We will start today on highway safety and continue this subject. through next week. General highway hearings will begin in early March. By concentrating our subjects in this manner we hope to expedite both the hearings and action on the bill. We hope the witnesses will be as direct as possible with their testimony, and whenever appropriate, submit their statements for the record and summarize it in their oral testimony. The subcommittee, however, wants to hear everyone who has something constructive to add to our deliberations and to be completely fair to everyone with respect to what they have to say. This morning our first witness will be Mr. Douglas Toms, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and we hope that Mr. Toms will be able to give us the background of what his organization is doing in the safety field, particularly in the field of alcohol programs, safety standards and what can be done to reduce the terrible number of fatalities we have on our highways every year. Before hearing from Mr. Toms, however, I would like to ask any of the members of the subcommittee for their comments or questions at this time. Some of the members are absent this morning, we have three or four other subcommittee meetings, and some of our members of the Subcommittee on Roads will be here in a short while. So, at this time, I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to participate with you today as we begin hearings on what may be one of man's grossest of inhumanities to himself. As you know, I hold intense feelings about the issue of highway safety and the need for immediate and comprehensive steps to curtail the tragic accident rate. We can ill afford to tolerate the appalling statistics of 50,000 annual deaths any longer. As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, we in the Public Works Committee are now on the brink of formulating new highway development programs which will have lasting effect on this Nation and its transportation systems. We surely cannot proceed further without developing additional and comprehensive safety programs of a magnitude never before conceived by Government. The problems of death, injuries, and economic waste will not be resolved without a substantial increase in Federal expenditures and dedicated marshaling of the best available talent and information. We need increased coordination and cooperation in both the public and private sectors, as we also need increased public interest if we are to bring about a reduction in the annual highway slaughter. This is not to say that we have made no progress in this area. Since the initial highway safety legislation came out of the Congress several years ago, we have witnessed the Department of Transportation taking sizable steps toward dealing effectively with highway safety issues. We have further witnessed development of other major initiatives such as increased enforcement systems, experimental safety vehicles, construction improvement programs, and other special projects. These programs and countless others have brought about reductions in the death and accident rates, but in my opinion much more can and should be done. In recent months I have received hundreds of enthusiastic and encouraging letters from across the Nation on the highway safety issue, but it will take legislation and massive popular support if we are to adequately deal with the problem. These hearings offer a starting point. They should, and I hope, will be the real beginning of the end of one of America's most intolerable social ills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Harsha. We also have with us this morning the gentleman from Iowa. I want to recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to join with what you have said, and with what the gentleman from Ohio has just said, and in both cases respond by saying, amen, and bully for you. I want to add my word of commendation to laud and applaud you and your Department, Mr. Toms. As you know very well, I have strong feelings about getting involved in this business of safety on the highway. I want at this time to commend you and your friends and those around you for the magnificent testimony you made before the Senate committee last week, in which you took a bold stand on this whole question and insisted, if I understood correctly, that we must know all the facts and all the factors relating to the causes and effects of various developments on the highway before we launch to new designs and changes. You have been most helpful to me in the fight I have tried to lead in this area, especially as it relates to wider and heavier vehicles. You are to be commended. You have responded patiently and adequately, thoroughly to my questions, and you have sent people from your office to my office to help us better understand, and in the process you have even changed my thinking on some things and the way we should approach it. I hope I have the same kind of attitude already demonstrated by you of openmindedness in your attack on this total problem. I am glad you are here, and I am glad we are having the hearings, and I want to commend the chairman especially for making it possible for you to be heard, and for us to further explore this total problem in our search for better ways to resolve this problem of safety on the highways, which is a very, very serious problem, as all of us know. I would like to, at this point, end my remarks, Mr. Chairman, and yield back to you. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Schwengel. The first witness this morning will be Hon. Douglas W. Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation; accompanied by Mr. James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs; Mr. John A. Edwards, Associate Administrator for Research and Development; and Mr. Dana L. Scott, Associate Administrator for Administration. Will you kindly take the witness chairs, please? Mr. Toms, you may proceed as you desire. The floor is yours. STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS W. TOMS, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL Mr. Toмs. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to appear again before you to present the programs and requirements of this administration for carrying out the Highway Safety Act. Pride in our accomplishments is overshadowed by my great concern for the traffic losses occurring daily on our Nation's highways. I have a detailed statement for the record, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to summarize some of its major aspects for you. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Toms, without objection, your prepared statement will be made a part of the record in its entirety at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS W. TOMS, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION THE PROBLEM Highway safety is a matter of serious and continuing concern both to the Congress and to the Executive Branch because, among other reasons, traffic losses significantly impair the growth potential of this Nation by wasting valuable resources, particularly human life. Among the principal classes of accidents, motor vehicle accidents account for nearly half of all accidental fatalities occurring annually. Enactment of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and subsequent amendments is a direct result of this continuing concern. Approximately 150 lives are being lost each day or 55,000 each year as a result of motor vehicle accidents throughout the United States. There were approximately 56,000 motor vehicle deaths in 1969 and 55,000 in 1970 and 1971. Although this does not represent a dramatic reduction in the total number of fatalities since 1969, the nationwide fatality rate (deaths per 100 million miles) fell below 5.0 for the first time in history in 1970. Preliminary data indicate that the death rate declined again from 4.9 in 1970 to 4.7 in 1971. When viewed in the light of the skyrocketing use of motor vehicles, the increased number of registered vehicles, the increased number of licensed drivers and increased population, we feel that the cooperative traffic safety program involving business and industry, the public at large and government at all levels is beginning to pay off. We must, however, do better. There is no comfort in the knowledge that our Nation's most precious commodity, human life, continues to be drained by traffic accidents. Fatalities, personal injuries, property damage and associate economic losses continue to have a major impact on the economy and on our total society. While we are realizing the short-term goal of preventing any further increases in traffic fatalities, we must aggressively pursue the longer term national goal of achieving a progressive reduction in the number of traffic deaths and injuries and resultant economic losses. Special problems such as drinking drivers, the young and the old, negligent drivers, speed and pedestrians continue to plague us. We are particularly troubled by the lack of objective data on driver behavior. This lack of information makes it very difficult for us to evaluate the effectiveness of particular programs or actions; to adequately diagnose problems and causal factors; to establish meaningful criteria for program plans; or to institute remedial actions or program countermeasures with a high degree of confidence. Coupled with this complexity is an increased public expectation of favorable results as a direct function of expanded efforts. To meet this challenge, new programs of prevention and control are required. Unlike earlier traditional approaches, these programs will only rarely be able to depend on either legislative action or executive order, but will require a much greater degree of voluntary public and community cooperation and participation. Evaluation of these programs will require the formulation of new objectives and the development of new criteria of effectiveness. The present goals of total problem eradication elimination of "carnage on the highways"-will have to be forsaken for the more realistic goals of improved functioning in the continued presence of long-term societal conditions. Systematic early detection and amelioration of potential accident problems will largely supplant rehabilitation or “afterthe-fact" prevention activities, and accomplishments will be measured more often in terms of such basic goals as prevention of the problem and coordination and integration of preventive efforts at the local community level. It is this, the preventive nature of our programs and the multiple interactions of program components, which makes the appraisal of results especially difficult. It is virtually impossible, for example, to determine precisely the number of accidents avoided or the number of lives saved by any particular countermeasure. The point that I want to make is that the highway safety problem is a diverse one of growing magnitude and complexity requiring new and innovative approaches as well as continue aggressive action by the States in their operational programs. The programs and plans which I will present today have been developed with this in mind. RESPONSIBILITIES Before getting into the specifics of the programs and plans supporting the State and Community Highway Safety Program, I would like to address the broad subject area of highway safety responsibilities. As you are well aware, the Highway Safety Act requires that the Federal government, in cooperation and partnership with State and local governments, industry and the general public carry out programs designed to increase highway safety and reduce traffic accidents. The DOT role is one of providing leadership, guidance and a degree of financial assistance to State and local governments for carrying out such programs. State and local governments have the basic responsibility for most governmental operating functions related to highway safety. They build and maintain roads; inspect and license vehicles; educate and license drivers; establish and enforce laws; arrest, try, and sentence offenders. The management of these functions at the State and local level is dispersed and therefore difficult. As a result of the comprehensive approach, required by the Highway Safety Act of 1966, and as amended in 1970, each State is required to designate a State agency responsible for planning, coordinating and evaluating its highway safety program. Centering this responsibility in one designated State agency has helped to eliminate jurisdictional conflicts which tend to inhibit efficient program planning and evaluation, and has assisted in focusing executive attention on the problems surrounding the highway safety program. We have taken steps to assist the Governor of each State in assuring that his designated State agency is adequately staffed and suitably equipped. Guidelines relative to the responsibilities, authorities, organizational structure and placement of the State agency responsible for overall management and coordination of State highway safety programs were issued in August 1971 (NHTSA Order 900-4). Additionally, we have asked our Regional Administrators to review each State agency using the guidelines as criteria. We are currently reviewing their evaluations and will shortly recommend necessary improvements. Most of these recommended improvements will relate to program evaluation capability. As I have previously mentioned, the growing magnitude and complexity of the highway safety system requires continued aggressive and effective actions by the States. A prime ingredient in this approach to program implementation is the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of new and on-going programs. The States recognize this. Consequently, we are seeing more and more sophistication on the part of the staffs of the Governor's Representatives for Highway Safety. In other words, the partnership in highway safety is coming of age. We in NHTSA have taken steps within the last two years directly aimed at at improving this partnership. Specifically, we have realigned our regional boundaries in accordance with the standard regional boundaries as proposed within the President's Federal Assistance Review Program; increased our Regional Office staffing, delegated program approval authority to our Regional Administrators; and have gone to an Annual Work Program in lieu of individual project applications. The Annual Work Program concept has assisted the States in their evaluation process by focusing on such areas as program effectiveness measures, coverage measures, and output measures, Additionally, we have undertaken to work directly with the States to assist them in their planning and evaluation capability by reviewing their programs on-site, and making appropriate recommendations for improvement. This is a continuing part of our responsibility and we will be pursuing this in an orderly manner in the years ahead. A specific example of this effort is the comprehensive study which we undertook in the State of Indiana at the request of Governor Whitcomb. All of these actions were taken in order that we, the Federal government could more effectively execute our primary responsibility of providing technical assistance directly to the States. We recognize that five years may seem like a long time to get organized and on with the job, but I believe we must all recognize that the elements of a highway safety program encompasses almost every organization of State and local government. Before leaving the general area of responsibilities, I feel that it should also be noted that responsibilities for highway safety do not reside solely with the various levels of government. Manufacturers are responsible for building safer vehicles; individual owners are responsible for operation and maintenance; and drivers and pedestrians are responsible for exercising care. While compliance with standards and regulations is essential many aspects of highway safety are dependent on public understanding and commitment. They cannot be legislated into being but may be brought about through public education and effective regulation. Citizen education for safe behavior and support of official programs is advancing. Special problems such as the drinking driver, young and old drivers, speed and careless pedestrians are receiving increased public attention. We must intensify and continue our public education efforts if we are to maintain the momentum and interest already gained in this regard. PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PLANS Before getting into the specifics of our individual programs, I would like to make a few observations about some factors which significantly determine the thrust of our program. First, the task of changing human behavior and action is a complicated, long-term undertaking which requires input from all elements of society. Secondly, controlling the actions of deviant individuals in a free society, particularly deviant drivers, promises a higher level of achievement. Therefore, we have concentrated our resources on those programs which are directed towards driver control. However, we have not given up on efforts to eventually influence driver behavior. DRIVER CONTROL Our principal activities in the Driver Control area, excluding our Alcohol Countermeasures Program which I will discuss in some detail later, involve the Driver Licensing and Rehabilitation Process, Traffic Law Adjudication and Police Traffic Enforcement. The standard on driver licensing issued by the Secretary of Transportation contains eleven (11) major program elements. The most important elements are-Initial licensing requirements; Periodic driver reexamination designed to requalify drivers at least every four years; Classified driver licenses based on type of vehicle; Creation of medical advisory boards to advise on medical criteria and vision standards; Automated information files to facilitate better driver control measures; and Driver improvement programs designed to assist in the rehabilitation of problem drivers. Most of the States are moving towards compliance with the standard. However, we still have a long way to go to achieve full compliance, particularly in the area of periodic recxamination and classified licenses. For example Currently only twelve States comply with the requirements for a four year reexamination which includes a vision and knowledge test. However, 16 States and the District of Columbia reexamine every four years for vision, and one State reexamines every nine years for vision and knowledge. In other words, 29 States have some sort of periodic reexamination program while others reexamine based on ages or driving record. |