Posts Tagged :

alcohol-impaired driving

Statement: End-of-School-Year Events and Memorial Day Weekend Driving

150 150 Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Statement by Cathy Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), on End-of-School-Year Events and Memorial Day Weekend Driving   (Washington, DC-May 19, 2023) With proms, graduation parties, the upcoming Memorial Day weekend and vacation travel,…

read more

Advocates supports .05% BAC Legislation in Connecticut

150 150 Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

Read Advocates’ letter to the Connecticut Joint Committee on Transportation in support of Senate Bill (SB) 1082. Full letter here. This legislation will make Connecticut’s roads safer for all by lowering the limit for blood alcohol concentration (BAC) while driving…

read more

Advocates Supports .05 BAC Legislation in Hawaii

150 150 Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

Read Advocates’ letter to the Hawaii Senate Committee on Judiciary in support of Senate Bill (SB) 160 and House Bill (HB) 1469. Full letter here. This legislation will make Hawaii’s roads safer for all by lowering the limit for blood…

read more

Statement Opposing Legislation to Stop Impaired Driving Prevention Technology Rulemaking

150 150 Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) strongly opposes legislation introduced by U.S. Senators Mike Rounds (R-SD), Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Cornyn (R-TX), S.4647*, that would eliminate one of the most important safety provisions in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, Pub. L. 117-58).  The IIJA, which was signed into law last November, directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to issue a rule requiring impaired driving prevention technology in new passenger motor vehicles by 2024.  Research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) finds that such technology could save more than 9,000 lives every year if widely deployed.  S.4647 would halt progress toward requiring this lifesaving technology as standard equipment and must be rejected by Congress.

read more