that these will be retained and strengthened where possible in subsequent drafts.

As examples of further improvement that could be incorporated into these standard proposals, we particularly direct your attention to the following:

Standard No. 2, in our judgment, should place greater emphasis on gaining uniformity in traffic laws, rules, and regulations through citation of the "Uniform Vehicle Code," as the basic guide.

Standard No. 3, in dealing with vehicle inspection, departs from the present standard in advocating safety inspection of motor vehicles only every 4 years rather than annually. We endorse inspection at least once a year.

Standard No. 4, dealing with driver education, shows significant improvement but could be further strengthened by requiring all such education to be subject to definitive accreditation requirements and certification approval by a State agency.

Standard No. 5 incorporates many of the task force recommendations dealing with driver licensing and will help improve this aspect of highway safety. However, we feel it would be more productive if it abandoned the concept of reexamination of all drivers every 4 years and focused on measures to monitor driver performance in terms of traffic law violations and accident involvement so that problem drivers can be identified more readily and be subject to retraining and/or restriction.

Standard No. 6, covering police traffic services, could be improved by placing more stress on training requirements for traffic police, particularly as they deal with accident investigation and reporting. Such reports will play an increasingly important role as we further develop our capability for providing traffic records that can be used to identify and correct weaknesses in the total highway safety effort. I now address myself to the program standards that are in the purview of the National Federal Highway Traffic Safety Administration. These include those for highway design, construction, and maintenance; traffic control devices; identification and surveillance of accident locations; and the engineering aspect of pedestrian safety.

While the members of the committee are well aware of the fact that improved roads offer a rich highway safety return, there are those who appear not to recognize this point.

Irrefutable evidence can be found in the safety record of the Interstate System, where the fatality rate on a vehicle mileage basis is less than half that of other roads.

The great bulk of travel and an even higher share of accidents, however, take place on the Federal-aid primary and secondary systems and on nonfederally aided roads.

Many of these have not seen any substantial improvement since being built years ago under now outmoded design standards and yet, today, they carry traffic loads equaling or exceeding their capacity. Much evidence has been offered to Congress on the urgent need for improvement of these roadways over the long-term as appropriate levels of funding become available, and the Interstate System draws nearer to completion. However, much can be done in the interim to

relieve the basic safety shortcomings on much of this raod mileage, including that not presently covered by Federal aid.

As recommended by the President's Task Force, programs for correction of these deficiencies should be based on criteria which take into consideration such factors as accident records and the probability for improving those records, the capacity of the road and the volume of traffic served, and relative cost-benefits of design improvement.

We are strongly encouraged by the report of the Federal Highway Administrator to this committee on progress being made, especially in the identification and improvement of high accident locations.

We urge that this spot improvement program, as well as that for TOPICS-Traffic Operations to Improve Capacity and Safety-be provided additional support.

We also were pleased to learn that 40 States are upgrading traffic control devices on State roads to conform to the new manual on uniform devices.

Increased safety innovation in highway design must continue and intensified programs of research, development, testing, and evaluation be undertaken by Federal, State, and municipal governments.

Where appropriate, adequate provisions for these measures should be made by designation of special funds to provide assurance that successful programs will be continued and others developed. They should remain an integral part of highway budgeting at all levels.

TOPICS AND SPECIAL FUNDING

Federal-aid highway legislation also should provide designated funds of at least $200 million annually for highway improvements through TOPICS and high hazard accident location programs, as well as stress the need for more rapid and more entensive improvement of older portions of Federal-aid highways where warranted by safety deficiencies.

With the Federal aid for primary and secondary roads being increased from 50 to 70 percent in the near future, States should be encouraged to utilize added funds available as a result to upgrade the safety performance levels of State and local roads not covered by Federal-aid financing.

CONCLUSION

In concluding, I wish to draw your attention to a number of specific recommendations contained in the report of the President's Task Force on Highway Safety, which I feel have not been stressed in presentations to your committee.

I ask that these recommendations, which are included in my statement as appendix B, be included as part of the record of these hearings.

I wish, because of their importance, to summarize briefly recommended action in four of the areas covered by these task force recommendations.

In the area of driver licensing, it was proposed drivers be tested under various emergency driving conditions; realistic and enforcea

79-423 O - 72 - 61