Former NHTSA administrator, and former Consumers Union board member, Joan Claybrook echoed criticisms that Consumer Reports has made that the Agency’s Web site is famously difficult to use and the data is stored in its databases in obsolete formats. When she was Administrator, she said that she used to publicly call for complaints and received more than 200,000 a year. (Mind you, this is before the Internet.) She recommended that instead of having accident investigators comb through crash data, the agency should collect crash data from so-called “black box” event data recorders on new cars. Consumers Union also calls on manufacturers to make information from black box recording devices more immediately accessible to government investigators. (Read: “Consumers Union calls for changes to strengthen U.S. car-safety net.”) 

The Agency was also criticized as being too secretive in its investigations, being guarded with its data, and making obsolete technical assumptions in its investigations of unintended acceleration.

While the agency is due to receive a budget increase of about $4 million under President Obama’s budget request for the next year, the Agency accounts for less than 0.01 percent of the overall federal budget and about 1 percent of the Department of Transportation Budget. Of that, Claybrook says, only 15 percent is dedicated to automotive safety. While LaHood did not have Agency staffing numbers committed to memory, Claybrook said there are 57 employees in the Office of Defects Investigation, of which 18 are defect investigators.

While NHTSA is allowed to impose fines on automakers of up to $16.4 million, Claybrook called for NHTSA to be able to impose civil penalties on automakers in excess of $100 million with a cap removed.

The revolving door of NHTSA employees is also a serious problem for regulatory independence. While it has been widely reported that two investigators were hired by Toyota, what is less well known is that 28 former NHTSA officials have gone to work for auto companies in the past 15 years, Claybrook says.

Of course, Toyota also didn’t escape scrutiny. The main concerns are that the company was too insular and slow to respond to consumer complaints. Company chairman Akio Toyoda, who flew from Tokyo to attend the hearings, said when it came to dealing with defects, the company was too focused on whether it had an engineering solution available and whether its cars were in compliance with local laws, and not enough on customer perceptions. “We will never, ever blame the customers going forward,” he said through a translator.

Toyoda said he was deeply sorry for the loss of life and loss of confidence in his vehicles. But that wasn’t enough to please some legislators. (Read: “Toyoda before Congress: Toyota lost sight of quality and safety.”)

Diane Watson (D-Calif.) told Toyoda, “I am not satisfied with your testimony. I do not think you have adequately reflected the large number of complaints or showed adequate remorse.”

What do you think? Did Toyota’s testimony boost your confidence in the company’s products? Let us know in the comments section.

Watch the hearing at C-SPAN.