Crash Prevention News

       On November 20th, a school bus in Huntsville, Alabama was clipped by a 1990 Toyota Celica, causing the bus to lose control and plunge 30 feet off a highway overpass. The entire front-end of the school bus was crushed. As of this writing, four teens are dead. Another 13 students have been hospitalized, at least three them in critical condition. The bus driver, who was either ejected or jumped from the bus before it crashed over the barrier, is also hospitalized.
       
       Understandably, this horrific crash has revived a debate about the lack of seatbelts on school buses. It seems plausible that at least some of the students might have escaped serious harm had they been belted in with both a shoulder and a lap belt.
       
       However, it is highly unlikely that seatbelts would have saved all the students on this bus. The force of the crash was enormous. It is quite probable that those sitting in the front of the bus would still have suffered critical injuries.
       
       There is also no guarantee that seatbelts would have held up for students sitting further back in the bus. Seatbelts generally are not designed to protect occupants in crashes at high speeds, and they certainly have been known to break. If not properly used, seatbelts also can cause serious internal injuries in crashes even at moderate speeds.
       
       Despite these caveats, seatbelts obviously make a great deal of sense on all vehicles, including school buses. The main objection the government has to installing seatbelts on school buses is cost. This is a weak argument for refusing to provide what has been, unfortunately, the centerpiece of the U.S. government's highway safety strategy for more than 30 years. If the government is not going to dedicate itself to preventing crashes, then the least we can do is ensure that our school children have the best possible chance of surviving a crash.
       
       Still, it is extremely unfortunate that the only serious question being raised in the media as a result of this horrible tragedy is, "Why are there no seatbelts on school buses?"
       
       Meanwhile, my own mind is spinning with a host of other serious questions, not necessarily in this order:
       
       1) How fast were both vehicles going?
       2) Why did the smaller car hit the bus?
       3) Why was the bus driver not able to stop after being clipped by such a small vehicle?
       4) Is the speed limit of 65 mph appropriate for the road on which this crash occurred, or is this just one of many roads in America where the maximum speed limit is now arbitrarily set at least 10 to 20 mph above what is safe and reasonable?
       5) What is the crash rate on this road?
       6) Was the barrier on this overpass designed to protect large vehicles from going over it after a collision at 65 mph? If so, how did this bus manage to go over?
       7) What kind of training did the school bus driver receive?
       8) Did he have traffic violations on his record?
       9) This school bus was operated by a for-profit company called Laidlaw with a reputation for providing low wages and few benefits. Why is the transport of our nation's school children being farmed out to for-profit contracting firms? And did this have anything to do with the crash?
       10) What was the driving record of the 17-year-old in the Celica who clipped the school bus?
       
       Over the next 12-18 months, the National Transportation Safety Board will study this crash and issue a report. Will these questions be answered and, if so, will anybody besides the victims' families and the Partnership for Safe Driving be interested in the answers?
       
       In the interim, many, many more school buses will be involved in crashes. Contrary to government assurances about their safety, school buses are involved in crashes nearly every school day across America. And nearly every school day, children are sent to hospitals with injuries. Fortunately, most school bus crashes are not as tragic for students as this one. Often the people who are most seriously hurt are pedestrians or the occupants of another vehicle. (In our modern-day road war, size does matter.)
       
       The nation will no doubt continue debating the wisdom of refusing to install seatbelts on school buses. When will the national debate about excessive speed limits and dangerous driving begin?

       In yet another sign that our elected officials no longer are willing to confront the most pressing problems in America, both the federal government and the states are running scared from the elderly driving crisis in America, refusing to take even the most modest steps to curb the problem.
       
       The latest example can be seen in the California verdict last month against 89-year-old George Russell Weller.
       
       Three years ago, Weller drove his Buick Le Sabre through a crowded Santa Monica farmers market, apparently mistaking the gas pedal for the brake. He killed 10 people and injured 70.
       
       The government refused to accept any responsibility for continually renewing Weller's driver's license -- year after year, decade after decade -- without ever once requiring him to re-take any written or physical test. California law requires only that motorists over age 70 renew their driver's licenses in person (as opposed to by mail or the Internet). It does not require that seniors take any tests to prove their fitness for driving. Law enforcement, medical personnel and family members can ask the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to investigate if they believe an elderly driver poses a danger to himself or the public. But unless someone takes the initiative and the government decides to intervene, elderly people of all ages are free to keep right on driving regardless of their limitations.
       
       Despite such obvious negligence on the part of the DMV, prosecutors chose to place 100 percent of the blame for this horrific crash on Weller, even going so far as to cast his apparent inability to comprehend the totality of what he'd done not as senility but rather as evidence of a "lack of remorse."
       
       Jurors in the case, presumably unaware of the frequency with which elderly drivers on roads across America are causing serious injury and death while making the same exact mistake Weller made -- confusing the gas pedal for the brakes -- convicted Weller on all 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence.
       
       Weller could have been locked up for 18 years based on the verdict, but a judge sentenced him to probation instead, saying he was too ill to go to prison.
       
       Weller's case was unusual only in that it went to trial to begin with. That decision appeared to be based entirely upon the large number of casualties involved. Most fatal crashes involving elderly drivers, in California and elsewhere, are dismissed as unfortunate accidents. It seems the U.S. government does not want to send grandma and grandpa to jail.
       
       Here are just a few examples of horrific crashes involving elderly drivers on U.S. roads in a single month this past summer. In each case, the driver held a valid license, issued by the state in which he or she resided.
       
       * On July 29, 2006 an 85-year-old man drove his car onto a Starbucks patio in El Monte, California, injuring ten people, two of them critically. The driver told police he had been trying to hit the brakes but stepped on the accelerator by mistake. Authorities said he was unlikely to be charged. They called the crash a "simple mistake."
       
       * On July 27, 2006 a 77-year-old woman drove her car through the plate-glass windows of a manufacturing company in Houston, Texas. Three people inside were injured from the flying glass. The woman was not injured and no charges were filed.
       
       * On July 8, 2006, an 89-year-old man drove his car through a crowded festival in New London, Connecticut, hit a pedestrian, panicked, and then hit 26 more people, injuring all of them. He was permitted to keep his driver's license pending the investigation, and was eventually charged with one count of reckless driving, which carries a maximum penalty of $300 and 30 days in jail.
       
       * On July 5, 2006, an elderly woman jumped a curb in the parking lot of a beauty school in Oceanside, North Carolina and plowed into a bench, injuring two students, one of them seriously. She said she accidentally stepped on the gas instead of the brakes. The driver was unhurt and no charges were filed.
       
       July 2006 was not unusual in any respect. Horror stories involving elderly drivers abound. In October 2005, for example, a 93-year-old man from St. Petersburg, Florida was apparently suffering from dementia when he fatally struck a pedestrian, then continued driving through a toll booth with the man's body on his windshield. Police said they would likely file no charges against the driver because he did not appear to know what had happened, where he was, or even what day it was. Despite its large population of seniors, Florida law requires only that seniors over 80 take a vision test when renewing their licenses.
       
       Just last week, a Virginia state trooper who had been on the job for 19 years and was standing next to a car on the side of a road, issuing a traffic ticket, was hit and killed by an 84-year-old driver who ran off the road. No charges were expected to be filed. Virginia's law is identical to that of Florida: Only a vision test is required for seniors, and only after age 80.
       
       If the government doesn't want to send grandma and grandpa to jail, neither does it want to tell them that they are too old and frail to continue driving. In our automobile-dependent society, where public transportation in most communities ranges from poor to non-existent, losing one's driver's license can be a real hardship.
       
       Consequently, as the population ages, even the most modest efforts to tighten the licensing requirements of seniors have failed. (Click here to view a state-by-state list of laws, compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures, pertaining to license renewal for seniors. Note: This is a PDF file.)
       
       It seems elected officials are afraid they will be booted out of office if they act responsibly to ensure the safety of the public. Senior citizens, after all, represent a large voting block and are backed by powerful lobbying groups.
       
       Upon closer examination, however, it appears that at least some of this fear is unfounded. For example, the nation's most powerful lobbying group for seniors -- the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) -- supports efforts to ensure that motorists are fit to drive but merely opposes arbitrary age restrictions.
       
       We agree with the AARP. Some motorists are physically unfit to drive at age 40, while others can remain fit well into their 70s.
       
       Therefore, we believe the only fair solution is to require that ALL motorists submit to vision, memory, and reflex tests, in addition to a basic "Rules of the Road" test, each time we renew our driver's licenses, with the frequency of required renewals increasing as we age. All motorists should also be required periodically to re-take the road test.
       
       It is equally important that the government work to create safe, affordable alternatives to driving, including not only more and better public transportation but also well-advertised, safe, affordable car services for those who can neither continue driving nor access mass transit.
       
       Finally, it is absolutely essential that the government strictly regulate traffic so as to minimize, rather than maximize, the physical capabilities required of each motorist. This means, first and foremost, returning to lower speed limits and enforcing those limits. It also means enforcing red lights and stop signs, banning the use of cell phones while driving, and taking other steps (discussed throughout this web site) to reduce the risk of crashing for motorists of all ages and skill levels.
       
       But it seems our elected officials don't want to do any of these things. They would rather go on supporting the status quo and pretending these tragedies simply are not happening.
       
       The result is what we see today -- death and destruction on the nation's roads, 24/7.
       
       And no end in sight.
       

       In September, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a new law banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving.
       
       After six long years of wrangling over the issue, California lawmakers finally concluded that using hand-held phones while driving is a serious menace and therefore should be prohibited -- in July 2008.
       
       That's right. The law does not take effect for nearly two years. The bill's sponsors said promising the lengthy delay was the only way to persuade enough lawmakers to support the measure.
       
       The cell phone ban was opposed by many Republicans in the legislature, who said they consider it another step toward creating "a nanny state."
       
       In addition to delaying the law's implementation for nearly two years, the California cell phone ban carries very weak penalties. The fine is just $20 for the first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses, with no points added to motorists' licenses regardless of how many times they violate the law.
       
       There are likewise no additional penalties if a motorist ignores the law and kills someone. The fine is still just $20 or $50.
       
       The law exempts the drivers of commercial vehicles until July 2011. That gives the drivers of the biggest, heaviest vehicles on the roads several more years to continue driving with one hand.
       
       When it finally does take effect, the ban will still allow the use of hands-free devices for all motorists, even though hands-free phones have been shown to be even more dangerous. (The distraction is the same regardless of whether a motorist is talking on a hand-held or hands-free device, but research shows that motorists who are talking on hands-free devices tend to talk longer and drive faster, thereby increasing their risk of crashing.)
       
       In supporting the exemption for hands-free phones, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) released statistics showing that hands-free devices are involved in far fewer crashes than hand-held phones.
       
       In reality, however, CHP does not obtain the cell phone records of motorists involved in crashes. Officers rely instead on eye-witness testimony and the confessions of motorists. (Click here for a copy of CHP's inattentive driving study. Note: This is a PDF file.) Many motorists will not admit to any wrongdoing when involved in a serious crash, and often there are no witnesses.
       
       Thus, CHP has no way of knowing how many crashes actually involve cell phone use, whether hand-held or hands-free. Furthermore, it is easy to see why the use of hand-held devices shows up more frequently in crash reports than hands-free phones. Since they are still legal, the majority of motorists are still using hand-held phones rather than hands-free devices. In addition, eye-witnesses to a crash would be far less likely to notice a hands-free device.
       
       To its credit, California is still ahead of most other states on the issue. So far, only Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C. restrict the use of cell phones while driving, and those bans apply only to hand-held devices.
       
       However, it is clear from this action by the legislature of the nation's most populous state that lawmakers still do not understand the risk posed by talking on cell phones while driving, or what it will take to curb this behavior.
       
       California's governor, on the other hand, seems more attuned to the problem. Referring to the possibility that his own teen daughter might be tempted to use her cell phone while driving, Governor Schwarzenegger was quoted as saying, "If she makes that mistake, then I will take the car away from her and she will ride the bus, because it's inexcusable."
       
       We agree with the governor. It is inexcusable, not just for teen drivers but for all drivers. We only wonder how many people will have to die at the hands of a cell phone-impaired motorist before the rest of our elected officials wake up to this reality.
       

       The Partnership for Safe Driving is inching forward with plans for the first-ever Run & Walk for Road Safety, which we are still hoping to launch in at least five major U.S. cities in the fall of '07.
       
       We are pleased to report that we have recruited a U.S. senator to serve on our Honorary Committee for this event. We are currently working to secure commitments from other influential policymakers and prominent citizens, and will introduce the full committee here as soon as it is formed.
       
       The purpose of the Run & Walk for Road Safety is to create awareness about the importance of safe driving; to raise funds for a national campaign to deter all forms of dangerous driving; and to give families of crash victims an opportunity to join together in remembering their loved ones.
       
       The day of the Run & Walk for Road Safety will be declared National Road Victims Remembrance Day. Families who have lost loved ones in motor vehicle crashes will be invited to join with all event participants in honoring the memory of their loved ones by placing a rose at the finish line -- called the "Road of Remembrance."
       
       The Partnership's original "Road of Remembrance" was Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House (click here to view photos) where we partnered with the U.S. Department of Transportation in 1998 and 1999 to mark the first-ever Remembrance Day ceremonies. Following a moving ceremony in which families made a public plea for safer driving, nearly 4,000 roses were placed on the Road of Remembrance in memory of crash victims.
       
       How You Can Help: If you work in law enforcement or highway safety and are interested in joining the Honorary Committee for this event, please email us your name, title, agency, and phone number and we will contact you with details. If you work for a business or agency that you think may be interested in becoming a sponsor of the Run & Walk for Road Safety, please email us at info2@crashprevention.org and we will send you an information packet.
       
       Runners and walkers, stay tuned to this web site for more details and (hopefully!) sign-up information.
       

       The Partnership for Safe Driving is looking for partners for its new National Initiative on Speed Governor Settings.
       
       Speed governors are electronic devices that regulate the maximum speed a vehicle can attain. They have nothing to do with pick-up rate, which is controlled by horsepower.
       
       These electronic devices are built into the control systems of most vehicles on the market today. However, because they are not regulated, automakers are setting them at speeds well into the hundreds!
       
       Here are just a few examples of speed governor settings we've seen published in recent years:
       
        Lexus IS300 = 144 mph (Source: msautomall.com)
       
        BMW M3 = 137 mph (Source: Car and Driver)
       
        Buick Riviera= 109 mph (Source: Car and Driver)
       
        Dodge Durango= 110 mph (Source: autofan.com)
       
        GMC Typhoon= 124 mph (Source: Car and Driver)
       
        Mitsubishi Lancer= 112 mph (Source: formen.ign.com)
       
       There is no rational reason for automakers to program vehicles that are designed for public roads so that they are capable of going as fast as cars designed for track racing.
       
       Yet, so far the U.S. government has been unwilling to regulate speed governor settings.
       
       As a result, the Partnership estimates that each year thousands of serious crashes take place on U.S. roads at speeds that are not only unsafe but also illegal anywhere in the nation. Many of these crashes involve young drivers who are being handed the equivalent of a loaded gun when they purchase a car that can go as fast as a race car. Others involve adult drivers who are either 1) attempting to flee from police officers, 2) drunk or drugged, or 3) otherwise choosing to ignore both speed limits and common sense.
       
       In addition, sometimes very high-speed crashes result when a driver has a seizure or other medical event and falls forward, unintentionally pressing down on the accelerator. Such may have been the case in a crash that occurred in October of this year on a residential street in Long Isalnd. A Honda was traveling at an estimated speed of 110 mph when it rocketed up a dirt bank and over a group of 30-foot pine trees, much like a Hollywood stunt car, ultimately becoming lodged in the wall of a second-floor apartment. Police said the driver, who was killed in the crash, was wearing a seatbelt and was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A seizure or some other medical emergency was suspected.
       
       Establishing a reasonable maximum speed governor setting for all motor vehicles -- based on the limitations of the roads, vehicles, drivers, and traffic regulation systems in the U.S. -- could potentially reduce fatalities and serious injuries by thousands annually.
       
       The American Trucking Associations (ATA) recently proposed that the U.S. Department of Transportation place a cap on speed governor settings for big rigs. The Partnership applauds the ATA for attempting to take a leadership role on this issue. However, we believe that speed governor settings should be regulated on all vehicles, not just large trucks. We also share the concerns of those who argue that capping the maximum speed on big rigs, while continuing to allow all other vehicles on the roads (including other commercial trucks) the capability of traveling much faster, encourages the drivers of the faster vehicles to engage in dangerous tailgating and passing behavior and could serve to increase rather than decrease both the frequency and severity of crashes.
       
       In its first ten years of operation, the Partnership's leaders spoke with many members of our society, including regular citizens, elected officials, and journalists, about the issue of speed governor settings. The vast majority had never heard of a speed governor. Most people seemed genuinely shocked to learn that the maximum speed on most vehicles was being controlled by an electronic device and that this device is deliberately being set at outrageously high speeds. We spoke with no one who objected outright to the idea of regulating speed governor settings.
       
       Yet, we know that such people do exist. In all likelihood, as long as the general public remains in the dark on this issue, the vocal minority will be able to successfully block any and all efforts to secure federal legislation on speed governor settings. In fact, the last time this issue was raised by the federal government was in the early 1970s. At that time, a proposal to cap speed governor settings at an extremely generous 95 mph was quickly shot down by approximately 600 irate motorists who wrote to the government furiously asserting their right to drive faster than 95 mph.
       
       A central component, therefore, of the National Initiative on Speed Governor Settings will be a campaign to educate the media, policymakers, and the general public about the existence of speed governors on most vehicles, the fact that they are unregulated, and the consequences of no regulation.
       
       We would like to divide the National Initiative on Speed Governor Settings into three phases.
       
       Phase 1: Research - Gather research and documentation relevant to speed governor settings; Commission a public opinion poll to gauge knowledge of speed governors and assess attitudes, regionally, by gender, and by age group, toward government regulation of speed governor settings; Commission a study of estimates regarding how many crashes, injuries and fatalities could be prevented with a federally mandated maximum speed governor setting at various speeds (e.g. 60, 70, 80, or 90 mph).
       
       While any cap might be an improvement over the current free-for-all, it is quite probable that achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and injuries through governor settings would require that speed governors be set below the arbitrarily set maximum Interstate speed limit in this country, which is now 80 mph. The research phase of this project will seek to clarify, to the extent possible, what the safety improvement would be at various governor settings, and what the majority of Americans -- once educated about the issue -- would be willing to support.
       
       Phase 2: Working Group -- Select and convene a Working Group in Washington, DC, composed of our partners in this initiative as well as other highway safety professionals, policymakers, and road safety activists, to discuss the results of our research and devise a strategy for debating, defining, and promoting speed governor legislation in the U.S.
       
       Phase 3: Implementation -- Implement the recommendations of the Working Group.
       
       How You Can Help: We are seeking partners to work with us on this plan and help us raise $100,000 for the initial phase of this project. If you work for a government agency, corporation, foundation, or non-profit organization and may be interested in becoming a partner in the National Initiative on Speed Governor Settings, please contact us at info2@crashprevention.org. Please also forward this article to any individual, corporation or agency you think may be interested in joining this effort. We will send all interested parties additional information about each phase of the project, along with an itemized budget. Then we will plan a conference call to discuss the project in more detail.
       
       If you work for a law firm that may be able to provide legal counsel on the issue of speed governor settings, please contact us at info2@crashprevention.org.
       
       If you would like to make your own financial contribution to support the National Initiative on Speed Governor Settings, you can do so by check, credit card, or Paypal.
       
       Click here to donate by credit card
       
       Click here to donate using Paypal
       
       Click here to donate by check
       
       Please be sure to click on the box on the donation page titled, "National Initiative on Speed Governor Settings" so that we can set your donation aside specifically for this project.
       
       Thank you!
       
       For additional information about speed governors and settings, see "Chapter Three: The Marketing of Speed," from It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death & Injury on Our Roads.
       

       This fall, Partnership founder and executive director Lisa Lewis took part in a radio interview with Diane Horn, Producer and Host of the "Sustainability Segment" at KEXP radio in Seattle. The topic of discussion was her book, It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death & Injury on Our Roads.
       
       Ms. Lewis was asked to summarize key points from each chapter of her book, which offers a critical and wide-ranging look at the road safety crisis in America.
       
       In contrast to previous radio shows, in which Ms. Lewis was asked to debate her opponents on issues like banning the use of cell phones while driving, this interview allowed a calm but candid discussion of the full range of relevant topics.
       
       You can listen to the first half of the 31-minute interview by clicking here.
       
       Copies of It's No Accident are available here.
       

       NTSB Urges Cell Phone Ban for Bus Drivers
       
       The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) last week urged the federal government and the states to forbid all motor coach and school bus drivers from using cell phones while driving, except in emergencies.
       
       The recommendation came in an NTSB report on a non-fatal bus crash that occurred in Alexandria, VA in November 2004. In that crash, a tour bus of Catholic school students from Massachusetts slammed into a low, stone overpass, crushing the roof and injuring 11 teenagers.
       
       The bus driver had been talking on a hands-free cell phone at the time of the crash. He told investigators he did not see the signs on the parkway that alert motorists to the height of the overpass.
       
       The Partnership sincerely wishes that federal and state officials would heed the advice of the NTSB. However, since most of the NTSB's recommendations for improving highway safety are dutifully ignored by all government agencies in the U.S., we unfortunately expect that this recommendation will be no different.
       
       Police Officer in Presidential Motorcade Killed in Crash
       
       A motorcycle officer was killed in a crash last week while escorting President Bush in the Hawaiian islands.
       
       Steve Favela, 30, and two other officers crashed their cycles as the presidential motorcade was traveling across Hickam Air Force Base to meet troops for breakfast early Tuesday morning. The other officers were treated at The Queen's Medical Center and released.
       
       Favela, an eight-year veteran of the Honolulu Police Department and a father of four, suffered fatal internal injuries.
       
       Light rain had been falling on the island that morning.
       
       We at the Partnership have often noted the recklessly high speeds at which presidential motorcades traverse from one end of Washington, DC to the other. At no time is there any indication that the fast clip is due to a presidential emergency (unless a fundraiser could be considered a presidential emergency!).
       
       We do not presume to understand all the complexities involved in protecting a sitting head of state and are certainly sensitive to the uniqueness of the situation. Yet, we are not the least bit surprised to hear that one of these trips turned fatal.
       
       The fact that the motorcade for the President of the United States cannot even manage to choose a safe travel speed seems to us yet another indication of how truly serious the epidemic of speeding in America has become.
       
       

       The New York Times has an excellent article in its December 3rd edition about the meltdown in truck safety that has taken place under the Bush Administration.
       
       The article, titled "As Trucking Rules Are Eased, a Debate on Safety Grows," is written by Stephen Labaton. It describes how President Bush appointed prominent lobbyists from the trucking industry to key positions in his administration and then allowed them to dictate truck safety policy, with what safety advocates describe as disastrous results.
       
       Writes Labaton:
       
       "Before Mr. Bush entered the White House, he selected Duane W. Acklie, a leading political fund-raiser and chairman of the American Trucking Associations, and Walter B. McCormick Jr., the group's president, to serve on the Bush-Cheney transition team on transportation matters."
       
       The article continues:
       
       "Mr. Bush then appointed Michael P. Jackson, a former top official at the trucking associations, as deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation. To lead the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the president picked Joseph M. Clapp, the former chairman of Roadway, a trucking company, and the leader of an industry foundation that sponsored research claiming fatigue was not a factor in truck accidents, a conclusion at odds with government and academic studies.
       
       And David S. Addington, a former trucking industry official who led an earlier fight against tougher driving limits, became legal counsel and later chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, an advocate of easing government regulations."
       
       In addition to supplying prominent administration officials, writes Labaton, "the trucking industry has provided some of the Republican party's most important fund-raisers. From 2000 to 2006, the industry directed more than $14 million in campaign contributions to Republicans..."
       
       Labaton describes the results of that influence:
       
       "After intense lobbying by the politically powerful trucking industry, ... rejected proposals to tighten drivers' hours and instead did the opposite, relaxing the rules on how long truckers could be on the road. That allowed the driver who hit Ms. Edwards [whose crash is described in the article] to work in the cab nearly 12 hours, 8 of them driving nonstop, which he later acknowledged had tired him."
       
       "Government officials also turned down repeated requests from insurers and safety groups for more rigorous training for new drivers... In decisions that had the support of the White House, the motor carrier agency has eased the rules on truckers' work hours, rejected proposals for electronic monitoring to combat widespread cheating on drivers' logs and resisted calls for more rigorous driver training."
       
       Labaton writes: "In loosening the standards, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration was fulfilling President Bush's broader pledge to free industry of what it considered cumbersome rules. In the last six years, the White House has embarked on the boldest strategy of deregulation in more than a generation. Largely unchecked by the Republican-led Congress, federal agencies, often led by former industry officials, have methodically reduced what they see as inefficient, outdated regulations and have delayed enforcement of others."
       
       To read the entire article, go to www.nytimes.com and do a search by title. Registration is required, but it's free.