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

81–471 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 108–954 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION AND ITS PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 22, 2003 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, 

Ranking 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Republican Chief Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPETITION, FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon, Chairman 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Ranking 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 22, 2003 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 22 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES

Berman, Richard, Legislative Counsel, American Beverage Licensees and the 

American Beverage Institute .............................................................................. 74 

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

Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Guerrero, Peter, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office ...................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Hamilton, Wendy J., President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving ...................... 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

Runge, M.D., Hon. Jeffrey, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 4 

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

Strassberger, Robert, Vice President, Vehicle Safety, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers; on behalf of Josephine Cooper, President and Chief Executive Officer ............................................................................................................ 65 

Prepared statement of Josephine Cooper ....................................................... 67 

Swanson, Kathryn, Director, Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety and Chair, 

Governors Highway Association on behalf of the Governors Highway Safety 

Association (GHSA) .............................................................................................. 53 

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

APPENDIX

Comments of Consumers Union ............................................................................. 97 

Response to written questions submitted to: 

Richard Berman ................................................................................................ 123 

Josephine S. Cooper ......................................................................................... 121 

Jacqueline S. Gillian ........................................................................................ 108 

Peter Guerrero .................................................................................................. 105 

Wendy Hamilton ............................................................................................... 128 

Jeffrey Runge .................................................................................................... 99 

Kathryn Swanson ............................................................................................. 116 

(1) 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION AND ITS PROGRAMS 

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2003 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMPETITION, FOREIGN COMMERCE, 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H. Smith, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We will 

call to order this Subcommittee hearing of the Commerce Committee. Today our topic will be considering the Administration’s recently released proposal to reauthorize the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA, and the safety and motor vehicle programs it administers. 

NHTSA plays a vital role in helping reduce traffic deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from vehicle crashes. This reauthorization will afford the Committee an opportunity to evaluate 

the Administration’s priorities and develop a sound reauthorization 

proposal for the next 6 years. According to NHTSA, 95 percent of 

all transportation-related deaths and 99 percent of all transportation-related injuries are the result of motor vehicle crashes. It is 

estimated that in 2002, 42,850 people were killed in vehicle crashes 

and roughly 3 million people were injured. 

In 2000, the economic costs of these vehicle crashes were over 

$230.6 billion. This is a staggering amount and yet, one cannot 

compare the enormous personal loss of that amount to the pain and 

suffering experienced by those people involved in the accidents. 

We must carefully evaluate the Administration’s reauthorization 

proposal known as, this year, SAFETEA and work to ensure that 

the Senate develops a sound and balanced proposal. In particular, 

I’m going to work to ensure that we do not pass legislation that 

would create an imbalance whereby states that have taken aggressive action in the areas of seat belts and impaired driving would 

subsequently be penalized for the sake of providing more funding 

assistance to those states that have not taken similar actions. We 

need to build upon the success of existing programs, and while it’s 

2 

important to assist those states with the greatest safety problems, 

we should also continue to support all states in their efforts to further their highway safety. 

I am deeply concerned about the rise in traffic-related fatalities 

last year and the number of potential deaths that could have been 

prevented if the occupants were wearing seat belts. Of the 42,850 

people killed last year on our highways, 59 percent of them were 

not wearing seat belts. 

I’m proud of my state, the state of Oregon, for having already 

passed a primary seat belt law in 1990, and it is now one of the 

Nation’s leaders in seat belt usage at approximately 90 percent. It’s 

estimated that if the United States as a whole could increase its 

seat belt usage from its current 75 percent to 90 percent, over 

4,000 lives would be saved each year. 

Later this year, I’m going to introduce legislation that would implement a Federal primary seat belt law and encourage drivers to 

‘‘Click It or Ticket.’’ This legislation will prevent thousands of traffic-related deaths and injuries each year. I would be interested in 

the comments that any of our witnesses today might have about a 

Federal primary seat belt law. 

The Commerce Committee intends to move quickly in the coming 

weeks to develop and report legislation to authorize NHTSA and 

other safety programs under its jurisdiction. I look forward to 

working closely with the other Members to develop a reauthorization proposal that will promote and strengthen highway safety initiatives. In that effort we will be very interested in hearing the 

views of all of our witnesses, and we are privileged to be joined by 

my colleague Senator Lautenberg. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Good afternoon. Today, the Subcommittee meets to consider the Administration’s 

recently released proposal to reauthorize the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the safety and motor vehicle programs it administers. 

NHTSA plays a vital role in helping to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses 

resulting from motor vehicle crashes. This reauthorization process will afford the 

Committee an opportunity to evaluate the Administration’s priorities and develop 

a sound reauthorization proposal for the next six years. 

According to NHTSA, 95 percent of all transportation related deaths, and 99 percent of all transportation related injuries, are the result of motor vehicle crashes. 

In 2002, 42,850 people were killed in vehicle crashes and approximately 3 million 

people suffered injuries. In 2000, the economic costs related to vehicle crashes was 

over $230.6 billion. This is a staggering amount, yet one that cannot compare to the 

enormous personal and psychological suffering experienced by persons involved. 

We must carefully evaluate the Administration’s reauthorization proposal, known 

as ‘‘SAFETEA,’’ and work to ensure that the Senate develops a sound and balanced 

proposal. Our evaluation should carefully consider how any proposed restructuring 

of the existing NHTSA grant programs would affect the states’ ability to promote 

highway safety. In particular, I will work to ensure that we do not pass legislation 

that would create an imbalance whereby states that have taken aggressive action 

in the area of seatbelts and impaired driving would subsequently be penalized for 

the sake of providing more funding assistance to those states that have not taken 

similar actions. We need to build upon the success of existing programs, and while 

it is important to assist those states with the greatest safety problems, we also 

should continue to support all states in their efforts to promote highway safety. 

Finally, I want to briefly discuss the Committee’s continued concerns about vehicle rollover and compatibility. These are also issues that Administrator Runge has 

indicated are of great concern to the Administration. Yet, I understand that the 

3 

SAFETEA proposal contains no new rulemaking initiatives in this area. I want to 

learn what specifically NHTSA is doing to address these problems. 

The Commerce Committee intends to will move quickly in the coming weeks to 

develop and report legislation to authorize NHTSA and other safety programs under 

its jurisdiction. I look forward to working closely with the other members to develop 

a reauthorization proposal that will promote and strengthen highway safety initiatives. In that effort, we will be very interested in hearing the views of today’s witnesses. 

Senator SMITH. Senator Lautenberg, do you have an opening 

statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I will try not to 

be too long. I’m glad to see our witnesses here, people with knowledge and interests, and I have long been interested in making our 

roads and highways safer. During my previous three terms, that 

was before I became a freshman, I wrote the bills now law to, one, 

increase the drinking age from 18 to 21; to establish .08 as the 

blood alcohol standard for drunk driving; and, three, to ban triple 

trailer trucks from most of our roads. These laws have made our 

roads and highways safer and my hope is that they’ve saved a few 

lives as well. 

Last year, almost 43,000 people died in traffic accidents, and it’s 

not SARS or a military conflict, but this is an epidemic that we 

have a cure for and a war we know how to fight. We need to ask 

ourselves if we’re doing enough to prevent innocent lives from 

being lost on our highways. The Administration’s safety proposal has just $50 million out of more than $38 billion for Fiscal Year 2004, and it has $50 million 

dedicated to impaired driving control programs. Now that’s less 

than current funding, and I’m sure we will hear about how under 

the Administration’s proposal states will be able to flex their funding to spend it on whatever they choose, be it roadway improvements or behavioral safety programs. 

But a recent GAO study found that when given the choice, states 

prefer to spend money on infrastructure improvements rather than 

behavioral safety programs like those designed to increase seat belt 

use and to reduce drunk driving. The highway construction lobby 

is much more powerful in State capitals than safety advocates. The 

Federal Government needs to take a strong leadership role on 

highway safety issues. If we leave it up to the states on these 

issues, then here’s the result. 

Thirty-two states still don’t have a primary enforcement seat belt 

law. Eleven states still have not adopted the .08 percent blood alcohol content standard. Twenty-four states still don’t have an open 

container law. Twenty-seven states still don’t have a repeat offender law. This tells me that the states need stronger encouragement to address these important safety issues. We’ve already tried 

threatening withholding highway construction funds but if we give 

them a loophole to get the funds back within 4 years, maybe it still 

isn’t enough encouragement. 

This week Senator DeWine and I introduced legislation aimed at 

increasing enforcement of drunk driving strategies that work to reduce drunk driving and legislation targeting higher risk drivers, 

4 

that is, repeat offenders and drivers with blood alcohol levels of .15 

percent or higher. 

Policies like state adoption of an .08 BAC standard, blood alcohol 

standard, and open container laws are designed to pick the lowhanging fruit when it comes to reducing drunk driving, but now it’s 

time to take the next step in getting drunk drivers off our roads. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues here on the Commerce Committee to get such provisions incorporated into our segment of the reauthorization bill that makes its way to the Senate 

floor. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on these 

important issues and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make the statement. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

We are privileged to have as our first panel the Honorable Jeffrey Runge, and he is the Administrator of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration; and Mr. Peter Guerrero, Director of 

Physical Infrastructure Team, General Accounting Office. Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY RUNGE, M.D., ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. RUNGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My written statement is 

submitted for the record, and I would like to just highlight it, if I 

may. 

We appreciate the opportunity on behalf of NHTSA and the DOT 

to come today to discuss our proposal to reauthorize highway safety 

programs via SAFETEA. You, Mr. Chairman, said very well why 

it is that we are here, and that is the 42,850 people who died last 

year, and over 41,000 who died in every subsequent year before 

that, which is really the equivalent of losing a city the size of 

Chapel Hill or Rockville, Maryland every year, being wiped off the 

face of the Earth. And yet because these fatalities are spread out, 

we don’t have nearly the degree of anger, of the need for urgency 

that we certainly should. 

We did see some improvement the last 2 years in the number of 

injuries, which we believe is due to more people buckling up and 

driving safer vehicles. But in spite of that, motor vehicle crashes 

remain the leading cause of death in our country for every age 

group from age 2 to age 33 and as you mentioned, the economic 

cost is crippling. You said $230 billion per year, which adds up to 

$820 for every man, woman and child living in our country. This 

includes $33 billion in medical expenses, and $81 billion in lost productivity. Those two numbers could be reduced dramatically by increasing safety belt usage. The average cost for a critically injured 

survivor is $1.1 million over the lifetime. 

So for these reasons, President Bush and Secretary Mineta have 

made reducing highway deaths the number one priority of the Department of Transportation, and formulating our reauthorization 

proposal, indeed, named SAFETEA. The Secretary has given the 

FMCSA and the Federal Highway Administration a single goal, to 

reduce motor vehicle fatality rate by a third over the next 5 years. 

We know what works. There are highly effective and simple remedies to combat highway death and injury. Wearing safety belts is 

number one. Everybody can cut their risk of death in half if they 

would simply do so. So to encourage more people to buckle up, we 

5 

propose a new program that will provide $100 million each year to 

reward states for enacting primary safety belt laws, and to provide 

an incentive to other states to follow their lead. 

Alternatively, states that opt not to enact a primary safety belt 

law but that achieve a safety belts usage rate of 90 percent would 

also qualify for those additional grant funds. 

We also propose to streamline our Section 402 safety programs. 

Two important elements are the safety belt use grant, which complements the primary law enactment grant. So it would reward 

states for improving their safety belt use rates, i.e., an enforcement 

grant program. And second, a general performance grant which rewards states that show demonstrable improvement in the following 

areas of overall motor vehicle fatalities, alcohol-related fatalities, 

and motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian crash fatalities, which 

should address your issue of states that are doing well receiving 

additional funding. 

Our proposal will also offer states more flexibility in how they 

spend their Federal highway safety dollars and yet, they will be 

held accountable for achieving measurable safety-related goals. 

SAFETEA addresses discouragement of impaired driving by targeting our resources where they are most needed. In 2002, we estimate 17,970 people died in alcohol-related crashes, which is over 

40 percent of total fatalities for the year, and indeed, an increase 

of 3 percent over 2001. The progress that we have made in the last 

decade to deter impaired driving has been stalled, and clearly more 

needs to be done. 

The key component of the revised 402 program focuses on a 

small number of states with a particularly severe impaired driving 

problem, by creating a $50-million-a-year impaired driving discretionary grant program per year that will support states with high 

fatality numbers and rates to assist them in developing a strategic 

plan for reducing impaired driving fatalities, as well as supporting 

improvements in the prosecution and adjudication of DWI cases. 

We believe that this consolidated grant program and supporting activities, together with continued use of nationwide high visibility 

enforcement campaigns will restart the downward trend in alcohol 

fatalities that we have seen since 1988. 

In addition, through the comprehensive safety planning process 

states may elect to use a significant amount of the consolidated 

Section 402 money for impaired driving programs. Aside from the 

consolidation of these programs, SAFETEA also includes other provisions such as funds to update a national comprehensive motor vehicle crash causation survey that will enable us to learn more 

about the factors that happen before the crash on the Nation’s 

roads, a new incentive program to encourage states to improve 

their traffic records data so they can apply those resources where 

they are most needed, and a new State formula grant program to 

support E–911 and the coordination of emergency medical systems. 

Finally, SAFETEA would reauthorize a national driver register. 

The NDR facilitates the exchange of driver licensing information on 

problem drivers among the states and various Federal agencies to 

aid in identifying those problem drivers and in making decisions 

concerning driver’s licensing, driver employment, and transportation safety. 

6 

Mr. Chairman, our portion of the SAFETEA builds upon the 

principles, values and achievements of ISTEA and TEA–21, yet recognizes that there are new challenges. We urge Congress to authorize the highway safety programs before they expire on September 

30, and we look forward to working with you and the Committee 

on this task. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Runge follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY RUNGE, M.D., ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Chairman Smith, Senator Dorgan, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Administration’s proposal 

to reauthorize our highway safety programs in the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible and 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003’’ or ‘‘SAFETEA.’’ 

Through your leadership, and in conjunction with our state, local and private sector partners, NHTSA has worked to realize the goals of TEA–21. We are grateful 

to this Subcommittee for its continuing leadership by scheduling this hearing. My 

staff and I look forward to working with you and the rest of Congress in shaping 

the proposals that will reauthorize TEA–21. Working together, we will assure the 

successful reauthorization of this legislation and address the highway safety challenges facing the Nation. 

Motor vehicle crashes are responsible for 95 percent of all transportation-related 

deaths and 99 percent of all transportation-related injuries. They are the leading 

cause of death for Americans ages 1 to 34. NHTSA’s portion of SAFETEA focuses 

exclusively on highway safety. Although we are seeing improvements in vehicle 

crash worthiness and crash avoidance technologies, the rate and numbers of fatalities and injuries on our highways are staggering. In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes, up slightly from 42,116 in 2001. 

Traffic injuries in police-reported crashes decreased by 4 percent in 2002. While 

this is encouraging, we still are faced with the overwhelming fact that nearly 3 million people were injured in these crashes in 2002. 

The economic costs associated with these crashes are unacceptable as well. In 

fact, they constitute a grave public health problem and serious fiscal burden for our 

Nation. The total annual economic cost to our economy of all motor vehicle crashes 

is an astonishing $230.6 billion in 2000 dollars, or 2.3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. This translates into an average of $820 for every person living in 

the United States. Included in this figure is $81 billion in lost productivity, $32.6 

billion in medical expenses, and $59 billion in property damage. The average cost 

for a critically injured survivor is estimated at $1.1 million over a lifetime. As astounding as this figure is, it does not even begin to reflect the physical and psychological suffering of the victims and their families. 

The fatality rate for 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) remained unchanged at 1.51, according to these estimates. Secretary Mineta has given us the 

goal of reducing the fatality rate to no more than 1.0 fatality for every 100 VMT 

by 2008. This is not just a NHTSA goal; it is a goal of the entire Department of 

Transportation. 

For these reasons, President Bush and Secretary Mineta have made reducing 

highway fatalities the number one priority for the Department and for the reauthorization of TEA–21. 

Traffic safety constitutes a major public health problem, but unlike a number of 

the complex issues facing Washington today, we have some highly effective and simple remedies to combat highway death and injury. 

Wearing safety belts is the number one offensive and defensive step all individuals can take to save their lives. Buckling belts is not a complex vaccine, doesn’t 

have unwanted side effects and doesn’t cost any money. It is simple, it works and 

it’s lifesaving. 

Safety belt use cuts the risk of death in a severe crash in half. Most passenger 

vehicle occupants killed in motor vehicle crashes continue to be totally unrestrained. 

If safety belt use were to increase from the national average of 75 percent to 90 

percent—an achievable goal—nearly 4,000 lives would be saved each year. For every 

1 percentage point increase in safety belt use—that is 2.8 million more people 

‘‘buckling up’’—we would save hundreds of lives, suffer significantly fewer injuries, 

and reduce economic costs by hundreds of millions of dollars a year. 

In addition to the economic obligation, more importantly, we have a moral obligation to immediately address the problem of highway safety. The Bush AdministraVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
7 

tion remains committed to reducing highway fatalities, and our bill offers proposals 

to increase safety belt use and to take those and other actions that can make the 

achievement of this goal possible. 

Thanks in large part to the hard work of many of you and your predecessors, 

SAFETEA builds on the tremendous successes of the previous two pieces of surface 

transportation legislation. Both the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 (ISTEA), a bill with which the Secretary is proud to have played a role, 

and TEA–21, provided an excellent framework to tackle the surface transportation 

challenges that lie ahead. 

ISTEA set forth a new vision for the implementation of the Nation’s surface transportation programs. Among other things, ISTEA gave state and local officials unprecedented flexibility to advance their own goals for transportation capital investment. Instead of directing outcomes from Washington, D.C., the Department shifted 

more of its focus to giving state and local partners the necessary tools to solve their 

unique problems while still pursuing important national goals. SAFETEA not only 

maintains this fundamental ISTEA principle, it goes further by giving states and 

localities even more discretion in key program areas. To meet the significant highway safety challenges the states face, we have designed SAFETEA’s highway safety 

title to create a safer, simpler and smarter program. 

President Bush and this Administration are committed to fostering the safest, 

most secure national transportation system possible, even as we seek to enhance 

mobility, reduce congestion, and expand our economy. These are not incompatible 

goals. Indeed, it is essential that the Nation’s transportation system be both safe 

and secure while making our economy both more efficient and productive. 

While formulating the Department’s reauthorization proposal, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NHTSA came together on a different approach to 

addressing the Nation’s substantial highway safety problems. Under that approach, 

states would receive more resources to address their own, unique transportation 

safety issues; would be strongly encouraged to increase their overall safety belt 

usage rates; and would be rewarded for performance with increased funds and 

greater flexibility to spend those funds on either infrastructure safety or behavioral 

safety programs. The following are the major programmatic elements of the Administration’s highway safety reauthorization proposal. 

SAFETEA establishes a new core highway safety infrastructure program, in place 

of the existing Surface Transportation Program safety set-aside. This new program, 

called the Highway Safety Improvement Program, will more than double funding 

over comparable TEA–21 levels. This new program would provide $7.5 billion for 

safety projects over the 6-year authorization period. In addition to increased funding, states would be encouraged and assisted in their efforts to formulate comprehensive highway safety plans. 

To streamline NHTSA’s grant programs and make them more performance-based, 

we have proposed a major consolidation of NHTSA’s Section 402 safety programs. 

While the basic formula grant program for Section 402 would provide $1.05 billion 

over the 6-year authorization period, two important elements of this revised Section 

402 are a General Performance Grant and a Safety Belt Performance Grant. The 

Safety Belt Performance Grant provides up to $100 million each year to reward 

states for passing primary safety belt laws—meaning drivers and passengers can be 

cited for failure to wear a safety belt—or achieving 90 percent safety belt usage 

rates in their states. A state that enacts new primary belt laws will receive a grant 

equal to five times the amount of its current formula grant for highway safety. This 

significant incentive is intended to prompt state action needed to save lives. In 2002, 

states with primary safety belt laws averaged 80 percent use, 11 percentage points 

higher than those with secondary laws—laws preventing police from issuing a citation unless another traffic law was broken. states achieve high levels of belt use 

through primary safety belt laws, public education using paid and earned media, 

and high visibility law enforcement programs, such as the Click it or Ticket campaign. 

Any state that receives a Safety Belt Performance Grant for the enactment of a 

primary safety belt law is permitted to use up to 100 percent of those funds for infrastructure investments eligible under the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

in accordance with the state’s comprehensive plan. Also, states can receive additional grants by improving their safety belt use rates. This incentive would provide 

$182 million over the 6-year authorization period. Any state that receives a grant 

for improved safety belt usage rates or a General Performance Grant for the 

achievement of other key safety performance measures is permitted to use up to 50 

percent of those funds for activities eligible under the new Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

8 

Overall, this groundbreaking proposal offers states more flexibility than they have 

ever had before in how they spend their Federal-aid safety dollars. It reduces state 

administrative burdens by consolidating multiple categorical grant programs into 

one. It would reward them for accomplishing easily measurable goals and encourage 

them to take the most effective steps to save lives. It is exactly the kind of proposal 

that is needed to more effectively address the tragic problem of highway fatalities. The $340 million, six-year General Performance Grant component of our revised 

Section 402 program not only eases the administrative burdens of the states but 

also rewards states with increased Federal funds for measurable improvements in 

their safety performance for reducing (i) overall motor vehicle fatalities, (ii) alcoholrelated fatalities, and (iii) motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian crash fatalities. 

SAFETEA is designed to help the states deter impaired driving. Encouraging people to wear their safety belts will help reduce the number of deaths and injuries 

attributed to impaired driving, but reducing the actual number of impaired drivers 

is a complex issue requiring interconnected strategies and programs. In 2002, an estimated 17,970 people died in alcohol-related crashes (42 percent of the total fatalities for the year), a 25 percent reduction from the 23,833 alcohol-related fatalities 

in 1988, but an increase of 3 percent over 2001. Intoxication rates have decreased 

for drivers of all age groups involved in fatal crashes over the past decade, with 

drivers 25 to 34 years old experiencing the greatest decrease, followed by drivers 

16 to 20 years old. Our 2002 estimates indicate that impaired-related fatalities rose 

for the third straight year. 

Additionally, the President’s National Drug Control Strategy recognizes drug-impaired driving as both a problem and, in its reduction, an opportunity. As a problem, we believe that drug-impaired driving, either alone or in combination with alcohol, accounts for 10–20 percent of crash-involved drivers. Detecting drug-impaired 

driving gives police officers, prosecutors and judges the opportunity to appropriately 

sanction offenders and refer them to treatment as appropriate, which is an important objective of the President. NHTSA contributes to this Presidential objective 

principally through the drug evaluation and classification (DEC) program, which 

was recognized in the President’s National Drug Control Strategy for the first time 

in 2003. By giving traffic officers and prosecutors the tools to better identify drug 

use in vehicle drivers, the DEC program meets two important objectives of the administration: reducing traffic fatalities and injuries and reducing drug use. This reauthorization bill allows our agency to continue working towards these objectives by 

supporting this important program and reducing the incidence of both alcohol and 

drug-impaired driving. 

Another component of our revised Section 402 program will focus significant resources on a small number of states with particularly severe impaired driving problems by creating a new $50 million a year impaired driving discretionary grant program. The grant program will include support for up to 10 states with especially 

high alcohol fatality numbers or rates to conduct detailed reviews of their impaired 

driving systems by a team of outside experts and assist them in developing a strategic plan for improving programs, processes, and reducing impaired driving-related 

fatalities and injuries. Additional support will also be provided for training, technical assistance in the prosecution and adjudication of DWI cases, and to help licensing and criminal justice authorities close legal loopholes. 

NHTSA believes that this targeted state grant program and supporting activities, 

together with continued nationwide use of high-visibility enforcement and paid and 

earned media campaigns, will lead to a resumption of the downward trend in alcohol-related fatalities that the Nation experienced over the past decade. Also, 

through the comprehensive safety planning process, all states may elect to use a significant amount of their FHWA Highway Safety Infrastructure funding, in addition 

to their consolidated Section 402 funds, for impaired driving. 

In addition to the consolidation of our Section 402 programs, SAFETEA’s highway 

safety title includes a key provision to provide a comprehensive national motor vehicle crash causation survey that will enable us to determine the factors responsible 

for the most frequent causes of crashes on the Nation’s roads. This comprehensive 

survey would be funded at $10 million a year out of the funds authorized for our 

highway safety research and development program. The last update of crash causation data was generated comprehensively in the 1970s. Vehicle design, traffic patterns, numbers and types of vehicles in use, on-board technologies and lifestyles 

have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. Old assumptions about the causes 

of crashes may no longer be valid. Since NHTSA depends on causation data to form 

the basis for its priorities, we must ensure that this data is current and accurate. 

Updating our crash causation data will allow us to target our efforts for the next 

decade on the factors that are the most frequent causes of crashes on American 

roads. 

9 

NHTSA has in place an infrastructure of investigation teams that will enable us 

to perform the crash causation study efficiently and accurately. These teams are 

currently performing a similar study for large, commercial truck crashes and are 

adept at gathering evidence from the scene, the hospital, and from victim and witness interviews. Their findings will guide the agency’s programs in crash avoidance, 

including vehicle technologies as well as human factors. 

SAFETEA also creates a new $300 million incentive grant program that builds 

upon a TEA–21 program to encourage states to improve their traffic records data. 

Deficiencies in such data negatively impact national databases including the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, General Estimates System, National Driver Register 

(NDR), Highway Safety Information System, and Commercial Driver License Information System as well as state data used to identify local safety problems. Improvements are needed for police reports, emergency medical services (EMS), driver licensing, vehicle registration, and citation/court data provide essential information. 

Accurate state traffic safety data are critical to identifying local safety issues, applying focused safety countermeasures, and evaluating the effectiveness of countermeasures. 

SAFETEA also establishes a new $60 million state formula grant program to support EMS systems development, 911 systems nationwide, and a Federal Interagency 

Committee on EMS to strengthen intergovernmental coordination of EMS. The 

states would administer the grant program through their state EMS offices and coordinate it with their highway safety offices. 

For the past 20 years, Federal support for EMS has been both scarce and uncoordinated. As a result, the capacity of this critical public service has seen little 

growth and support for EMS has been spread among a number of agencies throughout the Federal government, including NHTSA. Most of the support offered by these 

agencies has focused only on specific system functions, rather than on overall system capacity, and has been inconsistent and ineffectively coordinated. 

In 2001, the General Accounting Office cited in its report, ‘‘Emergency Medical 

Response: Reported Needs Are Wide-Ranging, With Lack of Data A Growing Concern,’’ the need to increase coordination among Federal agencies as they address the 

needs of regional, state, or local EMS systems. According to GAO, these needs, including personnel, training, equipment, and more emergency personnel in the field, 

vary between urban and rural communities. 

The Administration believes that Federal support for EMS and 9–1–1 systems 

should be enhanced and coordinated. The enactment of this section would result in 

comprehensive system support for EMS, 9–1–1 systems, and improved emergency 

response capacity nationwide. 

SAFETEA also would provide $559.5 million for NHTSA’s highway safety research and development program. This program supports state highway safety behavioral programs and activities by developing and demonstrating innovative safety 

countermeasures, and by collecting and disseminating essential data on highway 

safety. The results of our Section 403 research provide the scientific basis for highway safety programs that states and local communities can tailor to their own 

needs, ensuring that precious tax dollars are spent only on programs that are effective. The states are encouraged to use the successful programs for their ongoing 

safety programs and activities. 

Highway safety behavioral research focuses on human factors that influence driver and pedestrian behavior and on environmental conditions affecting safety. The 

program addresses a wide range of safety problems through various programs, initiatives, and demonstrations, such as: impaired driving programs, including the 

drug evaluation and classification program, safety belt and child safety seat programs and related enforcement mobilizations, pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle 

safety initiatives and related law enforcement strategies, enforcement and justice 

services, speed management, aggressive driving countermeasures, EMS, fatigue and 

inattention countermeasures, and data collection and analysis efforts. All of these 

efforts have produced a variety of scientifically sound data and results. 

SAFETEA provides specific set-asides out of Section 403 funds for the National 

Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, discussed earlier, and for EMS and international highway safety activities. 

Finally, SAFETEA would provide $23.6 million for the NDR. The NDR facilitates 

the exchange of driver licensing information on problem drivers among the states 

and various Federal agencies to aid in making decisions concerning driver licensing, 

driver improvement, and driver employment and transportation safety. 

Mr. Chairman, NHTSA’s portion of SAFETEA builds upon the principles, values, 

and achievements of ISTEA and TEA–21, yet recognizes that there are new challenges to address. We urge Congress to reauthorize the highway safety programs 

10 

before they expire on September 30, 2003. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Guerrero. 

STATEMENT OF PETER GUERRERO, DIRECTOR, 

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, 

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Mr. GUERRERO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Lautenberg, I am going to again, as Dr. Runge did, summarize my 

statement that has been submitted for the record. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here to testify today on 

NHTSA’s efforts to reduce traffic fatalities and discuss SAFETEA. 

Highway safety, as you heard from Dr. Runge, is a major concern. 

One person dies every 12 minutes on our highways and as Dr. 

Runge said, it is the leading cause of death for every age from 4 

to 33 years. It not only involves a tragic loss of life, but it’s a cost 

to us in economic terms that is substantial, as you noted, Mr. 

Chairman. 

In 1998 under ISTEA, under TEA–21, the Congress funded a series of highway safety programs to encourage, among other things, 

the use of seat belts and to reduce drunk driving. The states implement these programs by establishing goals and NHTSA reviews the 

State goals and provides oversight to the State programs to ensure 

that they make progress. 

My testimony today will discuss three matters: the factors that 

contribute to accidents on our highways; the funding of these safety 

programs; and NHTSA’s oversight of those programs. 

In summary, we found three things. First, many factors combine 

to produce circumstances that lead to motor vehicle crashes. 

There’s usually not one cause. There are three factors generically: 

human factors, roadway factors and vehicle factors, and human factors by far are the largest component and contributing factor to 

highway accidents. 

Second, we spent about $2 billion in State grants over the last 

5 years under TEA–21 to improve highway safety. Overall funding 

for NHTSA behavioral programs nearly doubled from Fiscal Years 

1998 to 2002, as shown by this chart. In addition, the chart also 

shows that almost $400 million in incentive funds and penalty 

transfers were used for highway safety construction purposes. 

Our third finding is that NHTSA oversight of State programs can 

be enhanced. We found that two important oversight tools available 

to NHTSA called management reviews and improvement plans are 

not being used as effectively as they could be to ensure that states 

are both operating within grant guidelines and achieving safety 

goals. 

Now I would like to provide some perspective on the progress 

that has been made in improving highway safety and in reducing 

traffic fatalities. 

If you go back to the mid-1970s, it’s clear that we have made considerable progress and this chart shows that. From 1975 to 2002, 

annual fatalities decreased by about 4 percent. However, after 

reaching a low in 1992, highway fatalities have been edging up 

ever since. During the same period, fatalities adjusted for the increased number of miles traveled, or the fatality rate per 100 milVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
11 

lion vehicle miles, dropped from 3.35 in 1975 to 1.51 in 2002, or 

about 55 percent. However, we have not seen significant declines 

in this rate over the last couple of years. 

Alcohol-related crashes present even a more challenging picture. 

They account for a large portion of traffic fatalities. Between 1982, 

when NHTSA first began tracking alcohol-related fatalities, and 

this past year, 2002, about 430,000 people died in alcohol-related 

crashes. Today, it contributes to 40 percent of all highway fatalities. As the chart shows, we have not made much progress in reducing the alcohol-related fatality rate since the late 1990s. 

The progress we have made over the past quarter-century is attributable to many actions. For example, during this period, seat 

belt use rates grew from 14 percent to over 75 percent today. In 

addition, NHTSA told us that increased enforcement and public 

awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving have reduced the 

incidents of casual drinkers becoming traffic fatalities. However, 

both NHTSA and the states acknowledge that making further 

progress would be more challenging. 

Now I would like to discuss the various factors that contribute 

to motor vehicle crashes. As I mentioned earlier, it’s usually a multiple combination of factors that produce the motor vehicle crash, 

it is rarely a single cause, and human factors are generally seen 

as the most significant. Alcohol consumption and speeding are the 

two major human behavioral factors contributing to vehicle crashes 

today. 

It is illegal in every state and the District of Columbia to drive 

a motor vehicle while under the influence or impaired by alcohol 

or drugs. In addition, all states but Massachusetts have blood alcohol laws that make it illegal to drive with a specified level of alcohol in the blood. As of January 2003, 17 states have set the blood 

alcohol level at a standard of 0.1 percent alcohol and the remaining 

states have set a more stringent standard of .08 percent alcohol 

concentration in the blood. 

I would like to note that continued progress toward the adoption 

of the .08 standard is important since blood alcohol concentrations 

of .08 or greater were reported in about 87 percent of the alcoholrelated fatalities last year. 

The roadway environment, those factors external to the driver 

and the vehicle that increase the risk of a crash, is generally considered the second most prevalent factor contributing to crashes. 

And finally, data and study generally show, and experts believe 

that vehicle factors, the third cause of accidents, contribute less 

often than do human or roadway. However, recent changes in the 

composition of the Nation’s vehicle fleet to more light trucks and 

SUVs have focused attention to the dangers posed by these vehicles 

to their own occupants and those of other vehicles. 

For example, rollover crashes are especially serious because they 

are more likely to result in fatalities. Passenger cars were the vehicle type least likely to roll over in a crash, where SUVs were over 

three times more likely to roll over. And the fatalities that occur 

in SUV rollovers is twice as high as the proportion of passenger 

cars. 

Mr. Chairman, seeing that my time has expired, I would like to 

just note that we did recommend to NHTSA certain things that 

12 

1 U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Safety: Research Continues on a Variety of Factors 

That Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes, GAO–03–436 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2003). 2 U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight 

of State Highway Safety Programs, GAO–03–474 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 2003). 

they could do to enhance their oversight of State programs. We believe it’s important for them to use two tools at their disposal. One 

is called a management review, the other is called a State improvement plan. We noted in our work that since 1998, only 7 improvement plans have been developed, and we found that highway safety 

performance in a number of states was worse than that in other 

states that had plans, yet those states that had poorer performance 

did not have plans for improvement. In particular, one state that 

did not have an improvement plan had experienced an alcohol-related increase of over 40 percent, putting it at double the Nation’s 

average. 

We recommended that NHTSA provide more specific guidance to 

its regional offices as to when to use these plans to ensure greater 

consistency in its oversight, and NHTSA is taking action to implement our recommendations. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guerrero follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER GUERRERO, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Highway Safety: Factors Contributing to Traffic Crashes and NHTSA’s 

Efforts to Address Them 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the National HighwayTraffic 

Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) efforts to reduce traffic fatalities. Highway safety 

is a major concern for the country, given that over 1.2 million people have died on 

our roadways over the last 25 years. Since 1982, about 40 percent of traffic deaths 

were from alcohol-related crashes, and traffic crashes are the leading cause of death 

for people ages 4 through 33. In addition to the tragic loss of life, the economic cost 

of fatalities and injuries from crashes totaled almost $231 billion in 2000 alone, according to NHTSA. 

In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) funded a 

series of highway safety programs, administered by NHTSA, that increased funding 

to the states to encourage, among other things, the use of seat belts and child passenger seats and to prevent drinking and driving. The states implement these programs by establishing highway safety goals and initiating projects to help reach 

those goals. NHTSA reviews state goals and provides oversight of state highway 

safety programs. 

My testimony today will discuss (1) the factors that contribute totraffic crashes, 

(2) the funds provided to the states for highway safety programs, and (3) NHTSA’s 

guidance provided to states and oversight of the states’ programs. My statement is 

primarily based on two GAO reports on these topics. The first report, issued in 

March 2003, dealt with the factors that contribute to traffic crashes. 1 To complete 

that effort, we analyzed three Department of Transportation databases that contained data through 2001; interviewed experts from academia, insurance organizations, and advocacy groups as well as department officials; and reviewed studies on 

various aspects of motor vehicle crashes. In addition, NHTSA recently released 2002 

traffic fatality data, which we used to update some of the information contained in 

the April 2003 report for this testimony. The second report, which we are releasing 

today, provides information on TEA–21 funds for state highway safety programs, 

how the states have used those funds, and NHTSA’s oversight of the state programs. 2 To conduct this effort, we visited six states and the NHTSA regional offices 

responsible for them to determine how these states were using the funds and to review NHTSA’s oversight of the states’ programs. We also interviewed representatives of the Governors Highway Safety Association and other highway safety organizations to obtain their perspectives. 

In summary: 

13 

• Many factors combine to produce circumstances that may lead to a motor vehicle crash—there is rarely a single cause of such an event. Experts and studies 

have identified three categories of factors that contribute to crashes—human 

factors, roadway environment factors, and vehicle factors. Human factors involve the actions taken by or the condition of the driver of the automobile, including speeding, being affected by alcohol or drugs, violating traffic laws, inattention, decision errors, and age. Roadway environment factors include the design of the roadway, roadside hazards, and roadway conditions. Vehicle factors 

include any failures that may exist in the automobile or design of the vehicle. 

Human factors are generally seen as the most prevalent contributing factor of 

crashes, followed by roadway environment and vehicle factors. 

• About $2 billion has been provided to states over the last 5 yearsfor highway 

safety programs under TEA–21. About $729 million went tothe core highway 

safety program, Section 402, to carry out trafficsafety programs designed to influence drivers’ behavior in such areasas seat belt use, drinking and driving, 

and speeding. About $936million went to seven incentive programs also designed to encouragestate efforts to improve seat-belt use, reduce drinking and 

driving,and contribute to improvement of state highway safety data. Inaddition, 

about $361 million was transferred from state highwayconstruction to state 

highway safety programs under provisions thatpenalized states that had not 

complied with Federal requirements forpassing repeat offender or open container laws to reduce drinking and driving. 

• To oversee state highway safety programs, NHTSA focuses on providingadvice, 

training, and technical assistance to the states, which are responsible for setting and achieving highway safety goals. NHTSA can also use management reviews and improvement plans as tools to help ensure that the states are operating within guidelines and achieving the desired results. However, we found 

that NHTSA’s regional offices have made inconsistent use of management reviews and improvement plans because NHTSA’s guidance to the regional offices 

does not specify when to use them. As a result, some states do not have improvement plans,even though their alcohol-related fatality rates have increased 

or their seat-belt usage rates have declined. GAO recommended that NHTSA 

provide guidance to its regional offices on when it is appropriate to use these 

oversight tools. NHTSA is taking steps to improve this guidance. 

Background 

Since 1975, progress has been made in reducing the number of fatalities on our 

Nation’s roads, but in recent years improvement has slowed and some downward 

trends have been reversed. As figure 1 shows, from 1975 through 2002, annual fatalities decreased from 44,525 to 42,850, or by about 4 percent. Annual fatalities 

reached a low of 39,250 in 1992 and have been edging up since then. During the 

same period, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), a common method of measurement, dropped from 3.35 in 1975 to 1.51 in 2002, or by 

about 55 percent. Since 1992, the decline in the fatality rate has slowed. 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. 


522PETE1.eps
14 

3 Alcohol-related fatalities represent crash victims killed with blood alcohol concentrations at 

any level above .01. At this concentration, a person’s blood contains 1 one-hundredth of 1 percent alcohol. 

Alcohol-related crashes account for a large portion of traffic fatalities.3 Between 

1982, when NHTSA began tracking alcohol-related fatalities, and 2002, about 

430,000 people died in alcohol-related crashes. In 1982, NHTSA reported 26,173 alcohol-related deaths, representing 59.6 percent of all traffic fatalities. Alcohol-related fatalities declined to 39.7 percent of all traffic fatalities in 1999, but rose to 

17,970—41.9 percent of fatalities—in 2002. (See fig. 2.) 

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data. 

As figure 3 shows, alcohol-related fatality rates declined steadily (except in 1986) 

from 1982 through 1997. However, there has been almost no further decline in rates 

since 1997, when the rate was 0.65 fatalities per 100 million VMT. In 2002, the rate 

was 0.64 fatalities per 100 million VMT. 

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data. 


522PETE2.eps 522PETE3.eps
15 

4 It should be noted that in addition to the factors discussed, other elements, such as nonuse 

of seat belts or other occupant-protection measures, might have affected the number of fatalities. 

The overall decline in fatalities over the past quarter century is attributable to 

many actions. For example, during this period, a number of countermeasures were 

developed and installed in new vehicles. Seat belts and air bags are credited with 

saving thousands of lives—seat-belt use rates have grown from about 14 percent in 

1983 to over 75 percent nationwide today. In addition, Federal and state programs 

have resulted in improvement in some areas. For example, increased enforcement 

and greater public awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving have, according 

to NHTSA officials, reduced the incidence ofcasual drinkers becoming traffic fatalities. Having made improvements in reducing causal drinking and driving, NHTSA 

and the states are now faced with more challenging problems such as alcohol dependency, which has hindered progress in reducing alcohol-related fatalities. 

A Variety of Factors Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes: 

Multiple factors typically combine to produce circumstances that lead to a motor 

vehicle crash—there is rarely a single cause for such an event. For example, it 

would be challenging to identify a single cause of a crash that occurred on a narrow, 

curvy, icy road when an inexperienced driver, who had been drinking, adjusted the 

radio or talked on a cell phone. 

In examining the causes of motor vehicle crashes, a number of expertsand studies 

identified three categories of factors that contribute to crashes: human factors, roadway environment factors, and vehicle factors. Human factors involve the actions 

taken by or the condition of the driver of the automobile, including speeding, being 

affected by alcohol or drugs, violating traffic laws, inattention, decision errors, and 

age. Roadway environment factors include the design of the roadway, roadside hazards, and roadway conditions. Vehicle factors include any failures that may exist in 

the automobile or design of the vehicle.Human factors are generally seen as the 

most prevalent contributing factor of crashes, followed by roadway environment and 

vehicle factors. 

Two examples of human factors that have a significant impact on traffic crashes 

are speeding and alcohol. Speeding—driving either faster than the posted speed 

limit or faster than conditions would safely dictate--contributes to traffic crashes. 

Speeding reduces a driver’s ability to steer safely around curves or objects in the 

roadway, extends the distance necessary to stop a vehicle, and increases the distance a vehicle travels when a driver reacts to a dangerous situation. According to 

our analysis of NHTSA’s databases, from 1997 through 2001, speeding was identified as a contributing factor in about 30 percent of all fatal crashes, and almost 

64,000 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes. From 1997 through 2001, 36 percent of male drivers and 24 percent of female drivers 16 to 20 years old who were 

involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time of the crash. The percentage of 

speeding-related fatal crashes decreases as driver’s age.4 (See fig. 4.) 

16 

5 BAC of 0.08 percent in Massachusetts is evidence of alcohol impairment, but it is not illegal 

per se. 6Louisiana, New York, and Tennessee have 0.08 percent blood BAC laws that will be effective 

during the latter half of 2003. 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. 

Alcohol consumption is a significant human factor that contributes to many motor 

vehicle crashes. It is illegal in every state and the District of Columbia to drive a 

motor vehicle while under the influence of, impaired by, or with a specific level of 

alcohol or drugs in the blood. Only Massachusetts lacks a law that defines the specific concentration of blood alcohol at which it becomes illegal to drive.5 As of January 2003, 17 states had set the standard at 0.10 percent blood alcohol concentration 

(BAC) (the level at which a person’s blood contains 1/10th of 1 percent alcohol) and 

the remaining states had set the standard at 0.08 percent BAC.6 NHTSA recently 

reported that in 2002, 42 percent of all fatal crashes were alcohol-related, and nearly 18,000 people died in alcohol-related crashes. BACs of 0.08 or greater were reported for about 87 percent of the alcohol-related fatalities in 2002. For each age 

category, moremale than female drivers were involved in fatal alcohol-related crashes (see fig. 5). 


522PETE4.eps
17 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. 

There is also a strong relationship between a driver’s age and the likelihood of 

being involved in a crash. While age, in itself, would not be the cause of the crash, 

some of the characteristics displayed at various ages can lead to a higher probability 

of being involved in traffic crashes. Younger drivers’ crash rates are disproportionately higher mainly because of a risky driving style combined with driving inexperience. Older drivers also pose greater risks; fatal crash rates are higher for the elderly than for all but the youngest drivers. 

The roadway environment—factors that are external to the driver and the vehicle 

that increase the risk of a crash—is generally considered the second most prevalent 

contributing factor of crashes. Roadway environment factors that contribute to, or 

are associated with, crashes include the design of the roadway, including features 

such as medians, narrow lanes, a lack of shoulders, curves, access points, or intersections; roadside hazards or features adjacent to the road that vehicles can crash 

into such as, poles, trees, or embankments; androadway conditions (for example, 

rain, ice, snow, or fog). However, the contribution of these factors to crashes is difficult to quantify. NHTSA’s crash databases contain limited data on roadway design 

features at the crash location or immediately preceding the crash location. In addition, the significance of adverse weather, including both slippery roads and reductions in driver visibility, is not fully understood because there are no measurements 

(for example, VMTs under adverse weather conditions) available to compare crash 

rates under various conditions. 

Vehicle factors can also contribute to crashes through vehicle-related failures and 

vehicle design characteristics (attributes that may increase the likelihood of being 

involved in certain types of crashes). While such recent events as the number of 

crashes involving tire separations have highlighted the importance of vehicle factors, data and studies generally show, and experts believe, that vehicle factors contribute less often to crashes than do human or roadway environment factors. For 

example, our analysis of NHTSA’s data found that of the 32 million crashes from 

1997 through 2001, there were about 778,000 crashes (about 2 percent) in which police determined that a specific vehicle-related failure might have contributed to the 

crash. In addition, vehicle design has been shown to affect handling in particular 

types of maneuvers. For example, high-performance sports cars have very different 

handling characteristics from those of sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Recent changes 

in the composition of thenation’s vehicle fleet, in part attributable to the purchase 

of many SUVs, have resulted in an overall shift toward vehicles with a higher center of gravity (more top-heavy), which can roll over more easily than some other vehicles. Rollover crashes are particularly serious because they are more likely to reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE

522PETE5.eps
18 

7TEA–21, as amended through the TEA–21 Restoration Act, established these two penalty 

provisions. 

sult in fatalities. Our analysis of NHTSA’s 2001 data shows that passenger cars 

were the vehicle type least likely to roll over in a crash; passenger cars rolled over 

in about 2 percent of all crashes and rolled over nearly 16 percent of the time in 

fatal crashes. In comparison, our analysis shows that SUVs were over three times 

more likely to roll over in a crash than were passenger cars; that is, they rolled over 

in almost 6 percent of all crashes. In addition, the proportion of SUVs that rolled 

over in fatal crashes was over twice as high as the proportion of passenger cars. 

NHTSA recently reported that in 2002, fatalities in rollover crashes involving SUVs 

and pickup trucks accounted for 53 percent of the increase in traffic deaths. 

Funding for State Highway Safety Programs Has Grown 

About $2 billion was provided to the states for highway safety programs for the 

first 5 years under TEA–21, from Fiscal Years 1998 through 2002. TEA–21 funded 

state programs three ways as follows: 

• The core Section 402 State and Community Safety Grants Program provided 

$729 million for behavioral highway safety programs. 

• Seven incentive programs provided $936 million. States could use funds from 

two of the incentive programs for behavioral highway safety programs or highway construction. As a result, states allocated about $789 million of the incentive funds to behavioral programs and $147 million to highway construction. 

• Two penalty transfer programs provided $361 million in Fiscal Years 2001 and 

2002. These programs transferred funds from highway construction to highway 

safety programs to penalize states for not complying with Federal requirements 

for passing laws prohibiting open alcoholic beverage containers in cars and establishing specific penalties for people convicted of repeat drinking and driving 

offenses.7 States could use both penalty transfers for either alcohol-related behavioral safety programs or highway safety construction projects. As a result, 

states allocated about $113 million of the transfer funds to behavioral programs 

and $248 million (about 66 percent) to highway construction programs to eliminate road safety hazards. 

Funding for states’ behavioral safety programs nearly doubled from Fiscal Year 

1998 through Fiscal Year 2001. (See fig. 6.) 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. 


522PETE6.eps
19 

8For the first 2 years, the transfer penalty was 1.5 percent of the funds apportioned to the 

state’s National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program, and Interstate Maintenance 

funding, for each penalty. This amount rose to 3 percent for each penalty in October 2002. 

Funding for the core Section 402 State and Community Grants Program has been 

fairly level, in constant dollars, since 1991. Four major program categories account 

for most of the states’ use of the $729 million in Section 402 State and Community 

Grants funds provided between 1998 and 2002: police traffic services, impaired driving, seat belts, and community safety programs. Combined, these four categories account for about 72 percent of the grant funds. Figure 7 shows how the states used 

their Section 402 State and Community Grants funds during the first 5 years covered by TEA–21. 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. 

Note: ‘‘Other’’ includes roadway safety, pedestrian safety, emergency medical services, speed 

control, driver education, motorcycle safety, school bus safety, and paid advertising to support 

Section 402 programs. 

The seven incentive programs under TEA–21 also provide funds to encourage 

greater seat belt use, implement programs or requirements to reduce drinking and 

driving, and contribute to the improvement of state highway safety data. The funding available for these programs grew from $83.5 million in 1998 to $257.2 million 

in 2002. While most of these funds were used for funding additional behavioral safety programs, the act provided that two programs, the 0.08 percent Blood Alcohol 

Concentration Incentive (Section 163) and the Seat-belt Use Incentive (Section 157) 

programs, could be used for any highway purpose—highwayconstruction, construction that remedied safety concerns, or behavioral safety programs. Appendix I contains additional information on the seven incentive programs. 

Under the penalty transfer programs, the states that did not adopt either the 

open container or the repeat offender requirements were required to transfer a specified percentage of their Federal highway construction funds to their Section 402 

State and Community Grants Program.8 During Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002, the 

first 2 years that funds have been transferred, 34 states were subject to one or both 

of the penalty provisions, and about $361 million was transferred from these states’ 

Federal Aid Highway Program funding. (See fig. 8.) States can keep transferred 

funds in their Section 402 State and Community Grants program when they are to 

be used to support behavioral programs designed to reduce drunk driving or the 


522PETE7.eps
20 

states can allocate any portion of the transferred funds to highway safety construction projects to eliminate road safety hazards. States varied greatly in their decisions on how to use these funds, from allocating 100 percent of the funds to highway 

safety construction projects to allocating 100 percent of the funds to highway safety 

behavioral projects. Overall, the states allocated about 69 percent to highway safety 

construction projects under the Hazard Elimination Program, and 31 percent went 

to highway safety behavioral projects. Twenty-eight of the 34 states with transferred 

funds allocated a majority to highway safety construction activities under the Hazard Elimination Program. 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. 

Note: Alaska (both transfers), District of Columbia (no transfers), Hawaii (no transfers), and 

Puerto Rico (both transfers) are not shown. 

NHTSA Has Not Made Consistent Use of Oversight Tools 

NHTSA’s 10 regional offices focus on providing advice, training, and technical assistance to the states, which are responsible for setting and achieving their highway 

safety goals. In addition, among other things, NHTSA uses management reviews 

and improvement plans as oversight tools to help it ensure that states’ programs 

are operating within guidelines and are achieving desired results. 

NHTSA regions can conduct management reviews to help improve and enhance 

the financial and operational management of the state programs. In conducting 

these reviews, a team of NHTSA regional staff visit the state and examine such 

items as its organization and staffing, program management, financial management, 

and selected programs like impaired driving, occupant protection, public information 

and education, and outreach. The team’s report comments on the state activities and 

may make recommendations for improvement. For example, in some 

managementreviews we examined, NHTSA regions found instances of inadequate 

monitoring of subgrantees, a lack of coordination in state alcohol program planning, 

costs incurred after a grant was over, and improper cash advances by a state to subgrantees. However, NHTSA has no written guidance on when to perform management reviews. We found that the management reviews were not being conducted 

consistently. For example, in the six NHTSA regions we visited, we found goals of 

conducting state management reviews every 2 years, on no set schedule, or only 

when requested by a state. 

Improvement plans are another tool for providing states oversight and guidance. 

According to program regulations, if a NHTSA regional office finds that a state is 

not making progress toward meeting its highway safety goals, NHTSA and the state 


522PETE8.eps
21 

are to develop an improvement plan to address the shortcomings. For example, 

NHTSA, working with one state, developed an improvement plan that identified 

specific actions that NHTSA and the state would accomplish to improve alcohol-related highway safety. The plan included such actions as implementing a judicial 

education program, requiring all police officers working on impaireddriving enforcement to be adequately trained in field sobriety testing, and developing a statewide 

system for tracking driving-while-intoxicated violations. 

NHTSA regional offices have made limited and inconsistent use of improvement 

plans. Since 1998, only seven improvement plans have been developed. In addition, 

we found that the highway safety performance of a number of states that were not 

operating under improvement plans was worse than the performance of other states 

that were operating under such plans. For example, we compared the performance 

of the three states that had developed improvement plans for alcohol-related problems with the performance of all other states. We found that for seven states, the 

rate of alcohol-related fatalities increased from 1997 through 2001 and their alcoholrelated fatality rates exceeded the national rate in 2001. Only one of these 7 states 

was on an improvement plan. Furthermore, for one state that was not on an improvement plan, the alcohol-related fatality rate grew by over 40 percent from 1997 

through 2001 and for 2001 was about double the national average. The limited and 

inconsistent use of improvement plans is due to a lack of specificity in the criteria 

for requiring such plans. 

To ensure more consistent use of management reviews and improvement plans, 

we recommended in our report that NHTSA provide more specific guidance to the 

regional offices on when it is appropriate to use these oversight tools. In commenting on a draft of the report, NHTSA officials said they agreed with the recommendations and had begun taking action to develop criteria and guidance to field 

offices on the use of management reviews and improvement plans. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or members of the Committee may have. 

Appendix I: Highway Safety Incentive Grant Programs 

Incentive category Title of incentive: Description of incentive 

Seat belt/occupant 

protection incentives; 

Section 157 Safety Incentive 

Grants for the Use of Seat Belts 

Creates incentive grants to states to improve seat 

belt use rates. A state may use these funds for any 

highway safety or construction program. The act 

authorized $500 million over 5 years. 

Section 157 Safety Innovative 

Grants for Increasing Seat-Belt 

Use Rates 

Provides that unallocated Section 157 incentive 

funds be allocated to states to carry out innovative 

projects to improve seat belt use. 

Section 405 Occupant Protection 

Incentive Grant; Description of incentive 

Creates an incentive grant program to increase seat 

belt and child safety seat use. A state may use 

these funds only to implement occupant protection 

programs. The act authorized $68 million over 5 

years. 

Section 2003(b) Child Passenger 

Protection Education Grants 

Creates a program designed to prevent deaths and 

injuries to children, educate the public on child restraints, and train safety personnel on child restraint use. The act authorized $15 million over 2 

years for Section 2003(b). However, the Congress 

appropriated funds to support the program for 2 additional years. 

Alcohol incentives Section 163 Safety Incentives to 

Prevent the Operation of Motor 

Vehicles by Intoxicated Persons 

Provides grants to states that have enacted and are 

enforcing laws stating that a person with a blood 

alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher while operating a motor vehicle has committed a per se driving-while-intoxicated offense. A state may use these 

funds for any highway safety or construction program. The act provides $500 million over 6 years 

for the program. 

Section 410 Alcohol Impaired 

Driving Countermeasures 

Revises an existing incentive program and provides 

grants to states that adopt or demonstrate specified 

programs, or to states that meet performance criteria showing reductions in fatalities involving alcohol-impaired drivers. The act provides $219.5 million over 6 years, which is to be used for alcohol-impaired driving programs. 

22 

Incentive category Title of incentive: Description of incentive 

Data incentives Section 411 State Highway Safety 

Data Improvements 

Description of incentive: Provides incentive grants 

to states to improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, and accessibility of highway 

safety data. The act provides $32 million over 4 

years. 

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much. We’re pleased to be joined 

by the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. Senator Dorgan, if 

you have an opening statement, we will then go to questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator DORGAN. Senator Smith, thank you very much. I’m sorry 

that I was not here at the beginning, I have had a chance to read 

the testimony. Dr. Runge, good to see you again. Mr. Guerrero, 

thank you for your testimony. 

This is a really important issue. As we begin the reauthorization 

of the Federal Highway Program, the issue of highway safety programs I think is really critically important to do and to do right, 

and I’m very concerned about a number of issues. I will ask questions about them especially, but I know that the chart shows and 

Mr. Guerrero’s testimony suggests that we now see a beginning of 

the movement back up in highway deaths, especially due to drunk 

driving and alcohol-related deaths. 

And I’m concerned, for example, that the proposal that we have 

from the Administration would completely eliminate the open container and the repeat offender incentive programs. I have felt very 

strongly for a long while and I have tried very hard to get through 

the Senate, or through the Congress I should say, a prohibition on 

open containers in automobiles. And I finally got it through after 

I guess I worked 6, 8, 10 years on it, I finally got it through, but 

it’s pretty weak-teethed. I mean, it doesn’t have sanctions that are 

dramatic. 

So we still have something like 13 states that don’t prohibit open 

containers in automobiles and we still have some circumstances in 

this country where I understand it is legal to put your key in the 

ignition and one hand on the steering wheel and another around 

the neck of a bottle of Jim Beam, and drive off and drink, and 

you’re perfectly legal. There ought not be anywhere in America 

where that exists, nowhere. There ought not be an intersection in 

this entire country where it ought to be legal to drink and drive. 

And so, we have a lot yet to do and I am especially concerned 

about open containers, I’m concerned about repeat offenders. There 

was a story in my state recently about a fellow that has been, I 

think he has now 12 or 14 drunk driving convictions, same person. 

The .08, we have I think a dozen or so states that are not yet in 

compliance with that, so we have a lot to do. I really appreciate the 

opportunity to be here and to be able to ask a few questions. 

Let me yield to you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask some questions following you and Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator SMITH. The Senator makes some very good points that 

are concerns of mine as well. 

23 

Dr. Runge, with SAFETEA, you addressed it briefly, but I wonder if you could expand on it, about rewarding a state with one 

times the portion of their respective Section 402 funds if it adopts 

a primary seat belt enforcement law before the end of this year. I 

guess my concern is, representing a state that has done this long 

ago and has been very successful, we are obviously concerned that 

we would be penalized apparently in the formulation that you’re 

coming up with, and I wonder if you could speak to that. How is 

it fair for states who have worked hard to, on this issue, to lose 

funding when we’re trying to get other states up? Why are we talking away from those who are trying to maintain their good performance? 

Dr. RUNGE. I appreciate the question, Mr. Chairman. We thought 

long and hard about this at DOT when formulating this plan, and 

what we knew that we needed first and foremost was an effective 

incentive program to coax states to do the right thing, to pass a 

primary safety belt law, and that there should be enough reward 

for them that they would actually pay attention to it. In the past 

there have been incentives that have been very moderate at best 

in their effectiveness in getting states to pay attention, and that 

has resulted in sanctions. The .08 is a classic example. 

What the Administration chooses to do now is to put some real 

money behind this attempt to get states to do it. And given a fixed 

pool of resources, we also did not want to penalize those states who 

had already done the right thing, so we struck a balance. And that 

is to get states to pay attention, we believe that five times their 

402 formula amount would get them to pay attention. Florida, $37 

million, for instance. You know, real money. Arizona, I think $10 

or $12 million. However, there is not unlimited resources and the 

resource pool dictated that we find something to do for the states 

that have already done it, so a one-time shot of 402 into their coffers we thought would be a handsome reward. 

I stirred over this and had to go back to the parable of the talents. And you know, life is not completely fair, but workers in the 

vineyard who have done the right thing do get paid. 

Senator SMITH. Well, I mentioned in my opening statement one 

of the advantages, and I suppose there are some disadvantages of 

requiring all states to enact primary seat belt laws, and I referenced the ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ program. Do you have a comment 

about that? 

Dr. RUNGE. There is no reason why every state in the country 

should not have a primary safety belt law. I would also add to my 

prior statement that states who have one, California, Oregon, 

Washington, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, are already above 90 percent. 

Ninety percent is not a drain, but they got there because they had 

a primary safety belt law and they had effective high visibility enforcement. The portion of the population that does not currently 

buckle would, and in fact does, because of either the desire to obey 

the law or the wanting to avoid a ticket. 

Congress has been very good about giving us the opportunity to 

have high visibility enforcement campaigns such that we had one 

state, my state in 1993 that did it, and in 2001, 8 states in the 

Southeast, last year 39 states, this year 43—I’m sorry, last year 29 

24 

states, this year 43 states. And Congress gave us the money to run 

a national ad. 

So I hope that you will see these ads. You may not because 

they’re not really aimed at your demographic, Senator, they are for 

young men 15 to 34 primarily, but you may see our ads. And we 

do believe that that will be effective in getting people to avoid the 

ticket. So, we are actually very proud of this. We are happy that 

we were able to raise belt use 4 percentage points over the last 2 

years, which equals 500 lives a year, and over 8,000 serious injuries that have been avoided. 

Senator SMITH. NHTSA state safety officials are prohibited from 

lobbying State legislators on highway legislation. Do you believe 

this impacts your ability to pass these laws? 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, first and foremost, State laws are up to the 

State legislatures, but I do believe that State legislatures should 

have the benefit of the latest data, they should understand what 

the consequences of passing or not passing laws are. And the prohibition on our participating in that process has a very chilling effect 

on our outreach into the states, so it has affected our ability to do 

so. 

Florida, for instance, their bill died last night. That means that 

200 people will die this year that would not die otherwise. Very 

sad. But we had to remain silent as soon as that bill had a number 

and was introduced, and I do believe that had an effect. 

Senator SMITH. Senator Dorgan noted the slight increase in fatalities this year. To what do you attribute that primarily? 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, first of all, the vehicle miles traveled went up 

about 2 percent, and our fatality rate was exactly what it was last 

year, 1.51 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. So the actual 

numbers increase is due to increased exposure. 

Senator SMITH. OK. 

Dr. RUNGE. But the reason that we are not making progress, I 

really do believe is our failure to get more states to enact primary 

safety belt laws and take a serious—to get serious about impaired 

driving. It’s just not happening. 

Senator SMITH. My first round is over. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. 

Runge, is it a soft G or a hard G? 

Dr. RUNGE. It’s a hard G, thanks. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Runge, thank you. That’s why I never 

heard of anybody using the runge of a ladder, right? 

Senator DORGAN. That’s right. 

Dr. RUNGE. You will now, though, I’m sure. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The question about whether or not sanctions are, or incentives are used is one that has interested me, and 

I have perhaps been the grinch, but sanctions work, incentives 

often don’t. And I don’t know whether it’s just a coincidence of 

things, but I was making notes while the discussion was going on 

with my colleagues, that the 14 states—only 14 states—I find 

shocking, have open container laws. And I know how hard Senator 

Dorgan worked on that, and I think that’s an incentive program, 

is it not? 

25 

Dr. RUNGE. It’s now a—there’s a penalty. We currently have a 

penalty. And by the way, Senator Dorgan, that does not go away 

with the enactment of SAFETEA. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Has that been primarily an incentive law 

in the past? 

Dr. RUNGE. I can comment specifically about your question when 

talking about .08. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. No, I’m talking now about the open containers. It’s 14 states, right? 

Dr. RUNGE. I can’t tell you the detail. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. Seat belts. Are seat belts primarily incentive or do they carry sanctions? 

Dr. RUNGE. There is currently no incentive or sanction right now. 

It’s just cajoling, begging and pleading. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, when 60 percent of the fatal accidents include people who were not wearing seat belts, that tells 

you that there is something lacking in terms of an incentive. And 

that too is an outrage because it is not only the person who dies, 

but rather the families or the other people who may be injured in 

an accident of that type. 

Now, I was the author of the 21 drinking age bill, and I think 

one of the reasons in addition to population increases that we are 

seeing an increase in alcohol-related injuries and death is law enforcement. I was at a function that happened to be a rodeo out in 

one of the western states, and I noticed a lot of very young people 

drinking beer. 

And there was a police officer standing there, and I said, ‘‘Officer, 

do you know what the age for legal drinking is?’’ And he said, ‘‘Yes, 

it’s 21.’’ So I said, ‘‘Do these kids look like they’re 21?’’ And he said, 

‘‘Sir, I do traffic, that’s my job. This isn’t traffic.’’ 

And when you see now this horrible incident in a high school 

where the girls assaulted one another in high school, and the parents were accused of supplying the beer, I think—and by the way, 

with 21 came penalties and every state, every state, and the most 

reluctant was D.C. and another state where there is a lot of beer 

manufactured, but they all came along. 

I’m distressed now that we don’t have the .08 compliance to the 

extent that we’d like. We have 38 states that have complied. One 

of the 12 that haven’t is New Jersey, and there are campaigns 

against these. Mr. Chairman, I was asked not to go to a fairly responsible restaurant that I used to go to frequently, because the 

owner said I was driving the restaurants out of business. That was 

1981 when the 21 drinking bill was signed into law. 

I think the difference between whether sanctions are put into 

place, and I frankly, Mr. Chairman—Dr. Runge, would—did you 

say soft or hard? 

Dr. RUNGE. Hard. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Dr. Runge, if it’s important enough, if it 

saves lives, then I think penalties are appropriate. And I know 

there are lots of people who don’t like them, but the question is 

whether you like the result, not whether you like the technique. 

And if you like the result, then you have to do it. 

Mr. GUERRERO. Senator Lautenberg, if I could very briefly just 

identify in our report, the GAO report, when you’re talking about 

26 

results, the two penalty provisions we’re talking about here for 

open containers and for repeat offenders, before they were applied, 

only 3 states were complying with both requirements and now 25 

states are, so I think you see an indication of results. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I appreciate that, thank you very much. So 

that begins to tell us something, Mr. Chairman. 

Last, Senator DeWine and I, Dr. Runge, are authoring legislation 

that provides funding for a nationwide campaign to ‘‘Click It or 

Ticket’’ for highway safety. How do you feel about the effectiveness 

of such campaigns, does NHTSA have tools to carry out nationwide 

campaigns on drunk driving? 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes, sir, we are currently doing that. We have the 

largest ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ campaign ever going on right now as we 

speak. It’s going on in 43 states. Actually it’s going on nationwide; 

43 states have chosen to spend some of their own money to augment the national money. Of states that used the ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ model last year in our program, they realized a 9 percentage 

point increase in belt usage, versus states that did not use an enforcement message that had basically zero improvement. 

So we have the data, I will be happy to give you the report. It’s 

written up. Congress also gave us $1 million to evaluate it, which 

we did, and we’ll send that over to you. There is no question that 

it’s effective for this portion of the population. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, can I have one more question and then I promise not to ever ask—well, not ever, but I would 

ask you this about .08. This .08 blood alcohol content, that begins 

a state of impairment for lots of drivers, and we have terrible stories about accidents, one not far from here in Maryland that I 

talked about a couple of years ago, a mother standing waiting for 

the school bus in the morning holding her child’s hand, but couldn’t 

pull the child out of the way when a woman drunk at 8 o’clock in 

the morning came across the sidewalk and struck her child, and 

killed her in front of her eyes, and .08 was the blood alcohol content. 

Do you think that there is sufficient evidence for us to move 

ahead aggressively with the .08? States are now beginning, including my own, and in 2004 they are going to hit the first of the penalties, and I think that we will see an awakening, but do you agree 

with us about the need to get that reduction in blood alcohol? 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes, sir, .08 is an effective tool. If I could just expand 

a little bit about that for a minute, you know, impairment in driving begins after the first drink. There is a continuum that occurs, 

particularly exacerbated by over-the-counter medications and 

drowsiness and other things. But after one or two drinks, you may 

be too impaired to drive; .08 is per se impairment, of course, which 

means by law you are impaired whether you can do cartwheels or 

walk on your hands or whatever. And clearly in our simulator test, 

we know that at .08, virtually all drivers show a large decrement 

in their ability to handle a vehicle. 

So, I never want to make the case that being at .07 is OK. You 

may get away with it, you may not be impaired, you may get from 

the pub to your house like you have done 200 times before, and do 

just fine. But at .08 you are per se impaired. So .08 has, because 

27 

of the states that are now passing these laws, we will have a better 

opportunity to evaluate its effectiveness in the coming years. 

Prior to TEA–21, I think there were only 10 or 11 states that had 

.08. During the incentive phase, there were 3 more states that 

passed .08 laws. And as soon as the penalty phase kicked in, now 

we have 39. So I would hope that states given proper incentives 

would do the right thing. There is no question that sanctions work. 

It’s a question about at what cost. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Sanctions and incentives. Thanks very 

much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SMITH. You bet. Senator Dorgan. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Let me go back to this open container issue and say to my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, the TEA–21 provision transferred 3 percent of the states’ construction money into 

their safety money account if they didn’t enact the open container 

law. The states were allowed to use this safety money for construction to eliminate highway safety hazards and frankly, that’s where 

most of that money has gone. So it’s a penalty but it’s not a penalty 

that shakes someone in their boots here. I mean, you know, they 

understand that they are not going to lose the money, and the circumstances are such that we have made some progress here, but 

we are not requiring states to pass an open container prohibition 

and we ought to require that. 

You can debate various pieces of public policy and make a pretty 

good case on the other side or on both sides, but on open container, 

I don’t know how you make a case on the other side of that one. 

Start with the issue of the driver drinking. Can anybody make the 

case that it ought to be legal for a driver to drink while they drive? 

The answer is hell no. I mean, there isn’t any sense at all that 

would persuade you that’s the thing to do. And I don’t think there 

is any case that can be made that in a vehicle moving on America’s 

roadways and highways that anyone ought to feel that there ought 

to be an open container of alcohol in the vehicle. 

So, I mean this is one that we really ought to do and really ought 

to require. Is it a mandate to require it? Sure, it’s a mandate, but 

it’s just a mandate that has some common sense attached to it. 

So let me ask a couple of questions, if I might. My understanding 

is that the SAFETEA program freezes safety grants and maybe Dr. 

Runge, you can help me go through this, at $447 million in Fiscal 

Year 2004, the same level as Fiscal Year 2003, but there would be 

flexibility for the states to use this money in a manner that could 

move it both toward safety and away from safety, as I understand 

it. Is that how you understand the proposals this year? 

Dr. RUNGE. If I could take a second to walk you through our rationale here? 

Senator DORGAN. Yes. 

Dr. RUNGE. First of all, the rationale is to take 7 grant programs 

and consolidate them into basically 3. The consolidated 402 program would have level 402 funding across the two authorizations, 

but on top of that, there would be two additional pieces of the 402 

program, one for safety belt usage, which has this incentive to pass 

a primary belt law and additional funding to enforce it. And then 

a third piece, which is this impaired driving initiative that I’m sure 

28 

we will talk some more about, which is to get money into the states 

where it is most needed, states that have extraordinarily high fatality rates for alcohol and high alcohol-rated fatality numbers, because they are just not making any progress and they need basic 

judicial reform and law enforcement support and so forth. 

So, first of all, it is level funding across the formula, but the 

funds that were over in the Federal Highway Administration that 

were eligible for hazard elimination and other things, are now 

going to be brought over into the NHTSA side and used for performance incentive grants. 

Now, the second most important piece of this is that every state 

is required to submit a comprehensive highway safety plan that is 

based on their particular State data, so the problems of Utah may 

be very different from the problems in Massachusetts and by regulation, we will specify that all players have to be at the table when 

this highway plan is created, and it must be data-based. So we also 

have a grant program going out to states of $50 million a year to 

help improve their State traffic records and their data. So that if 

a state has a very low alcohol fatality rate, like Utah at .29 fatalities, they may put less of their resources into alcohol programs 

than say South Carolina, which has an alcohol fatality rate of 1.27. 

And we know the fatality rates, we don’t need additional data to 

figure that out, but the states do need additional data to pinpoint 

their problems infrastructure as well as behavioral. So the highway 

safety plan, therefore, will determine how those funds are flexed. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me just ask about that, because you used 

the word flexed and you started with the word flexibility. The report that was done by Mr. Guerrero describes on page 18 exactly 

what’s happened with flexibility. Overall, the states allocated nearly 70 percent to highway safety construction project, and 31 percent 

went to the highway safety behavioral programs, that is, the programs dealing with drunk driving and other issues, when they had 

the choice. Give them the choice, I guarantee you what the choice 

is going to be. 

The choice is going to be to build, and they love to build, I understand that, they’re builders. What is the Department of Transportation? They don’t put their key in the lock in the morning to be 

something other than builders. They’re building and maintaining 

highways, roads and bridges. So give them a choice, give them 

flexibility, it turns out as it did on page 18. Is there a reason that 

you should tell us to expect something other than that, especially 

given the fact that Mr. Guerrero has told us what the choices are 

among the states? 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, I would hope that our knowledge of history 

would allow it not to repeat itself. The A in SAFETEA is accountability and we are putting a lot of effort into this comprehensive 

highway safety plan. And I need to remind the Committee that 

money that was not eligible for behavioral programs such as belts 

and alcohol under TEA–21 will be eligible for behavioral programs 

under SAFETEA if it’s passed. 

Senator DORGAN. I understand, but isn’t this a triumph of hope 

over experience? I mean, I understand you hope, but we understand the experience, so we’re about the business of legislating and 

not hoping, so if we legislate based on what we know, and what 

29 

we know is page 18 of this report that says give them the flexibility 

and you’re going to move money away from the critical programs 

that Senator Lautenberg, I, Senator Smith and others really believe that we ought to address. 

With your flexibility and with your consolidation, we are eliminating the incentives of the states to enact these laws that we have 

just been talking about. We’re eliminating the specific incentives 

because we’re saying generically, use your judgment in the states 

to decide how you want to use this money. Page 18 says what 

they’re going to do is run off and start building with it. So tell me 

the basis for your hope, Dr. Runge. 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, during TEA–21, 4 states had a repeat offender 

law and it went to 33. Open container, 15 states went to 36, .08 

went from 10 to 39. They were held accountable for their decisions. 

Now those programs are not going away, .08 sanctions, repeat offender, open container, they are not going away as a result of 

SAFETEA. What I hope we can get Congress’ backing on is the accountability. The GAO report basically is flexibility without accountability. The Secretary is absolutely intent on safety being the 

product of this legislation. I have every confidence in the world 

that our holding the states accountable for their highway safety 

plan so they can address their highway safety problems is going to 

be the underpinning of this. 

Senator DORGAN. It’s interesting. I have heard this discussion in 

two of my other appropriations subcommittees by other parts of the 

Administration. They want flexibility and they want to consolidate, 

and what that has meant in every circumstance is less oversight 

for specific goals that we have here in Congress. I don’t frankly 

support, Dr. Runge, the consolidation. What I support is deciding 

as a Congress what we’re willing to spend money on, and making 

states accountable with respect to those, yes, mandates, I’m not a 

bit bashful about using the term mandate when we’re talking 

about demanding that we save lives and get drunks off the roads 

in this country. 

And all of you know—I mean, these safety issues, I especially— 

there are—let me just say this. There are issues other than drunk 

driving. Because of my family experience, I am passionate about 

doing something about drunk driving. I am one of those people that 

got a call at 10 at night, and every half-hour somebody else does 

and one of their loved ones was murdered by someone that got behind the wheel of a vehicle drunk. This is not some mysterious illness for which we don’t know a cure. We know what causes it and 

we know what cures it. And I’m not comfortable just saying well, 

let’s consolidate all this and just hope. 

We have made some progress, Dr. Runge, no question about that. 

Let me just say that part of that progress is legislative, part of it 

is citizen progress, Mothers Against Drunk Driving to name one, 

and others. But we are not nearly done, we’re just not nearly done. 

Perhaps during this hearing, about 4 phone calls will go out to 

Americans telling them that their loved one has been killed by a 

drunk driver. So we have a lot to do, and I am not comfortable 

leaving it up to the judgment of someone else about whether they 

want to build some projects or whether they want to try to alter 

the behavior of those who are repeat drunk driving offenders or 

30 

alter the behavior of those who want to operate vehicles with alcohol in the vehicle. 

So, we’ll work through this. I just want to say, I’m a little disappointed by the consolidation and flexibility, I don’t support that, 

and we need to work through it here in the Congress. You and I 

have had a chance to visit briefly, and I think that you have the 

capability to do some awfully good work down there. I think Mr. 

Guerrero has done some good work for us to give us a road map 

here on where we want to go with respect to accountability. Thank 

you very much for your testimony, both of you. 

Dr. RUNGE. Thank you. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. 

I’m informed we will have a vote coming soon, so we will dismiss 

our first panel, bring our second panel up. We have 5 witnesses 

and we ask that their presentations be as succinct as they can be 

so we can get them in before this hearing of necessity must conclude. 

Our first witness is Ms. Jackie Gillan, Vice President, Advocates 

for Highway and Auto Safety; Ms. Kathryn Swanson, Chairman, 

Governors Highway Safety Association and Director of the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety; Ms. Josephine Cooper, President 

and CEO of the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers is not feeling well today, so is being represented by Mr. Robert Strassberger, 

who is the Vice President for Vehicle Safety and Harmonization for 

the Alliance and will testify in her place. We also have Ms. Wendy 

Hamilton, President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving; and Mr. 

Rick Berman, Legislative Counsel, American Beverage Licensees 

and American Beverage Institute. 

We will start with Ms. Gillan. 

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY 

Ms. GILLAN. Thank you very much, Senator, good afternoon. Despite the grim news on highway fatalities in 2002, the good news 

is that effective proven strategies and solutions are already on the 

shelf and waiting to be used in highway and auto safety. 

This year the Senate Commerce Committee has the unique opportunity in the reauthorization of NHTSA’s motor vehicle and 

traffic safety programs to establish a safety agenda that will bring 

down highway deaths and injuries for the next 6 years. This afternoon I would like to outline a plan of action that involves a twoprong strategy involving better vehicle design and improved driver 

behavior. 

Our legislative proposals fall into three categories: the need to 

provide sufficient funding resources for NHTSA; the need to establish a safety regulatory agenda with deadlines for agency action; 

and the need to encourage uniform adoption and enforcement of 

lifesaving traffic laws. One of the most critical weapons in the battle to reduce highway deaths and injuries is adequate financial resources. As you correctly stated, nearly 95 percent of all transportation-related fatalities are the result of motor vehicle crashes, but 

NHTSA’s budget is less than 1 percent of the entire DOT budget. 

Twice in the past 3 years this Committee has had to pass legislation increasing NHTSA’s authorization levels to correct funding 

31 

shortfalls. We ask the Committee to significantly increase funding 

for the agency program in the authorization bill. This investment 

will definitely pay off. 

Last February the Committee held ground-breaking hearings on 

the safety of sport utility vehicles to look at issues related to the 

safety of SUV occupants and the safety of occupants of passenger 

vehicles involved in a crash with an SUV. Advocates urges this 

Committee to establish a motor vehicle safety regulatory agenda 

with deadlines for NHTSA action similar to what you did in the 

Tread Act for Tire Safety. 

The NHTSA authorization bill needs to address the issue of rollovers. While rollover crashes only represent 3 percent of all collisions, they account for nearly a third of all occupant fatalities. Advocates recommends that NHTSA be directed to issue a rule on 

rollover stability standards to prevent deaths and injuries, as well 

as a crash worthiness standard to protect the occupants of rollover 

crashes. 

Also, vehicle aggressivity and incompatibility are needlessly contributing to motor vehicle deaths and injuries. Light trucks and 

vans, including SUVs, can cause great harm to smaller passenger 

vehicles in a crash, particularly a side impact crash. Legislation 

should direct NHTSA to improve the compatibility between larger 

and smaller passenger vehicles, reduce the aggressivity of larger 

vehicles, and enhance the front and side impact protection of small 

and mid-size passenger vehicles. 

Last year more than 16 million new cars were sold. Yet, consumer information on the safety of cars is fragmented and incomplete. A Lou Harris public opinion poll showed that 84 percent of 

the public supports having a safety rating on a window sticker of 

new cars at the point of sale. In 1996, the National Academy of 

Sciences made a similar recommendation and now it’s time for 

NHTSA to move forward on this recommendation. 

Let me briefly now turn to improvements that have already been 

discussed this morning and the need to make improvements in the 

area of traffic safety programs. Attached to my testimony are maps 

and charts showing the status of traffic safety laws in states across 

the country. Unfortunately, most states lack some of these basic 

laws. This is in contrast to aviation safety, where every person flying on every airplane in every state is subject to the same uniform 

laws and regulations. This uniformity has been a foundation for 

achieving an exemplary safety record for aviation travel throughout 

the United States and should be pursued in the area of highway 

safety, where thousands are killed and millions more are injured 

every year. 

At present only 18 states and the District of Columbia have a 

primary enforcement safety belt law. Adoption of these laws absolutely requires and results in higher use rates. Advocates supports 

the financial incentive that the administration proposes but we 

would also like to see a sanction imposed for states that fail to act. 

Similarly, the DOT proposal to encourage State adoption of primary safety belt laws is very weak and will result in nothing more 

than accounting gimmicks as the states who are penalized for not 

having a primary safety belt law or a 90 percent use rate will be 

able to move funds from the highway safety improvement program 

32 

and construction program into their 402 traffic safety program. 

Then there is an escape hatch where they can move those traffic 

safety funds back into the construction program. And this is a 

measure and countermeasure that is not going to result in all 50 

states having a primary safety belt law. 

While Advocates certainly supports the idea of State flex, sometimes you just have to flex your muscle to get the states to act, and 

that’s what Congress has done for the 21 drinking age, the teen 

drinking laws and the .08 BAC law. 

I would just like to mention briefly two issues related to child 

safety which we would like the Committee to address in their 

NHTSA authorization bill. Last year this Committee took the lead 

in moving legislation to improve booster seat safety. Unfortunately, 

a provision concerning incentive grant programs to states to enact 

booster seat laws was dropped. We would like to encourage the 

Committee to revisit that issue and to include a targeted incentive 

grant program to encourage State booster seat laws, as well as a 

requirement for built-in child restraints to increase their use. 

I also would like to submit testimony from one of my safety partners, Kids in Cars. They have been concerned about the serious 

safety issue involving children who are left unattended in vehicles 

or killed by vehicles backing up. They have collected data showing 

that deaths and injuries occur to hundreds of children every year 

because of this, and it’s not an issue that’s on NHTSA’s radar 

screen and we certainly think it’s one they should deal with. 

The recommendations which we include in our more detailed testimony which has been submitted is an action plan that Advocates 

supports because it will result in common sense cost effective laws 

and will result in saving lives and dollars. 

Advocates’ vision for the future is to be invited back by this Committee to testify in 2009, I hope I’m not the witness, but if I am, 

I would like to report that the United States has experienced the 

lowest traffic fatalities in a decade, that fatal rollover crashes are 

going down, and that the war on drunk driving is being won and 

motor vehicle crashes are no longer the leading cause of death and 

injury for Americans young and old. 

And yes, we do have the solutions, and it’s really a matter of the 

political will to put those solutions in place. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR

HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY

Good afternoon. My name is Jacqueline Gillan and I am Vice President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), a coalition of consumer, health, 

safety, law enforcement and insurance companies and organizations working together to support the adoption of laws and programs to reduce deaths and injuries 

on our highways. Advocates is unique. We focus our efforts on all areas affecting 

highway and auto safety—the roadway, the vehicle and the driver. Founded in 1989, 

Advocates has a long history of working closely with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in the development of Federal legislative policies 

to advance safety. I am pleased to testify this morning on the importance of reauthorizing the motor vehicle safety programs and the traffic safety programs of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

Every day millions of American families leave their homes to travel by car to 

work, school, medical appointments, soccer practice, shopping malls and cultural activities. Although our Nation’s highway system has created mobility opportunities 

that are the envy of the world, it has also resulted in a morbidity and mortality 

33 

toll that is not. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) recently released the 

preliminary traffic fatalities for the year 2002 and the news was grim. 

Overall, there were 42,850 deaths last year compared to 42,116 in 2001, an increase of 734 deaths. This is the highest number of motor vehicle fatalities in over 

a decade. The data show that motor vehicle fatalities rose in nearly every category 

of crashes. Alcohol-related fatalities dramatically increased by 522 deaths to a total 

of 17,970 fatalities; a record 10,626 deaths occurred in rollover crashes, nearly a 5 

percent increase from last year; more teen drivers were killed for a total of 8,996 

deaths; deaths for children 8 to 15 years old increased significantly to 1,604 lives 

lost; for the fifth consecutive year motorcycle deaths climbed to 3,276; and lastly, 

a majority of those killed in motor vehicle crashes were not wearing a seatbelt. In 

addition to the emotional toll, these deaths are associated with a large financial toll 

to society. According to DOT, the cost of motor vehicle crashes exceeds $230 billion 

annually. 

Although the number of deaths slightly decreased in certain areas, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, crashes involving large trucks, and children under seven years of 

age, these marginal improvements barely offset what would have been a significantly larger increase in total traffic fatalities in 2002. The highway safety community takes no solace in these victories when the predominant trend has been a general increase in total highway deaths, reversal of improvements in alcohol-related 

fatalities, and unabated growth in the number of deaths in rollover crashes. 

The six-year surface transportation reauthorization legislation submitted by DOT 

recommends more than $247 billion in spending. Without a major reversal in the 

growing number of highway fatalities and injuries in the next six years, almost 

250,000 people will die and 18 million more will be injured at a societal cost of more 

than $1.38 trillion. The number of deaths is roughly equivalent to half the population of Portland, Oregon. The number of individuals injured in motor vehicle 

crashes is equal to the combined population of the states of North Dakota, Kansas, 

Montana, New Jersey and Washington. A mere 20 percent reduction in fatalities 

and injuries over the next six years would more than pay for the entire cost of the 

Administration’s legislation. 

This afternoon I will discuss the urgent need for the 108th Congress to enact a 

NHTSA reauthorization bill of the agency’s motor vehicle and traffic safety programs that reverses this deadly trend and seriously addresses the unnecessary and 

preventable carnage on our highways. The good news is that effective, proven solutions and strategies already are on the shelf and ready to be used. Many states and 

communities already are employing these ideas and programs and realizing important reductions in highway deaths and injuries. Furthermore, technological solutions to improve the crashworthiness of motor vehicles are available and in use for 

some makes and models. 

The map and charts attached to my testimony show a patchwork quilt of state 

laws. As a result, in 2003 most American families are not protected by laws that 

will ensure their safety when traveling on our Nation’s roads and highways. This 

is in contrast to aviation safety where every person, flying on every airplane, in 

every state is subject to the same uniform safety laws and regulations. This uniformity has been the foundation for achieving an exemplary safety record of aviation 

travel throughout the United States. Unfortunately, this is not the case for motor 

vehicle travel where nearly every state lacks some basic traffic safety law and thousands of Americans are killed and millions more injured every year. 

While we are well on our way to having a uniform .08 percent BAC (blood alcohol 

concentration) per se law in every state, most states still lack basic highway safety 

laws. 

• 32 states do not have a primary enforcement safety belt law. 

• 11 states need to pass a .08 percent BAC per se law. 

• 17 states do not have an adequate repeat offender law for impaired driving. 

• 14 states do not prohibit open alcohol containers while driving. 

• 17 states have serious gaps in their child restraint laws. 

• 33 states do not require children ages 4 to 8 years old to use a booster seat. 

• 30 states do not require all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. 

• Most states do not protect new teen drivers with an optimal graduated driver 

license law. 

Furthermore, some of the most important regulatory actions undertaken by 

NHTSA in the past thirteen years have been the result of congressional direction, 

primarily at the initiation of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation 

Committee. The most recent example was enactment of the Transportation Recall 

34 

Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (P.L. 106–414, Nov. 

1, 2000) which directed the agency to undertake numerous rulemakings on a variety 

of issues related to tire and child passenger safety and provided the resources to 

do the job. This is a model Advocates strongly supports for enactment of the NHTSA 

reauthorization legislation in the 108th Congress. 

In summary, Advocates urges the Senate Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign 

Commerce and Infrastructure to enact NHTSA reauthorization legislation that: 

• Provides sufficient funding resources for the agency to fulfill its mission, 

• Establishes a safety regulatory agenda with deadlines for agency action, and 

• Results in state adoption and enforcement of uniform lifesaving traffic safety 

laws. 

NHTSA’s Motor Vehicle Safety and Traffic Safety Programs Suffer From 

Insufficient Funds and This Is Jeopardizing Efforts to Bring Down 

Deaths and Injuries 

One of the most critical weapons in the battle to reduce deaths and injuries is 

adequate financial resources to support programs and initiatives to advance safety. 

At present, nearly 95 percent of all transportation-related fatalities are the result 

of motor vehicle crashes but NHTSA’s budget is less than one percent of the entire 

DOT budget. Motor vehicle safety regulatory actions languish, state enforcement of 

impaired driving laws is inadequate, and NHTSA data collection is hampered because of insufficient resources to address these problems. Since the last NHTSA 

motor vehicle program reauthorization legislation was enacted, this Committee has 

needed to act twice in the past three years to correct severe funding shortfalls. 

When serious problems resulting in deaths and injuries were identified in some passenger vehicle airbags, NHTSA was compelled to issue an advanced airbag rule to 

upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 to require new 

tests and advanced technology. Additional funds were needed by the agency to complete the necessary research and data analysis. Furthermore, during congressional 

hearings and media attention on the deadly rollover occurrence of Ford Explorers 

equipped with Firestone tires, it was revealed that neither the Federal tire standard 

nor the roof crush standard had been updated since the early 1970s. Also, warning 

signs of the potential problem were missed because of inadequate data collection 

and analysis. Again, legislation was enacted providing additional funds to address 

the problem. In both cases, insufficient program funding and staff resources contributed to the agency’s missteps in identifying and acting upon the problems. 

The current authorization funding level for NHTSA’s motor vehicle safety and 

consumer information programs is only $107.9 million, less than the economic cost 

of 110 highway deaths, which represents a single day of fatalities on our highways. 

Since 1980, the agency has been playing a game of catch-up. Today, funding levels 

for motor vehicle safety and traffic safety programs are not much higher than 1980 

funding levels in current dollars. 

For over twenty years, NHTSA has been underfunded and its mission compromised because of a lack of adequate resources to combat the rising tide of increased highway deaths and injuries. The legislative proposal released last week by 

DOT will continue to deny NHTSA the resources required to issue overdue motor 

vehicle safety regulations, upgrade vehicle safety standards that date back to the 

early 1970s, improve consumer information, attack impaired driving, enforce existing traffic safety laws, compel states to enact primary safety belt laws, and ultimately, lower the toll of highway deaths and injuries. 

Recommended Actions 

Increase funding authorization for NHTSA’s motor vehicle safety and consumer 

information programs. 

Increase traffic safety grant funding with a stronger emphasis on enforcement of 

laws to combat drunk driving and encourage seat belt use. 

NHTSA Should Issue Rollover Prevention and Crashworthiness Standards 

to Stop the Growing Number of Annual Highway Fatalties and Injuries 

Due to Vehicle Rollovers 

Last February, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee 

held groundbreaking hearings on the safety of sport utility vehicles (SUVs). The 

purpose of the hearing was to examine issues related to both the safety of SUV occupants as well as the safety of occupants of passenger vehicles involved in a crash 

with an SUV. 

Rollover crashes result in a tragedy of massive proportions, with more than 

10,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of crippling injuries to Americans each 

35 

year. Rollover crashes represent only 3 percent of all collisions but account for 32 

percent of all occupant fatalities. 

In the last few years, light truck and van sales have amounted to slightly more 

than 50 percent of the new passenger vehicle market. This surprising market share 

for new SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans has been propelled mainly by the explosive 

growth in the purchase of new SUVs. Although cars still predominate in the passenger vehicle fleet—nearly two-thirds of registered vehicles—this proportion consists of an older car fleet that is increasingly being replaced by new light truck purchases, particularly of SUVs. The soaring popularity of SUVs since the start of the 

1990s has resulted in more than doubling their numbers on the road during this 

period, accompanied by a doubling of fatal rollover crashes. 

The preliminary results of NHTSA’s annual Fatal Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS) for 2002 show yet another increase in deaths and injuries due to rollover 

crashes—from 10,130 in 2001 to 10,626 last year—with almost half of them due to 

an increase in rollover fatal crashes by SUVs and pickup trucks. In fact, our Nation 

suffered an astounding 10 percent increase in SUV rollover deaths alone in just one 

year. When you add pickup trucks into the equation, seventy-eight (78) percent of 

the increase in passenger vehicle rollover deaths from 2001 to 2002 was due just 

to the increased fatal rollover crashes of SUVs and pickup trucks. 

Six of every 10 deaths in SUVs last year occurred in rollover crashes. No other 

passenger vehicle has the majority of its deaths take place in rollovers. By contrast, 

the great majority of deaths in passenger cars—more than 75 percent—occur in 

other crash modes. It is very clear that we are needlessly taking lives in the U.S. 

because of the tendency of SUVs to roll over in both single-and multi-vehicle crashes. 

At a press event in 1994, DOT announced several safety initiatives to address 

rollover crashes in lieu of issuing a rollover stability standard. Nearly ten years 

later, DOT has made little any progress in completing any of the major actions. 

NHTSA knows what needs to be done to protect our citizens from the lethal outcomes of rollover crashes. The agency failed to act when the need became clear 

years ago to stop the annual rise in deaths and injuries from rollovers. As the proportion of new vehicle sales strongly shifted each year towards light trucks and vans 

and away from passenger cars, NHTSA had an opportunity to act decisively to establish a vehicle stability standard to reduce the tendency of most SUVs and 

pickups to roll over, but the agency squandered that opportunity. It also had an opportunity at that time to fulfill its promises of improving occupant safety when, predictably, vehicles roll over. That could have been accomplished by improving the resistance of roofs to being smashed and mangled in rollovers, requiring upper and 

lower interior air bags instead of just padding to protect occupants, changing the 

design of door locks and latches to prevent ejection, installing anti-ejection window 

glazing, and increasing the effectiveness of seat belts in rollovers by properly restraining passengers with such well-known safety features as belt pretensioners. 

Yet, here we are almost 10 years after NHTSA terminated rulemaking to set a 

vehicle stability standard with the American public placed at increased risk of death 

and injury every year because of the growing numbers and percentage of SUVs and 

pickups in the traffic stream. Instead, NHTSA has promised a consumer information regulation to reveal the on-road rollover tendencies of SUVs and pickups. However, that promise is highly qualified. Although the agency issued a rollover rating 

system based on static stability factor (SSF) and is developing a rating system based 

on a dynamic test procedure, the agency has warned that it will be years before 

enough vehicles are tested and enough data from the field are collected to be able 

to determine if the rollover ratings from dynamic testing are accurate indications 

of rollover tendencies. So, while NHTSA collects several years of data to determine 

whether its testing regime is even tenable, the American consumer will continue to 

buy vehicles that place individuals and families at increased risk of death and debilitating injuries. 

Recommended Actions 

Require NHTSA to issue a final rule on a rollover stability standard to prevent 

deaths and injuries. 

Require NHTSA to issue a final rule on a rollover crashworthiness standard that 

includes improvements in roof strength, advanced upper interior head impact protection, ejection prevention measures that includes a combination of side air bags 

for upper and lower impact protection and window glazing, and integrated seating 

systems using pretensioners and load limiters in safety belts. 

36 

Improve the Safety of 15-Passenger Vans 

Perhaps one of the clearest indications that NHTSA needs to control basic vehicle 

designs that consistently produce high rates of rollover crashes are the horrific rollover crashes during the past few years among 15-passenger vans. A study released 

by NHTSA in late 2002 showed how, in 7 states, 15-passenger vans as a class, regardless of the number of passengers on board, are substantially less safe than all 

vans taken together. The data from FARS for the year 2000 showed that 17.6 percent of van crashes involved rollovers, not significantly greater than passenger cars 

at 15.3 percent. However, single vehicle rollover crashes of 15-passenger vans happen more frequently than with any other van when there are 5 occupants or more 

being transported. When these big vans have 5 to 9 passengers aboard, almost 21 

percent of their single-vehicle crashes are rollovers. When the passenger load is between 10 and the maximum seating capacity of 15 occupants, single-vehicle rollovers 

are 29 percent of all van crashes. Even more dramatic, when 15-passenger vans are 

overloaded, i.e., more than 15 passengers on board, 70 percent of the single-vehicle 

crashes for these extra-heavy vans were rollovers. These findings are similar to 

those of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), released in October 

2002, that found 15-passenger vans with 10 to 15 passengers onboard had a rollover 

rate about three times greater than that of vans seating 5 or fewer passengers. In 

addition, NTSB found that 15-passenger vans carrying 10 to 15 passengers rolled 

over in 96 of the 113 single-vehicle crashes investigated, or in 85 percent of those 

crashes. 

Unfortunately, NHTSA has only issued advisories about more careful operation of 

these vans and the use of better-trained drivers, and has even stated that there is 

nothing inherently defective about their design. These disclaimers about the intrinsically poor stability and safety of 15-passenger vans are unsettling when they are 

viewed in relation to two safety recommendations issued by the NTSB on November 

1, 2002 to NHTSA and to two vehicle manufacturers, Ford Motor Company and 

General Motors Corporation. The NTSB recommendations asked NHTSA to include 

15-passenger vans in the agency’s rollover testing program and to cooperate with 

vehicle manufacturers to explore and test technologies, including electronic stability 

systems, that will help drivers maintain stable control over these vehicles. 

S. 717, the Passenger Van Safety Act of 2003, sponsored by Sen. Olympia Snowe 

(R–ME) seizes the initiative to improve the safety of 15-passenger vans by putting 

NTSB’s recommendations into action. Advocates also supports fundamental changes 

in 15-passenger van design that will make them safer vehicles beyond the addition 

of stability-enhancing technologies and rollover test results showing their tendency 

to roll over. Unfortunately, 15-passenger vans, as well as larger passenger vehicles, 

especially medium and large SUVs and vans, along with small buses, are often exempted from key NHTSA safety regulations for crashworthiness. For example, because of the distance of seating positions in 15-passenger vans from side doors and 

the fact that the vans weigh more than 6,000 pounds, the lower interior side impact 

protection standard, FMVSS No. 214, does not apply to these big vans. This major 

safety standard also does not apply to any vehicles exceeding 6,000 pounds, or even 

to certain vehicles under this weight limit, such as walk-in vans, motor homes, ambulances, and vehicles with removable doors. Bigger passenger vehicles, then, as 

well as certain kinds of smaller passenger vehicles, are exempt from the minimal 

protection required by FMVSS No. 214. 

Similarly, the current roof crush standard—a standard that is weak and ineffective in preventing both general roof collapse and local intrusion in rollover crashes— 

exempts all passenger vehicles above 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating. This 

means that 15-passenger vans, other large vans, small buses, and well-known 

makes and models of SUVs and pickup trucks, do not have to meet even the inadequate test compliance requirements of FMVSS No. 216. Neither of the exemptions 

for larger, heavier passenger vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating is based on any compelling data that these vehicles are somehow 

safe for their occupants without adherence to even these two weak standards. In 

fact, some of the vehicles with the worst rollover crash rates and roof failures are 

among the vehicles exempted from these two major standards. To complicate the 

issue further, NHTSA requires all passenger vehicles less than 10,000 pounds gross 

vehicle weight rating to comply with the head injury protection requirements for 

upper interior impacts, including side impacts, but does not require similar compliance for vehicles between 6,000 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating for 

lower interior torso protection under Standard No. 214. 

Recommended Actions 

Congress should enact S. 717 as well as direct NHTSA to conduct rulemaking and 

issue final regulations to extend the protection of all of the occupant protection 

37 

standards, even those which need to be strengthened, to all passenger vehicles regardless of weight or size. 

Vehicle Aggressivity and Incompatibility Are Needlessly Contributing to 

Motor Vehicle Deaths and Injuries 

The unparalleled growth in the sale and use of SUVs and other light trucks for 

personal transportation over the last 15 years has produced another major impediment to safety on our roads and highways. Large SUVs, pickup trucks, and full-size 

vans are disproportionately responsible for increasing the number of deaths and injuries when they collide with smaller passenger vehicles, including impacts even 

with small SUVs and mini-vans. This is known in vehicle safety engineering as 

‘‘crash incompatibility’’. This means that when there are two unequal collision partners, as the engineers refer to the vehicles that strike each other, the bigger, heavier, taller vehicle almost always inflicts more severe damage on the smaller, lighter, 

shorter vehicle. 

According to NHTSA, the number of passenger car occupants dying in two-vehicle 

crashes with light trucks or vans increased in 2002 compared to 2001, while the 

number of fatalities in the light trucks or vans actually decreased. These mismatch 

crashes are especially lethal when two factors are present: first, the heavier, bigger 

vehicle is the ‘‘bullet’’ or striking vehicle and the lighter, smaller vehicle is the ‘‘target’’ or struck vehicle, and, second, the bigger vehicle hits the smaller vehicle in the 

side. In these circumstances the consequences are fairly predictable. The bigger, 

heavier, higher vehicle rides over the lower door sills of the side of the small vehicle 

in a side impact, or rides above its low crash management features in a frontal collision. As a result, the smaller vehicle’s occupant compartment suffers enormous deformation and intrusion from the impact with the bigger vehicle. 

Recent studies by both American and Australian researchers have underscored 

the incredibly high level of harm that large light trucks and vans (LTVs), especially 

SUVs, inflicted on smaller passenger vehicles, particularly small cars, because of the 

large differences in weight, size, height, and stiffness. According to NHTSA, for cars 

struck in the near side by pickup trucks, there are 26 fatalities among passenger 

car drivers for each fatality among pickup truck drivers. For SUVs the ratio is 16 

to 1. 

To date, NHTSA has done essentially nothing to reduce this tremendous ‘‘harm 

difference’’ between the biggest, heaviest members of the passenger vehicle fleet and 

the smaller vehicles. The agency needs to reduce the aggressivity of larger vehicles 

and simultaneously to improve the protection of occupants in the smaller, struck vehicles by undertaking research and regulatory actions on an accelerated calendar. 

Although NHTSA indicates this is a safety priority area, the agency’s FY ’04 budget 

unfortunately does not include any request for increased funding for this initiative. 

Advocates and others in the highway safety community are concerned that rhetoric does not match reality and the problem will continue to grow as LTVs become 

a larger percentage of the vehicle fleet. There are several actions the agency should 

be taking in order to address this growing problem. For example, in the area of research, NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis currently collects detailed crash information for a sample of moderate to high severity crashes. However, 

the data points collected do not adequately document and illuminate the most critical aspects of passenger vehicle to passenger vehicle crashes, especially those involving mismatched pairs. Similar change should apply to all agency data collection 

from real world crashes. Data collection would be further enriched if the number 

of cases investigated were increased to improve the ability of the agency to generalize about the reasons for vehicle responses and occupant injuries in crashes involving incompatible passenger vehicles. 

NHTSA also can improve the compatibility between larger and smaller makes and 

models of the passenger fleet by reducing the aggressivity of larger vehicles, especially light trucks and vans. Lowering the front end height difference of larger, 

heavier vehicles to match the front ends and sides of smaller vehicles will prevent 

larger vehicles from riding over the front ends and side door sills of smaller passenger vehicles. Furthermore, simultaneously reducing the crash stiffness of larger 

pickup trucks, SUVs, and big vans would ensure that crash forces are more evenly 

distributed between larger and smaller vehicles in both front and side in multi-vehicle collisions, which would improve safety. 

Side impacts in passenger cars alone resulted in about 5,400 deaths in each of 

the last few years, more than 30 percent of passenger car multiple-vehicle collision 

fatalities. Currently, the motor vehicle safety standards for upper interior side impact (FMVSS No. 201) and lower side impact (FMVSS No. 214) are too weak and 

need to be upgraded. When NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 214 back in the early 

1990s, it should be noted that the majority of the passenger vehicle fleet already 

38 

met its compliance requirements, even without any additional countermeasures. The 

standard was indexed to meet the existing protective capabilities of the vehicle fleet. 

Additional protection could be achieved by enhancing the side impact protection of 

occupants by requiring dynamic impact safety systems, such as air bags, for both 

upper and lower portions of the vehicle interior. 

Lastly, consumers lack essential, basic information about how cars perform in side 

impact crashes. The NHTSA New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) conducts side 

impact crash tests on new cars but the tests use a barrier similar to a mid-size car 

to crash into small passenger vehicles. As a result, the test scores are misleading 

because they fail to inform consumers about how a vehicle performs in the real 

world. With the changing mix in the vehicle population and growing number of 

LTVs, especially SUVs, if you drive a car it is growing ever more likely you will 

be hit in the side by a vehicle larger than your own. 

Recommended Actions 

Require NHTSA to improve vehicle compatibility between larger and smaller 

makes and models of the passenger vehicle fleet by reducing the aggressivity of larger vehicles, especially light trucks and vans. 

Enhance the front and side impact protection of occupants of small and mid-sized 

passenger vehicles. 

Increase and improve data collection on the most critical aspects of passenger vehicle to passenger vehicle crashes, especially those involving mismatched collision 

partners. 

Provide consumers with better information about how passenger cars perform in 

side impact crashes with vehicles that are not similar in size. 

Consumer Information On Safety Is Fragmented and Incomplete 

Last year, more than 16.8 million new cars were sold in the United States. However, consumers entering dealer showrooms were hampered in making educated 

purchasing decision because of a lack of comprehensive, comparative information on 

the safety performance of different makes and models of automobiles. Consumer information on the comparative safety of vehicles and vehicle equipment remains woefully inadequate. Even though buying a car is the second most expensive consumer 

purchase, next to the purchase of a home, the majority of consumers end up at the 

mercy of the sales pitch and without recourse to objective information. While energy 

conservation information is required on home appliances and other household items 

and even on passenger vehicles, critical safety information is not required on vehicles at the point of sale. The fact is that consumers get more information about the 

health and safety value of a $3 box of cereal than they do about vehicles that cost 

$30,000 and more in the dealer showroom. 

Providing vehicle buyers with important safety information at the point of sale 

is not a new idea. In 1994, the Secretary of Transportation suggested just such a 

label but it was never implemented. In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences 

issued a report that called for providing consumers with more and easier to use 

safety information, including a vehicle safety label with a summary safety rating. 

(Shopping for Safety, Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 248, National Academy of Sciences (1996).) Throughout the 1990s, in surveys conducted for 

Advocates by pollster Lou Harris, the public repeatedly expressed a strong desire 

for objective safety information. In a 2001 public opinion poll, 84 percent of the public supported placing a government safety rating on a window sticker on every new 

vehicle at the point of sale. 

There is no doubt that consumers continue to clamor for helpful information about 

vehicle safety. A safety label on the vehicle will ensure that every purchaser will 

at least be aware of the same basic, objective safety information for every vehicle 

they are interested in buying. Additionally, NHTSA should release to the public all 

types of vehicle safety information including early warning information that Congress requires the agency to collect under the TREAD Act. In this way, consumers 

will be knowledgeable about the real world performance of vehicles they purchase 

and drive. 

Recommended Action 

Congress should instruct NHTSA to require that all new vehicles display a safety 

label at the point of sale that informs prospective purchasers about the safety of the 

vehicle with respect to major vehicle safety standards as well as specific safety features and equipment, both mandated and optional, that are in the vehicle. 

39 

Leave No State Behind: Congress Should Encourage Uniform State 

Adoption of Life-Saving Highway Safety Laws and Provide States With 

Sufficient Funds to Enforce These Laws 

Improving highway safety requires a two-pronged strategy involving better vehicle 

design and changing driver behavior. Successful changes in driver behavior have 

been accomplished only through the enactment of laws, enforcement of those laws 

and education about the laws. Unfortunately, too few states have adopted some of 

the most effective traffic safety laws that contribute to saving lives and preventing 

injuries on our roads and highways. The recently released 2002 traffic fatality statistics underscore the need to make an investment in safety and ensure the effectiveness of programs if we are to reverse the rising tide of highway fatalities and 

injuries. 

Historically, funding for highway and traffic safety needs through the Section 402 

program and other incentive grant initiatives has provided needed resources to 

states to advance safety. The level of funding and how those funds are used will 

be critical elements in determining the course of highway safety in the next six 

years. 

Advocates is disappointed in DOT’s proposal submitted to Congress last week outlining the Administration’s plans for funding state traffic safety activities as well 

as other measures to address growing highway fatalities. 

The funding level for DOT’s Section 402 traffic safety program is inadequate to 

meet the challenges we face. When one adds up all of the various categories the Administration’s proposal provides for traditional highway safety programs, it equals 

about $539 million. This represents only a marginal funding increase of $20 million 

for FY 2004 over the FY 2003 total of $519 million. It amounts to less than a 4 

percent increase in funding. Furthermore, the Administration’s proposal includes a 

vigorous new program for data collection and analysis. While we support the need 

for such a program, if you subtract the proposed $50 million dollars for the state 

information systems grant program, the remaining authorization for highway safety 

grants in FY 2004 is actually $30 million less than was authorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century for FY 2003. 

These programs, however, are only effective if they promote specific safety goals 

and improvements. Despite the marginal increase in funding proposed by the Administration over the coming six years, the traffic death toll will not decline until 

nearly all occupants buckle up and impaired driving is abated. The Administration’s 

proposal includes a meager $50 million for state impaired driving programs. This 

amount does not even equal the financial cost of 50 drunk driving deaths—the number that occurs daily on our highways—out of a national total in 2002 of 17,970 alcohol-related deaths. 

Safety, medical, health, and law enforcement groups and DOT all agree that seat 

belt use is critical to safety in most crash modes. Last year, statistics show that the 

majority of fatally injured victims were not wearing their seat belts. It is incumbent 

on safety advocates, the Administration, and Congress, to ensure that everyone gets 

the message, ‘‘buckle up for safety.’’ We can do this by requiring all states to adopt 

and enforce primary enforcement seat belt use laws. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have seat belt laws on the books. Of these, only 18 states and the 

District have primary enforcement seat belt use laws. Switching from a seat belt 

use law that permits only secondary enforcement, when another infraction has been 

committed, to a primary enforcement law entails no additional costs or burdens and 

is not an unfunded (or unfounded) mandate to the states. We have tried incentive 

grants for years, and we know that redirection programs usually result in nothing 

more than a funding shell game. For these reasons, Advocates supports a mandatory sanction of Federal-aid highway funds to promote seat belt use and safety. 

Such sanctions have been effective when used judiciously and to promote important 

safety goals, such as state adoption of the minimum drinking age law, the zero alcohol tolerance law, and .08 percent BAC laws. 

We realize that the Administration includes a primary enforcement seat belt law 

funding redirection provision in the proposed new Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP). That proposal will not be effective in moving states to adopt primary enforcement laws for a number of reasons. First, the redirection of funds does 

not occur if a state either adopts a primary enforcement seat belt law or achieves 

a seat belt use rate of 90 percent or more. By permitting the 90 percent belt use 

alternative, the proposal gives reluctant states the hope that both redirection of 

funds and primary enforcement can be avoided. Even though no state has ever 

achieved 90 percent belt use without primary enforcement, this option may well lead 

states to delay or never adopt a primary enforcement seat belt law. Second, the redirection affects only 10 percent of the total $1 billion Highway Safety Improvement 

Program. For many states, their share will probably not be sufficient penalty to enVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
40 

tice them to adopt primary enforcement. Third, the redirection would require that 

the redirected 10 percent of the state’s Highway Safety Improvement Program funds 

be expended on Section 402 programs. This may pose problems for the appropriate 

expenditure of safety funds when large amounts of funding are funneled into the 

program at the last minute, without proper planning and preparation. Moreover, 

funds redirected from the Highway Safety Improvement Program might be in addition to funds required to be transferred to the state’s Section 402 program if the 

state has not complied with the requirements of Section 154 (Open container requirements) and Section 164 (Minimum penalties for repeat offenders). 

The final problem with the proposed redirection is the funding shell game. Under 

the Administration’s proposal, while 10 percent of the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program may be redirected to the Section 402 program, half or more of the funds 

received by a state under the newly proposed Performance Grants could be transferred out of the Section 402 program and back into the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Thus, the proposed redirection ends up as a meaningless paper 

chase and accounting gimmick that will not serve the goals of improving safety and 

increasing the number of people who buckle up. 

In addition, for some years now, the Section 402 program has been flying under 

the radar of good principles of accountability and responsibility. Although we support increasing funds available to states for safety, we are concerned that the funds 

already in the Section 402 program are not being spent in the most effective manner. Over the years, the program has devolved into a self-reporting system in which 

states set their own goals and determine whether those goals have been met. In essence, states make up their own test, grade their own papers, and write their own 

report cards. 

According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) report issued in April, 2003 

(GAO–03–474) in response to a request by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D–ND), NHTSA 

has the ability to conduct management reviews to help improve the financial and 

operational management of state programs. However, GAO found that there are no 

written guidelines on when to perform management reviews and those reviews are 

not being performed consistently. For example, the GAO found that in the six 

NHTSA regions visited, there were goals of conducting management reviews every 

two years but there was no set schedule and they were conducted only when requested by a state. 

Furthermore, when a state program is struggling, NHTSA has the ability to work 

with a state to develop improvement plans. Again, GAO found that NHTSA has 

made limited use of improvement plans to help states address highway safety program deficiencies. If Federal dollars for traffic safety programs are increased but 

there is no increase in accountability and oversight, the American public will be victimized twice—taxpayer dollars will be wasted and highway safety will be jeopardized. 

Recommended Actions 

Enact the DOT proposed incentive grant program encouraging adoption of primary enforcement safety belt laws but include a sanction after a reasonable time 

frame to ensure every state passes this lifesaving law by the end of the authorization period. 

Prohibit states that are subject to redirecting funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) into the Section 402 program from shifting Section 402 

funds back into the HSIP. 

Significantly increase funding for impaired driving programs that have a proven 

track record. 

Ensure accountability by requiring the expenditure of Section 402 traffic safety 

funds on programs that are successful and increase NHTSA oversight of state program plans. 

Enhance The Safety of Children In and Around Cars 

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and injury to children. In 

2002, 2,584 children under the age of 16 were killed in motor vehicle crashes and 

nearly 300,000 were injured. This means that every single day in the United States, 

seven children under the age of 16 are killed and 850 are injured in car crashes. 

While the recently released preliminary FARS data indicates that last year fatalities for children age 7 and younger declined, it was not good news for older children. 

Fatalities for motor vehicle occupants ages 8 to 15 increased by almost 9 percent. 

While some progress has been made in protecting our youth, clearly more needs 

to be done. The decline in death and injury for children ages 4 through 7 is likely 

related to efforts throughout the country to enact booster seat laws. The movement 

started in the state of Washington because a mother, Autumn Skeen, lost her 4 year 

41 

old son, Anton, in a car crash. Anton’s parents believe his death would have been 

prevented if he had been riding in a booster seat and not just an adult seat belt. 

Three years after the Washington State Legislature became the first state to act, 

16 states and the District of Columbia have booster seat laws that require children 

between the ages of 4 and 7 or 8 to use booster seats once they have outgrown toddler child restraints. 

The need to protect children who have graduated from infant and toddler safety 

seats has been documented by research conducted by The Children’s Hospital of 

Philadelphia in partnership with State Farm Insurance Companies. This research 

has found that half of children between the ages of 3 and 8 are improperly restrained in adult seat belts. This inappropriate restraint results in a three and onehalf-fold increase in the risk of significant injury and a four-fold increase in the risk 

of a serious head injury for those in this age group who are restrained by adult seat 

belts. 

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has been a leader 

in moving forward a legislative agenda to enhance the safety of child passengers. 

In the 106th Congress, legislation that originated with the Senate Commerce Committee requiring NHTSA to provide consumer information about the performance of 

child safety seats, was included in the final version of the TREAD Act. In the last 

Congress, this Committee again took the lead to push for legislation, named 

‘‘Anton’s Law’’, requiring NHTSA to issue a Federal safety standard for booster 

seats and requiring automakers to install, at long last, a shoulder/lap belt in all rear 

seating positions. 

The next step that needs to be taken to protect this age group is to encourage 

state adoption of booster seat laws. Advocates urges the Committee to take up and 

modify a proposal that was dropped from last year’s congressional enactment of 

‘‘Anton’s Law.’’ This provision was a small grant program to foster state adoption 

of booster seat laws. Advocates supports a simple but direct incentive grant program 

that provides financial rewards to states that adopt booster seat laws and allows 

them to use the grants for enforcement of the new law, education about the new 

law, and provision of age-appropriate child restraints to families in need. 

Another serious safety risk that we urge the Committee to address in the NHTSA 

reauthorization legislation involves children who are left unattended in vehicles or 

standing behind vehicles that are placed in reverse, resulting in unnecessary deaths 

and injuries each year. Non-profit organizations, such as Kids ‘N Cars, have documented in private research, the deaths of hundreds of children who were left in cars 

when outside temperatures soared, who were inadvertently killed when a car or 

truck backed over them, or who were killed or injured by power windows and sunroof systems that were not child-proof. It is time that NHTSA lead the effort to collect data on child fatalities and injuries that occur in or immediately outside the 

car, but not on public roadways. Also, NHTSA needs to analyze the data and take 

subsequent action to remedy safety inadequacies as they affect children. 

Recommended Actions 

Include in the NHTSA authorization legislation an incentive grant program to encourage states to adopt booster seat laws. Permit funds to be used for enforcement, 

education and distribution of child restraints to families in need. 

Direct NHTSA to collect and publish data on child fatalities and injuries in 

parked or inoperable vehicles that result from strangulation and injuries involving 

automatic windows, and those from backing up collisions. 

Require NHTSA to ensure automatic window systems will not kill or injure children. 

Require NHTSA to enhance driver rear visibility to prevent backing up crashes 

into children and adults. 

Conclusion 

The recommendations for action that Advocates supports are common sense, cost 

effective and will achieve savings in lives and dollars. The Senate Commerce, 

Science and Transportation Committee has been a leader in advancing legislative 

solutions to improve safety in all modes of transportation. Motor vehicle crashes are 

equivalent to a major airline crash every other day of the year. This public health 

epidemic does not have to continue unabated. Enactment of proposals to move the 

agency forward in addressing the unfinished regulatory agenda and providing states 

with direction and resources will reverse the deadly trend facing us in the coming 

years. Advocates’ vision for the future is testifying before this subcommittee in 2006 

to report that the U.S. experienced the lowest traffic fatalities in a decade, the war 

on drunk driving was being won, fatal rollover crashes were decreasing and motor 

vehicle crashes were no longer the leading cause of death and injury for Americans, 

42 

young and old. We appreciate the invitation to testify today and look forward to 

working with this committee to craft a bill that will save lives and prevent needless 

deaths and injuries. 


522LEG1.eps
43 


522LEG2.eps

2% 

Motor Vehicle Safety 85% 

Advocates' Legislative Proposals 

for the Reauthorization of the 

National Highway Traffic Would you favor the 

federal government 

Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) 

issuing a safety peliormance 

standard/or all new vehicles 011 

their risk of rolling over? Louis Harris Poll 200 I 

• Increase NHTSA's Motor Vehicle Safety 

and Consumer Information Funding 

Authorization to $200 Million Annually . 

Nearly 95 percent of all transportation 

fatalities occur as a result of motor vehicle 

crashes, costing the nation $230 billion per 

year Yet NHTSA receives less than 

I percent of the us. Department of 

Transportation's budget 

• Make Vehicles More Compatible and 

Less Aggressive. Light trucks and vans, 

especially sport utility vehicles (SUVs), can 

cause great harm to smaller passenger 

vehicles in a crash. These groups are badly 

mismatched in weight, size, and height Side 

impact crashes are particularly dangerous. 

When an SUV hits a passenger car in the 

side, the passenger car dri ver is 16 times 

more likely to die than the SUV driver This 

ratio soars to 26 when the striking vehicle is 

• Issue Common Sense Standards to 

Prevent Rollover Deaths and Injuries. 

In 2002, 10,626 people died in rollover 

crashes. Rollover crashes represent 

3 percent of all collisions, but account for 

32 percent of all occupant fatalities. A 

ro llover stability standard is needed, as 

well as improvements for roof strength, 

head impact protection, ejection 

prevention, and integrated seating 

systems. 

• Help Consumers Make the Right 

Choice. Comparative ratings of vehicle 

crashworthiness would help consumers 

make safer purchase decisions. The best 

way to reach consumers is to display 

safety information on vehicle window 

stickers at the point of sale. 

a pickUp truck. ,-----------------------, 

SUV Rollover 

Fatalities 

1992-2002 

3,000 

2.750 

2 ,500 

2 .250 

2 ,000 

1,750 

1,500 

1,250 

1,000 

750 

500 

~ 

./ 

/ 

/ 

/' 

./ 

I ...... 

'92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 

From 1992 through 

2002, SUV roll overs 

increased by nearly 

150 percent. 

Almost two and onehalf times the number 

of occupants died in 

SUV roUovers in 2002 

compared to 1992. 
44 


522LEG3.eps

Traffic Safety 

When Congress reauthorizes the Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21" Century (TEA-21) this year, Advocates' 

"SAFETEA Coalition" will be ready. Created in 1997, the 

SAFETEA Coalition has over 100 members at the federal, 

state, and local level. The SAFE TEA Coalition is working to 

advance a highway safety agenda in the TEA-21 Reauthorization bill. 

The SAFETEA Coalition Urges 

Congress to ... 

• Pass federal legislation requiring all states 

to have a primary enforcement safety 

belt use law by a specific date or lose a 

certain percentage offederal highway dollars. 

• Increase funding for federal highway and 

auto safety programs. 

• Support increased funding of 

impaired driving programs and stronger 

enforcement. 

• Improve highway safety through the 

use of innovative technologies that 

result in more effective enforcement 

of traffic laws. 

• Oppose increasing truck size and weights. 

Maintain the freeze on triple trailer 

trucks and other longer combination vehicles. 

The Highway Safety Deficit: 

·32 states still don't have a primary 

enforcement safety belt law. 

· II states still don't have a .08% 

blood alcohol content (BAC) per se 

law. 

• 17 states still don 't have a repeat 

offender law. 

• 14 states still don't have an open 

container law. 

• 17 states still have gaps in their child 

restraint laws. 

·33 states still don 't have a booster 

seat law to protect children ages 4-8. 

If all passengers were to wear their safety belts, an additional9,200jatalilies and 143,000 seriOllS 

injuries could be prevented each year. NHTSA, 2002 

Unless additional states enact and enforce primary enforcemem laws, which are the most effective means 

a/increasing seal belt lise, we see 110 credible basis to forecast increases in seathelt use in excess a/the 

currellllre/1d Office of the U.S. DOT Inspector General, 2002 ~ 

Between 1985 and 1996, more than 5,500 childre/1 IVere killed in alcohol-related crashes. "Ii 

Approximately 64 perce11l a/those children were passengers in vehicles driven by impaired drivers. 

Journal of American Medical Association, 2000 
45 


522LEG4.eps

COMMON ¢ENTS SOLUTIONS FORAOVANCtNG HIGHWAY SAFETY 

Coalition Members 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

Alaska Injury Prevention Center 

Alaska Safe Kids 

Alliance of American Insurers 

American Academy of Pediatrics 

American Academy of Pediatrics CT Chapter 

American Trauma Socicty 

Arizona Consumers Council 

Arizona Emergency Nurses CARE 

Association for Safe International Road Travel 

Automotive Safety Program (IN) 

Benedict Collegc/Project Impact (SC) 

Brain Injury Association of America 

Buckle Up 4 Meghan 

Butler County Safe Kids (OH) 

Cedar Rapids Police Department (IA) 

Central Maryland Regional Safe Communities 

Champaign County Safe Kids Coalition (lL) 

Chattanooga ~ Hamilton County Health Department 

Children and Nutrition Services. Inc. (WY) 

Children's Mercy Hospital (MO) 

City of Madison (WI) 

Coalition for American Trauma Care 

Columbus Health Department (OH) 

Community Alliance for Teen Safety 

Consumer Federation of America 

Consumers for Auto Reliability & Safety 

CRASH - Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways 

DEDICATEOO - Drive Educated, Drive Informed, 

Commit and Totally End Drunk Driving 

"00 Buckle, Don't Booze" Campaign (NO) 

Downers Grove Police Dept. (IL) 

Driscoll Children'S Hospital (TX) 

Eastern Shore Safe Communities (MD) 

Effingham County Sherifrs Department (IL) 

Elizabeth Police Department (NJ) 

Emergency Nurses Association 

Eastern Panhandle Safe Community (WV) 

Focus on Safety (IN) 

Franke Publicity (MN) 

General Federation of Women's Clubs 

Green River Area Development District (KY) 

Hamilton County Health Dept. (TN) 

Holmes County Health Department (OH) 

Houston Safe Communities (TX) 

Illinois Traffic Safety Leaders 

Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America 

Injury Preve ntion Center of Greater Dallas 

Injury Prevention Center (Rl) 

Joliet Police Department (IL) 

KJOS N' CARS & TRUNC 

Louisiana Safe Kids 

Loyola Uni versity Bum & Shock Trauma Institute 

Macoupin County Public Health Department (IL) 

MADO(FL) 

MAOD(NY) 

MAKUS Buckle Up! Drive Safely! 

Maryland Kids in Safety Scats 

Maryland State Police 

Massachusetts State Police 

Mayo Clinic Hospital (AZ) 

Missouri State Safety Center 

Montgomcry County Child Passenger Safety Program 

National Alcohol Enforcement Training Center 

National Center for Bicycling and Walking 

National Coalition for School Bus Safety 

National Latino Council on Alcohol & Tobacco Prevention 

National Peer Helpers Association (MO) 

New Kent County Sheriffs Office (V A) 

New York Coalition for Transportation Safety 

NFPA - National Fire Protection Association 

Nonh Alabama Highway Safety Officers 

Northeast Colorado Health Department 

100 Black Men of Augusta, Inc. (GA) 

Operation Student Safety on the Move (OR) 

Omee of Highway Safety (MS) 

Pennsylvania Traffic Injury Prevention Program 

P.A.T.T. - Parents Against Tired Truckers 

Phelps Memorial Health Center (NE) 

Preventing Alcohol Related Crashes (WI) 

Professional Insurance Agents of Ohio 

Providence Safe Communities Partnership (RJ) 

Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago 

Remove Intox:icated Drivers (RID) USA 

Richland County Safe Communities (OH) 

Riverside County Sherifrs Departmcnt (CA) 

St. Louis Fire Dept. (MO) 

SI. Mary's Highway Safety (MO) 

SADD(NY) 

Safe and Sober Law Enforcement (MN) 

Safe Communities Coalition Augusta (GA) 

Safe Communities of Miami County (OH) 

Safe Communities Salisbury State University (MD) 

Safe Communities Southwest Coalition 

Safer New Mexico Now 

Safety Council of Southwestern Ohio 

SAFE - Seatbelt Awareness for Everyone 

Safe Trame System, Inc. (lL) 

State Farm Insurance Companies 

STOP OUI 

The Progressive Corporation 

Think First of Ark~La Tex 

Think First Missouri 

Think First National Rehabilitation Hospital 

Trauma Foundation 

Utah County Health Department 

Virginia Association ofChicfs of Police 

Williams County Health Department (OH) 
46 


522LEG5.eps

Motor Carrier Safety 

Large truck deaths decreased slightly in 2002, yet 4,902 people died in crashes 

involving large trucks. On May 25, 1999, the Secretary of Transportation announced a 

goal of reducing truck crash fatalities by 50 percent within 10 years. There has been 

little progress over the past four years, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) is unlikely to meet this goal. 

74% 

1% 4% 4% 

eI Very Important 

• Somewhallmporlant 

o Not Very Important 

.Not alAIl 

. NotSure 

Strong Public Support for Making 

Large Truck Safety a Top Priority 

III the case of highw(fY s{ffely, how importallt 

do YOIl f eel it is that the f ederal government 

be concerned with Large truck safety 011 lite 

highways - very important, somewhat 

important, /lot very imp011allt, not at all? 

Louis Harris Poll 1996 

To Improve Motor Carrier Safety, Congress Should ... 

Require motor carriers transporting hazardous materials (HazMat) to undergo 

preliminary safety reviews and annual compliance reviews. 

Perform stringent inspections of international trucks transporting HazMat. 

Equip HazMat motor carriers with safety/security technologies. 

Continue federal requirements to ensure motor carrier safety at the US. -Mexico border. 

Prevent truck driver fatigue by requiring electronic on-board recorders to monitor 

compliance with federal hours of service rules. 

Require applicants for a commercial drivers license (CDL) to have a personal driving 

record free of serious violations. 

Establish a nationally uniform commercial driver skills test. 

Coordinate the issuance of the medical driver fitness certification with CDL renewal. 

Require safety reviews and examinations of new motor carrier entrants. 

Increase State efforts to enforce speed limits for commercial motor vehicles. 

Oppose any rollback in truck safety, including increases in truck size and weights. 
47 


522LEG6.eps

Child Safety 

MOtOl' vehicle crashes are the leading 

cause of death and injury to children 

and teenagers, In 2002, 2,584 children 

up to age 16 were killed and nearl y 

300,000 more werc injured as both 

occupants and non-occupants of motor 

vehicles. Although no national figures 

are collected by the federal govemment, 

independent safety organizations have 

found that there are serious safety risks 

involving children left unattended in 

vehicles or standing hehind vehicles that are 

backing up, reSUlting in hundreds of deaths 

and thousands of injuries each year. 

4% 

St.rong Public Support for Requiring 

Booster Scats 

'JlolI'd YOII favor or oppose a law it, your state 

tltut would extemf the requirement so that chifdren 

hetween 4 and 8 years of age would be properly 

restrained in a booster seat while ridillg in a car? 

Louis Harris Poll 200 I 

To Improve Child Safety, Congress Should, , , 

Have l\HTSA CoUect and Publish Data on 

Child fatalities and injuries in parked and inoperable vehicles involving heat, cold, 

suffocation and other dangerous conditions. 

Strangulation and injuries involving suru'oofs and power windows. 

Backing-up coll isions. 

Have NHTSA Require 

Power window and sunroof systems that will not kill or injure children when activated. 

Enhanced driver rear visibility to prevent backing crashes into adults and children. 

Pass a Child Passenger Safety Bill 

Include incentive grants to States for enactment of booster seat laws. 

lncenti ve grant funds funds should be used for enforcement, education, and providing 

families in need with free child safety seats. 
48 


522LEG7.eps

Roadway Safety 

Highway design plays a crucial role in highway and auto safety. A safe highway 

environment provides traffic control measures that guide drivers through intersections, 

and roadside "hardware" that protects drivers when crashes do occur. Three major 

areas of roadway design and data collection need dramatic attention: highway barriers, 

work zone safety, and intersection safety. 

To Improve Roadway Safety, Congress Should ... 3% 

• Provide Funds for States to Install Stateof-the-Art Highway Barriers that Safely 

Restrain Larger Passenger Vehicles and 

Large Commercial Vehicles. Highway 

barriers are important to prevent vehicle 

incursions into dangerous roadside areas or 

into opposing streams of traffic. Current 

barriers are ineffective at restraining large 

vehicles and even increase the chances that 

light trucks such as pickup trucks, sport 

utility vehicles (SUVs), and large vans will 

roll over. This is particularly dangerous 

given the explosive increase in SUVs on 

American roads. 

• Require State Collection of Uniform 

Highway Work Zone Crash Data and report 

that data to the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA). Work zonerelated fatal crashes claim over 1,000 lives a 

69% 

Strong Public Support for Red Light 

Cameras at Busy Intersections 

In some cities, red light cameras are used at 

busy intersections to identify license plates or 

drivers who run red lights. Warning signs are 

posted to alert drivers to the use of cameras and 

to deter drivers from running red lights. Would 

you favor or oppose a law in your state that 

would allow cities to develop red light camera 

programs, as a supplement to police 

enforcement? 

Louis Harris Poll 200 I 

year, but states are not required to report work 1-_______________ ---1 

zone crash data to FHW A. In addition, work zone fatal crash figures are not related to any 

exposure measures such as vehicle-miles-traveled, fatal crashes per 100,000 population, 

or number of registered vehicles . 

• Enhance Intersection Safety. About 10,000 fata l crashes occur amlUally in or near some 

type of intersection, and nearly half of all injury crashes are intersection-related. Congress 

should provide separate, dedicated federal funding for states and local governments to 

accomplish intersection safety enhancement projects. ~ 
49 


522STATE1.eps

State Highway Safety Law Chart As of May 19, 2003 

;;:: i) os -'" ....I "0 

C)~ 

C " .- '" III ::: .... c '" c ;;::~ 111 Q) 

111 ;;::~ '-' Q) 111 .... c E ;;:: os'" os":' :J III U ;;:: ,c 111 os ....I' ui os C) 111 -6 ....I ;;U5 ....1« ... c >- ....I ;;:: :J f::! ;;:: ... w 111 0 f::! os 111 1111- > :E ~ . <15 .... ....I ,£ os II) '0 1- .: ..c ~ ·5 0 C '0 

C....l ... C'<::: e '0 .; -; 111 ;;:: 0....1 

W~ 111 ~j ~3 "- :i!E ;;:: ... 111 II:: '0 III 

'0 111 II.. '0 ,g os '1ii II) {lj 111 111 o en o en .e! ... ....1 111 en '0- ... 10 0 ... . ~ O~ os iii 111 .... 1I::!l ... .- ~ C .!:! os >- 111 « os - :::l :2 111 '0 ro .... ;;:: 111 11I,c '0 .... 10 111 !l C !l "- a;:§ III :::: 111 C 111 c.E 111 E '0 III -(9 0 .e! E os> os'" os 5 :E 0 STATE .... os 00 111 0 c.o ... 111 0 ~8 C C (1)11) C! 11::0 00 C) "- C(l: oz 10 ::J . 

Alabama X X X X X' X 

Alaska X X' X 

Arizona X X X X 

Arkansas X X X' X 

California X X X XU . 4 X X X X X 

Colorado X X' ·2 X X X 

Connecticut X X X X 

Delaware X X' ·3 X X X 

District of Columbia X X X X XU . 4 X X X X 

Florida X X X X' ·2 X X 

Georgia X X X X X' ·4 X X X 

Hawaii X X X X X 

Idaho X X X X2.3 

Illinois X X X X 

Indiana X X X X4 

Iowa X X X X X' 

Kansas X X X X2 

Kentucky X X X X' X 

Louisiana X X 

Maine X X X X2.4 X X 

Maryland X X X X X2 X X X X X 

Massachusetts X X' ·4 X X 

Michigan X X X X' ·2 X X 

Minnesota X X' ·2 
50 


522STATE2.eps

~ >: 

'" ~ ...J '" 

I: '" -5 " 'iii '" '" 1: I: '" ~~ .. .. " ~ ~~ u ill .. ~ - I: 

E ",,,, ",,,;, :J U .s::; ~ .. '" -:~ ...J« ~ g >- '" ~ '" :!2 ~ ~ ...J ~W .. ~ ...J '" :J .. ~ .... ...... > 'Vi 1: ...J :.c ~ 

~ '" <II .5 .c ~ '5 

~ - 'C 0 I:...J ~ '" 1:.<:: 

~ '§ '" .. ~ ...J 

w- .. ~ '~ ~~ ~ II: 'C 'C ::;: ti .. '" .. 1/1 

'C .. D- O (/) ~ u ~ '" <II .. ...J 'C .. ~ID 0 o (/) ~ ...J .. (/) 'C U 1U~ o ,,!! '" .. II: a. ~ 

'~ r:! I: 

.g~ « 1:0. ::J " 'C ~ 'C ro ~ .. .. :.c ID .. a. 'C :;) 

~ E 

~ I: .. :t:: .. o.E .. E =(9 0 E '" ", ... r:! is Qj > STATE -'" co 8!8 0.0 « .s::; 0 0 '" I: <11<11 "! 00 C> ~ :I: 0 Z ID 0 :J ,!: 

Mississippi X X X' " X 

Missouri X X X' X X 

Montana X X X X 

Nebraska X X X X X X X 

Nevada X X X' X X 

New Hampshire X X X X 

New Jersey X X X X"· X X X 

New Mexico X X X X1. 2,4 X 

New York X X X X' X X 

North Carolina X X X X X""· X X 

North Dakota X X X X' X 

Ohio X X X' " 

Oklahoma X X X X 

Ore~]On X X X X1. 2,4 X X X 

Pennsylvania X X X' " X X X X 

Rhode Island X X X' X 

South Carolina X X1, 2, 3 X 

South Dakota X X X' X 

Tennessee X X1.2,4 X 

Texas X X X X X1, 4 X X 

Utah X X X X',· X 

Vermont X X X1. 2,4 X X 

Virginia X X X',' X X X 

Washington X X X X Xu,. X X X 

West Virginia X' X X 

Wisconsin X X X1,2,4 

Wyoming X X X 

Total # of States 18 39 33 36 41 20 33 16 5 9 

&DC &DC &DC &DC &DC &DC &DC &DC &DC 

% of U,S, pop, 

covered by law 54% 79% 63% 83% 78% 54% 71% 33% 19% 32% 
51 

GDL Key For State Law Chart 

Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) Systems—Optimal graduated driver licensing 

systems consist of a learner’s stage, an intermediate stage and an unrestricted driving stage. Within each of these stages, there are provisions that are optimal to providing safe circumstances under which to develop driving skills. The four provisions 

which are referenced on the law chart are listed below, numbered 1–4. Each state’s 

law is intricate and this chart should serve only as a guide. To fully understand 

a state’s law, one should review it. 

A. Learner’s Stage 

1. Six Month Holding Period: A novice driver must be supervised by an adult 

licensed driver at all times. If the learner remains conviction free for six 

months, he or she progresses to the intermediate stage. In an optimal provision, there is not a reduction in this amount of time if the driver takes a 

driver’s education course. 

2. 30–50 Hours of Supervised Driving: A novice driver must receive 30–50 

hours of behind-the-wheel training with an adult licensed driver. In an optimal provision, there is not a reduction in this amount of time if the driver 

takes a driver’s education course. 

B. Intermediate Stage: While optimally this stage should continue until age 18, 

states have been given credit in this chart for having the following two restrictions for any period of time, i.e., 6 months. 

3. Nighttime Restriction: Because a majority of the crashes involving teens 

occur before midnight, the optimal period for supervised nighttime driving is 

from 9 or 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. Unsupervised driving during this period is prohibited. 

4. Passenger Restriction: Limits the number of teenage passengers that ride 

with a teen driver driving without adult supervision. The optimal limit is no 

more than one teenage passenger. Sometimes family members are excepted. 

.08 BAC Per Se Laws in the States 

On October 23, 2000, President Clinton signed a federal .08 BAC per se law which 

required each state to enact .08 BAC per se legislation by October of 2003. States 

that do not pass it before October 1, 2003 will have 2% of certain highway construction funds withheld in 2004. The penalty increases by 2% each year after that, up 

to 8% in 2007 and every year thereafter. States that enact a .08 BAC per se law 

by October 1, 2006 will have any withheld funds returned. 

In the 17 years between the date of enactment of the first .08 BAC per se law 

and the day President Clinton signed the federal sanction, 19 states and the District 

of Columbia enacted .08 BAC per se laws. In just the two and a half years since 

the federal law was passed, 20 additional states have enacted .08 BAC per se laws. 

Passed .08 BAC Per Se 

Law Prior to October 2000 

(19 + DC) 

Passed .08 BAC Per Se 

Law After October 2000 

(20) 

Have Not Yet Passed .08 

BAC Per Se Law (11) 

Alabama 

California 

District of Columbia 

Florida 

Hawaii 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Maine 

New Hampshire 

New Mexico 

North Carolina 

Oregon 

Rhode Island 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

Alaska 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

Connecticut 

Georgia 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Louisiana 

Maryland 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

New York 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

Delaware 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Nevada 

New Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

South Carolina 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

52 

Repeat Offender and Open Container Laws in the States 

On May 22, 1998, President Clinton signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century, or TEA–21. This federal law included a redirection of highway construction funds for those states that did not have repeat offender and open container 

laws on the books by October 1, 2000. In 2000 and 2001, states that had not enacted 

these laws had 1.5% of certain federal-aid highway funds transferred to the state’s 

Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program or to hazard 

elimination. In 2002 and in each year thereafter, 3% of those funds will be redirected. 

Prior to the passage of TEA–21, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had 

some form of a repeat offender law and nearly all of them had open container/anticonsumption laws. However, most of these laws were weak and did not comply with 

the requirements in TEA–21. The states listed on the following pages as having had 

repeat offender or open container laws before May of 1998 are the only ones whose 

preexisting laws complied with TEA–21. 

It has been 5 years since TEA–21 was enacted, and there is still a long way to 

go. One-third of the nation’s states (17) have yet to pass TEA–21 complaint repeat 

offender laws and nearly as many (14) still have not passed TEA–21 compliant open 

container laws. 

TEA–21 Compliant Repeat Offender Law: Any individual convicted of a second or 

subsequent offense for driving while intoxicated must have their license suspended 

for a minimum of 1 year, be subject to having their motor vehicles impounded or 

equipped with ignition interlock, receive alcohol abuse treatment as appropriate, 

and: 

(i) for 2nd offense, not less than 30 days community service or 5 days of imprisonment; and 

(ii) for 3rd and subsequent offense, not less than 60 days community service or 

10 days of imprisonment. 

Passed Repeat Offender 

Prior to May 1998 (4 + DC) 

Passed Repeat Offender 

After May 1998 (29) 

Have Not Yet Passed 

TEA–21 Compliant Repeat 

Offender Law (17) 

District of Columbia 

Maine 

Michigan 

New Hampshire 

Washington 

Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

Colorado 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Hawaii 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Maryland 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Jersey 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Oklahoma 

Pennsylvania 

Texas 

Utah 

Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Alaska 

California 

Connecticut 

Louisiana 

Massachusetts 

Minnesota 

New Mexico 

New York 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Vermont 

West Virginia 

Wyoming 

53 

TEA–21 Compliant Open Container Law: The possession of any open alcoholic 

beverage container, or the consumption of any alcoholic beverage, in the passenger 

area of any motor vehicle (including possession or consumption by the driver of the 

vehicle) must be prohibited. 

Passed Open Container 

Prior to May 1998 (13 + DC) 

Passed Open Container 

After May 1998 (23) 

Have Not Yet Passed 

TEA–21 Compliant Open 

Container Law (14) 

California 

District of Columbia 

Illinois 

Kansas 

Michigan 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Utah 

Washington 

Wisconsin 

Alabama 

Arizona 

Florida 

Georgia 

Hawaii 

Idaho 

Iowa 

Kentucky 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Minnesota 

Nebraska 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Texas 

Vermont 

Alaska 

Arkansas 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Indiana 

Louisiana 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Tennessee 

Virginia 

West Virginia 

Wyoming 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. Excellent testimony. And just as a 

courtesy to everyone else we want to hear from, whatever you can 

do to consolidate, we’d appreciate it, because I want to give everybody a chance to have their say before this vote is called. 

Ms. Swanson. 

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN SWANSON, DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA 

OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY AND CHAIR, GOVERNORS 

HIGHWAY ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNORS 

HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIATION (GHSA) 

Ms. SWANSON. Thank you. My name is Kathy Swanson. I’m the 

Director of Traffic Safety in Minnesota’s Department of Public 

Safety, and I am also currently serving as Chair of the Governors 

Highway Safety Association, and that’s the role in which I’m speaking today. 

States have made significant advances in modifying safe behavior practices of drivers and road users. The fatality rate is the lowest on record and the national safety belt use rate is the highest 

on record. Pedestrian fatalities are down, child restraint usage is 

up, and fatalities involving young children are down. These advances were made possible in large part due to programs and resources provided under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century, or TEA–21. 

Yet, there is considerably more to do. We have reached the easily 

influenced and changed their behavior so that they no longer pose 

as significant of a threat on the Nation’s highways. As Senator 

54 

Lautenberg said earlier, we have picked the low-hanging fruit, now 

it’s time to break out the tall ladders. 

Now we have to reach those populations that are resistant to the 

traditional safety messages and programs. To make inroads for 

these populations, significant efforts must be undertaken to reduce 

motor vehicle related crashes, deaths and injuries from the unacceptable levels where they are today. The states need appropriate 

Federal tools and additional Federal resources in order to make 

further progress in the war on unsafe highways. 

First and foremost, states need stable and reliable sources of 

funding in order to address the behavioral aspects of highway safety. With assured funding, states can plan their highway safety programs over a longer period of time, facilitate their work with and 

get commitments from grantees, and plan and implement improvements to highway safety information systems. The budgetary firewalls that were introduced under TEA–21 have provided that stability, and GHSA strongly supports their continuation in the reauthorization. 

Second, states also need to retain the right to determine how 

Federal funds are spent within their states without Federal approval of each and every aspect of the State plans and programs. 

With this flexibility which states have had since 1994, it has enabled states to focus on states’ data-driven problem identification 

and performance-based strategies and has allowed the states and 

the Federal Government to work together in a more cooperative 

basis. GHSA believes that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration already has sufficient authority to oversee State programs and to encourage enhancement in those programs. We’re 

working with NHTSA to ensure that the oversight authority is applied in a more consistent basis throughout the country. We would 

vigorously oppose any effort to revert to the project-by-project approval for authority over State plans that NHTSA had prior to 

1994. 

Third, states need fewer Federal programs to administer. TEA– 

21 authorized 8 grant programs and 2 penalty programs, all of 

which had to be administered by the State highway safety offices. 

There are different program purposes, scopes and deadlines. The 

proliferation of Federal grant programs, not the proliferation of 

Federal grant money but a number of programs, made it difficult 

to approach safety in a comprehensive and coordinated manner, 

and has resulted in fragmentation and duplication of efforts. GHSA 

recommends consolidation of all of the grant programs into a single 

behavioral highway safety program with an occupant protection incentive tier and an impaired driving incentive tier. These incentives would be similar to the existing incentive programs but would 

address some of the weaknesses in those programs. Incentives 

would be given to states that enact specific legislation, improve 

their performance, or maintain a superior level of performance. 

GHSA’s specific recommendations for the consolidated behavioral 

grant program were submitted for the record. 

Fourth, states need to have adequate resources to be able to address safety problems. Current resources will enable states to 

maintain the programs that have been implemented under TEA– 

21, but GHSA recommends that at a minimum, the single Federal 

55 

behavioral safety grant be funded at $500 million, $50 million 

above the Fiscal Year 2003 levels. With additional funding, states 

could support significantly greater levels of enforcement of the 

highway safety laws, enforcement that is needed in order to reach 

the hard-to-influence populations. With additional funding, states 

could also undertake a whole range of programs to address specific 

target and high-risk populations and emerging highway safety 

issues. 

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, or AASHTO, has supported the enactment of an additional $1 billion a year for safety in the next reauthorization. These 

funds would not be used to create new programs but to enhance 

the funding of existing safety construction programs and the consolidated behavioral safety program. GHSA endorses this proposal. 

If Congress identifies ways to provide increased funding in the next 

reauthorization, then $1 billion a year of the new funding should 

be set aside for safety programs. 

Fifth, states need timely, accurate and accessible data with 

which to make safety-related decisions. States use data to identify 

significant safety problems, select appropriate safety countermeasures and evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. Nearly 

all states have strategic plans for improving their highway safety 

information systems, but we lack the resources to be able to make 

those improvements. Consequently, a new data incentive grant program is needed. 

Finally, states need much more research on driver and road user 

behavior. Relatively little is known about the relative effectiveness 

of many safety laws in most highway safety programs. Further, 

there has been no recent research on crash causation. As a result, 

states implement programs without knowing if they are addressing 

the root cause or whether the implemented programs will work. 

Our additional recommendations on Federal lobbying restrictions, new sanctions, paid advertising and technical corrections to 

the penalty programs are contained in the more detailed statement 

that we submitted for the record. Thank you for the opportunity for 

being able to address the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Swanson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHRYN SWANSON, DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA OFFICE OF

TRAFFIC SAFETY AND CHAIR, GOVERNORS HIGHWAY ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF

THE GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIATION (GHSA) 

Introduction 

Good afternoon. My name is Kathryn Swanson, and I am the Director of the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety and the Chair of the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). GHSA is the national, nonprofit association that represents state 

and territorial highway safety offices (SHSO). Its members are appointed by their 

governors to design, implement and evaluate programs that affect the behavior of 

motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists. As part of their responsibilities, GHSA members administer Federal highway safety grant programs 

and penalty transfer programs. I appreciate the opportunity to share the Association’s thoughts with you on the reauthorization of these Federal highway safety programs. 

More than 42,000 people were killed and three million injured in motor vehiclerelated crashes in 2002. Forty-two percent of those crashes were ones in which alcohol was involved. Nearly 5,000 pedestrians, more than 3,000 motorcyclists were 

killed and nearly 8,000 young drivers were killed in motor vehicle-related crashes. 

GHSA is very concerned, as are others in the highway safety community, that these 

56 

1Source: analysis prepared for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, 2002. 

numbers are beginning to move upward after several years of holding steady. With 

the present trend, no change in the risk of a fatal crash on a per population basis 

and no assumptions about future demographic changes, the absolute number of fatalities can conservatively be expected to increase to 63,513 by 2050—an increase 

of 48 percent over current levels or approximately 350 additional fatalities every 

year.1

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) was designed to reduce these fatalities and injuries by addressing all aspects of highway safety—the 

roadway, the vehicle and the driver. My remarks will be limited to the areas that 

are the responsibility of GHSA members—the SHSOs—and will focus on the programs that address the behavior of the driver and other road users. 

As enacted in TEA–21, the 402 program—the basic Federal highway safety grant 

program through which every state receives funding—and the 410 alcohol incentive 

grant program were reauthorized. TEA–21 also authorized four new occupant protection incentive grants (the 405, 157 basic, 157 innovative, and 2003(b) programs); 

a second impaired driving incentive grant program (the 163 program); a data improvement program (the 411 program); and two penalty transfer programs, the 154 

open container and the 164 repeat offender programs). The SHSO’s are responsible 

for administering all of these programs. 

Funding under the 402, 405, 410, and 2003(b) programs can only be used to address a variety of behavioral highway safety-related problems. The 411 funds can 

only be used to plan for the improvement of highway safety information systems. 

A state that is eligible for the 157 basic and 163 grants may use the funds for any 

purpose under Title 23 of the U.S. Code. 157 innovative funds can only be used for 

purposes specified by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

in its annual announcement of the availability of grant funds. States that are not 

in compliance with the open container or repeat offender requirements may use the 

funds for impaired driving-related purposes or for activities under the Hazard Elimination Program. 

Two years ago, GHSA embarked on an effort to evaluate the Federal behavioral 

highway safety grant programs authorized under TEA–21. The results of that review were published last year in a report entitled Taking the Temperature of TEA– 

21: An Evaluation and Prescription for Safety which is available on GHSA’s website, 

www.statehighwaysafety.org. Our recommendations for the next reauthorization are 

based largely on the findings in our report. I would like to review several of them. 

Safeguard Funding 

Prior to TEA–21, highway safety grant programs were authorized at one level and 

almost always funded at a reduced level. SHSO’s never knew from year to year how 

much Federal money would be appropriated, so it was difficult to plan, particularly 

for long-term multi-year projects, which are often necessary to see sustained behavioral changes. 

TEA–21 changed that by creating budget firewalls around highway safety programs so that the funding could only be used for highway safety purposes. This has 


522KATH1.eps
57 

proved to be of tremendous benefit to the SHSO’s, who are responsible for administering Federal grant funds. The firewalls have meant that there is a far greater 

degree of certainty in the state planning process than ever existed in the past. 

States know from year to year what to expect in terms of grant funding and they 

can better estimate the level of funding for which their states may be eligible. 

GHSA strongly supports the continuation of the budget firewalls for Federal highway safety grant programs and believes that it should be the top priority for reauthorization. 

States also want to retain the lead in determining how the Federal grant funds 

should be spent in their states. Prior to 1994, states submitted annual Highway 

Safety Plans to NHTSA’s regional offices. The regional offices reviewed and approved every single planned project. The plans were approved but often with a fouror five-page list of conditions and comments that the states had to meet if they 

wanted Federal grant funding. SHSO’s felt suffocated by the degree of Federal oversight over, and micro-management of, very small Federal highway safety grant programs. 

In 1994, NHTSA piloted a change in the 402 program—the federal highway safety 

grant program that provides behavioral highway safety funding to every state. The 

new approach changed the program from one based on specific procedures into a 

more performance-based program. The performance-based approach was formally 

adopted by NHTSA in 1998. States are required to submit a Performance Plan in 

which they identify performance goals and objectives based on data-driven problem 

identification. The states then program their Federal grant funding for projects that 

address the identified major safety problems in their states, typically impaired driving, adult occupant protection and child passenger safety. The projects are organized 

into an annual Highway Safety Plan that is reviewed but not approved by NHTSA. 

Most states also submit their plans for incentive grant funds as part of the annual 

Highway Safety Plan. Although TEA–21 added a number of new grant programs, 

Federal oversight over those programs remained the same as under the 402 program. 

The flexibility in the 402 program has allowed states to program their funds in 

the areas where they are most needed and has given the states the ability to control 

their own programs. States and NHTSA regional offices work more in partnership 

with each other rather than under the paternalistic relationship that existed prior 

to 1994. 

Some of our close partners in the highway safety community have called for a return to the federal-state relationship that existed prior to 1994 in which NHTSA 

had approval authority over every aspect of state plans. GHSA would vigorously oppose such an approach. One safety group has suggested that under a new 402 program, if states do not meet certain performance standards within a specified time 

frame, then they would not be eligible for subsequent 402 funding unless they submitted to a NHTSA assessment to determine program weaknesses and identify program changes that will achieve desired results. Two groups also want the states to 

implement more uniform programs with similar safety messages from state to state. 

GHSA strongly and completely opposes these approaches. Each state’s needs, resources and priorities are different, and states should have the ability to use Federal highway safety grant funds in a manner that best fits those needs, resources 

and priorities. SHSO’s have had 37 years’ experience implementing the Highway 

Safety Act of 1966 and have the skills and knowledge to undertake successful highway safety programs without heavy-handed Federal oversight and micro-management. 

Furthermore, NHTSA has sufficient existing oversight authority to compel states 

to improve their programs. NHTSA can conduct management reviews, require states 

to develop and implement improvement plans if they don’t show progress after three 

years, and designate a state a high risk state if the state is not administering its 

Federal highway safety grant funds appropriately. No additional oversight authority 

is needed. Rather, NHTSA needs to use this oversight authority in a consistent 

manner, as is recommended by the General Accounting Office. 

GHSA and NHTSA are actively taking steps to improve the planning and management of state highway safety programs. GHSA, using its own resources, is developing a planning workbook and a template for state annual reports. Next year, we 

plan to develop a template for the annual state Highway Safety Plan which must 

accompany application for Federal grant funds. We are also working with NHTSA 

to identify and seek state agreement on 12–15 performance measures which all 

states would use in setting goals and measuring performance. We have worked with 

NHTSA to develop the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) which 

is a guideline on what traffic crash data elements all states should collect. 

58 

GHSA is also working with NHTSA to develop explicit criteria under which a 

state program review would be triggered. These program reviews would occur if a 

state did not perform well or had difficulty reaching its goals. NHTSA and the state 

would then analyze the data and cooperatively develop a program enhancement 

plan. 

GHSA firmly believes that NHTSA has sufficient oversight authority already and 

that the program review criteria will strengthen that authority. Further, we believe 

that the initiatives mentioned previously will enhance state planning efforts and 

move states toward a more data-driven, research-and performance-based approach 

to solving highway safety problems. 

Create One Large Highway Safety Program 

As noted previously, TEA–21 created eight separate incentive grant programs and 

two penalty programs, all of which are managed by SHSO’s. Each of these programs 

has distinct eligibility criteria, separate applications and individual deadlines. This 

has meant that SHSO’s have had to meet almost a deadline a month in order to 

apply for Federal funds. Even keeping track of the different programs, eligibility criteria and deadlines has been a chore for both NHTSA and the states. 

The net result of this proliferation of grant programs is that SHSO’s are spending 

a large percentage of time trying to manage all the grant programs and meet varying programmatic deadlines instead of analyzing state data, implementing safety 

programs, forming new state and local highway safety partnerships, and evaluating 

program impact. State staff are stretched to the limit, and states are facing a high 

degree of staff burnout. 

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the explosion of programs has caused 

the Federal approach to highway safety to be duplicative and very fragmented. 

There are four occupant protection programs and two impaired driving programs, 

each with a different purpose, scope and eligibility criteria. This has made it difficult for states to address the behavioral aspects of highway safety in a coordinated 

and comprehensive manner. Clearly, consolidation of grant programs is needed. 

GHSA recommends that all of the incentive grant programs [402, 405, 410, 411, 

163, 157 basic, 157 innovative, and 2003(b)] should be consolidated into one large 

highway safety grant program authorization. A portion of the funding should be for 

402 grants for which every state is eligible. The remaining funding would be divided 

into an occupant protection tier and an impaired driving incentive tier—the two current national priority areas in highway safety. 

Under the occupant protection incentive tier, states would receive funding if they 

enacted a primary belt law or increased their safety belt use rate. The program 

would be based, in large part, on the very successful 157 basic grant program. A 

portion of the funding in this tier would be set aside for states that did not meet 

either criteria. These funds would be used to help low-performing states implement 

innovative occupant protection programs that would boost their safety belt use 

rates. Unlike the current 157 innovative program, funds would be apportioned according to the 402 formula which would obviate the ability of NHTSA to place additional conditions on the innovative program funds. 

Under the impaired driving incentive tier, states would have to meet a number 

of specific criteria, including a performance-based criteria, just as they do under the 

current 410 program. (The 410 program, authorized in 1991, has been one of the 

main sources of funding for state impaired driving programs and has contributed 

to low impaired driving rates.) 

Under the impaired driving tier, the emphasis would be on programs that have 

been proven to be effective (such as graduated licensing and sobriety checkpoints 

or saturation patrols), on strengthening the judicial system’s response to impaired 

driving, and on establishing systems that would allow a state to attack impaired 

driving in a comprehensive manner supported by good data. The program would be 

structured in a manner similar. 

The specific elements of both the occupant protection incentive tier and the impaired driving incentive tier are described in the attached GHSA safety grant program details. 

The benefit of this approach is that there would be only one application deadline 

and one Highway Safety Plan. The management of the consolidated grant program 

would be far less burdensome for the states as well as for NHTSA. States would 

be able to address highway safety problems in a more coordinated, less fragmented 

manner, and would be able to better address the unique circumstances that exist 

in each state in reaching the identified goals. 

Furthermore, the creation of incentive tiers would overcome some of the problems 

in the current incentive programs. The occupant protection and impaired driving incentive funds would be tied more closely to performance. Resources would be availVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
59 

able to help low-performing safety belt use states. High-performing states would be 

rewarded for maintaining their superior performance. All states would be rewarded 

for enacting critical highway safety legislation such as primary safety belt laws or 

graduated licensing laws. 

Continue Adequate Funding 

TEA–21 authorized significantly more Federal highway safety grant funding than 

the states received previously. With this funding, states have been able to implement many highway safety programs that have resulted in behavioral changes, contributing to the lowest fatality rate on record—1.5 fatalities per 100,000 million 

miles of travel—as well as the highest national safety belt usage rate of 75 percent. 

Among other things, the additional funding has enabled states to greatly enhance 

their enforcement of safety belt laws; train more than 35,000 safety professionals 

in NHTSA’s standardized child passenger safety curriculum; purchase radio and television time for safety messages; undertake underage drinking initiatives; and support programs addressing the needs of underserved and diverse populations. 

With increased funding, states could put more resources into enforcement of traffic safety laws, particularly safety belt, speed and impaired driving laws. Better enforcement would help deter violations of traffic laws. Funds could be used to enhance staffing levels and to purchase new enforcement technology. Better enforcement would help convince populations that are resistant to traditional safety messages—such as the 25 percent of unbuckled drivers—of the need for compliance. 

With increased funding, states could also address a series of highway safety problems that are not being adequately addressed to date. The funds could be used to 

target the hard-to-reach populations (such as minority and rural communities) and 

at-risk populations (such as young males) that are less influenced by traditional 

highway safety programs and messages. With expanded funding, states could work 

to reduce pedestrian and bicycle fatalities that currently comprise one out of seven 

fatalities and motorcycle fatalities that have increased substantially five years in a 

row. Additional funds could be used to address the problems of older, aggressive and 

distracted drivers—all significant and growing highway safety issues. With increased funding, states could improve their emergency medical services (EMS) and 

incorporate new technologies into those services, thereby helping to reduce mortality 

and injury severity, particularly in rural areas. States could support more community-level highway safety programs. Additional funding could also be used to help 

incorporate safety into state and metropolitan planning and ensure that all aspects 

of safety—roadway, behavioral and motor carrier—are coordinated at the state level 

through performance-based statewide safety plans. 

GHSA recommends that, at a minimum, $500 million should be authorized for the 

consolidated highway safety grant program—about $50 million above FY 2003 levels. Of that amount, $200 million should be authorized for the 402 program, $175 

million should be authorized for the occupant protection incentive tier and $125 million should be authorized for the impaired driving incentive tier. Without adequate 

funding, it is clear that the increases in fatalities seen in 2001 and 2002 will continue. 

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) has recently issued reauthorization policy calling for the increase of Federal safety funding—both behavioral and construction—by $1 billion per year. No 

new safety programs would be funded with the money; rather, the funds would be 

used to increase funding for existing safety infrastructure programs and for the proposed consolidated behavioral safety program. GHSA endorses this proposal and believes that it would provide the needed funding to conduct the safety activities outlined above. 

If Congress determines a way to increase funding in the next reauthorization either through elimination of the gasohol subsidies, indexing the gas tax or other approaches, then a portion of that increase should be authorized for safety programs. 

Support a Safety Data Grant Program 

TEA–21 authorized a very small data improvement incentive grant program—the 

411 program. The purpose of the grant program is to provide states with funding 

to improve their highway safety information systems (HSIS). Those systems are 

comprised of crash, hospital, driver licensing, citation, roadway and EMS databases. 

The 411 program provided funds for states to perform an assessment of their HSIS, 

form a traffic records coordinating committee with the state agency owners and 

managers of databases that comprise the state’s HSIS, and develop a strategic plan 

for improving the state’s HSIS. In FY 2002, 44 states, Puerto Rico, the Indian Nation and the four territories received 411 funding. No FY 2003 funding was authorized for this program under TEA–21. 

60 

The objective of the 411 program is a very limited one and, given that, it has accomplished its objectives very well. However, if the states are to implement the improvements identified in their traffic records assessments and strategic plans, then 

a large infusion of funds is needed. Hence, there is a need to create a new data incentive grant program that would fund hardware and software improvements, training, and implementation of new data collection, management and analysis technology. 

From GHSA’s perspective, improvements in highway safety-related data are critical. States use crash and other data to identify new and emerging highway safety 

problems, quantify the seriousness of existing highway safety problems, select appropriate countermeasures to address identified problems, monitor progress and 

evaluate the success of these countermeasures. If Congress wants to determine how 

states are performing, and to enact new programs based on performance, then improvements in state data capabilities are absolutely essential. 

It is estimated that only 10 percent of law enforcement agencies have laptop computers from which crash data can be entered from the field. Until state crash data 

is entered electronically and there is linkage capability with the other safety-related 

databases in a state’s HSIS, states will be forced to rely on inaccurate, untimely and 

inaccessible paper data systems with which to make important safety decisions. Pennsylvania recently upgraded its crash data system at a cost of $6 million. If every state followed suit, it would cost an estimated $300 million. Hence, GHSA recommends that the data grant program should be authorized at $50 million a year 

over six years. Details of the grant program are discussed in the attached report. 

Enhance Federal Highway Safety Research 

Research has been a part of the Federal highway safety program since its inception in 1966. Section 403 of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 authorized the use of 

Federal funds to ‘‘engage in research on all phases of highway safety and traffic conditions.’’ Section 403 also authorized cooperative agreements for the purpose of ‘‘encouraging innovative solutions to highway safety problems.’’ 

TEA–21 authorized $72 million for each of six years for the Section 403 research 

and development program. Of that amount, only $7 million was earmarked for driver and behavioral research in FY 2002. As a result of this low level of funding, many 

research needs are completely or partially unmet. States are compelled to implement programs for which there is not a strong research justification. 

Currently, for example, there is a significant body of research on graduated licensing laws, per se impaired driving laws, repeat offender sanctions, primary safety 

belt laws, the impact of repealing motorcycle helmet laws, Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEP’s) and enforcement of safety belt laws. NHTSA is just completing a series of studies on distracted driving. 

However, there is a significant gap in the current state of knowledge about most 

safety issues and the effectiveness of most safety countermeasures. Among other 

things, there is no current research on crash causation. The last crash causation 

study was conducted more than thirty years ago. There is little research on effective 

pedestrian, drowsy driving, or aggressive driving countermeasures, behavioral programs for older drivers, and community traffic safety programs. There is little research on effective ways to reach the minority community with highway safety programs. There is no research to determine why motorcycle fatalities have increased 

so dramatically in the last five years and whether motorcycle licensing and education have any impact on safety. There is no research on the effectiveness of countermeasures recommended in the Federal Highway Administration’s Older Driver 

Design Handbook. There has been little research on the best way to improve the 

content of driver education programs for young and novice drivers. Very little research has been conducted on programs that reach the young adult drinking driver—those aged 21–34. There is little research on the impact of various safety messages and on the efficacy of enforcement programs other than STEP’s. There is virtually no research on the interactive effects of combined roadway and behavioral improvements. In effect, there is considerably more research to be conducted. 

The issue of open container legislation is illustrative of the need for further research. TEA–21 mandated that states enact open container legislation by October 

1, 2000 (FY 2001) or have a portion of their highway construction funding transferred to the 402 program. However, no research had been conducted to determine 

whether open container legislation has any impact on impaired driving. In fact, 

NHTSA has only recently completed such research and has not broadly disseminated the results. Consequently, SHSOs have had to go before their state legislatures without research to support open container laws. 

Additionally, there is no formal process by which highway safety research priorities are set. NHTSA researches issues that are of interest to the agency or are conVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
61 

sistent with their national goals and program needs. State research needs are sometimes secondary, and states do not have a formal mechanism with which to provide 

input into the research agenda setting process. There is nothing comparable to the 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program for safety in which states, 

through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

play a very strong role in determining research priorities. 

GHSA recommends the Federal driver and behavioral research program be expanded to $20—$25 million a year and that an ongoing safety program should be 

authorized and modeled after the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 

GHSA also recommends that the Future Strategic Highway Research Program 

(FSHRP) should focus, in part, on safety, including the behavioral aspects of highway safety. The safety funding under FSHRP should be used to undertake a comprehensive research program on crash causation and some of the funding should be 

used to evaluate the effectiveness of highway safety countermeasures. 

Alter Lobbying Restrictions 

In response to concerns raised by the motorcycle user community, Congress enacted new lobbying prohibitions in TEA–21 and in subsequent appropriations legislation. TEA–21 prohibits the use of Federal funds for ‘‘any activity specifically designed to urge a State or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific pending State or local legislation.’’ Section 326 of the FY 2000 DOT Appropriations Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for any activity ‘‘intended to influence 

in any manner a Member . . . of a State legislature to favor or oppose by vote or 

otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by . . . a State legislature . . . after the 

introduction of any bill or resolution in a State legislature proposing such legislation 

or appropriation.’’ 

NHTSA has interpreted these statutory provisions to mean that recipients of Federal funds, including SHSO’s and their grantees, cannot lobby on state legislation 

once the bill or resolution has been introduced in the legislative body. This means 

that SHSO’s cannot advocate for safety legislation introduced by their governor or 

a state legislator. It also means that SHSO’s cannot, after a bill or resolution is introduced, use Federal funds to support state coalitions that have been formed to 

favor specific safety legislation. NHTSA policy also encourages SHSO staff to testify 

before a state or local legislative body only if there is a written invitation to do so. 

These provisions have had a chilling effect on the advocacy activities of SHSO’s. 

States no longer believe they can show support for any safety legislation, even if 

their own governors introduce it. Further, the provisions appear to be counterproductive. The 163, 405 and 410 incentive programs, the 154 and 164 penalty programs, and the .08 Blood-Alcohol Concentration (BAC) sanctions enacted after TEA– 

21 are all based on passage of state safety legislation. If states are going to qualify 

for the incentives and come into compliance with the penalties and sanctions, then 

they need the ability to affect state legislation. 

GHSA recommends, at a minimum, that Congress should alter the lobbying restrictions to allow SHSO’s and their grantees to lobby state legislatures on behalf 

of positions approved by governors and their administrations. 

Continue Paid Advertising 

Prior to TEA–21, NHTSA policy prohibited the use of Federal highway safety 

funding for paid advertising. SHSO’s were compelled to use public service announcements (PSA’s) in order to implement their safety messages. While PSA’s are less 

costly than paid media, they have limited impact because they are generally aired 

during off-peak times. 

TEA–21 changed that by allowing the use of 402 funding for paid advertising for 

FY 1999 and 2000. (157 and 163 funds that were used for 402 purposes could also 

be spent on paid advertising.) Congress extended the permission to FY 2001, 2002, 

and 2003 as well. 

The result has been that larger audiences view safety messages during prime 

time. Although there are scant evaluative data on paid advertising, there is ample 

anecdotal information that the state safety paid advertising is paying off. Further, 

there is supporting evaluation data from the FY 2001 safety belt enforcement effort 

in NHTSA Region IV (the southeastern region) and the FY 2002 safety belt enforcement demonstration program with thirteen states in which paid advertising was 

used. The combination of paid advertising and high visibility enforcement in that 

region resulted in significant increases in safety belt use under both of those efforts. 

GHSA strongly supports paid advertising and recommends that its use continue 

to be allowed in the next reauthorization. 

62 

Avoid New Sanctions and Penalties 

TEA–21 authorized two new penalty provisions (the 154 open container penalty 

and the 164 repeat offender penalty) but no new sanctions. Following TEA–21, Congress authorized a new sanction for states that fail to enact .08 BAC legislation. 

There are currently 18 penalties and sanctions with which states must comply. 

Of those, seven are safety-related (minimum drinking age, drug offenders, use of 

safety belts, zero tolerance, open containers, repeat offenders and .08 BAC). Three 

of the seven have been enacted in the last six years. 

GHSA and other state associations generally oppose sanctions and penalties for 

a number of reasons. Sanctions are not universally effective. Impaired driving-related sanctions appear to have strong public support and appear to work reasonably 

well. Other sanctions and penalties, such as those for the National Maximum Speed 

Limit and the mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation enjoyed little public support, 

were abysmal failures and were subsequently repealed. 

Sanctions are often counterproductive. With fewer highway funds, the conditions 

of highways deteriorate and become less safe. Withholding funds only exacerbates 

the safety problem. Sanctions penalize the state broadly without specifically targeting the entity that perpetrated the safety problem. Since there is no clear relationship between the safety problem and the policy solutions (withholding of construction funds), states are not motivated to act. 

TEA–21 encourages state agencies to work together to solve safety problems, but 

sanctions and penalties pull those agencies apart. The mandatory motorcycle penalties divided SHSO’s from state Departments of Transportation (DOT’s), causing 

them to oppose each other instead of working together toward enactment of motorcycle helmet laws. Opposition to the penalties by state DOT’s contributed to their 

repeal. Similar friction has been felt by many SHSO’s with respect to the open container and repeat offender penalties. SHSO’s have been blamed for the TEA–21 penalties even though they were not responsible for their enactment. New penalties and 

sanctions make it harder for the SHSO’s to work with state legislatures, even under 

the limited conditions allowed by TEA–21. 

Frequent sanctioning by Congress makes states very resentful and less motivated 

to enact the requisite legislation. Some states will wait until the last minute and 

then enact legislation that is minimally acceptable in order to avoid the sanction, 

as has been the case with about a dozen states and the .08 sanction. 

As former President Dwight Eisenhower said, ‘‘You do not lead by hitting people 

over the head—that’s assault, not leadership.’’ For the reasons outlined previously, 

GHSA recommends that no new sanctions or penalties be enacted. 

Make Technical Changes to Current Penalties 

TEA–21 requires states to enact, by October 1, 2000, repeat offender legislation 

or face the transfer of certain Federal highway funding into the 402 program. For 

second or subsequent alcohol-related offenses, state law must require that: (1) the 

offender’s license be suspended for not less than one year; (2) the offender’s vehicle 

be subject to impoundment or immobilization or the installation of an ignition interlock; (3) the offender receives an assessment of the degree of alcohol abuse and 

treatment as appropriate; and (4) in the case of a second offense, the offender must 

receive not less than five days in jail or 30 days of community service and in the 

case of a third or subsequent offense, not less than 10 days in jail and 60 days of 

community service. 

As of October 1, 2002, 32 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico were in compliance 

with the repeat offender provisions. A number of states represented on this Committee—Alaska, California, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, 

South Carolina, and West Virginia—were among the states in non-compliance at 

that time. A number of technical problems with the repeat offender provisions contributed to the relatively low level of compliance. 

One major problem concerns the license suspension provisions. NHTSA has interpreted the Section 164 language to mean that the mandatory minimum one-year license suspension must be a hard suspension with no hardship waiver or restricted 

license. Law enforcement officials are often reluctant to charge a repeat offender 

under those circumstances because they view the penalty as too harsh. Judges are 

also reluctant to give an offender a hard suspension because it would deprive a person of his/her livelihood for an entire year. Rural and indigent offenders would be 

especially impacted because they may be unable to arrange for alternate transportation, particularly transportation to treatment facilities. Offenders would have 

fewer resources to pay for interlock devices, impounded vehicles or treatment. State 

legislatures are often reluctant to enact the one-year hard suspension because it encourages repeat offenders to avoid the sanction by driving without a license. In fact, 

63 

the driving-while-suspended problem is a growing one and is of increasing concern 

to both NHTSA and GHSA and its state members. 

A related problem is that NHTSA regulations do not permit the installation of 

interlock devices until after the hard suspension period. Current research shows 

that ignition interlock devices are very successful in reducing recidivism when used 

in combination with restricted licenses, supervised probation and treatment. By delaying the use of interlocks, the NHTSA regulations do not allow the offender to 

drive to work or treatment, thereby increasing the risk of recidivism. The regulations are inconsistent with NHTSA’s own research and show a misunderstanding of 

the purpose of the ignition interlock devices. 

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the NHTSA regulations do not place a time 

limitation on vehicle impoundment and immobilization. An offender’s vehicle can be 

impounded or immobilized only for a few hours and then returned to the offender. 

As a result, the impoundment/immobilization sanction can be expected to have little 

impact on repeat offenders. 

Another problem with the regulations is that the impoundment/immobilization/ 

interlock sanction must apply to every vehicle owned by the offender. Hence, if an 

offender owns five vehicles, the sanction must apply to every vehicle. State legislatures are often reluctant to enact laws that would penalize car collectors and owners 

of fleets of vehicles. More importantly, the language encourages offenders to change 

the title of their vehicles to another family member in order to avoid the sanction. 

GHSA recommends that the one-year suspension be changed to a limited hard 

suspension (e.g., 60 or 90 days) with a restricted license and imposition of an ignition interlock device during a subsequent restriction period. Further, there should 

be a time limit (e.g., 10–30 days) on the impoundment/immobilization sanction. The 

language requiring the sanctions to be applied to an offender’s vehicles should be 

changed to the vehicle used by the offender. 

The transfer provisions for both the open container and repeat offender penalties 

are also problematic. Non-compliant states have a portion of their Surface Transportation Program, National Highway System and Interstate Maintenance funds transferred into the 402 program. They can then use the transferred funds for impaired 

driving countermeasures or activities eligible under the Hazard Elimination Program (HEP). 

Many states have lessened the impact of the penalty by using the transferred 

funds to supplement current HEP funding. Instead of budgeting for new HEP funding, the transferred funds are used. In effect, some state DOTs have played an 

elaborate shell game with the transferred funds. As a result, the penalty transfers 

have not motivated states to enact the requisite legislation. 

The administration of the transfers has also been very difficult. Since all of the 

transferred funds must be transferred into the state’s 402 account, the SHSO is responsible for administering them, even if all the funds are ultimately used for HEP 

purposes. In other words, there is no mechanism to retransfer funds used for HEP 

purposes into the state’s HEP account. As a result, the small, overworked SHSO is 

financially responsible for overseeing the expenditure of HEP funds over which they 

have no programmatic control. 

GHSA recommends that, if the transfer penalties are continued, the transferred 

funds only be used for impaired driving countermeasures. This would eliminate the 

administrative difficulties and would create a stronger ‘‘incentive’’ for states to enact 

the requisite legislation. 

Comments on the DOT Reauthorization Proposal 

Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 

2003 (SAFETEA), the Department of Transportation has proposed a three-part consolidated behavioral highway safety grant program. The proposed program includes 

basic formula funds, performance incentive funds, and a strategic impaired driving 

program. The performance incentive funds will be further divided into three types 

of incentives. In addition, DOT has proposed a separate data grant program and a 

very small EMS grant program. In FY 2004, total funding would be at the same 

level as FY 2003 NHTSA grant funding. 

GHSA is pleased about some aspects of the funding request but very disappointed 

about several others. 

The Association is pleased that DOT supported the idea of grant consolidation. A 

single grant program with one application and one deadline should be much easier 

to administer. GHSA is also pleased that the Administration is proposing performance incentive grants and increased funding for states that enact primary safety 

belt laws. The Association also supports performance-based incentives, particularly 

for states that enact primary belt laws, and has incorporated that concept into its 

64 

own proposal. Clearly NHTSA heard and positively responded to the states’ concerns 

in these areas. 

GHSA strongly supports the proposed DOT data incentive grant program. The 

program funding level, the eligibility criteria, and the proposed use of grant funds 

are identical to those recommended by the Association. 

GHSA supports the Section 151 (Title I) requirement that states coordinate their 

highway safety construction, behavioral and motor carrier grant programs and develop comprehensive, strategic highway safety goals. Future improvements in highway safety are not as likely unless states coordinate the disparate aspects of their 

highway safety programs. 

GHSA supports the proposed funding for the crash causation study. As noted 

above, it has been about thirty years since such a study was conducted. If states 

are to improve driver and road user behavior, it is essential to know why crashes 

were caused. GHSA recommends, however, that the difference between the NHTSA 

crash causation study and the proposed FSHRP crash causation study need to be 

clarified and the studies coordinated. 

GHSA also supports the proposed increased funding for the Section 403 program. 

However, it appears that most of the increase will be used for the crash causation 

study. Additional research resources must be directed to the NHTSA 403 program 

so that evaluation studies can be conducted on the effectiveness of a variety of safety countermeasures. 

GHSA is extremely disappointed in the overall funding level for the behavioral 

safety grant programs. If safety is such a high priority for DOT, why wasn’t behavioral safety grant funding increased more? How are the states to have an impact 

on the increasing number of fatalities and injuries without adequate funding? Why 

was the funding increase limited to the safety construction program? It appears 

that, once again, DOT’s commitment to safety does not match its willingness to fund 

behavioral safety programs adequately. It will be no surprise if future years show 

further increases in motor vehicle-related fatalities and injuries. 

GHSA finds the level of funding for the impaired driving program totally unac- ceptable. $50 million is considerably less than has been spent on impaired driving 

under TEA–21 and far less than is needed to adequately address this growing problem. Further, we believe that the program is too narrowly focused on a few states 

where an intervention would have the biggest impact. Impaired driving is a problem 

in every state, yet the proposal would provide no funds for the remaining, ‘‘non-strategic’’ states. 

It is apparent that the proposed impaired driving program will be implemented 

in the same manner as the 157 innovative program. Under that program, NHTSA 

set very restrictive conditions on the grants and completely micro-managed the way 

eligible states expend funds. States have found the program very onerous and do 

not wish to repeat the experience under the proposed impaired driving program. In 

our view, the proposed strategic impaired driving initiative is more appropriate as 

a Section 403 demonstration program than as a state incentive grant program. We 

urge Congress to reject this proposal in the next reauthorization. 

The Administration is proposing funding for three types of incentives—for enacting primary belt laws, for improving safety belt use rates and for improving performance. Each of these incentives will have their own eligibility criteria and their 

own earmarked funding. We are concerned that the performance incentive program 

may be just as complex as the myriad of programs that are currently authorized 

under TEA–21. As noted previously, GHSA urges that the goal in the next reauthorization should be simplicity and consolidation. 

In the proposed primary belt law incentive grants, GHSA is very troubled by the 

distinction between states that enacted their primary belt laws during TEA–21 and 

those that enact them under SAFETEA. The former states are eligible for 1/2 of 

their FY 2003 402 apportionments over a two-year period. The latter are eligible 

for 5 times their FY 2003 402 apportionments. GHSA believes that it can be very 

difficult for states to adopt primary belt laws, no matter when they enacted such 

laws, and that to make such a distinction is patently unfair. States that have primary belt laws should be rewarded for their superior performance and states wishing to enact such laws should be strongly encouraged to do so. 

There are also some technical difficulties with the proposal. For one, if every eligible state enacted a primary belt law, there wouldn’t be enough funding to give them 

the amount for which they would be eligible. If two or three large states enacted 

a primary belt law in one year, there wouldn’t be enough funding in that year for 

any other states. States would have to wait one or more subsequent years, which 

may serve as a disincentive to states considering primary belt law passage. 

SAFETEA also proposes that the performance incentive funds can be flexed into 

the safety construction program and vice versa. While GHSA members like funding 

65 

flexibility, we have some major reservations about the proposed flexibility provisions. GHSA believes that the flexibility provisions may result in fewer—potentially 

far fewer—funds for behavioral safety grant programs. States can flex all $100 million of their primary safety belt law incentive funds 

into the new Section 150 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The intent 

of this flexibility is to encourage state Departments of Transportation to become involved in the passage of primary belt laws. While we support the involvement of 

state DOTs in the legislation, GHSA also believes that the language strongly encourages state DOTs to move funds into the HSIP in a kind of quid pro quo even 

though funding for safety construction is proposed to increase 54 percent over FY 

2003 levels. According to the recent Government Accounting Office report, sixty-nine 

percent of the 34 states that were penalized in 2001 and 2002 used the money for 

HEP safety construction purposes and only thirty-one percent used the money for 

alcohol-related programs. 

At the same time, GHSA believes that the flexibility provisions work against the 

passage of primary belt laws. DOT has proposed that, by FY 2005, states must 

enact primary belt laws or have 10 percent of their Section 150 funds transferred 

into the consolidated 402 program. However, states can flex 50 percent of their safety belt use rate incentives and 50 percent of their general performance incentive 

funds into the Section 150 program. As a result, the $100 million loss of safety construction funds can be partially offset by flexing $37.5 million of safety incentive 

funds into the HSIP. Hence, a state that fails to enact primary belt law legislation 

could have the impact mitigated to some extent by the flexibility provisions. 

State DOTs can also flex 50 percent of the HSIP funds into the consolidated safety program. However, there is always a need for safety improvements to roadways, 

particularly for low cost improvements like rumble strips, traffic control devices, 

lighting and pavement markings. We see little possibility that the behavioral safety 

grant programs would be the beneficiaries of the flexibility provisions. SHSO experience with the open container and repeat offender penalties have shown that flexibility provisions often pit one state agency against another. The agency with the 

most political clout usually determines how the penalty funds will be used. Hence, 

GHSA believes that the flexibility provisions will result in less funding for behavioral safety programs, not more. Consequently, we urge Congress to reject the proposed flexibility language and simply allow each safety program to be used for the 

purposes authorized. 

This concludes GHSA’s prepared statement on the reauthorization of safety programs. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views and recommendations 

on programs of utmost importance to its members. We look forward to working with 

the members and staff of the Committee as they draft reauthorization language in 

the coming months. Thank you again. 

GHSA also submitted ‘‘Federal Behavioral Highway Safety Grant Program Details, April 2003.’’ This document can be found at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

browse/committeecong.action;jsessionid=15yvRplJ1LTTzVzL8GxgW5D2yGP3BPNz 

QycBFJv818fP2sl5xRJ9!-1031405584!1936429658?collection=CHRG&committee= 

commerce&chamber=senate&congressminus=112&ycord=0. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. Swanson. 

Mr. Strassberger. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT STRASSBERGER, VICE PRESIDENT, 

VEHICLE SAFETY, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE 

MANUFACTURERS; ON BEHALF OF JOSEPHINE COOPER, 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

Mr. STRASSBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert Strassberger, and I am Vice President of Vehicle Safety of the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 

Preliminary data for 2002 show that 42,850 people lost their 

lives last year on U.S. highways, and almost 3 million were injured. Tragically, 59 percent of vehicle occupants killed were not restrained by safety belts or child safety seats. Alcohol-related fatalities also increased for the third consecutive year and account for 

42 percent of all fatalities. The number of overall fatalities is no 

66 

longer declining. This is unacceptable. As a nation we simply must 

do better. 

The single most effective way to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries immediately is to increase the use of safety belts and 

child safety seats. Primary enforcement of safety belt use laws results in higher safety belt usage. States with primary enforcement 

laws have an average of 80 percent belt usage compared to just 69 

percent in states with secondary enforcement laws. 

The Administration has requested funding for incentives for 

states passing primary enforcement laws. Congress should approve 

this proposal. 

Impaired driving is also a problem and one that is getting worse. 

While there was progress in the last two decades, impaired driving 

is once again on the rise. The administration’s recommendation of 

$50 million is far less than the current funding levels and is not 

adequate. Congress should provide more. 

The Alliance believes that if we are to continue to make progress 

in reducing traffic fatalities and injuries, it is critical that future 

public policy decisions be data-driven, supported by scientifically 

evidence, and demonstrate the potential for effective safety benefits 

without adverse side effects. 

NHTSA’s two primary crash database programs, NASS and 

FARS, provide crucial information to safety planners and vehicle 

design engineers. The Alliance strongly supports upgrading crash 

data systems and urges Congress to provide appropriate levels of 

funding. In addition to adequate funding for NASS and FARS, the 

Alliance believes it is important for NHTSA to have the resources 

necessary to conduct a comprehensive study of crash causation, 

similar to the multiyear Indiana Tri-Level Study that was completed 25 years ago. The Alliance strongly supports NHTSA’s Fiscal 

Year 2004 budget request for $10 million for this purpose. 

Advancing motor vehicle safety remains a significant public 

health challenge and the Alliance is pursuing a number of safety 

initiatives. The Alliance and the Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety are developing recommendations that auto companies could 

implement voluntarily both in the short-term and the long-term to 

enhance vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility. These steps will improve compatibility in both front and side crashes in which a light 

truck is the striking vehicle. We anticipate delivering to NHTSA 

final short-term recommendations by late summer or early fall. 

Another Alliance initiative is aimed at reducing the frequency 

and consequences of rollover. The Alliance agrees that rollovers 

represent a significant safety challenge that warrants action. The 

Alliance efforts include developing a vehicle handling test procedure that will assess the performance of electronic stability control 

systems and other advanced handling systems. We are also examining roof strength in rollover crashes and we expect to make recommendations in the near future. We are also working to develop 

test procedures intended to reduce occupant ejections in rollovers. 

These efforts to develop voluntary standards for crash compatibility and rollover, when combined with an industry commitment 

to design vehicles in accordance with them is following a model for 

responsible industry action that has proven to be an effective way 

67 

1 ‘‘Highway Safety—Research Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes.’’ United States General Accounting Office, GAO–03–436, March 2003. 

to bring significant safety improvements into the fleet faster than 

has been historically possible through regulation. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooper follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPHINE COOPER, PRESIDENT, 

ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

Thank You Mr. Chairman. My name is Josephine Cooper and I am President of 

the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. I am pleased to be afforded the opportunity to offer the views of the Alliance at this important hearing. The Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) is a trade association of 10 car and light truck 

manufacturers who account for more than 90 percent of U.S. vehicle sales. Alliance 

member companies, include BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, 

General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen, employing more than 620,000 Americans at 250 facilities in 35 states. 

Significant Progress Has Been Made To Reduce Fatalities and Injuries 

From Motor Vehicle Crashes, But Challenges Remain 

Over the past 20 years significant progress has been made in reducing the traffic 

fatality rate. In 1981, the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 

stood at 3.17. By 2001, this rate had been driven down by 52 percent to 1.51 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Indeed, when compared to 1991, in 2001 

the fatality rate had dropped by 21 percent, indicating that real progress has been 

made. The level of competitiveness among automakers, which key industry observers have described as ‘‘brutal,’’ has helped to accelerate the introduction of safety 

features ahead of regulation further aiding in the progress made. See Attachment 

1. According to the J. D. Power and Associates 2002 U.S. Automotive Emerging 

Technologies study, 9 of the top 10 features most desired by consumers in their next 

new vehicle are designed to enhance vehicle or occupant safety. 

Despite the progress made, however, preliminary data show that 42,850 people 

lost their lives on U.S. highways in 2002 and almost 3 million were injured. Tragically, 59 percent of vehicle occupants killed in crashes were not restrained by safety 

belts or child safety seats. Alcohol-related fatalities increased for the third consecutive year and accounted for 42 percent of all fatalities. The fatality rate may no 

longer be declining. This is unacceptable. As a nation, we simply must do better. 

The Alliance and our members are constantly striving to enhance motor vehicle 

safety. And, we continue to make progress. Each new model year brings safety improvements in vehicles of all sizes and types. But, as the General Accounting Office 

recently reaffirmed, vehicle factors contribute less often to crashes than do human 

or roadway environment factors.1 We will never fully realize the potential benefits 

of vehicle safety technologies until we get vehicle occupants properly restrained and 

impaired drivers off the road. That is why reauthorization and adequate funding of 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) highway safety 

programs is so important. 

Increased Safety Belt Usage and Preventing Impaired Driving Are Needed 

Today To Prevent Needless Fatalities and Injuries 

The single most effective way to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries in 

the short term is to increase the use of occupant restraint systems, safety belts and 

child safety seats. If the United States could increase its safety belt usage rate from 

the current 75 percent to 92 percent (the same usage rate as in Canada) it is estimated that another 4,500 lives would be saved and countless injuries would be 

avoided. Members of the Alliance have a long and proud record in supporting increased safety belt usage beginning in the mid 1980s with funding for Traffic Safety 

Now, a safety belt advocacy group lobbying state governments for the passage of 

mandatory safety belt use laws to participation in and funding of the Airbag & Seat 

Belt Safety Campaign (Campaign). The Campaign is housed in the National Safety 

Council and principally funded by the voluntary contributions of motor vehicle manufacturers. The effectiveness of the Campaign is reflected in the increase in belt use 

from 61 percent, when the Campaign was formed in 1996, to today, with belt use 

now at 75 percent. 

68 

This 14 percentage point increase in belt use is largely due to high visibility enforcement Mobilizations coordinated by the Campaign in cooperation with NHTSA, 

state highway safety offices and law enforcement agencies in all fifty states. We are 

currently in the midst of the largest Mobilization ever with more than 12,500 law 

enforcement agencies providing stepped up enforcement and close to $25 million in 

paid advertising to augment the enforcement effort. Funding for the enforcement 

ads, both national and state, comes from funds earmarked by Congress for this purpose. High visibility enforcement of safety belt laws has been extensively tested in 

more than twenty states. It has consistently achieved dramatic increases in safety 

belt use. Although the Administration has not requested funds for the paid advertising that has proven to be a vital component of this effective program, we believe 

that it is important for Congress to continue to provide this funding. 

Primary enforcement safety belt use laws are significantly correlated with higher 

safety belt usage levels. States with primary enforcement laws have an average of 

80 percent belt usage, compared to 69 percent in states having secondary enforcement laws. Currently, only 19 jurisdictions have primary safety belt laws. While the 

Campaign, through its lobbying efforts, has contributed to getting primary enforcement legislation enacted in several states, progress has been difficult to achieve. 

The Administration has requested significant funding for incentives to states passing primary enforcement laws. We believe this proposal has merit and should be approved by Congress. 

Impaired driving is also a significant highway safety problem and one that is getting worse. While substantial progress in reducing impaired driving was made in 

the last two decades, impaired driving is once again on the rise. Repeat offenders 

are disproportionately involved in fatal crashes. Congress should provide funding 

beyond the level proposed by the Administration to enable states to address this 

deadly problem. The Administration recommendation of $50 million is far less than 

current funding levels and is inadequate. 

In addition to the priority areas of increasing safety belt use and reducing impaired driving, Congress needs to provide adequate funding for the Section 402 

State and Community Highway Safety Program. The Administration’s proposal 

wisely consolidates several smaller programs into Section 402, but Congress should 

consider providing additional resources. 

Comprehensive and Current Data Is Necessary To Make Insightful and 

Sound Public Policy Decisions 

NHTSA’s two key traffic crash database programs, the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) provide 

crucial information to safety planners and vehicle design engineers. The NASS program, in particular, has been chronically under-funded. On October 17, 2002, the 

Alliance and various other safety groups sent a letter to NHTSA Administrator Dr. 

Jeffrey Runge outlining the importance of sound crash and injury data. The Alliance 

emphasized the need for additional funds for NASS in order to effectively evaluate 

the effectiveness of both behavioral and vehicular safety measures. See Attachment 

2. 

The Administration has proposed substantial funding to upgrade state traffic 

records systems. Improved state record systems can help improve the quality of 

FARS data and assist states in establishing safety program priorities. The Alliance 

strongly supports upgrading state and Federal crash data systems and urges Congress to provide appropriate levels of funding for them. The Alliance believes this 

funding is critical because future NHTSA rulemakings should be data-driven, supported by scientifically sound evidence, and demonstrate the potential for effective 

safety benefits without undesired side effects. 

The Alliance also sponsors a significant amount of safety research that is shared 

with the safety community. The Alliance is sponsoring a program to collect-real 

world crash data on the performance of depowered and advanced air bags at three 

sites around the U.S. (Dade County, Florida, Dallas County, Texas, and Chilton, 

Coosa, St. Clair, Talledega, and Shelby Counties in Alabama). This program adds 

valuable information about air bag performance to the extensive crash data already 

being collected by NHTSA through NASS. The Alliance is committed to funding this 

program that will run through 2005. The current Alliance commitment for the advanced air bag research is $4.5 million over 4 years. The Alliance project will observe all the NASS data collection protocols so that the Alliance funded cases can 

be compared with, and evaluated consistently with, other cases in the NASS 

dataset. 

In addition to adequate funding for NASS, the Alliance believes it important for 

NHTSA to have the resources necessary to conduct a comprehensive study of crash 

causation similar to the multi-year ‘‘Indiana Tri-Level Study’’ that was completed 

69 

25 years ago. Researchers at Indiana University Bloomington’s Institute for Research in Public Safety conducted the Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents from 1972 through 1977. According to NHTSA officials, the Indiana Tri-Level 

study has been the only study in the last 30 years to collect in-depth, on-scene crash 

causation data. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration relies on it 

today because other NHTSA data is collected from police crash reports or collected 

days or weeks after the crash, making it difficult to obtain causation data. Significant advancements in vehicle safety technology and design have occurred since then, 

making this study rather obsolete as a baseline on which to base substantial regulatory decisions. For example, the Tri-Level study, studied crashes in which nearly 

all tires were bias-ply, rather than the radial tires that are prevalent today. Yet 

NHTSA cited data from this study in support of a portion of its decision on tire pressure monitoring system that will be used in conjunction with radial tires. See Attachment 3. In addition, traffic patterns, numbers and types of vehicles in use, onboard technologies and lifestyles have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. 

Therefore, the Alliance strongly supports the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s FY 2004 budget request for $10 million so that NHTSA can effectively 

update their crash causation data. An updated study would help guide and enlighten public policy aimed at reducing the frequency of traffic crashes, injuries, and 

fatalities. This is a crucial step toward improving the quality of data available to 

inform sound regulatory decision-making at NHTSA. 

Alliance Members Are Aggressively Pursuing Safety Advancements, 

Collectively and Individually 

Advancing motor vehicle safety remains a significant public health challenge—one 

that automakers are addressing daily, both individually and collectively. The Alliance is pursuing a number of initiatives to enhance safety. We have redoubled and 

unified our activities to collectively address light truck-to-car collision compatibility 

and vehicle rollover. On February 11–12, 2003, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety sponsored an international 

meeting on enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility. On February 13, 2003, 

the Alliance and IIHS sent NHTSA Administrator Runge a letter summarizing the 

results of this meeting, and indicating the industry planned to develop recommendations that auto companies could take to enhance crash compatibility. These steps 

will enhance crash compatibility in both front-to-front and front-to-side crashes in 

which a light truck is the striking vehicle. 

The industry promptly formed two technical working groups of experts: one on 

front-to-side crashes and one on front-to-front crashes. These groups have been 

working continuously since their establishment to develop recommendations for appropriate short and longer term actions. On March 10, 2003, the Alliance and IIHS 

sent Administrator Runge a letter indicating that we anticipate delivering to 

NHTSA final short-term recommendations by late Summer or early Fall. While our 

work is still in progress, we remain on track to meet this commitment. 

For the North American market, front-to-side crashes where the striking vehicle 

is a light truck or SUV, represent a significant compatibility challenge. We are placing a high priority on enhancing the protection of occupants inside vehicles struck 

in the side. Our immediate efforts are focused on developing recommendations that 

will lead to enhanced head protection of occupants in struck vehicles. We expect our 

efforts to lead to measures that auto manufacturers can incorporate in their vehicles. Concurrently, evaluation criteria will be established to drive improvements in 

car side structures to reduce side impact intrusion and provide for additional absorption of crash energy. 

With regard to front-to-front crashes, we anticipate reaching agreement on specific recommendations to enhance alignment of front-end energy absorbing structures of vehicles. Manufacturers have been working to improve this architectural 

feature by modifying truck frames. The voluntary standard will govern structural 

alignment for the entire light-duty vehicle fleet and provide for an industry wide 

solution. In addition, through research to be undertaken, we expect to develop sophisticated test procedures for assessing the forces, and the distribution of these 

forces, which light trucks may impose on cars in frontal crashes. These procedures 

should lead to more comprehensive approaches to measuring and controlling these 

forces. We also expect to develop state-of-the-art test procedures for measuring and 

controlling the frontal stiffness characteristics of passenger cars and light trucks. 

These efforts to develop voluntary standards for crash compatibility and rollover, 

when combined with an industry commitment to design vehicles in accordance with 

them, is following a model for responsible industry action that has proven to be a 

very effective way to bring significant safety improvements into the fleet faster than 

70 

has been historically possible through regulation. The voluntary standards process 

also has the flexibility to produce rapid modifications should the need arise. 

The best way to illustrate the benefits for such an approach is to examine the recent development of the Recommended Procedures for Evaluating Occupant Injury 

Risk From Deploying Side Airbags finalized in August 2000. In response to concerns 

about potential injury risk to out-of-position (OOP) women and children from deploying side airbags, the Alliance, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), and the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) used a joint working group to develop 

test procedures with injury criteria and limits to ensure that the risk of injury to 

OOP occupants from deploying side airbags would be very limited. 

After a little over a year of intensive effort, the working group developed a draft 

set of procedures. This draft was presented in a public meeting on June 22, 2000. 

Comments were collected and the finalized procedures were presented to NHTSA on 

August 8, 2000. Now, just 2 model years later, 60 percent of Alliance member company side airbags have been designed in accordance with the August 8, 2000 Recommended Procedures. More importantly, the field performance of side air bags remains positive. 

These Procedures and public commitment were also used by Transport Canada as 

the basis for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between automobile manufacturers and the Canadian government. 

Another Alliance initiative is assessing opportunities which may further reduce 

the frequency and consequences of rollover. The Alliance agrees that rollovers represent a significant safety challenge that warrants attention and action. In releasing 

the preliminary statistics for 2002, NHTSA stated that, ‘‘Fatalities in rollover crashes involving sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks accounted for 53 percent of the 

increase in traffic deaths.’’ NHTSA did not state, however, that an increase in passenger car rollover fatalities accounted for 25 percent of the increase in traffic fatalities. Indeed, rollover fatalities occurring with passenger cars, SUVs, and pickups all 

contributed roughly equally to the increase observed. In fact, the increase in number 

of passenger car rollover fatalities was nearly 8 times higher than might otherwise 

had been forecasted from the growth in the number of registered passenger cars in 

2002, over 2001. 

Consequently, Alliance efforts to reduce the frequency and consequences of rollover involves passenger cars as well as SUVs, vans, and pickup trucks. Our efforts 

include developing a handling test procedure or recommended practice that will 

focus on an assessment of the performance of electronic stability control systems 

and other advanced handling enhancement devices. A typical rollover is one in 

which the driver becomes inattentive or distracted, loses control of the vehicle, and 

then strikes something that trips the vehicle causing it to roll. Electronic stability 

control systems are designed to help drivers to keep out of trouble in the first place. 

However, should a rollover occur, the Alliance is assessing opportunities to enhance 

rollover occupant protection. We are assessing the current state of knowledge on 

roof/pillar deformation during rollover crashes, and will make recommendations as 

to whether new performance criteria and/or test procedures would further reduce 

the risk of injury in vehicle rollover crashes. We are also working to determine the 

feasibility of developing test procedures to assess the performance of countermeasures designed to further reduce the risk of occupant ejection in rollover crashes. 

The Potential Benefits of Vehicle Safety Technologies Cannot Be Fully 

Realized Until Vehicle Occupants Are Properly Restrained and 

Impaired Drivers Are Off The Road 

Motor vehicle safety is a shared responsibility among government, consumers and 

vehicle manufacturers. Auto manufacturers are more committed than ever to developing advanced safety technologies to reduce fatalities and injuries resulting from 

motor vehicle crashes. But as a nation, we will never fully realize the potential benefits of vehicle safety technologies until we get vehicle occupants properly restrained 

and impaired drivers off the road. In this regard, Congress has a unique role to play 

by: 

• Enacting incentives for states that pass primary enforcement safety belt laws 

and ensuring high visibility enforcement of these laws by providing adequate 

funding for paid advertising and Section 402 State and Community Highway 

Safety Programs; 

• Providing funding beyond the level proposed to address the deadly problem of 

impaired driving; and 

71 

• Authorizing adequate funding for a modern, comprehensive study of crash causation and to update state and Federal crash data systems. 

ATTACHMENT 1 

‘‘Voluntarily Installed Safety Devices’’ 

A partial list of voluntarily installed advanced safety devices (w/o or prior to regulation) 

Crash Avoidance Advances 

Tire/suspension optimization 

Automatic brake assist 

Electronic stability controls to help drivers maintain vehicle control in emergency 

maneuvers 

Anti-lock brakes 

Traction control 

Obstacle warning indicators 

Active body control 

Intelligent cruise control 

Convenience controls on steering wheel to minimize driver distraction 

Automatic obstacle detection for sliding doors on minivans 

Head-up displays 

Child-proof door locks 

Automatic speed-sensitive door locks 

Vision 

Automatic dimming inside mirrors to reduce headlamp glare 

Heated exterior mirrors for quick deicing 

Rear defrost systems 

Headlamp wiper/washers 

Automatic-on headlamps 

Automatic-on headlamps when wipers are used 

Infinitely variable wiper (only 2 req’d by regulation) 

Night vision enhancements 

Advance lighting systems 

Right side mirrors 

Crashworthiness Advances 

Side air bags for chest protection 

Side air bags for head protection that reduce ejection 

Rollover triggered side/curtain air bags 

Advanced air bags (e.g., dual stage inflators) several years in advance of regulatory requirements 

Safety belt pre-tensioners 

Rear center seat lap/shoulder belts 

Load-limiting safety belts to reduce chest injuries 

Safety belt pre-tensioners Improved belt warning indicators 

Rear seat head restraints Integrated child seats 

Anti-whiplash seats 

Breakaway mirrors for pedestrian protection 

Post Crash 

Automatic notification to emergency providers during air bag deployment 

72 

ATTACHMENT 2 

October 17, 2002 

Hon. JEFFREY W. RUNGE, M.D., 

Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE SAMPLING SYSTEM: INCREASED FUNDING

Dear Dr. Runge: 

Sound crash and injury data are critical components needed for advanced vehicle 

safety design and for both initiating and evaluating countermeasures for improving 

highway safety. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System provides comprehensive data on people dying in 

motor vehicle crashes throughout the United States. These data have enjoyed widespread use in the evaluation of many motor vehicle safety countermeasures and 

their effectiveness in reducing motor vehicle death. NHTSA’s National Automotive 

Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS/CDS) is an essential resource that provides the agency, researchers, vehicle manufacturers—indeed the entire safety community—with a detailed crash and injury causation database suitable 

for identifying traffic safety issues, establishing priorities, assisting in the design of 

future countermeasures and for evaluating existing countermeasures. 

The NASS/CDS provides in-depth crash investigations of a representative sample 

of police-reported tow-away crashes throughout the United States, so data can be 

weighted to provide a nationwide estimate of crashes of all severities according to 

the severity of injuries. Furthermore, researchers can examine the detailed crash investigations in depth to learn about crash characteristics and injury causation focusing on subsets of the data. For example, such investigations have proven to be of 

critical importance in the understanding of airbag performance—the conditions 

under which airbags save lives, but also when they contribute to occupant injury. 

The application of sound science to improve traffic safety requires that real world 

data or field data be used wherever possible. The continuation of vehicle and highway safety improvements requires a solid factual basis. However, the essence of 

such investigations is timeliness. As the recent experience with frontal airbags has 

taught us, we need to understand as soon as possible how new vehicle technologies, 

such as airbags, are performing in the real world. And with new technologies being 

introduced at such a fast pace, it is now more important than ever to understand 

how these technologies are performing in the real world. 

The agency’s NASS/CDS database is one of the most comprehensive databases in 

the world to look in depth at the causes of motor vehicle injury. However, we are 

concerned that the budget for NASS has not kept pace with either the agency’s informational needs or inflation. The NASS program has been constrained by either 

flat or reduced funding at a time when technological developments (e.g., advanced 

frontal and side air bags, telematics) and occupant behavior (from increased seat 

belt use to booster seat installations) are changing. We believe it is important to 

ensure that NHTSA continues to have the ability to evaluate actual field performance on a national basis. 

Therefore, NASS must have the resources necessary to collect high-quality, realworld data by conducting investigations at the full complement of sites that will provide statistically valid, nationally representative data on a timely basis. The NASS 

reorganization of the mid 1980s called for 36 Primary Sampling Units. Currently, 

NASS has the resources to conduct investigations at only 24 sites. The effectiveness 

of NASS has also been subject to inflationary increases in operating costs of about 

3–5 percent per year, which have been offset by reducing field staff. This has resulted in fewer cases reported from the 24 sites. 

From the original projections of 7000 cases annually, NASS has been reduced to 

providing only about 4500 cases annually across the spectrum of crash types and 

severities. The result is that there are often too few cases of serious injury to make 

an informed decision about the sources and mechanisms of injury in motor vehicle 

crashes (for example, in side impacts, or in crashes involving children) without having to include data from many years of data collection. This blunts our ability to 

look at current issues in real time. We believe NASS should be funded at a level 

that will restore NASS to its design scope to ensure critical ‘‘real-world’’ data can 

be collected at a sufficient number of sites to produce the statistically valid, nationally representative sample originally intended. Initially, the NASS design called for 

50 active sites. 

73 

Thus, we believe it is critical that the proposed NHTSA Fiscal Year 2004 budget 

include a request to fully fund NASS, so that our ability to evaluate the effectiveness of both behavioral and vehicular safety measures is enhanced. We stand ready 

to support you in this most important endeavor. 

Sincerely, 

Josephine S. Cooper 

President and CEO 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 

Inc. 

Timothy C. MacCarthy 

President and CEO 

Association of International Automobile 

Manufacturers, Inc. 

Heather Paul 

Executive Director 

National Safe Kids 

Charles A. Hurley 

Transportation Safety Group 

National Safety Council 

Phil Haseltine 

President 

Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety 

Yvonne McBride 

President Governors 

Highway Safety Association 

Susan G. Pikrallidas 

Vice President of Public Affairs 

AAA 

Susan Ferguson 

Senior Vice President, Research 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

ATTACHMENT 3 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Washington, DC, June 28, 2002 

Hon. JEFTREY W. RUNGE. M.D., 

Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Dr. Runge: 

I am writing to thank you and your staff for making significant improvements in 

the Economic Assessment of the recently adopted final rule requiring tire pressure 

monitoring systems for new motor vehicles. I would also like to suggest some longerterm research directions that may strengthen the scientific basis of future vehicle 

safety rulemakings. 

First, OIRA appreciates the significant improvements NHTSA made in the regulatory analysis. Those improvements include (1) an explicit cost-effectiveness analysis of a 1-tire standard, including a comparison of costs and safety impacts compared to a 4-tire standard, (2) a significant discussion of the ABS safety issue, including a careful summary of the real-world crash data concerning the safety impacts of ABS, and (3) a qualitative discussion of some of the technical uncertainties 

in the agency’s estimates of the safety benefits that could be expected from various 

tire-pressure monitoring systems. 

Recognizing the limitations in current knowledge, we are eager to work with 

NHTSA between now and March of 2005, when more information will be available 

and a final decision will be made on this matter for model years 2007 and later. 

We are pleased that NHTSA agrees upon the need to analyze all options and information about the safety impacts of ABS, regardless of whether such information is 

judged to be relevant to this rulemaking or a separate rulemaking. We believe that 

further improvements in NHTSA’s economic assessment of the tire-pressure monitoring issue will result from the collection and development of additional information between now and March of 2005. OIRA wants to work closely with NHTSA to 

develop analysis sufficient to inform and support NHTSA’s ultimate decision in this 

important rulemaking. 

Second, in the course of reviewing this particular rule, OIRA encountered a research gap that, if filled, would provide a stronger technical foundation for future 

vehicle- and tire-related rulemakings at NHTSA. The 1977 ‘‘Indiana Tri-Level 

Study’’ was a seminal effort to quantify the relative frequency of different causes 

of crashes. However, much has changed in the past 25 years. For example, minivans 

and SUVs were virtually nonexistent in the mid-70s, as were front-wheel drive vehicles and radial tires. These changes raise questions about the continuing validity 

of the Indiana Tri-Level Study’s findings about the relative frequency of different 

74 

causes of crashes. However, there has been no subsequent comprehensive study of 

crash causation. 

We know that NHTSA is now responsible for conducting a crash causation study 

tor large trucks and that you are exploring the possibility of building on that work 

to do a broader crash causation study. Such a study would allow us in the government to better understand the safety payoffs and costs associated with initiatives 

in the area of crash avoidance, such as enhanced tires, braking, and handling performance. It would also give us a stronger basis for setting priorities in this area. 

My staff and I would like to meet with you and your staff to discuss the potential 

value and costs of a comprehensive crash causation study. 

We thank you again for being responsive to OIRA’s concerns and we look forward 

to discussions with you regarding both research gaps and the analysis necessary to 

support future rulemakings. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN D. GRAHAM, Ph.D., 

Administrator, 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Berman. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD BERMAN, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, 

AMERICAN BEVERAGE LICENSEES AND THE AMERICAN 

BEVERAGE INSTITUTE 

Mr. BERMAN. Yes, sir, thank you, Senator. Like the speakers before me, sir, we believe the Nation must improve the way we fund 

and enforce traffic safety programs, including how we address 

drunk driving problems. The retailers that I represent, as well as 

the producer industries, are committed to responsible beverage 

service. We have collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars 

to educate the public and train our employees on the responsible 

use of adult beverages, and we are much more than commentators. 

We have been on the front lines in stopping product abuse and underage purchases. 

Our first issue today starts with the question of the relationship 

between the states and the Federal Government when it comes to 

funding effective traffic safety programs. It’s our belief that State 

governments should not be subjected to financial blackmail because 

they do not endorse the Federal recommendations on how to combat drunk driving. 

This is not an industry position exclusively but one that was 

taken by numerous traffic safety groups during the last two debates over highway funding, including the National Governors Association, the Council of State Governments, the League of Cities, 

the National Association of Counties, AAA, the National Association of Governors Highway Safety Representatives, and many others. It is a position shared by President Bush and Secretary Mineta, who said before another Senate Committee this week that 

their current proposal is designed to ‘‘enhance the capacity and 

flexibility of states to use Federal grants and their own funds to 

improve highway safety.’’ 

In this reauthorization we should end the pattern of mandating 

traffic safety programs that are driven by political agendas and return to a fully incentive-based program. 

Our industry is further concerned about how we will find effective solutions to the problem of drunk driving in the face of continually shifting semantics. In many ways how we, including the GovVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
75 

ernment, the media, special interests and others talk about this 

issue prevents us from reaching consensus. 

Consider that the term ‘‘alcohol-related accidents’’ has been 

translated by interest groups to mean drunk driving. That is not 

the case, as many alcohol-related incidents are in no way alcoholcaused. And due to NHTSA’s system of imputation, many accidents 

that don’t even show the presence of alcohol are still labeled alcohol-related. Further, all the crashes are lumped into one group, implying that we have a much greater problem than we really do. 

That is not to minimize the drunk driving problems, but it is to get 

the focus of the solution where it belongs, on repeat offenders and 

product abusers. This point was driven home in a recent Los Angeles Times story that we’ve attached to our testimony. 

One year ago a representative of the National Sleep Foundation 

testified there are many highway deaths miscounted as alcohol-related that are in fact caused by drowsy drivers. Our question is, 

why has NHTSA failed to promote purchase restrictions on overpowered cars by individuals with long lists of speeding violations, 

or have done something about the drowsy driver situation. 

New potential impairments abound. We hear about cell phones, 

onboard electronics in cars, older drivers whose hearing, reaction 

times and vision are all impaired. And yet, most of the impairment 

conversation that takes place in this town is continually over 

whether or not someone has had an adult beverage. Traffic safety 

funding should cover all safety programs to reduce highway deaths, 

not just those focused on alcohol-related problems. 

We have agreed with MADD in the past that high BAC drivers 

and repeat offenders are problems that need to be addressed. Too 

much attention and time has been spent on fighting for .08 BAC 

laws in this town that have minimal value, and I urge you to refer 

to the two charts that I have also attached to my testimony that 

compares what has happened in the .08 states and the various 

states that have been spoken about here today that have so far refused to adopt that language. 

Before we launch into another round of legislative initiatives, we 

should cautiously review how we spend taxpayer dollars. There are 

ideas proposed, including increased use of random roadblocks that 

should be contemplated after a serious review of their effectiveness, 

a cost-benefit analysis, and a look at the reported abuses and intrusions on privacy that may be posed by increased use of enforcement 

measures that are not preceded by probable cause. 

I will allow the rest of my statement to be admitted into the 

record, sir, but I would like to just read, when it comes to roadblocks, one quote that I found this afternoon just before coming up 

here. It is by the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, it 

would be no surprise that I looked for that one. 

And in terms of roadblocks the Chief Justice has said, objecting 

to this use of random roadblocks: What has occurred is quite simply the seizure of a car and its driver without any probable cause 

in the hope that sometime during the ensuing detention, evidence 

of a crime will be discovered. 

This is probably the biggest problem that we’re going to be facing 

in the debates coming up, this increased rhetoric about let’s get 

random roadblocks out there and start arresting people, start 

76 

1 American Beverage Licensees (an association of taverns, package stores and restaurants) and 

the American Beverage Institute (an association of national chain and single unit restaurants). 2These traffic safety groups include the National Governors’ Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities, 

the National Association of Counties, the American Automobile Association, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Traffic Safety Services Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Association of Governors’ Highway Safety Representatives. 3Statement of Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, before the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on the Environment and Public Works, United 

States Senate, ‘‘Reauthorization of Surface Transportation Programs,’’ 20 May 2003. 4 ‘‘A breakdown of the 17,448 deaths includes: 

• About 2,500 to 3,500 crash deaths in which no driver was legally drunk but alcohol was 

detected. 

• 1,770 deaths involved drunk pedestrians killed when they walked in front of sober drivers. 

frightening people, start taking away people’s individual privacy. 

And I hope in the deliberations that ensue after these hearings, 

that this becomes a focus of people who are seeking to protect privacy, not to see that it’s given up. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD BERMAN, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, AMERICAN

BEVERAGE LICENSEES AND THE AMERICAN BEVERAGE INSTITUTE

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee on 

this issue of funding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I am honored to represent the community of adult beverage retailers.1

Like the speakers before me, I believe the Nation should improve the way we fund 

and enforce traffic safety programs including how we address drunk driving problems. Retailers—as well as the producer industries—are committed to responsible 

beverage service. We have collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars to educate the public and train our employees on the responsible use of adult beverages. 

We are much more than commentators, we have been on the front lines in stopping 

product abuse and underage purchases. We want to offer our perspective on the effective and efficient ways to fund drunk driving countermeasures. 

Our first issue starts with a question of the relationship between states and the 

Federal government when it comes to funding effective traffic safety programs. The 

Federal government is becoming more aggressive about using ‘‘mandates’’ or ‘‘blackmail’’ to force states, governors, legislators and highway safety officials to accept 

Washington’s view of what works. In ever more instances, states are being penalized 

even when they have above-average safety records, because they do not adopt federally approved laws. With few exceptions (e.g., the minimum drinking age, requiring 

helmet use for motorcycle riders and a mandated national speed limit, which was 

rescinded), highway safety countermeasures were funded on incentives. 

State governments should not be subjected to financial blackmail because they do 

not endorse the Federal recommendations on how to combat drunk driving. This is 

not an industry position, but one that was taken by numerous traffic safety groups 2

during the last two debates over highway funding. It is a position shared by President Bush and Secretary Mineta, who said before another Senate committee this 

week that their current proposal is designed to ‘‘enhance the capacity and flexibility 

of states to use Federal grants and their own funds to improve highway safety.’’ 3

In this reauthorization, we should end the pattern of mandating traffic safety programs driven by political agendas and return to a fully incentive-based program. 

Our industry is further concerned about how we will find effective solutions to the 

problem of drunk driving in the face of continually shifting semantics. In many 

ways, how we (the government, the media, special interests and others) talk about 

this issue prevents us from reaching consensus. Consider that the term ‘‘alcohol-related’’ accidents has been translated by interest groups to mean ‘‘drunk driving.’’ 

That is not the case, as many alcohol-related incidents are in no way ‘‘alcoholcaused.’’ And, due to NHTSA’s system of imputation, many accidents that don’t even 

show the presence of alcohol are still labeled alcohol-related. Further all crashes are 

lumped into one group, implying that we have a much greater problem that we really do. That is not to minimize the drunk driving problems, but it is to get the focus 

of the solution where it belongs, on repeat offenders and product abusers. This point 

was driven home in a recent LA Times story that broke down the 17,448 deaths in 

2001 to ‘‘5,000 sober victims killed by legally drunk drivers.’’ 4

77 

• About 8,000 deaths involved only a single car and in most of those cases the only death 

was the drunk driver. 

• That leaves about 5,000 sober victims killed by legally drunk drivers.’’ 

Vartabedian, Ralph, ‘‘A Spirited Debate over DUI Laws,’’ Los Angeles Times, 30 December 

2002. 5Testimony before the Subcommittee on Highways and Infrastructure, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, ‘‘Various Approaches to Traffic Safety,’’ 27 June 2002. 6See Chart 1. 

7 It is notable that a state implementing such a graduated penalties system today would— 

even if the program was proven effective in reducing drunk driving deaths—still be sanctioned 

under TEA–21. In fact, many states (like Minnesota and Wisconsin) have implemented a strong 

graduated penalty program (only starting at a higher BAC) but will still be sanctioned for not 

adopting .08 percent BAC. 8See Chart 2. 

One year ago, a representative of the National Sleep Foundation testified 5 there 

are many highway deaths miscounted as alcohol-related that are in fact caused by 

drowsy drivers. And why has NHTSA failed to promote purchase restrictions on 

overpowered cars by individuals with long lists of speeding violations. New potential 

‘‘impairments’’ abound—from cell-phones to on-board electronics. Traffic safety funding should cover all safety programs to reduce highway deaths, not just those focused on alcohol-related problems. 

Because we use the broadest definition of the drunk driving problem and treat 

alcohol as the only significant impairment on our Nation’s highways, no one should 

be surprised that we have a penalty system that is also disproportional. Most states 

punish a .08 percent BAC drinker with the same set of penalties as an extreme .28 

percent BAC drinker. The situation is analogous to punishing an individual driving 

five miles over the speed limit with the same penalty as someone going 50 miles 

over the posted restrictions. Hard-core drunk drivers are not responsive to public 

appeals. Programs designed specifically to address their drinking patterns should be 

where we focus the most time, the most research, resources and political capital instead of developing programs suited to targeting casual social drinkers who are not 

a part of the problem. 

We have agreed with MADD in the past that these high BAC drivers and repeat 

offenders are problems that need to be addressed. Too much attention and time has 

been spent on fighting for .08 percent BAC laws that have minimal value,6 I testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice and 

proposed the same concept of tailoring the level of punishment to the level of the 

crime: ‘‘. . . a prosecution strategy with a graduated series of penalties in the form 

of fines, license revocation and imprisonment. The magnitude of the penalty would 

reflect the degree of infractions, where 0.20 drivers even on their first offense suffer 

a more exacting penalty than the marginal offender, with a graduated increase according to BAC levels and multiplicity of offenses.’’ 7 And developing a high-BAC/ 

repeat offender initiative program would be the best way to achieve improvements 

in these areas. 

While we advocate aggressively implementing more effective programs, we want 

to focus on the word ‘‘effective.’’ Before we launch into another round of legislative 

initiatives, we should cautiously review how we spend taxpayer dollars. There are 

ideas proposed, including the increased use of random roadblocks, that should be 

contemplated after a serious review of their effectiveness, a cost-benefit analysis, 

and a look at the reported abuses and intrusions on privacy that may be posed by 

increased use of enforcement measures not preceded by probable cause. 

If we agree on the problem—high-BAC drivers that MADD says causes most of 

the alcohol-related traffic fatalities—then the solution must target these product 

abusers. A system of increased use and funding of random roadblocks surely does 

not. Roadblocks are the backbone of a ‘‘PR’’-heavy traffic safety program, one that 

seeks to convince the public that it is illegal or immoral to drink any adult beverage 

and then drive. We’ve all heard the slogans: ‘‘Don’t drink and drive.’’ ‘‘You drink. 

You drive. You lose.’’ ‘‘Impairment begins with the first drink.’’ These slogans do not 

reflect the law, nor do they reflect reality. Roadblocks take that message one step 

further by targeting and punishing casual drinkers who are not a part of the problem and who are already behaving responsibly.8

Unfortunately, roadblocks are neither effective, nor do they have the level of support from law enforcement officials that you would expect from a truly effective safety program. A National Academy of Sciences study, conducted by economists from 

Harvard University and the University of Chicago, suggested that, ‘‘policies focused 

78 

9Levitt, Steven D., and Porter, Jack, ‘‘How dangerous are drinking drivers?’’ The Journal of 

Political Economy, Chicago, December 2001. 10Wayne, NJ, Police Chief Robert H. Pringle, quoted in the Bergen Record, ‘‘Value of DWI 

Checks Doubted,’’ 30 December 1985. See also the attached opinion editorial by former Indiana 

state trooper Stan Worthington, who manned some of that state’s first-ever roadblocks 20 years 

ago. 

on stopping erratic drivers might be more successful.’’ 9 Even research by NHTSA, 

the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the FBI point to saturation patrols 

to catch more drunk drivers. Because police discretion works, we hear from policemen that, ‘‘[roadblocks are] not a valid use of police time. We are involved in enforcement and education, but we do not have to include mass inconvenience and 

mass fear.’’ 10

The adult beverage retailing community joins with the safety community in 

thanking you for your attention to these important issues and the dedication of important new funds to making our roads safer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 

opportunity to share our perspectives on safety issues with you today. 

79 

ATTACHMENT 1 


522BERM1.eps

MONDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2002 

A Spirited Debate Over DUI Laws 

The government's effort to compel states to lower blood-alcohol limits 

encounters resistance. A senator in Iowa calls the policy "blackmail . .. 

By Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer 

A high-pressure federal effort to toughen drunk driving 

laws across the nation is meeting resistance in a third of 

the states, where many politicians say the policy is counterproductive and misguided. 

Highway safety regulators in 1998 called on states to 

lower the allowable blood-alcohol level for drivers to 0.08%, 

or risk losing millions of dollars in federal highway grants. 

The majority of the states have con fanned. but 17 

states -- from MiMesota to South Carolina and Nevada 

to Delaware -- have rejected the approach and maintain 

laws that define drunk. driving at 0.10% blood-alcohol. 

Though no one defends drunk drivers or suggests 

abandoning the campaign against them, the states say federal officials have not shown that 0.08% laws save lives. 

Critics say the tougher laws weaken the emphasis on catching hard-core drunks who cause the most deadly crashes 

and saddle states with the costs of prosecuting tens of thousands of additional violators. "I don't think. there would be 

one person saved by a .08 law," said Tom Rukavina. a 

Minnesota legislator representing the state's Iron Range, a 

sparsely populated region west of Lake Superior. "All we 

would have is more arrests. Almost every court case up 

here already involves dnmk driving." 

Rukavina estimates that a 0.08% law would result 

Federal officials reject the criticism, asserting that 

0.08% laws save lives and that the statistics showing that 

40% of highway deaths involve alcohol do not exaggerate the problem. 

In the midst of the holiday season, the airwaves are 

again filled with warnings to motorists to avoid drinking 

and driving. An average of 1,000 alcohol-related deaths 

occur between Christmas and New Year's, the deadliest 

holiday period of the year. 

Jeffrey Runge, chiefofthe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, launched a campaign this 

month to further step up enforcement, citing the continuing threat posed by III billion drinking and driving 

trips annually, which kill more than 45 people every day." 

Nobody questions that the fight against drunk: driving has resulted in tremendous progress during the last 

half a century. saving by some estimates 21 ,000 lives 

and radically changing the public mind-set about alcohol. 

But progress in reducing drunk driving deaths has 

stalled in recent years. Between 1993 and 200 1, alcoholrelated driving deaths leveled out at about 17,000 a year 

despite many states adopting tougher laws and steppedup enforcement. 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the most powerful advocacy group on the issue and a driving force behind the federal government's push to lower the legal 

blood-alcohol limit, says the nation risks losing the battle 

and must pass even stricter laws, raise beer taxes and 

beef up enforcement. 

Federal officials launched a holiday season campaign with the motto: "You Drink & Drive, You Lose." 

The advice for drivers is to avoid all drinking. 

But many state officials and some accident experts 

worry that other types of driver impairments may not be 

etting the same kind of attention. 

"Theoretically. very small amounts of alcohol in 

your blood impairs you, but so do antihistamines and 

lack of sleep," said Brian O'Neill, president of the highly 

respected Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 

lof3 
80 


522BERM2.eps

e should focus on people who are s n 

paired at the kind of levels that are illegal. That's one 

reason the problem is overstated." 

ates for safer cars and Un r . sUp' 

port the drunk drivmg e art, ut say federal offici 

lack the same commitment to preventing the ne y 

24,700 highway deaths involving sober drivers rast y r. 

That death toll has leaped 39% in the last two decad 

"There are other elements to highway safety th 

stopping drunk drivers," said Bella Dinh-Zarr, director 

of traffic safety policy at the American Automobile Assn. 

"We don't think [the campaign against drunk driving] is 

a silver bullet." 

Added Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the 

Center for Auto Safety, an organization that often butts 

heads with the auto industry and govemm.ent concerning vehicle safety standards: "It is a lot easier and cheaper 

to blame the driver than to blame the vehicle or the road 

Police sometimes blame alcohol with little or no 

evidence. For example, when Alabama State Trooper 

Darrick Dorough investigated a fatal crash last year in the 

town of Aliceville, he suspected that the driver, Marvin B. 

Turnipseed, had been drinking. No alcohol test was reported and the family would later allege in a lawsuit that a 

defect caused their Ford Explorer to roll over. 

Now Dorough can't recall why he suspected drinking. "I don't think drinking was the primary cause of the 

accident. It could have contributed to it. That's a guess." 

Nonetheless, NHTSA Administrator Runge says the 

agency's statistics and its mathematical models to estimate drunk driving data are scientifically valid and represent the actual risks of a1cohol consumption in the U.S. 

"It doesn't overstate it at all," Runge said. "The 

question is, is it a solvable problem? It is solvable." 

More than 1.5 million people in the U.S. will be 

stopped. handcuffed and detained on drunk driving charges 

this year, putting it near the top categories of criminal behavior. A heavy legal hammer falls on the convicted, often including mandatory jail time, heavy fines and large 

legal defense costs. A drunk driving arrest can cost a motorist $10,000, as well as license suspension. 

While critics say that's well-deserved punishment, 

they are concerned that merely arresting more drivers 

will not reduce highway deaths. 

The federal push for lowering the blood-alcohol 

limit to 0.08% is based on the assertion that it would 

save 500 lives per year nationwide, according to the formal rule issued by the NHTSA. But that estimate is highly 

controversial. 

A June 1999 report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative ann of Congress, found that 

NHTSA's death reduction estimate was based on four studies that were flawed and failed to "provide conclusive evience that 0.08% ... laws by themselves have resulted in 

reductions in drunk driving crashes and fatalities." 

The NHTSA estimate also seems squishy to some 

drunk driving researchers. 

20f3 
81 


522BERM3.eps

You are not going to see a big statisti a 

ce between .08 and .10 blood alcohol level," said Ku 

M. Dubowski, a pioneer in drunk driving medical research at Indiana University. 

"While we lower the standard, brakes are getting 

better, highways are becoming safer, but congestion is 

growing. You can't peel those factors apart." 

But the NHTSA's Runge argues strongly that impainnent begins with the first sip of alcohol. 

"ls it better to drive stone cold sober? Sure" e 

"Clearly, by .08 virtually all of the po 

o react to a simple erne 

Joseph, anonal Center for 

Statistics and Analysis, the NHTSA office that compiles 

the data, contends that all 17,448 alcohol-related highway deaths in 200 I would have been prevented if alcohol was removed from every driver. 

NHTSA rests its case with studies such as those 

conducted by Herbert Moskowitz, a medical doctor, who 

is president of the Southern California Research Institute and regarded as a top alcohol researcher. 

"There is no question that with any level of alcohol 

you increase the probability of a crash," Moskowitz said. 

"Most people don't realize the effects of low blood-alcohol. You are not intoxicated. You are not staggering." 

A Moskowitz study, funded by NHTSA in April 

2000, noted that activities requiring mental activity begin to degrade at below 0.05% blood-alcohol levels. Specifically, low levels of alcohol impair the ability to perfonn tasks that require divided attention, commonplace 

in driving. 

But many accident investigators say it is often 

wrong to automatically blame alcohol whenever it is 

present in a crash. 

"If you were to take away all that alcohol, would 

you take away all those accidents?" asked Kerry M. Clark, 

a human factors accident investigator in Southern California. "No. I can say that pretty strongly. 

"I hate drunk drivers with a passion," he said, "but 

I have reviewed many circumstances where accidents by 

dnmkdrivers involved a reaction within the nonnal range 

of human response. In some cases, people would still 

make mistakes." 

Among the states that still have 0.1 0% laws, there 

are bitter feelings about the federal government's pressure. 

Under NHTSA's rule, the states that refuse to lower 

the drunk driving limit are losing portions of a six-year, 

S500-million incentive grant program. Brad Hutto, a 

South Carolina senator. has long opposed a lower legal 

imit and says he doubts his state will change its law even 

·th the loss of funds. 

"I call it blackmail," said Stewart Iverson, the Iowa 

S ate majority leader. "Why is .08 the magic number? 

B lowering it to .08, we are going to catch more of what 

all the social drinkers. I had two friends killed by drunk 

·vers, but we have to be realistic." 

And in Ohio, the anger is equally great. 

"Nobody is for drunk driving, but they are after the 

wrong end of the stick," said Richard Finan, president of 

the Ohio Senate. "The people who have had a few beers 

or a glass of wine are not the problem. We call it prohibition drip by drip. It is prohibitionists who want this. Their 

goal is zero tolerance." 

MADD President Hamilton said she has heard such 

criticism many times before. 

"My family has seen a lot of sorrow because of drunk 

driving, but it doesn't mean people should stop drinking. 

I am sitting here right now with a beer," Hamilton said on 

the evening she was interviewed by The Times. 

MADD and its allies say the legislators are influenced by the alcohol and restaurant lobby. Legislators 

and their advocates deny that allegation and say MAD D's 

S50-miJIion annual budget distorts the issue. 

Although highway safety organizations endorse 

tough drunk driving laws, they lament the government's 

lack of commitment on other issues. Jackie Gillan, a vice 

president for Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety, notes 

that federal regulators have set a fonnal goal of reducing 

drunk driving deaths to 11 ,000 a year by 2005. 

"Why don't they have a goal for reducing rollover 

deaths, which is increasing yearly and now exceeds 10,000 

deaths a year," Gillan asked. "Their solution to rollover 

is to get people to buckle up to prevent death and injury. 

What about preventing the rollover from occurring in the 

first place?" 

Roadway safety advocates say they are in the same 

boat. 

"It is easier to pass a law that raises the threshold 

on drunk driving than it is to get rid of dead man's curve," 

said William Fay, president of the Roadway Safety Foundation. 

"A lot of politicians don't want to spend money on 

things that don't have high visibility. But 15,000 deaths 

are caused every year due to maintenance and design of 

roadways. Our roads are designed for a fraction of the 

current traffic load." 

3 00 
82 

ATTACHMENT 2 

Source: Unpublished ABI analysis of U.S. Department of Transportation Fatality Analysis Reporting System data on BAG levels and fatalities in accidents where a driver was actually tested. Imputed fatalities were not included in this analysis. Nineteen States were considered 0.08 

states for the analysis including the District of Columbia. These 19 states all had 0.08 laws in 

effect prior to the 2001 year that was used for this analysis. 


522BERM4.eps 522BERM5.eps
83 

ATTACHMENT 3 


522BERM6.eps

THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR 

April 7, 2002 

Roadblocks are all about 

PR, not safety Stan Worthington 

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled in 

March that roadblocks intended to 

catch drunken drivers are allowed 

under the state constitution. Maybe 

so, but they have not worked, and 

they will not work. 

As an Indiana state trooper in the 

early 1980s, I quickly realized that 

roadblocks are all about public relations and have very little to do with 

safety. In fact, roadblocks make it 

more likely that dangerously drunken drivers will not be caught. 

Roadblocks require the deployment 

of more officers than they are worth, 

stretching already overtaxed police 

resources even further. 

When I was working roadblocks 

in 1980 and 1981, every checkpoint 

had at least four officers on duty. 

Most had six or eight, because we 

were stopping so many vehicles to 

check drivers for sobriety. 

With so many officers stopping 

cars at random, fewer were on 

patrol seeking out unsafe drivers. 

(Many of the officers at the roadblocks were working overtime, but 

each checkpoint probably took at 

least one officer off patrol.) 

I led my district in convictions for 

driving under the influence two 

years in a row. Few of these convictions came from my time on 

roadblock detail. 

When I was cruising the highways on patrol, I was much more 

likely to find actual drunken drivers and get them off the road. A 

poli ce officer needs probable cause 

to pull someone over. 

Probable cause could be established by observing someone disobeying traffic laws, driving erratically, swerving, or driving too fast or 

too slow. I have even "chased down" 

DUI drivers going 10 miles per hour 

on the highway. 

But the problem with roadblocks 

is not just that effort is misplaced. 

Setting up these checkpoints puts 

police officers and civilian drivers 

in danger, and it has nothing to do 

with alcohol. 

Roadblocks are set up at night, 

when driver visibility is decreased. 

To get cars to pull over, officers must 

stand in the road, flag them down and 

get them to get in line. 

How dangerous is it for a police 

officer to stand in the middle of a 

highway? Just as dangerous as it is 

for anyone else. 

Innocent drivers are at risk as well. 

Roadblocks are intentionally set up 

in positions where cars cannot spot 

them and flee before being stopped; 

where there are no turns or exits. 

Does this mean cars do not try to 

escape? Of course not. I often saw 

drivers do a hasty U-turn across double-yellow lines and head off the 

other way. 

Yes, some of these drivers were 

drunk. But some just had unpaid 

traffic tickets and were afraid to be 

stopped. Some thought an accident 

was up ahead and wanted to avoid 

it. But by cutting across the highway, they made an accident even 

more likely. 

The only thing that will stop actual drunks from getting behind the 

wheel is jail time. As a trooper, I 

pulled over the same drunk numerous times in just 18 months. He was 

dangerous and should not have been 

on the road, but because he was 

never seriously punished, he just 

kept doing it again and again. 

Roadblocks do not stop drivers 

like him. And since the time and 

location of roadblocks are 

announced in advance, even at 

high-danger times such as holiday 

weekends and New Year's Eve, 

guys like him get away. They know 

where the police will be so they go 

another way. 

Roadblocks just harass responsible drivers and persecute responsible drinkers who had a beer at a 

friend's house or a glass of wine 

with dinner at a restaurant. They 

look great on the evening news as 

a sign of what's being done to stop 

drunken driving, but in reality they 

are counterproductive. 

Indiana and other states should 

stop putting public relations ahead of 

public safety. Shut down the roadblocks and let the police do what 

they do best: protect the public. 

Worthington is a former 

Indiana state trooper. 
84 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Hamilton. 

STATEMENT OF WENDY J. HAMILTON, PRESIDENT, 

MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING 

Ms. HAMILTON. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I’m 

Wendy Hamilton, national President of Mothers Against Drunk 

Driving. It is indeed an honor to be here today to testify on DOT’s 

SAFETEA proposal, and MADD’s priorities for the reauthorization 

of TEA–21. We look forward to working with this Committee to develop transportation policies that save lives and prevent injuries on 

our Nation’s highways. 

For the third consecutive year, alcohol-related traffic deaths have 

increased. Early statistics show that last year nearly 18,000 people 

were killed, and hundreds of thousands more were injured in these 

crashes. Alcohol-involved crashes accounted for an overwhelming 

46 percent of all fatal injury costs. Unfortunately, the data speaks 

for itself. 

The Nation, including its political leaders, has become complacent in this effort. Lack of funding for effective behavioral traffic 

safety programs and minimal resources for law enforcement officers 

to enforce existing laws are a major part of the problem. Last week 

MADD released its new Federal plan for the reauthorization of 

TEA–21. On that day we heard from members of the Senate who 

expressed their firm commitment to move the Nation in the right 

direction. MADD sincerely thanks Senator Dorgan, Senator Lautenberg, Senator DeWine and Senator Murray for their participation in this event and their leadership to reduce traffic death and 

injury. 

Today MADD is asking Congress and the Administration to 

adopt MADD’s research plan. I would like to submit this plan for 

the record. 

Senator SMITH. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

85 


522MADD1.eps

Alcohol-Related 

Traffic Fatalities 

on the Rise 

For Third Consecutive Year 

In 2002. the nation experienc.ed - for 

the third year in a row - an increase in 

alcohol-related traffic fatalities. 

Preliminary data show that at least 

17,970 people were killed in croshes 

involving alcohol representing 42 

p<rccnl of lhe 42,850 people killed in 

all tratlic crashes, up from 41 percent 

;n2001. 

Crash Facts 

• Motor vehicle crushes are the 

leading cause of death for 

"mcncans ages I to 35 years old 

• On average, 117 people die each 

da)' from motor vehicll! crashes. 

10 the United Stales 

• rraffic crashes cost America 

more Ihan 5230 bilhon annually 

3ccordtngto tht: U.S. DI,."J'artn1ent 

of Tronsponalion 

• fony-lWo percenl of "II lraffic 

dealhs are alcohol-relaled 

• SobrielY checkpolOlS reduce 

crashes involVing alcohol by 20 

percent accordillg 10 lh~ Centers 

for Discase Conlrol 

• Aboul one-Ihird of all drovers 

arrested or convicted of driving 

while inloxicated are repeat 

offenders 

• Seal beils reducolhe nsk of falal 

IDJWY by 45 percenl and reduce 

the ri,k of ,eno"-' onjury by 50 

percent 

Put Research into Practice: 

TEA-21 and Traffic Safety 

Reauthorizing TEA-21 Presents a 

Historic Opportunity to Reduce 

Alcohol-Relat ed Traffic Deaths and Injuries 

Mothcrsi\gainsl Drunk Driving's (MADD) goal for the reauthorization of 

the;: Transponation Equity Act for th~ 21 $I Century (TEA-21) is to advanre 

traffic safely programs thaI will save lives anu prevent injuries. Progress 

will OCCur when: 1) adequate funding lS provided for tnillic safety progrJDlS, 

and 2) a commitment is made to put proven countermeasures mto practice. 

MAD!) belie"", the reaulhorized lra ffic safety section ofTl'.A-2 1 should: 

• E.stablish a National Traffic Safety Fund to support Slate and national 

traffic safety programs, enforcement and data improvements 

• Incrc::ase accountabi lity for expenditure of federa l funds 

• Expand impaired driving and seat belt law enforcement mobilizations 

• Enact a national standard to reduce repeat OWL and other higher-risk 

driver recidivism 

• Enact a national primary seat belt standard 

• Enact a national smndard hanning open co nl ai nt s of alcoholic beverages 

in veh icles 

Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities 

"""1:ti;I~~~'ii~~~~~i~~ 

~::: H 

~= fj 19.(1)(1 -

", .. 1 /pY) 

14 .. 001 

U.OOl 

1'.000 

11.M 

~. ~oo 

1IAO) 

4.il<'JO "',. M" 

1.000 

o 19~1I 1!01I9 1;91) loJ91 19')2 199~ .9i4 19~ 1996 1997 199r. 19. 9 2ODO ]:0: 2001 

Reductions "" in alcohol-related 

fatalities have stalled since the early 1 9905 
86 


522MADD2.eps

d Accountability ••• 

Linking Results with Funding 

While t.he naHon cxpcric-nted n. substantial decrease in 

alcohol-related dealhs in the 1980s and early 1990s, the 

U.S. is now experiencing an upward trend, This is due to 

inadequate funding, pub1ic complacency and the lack of 

coordinated plans of action at the state and fedcrallevels. 

Congress must hold states and Ihe National Highway 

Trdflic Safely Administration (NHTSII) accountable for 

the expenditure of redl!ral highway safety funds. To 

reduce traffic fata lities, stales must work in cooperc.ltioll 

with NHTSA to develop strategic highway safety plans 

that establish goals and evaluation measures for funded 

programs. N"HTSA must have and exercise the authority 

to approve state highway safety plans - conducting 

meaningful reviews and requiring these plans to include 

effoc(ive impaired driving COunlemleaSureS that meet 

federal policy goals. 

Research demonstrates that initiatives such as sobriety 

chcckpoints and aggressive seat belt enforcement 

significantly reduce traffic deaths and injuries. MA DD 

believes that these stIategies must be the cornerstone for 

the reauthorintion of the TEA-21 traffic safety section. 

•••• 

Traffic Safety Funding: Dedicating Dollars For Programs That Work 

In 20017 federal funding for traffic safety programs waS 

approximately $522 million -less than one quarter of 

onc pc-recnt of what traffic crashes cost Americans each 

year. Of the $522 million, only $133 million (26 percent) was spent on alcohol-related countermeasures. 

MADD recommends establishing a $1 billion dcdicated 

IVan-onal Trabic Safety FlInd to provide increased, ongoing resources for priority traffic satety programs. Ithas 

been estimated that for every dollar spent on efiectivc 

h.ighway safety programs about $30 is saved by society 

in the reduced costs of crashes. 

National Traffic Safety Fund 

State and Community 

Grants (Section 402): 

$425 million 

Law Enforcement Programs: 

$425 million 

Data hnpr cmcnt~: 

$100 million eannarked for 

~~~~~:-~~I National l\1obilizutiuns: 3150 million to NIITSA to support 

three impaired driving and seat belt 

la\\.' enforcement mobilizations. 

to improve traffic sa ret]'. 

Programs must be data-driven 

and include comprehensive 

impaired driving and seat belt 

initiatives. 

Primary Seat Belt Incentives: 

$150 million 

$1 SO million fOT "jumbo" inccntives available 

to states that enact primary seat belt laws. 

Funds \vould support en10rcement 

costs and paid media to increase 

public awareness of these efforts. 

~~ [ ,nhan,:ed Year-Round 

Enforcement and AWareness: 

$275 million to sustain ongoing 

high-\isibility impaired driving 

and seat belt law enforcement 

efforts and supportive activitie:'ii 

throughout the year. 
87 


522MADD3.eps

State and Community 

Highway Safety 

Grants (Section 402) 

Section 402 funding must be 

significantly increased. Hm\fever, 

states mU.'it he held accountable for 

th e expenditure of these funds to 

ensure that they are spt:nt on effective 

traffic safety programs. These 

programs must be based on problem 

identification and reflect data-driven 

priorities. 

Key Action Items: 

• Creat< three lev<ls of 

accountabllit)" for 

performance: 'IITSA, 

l\HTSA RegIonal 

Administrators. slate highway 

safety olTlcc, 

• ReqUIre stccngthened 

NHT A approval process of 

state highway salety plans, 

n:quiring B strong correlation 

~lwccn problem 

Idauiliculion. slr.lIegy. 

program selection and fwtding 

• Requm: Improvement Plan 

implementauon for slates \\ilth 

poor pcrfonnance 

• Priority progr:unming mUJ,t 

include compn:hensive 

alcohol-impaired driving 

countc!nnCilSUTC:s and seat bell 

initiatives 

• Dedicat. SIOO mIllion 

annually for state data 

improvements 

• R\!quirc incn:ased funding for 

Law Enforcement Liaisons to 

bencr coordinate state and 

national law enforcement 

cfTon~ 

Law Enforcement Resources and 

National Mobilizations 

Law enforcement is the front line in the fight against impaired driving. 

Traffic safety laws mu!tt be consistently enforced and the public mu.<;;t be 

educated about the consequences of noncompliance. Law enforcemen t 

needs more resources from the federal government in order to strengthen 

traffi c safe ty en forcement efforts. Funding 

is needed for officer trahUng, technology and Law enforcement needs 

equipment. overtime and the deployment of more resources from the 

aggressive enforcement strategies. federa1government. 

MAUD recommend"i dedicated funding to 

carry out high-visibility traffic law enforcement campaigns. These 

campaigns combine targeted enforcement - sobriety checkpoints, 

saturation patrols andlor seat belt enforcement - with the purchase of 

advertising in broadcast or print media. These campaigns will tOcus on 

rt:ducing drunk driving and increasing scat belt use. 

Key Action Items: 

V' Provide $275 mil lion to sustain ongoing high-visibility law 

enfurcement efforts and supportive activities throughout the year. 

$165 million would be dedicated to impaired driving enforceme nt 

and $110 million would be dedicated to seat belt enforcement. The,. 

funds may bt: used for enforcemcnt-rclated expenses including 

training, technology, equipment, overtime and mt:dia support. 

01 Dedicate S150 million to NHTSA to support three national law 

enforcemcnt mobilizations focusing on reducing impaired driving 

and increasing scat belt use. funds would support enforcemenl costs 

and paid media to increase public awareness of these efforts. 
88 


522MADD4.eps

Priority Traffic Safety Laws 

Higher-Risk Driver Standard 

Higher-risk drivers [aU inLo thJt~t: cat~gories: rept:at 

offenders, offenders with a blood alcohol concentration 

(I3AC) of .i5 or higher. or offenders convicted of driving 

on a suspended license when Ihc suspension was the result 

of driving undcrthc inllucncc. Kationall y, (Jne-third ()f aJl 

drivers arrested or convicted of driving while intoxicated 

are repeat offenders and in 2000, 5& percent of thea leo holre.Jated traflk fatal ities involved drivers with a BAC of.15 

or above. A natioHal standard must be ~'1lactcd to ensure 

that higherpcjsk drivers arc subject to consisten t and 

aggressive detection. arrest and proscculion. 

Key Action Items: 

• Rt:strict vehicle opt:Tatiol1 by suspending li censes, 

hnpouncling or immobilizing vehicles and requjrin~ 

alcohol ignition intcrlock dcvices on otlcndcrs' vchicles. 

• Require compensation to th~ community through Jtn~s, 

mandatory incarccrahon and !inl.lnci<JI restitution to 

crash victims. 

• Promote recoveJY programs through mandatory alcohol 

assessment and treatment, intensive probation and 

attendance at victim impact panels. 

• SLates that do not enact the national higher-risk driver 

standard would face the loss of highway construction 

runds. 

Primary Seat Belt Standard 

The be~t defense against all i mpalred driver is a seat belt. 

According to J\IITSA, for every percentage point illcrease 

in seat helt usage, 280 lives c.all be saved. 

Key Action Item; 

• Establish a nation.al primary seal belt standard. States 

would be e ligible for "jumbo" financ ial inct'ntives for 

three years. States tha1 have not enacted a primary seat 

beh standard after three years would face the loss of 

highway constJuction funds. 

Open Container Standard 

Open container laws separate the consumption of alcohol 

from the operation ofa vehicle. A common-seuse measure, 

banning open cout..'liuers in the passcnger compartment 

of a vehicle will decrease h~ hkdihood that drinking: and 

driving wi II occur. 

Key Action Item: 

• Enact a national ban Oll open containers in the 

passenger compartment ormotor \o'ehides. Sl.."I.1CS lhm 

do not eD...'ld a ban on open containcrs would lace the 

loss ol'highw<1Y t:on.s(ruetion funds. 

.08 BAC Standard 

ill ce the passage of the national.OS perse BAC standard 

in 2000, 18 states have passed this import."Ult legislation, 

bringing the total number of states in compliance to 38 

and the I)hrtricl of Columbia (., of early :-Iay 2003). 

Key Action Items: 

• MADI) will c.ontinue to work (0 ensure .OR BAC is 

the standard ill every state. 

• \I1AD I) will vigorously oppose any attempt to repea l 

the national .08 !lAC standard. 

For additional information on MAD D's prioritiAs for th@ 

reauthorization ofTEA~21,p e~se COntil(t; 

Mothe,,; AgJ.iMt Drunk Driving (MADD) 

is f1 501(t) (1) Ilon-rrofit gn.u. roots 

or~ani;/;ation with more Liul.ll "O() cha[ltel ~ 

nationwkk. 

MAOD's mission Js to stop drunJc 

driving. support the 

a victims of this vio lent 

~ ~r~~:;:;ed :~~~~~~. 

Karen SprattJer 

Direclor ofJ>ublic )'olicy 

MOther!' Agnil1$t Drllilt Dri ... ·illg 

lO2S Collnc:<.:tilOut AVe., KW 

Suite 1200 

W3.~h ngtol1, D.C. 20036 

(21)2) 9'4·249' 

!ipr3ttJcr{~madd org 

Stephanie Manning 

Director of Fedeml ReJJ.tions 

\1olhel'~ Against Dmnk Driving 

1(125 COllneclicutAve., NW 

Suile. l1HO 

W3shington. D.C. :2Q036 

(202) 9i4-2.483 

m3nmng@.im3dd.org: 

David French 

SI.:D10r Associllw 

ENS R.csoun;~. Inc. 

174: PC'Ims}'J~ lmia Avenue. 

Suite 42H 

Wa<ihington, D.C. 241f)0f1 

(2H2) 4f1" •. '755 

dfrench{~ell~re"ource.<; com 

·l·! MAIJIJ·:\II~!,:nlln 
89 

Ms. HAMILTON. MADD’s plan establishes a national traffic safety fund of $1 billion annually. Under this fund, MADD recommends 

dedicated increased funding for highly visible law enforcement activities. The Click It or Ticket national law enforcement mobilization campaign has been very successful at increasing seat belt 

usage. We know that sobriety check points are one of the most effective tools the Nation has to stop impaired driving, and that they 

are especially effective when coupled with media campaigns that 

raise the visibility of these efforts. 

Thanks to the Senate, funds were dedicated in Fiscal Year 2003 

to conduct these mobilizations. Why then has NHTSA not requested any funding to continue this lifesaving effort? I would like 

to thank Senator Lautenberg and Senator DeWine for introducing 

legislation today that would provide substantial funding for enforcement efforts to stop drunk driving and increase seat belt use. 

If enacted, this bill will save lives. 

MADD also recommends dedicating increased behavioral funding 

for State efforts to improve traffic safety. While NHTSA’s funding 

request appears to have increased dollars for behavioral safety, this 

is not the case. Only a percentage of this funding will be spent on 

behavioral safety, since states are able to use much of this funding 

for roadway construction safety projects. Though NHTSA continuously states that reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities is a top 

priority, the Fiscal Year 2004 budget request simply does not support these claims. 

MADD was shocked to learn that impaired driving programs 

merit less than one page of DOT’s 378-page SAFETEA proposal. 

SAFETEA actually decreases funding for alcohol-impaired driving 

by 67 percent. The only funding specifically allocated for impaired 

driving is $50 million. The overwhelming majority of safety funding 

in the SAFETEA proposal is budgeted in the new highway safety 

improvement program, which is really dedicated to roadway construction safety projects. This specific construction safety program 

receives a 117 percent increase. While construction safety is important, DOT itself along with the GAO recognizes that human behavior, not roadway environment, is overwhelmingly seen as the most 

prevalent contributing factor to crashes. 

To compare, DOT’s recreational trails program, funded at $60 

million in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget, receives 20 percent more 

funding than the impaired driving grants program. It appears from 

a budget standpoint that keeping recreational trails safe for a 

small population of users is even more important to DOT than 

keeping all highway users safe from impaired drivers. Again, why? 

MADD’s plan calls for greater accountability controls to ensure 

that Federal funds are being used in a strategic and coordinated 

manner. Recently the GAO at the request of Senator Dorgan released a report detailing the management and use of Federal highway safety funds. GAO concluded, and I quote, ‘‘NHTSA’s oversight 

of highway safety programs is less effective than it could be, both 

in ensuring the efficient and proper use of Federal funds and in 

helping the states achieve their highway safety goals.’’ GAO’s report shows that in the face of rising traffic deaths, more Federal 

oversight and guidance is needed for the expenditure of Federal 

safety dollars to ensure that these funds are spent on effective beVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
90 

havioral programs. This is fiscal responsibility. MADD urges Congress to strongly encourage states to enact proven traffic safety 

laws such as a national traffic primary seat belt standard, and high 

risk driver standards. 

MADD knows that the best defense against a drunk driver is a 

seat belt. As NHTSA proposes, states should be given financial incentives to enact primary belt laws. However, states that do not 

enact this lifesaving measure after 3 years should lose Federal 

highway construction funds. 

MADD also calls for the enactment of a national standard to 

combat higher risk drivers. While higher risk drivers are a small 

portion of the population, they pose a significant threat to motorists. And again, we want to thank Senator Lautenberg and Senator 

DeWine for introducing legislation today that targets this dangerous population. If enacted, this bill would close loopholes to ensure that repeat and high BAC offenders do not slip through the 

cracks. 

This bill is one that has significant meaning for me and my family. On September 19, 1984, a high BAC driver caused the headon collision that killed my 32-year-old sister, Becky and my 22- 

month-old nephew, Timmy. That crash occurred at 1:50 p.m. on a 

beautiful sunny Wednesday afternoon. Three hours after the crash, 

the offender tested at a .16 blood alcohol. The police pulled 4 empty 

bottles of Jim Beam from his vehicle. 

Ms. Gillan mentioned in 2009, she hopes the war against drunk 

driving is being won. MADD is here to say we hope that this war 

has been won and with the goals that we have asked for, we know 

that we can. Our Nation lacks a clear, consolidated, coordinated solution to reduce impaired driving fatalities. Maintaining the status 

quo or worse, decreasing resources dedicated to fighting drunk 

driving, will not reverse this deadly trend. The reauthorization of 

TEA–21 provides the best chance to provide adequate funding, behavioral safety funding to ensure these funds are being used effectively and to enact laws that will save lives. I urge Congress to 

adopt MADD’s proposal and to create safer roads for all Americans. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamilton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WENDY J. HAMILTON, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING (MADD) 

Good Morning. My name is Wendy Hamilton and I am the National President of 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I am honored to be here today to testify on the 

reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

and its safety programs. We look forward to working with the Committee to develop 

transportation policies that provide appropriate funding and employ effective, aggressive countermeasures to prevent injuries and save lives on our Nation’s roads. 

Administration Outlines Highway Safety As A Public Health Crisis; 

However, Funding Requests Do Not Adequately Address Problem 

According to DOT, motor vehicle crashes are responsible for 95 percent of transportation sector deaths and 99 percent of all transportation-related injuries within 

the United States as well as the leading cause of death for people ages 4 through 

33. In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people died on the Nation’s highways, up from 

42,116 in 2001. 

This alarming amount of injury and death on our Nation’s roadways creates a tremendous drain on the Nation’s economy. Economic losses due to motor vehicle 

crashes cost the Nation approximately $230.6 billion each year, an average of $820 

for every person living in the United States. 

91 

DOT’s announcement of preliminary 2002 fatality estimates calls for ‘‘better state 

laws that address the causes of the problem and stricter enforcement.’’ But DOT’s 

FY04 request and its reauthorization proposal cut funding for behavioral safety initiatives, even while DOT’s own research demonstrates that human behavior is overwhelmingly the leading factor in death and injury on our Nation’s roads. 

Alcohol–Related Traffic Fatalities On The Rise For Third Consecutive Year 

For the third consecutive year, alcohol-related traffic deaths have increased. Preliminary statistics show that nearly 18,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands more were injured in these crashes just last year. That’s 49 deaths and hundreds of injuries day in and day out. Alcohol-involved crashes accounted for 21 percent of nonfatal injury crash costs, and an overwhelming 46 percent of all fatal injury crash costs. In order to reverse this trend, the Nation cannot maintain the status quo and expect a different result. 

Last week at a national news conference, MADD commemorated the 15-year anniversary of the worst drunk driving crash in U.S. history—the Kentucky Bus Crash. 

On May 14, 1988, 27 people—24 children and 3 adults—were killed and 30 others 

were injured coming home from a church outing. They were victims of a repeat 

drunk driving offender, behind the wheel of his pickup driving on the wrong side 

of the road. He had a blood alcohol concentration of .24—three times the illegal limit 

today in Kentucky and the majority of all other states and DC. 

The Kentucky Bus Crash was heard around the world because 27 perished and 

30 others were injured in an instant. But tragically, one by one, over the past 15 

years, the equivalent to 10,400 Kentucky Bus Crashes have occurred in our country 

as nearly 281,000 Americans have been killed and millions of others have been injured in alcohol-related traffic crashes since that tragic day. 

Unfortunately, the data speaks for itself: the nation—including its political leaders—has become complacent in this effort. Drunk drivers continue to slip through 

cracks in the system. Weak laws, lack of funding for effective traffic safety programs 

and minimal resources for law enforcement officers to enforce existing laws are all 

part of the problem. There is no coordinated effort at the national, state and local 

level to combat this public health problem. Additionally, drunk driving is still often 

treated as a minor traffic offense rather than what it really is—the most frequently 

committed violent crime in our country. 

MADD’s Safety Plan: Putting Research Into Practice 

Last week MADD released its new Federal plan for the reauthorization of Federal 

traffic safety programs. In conjunction with MADD’s announcement, we heard from 

Members of the Senate who expressed firm commitment to move the Nation in the 

right direction. MADD sincerely thanks Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Mike 

DeWine, Senator Byron Dorgan and Senator Patty Murray for their participation in 

this event and for their leadership to reduce traffic death and injury. 

Today, MADD is asking Congress and the Administration to ensure that highway 

safety is a cornerstone of the reauthorized Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA–21). And they can do so by embracing MADD’s research-based reauthorization plan. MADD’s plan would: 

• Establish a National Traffic Safety Fund (NTSF)—$1 billion annually—to provide a major infusion of dedicated Federal funds to support state and national 

traffic safety programs, enforcement and data improvements; 

• Under the NTSF: 

» dedicate increased funding for states and local communities to expand highly 

visible law enforcement activities to reduce impaired driving and increase 

seat belt use, including national enforcement mobilizations supported by paid 

media; 

» dedicate significantly increased funding for state efforts to improve traffic 

safety by implementing data-driven programs; 

• Create stricter accountability controls to ensure that Federal funds are being 

used in a strategic and coordinated effort at both the state and Federal level; 

• Encourage states to enact priority traffic safety laws, such as primary seat belt 

enforcement, higher-risk driver and open container standards. 

I want to briefly talk in more detail about MADD’s reauthorization priorities. 

Funding is key to the success of national, state and local traffic safety programs 

to reduce drunk driving. But in the year 2001, while traffic crashes cost taxpayers 

$230 billion, the Federal government spent only $522 million on highway safety and 

only one-quarter of that was used to fight impaired driving. Compared to the finanVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
92 

cial and human costs of drunk driving, our Nation’s spending is woefully inadequate 

to address the magnitude of this problem. 

Establishing a National Traffic Safety Fund would give those on the front lines 

an increased, ongoing and reliable funding stream for national, state and local highway safety programs. MADD recommends an annual $1 billion dedicated fund for 

traffic safety programs. We know that for every dollar spent on effective highway 

safety programs about $30 is saved by society in the reduced costs of crashes. This 

would be a wise investment. 

States must have additional resources if they are expected to reach their highway 

safety goals. Section 402, State and Community Highway Safety grants, provides 

funding to states to support highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic 

crashes and resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage. TEA–21 authorized 

$163 million in FY03 for Section 402 grants. MADD recommends a substantial increase in Section 402 funding to help states reach their highway safety goals. Of 

the $1 billion annually, MADD recommends $425 million for the reauthorized Section 402. 

Although alcohol is a factor in 42 percent of all traffic deaths, only 26 percent of 

all highway safety funding available to the states through TEA–21 is spent on alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures. Too often highway safety funding made 

available to the states is used for other programs that may not save as many lives 

or prevent as many injuries as priority traffic safety programs. It is critical that 

these funds are spent on data-driven programs that include comprehensive impaired 

driving and seat belt initiatives. The National Traffic Safety Fund would also be 

used to expand states’ well-publicized law enforcement activities to curb drunk driving and increase seat belt use. These law enforcement resources would support 

training, over-time, technology and paid advertising throughout the year. Additionally, funds would be available for three highly visible national impaired driving and 

seat belt law enforcement mobilizations. 

These law enforcement activities should utilize, when possible, frequent and highly visible sobriety checkpoints. These are among the most effective tools used by law 

enforcement to deter impaired driving. We know through research and real world 

experience that sobriety checkpoints save lives. The CDC found that sobriety checkpoints can reduce impaired driving crashes by 18 to 24 percent. These checkpoints 

are especially effective when coupled with media campaigns that raise the visibility 

and awareness of drunk driving enforcement efforts in the community with the bottom line goal of deterring impaired driving before it happens. 

Without significant increases in the level of funding for these critical safety programs, the current deadly trend will continue to worsen. 

But it is just as important to know where the money is going and how it is being 

spent. That is why MADD is asking Congress to hold states and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration accountable for the expenditure of Federal highway safety funds. Our goal is not to make their jobs more difficult. It is to recognize 

that political pressures and ‘‘flavor of the month’’ traffic safety issues can influence 

how dollars are spent. If DOT’s primary goal is to reverse the current trend, it is 

time to create a more consistent process that ensures the efficient and proper use 

of Federal funds to help the Nation achieve its highway safety goals. 

MADD also urges Congress to strongly encourage states to enact proven traffic 

safety laws, such as a national primary seat belt enforcement standard. According 

to NHTSA, for every percentage point increase in seat belt usage, 280 lives can be 

saved. MADD knows that the best defense against a drunk driver is a seat belt. The 

fact is, of those killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes, 76 percent were not wearing 

their seat belt. Had they been, a significant portion of them would be alive today. 

Drunk drivers typically do not buckle up, nor do they make sure their passengers 

are properly restrained. The sad fact is that two-thirds of children killed in alcoholrelated crashes are passengers driven by an impaired driver. We also know that 

seat belt use for children generally decreases the more impaired a driver becomes. 

MADD calls for the establishment of a national primary seat belt standard. States 

would be eligible for ‘‘jumbo’’ financial incentives for three years. States that have 

not enacted this lifesaving measure after three years would lose Federal highway 

construction funds. 

MADD also calls for the enactment of a national standard to combat ‘‘higher-risk 

drivers.’’ ‘‘Higher-risk drivers’’ are defined as repeat offenders, those with BACs of 

.15 or higher, or persons caught driving on a suspended license when the suspension 

is a result of a prior DUI offense. 

This priority is one that has personal meaning for me. On September 19, 1984, 

a high BAC driver caused the head-on collision that killed my 32-year-old sister 

Becky and my 22-month old nephew Timmy. Three hours after the crash, the ofVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
93 

fender tested at a .16 BAC. Police pulled four empty bottles of alcohol from his vehicle. 

While higher-risk drivers are a small portion of the population, they pose a significant threat to innocent motorists. On a typical weekend night, only one percent 

of drivers have a BAC of .15 or higher, but high BAC drivers were involved in over 

one-half of all alcohol-related traffic deaths in 2000. And, about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DUI are repeat offenders. Clearly, we need leadership 

from Congress and the Administration to encourage states to act now to get this 

most dangerous segment of the driving public off of our roads. 

MADD is backing research-based solutions to address the higher-risk driver 

through what we call: Restrictions, Restitutions and Recovery. Restrictions include 

mandatory sentencing, strict licensing and vehicle sanctions such as immobilization 

and ignition interlock devices. Restitution includes payment to victims and to the 

community by offenders. Recovery focuses on efforts to address the offender’s substance abuse and addiction. States that do not enact comprehensive higher-risk 

driver legislation would lose Federal highway construction funds. 

Lastly, MADD calls on Congress to enact a national ban on open containers in 

the passenger compartment of motor vehicles. Open container laws separate the 

consumption of alcohol from the operation of a vehicle. A common-sense measure, 

banning open containers in the passenger compartment of a vehicle will decrease 

the likelihood that drinking and driving will occur. One NHTSA study found that 

states with open container laws have lower rates of alcohol-related fatalities, while 

another study conducted by the Stanford University Institute for Economic Policy 

Research found that, controlling for other variables, open container laws had a significant effect on reducing fatal crash rates (by over five percent). 

The Kentucky Bus Crash reminds us that for every loss and for every tragic death 

and injury there is untold suffering and emotion. That said, MADD is committed 

to advocating research-based and proven-effective countermeasures to prevent others from having to experience what the families of these victims have suffered. 

It’s not about feel good. It’s about doing what is right, and doing what will most 

effectively save lives. That is what drives our agenda, and that is what is behind 

our proposals for the reauthorization of TEA–21. 

NHTSA’s FY 2004 Budget Provides Inadequate Resources and Little 

Guidance To Reach Highway Safety Goals 

In the FY04 Budget in Brief, NHTSA states that it is ‘‘committed to pursuing an 

aggressive safety agenda’’ and that ‘‘[b]ehavioral safety initiatives will be directed 

to increasing safety belt use and deterring impaired driving, which are central to 

achieving the Department’s traffic fatality goal.’’ While NHTSA’s funding request 

appears to have increased monies for behavioral funding, this is not the case. In 

fact, the FY04 request is less than the FY03 request. This is because the FY04 request includes $222 million of TEA–21 resources for the Sections 157 and 163 grant 

programs formerly appropriated in the Federal Highway Administration budget. 

NHTSA has always administered these funds and is now requesting receipt of this 

funding directly. This apparent increase is really no increase at all, just a shifting 

of grant funds. 

The current FY04 request for behavioral funding is $516,309,000, but once Sections 157 and 163 monies are subtracted the amount is lowered to $294,309,000. 

The FY04 request is actually $234,000 less than the FY03 request. 

Additionally, only a percentage of this funding will be spent on behavioral safety 

since states are able to use this funding for roadway safety/highway construction 

projects. 

One of NHTSA’s primary FY04 goals is to reduce the rate of alcohol-related highway fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to 0.53. In its Budget 

in Brief, NHTSA states the following: 

The 2003 target of .53 per 100 million VMT, if met, will result in a reduction 

of alcohol-related fatalities to 15,600. . .It will be a challenge to meet this target by the end of 2003. The agency is implementing new programs in 2003 that 

should begin to see positive results by the end of the year. Even though NHTSA 

should begin to see results in 2003, the agency still may not be able to achieve 

the target without the states and communities enacting and, more importantly, 

enforcing strong alcohol laws and reforming their individual impaired driving 

control systems. 

However, it is not clear from the FY04 budget what these new programs are and 

where the money is coming from to continue them. NHTSA’s FY04 budget request 

clearly does not reflect the severity of the impaired driving problem. While NHTSA’s 

FY04 budget states that ‘‘Protecting vehicle occupants and deterring impaired drivVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
94 

ers are among the major ways we are able to reduce death and injury,’’ the level 

of funding for impaired driving countermeasures is utterly insufficient. For example, 

the Impaired Driving Division budget request is significantly lower than FY02 enacted levels ($10,926,000 FY04 request compared with $13,497,000 FY02 enacted). 

NHTSA states that ‘‘Aggressive actions are needed to expand focus on several key 

high-risk populations, including underage drinkers, 21–34 year olds, and repeat offenders,’’ but seeks fewer resources to reach these goals. 

Under ‘‘Anticipated FY 2003 Accomplishments’’ NHTSA recognizes that ‘‘Two nationwide law enforcement mobilizations (July and December) will be conducted,’’ bolstered by a national media public service advertising campaign. The ‘‘Click It or 

Ticket’’ national law enforcement mobilization campaign has been highly successful 

at increasing seat belt usage. Thanks to the Senate, funds were dedicated in the 

FY03 budget to conduct similar national mobilizations to reduce alcohol-impaired 

driving deaths and injuries. However, NHTSA does not request any funding to continue this effort. 

Additionally, NHTSA’s State & Community Highway Safety Program drastically 

reduces funds available to states for impaired driving initiatives. NHTSA’s FY04 request provides a $50 million impaired driving grant program to only a subset of 

states to demonstrate the effectiveness of a comprehensive approach to reducing impaired driving and for identifying causes of weakness in a state’s impaired driving 

control system. This funding level is $100 million less than funds available to states 

in FY03 for impaired driving improvements. 

While NHTSA continuously states that reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities 

is a top priority, the FY04 budget request does not support these assertions. 

Administration’s ‘‘SAFETEA’’ Proposal Cuts Alcohol-Impaired Driving 

Funding and Incentives, Lacks Behavioral Safety Funding 

MADD was dismayed to learn that impaired driving control programs merit less 

than one page out of the 378 page U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) surface 

transportation proposal. DOT’s proposal, ‘‘SAFETEA,’’ falls woefully short of real 

‘‘safety’’ for America’s roadways and includes an inadequate response to this urgent 

national problem. 

‘‘SAFETEA’’ decreases funding for alcohol-impaired programs by 67 percent. The 

proposal recommends an impaired driving program of only $50 million, far less than 

current funding levels and clearly not enough to reverse this deadly trend. In FY03, 

TEA–21 authorized $150 million for alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures and 

also contained requirements for states to enact repeat offender and open container 

laws. If states failed to pass these alcohol-impaired driving laws then a percentage 

of their Federal construction funds were transferred. Not only does ‘‘SAFETEA’’ cut 

impaired driving funding to $50 million, it also does not include any incentives to 

states to enact alcohol-impaired driving laws. 

In comparison, ‘‘SAFETEA’’ provides the Recreational Trails Program (RTP)—$60 

million in FY04—with 20 percent more funding than the Impaired Driving Grants 

Program. The RTP program provides funds to develop and maintain recreational 

trails for motorized and non-motorized recreational trail users. It appears, at least 

from a budget standpoint, that keeping recreational trails safe for a small population of users is even more important to DOT than keeping all highway users safe 

from impaired drivers. 

The overwhelming majority of ‘‘safety’’ funding in the ‘‘SAFETEA’’ proposal is 

budgeted in the new ‘‘Highway Safety Improvement Program’’ (HSIP), which is really a highway construction project program. In 2004 alone, $1 billion is allocated to 

the HSIP program. These funds are to be used for ‘‘safety improvement projects,’’ 

defined below. 

A safety improvement project corrects or improves a hazardous roadway condition, or proactively addresses highway safety problems that may include: intersection improvements; installation of rumble strips and other warning devices; 

elimination of roadside obstacles; railway-highway grade crossing safety; pedestrian or bicycle safety; traffic calming; improving highway signage and pavement marking; installing traffic control devices at high crash locations or priority control systems for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections, safety 

conscious planning and improving crash data collection and analysis, etc. 

While these are all important activities, DOT itself recognizes that human behavior, not roadway environment, is overwhelmingly seen as the most prevalent factor 

in contributing to crashes. The General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report 

in March 2003 that reconfirms this premise after surveying data, experts and studies focusing on factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes. Given that behavioral factors account for the majority of traffic crashes, it is difficult to understand 

95 

the vastly disproportionate funding levels for behavioral versus roadway construction safety programs and why DOT allows a significant portion of the behavioral 

funds to be used to augment even more roadway construction spending. 

While NHTSA continuously states that reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities 

is a top priority, the Administration’s ‘‘SAFETEA’’ proposal does not support these 

claims. 

Increased Resources Are Required To Significantly Reduce Highway 

Deaths and Injuries 

Research demonstrates that certain programs and initiatives will significantly reduce traffic deaths and injuries. In order to implement these programs and initiatives, increased resources are needed. The reauthorization of Federal highway safety 

programs provides the vehicle to obtain more resources to combat this public health 

problem. MADD urges Congress to consider the merits of each traffic safety program 

based upon their ability to reduce or prevent alcohol-related traffic fatalities. 

MADD’s goal is to ensure that Federal traffic safety dollars are spent on effective 

programs and that states pass basic laws to combat alcohol-impaired driving. 

NHTSA’s traffic safety budget is wholly inadequate. Faced with the highest num- ber of highway fatalities since 1990, and a cost to America’s economy of over $230.6 

billion annually, the agency’s budget request should reflect the growing need for 

more resources rather than maintain the status quo. Currently, the Federal government’s funding for traffic safety programs does not reflect the importance of this 

public health crisis. The reauthorization of TEA–21 offers Congress the opportunity 

to review and reallocate funds to traffic safety. 

GAO Report Highlights Deficiencies In Oversight Of Highway Safety 

Initiatives 

Recently the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report detailing the 

management and use of Federal highway safety programs and funding. GAO concluded the following: 

. . . NHTSA’s oversight of highway safety programs is less effective than it 

could be, both in ensuring the efficient and proper use of Federal funds and in 

helping the states achieve their highway safety goals. 

GAO’s report shows that Federal oversight of state spending on highway safety 

programs has been inadequate in the face of rising traffic deaths and that NHTSA 

has not been consistently monitoring how funds are being used. GAO also found 

that NHTSA has no consistent policy for conducting state reviews or improvement 

plans. As a result, some regional offices conduct reviews as infrequently as every 

two years, while others conduct them only when a state requests one. This clearly 

enables some states to slip through the cracks. For example, the report found that 

the rate of alcohol-related traffic deaths rose in 14 states between 1997 and 2001; 

in seven of those states, the rate was higher than the national average, but only 

one of the seven states had a NHTSA improvement plan. The GAO also found that 

seat belt use was declining in some states that didn’t have NHTSA improvement 

plans. 

The GAO report also reveals how states use some of their highway ‘‘safety’’ funding. States that did not meet either the open container or the repeat offender requirements in TEA–21 has a percentage of funds transferred from their Federal 

highway construction program to their Section 402 highway safety grants program. 

However, states were also able to allocate transferred funds to highway construction 

projects under the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Hazard Elimination 

Program (HEP). An overwhelming 69 percent of the transferred funds were used by 

states for construction anyway projects anyway, the GAO reported. 

The GAO report demonstrates that more Federal oversight and guidance is needed for the expenditure of Federal highway safety funds to ensure that these funds 

are spent on effective behavioral programs. Clearly there are legitimate areas of 

public health and safety in which the Federal government should be involved in setting standards. Similar to airline safety, highway safety warrants Federal government involvement. In this country we have a national highway system. Families 

should be protected from the consequences of impaired driving whether they are 

driving through Alabama, Washington or North Dakota. Impaired drivers do not 

recognize state boundaries. Drunk driving is a national problem and it demands a 

national solution. 

Call To Action: Nation’s Leaders Must Provide A Roadmap 

However, our Nation lacks a clear, coordinated national and state solution to reduce impaired-driving deaths and injuries. Congress now has the opportunity to 

dedicate proper funding to address this public health epidemic, and to ensure proper 

96 

use of these funds. While continued research efforts are critical in order to identify 

new and improved methods to deter drunk driving, there are many proven, research-based strategies that are not being used to reverse the current deadly trend. 

These strategies can and must be employed to make progress in the effort. 

MADD urges Congress to provide adequate funding to NHTSA, and to require 

NHTSA to develop a roadmap for itself and the states to significantly reduce alcohol-related deaths and injuries. The nation is waiting for short-term, immediate 

strategies such as high-visibility enforcement efforts and sobriety checkpoints to 

turn this trend around, as well as long-term strategies that will ensure our safety 

on America’s roadways for years to come. Our nation can no longer afford the current state of inaction on this issue. 

Today, we are at a historic crossroads as Congress takes up the multi-billion dollar reauthorization of TEA–21 that will shape transportation policy for the rest of 

this decade and beyond. Maintaining the status quo, or worse, decreasing resources 

dedicated to fighting drunk driving will not reverse this deadly trend. This is our 

best chance to ensure adequate highway safety funding, to ensure that these funds 

are being used effectively, and to enact laws that will keep drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel. I urge Congress to adopt MADD’s proposal and create safer 

roads for all Americans. Thank you. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. And a genuine appreciation to each 

of you for your preparation and participation in this hearing. In the 

interest of the vote that’s about to begin, I will leave the record 

open so that others of my colleagues may have questions and I do 

as well, that we will submit to you in writing so that they can be 

included in the record as well. 

Thank you all, and we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(97) 

A P P E N D I X 

COMMENTS OF CONSUMERS UNION ON REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) BEFORE THE SENATE TRANSPORTATION

AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE

1. Increase NHTSA’s Motor Safety and Consumer Information Programs 

Budget 

In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people died on the Nation’s highways and over 3 million more were injured in motor vehicle crashes at a cost of $230.6 billion per 

year. This is the highest number of highway fatalities since 1990. Further, rollover 

crashes involving SUVs and pickup trucks accounted for 53 percent of the increase 

in traffic deaths over the past year. Although nearly 95 percent of all transportation-related fatalities occur as a result of highway crashes and this number appears to be growing, NHTSA’s total budget for motor vehicle and traffic safety programs is disproportionately small, representing less than 1 percent of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s annual budget—too small to adequately cover their 

large mandate. We share the concerns of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

and others that the authorization funding level for NHTSA’s motor vehicle safety 

and consumer information programs, only $107.9 million currently, needs to be increased dramatically to meet the agency’s growing obligations, which include more 

extensive crash and rollover testing through the New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP). These programs contribute dramatically to giving consumers better choices. 

That information and those choices have a significant impact on how the vehicles 

are designed and what safety features they provide. 

2. Reduce Rollover Risks: 

Rollover crashes represent 3 percent of all collisions but account for 32 percent 

of occupant fatalities. Hence, while the auto industry argues frequently that rollover 

crashes are relatively rare events, what they fail to note is that rollover crashes are 

far more deadly than other types of crashes. 

• CU urges Congress to insure that NHTSA moves quickly to finalize its proposal 

for dynamic testing for rollover in the very near future. This mandate resulted 

from the requirement in the TREAD Act of 2000 that NHTSA develop a dynamic rollover test within a two-year period. We are well past that period, and 

while CU recognizes that NHTSA has had many new responsibilities and obligations to fulfill since the enactment of TREAD Act, the problem of rollover prevention has never been more pressing: fatalities in rollover crashes involving 

SUVs and pickup trucks accounted for 53 percent of the increase in traffic 

deaths over the past year, directly correlated with the change of the fleet to include a far higher percentage of SUVs and pickup trucks than a decade ago, 

vehicles that are more prone to roll over than the passenger car. 

We eagerly anticipate NHTSA’s program to test SUVs and other vehicles and rate 

their rollover resistance through the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) program. We believe the rating system will have a strong impact on SUV design, as 

the NCAP program has had on vehicle crashworthiness, with consumers enjoying 

steady improvements in the crash protection provided by the vehicles since the 

NCAP program’s inception. This is not government regulations, but rather a highly 

effective information program. 

As noted above, Congress should provide additional resources to NHTSA to conduct the testing needed to keep the NCAP program active and ongoing. Without resources, the rollover testing program will languish as a weak ineffective tool. 

In addition to the rollover resistance testing that is in the works for light trucks, 

we also: 

• recommend that Congress support legislation offered by Senator Snowe that 

would require that 15-passenger vans be made part of the testing program and 

that the agency consider rating the stability of these vans, as well; 

98 

• recommend that collision avoidance or electronic stability control (ESC) technology be made standard equipment on all SUVs, which have a greater tendency to roll over. In the next 3 years, NHTSA should test light trucks with and 

without ESC systems and provide guidance as to which systems are most effective. 

ESC has performed well overall in CU’s emergency handling tests and appears 

to be very effective in helping drivers to maintain vehicle control in panic or 

emergency maneuvers and helps prevent the vehicle getting into a situation 

where it can roll over. Their widespread use is virtually certain to result in 

fewer rollover-related deaths and injuries. 

• We believe it is possible that adding ESC systems and dual rear wheels to 15- 

passenger vans would improve their stability, as well, and recommend the agency consider requiring ESC and dual rear wheels on these vans as standard 

equipment at a date certain in the future. 

• Dynamic interior head air bag protection systems have also been shown to reduce occupant ejection and prevent injuries during a crash. These air bag systems give occupants more side protection in a rollover and also prevent unbelted 

occupants from being ejected. Congress should direct NHTSA to study the effectiveness of head air bags in NHTSA’s compatibility crash testing. Congress 

might also consider directing NHTSA to require, phased in over the next five 

years, these systems be standard on all vehicles, especially small and medium 

size cars. 

• NHTSA is currently reviewing comments for an updated standard on vehicle 

roof crush. This committee should urge the agency to speed it’s work on that 

critical area—many belted drivers in SUV rollovers have been killed or gravely 

injured as a result of injuries to the spine from inadequately designed roofs. 

3. Recommendations for reducing the risks from vehicle incompatibility 

• Congress should direct NHTSA to develop crash tests to assess crash incompatibility between sedans and light trucks, and make results available to consumers. NHTSA should begin to set standards to reduce vehicle incompatibility 

to better protect smaller vehicle occupants, and to reduce the effects of SUV and 

pickup truck aggressivity. 

• Congress should direct NHTSA to evaluate the injury reduction and lives saved 

from requiring new passenger cars to be equipped with side and head air bags 

as standard equipment to protect passengers in a crash with a larger, higher 

and more aggressively designed vehicle. The Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers are already recommending these air bags but we are concerned that we will not see them as 

standard equipment in vehicles but instead they will be ‘‘optional’’ equipment, 

resulting in their availability to more affluent car buyers getting the protection 

they need in a collision with an SUV or pickup. 

4. Recommendations for getting NHTSA to evaluate technologies and 

evaluate their ability to prevent backover injuries and deaths and 

other injuries and deaths to children in and around cars 

Though it has the authority to do so, NHTSA inexplicably has never kept statistics on noncrash, nontraffic incidents, especially in driveways of homes or other private property. Safety advocates have met with NHTSA officials for over five years 

to call this matter to the agency’s attention, but little has changed. As a result, the 

apparent growth in the number of incidents in which small children have been 

backed over and killed, usually by a parent in their own driveways, has not been 

effectively documented by NHTSA. The California nonprofit safety group, KIDS ’N 

CARS, does, however, collect these data and in 2002, KIDS ’N CARS documented 

just over one child a week being backed over and killed in the US. KIDS ’N CARS 

has documented 294 incidents in the U.S. in the past ten years where young children were injured or killed by vehicles backing up. A death occurred in 179 of the 

294 document cases. The majority of victims were one year olds and over 57 percent 

of those incidents involved a larger size vehicle like an SUV or pickup truck. CU 

believes that technology holds the solution to preventing these terrible tragedies and 

that NHTSA could put in place the necessary regulatory steps to help prevent these 

tragedies, but history also suggests that unless Congress directs NHTSA to take on 

this problem, not only of backing over incidents but other dangers to children in and 

around cars, the agency will simply not make this children’s safety issue a priority. 

Therefore, CU recommends that Congress take the following steps: 

• Require NHTSA to begin keeping track of data regarding injury and death to 

children in and around motor vehicles. 

99 

• Require NHTSA to test backup warning devices, set performance standards for 

these devices, and make them standard equipment on SUVs and pickup trucks 

in the next 2 years. 

• Require NHTSA to finalize a rule on power windows and sunroofs to insure all 

such devices have auto reverse and push down/pick up window switches. (Only 

the big three auto makers still make windows without auto reverse feature) 

Last year, four children were strangled in power windows and countless others 

suffered injuries to head, neck, and fingers 

• Require NHTSA to study and evaluate technology developed by General Motors, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration and other aftermarket technologies that warn parents when a child has been left inside a vehicle, often 

by a conscientious parent who has changed his or her routine. 

Enhanced Consumer Information 

Consumers Union knows from publishing comparative information regularly to 

our readers that consumers are hungry for such information and use it to guide 

their purchasing decisions. CU therefore agrees with Advocates for Highway and 

Auto Safety and other safety advocates that comparative ratings of vehicle crashworthiness would assist consumers in making safer purchase decisions. We therefore support legislative efforts to require NHTSA to develop a crashworthiness safety label for all new motor vehicles similar to the EPA energy efficiency rating and 

prominently display that information to the buying public for all new passenger vehicles. 

May 21, 2003 

Respectfully submitted, 

Consumers Union 

R. DAVID PITTLE, 

Senior Vice President, Technical Policy. 

SALLY GREENBERG, 

Senior Product Safety Counsel. 

DAVID CHAMPION, 

Director, Auto Test. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JEFFREY RUNGE

Question 1. SAFETEA would reward a State with one times the portion of their 

respective section 402 funds if it adopted primary seatbelt enforcement laws before 

the end of 2002. However, for states that adopt primary seatbelt laws after December 31, 2002, the reward is equal to 5 times that amount. It seems that we would 

be penalizing states for early action. How did NHTSA arrive at this 500 percent difference—Is it an arbitrary number? 

Question 1a. Do you believe it is fair that a State which has already adopted a 

primary seatbelt law should not be rewarded the same amount, or an amount closer 

to that which would be received by states that have not yet acted on their own in 

enacting primary seatbelt laws? 

Answer. The proposal to award states grants equaling 5 times their Section 402 

allocations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 for enacting primary safety belt laws subsequent to December 31, 2002, reflects the fact that 32 states still do not have primary laws. Those states, in which slightly less than half of Americans reside, did 

not respond to the less direct inducements of TEA–21 to pass primary legislation. 

Indeed, since enactment of TEA–21, only four states (Alabama, Michigan, New Jersey and Washington) passed primary laws that apply to all passenger motor vehicles. The Agency believes that a onetime grant equal to 5 times the Section 402 allocation for FY 2003 will be a powerful motivator that ultimately will extend primary 

law coverage to all or nearly all Americans. 

As for the states that have had primary laws since December 31, 2002 or earlier, 

the Agency believes that the proposed one-time grant equal to one times their Section 402 allocation for FY 2003 is an appropriate reward for their early, exemplary 

work, since they have already received significant awards under TEA–21. During 

the span of the TEA–21 authorization, the 18 states, Puerto Rico and the District 

of Columbia (DC) with primary laws received substantial grants under the Section 

157 Incentive program, due to the higher safety belt use rates associated with primary laws. Those states, with slightly more than half the Nation’s population, 

shared approximately $182 million of the $221 million in 157 Incentive funds disVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
100 

tributed from FY 1999 through FY 2003, or about 82 percent of the total. In addition, the 18 states, Puerto Rico, DC and the four territories would share nearly $80 

million in one-time Primary Safety Belt Law grants under the SAFETEA proposal. 

Thus, a total of about $262 million either already has been, or would be, awarded 

to the 24 jurisdictions with primary laws in effect prior to December 31, 2002. 

Question 2. NHTSA has pointed to the absence of seatbelt use as a significant factor, which contributes to occupant fatalities and injuries during motor vehicle crashes. In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring all 

states to enact primary safety belt laws? 

Answer. Passing primary safety belt laws in every State would save hundreds of 

lives and prevent tens of thousands of injuries each year. Safety belts are the single 

most effective safety device in vehicles today. In 2001, safety belts prevented 13,274 

fatalities and more than 500,000 injuries. The economic and societal costs associated 

with motor vehicle crashes also are greatly reduced with the enactment of primary 

safety belt laws. 

Primary laws are proven to increase safety belt use. In 2002, the average belt use 

rate among primary law states was 11 percentage points higher than in states with 

secondary laws. This is critical because for every percentage point increase in National safety belt use, approximately 250 lives are saved, 7,000 injuries are prevented and more than $700,000 is saved in injury related costs. 

Primary laws are effective because they are more enforceable than secondary 

laws, and the general public is more likely to buckle up when there is the possibility 

of receiving a citation for not doing so. Support for primary safety belt laws can be 

found throughout communities and across the Nation. However, when objections do 

arise they tend to focus on concerns related to differential enforcement and individual rights. Differential enforcement is the term used for alleged malpractice by 

law enforcement officers, singling out vehicles driven by a citizen based purely on 

race or ethnicity. In-depth studies of primary enforcement laws conducted in various 

communities found no evidence to show any shift in enforcement patterns that could 

be interpreted as harassment or differential enforcement. With regard to individual 

rights, the discussion needs to be balanced with the issue of personal responsibility. 

Most people are willing to accept the degree of control imposed by traffic laws because they recognize the potential societal impact of noncompliance and their own 

responsibility to protect themselves and others from serious harm. 

The advantages of primary safety belt laws far outweigh any objections that have 

arisen. The Department of Transportation recognizes this and recently proposed 

under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act 

(SAFETEA) of 2003, a safety belt performance program that will promote the enactment of primary safety belt use laws in all states and the increase of safety belt 

use rates across the country. 

Question 3. Regarding the SAFETEA discretionary program of $50 million to combat impaired driving, how many states does NHTSA believe would qualify for this 

funding? 

Question 3a. Why shouldn’t we instead work to improve the Section 410 program 

by revising the current criteria, which now helps about 35 states, rather than implementing your proposed discretionary program, which may not help as many? 

Question 3b. Under the proposed new discretionary program, how does NHTSA 

intend to join in partnership with the states and help them improve their alcohol 

countermeasure programs without becoming too involved managing the State programs? 

Answer. The impaired driving grant program under SAFETEA would focus significant resources on up to ten states with particularly high numbers or rates of alcohol-related fatalities. States differ widely with regard to the severity of the impaired driving problem. In 2001, State alcohol-related fatality numbers ranged from 

35 to 1,789, while rates varied from .29 to 1.38 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The Department believes that the greatest potential impact on the National 

impaired driving problem can be realized by working intensely with those states 

that are contributing the greatest share of fatalities. 

The Section 410 program does not provide for the type of focused, data-driven impaired driving effort needed to resume a downward trend in impaired driving fatalities. SAFETEA’s new impaired discretionary grant program will allow NHTSA to 

focus resources directly on states with particularly severe impaired driving problems. By identifying the root causes of individual states’ impaired driving weaknesses, based on sound problem identification, states can take the critical steps 

needed to deal with this serious highway safety hazard. This proposal builds on the 

performance-based approach adopted by the agency for the Section 402 program. 

That approach calls for directing scarce resources at the most significant problem 

101 

areas. Resources targeted on the most pressing alcohol problem areas have an increased likelihood of leading to reductions in alcohol-related fatalities and injuries. 

NHTSA will work closely with the states in the new grant program, providing 

technical and programmatic assistance to assess their impaired driving problem, 

identify appropriate countermeasures, and develop strategies for implementation. 

NHTSA intends to provide services such as coordinating visitations by teams of National experts to conduct in-depth problem and program assessments. NHTSA will 

also work with these states to develop plans for implementing programs, based on 

these assessments. However, implementation of these plans will be the states’ responsibility. 

Question 4. The Administration is not proposing any rulemakings related to vehicle performance and safety. How do you defend this lack of administrative action 

given the critical safety issues involving vehicle rollover and compatibility? 

Answer. NHTSA did not propose any mandated rulemaking actions in SAFETEA 

because we are proactively addressing the critical safety problems of rollover and 

compatibility, and other important safety issues. Given that SAFETEA [already] addresses a broad range of highway infrastructure and driver behavior programs, 

NHTSA believes that issues related to potential changes to its vehicle programs 

should be addressed in a separate vehicle reauthorization bill rather than 

SAFETEA. 

There is no lack of administrative action in addressing the critical safety areas 

facing the Nation. NHTSA is undertaking rulemaking actions on a broad spectrum 

of vehicle safety issues. In the areas of vehicle rollover and compatibility, which 

were the focus of your question, the agency published on June 13, 2003 the reports 

by its Integrated Project Teams on Rollover and Compatibility. Those reports identify the current actions and new strategies that NHTSA is undertaking in rulemaking and consumer information, further defined in the milestones below: 

Rollover 

• Final rule on new light vehicle tire standard—2003 

• Part 2 of the final rule for light vehicle tire pressure monitoring systems 

(TPMS)—2005 

• Final rule including dynamic rollover in Rollover NCAP—2003 

• Proposed upgrade of door lock and latch systems—2004 

• Proposed upgrade of roof crush standard—2004 

Compatibility 

• Proposals to reduce glare from light truck headlamps—2004 

• Proposal to upgrade side impact protection—2003/2004 

• Request for comments on new offset frontal crash test requirement—2003 

Question 5. As you know, this Committee is very concerned about SUV rollover 

and vehicle compatibility issues. Can we have your commitment that you will provide this committee with a rulemaking agenda that outlines exactly which 

rulemakings are going to be issued, when the notices of proposed rulemaking are 

going to come out, and specific dates and timetables for action so we will have an 

appropriate regulatory strategy to deal with these issues? 

Answer. NHTSA is undertaking rulemaking actions on a broad spectrum of vehicle safety issues. Many of them will culminate in published notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and final rules in the near term (2003–4). In other areas, there are 

active research programs underway that will produce the information to publish notices or final rules in the 2005–6 time frame. Rollover and compatibility are two of 

NHTSA’s top priorities, and we are committed to solving these critical problems. On 

June 13, 2003, the agency’s Rollover and Compatibility Integrated Project Teams reports were published in the Federal Register. These reports outline in general what 

the agency is currently doing and new strategies to address these problems. The answers below address your question concerning specific planned research and rulemaking actions. 

Rollover 

Rollover crashes are extremely dangerous events. Eight percent of light vehicles 

(passenger cars, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs)) in crashes roll 

over, yet 21 percent of seriously injured occupants and 31 percent of occupant fatalities occur in rollovers. In 2001, 10,138 people were killed as occupants of light vehicles in rollover crashes. Of those, 8,407 were killed in single-vehicle rollover crashes. 

Nearly 30,000 people are seriously injured in rollover crashes each year. Seventyeight percent of the people who died in single-vehicle rollover crashes were not 

102 

wearing their vehicle safety belt, and 64 percent were partially or completely ejected 

from the vehicle (including 53 percent who were completely ejected). NHTSA is committed to reducing the number of rollover crashes and reducing the deaths and injuries when those crashes do occur. In addition to actions targeted at the belt-wearing 

behavior of vehicle occupants, specific rulemaking and consumer information milestones to address light vehicle rollover (from the list above) are: 

• Final rule on new light vehicle tire standard, FMVSS No.139 by the end of this 

month (June 2003) 

• Part 2 of the final rule for light vehicle tire pressure monitoring systems 

(TPMS) in 2005 

• Final Rule, Dynamic Rollover Rating Program for NCAP in 2003 

• Research in 2003–4 to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic stability control 

in preventing single vehicle crashes, with a rulemaking decision in 2005 

• NPRM to upgrade door systems, FMVSS No. 206 in 2004 

• NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 216 roof crush test procedure in 2004, with final 

action in 2005 

Compatibility 

The number of fatalities from collisions between a car and an LTV demonstrates 

a strong upward trend starting in 1983 and tracks the trends in LTV sales and registrations. This increase in LTV sales also has important implications for vehicle 

crashworthiness, glare initiatives, and roadside hardware. The Compatibility IPT report demonstrates that in frontal crashes involving a car and a LTV, there are almost 1,000 more fatalities in the cars than in the LTVs. In the case of cars struck 

in the side by LTVs, there are almost 2,000 more fatalities in the struck cars than 

the striking LTVs. For driver fatalities, the fatality risk in a car-LTV frontal crash 

is four times higher for the car driver than the LTV driver and the results are even 

more dramatic for side impact crashes. The driver in a car struck in the side by 

another car has an eight times greater fatality risk than the driver in the striking 

car compared to a twenty-nine times greater risk when the striking vehicle is an 

LTV. Specific rulemaking and consumer information milestones to address incompatibility are: 

• NPRM on headlighting glare reduction related to headlamp mounting height in 

2004, with final rule in 2005–6. 

• Final regulatory action for offset frontal crash test requirements in 2004 (following a Request for Comments in 2003) 

• NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 214 side impact protection in 2003, with final 

rule in 2004–5. 

• The final decision on a summary safety score for consumer information in 2005. 

Question 6. Dr. Runge, you have expressed concern with the safety issues related 

to vehicle compatibility and rollover and indicated that NHTSA would monitor this 

effort closely and undertake its own research and analysis of these safety problems. 

What is NHTSA’s budget request for research and analysis? 

Question 6a. Are these resources sufficient for NHTSA to provide effective oversight over an issue that is highly complicated and involves potentially hundreds of 

vehicle designs. 

Answer. Yes, the Agency believes the requested funds are sufficient. The budget 

request for vehicle compatibility research is $1.45 million. However, this sum will 

be augmented with another $800 thousand using the requested research funding of 

the closely associated efforts for frontal and side crash protection. The crash testing 

planned under these research efforts will be carefully coordinated so as to provide 

valuable data for the compatibility research program. Additionally, the Agency participates in the International Harmonized Research Activities’ Vehicle Compatibility 

Working Group. The research among the participating members from European and 

Asia-Pacific countries and Canada is closely coordinated with the ongoing research 

in various jurisdictions. 

The budget request for rollover is $2.61 million. The Agency previously has funded $4.5 million over a three-year period for the development of a dynamic rollover 

propensity test procedure. This effort has been completed. A large part of the requested funding will be used to conduct NCAP tests utilizing the dynamic rollover 

propensity test procedure already developed as well as to conduct tests to measure 

static stability factors. Among the planned research activities is the evaluation of 

the benefits of dynamic stability control systems and other related technologies. Finally, research will continue for preventing ejection from rollover crashes. 

103 

The Agency will continue to leverage the research funding by maintaining close 

coordination with others. The Agency is also exploring the feasibility of initiating 

cooperative research programs with universities and other interested parties. 

Question 7. It is my understanding that NHTSA is investigating a significant 

overhaul of the current CAFE system, perhaps to a highly complex weight or attribute-based system. Can you comment on that? 

Question 7a. What is the process NHTSA is undertaking to gather the detailed 

data needed to investigate these difficult questions? 

Question 7b. What is the expected time line for NHTSA to perform an independent analysis of the CAFE system? Would additional funding be necessary? 

Answer. In February 2002, Secretary Mineta sent a letter to Congress expressing 

the Department’s intent to examine reforms to the CAFE system and requesting additional statutory authority to implement reforms. It is the Administration’s intent 

to identify and implement reforms to the CAFE system that will facilitate improvements in fuel economy without compromising motor vehicle safety or jobs. Accordingly, NHTSA is presently investigating a number of potential reforms to the CAFE 

system, including attribute-based standards. Attribute-based standards, particularly 

weight-based standards, was among the reforms recommended in the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) CAFE report. 

Later this year, NHTSA will issue a Request for Comments on alternative approaches for reforming the structure of CAFE within the agency’s current statutory 

authority. This document will solicit data from manufacturers as well as comments 

from the public. The agency is currently coordinating data collection activities with 

the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and various experts in the field who have been exploring CAFE reforms. As recommended in the 

NAS report, NHTSA is also updating its 1997 study of the relationship between vehicle size and safety. The new study, which is nearing completion, will provide information useful in determining how the CAFE system should be restructured. 

The agency’s analysis of CAFE reform alternatives will be conducted during FYs 

2003 and 2004. Accordingly, a significant portion of our FY 2003 and 2004 budget 

is devoted to reform efforts. This includes an additional $250,000 in FY 2004 that 

was initially allocated to performing an environmental impact statement, which is 

now not necessary. 

Question 8. Prior to 1998, NHTSA took a more directive approach with its involvement with the states. Since that time, NHTSA has moved to a ‘‘Performance-Based’’ 

approach that relies on states setting goals and working toward those goals. Dr. 

Runge, how effective do you believe the new performance management approach has 

been? Do you have concerns that the change in less micro-management has not had 

a more positive impact on state performance? 

Answer. NHTSA has traditionally pursued a partnership approach in working 

with the states on implementing and evaluating highway safety programs. The 

move to performance-based highway safety programs in 1998 represented the natural evolution of a mature program with a long history of problem identification and 

well established, long-standing priority program emphasis areas. NHTSA has continued to provide program and project monitoring, but reflecting congressional guidance and the natural evolution of the program, has taken a less federally directive 

approach in providing oversight of State program activities. Recently, in conjunction 

with the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, the agency initiated development 

of specific criteria that would lead to provision of additional oversight by NHTSA 

through management reviews and improvement plans. This effort reflects the findings of a recent GAO Report (GAO–03–474, May 2003), which determined there was 

uneven program oversight of State highway safety programs by NHTSA field offices. 

On balance, the move to a performance-based program has resulted in program improvements. Working with our state partners, the agency is seeking to resolve program management issues of concern to both parties. 

Question 9. NHTSA and State safety officials are prohibited from lobbying State 

legislators on pending highway safety legislation. Do you believe that this has had 

an adverse impact on the passage of new highway safety laws? 

Answer. The prohibition on lobbying has not itself had an adverse affect on enactment of State highway safety laws but had a chilling effect on the ability of the 

agency and our State partners to provide technical assistance, including advantages 

and disadvantages, of specific highway safety legislative proposals pending in State 

legislatures. As organizations charged with responsibility for reducing traffic crash 

related fatalities and injuries nationally and in the states, NHTSA and our State 

Highway Safety Office colleagues often have technical knowledge and expertise to 

offer on highway safety legislation. Once a specific bill is introduced, the restrictions 

104 

on lobbying can hinder the ability of our agencies to offer detailed, specific recommendations regarding safety impacts. 

Question 10. Although considerable progress has been made over the last decades 

in reducing highway fatalities, why do you believe the number of fatalities has recently increased? 

Answer. The number of traffic-related fatalities has increased somewhat, based on 

the latest estimates. In 2002, an estimated 6 million crashes were reported to law 

enforcement agencies, with nearly 43,000 people killed, and 2.9 million people injured. 

Recently, during the past 6 years, the total fatality count is up about 2 percent. 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

42,013 41,501 41,717 41,945 42,116 42,850 

Traffic volume has increased about 10 percent. 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

2.56 T miles 2.63 T miles 2.69 T miles 2.75 T miles 2.78 T miles 2.83 T miles 

T=Trillion 

Motorcycle rider deaths have increased 50 percent (about 1,000 deaths) during 

this time period. 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

2,116 2,294 2,483 2,897 3,181 3,276 

Occupant deaths in rollover crashes of passenger vehicles continue to increase. 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

9,527 9,773 10,140 9,959 10,130 10,626 

Recently, the number of persons killed in alcohol-related crashes has increased 

about 1,000. 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

16,711 16,673 16,572 17,380 17,448 17,970 

It’s not all bad news, pedestrian death have fallen recently. 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

5,321 5,228 4,939 4,763 4,882 4,776 

Occupant deaths of children age 0 through 3 have also fallen about 100 recently. 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

466 447 458 451 409 380 

Large truck-related fatalities have fallen recently. 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

5,398 5,395 5,380 5,282 5,082 4,902 

Note: Source: NHTSA, NCSA 

2002 data are from the 2002 Early Estimate file. 

Question 11. Can you please comment on the efficacy of TEA–21 on the traffic fatality rates of Native Americans living on reservation and trust land? What measures are included in SAFETEA to address the ever-increasing problem of alcoholrelated traffic crashes and traffic fatalities in Indian country? 

Answer. Under TEA–21, NHTSA worked with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

and tribal representatives to improve the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of 

reporting of crashes and fatalities on reservation and trust land. Absent a significantly improved crash data system, it is not possible to determine traffic fatality 

rates of Native Americans living on reservation and trust land. According to CDC’s 

Injury Mortality Reports, annual per capita motor vehicle fatality rates for Native 

Americans has been between 30 and 32 deaths per 100,000 population. The overall 

national rate for all races is approximately 15 per 100,000. Largely due to funds 

105 

provided under Section 411 of TEA–21, BIA, with NHTSA’s assistance, developed 

a strategic plan for improving tribal crash data systems. With the significantly 

greater funds that would be available under the proposed Section 412 of SAFETEA, 

the Agency anticipates that BIA and the tribes would be able to make substantial 

progress in implementing the strategic plan. 

With regard to the specific issue of reducing alcohol-related crashes and fatalities, 

under provisions of SAFETEA, the BIA will continue to receive an annual formula 

grant apportionment of not less than 3/4 of 1 percent of the program’s total apportionment. TEA–21 increased Section 402’s highway safety funding formula for the 

Tribes to 3/4 of 1 percent from 1/2 of 1 percent of the total apportionment for the 

section. Any or all of this basic formula apportionment could be used for increasing 

safety belt use and prevention of impaired driving. Over SAFETEA’s 6-year authorization period, $7.875 million will be available to the BIA in basic formula grants 

alone. Additionally, data improvements may facilitate the BIA’s participation in 

SAFETEA’s performance-based incentive grant programs and provide additional 

funding that may be used to address impaired driving. 

Question 12. A recent GAO report concludes that behavioral factors are the leading cause of most traffic fatalities. Outline for us how SAFETEA builds upon the 

success of existing programs rather than simply restructuring them? What requests 

does NHTSA make in SAFETEA to bolster existing behavioral programs? 

Answer. SAFETEA builds upon and expands the performance-based management 

of highway safety programs that has been universally adopted by the states since 

1998. Under TEA–21, the Section 402 formula program has been performance 

based, but incentive grant funds were awarded primarily based on State implementation of specified laws or programs; only a few select criteria in the Section 410 

Alcohol Incentive Grant Program and Section 157 Safety Belt Use Incentive Grant 

program were performance-based. SAFETEA is the logical extension of the Section 

402 performance-based formula program. Under SAFETEA’s consolidated Section 

402 program, the majority of incentive funds will be awarded based on State performance. 

SAFETEA would also builds upon the proven effectiveness of highly visible enforcement of strong safety belt laws, by providing $100 million each year to encourage and reward states that enact primary safety belt laws, and by providing performance incentive grants, starting at $25 million and growing to $34 million, to 

states that achieve high levels of belt use. 

SAFETEA would continue and expand NHTSA’s renewed emphasis on impaired 

driving, by allocating $50 million per year to bolster the impaired driving countermeasures in states that have high rates or high totals of alcohol-related fatalities. 

SAFETEA would accelerate the process of improving State crash data systems to 

ensure better problem identification, performance measurement and program management. Under TEA–21, the Section 411 grants produced strategic plans for traffic 

records improvements in nearly all states. Under the proposed Section 412 of 

SAFETEA, States would receive the resources they need to carry out those strategic 

plans. 

The Agency also believes that SAFETEA would build upon and improve the intermodal flexibility that was established under TEA–21, permitting states to apply 

their resources to both behavioral programs and infrastructure enhancements, as 

their needs dictate. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO PETER GUERRERO

Question 1. Your statement mentions three factors that contribute to traffic crashes: human, environment, and vehicular. Vehicles are the least of the three causes, 

yet we’ve heard a lot recently about SUV safety. In proportion to all traffic safety 

problems, how much of a concern are SUVs? 

Answer. Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) safety is a concern primarily because they 

are more likely to rollover in a crash when compared to passenger cars, vans, and 

pickup trucks. Rollover crashes are particularly serious because they are more likely 

to result in fatalities than other types of crashes. We found, for example, that SUVs 

were over three times more likely to roll over in a crash than passenger cars. Our 

analysis of NHTSA crash data also found that SUVs rolled over in fatal crashes 35 

percent of the time compared with 16 percent of the time in passenger cars. In 2002, 

SUV rollovers resulted in 2,353 occupant fatalities, by NHTSA’s estimate, or about 

5.5 percent of all fatalities. In addition, NHTSA recently concluded that, despite declines in passenger car occupant fatalities, the increasing influence of light truck 

and SUV fatal crashes in general, and rollover crashes in particular, was instrumental in the lack of progress in reducing traffic fatalities in 2002. 

106 

In 2003, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents 

the three main major U.S. automobile manufacturers and a number of foreign manufacturers, published analyses examining occupant fatality rates between vehicle 

types. It found that in 2001, SUVs had a slightly higher overall occupant fatality 

rate than had passenger cars—16.25 and 15.70 per 100,000 registered vehicles, respectively. The Alliance also points out that 72 percent of people killed in SUV rollover crashes were not wearing safety belts and that 35 percent of SUV single-vehicle rollover fatalities were alcohol-related. 

Question 2. GAO’s recent report entitled, ‘‘Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety Programs,’’ as mentioned in your testimony, raised 

issues regarding NHTSA’s oversight of state highway safety programs. How would 

you suggest NHTSA improve in this area? 

Answer. We found that NHTSA is making inconsistent and limited use of the 

oversight tools that it has to ensure states programs are operating within guidelines 

and are achieving desired results. For example, NHTSA regions can conduct management reviews to help improve and enhance the financial and operational management of state programs. In conducting these reviews, a team of NHTSA regional 

staff visits a state and examines such items as its operations and staffing, program 

management, financial management, and selected programs like impaired driving, 

occupant protection, public information and education, and outreach. However, we 

found that there was no written guidance on when to perform management reviews. 

As a result, management reviews were not being conducted consistently—some regions had goals of doing them every 2 years while others conducted them only when 

requested by a state. 

Similarly, we found that the NHTSA regional offices are making limited and inconsistent use of improvement plans. According to regulations, if a NHTSA regional 

office finds that a state is not making progress towards its highway safety goals, 

NHTSA and the state are to develop an improvement plan to address the shortcomings. The regulations call for the plan to detail strategies, program activities, 

and funding targets to meet the defined goals. However, NHTSA regional offices 

have made limited use of improvement plans to help address the states’ highway 

safety performance. Since 1998, only 7 improvement plans have been developed in 

3 of NHTSA’s 10 regional offices. In addition, we found that the regional offices have 

made inconsistent use improvement plans. For example, we found that highway 

safety performance of a number of states that were not operating under improvement plans was worse than the performance of other states that were under such 

plans. For example, we found that the rate of alcohol-related fatalities increased 

from 1997 through 2001 in 14 states and that for half of these states the alcoholrelated fatality rate also exceeded the national rate. Only one of these seven states 

was on an improvement plan to reduce alcohol-related fatalities. We found that the 

limited and inconsistent use of improvement plans is due to a lack of specificity in 

criteria for requiring such plans. NHTSA guidance says simply that these plans 

should be developed when a state is not making progress towards its highway safety 

goals. 

We made recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation to improve the use 

of management reviews and improvement plans by providing more specific guidance 

to the regional offices on when it is appropriate to use them. The guidance for using 

the improvement plans should include a consistent means of measuring progress toward meeting established highway safety goals. In responding to our report, NHTSA 

officials said they have begun taking action to develop criteria and guidance on 

when field offices should use these management tools. 

Question 3. Do you think that a consolidated grant application process for the 

states would have a noticeable impact on their ability to obtain increased funding? 

What is the best way to consolidate the grant program? Should we follow the GHSA 

proposal, or that outlined in SAFETEA? Do you have any recommendations to improve SAFETEA and improve traffic safety that have not been mentioned, or that 

stand out in your mind as superior to the others? 

Answer. A consolidated grant process would help ease the administrative burden 

on the states, and states with very small highway safety offices and limited resources would benefit. A consolidated program also would allow states to devote 

more resources to project oversight and evaluation, which would also be a benefit. 

The SAFETEA and GHSA proposals for reauthorization have some significant differences that could affect the decision to select one over the other. The SAFETEA 

proposal provides for partial consolidation of the grant programs, but allows states 

considerable flexibility in how the funds could be used, including transferring 

NHTSA program funds to highway safety construction. The GHSA proposal contains 

a greater degree of consolidation, but does not provide for the transfer of NHTSA 

107 

funds to construction programs. Thus, the SAFETEA proposal gives the states more 

flexibility in how the funds may be used, but the GHSA proposal goes farther in 

simplifying the administration of the program by the states. Finally, the SAFETEA 

proposal includes a new safety belt sanction, while GHSA is opposed to any new 

sanctions. 

As we pointed out in our report, when 34 states were given the option of using 

highway safety funds for either road construction or behavioral programs (programs 

to reduce drunk driving), more than two-thirds of funds were spent on construction. 

The Administration’s SAFETEA proposal, while promoting greater flexibility for 

states to decide how to spend Federal funds, could have the unintended effect of depleting behavioral programs of funds needed to make continued progress in reducing 

traffic fatalities. 

Motorcycle safety is one area that SAFETEA mentions but GHSA’s proposal does 

not directly address. Motorcycle deaths have increased each year since reaching an 

historic low in 1997. In 2002, 3,276 motorcyclists were killed, an increase of over 

54 percent between 1997 and 2002. Without the increase in motorcycle fatalities, 

overall highway fatalities would have experienced a decrease of about 2.6 percent. 

NHTSA has outlined an approach to motorcycle safety in three areas: crash prevention, injury mitigation, and emergency response. Crash prevention goals are focused 

on factors that contribute to crashes—operator fitness, experience, and training, and 

licensing. Injury mitigation research would stress the use of protective gear, including helmets. Emergency response emphasizes the importance of first response medical care. SAFETEA would support NHTSA’s initiatives in these areas through general performance grants. These grants would provide incentive funds to states based 

on performance in three categories: (1) motor vehicle crash fatalities, (2) alcohol-related crash fatalities, and (3) motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian crash fatalities. 

Question 4. Can you please comment on the efficacy of TEA–21 on the traffic fatality rates of Native Americans living on reservation and trust land? 

Answer. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Indian Highway Safety Program plan for Fiscal Year 2003, the rate of highway-related injuries and fatalities 

on American Indian Reservations is significantly higher than State and National 

rates. While our recent reports did not address the issue of Native American traffic 

fatalities and NHTSA’s fatality and accident databases do not capture this type of 

information, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention has reported on deaths of American Indians in 

unintentional motor vehicle crashes. As shown in figure 1, motor vehicle deaths for 

American Indians are higher than the rate for the U.S. population as a whole. (See 

fig. 1.) 

Figure 1: Motor Vehicle Fatalities per 100,000 People 

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

As we reported, about $2 billion has been provided over the last 5 years for highway safety programs under TEA–21. During this period, the Indian Highway Safety 


522PETEQ1.eps
108 

Program received less than half a percent of this total, or $5.8 million. NHTSA provided $1.07 million for the BIA’s Indian Highway Safety Program in 1998; and by 

2002, funding for this program rose to $1.32 million. Over 94 percent of these funds 

came as annual Section 402 State and Community Formula Grant Program funding. 

The program’s remaining funds came from two of TEA–21’s seven incentive grants: 

Section 2003(b) Child Passenger Protection Education Grants—beginning in 2000, 

and Section 411 State Highway Safety Data Improvement grants—mostly in 2002. 

(See fig. 2.) 

Figure 2: NHTSA Funding for BIA’s Indian Highway Safety Program, Fiscal 

Years 1998 through 2002 

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JACQUELINE S. GILLIAN

Question 1. In your testimony, you indicate that there was an increase in motor 

vehicle fatalities in nearly every category of crashes. Does this mean the number 

of overall motor vehicle fatalities has increased, or the fatalities per vehicle miles 

traveled have increased? 

Answer. The 2002 Early Assessment figures released by the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) National Center for Statistics and Analysis 

in April 2003 shows the following: 

• The number of persons killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes increased to 

42,850, the highest level since 1990. The increase was 1.7 percent over the number killed in 2001. Within this general finding were the following specific 

changes from 2001 by category: 

• Alcohol-related deaths increased. 

• Passenger vehicle occupant deaths in rollovers increased. This is especially dramatic for sport utility vehicles (SUVs)—nearly 10 percent more people died in 

SUV rollovers in 2002 as compared with the previous year. 

• The number of intersection and intersection-related deaths increased. 

• Passenger vehicle occupant deaths in two-vehicle crashes involving a pickup 

truck, van, or SUV increased. 

• Motorcyclist deaths increased. 

• Pedestrian deaths decreased. 

• Large truck crash-involved deaths decreased. However, more large truck occupants died in these crashes in 2002 than in 2001, particularly in multi-vehicle 

collisions. 

• Deaths of children 0–7 years of age decreased while deaths of children 8–15 

years increased. 

• Deaths of young drivers 16–20 years of age increased. 

• The overall fatal crash rate using 100 million vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) as 

the exposure denominator remained the same as 2001 at 1.51 deaths per 100 

million VMT. NHTSA has not yet disaggregated VMT or other exposure measures by type of crash or by age of persons involved in crashes; only the overall, 

national fatal crash rate is available. 


522PETEQ2.eps
109 

The answer to the question then is an emphatic yes. The overall number of motor 

vehicle fatalities has increased and has done so each year since 1998. In fact, highway fatalities in 2002 were the highest in more than a decade. Because each year 

there is an increase in VMT, the fatality rate has not increased but it has also not 

decreased. In fact, the fatality rate has become stagnant, with only marginal improvement since 1991. If this situation applied to air travel, that is, if there were 

more deaths and crashes each year because more planes were flying more miles, 

there would be a hue and cry from the American public and Congress regardless 

of any change in the fatality rate. 

Question 1a. Given that every year there are more cars on the road, and that terrorism fears have caused more motorists to drive rather than fly, is it safe to assume that fatalities will always rise each year if all things remain constant? 

Answer. Carefully selected vehicle safety design and performance regulation, coupled with better highway design and human factors management, such as requiring 

safety belt use, countering driver fatigue and alcohol/substance abuse, and reducing 

in-vehicle driver distraction can easily result in increased vehicle-miles-traveled by 

more vehicles each year, but a lower crash death rate with fewer fatalities. Unfortunately, however, all things do not remain constant. The continuing displacement of 

passenger cars in the passenger vehicle fleet by SUVs, a consistent trend over more 

than a decade, has resulted in a distinct and deadly change in crash types to more 

motor vehicle deaths resulting from (a) the increased numbers and frequency of rollover crashes by these unstable, rollover-prone vehicles and (b) increased number 

and frequency of deaths from side impact crashes due especially to larger, heavier 

SUVs striking the sides of smaller, lighter cars. If the safety design and performance of light trucks and vans (LTVs), particularly SUVs, were properly controlled 

by careful safety regulation, both the number of deaths and the rate of deaths could 

decline each year. 

Question 1b. Which of your recommendations would have the most significant impact on reducing traffic fatalities if enacted by Congress? 

Answer. There are several recommendations that will have a significant impact 

on traffic fatality reduction when enacted. 

• Primary (or standard) enforcement of state seat belt laws will increase seat belt 

use rates substantially, a critical factor for reducing fatalities and serious injuries since unbelted occupants comprise more than half of all traffic fatalities. 

Experience in state after state has shown that adoption of primary enforcement 

alone increases seat belt use rates by 10 to 15 percent. Unfortunately, in most 

states, the life-saving potential of primary enforcement of seat belt laws, and 

Federal incentive grants, have not motivated state legislatures to upgrade secondary enforcement laws to primary enforcement. Currently, 18 states and the 

District of Columbia have primary enforcement, while 31 states have only secondary enforcement and one state has no law requiring occupants to use seat 

belts at all. It is estimated that if all states adopted primary enforcement, that 

is, enforced the state seat belt law just like any other traffic infraction, thousands of additional lives could be saved each year. 

• Rollover crashes have become a more important factor in highway fatalities over 

the years. In the 1980s, less than 5,000 deaths a year involved rollover crashes, 

in 2002 more than 10,000 traffic deaths involved vehicle rollover. A large part 

of the increase in the rollover problem stems from the design of LTVs, especially 

SUVs, that are built with a high center of gravity, narrow track-width, and are 

unstable particularly when fully loaded. Danger from rollover, and the number 

of fatalities, will continue to grow as a problem as LTVs, and particularly SUVs, 

increase as a proportion of the overall vehicle fleet. A rollover stability standard 

could potentially prevent the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of people 

each year. 

• Vehicle aggressivity, or the lack of compatibility among different vehicle designs 

when they crash is a result of the mismatch in size, weight, height and other 

design features of LTVs and passenger cars. As the number and percentage of 

larger LTVs and SUVs in the vehicle fleet increase annually, so do the number 

of crashes in which a larger, heavier, higher LTV collides with a smaller, lighter, lower passenger car. In these crashes, the occupants of the car are far more 

likely to be killed than the occupant of the LTV. This mismatch already presents a substantial danger to passenger car occupants which will continue to 

increase as LTVs become a larger percentage of the vehicle fleet and are involved in more multi-vehicle crashes. 

• Drunk driving related fatalities have recently been on the increase, and in 2002 

alcohol or drugs were a factor in 42 percent of occupant fatalities. Thus, despite 

110 

historic improvements in the alcohol-related fatality statistics, further improvements in drunk and drugged driving behavior remain a critical area in which 

a significant impact in fatality reduction can be obtained. 

Question 2. In recent years, progress in reducing highway fatalities has slowed 

despite a large investment of resources in highway safety. What do you see as the 

best strategies to reduce traffic deaths and injuries? 

Answer. A substantial increase in Federal investment in funding motor vehicle 

and traffic safety programs is necessary. NHTSA’s budget and program resources 

have increased little in actual purchasing power over the years, despite the fact that 

the number of registered vehicles, annual vehicle miles of travel, and complexity of 

the traffic safety and the highway environment have increased dramatically. The 

best approach is a systems engineering model that takes into account all aspects 

that contribute to traffic crashes and fatalities including the vehicle, the occupant, 

and the roadway (and environment), and the development of countermeasures to address the problems that contribute significantly to crashes and fatalities through 

prevention and crash avoidance (pre-crash), occupant protection (during the crash), 

and emergency response/medical treatment (post-crash). 

Question 2a. Should the focus be on the behavioral aspects or on vehicle preference and safety? 

Answer. Both. Traffic safety is a complex, multi-faceted issue that has no single 

solution. Moreover, driver (and occupant) behavior cannot be neatly separated from 

vehicle preference and safety. Obviously, improvements in behavior such as seat belt 

use can provide dramatic safety benefits to which the success of anti-drunk driving 

campaigns involving passage of strong laws and increased enforcement in the 1980s 

and 1990s can attest. However, behavior modification on a broad scale is expensive, 

resource intense, difficult to sustain for prolonged time periods, and they do not 

guarantee permanent improvements in behavior or safety. The recent increase in 

drunk-driving related fatalities may be a reflection of this. Behavior modification 

must be continually maintained and reinforced, and additional efforts must be made 

to reach each new generation of young drivers. At the same time, success in improving one or even a few types of behavior does not guarantee improvement in other 

driving-related behaviors that may be just as dangerous. Thus, targeted efforts at 

changing behavior have been successful and should be continued, especially to require seat belt use through adoption of primary enforcement laws and to combat 

drunk driving, but behavior modification is only a partial solution. 

Designing vehicles with greater built-in safety, for both crash avoidance and occupant protection, can ensure traffic safety improvement regardless of individual behavior and the degree of success experienced through behavior modification efforts. 

Design and equipment improvements that build-in greater stability to reduce the incidence of rollovers, for example, or that make different types of vehicles less aggressive in multi-vehicle crashes, improve safety when crashes occur. This is necessary 

because improved behavior alone, even if largely successful, will not eliminate all 

crashes, and because crashes result from other factors such as road conditions, vehicle equipment defects, etc., not just driver behavior. This approach of trying to 

build-in crashworthiness, is taken from the model used in the health care field, 

where efforts to change at-risk behavior are not relied on exclusively when immunization to prevent disease is available. 

Question 3. Is the amount of money spent on highway safety directly related to 

lives saved, if used correctly? In other words, does an increase in highway safety 

funding equate directly to lives saved? 

Answer. Yes, if used correctly, there is a direct relationship between safety funding levels and lives saved. The relationship between funding levels and safety is the 

same for motor vehicles as for airline safety—greater investment in safety will result in fewer deaths. Current NHTSA funding levels, however, are not much higher 

than they were in 1980. See NHTSA historic budget chart [to be forwarded by fax]. 

Even though 95 percent of transportation fatalities, and 99 percent of transportation 

injuries occur on our Nation’s roads, NHTSA receives less than one percent of the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) budget. 

Question 3a. To what extent should we worry about a diminishing return when 

funding these safety programs? 

Answer. Because funding for motor vehicle safety programs is low, compared to 

the overall U.S. DOT budget and expenditures on air transportation safety, there 

is no legitimate reason for concern that we are nearing the point of diminishing returns when it comes to funding motor vehicle safety programs. The issue is not that 

we are reaching the point of diminishing returns on safety expenditures but that 

factors that play a role in crashes, including increases in traffic volume, size, 

weight, and speed, as well as diverse designs and behavioral issues, have overVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
111 

whelmed the ability of NHTSA, law enforcement, and the safety community to respond appropriately due to budget limitations. In addition, major improvements in 

safety can still be achieved by reducing vehicle rollover, increasing the crash compatibility among the types of vehicles in the passenger fleet, developing feasible 

crash avoidance and warning technologies, increasing the national seat belt use 

rate, and reducing the incidence of drunk/drugged driving. 

Question 4. What would be the cost passed on to consumers should your proposals 

for roof crush, safety labeling, and vehicle compatibility be adopted by Congress? 

Answer. There is no fixed dollar figure for the vehicle safety proposals included 

in the testimony because each depends on the manner in which it is implemented 

by manufacturers and NHTSA. However, the costs are expected to be relatively 

small in comparison to the safety benefits for several reasons. First, a number of 

improvements are ready for use or have been introduced in more expensive vehicle 

lines. Mass production of these safety features for installation as standard equipment, rather than as options, would significantly lower the cost of production. Second, manufacturers are already conducting research and development on a host of 

different design issues and are already introducing certain changes to address vehicle compatibility issues. Thus, the costs associated with a number of changes, as 

well as the research and development costs for other improvements, have already 

been factored into the price of at least some vehicles by the manufacturers themselves. Third, any required changes could be introduced and implemented as manufacturers alter and redesign vehicle platforms, which lowers the burdens to manufacturers and the costs to consumers. Fourth, according to the industry, costs for 

many safety improvements, from seat belts, to air bags, to traction control systems 

were expected to be cost prohibitive but have proven to be cost-effective and reasonable when mass produced. Moreover, surveys consistently indicate that consumers 

are willing to pay for safety improvements. Lastly, in addition to the toll in deaths 

and injuries, motor vehicle crashes and mortality are already a huge economic burden to consumers. According to NHTSA, in 2000 the total cost of motor vehicle 

crashes in the U.S. was $230.6 billion. 

Question 4a. Do you propose incentives that would make it easier for automobile 

manufacturers to incorporate your proposed safety improvements to their vehicle 

production? 

Answer. No specific additional industry incentives are necessary. First, safety is 

a public health issue and the responsibility of manufacturers. In order to achieve 

widespread safety benefits for the public at large, improvements should be built in 

to all vehicles not just in expensive models at the high-end of the market. Second, 

in many cases, the design knowledge and technology for improving safety is already 

developed, available, and on-the-shelf, so extensive research and development costs 

are not necessary. Finally, ‘‘safety sells,’’ and manufacturers have been able to market higher-priced vehicle models on the basis of safety. In recent years, the average 

price of vehicles has increased for a number of reasons, and a larger proportion of 

the vehicle market now consists of high-priced LTVs and SUVs, and yet sales and 

profitability continue to increase. It appears that manufacturers have been able to 

pass on the costs of safety improvements to customers and do not need added incentives to improve safety. 

Question 5. What can be done to improve safety belt usage by states such as Virginia where the votes defeat proposals to adopt primary safety belt laws? 

Answer. Safety belt use rates in states such as Virginia would improve dramatically if the reauthorization of TEA–21 included a sanction for states that did not 

pass a primary enforcement safety belt law within a reasonable amount of time. 

Currently, only 18 states and the District of Columbia have primary enforcement 

laws. Most of these laws were passed in the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s. In 

the past three years, only two states (Washington and New Jersey) have enacted 

primary enforcement laws. The lesson from the enactment of a national .08 percent 

blood alcohol content (BAC) law in 2000 is instructive in this context: sanctions 

work. In the three years since .08 BAC was signed the number of states with a .08 

BAC law jumped from 18 to 38 and the District of Columbia. That’s an increase of 

117 percent. There is every reason to believe that the pattern of state enactment 

of primary enforcement seat belt laws will follow that of .08 BAC laws. 

Question 5a. Are incentives the only way to improve safety belt usage, or can public advertising campaigns make a difference? 

Answer. As noted above, sanctions are crucial to the passage of primary enforcement safety belt laws, which are critical to increasing safety belt use rates. Incentives, therefore, are not an effective way to improve safety belt use rates. Public advertising campaigns can make a difference, but only in tandem with passage and 

strong enforcement of primary seat belt laws. People are more likely to change their 

112 

behavior in response to a public advertising campaign that is coupled with strong 

enforcement of a safety belt law than in response to a public service announcement 

alone. Secondary enforcement laws tie the hands of police because they can only be 

enforced if another traffic violation has occurred. 

Question 6. Does your organization believe that rear-view monitors to aid drivers 

when reversing larger vehicles should be standard equipment in vehicles, or merely 

a safety option available to consumers? 

Answer. Advocates generally regards rear visibility in the current vehicle fleet, 

both for passenger vehicles and for medium/heavy vehicles, to be poor and inadequate. Neither manufacturers nor NHTSA use safety performance principles to optimize rear visibility, especially for the rear view of the area immediately behind 

a vehicle when backing so that every driver can easily determine whether there is 

a child or other person in danger of being injured or killed in a backing incident. 

Backing incidents that take the lives of young children and elderly persons are more 

common than one might think because they are often not reported in state and national databases. 

Advocates believes that a combination of advanced mirror designs, especially of 

aspheric mirrors, coupled with rear view imaging or detection technologies, should 

be required by NHTSA through the adoption of a performance standard that will 

facilitate the detection of persons immediately behind the rear ends of larger vehicles. We believe that these combined improvements in rear detection and visualization technologies should be required for vehicles both with and without rear windows because current vehicles even with rear windows do not permit a driver to see 

or to detect the presence of small children immediately behind a vehicle. Moreover, 

these improvements in visualization and detection to the rear of a motor vehicle for 

improving safety when backing can simultaneously be engineered to enhance both 

the side and rear fields of view of motor vehicles in forward motion, thereby improving the detection of nearby vehicles in the traffic stream. 

In general, safety equipment that is proven to help avoid crashes, save lives, and 

reduce injuries should become standard equipment on all new vehicle models. Safety 

equipment will maximize life saving benefits only if it is installed throughout the 

vehicle fleet and in general use on all vehicles. Moreover, safety systems and equipment should not just be available to people with the means to afford high-end vehicle models and safer optional equipment. 

Question 7. Considerable progress has been made over the last decades in reducing highway fatalities, but this progress has been slowed in the last few years. In 

fact, the number of fatalities has increased recently. What are the reasons for this 

spike? 

Answer. The recent increase in traffic fatalities to 42,850 (2002 early assessment 

data), now at the highest total since 1990, is also reflected in the stagnant fatality 

rate that has remained at nearly the same level for a decade. Only marginal improvements in the overall traffic fatality rate have been achieved in that time period. (The fatality rate dropped to 1.7 per 100 million VMT in 1992, then to 1.6 in 

1996, and to 1.5 in 1999, where it remains.) There are three reasons for this. First, 

funding levels for NHTSA’s regulatory and traffic safety programs have increased 

only incrementally over the past decade. Safety programs have not been able to 

keep pace with the myriad of complex safety problems facing the nation, the change 

in the types of vehicle in the fleet, as well as annual increases in motor vehicle registration and vehicle miles traveled. Second, despite improvements that are saving 

hundreds of lives each year, including improved child safety requirements, increased 

seat belt use rates, and more widespread availability of air bags, other negative 

safety trends have emerged to offset the lives being saved. For example, rollover 

deaths have increased dramatically through the 1990s as the percentage of LTVs, 

and especially SUVs, have increased in the vehicle fleet. Likewise, deaths in multivehicle crashes in which LTVs are the striking vehicle have also increased with the 

greater percentage of LTVs in the vehicle fleet. Third, too many states lack some 

of the most important life-saving laws to address impaired driving, to protect teen 

drivers, to require seat belt and motorcycle helmet use, and to require that children 

be restrained in age appropriate restraints. 

Question 8. The lack of progress in reducing highway fatalities is especially frustrating in light of the billions of dollars that have been spent on highway safety and 

infrastructure improvements under TEA–21. As we move forward and reauthorize 

these programs, where should we make future safety investments to ensure sustained progress? 

Answer. Safety related investment in behavioral, regulatory and highway infrastructure programs should be continued, however, investment should be increased 

in program areas that work and yield results, while programs that are ineffective 

113 

or counterproductive should be dropped. First, on the behavioral side, we know that 

targeted programs that reinforce state laws with clear public safety messages and 

strong enforcement are successful. The ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ seat belt enforcement 

projects are an example of behavioral efforts that are effective because they support 

existing requirements in state law. Similar efforts to reduce drunk driving can also 

be effective. However, without stronger Federal oversight and accountability of state 

expenditures of Section 402 funding (see below, last response in Question #5), there 

can be no assurance that state expenditure of Federal funding is being used effectively. 

Second, greater safety benefits can be achieved through regulatory efforts to limit 

occupant fatalities and injuries through careful selection of the next generation of 

crash avoidance and occupant protection countermeasures. Just as airbags are now 

saving hundreds of lives each year, NHTSA can improve safety by issuing regulations to require vehicle stability to prevent rollover, to reduce the design incompatibility of different types of vehicles, to provide better side impact protection, and to 

install effective crash prevention warning systems. In addition, NHTSA should develop regulations to control the dissemination and use of vehicle telematics that can 

distract drivers from the driving task, another emerging safety concern. 

The third area for future safety investment is better highway design and engineering requirements. It is easy to forget that drivers and vehicles operate within 

the limits of the designs of the highways we all use. Those highways can be designed better or worse, and many thousands of miles of these roads have obsolete, 

substandard designs that are long overdue for upgrading. Many highway crashes 

are directly linked to drivers having little margin for error because narrow lanes 

and shoulders, steep drop-offs at the roadside, limited sight distance, low pavement 

skid resistance, and lethal fixed object hazards are often sited directly adjacent to 

high-speed traffic. Both multi-and single-vehicle crashes frequently occur or are substantially more severe because ‘‘forgiving’’ design features were not built into the 

road to accommodate driver mistakes without loss of life and infliction of serious 

physical injuries. Although large sums of Federal funds are spent annually on highway construction and rehabilitation, at present, with the exception of the Interstate 

system and limited mileage on the National Highway System, there are no required 

highway design standards to govern the construction and rehabilitation of the vast 

majority of Federal-aid, state and local highways. 

Question 9. The Administration’s SAFETEA proposal would consolidate some programs and give states greater flexibility on spending decisions by allowing the 

movement of funds between parts of the Section 402 programs and highway safety 

construction programs. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach? 

Answer. In general, including the Section 402 program in the flexible spending 

options is disadvantageous because it undermines traditional highway safety efforts. 

Funding flexibility, for the most part, is a pretext to permit highway safety funds 

to be diverted to construction programs. Although Advocates supports greater Federal oversight and state accountability for Section 402 expenditures (see below, last 

response in Question #5), we are not in favor of raiding funds from effective highway safety and enforcement programs in order to provide additional funds for highway construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance. Reauthorization legislation 

should dedicate sufficient funding for highway safety construction improvements 

and hazard elimination so that the diversion of other highway safety funding is not 

needed. Permitting Section 402 funds to be used for other purposes may also lead 

to inconsistent funding of state 402 programs, and uncertain financing of those programs from year to year. It may also increase internal conflict within state DOTs 

over Section 402 funding. 

Furthermore, in the name of funding flexibility, the Section 402 program has been 

used as a trap door in order to offset funding penalties imposed on states that have 

not adopted critical safety laws such as open container and repeat offender statutes. 

(See below, response to Question #4). States that are penalized by having a percentage of their construction funds diverted to the Section 402 program are also permitted, in turn, to use all or a portion of those same funds for projects eligible under 

the hazard elimination program (Section 152). Thus, states are able to budget less 

for the hazard elimination program, and more for other construction programs that 

they expect will have a percentage of funds redirected to the Section 402 program 

because of the penalty. This type of circular system of funding flexibility undermines 

the purpose and intent behind penalizing states for the failure to adopt safety laws, 

makes the adoption of safety laws such as the open container and repeat offender 

laws far more difficult, and uses the 402 program as a revolving door to evade the 

authorized sanctions. A similar funding shell game has been proposed as part of the 

SAFETEA highway safety improvement program penalty to promote state adoption 

114 

of primary seat belt laws. (See below, response to Question #5 regarding proposed 

HSIP). Indeed, the SAFETEA funding flexibility proposal would substitute the highway safety improvement program, in place of the hazard elimination program, as 

the ultimate potential recipient of the construction funds that are required to be diverted to the Section 402 program by states that have not adopted open container 

and repeat offender laws. 

While there may be a limited advantage in allowing portions of incentive grants 

to be used for highway construction, rather than for the Section 402 program, the 

effectiveness of such a financial lure as part of an incentive grant program is yet 

to be proven. Theoretically, this type of funding flexibility could be an inducement 

to states to adopt safety laws if the incentive grant funds are available for safety 

and non-safety construction programs. The grant funds would not need to pass 

through the Section 402 program, however, but could be dedicated for construction 

program use outright. The major example of such a program was the safety belt incentive grant program, which permitted the use of the grants for construction programs, but did not increase the number of states with primary seat belt laws nor 

appreciably increase seat belt use rates in most states. 

Question 10. As Congress seeks to encourage the states to reduce their traffic-related fatalities through various programs, it can choose to provide incentive grants 

or it can choose to penalize states for not adopting highway safety laws. Which approach is more effective? 

Answer. It is beyond doubt that Federal-aid highway program penalties are far 

more effective than incentive grants in getting states to adopt highway safety laws. 

While a minority of states respond positively to the offer of incentive grants, such 

grant programs have never been able to achieve uniform adoption of safety laws by 

all 50 states. Penalties, on the other hand, that withhold funds outright or that divert highway construction funds to non-construction safety programs, have been 

successful in getting states to adopt a number of important safety laws including 

the minimum drinking age law, .08 BAC law, and zero tolerance for youthful drivers. Similar diversion of funds to the Section 402 program were enacted as part of 

the open container law and increased penalties for repeat drunk driving offender 

law provision in TEA–21. These provisions, however, include a trap door that permits funds to be funneled back to the hazard elimination program. This budgetary 

version of musical chairs undermines the effectiveness of the penalties in the open 

container and repeat offender provisions. 

Question 11. What are the major items in SAFETEA that you like about the proposal and what, in your view, should be reconsidered? Are there aspects of highway 

safety that the proposal does not address? 

Answer. There are several proposals in the SAFETEA bill that should be reconsidered. 

• National Blue Ribbon Commission On Highway Safety: While not making sufficient financial and resource commitments in the bill to support current safety 

efforts, the legislation would establish a commission to study overall highway 

safety issues with a 30 year time horizon and with no requirement to file an 

initial report until 2006, or a final report until 2009. The creation of a commission to look at long-term issues appears to divert attention from an emphasis 

on achieving near-term DOT safety goals. The effort and funding ($7 million) 

would be better spent assisting DOT to develop actions to reduce fatalities and 

crashes in order to achieve existing DOT safety performance goals included in 

the DOT Performance Plan—FY 2004. For highway safety these goals include: 

reducing the overall traffic fatality rate to 1.0 per 100 million vehicle miles of 

travel (VMT) in 2008 (the rate is currently 1.5); reducing large truck related 

fatalities to 1.65 per 100 million VMT in 2008 (the rate is currently 2.4); reducing the alcohol-related fatality rate to 0.53 in 2004 (the rate was 0.64 in 2002 

based on the early assessment data); and to achieve a national 79 percent safety 

belt use rate in 2004 (the rate was 75 percent based on 2002 data). This safety 

goal that has been revised downward from previous benchmarks set by NHTSA 

in 1997, establishing national goals for seat belt use rates of 85 percent by 

2000, and 90 percent by 2005. (Presidential Initiative for Increasing Sear Belt 

Use Nationwide, U.S. DOT). In addition, in 1999 the DOT Secretary announced 

the safety goal of reducing the number of deaths in large truck related crashes 

by 50 percent in 10 years (in 2008). Creating a commission to explore long-term 

issues diverts attention, focus, and resources from immediate safety needs. 

• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding flexibility: This program 

has two important flaws. First, it weakens the safety focus of the hazard elimination program by broadening the scope of projects permitted in this program 

to include projects such as traffic calming, and contains vague wording that 

115 

may not limit projects to serious safety problems and hazard elimination. Second, although states that do not adopt a primary (enforcement) safety belt law 

will have 10 percent of their HSIP funds obligated to Section 402 highway safety programs. This is not wise because the redirection of funds penalizes a dedicated safety program, the HSIP, by redirecting funds to another safety program, 

Section 402. Funds dedicated to safety improvements and safety programs 

should not be targeted. In addition, the funding trap door in the proposed Section 402 safety performance grants allows states to divert 50 percent of that 

grant money to be diverted from the Section 402 program for use on HSIP 

projects. Thus, the HSIP funds lost to Section 402 program projects can be replaced by the expenditure of other Section 402 funds, received from the proposed performance grants, which can be spent on HSIP projects. 

• Primary Safety Belt Use Law Performance Grant Program: Sanctions are far 

more effective in achieving nationally uniform safety policy countermeasures 

than incentive grants. While Advocates does not oppose the effort to encourage 

states to voluntarily adopt primary seat belt laws through incentive grants, the 

program should impose a sanction in the final 3 years to require state adoption 

of primary enforcement seat belt laws or face the loss/redirection of Federal construction funds. The HSIP 10 percent redirection will not be sufficient to convince reluctant states to adopt primary enforcement laws both because the loss 

of a portion of HSIP funding alone, as opposed to other construction program 

funds, is not a strong financial incentive, and because the redirection of HSIP 

funds can be offset by the use of half of the proposed performance grant funds. 

Finally, the penalty for failure to adopt a safety requirement should not be the 

loss or redirection of dedicated safety funds, the larger highway construction 

funding program should be the target. 

• Insufficient funding for anti-drunk driving initiatives: The SAFETEA proposal 

significantly reduces the funding for anti-drunk and drugged driving efforts 

from previous levels. Although behavior modification efforts are difficult to sustain, passage of strong impaired driving laws coupled with anti-drunk driving 

campaigns have been particularly successful in lowering the incidence of dunk 

driving and related crashes and fatalities. The reduced funding also comes at 

a time when drunk driving related crash fatalities are increasing and the response should be to renew anti-drunk driving initiatives and to increase funding 

for countermeasures. 

• NHTSA Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Study: Advocates objects to the proposed investigation of the causes of passenger vehicle crashes that NHTSA 

plans to conduct because the agency has stated that it would use the same research design currently being used in the Large Truck Crash Causation Study 

(LTCCS). That study has been heavily criticized as defective by both the Transportation Research Board committee empanelled to oversee the study, and highway safety organizations such as Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Public Citizen, CRASH, P.A.T.T., and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 

The passenger vehicle crash causation study would essentially use the same 

flawed research design that is planned for review by the National Centers for 

Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. Congress was so concerned with the 

validity of the research methods for the LTCCS that it directed the U.S. DOT, 

in the Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations legislation, to have the CDC review the 

FMCSA–NHTSA research approach and report its findings. The basic flaw in 

both studies is the lack of any experimental research design using a comparison 

group to test hypotheses about the causes of motor vehicle crashes. Instead, 

FMCSA and NHTSA are attempting to provide explanations of the ‘‘causes’’ of 

crashes solely through the detailed description of how each crash supposedly occurred based largely on the characterization of events supplied by individuals 

who were at the scene of the crash when it occurred. This approach of simply 

analyzing a set of crash cases is considered by the National Institutes of Health 

as the poorest level of research and scientific evidence. 

Areas which the administration proposal fails to address include: 

• Child passenger performance grants: The SAFETEA proposal does not include 

a performance grant program to encourage state adoption of booster seat laws 

for children up to 8 years old. 

• Section 402 funding accountability: Although Section 402 is reauthorized, there 

is no provision to address criticism that the program lacks supervision and accountability. According to a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report (Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety Programs, 

GAO–03–474, April 2003), NHTSA does not uniformly use management reviews 

116 

to monitor state implementation of highway safety programs, or require program improvement plans to correct deficiencies under Section 402. As a result, 

there is no consistent process to monitor and review whether states are achieving the goals they set for themselves, nor a comprehensive method to ensure 

the correction of ineffective state programs. As a result, there is no assurance 

that Section 402 funds are being expended on effective safety programs or 

achieving the intended results. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO KATHRYN SWANSON

Question 1. Ms. Swanson, the Administration’s proposal provides increased flexibility for the states to move funds between certain Section 402 programs and highway safety construction. What do you think the impact of that might be? 

Answer. The Administration allows all of the primary seat belt incentive funding, 

half of the performance incentive funding, and half of the seat belt use rate incentive funding to be flexed into the new core safety construction program. The flexing 

of primary seat belt incentive funding could only occur after the state enacts a primary belt law. The intent is to encourage state departments of transportation 

(DOT’s) to be involved in state efforts to enact state primary belt laws. 

While we support the intent of the primary belt primary seat belt flexibility provisions, it is very likely that the state highway safety offices (SHSO’s) will do all the 

work to enact the law and then see little of the incentive funding once the primary 

bill is approved. That has been the experience of several states that have worked 

to enact .08 BAC laws. (Under TEA–21, states receive Section 163 funds if they 

enact .08 BAC laws. Eligible states can use the incentive funds for any purpose 

under Title 23, including highway construction.) 

With tight state budgets and limits on the overall growth of the federal-aid highway program, state departments of transportation are looking at every possible avenue for new construction funding. Even though the flexible funding amounts in all 

three incentive grant programs would be small, they may still be attractive enough 

to the DOT’s to warrant the transfer from the non-construction programs into the 

construction program. 

Question 2. Will it pit the interests of highway safety representatives against 

those of state engineers and highway administrators? 

Answer. It certainly could. As noted in our testimony, the flexibility provisions 

sound persuasive on paper but would work with difficulty in reality. Nearly half of 

the SHSO’s are located in a state DOT. Hence, if the head of the DOT decides to 

use the incentive funds for safety construction purposes, the director of the SHSO 

has no recourse except to agree with the request of his/her boss. More than twenty 

of the remaining SHSO’s are located in departments of public safety. In those cases, 

the SHSO and the DOT could be pitted against each other in deciding how the flex 

funds should be used. 

DOT’s and SHSO’s do not have equal influence and cannot negotiate as equals. 

DOTs are far bigger agencies with much bigger staffs and budgets. As a result, in 

many instances, the decisions about flexibility would be one-sided. Further, based 

upon our experiences with the Section 163 program and the two penalty transfer 

programs authorized under TEA–21, we know that joint decisions about the use of 

safety funding can be very difficult. For all of these reasons, GHSA is very apprehensive about the flexibility provisions. 

We believe that the safety interests of the state DOTs and the SHSOs are similar 

but the methods of solving safety problems are different. We also realize that highway safety issues can’t be solved by one agency alone. Every agency with a safetyrelated responsibility has to work together and jointly develop a strategic safety 

plan in which high priority problems are identified and existing funding is targeted 

to those problems. As part of that planning process, each agency needs to bring its 

Federal safety resources to the table and apply those resources to safety problems 

in a smart and effective way. GHSA believes that this strategic approach to safety 

will be more beneficial than the flexible funding concept. Hence, we support the 

strategic planning part of the flexible funding proposal but not the flexibility itself. 

In GHSA’s proposal, an occupant protection incentive tier and an impaired driving 

incentive tier would be authorized. Eligible states would be required to use the occupant protection incentive funds for occupant protection purposes only. Similar restrictions would be placed on the impaired driving incentive funds. 

Question 3. Ms. Swanson, you heard GAO’s testimony, in which Mr. Guerrero discussed improvements that NHTSA can make in oversight of state programs. What 

has been your experiences with NHTSA field offices and the job they are doing in 

helping the states improve highway safety? 

117 

Answer. The state experience with NHTSA field staff has been mixed. In some 

regions, the staff work closely with the SHSO’s to interpret Federal guidance, review annual Highway Safety Plans, work with the media, etc. In those regions, the 

Regional Administrator (RA) works to facilitate and encourage state safety efforts. 

In other regions, the working relationship is more adversarial and the RA is more 

directive in his/her approach with the states. A lot depends upon the personality of 

the Regional Administrator. The technical capabilities of the regional staff also vary 

considerably. In some regions, the states have as much or more experience and technical capability than some of the regional staff. 

The states have been concerned for many years about the inconsistencies in the 

way NHTSA regional offices are administered. That is why we concur with GAO 

that NHTSA’s oversight should be applied on a more consistent basis and that explicit criteria should be developed for that oversight. NHTSA is developing performance critiera for that purpose. If a state fails to perform after a three-year period, 

than a program review would be triggered. GHSA supports this approach and is 

helping NHTSA identify the trigger performance criteria. 

Question 4. Considerable progress has been made over the last decades in reducing highway fatalities but this progress has slowed in the last few years. In fact, 

the numbers of fatalities has increased recently. What are the reasons for this 

spike? 

Answer. There is no spike in fatalities. Fatalities have held steady for several 

years and are now beginning to inch upward. While there is cause for alarm about 

this recent trend, it’s also important not to overstate the problem and keep everything in perspective. 

It is difficult to say with any certainty what the reasons are for the increase. 

However, there are several theories about it. For one, the population (particularly 

the young and the old), vehicle miles of travel, licensed drivers and registered vehicles have all continued to increase. In the face of these increases, Federal and state 

programs have been able to prevent the number of fatalities from growing much 

larger but have not been able to make fatalities decline significantly. 

Federal funds have enabled states to reach those populations that are susceptible 

to behavioral change but not the hard-to-influence populations such as rural young, 

male drivers. In effect, Federal funding has enabled states to attack the relatively 

easy targets—the low hanging fruit. It is likely to cost considerably more to convince 

the last 25 percent of the population to buckle up than it has to convince the first 

75 percent. If Congress wants the states to be successful, it will have to make the 

financial commitment commensurate with the size and scope of the remaining problem. 

Another possible reason is that the public has lost interest in some of the key 

safety issues and may assume that the highway safety battle has been won. This 

seems to be particularly the case with impaired driving. The media appears reluctant to cover impaired driving because there is nothing new to report from their perspective. Further, most of the impaired driving problems are caused by a small 

number of repeat offenders and the general public has a difficult time relating to 

that group. 

Yet another potential cause of the problem may be attributable to other safety 

issues such as speed, aggressive driving, fatigue, and distracted driving. Ever since 

Congress eliminated the National Maximum Speed Limit, many (though not all) 

states experienced increases in speed-related fatalities. The public’s attitude toward 

speed has consistently eroded over the years, and . drivers appear to consider posted 

speed limits as guidelines rather than legal limits. Coupled with this is the fact that 

Americans are working more hours, have more competing demands on their free 

time, and live further outside central cities. It is probable that these trends have 

led to a increase in aggressive and fatigued driving. Further, as cell phones and 

telematics appear in vehicles, drivers are more and more distracted. All of these 

may have been contributors to the increase in fatalities. 

Yet another contributing factor may be the reduced focus of enforcement personnel on traffic safety. Since September 11, many law enforcement personnel have 

been detailed to security activities and are not expected to resume their normal enforcement responsibilities any time soon. At the same time, state highway patrols 

across the country are facing an unprecedented number of retirements as baby boom 

enforcement personnel reach retirement age. State budget cuts have also caused reductions in state and local law enforcement agencies, and the traffic enforcement 

divisions are typically the first to be cut. The remaining traffic enforcement personnel are being asked to do more and more, resulting in staff burnout. In many 

states, enforcement agencies aren’t interested in traffic grants because they simply 

do not have the personnel to undertake grant activities. Hence, at a time when more 

emphasis has been placed on traffic enforcement and when the benefits of enforceVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
118 

ment have been well documented, it has become more and more difficult to undertake enforcement efforts. 

Question 5. The lack of progress in reducing highway fatalities is especially frustrating in light of the billions of dollars that have been spent on highway safety and 

infrastructure improvements under TEA–21. As we move forward and reauthorize 

these programs, where should we make future safety investmens to ensure sustained progress? 

Answer. First, states have made considerable progress under TEA–21 and it’s important not to lose sight of that. Under TEA–21, the fatality rate is the lowest on 

record, the safety belt use rate is the highest, the number of children in restraints 

is the highest, and impaired driving fatalities are well below levels of a decade ago. 

Yet there is much more to be done. 

Second, in our view, the Federal highway safety program needs to provide states 

with funding to address a range of behavioral issues while at the same time focusing on top priorities. As NHTSA has indicated repeatedly, the easiest, most effective 

way to protect people in a crash is to ensure that they buckle up. Hence, funds 

should focus on improving safety belt use and ensuring that children are in child 

restraints. Additionally, the focus should be on impaired drivers since impaired driving causes such a large percentage of all crashes. 

GHSA’s proposal would divide the consolidated safety grant program into thirds: 

approximately one-third for 402 grants which could be used to address any number 

of behavioral safety concerns, one-third to improve occupant protection and onethird to reduce impaired driving. 

Question 6. The Administration’s proposal would consolidate some programs and 

give states greater flexibility on spending decisions by allowing the movement of 

funds between the Section 402 programs and highway safety construction programs. 

What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. 

Answer. As noted in our testimony, GHSA strongly supports program consolidation. There are currently eight different grant programs and two penalty programs 

that must be administered by small highway safety offices. Each of these programs 

has different purposes, applications, and deadlines and the requirements of some 

programs (e.g., the Section 157 innovative grant program) change from one year to 

the next. Some grants are given out at the beginning of the fiscal year, others during the year, and three are not awarded until the very end of the year. At the beginning of a fiscal year, a state may be implementing grants in that fiscal year, evaluating grants from the previous fiscal year, and planning to expend carryover funds 

from grants that were awarded late in the fiscal year. Needless to say, administration of these myriad grants has been confusing and very difficult. A single grant 

program with incentive tiers would be far easier to administer. There would be one 

application deadline and one grant that could be awarded at the beginning of the 

Federal fiscal year. 

There are no disadvantages to program consolidation from our perspective. Some 

concerns have been expressed by others about losing the focus on impaired driving 

and occupant protection if there is program consolidation. In GHSA’s proposal, there 

are separate incentive tiers for both, so the focus on high priority issues would continue within the context of a consolidated program. 

With respect to funding flexibility, the main advantage is that states would be required to complete a statewide strategic highway safety plan before they could flex 

funds between categories. That would compel state agencies with safety responsibilities to work together—a goal that GHSA strongly supports. 

The disadvantages of flexible funding were detailed in our previous responses. 

GHSA does not support the proposed flexible funding. We do, however, support the 

concept of strategic statewide safety planning efforts. We recommend that that strategic safety plan concept be retained but separated from the flexible funding concept. 

Question 7. As Congress seeks to encourage states to reduce their traffic-related 

fatalities through various programs, it can choose to provide incentive grants or it 

can choose to penalize states for not adopting highway safety laws. Which approach 

is more effective? 

Answer. Both approaches can encourage states to enact critical safety legislation. 

Both have their advantages and disadvantages but, on balance, states support incentives over sanctions and penalties. 

Incentives can successfully encourage states to enact specific legislation (such as 

graduated licensing laws) or take other desired actions (such as improving BAC 

testing). Just this year, for example, Illinois enacted a primary safety belt law in 

part because it believed that it would receive five times its FY 2003 402 apportionment, as proposed by the SAFETEA proposal. The 410 program also successfully enVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
119 

couraged states to improve their impaired driving programs while providing eligible 

states with the resources they needed to make further improvements. 

Some incentive programs are less than successful because they are so small that 

they pale in comparison with what a state receives in highway construction funding. 

Hence, they are not large enough to convince a state legislature or other state agency to act appropriately. Some incentive programs are weakly constructed so that 

they reward poor behavior rather than encourage improved behavior. Others exacerbate the differences between ‘‘have’’ and ‘‘have not’’ states. A good incentive program 

has to be large, with a portion earmarked for states that are having difficulty and 

the remainder to reward states that improve performance or maintain a superior 

level of performance. 

The advantage of sanctions is that they force all the states to enact specific legislation by a set time period. However, despite the rhetoric, sanctions and penalties 

are not uniformly effective. They can be effective where there is public support, as 

is the case with sanctions that focus on impaired driving or those that aim to protect young persons. 

If there isn’t public support, as was the case with the sanctions for motorcycle helmets and the National Maximum Speed Limit, the sanctions are completely ineffective. The lack of public support ultimately caused the repeal of both sanctions. Sanctions have also caused tremendous resentment on the part of state legislatures. 

They feel that sanctions are political coercion and pass only the bare bones legislation necessary to avoid the sanction. Then they fail to provide funding to ensure 

that the required laws are aggressively enforced. In the end, little has been accomplished. 

Congress has increasingly relied on sanctions to force states to enact specific legislation. There are eighteen sanctions, seven of which are safety-related. Three of the 

seven penalties/sanctions have been enacted either in TEA–21 or thereafter. No 

other area of transportation is affected by sanctions and penalties like safety. The 

message that Congress is sending is that it wishes to address safety problems primarily by punishing states and forcing them to act in a top-down approach and a 

uniform, one-size-fits-all manner. Further, disputes over new sanctions tend to shift 

the focus of discussion from the merits of safety programs to the battle over safety 

sanctions. This is extremely discouraging and ultimately self-defeating. 

Penalties have also caused problems. They pit the SHSO against the state DOT 

whose funds are being transferred into the behavioral highway safety program. 

SHSO’s do not find this a helpful approach. 

GHSA accepts existing penalties and sanctions but does not support the enactment of new ones. We have recommended some technical changes to the repeat offender penalties so that they are more effective. 

Question 8. What are the major items in SAFETEA that you like about the proposal and what, in your view, should be reconsidered? Are there aspects that the 

proposal does not address? 

Answer. Under SAFETEA, the Department of Transportation has proposed a 

three-part consolidated behavioral highway safety grant program. The proposed program includes basic formula funds, performance incentive funds, and a strategic impaired driving program. The performance incentive funds will be further divided 

into three types of incentives. In addition, DOT has proposed a separate data grant 

program and a very small EMS grant program. 

As noted in our testimony, GHSA is pleased about some aspects of the funding 

request but very disappointed about several others. 

The Association is pleased that DOT supported the idea of grant consolidation. As 

noted previously, a single grant program with one application and one deadline 

should be much easier to administer. GHSA is also pleased that the Administration 

is proposing performance incentive grants and increased funding for states that 

enact primary safety belt laws. The Association also supports performance-based incentives, particularly for states that enact primary belt laws or improve their safety 

belt use rates above the national average and has incorporated those concept into 

its own proposal. 

GHSA strongly supports the proposed DOT data incentive grant program. The 

program funding level, the eligibility criteria, and the proposed use of grant funds 

are identical to those recommended by the Association. 

As noted previously, GHSA supports the requirement that states coordinate their 

highway safety construction, behavioral and motor carrier grant programs and develop comprehensive, strategic highway safety goals. Future improvements in highway safety are not as likely unless states coordinate the disparate aspects of their 

highway safety programs. We believe that these requirements should be maintained 

but unlinked with the flexible funding proposal. 

120 

GHSA supports the proposed funding for the crash causation study. As noted in 

our testimony, it has been about thirty years since such a study was conducted. If 

states are to improve driver and road user behavior, it is essential to know why 

crashes were caused. GHSA recommends, however, that the difference between the 

NHTSA crash causation study and the proposed FSHRP crash causation study need 

to be clarified and the studies coordinated. 

GHSA also supports the proposed increased funding for the Section 403 program. 

However, it appears that most of the increase will be used for the crash causation 

study. Additional research resources must be directed to the NHTSA 403 program 

so that evaluation studies can be conducted on the effectiveness of various safety 

countermeasures. 

GHSA is extremely disappointed in the overall funding level for the behavioral 

safety grant programs. Behavioral funding is level funded in FY 2004 and then it 

rises very gradually over the remaining five years of the reauthorization period. 

Total funding in FY 2009 is only 10 percent higher than in FY 2004. It will be extremely difficult for states to make further improvements in the behavior of drivers 

and other road users without sufficient funding. As noted previously, it will be costly to convince the hard-to-influence populations to change their driving behavior. 

Further, additional funds are needed to address emerging safety issues (such as aggressive, fatigued, and distracted driving, older drivers) and provide programs for 

minorities and ethnic populations, etc. 

GHSA finds the impaired driving program totally unacceptable and urges that 

Congress reject the proposal. $50 million is considerably less than has been spent 

on impaired driving under TEA–21 and far less than is needed to adequately address this growing problem. Further, the program is too narrowly focused on a few 

states where an intervention could, if it worked perfectly, eliminate a lot of fatalities. In a sense, it rewards states that have performed poorly by giving them additional funding to the exclusion of all other states. Impaired driving is a problem in 

every state, yet the proposal would provide no funds for the remaining, ‘‘non-strategic’’ states. 

GHSA particularly dislikes the fact that the proposed impaired driving program 

will be implemented in the same manner as the 157 innovative program. Under that 

program, NHTSA set very restrictive conditions on the grants and completely micromanaged the way eligible states expend funds. States have found the program very 

onerous and do not wish to repeat the experience under the proposed impaired driving program. GHSA believes that the proposed strategic impaired driving initiative 

is more appropriate as a Section 403 demonstration program than as a state incentive grant program. 

The Administration is proposing funding for three types of incentives—for enacting primary belt laws, for improving safety belt use rates and for improving performance. Each of these incentives will have their own eligibility criteria and their 

own earmarked funding. We are concerned that the performance incentive program 

may be just as complex as the myriad of programs that are currently authorized 

under TEA–21. As noted in our testimony, GHSA urges that the goal in the next 

reauthorization should be simplicity and consolidation. In our proposal, we have 

combined the incentive for seat belt use rates with the one for enacting a primary 

safety belt law. 

In the proposed primary belt law incentive grants, GHSA is very troubled by the 

distinction between states that enacted their primary belt laws during TEA–21 and 

those that will enact them under SAFETEA. The former states are eligible for only 

1⁄2 of their FY 2003 402 apportionments over a two-year period. The latter are eligible for 5 times their FY 2003 402 apportionments. 

GHSA believes that it is very difficult for states to adopt primary belt laws, no 

matter when they enact such laws, and that to make such a distinction is unfair 

and serves to pit one set of states against another. The Administration assumes that 

states with existing primary laws can tap into the flexible safety funds. However, 

any state with a primary belt law can flex the funds, assuming that the flex provisions are, in fact, authorized. There would be no advantage for those states with 

existing primary laws. 

States that have primary belt laws should be rewarded for their superior performance and states wishing to enact such laws should be strongly encouraged to do so. 

If Congress were to treat all states with primary laws equally, it would have to either authorize a $825 million program (five times the FY 2003 402 level) or reduce 

the incentive to all primary belt law states to 3.5 times their FY 2003 apportionment. 

As noted previously, GHSA strongly opposes the flexible funding proposal and 

urges that it be rejected. 

121 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JOSEPHINE S. COOPER

Question 1. There has been much made in the press about the safety of SUVs and 

the safety data speaks volumes in this serious issue. What more should NHTSA and 

the manufacturers do to reduce rollover deaths? 

Answer. The Alliance agrees that rollovers represent a significant safety challenge 

for all passenger vehicles and warrant action. Twice as many rollover fatalities 

occur to occupants in passenger cars as compared to SUVs. The Alliance is working 

to reduce the frequency and consequences of rollover of all passenger vehicle types 

by: 

• Developing a vehicle handling test procedure that will assess the performance 

of electronic stability control systems and other advanced handling systems. 

• Developing test procedures to assess the performance of occupant restraint technologies intended to reduce occupant excursion and mitigate occupant ejections 

in rollovers. 

• Examining roof strength in rollover crashes. 

These efforts are expected to result in recommended practices or design guidelines. 

Nearly three-quarters of the rollover fatalities occurring annually involve occupants who were not wearing their safety belts. Wearing a safety belt will reduce the 

risk of fatal injury in a rollover by 80 percent. Adoption of primary enforcement 

safety belt use laws by states and the stepped up enforcement of these and all traffic safety laws would help to immediately abate these fatalities. 

An Alliance analysis of U.S. government statistics concludes that today’s SUVs 

are as safe as cars. In the most common of crashes (front, side and rear crashes), 

SUVs have a safety record that surpasses that of cars. An analysis of U.S. government data performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) looked 

at SUVs that were three-years-old or newer. The conclusions of the IIHS study— 

which are indicative of future trends—demonstrate that the safety performance of 

SUVs surpasses that of cars. 

Question 2. Given that thousands of fatalities are a result of the failure of vehicle 

roofs to protect passengers during rollover, do you believe automobile manufacturers 

have taken adequate remedial action in incorporating roof crush improvements or 

can more be done? 

Answer. Alliance members are continuously working to advance the safety performance of their cars and trucks in all crash modes including rollovers. Alliance 

members passenger-carrying cars and trucks typically exceed the Federal safety 

standard for roof crush resistance. Standard 216 establishes the strength requirements for the passenger compartment roof. The standard requires that the amount 

of roof crush not exceed 127 millimeters (5 inches) when a force equal to 1.5 times 

the vehicle’s unloaded weight is applied to the forward edge of a vehicle’s roof. Typically, 127 millimeters of deformation is not seen until the force applied is between 

2 and 3 times a vehicle’s unloaded weight. 

Of the roughly 26,000 occupants that NHTSA estimates are seriously or fatally 

injured annually in light vehicle rollover crashes, 14 percent were using their safety 

belt and involved in a crash where roof intrusion was present. Despite the extensive 

research to date, there remains an uncertain relationship between roof crush resistance and real-world crash outcomes. As NHTSA has observed, ‘‘vehicles that perform well in roof crush tests do not appear to better protect occupants from severe 

roof intrusion in real-world crashes.’’ See 66 Fed. Reg. 53383, October 21, 2001. This 

conundrum should he resolved before any meaningful approach to increase roof 

crush resistance could he developed. Whatever metric is developed to assess roof 

strength, it must he shown that performance on this metric is related to real-world 

crash outcomes. 

The Alliance understands that NHTSA will propose an upgrade to its roof 

strength standard later this year and we will work with NHTSA to reduce injuries 

that result from occupant contact with the roof 

Question 3. Considerable progress has been made over the last decades in reducing highway fatalities, but this progress has slowed in the last few years. In fact, 

the number of fatalities has increased recently. What are the reasons for this spike? 

Answer. There are two principle reasons: non-users of safety belts and drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs. Through the efforts of the Airbag & Seat Belt Safety 

Campaign, which is funded principally by Alliance members, safety belt usage has 

increased to 75 percent, compared to 61 percent when the Campaign started in 

1996—however 59 percent of those killed in 2002 were not wearing their safety 

122 

belts. Alcohol-related fatalities also increased in 2002 for the third consecutive year 

and accounted for 42 percent of all fatalities. 

Other factors include: motorcycle fatalities increased for the fifth straight year; 

fatal crashes involving young drivers 16 to 20 years old increased slightly; and occupant fatalities for children 8 to 15 years old increased by nearly 9 percent. Adoption 

of primary enforcement safety belt use laws by states and the stepped up enforcement of these and all traffic safety laws would help to abate these fatalities. 

Suggestions that the number of highway fatalities is increasing because of an epidemic of fatal rollovers involving SUVs are not supported by the data. During the 

period 1995—2002, the number of light vehicle occupant fatalities occurring annually has hovered around 32,000. However, there has been a slight shift in the distribution of fatalities attributable to rollover and non-rollover crashes from 30:70 to 

33:67. Likewise, as expected, the distribution of fatalities by body type has also 

shifted as the on-road light vehicle fleet mix has changed. However, this distribution 

tracks the fleet mix. In other words, in 2002 SUVs comprised roughly 12 percent 

of the on-road fleet and 12 percent of the light vehicle occupant fatalities that occurred in 2002 involved SUV occupants. Normalizing the data for exposure by calculating a fatality rate on either a per 100,000 registered vehicle basis or on a vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) basis, one finds that the fatalities rates for all crash types and 

all vehicle body types have fallen over this period. The SUV rollover fatality rate 

has declined 15 percent over this period (compared to 11 percent for passenger cars). 

However, the number of registered SUVs during this period has grown by 130 percent, compared to only 5.2 percent for passenger cars, representing a significant increase in exposure. None of this data would suggest that we are seeing the start 

of an epidemic of rollover crash fatalities. 

Question 4. The lack of progress in reducing highway fatalities is especially frustrating in light of the billions of dollars that have been spent on highway safety and 

infrastructure improvements under TEA–21. As we move forward and reauthorize 

these programs, where should we make future safety investments to ensure sustained progress? 

Answer. Principally on increasing safety belt usage and reducing impaired driving. We will never fully realize the potential benefits of vehicle safety technologies 

until vehicle occupants are properly restrained and impaired drivers are off the 

road. The Alliance believes we will have an immediate safety benefit if we are able 

to increase national safety belt usage to the levels observed in Canada (92 percent) 

and some states, e.g., California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii. Increasing safety belt 

usage to 92 percent from its current 75 percent usage level would save 4,500 lives 

annually and countless injuries would be avoided. In addition to the incentive 

grants proposed in SAFETEA and the Federal highway fund sanctions recommended below, the Alliance supports S. 1139 introduced by Senators DeWine and 

Lautenberg. This bill would fund at least three high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns annually for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009. The campaigns 

would focus on increasing safety belt usage and reducing impaired driving. 

Question 5. The Administration’s SAFETEA proposal would consolidate some programs and give states greater flexibility on spending decisions by allowing the 

movement of funds between parts of the Section 402 programs and highway safety 

construction programs. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach? 

Answer. The advantage to this approach would he lower administrative costs and 

a more streamlined application process for states. The disadvantage would he a diversion of funds towards highway safety constructions programs. Section 402 funds 

should be separate and, in fact, Congress should consider creating a separate Highway Safety Trust Fund to ensure that these programs are properly funded in the 

future. 

Question 6. As Congress seeks to encourage the states to reduce their traffic-related fatalities through various programs, it can choose to provide incentive grants 

or it can choose to penalize states for not adopting highway safety laws. Which approach is more effective? 

Answer. Actually a combined approach. In addition to the incentive grants proposed in SAFETEA, Federal highway fund sanctions should also be included which 

would he imposed if acceptable belt use levels have not been reached after a defined 

period of time—perhaps 3 years. 

Question 7. What are the major items in SAFETEA that you like about the proposal and what, in your view, should be reconsidered? Are there aspects of highway 

safety that the proposal does not address? 

Answer. The Alliance supports the following proposals contained in SAFETEA: 

123 

1Stuster, J.W. and Blowers, P.A. ‘‘Experimental Evaluation of Sobriety Checkpoint Programs,’’ 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1995. 

• Sec. 2001 Highway Safety Program which provides incentives for states that 

pass primary enforcement safety belt laws, high visibility enforcement of these 

laws, and an impaired driving grant program. Consideration should be given to 

(I) coupling the incentive grants with Federal highway fund sanctions should 

acceptable belt use levels not be achieved after a defined period of time, and 

(2) providing funding beyond the level proposed to address the deadly problem 

of impaired driving. 

• Sec. 2002 Highway Safety Research and Development—in particular the crash 

causation survey and international cooperation. 

• Sec. 2004 State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement. The Alliance 

supports the provision to upgrade state traffic record systems. 

Items to be reconsidered: 

• There is a need for greater state accountability for expenditure of 402 funds. 

NHTSA should he required to approve annual state highway safety plans before 

funding is distributed. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO RICHARD BERMAN

Question 1. If roadblocks and public awareness campaigns that highlight the 

harmful consequences of driving drunk are not, in your opinion, effective measures 

to combat repeat and ‘‘hard-core’’ drunk drivers, then what are effective measures? 

Answer. The most effective measures are those which address the problem. The 

drunk driving problem has transformed, but the solutions have not. In the early 

1980s, the problem stemmed from both hard-core drunk drivers and from a general 

societal disregard for the dangers of drunk drinking. In this context, Mothers 

Against Drunk Driving (MADD) served an important role by alerting the general 

public to the dangers of drunk driving and helping to change a culture. Today, as 

former MADD President Katherine Prescott stated, the drunk driving problem is 

‘‘down to a hard core of alcoholics who do not respond to public appeal.’’ However, 

MADD has not changed its tactics to target the current perpetrators. Instead, they 

have proposed ever-more-draconian measures aimed at the social drinker, coupled 

with PR campaigns on drinking and drugs. 

But alcohol abusers do not respond to public service announcements or admonitions not to drive drunk. As The New York Times identified as early as 1997, ‘‘the 

people heeding the message are not the ones who drink the most,’’ and it may be 

time for ‘‘states and judges to try new strategies.’’ 

High-BAC drinkers and repeat offenders are the core of the drunk driving problem in this country. The medical evidence suggests that high-BAC repeat offenders 

are probably compulsive violators of the law, given their alcohol addiction. MADD 

is a public relations operation; it simply is not equipped to deal with a drunk driving problem that is now about a health issue: alcohol abuse. 

Given the fact that these drivers cannot be persuaded by public opinion campaigns, the sole option left is to apprehend, punish, and, more importantly, treat 

them. The issue then becomes one of formulating the most efficient mechanism to 

catch these drivers without imposing undue burdens upon the law-abiding public. 

Roadblocks—by far the most frequently proposed ‘‘solution’’ to this dilemma—demonstrably achieve neither of these objectives. 

In a 1995 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) report, the 

authors note that ‘‘for chronic drunk drivers, [sobriety] checkpoints may not be very 

effective since these drivers are more likely to avoid them in the first place, and 

have learned to alter their driving behavior to avoid detection.’’ 1

Roadblocks are thus exposing the whole population to a public relations scare 

campaign to get people ‘‘to drink less,’’ as MADD acknowledged on their website and 

not a concerted campaign to reduce drunk driving deaths and injuries. As Dr. Jeffrey Michael, Director of Impaired Driving & Occupant Protection Division of 

NHTSA, stated, with roadblocks ‘‘you aren’t trying to arrest a lot of people, you’re 

trying to persuade the community that they are facing a higher probability of arrest.’’ 

Roadblock statistics from May 2003 clearly demonstrate their inefficiency: 

• A Memorial Day roadblock campaign in Chico, CA stopped 799 drivers, and 

failed to net one DUI. Arrest percentage: 0 percent 

124 

2 Redelmeier DA, Tibshirani RJ. Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. N Engl J Med 1997;336:453–8. 

• A roadblock conducted by the Nevada Highway Patrol on May 23 stopped 1,150 

drivers and resulted in one DUI. Arrest percentage: .09 percent 

• More than 4,000 cars passed through a May 30 roadblock in Moreno Valley, CA, 

and resulted in four arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 

Arrest percentage: .1 percent 

All of these fall well below the current .5 percent standard of ‘‘efficiency’’ established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1990 Michigan Department of State Police 

v. Sitz case. 

Furthermore, roadblocks rely upon being widely announced prior to their operation for their PR value. So again, people who are serious drinkers can find a way 

to avoid them. 

However, there are other, more efficient law enforcement tools for catching drunk 

drivers. Foremost among them are saturation patrols. A report in the FBI’s January 

2003 Law Enforcement Bulletin states, ‘‘It is proven that saturation efforts will 

bring more DUI arrests than sobriety checkpoints.’’ Moreover, ‘‘Saturation patrols 

may afford a more effective means of detecting repeat offenders, who are likely to 

avoid detection at sobriety checkpoints.’’ 

With extensive evidence proving that saturation patrols are offender specific and 

the most effective at catching high-BAC and repeat offenders—the acknowledged 

root of the problem—there is no logical reason not to implement them nationally. 

Once the driver has been stopped, mandated alcohol screening for high-BAC and 

repeat offenders is necessary to make sure that they are properly identified. 

Question 2. What would be the most useful action Congress could take in its reauthorization measure to promote an effective mechanism to reduce drunk driving? 

Answer. The most useful action is a fresh focus on the problem—which refers 

back to the answer to the first question. The problem is not people who drink responsibly at a restaurant or a friend’s house before driving home. Twenty years’ 

worth of NHTSA data show the same virtually nonexistent level of involvement in 

alcohol-related fatalities for drivers with BAC’s of .04 percent, .05 percent, .06 percent, .07 percent—up to .09 percent. Moreover, the data show that year after year 

the involvement rate of drivers with BACs of .01 percent—which even the most ardent anti-alcohol activist would agree was not alcohol-caused—is identical to that 

of drivers with BACs of up to .09 percent. 

In fact, laws to arrest drivers at .08 percent BAC have reached so far into this 

cohort of responsible adults that we are punishing people with severe sanctions for 

behavior that is statistically less likely to cause accidents than cell phone use. A 

1997 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that cell 

phone use impaired a driver as much as a .10 percent BAC.2

While no one is arguing that .01 percent and .09 percent are identical BAC 

thresholds, the alcohol-related fatality rate is identical because responsible adults 

self-regulate. Nobody knows their exact BAC when they leave a restaurant or tavern, but responsible adults do know when they are able to drive safely and when 

they aren’t. (See Chart 1) So if the accidents spike up at the right-hand side of the 

chart, we have to ask ourselves, ‘‘What is the common characteristic among those 

fatalities?’’ Clearly, the commonality is excessive drinking—and excessive drinking 

is a significant indicator of a medical problem. 

While drunk driving was originally a traffic safety issue because of the broad population of people involved, it is now a health issue predicated upon a medical addiction. The problem has changed, but we have not changed our focus or how we appropriate money for the issue itself. In fact, more money should be spent through the 

National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) instead of through 

NHTSA on this particular problem. 

Question 3. Considerable progress has been made over the last decades in reducing highway fatalities, but this progress has slowed in the last few years. In fact, 

the number of fatalities has increased recently. What are the reasons for this spike? 

Answer. Firstly, this is not a spike. As Dr. Jeffrey Michael of NHTSA recently 

stated, ‘‘it’s more meaningful to look at the death rates. And when you do . . . the 

rate of fatalities is apparently stable’’ due to the increased number of miles driven. 

In fact, he continued, the slight increase in the number of alcohol-related fatalities 

is ‘‘all coming out of the high-BAC data source. In fact, it’s high BAC despite the 

reduction of low BACs.’’ 

In the May 22 hearing, NHTSA Administrator Dr. Jeffrey Runge also testified 

that yes, the accidents had picked up some, but on a miles-driven basis they had 

125 

3These traffic safety groups include the National Governors’ Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities, 

the National Association of Counties, the American Automobile Association, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Traffic Safety Services Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Association of Governors’ Highway Safety Representatives. 4 U.S. Department of Transportation. ‘‘Highway Statistics,’’ Federal Highway Administration, 

1996. 

not gone up. The general trend is down and has been down for some time. Obviously, if you increase the number of miles on the road, you have many more opportunities for accidents of all kinds. 

To understand the traffic safety trends, one must also look at demographics. The 

lower number of drunk driving deaths, for instance, has moved in a very close relationship to the decreasing numbers of younger drivers in the population (see Chart 

2). A glance at the chart will show you that an increase in younger drivers coincides 

with the current slight rise in accidents. Youths have always been disproportionately predisposed to various kinds of dangerous behavior. With cars a ubiquitous 

part of our society, we should not be surprised that alcohol-related fatalities have 

begun to increase. Over the next 15 years, this percentage of young people will continue to escalate, raising the number of people who will engage in risky behavior 

of all kinds, despite what the law says. 

In fact, we predicted the slight uptick in numbers based on demographics during 

June 27, 2002 testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Highways and 

Transit. 

Question 4. The lack of progress in reducing highway fatalities is especially frustrating in light of the billions of dollars that have been spent on highway safety and 

infrastructure improvements under TEA–21. As we move forward and reauthorize 

these programs, where should we make further safety investments to ensure sustained progress? 

Answer. There is a question of the relationship between states and the Federal 

Government when it comes to funding effective programs. The Federal Government 

is becoming more aggressive about using ‘‘financial encouragement’’ or ‘‘blackmail’’ 

to force states, governors, legislators and highway safety officials to accept Washington’s view of what works. In ever more instances, states are being penalized when 

they have above-average safety records, but do not adopt federally approved laws. 

With few exceptions (e.g., the minimum drinking age, requiring helmet use for motorcycle drivers/riders and a mandated national speed limit, which were rescinded), 

highway safety countermeasures were funded on incentives. More recently, three 

sanction programs have been implemented to require even the most successful state 

safety programs to adopt laws the Federal Government believe to be effective. 

State governments and traffic safety experts should not be subjected to financial 

blackmail because they do not believe in one-size-fits-all solutions to drunk driving. 

This is not an industry position, but one that was taken by numerous traffic safety 

groups 3 during the last two debates over highway funding. There is no logic in believing that national special interest groups and Washington insiders know more 

about what programs a state should enact to ensure effective traffic safety than officials in that state. 

Road improvements, surface improvements, lighting, etc. are considered to be significantly causal factors in highway deaths. According to the Department of Transportation, 30 percent of deaths on American highways are caused by road conditions.4 And the states and localities are in a much better position to determine 

whether and where those investments ought to be made than the Federal Government. 

Block grants to states to address these problems may not be the most targeted 

way to get results, but they are surely better than a Washington, DC-based perspective of what it takes to get the job done in 50 different states with thousands of 

jurisdictions. 

However, we ought to accept the fact that we will reach a point of diminishing 

marginal returns. When you couple 2.83 trillion miles driven in the U.S. every year 

to myriad human error possibilities, we will reach the point where all of the lowlying fruit has been plucked. Just like a host of other crimes, despite all the laws 

and the long-standing commitment of law enforcement to stop these, we do get to 

the point where we reach the irreducible minimum. As long as we’re in a free society, we’re going to have to accept a certain number of people refusing to stay inside 

the law. Until we decide to change our focus, until we address the more resistant 

high-BAC and repeat offenders, we will be at the irreducible minimum. 

126 

Question 5. The Administration’s SAFETEA proposal would consolidate some programs and give states greater flexibility on spending decisions by allowing the 

movement of funds between parts of the Section 402 programs and highway safety 

construction programs. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach? 

Answer. There are no disadvantages if you trust state governments to be just as 

concerned for their own citizens’ safety as their elected representatives at the Federal level. Our belief is that the states are the great laboratories for experimentation 

for many issues, including traffic safety. And highways and traffic are about as logical an arena for state government to bring their expertise to bear as any. For instance, there is no way for the Federal Government to know where all of the dangerous intersections are around the country—but local officials do. If the goal is to 

create effective programs that deal with existing problems, then tailored solutions 

are necessary. And there are simply too many variables and too much information 

to make Federal control viable in such a situation. 

Question 6. As Congress seeks to encourage the states to reduce their traffic-related fatalities through various programs, it can choose to provide incentive grants 

or it can choose to penalize states for not adopting highway safety laws. Which approach is more effective? 

Answer. It’s got more to do with the amount of money involved than whether it 

is a carrot or a stick. The first issue is the philosophy—and the philosophy is, ‘‘Does 

Washington know better than the states about protecting its citizens on the highways, or are the states more sensitive to what the needs are?’’ If significant incentives are in place, it’s up to the states to determine whether they want to apply for 

that grant and spend the money in that area. In fact, on incentives, the Federal 

Government should consider matching grants on a one to one dollar basis or a two 

to one basis. 

Penalties to take away money appear to suggest that there is a difference of opinion between the states and some politically-motivated interest groups who cannot 

convince the traffic authorities at the local level that their idea works, and so 

they’ve taken the philosophy of bludgeoning people into their point of view. This approach seems, by its very nature, to suggest that it is not a great idea. Such coercion 

certainly does not lend itself to intergovernmental cooperation. 

Moreover, you have to ask, ‘‘If you gave someone money to protect the citizenry, 

and they didn’t accept it, is there something wrong with the idea in the first place?’’ 

Question 7. What are the major items in SAFETEA that you like about the proposal and what, in your view, should be reconsidered? Are there aspects of highway 

safety that this proposal does not address? 

Answer. We support the SAFETEA plan of combining all highway safety programs into one more efficient grant system (instead of the many different grant programs currently being funded). We further support the grant system’s focus on more 

incentives to states. We also support eliminating existing mandates, and giving 

states access to this larger pool of money if they adopted a certain number of recommended—and proven effective—programs. This contrasts the current system of 

punitive mandates that take money away from states that choose not to enact ‘‘federally approved’’ (and often unproven) programs. We also think SAFETEA would 

benefit from more options on the list of anti-drunk driving measures that would be 

eligible for funding. A longer list of programs offers state governments more opportunities to develop aggressive and innovative prevention ideas. Programs on the list 

of incentives could include: administrative license revocation, high-BAC tiered penalties, repeat offender programs, graduated penalties, record keeping/information 

tracking, programs to reduce suspended license driving, treatment programs, ID 

checks for underage drinkers, specific repeat-offender programs, and .08 percent 

BAC. Some of these programs or laws are already funded as incentives or mandates. 

Alcohol-related fatalities are only one part of the larger traffic safety dilemma, 

and SAFETEA should devote some attention to other driving problems as well. We, 

like many other groups, promote increasing seatbelt incentives as a way to reduce 

fatalities and injuries of all kinds. But funding should be provided for other safety 

counter-measures related to drowsy or fatigued driving, elderly drivers, cell-phone 

use and other electronic distractions, aggressive driving, and other emerging problems, with the hopes of reducing even more fatalities. 

127 

Note: Population statistics are compiled using Census Bureau estimates from 1990 for the 

years 1990 to 2000 (see U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, Resident Population Estimates of the United States by Age and Sex: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999, with ShortTerm Projection to November 1, 2000, available from http://eire.census.gov/popest/archives/national/nation2/intfile2-1.txt, accessed 26 June 2002.). and population projections based on the 

1990 census for the years 2001–2005 (see U.S. Census Bureau, Population Projections Program, 

Projections of the Total Resident Population by 5-Year Age Groups, and Sex with Special Age 

Categories: Middle Series, 2001 to 2005, available from http://eire.census.gov/popest/archives/ 

national/nation2/intfile2-1.txt, accessed 26 June 2002.). Traffic fatality statistics are compiled 

from Table 13 and Table 18 from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety 

Facts 2000, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001. 

Source: Unpublished ABI analysis of U.S. Department of Transportation Fatality Analysis Reporting System data on BAC levels and fatalities in accidents where a driver was actually tested. Imputed fatalities were not included in this analysis. Nineteen states were considered 0.08 

states for the analysis including the District of Columbia. These 19 states all had 0.08 laws in 

effect prior to the 2001 year that was used for this analysis. 


522ALC1.eps 522CRASH1.eps
128 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO WENDY HAMILTON

Question 1. What do NHTSA and the states need to do to make the most improvements in the critical area of alcohol impaired driving? What have been the most, 

and least, effective programs in reducing drunk driving? 

Answer. MADD supports the deployment of science-based, data driven impaired 

driving countermeasures that have been proven to successfully deter alcohol impaired driving. While there is no single cure to reduce the carnage caused by alcohol 

impaired driving, research shows that certain initiatives and laws work. These 

measures include: high visibility law enforcement mobilizations, sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols, administrative license revocation (ALR), laws to address higher-risk offenders (high BAC and repeat offenders), .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC)/illegal per se, and a primary seat belt standard. These measures 

are the basic building blocks of a comprehensive battle plan against drunk driving, 

and if implemented will save lives and prevent injuries. 

The single most effective effort to deter and apprehend drunk drivers is the dedicated use of high visibility law enforcement mobilization campaigns. These campaigns combine targeted law enforcement (sobriety checkpoints, saturation patrols, 

and/or seat belt enforcement) with the purchase of advertising in broadcast or print 

media. These efforts have the greatest ability to effectively reduce alcohol impaired 

driving and to increase seat belt usage. 

The least effective traffic safety efforts result from failing to target limited resources to the highest needs. NHTSA and the states, when creating highway safety 

plans, must establish a strong correlation between problem identification, strategy, 

program/countermeasure selection and funding. Priority programming of Federal 

funds must, first and foremost, be based on data driven alcohol impaired driving 

countermeasures and seat belt initiatives. More than 40 percent of all traffic crashes 

are alcohol-related, and yet the Nation’s traffic safety funding in not being targeted 

to reduce impaired driving in an effective, strategic way. 

Question 2. MADD proposes several recommendations to curb alcohol related traffic fatalities. Which one of these recommendations would have the greatest impact 

if implemented? 

Answer. MADD believes that high visibility national law enforcement mobilization 

campaigns will have the greatest short-term and long-term impact if implemented. 

These campaigns are most successful when law enforcement agencies from multiple 

jurisdictions designate several concentrated periods throughout the year to conduct 

intensive enforcement of seat belt an/or impaired driving safety laws on a national, 

statewide and local basis. 

If enacted, S. 1139, sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine (R–OH) and Senator 

Frank Lautenberg (D–NJ), will save lives. This bill provides funding for paid advertising at the national and state level and resources to law enforcement agencies 

across the country for training, technology and staff time to ensure optimal deployment and effectiveness. MADD strongly encourages the Committee to include S. 

1139 as part of the reauthorized TEA–21. 

Question 3. You suggest that for every dollar spent on effective highway safety 

programs about $30 are saved by society. Is there a diminishing return in some 

states while others reap more benefits? 

Answer. Although MADD believes that behavioral traffic safety programs are woefully under funded, money alone does not equate to the success or failure of highway 

safety programs. The key is to target funding for programs linked to problem identification based on data. Focusing on ‘‘what works’’ and requiring a greater level of 

accountability on the national, state and local levels provides the best opportunity 

to reduce deaths and injuries and economic costs. 

According to a recent NHTSA report, the economic impact of motor vehicle crashes on the Nation’s roadways has reached $230.6 billion a year or an average of $820 

for every person living in the United States. Overall, nearly 75 percent of the costs 

of roadway crashes are paid by those not directly involved, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes, and travel delay. Reducing the frequency and severity of 

motor vehicle traffic crashes is not simply a matter of public safety; it is also a matter of economic necessity. 

In order to ensure that Section 402—and all—highway safety funds are spent effectively, states should have to submit a highway safety plan that reflects the data 

in their particular state (ie, what causes highway death and injury in a particular 

state and what are the most effective solutions). Regional NHTSA offices should 

work in conjunction with the states to identify problem areas, and assist in identifying appropriate, proven countermeasures. 

129 

Question 4. Please respond to the ABI’s comments regarding the definition of impaired driving as it relates to the collection of traffic fatality data. More specifically, 

there are different ways a driver can be impaired. What percentage of impaired 

driving is alcohol-related? 

Answer. In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people died on the Nation’s highways, up 

from 42,116 in 2001. Nearly 18,000 people, or 42 percent of all traffic fatalities, were 

killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes. MADD believes that each of the lives lost 

in alcohol-related crashes (as well as the hundreds of thousands of injuries) is 100 

percent preventable. 

NHTSA defines a fatal crash as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if either a driver or a non-motorist (usually a pedestrian) had a measurable or estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or above. NHTSA also 

defines a nonfatal crash as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if police indicate on 

the police accident report that there is evidence of alcohol present. MADD is extremely concerned that currently only 60 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes 

are tested to determine if alcohol was involved. 

MADD is the largest victims’ assistance organization in the Nation. MADD serves 

victims who have lost family members in alcohol-related crashes, regardless of the 

BAC levels involved, and regardless of who was killed in the crash (ie, the drunk 

driver or an innocent motorist). 

The alcohol beverage industry points out in their testimony the following (using 

the year 2000 as an example): 

A breakdown of the 17,448 deaths includes: 

• About 2,500 to 3,500 crash deaths in which no driver was legally drunk but alcohol was detected. 

• 1,770 deaths involved drunk pedestrians killed when they walked in front of 

sober drivers. 

• About 8,000 deaths involved only a single car and in most of those cases the 

only death was the drunk driver. 

• That leaves about 5,000 sober victims killed by legally drunk drivers. 

MADD’s analysis of these numbers shows that the alcohol beverage industry is 

attempting to manipulate the data: 

• ‘‘Legally drunk’’ in many states at the time the 2000 data was collected meant 

a BAC of .10 or higher. In 2000 the .08 national standard was signed into law. 

In 2000 there were 18 states that had an illegal per see .08 law, and today 

there are 40 and counting. 

• While a concern, the number of pedestrian crashes in which the pedestrian was 

drunk makes up a very small portion of the overall alcohol-related number. Because pedestrian crashes are included in the overall alcohol-related number, 

MADD and other safety groups are careful to cite the overall number as ‘‘alcohol-related,’’ and not ‘‘drunk driving’’ or ‘‘impaired driving’’ deaths. 

• Families grieve for the loss of their loved one regardless of whether the person 

killed was the drunk driver or an innocent motorist. This alcohol industry comment is extremely offensive. 

• It is most difficult for many families and loved ones to make sense of the tragedy of losing a sober victim killed in an alcohol-related crash. These stories 

most often make headlines because of the random nature and timing of death. 

Highway fatalities in America will not be reduced, as the alcohol beverage industry contends, by lowering the legal drinking age, raising the amount of alcohol that 

a person may consume before driving, or by eliminating sobriety checkpoints. As 

their testimony attests, the industry’s latest effort is to discredit the manner in 

which NHTSA defines and tabulates ‘‘alcohol-related’’ crashes. Research from DOT 

and the Department of Health shows that the risk of being involved in a crash increases significantly starting at low BAC levels. Not surprisingly, the risk of being 

involved in a traffic crash rises rapidly with the amount of alcohol consumed. 

Question 5. Considerable progress has been made over the past decades in reducing highway fatalities, but this progress has slowed in the last few years. In fact, 

the number of fatalities has increased recently. What are the reasons for this spike? 

Answer. Between 1980—the year MADD was founded—and 1994, alcohol-related 

traffic deaths dropped by a dramatic 43 percent. However, for the third consecutive 

year, alcohol-related traffic deaths have increased. Preliminary statistics show that 

nearly 18,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands more were injured in 

these crashes just last year. According to DOT, in 2000 alcohol-involved crashes accounted for 21 percent of nonfatal injury crash costs, and an overwhelming 46 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 17, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81471.TXT JACKIE
130 

cent of all fatal injury crash costs. In order to reverse this trend, the Nation cannot 

maintain the status quo and expect a different result. The main reason for the increase is that the Nation has become complacent about alcohol-impaired driving— 

many think that the war has been won. 

The nation’s effort to stop alcohol-impaired driving must be reenergized. We must 

deter people from drinking and driving to begin with, (via enforcement efforts and 

priority traffic safety laws) and for those who continue to drink and drive, the judicial system must work better to ensure that offenders do not continuously fall 

through the cracks (see S. 1141—targeting high BAC and repeat offenders). 

In response to the spike in alcohol-related traffic deaths, MADD convened a National Impaired Driving Summit to bring together leading experts to identify the 

most effective countermeasures to significantly cut alcohol-related traffic deaths and 

injuries. The Summit recommendations are an attempt to counter the causes of the 

stagnation and recent increases. The recommendations are: 

• Resuscitate the Nation’s efforts to prevent impaired driving by re-igniting public 

passion and calling on the citizens and the Nation’s leaders to ‘‘Get MADD All 

Over Again.’’ 

• Increase DWI/DUI enforcement, especially the use of frequent, highly publicized 

sobriety checkpoints, which have been proven one of the most effective weapons 

in the war on drunk driving. 

• Enact primary enforcement seat belt laws in all states because seat belts are 

the best defense against impaired drivers. MADD recommends the Federal government give states a brief incentive period, followed by withholding Federal 

highway funds from states that do not enact primary belt laws. 

• Enact tougher, more comprehensive sanctions geared toward higher-risk drivers—repeat offenders, drivers with high blood-alcohol levels, and DWI offenders 

driving with suspended licenses. 

• Develop a dedicated National Traffic Safety Fund to support ongoing and new 

priority traffic safety programs. 

• Reduce underage drinking—the No. 1 youth drug problem—through improving 

minimum drinking age laws, adopting tougher alcohol advertising standards 

and increasing enforcement and awareness of laws such as ‘‘zero tolerance 

drinking-driving’’ and sales to minors. 

• Increase beer excise taxes to equal the current excise tax on distilled spirits. 

Higher beer taxes are associated with lower rates of traffic fatalities and youth 

alcohol consumption. 

• Reinvigorate court-monitoring programs to identify shortcomings in the judicial 

system and produce higher conviction rates and stiffer sentences for offenders. 

Question 6. The lack of progress in reducing highway fatalities is especially frustrating in light of the billions of dollars that have been spent on highway safety and 

infrastructure improvements under TEA–21. As we move forward and reauthorize 

these programs, where should we make future safety improvements to ensure sustained programs? 

Answer. Funding is an important factor in the success of national, state and local 

traffic safety programs to reduce drunk driving. In 2001, while the economic cost 

of traffic crashes was $230 billion, the Federal government spent only $522 million 

on highway safety and only one-quarter of that was used to fight impaired driving. 

Compared to the financial and human costs of drunk driving, our Nation’s spending 

is woefully inadequate to address the magnitude of this problem. 

What MADD found, under TEA–21, was that much of the funding labeled as 

‘‘safety’’ was diverted to construction ‘‘safety’’ programs. Although alcohol is a factor 

in 42 percent of all traffic deaths, only 26 percent of all highway safety funding 

available to the states through TEA–21 was spent on alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures. In addition, funding dedicated to address behavioral traffic safety programs was often spent on programs that failed to reflect the true nature of a state’s 

highway safety concerns. 

It is just as important to know where the money is going and how it is being 

spent. That is why MADD is asking Congress to hold states and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration accountable for the expenditure of Federal highway safety funds. Our goal is not to make their jobs more difficult. It is to recognize 

that political pressures and ‘‘flavor of the month’’ traffic safety issues can influence 

how dollars are spent. If DOT’s primary goal is to reverse the current trend, it is 

time to create a more consistent process that ensures the efficient and proper use 

of Federal funds to help the Nation achieve its highway safety goals. 

131 

For these reasons, MADD’s reauthorization proposal calls for increased funding 

for proven, science based countermeasures and greater accountability for the expenditure of Federal highway safety funds to achieve sustained progress in reducing 

traffic deaths and injuries. 

Question 7. The Administration’s SAFETEA proposal would consolidate some programs and give states greater flexibility on spending decisions by allowing the 

movement of funds between parts of Section 402 programs and highway construction programs. What are the advantages and disadvantages to this approach? 

Answer. States overwhelmingly choose to shift behavioral traffic safety funding to 

construction when given ‘‘flexibility.’’ According to the General Accounting Office, 

states shifted 69 percent of the open container and repeat offender transfer funds 

(FY01–02) to roadway construction under FHWA’s Hazard Elimination Program. 

The overwhelming majority of ‘‘safety’’ funding in the ‘‘SAFETEA’’ proposal is budgeted in the new ‘‘Highway Safety Improvement Program’’ (HSIP), which is really a 

highway construction safety program. In 2004 alone, $1 billion is allocated to the 

HSIP program. These funds are to be used for ‘‘safety improvement projects,’’ defined below. 

A safety improvement project corrects or improves a hazardous roadway condition, or proactively addresses highway safety problems that may include: intersection improvements; installation of rumble strips and other warning devices; 

elimination of roadside obstacles; railway-highway grade crossing safety; pedestrian or bicycle safety; traffic calming; improving highway signage and pavement marking; installing traffic control devices at high crash locations or priority control systems for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections, safety 

conscious planning and improving crash data collection and analysis, etc. 

MADD sees no advantage to allowing states to be able to shift behavior funds to 

construction. On the contrary, the failure to allocate funds to address proven impaired driving countermeasures, such as law enforcement mobilizations, is likely an 

important factor in recent increases in alcohol-related traffic deaths. Given that 

human factors account for the majority of traffic crashes, it is difficult to understand 

the vastly disproportionate funding levels for behavioral versus roadway construction safety programs and why DOT allows a significant portion of the behavioral 

funds to be used to augment even more roadway construction spending. 

Question 8. As Congress seeks to encourage states to reduce their traffic-related 

fatalities through various programs, it can choose to provide incentive grants or it 

can choose to penalize states for not adopting highway safety laws. Which approach 

is more effective? 

Answer. Penalizing states is clearly the more effective approach to encourage 

states to adopt proven highway safety laws. While incentive programs have had 

some success, it is clear that—particularly with alcohol-related traffic laws—penalties have shown greater results than incentives. DOT estimates that the 21 Minimum Drinking Age (MDA) law has saved thousands of lives since the national 

standard was put in place in 1984. A national zero tolerance standard for youth, 

adopted by Congress is 1995, was also successful in getting states to enact better 

laws for underage drivers. Clearly the national .08 BAC standard, enacted in 2000, 

has been much more effective than the TEA–21 incentive program. Under the incentive program, only two states passed .08 BAC laws. Since the national .08 standard 

was enacted, 22 states have passed this important law. 

Question 9. What are the major items in SAFETEA that you like about the proposal and what, in your view, should be reconsidered? Are there aspects of highway 

safety that the proposal does not address? 

Answer. SAFETEA provides major increases in construction safety while flatfunding or even cutting behavioral safety programs. This is puzzling since GAO just 

recently reiterated what the traffic safety community has known for years—that 

human behavior (not roadway environment) is the leading factor in crash causation. 

Although alcohol-related traffic deaths have increased for the past three years, 

SAFETEA significantly decreases funding for alcohol-impaired programs. SAFETEA 

proposes a specific impaired driving program of only $50 million, far less than current funding levels. In FY03, TEA–21 authorized $150 million for alcohol-impaired 

driving countermeasures and contained requirements for states to enact repeat offender and open container laws. Not only does SAFETEA cut specific impaired driving funding to $50 million, it fails to include incentives to states to enact effective 

alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures. 

While the Administration claims that reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities is 

a top priority, the SAFETEA proposal fails to include funding for proven countermeasures. Although law enforcement efforts, such as paid media blitzes coupled 

132 

with enforcement efforts like sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols, have been 

proven to be extremely effective, SAFETEA does not incorporate these obvious solutions. 

MADD believes that progress will occur when adequate funding is provided for 

traffic safety programs and when a commitment is made to put proven impaired 

driving countermeasures, such as law enforcement mobilizations, into place. There 

must be improved accountability on the national, regional and state levels to ensure 

that Federal funds are being used in a strategic and coordinated effort. The reauthorization provides Congress with the opportunity to encourage states to enact priority traffic safety laws—such as primary seat belt enforcement, higher-risk driver 

and open container standards—as well as to ensure that effective behavioral traffic 

safety programs are being carried out. 

Æ