Federal Traffic Safety Programs: In Brief
Changes from December 20, 2013 to October 26, 2018
This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
Federal Traffic Safety Programs: In Brief
Contents
Introduction
Driving is one of the riskiest activities the average American engages in. Deaths and serious injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes are one of the leading causes of preventable deaths. In 2012, 33,5612017, 37,133 people were killed in police-reported motor vehicle crashes, and in the United States, and in 2016 an estimated 2.363.14 million people were injured.1 MostMany of the people who die in traffic crashes are relatively young and otherwise healthy. As a result, traffic crashes rank third overall, after cancer and diseases of the heart, in years of life lost (that is (motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 17 and 23).2 As a result, while traffic crashes are now the 13th leading cause of death overall, they rank seventh among causes of years of life lost (i.e., the difference between the age at death and life expectancy).2
In addition to the emotional toll exacted by these deaths and injuries, traffic crashes impose a significant economic toll. The Department of Transportation (DOT) estimated that the annual cost of motor vehicle crashes in 2000 was $231 billion.3 About one-third of the total2010 was $242 billion in direct costs and $836 billion when the impact on quality of life of those killed and injured was included.4 About one-third of the direct cost came from the lost productivity of those killed and injured; about one-quarterthird from property damage; 1510% from present and future medical costs; 1112% from time lost due to congestion caused by crashes; and the remainder from the costs of insurance administration, legal services, workplace costs,4 and emergency services. While the number of traffic deaths has declined significantly since 2000, the estimated cost of crashes (adjusted for inflation) has remained within a comparable range, indicating an increase in the cost of each crash; estimates of the cost of traffic crashes in 2009 range from around $245 billion to $300 billion.5
Measuring Traffic Safety
The most commonly cited measure of traffic safety is the number of annual fatalities. That number held steady from 1985 to 2007 at around 42,000, leading to claims that traffic safety was not improving. But the raw number of traffic fatalities does not take into account
Source: Prepared by CRS using data from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts 2016, DOT HS 812 554, Table 2.changesincreases in the number of drivers, the number of vehicles, or the number of miles being driven. While the number of deaths appeared to show no improvement in traffic safety between 1985 and 2007, the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fell by more than half (see Figure 1).
The improvement accelerated between 2007 and 2009, with the number of traffic deaths dropping to around 33,000, and the fatality rate dropping another 15% (see Figure 2
fell by more than half.
The improvement has continued since 2007, with the number of traffic deaths dropping from 41,259 in 2007 to 33,561 in 2012 (see Figure 1). Part of this decline was likely due to weak economic conditions; traffic deaths and injuries typically decline during economic downturns and rise as the economy recovers.6 However, while traffic deaths did rise 4.4% in 2012, the first year-over-year increase since 2005, preliminary analysis by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicates that traffic deaths in the first half of 2013 declined from the same period in 2012.7
The dramatic improvement in traffic safety numbers since 2007, then, has probably been due to a number of other factors along with federal and state safety initiatives. One of those factors is demographic change, which contributed to an 11% drop in the number of licensed drivers under age 18 between January 2007 and January 2011.8 Drivers in this age cohort have by far the highest fatality rates among all drivers.9
Federal Efforts to Improve Traffic Safety
Federal traffic safety programs are administered by three separate agencies within DOT. NHTSAThe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has responsibility for programs targeting driver behavior and regulates safety-related aspects of vehicle design. The safety of roads falls within the purview of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) manages a separate set of programs focusing on the safety of commercial drivers and vehicles.
Congress typically amends federal traffic safety programs in the periodic reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs. Recent reauthorizations were enacted in 1998, 2005,2012 and 20122015; the current authorization expires at the end of FY2014FY2020. Occasionally, changes are made in stand-alone legislation107 or as part of other legislation, such as the DOT appropriations act.11
Encouraging Safer Driving Behavior
A significant portion of crashes is caused, at least in part, by drivers behaving unsafely. Prominent among these behaviors are speeding,129 driving while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs,1310 and driving while distracted.1411 Fatalities are also increased by failure to wear seat belts1512 (or in the case of motorcyclists, helmets).1613 Use of seat belts, among the most effective safety features in a vehicle, has risen from 58% (1994) to 86% (2012).17
Two groups are of particular concern. Young peoplemale drivers (aged 16-24), especially young males, are are far more likely to be killed and injured in involved in fatal traffic crashes than any other age-group, including young female drivers.16.18 And the fatality rate for motorcyclists is much higher than(most of whom are male) is over 20 times the rate for occupants of other motor vehicles.19
Congress provides around $800 million annually for NHTSA; NHTSA distributes around $550 million of that to states through various traffic safety grant programs. Regulating17
Since driver behavior is the cause of most crashes, regulating driver behavior is a way of reducing the number of crashes. But regulating driver behavior is a power reserved to the states.20 Consequently, most of these grant programs seek to influence18 NHTSA (and Congress) attempts to encourage states to pursue safety initiatives affecting driver behavior either by providing money to states to do certain things (incentive grants) or by withholding money from states that do not do certain things (sanctions).2119 In the most recent reauthorization of highway safety programs, Congress established or renewed incentive grant programs for states that take specified actions to promote seat belt and child restraint use ("occupant protection"), reduce impaired and distracted driving, require graduated licenses for teen drivers, address motorcyclist safetythe safety of motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, and improve the quality of state traffic safety information systems.22
Vehicle Safety Improvements
NHTSA began establishing minimum standards for passenger vehicles (known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, or FMVSS) in the 1960s based on provisions in highway and traffic safety acts passed in that period.2321 Existing standards are amended and new standards are added from time to time at the direction of Congress or, at NHTSA's own initiative, or as a result of a request from the public. New standards and amendments to existing standards must go through the federal rulemaking process, which provides for public review and comment on proposed changes. Standards currently under consideration would mandateinclude improved rollover structural integrity for motorcoaches and electronic stability control systems for heavy vehicles.24audible notifications for rear seat belt usage.22 NHTSA also tests vehicles for compliance with safety standards and, rates the crashworthiness of vehicles, and monitors consumer complaints about vehicles for evidence of safety defects that may necessitate a vehicle recall.25
Improvements in vehicle design, such as the use of crumple zones, have made vehicles structurally safer over the past few decades. NHTSA also had mandated safety features such as airbags, which have been required in all passenger vehicles since model year 1997. Improved design and safety features have contributed to a decline in the reduction in the deadliness of crashes; the percentage of crashes in which peoplevehicle occupants are killed or injured, has dropped from around 33% (during the 1990s) to around 28% (2007-2011).26
Developments in electronic technology are shifting the focus of vehicle safety research from an emphasis on crashworthiness—a vehicle's ability to protect occupants in the event of a crash—to crash avoidance. For example, electronic stability control systems automatically apply braking force to individual wheels to reduce the risks of skidding or rollover; this ishas been required on all new passenger vehicles since the 2012 model year. Other technologies, such as adaptive cruise control (which automatically maintains a safe distance from the car ahead), forward collision mitigation (which automatically brakes to prevent the vehicle from striking an object in its path), and lane departure warning, are available as options on some vehicles. The National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that NHTSA add several of these new technologies to the list of safety standards required for all vehicles because of their potential to prevent crashes.27 NHTSA is evaluating whether some of these technologies should be mandated as vehicle safety standards.
Roadway Safety Improvements
25
NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced in 2016 that 20 automakers, representing 99% of the U.S. auto fleet, had agreed to make automatic emergency braking with forward collision warning a standard feature on all their cars by September 1, 2022. NHTSA said this agreement would result in the near universal availability of this safety feature at least three years sooner than by going through the regulatory process to make it a legal requirement. For the 2017 model year, the first full model year following this agreement, 19% of the vehicles produced by these companies for the U.S. market had this technology as standard equipment.26
NHTSA is also beginning rulemakings to develop a safe method of on-road testing of advanced vehicle technologies, such as automated driving systems, and to identify current regulations that may hinder the introduction of advanced vehicle technologies. DOT has issued voluntary guidance regarding the introduction of autonomous vehicles, and Congress is considering legislation that would affect the treatment of autonomous vehicles (e.g., H.R. 3388, S. 1885).
Roadway Safety ImprovementsThe design of roads influences how safe they are. The most dramatic example is the Interstate Highway system; although these roads are heavily trafficked by vehicles traveling at high speeds, they are the safest category of road due to such factors as having no intersections, long sight lines, gentle curves, wide lanes, etc. Road designs change over time as research identifies characteristics that can reduce the likelihood of crashes. One benefit of improved road design is that it reduces the incidence of driver misbehavior.
Roadway design is a particular concern for vulnerable road users for whom there are few other effective options to improve safety, namely pedestrians and bicyclists. Perhaps due in part to increased awareness of the health benefits of exercise, the level of pedestrian and bicyclist activity appears to have risen in recent years. As well, the number of pedestrians and bicyclists killed in traffic crashes has risen: from 4,699 pedestrians (11% of all traffic deaths) in 2007 to 5,987 (16% of all traffic deaths) in 2017,27 and from 701 bicyclists (1.7% of all traffic deaths) in 2007 to 840 (2.2 % of all traffic deaths) in 2017.28 Roadway designs to protect these road users include sidewalks, protected bike lanes, crossing islands and raised medians, and other traffic-calming measures.29
FHWA supports research and makes grants to states to improve roadway safety. Safety improvements are eligible expenses under most FHWA grant programs, but one of the core grant programs is specifically focused on safety, the Highway Safety Improvement Program. This program distributes more than $2 billion annually to states for road safety improvements. To qualify to use their funding, states must develop highway safety plans that use crash data to identify hazardous road locations or features and identify measures to address the problems.28 DOT30 FHWA is encouraging a shift in emphasis from highway design standards to steps that improve safety as measured by changes in crash data.2931 Projects are chosen by state DOTs.
Commercial Transportation Safety
The federal government lacks authority to regulate the behavior of ordinary drivers, which is under state jurisdiction. However, the behavior of commercial drivers who engage in interstate commerce is a federal matter. For example, Congress has required that commercial drivers satisfy requirements for training, licensing, and medical fitness, and specifies how much time drivers can work each day (generally, no more than 12 hours).
Federal regulations concerning vehicles and drivers are enforced by FMCSA and state authorities, who conduct both on-site and roadside inspections. Enforcement is challenging, given the scale of the industry; there are over 700,000 commercial truck and bus operators with millions of vehicles and drivers. FMCSA inspectors and law enforcement officials have the power to remove a vehicle from service, and FMCSA can order an operator to suspend operations in the event of serious violations.30 Fines for less severe violations are imposed by state authorities.
In 2005, Congress limited FMCSA's authority to conduct roadside inspections of motorcoach buses.31 The limitation does not absolutely prohibit en-route inspections, but allows motorcoaches to be pulled over for inspection only at places that provide "reasonable accommodations" for passengers, such as highway rest stops and weigh stations, unless the motorcoach exhibits an imminent or obvious safety hazard. The rationale for this limitation is the safety of passengers should they need to leave the vehicle during the inspection. As a result of several deadly crashes in recent years, motorcoach bus safety has assumed a higher profile, and critics have contended that the 2005 provision limits FMCSA's ability to enforce motorcoach safety rules. FMCSA has ordered several motorcoach operators to cease operations.
One of the most significant opportunities for improvement in commercial vehicle safety is the application of automated driving systems that supplement the role of the driver. NTSB, in calling for greater use of such technologies for commercial vehicles, noted that In a 2015 study by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, researchers found that in the large motor carriers they surveyed, [Lane Departure Warning Systems] reduced crashes by 14 percent, electronic stability control by 19 percent, [Forward Collision Warning Systems] by 14 percent, blind spot detection by 5 percent, and vehicle communications systems by 9 percent.32 FMCSA plans to issue a request for public comment about Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that may need to be updated, modified, or eliminated to facilitate the safe introduction of automated driving systems-equipped commercial motor vehicles.33FMCSA recently Fines for less severe violations are imposed by state authorities.
usemake better use of enforcement resources by using data collected through federal and state inspections and crash data to identify high-risk operators who can then be targeted for interventions.
In December 2011, FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee and its Medical Review Board made recommendations regarding screening of commercial drivers for sleep apnea, a medical condition that causes frequent disruption to breathing during sleep, interfering with restful sleep and causing drowsiness during the day. Obesity is linked to sleep apnea, and commercial drivers have above-average rates of obesity, due in part to sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle for up to 12 hours a day, which leaves little time for exercise, as well as often limited options for healthy dining on the roadeating while on the road and often irregular sleep patterns. Sleep apnea can be a medically disqualifying condition for a commercial driver, though there are medical treatments that can permit a commercial driver to continue to drive. The FMCSA committees recommended that medical examiners should routinely test commercial drivers who are extremely obese (BMI 35+)3235 for sleep apnea. FMCSA would have to go through the rulemaking process in order to implement the recommendation.33
In MAP-21, Congress charged FMCSA to work on several areas of commercial transportation safety, including
- requiring electronic logging to improve enforcement of hours of service rules affecting certain drivers (49 U.S.C. 31137);
- establishing a national registry of medical examiners qualified to certify the medical fitness of commercial drivers, to reduce evasion of commercial driver medical standards (49 U.S.C. 31149); and
- establishing a national clearinghouse for controlled substance and alcohol test results of commercial drivers to reduce crashes, injuries, and death due to misuse of alcohol or controlled substances by commercial drivers (49 U.S.C. 31306a).
Congressional Action
Congress is likely to review the performance of the current traffic safety measures and to consider additional traffic safety measures in the context of the next surface transportation authorization legislation. The current authorization expires at the end of FY2014.
Footnotes
| 1. | Since December 2017, in response to a congressional directive, most truckers have had to use an electronic logging device (ELD) to record how many hours they spend on duty and driving each day. Federal hours of service (HOS) regulations have for several decades limited duty and driving hours of commercial drivers in order to reduce the risk of fatigued drivers causing crashes. Surveys indicated that drivers often violated those limits, but since drivers were responsible for keeping track of their own hours in a paper log, it was easy to conceal such violations. Highway safety groups had long called for Congress to require that commercial drivers use an automated system to track their driving time in order to limit violations. Now that most commercial drivers must use ELDs to track their hours, some sectors of the commercial trucking industry, particularly livestock haulers, are objecting that the ELD requirement—which is to say, the improved enforcement of the hours-of-service rules that have been in place for years—makes it hard for them to conduct their business. Congress has granted livestock haulers a temporary reprieve from the ELD mandate, and FMCSA has issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public input regarding possible revisions to certain HOS rules.37 Congress may review the performance of the current traffic safety measures and consider additional traffic safety measures in the context of the next surface transportation authorization legislation (the current authorization expires at the end of FY2020). Several opportunities exist for Congress to further promote highway safety, although some options may impinge on driver behavior in a way that some people find objectionable. Speeding, for example, is a violation committed by virtually all drivers at times, and by some drivers routinely. Speeding contributes both to the risk of crashing and to the impact of crashing (all else being equal, the greater the speeds of the vehicles involved in a crash, the greater the destructiveness of the crash). Speed limits are hard for law enforcement officers to enforce because violations are ubiquitous, and it is often dangerous to pull offenders over to issue them a ticket; each year a number of law enforcement officers engaged in roadside stops are struck and killed by passing motorists. Conversely, automated enforcement of speed limits (and of red light running) is relatively low-cost compared to the cost of a human officer, operates around the clock, and does not require stopping the offender to issue a ticket, thus keeping officers out of harm's way. Studies of speed and red light cameras indicate they reduce injuries and deaths, and NHTSA gives them the highest rating for effectiveness.38 However, Congress prohibits states from using federal-aid highway funding for automated traffic enforcement (except in school zones);39 in a further disincentive to the use of automated enforcement, Congress requires states in which automated enforcement systems are in operation to conduct a biennial survey of those systems.40 Similarly, the single most effective safety measure for motorcyclists is wearing a helmet, but many motorcyclists choose not to do so. Mandatory helmet laws (requiring all riders to wear helmets) have been shown to increase the rate of helmet wearing and to save lives, and are relatively simple to enforce (since violations are easy to see), but only19 states require all motorcyclists to wear a helmet; most require helmets only for young riders. Congress does not have the authority to enact mandatory helmet laws, but can influence state legislatures to enact such laws: in the early 1970s the prospect of having a portion of a state's federal highway funding withheld if it did not have a mandatory helmet law led to 47 states adopting such laws. But the penalty provision was then repealed, after which many states repealed their mandatory helmet law. Congress has created a motorcycle safety incentive grant program that emphasizes education, although there is little evidence that educational programs result in improvement in motorcyclist safety. Congress also has prohibited NHTSA from encouraging states to adopt mandatory helmet laws,41 and has prohibited states from using any federal highway funding to set up traffic checkpoints that target motorcyclists for inspection, or for any program that checks helmet usage.42 Author Contact Information |
||||||||||||
| 2. |
|
||||||||||||
| 3. |
Ibid., p. 1.
| ||||||||||||
| 4. |
Costs of workplace disruption due to the loss or absence of an employee. |
||||||||||||
| 5. |
|
||||||||||||
| 6. |
The explanation for this phenomenon is not clear. The number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tends to stagnate or decline during recessions, but the percentage decline in deaths and injuries is typically much greater than the percentage decline in VMT. For example, |
||||||||||||
| 7. |
| ||||||||||||
| 8. |
Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2007, Table 6.4.3, and Highway Statistics 2011, Table 6.3.3, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm. |
||||||||||||
| 9. |
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Fatality Facts 2011, http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=Teenagers&year=2011. |
||||||||||||
| 10. |
|
||||||||||||
|
For example, the FY2001 DOT appropriations act provided that states that had not passed a law making driving with a blood alcohol content level of 0.08 illegal would have a portion of their federal highway funding withheld beginning with FY2004 (P.L. 106-346, §351). |
|||||||||||||
|
In |
|||||||||||||
|
In |
|||||||||||||
|
Around 9% of fatal crashes in |
|||||||||||||
|
In |
|||||||||||||
|
Nationwide use of DOT-compliant motorcycle helmets in |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts |
|||||||||||||
|
In |
|||||||||||||
|
For example, the federal government can require vehicle manufacturers to put seat belts in vehicles, but cannot require that people use them; only states can make failure to use seat belts a legal offense. |
|||||||||||||
|
Two of the current traffic safety sanctions are "weak" sanctions; they do not withhold any transportation funding from a state that is not in compliance, but redirect a small portion of a state's federal highway construction funding to its safety programs (including its Highway Safety Infrastructure Program). Many states remain subject to these sanctions. One requires states to prohibit open alcoholic containers in vehicles; |
|||||||||||||
|
P.L. |
|||||||||||||
|
These are collected in Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. |
|||||||||||||
|
Department of Transportation, |
|||||||||||||
|
Manufacturers typically voluntarily recall vehicles that have a defect, but if necessary NHTSA can order a manufacturer to recall a defective vehicle. |
|||||||||||||
|
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts 201 |
|||||||||||||
|
National Transportation Safety Board, Most Wanted List: | |||||||||||||
| 26.
|
|
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Manufacturers make progress on voluntary commitment to include automatic emergency braking on all new vehicles," December 21, 2017, https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-iihs-announcement-aeb. 27.
|
|
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts 2016 Data: Pedestrians, DOT HS 812 493, March 2018, Table 1. 28.
|
|
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts 2016 Data: Bicyclists and Other Cyclists, DOT HS 812 507, May 2018, Table 1. 29.
|
|
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Advancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety: A Primer for Highway Safety Professionals, DOT HS 812 258, April 2016. |
These measures may include replacing intersections with roundabouts, adding medians and pedestrian crossing islands to urban and suburban streets, limiting highway access points, and adding rumble strips to two-lane roads. See http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/ for more information. |
||||
|
See, for example, |
|||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
| 31. |
SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), §4106(a)(7), codified at 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(2)(x). |
||||||||||||
| 33.
|
|
Department of Transportation, September 2018 Significant Rulemaking Report, entry #44. 34.
|
|
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Improving Motor Carrier Safety Measurement, 2017, https://doi.org/10.17226/24818. |
BMI stands for Body Mass Index, and is essentially a measure of a person's weight divided by his or her height. |
||||||||
|
In 2013 Congress provided that FMCSA would have to go through the rulemaking process to implement screening, testing, or treatment of commercial drivers for sleep disorders; P.L. 113-45.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, "Hours of Service of Drivers," Federal Register v. 83, p. 42631 (August 23, 2018), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/08/23/2018-18379/hours-of-service-of-drivers. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Offices, Ninth Edition (2017), "Motorcycle Helmets," p. 5-8, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812478_countermeasures-that-work-a-highway-safety-countermeasures-guide-.pdf. P.L. 114-94 (FAST Act), §1401. P.L. 114-94 (FAST Act), §4002(2). 49 U.S.C. Section 30105. The prohibition on NHTSA urging state legislatures to oppose or adopt legislation is general, but the motivation for this provision, which was enacted in 1998, may have been a video NHTSA produced that supported the use of motorcycle helmets; see https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/GrantMan/HTML/05e_LobbyMemo_2_9_00.rest.html. P.L. 114-94 (FAST Act), §4007. |