avoid. 

We know what will happen if existing law is reversed; non-negligent companies will again be exposed to exorbitant liability 

awards—most importantly, that bear no relationship to the company’s fault or the company’s negligence—solely on the basis of 

ownership. And there’s no doubt that these incidents are human 

tragedies, individuals and families deserve to be compensated, but 

they deserve to be compensated by parties and entities whose negligence contributed to the accident. 

In many cases—I have a couple of examples in my written testimony—in 1991, a car was rented from Alamo in Fort Lauderdale. 

The driver of the car, after he left the rental shop, fell asleep. The 

car veered off the road. Solely on the basis of ownership, a $7.7- 

million award. 

For 17 years, Sharon Faulkner, who I think has testified before 

this committee—she owned a car rental company, rented a car to 

a woman, the woman lent the car to her son, an unauthorized driver; that gentleman got in an accident; her company was driven out 

of business because of that nonauthorized driver’s activities. 

Congress has debated this issue. It has debated it twice in the 

House of Representatives, voted on it once, on a rollcall vote. It 

came up extensively in Congress. The law has been upheld by the 

Florida Supreme Court, the highest courts in Minnesota and Connecticut. The law has been upheld by the U.S. District Court and 

U.S. Court of Appeals. All of those courts recognized both the interstate nature of the car and truck rental and lease fleet, as well as 

the authority of Congress, because of that interstate nature, to 

enact a Federal law regarding liability for those vehicles that travel 

across State lines. 

Let’s—this has been debated by Congress. Congress took action, 

under its own authority. Let’s not make what has been made 

right—make it wrong again. Let’s not compel consumers and businesses to pay higher costs for liability over which the rental car, 

83 

the rental truck, or the car and truck leasing company has no ability to avoid. There are no practices they can take to protect them 

from this exposure. It’s solely on the basis of owning the vehicles. 

I know I’m almost out of time, here. If I just can sum up: 

We’re talking about fairness, consumer choice, American jobs. In 

all of the previous panels, we talked—we heard about some of the 

most dangerous issues that are out there for highway safety: drunk 

driving, distracted driving, untrained teen drivers. All of these 

safety issues revolve around the driver. Whether those drunk-driving or distracted-driving incidents happened in a red Taurus that 

was rented from Enterprise or whether it was a red Taurus that 

was bought from Koons Ford, doesn’t make a difference as to the 

safety and the impact of the incidents that happened in that car. 

It really goes down to the driver. 

And I’m happy to answer any questions, but we strongly support 

the Graves law. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. JAMES, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

TRUCK RENTING AND LEASING ASSOCIATION

My name is Tom James. I am President and CEO of the Truck Renting and Leasing Association. I am testifying today on behalf of a broad coalition of companies, 

trade associations, and other stakeholders who were significantly impacted by state 

vicarious liability laws before Congress took action in 2005. The breadth and depth 

of our coalition is conveyed by the fact that our members include the U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the American 

Trucking Association, and associations representing rental car companies, auto dealers, truck dealers, auto manufacturers and other segments of our industry. (See attached list of supporters of members of the coalition supporting Graves/Boucher.) 

The nation’s car and truck renting, leasing and sharing industry is an important 

part of the American economy, supporting jobs and business activity in communities 

throughout this country. 

For instance, in truck renting and leasing, there are about 550 companies, employing 100,000 people, and operating out of about 24,000 locations in the United 

States. As with leased automobiles, there are few identifying marks to distinguish 

trucks that are owned by their operators from trucks that are leased or rented by 

their operators. But one out of every five trucks on the highways is rented or leased. 

Meanwhile, rented, leased and shared cars account for a large share of American 

automobiles. In 2009, the U.S. rental car industry had 1.6 million cars in service 

at over 16,000 locations. In fact, every year, 22 percent of the purchases of American-made cars and light-duty vehicles are for commercial fleet leasing use. 

Our coalition supports the Graves/Boucher provision included in the Transportation Equity Act of 2005. It eliminated liability without fault for vehicle renting 

and leasing companies. And it preserved the states’ ability to enact insurance laws 

to protect consumers and their right to sue companies for their negligence in the 

rental or leasing of vehicles. 

Over the past 5 years, Graves/Boucher has had many beneficial effects for consumers, companies, employers and the entire economy. Among other benefits, environmentally friendly car-sharing programs have grown rapidly since the enactment 

of Graves/Boucher. And consumer auto lessors are offering affordable options for car 

acquisition in New York, specifically in response to the enactment of Graves Law. 

In supporting Graves/Boucher, we believe that we are defending three basic, bedrock concerns: simple fairness, American jobs, and consumer choice. 

Before I go any further, let me be clear about what Graves/Boucher does and does 

not do. To put it plainly, there are no uninsured rental or leased vehicles on the 

road. 

The language in the law emphasizes that states continue to have the right to 

enact and enforce laws mandating insurance coverage levels for the privilege of operating and registering a vehicle—minimum levels of financial responsibility or 

MFR. This provision also ensures that states have the right, if they so choose, to 

set higher levels of MFR for rented or leased vehicles. 

84 

To repeat this point, because it is so important: Under these MFR statutes, there 

are no uninsured consumer rental or leasing vehicles. Each vehicle is covered up 

to an amount determined by the state to be an appropriate minimum level of insurance. Many consumer auto lease contracts actually require that higher levels of insurance must be held by the lessee. Almost all commercial rental and lease contracts require the lessee to hold levels of insurance significantly higher than the 

minimum level of financial responsibility. 

Moreover, Graves/Boucher does not in any way protect a renting or leasing company from liability for its own negligence. Whether that negligence involves the 

maintenance of a vehicle or the decision to enter into a rental or lease contract with 

a specific individual or business, Graves/Boucher offers no protection from liability 

in these cases. But it does make the system of assigning liability much more fair. 

As Americans, we believe that individuals must be held responsible for the consequences of what they do. But the doctrine of vicarious liability imposes liability 

on non-negligent car and truck renting and leasing companies, or their affiliates, regardless of fault. This doctrine dates back to the days of horse and buggies, when 

horse and buggy rental operators were supposed to know the personality of their 

horses. 

On the state level, vicarious liability laws arbitrarily transferred liability from a 

negligent driver to the renting or leasing company—even though that company had 

no ability to prevent or foresee the accident. It is not fair to impose multimilliondollar judgments on any entity, whether an individual or corporation, when they 

have done nothing wrong. 

These laws weren’t only unfair—they were unworkable in a country comprised of 

50 states and an industry as diverse as the Nation that it serves. 

Please keep in mind that the rented and lease fleet includes: automobiles leased 

to consumers, generally from 3 to 5 years; automobiles rented to consumers for periods of one day to 30 days; automobiles leased to businesses, generally for 3 years; 

trucks rented to consumers for periods of one to 30 days; and trucks leased to businesses, usually for one to 5 years. 

There is one thing that all of these lease and rental transactions have in common: 

The leasing or renting company cannot control where the vehicle is operated—and 

in what manner the vehicle is operated—during the term of the lease and rental. 

The fact is: We can’t even prevent our customers from driving our vehicles across 

state lines. A company operating in Virginia cannot stop its customers and vehicles 

from traveling to Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey or New York. 

Before Congress preempted the state laws, when customers drove rental cars or 

trucks across state lines, they were covered by the laws of the states where they 

are driving. And these laws were a crazy-quilt of differing provisions and penalties. 

Combined with our inability to control where and how our cars and trucks were 

driven, this patchwork of state vicarious liability laws, put non-negligent rental and 

leasing companies in an untenable situation. We were exposed to liabilities for 

which there was no best practice, nor any method for protection. We were vulnerable solely because the vehicles that we owned might have been involved in accidents after we gave up control of the vehicles to renters or lessees. 

Such laws are not fair. And they destroy American jobs and diminish consumer 

choice. 

In enacting Graves/Boucher, Congress took action 5 years ago to make sure that 

these laws no longer injure consumers, working Americans, and businesses large 

and small. You’ve heard the saying, ‘‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’’ You fixed this 

already. So please don’t fix it again. 

We know what will happen if the existing law is reversed. Once again, non-negligent companies will be subject to huge claims for damages for which they are not 

responsible. 

For instance, in 1993, two friends rented a car in New Jersey from Freedom 

River, Inc., a Philadelphia licensee of Budget Rent-A-Car Corporation. The rental 

agreement identified only the two renters as authorized drivers. But the wife of one 

of the renters drove the automobile and was involved in a single-car accident in 

New York. Her sister was seriously injured in the accident. An arbitrator applied 

New York law and found the defendant and Freedom River liable for $3.75 million. 

This judgment was affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. 

In 1991, four British sailors rented a car from Alamo in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 

to drive to Naples. While driving to Naples, the driver of the car fell asleep at the 

wheel. The car left the road and ended up in a canal. The driver and two passengers 

were killed. The fourth passenger was seriously injured. Alamo was found vicariously liable for the deaths and injuries due solely to the fact that it owned the vehicle. No negligence for the accident was attributed to Alamo, Alamo was ordered by 

a jury to pay the plaintiffs $7.7 million. The jury award was affirmed on appeal. 

85 

What will happen to consumers if Graves/Boucher is reversed and non-negligent 

companies are once again subject to huge claims such as these for damages for 

which they are not responsible? Once again, renting and leasing customers are certain to pay higher costs to cover the actions of all negligent drivers. When state laws 

were in effect, some renting and leasing companies could not even find affordable 

insurance to cover them in the case of a vicarious liability claim. 

Once again, consumers and businesses are certain to pay high commercial costs 

for transportation of goods. In the midst of the worst economy in 70 years or more, 

this puts American jobs at risk. 

Once again, small businesses—the most vulnerable car and truck rental companies—are certain to run the risk of failure when hefty verdicts are assessed to pay 

for the actions of their at-fault renters. These business failures will take their toll 

in fewer choices for consumers and fewer jobs for workers. 

For example, for 17 years, Sharon Faulkner owned a small car rental company 

in Albany, New York. Then, one day, she rented a car to a woman who agreed that 

she would be the only driver of the car. But the woman lent the car to her son, 

who, without Sharon Faulkner’s knowledge, drove the car to New York City. There, 

he was involved in an accident in which he struck a pedestrian in a crosswalk. 

Under New York State’s vicarious liability law, the injured person sued Sharon 

Faulkner’s company, collecting substantial damages and driving her out of business. 

She had not been negligent in any way. She could not have prevented the accident 

from occurring. But she was held liable and put out of business. (See attached letter 

from Sharon Faulkner.) 

Small car rental companies aren’t the only companies that will suffer if the existing law is reversed. Once again, auto manufacturers and leasing companies are certain to suffer severe losses when faced with frivolous lawsuits. For instance, before 

the Transportation Equity Act of 2005, many companies refused to lease in New 

York because businesses feared expensive and overly burdensome losses. 

Our Nation has made a great investment in the survival of our domestic auto industry, and that investment is reaping rewards with the revival of the big three 

American companies. Why harm the American auto industry—and why jeopardize 

the jobs of American workers—in order to return to a dubious doctrine that originated in the era of the horse and buggy? 

Congress has already debated this issue comprehensively and decided it correctly. 

Commencing in 1996, Congress reviewed vicarious liability laws, held hearings and 

considered many proposals. In 1998 Senators Rockefeller and Gordon introduced 

legislation (S. 2236) which included a vicarious liability provision. On Sept. 30, 

1999, this subcommittee held a hearing on Senator McCain’s vicarious liability legislation (S. 1130). 

In 2005, the House of Representatives passed an amendment that preempted 

state vicarious liability laws applicable to vehicles, as part of the Highway Reauthorization legislation. This amendment was included in the final version that was 

enacted into law. 

Since 2005, this law has been upheld in several Federal court decisions. (See attached summaries of court cases since Graves/Boucher.) For instance, in Garcia v. 

Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 540 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2008), the Eleventh Circuit upheld the amendment’s constitutionality because the statute has a substantial 

effect on interstate commerce. Let me quote from the court’s decision: 

‘‘Congress rationally could have perceived strict vicarious liability for the acts 

of lessees as a burden on [the rental car] market. . . . The reason it could have 

done so is that the costs of strict vicarious liability against rental car companies 

are borne by someone, most likely the customers, owners, and creditors of rental 

car companies. If any costs are passed on to customers, rental cars . . . become 

more expensive, and interstate commerce is thereby inhibited. Moreover, if significant costs from vicarious liability are passed on to the owners of rental car 

firms, it is possible that such liability contributes to driving less-competitive 

firms out of the marketplace, or inhibits their entry into it, potentially reducing 

options for consumers.’’ 

Let’s not take what has been made right and make it wrong again. It is wrong 

to compel consumers across the Nation to pay higher rental rates for misguided vicarious liability laws which became obsolete with the invention of the automobile 

at the beginning of the last century. It is wrong to deprive consumers of the competition and lower rental rates that smaller operators can offer. It is wrong to return to the days when a car or truck rental company, even one operating outside 

of a vicarious liability state, could protect itself against exorbitant claims only by 

going out of business. And it is especially wrong to take actions that would have 

these consequences in the midst of a national economic crisis. 

86 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today and to speak up 

for fundamental fairness, for consumer choice, and for American jobs. 

Attachments: (1) List of members of the coalition supporting Graves/Boucher; (2) 

Letter from Sharon Faulkner; (3) Summaries of court cases since Graves/Boucher 

was enacted; (4) Statement from attorney Mark Perry. 

Companies and Organizations that Support the Graves/Boucher Provision 

Alamo Rent-A-Car 

Ally Financial, Inc. 

American Automotive Leasing 

Association 

American Car Rental Association 

American Financial Services Association 

American Insurance Association 

American International Automobile 

Dealers Association 

American Tort Reform Association 

American Trucking Association 

Association of International Automobile 

Manufacturers 

Avis Budget Group 

Chrysler Group LLC 

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group 

Enterprise Rent-A-Car 

Ford Motor Company 

General Electric 

General Motors Company 

Hertz Corporation 

Honda Motor Company 

Mazda North American Operations 

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers 

Association 

National Association of Manufacturers 

National Automobile Dealers Association 

National Car Rental 

Nissan North America 

Penske Truck Leasing Company 

Ryder System, Inc. 

The Financial Services Roundtable 

Truck Renting and Leasing Association 

U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

STATEMENT BY SHARON FAULKNER—September 24, 2010 

Chairman JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

Ranking Member KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

Subcommittee Chairman MARK PRYOR, 

Subcommittee Ranking Member ROGER WICKER, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Rockefeller and Members of the Committee: 

I represent one of the many business owners who were significantly impacted by 

state vicarious liability laws prior to Congress taking action in 2005. Therefore, I 

write in support of the provision included in the TEA–LU legislation that eliminated 

liability without fault for vehicle renting and leasing companies, and yet preserved 

the states’ ability to enact insurance laws to protect consumers and their ability to 

sue companies if they are found to be negligent in the rental or leasing of vehicles. 

For seventeen years, until 1997, I was a small business owner operating an independent car rental company in upstate New York. The company, Capitaland Rent 

a Car, was headquartered in Albany. During those years, thanks to the hard work 

of my employees and the loyalty of local customers, my company survived two recessions and fierce competition. 

That situation changed one day in 1997 when I was notified that I and my company were being sued for an accident involving one of my rental cars that occurred 

over a year previously. Capitaland had rented a car in 1996 to a customer who possessed a valid New York driver’s license. As part of Capitaland’s standard rental 

agreement, the customer agreed that she would be the only driver of the car. My 

customer then loaned the car to her son who was an unauthorized driver under the 

rental agreement. The renter’s son, without her knowledge, drove the car to New 

York City, where our car was involved in an accident in which a pedestrian was 

struck in a crosswalk. The injured person sued our company for the son’s negligence 

in causing the accident. 

This lawsuit caught me completely by surprise because when I checked my 

records, I found that the rental vehicle had been returned to us without any damage. As a result, I had no idea that an accident had ever occurred or that a person 

had ever been injured. Nevertheless, Capitaland was named as a codefendant in the 

lawsuit, which demanded enormous amounts of money to pay medical bills and compensate the injured person for his pain and suffering. 

87 

You might wonder how it was that my company was sued for the accident. We 

rented to a licensed driver, the renter loaned the car to an unauthorized driver. It 

was the unauthorized driver, a person that neither I nor any of my employees ever 

had a chance to meet, that caused the accident that injured the pedestrian. We 

weren’t negligent in any way and I could not have prevented the accident from occurring. Therefore, how could I have been liable? 

However, New York was one of a very small minority of states that held companies that rent motor vehicles liable for the negligence of persons who drive their vehicles whether that person is a customer or not. In these states a car rental company could have been assessed unlimited damages by a court under the legal doctrine of vicarious liability if one of its cars were involved in an accident in which 

the driver of the car was negligent. Simply because we owned the car, New York 

law held my company liable for the negligence of the renter. 

For me this lawsuit was a final straw. At the time I was a mother with three 

small children; and Capitaland was our sole means of support. I found it incredible 

that I could lose everything I had worked to achieve for 17 years because of an accident for which I wasn’t at fault. In effect, every time I rented a car to a customer 

I was putting my family’s future on the line in the hope that the customer did not 

drive the car negligently and cause an accident. 

So I made the decision to sell my company, and in the end, all of my former employees were laid off. The result: another independent car rental company disappeared in New York. But my company wasn’t alone. Capitaland was one of over 

300 car rental companies that closed in New York while vicarious liability laws were 

in place. 

Vicarious liability for companies that rent or lease motor vehicles is unfair and 

contrary to one of our Nation’s fundamental pillars of justice, that a person should 

be held liable only for harm that he or she causes or could have prevented in some 

way. TEA–LU legislation put a stop to this legal lottery, preempting state vicarious 

liability laws, but preserving the states’ ability to enact insurance laws to protect 

consumers and consumers’ ability to sue companies for their negligence in the rental 

or leasing of vehicles. It’s too late to help my former company, but Congress can 

see to it that it doesn’t happen again to someone else by preventing the vicarious 

liability doctrine from rearing its head once more. 

Sincerely, 

SHARON FAULKNER, 

Former small business owner of Capitaland Rent a Car, 

an independent car rental company in New York. 

Update on Judicial Action Involving Federal Law Eliminating Vicarious 

Liability (the Graves Amendment) 

Court cases continue to be filed following the enactment of Federal vicarious liability preemption on August 10, 2005, challenging the authority of the law known 

as the Graves Amendment. The following are brief summaries of the major cases 

in which courts have issued rulings. The Industry Council for Vehicle Renting and 

Leasing is tracking these and other court cases where application and/or interpretation of the Federal vicarious liability repeal statute is involved. TRALA and the Industry Council have filed amicus briefs on behalf of the industry in eight of these 

cases, seven of which have subsequently resulted in positive decisions (Graham v. 

Dunkley and NILT, Inc., Garcia v. Vanguard, Bechina v. Enterprise Leasing Company, Kumarsingh v. PV Holding and Avis Rent-A-Car System, Merchants Insurance 

Group v. Mitsubishi Motor Credit Association, Poole v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and 

Meyer vs. Enterprise Rent A Car). One case in which TRALA and the Industry 

Council have filed amicus brief is still pending (Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Company). 

Merchants Insurance Group v. Mitsubishi Motor Credit Association—U.S. District 

Court, Eastern District of New York 

Positive Decision 

On December 16, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed 

an earlier decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

New York by vacating the District Court’s judgment. The case was an appeal by 

Merchant’s Insurance Group to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and on March 3, 2008, 

TRALA filed an amicus brief supporting Mitsubishi Motor Credit Association 

(MMCA) and arguing that the Graves Amendment preempted New York State’s vicarious liability law, as the District Court had previously ruled. However, the Court 

88 

of Appeals ruled that the original lawsuit in the case commenced before the Graves 

Amendment became Federal law, so the preemption should not apply to this case. 

U.S. Court of Appeals Decision 

The U.S. Court of Appeal’s ruling vacated the ruling by the District Court for the 

Eastern District of New York, which had ruled in favor of MMCA on September 25, 

2007, by granting their motion for summary judgment based on the preemptive nature of the Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. 30106) over New York vicarious liability 

law. In granting MMCA’s motion for summary judgment, the District Court stated 

the ‘‘courts have consistently held that the Graves Amendment prohibits states from 

imposing vicarious liability on owner-lessors such as defendants where the lessor is 

not negligent.’’ Addressing the constitutionality of the Federal statute, the court 

stated that ‘‘to date, only one court has found the Graves Amendment unconstitutional . . . Graham [v. Dunkley], however, has not been followed by any other court. 

To the contrary, a number of courts have explicitly found the statute constitutional.’’ 

It is important to note that even though the U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling reversed the District Court ruling that affirmed the Graves Amendment, the Court 

of Appeal’s decision does not challenge the authority of the Graves Amendment. In 

the ruling the Court of Appeals specifically stated that ‘‘In the instant case, there 

is no dispute that, if Merchant’s suit against MMCA was commenced after the 

Graves Amendment’s effective date, the Graves Amendment preempts New York 

law and precludes Merchants’ claim.’’ 

Meyer vs. Enterprise Rent A Car—Minnesota Court of Appeals 

Positive Decision—Positive Ruling on Appeal 

Positive Decision in Minnesota Supreme Court 

On January 20, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed an earlier decision 

of the Otter Tail County District Court of Minnesota which granted Enterprise’s motion for summary judgment in favor of Enterprise in Meyer v. Enterprise Rent-ACar. In the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the judge rejected Meyer’s contention that 

Minnesota Statutes § 169.09, subd. 5a, and Minnesota Statutes § 65B.49 subd. 

5a(i)(2), which established caps on vicarious liability, were preserved by the Graves 

Amendment’s savings clause which exempts ‘‘financial responsibility laws’’ from 

Federal preemption. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District 

Court ruling that the existing statutes that established caps on vicarious liability 

are not financial responsibility laws and are not preserved by the Graves Amendment, the Federal law codified at 49 U.S.C. § 30106. 

In a subsequent appeal the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling that upheld 

the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals on January 14, 2010. In its ruling, 

the Supreme Court stated that ‘‘We conclude that there is nothing ambiguous about 

the statute. Minn. Stat. § 169.09, subd. 5a, is not a financial responsibility law that 

limits, or conditions liability of the rental-vehicle owner for failure to meet insurance-like requirements or liability insurance requirements within the meaning of 

the (b)(2) savings clause . . . Because there are no financial responsibility laws incorporated into subdivision 5a, we conclude that the statute does not fall within the 

(b)(2) savings clause. 

Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Company—Fourth District Court of Appeal of the 

State of Florida 

Positive Decision—Positive Ruling on Appeal 

Appeal Pending in Florida Supreme Court 

On October 31, 2008, the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District 

affirmed an earlier trial court decision granting a motion for summary judgment in 

favor of Enterprise Leasing Company in the Vargas v. Enterprise case. The motion 

was granted pursuant to Enterprise’s claim that it could not be held vicariously liable due to the Federal law known as the Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. 30106). The 

plaintiff contended that Florida Statute section 324.021(9)(b)2, which sets caps on 

vicarious liability, was preserved by the Graves Amendment’s provision that exempts ‘‘financial responsibility laws’’ from the Federal law’s pre-emption. The appellate court stated in its decision that ‘‘section 324.031(9)(b)2 is not the type of law 

that Congress intended to exclude from preemption.’’ The court went on further to 

say that the ‘‘Florida legislature’s endorsement of and limitations on the vicarious 

liability imposed under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine is not a financial responsibility requirement.’’ 

89 

Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc. v. Huchon—U.S. District Court, Southern District 

of Florida 

Negative Decision—Positive Ruling Compelled by U.S. Court of Appeals for 11th 

Circuit 

On September 14, 2007, the United States District Court for the Southern District 

of Florida denied both a motion (by Federal court defendant Huchon) to dismiss 

Vanguard’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment and a motion (by Federal court plaintiff Vanguard) for Summary Judgment. 

The court denied Huchon’s motion to dismiss based on several provisions of law 

not directly related to vicarious liability or 49 U.S.C. 30106 (the Graves Amendment). In considering Vanguard’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment, the court ruled 

that Huchon’s claim was not being made pursuant to Florida statute limiting liability of companies renting a vehicle for less than one year (Florida Statute Section 

324.021). Instead the court ruled that the claim was being made pursuant to Florida’s Doctrine of Dangerous Instrumentality. Therefore, the court declared that ‘‘the 

only remaining issue is whether [the Graves Amendment] is constitutional.’’ 

The court cited its disagreement with the March 5, 2007 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the Garcia v. Vanguard case in 

which the Graves Amendment was found to be constitutional under three separate 

tests of the U.S. Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause. The court in Vanguard v. Huchon held that ‘‘the direct language of 49 U.S.C. 30106(b) regulates tort 

liability and does not directly regulate either channels of interstate commerce or the 

use of those channels.’’ Further, the court ruled that the Graves Amendment ‘‘does 

not regulate the use of instrumentalities of interstate commerce.’’ The court uses 

these findings to rule that ‘‘Congress exceeded the authority granted by the Commerce Clause when it enacted 49 U.S.C. 30106.’’ Based on this conclusion, the court 

denied Vanguard’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment. 

On March 12, 2009, The United States District Court for the Southern District 

of Florida, reversed its September 14, 2007 decision and ruled in favor of Vanguard 

Car Rental. In its Final Judgment, the Federal court ruled that the ‘‘vicarious liability claim is prohibited by the Graves Amendment . . . This case remains closed 

[and] all pending motions are denied as moot.’’ The court was compelled to reverse 

its earlier decision by the August 19, 2008 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the 11th Circuit in Garcia v. Vanguard. In that decision, the Graves Amendment 

was determined to be constitutional under all three categories of Congress’ powers 

under the Commerce Clause. The Federal appellate court in Garcia also ruled that 

Florida’s statutes setting caps on vicarious liability were not financial responsibility 

statutes preserved by the Graves Amendment and were pre-empted by the Federal 

law. All Federal District courts in Alabama, Florida and Georgia must follow the 

U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Garcia v. Vanguard. 

Graham v. Dunkley and Nilt, Inc.—Supreme Court—Queens County, New York 

Negative Decision—Positive Ruling on Appeal 

Positive Ruling by New York Court of Appeals 

On September 11, 2006, the Supreme Court in Queens County, New York denied 

a motion made by Nissan Infiniti, LT in Graham v. Dunkley and Nilt, Inc. to dismiss a vicarious liability claim. The motion to dismiss was based on the Federal 

statute (49 U.S.C. 30106) that prohibits states from imposing liability solely on the 

basis of ownership. Judge Thomas Polizzi, in denying the motion, held that the Federal statute ‘‘is unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8.’’ The action in 

Graham v. Dunkley and Nilt, Inc. was the first case in which a court has ruled 

against the constitutionality of the Federal statute. 

The trial court decision in Graham v. Dunkley was reversed by the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department of the Supreme Court on February 1, 2008. In its 

decision, the appellate court stated that ‘‘we agree with the weight of precedent that 

the Graves Amendment was a constitutional exercise of Congressional power pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.’’ The appellate court 

declared unequivocally that ‘‘actions against rental and leasing companies based 

solely on vicarious liability may no longer be maintained.’’ 

On April 29, 2008, New York State’s highest court, the NY Court of Appeals, dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal of the lower appellate court decision upholding the 

Graves Amendment. This action strongly affirms the authority of the Graves 

Amendment to preempt New York’s unlimited vicarious liability law. 

90 

Bechina v. Enterprise Leasing Company—Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit—Miami Dade County, Florida 

Positive Decision—Positive Ruling on Appeal 

On April 24, 2007, the court granted a Motion for Summary Judgment made by 

defendant Enterprise Leasing Company. In granting the motion, the court agreed 

with the Enterprise arguments detailing the preemptive authority of the 49 U.S.C. 

30106 (the Graves Amendment). The court also agreed with the defendant that Florida’s statute capping vicarious liability involving motor vehicles rented for less than 

one year (Section 324.021) is not a financial responsibility statute preserved by the 

Graves Amendment language. 

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals on December 12, 2007, upheld the preemptive authority of the Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. 30106) by affirming the 

11th Circuit Court decision. In its opinion, the appellate court held that ‘‘motor vehicle leasing transactions unquestionably affect the channels of interstate commerce, 

the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and intrastate activities substantially 

related to interstate commerce.’’ 

Traitouros v. Wheels, Inc., Hoffman, La Roche and The La Roche Group—Supreme 

Court, Nassau County, New York 

Positive Decision 

On October 23, 2007, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, New York, granted defendant Wheels, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim of vicarious liability 

pursuant to New York’s Vehicle Traffic Law Section 388. In response to the defendant’s motion based on the preemptive authority of Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. 

30106), the plaintiff cited the Graham v. Dunkley decision as an example that the 

New York Courts ‘‘have not had one view on this issue.’’ In its order granting the 

motion to dismiss, the court stated that ‘‘this Court does not share the view held 

only by the Graham v. Dunkley Court. Rather, for the purposes of deciding this motion, the Federal statute is constitutional.’’ 

Deopersad Kumarsingh and Rosalie Kumarsingh, his Wife v. PV Holding Corporation and Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.—Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit—Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Positive Decision—Positive Ruling on Appeal 

Positive Ruling by Florida Supreme Court 

On October 13, 2006, citing the Graves Amendment’s preemption of state vicarious liability laws, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Michael A. Genden rendered 

a final judgment for the defendant ruling that they cannot be held vicariously liable 

for damages caused by their customer operating a rented vehicle. In his ruling, 

Judge Genden stated ‘‘the ‘Graves Amendment’ has abrogated vicarious liability of 

automobile lessors in the state of Florida effective August 10, 2005 and, therefore, 

. . . the defendants cannot be vicariously liable to plaintiffs . . .’’ Judge Genden 

went on to state that ‘‘the maximum liability for short term automobile lessors in 

section 324.021(9) Fla. Stat. are ‘caps’ on vicarious liability and are not ‘financial 

responsibility’ requirements for the privilege of owning/operating a motor vehicle in 

the state of Florida.’’ 

On October 3, 2007, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals ruled to affirm the 

October 13, 2006 decision of the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit—MiamiDade County. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals stated that ‘‘the trial court correctly concluded that the Graves Amendment, by its clear and unambiguous wording, supercedes and abolishes state vicarious liability laws.’’ 

On May 19, 2008, the State of Florida’s highest court, the Florida Supreme Court, 

denied the plaintiff’s request to consider another appeal of the two lower decisions 

upholding the authority of the Graves Amendment. 

Castillo v. Bradley and U-Haul Company of Oregon—Supreme Court, Kings County, 

New York 

Positive Decision 

On October 2, 2007, the Supreme Court, Kings County, New York granted defendant U-Haul’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim. In granting the 

motion, the court affirmed the preemptive authority of Federal statute 49 U.S.C. 

30106 and the constitutionality of the law. 

In its decision, the court stated that ‘‘there is ample authority to the effect that 

the ‘‘Graves Amendment’’ has preempted’’ New York’s vicarious liability law. The 

91 

court also states that ‘‘the constitutionality of the statute has been upheld in two 

out of the three Federal court cases found to have considered the question’’ calling 

those cases ‘‘persuasive and controlling.’’ 

Seymour v. Penske Truck Leasing Company—U.S. District Court, Southern District 

of Georgia, Savannah Division 

Positive Decision 

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, Savannah 

Division, granted defendant Penske Truck Leasing Company’s motion for summary 

judgment against the plaintiff’s claim for damages. The court found that Penske was 

not liable for the actions of a driver not authorized to operate the vehicle under the 

rental agreement. The Federal court also found that the Graves Amendment is a 

constitutional Federal statute. In its decision, the court states that it has ‘‘no trouble concluding that 49 U.S.C. 30106 . . . regulates commercial transactions (rentals 

or leases) involving instrumentalities of interstate commerce (motor vehicles—‘‘the 

quintessential instrumentalities of modern interstate commerce’’). 

Iljazi v. Dugre, et al., (Enterprise Rent-A-Car)—Superior Court, Waterbury, Connecticut 

Positive Decision 

On April 13, the Superior Court of Connecticut Waterbury District granted defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s vicarious liability 

count against the company. Enterprise based its motion on the ‘‘Graves Amendment’s’’ preemption of Connecticut’s vicarious liability statute. The court cited Davis 

v. Illama and Dorsey v. Beverly, supra in its decision to strike the vicarious liability 

count against Enterprise. 

The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion to strike the count on the grounds 

that the Graves Amendment violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

The plaintiff cited the decision of the New York Supreme Court, Queens County in 

Graham v. Dunkley as authority for its claim. In response to the objection, the court 

quotes from a 1989 decision in Bottone v. Westport . . . ‘‘(I)n passing upon the constitutionality of a legislative act, we will make every presumption and intendment 

in favor of its validity . . . The party challenging a statute’s constitutionality has 

a heavy burden of proof; the unconstitutionality must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.’’ The court goes on to state that ‘‘beyond offering the New York lower 

court decision as authority for the unconstitutionality of the Graves Amendment, 

the plaintiff has offered no additional case law or argument and accordingly, the 

plaintiff has not sustained its burden of proving that the statute is unconstitutional.’’ 

Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.—U.S. District Court, Middle District of 

Florida, Ocala Division 

Positive Decision—Positive Ruling on Appeal 

March 5, 2007, the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala 

Division ruled that Florida Statute 324.021(9)(b)(2), setting caps on vicarious liability of short-term lessors, is not a ‘‘financial responsibility law’’ protected 49 U.S.C. 

30106(b). The court explained that ‘‘the Florida Statute in question does not create 

insurance standards for entities that register and operate motor vehicles within 

Florida.’’ The court went on to state that its ‘‘analysis drives the conclusion that vicarious liability of motor vehicle lessors under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality 

doctrine is now preempted by Federal law. Consequently, Fla. Stat. 324.021(9)(b)(2) 

also is preempted.’’ 

The Federal court also finds that ‘‘there can be no dispute that leased vehicles 

routinely travel between states’’ and that ‘‘the Graves Amendment is constitutional 

under the first category of Congress’ Commerce Clause powers.’’ The Court ‘‘also 

finds that the Graves Amendment is constitutional under the second category of 

Congress’ Commerce Clause powers because the statute regulates the leasing and 

operating of motor vehicles which are the quintessential instrumentalities of modern 

interstate commerce.’’ The Court further finds that ‘‘the Graves Amendment . . . is 

constitutional under the third category—regulating intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.’’ 

On August 19, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court decision. 

92 

Jones v. Bill, et al.—Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: 

Second Judicial Department 

Positive Decision 

On November 28, 2006, the Second Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of 

New York Appellate Division upheld an earlier decision of the Supreme Court, 

Dutchess County to dismiss a complaint against the vehicle lessor DCFS Trust 

based on 49 U.S.C. 30106, commonly known as the ‘‘Graves Amendment.’’ In its decision to uphold the trial court decision, the court explained that the ‘‘Graves 

Amendment abolished vicarious liability of long-term automobile lessors based solely 

on ownership.’’ Furthermore, the court noted that the ‘‘Graves Amendment is applicable to any action commenced on or after the date of enactment,’’ August 10, 2005. 

Though the initial suit against defendant and vehicle operator Jessica Bill was filed 

on August 8, 2005, DCFS Trust was not added as a defendant until an amended 

filing on November 1, 2005. The court rejected as ‘‘without merit’’ the plaintiff’s assertion that its claim against DCFS is maintainable under the relation-back doctrine. 

The Second Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division is the same court where the appeal of the Graham v. Dunkley and NILT, Inc. 

decision declaring 49 U.S.C. 30106 as unconstitutional is currently pending. 

Poole v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Orlando—18th District Circuit Court— 

Brevard County, Florida 

Negative Decision—Positive Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment 

On January 19, 2006, Judge T. Mitchell Barlow denied Enterprise’s motion to dismiss this case and ruled that Florida’s statute setting caps on the vicarious liability 

of short-term lessors (Florida Statute 324.021 (9)(b)(2)) is a financial responsibility 

law and falls under the provision of the Federal law preserving a state’s right to 

impose financial responsibility laws required for registering and operating a motor 

vehicle (49 U.S.C. 30106(b)). During the hearing, there was some discussion of the 

constitutionality of the Federal law with regard to its effective date and the plaintiff’s right to due process of law. The judge did not rule on this question and asked 

counsel on both sides to refrain from extensive debate on this issue as he felt he 

could make a ruling based only on the question of financial responsibility laws. This 

suit was filed on August 10, 2005, the day Federal vicarious liability preemption 

was enacted. The plaintiff’s case was argued by Andre Mura, Senior Litigation 

Counsel for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America’s Center for Constitutional 

Litigation. 

Davis v. Ilama et al. (We Rent Minivans)—Superior Court—Waterbury, Connecticut 

Positive Decision 

On March 14, 2006, the Superior Court of Connecticut granted We Rent Minivans’ 

motion to strike two counts against it that were based on liability solely due to ownership of the vehicle. In one count, the plaintiff claimed We Rent Minivans was liable by virtue of giving the defendant permission to operate one of its vehicles, with 

no allegation of negligence against We Rent Minivans. The second count claimed liability pursuant to Connecticut’s vicarious liability statute. The court bases its decision to grant the defendant’s motions to strike the two counts on the Federal preemption statute (49 U.S.C. Section 30106) and on the decisions in Infante v. U-Haul 

of Florida and Piche v. Nugent et al. (Enterprise Rent-A-Car). 

Infante v. U-Haul of Florida—Supreme Court—Queens County, New York 

Positive Decision 

On January 18, 2006, Judge Augustus Agate granted U-Haul’s motion to dismiss 

this case ruling U-Haul of Florida was not the titled owner of the vehicle involved 

in the claim. However, the judge went further in his decision to clarify that regardless of the issue of the defendant not owning the vehicle, the plaintiff’s claim was 

invalid based upon the enactment of the ‘‘Graves Amendment’’ prohibiting vicarious 

liability against owners of rented and leased vehicles and its preemption of state 

laws, including New York’s, that previously permitted it. According to U-Haul, this 

case is not expected to be appealed. 

93 

Piche v. Nugent et al. (Enterprise Rent-A-Car)—U.S. District Court—District of 

Maine 

Positive Decision 

On September 30, 2005, Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk affirmed the effectiveness 

of Federal law (49 U.S.C. Section 30106) preempting state vicarious liability statutes, even though this case was filed prior to enactment of the Federal law and was 

not affected by it. The judge denied Enterprise’s motion for summary judgment centering on whether the law of Maine, which includes statutory vicarious liability, or 

the law of New Hampshire which does not, would be applicable to this case. In her 

decision, the judge stated that the question at hand ‘‘is not a question likely to repeat itself in the future. On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed into law . . . 

SAFETEA–LU.’’ She further explains that the ‘‘law amends U.S. Code Title 49, 

Chapter 301 to preempt state statutes that impose vicarious liability on rental car 

companies for the negligence of their renters . . . Thus, the long-term policy debate 

has been resolved by the Federal Government.’’ 

To: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA) 

From: Mark A. Perry, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 

Date: September 24, 2010 

Re: Historical and Legal Analysis of the Graves Amendment 

Client: T 26297–00082 

In 2005, Congress enacted the Graves Amendment as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Pub. L. No. 

109–59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005). The Amendment provides, in relevant part, that ‘‘[a]n 

owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person . . . shall not 

be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of 

being the owner of the vehicle . . . for harm to persons or property that results or 

arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the 

rental or lease,’’ provided that ‘‘there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the 

part of the owner.’’ 49 U.S.C. § 30106(a), (a)(2). 

The Amendment is but one of the most recent in a long line of statutes—dating 

back to the dawn of the Republic—in which Congress has regulated the instrumentalities of interstate commerce by creating a uniform Federal standard. In each instance, Congress determined that a nationwide rule would benefit interstate commerce by lifting local restrictions and providing participants in the industry (such 

as rental car or truck companies) with certainty about the governing law. Also, in 

many cases, Congress determined that it was in the Nation’s best interest to reduce 

or eliminate certain forms of liability, where liability would be unfair or place unnecessary burdens on interstate commerce. 

The Graves Amendment serves both of these salutary purposes. First, it establishes a Federal rule of liability, which allows owners of motor vehicles to run their 

businesses and use the Nation’s roads free from the costs of identifying and complying with a patchwork of state-by-state regulation. Second, it eradicated a particularly unfair and onerous form of liability—vicarious liability for acts of negligent 

drivers that the motor vehicle owner could not have anticipated and were beyond 

its control. 

Congress did not make this policy decision lightly; rather, members of both houses 

explained that the statute struck the correct balance between Federal and state regulation, and appropriately limited liability to cases where the motor vehicle owner 

was actually at fault. In short, Congress considered these issues the first time and 

got it right; it need not revisit the issue now. 

Discussion 

I. Throughout Our Nation’s History, Congress Has Regulated Modes Of 

Transportation—Including By Displacing State Rules Of Conduct And 

Liability 

Under Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to 

‘‘regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with 

the Indian tribes.’’ The same section provides Congress with the authority to ‘‘make 

all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution’’ its power 

over interstate commerce. Finally, the Supremacy Clause provides that ‘‘the Laws 

of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing 

in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.’’ U.S. 

Const. art. VI. 

94 

1See, e.g., Act of Sept. 1, 1789, ch. 11, 1 Stat. 55 (1789) (providing for registration or enrollment of ships belonging to U.S. citizens); Act of July 20, 1790, ch. 29, 1 Stat. 131, 131–35 (1790) 

(guaranteeing merchant seamen prompt payment of wages, and adequate medicine and food); 

Act of Mar. 2, 1819, ch. 46, 3 Stat. 488 (1819) (limiting number of passengers that could be carried on ships). 2See Act of June 15, 1866, ch. 124, 14 Stat. 66 (1866) (authorizing all steam-based railroad 

companies to carry passengers interstate); Act of July 25, 1866, ch. 246, 14 Stat. 244 (1866) (permitting construction of bridges over the Mississippi River). 3 Indeed, in the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court often held that, even in the absence 

of Federal legislation, the commerce power of its own force displaced state laws that burdened 

the instrumentalities of commerce—such as ships or railroads. For example, the Supreme Court 

struck down state fees on ship captains for passengers brought into a state, invalidated state 

laws giving port officials the exclusive right to inspect incoming ships, and declared unconstitutional state laws forbidding the regulation of railroad rates. See David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years 227–28, 405, 409, 412 (1985). Likewise, 

in Wabash, St. Louis & Pac. Railway Co. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886), the Court held that 

the commerce power prohibited states from enacting a law that regulated the rates for railroad 

journeys within a state’s borders. The reason for these decisions was the hindrance that state 

laws imposed on the instrumentalities of commerce. 

From the time of the Founding, Congress’s commerce power has been understood 

to include the authority ‘‘to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce.’’ United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558 (1995) (emphasis added). That 

power, coupled with the power to displace state laws pursuant to the Supremacy 

Clause, necessarily extends to the removal of state burdens on modes of transportation. As shown below, Congress has often exercised these powers to facilitate 

interstate commerce by imposing a uniform Federal rule. 

Ships and Waterways. In the Eighteenth Century, when the Constitution was 

drafted and ratified, the navigable waters were the principal channels of interstate 

commerce. The First Congress, therefore, enacted several measures that promoted 

interstate commerce by removing obstacles to the flow of water transportation.1 In 

a famous early example, Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824), the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government’s power to license steamboats to navigate on the Hudson River—even though New York had enacted a local prohibition 

against such navigation. 

Congress continued to exercise power over the waterways throughout our history. 

Notably, in 1851, Congress enacted a statute similar to the Graves Amendment that 

limited the liability of ship owners for losses that were not the owner’s fault. Act 

of Mar. 3, 1851, ch. 43, 9 Stat. 635 (1851). In two cases upholding this law from 

constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court remarked that it was appropriate for 

the Federal Government to limit liability in this way: ‘‘Navigation on the high seas,’’ 

the Court stated, ‘‘is necessarily national in its character.’’ Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U.S. 541, 544 (1881). The Court further noted that, if the law were administered fairly, ‘‘with the view of giving to ship owners the full benefit of the immunities intended to be secured by it, the encouragement it will afford to commercial operations . . . will be of the [highest] importance.’’ Providence & N.Y. Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 578, 589 (1883). The Graves Amendment today plays a 

similar beneficial role—it encourages interstate commerce by eliminating a particularly onerous form of state liability. 

Trains and Railways. In the Nineteenth Century, railroads gradually replaced 

waterways as the principal channels of interstate commerce. Federal regulation of 

the railways soon followed.2 As was true in the shipping industry, the railroad statutes ‘‘were passed under the power vested in Congress to regulate commerce among 

the several States, and were designed to remove trammels upon transportation between different States, which had previously existed, and to prevent the creation of 

such trammels in [the] future.’’ R.R. Co. v. Richmond, 86 U.S. 584, 589 (1873).3

Airplanes. In the Twentieth Century, Congress began to regulate still newer 

means of transportation, including airplanes. Indeed, because of the unique nature 

of air travel, Federal regulation is necessarily pervasive and leaves even less room 

for state legislatures to experiment and regulate. See Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 303 (1944) (Jackson, J., concurring) (‘‘Air as an element in 

which to navigate is even more inevitably Federalized by the commerce clause than 

is navigable water’’). Accordingly, ‘‘Congress has recognized the national responsibility for regulating air commerce,’’ and ‘‘[f]ederal control is intensive and exclusive.’’ 

Id. For example, in the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, 49 U.S.C. 

§ 40101, Congress limited the exposure of aircraft manufacturers to state tort liability. So too with the Graves Amendment. 

Cars and Roadways. Motor vehicles, of course, are the primary modern means of 

travel. From the very start of the automobile industry, Congress has Federalized the 

regulation of the ownership and operation of motor vehicles. Throughout the indusVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
95 

try’s history, it has been well-established that state regulation of motor vehicles ‘‘is 

. . . subordinate to the will of Congress’’ under the Supremacy Clause, and can only 

stand ‘‘[i]n the absence of national legislation covering the subject.’’ Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 622–23 (1915). 

For example, in Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925), and George W. Bush 

& Sons Co. v. Maloy, 267 U.S. 317 (1925), the Court invalidated state laws that required operators of common carriers conducting business in interstate commerce to 

obtain a special license to operate within the state. The Court held, among other 

things, that the legislation conflicted with the Federal Highway Act, through which 

Congress had intended ‘‘that state highways shall be open to interstate commerce.’’ 

Bush, 267 U.S. at 324. 

Later, the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 inaugurated comprehensive congressional 

regulation of safety standards for motor vehicles. It required motor carriers to maintain continuous and adequate service and keep sufficient records; established maximum hours-of-service requirements; and regulated rates. See Clyde B. Aitchison, 

The Evolution of the Interstate Commerce Act: 1887–1937, 5 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 289, 

394–99 (1937). Federal motor vehicle regulation has become even more pervasive 

since then. In 1966, Congress enacted the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act of 1966 and the Highway Safety Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89–563, 80 Stat. 718 

(1966); Pub. L. No. 89–564, 80 Stat. 731 (1966), which created the predecessor entities to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Those enactments established, among other things, extensive Federal regulation of safety standards for 

motor vehicles and highways; today, their successor statutes permit the Federal 

Government to dictate such criteria as, for example, the length and width limits for 

vehicles. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. § 31111. 

As was true for ships, trains, and planes, Congress exercised its authority over 

the Nation’s highways to displace inconsistent state standards. In 1987, for example, Congress enacted a law excluding certain evidence from admission in state 

trials that state governments were required to collect to comply with Federal laws 

designed to identity and evaluate hazardous conditions on federally funded roads. 

Although the Federal law supplanted state rules of evidence, the Supreme Court 

upheld it from constitutional challenge, finding it reasonable for Congress to believe 

that exclusion of such evidence ‘‘would result in more diligent efforts to collect the 

relevant information, more candid discussions of hazardous locations, better informed decisionmaking, and, ultimately, greater safety on our Nation’s roads.’’ 

Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129, 147 (2003). 

The Graves Amendment, of course, is yet another recent example of Congress 

adopting a Federal standard to govern participants in the transportation industry— 

owners of motor vehicles—and displace burdensome state laws. As it did with earlier statutes, Congress carefully weighed the benefits and drawbacks of Federal legislation in this area, and determined that eliminating vicarious liability, while preserving liability for fault, was in the Nation’s best interests. It was by no means 

an unusual exercise of Congressional power. To the contrary, it was a paradigmatic 

example of Congress’s authority to facilitate interstate commerce by adopting a fair, 

nationwide rule. 

II. The Courts Have Rejected Challenges To The Graves Amendment 

The appellate courts have consistently rejected constitutional challenges to the 

Graves Amendment, recognizing that the Amendment falls squarely within 

Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. The leading case is Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 540 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Garcia was a Florida wrongful death suit, brought on behalf of car accident victims against Vanguard, which leased the vehicle to the driver who caused the accident. See id. at 1245. Vanguard, which admittedly was not at fault for the accident, 

successfully argued that the Graves Amendment precluded holding Vanguard vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the driver. See id. Plaintiffs in turn argued 

that the Amendment could not be enforced, because it supposedly exceeded 

Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. See id. at 1249. 

The Eleventh Circuit rejected plaintiffs’ challenge and upheld the Amendment’s 

constitutionality, because the statute has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See id. at 1253. The Court concluded that Congress acted reasonably in enacting the Graves Amendment to reduce burdens on interstate commerce: 

Congress rationally could have perceived strict vicarious liability for the acts of 

lessees as a burden on [the rental car] market. . . . The reason it could have done 

so is that the costs of strict vicarious liability against rental car companies are 

borne by someone, most likely the customers, owners, and creditors of rental car 

companies. If any costs are passed on to customers, rental cars . . . become more 

expensive, and interstate commerce is thereby inhibited. Moreover, if significant 

96 

4See also Dupuis v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 2d 980 (M.D. Fla. 2007); 

Jasman v. DTG Operations, Inc., 533 F. Supp. 2d 753 (W.D. Mich. 2008); Flagler v. Budget Rent 

A Car Sys., Inc., 538 F. Supp. 2d 557 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); Seymour v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 

No. 407CV015, 2007 WL 2212609 (S. D. Ga. July 30, 2007); Graham v. Dunkley, 852 N.Y.S. 2d 

169 (App. Div. 2008). 

costs from vicarious liability are passed on to the owners of rental car firms, it is 

possible that such liability contributes to driving less-competitive firms out of the 

marketplace, or inhibits their entry into it, potentially reducing options for consumers. 

Id. at 1253. 

These observations echoed the statute’s legislative history, which noted Congress’s 

concern with litigation costs driving rental car companies out of the market or forcing them to pass costs on to their consumers. See id. at 1253 n.6. As explained 

above, the statute was also consistent with Congress’s longstanding role in regulating modes of transportation and eliminating burdens on interstate commerce. For 

these reasons, many Federal and state courts have agreed with Garcia, and upheld 

the Graves Amendment from constitutional attack.4

III. Congress Adopted The Graves Amendment After Due Deliberation, And 

Had Sound Policy Reasons For Doing So 

As an appropriate use of Congress’s power, the Graves Amendment is a carefully 

calibrated policy decision whose purpose was to limit the liability of motor vehicle 

owners to those cases where the owner is actually at fault. As noted in Garcia, the 

legislative history of the Amendment confirms that Congress made a conscious decision to create a Federal rule of liability that would lower litigation costs for vehicle 

rental companies and to differentiate between meritorious and frivolous lawsuits. 

Several Members of Congress explained that the purpose of the Graves Amendment was to ‘‘establish a fair national standard for liability.’’ 151 Cong. Rec. H1034– 

01 (daily ed. Mar. 9, 2005) (statement of Rep. Blunt), 2005 WL 556038 (Cong. Rec. 

2005), at *H1200; see also id. at *H1202 (statement of Rep. Smith) (purpose of 

Graves Amendment is to create a ‘‘national standard’’). Moreover, Members of Congress from both houses, including the bill’s sponsor, explained that they were adopting a rule that was fair both to motor vehicle owners and accident victims: It would 

eliminate liability for actions where the motor vehicle operator was not actually at 

fault, but leave state actions for negligence (e.g., negligent maintenance) intact. See 

id. at *H1200 (statement of Rep. Graves) (‘‘I want to emphasize, I want to be very 

clear about this, that this provision will not allow car and truck renting and leasing 

companies to escape liability if they are at fault’’); id. at *H1202 (statement of Rep. 

Smith) (‘‘The Graves[ ] amendment . . . provide[s] that vehicle rental companies 

can only be held liable in situations where they have actually been negligent. This 

amendment in no way lets companies off the hook when they have been negligent’’); 

151 Cong Rec. S5433–03 (daily ed. May 18, 2005) (statement of Sen. Santorum), 

2005 WL 1173802, at *S5434 (‘‘This provision is a common sense reform that holds 

vehicle operators accountable for their own actions and does not unfairly punish 

owners who have done nothing wrong’’). 

Congress was also aware that vicarious liability could have a deleterious effect on 

the transportation industry and the American economy as a whole. Therefore, it 

acted accordingly to remove this burden on interstate commerce. As one Senator 

noted, ‘‘[t]hough only a few States enforce laws that threaten nonnegligent companies with unlimited vicarious liability, they affect consumers and businesses from 

all 50 States.’’ 151 Cong Rec. S5433–03 (statement of Sen. Santorum), 2005 WL 

1173802, at *S5433. ‘‘Vicarious liability means higher consumer costs in acquiring 

vehicles and buying insurance and means higher commercial costs for the transportation of goods. Left unreformed, these laws could have a devastating effect on an 

increasing number of small businesses that have done nothing wrong.’’ Id. As explained above, this reasoning is consistent with Congress’s historical and vital role 

in regulating the modes of transportation and removing state impediments to the 

flow of interstate commerce. 

Finally, Congress plainly did not anticipate that states would have no role to play 

in holding motor vehicle owners accountable for harm caused by their vehicles. To 

the contrary, as noted above, states could still impose liability when the vehicle 

owner acted negligently. Moreover, the Graves Amendment expressly saves from 

preemption any state law that, for example, ‘‘impos[es] financial responsibility or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of registering 

and operating’’ the vehicle. 49 U.S.C. § 30106(b)(1). ‘‘Under this provision, States 

would continue to determine the level of compensation available for accident victims 

by setting minimum insurance coverage requirements for every vehicle.’’ 151 Cong 

97 

Rec. S5433–03 (statement of Sen. Santorum), 2005 WL 1173802, at *S5433. Thus, 

the Graves Amendment envisions a critical role for the states to play in setting minimum insurance requirements for motor vehicle owners to ensure that accident victims are properly compensated. 

Conclusion 

In enacting the Graves Amendment, Congress acted pursuant to its historical authority to regulate interstate commerce, particularly the instrumentalities of commerce, and displace state laws in favor of Federal rules that are both uniform and 

fair. The courts have recognized the legitimacy of the enactment. As the Amendment’s legislative history reveals, Congress acted with due deliberation and struck 

the appropriate balance: The law helps to protect businesses from unnecessary litigation and consumers from added costs, limits liability to cases where a motor vehicle owner is at fault, and allows states to continue to set insurance requirements 

to ensure accident victims are fairly compensated for their injuries. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

I have a few questions, here. 

Mr. Ruby, let me start with you. And I don’t want to get too personal, but, since you’re here, let me ask you about your case. When 

you were injured, I assume you filed a lawsuit, or did you just settle without having to file a suit? 

Mr. RUBY. We tried to settle, numerous times. It was forced to 

a lawsuit and to go to trial. 

Senator PRYOR. And did you actually go to trial? 

Mr. RUBY. Yes, we did. 

Senator PRYOR. And do you recall how many defendants there 

were in that suit? Because, oftentimes, on something like that, you 

may sue the—weren’t there two vehicles involved? 

Mr. RUBY. There were two vehicles involved, correct. 

Senator PRYOR. So, sometimes you’ll sue the driver of each vehicle, and maybe the—you know, the rental car company, or—can 

you tell us, do you remember who got sued in that? 

Mr. RUBY. The driver of the Budget Rent A Car was the one who 

ran the red light, so they were the target. The other car that was 

involved in the accident was also injured during the accident by the 

Budget Rent A Car. 

Senator PRYOR. And do you remember if you recovered from 

Budget Rent A Car or from the driver of that car, or from both? 

Do you remember? 

Mr. RUBY. There was a minimum of—the driver, who had nofault that—their insurance company did pay. I believe that covered 

the Tylenol from my being in intensive care. The other, the driver 

of the Budget car, was the focus of our lawsuit—— 

Senator PRYOR. OK. 

Mr. RUBY.—since they were the ones responsible. 

Senator PRYOR. And do you know if you recovered from the driver and from Budget? 

Mr. RUBY. The driver of the car, as I said before, had warrants 

out for his arrest for driving—for speeding. Under further investigation, he had just become a legal citizen, although he had been 

living here for almost a decade. He had no personal resources 

whatsoever. 

Senator PRYOR. Did he have insurance? He was uninsured? 

Mr. RUBY. Not to my knowledge, no. 

Senator PRYOR. All right. Well, that’s helpful, and I appreciate 

it. 

98 

Let me—gosh, there are lots of questions here, and I know Senator Nelson wants to ask a few, too, but let me dive in, here. 

Mr. James, I know that you—sort of in your day job, you represent more of the truck-leasing part of the industry. And today we 

talked a lot about rental cars, and this may not be really your 

forte, but it seems to me that there’s a difference in the truck leasing industry versus rental cars. Seems like there are a lot more 

cars rented to just the general public; whereas, with trucks, 

there—you may have a smaller volume of people, and, in some 

cases, you would have very well-trained drivers with CDLs, et 

cetera. Do you see a distinction between—— 

Mr. JAMES. I see—I certainly see differences in volume, but I also 

see a lot of similarities. And again, what we’re talking about here 

is, we’re talking about owners of rented and leased vehicles. That 

does include car rental companies, it includes the big car rental 

companies. Also on that list, we have the American Car Rental Association, which represents all of those small mom-and-pop companies. The larger companies don’t have their own trade association. 

But, the similarities are, just as in truck leasing—a truck lease, 

an average lease is probably 5 years. We lease out a truck of any 

size to a business, business-to-business, for about 5 years. We’re 

still responsible for the maintenance of that vehicle, for putting 

that vehicle on the road and keeping it a safe vehicle. 

Same with the car rental companies. The car rental companies 

are responsible for providing safe vehicles for use on our highways. 

This also affects the auto leasing. I know I lease my Volkswagen, 

rather than buy it. It affects business-to-business auto leasing. A 

lot of businesses lease their fleets. 

So, the general distinction between the owner of the vehicle not 

being—having any training or agent affiliation with the operator of 

the vehicle, I think, is the same in all cases. It’s just a matter of— 

the terms of how long that vehicle is let out differs between the 

various segments of the industry. 

Senator PRYOR. So, when your members lease vehicles to, say, 

companies that need various vehicles for various reasons—I assumed that the standard contract might be that only certain drivers could drive those vehicles. 

Mr. JAMES. Well, when we lease out a truck—if we lease out a 

truck to Wal-Mart, for instance—a lot of retailers rent trucks for 

their fleets, and they also rent trucks or lease trucks to make up 

for peak periods of demand. 

Senator PRYOR. And they would require probably a CDL? 

Mr. JAMES. Sure. It’s—and that’s all in a business-to-business 

contract. We require that any driver of the truck meet that motor 

carrier’s safety plans. So, again, the motor carrier is responsible for 

hiring their drivers, for ensuring that their drivers have active 

CDLs. 

You know, when a company comes to pick up a leased truck, that 

truck may be driven by 20 drivers. Once that truck goes into that 

motor carrier’s hands, even under the FMCSA guidelines, that—if 

that truck is in their hands over 30 days, they are considered the 

owner of that vehicle for all purposes of operating it. 

99 

Senator PRYOR. Has the Graves Amendment caused any change 

to occur in your industry? I’m not talking about the rental-car part, 

but the truck leasing industry. 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely? 

Senator PRYOR. In what? What—— 

Mr. JAMES. Well, insurance premiums have gone down. HARCO 

is one of the biggest commercial insurers. They’re—and they’ve 

strongly supported the passage of the Graves law. But, insurance 

rates, their contingent liability rates dropped by 20 percent. 

But, even more importantly than that—I can speak in anecdote 

without telling the company’s name—there was a bid-up, by the 

State of New York, for 500 utility trucks. That’s a pretty big contract. And one of my member companies turned that contract down. 

That was a chance for the State of New York to have a leased fleet 

that they didn’t—they could outsource the maintenance on, they 

would have a fixed transportation cost on that fleet, and they 

wouldn’t have to tie up State capital in acquiring that fleet. New 

York didn’t get that opportunity, and my member didn’t get the 

business, because of the vicarious liability risk in New York State. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Leesfield, let me follow up on something that 

Mr. James said in his opening statement, and I’m curious about 

your view on this. Mr. James said that all the vehicles are covered 

by some insurance, even under the Graves Amendment, because 

there are other applicable laws that would require these leasing 

companies to maintain their vehicles and carry insurance on their 

vehicles. And so, basically, as I understand Mr. James’ testimony 

said, they’re basically all insured, one way or the other. Do you 

agree with that? And, if that’s so, or—you know, what difference 

does that make? 

Mr. LEESFIELD. Well, it’s not so, Mr. Chairman, because of the 

vehicles that—many vehicles and many drivers are either uninsured, completely, when they purchase their rental car contract, or 

they’re underinsured. Having $10,000 of insurance is the substantial equivalent today of having no insurance. I can assure you that 

a renter, who travels to Florida from Venezuela and rents a car at 

any of the airports or any other stations, does not have insurance 

in Venezuela, and, if they cause an injury here and they go back 

to Venezuela, or any other country, there is absolutely no recourse 

whatsoever. It is not like a private citizen, who lives in Florida, 

who you can have some recourse against. 

There is no enforcement of either insurance requirements or 

driving standards. What’s happened—and I think the Chairman 

hinted—hit upon this at the—earlier on—if there’s no enforcement, 

if there’s no corporate responsibility, if we give anybody total immunity, safety is going to pay the price. So, there is no looking up 

the driver’s record to see if the driver has 30 infractions for drunk 

driving, reckless driving. None of that exists today. It did exist 

when the corporation that was responsible for the vehicle—and this 

is not a foreign notion. If a trucking company employs a trucking 

driver, and that trucking driver is negligent and causes catastrophic injuries, the trucking company is responsible. The trucking 

company didn’t drive the truck, they only hired Mr. Jones. Mr. 

Jones was negligent, and he injured somebody severely. This is not 

a foreign notion. 

100 

The availability of insurance to the rental car industry is a matter, I think—I think this gentleman is correct—their premiums 

went down. There is no question that this is a profit-motive-driven 

idea. Their premiums did go down, Mr. Chairman. But, at what 

cost? Who picked up the tab for their premiums going down? Well, 

it’s the U.S. Government, through Medicare, through Medicaid, 

through Social Security, and it’s everybody else, every county government, every State government, and individuals, who—insurance—who have to pay for their profit. This is a question of shifting of who can most afford, as a matter of policy and a matter of— 

in Florida, of 90 years of common law, and, up until Graves, 6 

years of statutory law. 

Florida, Governor Bush, and the Republican legislature of Florida looked at the law and said, ‘‘We don’t want to have unlimited 

recovery, we want to have limited recovery.’’ So, they passed Chapter 324. That’s what the State experiments have to be with this 

issue of rental car liability. 

To pass an overall immunity, 100 percent immunity, yes, it saves 

money for the industry, but it does a horrible disservice to the citizens and to the governments that have to pay for it. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Leesfield, let me ask one more question, and 

I’m going to turn it over to Senator Nelson, here, in just one moment. But, do you see a distinction between, you know, your average rental car company and then some of these truck leasing companies that Mr. James represents in his day job—not to single out 

any company specifically—but do you see a distinction there, or are 

they one and the same? 

Mr. LEESFIELD. No, sir, there’s a very clear distinction. The rental car companies are domestic corporations who have domestic 

drivers; they don’t have people coming from overseas who don’t 

know the rules of the road; they’re not renting to people from countries that drive on the other side of the road or with different customs. They’re renting to people with long-term leases. 

Anybody can rent a car. Anybody can rent a car. You need a 

credit card, which could be valid or invalid, and a driver’s license, 

which could be valid or invalid. In our State, and many other 

States, we have people—we’ll just call them ‘‘marginal people’’— 

don’t want to cast any aspersions here—who go in and rent a car 

to do their ‘‘marginal business,’’ and, in the course of doing that, 

injure innocent people. 

There is a very clear distinction between a commercial truck 

rental and a—millions and millions of people, coming from all over 

the world, renting cars. 

Senator PRYOR. Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for having 

this hearing. 

And I think you all have fleshed out a lot of the things, here, 

that I wanted to get on the record. 

And, Mr. James, I want you to know that I am a big fan of the 

rental companies. And since my daughter got married this summer, 

my wife drove the largest Penske rental truck from Washington, 

D.C. to Florida, to get her set up. And so, I can’t say enough good 

things about the treatment that I get, in the kind of bifurcated life 

101 

that we live, where we live in Washington and we live in Florida, 

as well. 

Now, you heard my opening statement. And part of that was 

being repeated here by Mr. Leesfield. Mr. Ruby, a pedestrian—I 

just attended the funeral for a retired admiral, a friend of Jim 

Tooey, who’s in the office—in the audience here, with us—the son 

of the late great Governor Leroy Collins. And he was out for his 

morning bike ride, had stopped, and—at a traffic light; the traffic 

light turned green, and he got on his bike, and he went across; and 

the car; who had stopped, turned and didn’t see him. And we went 

to his funeral. Now, he’s a retired admiral, and his family is—all 

his children are grown, and his widow is taken care of. But, if that 

had been a young person with a big family, and there’s no recourse, 

it puts it in a little different situation. 

You take—for example, I said this in my opening comments, that 

the Republican Governor of Florida, Governor Bush, with a Republican legislature, took on tort reform and wanted to put caps on 

things. And, with regard to this issue, they put caps at $500,000 

for damages and $100,000, in Florida law, for pain and suffering. 

Now, because Florida is unique—I’ve described it, Mr. Leesfield 

has described it—we have these millions of visitors coming to Florida, and most of them are—not ‘‘most of them’’—a good percentage 

of them are from out of the country. And so, to be able to recover 

from the damage that they have caused leaves, folks like Mr. Ruby 

under the present law, without recourse, with the ultimate result 

that, if they are insolvent, it’s going to be Medicaid, which is the 

State taxpayer and the Federal taxpayer, or disabled, under the 

Medicare laws; then it’s the Federal taxpayer. And it seems like 

that we need to balance this. 

Now, how did the Graves Amendment get passed? It was back 

in the early part of this decade, and there was a partisan role to 

stick it to the trial lawyers. In every opportunity, there was an attempt. And this was on the big highway bill. And it got lost in all 

the noise. There was a recorded vote in the House that was almost 

a party-line vote, but apparently the Senate receded to the House 

amendment—meaning the overall bill, with its overall amendments—at the urging of the White House. 

And it seems to me—and I say this sincerely, because I’m a great 

fan of the industry that you represent—it seems that we have to 

take into consideration different circumstances and that you can’t 

broadbrush something like this. And then, that’s what I come back 

to, that that’s the genius of State sovereignty and State law: to 

adapt to their individual circumstances. And I underscore the fact 

it was a Republican Governor with a Republican legislature that 

put those limits, but recognized there was a reason to have that 

in Florida. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to state that again for the record. 

Obviously, we’re not getting anything done in the next few weeks. 

But, I want to thank you for having this hearing so that we could 

air this issue. And let’s talk in the future. 

Mr. JAMES. Senator, I’d be very happy to talk in the future about 

this. It’s obvious—you know, with all due respect, I’d—all vehicles 

are covered by insurance. Maybe some drivers aren’t, but all vehicles are. But, just this discussion has shown that maybe there are 

102 

some more facts that need to be aired, put on the table; and I’d be 

happy to engage in those discussions. I think this hearing is a very 

valuable one, and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to 

testify. But, I think there are a lot of aspects to this issue—the 

broadness of its impact on commercial transportation, as well as 

consumer choice, car rental, the laws that car rental companies are 

under, in which they have to rent to certain individuals if a basic 

level of eligibility is met—I think those are all—I think it’s a very 

unique situation, given the interstate nature of our fleet, and I’d 

be happy to engage in more discussions, and I appreciate this opportunity to do so. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Senator Nelson. It’s always good to 

have you here. Good statement. 

Let me ask Mr. James and Mr. Leesfield just one, really, last 

question, and that is—I am curious about statistics—if you all have 

any sort of statistics, in terms of how frequent are these accidents, 

where, you know, maybe a rental car company, and someone is 

from overseas or someone is uninsured, you know, doesn’t have any 

assets, you know, whatever that situation may be—and I’m just curious, if there is—if there are any statistics that lay out the impact 

of the Graves Amendment and, kind of, the scope of the problem. 

Are—do you have any of those type statistics, Mr. James? 

Mr. JAMES. Well, a lot of these cases are settled; and, due to 

those settlements, there’s not a lot of information. We have information on some of the larger cases, many of which have been in 

Florida, both under Florida courts and U.S. district courts. We’ve 

also gone through one heck of an economic recession. So, any sort 

of business statistics, I think would be heavily skewed by all the 

other factors that are out there. But, you know, we’ll certainly get 

whatever statistics we can put together—— 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. 

Mr. JAMES.—about the impact, and get back to the Committee on 

that. 

[The information referred to is contained in the appendix.] 

Senator PRYOR. That’d be help. 

Mr. Leesfield, do you have any? 

Mr. LEESFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there are statistics available 

supplementing common sense. The rental car driver, unfamiliar 

with the road, unfamiliar with the rules of the road, often visiting, 

is a much more distracted and difficult driver, in terms of the number of accidents. Our practice, in what I’ve seen both in teaching 

and interacting with others, would verify that. 

I don’t know what statistics Mr. James has, because, since 2005, 

in the passage of the Graves Amendment, there have been zero settlements, because there’s no reason for the rental car industry to 

settle a single case if they have absolute immunity by the Graves 

Amendment. So, for 5 years now, there is no—there’s an industry 

that has 100-percent protection, a rather unique situation. 

So, I don’t know what the settlement statistics are. I can tell you, 

beforehand, of the rental car industry. If they were a solvent company, which most of them are—and I gave you the statistics for 

that, in spite of the mom-and-pop argument, that, in fact, it’s conVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
103 

solidation of the industry. And—the only statistic I saw is when I 

came in and looked at a—the rental car agency, and I saw there 

was a $6 refueling charge per gallon for gas. And I thought that 

was interesting statistic, that the $3 profit on that could pay for 

all the insurance for all the injured people like Ethan Ruby. 

There’s 6 bucks to refuel your car. Seems to me there’s a whole lot 

of profit in that. And I’m not against profit, either. I think profit 

is wonderful. I’m glad they’re making a profit. I just don’t think the 

taxpayers and the individual citizens should make them more profitable than they already are. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, I want to thank all of you all for being 

here. It’s helpful for the Subcommittee and for the full Committee 

to get your testimony. And any sort of statistics or studies, whatever you also want to send in, we would definitely review those. 

We’re going to leave the record open for an additional 2 weeks. 

We anticipate that some of our colleagues will have further followup questions—I have a few, myself—that we could follow up on. 

But, I want to thank all three of you all for being here; especially 

you, Mr. Ruby. Thank you for making the effort. 

Mr. RUBY. With permission, I’d just like to add—— 

Senator PRYOR. Sure. 

Mr. RUBY.—one more. 

Senator PRYOR. Sure. 

Mr. RUBY. First of all, I would like to say that if the substance 

of the Graves bill did have merit, it would not have been snuck in 

at 2 o’clock in the morning, right before the larger bill was passed. 

And to dispel some of the myths of these numbers that we’re 

talking about, $9 million or $7 million, or, in my case, a little bit 

more than that, I’d like, just briefly, to understand just how expensive it is to live in a wheelchair. It costs me $1,000 a month just 

to pee. Just to pee. I will never be able to teach my son how to play 

soccer, or run on the beach with him. And I would give a $100 million to have that ability back. 

If I want to travel, in order to sit in coach, I have to literally hold 

myself up, the entire flight, because I have no abdominal control. 

So, should I pay the $300 and sit and suffer, or should I pay the 

little bit of extra money to be able to sit in first class? That is not 

a luxury. I do not live a life of luxury. I live a life of survival. 

The amount of money it costs yearly to live—physical therapy, 

doctors, preventative care—the first person that they put on the 

stand to testify said that my life will be decreased by 10 years, 

therefore they shouldn’t have to pay the full amount of pain and 

suffering of a normal life. That’s the concession. 

My—I do—the money that I have is to be able to live my life on 

a bare level. It is not to live extravagantly. I drive a Volvo. My wife 

and I share a Volvo that’s 10 years old. It is to survive. 

And the pain and suffering goes on another level. The money is 

to survive and to be able to live and have a chance at life. It is 

nothing more. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, thank you. 

Mr. RUBY. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. And again, thank you for being here. 

104 

And thank all three of you for being here today, and all of our 

previous panel witnesses, as well. We appreciate your time and the 

effort it took to be here and to prepare. 

And, like I said, we’ll leave the record open for 2 weeks. 

And this hearing is now adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:14 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(105) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

Thank you, Senator Pryor, for holding this important hearing. A major focus of 

our Committee’s work this year has been on oversight of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and legislation to improve vehicle and highway safety. 

The Committee has so far passed two critical motor safety bills—the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 and the Distracted Driving Prevention Act. Both bills will 

help protect drivers, and prevent fatalities—and I will continue to work to bring 

both of these bills to the floor. 

Today, our focus is on the Federal and state safety programs authorized by Congress in SAFETEA–LU and administered by NHTSA. NHTSA Administrator David 

Strickland appeared before this Committee earlier this year, and I’m pleased to welcome him back today to share his thoughts on SAFETEA–LU and its results. 

As we all know, one of the ways NHTSA makes our roads safer is by improving driver behavior. Every year, NHTSA distributes more than $500 million in grants 

to states as an incentive to pass strict safety laws, and to pay for enforcement, education, and other efforts to promote safety. 

Congress has directed the use of these funds to push states to enact primary enforcement laws on seat belt usage, promote the use of child safety and booster seats, 

and create harsh sentences for repeat drunk driving offenders. And we’ve seen real 

results. According to the latest data, the vast majority of drivers now use their seat 

belts, drunk driving has declined, and our roads are getting safer. However, there 

is still more to be done. 

As we prepare for the next reauthorization of SAFETEA–LU, we need to carefully 

consider whether the programs and grants funded through SAFETEA–LU are being 

used as effectively as possible. We also need to ask whether there are new programs 

that need to be funded, or new safety concerns that need to be addressed. 

One emerging safety issue I have focused on during my time as Chairman is distracted driving. Blackberries and cell phones have become commonplace. In this 

Internet-driven decade, everyone is trying to do more at once. As a result, people 

are typing while driving, talking while driving, and texting while driving. This behavior isn’t just foolish—it’s dangerous and deadly. 

In 2009, approximately 5,500 people died in crashes involving distraction and 

nearly 500,000 were injured. According to NHTSA, 16 percent of all motor vehicle 

crashes are caused by distracted driving. 

Teen driving is another area of increasing concern. Motor vehicle crashes are the 

leading cause of death for U.S. teens. In 2008, about 3,500 teens were killed in 

motor vehicle crashes. These drivers are young and inexperienced, and they are too 

easily distracted. Several states have adopted graduated driver’s licenses. These programs delay full licenses until teens have real-world experience behind the wheel, 

prohibit teens from using any electronic communication devices while driving, and 

limit the number of passengers they can have in their car. I expect this Committee 

to further explore this issue to determine if Federal input will continue to help save 

teen lives. 

While we must deal with new and emerging issues, we must also retain a laserlike focus on the lingering, but pressing issue of drunk driving. Last week I met 

with Margie Sadler, a West Virginian who volunteers with Mothers Against Drunk 

Driving (MADD). She works with families that have lost loved ones in tragic crashes. Her heartbreaking stories serve as a reminder to us all of the human cost of 

drunk driving. I strongly support MADD’s goal of eliminating drunk driving, I honor 

their work, and will continue to do all that I can to advance that goal. 

The third panel before this Committee today will focus on vicarious liability in 

the rental car industry. In 2005, as part of SAFETEA–LU, Congress preempted all 

state laws that held rental car companies liable for damages caused by drivers in 

their vehicles. Today we will hear from a young man, Ethan Ruby, who was paraVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
106 

1 Vasquez v. Christian Herald Ass’n Inc. 588 N.Y. S. 291, N.Y.A.D. 1st Dept., 1992. 

lyzed at the age of 25 when he was hit by a reckless driver in a rental car. Mr. 

Ruby has relied on a settlement from the rental car company to pay his medical 

bills and allow him to recover. If he had been hit by that same car after the passage 

of the 2005 law, he would have been able to recover little or nothing to pay for his 

care. This is an important issue worthy of consideration by this Committee. 

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today to discuss these important 

issues that affect the lives of so many Americans. Through a continued focus on vehicle safety and highway safety, we can reduce the number of deaths and injuries 

on our roads. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the over 16,000 members of the National Automobile 

Dealers Association (NADA) and its American Truck Dealers (ATD) subsidiary, who 

employ approximately one million Americans, we strongly oppose any effort to overturn the Graves/Boucher law, which creates uniformity in interstate commerce by 

prohibiting states from imposing vicarious liability on non-negligent owners of 

rented or leased vehicles. The Graves/Boucher law does not prohibit states from imposing minimum financial responsibility laws for vehicle owners in each state, does 

not interfere with states’ ability to impose minimum insurance requirements, and 

does not exempt rental and leasing companies from liability if they are negligent 

or otherwise at fault. As the Subcommittee addressed the issue of vicarious liability 

during a hearing on September 28, 2010, we respectfully request that our statement 

be included in the hearing record. 

Background 

Support for passage of Federal vicarious liability reform gained momentum in the 

late 1990s and early 2000s as the costs associated with vehicle leasing and renting 

mounted in states such as New York and Florida because of the frequency of massive judgments, attorney fees, and increased supplemental insurance premiums. 

Members of Congress became increasing sympathetic as lessors were faced with outrageous exposure to liability when they had no control over the vehicle and did not 

contribute in any way to an accident. 

While not all states have vicarious liability laws, a Federal law was needed because of the interstate nature of renting and leasing. Companies in states without 

vicarious liability laws had to buy supplemental insurance out of concern that either 

a lessee would drive a vehicle to a state where such laws exist or that a court would 

apply its vicarious liability laws in accident that occurred in another state. For example, a court in New York applied New York’s vicarious liability statute in an action by New York and Ohio passengers against a Pennsylvania lessor of a van and 

a New York employer of the lessee, arising out of a collision that occurred on the 

employer’s property in Pennsylvania.1

In 2005, Congress passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, which included a bipartisan amendment sponsored 

by Reps. Sam Graves (R–MO) and Rick Boucher (D–VA) to create Federal uniformity and eliminate vicarious liability laws that were adversely affecting interstate commerce. 

NADA/ATD, as part of a larger coalition, supported passage of the 2005 vicarious 

liability reform law which simply requires that, in order for a party to be held financially responsible for the consequences of an accident, the party must actually be 

at fault. The law does not exempt rental and leasing companies from liability if they 

are negligent or otherwise at fault and does not exempt the company from the minimum financial responsibility laws that apply to vehicle owners in each state. 

Under the existing Graves/Boucher law, the following safeguards exist: 

• All renting and leasing companies are required to follow state approved insurance coverage requirements. 

• Injured parties are compensated the same whether they are injured by a rented 

or leased car, or a privately owned car. 

• Renting and leasing companies that are at fault can not escape liability—the 

law does not excuse any lessor or rental car company from liability for ‘‘negligent entrustment’’ nor does it excuse any entity from responsibility for its employees’ negligence (under respondent superior). 

• States can still determine the level of compensation available to injured parties 

by setting minimum financial responsibility limits for all vehicles. The Graves/ 

107 

2 Approximately 19 lenders, such as the finance arms of General Motors, Ford, Honda, as well 

as banks such as Chase Manhattan stopped leasing in New York because of the increasing costs 

associated with liability. 3 ‘‘N.Y.’s Vicarious Liability Costly for Consumers and Auto Dealers,’’ Insurance Journal, July 

19, 2004. 4 Bill Platt, ‘‘Leasing a Chrysler or Mercedes Will Cost More in Four States,’’ Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2003. 

5Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association surveys. 

Boucher law does not supersede any state laws that require insurance or impose or allow any lower insurance requirements in any state or on any class 

of vehicles or vehicle ownership. 

• The law does not protect renting and leasing companies that are negligent in 

their renting and leasing practices or in their maintenance or care of a vehicle. 

Based on the experience of the auto and truck industry with vicarious liability 

laws prior to enactment of the Graves/Boucher law, repeal of the law would have 

a devastating impact by: 

1. Making vehicle renting or leasing unavailable or unaffordable for many consumers and small businesses not just in vicarious liability states, but throughout 

the country. 

2. Reinstating an antiquated and unfair policy that imposes liability on lessors 

and rental companies based on ownership, not control of the vehicle, negligence 

or fault. 

3. Posing an immediate threat to car and truck leasing that would hurt the automobile and truck industry as well as the economy. 

1. Repeal of the law would make vehicle renting or leasing unavailable or 

unaffordable for many consumers and small businesses not just in vicarious liability 

states, but throughout the country. 

Vehicle leasing is popular for consumers and small businesses since they benefit 

from both a low down-payment and smaller monthly payments. Monthly payments 

on a lease are based on the lower total cost of ‘‘owning’’ the vehicle for the lease 

term of the vehicle, and not the entire purchase price of the vehicle. Manufacturers 

commonly offer aggressive incentives to leases that make them an attractive financial option. Many consumers and small businesses rely on leasing as the most efficient, and sometimes only, way to finance vehicles. This is particularly true in 

Northeast states (especially New York), where a high percentage of motor vehicles 

are leased. 

The experience of staggeringly high vicarious liability verdicts in the 1990s and 

early 2000s against leasing companies, banks, and most auto manufacturers’ captive 

financing arms resulted in these companies pulling out of leasing in those states 

where unlimited lessor vicarious liability existed.2 In addition, many small rental 

companies were forced to close in New York.3 When these companies completely 

withdrew from the leasing market, it left customers with few affordable options to 

lease a new car or truck. 

Because companies could not obtain insurance against vicarious liability or because it became more expensive to do so, companies that continued to lease cars 

raised their fees by several hundred dollars to account for their liability under vicarious liability laws.4 Each of the few brands that stayed raised acquisition fees to 

offset vicarious liability risk, making leases much more expensive. (This was especially true for smaller leasing companies.) In 2003 and 2004, 200,000 leasing consumers were estimated to pay an average additional acquisition fee of $524.88 each, 

or a total of $105 million more to lease a car in New York due to the vicarious liability law.5

The Graves/Boucher law was needed to ensure vehicle leasing was maintained as 

an affordable option. Small business owners have frequently stated that leasing is 

vital to their competitiveness and ability to expand. Leasing allows businesses to 

avoid tying up capital and credit lines that they could be using to expand and grow 

their business. It allows the monthly costs for vehicles used for business purposes 

to be ‘‘expensed,’’ rather than dealing with complicated depreciation rules. The loss 

of leasing options or increased fees prevents customers and small businesses from 

driving newer, safer, more fuel efficient, and cleaner cars and trucks and expanding 

their vehicle fleets. 

2. Repeal of the law would reinstate an antiquated and unfair policy that imposes 

liability on lessors and rental companies based on ownership, not control of the vehicle, negligence or fault. 

108 

6Muller v. Gilliard, 27 Misc.3d 1231(A), slip copy, N.Y. Supreme, May 26, 2010. 7 ‘‘Vicarious liability costs New York consumers and businesses millions,’’ Business Council of 

New York State, June 2005. 8Sean Harrigan, PDP Group Inc. 

Vicarious liability for vehicle leasing was born out of an antiquated law implemented when only the wealthy owned cars and most had chauffeurs or livery drivers. The law was designed to keep the wealthy from pushing liability onto their 

drivers. Injured parties would then be able to seek damages from the vehicle owner, 

not the driver. The law was not intend to impart liability on vehicle leasing companies, which have no control over who drives a leased vehicle. 

Lessor vicarious liability places an unjust and unjustified burden on entities that 

have not violated any law or obligation and that have not been negligent in any 

way. The lessors do not control the manner in which a lessee—or the lessee’s family 

or friends—operate a vehicle. Also, vicarious liability does not appropriately apportion the cost of an accident to the party that caused the accident. 

One of the exceptions to the Graves/Boucher law is a claim under negligent entrustment. Thus, if a leasing company or a rental company ‘‘negligently entrusted’’ 

a vehicle to the lessee, renter, or driver, that lessor or rental company would be liable for damages in the event of an accident. Claims for negligent entrustment will 

depend generally on, ‘‘the degree of knowledge the supplier of a chattel has or 

should have had concerning the entrustee’s propensity to use the chattel in an improper or dangerous fashion.’’ 6

For example, providing a vehicle to an intoxicated customer would likely be 

deemed negligent entrustment, and would thus preclude the application of the exemption from liability that is provided to a rental company under the Graves/Boucher law. Similarly, providing a rental vehicle to an unlicensed driver would likely 

result in holding the rental company liable in the event of an accident. 

Merely renting or leasing a vehicle to a consumer or lessee who has an accident 

or whose family member subsequently has an accident would not, generally, without 

the renter’s or lessor’s knowledge that the consumer or lessee had a propensity or 

likelihood to use the vehicle in an improper or dangerous fashion, result in liability 

to the lessor. However, the lessee (and his or her insurance company) would be liable for any damages or injuries he or she caused. Current law does not impair an 

accident victim’s ability to sue the driver or anyone else at fault for their damages 

in any amount. 

3. Repeal of the law would pose an immediate threat to car and truck leasing that 

would hurt the automobile and truck industry as well as the economy. 

Repeal of vicarious liability reform would put a strain on auto and truck dealers, 

and auto and truck manufacturers, as the industry is just now beginning to slowly 

recover from the recession. 

New York’s vicarious liability law led to a 36 percent decline in the number of 

vehicles leased in that state, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

and the Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association.7 More than 19 automakers and every major retail bank stopped or curtailed car leasing in New York 

due to its law before enactment of the Graves/Boucher law. 

Following passage of the Graves/Boucher law, all the captive finance companies 

and almost every bank that had pulled out of leasing came back to New York, and 

nationally, auto and truck leasing increased, resulting in more affordable leasing 

terms for customers and small businesses. Vehicle manufacturers became more inclined to support and encourage service loaner car fleets, as the unfair liability 

issues were resolved. The Graves/Boucher law has also contributed to more dealerships operating their own service loaner car fleets for the benefit and convenience 

of their customers. In addition, after the law passed, dealers increased the number 

of ‘‘service vehicles,’’ for which customers may rent on a short- or long-term basis. 

These vehicles are used primarily when a customer or small business is looking to 

finance a new or used vehicle or while their primary vehicle is being serviced or 

repaired. Since passage of the Graves/Boucher law, participation in manufacturersponsored customer loaner/rental programs for dealers has increased 67 percent in 

New York and 42 percent nationally.8 Any return of vicarious liability laws will 

deter this popular service among dealers and consumers. 

The adverse impact would also be felt by the truck industry. Many truck dealers 

also operate manufacturer-sponsored truck leasing programs, which have been one 

of the few bright spots in the significantly depressed trucking industry. Prior to enactment of the Graves/Boucher law, truck renting and leasing declined because 

trucks would operate in or through New York and other states with vicarious liability laws. Truck dealers also were unable to secure liability insurance for lease and 

rental fleets, inhibiting the ability to secure financing for their lease fleets, limiting 

109 

dealers’ ability to serve customers, and restricting the flow of interstate commerce. 

The vehicle truck leasing business is one of the few bright spots in today’s depressed 

economy. Repeal of the vicarious liability protection would squelch this economically 

important segment of the truck industry. 

Repeal of Graves/Boucher would have a detrimental impact on jobs, particularly 

at a time of 9.6 percent unemployment. Automobile dealership jobs in New York, 

Rhode Island and other Northeastern states would be especially hard hit if Graves/ 

Boucher was repealed. Additionally, during debate to reform New York’s vicarious 

liability law in 2004, the United Auto Workers urged vicarious liability reform to 

protect workers and jobs. Jim Duncan, New York State Director, Region 9, said he 

feared for the jobs of New Yorkers in auto parts plants in Syracuse, Tonawanda and 

throughout the state as well as in downstate dealerships. 

Conclusion 

At a time when businesses are attempting to rebuild and grow the economy, Congress should reject any changes to the current vicarious liability reform law. Any 

attempt to overturn the existing Graves/Boucher law would have dramatic negative 

consequences for consumers and small businesses. 

• Auto and truck leasing will be discouraged and will diminish as leasing and 

rental entities ceasing doing business in those jurisdictions that apply this antiquated legal theory. 

• Vehicles will be more expensive for consumers, through increased lease, acquisition, and insurance costs. 

• Consumers or small businesses will have limited options for rentals and loaner 

vehicles, especially for those waiting for a vehicle to be serviced or repaired. 

• Auto and truck dealers will lose business, and governments will lose needed tax 

revenues. 

• Auto and truck sales will be lost as a result of a lack of leasing options hurts 

employment in certain states and the national economy. 

NADA/ATD appreciates the opportunity to provide the Committee with our views 

on this important subject. 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Washington, DC, October 12, 2010 

HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: Hearing on ‘‘NHTSA Oversight: An Examination of the Highway Safety Provisions of SAFETEA–LU’’ 

Dear Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison: 

We write to you to respectfully request this letter be included in the record for 

the hearing on ‘‘NHTSA Oversight: An Examination of the Highway Safety Provisions of SAFETEA–LU,’’ which was held on September 28, 2010, in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. We appreciate your consideration 

of this matter. 

As you know, SAFETEA–LU corrected an inequity in the car and truck renting 

and leasing industries (Sec. 10208). As co-authors of this provision, we strongly oppose any attempt to repeal or weaken it. 

This provision, commonly referred to as ‘‘vicarious liability’’ or limitless liability 

without fault, restored fair competition to the car and truck renting and leasing industry, ultimately lowering costs and increasing choices for all consumers. Prior to 

this law, a small number of States imposed vicarious liability on companies and 

their affiliates simply because they owned a vehicle involved in an accident. Whether or not the rental or leasing company or vehicle was at fault was completely irrelevant, and the ensuing lawsuits cost consumers nationwide an estimated $100 million annually. 

The vicarious liability provision does not provide, nor is it intended to provide, 

blanket immunity for car renting and leasing companies or car manufacturers for 

proven negligible business practices. In fact, the provision in SAFETEA–LU clearly 

states that ‘‘An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person 

shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by 

110 

reason of being the owner of the vehicle, for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if, there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the 

part of the owner.’’ It simply protects businesses from being held liable for ‘‘user 

error’’ of a vehicle not owned by the driver. 

Repeal of this law will increase costs for non-negligent renting and leasing customers to cover the actions of negligent customers. Further, businesses will see their 

costs increase for the transportation of goods and are certain to be at-risk of failure 

when hefty verdicts are awarded to pay for the actions of their at-fault renters. In 

an economy where many businesses, large and small, are fighting just to survive, 

it is vitally important not to add to their load the job-killing burdens of frivolous 

lawsuits, which is precisely what repealing or weakening our provision will do. 

Lastly, existing law already requires renting and leasing companies to follow 

State approved insurance coverage requirements. This ensures that injured parties 

are compensated the same whether they are injured by a rented car, a leased car, 

or a car that is privately owned. Nothing in our provision prohibits States from increasing their minimum coverage requirements. 

Again, we appreciate your consideration of our request. Please feel free to contact 

us directly or Mike Matousek (Rep. Graves) at 202–225–7041 or Chris Davis (Rep. 

Boucher) at 202–225–3861 of our staff should you have any questions or require additional information. 

Sincerely, 

SARA GRAVES, 

Member of Congress. 

RICK BOUCHER, 

Member of Congress. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO HON. DAVID L. STRICKLAND

Question 1. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which was passed in 2005, required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue a final rule on occupant ejection mitigation. A key component of the law requires that the performance standards ‘‘reduce complete and partial ejections.’’ Each year, nearly 9,000 people are 

killed and another 20,000 injured as a result of being ejected or partially ejected 

from a vehicle during a crash. Side air curtains often leave small openings that may 

allow partial ejection of limbs or even the full ejection of infants and toddlers. 

NHTSA has recognized that advanced window glazing in addition to side air curtains enhances the safety of vehicle occupants. In issuing final rules, I encourage 

NHTSA to maximize consumer safety. What is the status of the occupant ejection 

mitigation rulemaking and can you comment on the how the proposed rule would 

mitigate partial occupant ejection? 

Answer. We are in the process of completing a final rule that is consistent with 

SAFETEA–LU and meets our January 31, 2011 target for publication. The December 2, 2009 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for ejection mitigation was aimed 

at reducing the partial and complete ejection of vehicle occupants through side windows in crashes, particularly rollover crashes. The NPRM anticipated that manufacturers would meet the standard by enlarging and making more robust existing side 

impact air bag curtains, and possibly supplementing them with advanced glazing. 

The proposed rule would restrict the amount of outward displacement an impactor 

may travel beyond the plane of the window to less than 100 mm in target locations 

distributed around the window opening. This requirement would help to ensure full 

coverage of the window opening and the elimination of possible small ejection portals, thus addressing in a very significant way both partial and complete occupant 

ejections. We believe that when this final rule is implemented, it will significantly 

reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries associated with complete and 

partial occupant ejections in rollovers and other types of vehicle crashes in a cost 

effective, reasonable, and objective manner. 

Question 2. In your testimony before the Committee on September 28th, you stated: ‘‘We have ongoing concerns about the pedestrian safety and distraction, and we 

have initiated pilot programs in each of these areas in the hope to use the results 

to guide policy recommendations for the next reauthorization.’’ Please provide the 

Committee with additional information concerning NHTSA’s pilot program on pedestrian safety. 

111 

Answer. NHTSA has pedestrian safety demonstration programs promoting safety 

education and enforcement in Chicago, Florida, North Carolina and New Mexico. 

These locations are implementing pedestrian education and enforcement programs 

and strategies to complement existing or planned pedestrian engineering treatments, such as barriers, islands, signals and markings, to improve infrastructure 

over the course of 3 to 4 years. Examples of specific initiatives being demonstrated 

in these locations include a safety education campaign directed at motorists about 

distracted driving, sharing the road, and vulnerable road user awareness; special 

law enforcement details assigned to crosswalks to focus on motorist observance of 

pedestrian laws and pedestrian observance of crossing laws; and enforcement operations focusing on speeding on neighborhood streets, rural roadways, and school 

zones with documented pedestrian safety problems. 

Question 3. Motorcycle safety remains an area of prominent concern. As you noted 

in your testimony, while other highway safety statistics are improving, motorcycle 

fatalities increased by 11 percent between 2004 and 2009. Please provide the Committee with additional information on NHTSA’s strategy for reducing motorcycle 

deaths. The Agency’s Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan for 

2009–2011 indicated that NHTSA was assessing Anti-lock Brake Systems (ABS) for 

motorcycles and that the next Agency decision was expected in 2010. Please provide 

an update on this activity and any other activities that NHTSA intends to undertake to improve motorcycle safety. 

Answer. Motorcycle helmets are the most effective means for reducing motorcycle 

deaths. Efforts are underway to aid State and local law enforcement officials in enforcing State laws that require motorcyclists to use helmets meeting Federal safety 

standards. NHTSA is pursuing a comprehensive strategy to reduce motorcycle 

deaths that also includes efforts to improve rider training and licensing practices 

and strategies to improve compliance with safety laws. Specific projects currently 

planned or underway include the development of Model National Standards for 

Entry-Level Rider Training, updating the Model Motorcycle Operators Manual and 

licensing knowledge test questions for use by State licensing agencies, a demonstration program to reduce the number of improperly licensed riders, research on motorcyclists’ visual scanning skills, and a law enforcement training program to engage 

officers in improving motorcycle safety in the community. 

As the result of a comprehensive review of several different sources of crash data 

and analysis of test results, NHTSA has decided to delay rulemaking on ABS for 

motorcycles due to the inconclusive results. NHTSA has placed the results of crash 

data study and research in NHTSA Docket Number 2002–11950, which can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov. We will continue to monitor the crash data and 

work with industry to identify motorcycles equipped with ABS both here and 

abroad. In addition, we are moving forward with a crash causation study that, 

among other things, will look specifically at braking-related crashes. This will be the 

first study of its kind in more than 30 years. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. ROGER F. WICKER TO

HON. DAVID L. STRICKLAND

Question. The Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband 

Plan (NBP) was released earlier this year. The plan includes many recommendations that reference NHTSA’s role in deploying a nationwide next generation 911 

(NG911) system. Specifically, Recommendation 16.13 references the need for 

NHTSA to analyze estimated costs of deploying and operating a NG911 system, and 

report to Congress no later than the end of 2011. What actions has NHTSA performed to date in carrying out the NBP recommendation? How will this study be 

performed? What is NHTSA’s timeline for completion of this report? 

Answer. Recommendation 16.13 of the National Broadband Plan states, ‘‘The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) should prepare a report to 

identify the costs of deploying a nationwide NG911 System and recommend that 

Congress allocate public funding.’’ The Plan further describes the proposed contents 

of the report in detail. Completing this report would be a significant undertaking 

for which NHTSA does not have available funds. However, the agency has taken 

the initial step to develop the specifications and cost estimate for completing the recommended report. We expect to finish this initial step at the end of calendar year 

2010. NHTSA would be able to develop a timeline for the completion of the recommended report if the necessary resources are available. 

112 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL TO

ETHAN RUBY AND RESPONDED TO BY DAVID C. COOK, MARC S. MOLLER KREINDLER

& KREINDLER LLP 

Question 1. How does the Graves/Boucher provision in the Transportation Equity 

Act of 2005 address an injured party suing a company for negligence in the renting 

or leasing of a vehicle? 

Answer. 1. Graves prejudices the rights of victims of rental car operator negligence by insulating the rental car companies from liability for damages. 

2. The immunization of rental car companies from liability for the negligence of 

those who rent their cars and cause accidents will embolden the rental car companies to be even less careful than they are now in renting their vehicles because 

there is no economic responsibility that attaches for that act, except when it can 

be proved that the leasing itself was negligent. Negligent entrustment, for example, 

may be difficult to prove even when the entrustment is negligent. If rental car companies believe that they should have no liability in a given circumstance they can 

always bring their own action against the negligent driver. The burden of litigation 

and protecting the rental car companies should not be borne by the victims. 

3. With rental car companies insulated from economic responsibility for negligence 

of its drivers, the state and local governments will be required as a matter of law 

to bear the economic burden of medical care and rehabilitation of victims. That 

makes no sense when state and local governments are struggling to meet their own 

burdens of providing service to their citizens. 

4. Persons who lease cars or trucks from rental car or truck leasing companies 

most often cannot be located or when located carry minimal insurance. Thus the argument that the drivers of rental car companies’ cars can still be sued for their negligence offers little protection for the victim. Renters who live in foreign countries, 

for example, will be virtually impossible to hold accountable. 

5. Purchasing third party liability insurance is a cost of doing business for rental 

car and truck companies which are capable of being spread among all renters of cars 

and trucks and thus would impose a modest burden, if it be considered a burden 

at all, upon the rental agencies themselves. 

Question 2. Since passage of the Graves/Boucher provision in the Transportation 

Equity Act, what recovery options exist for a party injured by a rental car driven 

by an uninsured driver? 

Answer. 1. The issue of whether rental car companies should be insulated from 

liability for the negligence of its drivers should properly be resolved on a state-bystate basis and not by Federal legislation. Federalization of insulating rental car 

companies fails to allow a distinction between states which have a large transient 

car and truck renter population and those states in which rental car and truck leasing activity has no such aspect. E.g. Florida and New York vs. North Dakota. The 

state legislatures are the proper fora in which the distinctions and issues should be 

mediated and resolved. 

2. Preemption of state laws is especially inappropriate in these circumstances 

since the extraordinary burden and risk placed upon the victims and states is not 

counterbalanced by appropriate safeguards in the rental process and business to insure that victims have adequate protection. Minimum insurance standards embodied in state law are insufficient for the profit-making companies Few industries, 

if any, enjoy the extraordinary protection rental car companies obtained through 

Boucher. The rationale of low mandatory limits of coverage in some state laws 

which may be required to accommodate the non-business and small business driver 

population has no application or justification for the highly profitable car and truck 

rental business. If those companies cannot buy or afford adequate and meaningful 

insurance coverage they should not be in the business. Victims do not have to subsidize them. 

3. Ethan Ruby received fair compensation for his catastrophic injuries as his action was pre-Graves, however, by contrast a recent post-Graves New York Second 

Department Appellate Division Decision (attached) established the near futility of 

pursuing negligent entrustment. In Byrne v. Budget et. al. The operator, holding a 

restricted license (originally Suspended for DUI and reinstated as Restricted enabling travel to and from work and during the course of his employment) with a 

lengthy history of illegal drug abuse, alcoholism, DUI, multiple criminal convictions 

and incarceration ran over and killed a young female bicyclist. The case was dismissed against the rental company as a restricted license was ruled a valid license 

and there is no legal duty imposed upon the rental company (even on notice of a 

Restricted License) to investigate the renter’s/operator’s driving and/or criminal 

record. 

113 

ATTACHMENT

Byrne v. Collins 

2010 NY Slip Op 07507 

Decided on October 19, 2010 

Appellate Division, Second Department 

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 

§ 431. 

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. 

Decided on October 19, 2010 

Supreme Court of the State of New York 

Appellate Division : Second Judicial Department 

Mark C. Dillon, J.P. 

Anita R. Florio 

John M. Leventhal 

Cheryl E. Chambers, JJ. 

2010–00431 

(Index No. 38029/06) 

[*l] David Byrne, etc., respondent, 

V. 

James Collins, et al., defendants, Budget Truck Trust I Wilmington Trust Co., et 

al., appellants. 

Reardon & Sclafani, P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y. (Michael V. Sclafani 

of counsel), for appellants. 

Kreindler & Kreindler, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Megan W. Benett 

of counsel), for respondent. 

Decision & Order 

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants 

Budget Truck Trust I Wilmington Trust Co. and Budget Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 

appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, 

Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated November 24, 2009, as denied that branch of 

their motion, made jointly with the defendants Perfect Car Rental, doing business 

as Budget Truck Rental, and Budget Truck Rental, LLC, which was for summary 

judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. 

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with 

costs, and that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing 

the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Budget Truck Trust I Wilmington Trust Co. and Budget Rent-A-Car System, Inc., is granted. 

The plaintiffs decedent was fatally injured when, while riding a bicycle, she was 

struck by a truck. At the time of the accident, the defendant Budget Truck Trust 

I Wilmington Trust Co. (hereinafter Budget Truck Trust) was the titled owner of 

the truck and the defendant Budget Rent-A-Car System, Inc. (hereinafter Budget 

Rent-A-Car, together the appellants), was the registered owner. On the morning of 

the day of the accident, Michael James, a person employed as an assistant supervisor for the defendant JBG Trucking (hereinafter JBG), had rented the truck involved in the accident from Perfect Car Rental, doing business as Budget Truck 

Rental (hereinafter Perfect Rental), a company that operated as a dealer for the defendant Budget Truck Rental, LLC (hereinafter Budget, LLC). At the time of the 

accident, the truck was being driven by the defendant James Collins, a part-time 

employee of JBG. 

The decedent’s brother, on behalf of himself and the decedent’s estate, commenced 

this action against the appellants, among others, to recover damages for wrongful 

death and personal injuries, alleging, inter alia, negligent entrustment. The second 

cause of action, which alleged negligent entrustment, asserted, in effect, that Perfect 

114 

Rental’s counter agent Saul Friedman [*2] negligently entrusted the truck to Collins 

by failing to thoroughly review the driving and criminal history which led to the 

restriction of Collins’ license to a class C driver’s license and, further, that there was 

readily observable evidence of Collins’ drug use on the day of the rental and accident. 

To establish a cause of action under a theory of negligent entrustment, ‘‘the defendant must either have some special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar to the [person to whom a particular chattel is given] which renders 

[that person’s] use of the chattel unreasonably dangerous . . . or some special 

knowledge as to a characteristic or defect peculiar to the chattel which renders it 

unreasonably dangerous’’ (Cook v. Schapiro, 58 AD3d 664, 666, Zara v. Perzan, 185 

AD2d 236, 237). 

The appellants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the second cause of action insofar as asserted against them by demonstrating that the rental truck they owned was not negligently entrusted to Collins. They submitted, inter alia, transcripts of deposition testimony of Collins, Michael James, and Friedman, as well as Budget, LLC’s dealer manager Natalie 

Brown, which collectively established, prima facie, that, although not required to do 

so by any internal policies when dealing with business accounts such as JBG’s, Perfect Rental’s counter agent Friedman nonetheless verified that Collins had a restricted, yet valid, driver’s license on the morning of the rental and accident. Furthermore, the testimony of Collins and of Michael James established, prima facie, 

that Collins had not used drugs the day of the accident. 

In opposition thereto, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, an abstract of Collins’ 

driving record, which showed that he indeed had a restricted, yet valid, Class C 

driver’s license on the day of the rental and accident. The plaintiff also included excerpts of deposition transcripts of Collins and Michael James, which failed to support his conclusory and speculative assertion that Collins may have been under the 

influence of drugs on the day of the rental and accident. These submissions were 

insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether or not the appellants possessed special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar to Collins 

that rendered his use of the truck unreasonably dangerous. Thus, the negligent entrustment cause of action should have been dismissed insofar as asserted against 

the appellants (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324). 

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the appellants’ failure to provide copies of 

any internal policies as to investigation of potential renters with restricted licenses 

constitutes an insufficient basis upon which to deny their motion for summary judgment. Even if such a policy had been violated, under the circumstances of this case, 

such violation would not constitute actionable negligence (see Lambert v. Bracco, 18 

AD3d 619, 620; Newsome v. Cservak, 130 AD2d 637, 638). 

The first cause of action, which was based on the alleged vicarious liability of the 

appellants, was barred under the Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 30106), as the appellants showed they are ‘‘owner[s] . . . engaged in the trade or business of renting 

or leasing motor vehicles’’ (49 U.S.C. § 30106; see Gluck v. Nebgen, 72 AD3d 1023), 

and should also have been dismissed. 

The plaintiffs remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of this determination. 

Accordingly, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants should have been 

granted. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur. 

ENTER: [*3] 

MATTHEW G. KIERNAN, 

Clerk of the Court. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BYRON DORGAN TO

IRA H. LEESFIELD

Question. The Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (Sec. 30106) provides that owners of rental and leasing vehicles are not liable for harm related to those vehicles, 

provided there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner. 

This provision ensures that there is no absolute immunity for vehicle owners when 

they are negligent. If a consumer rents a car and there are faulty brakes, and he 

suffers an injury, would the consumer be able to sue the company for negligence 

in Florida and other states across the country? 

Answer. The rental company could be liable under narrow circumstances. However, if the rental car driver noticed that the brakes are faulty, and not operating 

115 

correctly, and continued to drive the car, the operator would be negligent for which 

there is no recourse by the injured party. 

In Florida, as in most states, we have ‘‘shared’’ liability and the rental car company could greatly diminish or eliminate their responsibility by blaming the renting 

driver, who has returned to his home state or home country. I hope this helps answer your inquiry. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL TO

THOMAS M. JAMES

Question 1. How does the Graves/Boucher provision in the Transportation Equity 

Act of 2005 address an injured party suing a company for negligence in the renting 

or leasing of a vehicle? 

Answer. The Graves/Boucher provision does not impact an injured party suing a 

company for negligence in the renting or leasing of a vehicle. In fact, the law is very 

clear that protection from liability only exists when ‘‘there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner.’’ In other words, the Graves/Boucher provision provides no protection from liability for renting and leasing companies whose 

negligence contributes to an accident and claim. If a rental company’s actions are 

found to be negligent, such as renting to a visibly intoxicated driver, then the 

Graves/Boucher provision would not apply. The Graves/Boucher provision merely 

prevents these companies from being held liable without fault for actions that are 

outside of their control. 

Question 2. Since passage of the Graves/Boucher provision in the Transportation 

Equity Act, what recovery options exist for a party injured by a rental car driven 

by an uninsured driver? 

Answer. Owners of rental cars are required to fulfill state requirements for liability insurance just as owners of all other cars on the road in a given state. In the 

event a rental car is driven by an uninsured driver, the injured party at a minimum 

can recover up to the state financial responsibility limits. Beyond that, the injured 

party may pursue the negligent party, which depending upon the circumstances 

could be either the renter or the rental car company. In either case, the Graves/Boucher provision would not foreclose an injured party from seeking recovery from a 

negligent party as well as seeking recovery against the rental car company in the 

amount of the state-mandated minimum level of financial responsibility. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BYRON DORGAN TO

THOMAS M. JAMES

Question. It is my understanding that the Graves/Boucher provision included in 

the 2005 Highway Safety Reauthorization (TEA–LU) eliminates liability without 

fault judgments against vehicle renting and leasing companies. Does the Graves/ 

Boucher provision also specifically exempt from coverage any negligence on the part 

of the owner? Under the Graves/Boucher provision would a company which rents a 

car to an intoxicated person and he causes an accident still be appropriately subject 

to liability based on negligence? 

Answer. The Graves/Boucher provision provides absolutely no protection from liability for renting and leasing companies whose negligence contributes to an accident and claim. If a rental company’s actions are found to be negligent, such as 

renting to a visibly intoxicated driver, then the Graves/Boucher provision would not 

apply. The Graves/Boucher provision merely prevents these companies from being 

held liable without fault for actions that are outside of their control. 

116 

TRUCK RENTING AND LEASING ASSOCIATION, 

Alexandria, VA, October 12, 2010 

Chairman JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

Ranking Member KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Subcommittee Chairman MARK PRYOR, Subcommittee Ranking Member ROGER WICKER, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Re: Additional Submission for Record of September 28, 2010 NHTSA Hearing 

Dear Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, Chairman Pryor, and 

Ranking Member Wicker: 

I would like to once again thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee on the issue of the impact of the Graves/Boucher amendment. I believe that 

my testimony provided you and the members of the Committee with a sense of how 

important this law has become to the rental, leasing, and automobile manufacturing 

industries, and ultimately to protecting consumer choices in the rental and leasing 

marketplaces. 

I would like to also take this opportunity to clarify a few points that were raised 

during the hearing. 

Foreign Renters No More Likely To Cause Damage than U.S. Born 

During the hearing, Chairman Pryor asked for additional data as it relates to the 

issue of foreign drivers and the frequency in which they are engaged in auto accidents while using rented or leased vehicles. There is no aggregate data for the industry on this issue, but in speaking with individual rental car companies, the rate 

of incident on foreign renters is almost identical to domestic rental customers. As 

it relates to foreign renters and insurance, at a minimum all foreign renters are provided (by rental car companies) the liability protection that meets a state’s minimum final responsibility limits. In addition, many foreign drivers have supplemental insurance through full value vouchers or tour programs that provide primary liability protection. In addition to this insurance coverage, foreign drivers are 

offered and many elect to purchase, supplemental liability coverage from individual 

companies; this insurance product provides up to $1 million of coverage. According 

to some company statistics, foreign renters on average purchase the supplemental 

liability coverage 79 percent of the time. 

2005 Graves Amendment Not a Case of First Impression for Congress 

First, the issue of vicarious liability reform has been debated and discussed extensively in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for well over a decade. 

In 1996, during the 104th Congress, the House and Senate easily passed H.R. 956: 

Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995, a comprehensive product liability reform bill. 

The measure contained a vicarious liability reform provision offered by Representative Pete Geren (D–TX). This provision was approved by voice vote as an amendment. In May 1996, President Clinton vetoed the bill, thereby ending chances to secure passage of product liability reform in the 104th Congress. 

On January 21, 1997 during the 105th Congress, Senator Ashcroft introduced S. 

5: Product Liability Reform Act of 1997, a comprehensive product liability reform 

bill identical to H.R. 956 that contained a vicarious liability reform provision. In 

May 1997, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation approved a modified version of Sen. Ashcroft’s proposal, S. 648: The Product Liability 

Reform Act of 1997, which also contained a vicarious liability reform measure. In 

1998, S. 648 was replaced by S. 2236: The Product Liability reform Act of 1998, a 

bipartisan compromise bill negotiated between Senator Slade Gorton, the Clinton 

Administration, and Chairman Rockefeller. This bill contained a vicarious liability 

reform provision, but the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the bill, thereby ending 

prospects of passing a product liability reform measure in the 105th Congress. 

During the 106th Congress, Representative Ed Bryant (R–TN) and Senator John 

McCain (R–AZ) introduced H.R. 1954: The Rental Fairness Act and S. 1130: The 

Motor Vehicle Rental Fairness, to reform liability of motor vehicle rental and leasing companies. In addition, Senator Spencer Abraham introduced S. 1185: The 

Small Business Reform Act and Representative James Rogan introduced H.R. 2366, 

a companion bill; both contained vicarious liability reform provisions. On September 

29, 1999 the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Rogan bill and on 

September 30, and the Consumer Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce 

Committee held a hearing on the McCain reform bill (S. 1130). Senator McCain’s 

bill was later approved by voice vote and sent to the full Senate Commerce Committee. Throughout the 106th Congress, the House Judiciary and Commerce ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:25 Sep 23, 2011 Jkt 068403 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68403.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
117 

mittees held several hearings and mark-up sessions on H.R. 1954 and H.R. 2366. 

On February 16, 2000, the House approved H.R. 2366 by a vote of 221–193. The 

approved bill contained vicarious liability reform language for product sellers, lessors, and renters. 

Vicarious liability reform was also debated in the 108th Congress. On April 1, 

2004 during the debate on H.R. 3550, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient 

Transportation Act of 2004, Representative Sam Graves (R–MO) offered an amendment to reform vicarious liability laws for rented or leased motor vehicles. After the 

debate, the amendment failed on a voice vote. 

It was in the 109th Congress in which vicarious liability reforms became law. On 

March 9, 2005, Representative Sam Graves and Representative Rick Boucher (D– 

VA) attempted to again amend the Transportation Reauthorization bill (H.R. 3) with 

a provision to reform vicarious liability laws for rented or leased motor vehicles. 

After a debate on the House Floor, the bipartisan amendment passed the House of 

Representatives with a vote of 218–201. The next day, H.R. 3 passed the House of 

Representatives with a vote of 417–9. H.R. 3 was conferenced between the chambers, where House and Senate Conferees retained the vicarious liability language 

and included it in the final conference product. On July 29, 2005, the House passed 

the conference bill by 412–8 and the legislation was passed in the Senate 91–4. Vicarious liability reform was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 

10, 2005. 

Elimination of Vicarious Liability Does not Eliminate Liability—Companies 

Always Provide MFR and Continue to Be Liable for Negligence 

Secondly, there seems to be some confusion regarding the scope of the Graves/ 

Boucher provision. The Graves/Boucher provision does not provide complete immunity for the rental car and leasing industries; these industries are liable for any accidents in which they have acted negligently. Through negligent entrustment, rental 

car and leasing companies can be held accountable for their actions. These actions 

include renting to a customer who is visibly intoxicated. Furthermore, even in cases 

in which a rental or leasing company is not at fault, the Graves/Boucher provision 

does not alleviate responsibility of rental car and leasing companies of the minimum 

financial responsibility for each state. Every rental or leased car has the minimum 

level of insurance as required by the state in which it is rented or leased. 

Hague Service Convention Prescribes Rules for Serving Negligent Foreign 

Renters 

During the hearing it was asserted that negligent rental car customers can ‘‘drive 

off scot free’’ from their actions. This is incorrect. Under the Hague Service Convention, a central authority accepts incoming requests for service and arranges for service in a manner permitted within the receiving state, typically through a local court 

to the defendant’s residence. This system has been in place since 1965 and applies 

to 60 countries—largely encompassing the developed world in which the overwhelming majority of foreign renters reside. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this important matter with the 

Committee. 

Sincerely, 

THOMAS M. JAMES, 

President and CEO, 

Truck Renting and Leasing Association. 

Æ