Despite the efforts of the traffic safety community, society as a whole has become extremely complacent about the staggering roadway death toll. Instead of demanding action, it appears we accept these preventable deaths as the cost of the mobility we enjoy.

As has already been mentioned in earlier postings, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has undertaken important work to try to better understand our traffic safety “culture” and figure out ways to change it. The Foundation published its first-annual Traffic Safety Culture Index, a nationwide survey examining the attitudes and actions of people across the country, in 2008. The results were both alarming and telling. More than 60 percent of respondents rated road safety as a serious national problem. But the research found that motorists often were engaging in the very behavior that they abhor.

For instance, despite rating drunken driving as the most serious traffic safety issue, nearly one in 10 respondents admitted to driving in the previous month while they thought they might have been legally intoxicated. Over 80 percent of respondents rated distracted driving as a serious problem, yet over half admitted to talking on a cell phone while driving. Three in four drivers rated speeding as a safety threat, but 40 percent of those same drivers admitted to driving at least 15 mph over the speed limit on highways.

I believe we can change the nation’s safety culture to achieve safer drivers, safer vehicles, and safer roads. Traffic safety organizations have published comprehensive materials documenting dozens of safety measures that could reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries by as much as 50 percent. Listed below are just a handful of the many known strategies that are proven to reduce roadway fatalities, but are not yet used to their potential.

Car manufacturers can make a difference by implementing solutions that have been tested in the real world and shown to save lives. Electronic stability control (ESC) is an innovative technology that selectively applies brakes when a car is about to go out of control, and can decrease deaths in single-vehicle crashes by nearly 56 percent. The federal government will not mandate the use of ESC in new vehicles until 2012, but automakers may expedite vehicle improvements like ESC to begin saving lives today.

Roadway improvements such as rumble strips at the edge and centerline of roads, and cable median barriers are quite effective in preventing vehicles from drifting out of travel lanes, which accounts for 25,000 deaths each year. Missouri’s adoption of these technologies has resulted in a 25 percent reduction in lane-departure fatalities and a 96 percent reduction in median crossing deaths. These are low-cost and easy-to-install countermeasures on which road authorities can act.

Comprehensive graduated driver licensing systems can help keep teen drivers safer through various provisions, such as a minimum learner’s permit age, supervised driving practice, nighttime driving restrictions and passenger restrictions. Elected officials can enact such policies designed to prevent injuries on our roadways – they just need the political will to act.

Of course, we can make a big difference by changing our own behavior. How many of us have engaged in the actions discussed on the blog this week? Motorists can greatly reduce the likelihood of being in a fatal crash by adopting commonsense behaviors: always buckle up; don’t drive while drunk, drowsy or distracted; and obey the speed limit (just to name a few). It appears as though everyone who has responded to this week’s blog agrees that we can and should do more. We need to band together and make sure this consistent voice is heard in Congress, DOTs, and in state legislatures across the country.

Protecting public safety should be the utmost priority for each and every one of us. According to the Transportation Construction Coalition study, On a Crash Course: the Dangers and Health Costs of Deficient Roadways, about half of all highway fatalities are due to unsafe road conditions. That is one obvious example of how the industry must continue advocating for resources to make the vital repairs and improvements needed to provide the public with safe and efficient transportation.

The best infrastructure in the world won’t be able to protect a driver who is engaging in unsafe behavior though, so it just as important for us to communicate the risks we can’t eliminate. The transportation sector must continue to support existing programs, like National Put the Brakes on Fatalities Day, as well as develop new campaigns and programs to educate the public on the risks and consequences of distracted driving. Similarly, ASCE recently launched an awareness campaign related to levee safety and flooding, So You Live Behind a Levee?.

Fortunately, the U.S. Department of Transportation has already started this task. Now it’s up to the rest of us to lend our voices to this critical effort. ASCE’s recommendations for discouraging distracted driving include increased funding for law enforcement to enable them to enforce existing distracted driving laws and school-based programs for children and teens that illustrate the consequences of using both alcohol and mobile devices while driving. This is one issue where getting involved is not optional, and as professionals, we are obligated to speak up. Lives depend on it.

The issue of protecting the traveling public underpins the federal role in transportation and is an issue upon which Democrats and Republicans alike can agree. Regional transportation planners are required in their federal transportation plans to account for both the safety and the security of the traveling public through the development of plans and programs designed to make physical safety improvements, but also to affect culture change among the citizens in our regions.

The problem of distracted driving is just that, a problem in need of a fundamental shift in the way drivers view their responsibilities to each other while in transit. For example, the campaign to “Buckle Up” was aimed at the same groups of people, seeking the same change in the way drivers behave. Initially, we saw some resistance to the concept and, in truth, there is still some resistance to the concept of a primary seat belt law for a variety of reasons. However, the success of the education campaign affecting the frequency with which drivers use their seat belts cannot be denied.

And that is exactly what many COGs and MPOs, in partnership with their local elected officials, are creating in their regions. The transportation professionals continue to leverage scarce resources to develop programs educating their citizens, aimed at both adult and youth driving populations, about the dangers of distracted driving. As the unit of government closest to the people, the ability of local elected officials across the nation to develop priorities and strategies that are tailored to address the specific problems their regions face is a strength of the regional planning process that should not be overlooked. When planning any transportation project, all safety concerns such as emergency response, evacuation planning, fuel leakage, etc, must be considered. In past years, those issues have been an after thought.

The federally mandated MPO process is an important linkage to drivers that goes well beyond engineering solutions and should continue to be prioritized and recognized as an important tool for the federal government to disseminate safety related education campaigns.

Bill Wilkinson is surely right to ask

“Why do we persist in believing that public information and education are going to change traffic safety outcomes when, after decades of this stuff, we’re still killing approx. 40,000 people every year?”

But Bill’s answers — and those of some others — miss a critical factor – financial incentives. Over a million people are killed worldwide every year, but those to blame are often not held financially accountable.

One way to bring financial accountability to bear would be to require insurers to test and license the drivers and vehicles they insure. Placing this responsibility on insurers is common in maritime transport, where safety is taken very seriously: Ships and ships’ officers are tested and licensed by Lloyds and other insurers.

Insurers have compelling incentives to avoid unsafe drivers and vehicles, and are likely to do a better job than the government departments currently responsible for those vital responsibilities.

For example, an October 2007 report by Maryland’s Office of Legislative Audits determined that Maryland’s Motor Vehicle Administration did not properly enforce Maryland’s Ignition Interlock program, which requires those convicted of drunken driving to have their vehicles equipped with devices which prevent them starting if excessive alcohol levels are detected. Can one envisage an insurance company, with millions of dollars at risk from vehicle accidents, failing to enforce such an important program?

Furthermore, competing insurers would have incentives to find ways of insuring even high-risk customers: They could, for example, insist on ignition interlock programs for reformed alcoholics, or on the use of special slow-moving vehicles as a condition for insuring the very young and the very old.

We cannot expect government to reverse its own mistakes — such as legislating CAFE regulations to force the production of less-safe cars. But could it not use its influence to introduce a pilot program, maybe starting with trucks, to have insurers test and license the drivers and vehicles they insure?

One fast and low cost method to reducing death and injury among the traveling public would be to have wireless internet connectivity on all public transportation.

1. It would reduce distracted driving-related accidents by providing an alternative for those who are currently driving and communicating with friends, family, and work colleagues while driving,

2. It would attract new public transit riders, reducing VMTs and therefore all types of vehicle-related accidents, by offering a significant and long-term competitive advantage of transit over personal driving. Accidents per passenger mile on transit are dramatically lower than those completed by car.

It’s a two-fer!

While we need to be sensitive to individual liberties, there is a legitimate role for public policy when personal choices behind the wheel put others people’s safety on the line. The right combination of “carrots and sticks” can do a lot to lower these incidents. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller’s proposal to provide grants to states that develop stricter safety laws on cell phone use is a potential step forward. Senators Robert Menendez, Charles Schumer, Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu have also contributed potential solutions, proposing states lose 25 percent of highway funding unless they ban text-message and e-mail use while driving.

Distracted driving also goes beyond the use of electronic devices. Tom Vanderbilt illustrates in his book “Traffic” that many accidents happen because drivers are not giving the road their full attention. According to Vanderbilt, 80 percent of crashes occur due to just three seconds of inattentiveness. To that end, Dennis Christiansen of the Texas Transportation Institute is right on target in his call for a “shift in safety culture” that makes safe driving more valued and universal.

But the discussion about transportation safety cannot stop there. Thousands of Americans die preventable deaths every year due in large part to how we design our transportation system in general and our roads in particular, and how we allocate funding.

The problem is that many communities have engineered physical activity out of their very design. Managing traffic is a vital goal for transportation planners and traffic engineers, but it cannot simply continue to accommodate more traffic and higher speeds at the expense of good sidewalks, crosswalks and other amenities that make walking and biking safe and accessible. More than 43,000 Americans have died from preventable pedestrian deaths since 2000.

As Congress takes up a re-authorization of SAFETEA-LU, the federal transportation bill, “completing the streets” so that roads are designed to accommodate all users - pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles and motorists alike - needs to be a top priority. Complete streets do not simply help recreational pedestrians and bikers. They also provide a lifeline to seniors, children, the disabled and low-income Americans who do not drive or do not have access to an automobile. Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Doris Matsui each introduced Complete Streets legislation that would significantly advance these concepts and make them part of a new way of doing business in transportation planning and funding.

Making our streets safer also means reforming federal spending to prioritize projects according to outcomes and performance. The National Transportation Objectives Act, HR 2724, introduced by Representatives Rush Holt, Russ Carnahan and Jay Inslee would help achieve this needed accountability by setting strong performance measures that ensure new projects are safe, clean and smart, specifically by setting a goal of reducing traffic crashes by 50 percent over the next 20 years.

Lastly, I want to echo Carol Carmody’s comment about the need to continue speaking out on this critical issue. Long overdue cultural and policy shifts will never happen unless we keep safety and transportation on the front burner, and that’s what our growing coalition intends to do.

The following post is from Bill Wilkinson, a consultant and the former head of the National Center for Bicycling & Walking:

A “Lack of Awareness” …? I think not. Rather, it is a lack of will and a lack of leadership that sustains our appalling highway (un)safety record. Has there ever been a Secretary of USDOT or a NHTSA Administrator that wasn’t “aware” of the problem? After 40+ years, can either of these two agencies – or anyone else – honestly assert that the “problem” is due to a lack of data or that we need more research?

What we really need is a someone with a spine. More honesty and commonsense would help, too.

Okay, in the spirit of the comedian Steven Wright, here are just a few aspects of our current approach to traffic safety I find difficult to reconcile:

§ Why is it that every car sold in the U.S. is capable of exceeding the highest posted speed limit in the country by at least 40 mph (and, in some cases, by more than 100 mph)?

§ Why do highway engineers, who tell us that the design of the road determines the speed people will drive (the 85th percentile thing), use a “design speed” that is higher than the planned posted speed?

§ Why do we have laws to take away their license (and make it a felony) if a driver drives away without paying for the gas they just pumped ... but they will only get (at most) a ticket if they happen to hit and kill a pedestrian as they exit the gas station?

§ Why do some traffic engineers set the timing for traffic lights so you will keep getting a green light if you drive faster than the posted speed limit? [Hey, I’m not making this stuff up!]

§ We do we persist in believing that public information and education are going to change traffic safety outcomes when, after decades of this stuff, we’re still killing approx. 40,000 people every year?

What if, instead of all of this stuff, we declared a war on bad driving/drivers? What if we embraced the Vision Zero concept – “The Vision Zero policy is not a figure; it is a shift in philosophy. Normal traffic policy is a balancing act between mobility benefits and safety problems. The Vision Zero policy refuses to use human life and health as part of that balancing act; they are non negotiable.”

Okay, make me Traffic Safety Czar and here’s what I’ll do (and you can’t dis my ideas unless you’ve got a better one to replace it with!) –

1. Eliminate NHTSA (what has it accomplished?) and make the “new” FHWA (and the State DOTs) accountable for reducing MV-related deaths and injuries.

2. Define/establish a “standard of care” for MV operators and hold them strictly accountable for the consequences of their actions (and inactions).

3. Identify bad drivers, get them off the road, and keep them off the road.

4. Hold Transportation Engineers professionally accountable for designing streets and highways that have an 85th percentile speed equal to the posted speed limit.

5. Us all available means and measures to regulate/control MV speeds.

6. Make full and active use of EDRs for enforcement and adjudication, and enhance the existing systems by integrating a positive identification of who the operator is (perhaps by requiring inserting their MV operators permit in the dash and entering a password).

7. Reject once and for all the absurd claim to “privacy” when operating a MV on the public right-of-way – what a joke!

Okay, there it is, now, let’s get ‘er done.

Bill Wilkinson

Bill has been involved with transportation planning and policy for nearly 40 years. He claims to have mellowed a lot since “retiring” as executive director of the National Center for Bicycling & Walking in June 2008. Today, he does a bit of consulting and spends a lot of time with his grandchildren.

Significant progress has been made over the last 50 years in improving safety on our surface transportation systems. For example, fatality rates on our highways have fallen from 5.3 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 1965 to 1.4 fatalities per 100 VMT in 2006. But there is much room for improvement. Too many people are still being killed and injured. In 2006, there were more than 42,000 fatalities and 2,500,000 injuries on our highways. This is a national tragedy and, frankly, a national disgrace. We can and must do better.

If our goal is to significantly reduce fatalities and injuries, I believe we must try a new approach. We should move in the direction recommended by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission. The Commission recommended that the US Department of Transportation establish national safety goals, beginning with an ambitious but reachable goal to cut surface transportation fatalities in half from current levels by 2025. States and local governments would develop strategies and projects for meeting these goals. The decision-making process would be transparent, with input from the general public. The strategies would include engineering, enforcement and education. Once adopted, the strategies, and the projects implementing the strategies, would be evaluated to ensure that progress is being made toward meeting the goals. In other words, States and local governments would ultimately be held accountable for reaching the goals, but they would have the flexibility to fashion the strategies and projects in a way that worked best in their area and for their citizens. Reflecting the importance of transportation safety, the Federal share of funding for qualifying safety projects should be 90 percent of the project cost.

Ambitious but reachable national goals. State and local flexibility. Adequate resources. Accountability. Enforcement. These are the elements of a new approach that would significantly raise awareness of transportation safety and would could achieve significant safety benefits. There would be far fewer fatalities and injuries on our surface transportation systems. We can do it. We must do it.

Anne McCartt, senior vice president, research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety sent us the following post:

The problem with distracted driving is not awareness. Surveys show that most people agree that drivers should not use cellphones and drive, even many of those who also admit they do so. The problem is how to make laws effective in changing driver behavior.

The cumulative evidence from various types of studies points to cellphone use as a risk factor for crashes and impaired driving performance. While studies have reached different estimates of the magnitude of the risk, well-controlled research that verified phone use in large samples of crash-involved drivers found that the risk of crashing was 4 times higher when a driver was talking on either a hand-held or hands-free phone.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have banned hand-held cellphone use while driving, but the effects of these laws on hand-held use is mixed. Moreover, the effect on safety isn’t clear. Many drivers still use hand-held phones where use is banned, and other drivers may switch to hands-free devices, which doesn’t help, since the crash risk with either type of device is about the same. Preliminary data from insurance claims for collision suggest no apparent reduction in crash risk after states enacted hand-held bans.

The research supports a ban on all cellphone use behind the wheel, but enforcement is problematic. Police officers, for example, can’t readily ascertain that a driver is using a hands-free device. Experience shows that laws that aren’t strongly and visibly enforced won’t be effective. The public isn’t well served by rushing to proposed solutions that may not work.

Before policymakers can make sound decisions about what countermeasures to adopt, we need better evidence on several issues: the discrepant estimates of the risk of phone use; the risks of different types of hands-free phones relative to other devices; the number of crashes attributable to phone use, and whether this has changed as drivers’ phone use increased. But the most serious deficit in our knowledge is that we don’t know whether laws banning drivers’ phone use have reduced the frequency of crashes. Before we encourage or require that more states pass bans, we need to establish whether they enhance traffic safety.

“Transportation safety” can mean many things. Reducing fatalities and injuries related to distracted, drunk and drugged driving and the failure to use safety belts all rightly deserve the attention and resources of both federal and state governments, and private user and safety groups.

But there is also more we can do.

For those of us involved in the transportation infrastructure business, our safety focus is on “both sides of the barrel,” meaning both motorists and industry workers. To promote greater public awareness, and give lawmakers and government officials the latest data on this issue, a group of 28 national construction associations and labor unions commissioned the nationally-respected Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation (PIRE) to examine the extent in which the roadway environment is a contributing factor in highway crashes.

The PIRE report’s findings, released in the summer and generating national news coverage, were disturbing—and significant. (It’s available online at: www.transportationconstructioncoalition.org)

They found that deficient or poor roadway conditions are a major contributing factor in more than half—52.7 percent—of the nearly 42,000 American deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes each year. That’s more than 22,000 fatalities each and every year! The cost to America: $217 billion annually.

According to internationally-recognized economist and PIRE study author, Dr. Ted Miller: “Safer drivers and safer cars remain vitally important, but safer roadways are critical to saving lives, preventing injuries and reducing costs.”

The key way to promote greater awareness of transportation safety, is by taking concrete public policy actions to help eliminate those 22,000 pre-mature deaths annually. Congress and the President should get moving now to pass a new six-year federal highway/transit investment bill that, among other things, provides the resources necessary to build a better and safer roadway environment and fund the educational programs to get the public to pay attention.

To delay is the equivalent of sending a “text” saying WDC—“We Don’t Care!”

Transportation Secretary LaHood and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski today annouced a partnership between their agencies to educate the public about the dangers of distracted driving and to look at technologies that could reduce it. Here's a link to what he posted on his blow, the Fast Lane:

http://fastlane.dot.gov/

So, what does everyone think of this effort?

Roger Wentz, CAE, President and CEO of the American Traffic Safety Services Association, sent us the following response:

Commendably, Secretary LaHood has repeatedly stated that safety is the number one priority for U.S.-DOT. But he is right on another point as well. Far too many people die on America’s road; on average, 40,000 individuals die each year in car crashes. Yes, distracted driving is an issue that deserves serious and thoughtful consideration and action in order to reduce distractions and enhance a driver’s ability to focus on the road.

However, there is roadway safety infrastructure that can implemented right now on our nation’s roads to immediately make the road safer for all who travel on it. Secretary LaHood even mentioned one of these devices in his statement to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee distracted driving hearing held on October 28. In his remarks, the Secretary mentioned that rumble strips could be used to alert distracted drivers about impending road departure. Other features, such as pavement markings, barrier, and rumble stripes, have proven to drastically reduce roadway departures and assist drivers in remaining on the road and in their lane. ATSSA commends U.S-DOT, Congress, and the transportation industry in highlighting the need for increased safety in all modes of transportation.

Dr. Paul Lebow, past president of One Less Car and past president of MADD – Central Maryland, submitted this response:

Upon reading the responses to the question Lisa posed, it is evident to me at least that as long as one remains immersed in the present transportation paradigm (i.e. inside “the box”) the best we can do is recycle platitudes. In fact, the current transportation system is the result of a steady evolution from a its ancestral root, the horse and buggy – it is time let go of some of the vestigial characteristics that continue to lead to failing systems over and over.

Of course we are driving more distracted than ever before – our culture has, for better or worse, evolved through technological innovation, to the point where multitasking has become almost innate. To ask people to turn off their eagerly acquired multiple brains in the comfort of their private roving environments is asking too much – the genie is out of the bottle.

As past president for MADD-Central Maryland, I am keenly aware of the ability to shift public behavior through a steady public relations drum beat. I also feel that in some ways MADD focused too much on legislation and PR and not enough on enforcement. A Tennessee study, I believe in the mid-1990’s demonstrated that a blitzkrieg of random checkpoints had an immediate and profound impact on drunken driving and fatalities. I think the problem very much lies with the presumption that somehow democracy and the American independent spirit is embodied in what is in reality a mundane public utility, our roadways. (We have to be constantly reminded that driving is a privilege not a right.) But does the answer lie in a constant battle between citizen and state? This paradigm needs to change and can be changed.

While we as individuals have eagerly been drinking the technology kool-aid, the transportation network remains a glorified and grotesquely dolled-up version of the horse and buggy system. Technology seems to stop a at our doorstep. If the transportation community can get past rearranging the deck chairs, there is a remedy – personal rapid transit, PRT. This discussion is not the venue to reel out the long list of benefits to mankind and the planet afforded by what has been deemed, the “Internet for transportation“ (Google "personal rapid transit" for the results of many of well-respected studies as well as examples of systems actually under construction such as at London’s Heathrow airport to become operational this spring). But one key attribute of PRT is that the melding of existing computer technology with a novel and inexpensive vehicle transportation network will essentially break the deadly and schizophrenic duality of “distracted citizen traveler” verses “heavy mechanized equipment operator”.

Selling the concept to transportation officials is almost a lost cause – even in this new era of supposed enlightenment. There are too many entrenched interests that see any upstart as a threat. Of course in reality PRT is an enabling technology, not a threat, for it acts as the “glue” that ties the heavy modes (rail, air travel) to the light (walking, bicycling). (As a typical example of dysfunction, in the state of Maryland there is no public transportation between its major international airport, Marshall-BWI to the state capitol in Annapolis less than 20 miles away.)

Because Americans can not distinguish between themselves and the cars they drive, selling PRT to the public will not be easy either. It will be like prying a rigid death grip from a steering wheel. Traveling via PRT is as unglamorous as a ride in an elevator – one punches in a “floor” and your “lift” travels horizontally rather than vertically to any destination available to an expandable network of raised guide-ways. One is free to snooze, keyboard, snack, watch a video, work and yes, even sip a Martini without adding to the carnage on our failed roadways. Again, Americans thrive on the phony wild-west hype pumped out by the auto industry – PRT will need to use a different angle to gain public acceptance.

Fortunately PRT is inherently scalable and, because of this acceptance, can be fine-tuned to be self fulfilling. A small “local network” serving an airport or college or industrial campus can easily be expanded to serve a neighboring community or municipality. Such pilot sub-networks will, through envy, begin to pop up like mushrooms. Interconnections between them with more and more redundancies will occur until, like the world wide web, it reaches a tipping point of acceptance. Of course, as has become the norm with the “leader of the free world”, Europe and Asia will be at least a decade ahead of the US as is evidenced by PRT systems now under development. Current reliance on the automobile remains the last bastion of resistance to the techno tidal wave; PRT is a pathway toward embracing and exploiting it for the good of society and the safety of its citizens.

In recent days, there has been lots of media and public comment about the inexplicable behavior of two Northwest Airline pilots who somehow lost situational awareness and flew 150 miles past their destination before correcting their situation. All the furor is a useful reminder of how the professional pride and conduct of cockpit crews and the legal and regulatory requirements imposed on them by society have made flying increasingly safe.

While airline travel has become ever safer, automobile travel continues to be extremely hazardous. Jacqueline Gillan’s recent post makes the point that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 3 and 33.

Some Americans are indifferent to the risks they face because they do not know the extent of the carnage on our highways. Many more are concerned, but are discouraged by the disappointing willingness of local, state and national leaders to ignore safety in favor of popularity. And many more seem to have simply renounced the concept of a common good, and prefer to endanger themselves and others rather than obey the laws regarding speeding, reckless driving, drinking and cell phone use.

On any journey north to south on I 95 – or any other interstate – the number of drivers exceeding the speed limit easily exceeds the number honoring it. In 2007 Virginia – in an effort to reduce accidents and raise revenue – proposed substantial increases in fines for speeding and other traffic violations. There was a firestorm of reaction and the new rules were soon rescinded. And despite the fact that speed both kills people and wastes energy, the Congress has shown no serious interest in re-establishing and enforcing a national speed limit.

As Pogo famously observed “We have met the enemy and he is us”. For whatever reason, we are prepared to expend both time and treasure to prevent major aviation, maritime and rail accidents but are unwilling to assign responsibility for the lack of motor vehicle safety to our political leaders, to spend what’s needed to properly maintain and optimally engineer our highways or to support vigorous enforcement of existing laws regarding driver behavior.

Making our roads safer should really be quite easy.

We need to make clear to those we elect that the current level of highway deaths is not acceptable and that we expect them to get serious about controlling driver behavior. Put more police on the roads. Reduce maximum speeds, outlaw driver use of cell phones, get seriously tough on mixing alcohol and gasoline, use lots more cameras in urban areas, strictly enforce all other traffic laws and dramatically increase penalties. And, as Greg Cohen suggests, we need to insist that government get back into the business of properly maintaining and optimally engineering our highways.

We’d save thousands of lives every year, reduce medical costs and save lots of gasoline. What’s not to like??

Secretary LaHood is doing the right thing by speaking out forcefully about distracted driving and flying. Carol Carmody is right, however, to frame the issue in the larger context of human factors (flight and duty time and hours of service are just two of the issues that are important).

While the ability of the operator to perform fundamental tasks is certainly impaired by outside distractions introduced into the vehicle such as drinking and texting, performance can also be potentially impaired by distractions that are built into or brought legally in vehicles. These include bluetooth technologies that enable cellphone use, GPS systems that provide real-time routings and directions, and the type of corporate oriented programs used by the Northwest/Delta pilots. Measuring the cumulative impact these potential distractions have on safety is important if we are serious about improving safety.

As we explore the increasing use of ITS and other technologies, it is imperative that we do so in a way that does not overburden the operator. In short, we need to focus on how real people use technologies in real situations instead of the way the ideal operator uses them.

One other note: we also need to be vigilant about distractions outside of the vehicle. The growing propensity of some localities to permit digital billboards that draw away the attention of drivers is just one example of a practice that has not been adequately examined for its impact of safety.

Steve Van Beek

Anything that takes a person’s eyes off the road, hands off the steering wheel, or mind off of driving poses a safety risk. Using a cell phone or other hand-held electronic device to read or send text messages combines all three actions, posing the highest risk of driver distraction.

Over a year ago, trucking industry leaders called the nation’s attention to the dangers of text messaging and cell phone use on the road. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) and its member carriers support a ban on the use of electronic hand-held devices to read, write or send a text message while operating a motor vehicle. Our Executive Committee also voted to support the ALERT Drivers Act of 2009 (S. 1536) that would require states to ban the practice of reading, writing or sending a text message on a hand-held device while driving.

America needs strong laws that apply to all drivers, but legislation alone will not solve the problem. Unsafe behaviors like text messaging while driving have become socially acceptable, so we need to change the attitudes toward and perceptions of these actions. As Secretary LaHood said, if we don’t take action now the problem will only get worse, especially among our nation’s youngest drivers.

In the past, public awareness campaigns like “Click it or Ticket” promoting seatbelt use and “.08” discouraging driving under the influence of alcohol helped transform the perceptions and actions associated with these behaviors. Similar efforts are needed to make the use of hand-held electronic devices while driving socially unacceptable.

We can accomplish this in a systematic and comprehensive manner by:
• Supporting research, data collection and analysis that reveal the degree and extent of the problem;
• Communicating the need for change;
• Promoting public education and awareness efforts;
• Using technology to reduce distractions caused by technology;
• Developing policy or legislation to drive change;
• Supporting tough penalties and effective enforcement; and
• Properly funding the above.

Driver behavior is the No. 1 cause of vehicle crashes. In addition to restricting the use of hand-held technologies while the vehicle is in motion, ATA's progressive safety agenda includes 10 additional policies to improve driver performance.

Yes – Americans have become complacent about transportation safety and there is no doubt that more must be done by the transportation community to promote greater safety awareness, both on the part of average Americans and among the transportation professionals who are responsible for ensuring the safety of millions of passengers.

As Peter Kissinger, President and CEO of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety promotes, we need to change the traffic safety culture in this country. As Kissinger states on his own blog on traffic safety, findings from this year’s AAA Foundation Traffic Safety Culture Index survey found 80 percent of drivers agree that distracted driving is a serious threat to their safety, but 67% of drivers also admitted to talking on a cell phone while driving in the past month. According to Kissinger, “This ‘Do as I say, Not as I do’ attitude is one of the things we must change to push toward a positive culture of safety.”

But changing attitudes and behaviors are not enough. As policy makers in Washington take up the issue of distracted driving it is important for them to be aware that distractions often lead to road departure – the #1 contributing factor in highway deaths. We need to minimize distractions, but when you make a mistake behind the wheel, you should not be killed, paralyzed, or severely injured. Roadway safety countermeasures such as median and roadside barriers, clear shoulders, rumble strips, bright signs, and reinforced bridge railings can help prevent these crashes or significantly lessen their severity.

I also serve as the Executive Director of the Roadway Safety Foundation (RSF), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, educational and charitable organization whose mission is to reduce the frequency and severity of motor vehicle crashes, injuries and fatalities through improvements to roadway systems and their environments. We currently have several public awareness campaigns in the works that promote such safety countermeasures as median cable barriers and rumble strips. For more information I encourage you to visit www.roadwaysafety.org.

And this Thursday on Capitol Hill we will recognize 14 noteworthy roadway safety programs from across the country at our bi-annual awards luncheon with the Federal Highway Administration. We are honored that U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will be our featured speaker.

In summary, distracted driving is a growing epidemic which needs to be addressed with all the tools in our arsenal. This includes all of the four Es: education, enforcement, emergency services, AND ENGINEERING.

As I believe many of my colleagues would agree, the most effective means to promote greater awareness of transportation safety would stem from a combination of actions. Specifically, three steps would produce meaningful progress in the face of one of the most difficult challenges our society currently faces.

- Continue to conduct relevant research to better understand the problems we face. To get the right answers, it is essential that we ask the right questions. This is especially true when the issue involves human behavior. At TTI, we have worked for decades to better understand the actions and motivations of all drivers, and in some cases more specifically, those of distinct groups like teenage drivers, through our Teens in the Driver Seat Center. Understanding fully what separates such distinct groups from the rest of the driving population is essential to improving safety not only for that group, but for all who share the roadways.

- Support the development of public policy that improves transportation safety. Even the most substantial and groundbreaking findings of research are of little or no value if they sit on a shelf. Knowledge must be shared with everyone who may benefit from it, and this is especially true where public policy is concerned. We are proud that TTI researchers have on numerous occasions – often through formal testimony before Congress and the Texas Legislature – shared important findings that have supported the development or refinement of public policy.

- Promote a shift in safety culture in which safe driving habits are valued and practiced universally. The Texas Legislature in 2001 created the Center for Transportation Safety at TTI, in part to conduct focused research, but also “to foster public awareness of the importance of roadway safety to the economy of this state.” Texas lawmakers then and now recognize the connection between transportation safety, sustainability, and our future prosperity. To a great extent, our fortunes depend upon our behavior, and our collective behavior will depend greatly on our understanding of how vitally important safety is to our future – not only as individuals, but as a society as well.

The persistent problem of transportation safety can only be addressed by a multi-faceted approach, and that is an approach to which we will always remain committed.

The New York Times has an interesting story today about the tough approach that Britain is taking to distracted driving. If you haven't read it yet, here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/technology/02texting.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

How about a federal mandate abolishing safety belts, and legislating that all steering wheels be equipped with sharp spears pointing at drivers' chests?

Driver distraction is a growing and serious problem on our nation’s highways. Our vehicles no longer are just a means of transportation but rather have become mobile offices, entertainment enclaves and telecommunications centers. Safety groups like Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) and others have been concerned for years that the rapid introduction and unchecked use of in-vehicle electronic communication devices regularly distracts drivers from the driving task.

Rather than being complacent about the risks and dangers of multi-tasking in the car while driving, the American public for the most part has been kept in the dark about the dangers. Only recently have government and opinion leaders been honest with the public about the serious consequences. The recent release of a 2003 NHTSA-sponsored study on cell phone use resulting from a lawsuit filed by Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety, an investigative report on distracted driving by the New York Times, several public opinion surveys on cell phone use, and a growing body of research have all shown that crash risk increases dramatically when a driver uses a cell phone, hands-free or hand-held, and is texting. In addition, similar to the drunk driving movement that was forever changed and energized with the founding of MADD, the victims and survivors of distracted driving crashes and deaths are influencing the public policy debate with compelling stories and commonsense solutions.

This safety issue now has the attention of state and federal leaders and it’s these individuals who must not become complacent in addressing the problem with readily available solutions. It is clear from past efforts tackling other serious traffic safety challenges that certain countermeasures work to change driving behavior and others do not. Essentially, the formula for success is enactment of effective laws in every state, combined with public education and strong enforcement. And, the best approach to getting tough laws passed in every state to protect every motorist is the use of “sanctions,” or withholding federal highway dollars from states that don’t act. In the past 25 years, the threat of federal sanctions has been used successfully to encourage every state to enact a National Minimum 21 Drinking Age, a zero tolerance BAC law for underage drinking and driving, a .08% BAC law, and a uniform commercial driver license (CDL). In each case every state passed the law within the specified time frame and not one state lost a single dollar of federal-aid highway funds.

Offering states incentive grants has resulted in slow and sporadic state passage of primary enforcement seat belt and child booster seat laws. After five years and a $500 million incentive grant program encouraging enactment of primary enforcement seat belt laws, only ten states acted, leaving 21 still without this critical lifesaving law. As a result, the leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have included in the surface transportation authorization bill that was unveiled last June a sanction provision for states that do not pass a primary enforcement seat belt law within three years. Advocates applauds their leadership but we can’t keep delaying the passage of other important and effective traffic safety laws while the annual fatality toll of tens of thousands continues.

Transportation professionals, elected officials and public opinion leaders need to move forward on legislative solutions that will protect every person in every state from the deaths and injuries caused by distracted driving. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for all Americans ages 3 to 33 and the public is well-aware of the dangers on our roads and highways. That’s why they want to buy safe vehicles, drive on safe roads and engage in safe driving behavior. If lawmakers lead the public will gladly follow even if it takes a ticket or two to get their full attention.

It is true that Americans are multi-tasking every day – in cars, in grocery stores, in gyms, even in cockpits. While this is a fact of modern life, I do not believe it should be commonplace for operators of vehicles, aircraft, trains, subways. An operator responsible for transporting the public must meet the highest level of safety.

Without knowing the full details of the NTSB investigation, or pre-judging its outcome, I had a couple of thoughts as I read about the NW pilots and their “overflight” of their destination.

First, no matter how sophisticated the equipment, no matter how redundant the systems, humans make errors. We have seen time and time again that human missteps, or a string of them, can thwart any safety system. As we advance technically, we must not overlook the fallibilities of the operators. Fatigue, distraction, boredom, repetition of simple tasks, schedule pressure, relations with co-operators – all of these conditions are crucial to recognize, understand and try to accommodate in our safety regulations.

Second, I agree with Secretary LaHood’s view that pilots (or other operators) have no business with laptops or with hand-held devices, or personal cell phones when they are operating a public conveyance. We know enough to understand that these devices are major distractions. I would favor banning them in this circumstance. My personal view is that regulation is preferable to legislation, but I would support whatever works.

I believe it is important for safety officials, such as Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt, and others, to continue to speak out on this subject, so that one day using cell phones or laptops while operating public transportation will be as taboo as drinking on duty is.